Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[maineman]

I have posted the author of the law expalining the law

But facts never have mattered to much to you in the past, why should they now

Funny, you said the same thing when you tried to lie about Dems not raising taxes

the opinion of the drafter is not the law. you said that the law said something. Go on to thomas and get the text of the law and post it here. or shut the **** up.

 

[red states rule]

the opinion of the drafter is not the law. you said that the law said something. Go on to thomas and get the text of the law and post it here. or shut the **** up.

My MM is testy again - losing the debate will always make him meltdown

You are so much smarter then the rest of us - if I am wrong on the law - you post it

I know I am right

That is why nobody was charged with "outing" the CIA paper pusher

 

[maineman]

My MM is testy again - losing the debate will always make him meltdown

You are so much smarter then the rest of us - if I am wrong on the law - you post it

I know I am right

That is why nobody was charged with "outing" the CIA paper pusher

you said the law said something. the text of the law is available on thomas.

go find it and post it. that is all I am saying. YOU were the one who claimed to know what the law said.... I only ask you to prove your assertions.

Let me know when you find it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

 

[red states rule]

you said the law said something. the text of the law is available on thomas.

go find it and post it. that is all I am saying. YOU were the one who claimed to know what the law said.... I only ask you to prove your assertions.

Let me know when you find it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/

MM's non answer and continued spinning

Still saying Dems are not raising taxes MM?

 

[CockySOB]

then don't. He made the claim that the law said something. Let him back up what he says.....

and quit tapdancing by posting all this news articles where people are giving their interpretations of what the law says. RSR did NOT say: Lot's of people smarter than me think the law says she wasn't covert" He said: "The LAW says she was not covert". I say prove it. put up or shut up.

Unlike yourself, I like to clarify when I make a post so that people understand I am not asserting something when I am not. I wanted it clear from the outset that I was not arguing FOR RSR, but that I had something to add related to the issues you and he are discussing. In case you didn't notice, this is a publicly accessible board which invites commentary of such nature - I just wanted to clarify my intentions prior to stating what I did.

Now perhaps you'd like to go back a few posts and clarify your response to me when I was discussing the issue of 50 USC 422 with Care. Or are you so full of bitterness and spite that facing up to your own errors is an unsurmountable task?

 

[CockySOB]

To MM and his ilk, one of the authors of the law, explaining why Plame was not covert, is not good enough

The only opinion some people accept as being valid are the ones with which they agree. Take musicman's continued insistence that we accept the opinion of the DCI as fact, for example. Why is the DCI opinion any more valid than the opinions of two people who helped draft the legislation? I don't really know. But from musicman's temperment today, I'd say it either touches a sore spot, or he missed his medications today.

 

[red states rule]

Unlike yourself, I like to clarify when I make a post so that people understand I am not asserting something when I am not. I wanted it clear from the outset that I was not arguing FOR RSR, but that I had something to add related to the issues you and he are discussing. In case you didn't notice, this is a publicly accessible board which invites commentary of such nature - I just wanted to clarify my intentions prior to stating what I did.

Now perhaps you'd like to go back a few posts and clarify your response to me when I was discussing the issue of 50 USC 422 with Care. Or are you so full of bitterness and spite that facing up to your own errors is an unsurmountable task?

MM does not like it when folks disagree with him

 

[CockySOB]

MM does not like it when folks disagree with him

Typical partisan fanatic behavior.... I believe the technical term for it is "barking moonbat."

 

[red states rule]

Typical partisan fanatic behavior.... I believe the technical term for it is "barking moonbat."

When it comes to MM a more fitting description would be - mouth frothing hysteria

 

[maineman]

are you guys giving each other cyber hand jobs or cyber blow jobs?

 

[red states rule]

are you guys giving each other cyber hand jobs or cyber blow jobs?

MM with his fellow Dems at their monthly meeting

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you say one thing....DCI says another.

who to believe? the Director of Central Intelligence, or a right wing internet chickenhawk hack?

Who to believe the DCI or the people that wrote the law.... Seems to me you are busy telling RSR that opinions do not matter, so why bring in the DCI's opinion?

 

[maineman]

Who to believe the DCI or the people that wrote the law.... Seems to me you are busy telling RSR that opinions do not matter, so why bring in the DCI's opinion?

if you would like to show me the text of the law instead of people's opinions about the law, I would be more than grateful.

My point is: If I am the director of central intelligence, I KNOW who I have on the payroll that is covert.

The "opinions" I have read about the law all talk about "being stationed" overseas, but when I read a segment of that law, I do not recall "being stationed" overseas as part of it, but some other more vague wording such as "working overseas" or "serving overseas" As you well know, if you ever deployed with a fleet unit, you certainly "served" overseas, but you were "stationed" in Little Creek or San Diego, or Charleston

 

[Truthmatters]

Wow you guys have convinced me.

The the insults and the picture really say it all.

You are consumate debate masters.

This is what your party is left with?

You and your party have been wrong about all your assertions the last 6years and you call others silly names?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA!

BTW Plame was Covert.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

if you would like to show me the text of the law instead of people's opinions about the law, I would be more than grateful.

My point is: If I am the director of central intelligence, I KNOW who I have on the payroll that is covert.

The "opinions" I have read about the law all talk about "being stationed" overseas, but when I read a segment of that law, I do not recall "being stationed" overseas as part of it, but some other more vague wording such as "working overseas" or "serving overseas" As you well know, if you ever deployed with a fleet unit, you certainly "served" overseas, but you were "stationed" in Little Creek or San Diego, or Charleston

Your insistance that the people that CREATED the law are immaterial in its meaning is either because your being disengenious , partisan or....

By the wasn't it you quoting members of the committee that wrote the Constitution and certain laws as proof of what they meant?

 

[Truthmatters]

You people seem to forget that he didnt just say "hey sehs covert".

You see he has access to the documentation which proves she covert.

You see he presented the ecvidence to the Judge and to congress she was covert.

Now tell me why the CIA made acomplaint in the first place if they couldnt prove Plame was protected?

Why would an investigation ensue?

WHO WOULD BE THE PERSON WHO WOULD DEMAND A COURT DETERMINE HER COVERT?

It is complete rediculesness you people argue this point as if it makes talking about our intell in such a reckless and political way is OK.

What did they gain from doing so?

They swirled a little dust around the idea that a LIE they told was outed by someone who placed his Country above politics unlike themselves.

 

[maineman]

Your insistance that the people that CREATED the law are immaterial in its meaning is either because your being disengenious , partisan or....

By the wasn't it you quoting members of the committee that wrote the Constitution and certain laws as proof of what they meant?

After I got out of the Navy, I worked for a few terms as the Chief of Staff for the Assistant Senate Majority Leader of the Maine State Senate - and would probably still be there if term limits had not kicked in.

I drafted legislation all the time. All the time. It was one of the biggest things that I did. And after I drafted it, nearly every single piece of legislation that I drafted (on behalf of my boss) was submitted to the revisor of statutes to be put in legalese...it was taken up by a joint standing committee of the legislature... hearings were held, closed sesssions of committee caucuses were held... changes were submitted... amendments offered.... new bills redrafted by committee clerks based upon all of that.... the bills were then sent to the floor where floor amendments were offered and voted upon... and, if the other chamber had voted on different floor amendments, a conference committee had to meet and iron out the differences. In every single case, what was passed into law, only vaguely resembled what I had written.

Now...I ask you again: if you are so sure that the LAW clearly and unambiguously states that Valerie Plame was NOT covert, all you have to do is go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ ... open the law in question, copy that section of the law which proves your case, and post it here.

I'll wait....

or are you going to continue to bluster and say that the guy who drafted the law is the final arbiter here?

I think I know what option you will chose.

 

[Care4all]

Victoria Toensing, who helped write the law, has said on many occassions, you have to be stationed out of the US within the past six years, to be considered covert

Minor detail to you MM, but that is in the law

Victoria Toensing is not a legislator and not a Congressman or a Senator for the united states of America...

She did not debate this law on the floor of the house/senate, she did not make amendments to this law on the House or Senate floor, her opinion in how she wanted the law to be meant has no berring on this law.

For all we know what she wrote did say stationed overseas, but the legislators changed it to be read "served in a foreign country in a covert status"?

This is why I do not pay attention to what Victoria thinks the law means RSR, because she DID NOT create the Law, she was just one among many working on putting together a bill, and by no means what she thought it to mean is what it meant when it left the Conference on it and passed, and signed by our legislators and president.

Care

 

[RetiredGySgt]

After I got out of the Navy, I worked for a few terms as the Chief of Staff for the Assistant Senate Majority Leader of the Maine State Senate - and would probably still be there if term limits had not kicked in.

I drafted legislation all the time. All the time. It was one of the biggest things that I did. And after I drafted it, nearly every single piece of legislation that I drafted (on behalf of my boss) was submitted to the revisor of statutes to be put in legalese...it was taken up by a joint standing committee of the legislature... hearings were held, closed sesssions of committee caucuses were held... changes were submitted... amendments offered.... new bills redrafted by committee clerks based upon all of that.... the bills were then sent to the floor where floor amendments were offered and voted upon... and, if the other chamber had voted on different floor amendments, a conference committee had to meet and iron out the differences. In every single case, what was passed into law, only vaguely resembled what I had written.

Now...I ask you again: if you are so sure that the LAW clearly and unambiguously states that Valerie Plame was NOT covert, all you have to do is go to http://thomas.loc.gov/ ... open the law in question, copy that section of the law which proves your case, and post it here.

I'll wait....

or are you going to continue to bluster and say that the guy who drafted the law is the final arbiter here?

I think I know what option you will chose.

I have said as have others that a COURT needs to make a ruling, are you AFRAID of the decision they will make? You and I can argue all we want, doesn't mean a hill of beans. Is it not, though, telling , that NO one was charged with much less convicted of Outing ANYONE? We have your liberal buddies INSISTING that there is tons of proof that not only did Libby out her as a CIA employee ( factually incorrect since all one need do is call the CIA and THEY freely admitted she worked there) but that he SPECIFICALLY stated she was a COVERT asset. Further the claim by the Prosecutor is that even though Libby wouldn't say it, the Vice President ordered it, again with NO factual evidence what so ever.

We have a man tried and convicted on charges that have ZERO to do with the investigation or claims that started the Investigation. No crime was committed EXCEPT, if you believe the Prosecutor ones created by said prosecutor when he could NOT prove any of the allegations were true. No evidence at all that the Vice president did ANY of the things the Prosecutor claims or if there is, why wasn't HE charged? No evidence that Plume was KNOWINGLY outed AS a Covert asset ( or are you now going to argue that just saying she worked for the CIA meets the standard of the law). You, as usual are playing word games in an effort to win "points"

 

[Truthmatters]

Good old Vicky is not holding the information whcih shows wether Plame met the perameters of the law anyway.


I dont recall any judge ever demanding to talk to the person who wrote the law to be able to make a judgement?