Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 1824
-
Some stoopid dolt wrote:
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Q]: 1- Will you defend your team no matter what?
[Sh**ter]: In this forum, probably. Mainly because the stuff I disagree with is never discussed here, like Bush's immigration policy.
May we request that you hie your fat a$$ over to one that does and plague us no more? More productive of your time too. Thanks in advance.
[Q]: Is there a line anywhere you would draw in the future? There is no doubt you know by now Bush & Co. not only have no respect for the constitution, but are probably out to destroy it.
[Sh**ter]: Considering Bush's responsiveness to the Supreme Court, and even Ashcroft and Comey, along with the legality of programs leaked by the CIA, I'd say you are wrong.
Huh? Since when does a "GFY" constitute "responsiveness"? This maladministration has had to be dragged kicking and screaming from every maladventure so far (and is still actively resisting, even on the important stuff, like the Iraq war).
Cheers,
-
@ bucky1
[Read the article: John Yoo -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not going to waste my time digging through past posts to find out "who started it" (if there's any "blame" to be laid there at all). I really don't CARE. Nae me problem, Jimmie. You sound like a little kid. Just STFU, willya? Capece?
Cheers,
-
Fact-checking Sh**ter...
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."
Yes he did.
I would remind you that had Mr. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries *** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:06 AM)
the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
In claiming that, if Cheney had seen the three reports, the lie would not have been in the SOTU address, Wilson neither claims nor impiles that he "debunked" the allegation. The negative reports were evidence against the allegation, and if the maladministration hadn't been so busy "fixing the evidence around the facts", they might have been more circumspect. See more below.
"I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have and did not occur."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm
Apples and oranges. Wilson reported (truthfully) that existing oversight and contracts made any uranium purchases essentially impossible (and also that he found no positive evidence for any such attempted purchases). He didn't report on the forged documents; he hadn't seen them yet.
When he talked about the documents later in expressing his objections, he had become aware of them (as did all of us that were paying attention), as well as the fact they were forged.
"I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney's original question that led to my trip.
Besides admitting he lied about the documents, it turns out that Plame sent his name up before the Cheney memo.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDRkZDFjMzU2NTc1NTYyM2Q0MWVmMGI4MGNmYzFlNDY=
Huh? Apples and oranges again. Plame had said he would be suitable. But she didn't make the decision to send him.
"The White House must have agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for the President told the Washington Post that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."--Joe Wilson
That's what happens when trying to be fair. No good deed goes unpunished. Meanwhile Mr. Wilson is demonstrated to be a stone liar who demolished his wife's career and caused untold misery to many, all in the pursuit of arrogance.
No, Sh**ter, Wilson did not "demolish[] his wife's career". That was Cheney, Rove, Libby, Fleischer, and through their efforts, Armitage.
How's that chain feel Kitt? Like the yanking?
The only one who's yanking here is you, Sh**ter. It's unseemly in a public forum. Please stop.
Cheers,
-
Sh**ter lie #23,647
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The FISA judges are, after all, on record as saying their court does not override the powers of the President.
<*BZZZZT*> Wrong. No ducky for you, Sh**ter.
Cheers,
-
Sh**ter lie #23,648
[Read the article: What were the pre-2005 "other intelligence activities"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... the Supremes ruled 7-2 that Gore's plan was unequal treatment...
<*sigh*> Orbitboy: Yes, "guilty pleasure". And my sad duty too.
Cheers,
-
@ bucky1
[Read the article: John Yoo -- then and now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll wait till you post yet one more trite little attack claiming to be "impartial".
That's a lie, Bucky. I never made such a claim. Go on, try and get me really angry; you might find yourself reduced to "shooter"'s level of calling me a "dick" every once in a while when the spanking gets too painful. But for now, I'm through with this ... and you, you dishonest and obnoxious juvenile.
</BUCKY1>
Cheers,
-
Thank goodness!
[Read the article: Michelle Malkin's hate sites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][Glenn, explaining to the slow-on-the-uptake here]:
"Standard X" here = "bloggers should be judged by what their commenters write."
I don't "advocate" that standard. To the contrary, I reject it.
<*Whew!*> Wouldn't want you flagellating yourself for "shooter"'s insane rantings now. ;-)
Cheers.