| 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: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 12:19:51 AM |
|
|
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote
On 18 Oct 2003, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> posted this:
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
*****. Are you really that stupid?
Yes he is, and it is *****.
Why it came to light is that she had used her maiden name & listed
the front company on a political contribution. The Republicans
exposed it because they thought it would "Prove" that the CIA was
really a liberally-lefty conspiracy to make the GOP look bad, as
the political contribution was to Al Gore.
Funny, the fact that her husband had actually worked for Republicans
in the past didn't count for anything...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
27 Oct 2003 08:32:14 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jaytem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6eedncjx4sbTgw-iRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote
On 18 Oct 2003, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> posted this:
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
*****. Are you really that stupid?
Yes he is, and it is *****.
Why it came to light is that she had used her maiden name & listed
the front company on a political contribution. The Republicans
exposed it because they thought it would "Prove" that the CIA was
really a liberally-lefty conspiracy to make the GOP look bad, as
the political contribution was to Al Gore.
AHA!! They wanted to take away her botela.
Funny, the fact that her husband had actually worked for Republicans
in the past didn't count for anything...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
18 Oct 2003 11:11:42 PM |
|
|
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced wrote:
On 18 Oct 2003, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> posted this:
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
*****. Are you really that stupid?
I think that "dpr" might just have a point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
18 Oct 2003 11:09:45 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F920EFE.994B2135@backpacker.com...
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced wrote:
On 18 Oct 2003, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> posted this:
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
*****. Are you really that stupid?
I think that "dpr" might just have a point.
I think I might just flap my arms and fly to the moon.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 10:23:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:11:42 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced wrote:
On 18 Oct 2003, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> posted this:
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
*****. Are you really that stupid?
I think that "dpr" might just have a point.
Anyone who thinks that Dana may have a point can't be all bad. "Bad"
just isn't negative enough.
--
"Damn. Looks like all of usenet agrees that you don't have the logical
faculties to prove the statement 'dogshit is not peanut butter' if we
gave you a jar of each and a box of crackers" - John Hattan to Tichy
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, What About Overrated White Athletes Like Jeremy Shockey?" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 01:59:43 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:11:42 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced wrote:
On 18 Oct 2003, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> posted this:
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
*****. Are you really that stupid?
I think that "dpr" might just have a point.
dpr is a brownshower pervert and you are a proven liar. Any questions?
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Socerey Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balance' budget: -525 billion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -335 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 06:08:58 AM |
|
|
"Yang, What About Overrated White Athletes Like Jeremy Shockey?" wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 21:11:42 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote:
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced wrote:
On 18 Oct 2003, "dpr" <&^%@&^%.com> posted this:
The Republicans didn't just out her, they outed the CIA front
company she had been working out of.
Her husband did that.
*****. Are you really that stupid?
I think that "dpr" might just have a point.
dpr is a brownshower pervert and you are a proven liar. Any questions?
You are clearly a brain on drugs. So no.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
18 Oct 2003 03:24:16 PM |
|
|
On 18 Oct 2003, little_people<nospam@newsranger.com> posted this:
In article <Xns94186F3F7B65Dtimsomecallme@216.168.3.44>,
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced says...
http://tinyurl.com/rf78
A somewhat different perspective...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/11/opinion/11KRIS.html
[...]
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.
Because she may have been compromised by Aldrich Aimes. However,
Aimes was spying for the Russians. Her contacts in other countries
were not necessarily in danger until the White House blew her cover,
and that's the real problem. The White House blew a NOC's cover.
Everything else is not relevant.
Moreover, the Democrats cheapen the debate with calls, at the
very beginning of the process, for a special counsel to
investigate the White House.
How does that cheapen it? It's a serious violation of our national
security bt someone in the White House. It shouldn't be handled in
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.
That was an independent prosecutor. It's a different animal.
Furthermore, none of the things Clinton was accused of doing were
anyway near as serious as the leaking of the identity of a NOC.
If Democrats have politicized the scandal and exaggerated it,
Some Democrats claimed that Plame's life is in danger. That's an
exageration that most Democrats did not make. I know of no other
exaggerations. That said, any exaggeration is nothing compared to
what the White House did. They revealed the identity of a NOC. That's
serious.
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 C.I.A. with information, and even real agents
may fear exposure and vanish.
[...end...]
--
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
18 Oct 2003 06:48:35 PM |
|
|
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote in message
news:Xns941888B3281E2timsomecallme@216.168.3.44...
On 18 Oct 2003, little_people<nospam@newsranger.com> posted this:
In article <Xns94186F3F7B65Dtimsomecallme@216.168.3.44>,
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced says...
http://tinyurl.com/rf78
A somewhat different perspective...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/11/opinion/11KRIS.html
[...]
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.
Because she may have been compromised by Aldrich Aimes. However,
Aimes was spying for the Russians. Her contacts in other countries
were not necessarily in danger until the White House blew her cover,
and that's the real problem. The White House blew a NOC's cover.
Everything else is not relevant.
Moreover, the Democrats cheapen the debate with calls, at the
very beginning of the process, for a special counsel to
investigate the White House.
How does that cheapen it? It's a serious violation of our national
security bt someone in the White House. It shouldn't be handled in
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.
That was an independent prosecutor. It's a different animal.
Furthermore, none of the things Clinton was accused of doing were
anyway near as serious as the leaking of the identity of a NOC.
If Democrats have politicized the scandal and exaggerated it,
Some Democrats claimed that Plame's life is in danger. That's an
exageration that most Democrats did not make. I know of no other
exaggerations. That said, any exaggeration is nothing compared to
what the White House did. They revealed the identity of a NOC. That's
serious.
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 C.I.A. with information, and even real agents
may fear exposure and vanish.
[...end...]
--
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the field are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care *****
about them. Makes it hard to recruit the cream of the crop now......
Regardless of what the current White House spin is on this topic, the agents
in the CIA know the score---that Bush knew about it for months and did
nothing until the CIA went public by demanding an investigation.
It clear that Bush not only knew about it, but gave his ok, before it even
happened.
There is no honor in this White House.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
18 Oct 2003 08:56:53 PM |
|
|
"z" <zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:bmsjgl$849$0@pita.alt.net...
"Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" <tim@somecallme.net> wrote in message
news:Xns941888B3281E2timsomecallme@216.168.3.44...
On 18 Oct 2003, little_people<nospam@newsranger.com> posted this:
In article <Xns94186F3F7B65Dtimsomecallme@216.168.3.44>,
Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced says...
http://tinyurl.com/rf78
A somewhat different perspective...
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/11/opinion/11KRIS.html
[...]
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.
Because she may have been compromised by Aldrich Aimes. However,
Aimes was spying for the Russians. Her contacts in other countries
were not necessarily in danger until the White House blew her cover,
and that's the real problem. The White House blew a NOC's cover.
Everything else is not relevant.
Moreover, the Democrats cheapen the debate with calls, at the
very beginning of the process, for a special counsel to
investigate the White House.
How does that cheapen it? It's a serious violation of our national
security bt someone in the White House. It shouldn't be handled in
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.
That was an independent prosecutor. It's a different animal.
Furthermore, none of the things Clinton was accused of doing were
anyway near as serious as the leaking of the identity of a NOC.
If Democrats have politicized the scandal and exaggerated it,
Some Democrats claimed that Plame's life is in danger. That's an
exageration that most Democrats did not make. I know of no other
exaggerations. That said, any exaggeration is nothing compared to
what the White House did. They revealed the identity of a NOC. That's
serious.
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 C.I.A. with information, and even real agents
may fear exposure and vanish.
[...end...]
--
"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance
of official policy, but a love of one's country
deep enough to call her to a higher standard."
--George McGovern
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the field
are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care
*****
about them. Makes it hard to recruit the cream of the crop now......
Regardless of what the current White House spin is on this topic, the
agents
in the CIA know the score---that Bush knew about it for months and did
nothing until the CIA went public by demanding an investigation.
It clear that Bush not only knew about it, but gave his ok, before it even
happened.
There is no honor in this White House.
The admin seems to be infested with Macchiavellian types, anyone reading
Macchiavelli realizes he was more honorable. Although this type of politics
is extremely cynical and opportunisitic, the Dems are still a bunch of
A.H.'s. Yes, it stinks what they did by leaking this information, but I've
yet to hear that any truly secret operations were compromised. Since they
were secret, I guess we'll never know any time in the near future.
Intelligence has been very inadequate. Take for example Afghanistan where
people were killed just because a rival snitched to the U.S. just because
they wanted them out of the way, or Iraq where tribal guys are being paid
$3000 a month to guard the pipeline who have no control over anything, just
because some Irqis said they could do it, in order to impress and con the
Americans. It would be no surprise if the leak had no real intelligence
value, since you can smell an undecover cop a mile away, and the only way
people get caught is when greed overcomes their common sense. By the way I
heard her husband on a local radio show and found him to be a pompous *****.
He used the lawyers term *pro bono* to describe his speaking engagements on
the matter helping the Dems to raise money.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
18 Oct 2003 09:23:57 PM |
|
|
z wrote:
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the field are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care *****
about them.
How do you think that the Republicans whose FBI files were illegally
sitting in the Clinton White House felt? I know you'll bring up
Clinton's penis as both your sword and your shield but nevertheless I'll
give it a try.
It clear that Bush not only knew about it, but gave his ok, before it even
happened.
There is no honor in this White House.
How much honour should be conferred upon you given your comment which is
based not just on no evidence, but absolutely no evident at all?
.
|
|
|
| User: "COL. BILL KILGORE" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 05:12:37 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" wrote:
z wrote:
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the field are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care *****
about them.
How do you think that the Republicans whose FBI files were illegally
sitting in the Clinton White House felt? I know you'll bring up
Clinton's penis as both your sword and your shield but nevertheless I'll
give it a try.
It clear that Bush not only knew about it, but gave his ok, before it even
happened.
There is no honor in this White House.
How much honour should be conferred upon you given your comment which is
based not just on no evidence, but absolutely no evident at all?
In this poster's case Bill, the "z" obviously denotes "zero".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
19 Oct 2003 10:22:25 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:23:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
z wrote:
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the field are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care *****
about them.
How do you think that the Republicans whose FBI files were illegally
sitting in the Clinton White House felt?
A known agent's files sitting in the White House doesn't endanger
anyone's life. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the gravity of
the difference between a serious felony and a possible lack of
rectitude.
--
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 06:23:08 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:n4l6pv0s813qpb2hdi1ggvkgjs6qqdrsu6@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:23:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
z wrote:
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the
field are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White
House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care
*****
about them.
How do you think that the Republicans whose FBI files were illegally
sitting in the Clinton White House felt?
A known agent's files sitting in the White House doesn't endanger
anyone's life. But I wouldn't expect you to understand the gravity of
the difference between a serious felony and a possible lack of
rectitude.
There is no evidence that anyone's life were endangered. There never will
be, perhaps because no one's life was endangered, and the 2nd reason is the
CIA isn't going to go blabbing about the business the girl was in. But if it
was a major spy case we would have had a lot more done about it by now. She
had a front company, and money would have to have been involved. There
could be several reasons why no one in the know, wants to say more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 07:39:58 AM |
|
|
On 20 Oct 2003, "Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop>
posted this:
There is no evidence that anyone's life were endangered.
Sources in two countries have told Time magazine that they are
investigating Plame's contacts on their countries.
--
Another [C-SPAN] caller made the point more angrily
'For every American who gets killed, they should take
20 Iraquians (his term) and hang them from lamp posts.'
This, he explained, is how the Klingons from Star Trek
would handle it.
-- William Greider
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 09:14:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:23:08 GMT, "Dr. DuFonet"
<accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> posted in alt.atheism:
There is no evidence that anyone's life were endangered. There never will
be, perhaps because no one's life was endangered, and the 2nd reason is the
CIA isn't going to go blabbing about the business the girl was in. But if it
was a major spy case we would have had a lot more done about it by now. She
had a front company, and money would have to have been involved. There
could be several reasons why no one in the know, wants to say more.
One of which might be that saying more is a felony. Another is that,
while we don't know exactly how much the other side (whichever "side"
that is today) knows, we don't want to hand them any more. Our
"right" to information, most people forget, is the enemy's right to
the same information. Freedom of information and security are
inversely proportional.
--
"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: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 10:16:35 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:23:08 GMT, "Dr. DuFonet"
<accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> posted in alt.atheism:
There is no evidence that anyone's life were endangered. There never will
be, perhaps because no one's life was endangered, and the 2nd reason is the
CIA isn't going to go blabbing about the business the girl was in. But if it
was a major spy case we would have had a lot more done about it by now. She
had a front company, and money would have to have been involved. There
could be several reasons why no one in the know, wants to say more.
One of which might be that saying more is a felony. Another is that,
while we don't know exactly how much the other side (whichever "side"
that is today) knows, we don't want to hand them any more. Our
"right" to information, most people forget, is the enemy's right to
the same information. Freedom of information and security are
inversely proportional.
So you might say that when Novak published Plame's name, and it took
something like five months of constant effort from Lib Dems complaining
before it was really paid attention to by much of anyone, not only was
the Novak leaker committing a felony but so were all the Democrats whose
tireless re-outing efforts went on until everyone on the planet pretty
much knew? Or do you want it both ways on this? Novak could out Plame
almost ten years after Ames did and it is still a felony to you but
Democrats who kept the story in the spotlight weren't re-outing Plame?
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 01:53:27 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F94A513.8846FEF4@backpacker.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 11:23:08 GMT, "Dr. DuFonet"
<accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> posted in alt.atheism:
There is no evidence that anyone's life were endangered. There never
will
be, perhaps because no one's life was endangered, and the 2nd reason is
the
CIA isn't going to go blabbing about the business the girl was in. But
if it
was a major spy case we would have had a lot more done about it by now.
She
had a front company, and money would have to have been involved. There
could be several reasons why no one in the know, wants to say more.
One of which might be that saying more is a felony. Another is that,
while we don't know exactly how much the other side (whichever "side"
that is today) knows, we don't want to hand them any more. Our
"right" to information, most people forget, is the enemy's right to
the same information. Freedom of information and security are
inversely proportional.
So you might say that when Novak published Plame's name, and it took
something like five months of constant effort from Lib Dems complaining
before it was really paid attention to by much of anyone, not only was
the Novak leaker committing a felony but so were all the Democrats whose
tireless re-outing efforts went on until everyone on the planet pretty
much knew? Or do you want it both ways on this? Novak could out Plame
almost ten years after Ames did and it is still a felony to you but
Democrats who kept the story in the spotlight weren't re-outing Plame?
Re-defining the question again?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 10:30:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:16:35 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
So you might say that when Novak published Plame's name, and it took
something like five months of constant effort from Lib Dems complaining
before it was really paid attention to by much of anyone, not only was
the Novak leaker committing a felony but so were all the Democrats whose
tireless re-outing efforts went on until everyone on the planet pretty
much knew?
When you learn how to think, get back to us. How do you figure that
complaining about a crime is a crime? If it were, all DAs would be
guilty of all crimes they prosecute.
--
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding
the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085
(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 |
21 Oct 2003 11:08:58 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:16:35 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
So you might say that when Novak published Plame's name, and it took
something like five months of constant effort from Lib Dems complaining
before it was really paid attention to by much of anyone, not only was
the Novak leaker committing a felony but so were all the Democrats whose
tireless re-outing efforts went on until everyone on the planet pretty
much knew?
When you learn how to think, get back to us. How do you figure that
complaining about a crime is a crime?
When the crime is supposedly releasing the name of an agent, constantly
ranting about the name of the agent for five months until it becomes
national and international news seems like a similar thing to what was
supposedly done by Novak, except he only did it once. The Democrats and
Wilson (like there's any difference) did it constantly for five months.
If it were, all DAs would be
guilty of all crimes they prosecute.
They don't usually deal with this sort of circumstance. To the extent
that their information is secret and is to remain so, blowing the secret
even if it was already out to a small degree is still blowing the
secret. I learned that when I mentioned that Plame had already been
outed back in 1994 (or earlier, that's when we found out about it) by
Aldrich Ames. You see, apparently, Novak still outed her even though
Ames had already done so probably ten years previously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 11:33:15 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )"
<stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message
news:3F9602DA.CF8956FA@backpacker.com...
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:16:35 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
So you might say that when Novak published Plame's name, and it took
something like five months of constant effort from Lib Dems complaining
before it was really paid attention to by much of anyone, not only was
the Novak leaker committing a felony but so were all the Democrats
whose
tireless re-outing efforts went on until everyone on the planet pretty
much knew?
When you learn how to think, get back to us. How do you figure that
complaining about a crime is a crime?
When the crime is supposedly releasing the name of an agent, constantly
ranting about the name of the agent for five months until it becomes
national and international news seems like a similar thing to what was
supposedly done by Novak, except he only did it once. The Democrats and
Wilson (like there's any difference) did it constantly for five months.
If it were, all DAs would be
guilty of all crimes they prosecute.
They don't usually deal with this sort of circumstance. To the extent
that their information is secret and is to remain so, blowing the secret
even if it was already out to a small degree is still blowing the
secret. I learned that when I mentioned that Plame had already been
outed back in 1994 (or earlier, that's when we found out about it) by
Aldrich Ames. You see, apparently, Novak still outed her even though
Ames had already done so probably ten years previously.
Oh. So that makes it ok.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
22 Oct 2003 08:57:12 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:58 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:16:35 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
When you learn how to think, get back to us. How do you figure that
complaining about a crime is a crime?
When the crime is supposedly releasing the name of an agent, constantly
ranting about the name of the agent for five months until it becomes
national and international news seems like a similar thing to what was
supposedly done by Novak, except he only did it once. The Democrats and
Wilson (like there's any difference) did it constantly for five months.
I thought I was wasting my time explaining it to you. I was right.
If it were, all DAs would be
guilty of all crimes they prosecute.
They don't usually deal with this sort of circumstance.
No, your kind of idiocy isn't too common.
To the extent
that their information is secret and is to remain so, blowing the secret
even if it was already out to a small degree is still blowing the
secret. I learned that when I mentioned that Plame had already been
outed back in 1994 (or earlier, that's when we found out about it) by
Aldrich Ames. You see, apparently, Novak still outed her even though
Ames had already done so probably ten years previously.
Whoever gave Novak his information was the one who violated the law.
--
"I can't activate two neurons simultaneously, and I vote"
- The theistic majority
(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 |
22 Oct 2003 11:30:39 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:58 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:16:35 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
When you learn how to think, get back to us. How do you figure that
complaining about a crime is a crime?
When the crime is supposedly releasing the name of an agent, constantly
ranting about the name of the agent for five months until it becomes
national and international news seems like a similar thing to what was
supposedly done by Novak, except he only did it once. The Democrats and
Wilson (like there's any difference) did it constantly for five months.
I thought I was wasting my time explaining it to you. I was right.
Since I proved that I was correct, I'm not sure what you think you were
explaining.
If it were, all DAs would be
guilty of all crimes they prosecute.
They don't usually deal with this sort of circumstance.
No, your kind of idiocy isn't too common.
Most DAs don't have to deal with CIA operatives whose cover is blown for
any reason.
To the extent
that their information is secret and is to remain so, blowing the secret
even if it was already out to a small degree is still blowing the
secret. I learned that when I mentioned that Plame had already been
outed back in 1994 (or earlier, that's when we found out about it) by
Aldrich Ames. You see, apparently, Novak still outed her even though
Ames had already done so probably ten years previously.
Whoever gave Novak his information was the one who violated the law.
How about *all* the other people who were talking about it? We know that
is true. Why should some guy who very possibility just mentioned it,
like all the rest of the people did, get in trouble? Talking about
secret information (say CIA covers) with people who don't need to know
is the problem. Trying to play political games and attack Bush is just
more partisanship from you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
23 Oct 2003 07:32:32 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 21:30:39 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:58 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:16:35 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
When you learn how to think, get back to us. How do you figure that
complaining about a crime is a crime?
When the crime is supposedly releasing the name of an agent, constantly
ranting about the name of the agent for five months until it becomes
national and international news seems like a similar thing to what was
supposedly done by Novak, except he only did it once. The Democrats and
Wilson (like there's any difference) did it constantly for five months.
I thought I was wasting my time explaining it to you. I was right.
Since I proved that I was correct, I'm not sure what you think you were
explaining.
I was explaining why your "proof" is nonsense, and why you're wrong.
If it were, all DAs would be
guilty of all crimes they prosecute.
They don't usually deal with this sort of circumstance.
No, your kind of idiocy isn't too common.
Most DAs don't have to deal with CIA operatives whose cover is blown for
any reason.
Most DAs have to deal with how laws are written and what the legal
language they're written in means.
To the extent
that their information is secret and is to remain so, blowing the secret
even if it was already out to a small degree is still blowing the
secret. I learned that when I mentioned that Plame had already been
outed back in 1994 (or earlier, that's when we found out about it) by
Aldrich Ames. You see, apparently, Novak still outed her even though
Ames had already done so probably ten years previously.
Whoever gave Novak his information was the one who violated the law.
How about *all* the other people who were talking about it?
People complaining that a law was violated aren't violating that law.
We don't live in the Stalinist USSR - yet.
We know that
is true. Why should some guy who very possibility just mentioned it,
like all the rest of the people did, get in trouble?
Same reason someone driving at some specific speed should - he was
violating the law.
Talking about secret information (say CIA covers) with people who don't need to know
is the problem.
And the person who gave Novak his information did just that and, by so
doing, violated the law.
Trying to play political games and attack Bush is just more partisanship from you.
Since it was someone in Bush's administration, and it happened on
Bush's watch, Bush is responsible for it. Even Teflon Ronnie admitted
that.
--
"We should do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. If I were an unborn
fetus I would want others to use force to protect me, therefore using force against
abortionists is *justifiable homocide*."
- "Pro-Life" doctor killer and corpse Paul Hill
(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 11:40:47 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:23:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
z wrote:
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the field are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care *****
about them.
How do you think that the Republicans whose FBI files were illegally
sitting in the Clinton White House felt?
A known agent's files sitting in the White House doesn't endanger
anyone's life.
What was it something like 900 FBI files on people of the opposite
party? Don't you think that was wrong? Meanwhile, in this case, we have
an agent who was outed, it now seems, in 1994. She was taken off
undercover out of country operations back then because Aldrich Ames was
thought to have outed her.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand the gravity of
the difference between a serious felony and a possible lack of
rectitude.
Her own actions, moving up in the Washington elite circles were outing
her. The actions of her husband just made it happen faster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 01:44:50 PM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<3F93674F.CAF51E10@backpacker.com>...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:23:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
z wrote:
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the field are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care *****
about them.
How do you think that the Republicans whose FBI files were illegally
sitting in the Clinton White House felt?
A known agent's files sitting in the White House doesn't endanger
anyone's life.
What was it something like 900 FBI files on people of the opposite
party? Don't you think that was wrong?
Why is it every time Bush commits a crime Republicans say something
like "OK, but it isn't as bad as what Clinton did that time..."? You
don't get a free pass on a crime you committed if you can demonstrate
someone else committed a bigger one. Can that concept penetrate your
thick head?
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Bonde the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
20 Oct 2003 02:12:39 PM |
|
|
jwk wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<3F93674F.CAF51E10@backpacker.com>...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:23:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
z wrote:
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the field are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care *****
about them.
How do you think that the Republicans whose FBI files were illegally
sitting in the Clinton White House felt?
A known agent's files sitting in the White House doesn't endanger
anyone's life.
What was it something like 900 FBI files on people of the opposite
party? Don't you think that was wrong?
Why is it every time Bush commits a crime Republicans say something
like "OK, but it isn't as bad as what Clinton did that time..."? You
don't get a free pass on a crime you committed if you can demonstrate
someone else committed a bigger one. Can that concept penetrate your
thick head?
There is no evidence that Bush committed any crime. It can be shown that
Plame was outed back in 1994.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
21 Oct 2003 07:53:50 AM |
|
|
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<3F9433A7.FD13E47E@backpacker.com>...
jwk wrote:
"Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote in message news:<3F93674F.CAF51E10@backpacker.com>...
Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 19:23:57 -0700, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion
in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> posted in
alt.atheism:
z wrote:
Overlooked in this debate is how hot the rest of operatives in the field are
feeling. They know their protective cover can be blown by the White House
any time when it suits them, that the Bush administration doesn't care *****
about them.
How do you think that the Republicans whose FBI files were illegally
sitting in the Clinton White House felt?
A known agent's files sitting in the White House doesn't endanger
anyone's life.
What was it something like 900 FBI files on people of the opposite
party? Don't you think that was wrong?
Why is it every time Bush commits a crime Republicans say something
like "OK, but it isn't as bad as what Clinton did that time..."? You
don't get a free pass on a crime you committed if you can demonstrate
someone else committed a bigger one. Can that concept penetrate your
thick head?
There is no evidence that Bush committed any crime. It can be shown that
Plame was outed back in 1994.
Sorry, but claiming that someone else gave up the secret first is not
a valid defense in national security matters. Jean Kirkpatrick gave
up some secrets once, but years later people with clearances were
still admonished not to talk about them. Bush (or whichever of his
staff) released information that was classified. It is entirely
besides the point if that information had been illegally released
previously.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
22 Oct 2003 01:10:03 AM |
|
|
There is no evidence that Bush committed any crime. It can be
shown that Plame was outed back in 1994.
Her cover was possibly blown by Aldrich Aimes, who spied for the
Russians. No one is sure if she was named by Aimes or not. In any
event, it's doubtful that the Russians would share that info with
anyone else. She remained a NOC until the White House blew her cover.
Her contacts in other countries were placed in danger by the Bush
Administration.
--
"In an age of Rambo patriotism, it is good to be reminded of
Capra patriotism--to remember that America is not just about
fighting and winning, but about defending our freedoms. If we
defeat the enemy at the cost of our own principles, who has won?"
--Roger Ebert
Tim
"Fair and Balanced"
.
|
|
|
| User: "SemiScholar" |
|
| Title: Re: See the Democrat's Plame ad |
22 Oct 2003 10:25:51 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:10:03 -0000, Patriotboy is Fair and Balanced
<tim@somecallme.net> wrote:
There is no evidence that Bush committed any crime. It can be
shown that Plame was outed back in 1994.
Her cover was possibly blown by Aldrich Aimes, who spied for the
Russians. No one is sure if she was named by Aimes or not. In any
event, it's doubtful that the Russians would share that info with
anyone else. She remained a NOC until the White House blew her cover.
Her contacts in other countries were placed in danger by the Bush
Administration.
Not only were her contacts placed in danger, but the intel she was
able to gather as an NOC is now suspect - we don't know if they know
we know, etc.
Outing an NOC was a despicable act. And a crime.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
