Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2015, 11:43:02 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 [1033] 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 ... 1292
25801  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: I'M SORRY BUT ...34% say Rove should resign! on: July 20, 2005, 01:32:34 pm
That's what I meant by out, they're covert. They also blew her covert "company". It was all retaliation for Wilson showing that Bush had lied about Iraq buying Uranium from Niger. Sad that you don't see a problem this. We need people who think critically of members of their own party. You Republicans are sad.

What you say and what you mean are two different things.  Again, something you can work on and correct by slowing down and taking the time to verify what you are saying.  As far as the "front" (not covert) company, it was outed by the reporter who gained access to Plame's tax records where it showed she made a contribution to Gore's campaign, listing the front companies name on the W-2.  If you want to be technical about it, you could say she outed the company herself through that action.  And remember, the Uranium claim was based off of British intelligence and documents which turned out to be forged.  However, the intelligence commission indicated that the doubt gave more credit to the fact that more investigation needs to be done in Niger, dispite the conclusions Wilson made of no activity occurring.

(And for the last time, I'm a former reformist turned Independent.  You're testing my patience on this matter.)
[/quote

I'm merely pointing out your double standards. ]
25802  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 01:01:37 pm
He signed non-discolure agreements. I'm just saying it's possible he could be charged with that. Now you still haven't said whether you support the Iraq war.

No, he can't.  That's what I'm trying to point out to you.  You are accusing him of crimes which he cannot be charged for (trying to help you out here so you don't look foolish).  And as far as the war goes, you know I support it (we've discussed that in the past too).

You are a giant hypocrite if you supported the war based upon lies and then are whining about how I supposedly lied.
25803  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: I'M SORRY BUT ...34% say Rove should resign! on: July 20, 2005, 01:00:33 pm
If Rove mentioned she was CIA but didn't mention she was covert, it doesn't make it any less illegal. It's obvious that they're hiding something, and there seem to be double standards on proof.  Remember what this was all about, the Iraq war.

Not at all.  That would be the same as him saying I work for a defense contractor.  It's a reference to her employer, which coincidentally was the one who sent her husband over seas.  Not illegal at all.

It's illegal to out CIA agents, even if all you mention is they work for the CIA.

Actually, that's blatantly incorrect.  It's illegal to out covert agents, and it has to be done intentionally.  There are much more non-covert agents that work for the CIA than there are covert ones. They work in many aspects, from working with foreign governments on investigations down to doing background security checks. 

That's what I meant by out, they're covert. They also blew her covert "company". It was all retaliation for Wilson showing that Bush had lied about Iraq buying Uranium from Niger. Sad that you don't see a problem this. We need people who think critically of members of their own party. You Republicans are sad.
25804  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: I'M SORRY BUT ...34% say Rove should resign! on: July 20, 2005, 12:06:16 pm
Only half of Democrats even think he should resign. Not really a call from the people.

And 42% haven't been paying much attention.
25805  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: I'M SORRY BUT ...34% say Rove should resign! on: July 20, 2005, 11:38:44 am
If Rove mentioned she was CIA but didn't mention she was covert, it doesn't make it any less illegal. It's obvious that they're hiding something, and there seem to be double standards on proof.  Remember what this was all about, the Iraq war.

Not at all.  That would be the same as him saying I work for a defense contractor.  It's a reference to her employer, which coincidentally was the one who sent her husband over seas.  Not illegal at all.

It's illegal to out CIA agents, even if all you mention is they work for the CIA.
25806  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 11:38:00 am
I said that there were some minor corrections based upon updated news. Calling me a liar for that, while not questioning why we wen to war is 100% bullsh**t.

I'm sorry, I'm still stuck on your espionage comment an hour ago.  Care to readdress that accusation?

All I said was it was possible that he'd be charged with espionage. 

How would he be guilty of espionage.  Which country is he an agent for?   Treason is also a hard one to prove, since he would have to be trying to overthrow the government or aid a foreign nation.  This is what I'm getting at.  You are making accusations with no grounds.   Now, if you want to charge him for violating the protection act, that's ok, since that would be applicable in this case.  However, treason and espionage are not.



He signed non-discolure agreements. I'm just saying it's possible he could be charged with that. Now you still haven't said whether you support the Iraq war.
25807  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: I'M SORRY BUT ...34% say Rove should resign! on: July 20, 2005, 11:28:01 am

Like I said before:

If Rove is found to be guilty of exposing Plame as an agent, he should be fired and face the criminal charges accordingly.

If Rove is found to have intentionally leaked the name of Plame, but not that she was a covert agent, he should be asked to resign.

If Rove is found to have passed on information he should not have accidentally, but is not guilty of anything, he should offer to step down gracefully after the investigator gives his final report on the issue.

But NO ONE has the right to demand him to step down when there is an investigation in process.

If Rove mentioned she was CIA but didn't mention she was covert, it doesn't make it any less illegal. It's obvious that they're hiding something, and there seem to be double standards on proof.  Remember what this was all about, the Iraq war.
25808  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 11:26:07 am
OH MY GOD OH MY GOD JFERN JUST EXPOSED THE NAMES OF CIA AGENTS ALL OVER THE INTERNET LOL!!!111

Nice of you to think that espionage is a laughing matter.
25809  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 11:22:45 am
I said that there were some minor corrections based upon updated news. Calling me a liar for that, while not questioning why we wen to war is 100% bullsh**t.

I'm sorry, I'm still stuck on your espionage comment an hour ago.  Care to readdress that accusation?

All I said was it was possible that he'd be charged with espionage.  Now do you support this war?
25810  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 11:16:09 am
Oh, please, I am sick of you stupid low-life partisans trying to attack me, when this ing adminstration has lied no stop. How sad that you would rather try to straw man a lie out of me then accept that the Bush adminstration has not been 100% truthful. If you weren't lame partisan hacks you would question politicians of both your own and the other party.

Fortunately I'm an Independent, so I can question everyone.  The problem is, you are the first to point out partisanship but yet are blind to recognize the same trait within yourself.  That is why people correct you so often, especially when you make wild accusations.  If you took more time to think about what you say, research the matter, and then post, people will be more accepting of your stances on issues. 

I said that there were some minor corrections based upon updated news. Calling me a liar for that, while not questioning why we wen to war is 100% bullsh**t.
25811  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 11:09:45 am
Sad how certain posters would rather make fun of me then think about what Rove actually did.

We have debated of his role in the situation already.  We now look at the person making flase allegations against him. 

Oh, please, I am sick of you stupid low-life partisans trying to attack me, when this ing adminstration has lied no stop. How sad that you would rather try to straw man a lie out of me then accept that the Bush adminstration has not been 100% truthful. If you weren't lame partisan hacks you would question politicians of both your own and the other party.
25812  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 11:03:46 am
Sad how certain posters would rather make fun of me then think about what Rove actually did.
25813  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: John Roberts' Confirmation to the Supreme Court on: July 20, 2005, 10:54:17 am
jfern said something about it. Early in his career Roberts represented Reagan's administration on the issue and thus various communist "civil rights" groups will whine a little.

Only communists care about civil rights?
25814  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What do you think happens if Planned Parenthood vs. Casey gets struck down? on: July 20, 2005, 10:23:48 am
The replacement of just O'Connor doesn't strike Casey since Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer and Kennedy will still support it.

The principal abortion ruling under threat is Stenberg v. Carhart, which was effectively decided by O'Connor's swing vote.

There's a round of litigation bumping through the appeals courts somewhere over this I think, so it wouldn't be too long before it could acutally appear on the High Court.

Well obviously someone like 85 years old Stevens would have to be replaced by a conservative.
25815  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What is there to know about John Roberts? on: July 20, 2005, 10:09:42 am
He said “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” That doesn't sound like a lot of weight to precedent.
What he said doesn't matter, as long as he applied the precedent to the case before him.

My point is that the media can stop making him seem pro-choice, when we all know he'll vote to strike down Planned Parenthood vs. Casey as a member of the SCOTUS.
25816  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What do you think happens if Planned Parenthood vs. Casey gets struck down? on: July 20, 2005, 10:07:44 am
Naunced argument.  Striking something down does nt mean that the law will change.

What? I said assuming that it's struck down.  What do you mean the law wouldn't change?
25817  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 10:06:28 am
The act was intended to cover covert agents.  It is exeptionally hard to claim that she was a covert agent at the time her name was public; Joe Wilson claims she wasn't.  Now, the act does have a time limit; somebody had to have been a covert agent within the timeframe within the act.

Was Ms. Plame, a covert agent within this time frame.  That hasn't been established.

She wasn't covert because her name had been leaked. And even if as you claim she wasn't covert, outting her and her "company" put other agents at risk. One covert CIA agent did die in 2003, it could have been because of this.

In any case, Rove could be charged with espionage. I'm sick of you mindless Rove/Bush apoligists mindlessly apoligizing. If there was a Democratic adminstration this curropt, I would certainly not be defending them.
25818  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / What do you think happens if Planned Parenthood vs. Casey gets struck down? on: July 20, 2005, 10:04:00 am
Rather than having people parrot the line "Roe vs. Wade will never be struck down", I remind people that Roe vs. Wade was struck down in 1992, and replaced with the ruling Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Now, what happens if that gets struck down?

The question is, will Congress attempt to restrict state abortion laws? They already did when they banned partial birth abortion.  The question is will they additionally restrict/ban abortion in states like CA and NY that would want to keep abortion?
25819  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What is there to know about John Roberts? on: July 20, 2005, 09:51:42 am
I believe this is what he said during his past confirmation hearing.

“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8634097/


Do you actually believe that he's not anti-abortion?

I didn't say he was.  I'm suggesting that he gives a lot of weight to precedent.

I'm also suggesting that on a personal level, it isn't a big issue.  He didn't say, "While I personally don't approve of abortion ... ."

I'm sure in the Larry Flynt case, very few of the Justices personally approved of Hustler.

He said “We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.” That doesn't sound like a lot of weight to precedent.
25820  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: John Roberts' Confirmation to the Supreme Court on: July 20, 2005, 09:41:11 am
Quote from: jfern link=topic=25657.msg559638#msg559638

Opinions, not rulings. He's only been a judge for 2 years. [quote
Quote

Fine.

What rulings do you have to back up your viewpoint?

As I said, there weren't many, since he's only been on the court 2 years.  There was this one.

Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 2004)
25821  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: John Roberts' Confirmation to the Supreme Court on: July 20, 2005, 09:30:58 am
How is he a "wingnut" exactly?

Anti-enviornment, anti-civil rights, very pro-corporation.

Sounds like a good man to me.
LOL

Jfern, what do you mean by "anti civil rights"?

Voting act, busing, habeas corpus.

And what rulings do you have to back up your viewpoint?
[/quote[

Opinions, not rulings. He's only been a judge for 2 years.
25822  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 09:30:06 am
Non-story with a misleading title.  These are former CIA analysts, not the current leadership of the CIA.

This is probably why it is being roundly ignored by the mainstream media.

Bush appointed a partisan Republican to the head of the CIA, who has been purging the CIA of people who don't accept Bush as their lord and savior.
25823  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / CIA tells Republicans to leave Wilson alone on: July 20, 2005, 09:21:29 am
Bush pourposefully knocked Rovegate out of the news for a day with  his nomination announcement, but time to go back to Rovegate.

Quote
CIA Agents Letter to US Senate and House

18 July 2005

AN OPEN STATEMENT TO THE LEADERS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THE SENATE.

The Honorable Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
The Honorable Dr. William Frist, Majority Leader of the Senate
The Honorable Harry Reid, Minority Leader of the Senate

We, the undersigned former U.S. intelligence officers are concerned with the tone and substance of the public debate over the ongoing Department of Justice investigation into who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and other members of the media, which exposed her status as an undercover CIA officer. The disclosure of Ms. Plame's name was a shameful event in American history and, in our professional judgment, may have damaged U.S. national security and poses a threat to the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering using human sources. Any breach of the code of confidentiality and cover weakens the overall fabric of intelligence, and, directly or indirectly, jeopardizes the work and safety of intelligence workers and their sources.

The Republican National Committee has circulated talking points to supporters to use as part of a coordinated strategy to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. As part of this campaign a common theme is the idea that Ambassador Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame was not undercover and deserved no protection. The following are four recent examples of this "talking point":

Michael Medved stated on Larry King Live on July 12, 2005, "And let's be honest about this. Mrs. Plame, Mrs. Wilson, had a desk job at Langley. She went back and forth every single day."

Victoria Toensing stated on a Fox News program with John Gibson on July 12, 2005 that, "Well, they weren't taking affirmative measures to protect that identity. They gave her a desk job in Langley. You don't really have somebody deep undercover going back and forth to Langley, where people can see them."

Ed Rodgers, Washington Lobbyist and former Republican official, said on July 13, 2005 on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, "And also I think it is now a matter of established fact that Mrs. Plame was not a protected covert agent, and I don't think there's any meaningful investigation about that."

House majority whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo), on Face the Nation, July 17, 2005, "It certainly wouldn't be the first time that the CIA might have been overzealous in sort of maintaining the kind of top-secret definition on things longer than they needed to. You know, this was a job that the ambassador's wife had that she went to every day. It was a desk job. I think many people in Washington understood that her employment was at the CIA, and she went to that office every day."

These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who "work at a desk" in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected.

While we are pleased that the U.S. Department of Justice is conducting an investigation and that the U.S. Attorney General has recused himself, we believe that the partisan attacks against Valerie Plame are sending a deeply discouraging message to the men and women who have agreed to work undercover for their nation's security.

We are not lawyers and are not qualified to determine whether the leakers technically violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. However, we are confident that Valerie Plame was working in a cover status and that our nation's leaders, regardless of political party, have a duty to protect all intelligence officers. We believe it is appropriate for the President to move proactively to dismiss from office or administratively punish any official who participated in any way in revealing Valerie Plame's status. Such an act by the President would send an unambiguous message that leaks of this nature will not be tolerated and would be consistent with his duties as the Commander-in-Chief.

We also believe it is important that Congress speak with one non-partisan voice on this issue. Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs. In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor. We stand in her stead and ask that Republicans and Democrats honor her service to her country and stop the campaign of disparagement and innuendo aimed at discrediting Mrs. Wilson and her husband.

Our friends and colleagues have difficult jobs gathering the intelligence, which helps, for example, to prevent terrorist attacks against Americans at home and abroad. They sometimes face great personal risk and must spend long hours away from family and friends. They serve because they love this country and are committed to protecting it from threats from abroad and to defending the principles of liberty and freedom. They do not expect public acknowledgement for their work, but they do expect and deserve their government's protection of their covert status.

For the good of our country, we ask you to please stand up for every man and woman who works for the U.S. intelligence community and help protect their ability to live their cover.

Sincerely yours,
Larry C. Johnson, former Analyst, CIA

JOINED BY:

Mr. Brent Cavan, former Analyst, CIA
Mr. Vince Cannistraro, former Case Officer, CIA
Mr. Michael Grimaldi, former Analyst, CIA
Mr. Mel Goodman, former senior Analyst, CIA
Col. W. Patrick Lang (US Army retired), former Director, Defense Humint Services, DIA
Mr. David MacMichael, former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council, CIA
Mr. James Marcinkowski, former Case Officer, CIA
Mr. Ray McGovern, former senior Analyst and PDB Briefer, CIA
Mr. Jim Smith, former Case Officer, CIA
Mr. William C. Wagner, former Case Officer, CIA


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/20/63633/1672
25824  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: John Roberts' Confirmation to the Supreme Court on: July 20, 2005, 09:13:10 am
How is he a "wingnut" exactly?

Anti-enviornment, anti-civil rights, very pro-corporation.

Sounds like a good man to me.
LOL

Jfern, what do you mean by "anti civil rights"?

Voting act, busing, habeas corpus.
25825  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should a 12 year old eating French fries on the Metro be a crime? on: July 20, 2005, 09:11:27 am
It shouldn't be a crime, but it isn't an unconstitutional law.

I hope we don't enter the "Nanny mentality" where we think that the SCOTUS should determine what's "good" for us.

But sending a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry is not the "nanny mentality"?

Could you point out where the article says she was sent to jail?

Well, arrest and detention.  Also somewhere made it seem like it was a single french fry.

Well, "somewhere" isn't a credible source. Wink

It think it a credible source, it's just not that important, so I probably won't try and find it again.

Well, I'm just saying that when you say 'somewhere' is your source, it's not a good argument. Doesn't mean your source isn't really credible, but I could say I heard something 'somewhere' and really be making things up.

Do I really have to find it, just to prove that  yet again, my arguments are more factual than most people's on this board?
Pages: 1 ... 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 [1033] 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 ... 1292


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines