Firestarter

"There's a town in Alabama that wants to abolish all laws except the Ten Commandments." "I saw it." "Well, they're gonna have a problem." "Because the Constitution prohibits religious activity in any form connected to Government?" "Good point! Two problems." "Sam, I'm busy here." "I just mean that some of those Commandments are pretty hard to enforce... Leo, did you know there's a town in Alabama that wants to -" "Yes." "What do you think?" "Coveting thy neighbour's wife's gonna cause some problems." "That's what I said. Plus, if I were arrested for coveting my neighbour's wife, I'd probably bear false witness." - The West Wing, Take Out the Trash Day

I liked that story. <g> You should continue it.

The only reason I'm reading this thread is because I'm also interested in seeing stardust's boobs.

Because you're right, and most people don't like to hear anything as disgusting as the truth coming out of anyone's mouth. I'm gay and I'm not insulted. I can't be insulted by a bald statement of the facts.

The only people who look worse than Fox are the idiots who granted them a fucking trademark for the phrase "fair and balanced." Tyler was right: they seem to think they own the English language. And to sue over this? Jesus, what a bunch of whining pussies.

Ditto everything Agent said. This isn't admirable in any way; it's merely ridiculous.

And so, theoretically, we're reduced to using BOB NOVAK as our menacing enforcer. I'm sorry, I can't make fun of this right now. I'm on the phone right now with a co-worker and we're laughing ourselves silly over the idea. "Hey hey hey hey hey! I - I - I hope they don't drag out the REALLY big guns to beat back our Novak offensive... y'know..." "You - you don't mean..." "Yeah... MAUREEN DOWD!" Oh my goodness. I can't see straight, I'll be back later.

See Tyler, I'm not telling a story. I'm just asking you to provide evidence for yours. I don't believe every ridiculous fairy-tale that comes my way. You seem to. The onus isn't on me to provide evidence that your airhead fantasy didn't happen; the onus is on Bob Novak to provide his sources or on you to provide independent confirmation. Failing that I will take these unsubstantiated allegations of a "smear campaign" for what they're worth. Zero.

Your point being? This ridiculously elementary point has never been denied. It has never even come up in this thread.

No. I'm assuming someone else told him - if it's true. Unlike you, I am NOT assuming that someone in the administration told him, because there is absolutely ZERO proof of that. It's well-known that Bob Novak doesn't like the President or his administration, and the President's administration generally doesn't like Novak. I find it absolutely incredible that he would be chosen for such a leak IF anyone were unprincipled enough to leak such things in the first place. IF it's true.

Cite one which doesn't use Novak's column as its basis.

And it's even more unheard of for a journalist to lie. Their integrity and credibility are far, far less questionable than any intelligence official's. After all, the New York Times has gone 152 years without printing a single falsehood!

My memory must be failing. I can't remember when the President put BOB FUCKING NOVAK on the federal payroll. Jesus Christ, is that the best you can do? "The administration" turns into a fucking COLUMNIST? You pathetic little shit. As for the rest of the story, it's nothing more than senior official this, senior official that. When a reporter claims he was told something by an anonymous "senior intelligence official," 99.999% of the time he was sitting at home in his boxers, scratching his ass, while he invented the "information." Unattributed quotes are not proof.

The administration has never done anything of the sort. No one in the White House has ever done anything of the sort. Kindly provide some proof for your ridiculous slander. But you can't, can you? This is an invented story, and you've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, without any proof at all because it fits with your preconceived notions about the President and his administration. You never even thought of looking for proof because you were too busy jacking off to this fairy-tale. You are a liar and a fool. Since your username is Tyler McClelland, I don't expect anything from you at all. Yet in an article he wrote himself, Wilson says that his "methods" consisted of spending In short: he was never on the ground and he was not cleared for access to any past or current intelligence. Wilson is not an intelligence operative, he is not an analyst, and he is not the DCI. All he knows is what people in Niger were paid to tell him. Based on that unverified and unverifiable information (he never had any power to demand official documents, nor did he have the resources to analyse his informants and their statements in depth), your ilk feels that he's a more credible source than MI6 and the NCIS. Sorry, I'm not buying that. Their people tend to do a bit more than drink mint tea on assignment, and I'll take their conclusions over his. Incorrect. For the third time: the allegations in question have not been publicly corroborated at this time. No one has proven them false to any degree.

I'm sick and tired of you, Tyler. You don't know who Joe Wilson is; he's just a bunch of letters in a New York Times op-ed to you. You don't know what he did, where he went, or whom he met. You don't know anything. You don't know who "smeared" him or why, or whether it was justified or whether any of the criticisms of him and his report were sound, or if they'd been brought up by others in the past. You don't know how his "investigation" was conducted and you don't know how he got the appointments he did and why. If I told you you'd dismiss it all as propaganda, propaganda invented by people desperate (God knows why) to thrust the country into a war with a poor harmless little tyrant who posed no threat to us. You wouldn't even bother to read it because your ideology preconceives the majority of your positions, and nine times out of ten you won't bother to read anything that might indicate that you were wrong. Hell, you don't even read the articles you yourself quote as proof positive of your idiotic views. It says that the official view of all government agencies is and always has been that the trailers were mobile bioweapons labs. "Anonymous sources" have supposedly contradicted this in private to the "reporter." Translation: even if he didn't just pull it out of his ass, he was shown precisely zero evidence for the claim. He chose to publish it because of his ideological bent - wait, what am I saying? The New York Times isn't liberal at all, is it, Tyler? Christ. Having this conversation with you is like trying to tell a donkey why eating crabgrass and rotten Spam gives it the runs, illustrating the molecular composition of its intake with diagrams, and using flipcharts to show how their breakdown in its digestive system affects its proper functioning. The donkey isn't interested, it eats the flipcharts, and it still brays all night. And it still has the runs. Hee-haw, Tyler. Hee-haw.

Okay.

I think the word you were looking for there was "assertion," slugger. Anyway, are you an official part of the Dean election campaign? Like, something more than a born-again volunteer whose dad's friend knows this guy whose sister once dated a dude who knows Dean's best friend's brother's daughter-in-law, and who therefore considers himself a privileged "insider" preaching the virtues of "his" candidate to the ignorant masses?

As for your nonsense about the mobile bioweapons labs, I notice that you got your story from the Times, as usual. Here's a less biased source which actually gets the facts right: -NBC

That's nice, too. But not all of us have five seconds to spare for the New York Times. If an article requires registration or "just a few quick questions" or a fucking trivia quiz to read, quote the damn thing and don't link to it. This forum is a pimp-free zone and nothing requires me to accept your solicitations in order to follow a thread. Whore your liberal bullshit somewhere else.

That's nice.

Once more: the allegations have not been publicly corroborated. Neither the CIA nor anyone else has proven them false to any degree.

Fair enough.

Yes.

Ditto Vern.

It is neither "bad intel" nor is it a "flat out lie." It is merely information that we have not as yet publicly corroborated. You should all try a little harder to avoid making bald assertions based in ignorance.