Valerie Plame....Idiot Bimbo Or Scheming Witch?

[Care4all]

change the subject much...?

The "yellowcake from Africa/Niger...." is the 16 words of fame, (THE LIE) that Bush made in his State of the Union address....silly one, now get out of your rabbit hole and face up to it... Wilson was CORRECT, the CIA was correct...there was no proof of Saddam acquiring yellowcake from Niger, and the supposed document that stated such from Italy was a blatant and obvious FORGERY as well....

this has been proven, it is FACT...so stop living in the yester year of multiple lies that the previous administration perpetrated.

This is my thread....I can talk about anything I please. Why you're still here baffles me....I already proved you know nothing about the CIA and it's protocols, employee classifications, or types of activity.....Now you say Wilson was "right"? About what....what he couldn't find? I've already proven Wilson was a political operative not a spy....he had no training, no skills, no contacts in Niger.....they laughed at his clumsy questions and he fled home to his bimbo...You source nothing and when you do it's meaningless.....like Congressional testimony....anybody can say anything before Congress....who ever gets charged with perjury? Nobody...not Holder, not Lerner, not the old creep from the IRS...nobody.

What you proved was that YOU my dear one, have NO idea on the positions at the CIA and protocols and this has been shown over and over again in this thread. You have also proven that you are a miserable, foul mouthed, low life that does not have the ability to understand what is right before him, or better yet, so insecure with his own manhood that he has to continue to perpetrate the lies that he began with, even though he was succinctly and clearly proven wrong, via several factual articles, and documents from hearings, just because he is not man enough to state that he was wrong.

And trying to /intimidate/throw a poster out of your own thread who has only spoken and written on the topic of the thread is another indication that you don't have your own head screwed on right or have insecurity problems.

No one pushes me around or intimidates me.... get used to it.

 

[Care4all]

Well, this thread has clearly shown that despite the fact that those who claim Plame wasn't covert and insist on it based on absolutely no facts, this exposed who are easily manipulated.
To Plame being covert, facts by posters clearly show Plame was covert, it's undeniable. Yet, the small-minded chose to believe talking points that have been clearly and soundly debunked. Is there a better example of people being so controlled that they have the complete inability to see the light?
It amazes me that people like this are able to go through life unattended.

Plame herself couldn't prove she was "covert" you dithering asshole....

The CIA filed the complaint, that she was a covert agent that was publicly outed.

Patrick Fitzgerald was called in as a special investigator/prosecutor to see if the complaint was even valid by the CIA, Fitzgerald then confirmed that the CIA was correct, she did meet the job description of a covert agent and did meet the criteria of the Statute/Law covering such outings, and then he proceeded with his investigation on the outing itself....

It is ALL in the links we gave from Patrick Fitzgerald and what he presented to the court/grand jury....

Why don't you read them?

 

[BullKurtz]

[
What you proved was that YOU my dear one, have NO idea on the positions at the CIA and protocols and this has been shown over and over again in this thread. You have also proven that you are a miserable, foul mouthed, low life that does not have the ability to understand what is right before him, or better yet, so insecure with his own manhood that he has to continue to perpetrate the lies that he began with, even though he was succinctly and clearly proven wrong, via several factual articles, and documents from hearings, just because he is not man enough to state that he was wrong.

And trying to /intimidate/throw a poster out of your own thread who has only spoken and written on the topic of the thread is another indication that you don't have your own head screwed on right or have insecurity problems.

No one pushes me around or intimidates me.... get used to it.

I've been briefed and debriefed by CIA officers 17 times...and you?
Trying to insult me is a fool's errand, fool....I have no higher regard for your stupid ass than I do for a panhandling bum yelling at cars on a traffic island.....get used to it.

 

[Camp]

so you go and use the very newspapers that the administration tried to use to promote their propaganda through 'unnamed administrative officials' and I use the congressional hearings and court documents where officials had to testify under oath....

hmmmm, who to believe?

Wilson told the truth, Saddam did not purchase yellowcake from Niger...Saddam did not have nukes and Saddam was not trying to develope his nuclear program. PERIOD

You mean the Congressional hearings where Republicans weren't allowed to cross examine Plame? Yeah, those were informative.

Plame isn't capable of telling the truth, and neither are you.

It's a hearing, not a trial. There is no such thing as a cross examination in a hearing.

Of course there is, numskull. Normally both sides get to ask questions of any witness.

The next thing Republicans are going to claim is Plume was never in the CIA and it was an Obama-Kenyan plot to take over the White House. I guess I just gave Breitbart it's lead story for the next week.

Yeah, right, and we like to eat babies.

You just don't know the difference between asking questions and a cross examination. Look in the mirror to see the numskull.

There is no difference, you fucking numskull.

There is a huge difference, but trying to educate someone like you is like talking to a wall. The numskull is you. You do not understand the rules and laws that regulate the questions that can be asked and the protocols for asking those questions in the two distinctly different environments. Cross examining is a court procedure with strict judicial rules about the questions that can be asked. That is why you hear objections to questions being asked and a judge determining if the question can be answered. A legislative hearing is conducted on an entirely different set of protocols and rules. A cross examination is what it implies. It ask questions about testimony that has been given and only testimony that has already been given. It reexamines testimony of a witness. A hearing concentrates on bringing about answers to specific questions presented at the will a individual law makers. Law makers are not restricted to asking about answers previously submitted testimony. There is much more, but you aren't going to get any of it because of who and what you are. Explaining how opinions are not valid responses in a court room unless specified by a judge who may allow opinions from an expert witness, and make it clear to a jury that the witness is offering an opinion, and the fact that hearings are often specifically targeted towards opinions of witnesses is beyond you comprehension. One system allows for very limited critical or abstract thinking for obtaining a consensus while the other greatly invites critical and abstract thinking for reaching a consensus.

 

[BullKurtz]

The CIA filed the complaint, that she was a covert agent that was publicly outed.

Patrick Fitzgerald was called in as a special investigator/prosecutor to see if the complaint was even valid by the CIA, Fitzgerald then confirmed that the CIA was correct, she did meet the job description of a covert agent and did meet the criteria of the Statute/Law covering such outings, and then he proceeded with his investigation on the outing itself....

It is ALL in the links we gave from Patrick Fitzgerald and what he presented to the court/grand jury....

Why don't you read them?

Your links are garbage refuted time after time....nothing but trash from left wing media types trying to get Bush because he whipped Gore for the WH. The CIA complaint to the DOJ wasn't about Plame, it was about the supposed "leak" from the administration. By the time Fitzgerald was called in, the WH already knew what had happened and asked him to look into it. Fitz saw an opportunity to make a name for himself and proceeded with the most unethical, wrong, and kangaroo court tactics seen in years....even worse than the Duke lacrosse players fiasco. Plame is an idiot....a cocktail party chippy who used her vagina to pry information out of her tricks...there is no evidence she was ever sent outside an embassy in any of her foreign assignments....she was in fact, a very well paid prostitute.

 

[BullKurtz]

There is a huge difference, but trying to educate someone like you is like talking to a wall. The numskull is you. You do not understand the rules and laws that regulate the questions that can be asked and the protocols for asking those questions in the two distinctly different environments. Cross examining is a court procedure with strict judicial rules about the questions that can be asked. That is why you hear objections to questions being asked and a judge determining if the question can be answered. A legislative hearing is conducted on an entirely different set of protocols and rules. A cross examination is what it implies. It ask questions about testimony that has been given and only testimony that has already been given. It reexamines testimony of a witness. A hearing concentrates on bringing about answers to specific questions presented at the will a individual law makers. Law makers are not restricted to asking about answers previously submitted testimony. There is much more, but you aren't going to get any of it because of who and what you are. Explaining how opinions are not valid responses in a court room unless specified by a judge who may allow opinions from an expert witness, and make it clear to a jury that the witness is offering an opinion, and the fact that hearings are often specifically targeted towards opinions of witnesses is beyond you comprehension. One system allows for very limited critical or abstract thinking for obtaining a consensus while the other greatly invites critical and abstract thinking for reaching a consensus.

I don't read your childish garbage...nobody does, troll. Your opinion of me is less important than the neighbor's dog or a bird up in one of my trees. You're a joke.

 

[Camp]

change the subject much...?

The "yellowcake from Africa/Niger...." is the 16 words of fame, (THE LIE) that Bush made in his State of the Union address....silly one, now get out of your rabbit hole and face up to it... Wilson was CORRECT, the CIA was correct...there was no proof of Saddam acquiring yellowcake from Niger, and the supposed document that stated such from Italy was a blatant and obvious FORGERY as well....

this has been proven, it is FACT...so stop living in the yester year of multiple lies that the previous administration perpetrated.

This is my thread....I can talk about anything I please. Why you're still here baffles me....I already proved you know nothing about the CIA and it's protocols, employee classifications, or types of activity.....Now you say Wilson was "right"? About what....what he couldn't find? I've already proven Wilson was a political operative not a spy....he had no training, no skills, no contacts in Niger.....they laughed at his clumsy questions and he fled home to his bimbo...You source nothing and when you do it's meaningless.....like Congressional testimony....anybody can say anything before Congress....who ever gets charged with perjury? Nobody...not Holder, not Lerner, not the old creep from the IRS...nobody.

What do you mean it is your thread? This is a public message board and control of it belongs to the owners of it. They give authority of that control to administrators and moderators. Just because you started a thread with an OP doesn't mean you own it. By the way, you have proven nothing to back up your OP. The readers of this thread determine whether you have proven anything or not. So far it appears the folks answering the thread seem to be making you look like a total ass. The few folks offering any support to your nonsense are doing a piss poor job of backing you up.

 

[Camp]

There is a huge difference, but trying to educate someone like you is like talking to a wall. The numskull is you. You do not understand the rules and laws that regulate the questions that can be asked and the protocols for asking those questions in the two distinctly different environments. Cross examining is a court procedure with strict judicial rules about the questions that can be asked. That is why you hear objections to questions being asked and a judge determining if the question can be answered. A legislative hearing is conducted on an entirely different set of protocols and rules. A cross examination is what it implies. It ask questions about testimony that has been given and only testimony that has already been given. It reexamines testimony of a witness. A hearing concentrates on bringing about answers to specific questions presented at the will a individual law makers. Law makers are not restricted to asking about answers previously submitted testimony. There is much more, but you aren't going to get any of it because of who and what you are. Explaining how opinions are not valid responses in a court room unless specified by a judge who may allow opinions from an expert witness, and make it clear to a jury that the witness is offering an opinion, and the fact that hearings are often specifically targeted towards opinions of witnesses is beyond you comprehension. One system allows for very limited critical or abstract thinking for obtaining a consensus while the other greatly invites critical and abstract thinking for reaching a consensus.

I don't read your childish garbage...nobody does, troll. Your opinion of me is less important than the neighbor's dog or a bird up in one of my trees. You're a joke.

That post was not addressed to you Mr. Fake USMC.

 

[BullKurtz]

That post was not addressed to you Mr. Fake USMC.

"fake"? C'mon shit bag...tell me all about it.

 

[bripat9643]

You mean the Congressional hearings where Republicans weren't allowed to cross examine Plame? Yeah, those were informative.

Plame isn't capable of telling the truth, and neither are you.

It's a hearing, not a trial. There is no such thing as a cross examination in a hearing.

Of course there is, numskull. Normally both sides get to ask questions of any witness.

The next thing Republicans are going to claim is Plume was never in the CIA and it was an Obama-Kenyan plot to take over the White House. I guess I just gave Breitbart it's lead story for the next week.

Yeah, right, and we like to eat babies.

You just don't know the difference between asking questions and a cross examination. Look in the mirror to see the numskull.

There is no difference, you fucking numskull.

There is a huge difference, but trying to educate someone like you is like talking to a wall. The numskull is you. You do not understand the rules and laws that regulate the questions that can be asked and the protocols for asking those questions in the two distinctly different environments. Cross examining is a court procedure with strict judicial rules about the questions that can be asked. That is why you hear objections to questions being asked and a judge determining if the question can be answered. A legislative hearing is conducted on an entirely different set of protocols and rules. A cross examination is what it implies. It ask questions about testimony that has been given and only testimony that has already been given. It reexamines testimony of a witness. A hearing concentrates on bringing about answers to specific questions presented at the will a individual law makers. Law makers are not restricted to asking about answers previously submitted testimony. There is much more, but you aren't going to get any of it because of who and what you are. Explaining how opinions are not valid responses in a court room unless specified by a judge who may allow opinions from an expert witness, and make it clear to a jury that the witness is offering an opinion, and the fact that hearings are often specifically targeted towards opinions of witnesses is beyond you comprehension. One system allows for very limited critical or abstract thinking for obtaining a consensus while the other greatly invites critical and abstract thinking for reaching a consensus.

Your anal retentive obsession with legal minutia fails to divert us from the facts, which is that Republicans were not allowed to ask meaning full questions of Plame. The Senate hearing was therefore nothing more than a dog and pony show where Democrats got to regurgitate all their propaganda on the issue before then entire nation.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well, this thread has clearly shown that despite the fact that those who claim Plame wasn't covert and insist on it based on absolutely no facts, this exposed who are easily manipulated.
To Plame being covert, facts by posters clearly show Plame was covert, it's undeniable. Yet, the small-minded chose to believe talking points that have been clearly and soundly debunked. Is there a better example of people being so controlled that they have the complete inability to see the light?
It amazes me that people like this are able to go through life unattended.

Plame herself couldn't prove she was "covert" you dithering asshole....

How many times do I have to repeat that the CIA Director Hayden wrote to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a statement that Plame was indeed covert? That's a fact.
You choose to ignore facts but you readily accept non-factual talking points. That says a lot about you.
Oh and by the way, do you have any facts to prove Plame couldn't prove she was covert?
Plame stated under oath she was covert and had traveled out of the country under aliases. Testifying under oath is something that neither Bush or Cheney did in the case of Plame.

 

[TooTall]

Now, there's an "unbiased" source.

Dispute it or bounce, troll.

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

Wrong!

 

[Care4all]

Now, there's an "unbiased" source.

Dispute it or bounce, troll.

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

 

[depotoo]

No, they didn't-

• Obstruction of justice for lying to the grand jury about being told by Russert that Plame worked at the CIA and all the reporters working the story knew it; lying about being surprised by Russert's "news" and telling the grand jury that he told Cooper what he had "heard" from Russert;

• False statements to the FBI about his alleged conversation with Russert. Libby told the FBI he was surprised by this statement because he had forgotten that the vice president already told him of Plame's status;

• Perjury to the grand jury about his conversation with Russert, and telling the grand jury he was "taken aback" to learn from Russert that Plame worked at the CIA; and

• Perjury to the grand jury about his conversation with Cooper, in which he supposedly told Cooper he had heard from other reporters that Plame worked for the CIA.
And lastly-
CNN.com - Armitage admits leaking Plame s identity - Sep 8 2006

sadly he was never charged, even after admitting to it.

Now, there's an "unbiased" source.

Dispute it or bounce, troll.

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well, this thread has clearly shown that despite the fact that those who claim Plame wasn't covert and insist on it based on absolutely no facts, this exposed who are easily manipulated.
To Plame being covert, facts by posters clearly show Plame was covert, it's undeniable. Yet, the small-minded chose to believe talking points that have been clearly and soundly debunked. Is there a better example of people being so controlled that they have the complete inability to see the light?
It amazes me that people like this are able to go through life unattended.

It's interesting to observe the way left-wingers delude themselves. It's like they live in a parallel universe where the events that you just observed never happened, and visa-versa.

The above post by BriPat is a perfect example of deflection.Congratulation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, there's an "unbiased" source.

Dispute it or bounce, troll.

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

No, he didn't lie.
His memory of an event was different from Tim Russert's.

 

[kiwiman127]

The CIA filed the complaint, that she was a covert agent that was publicly outed.

Patrick Fitzgerald was called in as a special investigator/prosecutor to see if the complaint was even valid by the CIA, Fitzgerald then confirmed that the CIA was correct, she did meet the job description of a covert agent and did meet the criteria of the Statute/Law covering such outings, and then he proceeded with his investigation on the outing itself....

It is ALL in the links we gave from Patrick Fitzgerald and what he presented to the court/grand jury....

Why don't you read them?

Your links are garbage refuted time after time....nothing but trash from left wing media types trying to get Bush because he whipped Gore for the WH. The CIA complaint to the DOJ wasn't about Plame, it was about the supposed "leak" from the administration. By the time Fitzgerald was called in, the WH already knew what had happened and asked him to look into it. Fitz saw an opportunity to make a name for himself and proceeded with the most unethical, wrong, and kangaroo court tactics seen in years....even worse than the Duke lacrosse players fiasco. Plame is an idiot....a cocktail party chippy who used her vagina to pry information out of her tricks...there is no evidence she was ever sent outside an embassy in any of her foreign assignments....she was in fact, a very well paid prostitute.

Plame was " very well paid prostitute", got a link? Provide a link or admit you're a liar. Be a man and admit that you lied or be a pussy and don't admit it. Of course not doing either would be the pussy way out, which is a disgrace all those who served in the Marines. Which is it?

 

[kiwiman127]

Now, there's an "unbiased" source.

Dispute it or bounce, troll.

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

No, he didn't lie.
His memory of an event was different from Tim Russert's.

 

[JimH52]

Wilson told the truth, Saddam did not purchase yellowcake from Niger...Saddam did not have nukes and Saddam was not trying to develope his nuclear program. PERIOD

Prove it....oh, you can't? so why are you still here, moron?

Have you been living in a hole? Sheesh....

Look, Texas republicans have proven that they are capable of rewritting history books. I expect the gop will continue to rewrite history until soon they will "prove" with their fake history that Iraq attacked us on 9/11....WAIT....THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING NOW.....

Here's to all you gop LIARS!

 

[JimH52]

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

On July 14, 2003,Washington Post journalistRobert Novak, using information obtained fromRichard Armitageat the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[34][35]Legal documents published in the course of theCIA leak grand jury investigation,United States v. Libby, andCongressionalinvestigations, establish her classified employment as acovertofficer for the CIA at the time when Novak's column was published in July 2003.[35][36][37]

The five-count indictment of Libby includedperjury(two counts),obstruction of justice(one count), andmaking false statementstofederal investigators(two counts). There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak.

So actually, fat boy Armitage should be in jail also? And Obama let these frigin crooks slide They screwed over all Americans with their "fake" war criteria. SCUM IS SCUM IS SCUM....