| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
| Date: |
18 Oct 2003 12:53:59 PM |
| Object: |
See the Democrat's Plame ad |
http://tinyurl.com/rf78
--
"The concept of military necessity is seductively broad, and
has a dangerous plasticity. Because they invariably have the
visage of overriding importance, there is always a temptation
to invoke security "necessities" to justify an encroachment
upon civil liberties. For that reason, the military-security
argument must be approached with a healthy skepticism."
--Justice William Brennan
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
23 Oct 2003 08:35:08 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vpda1dng0t0t89@news.supernews.com>...
jwk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vpajvuajeusj8b@news.supernews.com>...
jwk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vp8ccin426t955@news.supernews.com>...
jwk wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<3F92735D.D8C3557F@backpacker.com>...
dpr wrote:
"Cloven Hooves, speak of the devil" <ClaviusFairAndBalanced@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:vp4dfpd4ingg3f@corp.supernews.com...
"Jeffraham Prestonian" <toucan@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:-L2dnaxph94DrQ-iRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
Her husband did that.
No, Clinton's penis did that.
Why are you leftists always bringing up clintoon.
Clinton's penis is both Clave's sword and his shield. As a test, just
try to point out anything Clinton did that might not be perfect. Don't
even mention Lewinsky. Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example. Expect to get Clinton's *****
shoved in your face for it.
Why the hell do *you think pointing out anything Clinton did is
relevant to this crime? Why do you keep bringing him up? If he did
everything wrong you wish he had done how does that excuse Bush's
administration?
Because then the Democrats are hypocrites for even suggesting that it's
wrong for Reps to do it too.
That's ***** and you know it Fred.
Yep, I sure do. Isn't satire effective?
You aren't that dumb, so why do
you say stupid things like that? Can I murder someone, then when they
try to execute me point at Charles Manson and say shrilly "well he was
worse and you didn't execute him!" No. Nothing Clinton did (even if
he did *all the things you accuse him of) excuses anyone else for
crimes they commit. You are just using him to deflect the issue
because you don't want to admit that your hero committed a major
crime.
Now remember that when you see somebody doing the same with a
right-winger as the target instead of Clinton.
I take that as you admission that you were full of it.
I take it you don't like having your chain pulled.
I thought my response was funny. I guess I just can't tell a joke.
(And, while I use them, I really hate resorting to smiley icons.)
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 03:11:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:03:49 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<3F92735D.D8C3557F@backpacker.com>...
dpr wrote:
"Cloven Hooves, speak of the devil" <ClaviusFairAndBalanced@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:vp4dfpd4ingg3f@corp.supernews.com...
"Jeffraham Prestonian" <toucan@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:-L2dnaxph94DrQ-iRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
Her husband did that.
No, Clinton's penis did that.
Why are you leftists always bringing up clintoon.
Clinton's penis is both Clave's sword and his shield. As a test, just
try to point out anything Clinton did that might not be perfect. Don't
even mention Lewinsky. Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example. Expect to get Clinton's *****
shoved in your face for it.
Why the hell do *you think pointing out anything Clinton did is
relevant to this crime? Why do you keep bringing him up? If he did
everything wrong you wish he had done how does that excuse Bush's
administration?
Because then the Democrats are hypocrites for even suggesting that it's
wrong for Reps to do it too.
How about independents? If an independent person says "Clinton was
wrong do do X", and it was also criminal for the Bush White House to
release the name of an under-cover CIA operative, would you then agree
that the Bush White House did something criminal? (not necessarily
Dubya, but someone in the WH?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 03:32:51 PM |
|
|
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:03:49 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<3F92735D.D8C3557F@backpacker.com>...
dpr wrote:
"Cloven Hooves, speak of the devil" <ClaviusFairAndBalanced@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:vp4dfpd4ingg3f@corp.supernews.com...
"Jeffraham Prestonian" <toucan@mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:-L2dnaxph94DrQ-iRVn-uw@comcast.com...
"dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> wrote
Her husband did that.
No, Clinton's penis did that.
Why are you leftists always bringing up clintoon.
Clinton's penis is both Clave's sword and his shield. As a test, just
try to point out anything Clinton did that might not be perfect. Don't
even mention Lewinsky. Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example. Expect to get Clinton's *****
shoved in your face for it.
Why the hell do *you think pointing out anything Clinton did is
relevant to this crime? Why do you keep bringing him up? If he did
everything wrong you wish he had done how does that excuse Bush's
administration?
Because then the Democrats are hypocrites for even suggesting that it's
wrong for Reps to do it too.
How about independents? If an independent person says "Clinton was
wrong do do X", and it was also criminal for the Bush White House to
release the name of an under-cover CIA operative, would you then agree
that the Bush White House did something criminal? (not necessarily
Dubya, but someone in the WH?)
Yes, of course, but that doesn't seem to stop people from using it
anyway. Larry Flynt offered a million bucks to find Republicans'
mistresses after Clinton was accused of adultery. Did that make it OK?
No, but that's sure the way the Democrats played it.
Do I think it's right? No.
Do I think that's just the way it is nowadays? Yes.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 07:30:07 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
Larry Flynt offered a million bucks to find Republicans'
mistresses after Clinton was accused of adultery.
Hardly the partisan rift you're pretending it was.
Larry Flint's objective was to expose the *Hypocrisy* in
the Clinton lynching. He wasn't doing it because he was
just so in love with the Democrats, he was doing it because
the Republicans were behind the lynching.
There is absolutely no reason to believe that he would have
acted any different if the tables had been turned. Of course,
you being a spineless partisan you'll never admit it...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 04:17:02 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:32:51 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:03:49 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Why the hell do *you think pointing out anything Clinton did is
relevant to this crime? Why do you keep bringing him up? If he did
everything wrong you wish he had done how does that excuse Bush's
administration?
Because then the Democrats are hypocrites for even suggesting that it's
wrong for Reps to do it too.
How about independents? If an independent person says "Clinton was
wrong do do X", and it was also criminal for the Bush White House to
release the name of an under-cover CIA operative, would you then agree
that the Bush White House did something criminal? (not necessarily
Dubya, but someone in the WH?)
Yes, of course, but that doesn't seem to stop people from using it
anyway. Larry Flynt offered a million bucks to find Republicans'
mistresses after Clinton was accused of adultery. Did that make it OK?
No, but that's sure the way the Democrats played it.
Do I think it's right? No.
Do I think that's just the way it is nowadays? Yes.
Ummm... okay. Fine. Democrats are scum. Larry Flynt is scum. Now,
back to the issue at hand:
So, is there a criminal in the White House staff right now? Should
someone at least be fired? Should George W Bush be vigorously
tracking down the perpetrator? Should George W Bush be held
accountable? Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them? Should it be left to the
administration to investigate itself?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 04:22:24 PM |
|
|
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:32:51 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:03:49 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Why the hell do *you think pointing out anything Clinton did is
relevant to this crime? Why do you keep bringing him up? If he did
everything wrong you wish he had done how does that excuse Bush's
administration?
Because then the Democrats are hypocrites for even suggesting that it's
wrong for Reps to do it too.
How about independents? If an independent person says "Clinton was
wrong do do X", and it was also criminal for the Bush White House to
release the name of an under-cover CIA operative, would you then agree
that the Bush White House did something criminal? (not necessarily
Dubya, but someone in the WH?)
Yes, of course, but that doesn't seem to stop people from using it
anyway. Larry Flynt offered a million bucks to find Republicans'
mistresses after Clinton was accused of adultery. Did that make it OK?
No, but that's sure the way the Democrats played it.
Do I think it's right? No.
Do I think that's just the way it is nowadays? Yes.
Ummm... okay. Fine. Democrats are scum. Larry Flynt is scum. Now,
back to the issue at hand:
So, is there a criminal in the White House staff right now?
I don't know. They're investigating that.
Should someone at least be fired?
If the investigation turns out that they did it out of malice.
Should George W Bush be vigorously tracking down the perpetrator?
No, he should not interfere with the investigation in progress.
Should George W Bush be held accountable?
Not unless he ordered it himself.
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Should it be left to the
administration to investigate itself?
Let's see what their investigation turns up, shall we?
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 07:31:30 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
SemiScholar wrote:
Should someone at least be fired?
If the investigation turns out that they did it out of malice.
That's neo-con hypocrisy for you! Now the low-lifes are
pretending it's okay to break the law, so long as you can
claim that your intentions were good....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 07:46:32 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vp8kghegjnaj94@news.supernews.com>...
SemiScholar wrote:
[snip]
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Sorry Fred, just a minor correction. You mistyped. I realize what
you meant, but didn't type, was "... is capable of covering up the
crime." And you are right.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 10:22:16 AM |
|
|
jwk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vp8kghegjnaj94@news.supernews.com>...
SemiScholar wrote:
[snip]
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Sorry Fred, just a minor correction. You mistyped. I realize what
you meant, but didn't type, was "... is capable of covering up the
crime." And you are right.
Yeah right, and NASA is capable of faking the moon landings.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 10:55:24 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:22:16 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vp8kghegjnaj94@news.supernews.com>...
SemiScholar wrote:
[snip]
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Sorry Fred, just a minor correction. You mistyped. I realize what
you meant, but didn't type, was "... is capable of covering up the
crime." And you are right.
Yeah right, and NASA is capable of faking the moon landings.
Well, let's put it this way. If there were no Special Prosecutor,
Bill Clinton would NEVER have even come close to being impeached.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 11:03:01 AM |
|
|
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:22:16 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vp8kghegjnaj94@news.supernews.com>...
SemiScholar wrote:
[snip]
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Sorry Fred, just a minor correction. You mistyped. I realize what
you meant, but didn't type, was "... is capable of covering up the
crime." And you are right.
Yeah right, and NASA is capable of faking the moon landings.
Well, let's put it this way. If there were no Special Prosecutor,
Bill Clinton would NEVER have even come close to being impeached.
And this would be a bad thing?
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 11:27:28 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:03:01 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:22:16 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vp8kghegjnaj94@news.supernews.com>...
SemiScholar wrote:
[snip]
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Sorry Fred, just a minor correction. You mistyped. I realize what
you meant, but didn't type, was "... is capable of covering up the
crime." And you are right.
Yeah right, and NASA is capable of faking the moon landings.
Well, let's put it this way. If there were no Special Prosecutor,
Bill Clinton would NEVER have even come close to being impeached.
And this would be a bad thing?
The point is: it is folly to let the accused carry out the
investigation.
Yes, the special prosecutor's role can also be abused, as it was in
the Clinton persecutions. But in that case there was no crime to
investigate, it was all clearly just s political witchhunt in the
first place. In this case, we clearly have a crime - the outing of an
NOC. It is reasonable to investigate that crime and see what
happened. It is NOT reasonable to allow the administration to
investigate itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 12:10:32 PM |
|
|
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:03:01 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:22:16 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vp8kghegjnaj94@news.supernews.com>...
SemiScholar wrote:
[snip]
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Sorry Fred, just a minor correction. You mistyped. I realize what
you meant, but didn't type, was "... is capable of covering up the
crime." And you are right.
Yeah right, and NASA is capable of faking the moon landings.
Well, let's put it this way. If there were no Special Prosecutor,
Bill Clinton would NEVER have even come close to being impeached.
And this would be a bad thing?
The point is: it is folly to let the accused carry out the
investigation.
It's not the accused who are conducting the investigation.
The bureaucrats in the Justice Department could no more keep a coverup
secret with this much public attention than NASA could have faked the
moon landings. Too many reporters are sniffing around.
Yes, the special prosecutor's role can also be abused, as it was in
the Clinton persecutions.
And it's the same people who were crying about how abused they were who
are screaming the loudest for one now.
But in that case there was no crime to
investigate, it was all clearly just s political witchhunt in the
first place.
No, the crime was sexual harrassment. And the President was directly
accused, with *probable cause*.
In this case, we clearly have a crime - the outing of an
NOC. It is reasonable to investigate that crime and see what
happened. It is NOT reasonable to allow the administration to
investigate itself.
Nonsense. It's not like the President is even a suspect. Lots of wild
accusations have been made, but literally hundreds of people could have
had access to the information that "leaked".
What evidence do you have that any kind of coverup is being executed or
even planned?
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 12:55:07 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:10:32 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:03:01 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:22:16 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vp8kghegjnaj94@news.supernews.com>...
SemiScholar wrote:
[snip]
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Sorry Fred, just a minor correction. You mistyped. I realize what
you meant, but didn't type, was "... is capable of covering up the
crime." And you are right.
Yeah right, and NASA is capable of faking the moon landings.
Well, let's put it this way. If there were no Special Prosecutor,
Bill Clinton would NEVER have even come close to being impeached.
And this would be a bad thing?
The point is: it is folly to let the accused carry out the
investigation.
It's not the accused who are conducting the investigation.
Close enough. It's the administration investigating itself - and the
president has said that he won't be surprised if they never find out
who did the leaking. Neither will I, if the executive branch
investigates itself. I'll almost guarantee they won't find the
culprits. That's politics.
The bureaucrats in the Justice Department could no more keep a coverup
secret with this much public attention than NASA could have faked the
moon landings. Too many reporters are sniffing around.
Utter nonsense. If the administration investigates itself, it doesn't
even have to "cover up" - it just has to not investigate very well.
And that's easy to do. Reporters don't have subpoena power. If it
were merely up to reporters to ferret out the truth in criminal
matters, we wouldn't need courts at all.
Yes, the special prosecutor's role can also be abused, as it was in
the Clinton persecutions.
And it's the same people who were crying about how abused they were who
are screaming the loudest for one now.
I don't hear much of anyone screaming. Who do you have in mind? And
besides, people who want an independent investigation aren't asking
for an abusive one, just a valid one. The fact that the VRWC
subsidized by the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife abused the process
doesn't mean that everybody will.
But in that case there was no crime to
investigate, it was all clearly just s political witchhunt in the
first place.
No, the crime was sexual harrassment.
No, it wasn't. The Office of the Independent Counsel never
investigated claims of sexual harrassment.
And the President was directly
accused, with *probable cause*.
Nope. Again, that's not what the OIC was "investigating".
In this case, we clearly have a crime - the outing of an
NOC. It is reasonable to investigate that crime and see what
happened. It is NOT reasonable to allow the administration to
investigate itself.
Nonsense. It's not like the President is even a suspect.
High ranking officials in his administration are. And if you don't
see the political value in preventing hing ranking members of your
administration from being charged, tried and convicted - especially in
the upcoming election cycle, then you're simply blind.
Lots of wild
accusations have been made, but literally hundreds of people could have
had access to the information that "leaked".
Uhhh... no. Robert Novak - the person who printed the information,
who has personal knowledge of who the perpetrators are (he was an
accomplice, although he's probably not prosecutable) - has already
said that it was - specifically - 2 high-ranking administration
officials. The fact that the crime occurred is not in question, it's
merely a matter of identifying the criminals and bringing them to
justice.
What you're arguing is that although we have a dead body with a bullet
hole in the back of the head and a relatively short list of suspects,
that we should not bother trying to find out who did the murder. Or
at least, that we should allow the secret society, to which the murder
undoubtedly belongs, to do the investigation.
What evidence do you have that any kind of coverup is being executed or
even planned?
Oh please. You are seriously arguing that the Organization of Foxes
ought to investigate who ate the chickens? Sheesh!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 03:44:35 PM |
|
|
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:10:32 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 12:03:01 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 11:22:16 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message news:<vp8kghegjnaj94@news.supernews.com>...
SemiScholar wrote:
[snip]
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Sorry Fred, just a minor correction. You mistyped. I realize what
you meant, but didn't type, was "... is capable of covering up the
crime." And you are right.
Yeah right, and NASA is capable of faking the moon landings.
Well, let's put it this way. If there were no Special Prosecutor,
Bill Clinton would NEVER have even come close to being impeached.
And this would be a bad thing?
The point is: it is folly to let the accused carry out the
investigation.
It's not the accused who are conducting the investigation.
Close enough. It's the administration investigating itself - and the
president has said that he won't be surprised if they never find out
who did the leaking. Neither will I, if the executive branch
investigates itself. I'll almost guarantee they won't find the
culprits. That's politics.
The bureaucrats in the Justice Department could no more keep a coverup
secret with this much public attention than NASA could have faked the
moon landings. Too many reporters are sniffing around.
Utter nonsense. If the administration investigates itself, it doesn't
even have to "cover up" - it just has to not investigate very well.
Yeah right. Bush already said he wants the culprits found. Oh, he's
lying, except when he says things you agree with.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 04:10:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:44:35 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:10:32 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
It's not the accused who are conducting the investigation.
Close enough. It's the administration investigating itself - and the
president has said that he won't be surprised if they never find out
who did the leaking. Neither will I, if the executive branch
investigates itself. I'll almost guarantee they won't find the
culprits. That's politics.
The bureaucrats in the Justice Department could no more keep a coverup
secret with this much public attention than NASA could have faked the
moon landings. Too many reporters are sniffing around.
Utter nonsense. If the administration investigates itself, it doesn't
even have to "cover up" - it just has to not investigate very well.
Yeah right. Bush already said he wants the culprits found. Oh, he's
lying, except when he says things you agree with.
Oh, please. When has George W Bush ever said anything I agree with?
Do you really think that the POTUS, if he wanted to, could not find
out which of his high-ranking staff talked to Robert Novak?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 04:07:18 PM |
|
|
In article <u38bpvo3uk0ftpup3blem65uvdjj3mb3bn@4ax.com>,
SemiScholar <noemail@spambegone.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:44:35 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:10:32 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
It's not the accused who are conducting the investigation.
Close enough. It's the administration investigating itself - and the
president has said that he won't be surprised if they never find out
who did the leaking. Neither will I, if the executive branch
investigates itself. I'll almost guarantee they won't find the
culprits. That's politics.
The bureaucrats in the Justice Department could no more keep a coverup
secret with this much public attention than NASA could have faked the
moon landings. Too many reporters are sniffing around.
Utter nonsense. If the administration investigates itself, it doesn't
even have to "cover up" - it just has to not investigate very well.
Yeah right. Bush already said he wants the culprits found. Oh, he's
lying, except when he says things you agree with.
Oh, please. When has George W Bush ever said anything I agree with?
Do you really think that the POTUS, if he wanted to, could not find
out which of his high-ranking staff talked to Robert Novak?
LOL especially as it was obviously part of a coordinated plan to try to
harm Wilson's credibility -- this was no 'slip' this was SOP of this WH.
It is also obvious that the WH knows -- their excessively legalistic
denial is a classic non denial denial --
.
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 05:39:58 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:07:18 -0500, Jenn <jenn@hmplc.com> wrote:
In article <u38bpvo3uk0ftpup3blem65uvdjj3mb3bn@4ax.com>,
SemiScholar <noemail@spambegone.com> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:44:35 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:10:32 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
It's not the accused who are conducting the investigation.
Close enough. It's the administration investigating itself - and the
president has said that he won't be surprised if they never find out
who did the leaking. Neither will I, if the executive branch
investigates itself. I'll almost guarantee they won't find the
culprits. That's politics.
The bureaucrats in the Justice Department could no more keep a coverup
secret with this much public attention than NASA could have faked the
moon landings. Too many reporters are sniffing around.
Utter nonsense. If the administration investigates itself, it doesn't
even have to "cover up" - it just has to not investigate very well.
Yeah right. Bush already said he wants the culprits found. Oh, he's
lying, except when he says things you agree with.
Oh, please. When has George W Bush ever said anything I agree with?
Do you really think that the POTUS, if he wanted to, could not find
out which of his high-ranking staff talked to Robert Novak?
LOL especially as it was obviously part of a coordinated plan to try to
harm Wilson's credibility -- this was no 'slip' this was SOP of this WH.
I suspect you may be right. But we don't *know* that. That's why
it's so important to have a REAL investigation. And since the strong
suspicion is that the WH coordinated and planned this as a
premeditated act, it would be the height of folly to allow the
executive branch to investigate itself.
It is also obvious that the WH knows -- their excessively legalistic
denial is a classic non denial denial --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 05:44:30 PM |
|
|
LOL especially as it was obviously part of a coordinated plan to try to
harm Wilson's credibility -- this was no 'slip' this was SOP of this WH.
I suspect you may be right. But we don't *know* that. That's why
it's so important to have a REAL investigation. And since the strong
suspicion is that the WH coordinated and planned this as a
premeditated act, it would be the height of folly to allow the
executive branch to investigate itself.
In other words...visualize a special prosecutor.
Perhaps we can even do a little pre-emptive impeachment.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 04:27:20 PM |
|
|
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:44:35 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:10:32 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
It's not the accused who are conducting the investigation.
Close enough. It's the administration investigating itself - and the
president has said that he won't be surprised if they never find out
who did the leaking. Neither will I, if the executive branch
investigates itself. I'll almost guarantee they won't find the
culprits. That's politics.
The bureaucrats in the Justice Department could no more keep a coverup
secret with this much public attention than NASA could have faked the
moon landings. Too many reporters are sniffing around.
Utter nonsense. If the administration investigates itself, it doesn't
even have to "cover up" - it just has to not investigate very well.
Yeah right. Bush already said he wants the culprits found. Oh, he's
lying, except when he says things you agree with.
Oh, please. When has George W Bush ever said anything I agree with?
"...the
president has said that he won't be surprised if they never find out
who did the leaking. Neither will I..."
Do you really think that the POTUS, if he wanted to, could not find
out which of his high-ranking staff talked to Robert Novak?
Of course he can. That's what he's got a Justice Department for.
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 05:41:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:27:20 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 16:44:35 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 13:10:32 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
It's not the accused who are conducting the investigation.
Close enough. It's the administration investigating itself - and the
president has said that he won't be surprised if they never find out
who did the leaking. Neither will I, if the executive branch
investigates itself. I'll almost guarantee they won't find the
culprits. That's politics.
The bureaucrats in the Justice Department could no more keep a coverup
secret with this much public attention than NASA could have faked the
moon landings. Too many reporters are sniffing around.
Utter nonsense. If the administration investigates itself, it doesn't
even have to "cover up" - it just has to not investigate very well.
Yeah right. Bush already said he wants the culprits found. Oh, he's
lying, except when he says things you agree with.
Oh, please. When has George W Bush ever said anything I agree with?
"...the
president has said that he won't be surprised if they never find out
who did the leaking. Neither will I..."
<chuckle> You got me there. But only if the Bushies are allowed to
investigate themselves.
Do you really think that the POTUS, if he wanted to, could not find
out which of his high-ranking staff talked to Robert Novak?
Of course he can. That's what he's got a Justice Department for.
<chuckle> Yeah, right. Funny one. Given the suspicion that the WH
did the act intentionally, it's just plain stupid to think that they
can investigate themselves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 04:59:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:22:24 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:32:51 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:03:49 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Why the hell do *you think pointing out anything Clinton did is
relevant to this crime? Why do you keep bringing him up? If he did
everything wrong you wish he had done how does that excuse Bush's
administration?
Because then the Democrats are hypocrites for even suggesting that it's
wrong for Reps to do it too.
How about independents? If an independent person says "Clinton was
wrong do do X", and it was also criminal for the Bush White House to
release the name of an under-cover CIA operative, would you then agree
that the Bush White House did something criminal? (not necessarily
Dubya, but someone in the WH?)
Yes, of course, but that doesn't seem to stop people from using it
anyway. Larry Flynt offered a million bucks to find Republicans'
mistresses after Clinton was accused of adultery. Did that make it OK?
No, but that's sure the way the Democrats played it.
Do I think it's right? No.
Do I think that's just the way it is nowadays? Yes.
Ummm... okay. Fine. Democrats are scum. Larry Flynt is scum. Now,
back to the issue at hand:
So, is there a criminal in the White House staff right now?
I don't know. They're investigating that.
"Investigating"? Ha! Clearly a criminal act happened, and Novak
says it was two people high up in the WH.
Should someone at least be fired?
If the investigation turns out that they did it out of malice.
Requires malice? Outing an undercover agent is serious stuff.
Should George W Bush be vigorously tracking down the perpetrator?
No, he should not interfere with the investigation in progress.
What "investigation"? Bush lost his car keys in the garden and
Ashcroft is looking for them in the driveway because the light is
better there.
Should George W Bush be held accountable?
Not unless he ordered it himself.
The buck doesn't stop on his desk, eh?
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Yeah, let the fox investigate who ate those chickens. That's always a
workable solution.
Should it be left to the
administration to investigate itself?
Let's see what their investigation turns up, shall we?
What "investigation"? Nothing is going to turn up - Bush already said
so.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/6957323.htm
Posted on Wed, Oct. 08, 2003
Bush: CIA leak could stay a mystery
Reporters are good at "protecting the leakers," he said. The White
House ruled out three top aides.
By William Douglas
Inquirer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - President Bush said yesterday that he had "no idea"
whether the Justice Department would ever find out who in his
administration revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 06:39:20 PM |
|
|
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:22:24 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:32:51 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:03:49 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Why the hell do *you think pointing out anything Clinton did is
relevant to this crime? Why do you keep bringing him up? If he did
everything wrong you wish he had done how does that excuse Bush's
administration?
Because then the Democrats are hypocrites for even suggesting that it's
wrong for Reps to do it too.
How about independents? If an independent person says "Clinton was
wrong do do X", and it was also criminal for the Bush White House to
release the name of an under-cover CIA operative, would you then agree
that the Bush White House did something criminal? (not necessarily
Dubya, but someone in the WH?)
Yes, of course, but that doesn't seem to stop people from using it
anyway. Larry Flynt offered a million bucks to find Republicans'
mistresses after Clinton was accused of adultery. Did that make it OK?
No, but that's sure the way the Democrats played it.
Do I think it's right? No.
Do I think that's just the way it is nowadays? Yes.
Ummm... okay. Fine. Democrats are scum. Larry Flynt is scum. Now,
back to the issue at hand:
So, is there a criminal in the White House staff right now?
I don't know. They're investigating that.
"Investigating"? Ha! Clearly a criminal act happened, and Novak
says it was two people high up in the WH.
Oh, I see, you've already judged the case. Why don't you turn your
results of your investigation over to the Justice Department and save
everybody a lot of time?
Should someone at least be fired?
If the investigation turns out that they did it out of malice.
Requires malice? Outing an undercover agent is serious stuff.
If somebody actually outed her at this time. Her cover had apparantly
been blown some years before.
Should George W Bush be vigorously tracking down the perpetrator?
No, he should not interfere with the investigation in progress.
What "investigation"? Bush lost his car keys in the garden and
Ashcroft is looking for them in the driveway because the light is
better there.
Oh, I see, you've already judged the case. Why don't you turn your
results of your investigation over to the Justice Department and save
everybody a lot of time?
Should George W Bush be held accountable?
Not unless he ordered it himself.
The buck doesn't stop on his desk, eh?
Nope. Never did anyway. It was a nice slogan, but even Truman didn't
take responsibility for everything that went on in the White House.
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Yeah, let the fox investigate who ate those chickens. That's always a
workable solution.
Oh, I see, you've already judged the case. Why don't you turn your
results of your investigation over to the Justice Department and save
everybody a lot of time?
Should it be left to the
administration to investigate itself?
Let's see what their investigation turns up, shall we?
What "investigation"? Nothing is going to turn up - Bush already said
so.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/6957323.htm
Posted on Wed, Oct. 08, 2003
Bush: CIA leak could stay a mystery
Reporters are good at "protecting the leakers," he said. The White
House ruled out three top aides.
By William Douglas
Inquirer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - President Bush said yesterday that he had "no idea"
whether the Justice Department would ever find out who in his
administration revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
Where is the part where he said they won't find anybody?
--
Fred Stone
Illegitimi non Carborundum
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 07:33:53 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
If somebody actually outed her at this time. Her cover
had apparantly been blown some years before.
Cites, please. And, oh, make them cites dating to "some years
before," not recent articles claiming that there were past
articles.
Oh who am I kidding?
There's no chance that a spineless ***** like you is going to
admit his error, even when publicly challenged like this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 08:02:27 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
If somebody actually outed her at this time. Her cover
had apparantly been blown some years before.
Cites, please.
Aldrege Ames outed her by 1994. It was in the New York Times.
And, oh, make them cites dating to "some years
before," not recent articles claiming that there were past
articles.
Oh who am I kidding?
There's no chance that a spineless ***** like you is going to
admit his error, even when publicly challenged like this.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C13F73E5B0C728DDDA90994DB404482
#begin quote from New York Times
Like any good spy story, the Valerie Plame Wilson affair is far more
complex than it seems on the surface.
I know Mrs. Wilson, but I knew nothing about her CIA career and hadn't
realized she's "a hell of a shot with an AK-47,'' as a classmates at the
CIA training "farm,'' Jim Marcinkowski, recalls. I'll be more careful
around her, for she also turns out to be skilled in throwing hand
grenades and to have lived abroad and run covert operations in some of
the world's messier spots. (Mrs. Wilson was not a source for this column
or any other that I've written about the intelligence community.)
Those operations remain secret, but there are several crucial facts that
can be made public without putting anyone at risk - and together, they
leave everybody looking bad. The CIA is now conducting a damage
assessment, which will determine what networks and operations it will
have to close down. But my sense is that Democrats exaggerate the damage
to Mrs. Wilson's career and to her personal security, while Republicans
vastly play down the enormity of the security breach and the danger to
the assets she worked with.
And now a few pertinent facts:
First, the CIA suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name
(along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his arrest for
espionage in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that
time and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons.
Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition
away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other
intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was
moving away from "noc'' - which means non-official cover, like
pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy
analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a CIA front company, she was
switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her
diplomatic protection without having "CIA'' stamped on her forehead.
Third, Mrs. Wilson's intelligence connections became known a bit in
Washington as she rose in the CIA and moved to State Department cover,
but her job remained a closely held secret. Even her classmates in the
CIA's career training program mostly knew her only as Valerie P. That
way, if one spook defected, the damage would be limited.
All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they
describe the White House as having put Mrs. Wilson's life in danger and
destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities
like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over.
Moreover, the Democrats cheapen the debate with calls, at the very
beginning of the process, for a special counsel to investigate the White
House. Hillary Rodham Clinton knows better than anyone how destructive
and distracting a special counsel investigation can be, interfering with
the basic task of governing, and it's sad to see her display the same
pusillanimous partisanship that Republicans showed just a few years ago.
If Democrats have politicized the scandal and exaggerated it,
Republicans have inexcusably tried to whitewash it. The leak risked the
security of all operatives who had used Brewster-Jennings as cover, as
well as of all assets ever seen with Mrs. Wilson. Unwitting sources will
now realize that they were supplying the CIA with information, and even
real agents may fear exposure and vanish.
CIA veterans are seething, and rightly so, at the betrayal by their own
government. Larry Johnson, who entered the agency at the same time as
Mrs. Wilson, is a Republican who voted for President Bush - and he's so
enraged that he compares the administration leaker to the spies Aldrich
Ames and Robert Hanssen.
"Here's a woman who put her life on the line,'' Johnson said. "But
unlike a Navy Seal or a Marine, she didn't have a gun to fight back. All
she had to protect her was her cover.''
We in journalism are also wrong, I think, to extend professional
courtesy to Robert Novak, by looking beyond him to the leaker. True, he
says he didn't think anyone would be endangered. Working abroad in ugly
corners of the world, American journalists often learn the identities of
American CIA officers, but we never publish their names. I find Novak's
decision to do so just as inexcusable as the decision of administration
officials to leak it.
This scandal leaves everybody stinking.
NICHOLAS KRISTOF is a columnist for the New York Times.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 07:29:48 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:39:20 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:22:24 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:32:51 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
SemiScholar wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:03:49 -0400, Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:
jwk wrote:
Why the hell do *you think pointing out anything Clinton did is
relevant to this crime? Why do you keep bringing him up? If he did
everything wrong you wish he had done how does that excuse Bush's
administration?
Because then the Democrats are hypocrites for even suggesting that it's
wrong for Reps to do it too.
How about independents? If an independent person says "Clinton was
wrong do do X", and it was also criminal for the Bush White House to
release the name of an under-cover CIA operative, would you then agree
that the Bush White House did something criminal? (not necessarily
Dubya, but someone in the WH?)
Yes, of course, but that doesn't seem to stop people from using it
anyway. Larry Flynt offered a million bucks to find Republicans'
mistresses after Clinton was accused of adultery. Did that make it OK?
No, but that's sure the way the Democrats played it.
Do I think it's right? No.
Do I think that's just the way it is nowadays? Yes.
Ummm... okay. Fine. Democrats are scum. Larry Flynt is scum. Now,
back to the issue at hand:
So, is there a criminal in the White House staff right now?
I don't know. They're investigating that.
"Investigating"? Ha! Clearly a criminal act happened, and Novak
says it was two people high up in the WH.
Oh, I see, you've already judged the case. Why don't you turn your
results of your investigation over to the Justice Department and save
everybody a lot of time?
I've made a "usenet judgement". It doesn't appear we're going to get
a real investigation, so that's the best we're going to be able to do.
Should someone at least be fired?
If the investigation turns out that they did it out of malice.
Requires malice? Outing an undercover agent is serious stuff.
If somebody actually outed her at this time. Her cover had apparantly
been blown some years before.
Oh, I see, you've already judged the case.
Also - do you have some sort of cite? Everything I've read about this
case indicates that she was still an effective NOC. And just now, it
seems, a couple of foreign countries have said that they will be
"investigating" her contacts within those countries. So it was
apparently news to them.
Should George W Bush be vigorously tracking down the perpetrator?
No, he should not interfere with the investigation in progress.
What "investigation"? Bush lost his car keys in the garden and
Ashcroft is looking for them in the driveway because the light is
better there.
Oh, I see, you've already judged the case. Why don't you turn your
results of your investigation over to the Justice Department and save
everybody a lot of time?
You're not making sense. I am calling for an investigation - a REAL
one. Not one where the fox investigates who ate the chickens.
Should George W Bush be held accountable?
Not unless he ordered it himself.
The buck doesn't stop on his desk, eh?
Nope. Never did anyway. It was a nice slogan, but even Truman didn't
take responsibility for everything that went on in the White House.
Nice to hear you admit it. I don't suppose you were one of those who
blamed Clinton for everything, like Waco and Somalia, eh?
Should there be a special prosecutor appointed to find
the culprits and prosecute them?
No. The Justice Department is quite capable of doing the job.
Yeah, let the fox investigate who ate those chickens. That's always a
workable solution.
Oh, I see, you've already judged the case. Why don't you turn your
results of your investigation over to the Justice Department and save
everybody a lot of time?
<yawn> Do you have any *rational* argument to explain why the
executive branch should "investigate" itself?
Should it be left to the
administration to investigate itself?
Let's see what their investigation turns up, shall we?
What "investigation"? Nothing is going to turn up - Bush already said
so.
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/6957323.htm
Posted on Wed, Oct. 08, 2003
Bush: CIA leak could stay a mystery
Reporters are good at "protecting the leakers," he said. The White
House ruled out three top aides.
By William Douglas
Inquirer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - President Bush said yesterday that he had "no idea"
whether the Justice Department would ever find out who in his
administration revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
Where is the part where he said they won't find anybody?
President Bush said yesterday that he had "no idea"
whether the Justice Department would ever find out who in his
administration revealed the identity of an undercover CIA officer.
Sheesh!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 10:26:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 11:48:17 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
You don't remember 9/11? Thousands of American civilians are dead. In
Afghanistan, the efforts by the US and other nations have improved the
situation and efforts to train more terrorists have been hampered. We
can now send in ground troops anywhere in Afghanistan and any time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 02:27:18 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F936911.537E7F85@backpacker.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
The warlords still run Afghanistan, bin Laden's still not captured and
tens of thousands of Afghanis and many Americans are dead. So other
than the last, where's the difference?
You don't remember 9/11? Thousands of American civilians are dead. In
Afghanistan, the efforts by the US and other nations have improved the
situation and efforts to train more terrorists have been hampered. We
can now send in ground troops anywhere in Afghanistan and any time.
You just shift the attention away from the point you cannot respond to.
i. e., ........"Oh yeah? what about ............."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 12:02:41 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F936911.537E7F85@backpacker.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 04:19:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Try something like Clinton's lack of effective
efforts against bin Laden, for example.
What's the difference between Clinton's lack of effective efforts
against bin Laden and Bush's lack of effective efforts against bin
Laden, except for the number of people killed?
In Clinton's case, we were not actively in there getting bin Laden's
people and capturing or killing them. Clinton basically preferred to
just use cruise missiles which were really not very effective at the
task.
Liar.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml
Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the
al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals
from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that
al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas
Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed
Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian."
In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most
devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal
executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial
networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron
stockholders.
Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal
with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda.
His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming
Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement.
According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on
Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors
Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks
like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the
coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage
Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to
do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted,
and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The
Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower,
the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system
of dirty money was short-circuited."
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
