snood wrote:Ticomaya wrote:snood wrote:Thomas, I've tried to probe Tico about whether he has any consciousness of the wrongness of what Rove did, but it appears he's too impressed with his own ability to obfuscate with legalese BS to bother with little things like that.
That must have been before you tried to insult me for my choice of avatar.
Still, though - one would think you could over yourself long enough to address the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of what Rove did.
Your earlier "probing" consisted of asking me whether I thought Rove acted with "ill intent." I asked you to define what you meant by that vague phrase, and you never did. You do not believe Rove's effort was to correct the implication that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger, so you spewed forth with a list of what you consider to be historical bad deeds of Karl Rove, and your opinion that these prior bad acts demonstrated that he was performing some sort of "attack politics," which you find to be reprehensible. You also implied that I didn't have a "shred of decency" nor a "modicum of common sense," but did suggest that I had "questionable morals," keeping with your preference to insult rather than discuss rationally.
Quote:And I didn't just try to insult your choice of avatar.
Then you insulted me personally, and that post was deleted. You must be proud.
Ticomaya wrote:
Except it isn't really an assumption. It again is a logical conclusion based on known facts.
1. The CIA referred the release of a name of an undercover agent to the DoJ because it possibly violated criminal code.
2. The only code that has been presented is one concerning "Covert" agents
The only logical conclusion is that in order for it to violate US criminal code she must have been covert.
Ticomaya wrote:But while it's true that a member of C is necessarily a member of A, it does not follow that A=C. For example, suppose D is another wholly contained subset of A (perhaps this group are undercover operatives working desk jobs at Langley that have never been overseas), which contains a subset E (outed undercover operatives working desk jobs at Langley that have never been overseas). While it is also true that a member of E must be a member of D and must be a member of A, it does not follow that E=A. For if that logical analysis were accurate, then C=E, and that is not true.
Not much there Tico but obfuscation. There is no E because you can't get there logically based on anything you have presented. E doesn't exist as a crime so it can't be applied as the CIA did to Plame.
Timber:
Wilson's book is quite relevant, an integral part to the matter, and you seem to lack any debating skills. Apparently you are quite content at buying the party line. So be it.
Ticomaya wrote:snood wrote:Ticomaya wrote:snood wrote:Thomas, I've tried to probe Tico about whether he has any consciousness of the wrongness of what Rove did, but it appears he's too impressed with his own ability to obfuscate with legalese BS to bother with little things like that.
Still, though - one would think you could over yourself long enough to address the intrinsic rightness or wrongness of what Rove did.
Your earlier "probing" consisted of asking me whether I thought Rove acted with "ill intent." I asked you to define what you meant by that vague phrase, and you never did. You do not believe Rove's effort was to correct the implication that Cheney sent Wilson to Niger, so you spewed forth with a list of what you consider to be historical bad deeds of Karl Rove, and your opinion that these prior bad acts demonstrated that he was performing some sort of "attack politics," which you find to be reprehensible. You also implied that I didn't have a "shred of decency" nor a "modicum of common sense," but did suggest that I had "questionable morals," keeping with your preference to insult rather than discuss rationally.
Quote:And I didn't just try to insult your choice of avatar.
Then you insulted me personally, and that post was deleted. You must be proud.
I'll try this once more:
Do you think what Rove did - discussing Valerie Plame with a reporter - was wrong?
parados wrote:Ticomaya wrote:
Except it isn't really an assumption. It again is a logical conclusion based on known facts.
1. The CIA referred the release of a name of an undercover agent to the DoJ because it possibly violated criminal code.
2. The only code that has been presented is one concerning "Covert" agents
The only logical conclusion is that in order for it to violate US criminal code she must have been covert.
No, it's an assumption. And this little exercise of ours has shown me why you have made such an error in your "logic."
But this is besides the point we've moved onto, which if you've forgotten, is your equating "undercover operative" with "covert agent."
No refutation of my logic? You just ignore it? Somehow I am not suprised that you refuse to discuss it. It is a logical conclusion that any reasonable person can come to based on known facts. Because you can't or won't refute it only shows that it stands on its own and has no refutation.
I didn't equate undercover with covert.
The CIA did in their sending a possible crime to DoJ. They used the word "undercover" to describe the possible crime in the letter sent to Conyers.
A normal debate would be for one side to point out errors in the other's.
Your refusal to do so speaks volumes about the strength of your argument.
