Remember Me?

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]
Page 4 of 28 Skip to Page:
< Older | Newer >
Topic: Better toke a new one, Mr. Soul...
Post #31 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 9:04 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
I won't argue that you have problems with English, but I don't take that as a cheap excuse to call you stupid the way that you do to me.
Nice - there you go, belittling me now. I don't have problems with English in this example but when I do, I would admit to it.

The ethics are much larger than you're admitting. It was a conflict of interest and nepotism for Plame to recommend her husband to perform work for the CIA, especially given his vocal stance against the administration. .
This statement reveals your bias and inclination to inferences rather than fact. How do you know what Wilson's stance was on the admin before his trip to Niger? Prove your claim. Wilson has a distinquished career working for both Republican & Democratic administrations.

Second, there's no reason for the CIA to hire the family members of agents who have NOC status or any need for secrecy. This was plainly a stupid move on both parties.
You may have a point here, but you need to prove it. Why would sending Joe Wilson on a non-classified mission jeopordize his wife's status? Why would anyone suspect that his wife as a CIA agent as the result of this? You've made this claim but you cannot verify it. In any event, if this was a valid issue, then the CIA officials who made the decision to send Wilson were at fault.  Surely the CIA has rules on this.

It was essential for creating a false impression that Wilson had a larger role than he really did.
Bullshit - this is a complete & utter inference! Cheney's request was the whole impetus for this mission.  Wilson mentioned Cheney because it gave his mission credibility and more so, it was the TRUTH.  Do you deny that Cheney asked the CIA for this information?  I hope you do because I'll prove you wrong with the Senate report.

This is a meaningless and irrelevant boast. Bring in an actual testimonial if you have one instead of presuming such nonsense.
No it is not. Do you take technical writing in college? My professor was very hard & she would not permit ill constructed essays.

Why?? The CIA doesn't exactly have a spotless reputation for intelligence gathering. They didn't even ask Wilson for a written report.
So what? He briefed them - is that not standard procedure?

The point that your assumptions are wrong. If you can't deal with it, then move along.
Same to you. My assumptions are not wrong and you need to learn to distinquish between facts & inferences.

You wouldn't have had any problem with this if Wilson had come back from Niger and reported that he had found evidence of Iraq trying to get yellow-cake, now would you?
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #32 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 9:06 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (phoo @ June 16 2006,13:57)
It was a conflict of interest and nepotism for Plame to recommend her husband to perform work for the CIA, especially given his vocal stance against the administration.

Nepotism, yes, but am I missing something or not? His vocal stance wasn't against the administration, at least not at first. He did what they asked and they didn't like what he found. He didn't say anything against them until later. I mean, he was one of them until the facts he found didn't support their view, then he became one of them....or are you suggesting that he was a mole and took the job with the explicit intentions of finding facts that were contrary to what the administration was saying at the time? Are you implying that Plame and Wilson were in this together from the beginning to discredit the administration?
I'm not ruling out anything. This is a guy that wrote a book and started making lots of TV appearances to capitalize on his (and her) victimhood. I'm not impressed with his integrity. If he felt that he found something of value, he should have gone directly to the top with his concerns after the President's SOTU address in 2003. Wilson waited nearly six months to go public and this was AFTER the war had started. If his information would have disputed the reason for going to war, why did wait until two or three months after the war was under way to say anything?? And why did he write an editorial instead of working through channels since he had "inside" connections??
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #33 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 9:13 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
He wrote the book after she had been outed.  I've listened to Joe Wilson - he's more articulate than you are.

If he felt that he found something of value, he should have gone directly to the top with his concerns after the President's SOTU address in 2003.
Now this is a laugh.  Where the #### would he have gone?

Wilson waited nearly six months to go public and this was AFTER the war had started.
So what?

And why did he write an editorial instead of working through channels since he had "inside" connections??
This is laughable.  What channels?

What inside connections?  Wilson did the appropriate thing - he took his concerns to the court of public opinions.

Again - if Wilson had written an article in support of the admin's decision, you would have supported him wholeheartily now wouldn't you?
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #34 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 9:43 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
I won't argue that you have problems with English, but I don't take that as a cheap excuse to call you stupid the way that you do to me.

Nice - there you go, belittling me now. I don't have problems with English in this example but when I do, I would admit to it.
Funny, this double standard of yours that it's okay for you to belittle me, but all of a sudden you cry foul when I merely repeat YOUR OWN WORDS.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
The ethics are much larger than you're admitting. It was a conflict of interest and nepotism for Plame to recommend her husband to perform work for the CIA, especially given his vocal stance against the administration. .

This statement reveals your bias and inclination to inferences rather than fact. How do you know what Wilson's stance was on the admin before his trip to Niger? Prove your claim. Wilson has a distinquished career working for both Republican & Democratic administrations.
He worked directly for Al Gore and Thomas Foley (Democrats) in the 1980s. He held prominent positions under Clinton but did not serve under Bush 43 (until the CIA gig). His campaign contributions over the last few years skew much more to the left.

WILSON, JOSEPH C
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
J. C. WILSON INTL. VENTURES/STRATEG
3/26/1999
$2,000
Gore, Al

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
J C WILSON INTERNATIONAL
5/13/1999
$1,000
Kennedy, Edward M

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
JCWILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURE
5/20/1999
$1,000
Bush, George W

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
CONSULTANT
6/25/2000
$500
Royce, Ed

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
J. C. WILSON INTL. VENTURES/STRATEG
3/26/1999
$2,000
Gore, Al

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
J. C. WILSON INTL. VENTURES/STRATEG
4/22/1999
($1,000)
Gore, Al

WILSON, JOSEPH C
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
JC WILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURES/BU
5/23/2003
$1,000
Kerry, John

WILSON, JOSEPH C
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
JC WILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURES/CE
9/4/2003
$1,000
Kerry, John

WILSON, JOSEPH C III
CHATTANOOGA,TN 37404
ARBITRATOR MEDIATOR
12/4/2001
$250
Thompson, Fred

WILSON, JOSEPH C III
CHATTANOOGA,TN 37404
MEDIATOR
10/7/2002
$250
Alexander, Lamar

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
JC WILSON INT. VENTURE/FINANCE
2/13/2002
$1,000
HILLPAC

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
SELF/CONSULTANT
9/25/2002
$250
Rahall, Nick

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR III
CHATTANOOGA,TN 37404
SELF-EMPLOYED
8/2/2004
$500
Republican National Cmte

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR III
CHATTANOOGA,TN 37404
1/23/2004
$250
Republican National Cmte

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR III
CHATTANOOGA,TN 37404
SELF-EMPLOYED
10/29/2004
$250
Republican National Cmte

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
SELF/CONSULTANT
6/28/2001
$500
Royce, Ed

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007
SELF/CONSULTANT
6/12/2002
$500
Royce, Ed



Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
Second, there's no reason for the CIA to hire the family members of agents who have NOC status or any need for secrecy. This was plainly a stupid move on both parties.

You may have a point here, but you need to prove it.
I don't need to prove anything. This is your lazy way of trying to avoid a common sense argument.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
Why would sending Joe Wilson on a non-classified mission jeopordize his wife's status? Why would anyone suspect that his wife as a CIA agent as the result of this? You've made this claim but you cannot verify it.

Again, pure intellectual laziness. It's risky to employ family members of someone whose identity needs protection.

Ex. Wilson shows up in Niger and tells people he's working for the CIA. Then one of those folks remembers seeing Wilson's wife in Niger a month earlier. Whooopsie.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
In any event, if this was a valid issue, then the CIA officials who made the decision to send Wilson were at fault. Surely the CIA has rules on this.

You would think they do. Because they threw caution to the wind would indicate they were NOT concerned about Plame's identity.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
It was essential for creating a false impression that Wilson had a larger role than he really did.

Bullshit - this is a complete & utter inference!
No. It's called reading comprehension and it's based on Wilson's self-backpatting editorial.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
Cheney's request was the whole impetus for this mission. Wilson mentioned Cheney because it gave his mission credibility and more so, it was the TRUTH.

He was working for the CIA. How much more credibility did he need by mentioning Cheney??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
Do you deny that Cheney asked the CIA for this information? I hope you do because I'll prove you wrong with the Senate report.

Cheney didn't ask the CIA to have Wilson do the job. That's the point. Wilson blurred that point in his editiorial. This was why Cheney wanted the facts clarified with the press.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
This is a meaningless and irrelevant boast. Bring in an actual testimonial if you have one instead of presuming such nonsense.

No it is not. Do you take technical writing in college? My professor was very hard & she would not permit ill constructed essays.
I have a degree in journalism. I know quite a bit about writing and editing. Your posts here wouldn't earn you very good grades and you are in no position to make judgments about the quality of Joe Wilson's writing.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
Why?? The CIA doesn't exactly have a spotless reputation for intelligence gathering. They didn't even ask Wilson for a written report.

So what? He briefed them - is that not standard procedure?
And then he didn't follow up to see if his information was useful. He just assumed he had done something helpful without confirming it.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
The point that your assumptions are wrong. If you can't deal with it, then move along.

Same to you. My assumptions are not wrong and you need to learn to distinquish between facts & inferences.
Your assumptions are often wrong and don't preach about facts and inferences when have you plenty of trouble in that area.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:04)
You wouldn't have had any problem with this if Wilson had come back from Niger and reported that he had found evidence of Iraq trying to get yellow-cake, now would you?

Actually, the CIA originally believed that Wilson's findings supported that connection. Of course you already knew this from reading the senate report. If Wilson had found something meaningful, he should have said something in January 2003, not July 2003.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #35 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 9:51 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:13)
He wrote the book after she had been outed. I've listened to Joe Wilson - he's more articulate than you are.

You don't have any idea of how articulate I am. Once again, you take a cheap shot EVERY TIME you can't defend a debate point.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:13)
If he felt that he found something of value, he should have gone directly to the top with his concerns after the President's SOTU address in 2003.

Now this is a laugh. Where the #### would he have gone?
Are you being purposely dense or are you really this oblivious?? I thought you read Wilson's editorial.

"The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip "

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:13)
Wilson waited nearly six months to go public and this was AFTER the war had started.

So what?
Was he worried about the troops and the war or was he worried about making a name for himself. If I had important information that could prevent a war, I would share it immediately.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:13)
And why did he write an editorial instead of working through channels since he had "inside" connections??

This is laughable. What channels?
He worked for two presidents and several politicians plus he had connections at the state department AND THE CIA and you DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANNELS?? Are you really this dense??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:13)
What inside connections? Wilson did the appropriate thing - he took his concerns to the court of public opinions.

Re-read my previous reply. You're really putting yourself in a hole today.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,14:13)
Again - if Wilson had written an article in support of the admin's decision, you would have supported him wholeheartily now wouldn't you?

This is meaningless speculation. What happened to your insistence on facts and avoiding inferences??
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #36 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 10:32 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
This is your lazy way of trying to avoid a common sense argument.
F*ck y*u! And I know exactly how articulate you are from this forum. And I used to actually have some respect from you.  The funny thing is that you are just like you say I am - when someone doesn't agree with you, you can't accept it.

And thanks for proving that Wilson was non-partisan! No true liberal would have given any money to G.W.B.

If I had important information that could prevent a war, I would share it immediately.
You're living in a dream world. Anyone who's crossed this admin has been struck down. Wilson also defended himself completely in another op-ed piece.

Mr. Know-It-All - would you like me to contact Fitzgerald & the CIA for you and tell them I know someone who can explain the whole thing to them, and how the whole thing is just silly. I'm sure that they would love to hear from you. Seriously - I'd be happy to contact them for you.

You can say what you what about me but you'll never be able to back up with any FACTs.

From the beginning of this discussion, you've tried to make Joe Wilson the issue here, but he is not. You've done exactly the same thing as the right-wing did - attack Joe Wilson.

This issue is about Valerie Plame & that the fact that her identity was leaked to the press. In your world, this is OK; in mine, it is not.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #37 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 10:41 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:32)
This is your lazy way of trying to avoid a common sense argument.

F*ck y*u! And I know exactly how articulate you are from this forum. And I used to actually have some respect from you.
What's the matter?? You can dish out insults but you can't handle being called lazy??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:32)
Mr. Know-It-All - would you like me to contact Fitzgerald & the CIA for you and tell them I know someone who can explain the whole thing to them, and how the whole thing is just silly. I'm sure that they would love to hear from you. Seriously - I'd be happy to contact them for you.

Do it.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:32)
You can say what you what about me but you'll never be able to back up with any FACTs.

I present facts all the time. You just ignore the ones you can't handle.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:32)
From the beginning of this discussion, you've tried to make Joe Wilson the issue here, but he is not. You've done exactly the same thing as the right-wing did - attack Joe Wilson.

Here it is again, the lazy smear accusation. Evidently it's only okay for Joe Wilson to smear the administration but he's supposed to be untouchable. Give us all a break with your immature double standards.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:32)
This issue is about Valerie Plame & that the fact that her identity was leaked to the press. In your world, this is OK - in mine, it is not.

Yet, Libby is NOT being charged with leaking her identity. So is it really about the leak or is it about trying to bring down somebody in the administration?
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #38 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 10:48 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
I don't like wasting my time debating right-wing ideologues. You can call me whatever names you want. You can call me lazy, but anyone who knows me, knows these things aren't true.

Evidently it's only okay for Joe Wilson to smear the administration but he's supposed to be untouchable.
Of course not. First of all, he didn't smear the admin, so that statement is wrong. Secondly, there were many things that the admin could have done to counter Joe Wilson instead of outing his wife. But they choose the attack Joe Wilson's character, and they did that in the utter worst way - outing his wife who was a CIA agent who's name was classified & who had non-official cover.

I'm well aware of the Senate report & I don't think you accurately summed up the Wilson/Niger issue. Plus, that report was controlled by Republicans and it is belittling to Wilson in places.

Yet, Libby is NOT being charged with leaking her identity. So is it really about the leak or is it about trying to bring down somebody in the administration?
That is a comletely false statement.  If you listened to Fitzgerald's press conference, you would know why Libbey was indicted.

I still hope the Fitzgerald charges someone with the leak but I don't think it will happen.  Either Rove or Libbey or Cheney, or one of their staff, did it.  If Fitzgerald doesn't know now then he will never know.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #39 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 11:09 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:48)
I don't like wasting my time debating right-wing ideologues. You can call me whatever names you want. You can call me lazy, but anyone who knows me, knows these things aren't true.

It was a comment about your debate crutches. And again, you are exercising a double standard because you are usually the first to take cheap shots and the first to whine when they are returned.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:48)
Evidently it's only okay for Joe Wilson to smear the administration but he's supposed to be untouchable.

Of course not. First of all, he didn't smear the admin, so that statement is wrong.
He did by your definition. Yet another Mr Soul double standard exposed.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:48)
Secondly, there were many things that the admin could have done to counter Joe Wilson instead of outing his wife.

She helped him get the job. If he can't handle the truth, he shouldn't have taken the job. It's that simple.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:48)
But they choose the attack Joe Wilson's character, and they did that in the utter worst way - outing his wife who was a CIA agent who's name was classified & who had non-official cover.

They had NO indication that her status was sensitive and again this was HER risk at being involved in getting him a job with the CIA. She could have told him not to go public, just in case it got out that she worked for the CIA.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:48)
I'm well aware of the Senate report & I don't think you accurately summed up the Wilson/Niger issue. Plus, that report was controlled by Republicans and it is belittling to Wilson in places.

The truth hurts. Too bad.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:48)
Yet, Libby is NOT being charged with leaking her identity. So is it really about the leak or is it about trying to bring down somebody in the administration?

That is a comletely false statement. If you listened to Fitzgerald's press conference, you would know why Libbey was indicted.
First, there's no E in Libby. Second, I listened to Fitz's press conference and subsequent announcements. Libby is not being chared for leaking Plame's identity. Trying Libby on perjury and OOJ is nothing more than a political grandstand to save face.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,15:48)
I still hope the Fitzgerald charges someone with the leak but I don't think it will happen. Either Rove or Libbey or Cheney, or one of their staff, did it. If Fitzgerald doesn't know now then he will never know.

Fitz has been fishing for a long time. Is it really this hard to bring up charges if you think people are lying?? Any other prosecuter probably would have indicted Libby or Rove for the leak by now. Such charges get filed all the time on flimsier evidence.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #40
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 11:41 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
OK - I'll try to dispense with the cheap shots if you try.

He did by your definition.
Show me where he smeared the admin by my definition. Prove your point because I don't see it.

She helped him get the job. If he can't handle the truth, he shouldn't have taken the job. It's that simple
Nope - not true or simple. I was "helped" in getting the job where I work now by an individual who knew me and who introduced my resume to the powers at me. However, it was me who got the job. The same thing happened with Wilson, his wife introduced him but it was his credentials that got him the job.

They had NO indication that her status was sensitive and again this was HER risk at being involved in getting him a job with the CIA.
Who had no indication?

She could have told him not to go public, just in case it got out that she worked for the CIA.
Possibly but that didn't happen. A lot of things could have hapened differently.

The truth hurts. Too bad.
Nope - the truth never hurt me. In fact, it's always been my friend.

Trying Libby on perjury and OOJ is nothing more than a political grandstand to save face.
Is that your opinion or can you back that up with real facts? It didn't stop the Congresss when they impeached Clinton for prejury, did it?

Seriously - either perjery or OOJ is wrong or it's not.

Fitz has been fishing for a long time. Is it really this hard to bring up charges if you think people are lying?? Any other prosecuter probably would have indicted Libby or Rove for the leak by now. Such charges get filed all the time on flimsier evidence.
Why do you say that? Seems like you are speculating here to me. Yes charges do get filed all the time but not against a high-level person in an administration.

So let's re-cap your position here:

1) You think this investigation is a waste of time
2) You think it was OK to release Plame's identity to the press
3) You think Wilson was smearing the admin

When is it OK to criticize an administration?
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
< Older | Newer >
272 replies since Jun. 13 2006, 3:57 PM
Page 4 of 28 Skip to Page:

© 2014 n-Track Software
Powered by iF 1.0.1 © 2006 ikonForums