Scooter Skates by deadlockvictim

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The CIA, as the clearinghouse agency for threat assessment (among other functions), is charged with making sure the speeches are accurate in content. Are you saying Bush should be allowed to make up whatever facts he wants ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 9, 2007 5:32 PM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

Try this on for size.

For anyone who has read Lewis Libby’s novel The Apprentice, the parallels between the young hero who accidentally becomes the bearer of his country’s secret war plans risking everything to master the art of discretion, and Libby’s own sacrifice at the hands of Patrick Fitzgerald are just a little too eerie.

Did Libby envision himself as the ‘youth’ who, with a pardon from President Bush, would master his apprenticeship and be hailed as a neocon patriot with his own words of “Arise. You are reborn”…?

It’s just weird, but Libby was indeed a sort of Apprentice to Paul Wolfowitz who in turn was a protégée of Albert Wohlstetter, the Rand Corporation and University of Chicago mathematician and nuclear strategist. In 1958, with the Rand Corp., Wohlstetter published “The Delicate Balance of Terror” which took on leaders of American foreign policy as “hapless characters intellectually marooned in a pre-nuclear age.” Wohlsetter argued that to spread liberal democratic values one “must not be resigned to the enslavement of half the planet; he must desire, and plan for, the triumph of freedom, if need be through the use of tactical nuclear bombs.”

Wohlsetter’s reasoning won over a band of followers, Wolfowitz, who met Wohlsetter in 1964 in Chicago, along with Richard Perle and Ahmad Chalabi in the ‘60’s. Libby met Wolfowitz, who was teaching at Yale, in 1971. I think the two must have had a meeting of the minds because when Wolfowitz was working at the State Department as head of foreign policy planning under Ronald Reagan he asked Libby to be his top aide. They put together a team of Wohlstetter devotees that included Perle, Chalabi, Francis Fukuyama and Zalmey Khalilzad, the backbone of the current Neo-Con movement.

In 1992 while working for Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, Libby, Wolfowitz, Khalilzad and Perle, with help from Wohlstetter, wrote a paper entitled “Defense Policy Guidance”, which focused on the danger posed by “Middle Eastern dictators with technologically sophisticated and centralized bureaucracies.” The paper concluded that, “the United States may be faced with the question whether to take military steps to prevent the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.” -- 1992 -- At the time the draft was dismissed by the Pentagon as “mad unilateral ambitions,” but by 2002 Wohlsetter’s ideas had morphed into the Bush Doctrine.

All the plans were laid out. It would be a shining moment. Until Charlie Wilson wrote his little op-ed and the whole house of cards began to fall, and just like in The Apprentice Libby sacrificed himself to keep the “war plans” safe.

Truth is very often stranger than fiction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 9, 2007 8:48 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Are you saying Bush should be allowed to make up whatever facts he wants ?

Ain't that what him and his ilk been doin from day one here, with the avid assistance on a compliant and cheerleading media ?

Oh, and Deadlock ?
Such philosopies aren't even original to Wholstetter, cause he mostly ripped em off of Leo Strauss, who ripped at least part of them off of Plato.

The other link you are missing is the office of Henry M "Scoop" Jackson, where the actual plotting and planning of this little cabal prettymuch began.

Worth a looksee, that is.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 9, 2007 11:43 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The CIA, as the clearinghouse agency for threat assessment (among other functions), is charged with making sure the speeches are accurate in content. Are you saying Bush should be allowed to make up whatever facts he wants ?

It's curious how you dropped the lame 'word smithing' angle, and ran from it. Good call.

Bush didn't make up any facts, so I have no idea what your point is suppose to be.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 2:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Auraptor, you keep saying that all the facts point to Cheney being the victim, but you still haven't shown that this even happened. You say, for example, that the Wilsons outed themselves and Valerie's work for the CIA was "common knowledge" but you can't point to a single neighbor or any identifiable person on the DC circuit who said they knew what Valerie did for a living. Unless you come up with something factual to back it up, it's going to have to go on the "baseless claim" pile.

You claim that the Wilsons conspired to smear Cheney, but even you acknowledged that the mission didn't originate with them, and that Valerie's role was to recommend her husband for the job. Seems like a pretty thin thread of happenstance on which to base a conspiracy. So, was this plan fortuitous? Did Valerie seize on the opportunity to insert her husband in the process, and then went home to cook up a scheme against the war? Or was she such a big wheel in the CIA DO that she could actually make this happen? And if so, how does that square with the original idea floated by the right wing that she was a know-nothing, low-level employee?

And how was this scheme supposed to work? Joe goes to Niger. He writes a report saying that the sale of yellowcake couldn't happen, and that Iraq was probably not shopping for uranium- at least not in Niger. What was supposed to happen after that? If the report was given attention, he would have nipped a problem in the bud, sparing the Administration a mistake. Seems like he was doing them a favor. So it's unclear how Cheney was set up in this whole scheme.

If you could provide a step by step hypothesis that has some verifiable facts behind it - rather than the meaningless "buzz" that's circulating the right-wing media - I'd very much appreciate it.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It was known at the time that it was in fact a bogus claim.

What was bogus? Are you saying that the British Govt. never made such a claim, cause thats wrong, and if they did, then Bush saying they said it is correct.

The inquiry should be into how and if the British govt got it wrong. The facts support that the substance was correct, Saddam was trying, unsuccessfully, to get uranium from Niger as far back as 1994.

But Bush making a statement about what the British had told us was entirely correct...thats what they told us. Even Clinton (Bill) ackowledged that was his understanding as well.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
One of the things you have consistently demonstrated over this long while is your ability to go past the facts and find the rare tidbits you like.

We disagree as to the facts. That makes this sort of discussion problamatic.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 6:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm not going to quote the whole Senate Report here. Read it and you'll have the facts, too. Otherwise, you're just BSing.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm not going to quote the whole Senate Report here. Read it and you'll have the facts, too. Otherwise, you're just BSing.

I've read the whole report. I've also watched and read most of the testimony. The issue is not the report, since we can both cite the relevant portions and proclaim the rightousness of our cause. It seems that the definative issue is whether or not you support the President. If you do, then the report says one thing, if not it says something different.

That makes this a political issue. A fair trial of the facts becomes very difficult in that charged enviroment. I think however it is most telling that those who didn't support the President have looked for reasons to attack on this issue from its very inception. Thats why the when President named reason after reason for war, the Bush-haters heard "WMD" and nothing that came before or after.

To be fair when the President suggested war with Iraq, I was in favor...reason or no reason.

I think the truth is likely somewhere between our two positions. That leaves your position unsupportable, because any amount of truth to the proposition supports the cause for war. You cannot accept that so compromise is impossible.

We can't even agree to disagree...I'm willing, but the Bush-haters'll never put it down.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You say, for example, that the Wilsons outed themselves and Valerie's work for the CIA was "common knowledge" but you can't point to a single neighbor or any identifiable person on the DC circuit who said they knew what Valerie did for a living.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely says Wilson mentioned it to him 3 or 4 times in 2002.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"That's why the when President named reason after reason for the war, the Bush-haters heard "WMD" and nothing that came before or after."

That was one of the tip-offs for me that the war was pre-determined and there was no real reason - just a lot of deception. I actually paid attention to that parade of lame excuses. Other than that, there was the ceaseless lying (eg Hussein kicked the inspectors out and didn't let them back in), the escalation of demands (Hussein and his top officials have to leave Iraq in 24 hours to avoid war), and the supposed intent to expose the military to an arsenal of CBW (yuh).

The facts are immutable, there's no such thing as 'your' truth and 'my' truth. And triangulating (oh, they're somewhere in between the report and my position) won't change that.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wilson says: This is slanderous. I never appeared on tv before at least July 2002 specifically on FOX news, where Vallely said he met Joe Wilson in the "green room". It should be possible, but not easy, to look into Fox's lineup that year and see if Wilson was ever scheduled to appear. If not, Vallely's story goes "poof".

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

and here is is: Additionally, Amato posted "the schedule of FOX appearances. Does it look like these guys ever met up?" he asked. Larry Johnson "said: 'Using the term Fox News with Joseph Wilson and then Paul Vallely I pulled up the attached record of appearances by both gentlemen on FOX during 2002 (March 1 thru December 31). They were never in the studio on the same day, much less the same program. Vallely is lying or maybe having a senior moment.'"
www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swiftboating_Joseph_Wilson

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 8:12 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Why am I not surprised ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I actually paid attention to that parade of lame excuses.

I notice you were unable or unwilling to catalog and debunk those other reasons. For example, the violation of the 1991 cease fire, the almost daily firing on US and British planes executing UN mandated overflights, the failure to return or account for thousands of prisoners abducted from Kuwait, failure to account for WMD stockpiles, kicking out the inspectors (which alone justified Clinton's 1998 military campaign), this is not an exhaustive list, just the ones I remember from the top of my head.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Jeez, for the last effin' time get your facts straight before you waste any of more of my time trying to educate you. Hussein did NOT 'kick in the inspectors out'. The UN withdrew the inspectors b/c the combined US/ British bombing campaign put them in danger. Your other facts are equally stoopid. Don't bother me with this tripe.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Jeez, for the last effin' time get your facts straight before you waste any of more of my time trying to educate you. Hussein did NOT 'kick in the inspectors out'. The UN withdrew the inspectors b/c the combined US/ British bombing campaign put them in danger. Your other facts are equally stoopid. Don't bother me with this tripe."

The Hussein government did effectively kick the weapon’s inspectors out by refusing to cooperate with UNSCOM. Now the Hussein government had never cooperated with the UN weapon’s inspectors or to comply in the least with UN resolutions or with ceasefire agreements. By 1998 (and in fact much earlier) it was clear that the Iraqi government had no intention cooperating with weapon’s inspectors. So effectively, yes, the Iraqi government did kick weapon’s inspectors out.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:48 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BS. The UN withdrew the inspectors only b/c they were about to get bombed - by the US and Britain I might add - and not in a good alcoholic way.

Finn, you like to portray yourself as an upright moral person. How's about a little honesty ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BS. The UN withdrew the inspectors only b/c they were about to get bombed - by the US and Britain I might add - and not in a good alcoholic way.

Right. Weapon’s inspectors had to leave because of a three day bombing campaign, but evidently not in a much more extensive bombing campaign in 1996. I guess those bombs were ‘certified weapon’s inspector friendly.’

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, you like to portray yourself as an upright moral person. How's about a little honesty ?

Contrary to what you seem to think, honesty is not defined as agreeing with you, but as a fair and straightforward assessment of the issues, something I don’t see you practicing much. There is nothing honest about trying to make it appear as if the weapon’s inspectors left Iraq as if the Hussein government was not the issue when in fact lack of cooperation by the Iraqi government and a UN unwilling to enforce its own rules in the matter was the principle reason UNSCOM failed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, I think you're a little wobbly on your facts

Quote:
Contrary to what you seem to think, honesty is not defined as agreeing with you, but as a fair and straightforward assessment of the issues, something I don’t see you practicing much.

The UN weapons inspectors working under UNSCOM/ IAEA left Iraq in 1998

Quote:
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Richard Butler has ordered all non-essential staff out of Iraq as a precautionary measure in case of U.S. military action. More than 100 personnel were told to withdraw on Wednesday after talks between U.S. officials and Butler, the executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge of Iraqi disarmament. "Based upon his discussions with U.S. officials, the executive chairman has decided, as a precautionary measure, to withdraw all UNSCOM personnel from Iraq," said Butler's spokesman Ewen Buchanan.

In this case the airstrikes were presumably being threatened to induce Iraqi cooperation with the inspection team. So while it's fair to say that Iraq was not cooperating with inspections it's not fair or accurate to say that Saddam "kicked them out".
www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9811/11/iraq.02/

The UN reintroduced inspections under UNMOVIC/ IAEA in 2002. Iraq, under pressure from the US, allowed unannounced inspections of previously off-limit areas. Although they played head-games with the inspectors (like calling their hotel rooms frequently at night) the inspectors did a thorough, aggressive search for WMD. THOSE inspectors were withdrawn by the UN because...

Quote:
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the Security Council on Monday that he is withdrawing weapons inspectors and humanitarian workers from Iraq. The inspectors are making plans to begin leaving on Tuesday ahead of an expected U.S.-led attack, a U.N. spokesman said.

Again, in this case it is unfair to say that Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out.
www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.kuwait.un/index.html
------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In this case the airstrikes were presumably being threatened to induce Iraqi cooperation with the inspection team. So while it's fair to say that Iraq was not cooperating with inspections it's not fair or accurate to say that Saddam "kicked them out".

Iraq’s motivation was to kick them out, and it’s absolutely fair to say that. That’s why they refused to cooperate. The whole point was to make the UN look so stupid that they would leave, and it worked. Iraq wasn’t going to just tell UNSCOM to leave because that would create an international incident and force the hand UNSC members, but as long as Iraq only refused to cooperate and made UNSCOM look like pointless venture, they would eventually leave out of humiliation. And the truth is that if it hadn’t have been for 9/ll, not only would Iraq have kicked Inspectors out, but they would have managed to get sanctions lifted the same way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:15 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"The whole point was to make the UN look so stupid that they would leave, and it worked."

What a crock.

Did you not read these parts ? I put them in bold so you can't miss them.

"in case of U.S. military action"
"ahead of an expected U.S.-led attack"

And I challenge you to find me ANY official document that says they left for ANY reason other than safety concerns.

Honesty BTW means hewing to the truth.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Saddam didn't "kick them out", and when you use speculation as fact your arguments get in trouble. For example, nobody that I know (except Rue) figured Saddam's REAL motive for pretending to hide what he didn't have might have been to keep Iran off-balance. So in the future it would be helpful if you restricted yourself to stating fact as fact and speculation as speculation.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Did you not read these parts ? I put them in bold so you can't miss them.

You bolded them? Oh well, in that case, you must be right.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Prove me wrong ...

... oh wait, you've got nothing except pathetic attempts at word games.

You are a tool ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Prove me wrong ...

... oh wait, you've got nothing except pathetic attempts at word games.

You are a tool ...

And you're moron.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:36 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, Finn, since you have come up with lots and lots of quotes, news items, documents etc to back up your assumptions .... no wait, I'm thinking of someone else. You've come up with exactly nada for your kooky notions.

Anyway, on topic again, I thought I'd pull some exact quotes from the people involved, in this case Butler and Blix -

Butler
"I received a telephone call from US Ambassador Peter Burleigh inviting me for a private conversation at the US mission… Burleigh informed me that on instructions from Washington it would be ‘prudent to take measures to ensure the safety and security of UNSCOM staff presently in Iraq.’… I told him that I would act on this advice and remove my staff from Iraq.”

After Annan ordered all personnel out (including inspectors) Blix said:
"I naturally feel sadness ... that no more time is available for our inspections, and that armed action now seems imminent."

And you are still a tool.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 3:44 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Wilson's contradicting versions of his trip to Niger don't in the least worry you any? Naww, I didn't think so. When reporters say Val's status was 'common knowledge', why don't you ask them, instead of me ? It's just what they say, likely off the record.

I never claimed the mission didn't originate from them, and I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth. It's really getting tiresome.

If you don't want to deal w/ the facts, then I can't force you to. You have access to the info that I have, so why do you ask me questions which are so easily available to you. I'm not Libby's defense lawyer,and I'm getting tired of this minutia from those who are trying to make this something it isn't.

The way some of you folks paint Cheney, I'd expect Val or Joe to have been assassinated instead of ' outed' .

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:36 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think you are not posting to me but ... "The way some of you folks paint Cheney, I'd expect Val or Joe to have been assassinated instead of ' outed' ." ... He DID shoot his friend.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Well, Finn, since you have come up with lots and lots of quotes, news items, documents etc to back up your assumptions .... no wait, I'm thinking of someone else. You've come up with exactly nada for your kooky notions.

That’s right, rue. The reason weapons’ inspectors left Iraq indefinitely in 1998 was because the US ordered them out for a bombing campaign. And evidently that bombing lasted until 2002. That must have been a really long bombing campaign, except that it wasn’t. It lasted three days! When you develop a capacity for free thought outside of your Left-wing propaganda, you let me know. Until then, you’re wasting me time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:12 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

So you now know that this "The whole point was to make the UN look so stupid that they would leave, and it worked" isn't true. GOOD ! We're getting somewhere !

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So you now knnow that this "The whole point was to make the UN look so stupid that they would leave, and it worked" isn't true. GOOD ! We're getting somewhere !

God, you're dumb.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 5:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Like Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot" I'm dumb enough to see the truth.

I'm curious - are you ashamed to have your stupid claims brought back into the light ? Is that why you're such an ass about it ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 6:12 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have all this compartmentalized eyes-only super secret need to know bullshit in the first place, and us voters actually got some say on the stupid shit done supposedly in our name ?

Just a thought, here.

Woulda made this whole issue moot in the first damn place, wouldn't it ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 10, 2007 7:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Wilson's contradicting versions of his trip to Niger don't in the least worry you any? Naww, I didn't think so.

Of course it bothers me. But I don't intend to junk everything that Wilson says because SOME things are questionable, just as I don't intend to junk everything the right wing says. I try to follow the facts.

Quote:
When reporters say Val's status was 'common knowledge', why don't you ask them, instead of me ?

Wish I could.

Quote:
I never claimed the mission didn't originate from them, and I wish you'd stop putting words in my mouth. It's really getting tiresome.

So, are you saying it DID originate with them? What ARE you saying?

Quote:
If you don't want to deal w/ the facts, then I can't force you to.

You know, I was ahead of the right-wing pundits on this contretemps between the WH and the CIA. I don't exactly reach these ideas by NOT looking at the facts.

Quote:
You have access to the info that I have, so why do you ask me questions which are so easily available to you.

Because YOU are the one bringing a viewpoint to the board. And I'm trying to find out how YOU support that viewpoint in YOUR mind. I don't understand it and I keep thinking that if you explain it step by step I might "get it". I asked some very basic questions: Where did the "mission to Niger" originate? How was this conspiracy supposed to work? But usually I find that when someone won't provide a clear explanation and/or gets pissed off because I ask questions, it's because they haven't fully thought things through.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 11, 2007 7:10 AM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Prove me wrong ...

... oh wait, you've got nothing except pathetic attempts at word games.

You are a tool ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

And I'm the offensive troll.......what a cumdumpster you are....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:38 AM