|
Grex > Agora56 > #2: General Announcements - Winter 2005/06 | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 253 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 205 of 253:
| 
Mar 17 17:18 UTC 2006 |
Getting his end away, looks like.
|
furs
|
|
response 206 of 253:
|
Mar 17 22:12 UTC 2006 |
re 201. I meant to say ANNOUNCE! I was sleepy this morning. :)
|
tsty
|
|
response 207 of 253:
|
Mar 18 06:23 UTC 2006 |
uh-huh .. a likely story <g>.
cheny for president! impeach bush .... uh-huh, a likely plan.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 208 of 253:
|
Mar 18 06:43 UTC 2006 |
They'll impeach him, too, over the Plame affair.
|
bru
|
|
response 209 of 253:
|
Mar 18 12:58 UTC 2006 |
No laws were violated over the plame affair. Turns out she wasn't covert adn
everyone knew who she was and where she worked, and dhe went around telling
people where she worked.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 210 of 253:
|
Mar 18 14:08 UTC 2006 |
Hello, 2005 is calling. It wants its false meme back.
(bap, that bit of bs has been debunked so many times you must be the only
person left in the country who believes it)
|
tod
|
|
response 211 of 253:
|
Mar 18 16:56 UTC 2006 |
Armitage has a big target on his forehead.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 212 of 253:
|
Mar 18 20:06 UTC 2006 |
Re #209: there are other, and more qualified, views on this. For example
"Well, her life may or may not have been in danger, but the lives of her
network probably were--not that anyone knows. But she was undercover at the
time she was outed. More importantly, her work was in the WMD area, and the
shell company that she worked under was also compromised, so there is no way
of knowing what has been lost or rendered useless--or put in danger. This
isn't some game."
from http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/10/the_plame_affai.html
|
tod
|
|
response 213 of 253:
|
Mar 18 20:40 UTC 2006 |
Leave it to a politician and their groupies to destroy our country.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 214 of 253:
|
Mar 18 20:46 UTC 2006 |
Bap should take a look at this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/from/RL.1/
|
bru
|
|
response 215 of 253:
|
Mar 18 22:04 UTC 2006 |
Oh yeah. Newsweek.
Last I heard the CIA was refusing to confirm or deny her status.
|
other
|
|
response 216 of 253:
|
Mar 18 22:19 UTC 2006 |
Last you heard, up was down.
Worse, you still believe it.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 217 of 253:
|
Mar 19 01:48 UTC 2006 |
Did you actually read the article, bap? The JUDGE made the determination based
on the facts presented.
|
bru
|
|
response 218 of 253:
|
Mar 19 02:26 UTC 2006 |
A judge offered an opinion based on evidence presented, and the prosecutor
decided ther ewas not enough evidence to charge Libby.
Are you thinking about what you read, or just take it at face value.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 219 of 253:
|
Mar 19 03:24 UTC 2006 |
"special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done
'covert work overseas' on counterproliferation matters in the past five
years, and the CIA 'was making specific efforts to conceal' her identity,"
...but...
"Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law
banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof
Libby was aware of her covert status"
|
tod
|
|
response 220 of 253:
|
Mar 19 03:52 UTC 2006 |
If it was my wife, Libby would be a dead motherfucker by now.
Shame on any asshole that thinks the letter of the law excuses Cheney's goons.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 221 of 253:
|
Mar 19 04:38 UTC 2006 |
Bap is engaging in mental contortions to do just that! Can you read, bap?
BTW, the judge made a finding of fact. Absent unusual circustances on
appeal, that means the judge has determined what actually happened. Do you
have some sort of information the judge wasn't privy to, bap?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 222 of 253:
|
Mar 19 04:49 UTC 2006 |
re #220:
> If it was my wife, Libby would be a dead motherfucker by now.
Get real.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 223 of 253:
|
Mar 19 05:01 UTC 2006 |
Mike, by "would be a dead motherfucker by now", Todd really means he
would have stolen one of Libby's pens and then conned him into taking
him out to lunch...on Libby's dime.
|
bru
|
|
response 224 of 253:
|
Mar 19 13:17 UTC 2006 |
we are not going to solve it here. We have stories and reports every which
way from sunday about she was undercover, she was not undercover, she was
outed by the CIA to both Russia and Cuba, ahe was outed by Libby, she was
outed by Novak, She was outed by Novak's boss, the CIA was trying to put her
back undercover...
We will have to wait and see how it plays out.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 225 of 253:
|
Mar 19 13:25 UTC 2006 |
You are full of BS, bap. Just because a bunch of people say different things
does not mean the truth cannot be ascertained. Believing otherwise merely
creates a false meme that the truth can never be known so long as enough
people contradict the facts (this is also known as lying or ignorance).
You seem to have bought into that approach. You should be ashamed to stoop
that low.
|
tod
|
|
response 226 of 253:
|
Mar 19 14:44 UTC 2006 |
re #222
Get real.
KGB, GRU, MI6, Mossad, BND, etc rarely let moles in government slide out the
back door. I'm certain my wife would not let some politician ruin her career
without some strange Nikolai Yezhov mishap taking place where Libby is found
guilty of espionage, treason, and bad fashion sense.
|
bru
|
|
response 227 of 253:
|
Mar 19 20:10 UTC 2006 |
What does that mean cyklone? That mean I have a icecubes shance in hell of
changing your mind about this, or that you think you can change mine?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 228 of 253:
|
Mar 19 20:38 UTC 2006 |
Nice dodge, bap. My point has nothing to do with what I think. I clarified
that the judge made a finding of fact. You claim the issue is not settled.
I asked you what evidence you have, that the judge did not, that you think
supports your claim. My guess is you cannot point to any such facts. But
hey, if you don't have the facts on your side, then go ahead and attack
the messenger.
|
bru
|
|
response 229 of 253:
|
Mar 19 21:01 UTC 2006 |
not dodging, just tired of arguing with no prospect of people seeing reason.
|