|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 4, 2009 16:15:10 GMT -5
Who did you hear it from?
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Nov 4, 2009 16:28:33 GMT -5
He can't tell you or he'd have to kill you.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 4, 2009 16:30:15 GMT -5
true dat.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 4, 2009 16:38:09 GMT -5
I'm really not suppose to divulge stuff I can deluge stuff, But it delights few When I do.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 4, 2009 16:48:33 GMT -5
and stuff
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Nov 4, 2009 17:18:34 GMT -5
Blankley's analysis misses the point already made here, that Plame was a covert agent and there are laws against outting one of those. Scumbag opium dealers being paid by the CIA to play both sides of the greasy street? Not so much. It also misses what is perhaps a more important point: That Plame was outted to discredit an analysis that was inconvenient to a corrupt American administration that was trying to justify an unjustifiable war, while the scumbag opium dealer was outted to make the case that perhaps we should think twice about sacrificing American lives and treasure to serve and protect a corrupt foreign administration.
In other words, Blankley is missing that little good/evil thing as well as that little legal/not thing. No surprise there; he is a consistent apologist for the abuse of power. Actually, that's giving him too much credit. He never apologizes for it. He applauds it.
Tim
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 4, 2009 19:01:31 GMT -5
Plame was a Democrat? You sure about that? I'd still bet she is. I was assuming that because Wilson is, she probably is. And if you search the internet specifically to find out, you'll probably conclude that she is as well (giving speeches to Democratic women's groups and other such activities). And it was Wilson I was thinking about who began his diplomatic career during GHW Bush's years.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 4, 2009 19:18:33 GMT -5
Point of fact she donatd $1,000 to Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign. I guess this means it was ok to out her and Brewster-Jennings & Associates, the CIA cover company she worked for and the all the other covert agents who also listed that company as their cover who were blown when the real purpose of Brewster-Jennings was made public when they outed Plame. Damn Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Nov 4, 2009 19:33:41 GMT -5
I guess this means it was ok to out her. Who said that?
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 4, 2009 19:49:39 GMT -5
"That Plame was outted to discredit an analysis that was inconvenient to a corrupt American administration that was trying to justify an unjustifiable war" That's the Democratic Party template. Too bad its not true. First, Plame was outed by anti-war Richard Armitage.Second, the "analysis" that Joe Wilson produced has been irrefutably discredited.
|
|
|
Post by TDR on Nov 4, 2009 20:06:44 GMT -5
"That Plame was outted to discredit an analysis that was inconvenient to a corrupt American administration that was trying to justify an unjustifiable war" That's the Democratic Party template. Too bad its not true. First, Plame was outed by anti-war Richard Armitage.Second, the "analysis" that Joe Wilson produced has been irrefutably discredited. Hitchens "irrefutably discredits" the Joe Wilson analysis? What with this, "In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious"? A) Saddam didn't have a nuclear program with which to use any uranium, if he could have got some. Which he didn't. And B) The scare tactics that said he was about to visit mushroom clouds on us were lies and known to be lies by Rice, Cheney and the others promoting the WMD paranoia. All of which was Wilson's message and none of which has been or can be discredited. And um, Richard Armitage is anti war about like Attila the Hun.
|
|
|
Post by knobtwister on Nov 4, 2009 20:40:26 GMT -5
"That Plame was outted to discredit an analysis that was inconvenient to a corrupt American administration that was trying to justify an unjustifiable war" That's the Democratic Party template. Too bad its not true. First, Plame was outed by anti-war Richard Armitage.Second, the "analysis" that Joe Wilson produced has been irrefutably discredited. That's just sad Jeff. Don
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 4, 2009 21:48:08 GMT -5
"irrefutably"
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 4, 2009 22:04:58 GMT -5
"First, Plame was outed by anti-war Richard Armitage."
In early July 2003. And confirmed by Karl Rove.
But Armitage holds the distinction of being the first source of the person who broke the story. He wins because the White House had so much trouble getting anyone else to run the story sooner. Because Scooter Libby couldn't get Judith Miller to run with the story after he told her about Plame a week before Novak ran his story. And only because Rove couldn't get Matthew Cooper to run the story after he told him about Plame a week before Novak ran his story.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 4, 2009 22:15:39 GMT -5
Oh and I can't let this little piece of misdirection hang out there....
"anti-war Richard Armitage"
You say that like he was some Dove. Mr. Anti-war served three tours of duty in Vietnam after graduating from the Naval Academy. After that he worked in the defense department, did a stint with Bob Dole, served as a foreign policy advisor to Reagan, then Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia and Pacific Affairs under Reagan, then Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (also under Reagan).
The "The Project for the New American Century" document that TDR likes to talk about so much, the one where all the Neocons wrote to Clinton that he should take Saddam out? Armitage signed that document.
Under Bush he was Deputy Sec of State where, according to President Musharraf, of Pakistan, shortly after 9/11, Armitage presented Pakistan with demands for assistance in the campaign against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The demands were non-negotiable. Should Pakistan accept, it would be considered a United States ally. Should it decline, Pakistan would be considered an enemy. According to Musharraf, Armitage further stated that, should Pakistan decline, the United States would bomb it 'back to the Stone Age.'
Despite all this, he was viewed as a moderate in the Bush administration because he had the audacity to think Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney were idiots, which it turned out was correct. If all that makes him 'anti-war' well I guess we differ in opinions. It does make him anti-not well thought through or justified war, again, he turned out to be right.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Nov 4, 2009 22:18:32 GMT -5
I would have thought it obvious in context that he was anti Iraq war.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Nov 4, 2009 22:40:23 GMT -5
Ther you guys go, inserting words into sentences that weren't there before.
|
|
|
Post by TDR on Nov 4, 2009 22:46:16 GMT -5
Except I don't think he was anti Iraq war either.
Being a critic of the execution doesn't mean you don't like the big idea. He was a dedicated neocon. Part of the neocon manifesto was for us to go get the oil and dominate the middle east.
|
|
|
Post by knobtwister on Nov 5, 2009 9:32:48 GMT -5
And South America, and...
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Nov 5, 2009 12:04:52 GMT -5
stuff.
|
|