Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Lunch: $950, Anonymity: Priceless
It's really too bad that Karl Rove/Dick
Cheney/Scooter Libby/Dick Armitage/whoever ruined Valerie Plame's
life by destroying her priceless anonymity. Still, there's an
upside: Now you can
have lunch with Plame and her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson
for the low, low current asking price of $950.00.
The bill of fare:
Includes lunch for two(2) with Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson and a signed book.
We don't remember who told us, but you'll have lunch with Ambassador Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame at a "safehouse".
Lost in the din of the leak scandal that has consumed Washington is the very personal impact on the willowy blond CIA operative at its center. Plame, 42, wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, has become the most famous spy in the world, but her career has been derailed. It appears likely she will leave the CIA, some acquaintances say, but she hasn't publicly signaled her plans.
Having lunch with these two fascinating and compelling people will surely be a fantastic experience to remember forever!
Currently, the Wilsons are trumped by breakfast with Alan Greenspan and Andrea Mitchell (going for $26,000.00), but they're actually beating out tea with Madeleine Albright ($650.00) in the auction to support the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial.
|3.22.07 @ 11:51AM|#
Those of us with an emotional attachment to this country and its well-being actually do consider the anonymity of covert agents working to protect as from foreign enemies precious.
LarryA|3.22.07 @ 11:51AM|#
One of our local civic clubs just called. They'll feed me lunch
for a twenty-minute talk on gun control, concealed handguns or
something.
So I guess I'm like the Plames, only at the bottom end of the
scale.
:-|3.22.07 @ 11:59AM|#
covert agents working to protect as from foreign
enemies
Unless, of course, those foreign enemies are Al Qaeda...then we
make fun of our brave agents, no?
Xmas|3.22.07 @ 12:05PM|#
$950 is a lot. Usually "lunch" with a willowy blonde costs $350 or $450 with a "greek" salad.
|3.22.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Ummm,
If I read you guys right
you are all just nasty
that being said, the devil from "Animal House" just appeared on my
shoulder saying...
Dave W.|3.22.07 @ 12:28PM|#
Unless, of course, those foreign enemies are Al Qaeda...then
we make fun of our brave agents, no?
Depends upon how well they are doing. When they do as badly as they
did in the Moussaoui case (pre-9/11) or McVeigh case, then they
deserve all the scorn that you might heap on an overweight cop
eating a donut to celebrate his latest forced entry raid. Even
though you don't always get to know the names.
|3.22.07 @ 12:51PM|#
Plame's still with the CIA and people are still dragging mud on this one? Color me impressed. Aside from the whole "tell us your sources or you go to jail bit" this entire story ended when she was outed.
fyodor|3.22.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Unless, of course, those foreign enemies are Al Qaeda...then
we make fun of our brave agents, no?
One senses a flip-flop on this matter, which could be applied to
both sides, but in lieu of actually catching anyone overtly
changing their tune, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to
point fingers like that. (Can you count how many metaphors I
mixed??) If you really doubt Democrats are sincere or consistent
about this, you'd probably best grumble to yourself and make note
of it for when the inconsistency actually shows itself.
|3.22.07 @ 12:53PM|#
Yo Joe
Just cuze she bought the jr g-man spy kit at Woolworths doesn't
make her a covert agent...if I could see her super secret decoder
ring? that might clinch the deal...
|3.22.07 @ 12:55PM|#
What are you, the HR Director the CIA?
The CIA requested a federal investigation of the release of her
identity, and has already stated that she was covert.
|3.22.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Joe- I don't think anyone is making fun of Plame's role in the CIA. But the idea of paying close to a grand to have lunch with her is amusing.
|3.22.07 @ 12:58PM|#
The CIA requested a federal investigation of the release of
her identity, and has already stated that she was
covert.
Why let facts get in the way of a good partisan narrative??
Guy Montag|3.22.07 @ 1:06PM|#
If she wanted to be anonymous and covert what was she doing in that Who's Who in America book?
|3.22.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Why the snark over Valerie Plame appearing in public and not
maintaining her anonymity? When she was an undercover spy, her
anonymity mattered. Now that she's no longer an undercover spy, her
anonymity doesn't matter anymore. Is this really so hard to
understand?
And is it really news that famous people charge money for personal
appearances? When did Reason start mocking people for trying to
make money?
The point of the scandal is not that Rove, Cheney, et al, hurt some
poor woman's career -- it's that they burned an undercover CIA
agent in order to slander someone who wrote an op-ed piece
criticizing the president. If you think suppressing criticism of
the president is more important than maintaining an effective
intelligence service that can control nuclear proliferation to
America's enemies, fine, no scandal. It's no surprise that
Republican loyalist bloggers have taken this position, but this
crap doesn't belong on Reason.
|3.22.07 @ 1:13PM|#
Capitalizing on my fame as a Hit & Run commenter, I'm
offering to allow people to send me money for lunch. Not to have it
with me, mind you, just to fund my lunches. In return, I'll post
each donor's name here.
For tomorrow's lunch, my price is US $1,000,000. In those new
dollar coins, please.
|3.22.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Guy,
Letting the public know that Mrs. Wilson was married didn't
endanger her work and colleagues.
Letting the public know that she worked for the CIA did.
Guy Montag|3.22.07 @ 1:16PM|#
For tomorrow's lunch, my price is US $1,000,000. In those
new dollar coins, please.
Wow, serious about TANSTAAFL around here huh.
biologist|3.22.07 @ 1:18PM|#
joe:
Guy Montag has thoroughly proven his trollerificness. Just ignore
him.
|3.22.07 @ 1:21PM|#
$950? That's nothing. It costs me 3,000 gold pieces to have second breakfast with Arwen.
|3.22.07 @ 1:26PM|#
Bergamot,
Thanks for the link. I was at the Safe House just once in 86, had a
great time. Glad it's still operating.
TLB|3.22.07 @ 1:31PM|#
So, Madeleine, what do you say to us finding a more private spot to enjoy the rest of our tea?
|3.22.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Only $950?
Jeez, any self-respecting Deputy Minister in Ottawa can easily
spend 3 or 4 times that much, even correcting for the exchange
rate.
|3.22.07 @ 1:52PM|#
...what was she doing in that Who's Who in America
book?
According to your link the Who's Who entry was for her husband. I
doubt that she was identified as a CIA agent in it. As joe points
out she did have a public persona as an ambassador's wife. She also
had a public persona as an employee of a CIA front company. That's
another secret revealed.
It's one thing to destroy someone's career as a cheap political
trick. But destroying the cover of an agent, her front company and
exposing her contacts is despicable.
I know goddamn well that all the Bush toadies who think this is a
big fucking joke would not be taking it so lightly if it had
happened under different circumstances.
People who'd be outraged if Hillary threw out a five dollar
government ashtray are being mighty frivolous about the destruction
of much more costly assets.
|3.22.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Wow, serious about TANSTAAFL around here huh.
It's not a free lunch if somebody else buys it for me.
|3.22.07 @ 1:56PM|#
$950? I paid 200 grand to get outta bed with my ex. That was a great bargain, even at that price.And I didn't have to do lunch with her anymore, either.
|3.22.07 @ 1:56PM|#
These fees go towards an RFK memorial fund or something.
Not directly to the Plames.
|3.22.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Letting the public know that Mrs. Wilson was married didn't
endanger her work and colleagues.
Letting the public know that she worked for the CIA did.
If that was so dangerous, how come Richard Armitage--who confessed
to being the leaker--wasn't prosecuted? How come no one was
prosecuted for the crime of letting the public know she worked for
the CIA?
Face it, this whole non-scandal is only useful as another example
(if other examples were needed) of how Bush's PR machine is as
elegant and graceful as an arthritic drunken bull in a china
shop.
|3.22.07 @ 2:15PM|#
If that was so dangerous, how come Richard Armitage--who
confessed to being the leaker--wasn't prosecuted?
Because Richard Amitage wasn't close enough to the White House to
generate the necessar headlines to interfere with Bush's
agenda.
|3.22.07 @ 2:19PM|#
"Face it, this whole non-scandal is only useful as another
example (if other examples were needed) of how Bush's PR machine is
as elegant and graceful as an arthritic drunken bull in a china
shop."
Ya can't spin bullshit because it looks the same from any angle.
The Bush Administration is like a bizarre episode of Hollywood
Squares, except the first answer isn't a flip joke in Washington,
it's a cover up lie or justification with wiggle room. Later on we
all find out the real answer and have a good laugh.
If this is a non-scandal, why did Scooter Libby lie about it?
|3.22.07 @ 2:24PM|#
If that was so dangerous, how come Richard Armitage--who
confessed to being the leaker--wasn't prosecuted?
Because Richard Amitage wasn't close enough to the White House
to generate the necessary headlines to interfere with Bush's
agenda.
You're absolutely right, joe, but I never thought I'd see you admit
that the whole investigation was a political hit job with the
purpose of hurting the Bush administration rather than bringing the
leaker to justice.
|3.22.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Dove hunting with Dick Cheney.
Make-up tips from John Edwards.
Pretzel eating contest with George Bush.
ANSWR rally with Dennis Kucinich.
Drag party with Rudy Giuliani.
Staring contest with Nancy Pelosi.
Proxy baptizing with Mitt Romney (or Harry Reid).
Parallel parking lessons from Barack Obama.
Acting lessons from Fred Thompson (or Hillary Clinton).
Diet tips from Mike Huckabee.
Sausage eating contest with Denny Hastert.
Video diagnosis class from Trent Lott.
Golf tips from Jack Abramoff.
Refrigerator repair from William Jefferson.
IM's from Mark Foley.
|3.22.07 @ 2:42PM|#
"So, Madeleine, what do you say to us finding a more private
spot to enjoy the rest of our tea?"
Aaaaaaaahhhh! Make the hurting stop!!!
|3.22.07 @ 2:42PM|#
Guy Montag: did the "Who's Who" article claim that she was a CIA
operative? Isn't that the issue? Nobody disputes that Valerie Plame
was a person with a name. It's the whole CIA thing. Jeez.
RC Dean: I don't know if it was a hit job as much as an
investigation where the prosecutor was lied to and got pissed. It
seems more like a personal affair, though admittedly it was pretty
stupid for Scooter Libby to lie. Perhaps there's an innocent
explanation, but if the Prez or VP's office had nothing to do with
the leak, why the lies? Is it the same thing as saying Reagan had
no idea about funding the Contras, so Ollie North has to get fired
and we'll never really know the truth?
|3.22.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Abdul,
"If that was so dangerous, how come Richard Armitage--who confessed
to being the leaker--wasn't prosecuted? How come no one was
prosecuted for the crime of letting the public know she worked for
the CIA?"
Good question. I'm looking forward to Fitzgerald's report. I could
speculate, but it would be just that.
FYI, both Fitz and the CIA have stated that she was a covert CIA
employee.
VM|3.22.07 @ 2:45PM|#
"joe | March 22, 2007, 2:42pm | #
"So, Madeleine, what do you say to us finding a more private spot
to enjoy the rest of our tea?"
Aaaaaaaahhhh! Make the hurting stop!!!"
as you wish:
"okay Joseph. Janet will come along to play"
|3.22.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I'm going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.
|3.22.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I'm going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.
|3.22.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I'm going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.
|3.22.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I'm going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.
|3.22.07 @ 2:46PM|#
I'm going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.
|3.22.07 @ 2:50PM|#
-joe
I wish I had a troll upon whom I could blame posts that I wish I
had re-read before hitting Submit.
I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but dude, I'd milk it.
Guy Montag|3.22.07 @ 2:51PM|#
You're absolutely right, joe, but I never thought I'd see
you admit that the whole investigation was a political hit job with
the purpose of hurting the Bush administration rather than bringing
the leaker to justice.
The leaker was know before Scooter was even interviewed.
It was like:
1. Let's investigate!
2. First guy: I did it!
3. We can't get Bush on that one, let's keep asking people
stuff!
4. AH HA! That Scooter guy disagrees with that reporter guy!
5. Kangaroo Grand Jury
6. Kangaroo Court
7. Damn! We still don't have the VP!
Dave W.|3.22.07 @ 2:55PM|#
I'm going to make sure to leave plenty of posts on any
threads where asshole coward is impersonating me.
It gets frustrating when they don't do anything about it after you
point it out.
This one day I got so desparate . . .
|3.22.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Guy, you legal genius, I'm not sure you're aware of this, but there isn't actually any doctrine of "only the first guy could be guilty" in our system of jurisprudence.
|3.22.07 @ 3:11PM|#
"It gets frustrating when they don't do anything about it after
you point it out."
Eh. I figure 50 to 100 of my span comments per thread should be a
pretty good motivator, either to the pindick thug in question or to
the editors.
|3.22.07 @ 3:18PM|#
If this is a non-scandal, why did Scooter Libby lie about
it?
That's where we get back to Bush's PR mishaps. Maybe scooter
thought he was doing something illegal. Maybe he didn't want the
whole thing thing coming back to him because it was immoral but not
illegal. Maybe he really does have a bad memory and Tim Russert
chuckles at the idea of putting the innocent in jail.
The whole mess started because Bush wanted to send the message that
Saddam seemed to be pursuing WMD. The message the world got is that
Bush employs weaselly liars.
Big Public Relations SNAFU
Gilbert Martin|3.22.07 @ 3:22PM|#
"The leaker was know before Scooter was even interviewed.
It was like:
1. Let's investigate!
2. First guy: I did it!
3. We can't get Bush on that one, let's keep asking people
stuff!
4. AH HA! That Scooter guy disagrees with that reporter guy!
5. Kangaroo Grand Jury
6. Kangaroo Court
7. Damn! We still don't have the VP!"
Yeah and that political grandstanding is so much more important
than finding the leakers of other classified information who have
yet to be prosecuted, like whoever leaked the classified info about
the program monitoring international phone calls to or from
suspected terrorists.
|3.22.07 @ 3:26PM|#
Abdul,
The phrase you're looking for is "If only the czar knew!"
How about this possibility - Libby lied because blowing the cover
of a covert CIA agent is such an appallingly irrepsonsible, corrupt
thing to do that he was trying to head off the scandal that would
inevitably result from the world finding out about it.
|3.22.07 @ 3:32PM|#
RC, you twit, that was the cowardly troll who's been posting
under my name.
Well, I moused over to check the email address and it was your
usual. Sorry.
FYI, both Fitz and the CIA have stated that she was a covert
CIA employee.
And there is nothing illegal about disclosing someone is a covert
CIA employee unless it meets the very specific requirements of the
statute - it was done knowingly, she was posted overseas,
etc.
There is no reason to believe that Armitage's leak was illegal. The
question is, why, since Fitz knew who the leaker was so early in
the investigation, he continued to investigate?
If the leak was illegal, why didn't he charge Armitage? If the the
leak wasn't illegal, what exactly was he investigating?
biologist|3.22.07 @ 3:35PM|#
RC:
perhaps there was more than one leaker, and Fitzgerald wanted to
investigate thoroughly to confirm or eliminate this
possibility
also, grand juries often have to give immunity from prosecution to
get testimony otherwise unavailable due to fifth amendment
protection against self-incrimination. perhaps something like that
was in play here.
we'll know more when Fitzgerald issues his report, unless the whole
thing gets redacted.
|3.22.07 @ 3:35PM|#
joe, the whole "blowing Val's cover is horrifying" thing wears a
little thin in light of the facts that (a) she had already been
compromised years before (thus no more overseas postings), (b) she
went to work at CIA headquarters every day, and (c) her husband
made himself a very public figure on the very topic of her CIA
work.
Lets face it - once the Ambassador decided to make a second career
out of publicizing his views on WMD in the Mideast, his wife's
covert status as a CIA analyst on WMD had a very short half-life.
If we're looking for moral culpability here, I think you start with
him.
|3.22.07 @ 3:35PM|#
The phrase you're looking for is "If only the czar
knew!"
Just to be clear joe. Are you saying the democratically elected
president of the united states is morally equivalent to the
pre-revolutionary russion monarch?
I think you've just a new land-speed record for hyperbole here at
H&R.
|3.22.07 @ 3:37PM|#
perhaps there was more than one leaker, and Fitzgerald
wanted to investigate thoroughly to confirm or eliminate this
possibility
This only works if the leak was illegal, which apparently it wasn't
since Fitz never indicted Armitage.
The whole investigation was a giant sham. Either the leak was
illegal, or it wasn't. If it wasn't there should have been no
investigation. If it was, why wasn't Armitage indicted? He was
never given immunity, after all.
|3.22.07 @ 3:44PM|#
"Either the leak was illegal, or it wasn't."
I would have loved to see this argument 10 years ago: Either the
blowjob was illegal, or it wasn't.
Being innocent of the underlying conduct does not give one the
right to lie to prosecutors in a criminal investigation.
Guy Montag|3.22.07 @ 3:46PM|#
The whole investigation was a giant sham. Either the leak
was illegal, or it wasn't. If it wasn't there should have been no
investigation. If it was, why wasn't Armitage indicted? He was
never given immunity, after all.
Exactly right.
If it was, why wasn't Armitage indicted?
Because he does not lead to Cheney, he leads to Powell.
|3.22.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Conspiracy theories, while entertaining, do not give gov't officials lying power.
|3.22.07 @ 3:51PM|#
But Clinton did it, But there was no underlying crime, But
Armitage was the guy, But this was a political prosecution, But
this was personal, But Fitzgerald is Irish like the Goddam
Kennedys, etc.
Are there more justifications for lying to prosecutors?
|3.22.07 @ 3:52PM|#
R C,
I owe you an apology for calling you a twit. I'm sure you can
understand why such a thing would make me angry, but I should not
have taken it out on you.
"And there is nothing illegal about disclosing someone is a covert
CIA employee unless it meets the very specific requirements of the
statute - it was done knowingly, she was posted overseas,
etc."
Exactly. We now know that she was covert and had very recently been
working overseas, which leaves other possibilities. Perhaps
Armitage didn't know her status, for example. And there is the
important point about other leakers which, lo and behold, there
were, working in tandem, at the direction of Dick Cheney.
The important point here is that, even if Fitzgerald knew who the
intial leaker was, determining whether that action and the dozen or
so other overt acts of blowing her cover met those very specific
requirements is a task which requires investigation.
Lifelong Republican and federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald,
after exhaustively investigating the matter for several months,
determined that they did not, and that's good enough for me.
|3.22.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Just to be clear. Bill Clinton provided misleading responses
while under oath in a civil action that had nothing to do with his
official duties as POTUS. Bill then used the concept of executive
priveledge to impede the investigation of his actions in that civil
action.
Scooter Libby lied to investigators about distributing information
during political activites when the distribution of that
information may or may not have been an actual crime.
The only common thread between these two events is the overzealous
actions of a special prosecutor.
|3.22.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Seriously, RC, we know for certain that this CIA agent's
identity was leaked. We know that, under certain circumstances,
that could be a crime.
Are you seriously suggesting that it is inappropriate to
investigate whether those circumstances were met?
|3.22.07 @ 3:59PM|#
It would be nice if there was a rule that anyone caught lying
(along with other acts of moral turpitude) couldn't serve in
government. Criminal prosecutions are another story and should
follow the usual standards, whatever they are :)
Naturally, this all assumes that we can know the truth, sans bias,
spin, and statistics. Good luck with that, right?
I won't mention the need for a professional truth seeker, a
government bouncer. . .oh, the heck with it. I'm bored with the
topic myself.
|3.22.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Dont turn around, uh oh!
Der Commissar's in town, uh oh!
He's got the power and your so weak
And your frustrations won't-a let you speak.
Ay ay ay ay ay ay ay ay.
Chucklehead|3.22.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Lets face it - once the Ambassador decided to make a second
career out of publicizing his views on WMD in the Mideast, his
wife's covert status as a CIA analyst on WMD had a very short
half-life. If we're looking for moral culpability here, I think you
start with him.
That was beautiful.
A covert operative's cover is blown in an act of petty revenge
against her husband for being critical of the war... and it's the
husband's fault.
Judges?
10/10! World class mental gymnastics!
|3.22.07 @ 4:24PM|#
Those of us with an emotional attachment to this country and
its well-being actually do consider the anonymity of covert agents
working to protect as from foreign enemies precious.
But only if it embarrasses the eeeeeeevil Bush Administration. If
it doesn't, then the CIA is, of course, doing nothing but
meticulously grooming new Blowtorch Bobs to torture thousands upon
thousands of peaceful third-world revolutionaries.
You're as fake as you are partisan, joe.
|3.22.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"But only if it embarrasses the eeeeeeevil Bush
Administration."
That is a BS statement. I don't know any lefties who think that CIA
agents are inherently evil, and I live in a very, very blue area.
They view them as dedicated civil servants and probably wonder if
they have a union. Please stop confusing the left-wing ideas of a
19-year-old college freshman with real politics.
|3.22.07 @ 4:48PM|#
Loundry,
Wow, you're not nearly as good at figuring out my motivations and
feelings as I am yours.
What is this, 1977? I'm supposed to hate the CIA because I'm a
Democrat? Whatever.
|3.22.07 @ 4:49PM|#
Lamar,
When I was a freshman in college, I actually signed a petition to
have the CIA officer in residence thrown off the GWU campus.
Because I was so rebellious and progressive, you see.
Then I turned 18.
Loundry, are you still in college?
|3.22.07 @ 4:52PM|#
ATTENTION REASON HIT & RUN FANS
Akira MacKenzie, H&R's lovable "Village Atheist," sci-fi geek,
and bipolar curmudgeon would like to have lunch with YOU... for a
reasonable fee.
--Hear his blunt, in-your-face, buffalo-style outlook on matters of
religion, philosophy, and politics... whether you want to or
not.
--Discuss and test his nearly limitless knowledge of pop culture
and obscure facts until your nauseous.
--Or just shut up and bask in the genius that is Akira MacKenzie
you insignificant worm!
Send $1000* in small, unmarked bills to PO Box 5555, Foggy Bottom,
WI, 53555 and maybe--just maybe--he can slip you in for a burger an
McDonalds... your treat.
*Attractive females between the ages of 18-25 can apply for a
discounted rate provided they attend a private two hour reception
after the luncheon at an undisclosed Motel 6 room. Party favors
will be provided. No fat chicks.
NO REFUNDS.
|3.22.07 @ 4:57PM|#
With all of this leaking going on around Washington, I think I finally understand why the Metro system smells like piss so often.
|3.22.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Yo #6
I was making fun of her covert status, if I'm not mistaken it was a
default designation ...she was a pencil pusher and if she was in
danger from the disclosure of her name/status, why hasn't she been
wacked...where's the danger
|3.22.07 @ 5:09PM|#
And your frustrations won't-a let you speak.
joe,
You've come up with another reason to institute the Office of the
Censor--he'll/they'll terrorize DC so much that everyone will shut
their traps. Ah, the silence alone would make it all worth
while.
The first Chief Censor simply must have a German accent. . .or at
least the ability to fake it. "Vhere are der papers, Frau
Speaker?"
Akira,
Offer to take your donors to the McDonald's on 17th Street--the one
Clinton famously used to eat at. It's like sleeping in the Lincoln
bed. . .but with Hit & Run's Akira!
|3.22.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Was I the only one who looked at the picture and imagined Joe Wilson asking, "Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon?"
|3.22.07 @ 5:38PM|#
If I buy one of these lunches, I'm going to ask Val repeatedly if she ever slept with James Bond.
|3.22.07 @ 5:54PM|#
But only if it embarrasses the eeeeeeevil Bush
Administration. If it doesn't, then the CIA is, of course, doing
nothing but meticulously grooming new Blowtorch Bobs to torture
thousands upon thousands of peaceful third-world
revolutionaries.
People whose sole political principle is "my party good, other
party bad" tend to assume that everyone thinks that way.
Gilbert Martin|3.22.07 @ 5:56PM|#
"But only if it embarrasses the eeeeeeevil Bush
Administration."
Tsk Tsk.
Now, you know that the liberal democrats are seriously and
sincerely concerned about our national security.
Why just look at the way they've equally denounced the leaking of
classified info about that NSA international phone call surveilance
program and have been equally as vigorous in demanding any and all
leakers who revealed the info about it be found and prosecuted as
they have done about the Plame affair.
Oh wait, -- never mind.
ADM|3.22.07 @ 6:12PM|#
"It gets frustrating when they don't do anything about it after
you point it out."
We've still keeping an eye on you, David.
|3.22.07 @ 6:13PM|#
Why just look at the way they've equally denounced the
leaking of classified info about that NSA international phone call
surveilance program and have been equally as vigorous in demanding
any and all leakers who revealed the info about it be found and
prosecuted as they have done about the Plame affair
And the Pentagon Papers guy should be in jail, too!!!
Because there is no difference between whistle-blowing of
potentially illegal activity and leaking for political
attacks.
All leaks are created equal.
|3.22.07 @ 6:14PM|#
Illegal Big Brother spying on citizens without warrants, the covert status of a CIA employee - six of one, half dozen of the other.
|3.22.07 @ 7:23PM|#
Haven't read all the above comments yet, so pardon me if I'm
repeating here:
These two are gigantic media whores who have zero credibility.
Based on her behavior over the past couple years, being "outed" was
probably the happiest day of Valery Plame's life. She and Joe "I
forgot to mention I ran into Iraq's official uranium negotiator"
Wilson can spend the rest of their lives trying to get their names
and faces in every media outlet in the world to talk about the
damage done to them by having her name mentioned in a media outlet,
and there will be those lining up to applaud them. This is a
goddamned farce.
Yeah, a little vitriolic, I know. But they're selling fucking
dinners!? No matter where you stand on the whole "scandal", you've
got to think this is getting absurd. Considering their whole beef
in the first place, my irony meter is about to overload.
|3.22.07 @ 8:28PM|#
Yeah, Dave, and have seen how rich and famous John Walsh has
gotten since his son Adam was murdered?
Best thing that ever happened to him, I say.
|3.22.07 @ 8:30PM|#
Hmm, I wonder what people who worked with Valerie Plame have to
say about her work.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
|3.22.07 @ 8:54PM|#
"Yeah, Dave, and have seen how rich and famous John Walsh has
gotten since his son Adam was murdered?"
Is it even worth explaining how ridiculous that is?
|3.22.07 @ 9:09PM|#
Is it even worth explaining how ridiculous that
is?
Yes it is, because I can't see any fault in dragging out dead sons
to make a political point.
|3.22.07 @ 9:18PM|#
Rather than risk getting into an argument with Fake Joe, I'm
opting out of this one.
And if we do that, the Fake Joes win.
Gilbert Martin|3.22.07 @ 10:26PM|#
"She and Joe "I forgot to mention I ran into Iraq's official
uranium negotiator" Wilson..."
Don't denigrate the other half of the team - Valerie "Some guy just
passing by my desk was the one who suggested Joe go to Niger" is no
slouch in the whopper department herself.
Gilbert Martin|3.22.07 @ 10:28PM|#
"Rather than risk getting into an argument with Fake Joe, I'm
opting out of this one."
Heh, there aren't any real Joes.
They're all fake.
|3.23.07 @ 2:56AM|#
So you're saying "Joe" is just a generic name for the representation of the collective lefty partisan conciousness? He's the Borg Queen of blue states?
|3.23.07 @ 9:27AM|#
I love it that I'm so intimidating to argue against that people
have to impersonate me to try to make me look bad.
How many of you have your own internet stalkers? I'm up to at least
two.
thoreau|3.23.07 @ 9:49AM|#
If I buy one of these lunches, I'm going to ask Val
repeatedly if she ever slept with James Bond.
I'll affect a British accent and ask her "So, shall we shag now or
shag later? YEAH BABY!!!"
But then some evil bald guy will interrupt our meal. Oops.
|3.23.07 @ 9:55AM|#
Wow, I can't believe I'm actually eating lunch with you two!
OhMyGodOhMyGodOhMyGod!
Can I ask you something?
What's Lawrence Eagleberger REALLY like?
|3.23.07 @ 10:11AM|#
I love it that I'm so intimidating to argue against that
people have to impersonate me to try to make me look
bad.
You do well enough on your own.
|3.23.07 @ 10:53AM|#
When I was a freshman in college, I actually signed a
petition to have the CIA officer in residence thrown off the GWU
campus. Because I was so rebellious and progressive, you see.
Then I turned 18.
It's nice to see you admit that the heart of "progressive" politics
comes from the ignorant idealism of whining college students. If
only more of your "progressive" ilk would have such rare moments of
candor. (Those scare quotes are EARNED and I will not deny you
them.)
What about turning 18 makes the CIA palatable? Oh, that's right, it
really has nothing to do with the CIA. They're just a tool in your
toolbox of embarrassing the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Bush
Administration.
Again, you're as fake as you are partisan, joe.
|3.23.07 @ 10:59AM|#
"You do well enough on your own."
Apparently not, given how many "not joe" comments you feel the need
to post.
Loundy,
I turned 18 under a Republican president. Which pretty much makes
the rest of your point about me fall apart. As usual.
I matter waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too much to you.
|3.23.07 @ 11:03AM|#
That is a BS statement. I don't know any lefties who think
that CIA agents are inherently evil, and I live in a very, very
blue area.
How unconvincing. Demonizing anyone resisting communism is a
long-standing "progressive" tradition. This notion of "standing up
for the CIA" and "standing up for America" (that statement to
"progressives" is like garlic to a vampire) is very recent in
"progressive" circles, and only because it embarrasses the
eeeeeeeeeeevil Bush Administration.
They view them as dedicated civil servants and probably wonder
if they have a union.
Painting them as victims of the eeeeeeevil Bush Administration
makes them palatable to "progressives". They need a union! But when
it comes to the distasteful war in Afghanistan, which many
"progressives" hate, there's not much love for the CIA, is there?
Be honest. Go visit joo-hating Daiy Kos and tell me what you find.
(Cue "anti-Israel is not anti-Semitic" talking point.)
Please stop confusing the left-wing ideas of a 19-year-old
college freshman with real politics.
If you consider the heavily-pandered-to "netroots" to be "19 year
old college freshmen" then you better keep a low profile. Those
"progressives" are hateful and vengeful, and any Democrat who fails
to lick their toes faces their wrath. I'm guessing you're a Hillary
voter. (Maybe you're even a *Lieberman* voter! You'd be in big
trouble...)
|3.23.07 @ 11:05AM|#
I turned 18 under a Republican president. Which pretty much
makes the rest of your point about me fall apart. As
usual.
Non sequitur.
Again, thanks for admitting that your politics come from stupid,
rich college brats. It's nice of you. :)
I matter waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too much to you.
Likewise!
|3.23.07 @ 11:09AM|#
"But when it comes to the distasteful war in Afghanistan...."
The one virtually every liberal in Congress voted for?
Loundry believes everyone left of center is a radical
leftist.
Once again, Loundry, are you still in college?
"Again, thanks for admitting that your politics come from stupid,
rich college brats."
My FORMER politics. I'm going to narrow it down - Loundry, are you
a college freshman taking a remedial literacy course?
|3.23.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Loundry believes everyone left of center is a radical
leftist.
Wow, you're not nearly as good at figuring out my motivations and
feelings as I am yours.
My REAL thought is that no one who is left-of-center refuses to
repudiate and exclude the radical leftists. They're completely
welcome under the "progressive" umbrella. Apologists for North
Korea? Anyone but Bush, right?
My FORMER politics.
I see. Care to detail how much of your "former" politics you now
regard as evil? I'm curious.
|3.23.07 @ 11:25AM|#
Loundry,
No, I don't care to have a discussion with you.
You are rude, and incapable of discussing ideas.
|3.23.07 @ 11:37AM|#
"How many of you have your own internet stalkers? I'm up to at
least two." - joe
Wow, are you really that desperate for attention? If so, it
certainly throws a whole new light on why you spend so much time
here despite the number of rhetorical beat-downs you take.
|3.23.07 @ 11:49AM|#
"Wow, are you really that desperate for attention?"
Nah, it's just the risk you take when you have the stones to
discuss politics in a community where you're the minority.
Some people cannot tolerate anything more intellectually
challenging than a mutual admiration society.
Sad, really.
|3.23.07 @ 11:55AM|#
joe,
That's sad, because I finally thought that our discussion was
getting somewhere. You admitted that some of your "progressive"
ideology was wrong (maybe even "evil", but we didn't get that far),
and I was hoping that you would explain how much of it you had
repudiated and why. This is important because, unlike most
everything else you write, it appeared to be honest.
And I want to be especially clear about this because it's the
reason why I mock you so heavily. I think you are a partisan;
meaning, you are loyal to your team in spite of all facts and
reason. This the very nature of being "fully committed" to your
team: if you would be swayed away from your team by facts or
reasoning, then how "loyal" are you, really?
That's why I call you "fake". Your arguments aren't real. They're
designed to destroy the "bad guys", not at finding out facts and
achieving greater understanding. If you're welcome here, then I see
no reason why Bush-worshipping Christian Coalition partisans
shouldn't also be welcome as well. You and they are two sides of
the same coin: fully committed to the team.
It's also unfair of you to say that I'm not capable of discussing
ideas while at the same time seeming much more interested in ad
hominem attacks than you are about answering substantive questions,
such as whether or not it is true that left-of-center people refuse
to repudiate and exclude the radical left in the same way that
right-of-center people (such as Bill O'Reilly, for instance) have
repudiated and excluded the Ku Klux Klan. In that respect, O'Reilly
has more honor than you do because he's interested in kicking out
the extremist nutcases wheres the left-of-center seem to embrace
their own extremist nutcases because they, mujahedin and all, are
somehow less evil than the pig Bush.
I'm gay, and I think you suck. I really, really think
"progressives" are pathetic losers.
Gilbert Martin|3.23.07 @ 11:56AM|#
"it certainly throws a whole new light on why you spend so much
time here despite the number of rhetorical beat-downs you
take."
Heh, he spends so much time in here because it's the only place he
can mouth off to other people and get away with it.
In the real world, he'd be squashed in about 5 seconds.
Gilbert Martn|3.23.07 @ 12:15PM|#
"Because there is no difference between whistle-blowing of
potentially illegal activity and leaking for political
attacks.
All leaks are created equal."
LOL, potentially illegal activity, eh?
That's just your opinion - not a fact.
Classiffied information is classified information.
There's no particular reason why I should accept your personal
opinions as the nature and value to national security (or the
legality) of the activity, person or program being
classified.
You certainly can't prove that Plame's pencil pushing desk job at
CIA headquarters was any more valuable to national security than
the NSA program.
|3.23.07 @ 12:34PM|#
"This is important because, unlike most everything else you
write, it appeared to be honest."
And this is why I'm not bothering with you.
|3.23.07 @ 12:48PM|#
"I really, really think "progressives" are pathetic
losers."
I'm sorry, Loundry, you were saying something about ad homenim
attacks and "my-team vs. the other guys" partisanship?
LOL.
|3.23.07 @ 12:54PM|#
I'm sorry, Loundry, you were saying something about ad
homenim attacks and "my-team vs. the other guys"
partisanship?
You caved pretty quickly on the "I'm not bothering with you". It's
a shining testament to my irresistability, or to your "progressive"
weakness, both of which are legendary.
What is my team, joe? How can I be partisan when I don't have a
team? Something tells me you wouldn't be so critical of me if I
were to write, "I think fundamentalist Christians are pathetic
losers". Would that be a kind of partisanship that you decry?
(Yes, it's true that I think fundamentalist Christians are pathetic
losers. "Progressives" are even worse, though.)
|3.23.07 @ 1:28PM|#
I think you have a lot of prejudice, a lot of anger, and very few interesting ideas.
|3.23.07 @ 1:30PM|#
'You caved pretty quickly on the "I'm not bothering with
you".'
You misunderstand; mocking and insulting you isn't a bother. More
of a pleasent distraction.
Trying to have a useful discussion with you about ideas would be a
bother.
Dave W.|3.23.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Some people cannot tolerate anything more intellectually
challenging than a mutual admiration society.
it should be about the learning. Like me & T.!
|3.23.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Seriously, RC, we know for certain that this CIA agent's
identity was leaked. We know that, under certain circumstances,
that could be a crime.
Are you seriously suggesting that it is inappropriate to
investigate whether those circumstances were met?
Not at all.
But I am pointing out that Fitzgerald knew very early in his
investigation exactly who the leaker was, and apparently concluded
that no crime was committed because he never charged the
leaker.
Having concluded that the leak was not illegal, as he must have
done since he never charged the person who made the leak, just what
was he investigating, again?
|3.23.07 @ 2:35PM|#
I think you have a lot of prejudice, a lot of anger, and
very few interesting ideas.
Prejudice? Pot, kettle, black.
Anger? Pot, kettle, black.
A very few interesting ideas? Nice opinion!
You misunderstand; mocking and insulting you isn't a bother.
More of a pleasent distraction.
What, a "progressive" finding joy in being mocking and insulting?
You are a rare bird indeed! Typically, "progressives" are so kind,
forgiving, uplifting, and chock-full-of-humor. You have defied the
"progressive" stereotype once again.
Trying to have a useful discussion with you about ideas would
be a bother.
Yes, it would be a bother for you to reveal exactly what parts of
your "progressive" politics you have repudiated. That is one of
your ideas that I have a great deal of interest in. Why not reveal
it?
And why not say why left-of-center folks refuse to expel the
radical left from the "progressive" agenda like Bill O'Reilly
eschews the Ku Klux Klan? Wouldn't it be classy of "progressives"
to hold the extreme left in scorn, particularly after you have
admitted that you left them and their stupid, juvenile politics in
the dust?
I can see why those kinds of discussions aren't of any interest to
you: they wouldn't serve to make your team look good. Hence, it's a
waste of time for a partisan like you.
|3.23.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Loundry:
My bad, I thought you were serious with your eeeeeevil Bush
Administration stuff. Heck, if progressives were really like your
sketch of them, I'd be disgusted too. Fortunately, I live in NYC,
know 100's of liberals, and none over the age of 20 that think the
way you describe it.
|3.23.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Ahhh, I see. You are using "progressives" to refer only to the radical, shrill left. That isn't really accurate. I understand if you want to paint with a broad brush, make all lefties out to be radicals, but you should know that only Bill O'Reilly makes that mistake (and intentionally).
Gilbert Martin|3.23.07 @ 3:21PM|#
"Gil,
"Tough talk for a guy who won't even type an email address."
Just telling it like it is. You are the one who has been
incessently spouting off in every thread in here for years, not
me.
The ONLY reason for such behavior is the one I stated.
And e-mail addresses have nothing to do with it.
"Wussy."
Nope.
You are the liberal - not me.
|3.23.07 @ 3:38PM|#
R C,
"But I am pointing out that Fitzgerald knew very early in his
investigation exactly who the leaker was, and apparently concluded
that no crime was committed because he never charged the
leaker."
1. There was more than one leaker, as has been amply documented.
There is no "we only charge the first guy" doctrine in our legal
system when dealing with a group effort.
2. Knowing that Armitage leaked is not the same thing as knowing
whether his leaking violated the law. Once his identity was know,
Fitzgerald had to look into whether the other requirements for a
charge were met, and this required an investigation.
|3.23.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Loundry,
I don't give a shit what you think about me, about progressives,
about liberals, about the difference between the two, or about who
is denouncing whom.
I've had interesting discussions with decent human beings with
brains in their heads about where far-lefties go wrong. I have no
interest in having such conversations with the likes of you.
|3.23.07 @ 3:46PM|#
Does anyone else get the sense that the Bush apologists had
their "Patrick Fitzgerald is a partisan fanatic" talking points
ready for an expected mass indictment, and are working a little too
hard to apply them to the actual situation?
We're supposed to believe that Fitzgerald's very restraint in only
issuing one indictment, and none at all on the charge of blowing an
agent's cover, is evidence of his irresponsible, partisan
behavior.
And yet can there be any doubt that R C Dean would be calling him
exactly the same names if he'd issued half a dozen indictments on
the cover-blowing?
|3.23.07 @ 3:51PM|#
Ahhh, I see. You are using "progressives" to refer only to
the radical, shrill left.
Wrong. I am using "progressives" sardonically, but also as the
umbrella group that includes your effete, manicured upper-west-side
friends and also the peaceful-yet-violent radical left whom your
snobby friends either pretend don't exist or pretend are plants by
Karl Rove, but either way still regard as one-million times less
evil than the Pig Bush.
Let me make it clear: disown the radical left much like the right
has disowned the Klan, and I will stop grouping you along with the
radical left.
you should know that only Bill O'Reilly makes that
mistake
It goes far beyond BOR and you know it, and it's not a mistake. If
you accept the support of the radical left and regard them as less
evil than the Pig Bush, then you ARE the far left. And the same
goes for the right and the KKK: if the right accepts the support of
the KKK and regards them as less evil than John Kerry, the the
right IS the KKK. I have seen mainstream Conservative writers and
politicans denouncing the Klan, but I rarely, if ever, see any
"progressive", anywhere, utter a peep about the radical left,
except to say that they are a plant by Karl Rove when their
disgusting antics are revealed on the Internet.
|3.23.07 @ 3:59PM|#
I've had interesting discussions with decent human beings
with brains in their heads about where far-lefties go wrong. I have
no interest in having such conversations with the likes of
you.
The reason I come off as "the likes of you" is because you have
been a consistenly insulting and mocking "progressive" bastard on
this board. It doesn't mean that I can't have an intelligent
conversation; it just means that I don't suffer fools, particularly
when they're being foolish. When you push, I tend to push right
back. I can't claim to be better than you in this regard.
So I propose that we wipe the slate clean and forgive each other,
and perhaps we can have a real conversation. All I ask of you have
to do is turn off the mockery and insults and answer two questions,
and I will become as docile as a kitten.
1. Why won't you condemn and exclude the far left? (Something along
the lines of, "International ANSWER does not belong in the
progressive movement" would go far with me.)
2. What parts of your far-left ideology have you repudiated and
why?
|3.23.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Hey, I know this game!
Why don't you (liberals, Muslims, whatever) denounce the
radicals?
We do, look here and here hand here.
Yeah, but why don't you denounce them MORE?
Well, look, what do you want-
Hey, all I know is that I NEVER hear you people denounce them, so
that shows that you're one yourself!
|3.23.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Loundry,
What part of "I don't want to to talk about Jehovah with you. Get
off my porch," don't you understand?
|3.23.07 @ 4:08PM|#
joe,
I was serious about wiping the slate clean. Snark off, sarcasm
off.
I know the game you've mentioned because I suffer from it all the
time. I'm a gay man, and I constantly have to cope with the fact
that I'm pigeon-holed into "gay culture" by other, more prominent
gay people. I don't talk like that, live in the "gay ghetto",
reflexively vote Democrat, etc. I have to denounce the freaks
prancing in the odious "gay pride" parade because I do not want to
be associated with them. And if I don't make a point of denouncing
them, then people automatically assume that I consider the denizens
of the "United Gay Fisters" float to be my "bretheren". It sucks,
but it's a fact of life.
That's not the game I'm playing with you. The behavior that I see
from many liberals is that they rail and agitate over
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove as if they are pure, unmitigated evil.
And these same people say nothing, nothing at all about
International ANSWER or CAIR or many other disgusting groups which
are, at times, allied with many people in the left-of-center
camp.
What conclusion am I supposed to draw from that? It appears to me
that you think Bush is worse than International ANSWER and CAIR. It
appears to me that you think that defending the North Korean
shithole is a lesser crime than supporting the Bush administration.
I don't support Bush; in fact, I think he's a lousy president. But
I would agitate against North Korea one hundred times before I
would ever agitate against Bush.
I need your help on this one, joe.
|3.23.07 @ 4:44PM|#
"Nah, it's just the risk you take when you have the stones to
discuss politics in a community where you're the minority." -
joe
Stones? Dude, a guy with stones doesn't base his manhood on
anonymous internet arguments.
"Some people cannot tolerate anything more intellectually
challenging than a mutual admiration society. Sad, really." -
joe
That would be sad, if it were true of most of the regular posters
here. It's obviously not.
But equally sad is the kind of guy who spends his time gadflying
for negative attention and talking tough on message boards about
his "stones." I thought you were at least more grown-up than
that...
|3.23.07 @ 4:54PM|#
"""How much to spend a night snorting coke with Roger
Clinton?"""
Free as long as you supply the coke
|3.23.07 @ 4:56PM|#
Loundry:
Just to clarify, what is the left wing equivalent to the KKK? If it
is the commies, then I would say unequivocally that no major left
winger supports communism. But what is the left wing version of the
KKK?
It seems like you're saying that you are going to lump in the
radical shrill left in with center-lefties because the
center-lefties don't do enough to distance themselves from the
shrill. I don't really buy that. Has the right distanced itself
from its base of fundamentalist rednecks? Nope. Do I call modern
Republicans "neocons"? Nope. I am against this sloppy use of
language. It seems to me that many people are trying to change the
meaning of words by erroneous repitition. If I say that
progressives favor communism when really just a few hippie potheads
up on vermont do, then maybe the word progressive will be a bad
word one day, just like the transformation of the word liberal. I
don't know about that. Why not use the most accurate word?
|3.23.07 @ 5:09PM|#
Remember all that brew ha ha about investigating leaks. Bush
said he would fire anyone leaking in his administration. Now many
of the same people that was crying for leak investigations are now
crying to pardon a man found guilty of lying about his part in a
leak.
If you "read" into their stance, now their problem is not with
leaks, but if the leak was legal or not. Libby committed no crime
(prior to lying) so it's all good.
What happened to that we must investigate and prosecute all leaks
crowd?
The reality is, all administrations leak, the press relies on it.
No administration or member of the press is really interested in
making it stop.
I am still amazed by how many people are defending someone who lied
to a grand jury. Why do these people love liars?
|3.23.07 @ 5:29PM|#
It seems like you're saying that you are going to lump in
the radical shrill left in with center-lefties because the
center-lefties don't do enough to distance themselves from the
shrill. I don't really buy that.
All I would really like to hear from you is something like this: "I
can't claim to speak for all liberals, but I reject the far-left
and they do not belong in my camp." I'd like to hear a lot more
liberals say that, but, instead, I hear a lot of bitter, raging
hate for "Chimpy McBushitler". And I've heard that raw hate
incessently since 2000. Liberals are more hateful toward Bush than
Conservative Rednecks are towards gays, and I should know: I'm a
gay who lives among Conservative Rednecks and has done so for years
without incident.
I think hating Bush has become a comfortable pasttime for many
liberals, and I think that liberals underestimate the damage it has
done to their repuatation. When someone says, "I'm a proud
liberal", I do NOT hear someone saying, "I stand against racism and
fight against injustice." Instead, I hear, "I am a seething,
vengeful, hateful bastard!" That is what "liberal" means to me
nowadays.
Has the right distanced itself from its base of fundamentalist
rednecks? Nope.
Of course not. There's only about 100 million of them, so they
can't afford to. Furthermore, many of these people have learned to
stuff their racist feelings because they know that overt
expressions of racism is politically incorrect. (This is a kind of
political correctness I actually like.) The right has, on the other
hand, openly eschewed groups like Fred Phelps (but they liked him
when he was only attacking gays), the Klan, and white power groups.
This is good and it shows the right's willingness to move toward
the center and exclude the groups which promote violence and hate
-- at least openly.
And that's what I'd like to see happen on the left. You can start
by telling me how much you think International ANSWER sucks. I
would really like to hear that from a whole bunch of liberals, I
really would. I think it would go far to repair the left's awful
reputation.
But what is the left wing version of the KKK?
The closest equivalent would be anyone that has anything to do with
Jihad or the Mujahedin. The worst thing that liberals have done has
been their uncritical support for the evil religion of Islam,
especially since Islam is anti-woman and anti-gay. Those are two
things that liberals are supposed to stand up for, and they wipe
their asses with women and gays in the name of supporting
"multiculturalism".
But the evil done in the name of Jihad absolutely dwarfs that done
by the present-day KKK, which, by comparison, is a joke.
|3.23.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Hi Loundry,
As a non-leftist who despises the Bush administration, I would say
that the Bush administration is worth fighting against more than
ANSWER is because the Bush administration is in power. ANSWER most
probably never will be.
Of course, that doesn't excuse "progressives" from ignorantly
aligning themselves with a group as execrable as ANSWER, it just
means we can afford to ignore ANSWER, but we can't afford to ignore
the Bush administration.
|3.23.07 @ 6:03PM|#
What's wrong with CAIR? I absolutely think Bush and Cheney are
worse than CAIR.
As for ANSWER, I've dissed them on this very board before.
And you know what, Loundry? Dissing Chimpy McBushitler isn't even
remotely an expression of support for North Korea, communist
politics, jihadist Islam, or Ba'athism. It's an expresion of
contempt for George Bush.
"When someone says, "I'm a proud liberal", I do NOT hear someone
saying, "I stand against racism and fight against injustice."
Instead, I hear, "I am a seething, vengeful, hateful bastard!" That
is what "liberal" means to me nowadays." That's your problem.
|3.23.07 @ 6:06PM|#
Les,
Thank you for your reply.
Certainly ANSWER has less power than the Bush administration, so
you have a good point.
Getting the liberals here to condemn ANSWER was, in my words, "a
start". I think that Jihad groups (and there are many, many of
them) are much, much more dangerous than the Bush Administration,
and we should stand up to them first as they have tremendous power
and hate all of us.
But getting liberals to even acknowledge that jihad exists is a
huge leap for them. Baby steps. Many of them still believe that
Muslims become suicide bombers because of "poverty" or
"imperialism". It's going to take a lot of cognitive dissonance for
those lies to be shattered, particularly when the specter of white
guilt is so pervasive in the liberal mind.
|3.23.07 @ 6:14PM|#
I absolutely think Bush and Cheney are worse than
CAIR.
I'm not surprised to hear that. I would like to hear your
explanations as to why you think that the Bush Administration is
worse than CAIR.
And you know what, Loundry? Dissing Chimpy McBushitler isn't
even remotely an expression of support for North Korea, communist
politics, jihadist Islam, or Ba'athism. It's an expresion of
contempt for George Bush.
It's not just a single expression, though. It's been 24/7, non-stop
Bush Hate since 2000 with nary a peep about North Korea. This is
why I think many liberals think that Bush is worse than North
Korea.
As for ANSWER, I've dissed them on this very board
before.
I know. I saw some of your other statements about that evil
organization in another thread. Naturally, I would have liked to
have seen you be more critical, but you and I have different
values, so I'll take what I can get. It was seeing those words of
yours that inspired me to take a different tone with you.
That's your problem.
If millions of people see you as an apologist for North Korea and
Shari'a, then you've got a big image problem. I see the moderate
right trying to expunge the Klan from their ranks, and I wish the
moderate left (that's you, correct?) would follow suit.
|3.23.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Loundry,
CAIR hasn't hurt anyone. They haven't started any wars, justified
torture, or used their podium to turn Americans against eath other.
None of these things can be said about Bush or Cheney.
But there's a bigger point I want to make.
None of the energy you expend dissing radical gay men to get into
the good graces of your redneck neighbors does a damn thing to
change their minds about gay people. It merely confirms their
belief that most gay men really are as vile as perverse as their
prejudices suggest - even that nice Loundry says so, and he's gay.
But he's one of the good ones.
We convince prejudiced people of the decency of people like us by
living decently, not by jumping through hoops to convince them that
we're not like those bad ones.
Every racist I've ever met has a patter down to explain the
difference between black people and niggers. I see absolutely no
value in confriming that belief system.
No hate, Loundry, and no judgement. You're dealing with challenges
- I'll go so far as to say dangers - that I'll never know, and
you've gotta do what you've gotta to keep yourself safe and sane.
But that doesn't make it a virtue.
|3.26.07 @ 12:56PM|#
"What's wrong with CAIR? I absolutely think Bush and Cheney are
worse than CAIR...CAIR hasn't hurt anyone. They haven't started any
wars, justified torture, or used their podium to turn Americans
against eath other. None of these things can be said about Bush or
Cheney." - joe
joe officially jumps the shark again… I mean, what could possibly
be wrong with an organization that openly aligns itself with Hamas,
supports terrorism, etc?
Here's a quick fly-by of CAIR criticism from the Wikipedia
entry:
"CAIR has received criticism from a number of both governmental and
non-governmental sources, for actions it has taken and people and
organizations it has been involved with.
The greatest source of criticism has involved CAIR's ties to
terrorism and terrorist groups.[9][10][11][12][13][14] As of 2006,
at least four former CAIR officials have been charged with
terrorism-related offenses. Critics claim CAIR is a spin-off of the
Islamic Association for Palestine, which is alleged to be a "front
group" for Hamas.[15]
Critics have also taken aim at CAIR's fundraising and sources of
funds. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, CAIR's website solicited
donations for what it called the "NY/DC Emergency Relief Fund."[16]
However, clicking on the donation link led to a website for
donations to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development
(HLF). It was later designated as a terrorist organization by the
European Union and U.S., and shut down by the U.S.
government.
CAIR has also been accused of doctoring photographs and reporting
fraudulent statistics about the Muslim population of the United
States in support of its own private agenda. Finally, another
source of criticism is that CAIR attempts to suppress criticism of
Islamic terrorism and intolerance through accusations of racism and
anti-Muslim bias.
Investor's Business Daily publicly condemned CAIR as being "the PR
machine of militant Islam" after CAIR "dispatched its henchmen" to
try to shut down the first Secular Islam Summit. [10]
Among the numerous books donated to libraries in CAIR's "library
project" was former congressman Paul Findley's 'Silent No More',
which includes positive statements about convicted terrorist Abdul
Rahman al-Amoudi.[17]
Even disputed as these criticism are, it doesn't bother joe in the
slightest to say that he thinks guys with those sorts of
connections are better than Bush & Cheney.
Sad… Hate is even more blinding than partisanship, joe.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245