Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. - Page 162

Shape Shifter · 07-05-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
That is actually a good point. I stand corrected. I change my mind. If it is true there will be hell to pay.

Please remember, too, that Plame's bailiwick was WMD interdiction in the ME. While W & Co were pushing the case in war, supposedly to control WMD, they outed a CIA WMD operative just to score some cheap and largely inconsequential political points. Regardless of whether or not Rove (or whomever) is found guilty, this is despicable behavior.

07-05-2005, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
No but it is religious bigotry

Maybe Sid hates Shriners?

Or a particular breed of Basset hound?

Replaced_Texan · 07-05-2005, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I'd have to say that a man, based on political agenda, outing a woman as a CIA Agent and putting her and her children in harm's way after she has dedicated/risked her life to working for the people of the United States of America, would be far worse than Watergate in the public's mind. If Rove did it, Bush is so going to be toast.

If it was Karl Rove, I'd like to know why a political advisor would have access to that kind of information. I don't think he was made Deputy Chief of Staff until fairly recently.

Replaced_Texan · 07-05-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
It is not as simple as that, when you look at the statute. There is temporal element (I think the outee must have been working undercover during the prior 5 years) and there is an knowledge element. Based on what we knew when this was originally argued here, it is an uphill battle for those going after the leaker from a legal standpoint. That's not to say they won't try and it's not to say that they won't bog down DC for the next 3 years, but ultimately, I'd be surprised if there's a conviction.

If Whitewater taught us anything, it's that you don't need to be aiming for a conviction to get a good scandal going that can ruin lots of people.

ETA, plus, I'm pretty sure that if it's Rove, you guys will finally get your beloved perjury conviction. He's been before that Grand Jury a few times.

Sidd Finch · 07-05-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
My point was the Iraqi "breeding ground" has not produced any terrorist attacks outside of Iraq that I know of. Madrid was not caused by terrotists "trainded in Iraq". I have yet to hear of an attack that was coordinated by terroists from Iraq or trained in Iraq. So this breeding ground of terrorist claim rings a little hollow.

Thanks for clarifying your point. As far as I know the terrorists who bombed the train Madrid were not trained in Iraq. But who knows? I doubt that they were coordinated from Iraq -- I think they were coordinated from whereever many of the attacks in Iraq are coordinated from. Like a cave in Pakistan.

But really -- suggesting that this makes the "breeding ground" claim hollow? It took quite a few years before people trained in Afghanistan began attacking the US or Russia elsewhere.

And it's not like they don't have an abundance of American targets in Iraq. I don't understand why supporters of the war think American deaths don't "count" if they aren't being killed on US soil. When we invaded Iraq, did anyone anticipate 1500 American soldiers being killed by terrorists?

Sidd Finch · 07-05-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Isn't calling people you think crazy "wahabi" racist?

No. Wahhabi is a particular brand of a particular religion.

It's like calling someone "fundamentalist," only much more so.

And I don't only use it for people who I think are crazy. I use it for people who I think are fundamentalist, with a "those who are against me are evil and must die!!!" edge.

Sidd Finch · 07-05-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
No but it is religious bigotry

Nope, it's not that either.

Unless you are saying that we should embrace the Wahhabis, of course.

"Wahhabi" does not equal "Islam"

Sidd Finch · 07-05-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Sorry, but having the opportunity to do a suicide bombing does not prep you for more.

You have a point there, I must admit.

But doesn't someone usually plan suicide bombings? At least those that are effective?

(Are the attacks on US troops suicide bombings? I thought they were mostly RPGs and roadside bombs.)

Penske_Account · 07-05-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I'm not a Whhabi, but the argument was that there was no violation of the statute. Please let me know if, based on new facts, you believe a statute has been violated.

I will stipulate to being a Wasabi Republican. I am not sure what a Wahhabi Republican is, so no comment there.

Penske_Account · 07-05-2005, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The problem, son, is that all your media amounts to 1 pebble of credibility. Vanity fair? A year ago it was publishing stories about how Bush stole Fla in 2000. do you think anyone cares at all about its "scoops?"

CBS news and Newsweek lies have ruined any abiltity by the media to do anything to Bush. He could start lynching guys on the white house lawn he finds disloyal. Press can't touch him.

I think Jayson Blair is covering the story for the NYTimes. The liberals' paper of record.

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-05-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
ETA, plus, I'm pretty sure that if it's Rove, you guys will finally get your beloved perjury conviction. He's been before that Grand Jury a few times.

That proves its not Rove. He'd never put his ass on the line like that. He'd be giving up a defensible disclosure charge for an indefensible perjury charge. Rove would never do something that stupid. Trust his fate to Time and the NYTimes? Nah, if he's been before the GJ, he isn't the leak.

Spanky · 07-05-2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Nope, it's not that either.

Unless you are saying that we should embrace the Wahhabis, of course.

"Wahhabi" does not equal "Islam"

Yes - it is that. Wahhabism is a sect of Islam, just like Congretionalists are a sect of Christianity. So denigrating them is religious bigotry. But then again, so is denigrating Scientologists, or our Hale Bop friends. But it is not a problem for me because I will openly admist that I have some religious bigotries.

Spanky · 07-05-2005, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You have a point there, I must admit.

But doesn't someone usually plan suicide bombings? At least those that are effective?

(Are the attacks on US troops suicide bombings? I thought they were mostly RPGs and roadside bombs.)

I believe the vast majority of recent deaths have been caused by suicide bombers.

Gattigap · 07-05-2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe the vast majority of recent deaths have been caused by suicide bombers.

Are you suggesting that US forces in Iraq are facing a horde of individually motivated, self taught suicide bombers whose placing and timing are only seemingly coordinated?

sgtclub · 07-05-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Technical defense = admission in the court of public opinion. All anyone will hear is "Outed... spy... put her... in danger." That he didn't do so "knowingly," which will be his defense, is a trivial distinction to the public.

That's not the only defence. Although we don't know for sure, it is very possible that Plame doesn't fall under a class protected by the statute because she hasn't worked undercover outside the US during the last 5 years. But I agree with you, if it gets to this, the jig is up.