8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 02:10 pm
Advocate wrote:
Okie, you need to find a new hero. Here is a discussion of more, and serious, lies by Hannity.


You continue to bring this stuff up. I stand behind Hannity. Here is the quote from his conversation with the caller:

"HANNITY: You know, what a -- I wish I'd thought of that. Hang on a sec. Maybe it's 'cause I didn't go to bed till 6 o'clock. All right, you get credit. You know what? Yeah, what about all those women that accused her husband of being a serial abuser? Oh, she didn't pay any attention. Were they invisible?"

I agree with Hannity. The caller made a good point. Apparently all those women that accused Clinton of abuse are invisible to Hillary. No lie there. It is all true. Excellent point, advocate. And to this day, the Vince Foster story has many, many inconsistencies. I don't blame many people for wondering about it. The Clintons have left a literal trail of suspicion and corruption their entire life. Hannity cannot help that, but he has a right to comment on it. These are not lies, but comments on highly suspicious events.

Another correction. Hannity is not a hero, but he does provide straightforward and honest commentary on the news, most of which I agree with, not all. If Hannity is misinterpreted as stating that Clinton was convicted of rape or that Foster was murdered, I think that is a misinterpretation. He is merely saying there are alot of unanswered questions and good reasons to be suspicious of the Foster affair, and the accusations against Clinton by women are pretty strong and undeniable, although not convicted in a court of law. And obviously Hillary has ignored all of those accusations, so apparently those people are invisible to Hillary. I thought it was an excellent point by the caller to the Hannity show. I heard the call when it came in.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 03:12 pm
I don't think that Clinton ever raped anyone. It is just that he had a problem: the blood would periodically drain from his brain.

Hill explained it very simply: she loves the guy.

Frankly, I could care less about an official's personal life. It is his performance in office that counts. And only you, and a few others who wear blinders, could defend Bush's performance.

I do have a pet peeve about those in the mass media who lie. I feel that they hold a sacred trust to be truthful to the millions in their audiences. Hannity is a very big liar, and should be drummed out of the field.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 03:15 pm
Hannity won't lose his job because of his lies. He has a very large following of conservatives who believe most everything he says, and it gets repeated here like they're the "truth."
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 03:21 pm
It seems that conservatives like the big lie. I get a fair amount of hoax e-mails (per snopes), and virtually all of it is anti-liberal. That tells you something.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 03:43 pm
And then there's this.


February 13, 2007
16 WORDS....Remember the "16 words" in the 2003 State of the Union address? About how Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa? In the Scooter Libby trial today, the defense played a tape recording of a Bob Woodward interview with Richard Armitage and the subject came up. Here's what Armitage said:

Armitage: We're clean as a [expletive] whistle. And George [Tenet] personally got it out of the Cincinnati speech of the president.

....Woodward: It was taken out?

Armitage: Taken out. George said you can't do this.

Woodward: How come it wasn't taken out of the State of the Union then?

Armitage: Because I think it was overruled by the types down at the White House. Condi doesn't like being in the hot spot. But she--

So that's Armitage's take: the director of the CIA tried to get the uranium nonsense taken out of the State of the Union but Condoleezza Rice didn't have the backbone to stand up to the hardliners in the White House and get it excised. Chemical and biological WMD just wasn't enough. They wanted everyone to think Saddam was working on nukes too. Evidence to the contrary simply didn't matter.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 06:31 pm
Advocate wrote:

I do have a pet peeve about those in the mass media who lie. I feel that they hold a sacred trust to be truthful to the millions in their audiences. Hannity is a very big liar, and should be drummed out of the field.



You mean like this...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek/page/0/

Quote:
Aug. 20-27, 2007 issue - We in the news business often enlist in moral crusades. Global warming is among the latest. Unfortunately, self-righteous indignation can undermine good journalism. Last week's NEWSWEEK cover story on global warming is a sobering reminder. It's an object lesson of how viewing the world as "good guys vs. bad guys" can lead to a vast oversimplification of a messy story. Global warming has clearly occurred; the hard question is what to do about it.

If you missed NEWSWEEK's story, here's the gist. A "well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change." This "denial machine" has obstructed action against global warming and is still "running at full throttle." The story's thrust: discredit the "denial machine," and the country can start the serious business of fighting global warming. The story was a wonderful read, marred only by its being fundamentally misleading.


Or when NBC rigged a GM pickup to explode...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html

Or when Dan Rather knowingly used forged documents to attempt to smear Bush?

Where is your outrage for these events?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 08:56 pm
Advocate wrote:
It seems that conservatives like the big lie. I get a fair amount of hoax e-mails (per snopes), and virtually all of it is anti-liberal. That tells you something.


Advocate, when you can come up with an actual lie of Hannity's, wherein he tells blatant lies, then let us know here. So far, you are batting zero.

The real story behind the big lie is that liberals were preaching Hussein and WMD long before Bush even got to Washington, so your so-called "big lie" is nothing more than political spin, thats all.

As Mysteryman points out, so-called news organizations can tell as many lies as they want as long as they are in your favor and you obviously don't care. To this day, the person behind Rather's fictional program just before the election goes free, apparently nobody cared, and doing such things in an effort to alter a federal election is a serious crime in case you haven't heard. But who cares. Apparently nobody does. Nobody pursued this obvious crime. Liberals didn't because they don't care to, and conservatives are not because they might offend someone.

And for the millionth time, the administration never claimed Hussein had purchased uranium from Niger, only that he was attempting to set up a deal, which to this day has never been proven wrong, and in fact the intelligence still points to the fact that Hussein had sought to procure uranium. Your side continues to lie about this point and obfuscate the truth about this, as did Joseph Wilson of course. And to this day, some think Hussein may have even thought he had a nuclear program further along than it was, except his scientists may not have told him everything for fear of being killed. To this day, do we really know what was going on in Iraq with WMD? I don't think so.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sat 18 Aug, 2007 10:40 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
parados, McG and tico are flamers who do not contribute anything to any discussion. They are spammers who have no ideas of their own, but post flaming remarks without addressing anything. Ignore them!


Is there any need to point out the irony here?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 01:39 pm
MM, I am outraged that the the right's swift-boaters basically ruined a great broadcaster, Dan Rather. Rather did not lie as claimed by the scummy right, but was misled by forged documents.

As CI showed above, the CIA essentially demanded that the yellowcake stuff be removed from the SOU. Thus, Bush was not somehow led astray by the intell in making the false statement.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 01:42 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
parados, McG and tico are flamers who do not contribute anything to any discussion. They are spammers who have no ideas of their own, but post flaming remarks without addressing anything. Ignore them!


Is there any need to point out the irony here?



The only thing problematic in CI's statement is the inclusion of parados. The latter's posts are dead-on.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 01:49 pm
Advocate, That was addressed to "parados." Thus his name.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 02:02 pm
Advocate wrote:
MM, I am outraged that the the right's swift-boaters basically ruined a great broadcaster, Dan Rather. Rather did not lie as claimed by the scummy right, but was misled by forged documents.

As CI showed above, the CIA essentially demanded that the yellowcake stuff be removed from the SOU. Thus, Bush was not somehow led astray by the intell in making the false statement.


So,since he was "misled",he can be excused from using those forged documents?

Sorry,that doesnt wash.
He believed what he was told,just like Bush.
So,either both of them were wrong or neither was.

You cant have it both ways.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 02:21 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Advocate wrote:
MM, I am outraged that the the right's swift-boaters basically ruined a great broadcaster, Dan Rather. Rather did not lie as claimed by the scummy right, but was misled by forged documents.

As CI showed above, the CIA essentially demanded that the yellowcake stuff be removed from the SOU. Thus, Bush was not somehow led astray by the intell in making the false statement.


So,since he was "misled",he can be excused from using those forged documents?

Sorry,that doesnt wash.
He believed what he was told,just like Bush.
So,either both of them were wrong or neither was.

You cant have it both ways.



There is a big difference. Bush was told by the CIA that the proposed statement was false, and should be removed. Moreover, Bush received intell on a number of items, such as the nonnuke cylinders, but Bush still disgorged the false information. Bush has a long history of lying.

No intell agency, or other entity, warned Rather not to rely on the forged material. Further, no one can show that Rather lied in the past.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 05:06 pm
Advocate wrote:
MM, I am outraged that the the right's swift-boaters basically ruined a great broadcaster, Dan Rather. Rather did not lie as claimed by the scummy right, but was misled by forged documents.

As CI showed above, the CIA essentially demanded that the yellowcake stuff be removed from the SOU. Thus, Bush was not somehow led astray by the intell in making the false statement.

Dan Rather ruined his own reputation. Nobody needed to help him, advocate. Rather had been peddling his nonsense for years. The forged documents were hardly the first example of that. I tend to think it was born out of arrogance and naivity more than lies however, but I don't know for sure, as it seems like he would have awakened to a few clues along the way.

In contrast, as much as the left has attempted to spin and destroy George Bush, he still has his respect and reputation. You may not agree with him, but you cannot destroy his reputation. Lest you confuse reputation and respect with popularity, I would remind you there is a difference.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 05:08 pm
Ofcoarse, Bush has never made a fool of himself either by mangling the English language or telling lies. He can never destroy himself, because he follows god's instructions.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 06:27 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Ofcoarse, Bush has never made a fool of himself either by mangling the English language or telling lies. He can never destroy himself, because he follows god's instructions.


I have to wonder how much of the Bush "act" concerning his speaking ability and his intelligence (or lack thereof) is actually cultivated by him.

After all,he has defeated the dems on every turn.
He has been elected governor of Tx,he has been elected President twice.
He has forced the dems to cave on just about every issue,including his "illegal" wiretapping that the congress just gave him the power to do.

He seems to have outmaneuvered the dems on almost every issue,yet the left continues to call him stupid.

Tell me,if he is stupid,yet he keeps outmaneuvering the dems,how stupid does that make the dems?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 06:33 pm
mm, Yes, Bush out-maneuvered the GOP right out of office, and has succeeded in one of the lowest presidential ratings in history. Yeah, real smart. We want him to keep at it until he completely destroys the republican party. He still has time; about 15 more months.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 06:39 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
mm, Yes, Bush out-maneuvered the GOP right out of office, and has succeeded in one of the lowest presidential ratings in history. Yeah, real smart. We want him to keep at it until he completely destroys the republican party. He still has time; about 15 more months.


Bush got his tax cuts...the dems opposed them
Bush got the changes to FISA that supports his wiretapping,the dems opposed that.

Bush got elected twice,the dems opposed him.
Bush got conservative judges on the USSC,the dems opposed them.

Those are just 4 examples,there are more.
Yet you call him "dumb".
Tell me,how dumb are the dems and the left,if he keeps beating them?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 06:44 pm
Bush is dumb; he can't even speak the English language properly, and he's our president. Most people are embarrassed - except ignoramuses like you!.

As for supporting "Bush is dumb," there are many web sites to prove it.
Happy hunting.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2007 06:47 pm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 07/12/2025 at 01:03:27