Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

Page 57 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, I realize that in your mind that the only way someone can possibly be a liberal is to bash Bush or the Republicans relentlessly, viciously, and quite often vacuously.
It just doesn't seem logical that if a person were a liberal, he'd spend hours bashing fellow liberals or Democrats relentlessly, viciously, and quite often vacu...vacuma...vaculla...er, inane.
I'm bashing a certain subset of liberals and Democrats, not all of them, because that subset give the rest a bad name and drag them down into the pit with them. If that subset weren't so damn prone to overstatement, hyperbole, ridiculous rhetoric, outright lies, broken-record refrains about that which cannot be changed, and the duplicitous sneering at US troops while claiming to be partiots at the same time, Bush would not have won the last election, even as bad of a candidate as Kerry was.

Kerry did not lose the election for the Democrats. Their far-left lunatic, squeaky-wheel brethren did that for them. If they ever learn to tone down their incessantly shrill shouting and fist pounding to a decible level that's not painful to listen to, people may actually begin listening again and come back into the fold. Until then they're doing nothing but alienating the moderates who would like to be members but look at the Repulican party as a lesser of two evils.

And yes, I use a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric myself. I do it as a demonstration and with a specific purpose. And look, the same shrill people that whine about Bush constantly using rhetoric and hyperbole can't stand that when I do it to them. Well...duh! It seems the point gets across but it doesn't sink in. Maybe someday they'll "get it"?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Take some time to look at some of the 'out there' comments made about Rove and compare them to comments I made concerning the Air America issue. They are nowhere near equivalent. Nice attempt to equate me with the silly loopers making idiotic statements about Rove, but any actual analysis of the situation demonstrates that your claim falls flat on its face.

But thanks for recognizing, in a round about way, how bad those calling for Rove's blood really are. At least you're honest in that respect. :thumbsup:
You're welcome.

Frankly, I'm just tired of going 'round and 'round with you. It's like your CadSortaGuy's evil twin brother or something -- incapable of seeing what you're doing and how it's the SAME as those you choose to rail against here @ P&N.

It's no biggie TLC, the rest of us can clearly see what you're doing. You should try applying your own rigorous standards to your own posts once in a while. It would do you some good.
Look at what I wrote above and maybe it'll provide a clue about what I do and why I do it.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Take some time to look at some of the 'out there' comments made about Rove and compare them to comments I made concerning the Air America issue. They are nowhere near equivalent. Nice attempt to equate me with the silly loopers making idiotic statements about Rove, but any actual analysis of the situation demonstrates that your claim falls flat on its face.

But thanks for recognizing, in a round about way, how bad those calling for Rove's blood really are. At least you're honest in that respect. :thumbsup:
You're welcome.

Frankly, I'm just tired of going 'round and 'round with you. It's like your CadSortaGuy's evil twin brother or something -- incapable of seeing what you're doing and how it's the SAME as those you choose to rail against here @ P&N.

It's no biggie TLC, the rest of us can clearly see what you're doing. You should try applying your own rigorous standards to your own posts once in a while. It would do you some good.
Look at what I wrote above and maybe it'll provide a clue about what I do and why I do it.

It is curious, however, that you don't hold those on the right who mirror the "so damn prone to overstatement, hyperbole, ridiculous rhetoric, outright lies, broken-record refrains about that which cannot be changed, and the duplicitous defending of US troops while claiming to be partiots at the same time" to the same standards.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Take some time to look at some of the 'out there' comments made about Rove and compare them to comments I made concerning the Air America issue. They are nowhere near equivalent. Nice attempt to equate me with the silly loopers making idiotic statements about Rove, but any actual analysis of the situation demonstrates that your claim falls flat on its face.

But thanks for recognizing, in a round about way, how bad those calling for Rove's blood really are. At least you're honest in that respect. :thumbsup:
You're welcome.

Frankly, I'm just tired of going 'round and 'round with you. It's like your CadSortaGuy's evil twin brother or something -- incapable of seeing what you're doing and how it's the SAME as those you choose to rail against here @ P&N.

It's no biggie TLC, the rest of us can clearly see what you're doing. You should try applying your own rigorous standards to your own posts once in a while. It would do you some good.
Look at what I wrote above and maybe it'll provide a clue about what I do and why I do it.

It is curious, however, that you don't hold those on the right who mirror the "so damn prone to overstatement, hyperbole, ridiculous rhetoric, outright lies, broken-record refrains about that which cannot be changed, and the duplicitous defending of US troops while claiming to be partiots at the same time" to the same standards.
I already did the right-bashing thing during the Clinton era. Remember those guys? The ones who the so many on the left deplored and are now mimicking in their Bush tirades?

I'm far less hypocritical than you believe.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
1
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, I realize that in your mind that the only way someone can possibly be a liberal is to bash Bush or the Republicans relentlessly, viciously, and quite often vacuously.
It just doesn't seem logical that if a person were a liberal, he'd spend hours bashing fellow liberals or Democrats relentlessly, viciously, and quite often vacu...vacuma...vaculla...er, inane.
I'm bashing a certain subset of liberals and Democrats, not all of them, because that subset give the rest a bad name and drag them down into the pit with them. If that subset weren't so damn prone to overstatement, hyperbole, ridiculous rhetoric, outright lies, broken-record refrains about that which cannot be changed, and the duplicitous sneering at US troops while claiming to be partiots at the same time, Bush would not have won the last election, even as bad of a candidate as Kerry was.

Kerry did not lose the election for the Democrats. Their far-left lunatic, squeaky-wheel brethren did that for them. If they ever learn to tone down their incessantly shrill shouting and fist pounding to a decible level that's not painful to listen to, people may actually begin listening again and come back into the fold. Until then they're doing nothing but alienating the moderates who would like to be members but look at the Repulican party as a lesser of two evils.

And yes, I use a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric myself. I do it as a demonstration and with a specific purpose. And look, the same shrill people that whine about Bush constantly using rhetoric and hyperbole can't stand that when I do it to them. Well...duh! It seems the point gets across but it doesn't sink in. Maybe someday they'll "get it"?

Two questions TLC (and then I'll drop it. For now )....

[*] This subset you're speaking of. Is that anyone who openly criticizes Bush or this administration? I ask, because I don't believe I've ever seen you agree with a criticizm. The only time I seem to ever see you post is simply to deflect any criticizm others may have. I know you say you have liberal views of abortion and same-sex marriage, but have you ever openly agreed with any criticism of our leaders regarding these (or other) issues? (I'm not talking about a statement like "I believe a woman should have the right to choose." I'm talking about seriously disagreeing.) You spend a lot of time disagreeing with the loopy left. Have you ever spent the same amount of time vocalizing any disagreement you may have with this administration? There is, without doubt, a sense of "I will stay out of this thread because I don't want to be seen going against my party"-mentality here. Do you adhere to this mentality?

[*] "And yes, I use a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric myself. I do it as a demonstration and with a specific purpose."
Another characteristic of many members here is a lack of honesty. I could live to be a 1000 and I'd never be convinced that you're a liberal. Another example is this statement I just quoted. Surely you're not sitting here stating that the ONLY time you use hyperbole and rhetoric is when you consciously mean to do so? It delutes any integrity or credibility you may have if you resort to dishonesty.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[ ... yawn ]


Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're demanding I accept your Bigfoot sighting on faith, even though you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence for it, even though you appear to totally alone in pushing your loony story, and even though the evidence against you is substantial, including a Senate SCI report that explicitly contradicts your claim. Sorry, your track record doesn't support accepting such an outlandish allegation based solely on your say-so. Your history of getting things wrongs is laregely unblemished.
You mean the Senate report blurb that relates to Wilson's affiliation with the CIA that you keep parsing and ignoring the complete context of? Right. :roll:

Keep up the ignorance routine [ yawn ].
That's how you've chosen to interpret it. Maybe you are right. Too bad you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence supporting your spin. The actual wording from the report does NOT impose that qualification, no matter how many time you try to insinuate otherwise.

I also note you've avoided almost everything I said -- again -- trying to distract us -- again -- with a pointless nitpick. Run, Chicken, run -- again.


If Wilson's information wasn't classified, then why did he have to clear it with the CIA first before he wrote his op-ed? He had no NDA, right? He could just say anything he wnted, according to you.
If Wilson did "clear it with the CIA first" as you suggest, where do you get off insisting he revealed classified information? Doh! You think maybe you might be just a wee bit full of yourself, insisting your opinion about what is and isn't classified is more credible than the CIA's? You either have an ego the size of Texas, or a brain the size of a chicken's.
Let me 'splain it real slow for you [ yawn ], since your "fixed" brain [ yawn ] doesn't quite get it.

Wilson's op-ed is not when I'm claiming he leaked the infromation. He leaked the information to a reporter BEFORE his op-ed and his statements were reported on as an anonymous source. So why did he have to clear his op-ed with the CIA if the information wasn't classified and he signed no NDA. According to you he could just say anything. Why did he have to be quoted as an anonymous source? He could just say anything, according to you, and so had no reason to hide, right? So what's your explanation?
You spew more misdirection before sunrise than most Bush apologists do all day. I hardly know where to begin. Let's go down the list of things you keep evading and disinformation you keep spreading about your Bigfoot claim:
  1. You continue to dodge the fact you've presented no factual evidence demonstrating Wilson divulged classifed information. Lots of innuendo and misdirection; no facts.
  2. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence Wilson signed an NDA re. his Niger trip.
  3. You continue to dodge the fact that a classified CIA report including Wilson's findings simply does NOT suggest -- let alone prove -- everything about Wilson's trip was classified. Classified reports can and do contain unclassified information.
  4. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence that any of the specific information Wilson revealed about his trip was, in fact, classified.
  5. You continue to dodge the fact you seem to be alone in spouting your Bigfoot story. The BushCo smear machine leaves no stone unturned, real or fabricated; funny how they're ignoring you. Care to explain that? My guess is it's too loony even for them.
  6. You lied when you claim Wilson "could just say anything, according to you". I've repeatedly agreed some of Wilson's findings may be classified. You have consistently failed to show Wilson divulged any of those classified findings. Do you truly not get the difference, or are you being wilfully dishonest?
  7. Finally, you really hurt your case by acknowledging the CIA approved publication of Wilson's op-ed. This confirms the information Wilson revealed in his op-ed was NOT classified. This means you've not only acknowledged some of Wilson's findings were not classified -- just as I've said all along -- but that in order to prove your Bigfoot story, you must now show Wilson divulged other information, beyond that revealed in his op-ed, and that this other information was considered classified. In short, you just raised the bar on yourself tremendously. Oopsie. I think you just blew Bigfoot's big feet off.


The only fluff around here is in your head [ Yawn ].
Ahh, the "you're a doo-doo head" defense. I'll bet that has 'em in tears during recess. :roll:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: umbrella39
nvm
I saw that! Heh, I'd throw my vote behind unbanning Cad, but F the rest of those guys.

CAD is OK in my book and would at least debate, though seldom conceed.
Make that never.
Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Nonetheless, I was also sorry to see him banned.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, I realize that in your mind that the only way someone can possibly be a liberal is to bash Bush or the Republicans relentlessly, viciously, and quite often vacuously.
It just doesn't seem logical that if a person were a liberal, he'd spend hours bashing fellow liberals or Democrats relentlessly, viciously, and quite often vacu...vacuma...vaculla...er, inane.
I'm bashing a certain subset of liberals and Democrats, not all of them ...
Bull! Chicken man speak with forked tongue. You consistently attack anyone who criticizes BushCo, no matter how restrained they are and no matter how solidly we back our criticisms with objective evidence. Similarly, I have yet to see you agree with any BushCo criticism, let alone offer any yourself. Actions speak louder than words; your actions are consistently those of a devout Bush worshipper.


And yes, I use a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric myself. I do it as a demonstration and with a specific purpose. And look, the same shrill people that whine about Bush constantly using rhetoric and hyperbole can't stand that when I do it to them. Well...duh! It seems the point gets across but it doesn't sink in. Maybe someday they'll "get it"?
More misdirection. You're the one who constantly whines about others' hyperbole and rhetoric, then has a hissy fit when we point out you do the same thing. In plain English, you love to dish it out, but you can't take it. You're one of the worst offenders.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Wow... Almost 1400 posts and the issue is exactly where it was when I bailed out of this thread over 1000 posts ago.
That's because the issue hasn't gone away, and with any luck, it won't until the full truth about Rove, Libby and anyone else involved, up to and including Bush and Cheney, has been made public, and appropriate legal action has been taken.

We can only hope.
 

totalcommand

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2004
2,487
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: umbrella39
nvm
I saw that! Heh, I'd throw my vote behind unbanning Cad, but F the rest of those guys.

CAD is OK in my book and would at least debate, though seldom conceed.
Make that never.
Never, ever, ever ... about anything. Nonetheless, I was also sorry to see him banned.

edit: question answered.

let me add several more never evers to your words.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
CsG could regurgitate rightwing bullet-points with the best of them, it was when he went off-script that he got into trouble...

Given the weakness in those recent bullet-points, he had to go off script more often, and became somewhat more desperate in the "I'm always Right!" routine...

I figure he stepped over the line semi-deliberately- at least being banned gives you somebody else to blame...

Wrt the topic at hand, I don't think that the whole thing will be going away as long as Miller remains in confinement... nor do I think that renewed efforts to discredit Wilson really matter, either. People can generally see through that. If anything, those renewed efforts probably convince more people that there was an organized criminal effort to smear him at the time... and that efforts of coverup are ongoing...
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, I realize that in your mind that the only way someone can possibly be a liberal is to bash Bush or the Republicans relentlessly, viciously, and quite often vacuously.
It just doesn't seem logical that if a person were a liberal, he'd spend hours bashing fellow liberals or Democrats relentlessly, viciously, and quite often vacu...vacuma...vaculla...er, inane.
I'm bashing a certain subset of liberals and Democrats, not all of them, because that subset give the rest a bad name and drag them down into the pit with them. If that subset weren't so damn prone to overstatement, hyperbole, ridiculous rhetoric, outright lies, broken-record refrains about that which cannot be changed, and the duplicitous sneering at US troops while claiming to be partiots at the same time, Bush would not have won the last election, even as bad of a candidate as Kerry was.

Kerry did not lose the election for the Democrats. Their far-left lunatic, squeaky-wheel brethren did that for them. If they ever learn to tone down their incessantly shrill shouting and fist pounding to a decible level that's not painful to listen to, people may actually begin listening again and come back into the fold. Until then they're doing nothing but alienating the moderates who would like to be members but look at the Repulican party as a lesser of two evils.

And yes, I use a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric myself. I do it as a demonstration and with a specific purpose. And look, the same shrill people that whine about Bush constantly using rhetoric and hyperbole can't stand that when I do it to them. Well...duh! It seems the point gets across but it doesn't sink in. Maybe someday they'll "get it"?

Two questions TLC (and then I'll drop it. For now )....

[*] This subset you're speaking of. Is that anyone who openly criticizes Bush or this administration? I ask, because I don't believe I've ever seen you agree with a criticizm. The only time I seem to ever see you post is simply to deflect any criticizm others may have. I know you say you have liberal views of abortion and same-sex marriage, but have you ever openly agreed with any criticism of our leaders regarding these (or other) issues? (I'm not talking about a statement like "I believe a woman should have the right to choose." I'm talking about seriously disagreeing.) You spend a lot of time disagreeing with the loopy left. Have you ever spent the same amount of time vocalizing any disagreement you may have with this administration? There is, without doubt, a sense of "I will stay out of this thread because I don't want to be seen going against my party"-mentality here. Do you adhere to this mentality?
I've criticized Bush in here about as often as you've praised him.

And I look at criticizing Bush like taking candy from a baby or shooting legless animals. There's just no challenge in it.

[*] "And yes, I use a lot of hyperbole and rhetoric myself. I do it as a demonstration and with a specific purpose."
Another characteristic of many members here is a lack of honesty. I could live to be a 1000 and I'd never be convinced that you're a liberal. Another example is this statement I just quoted. Surely you're not sitting here stating that the ONLY time you use hyperbole and rhetoric is when you consciously mean to do so? It delutes any integrity or credibility you may have if you resort to dishonesty.
Don't believe I'm not a liberal if it suits you. It's no skin off of my back.

As far as my use of hyperbole and rhetoric, of course I do it only when I consciously mean to do so? I can't fathom it could be any other way.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[ ... yawn ]


Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're demanding I accept your Bigfoot sighting on faith, even though you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence for it, even though you appear to totally alone in pushing your loony story, and even though the evidence against you is substantial, including a Senate SCI report that explicitly contradicts your claim. Sorry, your track record doesn't support accepting such an outlandish allegation based solely on your say-so. Your history of getting things wrongs is laregely unblemished.
You mean the Senate report blurb that relates to Wilson's affiliation with the CIA that you keep parsing and ignoring the complete context of? Right. :roll:

Keep up the ignorance routine [ yawn ].
That's how you've chosen to interpret it. Maybe you are right. Too bad you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence supporting your spin. The actual wording from the report does NOT impose that qualification, no matter how many time you try to insinuate otherwise.

I also note you've avoided almost everything I said -- again -- trying to distract us -- again -- with a pointless nitpick. Run, Chicken, run -- again.

If Wilson's information wasn't classified, then why did he have to clear it with the CIA first before he wrote his op-ed? He had no NDA, right? He could just say anything he wnted, according to you.
If Wilson did "clear it with the CIA first" as you suggest, where do you get off insisting he revealed classified information? Doh! You think maybe you might be just a wee bit full of yourself, insisting your opinion about what is and isn't classified is more credible than the CIA's? You either have an ego the size of Texas, or a brain the size of a chicken's.
Let me 'splain it real slow for you [ yawn ], since your "fixed" brain [ yawn ] doesn't quite get it.

Wilson's op-ed is not when I'm claiming he leaked the infromation. He leaked the information to a reporter BEFORE his op-ed and his statements were reported on as an anonymous source. So why did he have to clear his op-ed with the CIA if the information wasn't classified and he signed no NDA. According to you he could just say anything. Why did he have to be quoted as an anonymous source? He could just say anything, according to you, and so had no reason to hide, right? So what's your explanation?
You spew more misdirection before sunrise than most Bush apologists do all day. I hardly know where to begin. Let's go down the list of things you keep evading and disinformation you keep spreading about your Bigfoot claim:
  1. You continue to dodge the fact you've presented no factual evidence demonstrating Wilson divulged classifed information. Lots of innuendo and misdirection; no facts.
  2. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence Wilson signed an NDA re. his Niger trip.
  3. You continue to dodge the fact that a classified CIA report including Wilson's findings simply does NOT suggest -- let alone prove -- everything about Wilson's trip was classified. Classified reports can and do contain unclassified information.
  4. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence that any of the specific information Wilson revealed about his trip was, in fact, classified.
  5. You continue to dodge the fact you seem to be alone in spouting your Bigfoot story. The BushCo smear machine leaves no stone unturned, real or fabricated; funny how they're ignoring you. Care to explain that? My guess is it's too loony even for them.
  6. You lied when you claim Wilson "could just say anything, according to you". I've repeatedly agreed some of Wilson's findings may be classified. You have consistently failed to show Wilson divulged any of those classified findings. Do you truly not get the difference, or are you being wilfully dishonest?
  7. Finally, you really hurt your case by acknowledging the CIA approved publication of Wilson's op-ed. This confirms the information Wilson revealed in his op-ed was NOT classified. This means you've not only acknowledged some of Wilson's findings were not classified -- just as I've said all along -- but that in order to prove your Bigfoot story, you must now show Wilson divulged other information, beyond that revealed in his op-ed, and that this other information was considered classified. In short, you just raised the bar on yourself tremendously. Oopsie. I think you just blew Bigfoot's big feet off.


The only fluff around here is in your head [ Yawn ].
Ahh, the "you're a doo-doo head" defense. I'll bet that has 'em in tears during recess. :roll:
It seems your entire defense has been "prove it", yet you feel it just fine to prove nothing on your part (and fly in the face of official findings as well about Wilson, simply because Bowfinger says so.). Not only that, but your replies consistently devolve to that of an 8 year-old, and it's just getting tiresome.

Believe what you want to believe. We will continue to disagree.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[ ... yawn ]


Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're demanding I accept your Bigfoot sighting on faith, even though you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence for it, even though you appear to totally alone in pushing your loony story, and even though the evidence against you is substantial, including a Senate SCI report that explicitly contradicts your claim. Sorry, your track record doesn't support accepting such an outlandish allegation based solely on your say-so. Your history of getting things wrongs is laregely unblemished.
You mean the Senate report blurb that relates to Wilson's affiliation with the CIA that you keep parsing and ignoring the complete context of? Right. :roll:

Keep up the ignorance routine [ yawn ].
That's how you've chosen to interpret it. Maybe you are right. Too bad you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence supporting your spin. The actual wording from the report does NOT impose that qualification, no matter how many time you try to insinuate otherwise.

I also note you've avoided almost everything I said -- again -- trying to distract us -- again -- with a pointless nitpick. Run, Chicken, run -- again.

If Wilson's information wasn't classified, then why did he have to clear it with the CIA first before he wrote his op-ed? He had no NDA, right? He could just say anything he wnted, according to you.
If Wilson did "clear it with the CIA first" as you suggest, where do you get off insisting he revealed classified information? Doh! You think maybe you might be just a wee bit full of yourself, insisting your opinion about what is and isn't classified is more credible than the CIA's? You either have an ego the size of Texas, or a brain the size of a chicken's.
Let me 'splain it real slow for you [ yawn ], since your "fixed" brain [ yawn ] doesn't quite get it.

Wilson's op-ed is not when I'm claiming he leaked the infromation. He leaked the information to a reporter BEFORE his op-ed and his statements were reported on as an anonymous source. So why did he have to clear his op-ed with the CIA if the information wasn't classified and he signed no NDA. According to you he could just say anything. Why did he have to be quoted as an anonymous source? He could just say anything, according to you, and so had no reason to hide, right? So what's your explanation?
You spew more misdirection before sunrise than most Bush apologists do all day. I hardly know where to begin. Let's go down the list of things you keep evading and disinformation you keep spreading about your Bigfoot claim:
  1. You continue to dodge the fact you've presented no factual evidence demonstrating Wilson divulged classifed information. Lots of innuendo and misdirection; no facts.
  2. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence Wilson signed an NDA re. his Niger trip.
  3. You continue to dodge the fact that a classified CIA report including Wilson's findings simply does NOT suggest -- let alone prove -- everything about Wilson's trip was classified. Classified reports can and do contain unclassified information.
  4. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence that any of the specific information Wilson revealed about his trip was, in fact, classified.
  5. You continue to dodge the fact you seem to be alone in spouting your Bigfoot story. The BushCo smear machine leaves no stone unturned, real or fabricated; funny how they're ignoring you. Care to explain that? My guess is it's too loony even for them.
  6. You lied when you claim Wilson "could just say anything, according to you". I've repeatedly agreed some of Wilson's findings may be classified. You have consistently failed to show Wilson divulged any of those classified findings. Do you truly not get the difference, or are you being wilfully dishonest?
  7. Finally, you really hurt your case by acknowledging the CIA approved publication of Wilson's op-ed. This confirms the information Wilson revealed in his op-ed was NOT classified. This means you've not only acknowledged some of Wilson's findings were not classified -- just as I've said all along -- but that in order to prove your Bigfoot story, you must now show Wilson divulged other information, beyond that revealed in his op-ed, and that this other information was considered classified. In short, you just raised the bar on yourself tremendously. Oopsie. I think you just blew Bigfoot's big feet off.


The only fluff around here is in your head [ Yawn ].
Ahh, the "you're a doo-doo head" defense. I'll bet that has 'em in tears during recess. :roll:
It seems your entire defense has been "prove it", yet you feel it just fine to prove nothing on your part (and fly in the face of official findings as well about Wilson, simply because Bowfinger says so.).
How shamelessly dishonest of you. You are the one who is insisting we believe your Bigfoot sighting solely because Chicken says so. It is your claim, you bear the burden of proof. I'm simply pointing out you've offered no factual evidence to support your allegation. Lots of innuendo and misdirections, lots of running and dodging (like the seven points above), but no factual evidence. If you cannot support your allegation, show the integrity to withdraw it.


How are you coming on proving George is not Karl's love slave?


Not only that, but your replies consistently devolve to that of an 8 year-old, and it's just getting tiresome. ...
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You love to dish it out to others, but cry as soon as someone responds in kind. If you can't handle that, perhaps you should grow up a bit yourself. "The only fluff around here is in your head" sounds far more like an 8 year old than anything I said.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
I don't know if this has been posted yet, but I'm not going to read through seventy-one pages of this thread to find out.

There is some very interesting information in this piece about the forged Niger documents and who was behind them...

KARL ROVE, MICHAEL LEDEEN SPIES PROCURED FORGED NIGER DOCUMENTS

KARL ROVE and VARIOUS SPIES HE IS LINKED TO

Karl Rove?s only full-time foreign-policy advisor is Michael Ledeen, a rabid anti-Arab, pro-Israel activist. The FBI is investigating Ledeen for procuring forged documents (shown here) on nonexistent WMD, which George Bush used to justify his war on Iraq. When Joseph Wilson exposed the farce, Rove helped "out" Wilson?s CIA wife. Did Ledeen procure the documents for Rove, and how might he have done that? The story includes multinational stool pigeon Rocco Martino, Italian spy Francesco Pazienza, wanted CIA spy Robert Seldon Lady, and Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, who?s under charges of giving US secrets to Israel.
Karl Rove?s foreign-policy advisor, Michael Ledeen, proclaimed "the rightness of the fascist cause" in 1972. In 1984 he got George Bush Sr to appoint Iranian arms merchant and Iranian/Israeli double-agent Manucher Ghorbanifar as a middleman in the scandalous Iran-Contra affair. Ledeen has been a fixture in Washington and Israel ever since, advocating a modern version of the Crusades against Islamic nations. Based on what he has said and written, I believe Ledeen is insane.

Michael Ledeen, Rove?s "brain," is one of the leading advocates for a US attack on Iran. The Washington Post quoted Ledeen as saying that Rove told him, "Anytime you have a good idea, tell me." I guess that means we can look forward to the Bush team drumming up a war with Iran. [For more, see articles by Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post -- the main man of the mainstream media pursuing the Rove Scandal.]

George Bush Jr., when he assumed the presidency in 2000, already knew that he was going to settle the family score with Saddam Hussein. His "brain," Rove, quickly enlisted Ledeen to trump up a causus belli.

EARLY 2000: ROCCO MARTINO AND THE FRENCH CONNECTION

Rocco Martino is a 66-year-old Italian gentleman SEE PHOTO who worked on and off for the Italian SISMI (analogous to the CIA) for many years and who also peddled the same information to various spy organizations and publications -- a convicted felon and international stool pigeon, just the kind of person Ledeen?s associates needed.

After being fired by SISMI (for receiving stolen checks, among other things), he convinced the French intelligence in 2000 that he knew all about Africa and the trafficking of conventional and nonconventional arms. To avoid stepping on the toes of Italian intelligence, the French gave him a contact, or handler, in Brussels. Martino?s handler in Brussels asked him to obtain every type of news or reference to contraband uranium from Niger ("NYE-jer) -- a former French colony in the Sahara desert (not to be confused with ex-British Nigeria in W. Africa), where mining was under the jurisdiction of two companies controlled by the gigantic French mining company Cogema.

Martino soon was knocking at the door of the embassy of Niger in Rome, where he met an Italian functionary (a "lady," by most reports -- but this was no lady, as we shall see). Martino provided the French with documents showing that Iraq may have been planning to expand trade with Niger. In fact, the first set of documents did not refer to uranium, and the trade plans were probably the typical sort of relationship Arab oil states had with a whole range of third-world countries.

Martino was surprised when he saw that the French immediately jumped to the wrong conclusion and thought that the documents indicated an Iraqi interest in uranium. (We now know that Iraq had no nuclear program.) "We need additional confirmation and more detailed information," said the French secret service. Martino set out to satisfy his French patrons with additional documents.

JANUARY 2001 BREAK-IN AT NIGER EMBASSY

At night, between the first and second of the January 2001, a mysterious thief came to the embassy of Niger in Rome and into the residence of the counselor in charge. It turned out that some letterhead and seals (see photocopy) were missing. A second dossier on Niger-Iraq trade soon came into Martino?s hands, one that included references to uranium trafficking. Martino claims he got it from embassy personnel and that he thought it was authentic.

Martino passed it on to the French secret service, who had paid for it, and also to Panorama [a magazine owned by Bush ally and Italian president Silvio Berlusconi], which assessed it by dispatching a female reporter to Niger. Panorama also turned the file over to the US Embassy in Rome for cross-checking in the US.

The female journalist soon told Martino that the trip to Niger had not produced any real confirmation, and also the French confirmed to Martino that the reports he had passed on to them were groundless. In other words, Bush?s war rationale was debunked way back in 2001 by amateur and professional sleuths.

Furthermore, it was a very amateurish forgery, not likely produced through official channels by any state intelligence agency with their vast resources. However, it was soon resuscitated as the Bush administration, in its first year, ramped up its public relations campaign for war.

ROME MEETING IN DECEMBER 2001

Michael Ledeen organized a meeting in Rome to gather evidence to support the planned war. Present were:

1. Michael Ledeen, Karl Rove?s foreign policy advisor and organizer of the meeting
2. Nicolo Pollari, head of the the Italian equivalent of the CIA, the SISMI
3. Italy?s Minister of Defense, Antonio Martino (no relation apparently to the spy Rocco Martino), Pollari?s boss
4. Larry Franklin, an American who presently is being prosecuted in the US for giving classified information to an Israeli front group, AIPC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) -- which some would call "spying," even though he has not been charged with espionage
5. Harold Rhode: member of Dick Cheney?s Office of Special Plans, protege of Ledeen, go-between with Iraqi exile and CIA asset (at the time) Ahmed Chalabi.

Ledeen already had a longstanding friendship with Francesco Pazienza, an Italian felon and forger who had been kicked out of the official Italian intelligence organization SISMI but who had found a new home in the renegade intelligence agency P-2 (Propaganda Due). Pazienza apparently was not present but definitely was known to Italian intelligence agents, including Rocco Martino, as well as to Ledeen.

Ledeen also was a personal friend of Pollari, who, like Ledeen, is a master of the card game bridge (Ledeen writes columns on it). There are close ties between Pollari?s official intelligence organization, SISMI, and Pazienza?s unnofficial one, P-2. In fact, P-2 recruits from SISMI.

This little group dusted off Martino?s discredited second dossier on Iraq-Niger trade, with the uranium references. The Bush administration now had its causus belli.

CAUSUS BELLI: A PIECE OF CRAP [SEE PHOTOCOPY]


The accompanying figure shows a bit of the cobbled-up intelligence report on stolen letterheads, forged by amateurs -- most likely Ledeen?s friend, Francesco Panzienza. This document, which can be viewed at the Israeli site http://www.4law.co.il/Le838k.html, is the "evidence" on which George Bush sent almost two thousand young Americans and untold thousands of Iraqi civilians to their deaths.

SPRING 2002: JOE WILSON TO NIGER

Former US Ambassador (to Gabon) Joseph Wilson made the trip, apparently at the behest of the CIA, to determine the authenticity of the charges in Martino?s documents, even though the CIA already could see they were forgeries. Even the Panorama reporter could have saved him the trouble. Wilson reported back to the CIA that there was no proof that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. The US government knew there was no proof.

FALL 2002: USING THE CRAP

In London, Tony Blair spoke on September 24, 2002, for the first time on the attempts of Saddam Hussein to obtain uranium from Africa. Bush soon began to drive in the nail using the same argument. Remember, Martino had delivered the phony dossier this was based on to the US embassy in Rome over a year before. The US State Department and CIA rejected it and even Panorama had debunked it. The Pentagon, too, knew it was false, of course, but the Wolfowitz-Feith-Perle Defense Policy Board axis plus Bush and Cheney and their respective aides, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby (both now subjects of interest to US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury in Washington, DC), went with it anyway.

THE REST IS HISTORY: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein...

...recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Sixteen little words in Bush?s January 2003 State of the Union message that will be remembered in history with more honorable presidential words like, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" (FDR). Bush was going on the forged documents procured by Rocco Martino, debunked by all pertinent experts, and debunked by Joseph Wilson. The US overcame Iraqi opposition -- temporarily (resistance became "suicide," now wonders, for whom?) -- mainly by bombing civilian structures rather than fighting, beginning on March 19, 2003

Wilson?s outraged response to using, for murder, evidence he had debunked got his family, or at least his wife, targeted by that amoral husk of a man, Karl Rove, who, along with I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby (Cheney?s chief aide) outed Valerie Wilson to Robert Novak, Judith Miller (the jailed New York Times reporter and pro-war hawk), Matthew Cooper (Time?s reporter who has jeopardized Rove in a criminal investigation), and numerous other journalists. Most, like Miller and Cooper, wisely resisted Rove?s bait.

IMP OF IMPS: MICHAEL LEDEEN?S DAUGHTER SMILES IMPISHLY IN IRAQ [PHOTO]


The war is not just about oil, Israel?s fears/ambitions, or US hegemony. There are contracts and contractors in Iraq. Modern-day carpetbaggers with briefcases descended like a plague of scorpions on the poor, bloodied, bombed-out, grieving people of Iraq. They included the daughter of the war?s chief banshee -- Simone Ledeen, Michael?s young daughter -- shown in the photo, greeting with an impish smile another occupier at the Baghdad airport -- getting ready to lord it over the Iraqis as she tries out her new MBA in working for the CPA. Caption: "The creatures step out of the tripods." Maybe it?ll help to pay off those student loans -- huh, Michael?

LEDEEN FELLOW-TRAVELER FRANKLIN FACES A COURT TRIAL

At Ledeen?s (Rove?s brain) meeting with Italian intelligence in December 2001 was one Larry Franklin.

The FBI caught Franklin, 58 -- a Pentagon analyst on Iran and an Air Force Reserve colonel -- meeting two agents of AIPAC, Israel?s US "lobby," in an Alexandria, VA, restaurant in June 2003. AIPAC employees -- including AIPAC agents at the meeting, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman -- had been under FBI surveillance for a couple of years. The FBI was surprised by Franklin showing up and began investigating him, too. The FBI arrested Franklin, on May 4, 2005, for illegally disclosing highly classified information to AIPAC -- spying for AIPAC, in other words. He is free on bond and is expected to plead innocent at his trial.

Why hasn?t the FBI arrested anyone at the AIPAC? Who in the Bush administration is blocking justice in this case?

For that matter, why hasn?t the FBI interviewed Rocco Martino, the acknowledged and admitted procurer of the phony Niger uranium documents? They are known to be investigating the phony documents.

The United States has had no qualms about getting audacious in Italy by having the CIA abduct an Egyptian cleric, Abu Omar, off the streets of Milan in February 2003, for "exceptional rendering," aka "torture," in Egypt. This open violation of Italian sovereignty was supervised by the CIA?s station chief in Milan, Robert Seldon Lady, formerly of the New Orleans area.

Lady Is No "lady": ROBERT SELDON LADY

It is my belief that the "Italian functionary," or "a lady," that Martino referred to was actually a Lady, Robert Seldon Lady Sr, the same man who headed up the torture abduction of Abu Omar.

Italian prosecutor Armando Spataro has just obtained arrrest warrants for 6 more CIA spies in addition to the original 13 that included Robert Lady, in connection with the abduction.

Robert Seldon Lady, 51, lived in Abita Springs, Lousiana, until 2001, when he left for the Milan post. He still has an address in New Orleans, according to Cryptome http://cryptome.org/lady-eyeball.htm . He and his wife Martha own a villa in the Italian countryside near Penango (Asti) and Turin, where they hoped to retire before he went on the lam. Born in Honduras, he was an affable New York City cop in the 80s who infiltrated leftist groups. He is something of an electronics hacker (at least of cell phones). And now he is a wanted felon in Europe.

During the operation, Lady apparently worked directly with the commander of the 31st Security Police Squadron, Lt. Col. Joseph Romano, USAF, at the Aviano Air Base in Italy. Lt. Col. Romano, who currently works at the Pentagon, also is sought for interviewing by Italian prosecutors. At the time, Romano worked under Brig Gen R. Michael Worden, commander of the 31st Fighter Wing, who also should have to answer some questions.
The Italian prosecutor could release the photographs of the American kidnap-torture perps at any time. This case -- Robert Lady?s kidnapping of Abu Omar -- could become a very big story because of its possible effects on relations between nations.

by : Clayton Hallmark
Friday 29th July 2005
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[ ... yawn ]


Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You're demanding I accept your Bigfoot sighting on faith, even though you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence for it, even though you appear to totally alone in pushing your loony story, and even though the evidence against you is substantial, including a Senate SCI report that explicitly contradicts your claim. Sorry, your track record doesn't support accepting such an outlandish allegation based solely on your say-so. Your history of getting things wrongs is laregely unblemished.
You mean the Senate report blurb that relates to Wilson's affiliation with the CIA that you keep parsing and ignoring the complete context of? Right. :roll:

Keep up the ignorance routine [ yawn ].
That's how you've chosen to interpret it. Maybe you are right. Too bad you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence supporting your spin. The actual wording from the report does NOT impose that qualification, no matter how many time you try to insinuate otherwise.

I also note you've avoided almost everything I said -- again -- trying to distract us -- again -- with a pointless nitpick. Run, Chicken, run -- again.

If Wilson's information wasn't classified, then why did he have to clear it with the CIA first before he wrote his op-ed? He had no NDA, right? He could just say anything he wnted, according to you.
If Wilson did "clear it with the CIA first" as you suggest, where do you get off insisting he revealed classified information? Doh! You think maybe you might be just a wee bit full of yourself, insisting your opinion about what is and isn't classified is more credible than the CIA's? You either have an ego the size of Texas, or a brain the size of a chicken's.
Let me 'splain it real slow for you [ yawn ], since your "fixed" brain [ yawn ] doesn't quite get it.

Wilson's op-ed is not when I'm claiming he leaked the infromation. He leaked the information to a reporter BEFORE his op-ed and his statements were reported on as an anonymous source. So why did he have to clear his op-ed with the CIA if the information wasn't classified and he signed no NDA. According to you he could just say anything. Why did he have to be quoted as an anonymous source? He could just say anything, according to you, and so had no reason to hide, right? So what's your explanation?
You spew more misdirection before sunrise than most Bush apologists do all day. I hardly know where to begin. Let's go down the list of things you keep evading and disinformation you keep spreading about your Bigfoot claim:
  1. You continue to dodge the fact you've presented no factual evidence demonstrating Wilson divulged classifed information. Lots of innuendo and misdirection; no facts.
  2. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence Wilson signed an NDA re. his Niger trip.
  3. You continue to dodge the fact that a classified CIA report including Wilson's findings simply does NOT suggest -- let alone prove -- everything about Wilson's trip was classified. Classified reports can and do contain unclassified information.
  4. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence that any of the specific information Wilson revealed about his trip was, in fact, classified.
  5. You continue to dodge the fact you seem to be alone in spouting your Bigfoot story. The BushCo smear machine leaves no stone unturned, real or fabricated; funny how they're ignoring you. Care to explain that? My guess is it's too loony even for them.
  6. You lied when you claim Wilson "could just say anything, according to you". I've repeatedly agreed some of Wilson's findings may be classified. You have consistently failed to show Wilson divulged any of those classified findings. Do you truly not get the difference, or are you being wilfully dishonest?
  7. Finally, you really hurt your case by acknowledging the CIA approved publication of Wilson's op-ed. This confirms the information Wilson revealed in his op-ed was NOT classified. This means you've not only acknowledged some of Wilson's findings were not classified -- just as I've said all along -- but that in order to prove your Bigfoot story, you must now show Wilson divulged other information, beyond that revealed in his op-ed, and that this other information was considered classified. In short, you just raised the bar on yourself tremendously. Oopsie. I think you just blew Bigfoot's big feet off.


The only fluff around here is in your head [ Yawn ].
Ahh, the "you're a doo-doo head" defense. I'll bet that has 'em in tears during recess. :roll:
It seems your entire defense has been "prove it", yet you feel it just fine to prove nothing on your part (and fly in the face of official findings as well about Wilson, simply because Bowfinger says so.).
How shamelessly dishonest of you. You are the one who is insisting we believe your Bigfoot sighting solely because Chicken says so. It is your claim, you bear the burden of proof. I'm simply pointing out you've offered no factual evidence to support your allegation. Lots of innuendo and misdirections, lots of running and dodging (like the seven points above), but no factual evidence. If you cannot support your allegation, show the integrity to withdraw it.
I claim Wilson leaked classified information. You claim he didn't. Neither of us can prove our contention because the proof is not publicly available. So we are at a stalemate.

How are you coming on proving George is not Karl's love slave?
I never made any such claim. Homophobic much?

Not only that, but your replies consistently devolve to that of an 8 year-old, and it's just getting tiresome. ...
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You love to dish it out to others, but cry as soon as someone responds in kind. If you can't handle that, perhaps you should grow up a bit yourself. "The only fluff around here is in your head" sounds far more like an 8 year old than anything I said.
You seem to have neglected your comment that preceeded mine:

"But don't let little things like facts and evidence and truth get in the way of your idolatrous Bush-fluffing."

Every one of your replies devolve into that kind of childishness and becomes an ad hom fest, along with your immature heckling, regardless of whether I respond in kind or not. You consistently act like an 8 year old in here and your "love slave" remark only reinforces that sentiment. You just can't seem to control yourself.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Take some time to look at some of the 'out there' comments made about Rove and compare them to comments I made concerning the Air America issue. They are nowhere near equivalent. Nice attempt to equate me with the silly loopers making idiotic statements about Rove, but any actual analysis of the situation demonstrates that your claim falls flat on its face.

But thanks for recognizing, in a round about way, how bad those calling for Rove's blood really are. At least you're honest in that respect. :thumbsup:
You're welcome.

Frankly, I'm just tired of going 'round and 'round with you. It's like your CadSortaGuy's evil twin brother or something -- incapable of seeing what you're doing and how it's the SAME as those you choose to rail against here @ P&N.

It's no biggie TLC, the rest of us can clearly see what you're doing. You should try applying your own rigorous standards to your own posts once in a while. It would do you some good.
Look at what I wrote above and maybe it'll provide a clue about what I do and why I do it.

It is curious, however, that you don't hold those on the right who mirror the "so damn prone to overstatement, hyperbole, ridiculous rhetoric, outright lies, broken-record refrains about that which cannot be changed, and the duplicitous defending of US troops while claiming to be partiots at the same time" to the same standards.

They're hardly doing damage to the party.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: zendari
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Take some time to look at some of the 'out there' comments made about Rove and compare them to comments I made concerning the Air America issue. They are nowhere near equivalent. Nice attempt to equate me with the silly loopers making idiotic statements about Rove, but any actual analysis of the situation demonstrates that your claim falls flat on its face.

But thanks for recognizing, in a round about way, how bad those calling for Rove's blood really are. At least you're honest in that respect. :thumbsup:
You're welcome.

Frankly, I'm just tired of going 'round and 'round with you. It's like your CadSortaGuy's evil twin brother or something -- incapable of seeing what you're doing and how it's the SAME as those you choose to rail against here @ P&N.

It's no biggie TLC, the rest of us can clearly see what you're doing. You should try applying your own rigorous standards to your own posts once in a while. It would do you some good.
Look at what I wrote above and maybe it'll provide a clue about what I do and why I do it.

It is curious, however, that you don't hold those on the right who mirror the "so damn prone to overstatement, hyperbole, ridiculous rhetoric, outright lies, broken-record refrains about that which cannot be changed, and the duplicitous defending of US troops while claiming to be partiots at the same time" to the same standards.

They're hardly doing damage to the party.

I guess that remains to be seen. We'll find out in a year or so, and BTW - John Galt fringed on threatening my life so not the best choice of person to put in your sig bud. Whoever PM'd you asking you to put that in your sig is kind of warped IMO.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[ ... clip ... ]
That's how you've chosen to interpret it. Maybe you are right. Too bad you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence supporting your spin. The actual wording from the report does NOT impose that qualification, no matter how many time you try to insinuate otherwise.

I also note you've avoided almost everything I said -- again -- trying to distract us -- again -- with a pointless nitpick. Run, Chicken, run -- again.

[ ... clip ... ]
You spew more misdirection before sunrise than most Bush apologists do all day. I hardly know where to begin. Let's go down the list of things you keep evading and disinformation you keep spreading about your Bigfoot claim:
  1. You continue to dodge the fact you've presented no factual evidence demonstrating Wilson divulged classifed information. Lots of innuendo and misdirection; no facts.
  2. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence Wilson signed an NDA re. his Niger trip.
  3. You continue to dodge the fact that a classified CIA report including Wilson's findings simply does NOT suggest -- let alone prove -- everything about Wilson's trip was classified. Classified reports can and do contain unclassified information.
  4. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence that any of the specific information Wilson revealed about his trip was, in fact, classified.
  5. You continue to dodge the fact you seem to be alone in spouting your Bigfoot story. The BushCo smear machine leaves no stone unturned, real or fabricated; funny how they're ignoring you. Care to explain that? My guess is it's too loony even for them.
  6. You lied when you claim Wilson "could just say anything, according to you". I've repeatedly agreed some of Wilson's findings may be classified. You have consistently failed to show Wilson divulged any of those classified findings. Do you truly not get the difference, or are you being wilfully dishonest?
  7. Finally, you really hurt your case by acknowledging the CIA approved publication of Wilson's op-ed. This confirms the information Wilson revealed in his op-ed was NOT classified. This means you've not only acknowledged some of Wilson's findings were not classified -- just as I've said all along -- but that in order to prove your Bigfoot story, you must now show Wilson divulged other information, beyond that revealed in his op-ed, and that this other information was considered classified. In short, you just raised the bar on yourself tremendously. Oopsie. I think you just blew Bigfoot's big feet off.

[ ... clip ... ]
How shamelessly dishonest of you. You are the one who is insisting we believe your Bigfoot sighting solely because Chicken says so. It is your claim, you bear the burden of proof. I'm simply pointing out you've offered no factual evidence to support your allegation. Lots of innuendo and misdirections, lots of running and dodging (like the seven points above), but no factual evidence. If you cannot support your allegation, show the integrity to withdraw it.
I claim Wilson leaked classified information. You claim he didn't. Neither of us can prove our contention because the proof is not publicly available. So we are at a stalemate.
Wrong. You've made a completely unsupported allegation. I'm telling you to back it up. (If you'd learn to read accurately, you'll note I'm not claiming you are wrong, I'm stating you've failed to support your claim ... and I've provided ample evidence of your failure.) If you cannot offer evidence supporting your claim, then it is empty partisan noise, just as ridiculous and easily dismissed as me claiming George is Karl's love slave.

If you cannot support your allegation, show the integrity to withdraw it.


How are you coming on proving George is not Karl's love slave?
I never made any such claim. Homophobic much?
So you're not claiming George is not Karl's love slave. In other words, you agree George is Karl's love slave??? Interesting. I just pulled it out of my butt, just like your Bigfoot (i.e., Wilson leaked classified information) story. Pics?

(Re, your insipid "homophobia" slur, save it for the sheep. I recognize it for what is is, just another signature Chicken duhversion. I suppose if I claimed George was Condi's love slave, you'd call me racist. :roll: )


Not only that, but your replies consistently devolve to that of an 8 year-old, and it's just getting tiresome. ...
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You love to dish it out to others, but cry as soon as someone responds in kind. If you can't handle that, perhaps you should grow up a bit yourself. "The only fluff around here is in your head" sounds far more like an 8 year old than anything I said.
You seem to have neglected your comment that preceeded mine:

"But don't let little things like facts and evidence and truth get in the way of your idolatrous Bush-fluffing."

Every one of your replies devolve into that kind of childishness and becomes an ad hom fest, along with your immature heckling, regardless of whether I respond in kind or not. You consistently act like an 8 year old in here and your "love slave" remark only reinforces that sentiment. You just can't seem to control yourself.
More personal attacks, yawn. Funny how you seem to have neglected your preceding comment:
  • "But don't let little things like that get in the way of your ridiculous denial."
Substitute "idolatrous Bush-fluffing" for "ridiculous denial". My reply was merely a mirror of your own. You dish it out -- with relish -- but you cry when someone gives it back. Po' baby.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
[ ... clip ... ]
That's how you've chosen to interpret it. Maybe you are right. Too bad you have yet to present a shred of factual evidence supporting your spin. The actual wording from the report does NOT impose that qualification, no matter how many time you try to insinuate otherwise.

I also note you've avoided almost everything I said -- again -- trying to distract us -- again -- with a pointless nitpick. Run, Chicken, run -- again.

[ ... clip ... ]
You spew more misdirection before sunrise than most Bush apologists do all day. I hardly know where to begin. Let's go down the list of things you keep evading and disinformation you keep spreading about your Bigfoot claim:
  1. You continue to dodge the fact you've presented no factual evidence demonstrating Wilson divulged classifed information. Lots of innuendo and misdirection; no facts.
  2. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence Wilson signed an NDA re. his Niger trip.
  3. You continue to dodge the fact that a classified CIA report including Wilson's findings simply does NOT suggest -- let alone prove -- everything about Wilson's trip was classified. Classified reports can and do contain unclassified information.
  4. You continue to dodge the fact you've produced no factual evidence that any of the specific information Wilson revealed about his trip was, in fact, classified.
  5. You continue to dodge the fact you seem to be alone in spouting your Bigfoot story. The BushCo smear machine leaves no stone unturned, real or fabricated; funny how they're ignoring you. Care to explain that? My guess is it's too loony even for them.
  6. You lied when you claim Wilson "could just say anything, according to you". I've repeatedly agreed some of Wilson's findings may be classified. You have consistently failed to show Wilson divulged any of those classified findings. Do you truly not get the difference, or are you being wilfully dishonest?
  7. Finally, you really hurt your case by acknowledging the CIA approved publication of Wilson's op-ed. This confirms the information Wilson revealed in his op-ed was NOT classified. This means you've not only acknowledged some of Wilson's findings were not classified -- just as I've said all along -- but that in order to prove your Bigfoot story, you must now show Wilson divulged other information, beyond that revealed in his op-ed, and that this other information was considered classified. In short, you just raised the bar on yourself tremendously. Oopsie. I think you just blew Bigfoot's big feet off.

[ ... clip ... ]
How shamelessly dishonest of you. You are the one who is insisting we believe your Bigfoot sighting solely because Chicken says so. It is your claim, you bear the burden of proof. I'm simply pointing out you've offered no factual evidence to support your allegation. Lots of innuendo and misdirections, lots of running and dodging (like the seven points above), but no factual evidence. If you cannot support your allegation, show the integrity to withdraw it.
I claim Wilson leaked classified information. You claim he didn't. Neither of us can prove our contention because the proof is not publicly available. So we are at a stalemate.
Wrong. You've made a completely unsupported allegation. I'm telling you to back it up. (If you'd learn to read accurately, you'll note I'm not claiming you are wrong, I'm stating you've failed to support your claim ... and I've provided ample evidence of your failure.) If you cannot offer evidence supporting your claim, then it is empty partisan noise, just as ridiculous and easily dismissed as me claiming George is Karl's love slave.

If you cannot support your allegation, show the integrity to withdraw it.
My allegation remains as what it is - an allegation. I can't prove it's right and you can't prove it's wrong. I have good reason to suspect it's true. You, otoh, ignore that Wilson leaked this information to a reporter as an anonymous source. If he wasn't bound by NDA, as you claim, that was unnecessary. So why did Wilson go that route.

You still haven't explained that.

How are you coming on proving George is not Karl's love slave?
I never made any such claim. Homophobic much?
So you're not claiming George is not Karl's love slave. In other words, you agree George is Karl's love slave??? Interesting. I just pulled it out of my butt, just like your Bigfoot (i.e., Wilson leaked classified information) story. Pics?[/quote]
I have not claimed your not conjur's love slave either. Nor would I want pics.

(Re, your insipid "homophobia" slur, save it for the sheep. I recognize it for what is is, just another signature Chicken duhversion. I suppose if I claimed George was Condi's love slave, you'd call me racist. :roll: )
Ah, yes. "Sheep." The self-annointed elitists just love to utter that word while looking down their noses at the rest of the inferior world with scorn in their eyes..

Not only that, but your replies consistently devolve to that of an 8 year-old, and it's just getting tiresome. ...
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You love to dish it out to others, but cry as soon as someone responds in kind. If you can't handle that, perhaps you should grow up a bit yourself. "The only fluff around here is in your head" sounds far more like an 8 year old than anything I said.
You seem to have neglected your comment that preceeded mine:

"But don't let little things like facts and evidence and truth get in the way of your idolatrous Bush-fluffing."

Every one of your replies devolve into that kind of childishness and becomes an ad hom fest, along with your immature heckling, regardless of whether I respond in kind or not. You consistently act like an 8 year old in here and your "love slave" remark only reinforces that sentiment. You just can't seem to control yourself.
More personal attacks, yawn. Funny how you seem to have neglected your preceding comment:
  • "But don't let little things like that get in the way of your ridiculous denial."
Substitute "idolatrous Bush-fluffing" for "ridiculous denial". My reply was merely a mirror of your own. You dish it out -- with relish -- but you cry when someone gives it back. Po' baby.
[/quote]
So let me see here. I claim your in ridiculous denial so you come back by accusing me of performing sexual acts on the president? Now you claim they are interchangeable.

LOL. I rest my case. You ARE in ridiculous denial. Or you can even strike the denial part and just leave it as "ridiculous."

---

This topic is current news, but this thread has become a name calling flame war. Members are welcome to start another thread contining this discussion.

AnandTech Moderator
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |