[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100
See above. No facts to argue. Attack the poster.
Palme authorized the trip, as an analyst, despite knowing Cheyney would not approve of a political appointee making the trip if he wanted an accurate assesment of the situation.
As much it is amusing to keep pointing this out, you need to come up with something here to stop the boredom
Bush lied? Come on isn’t that your reason for everything.
Marcuse would be proud of you…you have become what he always preached would become of the Left, and was his feverent hope.
Ok, if you’re going to deal with facts, you HAVE to stop with the talking points.
Plame DID NOT authorize the trip. That is not what the committee said, it’s not what Plame said, and it’s not what Wilson said. In the appendix of the report 3 rethugs (hatch,roberts, kitt bond(?)) mentioned her recommendation of wilson to superiors (who were asking her) The bipartisan comittee didn’t say she authorized anything, she didn’t. This crucial fact debunks half of the current lies by the GOP right now. So your next statement about Cheney becomes irrelevant, which reminds me of the other GOP lie, err talking point, the false claim that Wilson said Cheney sent him to Niger, which of course Wilson never said.
Wilson said:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake ? a form of lightly processed ore ? by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office."
So I’d be willing to argue the facts, but as you can see, you didn’t type facts in your post, because as you now know Plame did not “authorize” any trip. That is untrue.
So you also aren’t pointing out anything, other than perhaps you are easily misled by liars. (Because those are widely known falsehoods)
and yes Bush lied
Bush said:
Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name. . . and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
BUSH: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.
We KNOW Rove leaked info, but no firing?
I don’t mean for this to be an attack, just had point out your falsehoods.[/quote]
Plame’s memo was the sole reason Wilson was able to go on the trip. Cheyney certainly did not want an idealogue on a fact finding mission. Do you think he would have went if she didn’t write the memo? Do you think Rove would have talked to the reporter if he didn’t call and ask the question? Do you think Rove is dumb enough to be trapped by a reporter? Finally do you think a reporters notes, for an article, that was titled “The administrations attack on Wilson” might be a little tinged with bias and certainly not the basis for an accusation if the left was as tolerant as they preach to be.
You actually did introduce a fact into your response. Congratulations. Of course you weak attempt at sarcasm regarding falsehoods detract from your statement. I didn’t take it as an attack but a less inflamatory response may be that you disagree rather then I am spreading falsehoods.
Here’s another Marcuse reference:
“The issue is not the issue”. Meaning it’s not about the issue at all it’s about the person. You guys already got him convicted whether I wrote anything about his defense or not. you really should study Marcuse. He laid out the entire Liberal Democratic strategy 40 years ago.
