Powered by TypePad

« "A Victory Of Sorts" | Main | Edwards Was For Their Dismissal Before He Was Against It »

February 09, 2007

Comments

RichatUF

from theAmericanist

Likewise, what Bush told the Congress, wasn't true.

This is a WAR, folks -- and we're all Americans. Raise your standards, already.

More cooperative patriotism -- and less incompetent partisanship.

blah, blah, blah...Bush lied...war is bad...listen to me...just poop....blah, blah, blah

Americanist, since what Bush [adminisration] told Congress wasn't true, did the same information that Clinton [administration] told Congress in the late 1990's not true?

RichatUF

Dan S

RichatUF,

He can't hear you. Those words will not enter his world. They don't fit there.

Sue

...I have wondered if anyone has called LJ on that?

I did. And immediately got banned and nasty emails were sent my direction.

JM Hanes

Peter UK!

I was thinking about you just last night (in the nicest of possible ways of course) wondering where you've been, hoping all was well. You do appear to be your usual acerbic self, so I trust you've just been making better use of your time. Glad to see you!

RichatUF

DanS...

I know, it didn't hurt to try. I'm jumping around on the thread, that Americanist dude (maybe its Scary Larry) really wants to believe that the Priest article can be parsed so thin it can be read to mean our girl Val was singlehandedly holding back nuclear poliferation, while Joe sips mint tea with former, corrupt African dictators. He is a goof ball...blah, blah, blah "the former station chief of Angola..." or maybe its Scary Larry's 'step-and-fetch' boy Jason Lepold?

gotta go

RichatUF

Sue

sorry!

RichatUF

did I do that

JM Hanes


theAmericanist:

"Sue, I use theAmericanist on purpose; it has a meaning."

LOL! Let me guess: it's like being a Christianist, right? Failing that, I'd have to go with the more standard, but far less interesting, "student" which does, however, seem a better fit.

JM Hanes

Other Tom:

I wouldn't stop you for the world! You're hot! All you need are the ear muffs.

Other Tom

What happened to Pete? When last heard from, he was telling us about Osama's journey on the time machine...

JM Hanes

theAmericanist:

"FD, being as how Al Qaeda is Sunni and Iran is Shi'ite, and there is a civil war going on in Iraq between Sunni and Shi'ia, how's that alliance thing working out for 'em?"

Being as how top Dem leadership in Congress can't tell you the difference between Sunni & Shia in the first place, how's that first 100 day thing lookin' so far?

Other Tom

OK, dear friends, you're gonna have to bear with me here for a bit. I'm going to meander off into a bit of a discussion of the estimable Professor Juan Cole, the idol of poor ol' Pete. I'll dish it out in dribs and drabs, in order that you can savor each tasty morsel to the fullest before sampling the next one,

"For a trained historian, even in Middle Eastern studies, Juan Cole is scandalously incompetent when it comes to cause and effect. Here's his latest gaffe, made in the context of the London bombings:

"'According to the September 11 Commission report, al-Qaeda conceived 9/11 in some large part as a punishment on the US for supporting Ariel Sharon's iron fist policies toward the Palestinians. Bin Laden had wanted to move the operation up in response to Sharon's threatening visit to the Temple Mount, and again in response to the Israeli attack on the Jenin refugee camp, which left 4,000 persons homeless. Khalid Shaikh Muhammad argued in each case that the operation just was not ready.'

"Did Cole read the same 9/11 report as the rest of us? There's not a single passage in the 9/11 report mentioning Sharon's (or Israel's) policies, and I challenge him to produce one. Cole just made it up. And in point of fact, the report's narrative definitively contradicts him."

Sue

Rich,

I did it.

JM,

I did a little google on the http://www.theamericanist.com/>Americanist and still don't know what the coded message was. Unless it really is Scary and he is making a veiled reference to Seixon, who is in Norway and has a standing feud with Scary. Barring that, I have no idea and really don't care. It had no meaning to me, even though if I had known I would have been showing more class. ::shrug::

MayBee

I wonder what Valerie's picture in Vanity Fair did to the poor guys she'd recruited.
Suddenly everyone that had seen Val and her venal recruit hanging out in a cafe know he was hanging out with a CIA agent.

PeterUK

JMHanes,
Yes, the mellow transplant didn't take.Just been observing,whilst we stand at the crossroads of the new millennium,watching the political classes of the West go loopy is somewhat dispiriting.Nice to get a fat young troll to take a pot at,a bit gamey,but will be OK for the meat balls Other Tom is making of it.
Too much inbreeding in the troll stock nowadays,all look the same sound the same,a bit like the mountain families,but without the redeeming ability to play the banjo.

Other Tom

Morsel number two (responding to Cole's claim):

"The [9/11 Commission] report makes it clear that 9/11 was conceived well before Sharon became prime minister of Israel in March 2001. Chapter 5, section 2 (p. 153) says the following, based on the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Muhammad (KSM), the 9/11 mastermind:

"'According to KSM, he started to think about attacking the United States after [Ramzi] Yousef returned to Pakistan following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.... He maintains that he and Yousef...speculated about striking the World Trade Center and CIA headquarters as early as 1995.'

"The idea was fully hatched by early 1999 (p. 154):

"'KSM acknowledges formally joining al Qaeda in late 1998 or 1999, and states that soon afterward Bin Ladin also made the decision to support his proposal to attack the United States using commercial airplanes as weapons.... Bin Ladin summoned KSM to Kandahar in March or April 1999 to tell him that al Qaeda would support his proposal. The plot was now referred to within al Qaeda as the "'planes operation.


"The election of Ehud Barak as Israeli prime minister in May 1999 didn't put a crimp in the planning. To the contrary: preparations proceeded apace, and Bin Laden pushed even harder for the operation, which wasn't quite ready. Bin Laden did so again after Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. But that visit took place on September 28, 2000, when Sharon was leader of the opposition. He only became prime minister five months later.

"In short, the 9/11 operation could hardly have been 'conceived' as a response to U.S. support for Sharon's 'iron fist policies.' It was conceived, its operatives were selected, and it was put in motion, long before Sharon took the helm."

No sirree, you sure won't find trenchant analysis like Professor Cole's on any nutball right-wing blog.

PeterUK

Sue,
Think of the possibilities,americanistianism for example or anti-americanistianism.

MayBee

The thing that baffles me about the Larry OpEd is why in the world the NYTs printed it. How did he get access to the most venerated paper on the planet? There was certainly nothing compelling or timely about that topic.
I'm dying to know, because he was also the go-to guy in the Valerie P. at the farm articles.

theAmericanist

Sorry, topsecretk9, but like I told Ranger earlier, I have no time to be bothered with irrelevant facts like who actually said what, or whether some newspaper got the story right or wrong.

Libby and the Bush regime are the ones on trial here so let's try to focus, people.

You guys are so obsessed with your petty "evidence" and "what really happened" that you can't see The Truth even though I've revealed it to you over and over again.

boris

Is it true that you wear an American flag as a cape to wrap yourself in?

Cecil Turner

The "Bush regime" is on trial? Who knew?

Dude, seek professional help.

Jane

How did he get access to the most venerated paper on the planet?

It's not all that venerated any more.

Barney Frank

Cecil,

I suspect someone was making theAmercianist look even stupider than he ordinarily does on his own by inserting their hand in his sock.

PeterUK

"I have no time to be bothered with irrelevant facts like who actually said what, or whether some newspaper got the story right or wrong."

That is what this blog is about,if you can't be bothered then "Sod off Swampy"


"Is it true that you wear an American flag as a cape to wrap yourself in?"

No as a thong.

Rick Ballard

Although it's a bit difficult to discern the real dolt from the faux dolt, that's a spoofer.

boris

shhh

PeterUK

"I suspect someone was making theAmercianist look even stupider than he ordinarily does on his own by inserting their hand in his sock."

I do hope they are wearing rubber gloves,it does account for the glazed look though.

Cecil Turner

Good point Barney. If I was still reading his posts to the end, it'd be easier to separate the parody from self-parody. But it's hard to see the percentage . . .

PeterUK

"I have no time to be bothered with irrelevant facts like who actually said what, or whether some newspaper got the story right or wrong."

That is what this blog is about,if you can't be bothered then "Sod off Swampy"


"Is it true that you wear an American flag as a cape to wrap yourself in?"

No as a thong.

James Malcolm

I read all the comments. It is still a fake case.

Imagine a grand jury convened to hear sworn testimony about whether there is enough evidence to try X for murder. And then the jury finds out there was no murder.

Why should any citizen have to testify before a prosecutor who can't assert that a crime was committed (in this case, outing a spy).

And how can a judge keep a straight face stating that it is none of the juries business in the Libby trial whether Plame was or wasn't a secret agent. Even the judge doesn't know, according to MSM.

That means a Prosecutor calls a Grand Jury, swears in witnesses who think a crime was committed only to find out in the end that the Prosecutor has been diddling with them to see who lives up to his standard of truthtelling...for no apparent reason of importance.

And an actual Judge sits there and lets all this happens.

It's a phony case.
Thank you,

Jim Malcolm

JM Hanes

James Malcolm:

You are definitely not alone.

theAmericanist

Well -- y'all are obviously a waste of the Web, so I'll just wrap up:

1) "theAmericanist" refers to the Americanist heresy, the only Catholic heresy native to this country ever formally condemned by the Vatican (Leo XIII, 1899). The essence of the heresy is the idea that civics in itself has a moral value. I found out about it researching the Americanization of Islam, since this is what is happening to Muslims here just as it happened to Christians in Europe. That is a small personal aside (particularly to Sue, who really should take the hint), cuz it sets up:

2) It helps to acquire facts before you express opinions. The ease with which a # of you turn to bogus personal attacks when you are challenged ON facts, including the guy pretending to be me, is not a healthy sign.

3) It helps to sort which facts are important, and which are not. The WashPost evidently blew their reporting on the IG report, so I passed along an error, attributing to the IG what Levin said. But what FEITH said himself is far more important. Only a sucker could miss that, which underscores why:

4) It helps to know when you're trying to convince yourselves, more than others. (See #2, cuz it's a clue.)

a) It's damned clear that outing a CIA agent damages sources and methods. Pretending otherwise marks you as fools, or worse. TM, this means YOU.

b) Libby has admitted what he told the grand jury was false. So it is basically a simple question which is more credible -- that he lied, or that he forgot his Boss's order, even though he then proceeded to help carry it out. Since NOBODY has backed up Libby's version, I doubt the jury is gonna buy it. The way you guys are flopping around tells me you doubt it, too. You're an American form of Ah Q, which brings us to:

5) Finally, it helps to focus.

a) TM was obviously trying to change what Dana Priest said, from 'Plame was 4 years out of the loop' to 'outing a CIA agent does no damage'. You might strive for enough self-awareness that you notice when you're that stupid or dishonest, Tom, so you don't do it in public.

b) Likewise, Wilson accurately pointed out that Bush told the Congress something that was not true, which was central to the case for CHOOSING to start a war that has not gone well, a method of argument that

c) even FEITH has now admitted was often deliberate: they lied. (How else can you interpret Feith's disclaimer, that even HE didn't believe the intelligence he was presenting? An honest approach -- the one followed by the professionals they were dissing -- openly states contradictory evidence, even bringing in a Team B, as was one long ago for Soviet nukes. In this case, a very long list of old pros, like Odom, kept telling 'em they were full of shit: how does Feith's integrity and judgment look now?)

d) That folks long understood Saddam was a bad guy, that he had and used Weapons of Mass Destruction (a typically imprecise and elastic term: in the olden days, folks talked about threats to the United States more carefully), doesn't help explain why THESE guys screwed it up so badly.

e) In this sorta time-wasting genre, and on lesser issues, it might make sense to try SO hard to fool yourselves that you don't know better. But this is a war, and I think you DO know better.

I suspect TM knows that it was far more damaging to our national security that Bush screwed up the war in Iraq because of the errors that Feith has admitted and which the Libby case exemplifies, that it is considerably more important that Wilson was right (that is, what Bush told the Congress was wrong)than who he was married to.

You guys have simply indulged in the classic esercise of the fanatic: you're working twice as hard after you've forgotten what you're working FOR.

So, my last word: try more cooperative patriotism and less incompetent partisanship.

lurker

Americanist, this better be your last word and we do not agree with your last post. Reverse your words to yourself and it fits you very well.

No, Bush did not screw up. This is the best thing USA did for the entire world. What makes you think TM has any suspicions that we screwed up? So what? How many wars have we NOT screwed up? How many wars we continue to learn from? All wars are meant to win, lose, and learn.

There is no Americanism of Islam in Europe.

You are the classic exercise of the fanatic. We *KNOW* what we are working for: Patriotism, Freedom, Security, and Liberty for ourselves and our own country. The incompetent partisanship is coming from you and your leftwingers.

This is a war against Global Jihadism.

You don't understand what we are truly facing. The Crusaders knew what they were fighting against. We understood why the radical Muslims are calling us "Crusaders".

lurker

Sorry, topsecretk9, but like I told Ranger earlier, I have no time to be bothered with irrelevant facts like who actually said what, or whether some newspaper got the story right or wrong.

Libby and the Bush regime are the ones on trial here so let's try to focus, people.

You guys are so obsessed with your petty "evidence" and "what really happened" that you can't see The Truth even though I've revealed it to you over and over again.

You are the one that is not seeing the Truth.

What crime has been committed by Libby? If you cannot answer this, then there is no case and don't bother.

Sue

So, my last word

Promises, promises.

(particularly to Sue, who really should take the hint)

I think I'll pass. But thanks anyway.

Libby has admitted what he told the grand jury was false.

Fitzgerald seems to have missed his admission. Maybe you could set him straight. Got his email?

that Wilson was right

About what? Nevermind. You already had your last word.

See ya'!

Cecil Turner

It's damned clear that outing a CIA agent damages sources and methods. Pretending otherwise marks you as fools, or worse. TM, this means YOU.

Argument by assertion. Persuasive.

Libby has admitted what he told the grand jury was false. So it is basically a simple question which is more credible -- that he lied, or that he forgot his Boss's order, even though he then proceeded to help carry it out.

Order? Seems to me the VP told Libby about Plame in June (as background apparently). There was no order. And if you have to make up facts to back up your theory . . . .

TM was obviously trying to change what Dana Priest said . . .

Obviously. Cuz otherwise you wouldn't have a case for your "liar liar" claim.

even FEITH has now admitted was often deliberate: they lied.

Repeating a CIA estimate (whether you believe it or not) is not a "lie." And if you think it is . . .

Likewise, Wilson accurately pointed out that Bush told the Congress something that was not true . . .

In the first place, you're mixing the British intelligence with the Niger forgeries. But even on the latter, the CIA had told the Administration (again) four days earlier that it was on.

The rest of your tripe was empty ad-hom.

Cecil Turner

To expound on this a bit (why not?): Non-Official Cover is used for CIA officers in foreign countries. It provides a false, harmless-looking background, and gives others' intelligence agencies the impression that there's nothing interesting. Using that cover, officers recruit agents (foreigners working for us), hopefully unnoticed by foreign counterespionage efforts.

The only law on the subject, the IIPA, is obviously designed to protect officers and agents. Those protected are allowed to "out" themselves, and they're only protected as long as the government is "taking affirmative measures to conceal" their status, and they time out after five years since the last overseas posting.

In the case of Plame, she'd timed out (last overseas posting over five years . . . though she had made a couple of trips, possibly to conferences), and the government was in the process of shifting her status (no longer taking "affirmative measures"). As a legal matter, it appears she is not covered. As a practical matter, she was in no danger, nor is it likely any of her contacts were. Nor is it obvious how any "methods" would be compromised by her outing. The default conclusion is that there wasn't much (if any) . . . and there's a very quiet non-barking dog.

But if you want to blame someone for the "outing," the chain looks like this:

  1. Valerie Plame recommended her husband for an overseas trip
  2. She introduced him at an interagency meeting
  3. A State Department officer took notes
  4. Wilson leaked to Kristof of the NY Times
  5. Kristof wrote two articles claiming the Administration was lying about something they'd never heard of
  6. The State Department officer drafted a memo explaining Wilson's trip, mentioning his wife's involvement
  7. Armitage read it
  8. Wilson wrote an op-ed under his own name
  9. Armitage name-dropped to Novak
Take your pick.

Sara (Squiggler)

theAmericanist -- what a total load of bull crap. Do you actually find an audience for your load somewhere? The only thing you left out is how Rove sends mind rays out to influence the gullible. You are ignorance personified.

PeterUK

"The ease with which a # of you turn to bogus personal attacks".

There is nothing "bogus" about the personal attacks Accordionist,it is obvious that many here think you a complete tit.

Sara (Squiggler)

The check for my settlement will be here in the next day or so, anyone know what Alcoa closed at on Friday?

Walter

Americanist wrongs writes:

[...] the Americanist heresy, the only Catholic heresy native to this country ever formally condemned by the Vatican (Leo XIII, 1899). The essence of the heresy is the idea that civics in itself has a moral value.

From an article summarizing the letter he cites as authority for this proposition:

The term Americanism is approved as applying to the characteristic qualities which reflect honour on the American people, or to the conditions of their commonwealths, and to the laws and customs prevailing in them; [...] If by that name be designated the characteristic qualities which reflect honour on the people of America, just as other nations have what is special to them; or, if it implies the condition of your commonwealths, or the laws and customs prevailing in them, there is no reason why we should deem that it ought to be discarded.

It's not appropriate to debate this here; it's off-topic and irrelevant to the vast majority of readers. So I won't respond beyond this comment. But I doubt that you understand the position of the catholic church better than it does.

And thus concludes our second (in two days) lesson on roman catholic doctrine. Who knew it was so relevant to the Libby case?

Walter

Libby has admitted what he told the grand jury was false.

You know, that surprises me. Such an admission seems like it would be highly relevant in determining whether he knew he made false statements at the time he testified.

I wonder why Fitzgerald didn't mention it in the indictment, his filings, oral arguments, or in his opening. Heck, you'd think he would have had it admitted as a stipulation or an exhibit at the very least.

Or you could be mistaken.

Jasom Leopo;d

Special prosecutor Fitzgerald has indicted the Pope,under seal until the third day of Lent.

Walter

...the chain looks like this:

Perhaps the 2003 version does. It could have been raw speculation, but I recall some mention that she stopped working with undercover sources after the Ames incidents.

And something about Cuba.

clarice

Third day of Lent? I thought it was 24 canonical hours?

Walter

...an American form of Ah Q

A pecular form, one that believes not in violence, creed, or secret meetings in exotic locations.

Or maybe I just haven't been here long enough for the junkets.

Sue, sorry--I hadn't realized that you had disposed of that point.

Jasom Leopo;d

Breaking News,"the Pope ha responded to the indictment by excommunicating the Special Prosecutor".

Pete

Tom Maguire says: The triple exclamation convinces me that our guy pete is betraying a sense of humor.

I suppose we can get used to that...

Wrong. Someone else has been using my name and email address.

Rick Ballard was right.

The following entry was not written by me
Posted by: Pete | February 09, 2007 at 09:50 AM

Pete

You'd have to be stupid to think I had a sense of humor. Par for the course here.

Pete

Mr masquerador @ 10:56 - care to use your actual name+email address?

ThreadKiller

Pete,

For the record, I disagree with about every comment that you've written.

But I think it's cheezy and wrong for someone to attribute words to your avatar that you didn't write.

C'mon people, you can mock Pete in a less abusive fashion--at least put a disclaimer somewhere. If only so that we don't have endless "I said"/"No I didn't" arguments.

So sayeth the thread-killer.

Pete

One of us has a sense of humor and is writing clearly idiotic things and expecting people to laugh at the parody.

And one of us has no sense of humor and is writing the same clearly idiotic things expecting them to be taken seriously.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame