Having trouble finding stories I want to talk about.
Maybe you guys can talk about the fact that the Plame story is still in the news when the whole thing is a complete joke. She had a desk job for more than five years, all her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA, therefor (by law) she is NOT an undercover agent. Both Wilsons are pathetic.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
St. Patricks Day Free For All
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
She had a desk job for more than five years. Lie!
From remarks cleared by General Hayden, Bush toadie and CIA director (pdf): At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14,2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. [. . .] Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA.
[A]ll her neighbors knew she worked for the CIA. Lie!
From Patrick Fitzgerald: Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. (See also press interviews with her neighbors.)
therefor (by law) she is NOT an undercover agent. Lie!
From the IIPA (the "law"): (4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States
You're getting better at packing all those mistruths into fewer sentences, Game! Way to go!
You beat me to it, Jay, but nice post!
"Both Wilsons are pathetic." Only to Kate O'Bierne and wing nuts.
The people who believe Plame was a covert agent are the same people that believe in Gorebal Whining, Joe Wilson is honest, Clinton was a good president, Hillary really has a southeren accent, and Kerry was a war hero, etc.
Mark, you mean Gen. Hayden? I don't know what the director of the CIA thinks about global warming, but he said Plame was covert.
I'm also not clear on what the State Department's official position is on Clinton's legacy, but they said Plame's status was secret.
But, hey, you're a guy with an internet connection, so I guess we'll take your word for it!
Jay really seems passionate about this non-story...maybe he can explain why...
Then go to the post of this weeks failed liberalism story and explain that one too...
something that actually matters, unlike this story.
Interesting isn't it Jay. You know there is no logical response to your facts when you are told the story "doesn't matter."
Well done!
JayJim
Spin, twist, do the shuffle.
You can label her status how ever you want. The fact remains, she WAS NOT the super-secret-undercover-agent like you'd like to portray her as. I mean, in the way most James Bond watching, run of the mill citizen thinks of when you try to classify her as such.
Ya, ya, I know it's fun for you to apply the bureaucratic definition that they all like to call themselves...hell, my ex-wife isn't a postwomen, she's a Federal Government Document Guardian (and if you OUT her, that's your ass buddy!!!)
And by-God if you say different I may have to subpoena ya!
It's all about perception. So do you're little dance, we'll just watch and snicker.
I've never heard anybody portray Plame as a James Bond type. This
"charge" is simply absurd, big surprise.
I'll label her status the same way as her employer at the time, the CIA labeled her. And the way the CURRENT head of the CIA, Gen. Hayden labeled her last week.
COVERT.
So I got The Game on one hand saying that according to the technical bureaucratic definition, Valerie Plame was not covert, and I got Blamin on the other hand saying that according to the technical bureaucratic definition, she was covert, and yet both of them can manage to tell me that I'm wrong?
WTF?
Jim and Jay,
Read and refute this you pair of spinmeiwters:
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame
Oh, and I see that the Milwaukee 5 actually got JAIL time. Finally a judge that gets it.
Here's the first of 2 from Right Voices. Read the comments, too.
http://rightvoices.com/2007/03/17/obligatory-plame-post-plame-sheds-little-light-in-leak-case/#comment-366517
Even Brit Hume caught Plame lying under oath, why can't you Democrat hacks?
http://rightvoices.com/2007/03/18/hume-set-record-straight-on-plames-lies-under-oath/
Hey, Jim, did you see that fool Brit Hume trying to claim that Plame lied under oath? Really it was Hume who lied when he said that a "bipartisan" Senate committee found that Plame suggested her husband for the Niger trip. Really it was just three Republican Senators who used a CIA employee's testimony out of context--and then they refused to let that guy come back to correct the record when he wrote to tell them they were wrong!
Oh, and Jim, I saw this piece of hackery from someplace ironically named "Sweetness and Light." It's so full of twisted logic and outright lies, I laughed out loud.
For example, the blogger there tries to say that "everyone knew" Plame was CIA because Armitage knew in mid-June. But Armitage probably saw the same June 10 State Department memo that I linked above, naming "Valerie Wilson" as CIA (and calling that fact secret) so of course Armitage knew. And that June 10 memo predated the June 14th date that the blogger there--in as startling a piece of forcing dots to connect that I've ever seen--claims is when Joe Wilson started "outing" his own wife.
That same state department memo supported Joe Wilson's conclusion that the intelligence he was sent to investigate--the memos that turned out to have been forged--was bogus. Because the state department said in February of 2002--a year before the "16 words"--that Wilson didn't need to go since they already knew the claim was false. (The blogger at that site claims it was true. Somehow. I don't get it.)
I seriously did laugh out loud when that blogger quoted and article from the UK's Independent that nowhere says that Wilson claimed to have seen the forged documents himself, and followed up with claiming it "has been subsequently proven to be untrue. Including Wilson’s claim that he had seen the supposedly forged documents."
That's the nice thing about being a die-hard righty. You create out of whole cloth statements that someone supposedly said, and then, on the basis of those imaginary statements, you call those people liars. Must be a nice feeling not to have to be burdened by the truth all the time.
From a Los Angeles District Atty:
http://patterico.com/2007/03/10/5929/should-libby-have-been-prosecuted-even-though-there-was-no-underlying-crime-beldar-responds-to-maguire/
I'm so fuckin' bored. The right doesn't believe the sources of the left, the left doesn't believe the sources of the right. Why even bother? What happened to Libby was a travesty, and what didn't happen to Armitage is worse. What is certain is that the left is only concerned with trashing the Bush admin in any way for anything and anyone will do. Rather than show true leadership now that they have the chance, they continue to attack those who have tried to defend against those who would attack the USA.
Marshall said, "What is certain is that the left is only concerned with trashing the Bush admin in any way for anything and anyone will do."
Seems obviously hypocritical of you unless you were saying the same thing about the right between 1992 and 2000.
What is certain is that the left is only concerned with trashing the Bush admin in any way for anything and anyone will do.
As opposed to say, the right, which is filling blogs like this one with factually challenged rants trashing liberals like Al Gore or administration critics like joe and Valerie Wilson?
Jim,
"Seems obviously hypocritical of you unless you were saying the same thing about the right between 1992 and 2000."
Links or other evidence in support if you please. Then I can correct you on those.
Jay,
"As opposed to say, the right, which is filling blogs like this one with factually challenged rants trashing liberals like Al Gore or administration critics like joe and Valerie Wilson?"
Is this the "liar, liar, pants on fire" defense?
Post a Comment