1
   

Plame Testifies Before Congress:Confirms She Was Covert

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 01:22 pm
parados wrote:
A legitimate person would be listed in Who's Who so to keep a CIA agent out of Who's Who would raise more suspicions than putting them in it.


Sure, sure, parados.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 01:42 pm
okie wrote:
BBB, did you read Byron York's article titled:
"Senate Intel Committee: What Valerie Plame Didn't Tell Us
The differences between her House testimony and the Senate's findings."

Are you going to address the subject or do you prefer to make cute comments? Are you going to tell York to see a shrink too?


My comment was based on serious concern for your mental health. Anyone who thinks that the Wilsons set themselves up to destroy their careers, put themselves and their family in danger, betray their country, etc. is seriously mentally degranged and in need of immediate care.

Why would New Republic reporter write anything that did not support the Neocon's goals of invading Iraq and anyone associated with it?

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-archive.asp
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 01:56 pm
The mental health of the left has been a serious concern of mine for a very long time. It must help to be dumb, then you don't notice your own mental decline.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 02:02 pm
cjhsa wrote:
The mental health of the left has been a serious concern of mine for a very long time. It must help to be dumb, then you don't notice your own mental decline.


Sheesh, what did I tell you about your opinions?

You're really batting a thousand today. Not enough discussion on gun topics leads to your trolling other topics incessantly.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 02:26 pm
That left coast air has already pocketed you brain. Better go back to Texas.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 02:35 pm
"The mental health of the left has been a serious concern of mine for a very long time." http://www.able2know.com/forums/images/avatars/28602574645fea0e9c8cce.gif
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 02:38 pm
Why do you think I am stockpiling bf? You're no liberal - you're an enemy combatant.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 02:40 pm
hahaha
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 03:15 pm
okie wrote:
parados wrote:
A legitimate person would be listed in Who's Who so to keep a CIA agent out of Who's Who would raise more suspicions than putting them in it.


Sure, sure, parados.

You still haven't shown how the hell Wilson's Who's Who in any way reveals Plame was CIA.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 03:38 pm
Go back and read the posts, Parados. That might help you.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 03:39 pm
okie wrote:
Go back and read the posts, Parados. That might help you.


Why would it? You've still failed to present an argument which doesn't have major holes in it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 03:44 pm
You think it doesn't cyclops. You guys on the left will never agree. That became apparent to me a long, long time ago. I thought reason would eventually win, but if any issue ever illustrated that it would not, it was the OBL / Sudan / Clinton argument with Parados many moons ago.

Heck, you still have leftists starting multiple threads on this forum, and many countless other forums I am also sure of, that assert Bush brought down the twin towers. Reason cannot be used with such a mentality. I think you have a measure of reason, more than most liberals, but many have virtually none, sorry to report.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 03:49 pm
okie wrote:
You think it doesn't cyclops. You guys on the left will never agree. That became apparent to me a long, long time ago. I thought reason would eventually win, but if any issue ever illustrated that it would not, it was the OBL / Sudan / Clinton argument with Parados many moons ago.

Heck, you still have leftists starting multiple threads on this forum, and many countless other forums I am also sure of, that assert Bush brought down the twin towers. Reason cannot be used with such a mentality. I think you have a measure of reason, more than most liberals, but many have virtually none, sorry to report.


Same goes for the gun nuts on your side, the Gungasnakes of the world.

Look, all I'm saying is that you haven't shown how having Plame's name printed in Who's Who means anything, or would endanger her in any way. You discount the fact that Wilson had a name for himself as a gov't employee far before he and Plame even met, let alone married; there isn't any reason to believe that this would have an effect on her covert status.

Not that any of this matters; her status has been confirmed by Gen. Hayden as having been covert, and yes she served overseas within the last 5 years - once again, according to Gen. Hayden. So what the hell is it that you are arguing, exactly? Are you still pushing the 'Wilson-CIA-Kristoff' conspiracy angle? Because that's pretty stupid, I'm sorry to have to tell you. You don't have any evidence at all to back up your theory, only the assumption that the Wilsons are bad people and the assumption that the administration didn't intentionally out this lady.

Let me ask you: do you honestly, in your heart, believe that the admin - that is, Cheney and Libby - didn't intend to out Mrs. Wilson? That they were just talking about this with reporters for fun?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 03:52 pm
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
My comment was based on serious concern for your mental health. Anyone who thinks that the Wilsons set themselves up to destroy their careers, put themselves and their family in danger, betray their country, etc. is seriously mentally degranged and in need of immediate care.

Why would New Republic reporter write anything that did not support the Neocon's goals of invading Iraq and anyone associated with it?

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-archive.asp


No, you have it wrong. I never asserted they set out to destroy their own career. In fact, they are riding high now, with books in the works, a movie, and they are the Democratic Party darlings. They love this, BBB. What they did set out to do was to destroy the Bush administration because they are political operatives, plain and simple.

Hey, up until a couple of months before Wilson started his vendetta, he was agreeing that Hussein probably had WMD and was very dangerous. Look it up. And do you think Hussein changed, or was it Wilson?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 04:08 pm
okie wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
My comment was based on serious concern for your mental health. Anyone who thinks that the Wilsons set themselves up to destroy their careers, put themselves and their family in danger, betray their country, etc. is seriously mentally degranged and in need of immediate care.

Why would New Republic reporter write anything that did not support the Neocon's goals of invading Iraq and anyone associated with it?

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-archive.asp


No, you have it wrong. I never asserted they set out to destroy their own career. In fact, they are riding high now, with books in the works, a movie, and they are the Democratic Party darlings. They love this, BBB. What they did set out to do was to destroy the Bush administration because they are political operatives, plain and simple.

Hey, up until a couple of months before Wilson started his vendetta, he was agreeing that Hussein probably had WMD and was very dangerous. Look it up. And do you think Hussein changed, or was it Wilson?


I find the attitude that the Wilsons would have blown their careers and instead gambled on becoming celebrities during their struggle to attack the valiant White House to be downright repugnant. You have zero evidence that this is true, and it's pretty hard to imagine something like this happening.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 04:15 pm
cyclops, there are lot of people that believe their cause will justify almost anything. It happens all the time. Its called politics.

And I find it repugnant that Democrats seek to avoid all responsibility for anything, and their only game is to destroy Bush at any cost. Hypocrisy at its extreme, cyclops. I do not support Bush on all points, far from it, but I sincerely think he is being attacked mercilessly for virtually everything by people that are hypocrits supreme.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 04:36 pm
okie wrote:
cyclops, there are lot of people that believe their cause will justify almost anything. It happens all the time. Its called politics.

And I find it repugnant that Democrats seek to avoid all responsibility for anything, and their only game is to destroy Bush at any cost. Hypocrisy at its extreme, cyclops. I do not support Bush on all points, far from it, but I sincerely think he is being attacked mercilessly for virtually everything by people that are hypocrits supreme.


So you don't think there's anything behind any of the accusations of wrongdoing against Bush? At all?

The word is spelled 'hypocrite' btw, with an e on the end

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 04:51 pm
okie wrote:
Go back and read the posts, Parados. That might help you.

So then you agree that the WH website is proof that Bush is an idiot? It's your logic.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 04:53 pm
okie wrote:
You think it doesn't cyclops. You guys on the left will never agree. That became apparent to me a long, long time ago. I thought reason would eventually win, but if any issue ever illustrated that it would not, it was the OBL / Sudan / Clinton argument with Parados many moons ago.
Another argument where lack of facts was your proof. Reason didn't win because you didn't want to listen to reason.
Quote:

Heck, you still have leftists starting multiple threads on this forum, and many countless other forums I am also sure of, that assert Bush brought down the twin towers. Reason cannot be used with such a mentality. I think you have a measure of reason, more than most liberals, but many have virtually none, sorry to report.
Those people are fools too. I call them such. I happen to think unlike some partisans on both sides.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Mar, 2007 04:57 pm
okie wrote:
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
My comment was based on serious concern for your mental health. Anyone who thinks that the Wilsons set themselves up to destroy their careers, put themselves and their family in danger, betray their country, etc. is seriously mentally degranged and in need of immediate care.

Why would New Republic reporter write anything that did not support the Neocon's goals of invading Iraq and anyone associated with it?

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york-archive.asp


No, you have it wrong. I never asserted they set out to destroy their own career. In fact, they are riding high now, with books in the works, a movie, and they are the Democratic Party darlings. They love this, BBB. What they did set out to do was to destroy the Bush administration because they are political operatives, plain and simple.
That idea is as silly if not sillier than the fools that claim Bush brought down the towers. How were they able to plan that Bush would include those 16 words in his State of the Union speech? How were they able to plan that Bush would invade Iraq? You have proved how out there you are with that statement, okie.
Quote:

Hey, up until a couple of months before Wilson started his vendetta, he was agreeing that Hussein probably had WMD and was very dangerous. Look it up. And do you think Hussein changed, or was it Wilson?

Your timeline is as screwy as your argument. When do you think Wilson started this vendetta? Prior to his trip to Niger?
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
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Plame Testifies Before Congress:Confirms She Was Covert
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/04/2025 at 03:05:24
▲ ▼