Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters. Why?
A case of mistaken identity
By Debra J. Saunders
Columnist, San Francicso Chronicle
Thursday, August 31, 2006
[excerpt] WITH the disclosure that former Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage was the initial source for Robert Novak's July 2003
column that outed CIA operative Valerie Wilson -- also known as Valerie
Plame, wife of former ambassador and Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson --
it is now clear that all the hype about a Bush-inspired vendetta
against the Wilsons is bunk.
The outing of Wilson was not an act of treason [attn: Woods]. It was
not a deliberate effort to smear an administration critic [attn: Marv].
It was not an act of revenge orchestrated by Bush political guru Karl
Rove [attn: Lemke]. It was not an effort to hurt anyone's CIA career
[attn: any other lib I forgot to mention]. It was gossip.
As Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff, co-author of the book "Hubris"
about the Wilson leak and Iraq pre-war intelligence, wrote, "Armitage,
a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about
Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible
implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity." [end excerpt]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/31/EDG0SJ7NHV1.DTL
.
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
02 Sep 2006 06:43:24 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters. Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed. No amount of
'outrage' can undo it. The Bush White House has fucked the US
up the ***** and spits on the US Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
02 Sep 2006 10:14:36 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 06:43:24 -0500, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters. Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed. No amount of
'outrage' can undo it. The Bush White House has fucked the US
up the ***** and spits on the US Constitution.
The only "outrage" to have is that there's been no word on people being
charged with treason. Anyone with that kind of classified information was
responsible for not leaking it.
Woods
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
04 Sep 2006 10:43:43 PM |
|
|
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 06:43:24 -0500, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters. Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed. No amount of
'outrage' can undo it. The Bush White House has fucked the US
up the ***** and spits on the US Constitution.
The only "outrage" to have is that there's been no word on people being
charged with treason. Anyone with that kind of classified information was
responsible for not leaking it.
Okay, so now that the person who leaked is known, are you calling for
him to be charged with treason? I haven't seen that yet. Where did you
post that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "eric" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
04 Sep 2006 10:57:02 PM |
|
|
Boy, you're dumb! Do you know what "motive" means?
Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 06:43:24 -0500, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters. Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed. No amount of
'outrage' can undo it. The Bush White House has fucked the US
up the ***** and spits on the US Constitution.
The only "outrage" to have is that there's been no word on people being
charged with treason. Anyone with that kind of classified information was
responsible for not leaking it.
Okay, so now that the person who leaked is known, are you calling for
him to be charged with treason? I haven't seen that yet. Where did you
post that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
04 Sep 2006 11:10:59 PM |
|
|
eric wrote:
Boy, you're dumb! Do you know what "motive" means?
Uh, yeah ... but what does "motive" have to do with what I posted? Why
don't you quote the US Constitutional requirement for charging someone
with treason?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 05:20:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:43:43 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Woodswun wrote:
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 06:43:24 -0500, Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters. Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed. No amount of
'outrage' can undo it. The Bush White House has fucked the US
up the ***** and spits on the US Constitution.
The only "outrage" to have is that there's been no word on people being
charged with treason. Anyone with that kind of classified information was
responsible for not leaking it.
Okay, so now that the person who leaked is known, are you calling for
him to be charged with treason? I haven't seen that yet. Where did you
post that?
Gee, you don't think that when someone says 'whoever' they mean ...
'whoever'? I saw no reason to repost a blanket statement, and still
don't, nor do I expect to have anyone who can figure out how to use a
computer to require clarification that "oh, yeah, 'whoever' includes him,
too!". I mean, jeez - are you really that thick?!?
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
02 Sep 2006 08:21:00 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters. Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been charged with a
crime.
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months) about her
name being leaked was never about her. It was about *getting* someone
in the White House. I always knew liberals didn't really give a damn
about Valerie Plame. And they're proving it now with their silence. If
they REALLY cared about Valerie Plame, they'd still be outraged about
her name being leaked. Instead, it's time to find something else to
*use* to go after Rove. And whatever it is, there will be plenty of
*false* outrage about whatever vehicle they can *use* in their effort
to bring him down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
02 Sep 2006 03:29:58 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been charged with a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months) about her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think it's
ok.
It was about *getting* someone
in the White House. I always knew liberals didn't really give a damn
about Valerie Plame. And they're proving it now with their silence. If
they REALLY cared about Valerie Plame, they'd still be outraged about
her name being leaked. Instead, it's time to find something else to
*use* to go after Rove. And whatever it is, there will be plenty of
*false* outrage about whatever vehicle they can *use* in their effort
to bring him down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
04 Sep 2006 10:46:32 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been charged with a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months) about her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming from libs
like you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 11:37:33 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been charged with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months) about her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming from libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with ?
Besides, we're all good republicans here and you know it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 12:22:04 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been charged with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months) about her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming from libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with ?
Which law are you referring to?
Besides, we're all good republicans here and you know it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 09:22:36 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged
speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib
posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been charged
with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months) about
her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming from libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with ?
Which law are you referring to?
The same law that would have gotten Benedict Arnold hung by the
neck had he not fled to England.
Besides, we're all good republicans here and you know it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 09:43:54 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged
speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib
posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been charged
with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months) about
her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming from libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with ?
Which law are you referring to?
The same law that would have gotten Benedict Arnold hung by the
neck had he not fled to England.
U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.
"The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason,
but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Is that what you're referring to? Please make your case using the
Constitution as your guide. I find one line quite interesting --
"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Libs hate it
when someone questions their patriotism -- but when *some* libs turn
Bush bashing into sport, and incorporate US defeat in Iraq (by "cut &
run" which would hand Iraq over to the terrorists) as lib policy, what
is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 07:40:35 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie
Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by
the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged
speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib
posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been
charged
with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with
treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking
Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months)
about
her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming from
libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with ?
Which law are you referring to?
The same law that would have gotten Benedict Arnold hung by the
neck had he not fled to England.
Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin
tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over,
betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of
the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally
injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Treachery. Betrayal of Trust. Whether inadvertent or not, Armitage
is guilty. Those guys are in the intelligence business, and simply
claiming they didn't know any better just means they're incompetent.
U.S. Constitution - Article 3 Section 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in
open Court.
"The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason,
but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Is that what you're referring to? Please make your case using the
Constitution as your guide. I find one line quite interesting --
"adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Libs hate it
when someone questions their patriotism -- but when *some* libs turn
Bush bashing into sport, and incorporate US defeat in Iraq (by "cut &
run" which would hand Iraq over to the terrorists) as lib policy, what
is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 08:27:21 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie
Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed by
the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged
speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib
posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been
charged
with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with
treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking
Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months)
about
her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming from
libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with ?
Which law are you referring to?
The same law that would have gotten Benedict Arnold hung by the
neck had he not fled to England.
Main Entry: trea=B7son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from Latin
tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over,
betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of
the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally
injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Treachery. Betrayal of Trust. Whether inadvertent or not, Armitage
is guilty. Those guys are in the intelligence business, and simply
claiming they didn't know any better just means they're incompetent.
=20
What are you going to do? Throw the dictionary at him?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
07 Sep 2006 11:05:17 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie
Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed
by
the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged
speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the
actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib
posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been
charged
with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with
treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking
Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months)
about
her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your
country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think
it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming from
libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with ?
Which law are you referring to?
The same law that would have gotten Benedict Arnold hung by the
neck had he not fled to England.
Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from
Latin
tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over,
betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government
of
the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or
personally
injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Treachery. Betrayal of Trust. Whether inadvertent or not, Armitage
is guilty. Those guys are in the intelligence business, and simply
claiming they didn't know any better just means they're incompetent.
What are you going to do? Throw the dictionary at him?
I just threw the dictionary at you. You're the one who didn't
know what treason meant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
08 Sep 2006 12:24:29 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie
Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage expressed
by
the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged
speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the
actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's lib
posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been
charged
with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with
treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage leaking
Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for months)
about
her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your
country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you think
it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming from
libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with ?
Which law are you referring to?
The same law that would have gotten Benedict Arnold hung by the
neck had he not fled to England.
Main Entry: trea=B7son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from
Latin
tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over,
betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government
of
the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or
personally
injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Treachery. Betrayal of Trust. Whether inadvertent or not, Armitage
is guilty. Those guys are in the intelligence business, and simply
claiming they didn't know any better just means they're incompetent.
What are you going to do? Throw the dictionary at him?
I just threw the dictionary at you. You're the one who didn't
know what treason meant.
Now wait a minute -- first you were referring to law, and now you've
suddenly switched to the dictionary. You can't convict someone of
treason based on a dictionary definition.
You wrote: "Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble
with ?"
I replied: "Which law are you referring to?"
You responded: "The same law that would have gotten Benedict Arnold
hung by the
neck had he not fled to England."
Since you were thinking in terms of law, I thought it might be
appropriate to cite the Constitution; and I asked you to make your case
based on the Constitution. And what did you do? You gave me the
dictionary definition of treason. Way to go.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
09 Sep 2006 10:12:16 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven
Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie
Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage
expressed
by
the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged
speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the
actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's
lib
posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been
charged
with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can
commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with
treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage
leaking
Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for
months)
about
her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your
country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you
think
it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming
from
libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with
?
Which law are you referring to?
The same law that would have gotten Benedict Arnold hung by the
neck had he not fled to England.
Main Entry: trea·son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from
Latin
tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over,
betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the
government
of
the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or
personally
injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Treachery. Betrayal of Trust. Whether inadvertent or not, Armitage
is guilty. Those guys are in the intelligence business, and simply
claiming they didn't know any better just means they're incompetent.
What are you going to do? Throw the dictionary at him?
I just threw the dictionary at you. You're the one who didn't
know what treason meant.
Now wait a minute -- first you were referring to law, and now you've
suddenly switched to the dictionary. You can't convict someone of
treason based on a dictionary definition.
You can if the dictionary definition matches the legal definition.
Giving one's countrymen away to potential enemies is an act of
betrayal of your country... in effect waging war against your
country. Which part of betraying one's country are you having
difficulty understanding ?
treason n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in
Article III, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution: "Treason against
the United States shall consist only in levying war against them,
or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government
security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the
information could harm American security. Treason can include
revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design
of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense
Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign
power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its
agencies, particularly involved in security) but is separate and
worse than "sedition" which involves a conspiracy to upset the
operation of the government. (See: sedition, espionage)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
09 Sep 2006 03:21:01 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven
Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Now that the identity of the person who leaked Valerie
Plame's
name
is
known, I'm surprised there has been no outrage
expressed
by
the
liberal
posters on this group. I remember plenty of outraged
speculation
on
this group about potential suspects, but now that the
actual
leaker's
identity is known, we have silence from this group's
lib
posters.
Why?
The damage is already done, the crime committed.
What crime was that, dummy? Richard Armitage hasn't been
charged
with
a
crime.
We call it treason, one of the highest crimes you can
commit
against your country.
Are you calling for the now known leaker to be charged with
treason?
No amount of 'outrage' can undo it.
There is no liberal outrage about Richard Armitage
leaking
Valerie
Plame's name, because all that *false* outrage (for
months)
about
her
name being leaked was never about her.
You should be outraged by an act of treason against your
country,
but you don't seem to be. That would indicate that you
think
it's
ok.
I don't think it was an act of treason. That's all coming
from
libs
like you.
Which part about breaking the law are you having trouble with
?
Which law are you referring to?
The same law that would have gotten Benedict Arnold hung by the
neck had he not fled to England.
Main Entry: trea=B7son
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Anglo-French traisun, from
Latin
tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over,
betray -- more at TRAITOR
1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the
government
of
the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or
personally
injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family
Treachery. Betrayal of Trust. Whether inadvertent or not, Armitage
is guilty. Those guys are in the intelligence business, and simply
claiming they didn't know any better just means they're incompetent.
What are you going to do? Throw the dictionary at him?
I just threw the dictionary at you. You're the one who didn't
know what treason meant.
Now wait a minute -- first you were referring to law, and now you've
suddenly switched to the dictionary. You can't convict someone of
treason based on a dictionary definition.
You can if the dictionary definition matches the legal definition.
No, I asked you which law you were referring to, and you came back with
a dictionary definition. You can't prosecute someone based on what the
dictionary said. Wow, I knew you were ... uh, well, let's just say I
thought maybe you might be just a bit smarter than this. Amazing.
Giving one's countrymen away to potential enemies is an act of
betrayal of your country... in effect waging war against your
country. Which part of betraying one's country are you having
difficulty understanding ?
Which part of the law are you having difficulty understanding? I asked
you to make your case based on the Constitution, and so far all you've
done is dodge and weave.
treason n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in
Article III, section 3 of the U. S. Constitution: "Treason against
the United States shall consist only in levying war against them,
or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."
Uh, did you miss the part of the thread where I already quoted Article
3, section 3? Why did you feel the need to repeat it? I'm still waiting
for you to make your case for prosecuting Armitage based on the
Constitution. Do you still plan on using the dictionary instead?
Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government
security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the
information could harm American security. Treason can include
revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design
of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense
Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign
power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its
agencies, particularly involved in security) but is separate and
worse than "sedition" which involves a conspiracy to upset the
operation of the government. (See: sedition, espionage)
Nice quoting. But I'm still waiting for you to make your case against
Armitage using the Constitution. And if you believe Armitage should be
tried for treason, why do you think prosecutor Fitzgerald hasn't made
that move? He's known for quite some time that Armitage was the leaker,
and he doesn't seem to be having news conferences showing all the
reasons why Armitage should be prosecuted. Can you explain that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Any conservative outrage ?? |
09 Sep 2006 08:59:24 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government
security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the
information could harm American security. Treason can include
revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design
of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense
Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign
power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its
agencies, particularly involved in security) but is separate and
worse than "sedition" which involves a conspiracy to upset the
operation of the government. (See: sedition, espionage)
Nice quoting. But I'm still waiting for you to make your case against
Armitage using the Constitution.
Thank you, I liked the quote myself. I'll leave the 'making cases'
to the lawyers. You see the statements above about 'Treason includes
giving of government security secrets to other countries', and
'Treason can include revealing a country's secrets' ?? It's nice
that you're willing to read the Constitution, and it's nice you
have an opinion on this, but any court in the country would beg
to differ with your opinion. Armitage may get lenient treatment
because he cooperated and because he apparently didn't know what
he was doing, but ignorance has never been a valid defense for
people of sound mind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Any conservative outrage ?? |
09 Sep 2006 10:53:36 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government
security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the
information could harm American security. Treason can include
revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design
of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense
Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign
power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its
agencies, particularly involved in security) but is separate and
worse than "sedition" which involves a conspiracy to upset the
operation of the government. (See: sedition, espionage)
Nice quoting. But I'm still waiting for you to make your case against
Armitage using the Constitution.
Thank you, I liked the quote myself. I'll leave the 'making cases'
to the lawyers.
Good move.
You see the statements above about 'Treason includes
giving of government security secrets to other countries', and
'Treason can include revealing a country's secrets' ?? It's nice
that you're willing to read the Constitution, and it's nice you
have an opinion on this, but any court in the country would beg
to differ with your opinion.
Really? You think any court in the country would entertain treason
charges against Armitage? Seriously, please respond to this question.
Armitage may get lenient treatment
because he cooperated and because he apparently didn't know what
he was doing, but ignorance has never been a valid defense for
people of sound mind.
Not to mention your ignorance of the Constitutional threshold for
charging someone with treason.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Any conservative outrage ?? |
10 Sep 2006 06:47:33 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:53:36 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government
security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the
information could harm American security. Treason can include
revealing to an antagonistic country secrets such as the design
of a bomber being built by a private company for the Defense
Department. Treason may include "espionage" (spying for a foreign
power or doing damage to the operation of the government and its
agencies, particularly involved in security) but is separate and
worse than "sedition" which involves a conspiracy to upset the
operation of the government. (See: sedition, espionage)
Nice quoting. But I'm still waiting for you to make your case against
Armitage using the Constitution.
Thank you, I liked the quote myself. I'll leave the 'making cases'
to the lawyers.
Good move.
You see the statements above about 'Treason includes
giving of government security secrets to other countries', and
'Treason can include revealing a country's secrets' ?? It's nice
that you're willing to read the Constitution, and it's nice you
have an opinion on this, but any court in the country would beg
to differ with your opinion.
Really? You think any court in the country would entertain treason
charges against Armitage? Seriously, please respond to this question.
Armitage may get lenient treatment
because he cooperated and because he apparently didn't know what
he was doing, but ignorance has never been a valid defense for
people of sound mind.
Not to mention your ignorance of the Constitutional threshold for
charging someone with treason.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and
Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony
of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no
Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except
during the Life of the Person attainted."
I would say that outing an undercover spy, and therefore all her contacts
and front companies, would constitute giving "Aid and Comfort" to various
terrorist organizations engaged in a terrorist war against the United
State. Perhaps a court would disagree with me, but that is up to the
court system, not you.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 02:35:08 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
There is no liberal outrage about Richard
Armitage leaking Valerie Plame's name,
I'm sorry, but why do you think the State Department
doesn't come under the control of the Whitehouse?
Not to mention one tiny fact that you keep conveniently
ignoring: There was a partisan GOP campaign against
Plame and here husband.
All the GOP talking heads did make the rounds,
falsely claiming that Plame had sent her husband on
the trip to Nigeria, falsely claiming that her husband
said that ***** Cheney had sent him. The GOP invested
a great deal of time & trouble into smearing her, her
husband and the ACCURATE information that was
gathered.
Plus, Rove DID out her! The current claims about
Armitage can't change that. Even if he was the
ORIGINAL source of the information, there's still no
denying the fact that the information got to Rove, and
he passed it along to people outside the government.
Seriously, you're not actually pretending it was okay
for Rove to broadcast the identity of a deep undercover
CIA operative working on tracking down WMDs just
because Armitage thought is was okay?
And you're not seriously expecting us to forget the
hours & hours of air time, and miles & miles of
print the Republicans invested into smearing Plame,
right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 07:24:53 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157441708.232554.313180@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
There is no liberal outrage about Richard
Armitage leaking Valerie Plame's name,
I'm sorry, but why do you think the State Department
doesn't come under the control of the Whitehouse?
Not to mention one tiny fact that you keep conveniently
ignoring: There was a partisan GOP campaign against
Plame and here husband.
All the GOP talking heads did make the rounds,
falsely claiming that Plame had sent her husband on
the trip to Nigeria, falsely claiming that her husband
said that ***** Cheney had sent him. The GOP invested
a great deal of time & trouble into smearing her, her
husband and the ACCURATE information that was
gathered.
Plus, Rove DID out her! The current claims about
Armitage can't change that. Even if he was the
ORIGINAL source of the information, there's still no
denying the fact that the information got to Rove, and
he passed it along to people outside the government.
Seriously, you're not actually pretending it was okay
for Rove to broadcast the identity of a deep undercover
CIA operative working on tracking down WMDs just
because Armitage thought is was okay?
And you're not seriously expecting us to forget the
hours & hours of air time, and miles & miles of
print the Republicans invested into smearing Plame,
right?
Easy, don't complicate the spin with the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 04:37:48 PM |
|
|
John Lemke wrote:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157441708.232554.313180@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
There is no liberal outrage about Richard
Armitage leaking Valerie Plame's name,
I'm sorry, but why do you think the State Department
doesn't come under the control of the Whitehouse?
Not to mention one tiny fact that you keep conveniently
ignoring: There was a partisan GOP campaign against
Plame and here husband.
All the GOP talking heads did make the rounds,
falsely claiming that Plame had sent her husband on
the trip to Nigeria, falsely claiming that her husband
said that ***** Cheney had sent him. The GOP invested
a great deal of time & trouble into smearing her, her
husband and the ACCURATE information that was
gathered.
Plus, Rove DID out her! The current claims about
Armitage can't change that. Even if he was the
ORIGINAL source of the information, there's still no
denying the fact that the information got to Rove, and
he passed it along to people outside the government.
Seriously, you're not actually pretending it was okay
for Rove to broadcast the identity of a deep undercover
CIA operative working on tracking down WMDs just
because Armitage thought is was okay?
And you're not seriously expecting us to forget the
hours & hours of air time, and miles & miles of
print the Republicans invested into smearing Plame,
right?
Easy, don't complicate the spin with the truth.
What spin? Where's your outrage? Your own *false* outrage seems to have
disappeared, which is just the point I made about libs at the top of
this thread.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 11:35:48 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
John Lemke wrote:
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157441708.232554.313180@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Steven Douglas wrote:
There is no liberal outrage about Richard
Armitage leaking Valerie Plame's name,
I'm sorry, but why do you think the State Department
doesn't come under the control of the Whitehouse?
Not to mention one tiny fact that you keep conveniently
ignoring: There was a partisan GOP campaign against
Plame and here husband.
All the GOP talking heads did make the rounds,
falsely claiming that Plame had sent her husband on
the trip to Nigeria, falsely claiming that her husband
said that ***** Cheney had sent him. The GOP invested
a great deal of time & trouble into smearing her, her
husband and the ACCURATE information that was
gathered.
Plus, Rove DID out her! The current claims about
Armitage can't change that. Even if he was the
ORIGINAL source of the information, there's still no
denying the fact that the information got to Rove, and
he passed it along to people outside the government.
Seriously, you're not actually pretending it was okay
for Rove to broadcast the identity of a deep undercover
CIA operative working on tracking down WMDs just
because Armitage thought is was okay?
And you're not seriously expecting us to forget the
hours & hours of air time, and miles & miles of
print the Republicans invested into smearing Plame,
right?
Easy, don't complicate the spin with the truth.
What spin? Where's your outrage? Your own *false* outrage seems to have
disappeared, which is just the point I made about libs at the top of
this thread.
Outrage ? How about we send Armitage (and probably a few others)
to prison for their Benedict Arnold ways. The neocons hate their
country and love themselves.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 04:35:57 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
There is no liberal outrage about Richard
Armitage leaking Valerie Plame's name,
I'm sorry, but why do you think the State Department
doesn't come under the control of the Whitehouse?
So you think Bush ordered Armitage to leak her name?
Not to mention one tiny fact that you keep conveniently
ignoring: There was a partisan GOP campaign against
Plame and here husband.
I have neither ignored nor made it a point. I just looked at my
original post in this thread, and I asked what happened to the liberal
outrage over the leaking of Plame's name; and it appears that outrage
is nowhere to be seen -- well, other than your posts here, but your
outrage seems more aimed at me than anywhere else.
All the GOP talking heads did make the rounds,
falsely claiming that Plame had sent her husband on
the trip to Nigeria, falsely claiming that her husband
said that ***** Cheney had sent him. The GOP invested
a great deal of time & trouble into smearing her, her
husband and the ACCURATE information that was
gathered.
Wilson was discredited by a Senate committee.
Plus, Rove DID out her! The current claims about
Armitage can't change that. Even if he was the
ORIGINAL source of the information, there's still no
denying the fact that the information got to Rove, and
he passed it along to people outside the government.
You mean AFTER her name was already public?
Seriously, you're not actually pretending it was okay
for Rove to broadcast the identity of a deep undercover
CIA operative working on tracking down WMDs just
because Armitage thought is was okay?
Deep undercover? Please post a credible source that says Plame was deep
undercover within the previous five years of her name being made public
by Armitage. And by the way, I'm not defending Armitage -- maybe you're
confused in that regard. My point in this thread was to ask what
happened to all that liberal outrage -- and you seem more outraged at
me than at Armitage.
And you're not seriously expecting us to forget the
hours & hours of air time, and miles & miles of
print the Republicans invested into smearing Plame,
right?
If anything, the libs do seem to have forgotten their previous *false*
outrage. And it was *false* outrage because it has disappeared now that
they can't pin this on Rove. What a bunch of fakes with their *false*
outrage! Your feeble attempt here is as phoney as it gets, because
you're more outraged with me than you are the event you're supposedly
*outraged* over!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
05 Sep 2006 11:19:07 PM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
So you think Bush ordered Armitage to leak her name?
I'm pointing out the fact the you keep pretending you know
the motives, while you clearly have no idea.
Not to mention one tiny fact that you keep conveniently
ignoring: There was a partisan GOP campaign against
Plame and here husband.
I have neither ignored nor made it a point.
Liar. You're pretending that she wasn't outed as part of a
GOP campaign against her, when we all know for a fact
that there was a GOP campaign against her.
All the GOP talking heads did make the rounds,
falsely claiming that Plame had sent her husband on
the trip to Nigeria, falsely claiming that her husband
said that ***** Cheney had sent him. The GOP invested
a great deal of time & trouble into smearing her, her
husband and the ACCURATE information that was
gathered.
Wilson was discredited by a Senate committee.
Try again. Everything Wilson reported was true: Saddam
hadn't tried to by the uranium but Iran did. That's what
Wilson showed. He reported that Iran had attempted to
buy uranium from Nigeria.
Plus, Rove DID out her! The current claims about
Armitage can't change that. Even if he was the
ORIGINAL source of the information, there's still no
denying the fact that the information got to Rove, and
he passed it along to people outside the government.
You mean AFTER her name was already public?
Her name wasn't public. Not that it ever mattered. When
you have a security clearance, you're not allowed to
talk about secrets... even if they have been published...
even if they only became classified AFTER they were
published.
But what you seem to be saying that if Armitage
really did identify Plame as a deep undercover CIA
operative, that makes it okay for Rove to do it.
Seriously, you're not actually pretending it was okay
for Rove to broadcast the identity of a deep undercover
CIA operative working on tracking down WMDs just
because Armitage thought is was okay?
Deep undercover?
Yup.
Please post a credible source that says Plame was
deep undercover within the previous five years of her
name being made public by Armitage.
You're not very bright, so there's something I have to
tell you: The details of her work & assignments
remain classified.
Here's a letter from an intelligence officer on the subject,
which he wrote to your gods in the Republican leadership.
http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2005/07/intlet.pdf#search=%22plame%20deep20undercover%22
And, oh:
http://www.slate.com/id/2089062/
Plame had no official cover. To the outside world, she
worked for a private company -- a CIA front company.
By exposing her the way the Whithouse did, foreign
agents can now reverse engineer her work simply
by examining the companies activities in their country.
By identifying people who had contact with her
company -- "business relationships" -- foreign agents
can identify & apprehend anyone helping America to
track down WMDs.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/235/bush-press.html
And by the way, I'm not defending Armitage --
Of course you are. You're defending Armitage, the people
he worked for and the people who willingly took part in
the partisan smear campaign against Plame.
And you're not seriously expecting us to forget the
hours & hours of air time, and miles & miles of
print the Republicans invested into smearing Plame,
right?
If anything, the libs do seem to have forgotten their
previous *false* outrage.
There's no "False" outrage. Plame was outed as part
of a partisan Republican campaign to smear her. We
all know this for a fact. We all witnessed the campaign.
Heck, it has yet to stop. The Republican-loving Manchester
Union Leader published a story just last Wednesday
that repeated the lie that her husband claimed ***** Cheney
sent him on the trip.
You knew it was ***** from the start. You did. Yes, you
knew the Republicans were lying. How?
BECAUSE IT NEVER MATTERED!
If his wife had sent him he would have said his wife sent
him. BECAUSE IT NEVER MATTERED. His wife was
a deep undercover CIA agent. She was trained by our
government, swore an oath to our constitution and was
assigned duties with the aim of protecting America
against threats and preserving our national interests.
You're a traitor. You never gave a damn about the truth,
and you certainly don't now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 12:20:34 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Steven Douglas wrote:
So you think Bush ordered Armitage to leak her name?
I'm pointing out the fact the you keep pretending you know
the motives, while you clearly have no idea.
I'm not pretending anything. I asked where the liberal outrage was now
that it has been determined Armitage was the leaker, and you have
expressed some outrage -- at me. But at least you've proven me wrong
about what I perceived as a lack of liberal outrage. You're certainly
outraged -- at me. Meanwhile, regarding all your other points, I'll
wait and see what happens with the ongoing lawsuit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: No liberal outrage? |
06 Sep 2006 12:51:15 AM |
|
|
Steven Douglas wrote:
I'm not pretending anything.
Of course you are!
We all know -- including you -- that Plame was
outed as part of a well organized party-wide
campaign against her, yet you insist on pretending
the highest ranking & foremost Republican
political strategist (Karl Rove) could not possibly
have had anything to do with it... even though we
also know that he did personally out her to some
people outside the government.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | |
