Remember Me?

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]
Page 7 of 28 Skip to Page:
< Older | Newer >
Topic: Better toke a new one, Mr. Soul...
Post #61 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Posted On: Jun. 20 2006, 11:30 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,16:03)
You're so worried about the right-wing bogeyman you wouldn't recognize truth

You can never prove this statement & you know it.
I've proved it several times in this thread.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,16:03)
If there are no right-wing bogeymen, then there is no liberal bias either, so quit your liberal bias in the media rant, because we're tired of hearing it.

One is not dependent on the existence of another. The problem is that you keep acting as if there's a right-wing source for my comments about Wilson, and that's absolutely wrong. It's based on his own words and study of other original source material that's been in legitimate (although sometimes liberally biased) media.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,16:03)

One other point. This distinction between Cheney & the office of Cheney is indeed important. Any intelligent person reading Wilson's essay could distinquish between Cheney & his office & would not assume that Cheney was directly involved.

No, the reporters obviously didn't understand or else Libby and Rove wouldn't have had to clarify their inquiries. No one likes being accused of doing something they didn't do and that's why they clarified who was responsible for bringing in Wilson.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,16:03)
However, this thing became a right-wing talking point that Wilson lied about Cheney sending him.

Nonsense. It's based on Wilson's own words. I gave you a direct quote that made it clear as day (btw, that's the time in which the sun is out).

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,16:03)
Cheney was even on TV denying that he knew Wilson.

Are you saying he did know Wilson??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,16:03)
This whole thing was a crock. Any INTELLIGENT person reading Wilson's op-ed piece would know that Wilson never claimed that Cheney personally sent him on this mission.

One more time for the record:

The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer.

BTW, was Wilson actually asked to help "formulate the answer" or was he simply asked to bring in a report?? Formulating the answer would imply that he was some sort of an analyst. What an idiot!
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #62 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 12:25 AM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
One is not dependent on the existence of another.
Correct but they are both examples of bias.

And you've proven nothing except that that you are biased. It's you who can't spot the truth.

Your comments about Wilson are exactly like right-wing media's talking points about him. Is that a coincidence?

Wilson's article is very well written. There's nothing ambigious in it. I wished I could write as well as he does. Your claims are about his essay were wrong & illogical. Wilson's essay starts with a question. The rest of his essay answers the question.

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Many Americans feel this is a valid question. Many Americans feel that we were "lied" into war. The proof is pretty obvioius that we were. Wilson had a right as an American to speak out & he did just that. If Bush had a solid case for this war, he wouldn't have had to worry about critics.

The Bush admin outed Wilson's wife because they had to smear & discredit Wilson. It's very clear that's what they did. Robert Novak's article was the vehicle.

BTW, was Wilson actually asked to help "formulate the answer" or was he simply asked to bring in a report??
This is a perfect example of your mincing simple words to mis-contrue the meaning. You're the idiot, not Wilson.

You did the same thing with Novak's article, i.e., you spun in such a way that it was almost unbelievable.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #63 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 12:48 AM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
No surprise that we've discussed this issue before. I found several prior threads one of which discussed an essay written by W.F. Buckley - Who Did What?.


But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted.
ksdb - you never answered my question: do you agree with his concluding statement, which is his main point? Please answer yes or no.

My guess is that you don't agree because you've already claimed it was OK to leak her status at the CIA.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #64 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 9:55 AM
StuH
 

No avatar chosen




Group: Members
Posts: 401
Joined: Mar. 2006

Member Rating: None

Offline
I dig the new avatar Mr. Soul. Would definitely give you 1st place for that.
Contact Information:  StuH

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #65 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 4:27 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,17:48)
No surprise that we've discussed this issue before. I found several prior threads one of which discussed an essay written by W.F. Buckley - Who Did What?.


But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted.

ksdb - you never answered my question: do you agree with his concluding statement, which is his main point? Please answer yes or no.

My guess is that you don't agree because you've already claimed it was OK to leak her status at the CIA.
It was okay to leak her status because her status was not protected in the state department memo from which Powell, Hadley, Cheney, Libby, Rove and/or anyone else learned about her involvement.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #66 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 4:46 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,17:25)
One is not dependent on the existence of another.

Correct but they are both examples of bias.

And you've proven nothing except that that you are biased. It's you who can't spot the truth.

Your comments about Wilson are exactly like right-wing media's talking points about him. Is that a coincidence?
Only if you consider common sense and logic as things that can only happen by coincidence. It's obviously a rarity in your personal life.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,17:25)
Wilson's article is very well written. There's nothing ambigious in it. I wished I could write as well as he does. Your claims are about his essay were wrong & illogical. Wilson's essay starts with a question. The rest of his essay answers the question.

No, his essay is misleading and opportunist. He could have answered his own questions by going back to the CIA. Instead he thinks he knows more than they do. He is an idiot and it's no wonder that you're in love with him.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,17:25)
Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

The simple answer is no. The bottom line is that Saddam was given plenty of time to fully comply and Saddam chose not to. It wasn't incumbent on our administration to use former ambassadors to determine whether or not Saddam presented potential dangers to our national security.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,17:25)
Many Americans feel this is a valid question. Many Americans feel that we were "lied" into war.

And many Americans feel that taking out Saddam was appropriate and necessary and many Americans feel that the left's accusations of lies are nonsense.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,17:25)
The proof is pretty obvioius that we were. Wilson had a right as an American to speak out & he did just that. If Bush had a solid case for this war, he wouldn't have had to worry about critics.

Nonsense. Both FDR and Lincoln had plenty of critics during times of war. A "solid case for war" doesn't insulate a President from criticism. In this case, much of the criticism is kooky nonsense.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,17:25)
The Bush admin outed Wilson's wife because they had to smear & discredit Wilson. It's very clear that's what they did. Robert Novak's article was the vehicle.

Nonsense again. You needed a left-wing kook (David Corn) to accuse this of being smear because at the time Novak exposed Plame's nepotism, nobody knew nor cared who she was.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,17:25)
BTW, was Wilson actually asked to help "formulate the answer" or was he simply asked to bring in a report??

This is a perfect example of your mincing simple words to mis-contrue the meaning. You're the idiot, not Wilson.
Nonsense again. Even the Washington Post admitted this guy was exposed by the Senate Report:

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.


Quote (Mr Soul @ June 20 2006,17:25)
You did the same thing with Novak's article, i.e., you spun in such a way that it was almost unbelievable.

The only thing that is unbelievable is your refusal to think instead of parrot left-wing talking points. Good parrot.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #67 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 5:04 PM
clark_griswold
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 849
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Here ya go Mike...watched this on PBS last night. They do not disappoint. Might as well have been directed by Ollie "it was the CIA" Stone or Michael 'I'll cut it to make MY point" Moore.

Yellowcake for everyone!  ;)


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/
Contact Information:  clark_griswold

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #68 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 6:41 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
It was okay to leak her status because her status was not protected in the state department memo from which Powell, Hadley, Cheney, Libby, Rove and/or anyone else learned about her involvement.
What are you talking about here? Assuming that we talking about the same thing you are wrong:

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Again you really should contact Fitzgerald & explain to him that he's got the whole thing wrong. What arrogance you have ksdb!

Only if you consider common sense and logic as things that can only happen by coincidence. It's obviously a rarity in your personal life.
Wrong again Sherlock. My life is all about logic which is why I'm a software engineer & musician. If you look at my code & listen to my music, so you will see nothing but logic (and some emotion thrown in).

No, his essay is misleading and opportunist. He could have answered his own questions by going back to the CIA. Instead he thinks he knows more than they do. He is an idiot and it's no wonder that you're in love with him.
That's a matter of opinion - no? Back to the Ad Hominems again huh - ksdb.

The simple answer is no. The bottom line is that Saddam was given plenty of time to fully comply and Saddam chose not to.
Now it is you that's not using logic. None of Bush's, Cheney's or Powell's claims were true. The mobile labs claims were false; the aluminum tubes claim was false; the yellowcake claim was false; Iraq had not real links with Al Quada, etc, etc. IT WAS ALL LIES & cherry picked information. Saddam had no real active WMD programs. Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq on 9/12/2001 - it's well documented. In fact, his buddies wanted war before that. We had gotten inspectors back in Iraq & they could have done their job.

You've got the blood of 2,500 US service people & thousands of innocent Iraqi's on your hands, and I do NOT.

And many Americans feel that taking out Saddam was appropriate and necessary and many Americans feel that the left's accusations of lies are nonsense.
Do they now? You obviously haven't seen every recent poll in which over 50% of Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake.

Time will tell which one of us is right ksdb. Will you admit if you are wrong? I will (if I am).

Nonsense again. Even the Washington Post admitted this guy was exposed by the Senate Report:
Nope and I love your bias against the WP. The Senate report was clearly biased against Wilson if you read it carefully. Also the WP didn't get this right.

Wilson addressed everyone of those points in his letter - The Senate's bad intelligence.

Second conclusion: "Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided."

This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I "may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct." At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.

On March 7, 2003, the director general of the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were "not authentic." His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries, "We fell for it." From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was.

The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the U.S. government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.

My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the president's State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the U.S. government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and it is not quoted in the "additional comments." In that article, I state clearly that "as for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. (And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"

The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent, handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.

The text of the "additional comments" also asserts that "during Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."

Clarke - the PBS report is correct. What about it is wrong?
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #69 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 6:51 PM
clark_griswold
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 849
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
never said it was right or wrong, did I?
Contact Information:  clark_griswold

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #70
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 7:02 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,11:41)

What are you talking about here? I believe this is incorrect. The Dept. memo was marked Secret if we are talking about the same thing.

The memo was marked secret, but Plame's position wasn't. If she had NOTHING to do with her husband getting the job, she shouldn't have been mentioned in the memo. If Wilson wants to be angry at someone, he should start with the CIA.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,11:41)

Wrong again Sherlock. My life is all about logic which is why I'm a software engineer & musician. If you look at my code & listen to my music, so you will see nothing but logic (and some emotion thrown in).

What you show at this site is lots of emotion and practically ZERO logic.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,11:41)

That's a matter of opinion - no? Back to the Ad Hominems again huh - ksdb.

I've decided to follow your example. You keep using them, so it must be okay.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,11:41)

Now it is you that's not using logic. None of Bush's, Cheney's or Powell's claims were true. The mobile labs claims was false; the aluminum tubes claim was false; the yellowcake claim was false; Iraq had not real links with Al Quada, etc, etc. IT WAS ALL LIES & cherry picked information. Saddam had no real active WMD programs. Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq on 9/12/2001 - it's well documented. In fact, his buddies wanted war before that. We had gotten inspectors back in Iraq & they could have done their job.

It's also well-documented that many Americans wanted to go to war with Iraq on 9/12/2001. The press mentioned it before the government ever did. And it is well-documented. The claims that you say are false were only confirmed after we took more aggressive action than waiting for inspectors who were being played by Saddam. Hindsight is only 20/20 because we took necessary action.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,11:41)
You've got the blood of 2,500 US service people & thousands of innocent Iraqi's on your hands, and I do NOT.

Lay off the melodrama. The people responsible are terrorists and insurgents who would gladly come to America and cut off your head in spite of your liberalism and pacifivism.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,11:41)

Do they now? You obviously haven't seen every recent poll in which over 50% of Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake.

And more than 50 percent are unable to find Iraq on a map. That's not a majority to be proud of or to take sides with. They aren't informed enough to make such judgments.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,11:41)
Time will tell which one of us is right ksdb. Will you admit if you are wrong? I will.

You're not showing much evidence that you're willing in this thread.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
< Older | Newer >
272 replies since Jun. 13 2006, 3:57 PM
Page 7 of 28 Skip to Page:

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