[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Anyone that calls Novack a traitor for reporting a name of a useless CIA employee and turns around and defgends the NYT’s action is a hypocrite.
I don’t agree with either of their actions but I find the NYT’s action is far worse.
I would not go so far as calling them traitors but they are getting close.[/quote]
Novak also outed Brewster Jennings & Associates which was an active CIA front company working in the middle east on WMD and nuclear proliferation.
[quote]vroom wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
The whole Times as traitors thing is being made in the right-wing media to distract attention from the massive and continued failures of this administration in Iraq. Not much more to it than that.
Yes, but it helps maintain a “hatred” of all things liberal from the lapdogs in the public who soak these things up. The right wing is winning big time with divisiveness and other negative tactics.[/quote]
The left wing ain’t no saint…give me a break!
The left likes to paint the right as hating the poor because the right likes to make sure this is restraint put on entitlement spending.
Both sides of the political spectrum are equally grotesque.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
The whole Times as traitors thing is being made in the right-wing media to distract attention from the massive and continued failures of this administration in Iraq. Not much more to it than that.
Yes, but it helps maintain a “hatred” of all things liberal from the lapdogs in the public who soak these things up. The right wing is winning big time with divisiveness and other negative tactics.
Bullshit. These things go both ways.
Are you forgetting about Rove and Novak?
How many of you hypocrites have called them traitors?
Their actions did not harm our war effort one iota, unlike the NYT.[/quote]
Point of information…Novak and Rove exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and thus undermined our ability to track nuclear proliferation in Iran.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If you think the outing of Plame or Brewster Jennings had any effect on the war effort I have a bridge to sell you.
The finiancial tacking story has had a negative effect already.
I have read a few articles that some international banks have already slowed/stopped cooperating with us based on the outcry after the story.
I’ve read that outing Valerie and more importantly an active overseas front company had an effect.
Why should we believe your choice of reading and not mine?
Seriously, what objective criteria do I have that suggests I should believe your opinion on things more than mine? I am fine with the fact that YOU feel it had no effect, but do you see what I’m driving at here?
Yes. You are trying to rationalize.
A CIA dummy corp is small potatoes compared to having real companies stop cooperating with our investigations.
I am not happy Novak outed Plame but I am even angrier that Plame sent her unqualified husband on a trip and then he came back and lied about it in the NYT.
His lies led to Novaks investigation.
What is really interesting is the NYT was the paper that printed his lies.
[/quote]
Wilson is a loser but he proved to be correct.
There would not have been a reason to out his wife and Brewster Jennings & Associates if Wilson was wrong and/or lying.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
The whole Times as traitors thing is being made in the right-wing media to distract attention from the massive and continued failures of this administration in Iraq. Not much more to it than that.
Yes, but it helps maintain a “hatred” of all things liberal from the lapdogs in the public who soak these things up. The right wing is winning big time with divisiveness and other negative tactics.
Bullshit. These things go both ways.
Are you forgetting about Rove and Novak?
How many of you hypocrites have called them traitors?
Their actions did not harm our war effort one iota, unlike the NYT.
Point of information…Novak and Rove exposed Brewster Jennings & Associates and thus undermined our ability to track nuclear proliferation in Iran.
Big F’ing oooooops![/quote]
Wrong. Plame and Wilson did it with their lies in the NYT.
Brewster Jennings is meaningless. I know you love saying it over and over again but dummy front companies get exposed. It was merely a small piece of a program.
The NYT delights in exposing entire programs in full detail.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Anyone that calls Novack a traitor for reporting a name of a useless CIA employee and turns around and defgends the NYT’s action is a hypocrite.
I don’t agree with either of their actions but I find the NYT’s action is far worse.
I would not go so far as calling them traitors but they are getting close.[/quote]
It’s not for you to decide who’s a useless CIA employee and who isn’t.
I think she was saying that if a terrorist had to blow up a building, why not the Times? She wasn’t calling for an attack, just a better target, in her eyes.
[/quote]
In that case, the bitch needs to be gangraped by a Suni death squad.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Anyone that calls Novack a traitor for reporting a name of a useless CIA employee and turns around and defgends the NYT’s action is a hypocrite.
I don’t agree with either of their actions but I find the NYT’s action is far worse.
I would not go so far as calling them traitors but they are getting close.
It’s not for you to decide who’s a useless CIA employee and who isn’t.[/quote]
No. It is up the administration. They determined it was more important to overcome Wilson’s lies than it was to protect his co-conspirator.
You have proved to me you do not even understand the basics of “Plamegate” with your stupid posts in the other thread.
I suggest you read up on the subject before you make a fool out of yourself again.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
If you think the outing of Plame or Brewster Jennings had any effect on the war effort I have a bridge to sell you.
The finiancial tacking story has had a negative effect already.
I have read a few articles that some international banks have already slowed/stopped cooperating with us based on the outcry after the story.
I’ve read that outing Valerie and more importantly an active overseas front company had an effect.
Why should we believe your choice of reading and not mine?
Seriously, what objective criteria do I have that suggests I should believe your opinion on things more than mine? I am fine with the fact that YOU feel it had no effect, but do you see what I’m driving at here?
Yes. You are trying to rationalize.
A CIA dummy corp is small potatoes compared to having real companies stop cooperating with our investigations.
I am not happy Novak outed Plame but I am even angrier that Plame sent her unqualified husband on a trip and then he came back and lied about it in the NYT.
His lies led to Novaks investigation.
What is really interesting is the NYT was the paper that printed his lies.
[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Yes. You are trying to rationalize.[/quote]
LOL! Now that’s funny!
Says you. I’d imagine that nobody has stopped cooperating, but that they said publicly that they would stop cooperating. Why might they do that? What might that lead to?
[quote]I am not happy Novak outed Plame but I am even angrier that Plame sent her unqualified husband on a trip and then he came back and lied about it in the NYT.
His lies led to Novaks investigation.[/quote]
LOL! You do realize that she didn’t send him right? I mean, she was part of the process that identified him as someone who could be sent, but that she didn’t make the decision right? Even so, if she had made the decision, and he were adequately qualified, why should there be a problem?
See, you pull out these red herrings like they really mean something, and then you ask us to trust your judgment. It makes it hard to do. It doesn’t matter who sent him if he was an appropriate resource to do the job in question.
Unless you want to say he was completely unqualified for the job, you are simply echoing out talking points, aren’t you?
Well, I’m afraid I’m not aware of the “lies” portion of this story. I’ve heard it a few times, but I’ve always assumed it was more of the usual politically motivated attempts at discrediting Wilson.
So, you still don’t see what I’m pointing out do you? It has nothing to do with your laughable fantasy concept of rationalization…
So, you still don’t see what I’m pointing out do you? It has nothing to do with your laughable fantasy concept of rationalization…[/quote]
I see what you are doing. You are ignoring that Plame selected her husband and ignoring that Wilson lied according to the Senate investigation and the Washington Post.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I see what you are doing. You are ignoring that Plame selected her husband and ignoring that Wilson lied according to the Senate investigation and the Washington Post.[/quote]
LOL!
Look, I think you are using very selecting language to incriminate Plame, at least from the media reports that I’ve seen. I don’t think she had the authority to select anyone.
Are you suggesting she MADE THE DECISION instead of IDENTIFIED A CANDIDATE? What evidence do you have to support this claim?
If you can show your point, I’ll happily concede, I just haven’t read a news report that did more than make such implications. Obviously, if they could do more than make implications they would have.
As for whether or not Wilson lied, I’d like to see more information. A recent link to a Washington Post article was troubling, and I’d like to get more information on it.
How you see that as ignoring the issue I don’t know. I’m not willing to make a snap judgment based on conflicting stories and an unclear writeup. More thorough details are needed for me to figure out what happened.
I think your political leaning has you assuming I’m saying things or thinking things that I am not. It may also have you jumping to conclusions based on skimpy evidence, but perhaps you’ve seen things I have not.
Regardless, again, all of these matters are in fact red herrings. They don’t change the nature of the actions of the Bush administration, even if you were right and felt they deserved it, that wouldn’t make it right.
What these matters seem to do is allow you to have the sword not cut both ways… which would apparently make you the hypocrite and not me, as you had originally surmised. Funny how that works.
I think she was saying that if a terrorist had to blow up a building, why not the Times? She wasn’t calling for an attack, just a better target, in her eyes.
In that case, the bitch needs to be gangraped by a Suni death squad.
And their camels.
[/quote]
Please leave your fantasies ‘on the bench’, Kahuna.
Regardless, again, all of these matters are in fact red herrings. They don’t change the nature of the actions of the Bush administration, even if you were right and felt they deserved it, that wouldn’t make it right.
…[/quote]
They are not red herrings, they are the root of the problem.
That fact is a CIA agent conspired with her husband to lie to the American people about these issues.
The fact is her husband actively campaigned for Kerry.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
They are not red herrings, they are the root of the problem.[/quote]
Not really.
[quote]That fact is a CIA agent conspired with her husband to lie to the American people about these issues.
[/quote]
Well, that’s a pretty serious charge that I haven’t seen leveled anywhere. If it were true I think it would be something to worry about.
OMG! Have him shot! Look, this is one of those little red herrings. People are actually allowed to campaign for whoever they choose in the US. Look into it.
Ahahahaha. Yes, I’m the biased one, because I don’t sound like I’m consumed with hatred.
Once again, I have to say it, your feelings are getting in the way here. No matter how much you despise them, rightly or wrongly, it doesn’t justify the actions the administration took.
The rule of law does not cease to apply when it becomes inconvenient – not even if you happen to be the president. Ask Richard Nixon.
I think she was saying that if a terrorist had to blow up a building, why not the Times? She wasn’t calling for an attack, just a better target, in her eyes.
In that case, the bitch needs to be gangraped by a Suni death squad.
And their camels.
Please leave your fantasies ‘on the bench’, Kahuna.
[/quote]
I just pointed out an even juicier target.
If you don’t like fantasies, why do you read Ann Coulters?