OT government

[still just me]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:05:35 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>
>Sorry Charley by I'm not a member of any "party". And I have a great deal
>more interest in facts than you've shown you're even capable of
>understanding.

Sorry for you - but you're an ideological bigot. You're ignoring facts
that don't support your premise. You've twisted the facts to meet your
pre-ordained conclusions. You'll do anything to justify your party.

 

[still just me]

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:18:26 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:


>
>Furthermore, Wilson claimed he submitted a written report which was an
>outright lie.
>
>By all means carry on telling us how much attention you pay to actual
>knowledge.

Answer the question: Why did they try to discredit Wilson by exposing
Plame?

OK, I'll answer it for you: Because they didn't want any facts that
opposed their plan to be presented by anyone.

 

[still just me]

On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:15:27 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>
>
>Ooops. I don't read Kunich ever anymore, so I missed that. I guess
>it's not so funny then -- two reactionary nuts agreeing with each
>other is just sad.

Yes, it's hard to believe we have two nuts here who both still believe
there were WMD's and that Saddaam was in league with Al Queda (and
that's just the tip of their ideological perversion).

>>He never could read for comprehension; good to know nothing's changed.
>>
>>Bill "stop believing MSNBC, Floggittodeathlinson" S.
>
>Sorni, I posted some of the sources I use for news of the world and
>have repeatedly asked you for where you get your news, with no answer.
>
>So where do you get your news Bill? Where do you get your news?

The RNC, Rush, Fox commentary... all the quality, unbiased sources.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:05:35 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Sorry Charley by I'm not a member of any "party". And I have a great deal
>>more interest in facts than you've shown you're even capable of
>>understanding.
>
> Sorry for you - but you're an ideological bigot. You're ignoring facts
> that don't support your premise. You've twisted the facts to meet your
> pre-ordained conclusions. You'll do anything to justify your party.

And yet strangely enough you're the one disagreeing with the committee
report.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 14:05:35 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
>> com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry Charley by I'm not a member of any "party". And I have a
>>> great deal more interest in facts than you've shown you're even
>>> capable of understanding.
>>
>> Sorry for you - but you're an ideological bigot. You're ignoring
>> facts that don't support your premise. You've twisted the facts to
>> meet your pre-ordained conclusions. You'll do anything to justify
>> your party.
>
> And yet strangely enough you're the one disagreeing with the committee
> report.

LOL The way the "angry far left" projects its character defects and logical
fallacies on to others never ceases to amaze me. I have to think that deep,
/deep/ down they know they're hypocrites, which is WHY they're so angry and
irrational. (Truly mentally and emotionally ill.)

Bill "two cents, please" S.

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Jun 2, 12:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Andrew Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:03:55 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> GWB though he could do the Marshall Plan in Iraq --
> >>> which was either supidity or self-delusion.
>
> >>Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative?
>
> > He could have minded his own business and not stuck his nose into Iraq
> > at all.
>
> Also I'd like to remind you that ALL of the Arab countries in the middle
> east have declared enmity with Israel. And if we do not contain these
> countries that Israel may eventually be forced to react with a nuclear
> weapon which could trigger WW III?
>
> The USA doesn't have the ability to stand clear of that mess without having
> even greater risks.

Or we could work to disarm Israel. It has enough conventional fire-
power to wipe out any Middle East country it so desires. Just like us,
though, it has trouble with terrorist groups -- the sorts of groups
that cannot be A-bombed, unless the Israelis have developed an A-bomb
with a five or six block blast radius. Has Israel admitted to having
any A-bombs yet? I haven't been following their denials lately. They
certainly stole enough classified information from us to build
whatever they want.-- Jay Beattie.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Jun 2, 12:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> > Also I'd like to remind you that ALL of the Arab countries in the middle
> > east have declared enmity with Israel. And if we do not contain these
> > countries that Israel may eventually be forced to react with a nuclear
> > weapon which could trigger WW III?
> >
> > The USA doesn't have the ability to stand clear of that mess without
> > having
> > even greater risks.
>
> Or we could work to disarm Israel. It has enough conventional fire-
> power to wipe out any Middle East country it so desires. Just like us,
> though, it has trouble with terrorist groups -- the sorts of groups
> that cannot be A-bombed, unless the Israelis have developed an A-bomb
> with a five or six block blast radius. Has Israel admitted to having
> any A-bombs yet? I haven't been following their denials lately. They
> certainly stole enough classified information from us to build
> whatever they want.

Wouldn't the world be a nice place if we could pretend that the world isn't
as it is?

 

[Bill Sornson]

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jun 2, 12:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Andrew Price" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 17:03:55 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
>>> com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> GWB though he could do the Marshall Plan in Iraq --
>>>>> which was either supidity or self-delusion.
>>
>>>> Perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative?
>>
>>> He could have minded his own business and not stuck his nose into
>>> Iraq at all.
>>
>> Also I'd like to remind you that ALL of the Arab countries in the
>> middle east have declared enmity with Israel. And if we do not
>> contain these countries that Israel may eventually be forced to
>> react with a nuclear weapon which could trigger WW III?
>>
>> The USA doesn't have the ability to stand clear of that mess without
>> having even greater risks.
>
> Or we could work to disarm Israel. It has enough conventional fire-
> power to wipe out any Middle East country it so desires. Just like us,
> though, it has trouble with terrorist groups -- the sorts of groups
> that cannot be A-bombed, unless the Israelis have developed an A-bomb
> with a five or six block blast radius. Has Israel admitted to having
> any A-bombs yet? I haven't been following their denials lately. They
> certainly stole enough classified information from us to build
> whatever they want.-- Jay Beattie.

The world's preeminent anti-Semite, Jimmah Carter, just leaked how many they
have. Way to go, Jimmah!

 

[still just me]

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 14:39:31 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>LOL The way the "angry far left" projects its character defects and logical
>fallacies on to others never ceases to amaze me. I have to think that deep,
>/deep/ down they know they're hypocrites, which is WHY they're so angry and
>irrational. (Truly mentally and emotionally ill.)
>
>Bill "two cents, please" S.


See, that's the difference between you and me, Snorti. First, your
party has you brainwashed to believe that "if they aint fer us, theys
aginst us" - or in this case "theys a Democrat". Wrong. Second, you
disregard any facts that oppose your pre-conceived notions and come up
with talk radio reasons to justify it. Way wrong, but you consider the
suggestion as an assault on your party (see your first problem,
above).

OTOH, maybe you're right! Lets go with one of your core issues: There
_must_ be WMD's still over there! How about you head over and find
what two UN Commissions and the entire US Armed forces could not find
and evidence of whatsoever... I'm sure they are right around the next
corner. If you can't find them, you can always back up again to your
position of "well, he _wanted_ to have them...and...and... well that's
just as bad!"

Still waiting to hear from Tom on why the Bush Admin thought it was
necessary to discredit Wilson - if they weren't specifically trying to
suppress/discredit any information that did not support their plan

(Pssst... I don't care to engage in red herring arguments about who
did the leaking, or whether Plame was really "undercover"... I just
want you to tell me why it senior Bush cabinet members - including
allegedly Bush now, TIFWIW - thought it was necessary to discredit
Wilson).

After you get done with that, maybe we can talk about why they had to
discredit the two UN commissions, headed by two respected individuals,
when they didn't find WMD's.

(Pssst again... I also don't want to talk about Hillary's support for
the war either, it's not the issue here. I don't like her much either,
but she isn't what I am asking).

 

[Tom Kunich]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Still waiting to hear from Tom on why the Bush Admin thought it was
> necessary to discredit Wilson - if they weren't specifically trying to
> suppress/discredit any information that did not support their plan

There are committee reports on-line. Apparently you didn't feel the need to
read them before talking about stuff you obviously don't know about.

Not to point out something that a blind man could see with his cane, but in
case you missed it, Wilson said NOTHING until he was made promises of office
in a Democratic administration. Then suddenly he had all sorts of comments.

What's more - what ever happened to that claim that Plame was a non-official
cover agent? Oh, that's right - since she had been pregnant for a year, and
her twins were three years old at the time of her "cover" being blown it had
been almost 5 years since she COULD have had a mission. Gee, that means that
she was NOT a noc. But that didn't stop a lot of people from lying about it.
Or were they simply too stupid to be able to read the laws?

I suggest that before you write anything more you actually learn something
about it.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Still waiting to hear from Tom on why the Bush Admin thought it was
>> necessary to discredit Wilson - if they weren't specifically trying
>> to suppress/discredit any information that did not support their plan

How dare an administration answer a critic!

> There are committee reports on-line. Apparently you didn't feel the
> need to read them before talking about stuff you obviously don't know
> about.
> Not to point out something that a blind man could see with his cane,
> but in case you missed it, Wilson said NOTHING until he was made
> promises of office in a Democratic administration. Then suddenly he
> had all sorts of comments.

Completely contradicting things he'd said before.

> What's more - what ever happened to that claim that Plame was a
> non-official cover agent? Oh, that's right - since she had been
> pregnant for a year, and her twins were three years old at the time
> of her "cover" being blown it had been almost 5 years since she COULD
> have had a mission. Gee, that means that she was NOT a noc. But that
> didn't stop a lot of people from lying about it. Or were they simply
> too stupid to be able to read the laws?

Victoria Tensing (too lazy to look up now) WROTE THE STATUTES covering (bad
pun) this, and testified before a committee that Plame was not covert under
the law. Who better to ask?!?

> I suggest that before you write anything more you actually learn
> something about it.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:37:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Kunich wrote:
>> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Still waiting to hear from Tom on why the Bush Admin thought it was
>>> necessary to discredit Wilson - if they weren't specifically trying
>>> to suppress/discredit any information that did not support their plan
>
>How dare an administration answer a critic!


Answering criticism with facts is fine. Attacking a critic with
deception or by trying to destroy his wife's career is not.

>Victoria Tensing (too lazy to look up now) WROTE THE STATUTES covering (bad
>pun) this, and testified before a committee that Plame was not covert under
>the law. Who better to ask?!?

A judge - which is why there was a cover-up. Or the head of the CIA.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:37:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> Still waiting to hear from Tom on why the Bush Admin thought it was
>>>> necessary to discredit Wilson - if they weren't specifically trying
>>>> to suppress/discredit any information that did not support their plan
>>
>>How dare an administration answer a critic!
>
> Answering criticism with facts is fine. Attacking a critic with
> deception or by trying to destroy his wife's career is not.

Ain't it funny how people talk about things they apparently know nothing
about? For instance, when it was asked how Wilson, a person not otherwise
qualified for the investigation he was supposedly handling into the nuclear
fuel, was chosen the answer was plain - he was suggested by HIS WIFE who was
in a position to suggest it.

Of course they could have lied about it. But then I'd bet that the Liberals
would be screaming LIAR in that case. To a reasonable person it appears to
be a "damned if you do and damned if you don't". And Plame's name wasn't
mentioned - that was picked up by another reporter's investigation of
Wilson's wife.

>>Victoria Tensing (too lazy to look up now) WROTE THE STATUTES covering
>>(bad
>>pun) this, and testified before a committee that Plame was not covert
>>under
>>the law. Who better to ask?!?
>
> A judge - which is why there was a cover-up. Or the head of the CIA.

You really don't understand this "law" stuff do you? Or have you become so
Liberal that you actually believe that a law means whatever you can BEND it
to mean and not at all what those who wrote and voted on it intended?

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Jun 5, 5:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
> > On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:37:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >>Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>news:[email protected]...
>
> >>>> Still waiting to hear from Tom on why the Bush Admin thought it was
> >>>> necessary to discredit Wilson - if they weren't specifically trying
> >>>> to suppress/discredit any information that did not support their plan
>
> >>How dare an administration answer a critic!
>
> > Answering criticism with facts is fine. Attacking a critic with
> > deception or by trying to destroy his wife's career is not.
>
> Ain't it funny how people talk about things they apparently know nothing
> about? For instance, when it was asked how Wilson, a person not otherwise
> qualified for the investigation he was supposedly handling into the nuclear
> fuel, was chosen the answer was plain - he was suggested by HIS WIFE who was
> in a position to suggest it.

And you *know* this, how, Mr. Irony?

E.P.

 

[still just me]

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 22:52:42 GMT, John Forrest Tomlinson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:37:53 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>>How dare an administration answer a critic!

"Critic"? How about someone simply highlighting the truth and the fact
that the administration was ignoring it?

>Answering criticism with facts is fine. Attacking a critic with
>deception or by trying to destroy his wife's career is not.

Apparently the distinction is lost on these brainwashed zealots. They
can't seem to grasp that attacking someone (and his family) for
telling the truth - truth that contradicts a lie you are already
promoting - is wrong.

>>Victoria Tensing (too lazy to look up now) WROTE THE STATUTES covering (bad
>>pun) this, and testified before a committee that Plame was not covert under
>>the law. Who better to ask?!?
>
>A judge - which is why there was a cover-up. Or the head of the CIA.

Another fact lost on them.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Critic"? How about someone simply highlighting the truth and the fact
> that the administration was ignoring it?

Another clueless fool tells us how he is so brilliant and everyone else is
so stupid.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Jun 8, 6:42 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews:[email protected]...
>
>
>
> > "Critic"? How about someone simply highlighting the truth and the fact
> > that the administration was ignoring it?
>
> Another clueless fool tells us how he is so brilliant and everyone else is
> so stupid.

Usenet irony at its very finest. Bravo.

E.P.

 

[still just me]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 06:42:08 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
wrote:

>> "Critic"? How about someone simply highlighting the truth and the fact
>> that the administration was ignoring it?
>
>Another clueless fool tells us how he is so brilliant and everyone else is
>so stupid.

Wilson presented FACTS. FACTS that were borne out by the ill-fated
Iraqi invasion that uncovered no secret WMD program or any clandestine
nuclear program.

The administration willfully ignored, slighted, and discredited, any
information that contradicted what they wanted to do. If you're too
stupid to comprehend that then I pity you.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Wilson presented FACTS. FACTS that were borne out by the ill-fated
> Iraqi invasion that uncovered no secret WMD program or any clandestine
> nuclear program.

Another fool who believes what he reads in the newspapers instead of the
government reports.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Wilson presented FACTS. FACTS that were borne out by the ill-fated
>> Iraqi invasion that uncovered no secret WMD program or any
>> clandestine nuclear program.
>
> Another fool who believes what he reads in the newspapers instead of
> the government reports.

Wilson not only didn't present FACTS, the statements he made that /sounded/
like facts were in fact directly contradictory to the FACTS he'd reported
previously.

That's why he's a documented, certified LIAR.

HTH (still clueless) BKIW