July 1, 2006
(h/t Hot Air)
The important thing to note about the latter poll is the number of Republicans who think leaks help terrorists compared to teh amount of Democrats who agree. Double the percentage of Democrats agree with this statement, that tells you who has al-Qaeda’s interests in mind.
FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog linked with Global War on Terror Watch: Hugh Hewitt Vs. Eric Lichtblau on CNN Reliable Sources
Expose the Left linked with Hewitt Takes On Lichtblau, NY Times: ‘Story Helped Terrorists Elude Capture’ (VIDEO)
Sister Toldjah linked with NYT and LAT ask: When Do We Publish a Secret?...
The Jawa Report linked with The Real First Draft of the Keller / Bacquet NY Times Editorial on Why they Leaked Classified Information...
Stop The ACLU linked with Weekend Free For All...
76 Responses to “66% Agree Media Should Be Prosecuted For Leaking; 60% Think NY Times Helped Terrorists”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
3:20 pm [ Quote ]
This poll will be all over the news, NOT!!
3:23 pm [ Quote ]
“blah bnlkah we all knew they were trackiung money” – keller
yea but not HOW
idk what the times was thinking
money leaves a trail, money gets you anything…
fuel, cars,sex, movies…....
......
......weapons….
you follow the money
3:26 pm [ Quote ]
Just how does this exposure of a classified operation help the American public?
3:30 pm [ Quote ]
This report coinciding with the latest supreme court decision will be the pillars of defeat for the democratic party this november. Since the supremes basically kicked the ball back to congress regarding creation of military tribunals, the democrats (liberals) are now in the unenvialbe position of defending the Gitmo terrorists. And of course we all know which side to the issue the NYT will fall on. I can just here Rush,Laura,Sean and the rest of talk radio trumpeting how the press and the libs have chosen terrorist rights over protection of the american people.
3:35 pm [ Quote ]
just a side note…
im so sick of the shuttle stuff on the news
!
carry on
3:36 pm [ Quote ]
The liberals are claiming that the Supreme Court is infallible that they know what is correct.
To that I have one man’s name
DRED SCOTT
Come on libs defend that decision
3:39 pm [ Quote ]
Ooh, can’t wait, all the moonbats that were screaming about polls are now going to be reversing their position (again) and claiming that you can’t trust those nasty polls.
hee hee
.
4:17 pm [ Quote ]
Weekend Free For All…
I’m pretty busy on this holiday weekend. I hope everyone has a safe and fun weekend with family and friends. Be as patriotic as you can, and remember what this holiday stands for. Make sure to check out Wide Awakes Radio this weekend as we st…
4:26 pm [ Quote ]
wide awakes radio is in my bookmarks and I am looking forward to it. thank God for the net. Liberals lost control of the media and the country will get back to our roots. Now watch as the leftist associate my phrase “back to our roots” with slavery or anything negative from out past. The leftist are way too predictable. Maybe that’s why they are always 15 steps behind the right.
4:37 pm [ Quote ]
Still waiting for that Dred Scott defense
here are a few of others you can feel free to defend
Terry Shiavo
the 2000 election
the 2004 election
5:06 pm [ Quote ]
The Real First Draft of the Keller / Bacquet NY Times Editorial on Why they Leaked Classified Information…
The Real First Draft of the Keller / Bacquet NY Times Editorial on Why they Leaked Classified Information
Must read. Seriously. Read this now. Very truthy….
6:05 pm [ Quote ]
NSA sought call records before 9/11 wow
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=
So i guess when they use the 9/11 excuse its just b.s.
6:21 pm [ Quote ]
NSA sought call records before 9/11 wow
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=
So i guess when they use the 9/11 excuse its just b.s.
You’re right they should use the WTC 1993,kobar towers,our african embassies being blown up, USS Cole, and Clinton’s busy having sex with interns excuse.
6:30 pm [ Quote ]
NSA sought call records before 9/11 wow
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=
So i guess when they use the 9/11 excuse its just b.s.
You’re right they should use the WTC 1993,kobar towers,our african embassies being blown up, USS Cole, and Clinton’s busy having sex with interns excuse.
I guess some people don’t mind being lied to. BTW how would domestic wiretaps have stoped the USS Cole attack, African embassie, or Clinton getting a BJ?
7:06 pm [ Quote ]
If the NYT’s do not experience genuine pain here, we will be effectively giving a “pocket veto” over intelligence operations to the Main Stream Media. The American public is watching and those who decide they are going to leak and publish classified intelligence better beware. Shame on the NYT’s and they should be prosecuted and feel the pain.
7:19 pm [ Quote ]
NSA sought call records before 9/11 wow
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=
So i guess when they use the 9/11 excuse its just b.s.
You’re right they should use the WTC 1993,kobar towers,our african embassies being blown up, USS Cole, and Clinton’s busy having sex with interns excuse.
I guess some people don’t mind being lied to. BTW how would domestic wiretaps have stoped the USS Cole attack, African embassie, or Clinton getting a BJ?
They may have found a money source that paid for the supplies or the terrorists themselves.
As for anything stopping Clinton from getting a bj, you got me there, even going to bed with Hillary didnt decrease his sex drive enough for that. It did obviously affect his taste in women, oops no it didnt sorry had poor taste way before that.
8:23 pm [ Quote ]
Come-on now folks, it’s all about “freedom of speech. Don’t believe me?? Go to huffindope post or koskids and post something complimentary about our current President. Trust me, you’ll be welcomed with open arms.
8:26 pm [ Quote ]
Aw crap, just the thought of getting hugged by a koskid gave me the hives!
8:27 pm [ Quote ]
For crying out loud. The NSA has been doing stuff like this since it’s creation. AND THAT’S WHAT IT IS FOR
To get intel on what it can when it can and if it’s determinded that the info points to a threat then it passes it on. It’s not what info and how it gets it (That’s what spies do)
gasp they are spies???
It’s how do they use the info that’s important.
8:28 pm [ Quote ]
NSA sought call records before 9/11 wow
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=
So i guess when they use the 9/11 excuse its just b.s.
You’re right they should use the WTC 1993,kobar towers,our african embassies being blown up, USS Cole, and Clinton’s busy having sex with interns excuse.
I guess some people don’t mind being lied to. BTW how would domestic wiretaps have stoped the USS Cole attack, African embassie, or Clinton getting a BJ?
I love how you always inject conspiracy theories involving everything going on within our government these days, especially since Republicans are in power.
Secondly, just because the NSA program existed prior to 9/11, does NOT mean that the program didn’t expand mightily and increase it’s effectiveness after the 9/11 attacks and subsequent War on Terror.
There were a lot of those programs that did exist before we were attacked, but many were ineffective in tracking known terrorists because of “the wall” that didn’t allow different law enforcement and intelligence agencies to communicate with each other and theoretically could have prevented the attacks in the first place.
The attacks of 9/11 changed the way we conducted many of those kinds of programs and the NSA wiretapping is just one of them.
11:14 pm [ Quote ]
I found another interesting number in the poll that I think is worth mentioning. It speaks to how the far-left base of the Democratic Party has completely alienated moderate Democrats. More democrats then not prefer that we disregard international treaties if it meant abiding by them meant releasing gtimo detainees.
I posted this on my linked site:
Another interesting question had to with our treaty commitments and if we should honor those commitments if it meant releasing terrorists from Guantanamo Bay. Do you think the United States should honor its international treaty commitments to other countries, even if that means releasing dangerous enemy fighters from Guantanamo Bay?
54% of Americans said “no” we should not honor certain treaties if it meant releasing gitmo inmates. Surprisingly, the majority of registered Democrats agreed with that position. 47% of Dems said “no” we should not adhere to certain treaties in this case and 36% said “yes” we should honor those commitments even if it meant releasing terrorists.
Sometimes it’s hard to remember that moderate Democrats still exist; especially when the deranged liberal-internet folk have hijacked their party. kudos…
11:23 pm [ Quote ]
Anyway, I think the poll shows how misguided some in the media and in the Democratic Party can be. If people feel outing this story is wrong and figure out that many democrats are supportive of such exposures, it will hurt them in the end. I think the Dems are so busy trying to placate their tinfoil base that they have forgotten what average Americans think of them and their actions.
11:48 pm [ Quote ]
If the administration could keep its secrets secret, this wouldn’t be a problem.
Every time I hear about the NYT without hearing about the WSJ, it just reinforces the obvious: this is an administration ploy aimed at attacking the NYT for all their Op-Eds.
Thank God the WSJ had it too. Let the administration kill off the NYT, as long a paper with the integrity of the WSJ isn’t targeted in these bizarre smears.
Remember, the Treasury people said NOTHING to the WSJ about not running the same story the same day… It’s only when the leftist paper runs it that the government creates a diversion from the carnage of its failures.
11:54 pm [ Quote ]
NYT and LAT ask: When Do We Publish a Secret?...
In a rare joint move, the editors of the LAT and NYT (Dean Baquet and Bill Keller, respectively) have an editorial posted in today’s New York Times (and I’m sure it’s in the LA Times as well) which tries to answer the question: “…
11:55 pm [ Quote ]
If the administration could keep its secrets secret, this wouldn’t be a problem.
Every time I hear about the NYT without hearing about the WSJ, it just reinforces the obvious: this is an administration ploy aimed at attacking the NYT for all their Op-Eds.
Thank God the WSJ had it too. Let the administration kill off the NYT, as long a paper with the integrity of the WSJ isn’t targeted in these bizarre smears.
Remember, the Treasury people said NOTHING to the WSJ about not running the same story the same day… It’s only when the leftist paper runs it that the government creates a diversion from the carnage of its failures.
The story was broken by the NY Times making the stories from the LA Times and WSJ a moot point.
12:36 am [ Quote ]
If the administration could keep its secrets secret, this wouldn’t be a problem.
Every time I hear about the NYT without hearing about the WSJ, it just reinforces the obvious: this is an administration ploy aimed at attacking the NYT for all their Op-Eds.
Thank God the WSJ had it too. Let the administration kill off the NYT, as long a paper with the integrity of the WSJ isn’t targeted in these bizarre smears.
Remember, the Treasury people said NOTHING to the WSJ about not running the same story the same day… It’s only when the leftist paper runs it that the government creates a diversion from the carnage of its failures.
You don’t seem to understand or realize that not everyone who works in the Treasury Dept, State Dept, the CIA, the FBI, or the Pentagon is a Republican or a supporter of President Bush.
Yes, it is true that the top dog in each of these departments were all appointed by President Bush (John Snow, Condi Rice, Rumsfeld….etc), but that doesn’t mean that tens of thousands of their subordinates who are employed in these various departments don’t have an agenda of their own and will do what they can in order to hurt Bush.
Do you think the thousands of people who work in these departments are handed their pink slips and tossed out on their collective ears and replaced when a new President takes office?
Of course not.
Many of these people are holdovers from past administrations (Bush 41, Clinton, and perhaps even Reagan), so it’s damn near impossible to stop people from leaking classified material in order to hurt a President they don’t agree with.
If someone within the “administration” leaked the NSA wiretapping or the financial tracking programs to the press does NOT necessarily mean that it was someone who works in the White House like Karl Rove, Tony Snow, or the head chef in the WH mess hall.
It is true that Republicans and the White House right now are singling out the NYT in this latest fiasco. The difference is that the WSJ and LAT only printed the story after the NYT had broken it and confirmed that they were going to print the story themselves.
In other words, if the NYT decided not to print the story, then the WSJ and LAT wouldn’t have printed it either.
Also, the difference between the NYT and the other publications is that they have a history of defying the Bush Administration and exposing these kinds of stories in the past in order to hurt the President.
The WSJ and LAT do not have that same kind of bitter history with the administration and the overzealous tactics by the NYT to hurt Bush with this story seems to be coming back to bite them on the ass.
5:01 am [ Quote ]
maybe u should state that it’s a FAUX News pole.
and look at how those questions are phrased. i could reframe the question, so that it’s actually objective- and get results that blows your whole argument to bits. But in any case- u scaredy cats must understand something. This country became great because of it’s freedoms and the constitution. without that we have nothing. so stop being such wusses. This is America. Love it or leave it.
7:06 am [ Quote ]
On November 7, 2001, the president announced his crackdown on the Terrorist Financial Network:
“Today, we are taking another step in our fight against evil. We are setting down two major elements of the terrorists international financial network, both at home and abroad. Ours is not a war just of soldiers and aircraft. It’s a war fought with diplomacy, by the investigations of law enforcement, by gathering intelligence and by cutting off the terrorists’ money.”
The NYT reports it almost 5 years later, and all of a sudden they are leaking classified information?! I’d say Bush was the original leaker.
7:57 am [ Quote ]
NSA sought call records before 9/11 wow
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abIV0cO64zJE&refer=
So i guess when they use the 9/11 excuse its just b.s.
You’re right they should use the WTC 1993,kobar towers,our african embassies being blown up, USS Cole, and Clinton’s busy having sex with interns excuse.
I guess some people don’t mind being lied to. BTW how would domestic wiretaps have stoped the USS Cole attack, African embassie, or Clinton getting a BJ?
I guess some people don’t mind their fellow citizens being targeted for destruction. I mean if it comes between scoring a point against this administration or outing a legal but top secret intelligence program which has been proven to be effective, of course the New York Crimes will choose the former.
8:08 am [ Quote ]
On November 7, 2001, the president announced his crackdown on the Terrorist Financial Network:
“Today, we are taking another step in our fight against evil. We are setting down two major elements of the terrorists international financial network, both at home and abroad. Ours is not a war just of soldiers and aircraft. It’s a war fought with diplomacy, by the investigations of law enforcement, by gathering intelligence and by cutting off the terrorists’ money.”
The NYT reports it almost 5 years later, and all of a sudden they are leaking classified information?! I’d say Bush was the original leaker.
So then because President Bush said “by cutting off the terrorists’ money.” 5 years ago you some how equate that with the article naming the program, the parties in the program and the manner with which the operations were executed. This comparision could only come from the mind of a simpleton.
8:21 am [ Quote ]
So then because President Bush said “by cutting off the terrorists’ money.” 5 years ago you some how equate that with the article naming the program, the parties in the program and the manner with which the operations were executed. This comparision could only come from the mind of a simpleton.
The fact of the matter is, EVERYONE knew it was happening, regardless of the intimate details. It was NOT a secret. You all seem to think that the terrorists are taking time out of their busy day of terrorizing to read the NY Times – you think they don’t pay any attention to what the president is saying, as well? This has nothing to do with the safety of the country. This is all just about the conservatives’ disdain for the NY Times. Even a “simpleton” can see right through that crap.
8:35 am [ Quote ]
On November 7, 2001, the president announced his crackdown on the Terrorist Financial Network:
“Today, we are taking another step in our fight against evil. We are setting down two major elements of the terrorists international financial network, both at home and abroad. Ours is not a war just of soldiers and aircraft. It’s a war fought with diplomacy, by the investigations of law enforcement, by gathering intelligence and by cutting off the terrorists’ money.”
The NYT reports it almost 5 years later, and all of a sudden they are leaking classified information?! I’d say Bush was the original leaker.
I see you’ve read your Talking Points Memo this morning from the DNC which was personally typed and autographed by Howard Dean himself.
Sorry, but that “Bush is the leaker” argument doesn’t fly and the NYT knows it, based on their reaction over the last few days.
That’s why Bill Keller is now running around like a chicken with his head cut off and defending his decision to run the story unlike any other story in the past during his reign as editor.
Bush discussed no details of this program in past speeches, but the NYT article disclosed the Belgium bank involved in this program as well as the $10K + transfers that are tracked among other specific details.
If this story was no big deal and disclosed nothing that we already knew, then why did John Murtha call the NYT and plead with them not to run the story?
As we all know, Murtha is ANYTHING but a supporter of this administration, so there must be a good reason why he would make the effort to stop them from printing it. Don’t you think?
9:35 am [ Quote ]
The so-called poll (who ran it? who was in it?) is a sham.
The information the NY Times (and the Wall Street Journal, but they aren’t mentioned in the Republican talking points) printed was not secret. Bush, Cheney as well as others had accounced it to the public years ago. When they thought it would make them look proactive on terror and win them some points.
Nothing in the news article was new news.
9:36 am [ Quote ]
Oh this is a FOX poll.
Well, these are the same people who think Saddam was behind 9/11 and we’ve found WMD in Iraq.
-
9:38 am [ Quote ]
Corrected…
The important thing to note about the latter poll is the number of Republicans who think THIS PHONEY leaks help terrorists compared to teh amount of Democrats who agree.
9:43 am [ Quote ]
Gee, I guess the Treasury is helping the terrorists too.
http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/reports/js3077_01112005_MLTA.pdf
U.S. Money Laundering Threat Assessment – Decenber 2005
9:44 am [ Quote ]
“We’re putting banks and financial institutions around the world on notice, we will work with their governments, ask them to freeze or block terrorists’ ability to access funds in foreign accounts…”
“If they fail to help us by sharing information or freezing accounts, the Department of the Treasury now has the authority to freeze their bank’s assets and transactions in the United States.”
– President Bush, White House Web site (as of last Saturday)
9:46 am [ Quote ]
This whole hoop-la is just more Right Wingnut NY Times bashing. It has no substance and so it had no traction.
9:52 am [ Quote ]
The so-called poll (who ran it? who was in it?) is a sham.
The information the NY Times (and the Wall Street Journal, but they aren’t mentioned in the Republican talking points) printed was not secret. Bush, Cheney as well as others had accounced it to the public years ago. When they thought it would make them look proactive on terror and win them some points.
Nothing in the news article was new news.
As I said earlier, why would Bush hater John Murtha call the NYT and ask them NOT to run the story if it reported “nothing new” as you claim?
10:07 am [ Quote ]
anaconda:
I see you’ve read your Talking Points Memo this morning from the DNC which was personally typed and autographed by Howard Dean himself.
Actually, I know nothing of an alleged Talking Points Memo typed by Howard Dean. I found the quote on the White House website.
As I said earlier, why would Bush hater John Murtha call the NYT and ask them NOT to run the story if it reported “nothing new” as you claim?
Hold the phone, hypocrite. All I’ve read on this site is how John Murtha is an insane, senile, troop-hating, America-hating liberal lunatic. So, DON’T try to use him to support your bogus argument. All of a sudden, we are supposed to follow his lead? What are you, a communist?
Bush discussed no details of this program in past speeches, but the NYT article disclosed the Belgium bank involved in this program as well as the $10K + transfers that are tracked among other specific details.
Yeah, and…? The point is, he already said he was going to do it, regardless of the details. It wasn’t a secret.
10:37 am [ Quote ]
It was no secret. Even SWIFT’s web site mentioned they work with the US Treasury.
“In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, SWIFT responded to compulsory subpoenas for limited sets of data from the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury. Our fundamental principle has been to preserve the confidentiality of our users’ data while complying with the lawful obligations in countries where we operate. Striking that balance has guided SWIFT through this process with the United States Department of the Treasury.
SWIFT negotiated with the U.S. Treasury over the scope and oversight of the subpoenas. Through this process, SWIFT received significant protections and assurances as to the purpose, confidentiality, oversight and control of the limited sets of data produced under the subpoenas. Independent audit controls provide additional assurance that these protections are fully complied with.”
10:38 am [ Quote ]
Their point being that the US Treasury promised not to disclose the identities of the innocent transactions SWIFT handed over to them.
11:09 am [ Quote ]
Uh, I think some of you are having an attack of the vapors.
The question for you: Was this a classified secret program?
The question for you: Is it legal to reveal secrets of the federal government to people who are not given security clearance for disclosure?
The question for you: Was the information given to the NYT declassified?
The question for you: What are the laws conerning those that leak secrets?
The question for you: Did the NYT leak secrets to the public?
If you have the courage of your convictions, answer these questions honestly.
11:46 am [ Quote ]
Uh, I think some of you are having an attack of the vapors.
The question for you: Was this a classified secret program?
The question for you: Is it legal to reveal secrets of the federal government to people who are not given security clearance for disclosure?
The question for you: Was the information given to the NYT declassified?
The question for you: What are the laws conerning those that leak secrets?
The question for you: Did the NYT leak secrets to the public?
If you have the courage of your convictions, answer these questions honestly.
Your questions are somewhat vague, and really pretty subjective. We don’t really know all of the details, and it depends on whom you wish to blame – the NY Times or the person(s) who originally leaked the information to the NY Times. Who should be punished (or not) in your scenario? Maybe the NY Times didn’t think (or know) the information was classified, since it was given to them by someone working for the government. Maybe the NY Times thought that, since this program has been discussed at length, by the administration, it really wasn’t so secret. Maybe they just didn’t care.
Or, maybe, the information was “leaked” by someone very close to Bush so that the administration could create yet another enemy to America, in the form of one of the most liberal publications on the planet, thereby demonizing liberals as supporters of terrorists. The only problem is, most people are no longer willing to just take their word for it. The administration has gone to that well once too often.
I personally do not believe this was a “classified secret program” because the president and the Treasury Department have made various statements about it previously in the press. Therefore, I don’t think the NY Times did anything inappropriate or illegal.
1:11 pm [ Quote ]
A Hypothetical.
Suppose an American city was struck tomorrow with a massive-chemical weapon. Tens of thousands dead, many more crippled.
How would America respond to the actions of people like Bill Keller of the NYT? I believe we’d lynch the bastard! Hang him from his executive suite of his own treasonous building!
So, one more attack is the only thing preventing us from acting like a nation at war. Do Islamopsychos have the will to launch such an attack? Of course! Do they have the weapon(s)? Probably.
1:34 pm [ Quote ]
Nobody ever accused the BushCo. lie factory of being ineffective.
2:15 pm [ Quote ]
[...] Even though he was outnumbered, Hewitt did manage to fight it out with Lichtblau, who refuses to appear on his nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh expressed the sentiment most Americans seem to feel; that what was done helped the terrorists. Moderator Howard Kurtz calls this thinking a “political attack” on the New York Times, however doesn’t think to mention that this was a “political attack” on the administration. [...]
2:50 pm [ Quote ]
Uh, I think some of you are having an attack of the vapors.
The question for you: Was this a classified secret program?
The question for you: Is it legal to reveal secrets of the federal government to people who are not given security clearance for disclosure?
The question for you: Was the information given to the NYT declassified?
The question for you: What are the laws conerning those that leak secrets?
The question for you: Did the NYT leak secrets to the public?
If you have the courage of your convictions, answer these questions honestly.
Your questions are somewhat vague, and really pretty subjective. We don’t really know all of the details, and it depends on whom you wish to blame – the NY Times or the person(s) who originally leaked the information to the NY Times. Who should be punished (or not) in your scenario? Maybe the NY Times didn’t think (or know) the information was classified, since it was given to them by someone working for the government. Maybe the NY Times thought that, since this program has been discussed at length, by the administration, it really wasn’t so secret. Maybe they just didn’t care.
Or, maybe, the information was “leaked” by someone very close to Bush so that the administration could create yet another enemy to America, in the form of one of the most liberal publications on the planet, thereby demonizing liberals as supporters of terrorists. The only problem is, most people are no longer willing to just take their word for it. The administration has gone to that well once too often.
I personally do not believe this was a “classified secret program” because the president and the Treasury Department have made various statements about it previously in the press. Therefore, I don’t think the NY Times did anything inappropriate or illegal.
Vague??
?! Yes or No that s Vague? The fact that we were tracking bank transactions is well known we have been doing it fo 20 yrs to catch drug trafficers, they know about it but they are still caught that way.Thats how the BAli bomber was caught.
The OPERATION was CLASSIFIED that is the details of which banks were helping in the monitoring, which banking system was being watched, what dollar amounts were being targetted, which countries we were tracking the money thru ALL CLASSIFIED.
If you cannot comprehend these facts and process them go back to watching Sesame Street.
3:32 pm [ Quote ]
WMD maker:
Those were not “yes or no” questions. They were a little non-specific. And, judging by your spelling and grammar abilities (or lack thereof) perhaps it is you who needs to catch a few episodes of “Sesame Street.”
By the way, you were a little vague, as well. Are you condemning the NY Times, or the individual(s), possibly from the current administration, who allegedly leaked classified information in the first place?
4:18 pm [ Quote ]
[...] Even though he was outnumbered, Hewitt did manage to fight it out with Lichtblau, who refuses to appear on his nationally syndicated radio talk show. Hugh expressed the sentiment most Americans seem to feel; that what was done helped the terrorists. Moderator Howard Kurtz calls this thinking a “political attack” on the New York Times, however doesn’t think to mention that this was a “political attack” on the administration. [...]
6:50 pm [ Quote ]
My questions are not “vague”, they are direct questions that do not require nor desire anything more than your understanding the question and then answering it. If you keep trying to read something into it or figure it out, you just complicate it for yourself. They are simple and to the point. But here, I’ll help you out.
The question for you: Was this a classified secret program? Yes or No
The question for you: Is it legal to reveal secrets of the federal government to people who are not given security clearance for disclosure? Yes or No
The question for you: Was the information given to the NYT declassified? Yes or No
The question for you: What are the laws conerning those that leak secrets? (This one has more to do with a little research so I’ll rephrase it)
The question for you: Is it against the law to lead secrets of classified information? Yes or No
The question for you: Did the NYT leak secrets to the public? Yes or No
If you have the courage of your convictions, answer these questions honestly.
6:51 pm [ Quote ]
The question for you: Is it against the law to leak secrets of classified information? Yes or No
Sorry about the typo.
7:22 pm [ Quote ]
BROKE BUTT
The answers are simple yes or no except for 1
The question for you: Was this a classified secret program?
YES
The question for you: Is it legal to reveal secrets of the federal government to people who are not given security clearance for disclosure?
NO
The question for you: Was the information given to the NYT declassified?
NO
The question for you: What are the laws conerning those that leak secrets?
PRISON
The question for you: Did the NYT leak secrets to the public?
YES
How much more simple does it need to be for you??
Its people with the slight brain power that you have that are the problem with this country.
Tryiong to make compicated situation out of simple yes or no answers
Get off this site you are a waste of time and good air.
7:27 pm [ Quote ]
WMD Maker is BrokeButt supposed to be BrokenMirror?
Sorry to ask, but I was laughing so hard when I read your intro and got confused! LOL!
8:10 pm [ Quote ]
Scooter
yes, however I doubt there is enough brain power for him to recognize it.
I dont mind people who can recognise and process fact and logic but it looks like BrokeButt can do neither
8:20 pm [ Quote ]
YOu guys as such idiots, this was not a secret, it was public. The bush administration even talked about it in public. It just wasn’t common knowledge to most people. If you think the terrorists don’t follow what Bush says you are fools. AND bush talked about this before it was in the papers. Besides, that poll you keep quoting as about as bogus as Bush’s military record. But then, you rightees beleive that too.
9:08 pm [ Quote ]
stomptheirass you are mistaken. The administration talked about “a program” with which they did this type of work but they DID NOT disclose the banks involved, the name of the program and other details for which the NYT revealed in their article.
You must have your facts wrong, I would check my sources if I was you, someone is trying to lead you down the wrong path of information.
9:09 pm [ Quote ]
anaconda:
I see you’ve read your Talking Points Memo this morning from the DNC which was personally typed and autographed by Howard Dean himself.
Actually, I know nothing of an alleged Talking Points Memo typed by Howard Dean. I found the quote on the White House website.
As I said earlier, why would Bush hater John Murtha call the NYT and ask them NOT to run the story if it reported “nothing new” as you claim?
Hold the phone, hypocrite. All I’ve read on this site is how John Murtha is an insane, senile, troop-hating, America-hating liberal lunatic. So, DON’T try to use him to support your bogus argument. All of a sudden, we are supposed to follow his lead? What are you, a communist?
Bush discussed no details of this program in past speeches, but the NYT article disclosed the Belgium bank involved in this program as well as the $10K + transfers that are tracked among other specific details.
Yeah, and…? The point is, he already said he was going to do it, regardless of the details. It wasn’t a secret.
I noticed during your name-calling that you never answered the question and completely avoided it instead.
Secondly, don’t lump me with others who called John Murtha names like “traitor” “idiot” “troop hater” or whatever else. I may not like what John Murtha did when he convicted our troops in the media, but I never called him names.
Name-calling does nothing to enhance your argument, so I don’t engage in it.
Also, I didn’t agree with Bill Clinton on many issues, but does that mean I can’t ever AGREE with him to make an argument? That’s essentially what you said to me about John Murtha.
I didn’t agree with Murtha on the Haditha issue, so that means I can’t ever use him to enhance my argument when I believe he is right on the issue. Using your logic, then you can’t use anyone to defend your argument if you have ever disagreed with them on an issue.
Hmmm….that sounds like a silly argument on your end, doesn’t it?
Are you going to answer the question or are you going to continue to call me names and dismiss the fact that even John Murtha told the NYT not to run the story?
Here’s the question again:
As I said earlier, why would Bush hater John Murtha call the NYT and ask them NOT to run the story if it reported “nothing new” as you claim?
9:12 pm [ Quote ]
stomptheirass – why so angry?
9:40 pm [ Quote ]
Also, I didn’t agree with Bill Clinton on many issues, but does that mean I can’t ever AGREE with him to make an argument? That’s essentially what you said to me about John Murtha.
anaconda, this is a great point that I’ve stated several times when posting yet falls on deaf ears.
Just because we don’t agree with someone 100% of the time doesn’t mean that they might not say some things that have validity.
I’m not a huge fan of Ann Coultur’s rants, but this latest issue regarding the Jersey Girls I absolutely agreed, the same rule applies to former military like Murtha.
I’m glad you brought this issue up once again for review.
Also, your point about Murtha calling the NYT is a great one when debating the importance of this program and the need for it being clandestine.
Hugh Hewitt had some interesting guests on last week that you can download to your iPod; I didn’t agree with everyone, nor Hewitt’s complete characterization of the issue, but there are some very intelligent interviews on there that reveal much about the nature of this indiscretion on the part of the NYT.
10:13 pm [ Quote ]
anaconda:
As I said earlier, why would Bush hater John Murtha call the NYT and ask them NOT to run the story if it reported “nothing new” as you claim?
While Bill Keller did admit that he was contacted by several Democrats outside of the administration, including Rep. Murtha, he never disclosed the details of their conversation, so it has yet to be confirmed that Murtha actually asked him not to print the story. It has only been indicated (but not by Bill Keller, himself) so far that Lee Hamilton asked him not to print the article.
You claim to not call names, but you do call Murtha “Bush hater.” While Murtha may disagree with Bush on any number number of issues, he has never said that he flat out “hates” Bush. As you have said, name calling does nothing to enhance your argument, and to call Murtha a “Bush hater” is a rather broad assumption on your part. Sorry I called you a hypocrite, but I think you may have proven me right.
10:34 pm [ Quote ]
anaconda:
As I said earlier, why would Bush hater John Murtha call the NYT and ask them NOT to run the story if it reported “nothing new” as you claim?
While Bill Keller did admit that he was contacted by several Democrats outside of the administration, including Rep. Murtha, he never disclosed the details of their conversation, so it has yet to be confirmed that Murtha actually asked him not to print the story. It has only been indicated (but not by Bill Keller, himself) so far that Lee Hamilton asked him not to print the article.
You claim to not call names, but you do call Murtha “Bush hater.” While Murtha may disagree with Bush on any number number of issues, he has never said that he flat out “hates” Bush. As you have said, name calling does nothing to enhance your argument, and to call Murtha a “Bush hater” is a rather broad assumption on your part. Sorry I called you a hypocrite, but I think you may have proven me right.
You are really grasping at straws there. Murtha has done FAR more than just disagree with Bush on many issues.
Murtha has called Bush as well as Cheney “completely corrupt” and talked about Rove having a “fat backside” while sitting in his air-conditioned office, as if only former Marines are the only people who are allowed to have an opinion on military policy.
That goes a lot farther than a simple “disagreement” with Bush and his policies.
Perhaps “Bush hater” is a little strong, but it’s not exactly a stretch to say that Murtha dislikes Bush and the administration quite a bit.
I don’t expect either one of them to offer the other a dinner invitation anytime soon.
11:11 pm [ Quote ]
Also, I didn’t agree with Bill Clinton on many issues, but does that mean I can’t ever AGREE with him to make an argument? That’s essentially what you said to me about John Murtha.
anaconda, this is a great point that I’ve stated several times when posting yet falls on deaf ears.
Just because we don’t agree with someone 100% of the time doesn’t mean that they might not say some things that have validity.
I’m not a huge fan of Ann Coultur’s rants, but this latest issue regarding the Jersey Girls I absolutely agreed, the same rule applies to former military like Murtha.
I’m glad you brought this issue up once again for review.
Also, your point about Murtha calling the NYT is a great one when debating the importance of this program and the need for it being clandestine.
Hugh Hewitt had some interesting guests on last week that you can download to your iPod; I didn’t agree with everyone, nor Hewitt’s complete characterization of the issue, but there are some very intelligent interviews on there that reveal much about the nature of this indiscretion on the part of the NYT.
Yeah, I’m not a big fan of Ann Coulter and her rants either. In fact, I was one of just a few Republicans on the website who wished she hadn’t taken such cheap shots against the “Jersey Girls” in her book.
I agree with you completely that her argument that the Democrats use these people (like Cindy Sheehan) as “shields” in order to bludgeon Republicans so that they can’t criticize them was completely legit. She’s absolutely right.
However, my point was that she is a lot smarter than I am and she’s an educated woman (she’s a lawyer) who can eloquently make her argument without resorting to calling them names or claiming that their “enjoying their husbands’ deaths.”
The name-calling and cheap shots is basically what got all of the attention in the media after her book came out and the media’s focus on her low-blows actually drowned out the completely legit argument she was trying to make.
I don’t think there is any question that she is indeed right about the Dems’ tactics of using these people as “shields” but she did conservatives a disservice by attacking them instead of sticking to the issue.
You mentioned Hugh Hewitt in your post and I respect the man because he is an unapologetic conservative, but doesn’t usually resort to low-blows and cheap shots when making his case. He gets heated like anyone else, but he usually tries to take the high road.
If you’ve followed Hewitt over the past month, you will notice that he was one of a handful of conservative talk show hosts who absolutely pummeled Ann Coulter for engaging in those types of smear tactics.
His argument was basically the same as mine; she could have made her argument without hitting them below the belt.
That’s why I’m not a big Ann Coulter fan. She’s a smart woman who can certainly make her share of legitimate arguments, but she attacks people personally instead of attacking their argument.
However, we all know she wouldn’t be selling as many books if she kept everything civil and that’s the main reason why she does it.
7:47 am [ Quote ]
Scooter
yes, however I doubt there is enough brain power for him to recognize it.
I dont mind people who can recognise and process fact and logic but it looks like BrokeButt can do neither
Oh, boo hoo. You hurt my feelings with all your bad names and powerful rhetoric. That’s some effective debating style you have there, genius. How can one ever recover from such a clever dressing down? BrokeButt – damn, man, that’s just devastating.
Things are rarely as black and white as you seem to think they are, but perhaps you should keep it simple, really. It’ll make you feel all happy and dominant. You might want to stick with monosyllabic words (sorry – that means little words), as well. They are much easier to spell.
And, lastly, if you are going to attempt to insult someone’s intelligence, you really need to make sure that you possess a little, yourself.
8:59 am [ Quote ]
BrokeButt try making a point instead of just whining.
You still have not been able to answer the simple yes or no questions you were asked even with the answers given to you. If you had intellegence you would be able to think your way to a conclusion instead if FEEL your way to one.
1:08 pm [ Quote ]
BrokeButt try making a point instead of just whining.
You still have not been able to answer the simple yes or no questions you were asked even with the answers given to you. If you had intellegence you would be able to think your way to a conclusion instead if FEEL your way to one.
Try to make a point without sounding like a complete idiot. Your infantile attempts at being insulting are ineffective and pathetic, as I could not care less what you think of me.
I’ll answer the questions, but you won’t like the answers because they do not correspond with your narrow view of how things should be, and I am sure you will respond with more of your elementary school (and that’s being way too generous) playground bully rhetoric.
The question for you: Was this a classified secret program?
Your answer: YES
My answer: I don’t know for sure, as I do not work for the government. I think it was pretty common knowledge that financial transactions were being monitored. The exact details of how this was being carried out may very well have been classified.
The question for you: Is it legal to reveal secrets of the federal government to people who are not given security clearance for disclosure?
Your answer: NO
My answer: No
The question for you: Was the information given to the NYT declassified?
Your answer: NO
My answer: Not sure until all of the facts are disclosed.
The question for you: What are the laws concerning those that leak secrets?
Your answer: PRISON (Not totally correct, by the way – big shock!)
My answer: Actually, the Espionage Act states: “Whoever knowingly and willfully . . . publishes . . . any classified information—. . . (2) concerning the . . . use . . . of any device . . . used . . . by the United States . . . for . . . communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication activities of the United States . . . Shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” Subsection (b) of the Act defines “communication intelligence” as “all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than the intended recipient.”
The question for you: Did the NYT leak secrets to the public?
Your answer: YES
My answer: Quite possibly, but this is not the first time it has happened. In a September 8, 2002 article titled “US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts,” NY Times reporters Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon relied on leaked classified intelligence to detail Saddam Hussein’s alleged efforts to purchase “specially designed aluminum tubes” intended as centrifuges to enrich uranium, which supported Bush’s efforts to portray Iraq as a growing threat. The day the article was published, VP Dick Cheney appeared on “Meet The Press” and, rather than condemn the NY Times publication of classified intelligence, as he has repeatedly done with the bank-tracking story, he praised Miller and Gordon’s reporting on the aluminum tubes. So, I ask you, why was the leak of this classified information perfectly acceptable?
And, in your questions, you only really fault the NY Times. Don’t you think the individual(s) who supplied the information to the NY Times should be punished, as well?
There you have it. I’m basically done with you, because you have no point to make. And, even if you did, I doubt that you would be able to do it rationally.
1:57 pm [ Quote ]
The NYT themselves acknowledge them as being classified documents
“My answer: Quite possibly, but this is not the first time it has happened. In a September 8, 2002 article titled “US Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts,” NY Times reporters Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon relied on leaked classified intelligence to detail Saddam Hussein’s alleged efforts to purchase “specially designed aluminum tubes” intended as centrifuges to enrich uranium, which supported Bush’s efforts to portray Iraq as a growing threat. The day the article was published, VP Dick Cheney appeared on “Meet The Press” and, rather than condemn the NY Times publication of classified intelligence, as he has repeatedly done with the bank-tracking story, he praised Miller and Gordon’s reporting on the aluminum tubes. So, I ask you, why was the leak of this classified information perfectly acceptable?”
Just because it is not the first time it has happenned does not make it OK to do it. The leak about the pipes that Saddam had
may well have been unclassified by the time it was publicized. Also its released did not jepardized US security. Nor did it give details of how the info on the pipes was obtained.
I do belive that those who leaked the info should be punished also I have made that clear in many posts,
NYT had the ability to NOT publish this material even after they recieved it.
I have prove my points but you never seem to have a point, just evading straight forward questions then whine about people not addressing yours. Funny all my answers are thought out, factual, rational, logical and straight forward yours however are based upon pure conjecture with faulty logic and rarely straight forward. You are the one who cant seem to understand rational thouhgt you just FEEL the facts are not facts.
Try thinking for yourself for once and formulate you own thouhgts base on FACTS not on feelings.
4:59 pm [ Quote ]
WMD Maker:
I have prove my points but you never seem to have a point, just evading straight forward questions then whine about people not addressing yours. Funny all my answers are thought out, factual, rational, logical and straight forward yours however are based upon pure conjecture with faulty logic and rarely straight forward.
In what bizarro world did this occur? You keep saying I am whining, which couldn’t be further from the truth. You have cited no laws or stated any facts to support your beliefs. You have done no viable research whatsoever. You have simply stated your opinion, and quite poorly I might add, and if anyone has spewed conjecture, it has been you. Your conservative bully tactics might work on all of your little wimpy friends (if you have any friends), but you have proven absolutely nothing, except that you are an illiterate, arrogant bag of hot air. Get over yourself, fruity.
5:41 pm [ Quote ]
BrokeButt where have you supported any of your steamming BS?
Lets start with 28 “Bush the original leaker” Where did Bush reveal DETAILS of a specific operation?
Then 31 “The fact of the matter is, EVERYONE knew it was happening, regardless of the intimate details. It was NOT a secret.”
Show where the DETAILS of the operation were not a secret? and that everyone knew
Then 44
“Your questions are somewhat vague, and really pretty subjective. We don’t really know all of the details, and it depends on whom you wish to blame – the NY Times or the person(s) who originally leaked the information to the NY Times. Who should be punished (or not) in your scenario? Maybe the NY Times didn’t think (or know) the information was classified, since it was given to them by someone working for the government. Maybe the NY Times thought that, since this program has been discussed at length, by the administration, it really wasn’t so secret. Maybe they just didn’t care.
Or, maybe, the information was “leaked” by someone very close to Bush so that the administration could create yet another enemy to America, in the form of one of the most liberal publications on the planet, thereby demonizing liberals as supporters of terrorists. The only problem is, most people are no longer willing to just take their word for it. The administration has gone to that well once too often.”
How much wilder canconjecture get?
In 66 you finally contradict yourself from you statement in 31 in
” The exact details of how this was being carried out may very well have been classified.”
Good God you cant even keep your own statements straight.
Stop embarrassing yourself by contradicting yourself.
7:02 pm [ Quote ]
WMD Maker:
Just how does this exposure of a classified operation help the American public?
Nothing proven there.
The liberals are claiming that the Supreme Court is infallible that they know what is correct.
To that I have one man’s name
DRED SCOTT
Come on libs defend that decision
Do you think any of the Supreme Court Justices that ruled on this case are still on the Supreme Court? And, what does this have to do with information leaks?
Again, nothing proven.
Still waiting for that Dred Scott defense
here are a few of others you can feel free to defend
Terry Shiavo
the 2000 election
the 2004 election
Dred Scott again. Useless.
Terry Shiavo – brain dead (much like yourself). The husband had the right to decide what to do. What’s the problem?
2000 & 2004 election – your guy own…you should be proud.
Again, nothing proven.
They may have found a money source that paid for the supplies or the terrorists themselves.
As for anything stopping Clinton from getting a bj, you got me there, even going to bed with Hillary didnt decrease his sex drive enough for that. It did obviously affect his taste in women, oops no it didnt sorry had poor taste way before that.
May have? Conjecture.
Cheap shot at the Clintons – nothing new there.
And again, nothing proven.
Vague???! Yes or No that s Vague? The fact that we were tracking bank transactions is well known we have been doing it fo 20 yrs to catch drug trafficers, they know about it but they are still caught that way.Thats how the BAli bomber was caught.
The OPERATION was CLASSIFIED that is the details of which banks were helping in the monitoring, which banking system was being watched, what dollar amounts were being targetted, which countries we were tracking the money thru ALL CLASSIFIED.
If you cannot comprehend these facts and process them go back to watching Sesame Street.
They weren’t yes or no questions…they weren’t even YOUR questions. Don’t take credit for someone else’s work.
Still no backup, and a cheap shot at me, to which I already responded. Still nothing proven.
Post #53: All your opinion, nothing proven. No facts, just opinion.
Scooter
yes, however I doubt there is enough brain power for him to recognize it.
I dont mind people who can recognise and process fact and logic but it looks like BrokeButt can do neither
Nothing new here, no facts, just you being an asshole.
BrokeButt try making a point instead of just whining.
You still have not been able to answer the simple yes or no questions you were asked even with the answers given to you. If you had intellegence you would be able to think your way to a conclusion instead if FEEL your way to one.
More of you being an asshole and being confrontational…pretty useless, information-wise.
Post #67: No facts, no backup, just your opinion and more of you being an asshole (notice a recurring theme, anyone?)
And, finally, #69: More of your opinion, no back up for your “facts.” No quotes, no dates, no proof of anything. Oh yeah, and you remain an asshole.
7:45 pm [ Quote ]
On April 27, 1961, President John Kennedy delivered a speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. He addressed the issue of the press’s role in preserving national security in the Cold War. President Kennedy lamented the fact that secret information about America’s covert operations had routinely appeared in American newspapers, to be read by friend and foe alike. He noted that the Communists had openly boasted of gaining information from American newspapers that they would otherwise have had to use spies to attempt to steal. And he called on newspapers not to publish stories based on the single test, Is it news? but rather to add a second test: How does it affect national security?
What about it NYT’s….......what is your excuse?
10:15 pm [ Quote ]
“Just how does this exposure of a classified operation help the American public?
Nothing proven there.”
There was nothing to be proven it is a QUESTION
And I see you have no answer to it.
“The liberals are claiming that the Supreme Court is infallible that they know what is correct.
To that I have one man’s name
DRED SCOTT
Come on libs defend that decision
Do you think any of the Supreme Court Justices that ruled on this case are still on the Supreme Court? And, what does this have to do with information leaks?
Again, nothing proven.”
Again nothing to be prove it was a request for liberals to defend a incorrect decision by the cout which incedentally was later reversed
Still waiting for that Dred Scott defense
here are a few of others you can feel free to defend
Terry Shiavo
the 2000 election
the 2004 election
Dred Scott again. Useless.
Terry Shiavo – brain dead (much like yourself). The husband had the right to decide what to do. What’s the problem?
2000 & 2004 election – your guy own…you should be proud.
Again, nothing proven.
Again nothing to prove it again was a request for you to defend the courts decision or even Why the court reviewed the decision of the lower court in the case of Terry Shaivo
Oh now a liberal is going to defend the fact that Bush won the elections when they always seem to say they were stolen?
They may have found a money source that paid for the supplies or the terrorists themselves.
As for anything stopping Clinton from getting a bj, you got me there, even going to bed with Hillary didnt decrease his sex drive enough for that. It did obviously affect his taste in women, oops no it didnt sorry had poor taste way before that.
May have? Conjecture.
Conjecture? Try logical conclusion to previuos events evidenced by the Bali bomber who was caught by a similar operation.
Cheap shot at the Clintons – nothing new there.
And again, nothing proven.
If you are going to say that Clinton has good taste in women that is your perogative. The proof is in the women
Vague???! Yes or No that s Vague? The fact that we were tracking bank transactions is well known we have been doing it fo 20 yrs to catch drug trafficers, they know about it but they are still caught that way.Thats how the BAli bomber was caught.
The OPERATION was CLASSIFIED that is the details of which banks were helping in the monitoring, which banking system was being watched, what dollar amounts were being targetted, which countries we were tracking the money thru ALL CLASSIFIED.
If you cannot comprehend these facts and process them go back to watching Sesame Street.
They weren’t yes or no questions….
they weren’t even YOUR questions. Don’t take credit for someone else’s work.
I never claimed they were my questions, I never took credit for them except possibly in your mind.
Still no backup, and a cheap shot at me, to which I already responded. Still nothing proven.
The lack of your understanding that they were (except for one) yes or no questions proves that your comprehension skills are lacking
Post #53: All your opinion, nothing proven. No facts, just opinion.
Sorry but the NYT has publish and reinterrated those to be true in numerous statements.
Scooter
yes, however I doubt there is enough brain power for him to recognize it.
I dont mind people who can recognise and process fact and logic but it looks like BrokeButt can do neither
Nothing new here, no facts, just you being an asshole.
An answer to a post not from you. ARE you now taking credit for it?
And with the responce and shown lack of understanding ( they were vague (when they were not), they were not yes or no questions (wuth the exception of one question they were))
BrokeButt try making a point instead of just whining.
You still have not been able to answer the simple yes or no questions you were asked even with the answers given to you. If you had intellegence you would be able to think your way to a conclusion instead if FEEL your way to one.
More of you being an asshole and being confrontational…pretty useless, information-wise.
A response to this major point of yours.”Oh, boo hoo. You hurt my feelings with all your bad names and powerful rhetoric. That’s some effective debating style you have there, genius. How can one ever recover from such a clever dressing down? BrokeButt – damn, man, that’s just devastating.
Things are rarely as black and white as you seem to think they are, but perhaps you should keep it simple, really. It’ll make you feel all happy and dominant. You might want to stick with monosyllabic words (sorry – that means little words), as well. They are much easier to spell.
And, lastly, if you are going to attempt to insult someone’s intelligence, you really need to make sure that you possess a little, yourself.”
Post #67: No facts, no backup, just your opinion and more of you being an asshole (notice a recurring theme, anyone?)From 67
Just because it is not the first time it has happenned does not make it OK to do it.
and
NYT had the ability to NOT publish this material even after they recieved it.
Sorry but point made to none for you
And, finally, #69: More of your opinion, no back up for your “facts.” No quotes, no dates, no proof of anything. Oh yeah, and you remain an asshole.
NO QUOTES? I quoted you and noted them as such. And if quoting you contradicting yourself isnt proof of you contradicting youself WHAT IS?
Pretty convincing evidence that you dont have the brains to have an intelegent discussion.
Arogant asshole is that the new liberal term for compassionate conservative?
7:23 am [ Quote ]
WMD Maker:
“The liberals are claiming that the Supreme Court is infallible that they know what is correct.
To that I have one man’s name
DRED SCOTT
Come on libs defend that decision
Nothing to prove? Then why bring it up? This thread wasn’t even about the Supreme Court, it was about information leaks. Try to stay on topic.
Oh now a liberal is going to defend the fact that Bush won the elections when they always seem to say they were stolen?
I know some liberals do say it, but I have never once said that the election was “stolen.” Again, though, what does this have to do with the leak thread?
Conjecture? Try logical conclusion to previuos events evidenced by the Bali bomber who was caught by a similar operation.
There is nothing logical about any of your statements, so I still say conjecture.
If you are going to say that Clinton has good taste in women that is your perogative. The proof is in the women
Subjective. Different people find different things attractive.
An answer to a post not from you. ARE you now taking credit for it?
And with the responce and shown lack of understanding ( they were vague (when they were not), they were not yes or no questions (wuth the exception of one question they were))
Not from me, but ABOUT me, so I have every right to respond. And, besides, you have thrown your snide little opinions toward several of my posts that were not directed at you, which is how this whole stupid thing got started, so if you are going to make up the rules as you go along, be sure to follow them yourself, hypocrite.
NO QUOTES? I quoted you and noted them as such.
No quotes to back up any of your claims. No research done on anything, no proof of anything you have said. Why quote me? I don’t know anything, right?
Arogant asshole is that the new liberal term for compassionate conservative?
You tell me, genius. I don’t beleive there is such a thing as a “compassionate conservative.” It’s just another oxymoron created by Bush, much like “catastrophic success.”
You know, you fancy yourself a champion of intelligent discussion, but you start out with name-calling, cheap shots, and non-sequiturs. You can’t even SPELL. Half of the time, you don’t even make any sense. You’re all over the place.
I do apologize for calling you names – there was no need for me to stoop to your level of schoolyard bullying tactics. But, I haven’t contradicted myself. I have indicated that there is room for changing one’s opinions once all of the facts have been disclosed. But you haven’t presented any facts to change my opinions. There are conservatives on here who can actually make a reasonable argument without being rude, ignorant or confrontational, and by presenting facts to back up their claims (i.e. anaconda, SethWynd), something which you cannot seem to do. You are way out of your league here.
Good luck with that.
8:40 am [ Quote ]
beleive = believe
I hate typos.
7:29 pm [ Quote ]
Broke
Name calling appology accepted.
You cannot process logic or facts so it is no wonder you do not see any logic anywhere. As usual you do not seem to regognize a question as a question instead of a proof to a point. Get off this website and go back to your leftie sites where everyone will feel you have a clue.
9:09 pm [ Quote ]
WMD Maker:
Thanks for your response. I would have expected no less from you.