| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
| Date: |
26 Oct 2003 01:19:48 PM |
| Object: |
GHW Bush on Intimigate |
"[George Herbert Walker] Bush remained quiet during most of the
event, which lasted just over an hour, and interrupted the discussion
only once after an audience member asked about the quality of
American intelligence.
'You’ve got to protect your sources,' the former president said.
'It’s tough to recruit sources to spy on their own nations if they’re
afraid.'
The comments were an apparent reference to criticism that followed
the recent leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame by a
source within the current Bush administration."
http://tinyurl.com/sfmy
--
"George W. Bush lives at the intersection of faith
and inexperience. This is not a reassuring address,
especially in a time of trouble."
--Joe Klein
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
26 Oct 2003 02:41:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:19:48 -0000, Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
<tim@somecallme.net> posted in alt.atheism:
"[George Herbert Walker] Bush remained quiet during most of the
event, which lasted just over an hour, and interrupted the discussion
only once after an audience member asked about the quality of
American intelligence.
'You’ve got to protect your sources,' the former president said.
'It’s tough to recruit sources to spy on their own nations if they’re
afraid.'
The comments were an apparent reference to criticism that followed
the recent leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame by a
source within the current Bush administration."
And the Repugs don't realize that he was chastising his own son? They
can't be *that* dense.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
26 Oct 2003 05:24:34 PM |
|
|
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article <ibcopv46pjopj4vafn1vv3tqnn5gkoh781@Pern.rk> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
: On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:19:48 -0000, Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
: <tim@somecallme.net> posted in alt.atheism:
: >"[George Herbert Walker] Bush remained quiet during most of the
: >event, which lasted just over an hour, and interrupted the discussion
: >only once after an audience member asked about the quality of
: >American intelligence.
: >'You?ve got to protect your sources,' the former president said.
: >'It?s tough to recruit sources to spy on their own nations if they?re
: >afraid.'
: >The comments were an apparent reference to criticism that followed
: >the recent leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame by a
: >source within the current Bush administration."
: And the Repugs don't realize that he was chastising his own son? They
: can't be *that* dense.
'An age is called dark not because the light fails to shine, but because
people refuse to see it.'
Anderson remarking on the 1054 supernova seen and noted everywhere but
Catholic bound Europe.
J. Mitchum 'Space', X.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
I suspect the reason is that most people [...] have a residue of feeling
that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything
about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears
progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life
and evolution.
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
27 Oct 2003 08:16:48 PM |
|
|
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article <3f9c57b2$0$48455$d368eab@news.newshosting.com> John M Price PhD <> wrote:
: In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article <ibcopv46pjopj4vafn1vv3tqnn5gkoh781@Pern.rk> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
: : On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:19:48 -0000, Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
: : <tim@somecallme.net> posted in alt.atheism:
: : >"[George Herbert Walker] Bush remained quiet during most of the
: : >event, which lasted just over an hour, and interrupted the discussion
: : >only once after an audience member asked about the quality of
: : >American intelligence.
: : >'You?ve got to protect your sources,' the former president said.
: : >'It?s tough to recruit sources to spy on their own nations if they?re
: : >afraid.'
: : >The comments were an apparent reference to criticism that followed
: : >the recent leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame by a
: : >source within the current Bush administration."
: : And the Repugs don't realize that he was chastising his own son? They
: : can't be *that* dense.
: 'An age is called dark not because the light fails to shine, but because
: people refuse to see it.'
: Anderson remarking on the 1054 supernova seen and noted everywhere but
: Catholic bound Europe.
: J. Mitchum 'Space', X.
that should be Mitchner.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
When I was seven years old, I was once reprimanded by my mother for an
act of collective brutality in which I had been involved at school. A
group of seven-year-olds had been teasing and tormenting a
six-year-old. "It is always so," my mother said. "You do things
together which not one of you would think of doing alone." ...
Wherever one looks in the world of human organization, collective
responsibility brings a lowering of moral standards. The military
establishment is an extreme case, an organization which seems to have
been expressly designed to make it possible for people to do things
together which nobody in his right mind would do alone.
- Freeman Dyson, "Weapons and Hope"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
26 Oct 2003 05:09:48 PM |
|
|
John M Price PhD wrote:
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article <ibcopv46pjopj4vafn1vv3tqnn5gkoh781@Pern.rk> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
: On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:19:48 -0000, Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
: <tim@somecallme.net> posted in alt.atheism:
: >"[George Herbert Walker] Bush remained quiet during most of the
: >event, which lasted just over an hour, and interrupted the discussion
: >only once after an audience member asked about the quality of
: >American intelligence.
: >'You?ve got to protect your sources,' the former president said.
: >'It?s tough to recruit sources to spy on their own nations if they?re
: >afraid.'
: >The comments were an apparent reference to criticism that followed
: >the recent leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame by a
: >source within the current Bush administration."
: And the Repugs don't realize that he was chastising his own son? They
: can't be *that* dense.
'An age is called dark not because the light fails to shine, but because
people refuse to see it.'
Bush didn't leak Plame's name. The who thing is silly though because
Plame's name was leaked back in 1994 and she was taken off the overseas
missions. Furthermore, it wasn't some White House leaker who provided
this leak alone. All sorts of people inside the beltway were talking
about Plame's status with CIA. What will come of this is that everyone
will be told to not talk about such things with anyone who doesn't need
to know them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "caerbannog" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
26 Oct 2003 07:05:54 PM |
|
|
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote:
John M Price PhD wrote:
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article <ibcopv46pjopj4vafn1vv3tqnn5gkoh781@Pern.rk> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
: On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:19:48 -0000, Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
: <tim@somecallme.net> posted in alt.atheism:
: >"[George Herbert Walker] Bush remained quiet during most of the
: >event, which lasted just over an hour, and interrupted the discussion
: >only once after an audience member asked about the quality of
: >American intelligence.
: >'You?ve got to protect your sources,' the former president said.
: >'It?s tough to recruit sources to spy on their own nations if they?re
: >afraid.'
: >The comments were an apparent reference to criticism that followed
: >the recent leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame by a
: >source within the current Bush administration."
: And the Repugs don't realize that he was chastising his own son? They
: can't be *that* dense.
'An age is called dark not because the light fails to shine, but because
people refuse to see it.'
Bush didn't leak Plame's name. The who thing is silly though because
Plame's name was leaked back in 1994 and she was taken off the overseas
missions. Furthermore, it wasn't some White House leaker who provided
this leak alone. All sorts of people inside the beltway were talking
about Plame's status with CIA. What will come of this is that everyone
will be told to not talk about such things with anyone who doesn't need
to know them.
Who inside the beltway was talking about Plame's status? Names and
supporting evidence, please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
26 Oct 2003 06:40:40 PM |
|
|
caerbannog wrote:
Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote:
John M Price PhD wrote:
In alt.radio.talk.dr-laura article <ibcopv46pjopj4vafn1vv3tqnn5gkoh781@Pern.rk> Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
: On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 19:19:48 -0000, Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
: <tim@somecallme.net> posted in alt.atheism:
: >"[George Herbert Walker] Bush remained quiet during most of the
: >event, which lasted just over an hour, and interrupted the discussion
: >only once after an audience member asked about the quality of
: >American intelligence.
: >'You?ve got to protect your sources,' the former president said.
: >'It?s tough to recruit sources to spy on their own nations if they?re
: >afraid.'
: >The comments were an apparent reference to criticism that followed
: >the recent leak of the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame by a
: >source within the current Bush administration."
: And the Repugs don't realize that he was chastising his own son? They
: can't be *that* dense.
'An age is called dark not because the light fails to shine, but because
people refuse to see it.'
Bush didn't leak Plame's name. The who thing is silly though because
Plame's name was leaked back in 1994 and she was taken off the overseas
missions. Furthermore, it wasn't some White House leaker who provided
this leak alone. All sorts of people inside the beltway were talking
about Plame's status with CIA. What will come of this is that everyone
will be told to not talk about such things with anyone who doesn't need
to know them.
Who inside the beltway was talking about Plame's status? Names and
supporting evidence, please.
Since the exact people's names haven't been released yet, that's a bit
hard to state here now. We know that Novak was talking to at least one
person, but then I doubt you disagree with that. May was talking with
someone outside the White House. All these are pretty easy for you to
look up yourself. The most interesting don't have specific names on
them, the New York Times saying that it looks like Plame was being
discussed as she moved up in the power circles of Washington DC.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
27 Oct 2003 08:57:46 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:40:40 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
caerbannog wrote:
Who inside the beltway was talking about Plame's status? Names and
supporting evidence, please.
Since the exact people's names haven't been released yet
So it's just an assertion: "Someone inside the beltway has been
talking about Plame's status". And who made the assertion? You?
Someone in the administration you won't name?
We know that Novak was talking to at least one
person
Someone in the administration, laying the blame at Bush's feet.
The most interesting don't have specific names on
them, the New York Times saying that it looks like Plame was being
discussed as she moved up in the power circles of Washington DC.
There's a difference between discussing someone who's moving up in
government circles and outing an undercover agent. The first is legal
gossip, the second is a felony.
--
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
27 Oct 2003 08:40:30 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:40:40 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
caerbannog wrote:
Who inside the beltway was talking about Plame's status? Names and
supporting evidence, please.
Since the exact people's names haven't been released yet
So it's just an assertion: "Someone inside the beltway has been
talking about Plame's status". And who made the assertion? You?
Someone in the administration you won't name?
Novak, May and the New York Times. If you don't know about even these
facts in the situation, I wonder what facts you do know about.
We know that Novak was talking to at least one
person
Someone in the administration, laying the blame at Bush's feet.
Novak said that he talked to someone in the administration. May said he
talked to someone outside the administration. The New York Times said
that inside the beltway types were blabbing about Plame between each
other and that her status with CIA "got out a bit".
The most interesting don't have specific names on
them, the New York Times saying that it looks like Plame was being
discussed as she moved up in the power circles of Washington DC.
There's a difference between discussing someone who's moving up in
government circles and outing an undercover agent. The first is legal
gossip, the second is a felony.
They were talking about that she was a CIA agent. That's the point. A
lot of people seem to have thought that it was OK to discuss this. A lot
of people have gone to ground now about it too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
28 Oct 2003 10:12:50 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:40:30 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:40:40 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
caerbannog wrote:
Who inside the beltway was talking about Plame's status? Names and
supporting evidence, please.
Since the exact people's names haven't been released yet
So it's just an assertion: "Someone inside the beltway has been
talking about Plame's status". And who made the assertion? You?
Someone in the administration you won't name?
Novak, May and the New York Times. If you don't know about even these
facts in the situation, I wonder what facts you do know about.
That's the outing we've been talking about, not the one from years
earlier that you claimed.
We know that Novak was talking to at least one
person
Someone in the administration, laying the blame at Bush's feet.
Novak said that he talked to someone in the administration.
That makes it the president's problem.
May said he talked to someone outside the administration.
We weren't talking about that situation.
The New York Times said
that inside the beltway types were blabbing about Plame between each
other and that her status with CIA "got out a bit".
That sounds like "we have to print something about Plame".
The most interesting don't have specific names on
them, the New York Times saying that it looks like Plame was being
discussed as she moved up in the power circles of Washington DC.
There's a difference between discussing someone who's moving up in
government circles and outing an undercover agent. The first is legal
gossip, the second is a felony.
They were talking about that she was a CIA agent.
Citation?
That's the point. A
lot of people seem to have thought that it was OK to discuss this. A lot
of people have gone to ground now about it too.
Names, please?
You do know that 500 people witnessed the resurrection, right?
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
28 Oct 2003 10:10:30 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:40:30 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 16:40:40 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
caerbannog wrote:
Who inside the beltway was talking about Plame's status? Names and
supporting evidence, please.
Since the exact people's names haven't been released yet
So it's just an assertion: "Someone inside the beltway has been
talking about Plame's status". And who made the assertion? You?
Someone in the administration you won't name?
Novak, May and the New York Times. If you don't know about even these
facts in the situation, I wonder what facts you do know about.
That's the outing we've been talking about, not the one from years
earlier that you claimed.
Either you can out someone, and then you can't out them again or you can
out them again. For some reason you claim that the 1994 outing didn't
matter to the Novak outing, but the five months of outing by the
Liberals and Democrats doesn't matter because of the Novak outing. AND
you claim that all the outing being done by the inside the beltway types
who didn't talk to Novak don't matter either.
We know that Novak was talking to at least one
person
Someone in the administration, laying the blame at Bush's feet.
Novak said that he talked to someone in the administration.
That makes it the president's problem.
An May said that he talked to someone who wasn't in the administration,
so the problem is bigger than the White House.
May said he talked to someone outside the administration.
We weren't talking about that situation.
If everyone was talking about Plame being CIA then it is difficult to
see why the Novak conversation was special, unless you are purely
political motivated.
The New York Times said
that inside the beltway types were blabbing about Plame between each
other and that her status with CIA "got out a bit".
That sounds like "we have to print something about Plame".
It's what they said, take it up with them.
The most interesting don't have specific names on
them, the New York Times saying that it looks like Plame was being
discussed as she moved up in the power circles of Washington DC.
There's a difference between discussing someone who's moving up in
government circles and outing an undercover agent. The first is legal
gossip, the second is a felony.
They were talking about that she was a CIA agent.
Citation?
The New York Times.
That's the point. A
lot of people seem to have thought that it was OK to discuss this. A lot
of people have gone to ground now about it too.
Names, please?
We have Novak and May so far. Apparently there are more but, as I said,
they have gone to ground.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
29 Oct 2003 08:48:37 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:10:30 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Either you can out someone, and then you can't out them again or you can
out them again. For some reason you claim that the 1994 outing didn't
matter to the Novak outing
Not in the least. Outing her to Novak was a felony, whether she was
outed once before or she had been outed once an hour since 1994.
but the five months of outing by the Liberals and Democrats
Names,. please. Which liberal or Democrat outed her? Citation?
We know that Novak was talking to at least one
person
Someone in the administration, laying the blame at Bush's feet.
Novak said that he talked to someone in the administration.
That makes it the president's problem.
An May said that he talked to someone who wasn't in the administration,
so the problem is bigger than the White House.
Which doesn't change the fact that Bush is respo9nsible for the
commission of a felony. "Someone else did it too" isn't a defense.
May said he talked to someone outside the administration.
We weren't talking about that situation.
If everyone was talking about Plame being CIA then it is difficult to
see why the Novak conversation was special
It wasn't special, it was felonious.
The New York Times said
that inside the beltway types were blabbing about Plame between each
other and that her status with CIA "got out a bit".
That sounds like "we have to print something about Plame".
It's what they said, take it up with them.
You quoted them, so I'm taking it up with you.
The most interesting don't have specific names on
them, the New York Times saying that it looks like Plame was being
discussed as she moved up in the power circles of Washington DC.
There's a difference between discussing someone who's moving up in
government circles and outing an undercover agent. The first is legal
gossip, the second is a felony.
They were talking about that she was a CIA agent.
Citation?
The New York Times.
You seem to have left out the entire text.
That's the point. A
lot of people seem to have thought that it was OK to discuss this. A lot
of people have gone to ground now about it too.
Names, please?
We have Novak and May so far. Apparently there are more but, as I said,
they have gone to ground.
Names of those who have gone to ground?
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
26 Oct 2003 07:21:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:09:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Bush didn't leak Plame's name.
It happened on his watch in his White House, so it's his
responsibility.
The who thing is silly though because
Plame's name was leaked back in 1994 and she was taken off the overseas
missions. Furthermore, it wasn't some White House leaker who provided
this leak alone. All sorts of people inside the beltway were talking
about Plame's status with CIA.
You still don't understand anything that requires more than a
4-year-old intelligence.
What will come of this is that everyone
will be told to not talk about such things with anyone who doesn't need
to know them.
Which anyone with at least half a brain (which leaves you and Bush
out) would have already known.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
26 Oct 2003 08:13:10 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:09:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Bush didn't leak Plame's name.
It happened on his watch in his White House, so it's his
responsibility.
It first happened in 1994. Who was president then?
The who thing is silly though because
Plame's name was leaked back in 1994 and she was taken off the overseas
missions. Furthermore, it wasn't some White House leaker who provided
this leak alone. All sorts of people inside the beltway were talking
about Plame's status with CIA.
You still don't understand anything that requires more than a
4-year-old intelligence.
Obviously you are the one with the intelligence problem. If ten people
are discussing something that is supposed to be a secret, all ten people
are breaking whatever law which restricts discussing that secret, not
just the one guy from the White House you want to get at for partisan
reasons.
What will come of this is that everyone
will be told to not talk about such things with anyone who doesn't need
to know them.
Which anyone with at least half a brain (which leaves you and Bush
out) would have already known.
Apparently there are a lot of people without even half brains with
inside the beltway connections in Washington.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
27 Oct 2003 09:02:08 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:13:10 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:09:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Bush didn't leak Plame's name.
It happened on his watch in his White House, so it's his
responsibility.
It first happened in 1994. Who was president then?
We're talking about the leak that happened in 2003. That leak didn't
happen in 1994. It makes no difference if she was outed every single
day since 1994. Someone outing her in 2003 committed a felony.
Obviously you are the one with the intelligence problem. If ten people
are discussing something that is supposed to be a secret, all ten people
are breaking whatever law which restricts discussing that secret, not
just the one guy from the White House you want to get at for partisan
reasons.
But the guy from the White House *IS* guilty of committing a felony,
and the ultimate responsibility for a felony committed as an official
act, by an employee of the executive branch of the federal government,
rests with the president.
What will come of this is that everyone
will be told to not talk about such things with anyone who doesn't need
to know them.
Which anyone with at least half a brain (which leaves you and Bush
out) would have already known.
Apparently there are a lot of people without even half brains with
inside the beltway connections in Washington.
And your pal the president is their chief.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
27 Oct 2003 08:43:49 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:13:10 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:09:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Bush didn't leak Plame's name.
It happened on his watch in his White House, so it's his
responsibility.
It first happened in 1994. Who was president then?
We're talking about the leak that happened in 2003. That leak didn't
happen in 1994. It makes no difference if she was outed every single
day since 1994. Someone outing her in 2003 committed a felony.
This kind of conflicts with the outing that was done for something like
five months by Liberals and Democrats who insisted that this become
news. Had they just quietly dealt with the problem, perhaps it could've
been made to go away. Now she is outed all over the world with everyone
on the planet who follows news much at all now in the loop.
Obviously you are the one with the intelligence problem. If ten people
are discussing something that is supposed to be a secret, all ten people
are breaking whatever law which restricts discussing that secret, not
just the one guy from the White House you want to get at for partisan
reasons.
But the guy from the White House *IS* guilty of committing a felony,
and the ultimate responsibility for a felony committed as an official
act, by an employee of the executive branch of the federal government,
rests with the president.
Why is this limited to people in the White House? If other inside the
beltway types were talking about this back and forth, isn't that a
felony too?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
27 Oct 2003 09:26:29 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9DD7E5.9C2F1D30@backpacker.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:13:10 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:09:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Bush didn't leak Plame's name.
It happened on his watch in his White House, so it's his
responsibility.
It first happened in 1994. Who was president then?
We're talking about the leak that happened in 2003. That leak didn't
happen in 1994. It makes no difference if she was outed every single
day since 1994. Someone outing her in 2003 committed a felony.
This kind of conflicts with the outing that was done for something like
five months by Liberals and Democrats who insisted that this become
news. Had they just quietly dealt with the problem, perhaps it could've
been made to go away...
What denial.
Someone in a right-wing White House outs a CIA NOC to a nationally-syndicated
right-wing columnist, who prints the information in a nationally-syndicated
column, and you blame the people who paid attention?
What a tool.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
28 Oct 2003 10:02:28 PM |
|
|
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9DD7E5.9C2F1D30@backpacker.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:13:10 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:09:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Bush didn't leak Plame's name.
It happened on his watch in his White House, so it's his
responsibility.
It first happened in 1994. Who was president then?
We're talking about the leak that happened in 2003. That leak didn't
happen in 1994. It makes no difference if she was outed every single
day since 1994. Someone outing her in 2003 committed a felony.
This kind of conflicts with the outing that was done for something like
five months by Liberals and Democrats who insisted that this become
news. Had they just quietly dealt with the problem, perhaps it could've
been made to go away...
What denial.
I've got you Libs claiming that the original outing didn't make the
Novak outing any less a crime. Now I've got you claiming that the
Liberal and Democrat outing for five months was a good thing. You Libs
are such hypocrites!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
28 Oct 2003 10:29:11 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9F3BD4.C63E98E7@backpacker.com...
Clave wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9DD7E5.9C2F1D30@backpacker.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:13:10 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 15:09:48 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique
allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Bush didn't leak Plame's name.
It happened on his watch in his White House, so it's his
responsibility.
It first happened in 1994. Who was president then?
We're talking about the leak that happened in 2003. That leak didn't
happen in 1994. It makes no difference if she was outed every single
day since 1994. Someone outing her in 2003 committed a felony.
This kind of conflicts with the outing that was done for something like
five months by Liberals and Democrats who insisted that this become
news. Had they just quietly dealt with the problem, perhaps it could've
been made to go away...
What denial.
I've got you Libs claiming that the original outing didn't make the
Novak outing any less a crime. Now I've got you claiming that the
Liberal and Democrat outing for five months was a good thing. You Libs
are such hypocrites!
And you need a refresher course in reality.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
29 Oct 2003 08:49:57 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:02:28 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
I've got you Libs claiming that the original outing didn't make the
Novak outing any less a crime.
It didn't.
Now I've got you claiming that the
Liberal and Democrat outing for five months
Complaining about a felony isn't committing the felony. If it were,
the entire Repug Congress is guilty of having sex with an intern.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
29 Oct 2003 09:40:14 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:02:28 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
I've got you Libs claiming that the original outing didn't make the
Novak outing any less a crime.
It didn't.
Note that Novak is specifically exempted from the statute because he is
a journalist. As long as he doesn't make a habit of outing CIA agents,
he didn't commit a crime.
Now I've got you claiming that the
Liberal and Democrat outing for five months
Complaining about a felony isn't committing the felony. If it were,
the entire Repug Congress is guilty of having sex with an intern.
Sex with an intern isn't a crime. The issue here is, of course, that the
crime we are talking about is the actual outing of an agent and clearly
more than one person did this. When it stops being a crime and starts to
be a 'complaining about a crime' isn't clear.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
29 Oct 2003 09:18:25 AM |
|
|
Still Blinde ("I don't have to say in my opinion before I say things.") <stderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
Clave wrote:
Still Blinde ("Then I checked the number and it was 3.1% which is about 3.5%.") <stderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Still Blinde ("I'm not having trouble with numbers.") <stderr@backpacker.com> posted:
Al Klein wrote:
Still Blinde ("By using maths.") <stderr@backpacker.com> posted:
Bush didn't leak Plame's name.
It happened on his watch in his White House, so it's his
responsibility.
It first happened in 1994. Who was president then?
We're talking about the leak that happened in 2003. That leak didn't
happen in 1994. It makes no difference if she was outed every single
day since 1994. Someone outing her in 2003 committed a felony.
This kind of conflicts with the outing that was done for something like
five months by Liberals and Democrats who insisted that this become
news. Had they just quietly dealt with the problem, perhaps it could've
been made to go away...
What denial.
I've got you Libs claiming that the original outing didn't make the
Novak outing any less a crime.
Nope, that's a fallacious statement.. You're the one that
you are irrationally trying to spin a supposed "outing" that
never made publishment in the media with a direct mention of
a covert operative's name and past assignments..
Now I've got you claiming that the Liberal and Democrat outing [..]
That's another fallacious statement, that's intentionally misleading..
--But, that's why you're known as a LYING right-wing shill..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
28 Oct 2003 10:16:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:26:29 -0800, "Clave"
<ClaviusFairAndBalanced@cablespeed.com> posted in alt.atheism:
What a tool.
Tool? "Dulled chisel" comes to mind When I think about Bonde (which
is very seldom)..
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
28 Oct 2003 10:14:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:49 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:13:10 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
It first happened in 1994. Who was president then?
We're talking about the leak that happened in 2003. That leak didn't
happen in 1994. It makes no difference if she was outed every single
day since 1994. Someone outing her in 2003 committed a felony.
This kind of conflicts with the outing that was done for something like
five months by Liberals and Democrats who insisted that this become
news.
Where is there a conflict? Someone broke the law in 2003 by naming an
undercover agent. Period. It has nothing to do with anyone else
naming her.
Obviously you are the one with the intelligence problem. If ten people
are discussing something that is supposed to be a secret, all ten people
are breaking whatever law which restricts discussing that secret, not
just the one guy from the White House you want to get at for partisan
reasons.
But the guy from the White House *IS* guilty of committing a felony,
and the ultimate responsibility for a felony committed as an official
act, by an employee of the executive branch of the federal government,
rests with the president.
Why is this limited to people in the White House?
Because the president isn't responsible for employees of other
branches of government.
If other inside the
beltway types were talking about this back and forth, isn't that a
felony too?
Totally irrelevant to whether Bush is guilty of running a loose ship.
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
28 Oct 2003 10:04:03 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:49 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:13:10 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
It first happened in 1994. Who was president then?
We're talking about the leak that happened in 2003. That leak didn't
happen in 1994. It makes no difference if she was outed every single
day since 1994. Someone outing her in 2003 committed a felony.
This kind of conflicts with the outing that was done for something like
five months by Liberals and Democrats who insisted that this become
news.
Where is there a conflict? Someone broke the law in 2003 by naming an
undercover agent. Period. It has nothing to do with anyone else
naming her.
So all the other people who were talking about Plame being CIA are fine
with you?
Obviously you are the one with the intelligence problem. If ten people
are discussing something that is supposed to be a secret, all ten people
are breaking whatever law which restricts discussing that secret, not
just the one guy from the White House you want to get at for partisan
reasons.
But the guy from the White House *IS* guilty of committing a felony,
and the ultimate responsibility for a felony committed as an official
act, by an employee of the executive branch of the federal government,
rests with the president.
Why is this limited to people in the White House?
Because the president isn't responsible for employees of other
branches of government.
Oooooh, I see, this is purely political. Well, I already knew that.
If other inside the
beltway types were talking about this back and forth, isn't that a
felony too?
Totally irrelevant to whether Bush is guilty of running a loose ship.
You've already lost this one, dude. You don't care about the outing, you
just want to pile on Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
29 Oct 2003 09:02:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:04:03 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:49 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Where is there a conflict? Someone broke the law in 2003 by naming an
undercover agent. Period. It has nothing to do with anyone else
naming her.
So all the other people who were talking about Plame being CIA are fine
with you?
Aside from the ones who were complaining about the commission of a
felony, name them.
Why is this limited to people in the White House?
Because the president isn't responsible for employees of other
branches of government.
Oooooh, I see, this is purely political.
If one is too brain-dead to see it any other way. You evidently are.
It's political if the law holds your boss responsible for what someone
in the company he runs does?
If other inside the
beltway types were talking about this back and forth, isn't that a
felony too?
Totally irrelevant to whether Bush is guilty of running a loose ship.
You've already lost this one, dude. You don't care about the outing, you
just want to pile on Bush.
No, I just don't want a deserter running the country.
--
"Christians, it is needless to say, utterly detest each other. They slander each
other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse and cannot come to any sort of
agreement in their teachings. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own
with deceitful nonsense, and makes perfect little pigs of those it wins over to its
side."
- Celsus (2nd century C.E.)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
01 Nov 2003 04:56:21 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 20:04:03 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 18:43:49 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Where is there a conflict? Someone broke the law in 2003 by naming an
undercover agent. Period. It has nothing to do with anyone else
naming her.
So all the other people who were talking about Plame being CIA are fine
with you?
Aside from the ones who were complaining about the commission of a
felony, name them.
Novak didn't break any laws.
Why is this limited to people in the White House?
Because the president isn't responsible for employees of other
branches of government.
Oooooh, I see, this is purely political.
If one is too brain-dead to see it any other way. You evidently are.
It's political if the law holds your boss responsible for what someone
in the company he runs does?
So Clinton was responsible for Aldrich Ames original outing of Plame?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
02 Nov 2003 02:14:48 AM |
|
|
Shrill Bonde ( the obvious insinuations in lieu of the immature lies )" wrote:
[..]
Novak didn't break any laws.
What happened to Novak the last time he did that?
So Clinton was responsible for Aldrich Ames original outing of Plame?
No, nor was he responsible for Waco, much less Ruby Ridge..
--Nor a plethora of right-wing sins against world-kind..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
29 Oct 2003 09:08:26 AM |
|
|
Still Blinde ("I didn't count the lines. It feels like billions.") <stderr@backpacker.com> wrote:
Al Klein wrote:
Still Blinde ("I'm not having trouble with numbers.") <stderr@backpacker.com> posted:
Al Klein wrote:
Still Blinde ("Then I checked the number and it was 3.1% which is about 3.5%.") <stderr@backpacker.com> posted:
[....]
We're talking about the leak that happened in 2003. That leak didn't
happen in 1994. It makes no difference if she was outed every single
day since 1994. Someone outing her in 2003 committed a felony.
This kind of conflicts with the outing that was done for something like
five months by Liberals and Democrats who insisted that this become
news.
Where is there a conflict? Someone broke the law in 2003 by naming
an undercover agent. Period. It has nothing to do with anyone else
naming her.
So all the other people who were talking about Plame being CIA [..]
Back in 1994, who published an opinion stating Valerie Plame was CIA?
--Or, are you just another LYING right-wing shill?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
29 Oct 2003 12:54:21 PM |
|
|
On 29 Oct 2003, "Kurt Lochner" <kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> posted
this:
So all the other people who were talking about Plame being CIA
[..]
Back in 1994, who published an opinion stating Valerie Plame was
CIA?
The CIA suspects that Aldrich Aimes may have given her name to
Russian intelligence. They aren't sure because they aren't sure Aimes
knew about her, and there has been no evidence that her contacts have
been compromised. If Aimes did gever her name to the Russians, there
is no reason to believe that her contacts in other countries were
exposed. In any event, the only thing we can be sure of is that
everyone learned that she was an agent when Novak published it.
Of course Bonde know this. I've pointed it out to him a couple of
times already. He tries to keep his claim general, without mentioning
Aimes, because he's trying to mislead people into thinking Plame was
outed in the papers back in 1994. He's being dishonest. That's why
he's in my killfile.
One of Bonde's other points is that neo-con pundit Cliff May said
that "everyone" inside the beltway knew she was an agent. He says he
knows this because he'd heard about her identity at a cocktail party.
What Bonde fails to understand is that Wilson was a fairly low-
profile guy. He and his wife would not have been the subject of
widespread Washington gossip until after he wrote his op-ed about the
phoney niger uranium story. If Plame's CIA employment was being
gossiped about, it was most likely because whoever leaked the story
to Novak was also telling every freindly face he/she knew about it as
well.
If May wants to get to the bottom of this, he should tell us who he
talked to at the cocktail party. I'd like to know and the "Justice"
department should be interested as well. How many steps back is it to
Rove, Libby, and/or Abrahms?
--
"If the administration said the Earth was flat, Fox News would say
that the Earth was flat, and anyone who said otherwise hates America.
The rest of the media would say 'Shape of the Earth-- Views Differ.'
And quote one Democrat saying that the Earth was round."
--Paul Krugman
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles R Ward" |
|
| Title: Re: GHW Bush on Intimigate |
29 Oct 2003 10:17:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:54:21 UTC, Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
<tim@somecallme.net> wrote:
If May wants to get to the bottom of this, he should tell us who he
talked to at the cocktail party. I'd like to know and the "Justice"
department should be interested as well. How many steps back is it to
Rove, Libby, and/or Abrahms?
Last week the Onion had a story about the administration
searching for a scapegoat for the leak. I'd deceptively
quote the story along with the link but my web browser is
acting up tonight.
--
"If the administration said the Earth was flat, Fox News would say
that the Earth was flat, and anyone who said otherwise hates America.
The rest of the media would say 'Shape of the Earth-- Views Differ.'
And quote one Democrat saying that the Earth was round."
--Paul Krugman
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
Charles R Ward
--
"I do live among my fellow atheists. I also happen to live
among Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, Satanists
and followers of various other religions -- all of which
have a perfect right to live in the United States without
interference because of their religion or lack thereof no
matter how much it irks you." Liz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
