Remember Me?

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]
Page 9 of 28 Skip to Page:
< Older | Newer >
Topic: Better toke a new one, Mr. Soul...
Post #81 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 10:27 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
The Truthout thing is bizarre IMO.

There's are now rumors of a pardon for Libby (after the mid-term elections of course).
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #82 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 10:55 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,13:44)
Nope - I'm done wasting time with right-wing wacko's like you. I gave you one last chance to agree on simple facts & you failed the test of reasonibility.

Just remember - you can't have it both ways.

And Toker concludes (but not really concludes) with yet another ad hominem and a lazy excuse to justify not being able to debate.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #83 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 11:10 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
Nope. Why debate with someone who says it's night when it's really day? You are completely wrong about the facts on Valerie Plame's CIA status. I presented you with the facts & yet you refute them. And you have presented ZERO facts to defend your position. Anyone reading these threads can see that you are not a reasonable person.

You also keep confusing why Fitzgerald hasn't charged Libby with outing a CIA agent. The law is very specific, so no charge in this matter does NOT mean that Plame's status wasn't classified. Stop confusing this issues.

Which is it ksdb - do you trust the WP or not? You can't have it both ways now. Grow up please.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #84 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 11:28 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:10)
Nope. Why debate with someone who says it's night when it's really day?

Oversimplification. Another tactic employed by people who can't debate.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:10)
You are completely wrong about the facts on Valerie Plame's CIA status.

Her status is only relevant if it was KNOWINGLY leaked. That's what the law says:

knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agents intelligence

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:10)
I presented you with the facts & yet you refute them.

That's called debating. You need to defend. Since you can't, you lose.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:10)
And you have presented ZERO facts to defend your position.

I've quoted several factual sources. Your refusal to acknowledge this is extremely dishonest.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:10)
Anyone reading these threads can see that you are not a reasonable person.

Evidence??

 
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:10)
Which is it ksdb - do you trust the WP or not? You can't have it both ways now.

Do I trust the WP? Of course not. That's why I read and check other sources. If I have a reason to suspect them of bias or misinformation, I will point it out.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:10)
Grow up please.

Why? You can't keep up now.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #85 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 11:39 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
Her status is only relevant if it was KNOWINGLY leaked. That's what the law says:
False. Her status is her status which was: classified, with non-official cover. Please prove that her status was not this. You're the one that needs to do that - so you've lost the debate.

And you can't just say Fitzgerald got that wrong because that's a BS argument.

The law says it's illegal to knowingly out a CIA agent who's status was covert. But you would of course have to investigate that first before that could be determined. Fitzgerald's investigation is more than just determining whether or not Plame was covert or not.

Also, the President can request classified information from the CIA anytime he wants. He & the VP can also de-classify it as we've recently learned. So your argument about the State Dept. memo is BS also. Did you actually read the WP article:

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret. And it was perfectly valid for Plame's name to be in that memo, so your claim was not based on anything except inference & speculation.

The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert.

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when and from whom he learned about Plame.

Do I trust the WP?
Then why did you cite it one of your posts? So you trust it when it backs up your claims & you don't trust it when it doesn't. Too funny :laugh:
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #86 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 11:58 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:39)
Her status is only relevant if it was KNOWINGLY leaked. That's what the law says:

False. Her status is her status which was: classified, with non-official cover. Please prove that her status was not this. You're the one that needs to do that - so you've lost the debate.
Her status doesn't matter if it was not KNOWN by the anyone who identified her for getting her husband a job. It's moot.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:39)
And you can't just say Fitzgerald got that wrong because that's a BS argument.

He hasn't shown any proof nor has he charged anyone with leaking classified information. What part did he get right??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:39)
The law says it's illegal to knowingly out a CIA agent who's status was covert. But you would of course have to investigate that first before that could be determined. Fitzgerald's investigation is more than just determining whether or not Plame was covert or not.

Fitz has enough to indict on perjury and obstruction of justice. He should have MORE THAN ENOUGH to charge Libby for leaking, if this were the case. The fact that he didn't indicates the Fitz is fishing and knows that he can't prove that Libby knew Plame was covert or had NOC status.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:39)
Also, the President can request classified information from the CIA anytime he wants. He & the VP can also de-classify it as we've recently learned. So your argument about the State Dept. memo is BS also. Did you actually read the WP article:

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret. And it was perfectly valid for Plame's name to be in that memo, so your claim was not based on anything except inference & speculation.

Did YOU read the article???

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert
Claiming that Libby, Rove, Cheney or Bush knew she was covert is complete and utter speculation.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,16:39)
The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert.

Thanks for posting the msnbc article. It makes my case for me. I'll requote the part that you apparently overlooked:

Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #87 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 22 2006, 12:12 AM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
Her status doesn't matter if it was not KNOWN by the anyone who identified her for getting her husband a job. It's moot.
Nice try at diversion. We need to agree on Plame's status at the CIA.

Should her name have been given out the press by someone in the Bush admin or not? You claim it was OK but you are wrong.

He hasn't shown any proof nor has he charged anyone with leaking classified information.
So you are claiming that Fitzgerald is lying when he says that Plame's identity was classified?

The fact that he didn't indicates the Fitz is fishing and knows that he can't prove that Libby knew Plame was covert or had NOC status.
Fitzgerald could NOT have started his investigation if Plame's status wasn't classified or NOC. Why are you so dense about this?

So based on your comments, Ken Star was just fishing for information for years with Clinton also - correct?

Thanks for posting the msnbc article. It makes my case for me.
You're welcome. So you accept the msnbc article saying that Plame's identity was covert? Boy that was too easy.

Claiming that Libby, Rove, Cheney or Bush knew she was covert is complete and utter speculation
Another BS statement. The article never made this claim.

Fitzgerald's case against Libby is just as he said in his press release, i.e., it's about getting at the truth. If Libby didn't know that Plame's identity was covert, then he cannot be charged for that.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #88 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 22 2006, 12:22 AM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)
Her status doesn't matter if it was not KNOWN by the anyone who identified her for getting her husband a job. It's moot.

Nice try at diversion. We need to agree on Plame's status at the CIA.
It's not diversion. It's the law. You want someone charged with leaking, then a law has to be cited. None apply.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)
Should her name have been given out the press by someone in the Bush admin or not? You claim it was OK but you are wrong.

Then why isn't ANYONE being charged with leaking her name??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)
He hasn't shown any proof nor has he charged anyone with leaking classified information.

So you are claiming that Fitzgerald is lying when he says that Plame's identity was classified?
Focus. Who is being charged with leaking classified information?? Nobody.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)
The fact that he didn't indicates the Fitz is fishing and knows that he can't prove that Libby knew Plame was covert or had NOC status.

Fitzgerald could NOT have started his investigation if Plame's status wasn't classified or NOC.
And then he has to determine that the status was known by any person(s) who revealed her name.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)
Why are you so dense about this?

This question is better directed at yourself. You're stuck on moot details.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)

So based on your comments, Ken Star was just fishing for information for years with Clinton also - correct?

Irrelevant. Focus. We're not talking about Clinton. We're not talking about Starr. Those activities do not have a bearing on the current case.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)
Thanks for posting the msnbc article. It makes my case for me.

You're welcome. So you accept the msnbc article saying that Plame's identity was covert? Boy that was too easy.
Not really. The sources aren't identified nor are there employment records to corroborate these unidentified sources.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)
Claiming that Libby, Rove, Cheney or Bush knew she was covert is complete and utter speculation

Another BS statement. The article never made this claim.
Nor was the comment directed at the article. It was directed at you. Focus.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)
Fitzgerald's case against Libby is just as he said in his press release, i.e., it's about getting at the truth.

No. That's what an investigation is for. You don't charge people with perjury to find out the truth. You charge them with perjury because they lied and deserve to be prosecuted for it.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:12)
If Libby didn't know that Plame's identity was covert, then he cannot be charged for that.

And he isn't. Seems cut and dried. Fitz has been more concerned with finding evidence to convict Libby on the perjury charges.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #89 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 22 2006, 12:27 AM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
What was Plame's status at the CIA?  Answer the question.  Was it classified or not? Did she have non-official cover or not.  Afraid to answer?
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #90
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 22 2006, 12:31 AM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,17:27)
What was Plame's status at the CIA? Answer the question. Was it classified or not? Did she have non-official cover or not. Afraid to answer?

Show me her employment records and I'll give you a straight answer. No third-party, unidentified sources and no claims from prosecutors on fishing expeditions.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
< Older | Newer >
272 replies since Jun. 13 2006, 3:57 PM
Page 9 of 28 Skip to Page:

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