If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Scott McClellan attempts to deny accuracy of Daily News story about Bush knowing Plame leaker's identity all along; suffers cognative dissonance for his trouble   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 292
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

17022 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Oct 2005 at 12:34 PM (9 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-10-19 05:16:36 PM  
 
2005-10-19 05:23:40 PM  
ronaphrys

"People" does not imply "US citiens". Don't worry, people (usually US citizens) get that mixed up all the time.

Jose Padilla, on the other hand, is a US citizen.

You might want to google up that name.
 
2005-10-19 05:44:01 PM  
skleenar - I did google Padilla, and it seems there's a lot of legal action around him and his status. It also seems that his detention has been upheld by a court or two.

That being said, this is a very interesting incident. Here, we've got a guy who apparently decided to go to a terrorist group, received training in how to detonate a dirty bomb in a major US city, and then came back to the US with plans to do so - at least from what I saw. Viscerally, I want him locked up for a very long time. From a thinking standpoint, I'm against lock-ups without trials. However, we sort of stuck here: There are legal precedents that address this sort of issue and those are being invoked. Additionally, there appear to be restrictions built into those laws to prevent real abuses (assuming one doesn't consider this an abuse).

While interesting as a potential exception to the rule (and it's legality is still apparently in question), it doesn't address your original comment:

Skleenar


2005-10-19 05:00:17 PM MWeather

Until we start locking people up without trial, we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

Um.......
[You have heard of Gitmo, right?]


I'm not convinced that the original poster was talking about anything other than US Citizens - especially considering the subjects of the debate at hand are US Citizens. Therefore, I'm thinking that your comments where meant as either a troll, threadjack, or misdirection. (Not that I agree with Weather, either. We can certainly have the discussion all we want - part of free speech and all. That and speculation, blame games, and radical partisanship are all the rage here. It's what we do on Fark.) Given that, I simply pointed out that your comment had no real bearing on the discussion at hand - and nor does the one dubious example you've brought up.
 
2005-10-19 05:44:56 PM  
bmasso: Newt or Ms. Hutchinson

Sigh.

Newt was chased out by his own party, not the Dems. He was getting too personally powerful and not delivering the goods.

The Hutchinson case was dropped because of an unfavorable ruling on the admissibility of some search evidence, you know, a "technicality"? C'mon, you see the problems the exclusion of evidence causes every hour of the day on cable, it a key component of every episode of Law & Order. Unlike Teevee, when the evidence was excluded, the prosecutor figured he couldn't make his case without it.

It's got nothing to do with the validity of the charge, geddit?

Oh, and since we're talkng about Gingrich, here's a fun story. I am a professional choral singer in DC. I was singing in the choir of the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception during the Gingrich years. So was his then mistress, now his wife. And guess what? Women talk. And, since gossip this good has wings, I know for a fact that on the day that Gingrich announced the Contract With America, he had earlier been boinking his mistress in back seat of her car in the parking garage of the US Capitol.

The very building that he used as his backdrop for the announcement.

What a guy.
 
2005-10-19 05:50:52 PM  
Incredulous

18 U.S.C. 4
MISPRISION OF A FELONY

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


This is the President! Of course he reported it to a civil or military authority - himself! Our beloved Commander-in-Chief.

/It's good to be the king
 
2005-10-19 05:57:08 PM  
Thanks, mander!
 
2005-10-19 06:00:47 PM  
When the only people in a position to convict you are all on your team, the odds of your being convicted for anything plummet. American government only works when we have gridlock, never give the keys to the shop to just one party.
 
2005-10-19 06:01:47 PM  
Sarcastic - and we've had such good luck getting our leaders convicted of anything lately, haven't we?
 
2005-10-19 06:20:35 PM  
Because it needs to be said again:

Incredulous

If there is truth in today's New York Daily News story, the one in which Bush is reported to have known right away that Rove was the leak, then the President has committed a felony offense.

The Criminal Code of the United States provides as follows:

18 U.S.C. 4
MISPRISION OF A FELONY

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


A potential sentence of up to three years means that the crime of misprision of a felony is a Class E felony.

18 U.S.C. 3581
SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT

(a) In general.--A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

(b) Authorized terms.--The authorized terms of imprisonment are--


(1) for a Class A felony, the duration of the defendant's life or any period of time;

(2) for a Class B felony, not more than twenty-five years;

(3) for a Class C felony, not more than twelve years;

(4) for a Class D felony, not more than six years;

(5) for a Class E felony, not more than three years;

(6) for a Class A misdemeanor, not more than one year;

(7) for a Class B misdemeanor, not more than six months;

(8) for a Class C misdemeanor, not more than thirty days; and

(9) for an infraction, not more than five days.
 
2005-10-19 06:32:07 PM  
ronaprhys

You have made several strong statements condemning whomever exposed Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent, for which I applaud you. But those statements all address solely the immediate crime itself. You have not addressed the subsequent offense of misprision of a felony, of which President Bush is very likely guilty.

I have been involved in Federal criminal prosecutions in which the Government argued that the defendant's having merely pleaded not guilty constituted an obstruction of justice for which an additional two points should be added in the sentencing calculation. Where the known identity of a criminal was concealed for over two years, any prosecutor could easily make a credible case for obstruction of justice.

Taking your earlier statements into consideration, why are you not calling for a prosecution --- or at least an insulated investigation into the president's acts, comparable to the investigation of Richard Nixon?

Let us not forget the sworn promise that George Bush has twice made to all of us Americans: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
 
2005-10-19 06:42:59 PM  
Incredulous

to answer your question, in the big picture, I'm awaiting more facts. I think it's completely possible that, assuming Rove or someone else high in the administration is the leak, Bush has been lied to about this. Why? Plausible denial might be one explanation, personal vendetta could be another (Rove or someone is carrying out a personal vendetta and is lying to Bush to try and save him/herself), and there might be others that I haven't thought of.

Additionally, there is an independant (from what I'm gathering of the prosecutor, he's independent and hard-nosed, the perfect person for the job) prosecution working on this - and if he finds evidence that the Pres is guilty, or even chargeable, then he'll do it.

But this being said, aside from conspiracy-type theories and, quite frankly (and not meant to be insulting), what appear to be liberal hopes of catching Bush in some criminal act, I haven't seen anything credible pointing towards Bush knowing what's going on.

Kind of similar to Hillary being in the same room when certain folks where asking for the pardon of terrorists, then later they get the pardon and she gets the votes. While I personally might think she's guilty (and I'm fair enough to admit that's because I don't like her or her political stance), it doesn't make her guilty nor does it mean she's convictable of anything. Not trying to switch the direction off our current topic, just giving a comparison.
 
2005-10-19 06:49:03 PM  
ronaprhys: I haven't seen anything credible pointing towards Bush knowing what's going on.

I guess you don't consider this credible.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html

I guess Scotty's mental mobius strip planted itself in your brain.
 
2005-10-19 06:52:39 PM  
ronaprhys: Plausible denial might be one explanation

True, that's why they didn't use Plame's name and just referred to her as Joseph Wilson's wife.


personal vendetta could be another (Rove or someone is carrying out a personal vendetta and is lying to Bush to try and save him/herself)

That doesn't make any sense. Leaking the fact that Bush found out to DeFrank wouldn't get anybody off the hook.
 
2005-10-19 07:00:53 PM  
SarcasticGlee: This is the President! Of course he reported it to a civil or military authority - himself! Our beloved Commander-in-Chief.

This is a brilliant idea! Thanks!

We could get rid of the entire Department of Justice. Imagine how much better it would have been, saving America all the angst over the appointment of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General. No need for him.

No need for the courts, either. Or Congress. Think of the savings. The President is the law. The police. The prosecutor. The jury. And, uh, the hangman (or is that needleman these days?).

It's one-stop shopping! And you have to go to the store only once every four years.
 
2005-10-19 07:14:43 PM  
2005-10-19 06:52:39 PM pontechango

ronaprhys: Plausible denial might be one explanation

True, that's why they didn't use Plame's name and just referred to her as Joseph Wilson's wife.


personal vendetta could be another (Rove or someone is carrying out a personal vendetta and is lying to Bush to try and save him/herself)

That doesn't make any sense. Leaking the fact that Bush found out to DeFrank wouldn't get anybody off the hook.
Not about this in particular, plausible about the entire affair.

2005-10-19 06:49:03 PM pontechango

ronaprhys: I haven't seen anything credible pointing towards Bush knowing what's going on.

I guess you don't consider this credible.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357107p-304312c.html

I guess Scotty's mental mobius strip planted itself in your brain.
Well, I didn't realize that we were resorting to insults, however, to be honest, I hadn't read that article. Pretty simple explanation, isn't it?

However, couple of things right off the bat - just because it's in print doesn't necessarily make it true (remember Rathergate?). Additionally, the article doesn't state that Bush knew or knows that Rove or someone else (note that I keep pushing that whole innocent until proven guilty thing?) actually leaked a name or made statements that outed her. It just says he "rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair". Which could mean anything from he's mad at him for getting his name involved in the whole scandal TO he actually knew and could potentially be guilty.

Couple with that my original statement - if we prove a felony here(and that hasn't been done - whoever did this may not have actually committed a felony), then the case that some seem to be making against Bush may or may not have merit and needs to be tried in and of itself. However, note that it only applies if a felony has been committed and Bush didn't fulfill his obligation.
 
2005-10-19 07:39:23 PM  
ronaprhys:

Well, I didn't realize that we were resorting to insults

You consider that an insult? Wee bit thin-skinned are we?


However, couple of things right off the bat - just because it's in print doesn't necessarily make it true (remember Rathergate?).

Actually, that was true. I think what you meant to say is, just because it's in print doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't forged in order to deflect attention from the accuracy of its content.


Which could mean anything from he's mad at him for getting his name involved in the whole scandal TO he actually knew and could potentially be guilty.

Rrrrright. And the Bush Administration didn't say anything about Rove not being "involved", did they? Oh wait, yes they did.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/12/cia.leaks.ap/

SCOTT McCLELLAN: He wasn't "involved". The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: The President knows.

Couple with that my original statement - if we prove a felony here(and that hasn't been done - whoever did this may not have actually committed a felony), then the case that some seem to be making against Bush may or may not have merit and needs to be tried in and of itself. However, note that it only applies if a felony has been committed and Bush didn't fulfill his obligation.

I personally don't think Bush will be tried for anything relating to the Plame outing. However, I do believe that he lied through his teeth to the American people about his knowledge of it.
 
2005-10-19 08:13:03 PM  
2005-10-19 07:39:23 PM pontechango

ronaprhys:

Well, I didn't realize that we were resorting to insults

You consider that an insult? Wee bit thin-skinned are we?
Considering that I was attempting to have a reasonable debate, yes, I do consider it to be an insult. As for the thin-skin - nope, it didn't really bother me, I just pointed it out for what it was and then moved on to debating the points.


However, couple of things right off the bat - just because it's in print doesn't necessarily make it true (remember Rathergate?).

[Actually, that was true. I think what you meant to say is, just because it's in print doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't forged in order to deflect attention from the accuracy of its content.]
Two things 1 - just because one source is saying it doesn't mean it's true. It could, but until you come up with actual evidence that agrees with it, it's just a "he said/she said" argument. 2 - No, I meant what I said. Nice try, though. Again - just because it's in print doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean it's false, either - only actual evidence proves that one way or the other.


Which could mean anything from he's mad at him for getting his name involved in the whole scandal TO he actually knew and could potentially be guilty.

[Rrrrright. And the Bush Administration didn't say anything about Rove not being "involved", did they? Oh wait, yes they did.]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/12/cia.leaks.ap/

SCOTT McCLELLAN: He wasn't "involved". The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

SCOTT McCLELLAN: The President knows.


Couple with that my original statement - if we prove a felony here(and that hasn't been done - whoever did this may not have actually committed a felony), then the case that some seem to be making against Bush may or may not have merit and needs to be tried in and of itself. However, note that it only applies if a felony has been committed and Bush didn't fulfill his obligation.
Oddly enough, anything McClellan said doesn't change this argument. Here's a plausible scenario for you:

1 - The leak happens
2 - Rove is accused
3 - Bush asks about it, Rove denies involvement
4 - This press conference happens
5 - Additional evidence comes forward, Bush yells at Rove about his involvement, which may or may not have involved Rove being the leak - could be just that he's associated.
6 - This DeFrank article is printed.

Why do I call this plausible? Because we don't have much in the way of time-stamps with DeFrank. Secondarily, I tried the link you posted and it doesn't work - could be a mis-type or something, but that means I can't see the rest of the article to get a better idea of what might or might not be happening.

I personally don't think Bush will be tried for anything relating to the Plame outing. However, I do believe that he lied through his teeth to the American people about his knowledge of it.

Feel free to believe it. You may be right - or, it may get a Clintonian treatment: He commits perjury to a grand jury, delays non-stop until his presidency is over, gets impeached (and I've probably got some of these out of order), plea bargains, and gets a slap on the wrist.

Then again, Incredulous and the Misprision thing may not apply here even if a felony was committed - for reasons outside of what's been posted.

Either way and in the big picture, I'm not happy with it. I don't see any good reason that she should have been outed, or if the reporters had already figured out her identity that it should've been confirmed. It's not right. However, that doesn't mean I'm ready to toss the whole crew into jail, as some clearly are.
 
2005-10-19 08:13:10 PM  
ronaprhys: I haven't seen anything credible pointing towards Bush knowing what's going on.

Join the club.
 
2005-10-19 08:28:48 PM  
Great piece on this Plame mess over at the Columbia Journalism Review:

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mccollam.asp

But even when she was at her best, some people expressed concerns about her temperament and her methods. Perhaps the most revealing document to come out in the last few days wasnt Millers 3,600 word summary of her grand jury testimony in the Valerie Plame leak case, but the memo of Craig Pyes, her reporting partner on the prize-winning bin Laden stories: "I do not trust her work, her judgment, or her conduct", Pyes wrote in an internal Times memo first reported Monday in The Washington Post. "She is an advocate, and her actions threaten the integrity of the enterprise, and of everyone who works with her." Later in the memo, Pyes goes on to say that Miller took "dictation from government sources then tried to stampede it into the paper."
 
2005-10-19 08:46:05 PM  
So the drones have moved on the the "blame the victim" stage of this? Good to know, good to know.
 
2005-10-19 08:56:57 PM  
Bunch of criminals.

Can we have public floggings of people who supported Bush when it is proven that he was ruling the country like a psuedo fascist monarch?
 
2005-10-19 09:00:54 PM  
It is already known that Rove and Libby discussed Wilsons wife with reporters.

Some of you in here are acting like that isnt an established fact. It is.

Rove has said he didnt "name" her. But he has admitted discussing her.

It might be a better idea to defend Rove on something that he hasnt already admitted to.
 
2005-10-19 09:21:02 PM  
MWeather: Until we start locking people up without trial, we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

By that standard, this discussion is about 3.5 years overdue. Ever heard of Jose Padilla?
 
2005-10-19 10:08:33 PM  
1) You guys calling McClellan 'two-faced' try to get up in front a bunch of preening, caustic, advesarial nancy-boys in the White House press corps, trying everything they can to catch you in a flub, when you are dying to scream out your innocence, but are under orders from your boss to remain quiet during the investigation, and see how well you perform;

2) You guys shouting "Bill Clinton" are making the same nonsensical arguments you made about Bill O'Reilly yesterday. That is, if you thought the Dixie Chicks getting threats was bad, then defend O'Reilly. If Clinton's impeachment was the criminalization of politics and a coup attempt, then decry it now YOU HYPOCRITES. Of course, the Clinton thing was kind of karmic, since the independent counsel statute arose from Watergate, a committee Hillary worked on.

What goes around, comes around I guess.
 
2005-10-20 12:27:37 AM  
1. Post in thread, leave, get pwned
2. Come in after everyone has left to get the last word
3. Profit?

/notices that bookgrrl is a stone fox
 
2005-10-20 12:52:29 AM  
republitarian

If I weren't the upstanding person with respect for others that I was, I'd say: "I am of the opinion that you, republitarian, are a giant repository for excrement and other really smelly and putrid things, and, in my opinion, you should go back to the rock you crawled out from under, you propaganda-spewing, hate-filled moran."

However, that is merely hypothetical, and I would never say any such thing in reality.
 
2005-10-20 01:19:25 AM  
republitarian
1) You guys calling McClellan 'two-faced' try to get up in front a bunch of preening, caustic, advesarial nancy-boys in the White House press corps, trying everything they can to catch you in a flub, when you are dying to scream out your innocence, but are under orders from your boss to remain quiet during the investigation, and see how well you perform;

If you just tell the truth, no one can 'catch you in a flub'.

That's what makes the truth so powerful. McClellan should try it some time.
 
2005-10-20 01:24:47 AM  
Republitarian: Here, let me show you how Scott McClellan lies for the White House.

There was a video released showing a woman from the Defense Department rehearsing the President's questions with the troops. She literally said that if there were any questions that were "unscripted", they would have to be passed over to one specific officer, and that one female officer should pause a moment to answer a question so that it really seemed like she was talking to the President.

What does Scott McClellan do?
Asks the press corps if they really don't believe that what the troops said reflected their views. Denied that ANYTHING was scripted.

We have a video with a woman prepping the troops for the teleconference, using the word "scripted" regarding the troops' answers to Bush's questions.

We have Scott McClellan saying nothing was scripted.

What we have here, my friend, is incontrovertible proof of a lie.

For this man to go in front of the press and say that he won't comment on an ongoing investigation when he already has is totally ridiculous. Which is what he said about Rove's involvement in the leak - "totally ridiculous."

And now Rove says he was involved... *sigh*...

Please note my lack of references to Clinton.
 
2005-10-20 01:25:10 AM  
Christ On A Stick

MWeather: Until we start locking people up without trial, we shouldn't even be having this discussion.

By that standard, this discussion is about 3.5 years overdue. Ever heard of Jose Padilla?


Keep up. will you? ronaphrys has already declared that Jose Padilla doesn't count. Apparently this is a 'dubious' example of a US citizen being locked up without trial.

And, of course the hundreds of human beings that are being locked up (and sometimes brutalized) in US facilities from Cuba to Afghanistan and Iraq without the benefit of trial don't count at all since they are not US citizens.

Keep up with the thread, please.
 
2005-10-20 01:25:45 AM  
"it's a non-denial denial"
/too vague??
/name another white press sec from a GOP admin
 
2005-10-20 02:19:42 AM  
republitarian

You guys calling McClellan 'two-faced' try to get up in front a bunch of preening, caustic, advesarial nancy-boys in the White House press corps, trying everything they can to catch you in a flub, when you are dying to scream out your innocence, but are under orders from your boss to remain quiet during the investigation, and see how well you perform;

I mean, wow. That is some serious stupid you got going on right there, son.

Just... please. Go away. Far away. Never come back. You are not a patriot. You are not an American. You do not understand what those words mean. You are simply an idiot. Enough.
 
2005-10-20 02:52:15 AM  
mander,
I do not know what a stone fox is, but I thank you all the same, as I've always had an affinity for foxes. They have such fluffy ears.
I feel happy because all of the republicans ran away on this thread. Even though republitarian came back at the end, he is still a deserter, because he makes no sense. I mean, he suggests that McClellan is innocent (of what?) and that the Lewinsky scandal arose out of Watergate. Not to be rude to you, sir, but just because people attached a "gate" to the end does not mean that they are legalistically related.
I am not a lawyer but I am a historian of American history and I can conclusively say that Clinton had nothing to do with Watergate.

That is all.

/this is after many glasses of wine, which is my drink of choice. As my new picture will show you!!
//no one will read this anyway, so it doesn't matter!!
///I hope there are no typos
////slashies are fun
 
2005-10-20 04:13:28 AM  
Skleenar - interesting interpretation of what I said. Strawman, maybe?

That being said, you are correct in that bringing up Padilla is a dubious example, as according to currently upheld US law, he can be held based on certain actions that he's committed. Am I particularly comfortable with it? Not really, but it does appear to be legal - as has been shown in court. That decision could be reversed by an appropriate court (in fact, I believe that there may be an appeal currently in progress), but until that happens, I don't think that anyone can use this as a good example - aside from the whole "one exception doesn't make a rule" arguements.

Secondarily, the rest of the people you talk about have managed to qualify themselves as "enemy combatants" and are being treated in accordance with the law as well. Just because other countries choose to extend them Geneva Convention rights as if they were soldiers doesn't a.) make that the right thing to do or b.) make it wrong for us to follow different sections of the Geneva Convention.

As for the brutalization comment - I'm personally very disturbed by these and fully believe that punishment should come to those who've broken the law here. And yes, the law is specific to what can and can't be done. And oddly enough, we're seeing that happen. Convictions have, I believe, occurred. More will likely occur as well. That's what's supposed to happen when the law is broken. On top of that, I believe the problem is currently fixed - I've not heard of a new scandal, lately.
 
2005-10-20 04:18:13 AM  
Mander and Bookgrrl,

Even though I'm not a republican, I think that since I've gotten into the fray, I've come down more on the conservative side. I also notice that, with the exception of having dinner with my wife and going to sleep so I can be up at 3:30 this morning, I haven't quite deserted the thread.

And, to date, I've even gone as far as trying to answer all questions to my positions/arguements.

/thought you might like to know. Probably not, but it made me feel better to post it anyway.
 
2005-10-20 04:42:12 AM  
Even though republitarian came back at the end, he is still a deserter, because he makes no sense.

Some people have lives and jobs. Can't friggin' monitor threads every ten minutes like you guys in iron lungs. And I am sure glad I returned to see this brilliance from the Left:

"I am of the opinion that you, republitarian, are a giant repository for excrement and other really smelly and putrid things, and, in my opinion, you should go back to the rock you crawled out from under, you propaganda-spewing, hate-filled moran."

And this gem:

Just... please. Go away. Far away. Never come back. You are not a patriot. You are not an American. You do not understand what those words mean. You are simply an idiot. Enough.

So I am excrement and not an American because I express my opinion.

Gotta love Fark and its reasoned debate.
 
2005-10-20 05:28:20 AM  
Yes, the fact that some farkers decided that your opinions are stoopid shows that Farkers think that expressing opinions is un-American. Good night sir!
 
2005-10-20 05:48:39 AM  
republitarian:

2) You guys shouting "Bill Clinton" are making the same nonsensical arguments you made about Bill O'Reilly yesterday. That is, if you thought the Dixie Chicks getting threats was bad, then defend O'Reilly. If Clinton's impeachment was the criminalization of politics and a coup attempt, then decry it now YOU HYPOCRITES. Of course, the Clinton thing was kind of karmic, since the independent counsel statute arose from Watergate, a committee Hillary worked on.

What goes around, comes around I guess.


Do you work this hard to be this stupid?

Bill Clinton lied about getting a blow job.
Bush lied about reasons to go to war.

If you can't see that the two are fundementally different, then you are beyond hope.
 
2005-10-20 08:34:31 AM  
republitarian

If you had a bit more reading comprehension, you would see that you're taking my words out of context of my original post.

Besides -- I don't know how you see me as being on the Left. Are you psychic? Do you just assume that because I said something about you, that I must be from the evil dread lieberal Left? That's not necessarily so:

After all, maybe I just hate your guts and think you someone who isn't quite completely (or even moderately) aware of facts.
 
2005-10-20 04:32:13 PM  
mander

Yes, the fact that some farkers decided that your opinions are stoopid shows that Farkers think that expressing opinions is un-American. Good night sir!

Uh, no, the fact that a Farker expressly called me un-American shows that a Farker thinks that expressing opinions is un-American. Please read my whole post, including quotes, before responding.

BrotherAlpha

Do you work this hard to be this stupid?

More deft logic by a farker, calling someone "stupid." Wow, you must have been on the Harvard debate team, no?

Bill Clinton lied about getting a blow job.

Clinton lied under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit about a sexual relationship. Several federal judges have been impeached and removed from the bench for perjury.

Bush lied about reasons to go to war.

He did? When? Last time I checked, Bush relied on intelligence from the CIA and every other spy agency on the planet that said Saddam had WMD - tons of which are, in fact, still unaccounted for. Where did he lie? Tell me where Bush lied? He relied on the intelligence, which Clinton appointee George Tenet called "a slam dunk" when Bush was skeptical.

NokNoKCPU

After all, maybe I just hate your guts and think you someone who isn't quite completely (or even moderately) aware of facts.

Very mature. One pseudononymous debate in one thread and you hate my guts? You must be a fun guy to be around in person.

No, I'll just go with "you're an irrational lefty." You know it, I know it.

Again, the level of debate in here is like monkeys throwing poo.
 
2005-10-20 05:34:39 PM  
republitarian

Dear sir thing:

You keep posting here. You absolutely must have the last word at all costs! GETTING THE LAST WORD MEANS YOU WIN!

I have the last word. I win! Loser!

YOU LOSE! NANANANANANA!
 
2005-10-20 09:00:21 PM  
" republitarian

He did? When? Last time I checked, Bush relied on intelligence from the CIA and every other spy agency on the planet that said Saddam had WMD - tons of which are, in fact, still unaccounted for. Where did he lie? Tell me where Bush lied? He relied on the intelligence, which Clinton appointee George Tenet called "a slam dunk" when Bush was skeptical."

Wow nice way to completely tell the opposite of the truth...

The facts from everyone involved shows that there was no evidence for WMDs in Iraq, that big blowup Colin showed in the UN? Complete lie. It has been proven that Bush and Co cherry picked 3 year old reports for "facts" to support their case which then turned out to be completely false.

Even if your idea that Bush had no hand in crafting the reason to go to war, the Buck stops with the president, are you saying that Bush is not accountable for acting on false information?

It has also come out that even before 9/11 bush was looking for reasons to go to war with Iraq.

What really pisses me off nowadays is hearing right wing talkshows talk about how evil Saddam was and how much better off we are now that he is gone.. like that is justification enough for going to war, and completely glossing over the real reason given for going to war now that everyone knows it was false...
 
2005-10-21 05:21:51 PM  
bmasso

Does your liberal conspiracy paranoia always shine through so easily? You turned a humorous, ancient Fark filter into a personal attack, and looked like a complete fool doing so, even while others were attempting to explain it to you. It speaks both for your desperation and complete lack of political sanity. Oh noes, teh libruhls at Fark are out to get me!!!1

But, take heart, you've caused quite a bit of laughter over at the Totalfark forum. We thank you for that bit of comedy.
 
Displayed 42 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report