Quote:

---

Originally posted by Signym:
Dreamtrove, I'm sorry to say this but you're so hopelessly wrapped up in ideology that you can't see the truth even when it's right in front of you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Citizen,

I said I'm not getting baited in to your flame war. You are now the troll I have decided not to feed. 90% of everything you say is cr@p. Probably 100% of what you just posted re: me is wrong.

---

You were the one who started throwing around insults, you're the troll.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
DT's ability to assume his opinion is unbiased fact is truly amazing, not to mention annoying. Since coming back here he’s really taken a dive off the deep end, he seems to consider any discussion pointless, because there’s what he thinks and there’s being wrong.

I'm almost surprised that in the pictures of God thread he didn't post pictures of himself, he seems to think he has God’s insight.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Lil prick cussed me out in KLINGON - man that's a weird town, really it is.

---

Quote:

---

Lil prick cussed me out in KLINGON

---

Quote:

---

What I said is that this huge expansion of the the Federal budget and Federal power is unsustainable. (Except for people like Auraptor who's so fearful he'll give up ANYTHING to feel safe. Which of course he never will.)

---

Quote:

---

Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- to back up my claim: You'd give up civil rights. You have said so many time over. And in doing so, you'd be rushing headlong into the dictatorial one-world government that DT so greatly fears.

EDITED TO ADD: Oh yeah, not a SINGLE link in your Plamegate posts either.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Plame's Lame Game
What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 12:27 PM ET

The Senate's report on intelligence failures would appear to confirm that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband Joseph Wilson for the mission to Niger. In a memo written to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, she asserted that Wilson had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger], not to mention lots of French contacts." This makes a poor fit with Wilson's claim, in a recent book, that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." (It incidentally seems that she was able to recommend him for the trip because of the contacts he'd made on an earlier trip, for which she had also proposed him.)

Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this. (See Susan Schmidt's article in the July 10 Washington Post.) http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/

---

Quote:

---

Auraptor- to back up my claim: You'd give up civil rights. You have said so many time over. And in doing so, you'd be rushing headlong into the dictatorial one-world government that DT so greatly fears.- SignyM

I have never said any such thing. Sorry, you're wrong. Must have me confused w/ someone else. -Auraptor

Here's one: "Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack."

fireflyfan.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=17189 - Signy

---

Quote:

---

But when you post something like "Plame wasn't even a covert op"... WHOA! That's not what the CIA said! That's why they asked for an investigation, not Justice. So where do you get THAT little gem? Hannity? Limbaugh? O'Reilly? Better post THAT link.

---

Quote:

---

"Warrant, no warrant, I still support what The President is doing in regards to fighting terrorism and ' collecting the dots ', before another attack."

---

Quote:

---

Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

---

Quote:

---

And what they will see is that the point was that if they were "known" or even suspected terrorists, the Bush Administration could EASILY get a FISA surveillance order if required. You don't care whether they get a warrant or not, even if required by law. That's giving up your civil rights.

---

Quote:

---

Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing. When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives, I have no delusions in thinking that means me. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that is what the Gov't is wasting its time w/ random searches of any/every American. That'd be ridiculous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor: providing "context" for your comments, here are MORE of your comments from the same thread: -

Quote:

---

Where do you get that idea, unless you're paranoid? Under no circumstances am I "OK" with the Gov't snooping me or any average Joe. But that isn't what they're doing. When they say they're monitoring KNOWN terrorist operatives, I have no delusions in thinking that means me. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that is what the Gov't is wasting its time w/ random searches of any/every American. That'd be ridiculous.

---

Then you and Bush are ridiculous together.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:

Point is you can say anything, and as DT has shown its really easy if you don't feel the need to back anything up with evidence outside of your own words.

For instance I could say:
George Bush is an Alien invader, head of a master race who wish to turn the Earth into a radioactive waste ground and sell it as spacecraft fuel.

Would you consider this worthy of debate? I think not, but why should we take you at your word that this is nonsense if you are unwilling to back up your claims with data. Words are cheap on the internet, the words of someone with no data to backup their claims even cheaper.

---

Quote:

---

The burden of proof lies upon those making the claims. I have been willing to back up my cliams, you've just not been interested in what I say.

---

Quote:

---

Sig says I'm willing to trade my freedoms for security. That is a false statement. He offers my own words, and then the wrong conclusion that because I say Bush is right in something, that means I'm giving up my freedoms. Not one of my freedoms have been given up

---

Quote:

---

By exposing her identity, they forced her sources to become dried up, or killed, and effectively put her out of work, which was undoubtedly the goal. The purpose of this was to hinder the CIA's independent WMD research division, to prevent a vision of intelligence contrary to the fantasy concocted by the executive from reaching the light of day before critical decisions were made.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Anger management, look into it.

---

Quote:

---

"dogs are more intelligent than people"

Is not what I said.

---

Quote:

---

I said , according to the intelligence trends, about 150,000 years ago, when humans and dogs began their association with one another, dogs were more intelligent than people, by about 10 eq points or so, which is the margin by which a middle of the road downes syndrome case is smarter than a chimpanzee. It's and interesting thought. It may explain why we feed dogs. Of course, since then, dogs have been getting steadily dumber, and humans, up until about 40,000 years ago, were getting smarter.

---

Quote:

---

You problbly should ask Joe Wilson what was on HIS mind when he outted his wife

---

Quote:

---

The burden of proof lies upon those making the claims.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Look Auraptor- either straighten up or we'll ignore you off the board.

---

Quote:

---

WND Exclusive THE PLAME GAME
Analyst says Wilson
'outed' wife in 2002
Disclosed in casual conversations
a year before Novak column
Posted: November 5, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242

---

Quote:

---

So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: “Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”

Since Novak did not report that Plame was “working covertly” how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?

Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a “statement of fact.” But in the article, he asserts that Novak “outed” Plame “as an undercover CIA officer.” Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, “outing” Plame’s “undercover” status.

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, “I will not answer questions about my wife.” Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed.

Corn also claims that Wilson “will not confirm nor deny that his wife …works for the CIA.” Corn adds: “But let’s assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson …”

On what basis could Corn “assume” that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a “top-secret” operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been “outed” in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column which, as I noted, is sympathetic to Wilson and Plame.

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.

Keep in mind that from early on there were two possible but contradictory scenarios:

1) Members of the Bush administration intentionally exposed a covert CIA agent as a way to take revenge against her husband who had written a critical op-ed.

2) Members of the Bush administration were attempting to set the record straight by telling reporters that it was not Vice President Cheney who sent Wilson on the Africa assignment as Wilson claimed; rather Wilson’s wife, a CIA employee, helped get him the assignment. (And that is indeed the conclusion of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee.)

Corn’s article then goes on to provide specific details about Plame’s undercover work, her “dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material.” But how does Corn know about that? From what source could he have learned it?

Corn concludes that Plame’s career “has been destroyed by the Bush administration.” And here he does, finally, quote Wilson directly. Wilson says: “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.”

Corn has assured us several times that Wilson refused to answer questions about his wife, refused to confirm or deny that she worked for the CIA, refused to “acknowledge whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee.” But he is willing to say on the record that “naming her this way” was an act of treachery? That’s not talking about his wife? That’s not providing confirmation? There is only one way to interpret this: Wilson did indeed talk about his wife, her work as a secret agent, and other matters to Corn (and perhaps others?) on a confidential basis.

If Wilson did tell Corn that his wife was an undercover agent, did he commit a crime? I don’t claim to know. But the charge that someone committed a crime by naming Plame as a covert agent was also made by Corn, apparently for the first time, in this same article. No doubt, the independent prosecutor and the grand jury will sort it out.

Criminality aside, if Wilson revealed to Corn that Plame worked as a CIA “deep-cover” operative “tracking parties trying to buy or sell” WMDs, surely that’s news.

And it is consequential: On the basis of Novak’s story alone, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have had a clue that Plame — presumably under a different name and while living in a foreign country — had been a NOC. At most, her friends in Washington would have been surprised to learn that she didn’t work where she said she worked.

But once Corn published the fact that Plame had been a “top-secret operative,” and once he quoted Wilson saying what exposing his wife would mean — and once Plame posed for Vanity Fair photographers — anyone who had ever known her in a different context and with a different identity would have been tipped off.

But they would not have been tipped by Novak — nor, based on what we know so far, by Karl Rove. Rather, it appears they would have been tipped off by Joe Wilson who, the publicly available evidence strongly suggests, leaked like a sieve to The Nation’s David Corn. http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp

---

Quote:

---

it's among the cheapest, most petty and small tactics to highlight an obvious typo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
And it's among the cheapest, most petty and small tactics to highlight an obvious typo.

---

Quote:

---

Also, it was the CIA's director George Tenent ( appointed by Clinton) who said that WMD in Iraq was "..a slam dunk ".

---

Quote:

---

BTW- As loony as PN is, he's a FAR better contributor than you. He looks things up, he references his sources, about 75% of what he says is true, verifiable, and off the radar of most folks.

---