Whats the difference betwen a fact and a scenario, nothing if your a republican, it seems.This sounds really interesting, and I'd like to comment, but I don't get you here.

I find it strange that the tral was about the cover up, and not the leak.

You prosecute what you can prove.

This sounds really interesting, and I'd like to comment, but I don't get you here.
Stuffs coming on so fast here, it was responding to Decka up at 197, carry on.

Yes, perjury related to a non-criminal underlying charge.

Just like Martha Stewart.

So is this. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/what-i-didnt-say_b_42687.html)



Both quotes prove you are lying.

Absolute sheer silliness.Which seems to be the bugaboo of the
leftists.Show me a War of consequence that ran like clockwork.
No such War or Conflict,ever existed.
In point of fact,the harder the War,the more consequential the
ending.Easy wars,never seem to hold water.
The price of Iraqi Freedom,is the very continued existence of
an American Way of Life,that is unmatched,throughout the World.
If Americans' can't support,their own very survival,then what lesson does
that portend for our enemies,to manipulate.
Iraq is merely a Hub of strife,that America HAS to unravel,finally and
with certainty.That's what Cheney and the Neocons believe.
A Saddam or Middle East,left to their own device,would eventually
grow to become a Monster of planetary unrule.

Whats the connedtion between the American way of life and Iraqi freedom

Here's the quote to which I was referring. It's from a transcript of (I think) an MSNBC show.

Why don't you'all juts come out and bee honest.
Maher insinuated thru his habitual comedic rhyme,that
he thought Cheney wood be better off,if not around.
That's about as nice a way,of saying,he'd never feel a
shimmer of despair,if Cheney went down,thru asassination or
another heart attack.
I don't know why Hollywood types,are sooooooooo in love
with a Half Kike,chiickenshit,unpatriotic,little - Pizza Man -
whose claim toi fame,is a show that basically heckles the Right
and lauds a leftist agenda.And doing so with rigged guests and
format.Maher has about as mush courage and foresight,as
Chicken little,after his crack pipe,breaks.

Whats the connedtion between the American way of life and Iraqi freedom

If anyone doesn't understand that Saddam & Sons,were hellbent on
dominating the Middle East,than maybe the - Oil for Food program -
is the easiest of examples.Saddam had hundreds of generals
and the Oil Vouchers and clout toi manipulate his way into
controlling the Middle East.
He openly espoused his vile hatred of Bush and America.
Left unfettered,he would have ammassed more than the found
750 Million Tons of Ammo,including rocket and grenade launchers,
which are still currently being used to down Hellicopters.
I,for one,don't believe for a minute,that someone with the vast
influence and wherewithall Saddam had,DIDN'T Want or try to
acquire Nuclear capability,and HAD WMD.
If we never had the invasion,than - Oil for Food - would still be lining his
pockets,with probably More and deadlier Dr.Germs. N'cest pas.?

Yes, perjury related to a non-criminal underlying charge.

Just like Martha Stewart.

So,its perfectly OK,with You Leftist types,that an appointed
bully prosecutor,who knew that Armitage was THE one who FIRST Leaked Miss Plames Name... Neverless,instituted an entrapment witch hunt
to ensnare any and all who dare to fib,or have their recollectiion
of events,countermaned by others.
You truly must enjoy the trappings of a Kafkaesque world.

You prosecute what you can prove.

tell that to FT, and take your own advice for that matter...

Bush "lied" us into Iraq?

Prove it.. and please do because i'd very much like to know.

Bush "lied" us into Iraq?

Yes, he did.


Prove it.. and please do because i'd very much like to know.

Why would I waste my time trying to "prove it" to someone who will deny whatever evidence I present anyway?

You are neither open-minded or unbiased.

I have a better idea. You STFU.

Yes, he did.

Well it's settled then.
Cancel all future threads on the matter.

Well it's settled then.


Glad we agree.

Cancel all future threads on the matter.

Why would you want to do that?

I say lets talk about it!
Lets ask the questions!

Why did the President mislead us into this war?

What can we do about it?

I don't know any left-wing illuminaries <sic> named 'Marzipan'.

Me either. Was I promoted and nobody told me? ;)

"I,for one,don't believe for a minute,that someone with the vast influence and wherewithal Saddam had,DIDN'T Want or try to acquire Nuclear capability,and HAD WMD."--Foolsworth, Msg. 209

One thinks of what might have been if the world had stopped Hitler at the Czech or even at the Alsace-Lorraine border.

Hitler was at the time becoming unpopular in Germany, and could have been toppled. However, instead, he was allowed time to consolidate his control over the levers of power and information in Germany and to subdue several neighbors.

The war the world ended up fighting was many orders of magnitude worse than it needed to have been.

If anyone doesn't understand that Saddam & Sons,were hellbent on
dominating the Middle East,than maybe the - Oil for Food program -
is the easiest of examples.Saddam had hundreds of generals
and the Oil Vouchers and clout toi manipulate his way into
controlling the Middle East.
He openly espoused his vile hatred of Bush and America.
Left unfettered,he would have ammassed more than the found
750 Million Tons of Ammo,including rocket and grenade launchers,
which are still currently being used to down Hellicopters.
I,for one,don't believe for a minute,that someone with the vast
influence and wherewithall Saddam had,DIDN'T Want or try to
acquire Nuclear capability,and HAD WMD.
If we never had the invasion,than - Oil for Food - would still be lining his
pockets,with probably More and deadlier Dr.Germs. N'cest pas.?
After the first Gulf War Saddam was in no position to dominate anything, never mind the Mid East,which I doubt was ever his intention.His military capabilities were reduced to small arms and some tanks artillery and was a threat to no one but his own people.
You say he openly hated Bush and America, so what, not really a reason to invade Iraq.
It was never proven that he had WMDs, and dont forget, the Bush Administration didnt wait on the UN report before they attacked.
George Bush made 2 major foreign policy errors during his time as topman,
not pursuing OBL in Afghanistan,
not leaving a weakened Saddam in power.

It was never proven that he had WMDs, and dont forget, the Bush Administration didnt wait on the UN report before they attacked.
It was believed by everyone in Washington, in both parties, that he had them.

And the US warned Saddam for six months to prove he had destroyed his WMD's. After six months of chances, the war started.

As per the cease fire agreement after the first Gulf War, Iraq was supposed to keep meticulous records, including video tapes, of the WMD's being destroyed. None of this was ever presented.

So although it was never proven that he still had them, the obligation was actually on his part to prove they were gone (as per the UN resolutions).

Even the Russians and French thought he had them. This was because of his behavior in not allowing inspections (something he had agreed to do when the first war ended).

I think the invasion was justified simply because when he was expelled from Kuwait he agreed to all sorts of things he did not do, and proceeded to a brutal suppression of the Shias in the south. From a legal point of view, this alone justified the invasion. I would think the attempt to assassinate Bush Sr. would also have justified it--as an aggressive act of war.

Neither of these arguments were much presented because although they are legally sound they would not motivate the American people, who dislike legalisms (except the left, which constantly claims legal things that are questionable if not full of air).

It is remarkable how short memories really are when things turn difficult and how quickly a society can decided to cut and run. America will lose its world leadership shortly anyway, I guess. It is coming to have the backbone of the French.

We're going to lose hegemonic power not because of Frenching it up diplomatically. The Chinese and Indians are just ravenous. When China invades Nigeria for WMDs, perhaps then we will complain like the French. :D

So although it was never proven that he still had them, the obligation was actually on his part to prove they were gone (as per the UN resolutions).
Oh, don't go there, Brooks - here we have a European lauding the UN.

There's a fuckin' shocker.... :rolleyes:

On that note, we don't really need any facts or figures with regards to what happened in Iraq, do we? I mean, I thought the UN was infallible. I guess they're only useless when they’re being bought and bullied by us, and not when they're being used in to garner France, Germany, and Russia some serious oil and weapons cash...

Yep, you Euro-fucks...we're all self-serving and evil over here. I know the governments of YOUR countries would NEVER debauch such a beautiful and benevolent organization.

It is remarkable how short memories really are when things turn difficult and how quickly a society can decided to cut and run. America will lose its world leadership shortly anyway, I guess. It is coming to have the backbone of the French.
You said it, brother.

I for one am not a 'Euro fuck' dickhead.

Yes, he did.
.
There is no such 100% proof.. only theories based on assumptions




Why would I waste my time trying to "prove it" to someone who will deny whatever evidence I present anyway?

You are neither open-minded or unbiased.

I have a better idea. You STFU.

How about you have the total wrong impression of me. If you happen to give GOOD EVIDENCE.. gee what a shocker.. who am I to question it? So far all i have seen are connections, letters, and assumptions... so hey if you can't prove it that's fine, just correct your opening line.

Oh.. and OMFG STFU

It was believed by everyone in Washington, in both parties, that he had them.

Thats quite the exaggeration.

The intelligence community was full of people who knew that wasn't true. The CIA told the President that he was using false information but he used it anyway. Lying during the SotU is an impeachable offense, by the way.

How about you have the total wrong impression of me.

Nope, I don't think so.

I for one am not a 'Euro fuck' dickhead.
And I didn't say "you" were.

OTOH, Paul, how did you put it in the pro-American thread...?

Oh, that's right. I remember now. Well, here it is with a twist: "A now, I enjoy winding up my friend in Ireland, its so easy, anyway". You don't like being insulted, do you? Good. Then I guess we're even. (not that I was actually calling "you" a Euro-fuck, or anything ;))

Haha, touche dude.

Thats quite the exaggeration.

The intelligence community was full of people who knew that wasn't true. The CIA told the President that he was using false information but he used it anyway. Lying during the SotU is an impeachable offense, by the way.

gee, that's quite a statement there... First off.. what is your definition of the "intelligence community". Second, which people KNEW it "wasn't true". Third, any source of the CIA telling Bush he's "on his own" and marking it as false info? and Forth.. if all these "intelligent people" in the "intelligence community" knew, why didn't they speak up?

Nope, I don't think so.

Mum's the word with you on the subject eh?

After the first Gulf War Saddam was in no position to dominate anything, never mind the Mid East,which I doubt was ever his intention.His military capabilities were reduced to small arms and some tanks artillery and was a threat to no one but his own people.
You say he openly hated Bush and America, so what, not really a reason to invade Iraq.
It was never proven that he had WMDs, and dont forget, the Bush Administration didnt wait on the UN report before they attacked.
George Bush made 2 major foreign policy errors during his time as topman,
not pursuing OBL in Afghanistan,
not leaving a weakened Saddam in power.

Yeah...yeah...yeah.I know it's rough having to rely
on the Leftist Talking points,that you just regurgitated.
What Ball Card Bubble gum pack,did you read,the standard
Democrat Talking pts.It wood take a Little League mind to think
The Kurds,just perished on account too msuh Mustard got
loose,from the Frankfurter stand.

Yeah...yeah...yeah.I know it's rough having to rely
on the Leftist Talking points,that you just regurgitated.
What Ball Card Bubble gum pack,did you read,the standard
Democrat Talking pts.It wood take a Little League mind to think
The Kurds,just perished on account too msuh Mustard got
loose,from the Frankfurter stand.
Firstly mac, we dont do baseball in this country, but we do do bullshit, so I know what your saying.
What is it, wait 15 years and 2 wars later, to bitch abot a chemical attack, henious that it was,I could understand you holding your breath during the attack on Halabja, but I wouldnt like to hold it for the US response, thats a pretty lame excuse.

which people KNEW it "wasn't true".

George Tenet told Bush it wasn't true.


if all these "intelligent people" in the "intelligence community" knew, why didn't they speak up?

They did. Look at the reprecussions Joseph Wilson faced for speaking up.

Lying during the SotU is an impeachable offense, by the way.He didn't.

They did. Look at the reprecussions Joseph Wilson faced for speaking up.
Yeah, book deals, movie deal, advisor for Kerry (until his credibility went south and Kerry gave him the old heave-ho), Superspy wife's face splashed all over Vanity Fair.........

Yes, this proven liar has truly suffered.

Lying during the SotU is an impeachable offense, by the way.

He didn't.

Yes, he has. It is a matter of record.

Not only has the SOB blatantly lied during his SOTU speech, the White House has been forced to admit that he lied.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Friday, February 13th, 2004

White House Admits Bush Lied in 2002 State of The Union Over Al Qaeda Obtaining U.S. Nuclear Plant Plans

President Bush claimed in his 2002 State of the Union address that the U.S. discovered in Afghanistan detailed plans of U.S. nuclear plants. The Bush administration was forced to admit this week that the claim was not based on factual evidence after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said there was no evidence any such plans were found in Afghanistan. The Bush administration has been forced this week to admit that one of the most explosive claims of President Bush's 2002 State of the Union address was not based on factual evidence.

Bush claimed that the U.S. has discovered in Afghanistan detailed plans of U.S. nuclear plants. On Monday night the White House told the Wall Street Journal that Bush's statement admitted no such plans had ever been found.

This story has resurfaced this month after a commissioner on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission responded to an inquiry of Greenpeace and that the NRC was aware of no evidence that diagrams of nuclear plants had been found in Afghanistan. --------http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/13/1549215

Superspy wife's

Good Boy! You are making progress! At least you admit one of them was a spy. Perhaps in time you will come to grasp what that means.


Yes, this proven liar has truly suffered.

Why bring George Bush into this?

is anyone else getting tired of dharma and freethinkers popmpous holier then thou attitude? give it a break already.

Good Boy! You are making progress! At least you admit she was a spy. Perhaps in time you will come to grasp what that means.
A spy whose pompous husband plastered her face all over Vanity Fair in his fucking Jaguar??? C'mon, man. This isn't the maelstrom you're making it out to be. Far from it, actually. He turned an arcane matter involving the Intelligence Identities Protection Act into a proxy fight over the administration's credibility and its case for war in Iraq. What's beyond dispute is the fact that this little-known diplomat took maximum advantage of his 15 minutes of fame. Outside of that, Mr. Wilson's original claims about what he found in Africa, what he told the CIA, and even why he was sent on the mission have since been discredited completely.

is anyone else getting tired of dharma and freethinkers popmpous holier then thou attitude? give it a break already.
50-year-old democrats are all like that. On a computer, they're superstars; nobody really knows they only make 40k a year and drive brown K cars. Of course, add an Internet connection, and they’re in like Flynn with the intelligence community via Bob's Blog and democracy now.

is anyone else getting tired of dharma and freethinkers popmpous holier then thou attitude? give it a break already.

:upyours:

Now ask me if I give a damn what you think. You are worse than either of us.

A spy whose pompous husband plastered her face all over Vanity Fair in his fucking Jaguar???

Being in Vanity Fair doesn't out her covert status with the CIA. She was a corporate executive and wife of a diplomat. Get a clue.

He turned an arcane matter involving the Intelligence Identities Protection Act into a proxy fight over the administration's credibility and its case for war in Iraq.

There is nothing "arcane" about forged documents. There is nothing "arcane" about the President knowingly using fake documents as the basis for his claims to try and get us into a war we had no business getting into.


What's beyond dispute is the fact that this little-known diplomat took maximum advantage of his 15 minutes of fame.

No, he didn't. He turned down offers for television and radio shows.

This isn't about "fame", it's about America's national security! It is about Iran getting Nukes!

LOL, sorry, but the little emote just makes you look like a dumbass.

Being in Vanity Fair doesn't out her covert status with the CIA. She was a corporate executive and wife of a diplomat. Get a clue.
Good point.

I just saw Pierce Brosn...err...James Bond in an Omega ad last week. On that note, I hear most spies are verified camera whores. I mean, a photo-op in Vanity Fair is pretty cloak-and-dagger. Seriously, shit like that helps when you're incognito. I guess it's kinda like Being a corporate executive AND a camera whore; it must leave a lot of time for clandestine ops on the side.

Chuck Barris, eat your heart out, buddy....you've found your match.
This isn't about "fame", it's about America's national security! It is about Iran getting Nukes!
Pfft -

That's a hoot. Like you people care about Iran procuring nuclear weapons. Don't make me laugh.

Yes, he has. It is a matter of record.

Not only has the SOB blatantly lied during his SOTU speech, the White House has been forced to admit that he lied.

Friday, February 13th, 2004

White House Admits Bush Lied in 2002 State of The Union Over Al Qaeda Obtaining U.S. Nuclear Plant Plans

I wasn't aware of this (and it is not a point Dharma and I were arguing. We were talking about the "sixteen words")

BUT.... if this story is true, and if the lie was intentional and if lying during a State of the Union address is an impeachable offense, then yes..... he should be impeached.

And if you can show me this, "Impeach Bush" in bold red will replace the Barack Obama quote in my signature.
I'm not saying this to challenge you, I'm saying it because if it's true then I think he should be impeached.

.....nobody really knows they only make 40k a year and drive brown K cars. Of course, add an Internet connection, and they’re in like Flynn with the intelligence community via Bob's Blog and democracy now.Post o' the Month.
(Move it, you're hourly).

1. Being in Vanity Fair doesn't out her covert status with the CIA. She was a corporate executive and wife of a diplomat. Get a clue.
2. No, he didn't. He turned down offers for television and radio shows.

1. Are you saying that when the Vanity Fair piece came out, nobody knew that his wife was Superspy? It was simply a story about Joe Wilson

2. What???? He'd have gone on "Hannah Montana" if they'd asked him.

Like you people care about Iran procuring nuclear weapons. Don't make me laugh.

And you do?!? Don't make me laugh!

They out an entire CIA covert operation dedicated to tracking nuclear technology and you don't care.

I obviously care far more than you do.

1. Are you saying that when the Vanity Fair piece came out, nobody knew that his wife was Superspy? It was simply a story about Joe Wilson

Be specific. What Vanity Fair piece are you referring to?


2. What???? He'd have gone on "Hannah Montana" if they'd asked him.

Obviously not. Your rhetoric, as usual, holds no water.

Be specific. What Vanity Fair piece are you referring to?
I think when Prae spoke about the piece with pictures of his wife and his Jaguar that was pretty specific.

And you do?!? Don't make me laugh!

They out an entire CIA covert operation dedicated to tracking nuclear technology and you don't care.

I obviously care far more than you do.

seems we missed your outrage about the CIA prsions being blown by the media. again, selective outrage by you. Mrs Wilson's outing is a travesty, yet not a peep about an entire CIA operation. both are CIA, why do you care about Mrs Wilson only?

I think when Prae spoke about the piece with pictures of his wife and his Jaguar that was pretty specific.

What issue?

Date?

What was the title of the article?

Who wrote it?

Sorta seems the opposite of specific to me.

seems we missed your outrage about the CIA prsions being blown by the media.

I had plenty of outrage at the fact that my government was running secret prisons and torturing people. I still do.

Obviously the fact I have moral values means we have different points of view on this issue. I see torture as an unnecessary and ultimately damaging policy. You think it's neat because Jack did it on 24.


again, selective outrage by you.

Yes, because I am guided by my morals and my conscience instead of just following the daily talking points like you do.

If you want to call that "selective" then I am guilty as charged.


Mrs Wilson's outing is a travesty, yet not a peep about an entire CIA operation. both are CIA, why do you care about Mrs Wilson only?

Because Mrs. Wilson's job, tracking nuclear technology and monitoring rouge nations and what weapons they are purchasing, was necessary and useful.

Secret prisons are neither necessary nor useful. They are an affront to freedom loving individuals everywhere.

how the hell do you know how useful a secret prison is or not? are you in the CIA and know which was more important then the other? If MRs Wilson ran the CIA prison and was outed you would be upset. you are 100% bullshit. I personally think outing agents is a crime punishable by law and anyone involved should be sent to prison, no matter how high it goes. the law is the law. On the other hand outing a CIA prison isnt some noble thing, to me its the asame as outing the spy. But to you one CIA activity is good and noble when a libs wife does it but the other is inhumane. your a piece of work man, a walking contradiction. pathetic.

What issue?

Date?

What was the title of the article?

Who wrote it?

Sorta seems the opposite of specific to me.

becuase if you cant state these things the article doesnt exist.

I am really tired of this joker and his constant flip flopping. We are supposed to believe his shit on merit, yet an article we all know about and saw with our own eyes need date, time, author and everything for this jackass to believe it existed.

Since you don't give a damn about outting an entire covert operation, your fake outrage over the secret prison/torture thing is pathetic, to say the least.

becuase if you cant state these things the article doesnt exist.

No, you fucking Dumbass.
Because you can't state these things.

first of all, i already said whoever is responsible for outing Mrs Wilson should go to jail, as the law says.
Second of all, I saw the article, now you are saying if I cant tell you the issue #, date and author I didnt see it? Go to hell.

Yes, I am saying that I don't believe you.

STFU.

Boys, boys...play nice.

I guess I was dreaming when I saw her beaming face on the cover of that magazine then. Anyone else have that dream?

STFU.
Copyright of TravCorp.

His attorneys will call you soon.

I guess I was dreaming when I saw her beaming face on the cover of that magazine then. Anyone else have that dream?

Thanks for admitting it.

I think when Prae spoke about the piece with pictures of his wife and his Jaguar that was pretty specific.
do you mean this one?

http://img.slate.com/media/64/031202_VF_ValeriePlame.jpg


nope-never happened, we all must be dreaming:@@:

Originally Posted by Travh20
I guess I was dreaming when I saw her beaming face on the cover of that magazine then. Anyone else have that dream?

Hmmm, doesn't look like a "cover" to me.

What exactly do you think that picture proves anyway?

We know she was covert (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/)and that she was working on Iran (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html). Those are facts.

What is your point?

Post o' the Month.
(Move it, you're hourly).
I liked it, too. :)

BTW, thanks for citing the "move it, you're hourly" memory....

That one was priceless.

Hmmm, doesn't look like a "cover" to me.

What exactly do you think that picture proves anyway?

We know she was covert (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/)and that she was working on Iran (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html). Those are facts.
"The Raw Story"??? Nice.

From your exceptionally well-written, levelheaded article:

PROSECUTOR PATRICK FITZGERALD IS WEIGHING WHETHER TO INDICT TOP PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR KARL ROVE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS BUSH'S BRAIN.

Sweet. Well put, Shyst...uh, I mean...Shuster.

From wikipedia:

Pursuant to the grand jury leak investigation, Libby was convicted on March 6, 2007, on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, and he was acquitted of one count of making false statements. His lawyers have announced that they will appeal his conviction.[3][4][5] Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said he didn't expect anyone else to be charged in the case. "We're all going back to our day jobs."[5]

And this is just one example.

A little too much speculation for me. Maybe you should rely on news that's more current and less partisan.

What is your point?
If keeping her "deep" cover status was truly an issue at the time, then why would the dumb bitch plaster her face all over a popular periodical? That makes no sense, whatsoever. Why would any spy who operates in a "James Bond" capacity (which is a laugh, in and of itself) ever expose themself in such an egregious fashion? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying the whole "it put her life in danger" bit for one second. Sell that shit elsewhere, Chachi, 'cause we're all stocked up here....

THAT'S the point, Junior.

A little too much speculation for me.

What speculation? We know she was covert and we know she was working on Iran. Prove me wrong.



If keeping her "deep" cover status was truly an issue at the time, then why would the dumb bitch plaster her face all over a popular periodical?

1. Because it kept up her cover as the corporate executive wife of a US Diplomat.

2. That "dumb bitch" is an accomplished covert CIA operative and posed as the CEO for a multinational corporation. What have you ever done?


That makes no sense, whatsoever.

That just goes to show who the dumb bitch really is. :rolleyes:


Why would any spy who operates in a "James Bond" capacity (which is a laugh, in and of itself)

Yes, the fact you would even bring James Bond into the discussion is laughable.


ever expose themself in such an egregious fashion?

How did her picture expose her CIA work?
Seriously, explain that leap of logic to me.

Did some terrorist look at her picture and say, "Hey, here is her picture in a magazine! She must be a covert CIA operative!"

You are a Dumbass.

No, you fucking Dumbass.
Don't do that, okay?

What speculation?
Apparently, you missed the comment I drew attention to earlier. Big fucking surprise there.
1. Because it kept up her cover as the corporate executive wife of a US Diplomat.
What....you mean in the picture that doesn't exist? Are you sure?
2. That "dumb bitch" is an accomplished covert CIA operative and posed as the CEO for a multinational corporation. What have you ever done?
A whole fuckload more than you, and you're 50. All things being even (i.e., if we were the same age), and you converted your net worth into stock, I could probably buy your ass for what you're worth 100 times over, only to sell it for .50 cents on the dollar just to watch you burn.
Yes, the fact you would even bring James Bond into the discussion is laughable.
I didn't bring it up - Wilson, however, did.

He refers to her as Jane Bond, asswipe.

"Plame is now the most famous female spy in America-"Jane Bond," as her husband has referred to her."

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/vanity_fairs_profile_on_joseph_wilson_and_valerie_ plame.php
How did her picture expose her CIA work?
Seriously, explain that leap of logic to me.
If she's deep undercover as someone in Africa seeking information on yellowcake and it's transport to Iran, then what the fuck is she doing showboating in a popular periodical? Do you think it's possible that as the wife of a "diplomat", she's put her OWN life at risk by doing so???

"In fact, she had noc status, that is, nonofficial cover. nocs are not ordinarily deskbound intelligence analysts who work inside C.I.A. headquarters. Mostly they operate abroad, frequently using fake job descriptions and sometimes fake names. According to a former senior C.I.A. officer, to blend in they often have to work two jobs: that of their "cover" and that involving their C.I.A. duties, which usually consists of handling foreign agents in the field, but can also involve recruiting them. nocs have no diplomatic protection and so are vulnerable to hostile regimes that can imprison or execute them without official repercussions. A noc's only real defense is his or her cover, which can take years to build. Because of this vulnerability, a noc's identity is considered within the C.I.A. to be, as former C.I.A. analyst Kenneth Pollack has put it, "the holiest of holies."".
You are a Dumbass.
The general consensus here at Allforums is that you're a fucking retard. I don't need to comment on your intellect anymore. Others have done it for me. On that note, how many people here do you think take you seriously?

What issue? Date? What was the title of the article?
Who wrote it? Sorta seems the opposite of specific to me.
You originally said that "Being in Vanity Fair doesn't out her covert status with the CIA. She was a corporate executive and wife of a diplomat. Get a clue."

To which I asked you:

"Are you saying that when the Vanity Fair piece came out, nobody knew that his wife was Superspy? It was simply a story about Joe Wilson?"

The one Prae referred to took place after the Novak disclosure. And in it they showed pictures of her, and talked about the CIA.
Now that you know about this, would you say that is the behavior of a covert officer?

Now that you know about this, would you say that is the behavior of a covert officer?
Don't even bother asking.

I sense his case unraveling. It was a good run though.

"Nine Newspapers Drop Coulter In The Wake Of CPAC Remarks" :woohoo:

Keep those cards, letters and e-mails (http://mediamatters.org/items/200703130001) coming!!!!! :banana:

I'd like to see a battle between Shaman and Foolsworth. Hilarious. :D

"Nine Newspapers Drop Coulter In The Wake Of CPAC Remarks" :woohoo:
Damn that corporate owned right-wing media.

I think that dropping Ann Coulter is a move to avoid people boycotting them for political incorrectness. Right and left wing newspapers would probably consider it a smart move...

IF the media were rightwing puppets.. they would applaud coulter and not cut her...

I'm sure that by now even the right wing want to distance themselves from her, since she seems so insane.

I'd like to see a battle between Shaman and Foolsworth. Hilarious. :D

Sadly, Shaman would kick the crap outta Foolsworth. He actually can make coherent statements. Foolsworth though... I don't have a clue what that gibberish is.

Sadly, Shaman would kick the crap outta Foolsworth. He actually can make coherent statements. Foolsworth though... I don't have a clue what that gibberish is.
it's iambic

well i certainly think she is of poor taste for saying that...

Damn that corporate owned right-wing media.

Are you going to protest them for treating your darling Mr. Coulter so badly? :rolleyes:

IF the media were rightwing puppets.. they would applaud coulter and not cut her...

Which is what they have been doing for years until now.

Don't do that, okay?

:upyours:

If she's deep undercover as someone in Africa seeking information on yellowcake and it's transport to Iran, then what the fuck is she doing showboating in a popular periodical?


Confirming her cover, you fucking dumbass. I have only said it three times. Apparently I used too many syllables for you to comprehend.

I will say it once more, her picture does not prove that she is not covert. The CIA says she was covert. Period. End of story.

I am not going to bother with you again. You have the intelligence of a retarded 1st grader and even less maturity. I can't take you seriously at all. Your are just one of the useless name callers on here who couldn't hold a serious debate to save your worthless life.

Begone useless one.

Now that you know about this, would you say that is the behavior of a covert officer?

It was after her cover was already blown so it doesn't matter. Damage is already done.

You are done. I already cleaned the floor with you. Why are you still trying?
What is your point?

Why are you still trying?

Bruised ego, most likely.

you fucking dumbass.

Apparently I used too many syllables for you to comprehend.

You have the intelligence of a retarded 1st grader and even less maturity.

Your [sic] are just one of the useless name callers on here who couldn't hold a serious debate to save your worthless life.

Begone useless one.

you're projecting again:rolleyes:

Mike, you are even more weak and patheic than usual today.
And thats saying something.

Mike, you are even more weak and patheic than usual today.
And thats saying something.
Another reason why I want this 'bum to leave. :D

a. Because [the article] kept up her cover as the corporate executive wife of a US Diplomat.
b. How did her picture expose her CIA work?
c. Did some terrorist look at her picture and say, "Hey, here is her picture in a magazine! She must be a covert CIA operative!"
d. Confirming her cover, you f---ing dumbass. I have only said it three times. Apparently I used too many syllables for you to comprehend.
e. I will say it once more, her picture does not prove that she is not covert.
You have the intelligence of a retarded 1st grader and even less maturity.
First line of the article (look closely):
"Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson and his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame...."

First line of the article (look closely):
"Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson and his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame...."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh god.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I was thinking the same thing.

Sit back. Great tapdancing is on its way.

Im getting the feeling watchen you guys,that we're going round in circles here, getting dizzy.

Mike, you are even more weak and patheic than usual today.
And thats saying something.
i didn't know your name was "Mike"....but then you can't swing a dead cat without hitting one of us....do you have blue eyes, brown hair and a fondness for chocolate cake too?

Im getting the feeling watchen you guys,that we're going round in circles here, getting dizzy.
the carousel isn't moving that fast:@@:

First line of the article (look closely):
"Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson and his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame...."
~Whoops~:lolhit:

First line of the article (look closely):
"Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson and his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame...."

You mean the article that came out AFTER HER COVER WAS ALREADY BLOWN?

Yeah, thats what I thought.

I have to say it, you are complete idiot Brooks. You sound like a spoiled brat who didn't get his way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh god.

And you wonder why I consider you a rightwinger. :rolleyes:

Bruised ego, most likely.

Obviously. He is still patheticly trying to claim Plame was not covert dispite all the facts saying otherwise.

And certain sheeple on here are eating his lies up like candy.