Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband

[Scott J]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
Scott,
The bottom-line here that you are failing to grasp is that my post on the history of G.W.'s administration is the only well researched, true history put forth on this thread. The way it was written is how I gather information. I read, and I read a lot. I never read without a highlighter with me to mark the quotes, or topics I want to return to. When I want to do a study on someone, or a period of history, I pull together all the books that I have read on it, go through them and pull out the relevant highlights and make compile a notepad full of facts on the topic I intend to write about. Then I sit down and put all of this data together in a readable format, tweak it a few times, then put forth for your reading pleasure and for your educational benefit.
So, thusly, rather than just throwing your opinions where you believe that I am wrong. Prove them, I happily stand by mine, it is well researched, well written, and true.

Then why aren't you able to answer my question?

Or admit that you got it wrong?

It's an easy thing, and you still haven't done it.

Here it is again:

Can you provide some verifiable evidence that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent at the time she was exposed as a CIA agent by the press?

Please answer the question before you tell me about your 'study habits' once again. I have no doubt you 'highlight' your books.

I'm really not impressed with your research is you can't back up the assertions you make with something that verifys them.

And if you can't do that... eat some crow like the rest of us when we're shown to be incorrect and admit that you were in error.

That's really the problem here... and it's your problem.

[Scott J]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
So, thusly, rather than just throwing your opinions where you believe that I am wrong. Prove them, I happily stand by mine, it is well researched, well written, and true.

This is the third time I've had to present this evidence to you. If you find an affidavit from the CIA submitted to the court to be specious, I'd appreciate why you think so. See the attached URL.

It's thirty pages long and in PDF format so I can't cut and paste very easily, but the relevant paragraph is at the bottom of page 2. You can refer to the entire document if you wish, but the CIA affadavit submitted in the court case states the following:

"At the time of the unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

The entire document can be viewed at:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/files/L ...

I've repeatedly asked youfor verifiable proof as to your assertion, then where is your contravening evidence?

Or where you incorrect in your assertion?

[jingjing]

Jim Says wrote:

With Obama's lack of experience, and the naive comments that he has made about foreign policy already, I believe if he were to be elected our enemies would be encouraged to attack us. It wouldn't surprise me if we didn't lose two or three major cities such as N.Y., L.A., and D.C., maybe even Chicago.
http://www.usawakeup.org/

And mayb if we're lucky, he'll start with you.

[Scott J]

By the way, your post #10156 states:

'I have always backed up my assertions with proof'

and your post #10159 states:

'She wasn't covert first of all'.

which sort of sounds like an assertion to me.

Please do as you've claimed and provide the proof you claim you have.

[SOBE]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
Scott,
The bottom-line here that you are failing to grasp is that my post on the history of G.W.'s administration is the only well researched, true history put forth on this thread. The way it was written is how I gather information. I read, and I read a lot. I never read without a highlighter with me to mark the quotes, or topics I want to return to. When I want to do a study on someone, or a period of history, I pull together all the books that I have read on it, go through them and pull out the relevant highlights and make compile a notepad full of facts on the topic I intend to write about. Then I sit down and put all of this data together in a readable format, tweak it a few times, then put forth for your reading pleasure and for your educational benefit.
So, thusly, rather than just throwing your opinions where you believe that I am wrong. Prove them, I happily stand by mine, it is well researched, well written, and true.

He uses a highlighter so it all must be true! LOL

[SOBE]

Plame was a covert agent

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/29/plam...

[SOBE]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/25/state-oba...

More of the same with McBush

[SOBE]

jingjing wrote:

<quoted text>And mayb if we're lucky, he'll start with you.

This guy reminds me of Ann Fan. Paranoid, delusional, homophobic dumb a s s. His IQ thing in the name pretty tells you right off the bat what he's about.

[Scott J]

I have an uncle who reminds me alot of 'Jim Says'.

He retired and started writing novels. The family humored him and read them(or tried to read them).

He went through what I suppose most aspiring novelists do to try and get his books published for quite a long time.

He was finally subjected to the humiliation of being personally rejected by school administrators and librarians who told him they weren't interested in putting his 'really interesting' stories on the shelves of their school librarys 'so the kids could read some really interesting stories' after he had them printed up at a vanity press.

It turned out that Uncle Jack was suffering from the initial stages of Alzheimer's disease. He's now locked up in a home so he won't wander off any more.(No joke)

[SOBE]

Jim do you have extra wide doors at home?

[SOBE]

Scott J wrote:

By the way, your post #10156 states:
'I have always backed up my assertions with proof'
and your post #10159 states:
'She wasn't covert first of all'.
which sort of sounds like an assertion to me.
Please do as you've claimed and provide the proof you claim you have.

Yeah but did you use a highlighter????

[SOBE]

If this isn't a smack in the face. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're idiots.

Bush:‘No regime should ignore the will of its own people.’»
In a statement regarding new sanctions against Zimbabwe today, President Bush declares that “no regime should ignore the will of its own people“:

The regime has also continued its ban against NGO activities that would provide assistance to the suffering and vulnerable people of Zimbabwe. No regime should ignore the will of its own people and calls from the international community without consequences.

TPM’s Eric Kleefeld notes the irony of the Bush administration, which proudly ignores public opinion in the United States, instructing other countries to listen to “the will of its own people.” Kleefeld suggests that the administration look at “the direction of polling data at home — not to mention international opinion — showing that people want a timetable to withdraw from Iraq.”

[SOBE]

This is off topix, but what in the world is in the water over there??? 8 Limbs, two faces, geesh!

http://www.weirdasianews.com/2008/07/24/2-fac...

[Oil]

US Citizen 07 wrote:

WOW! A "must read" article for all online activists..........
Pelosi and Gore Address the Netroots Nation Conference
Netroots Nation or Nation of Sheep?
By RONNIE CUMMINS
Saturday morning, July 19. Sitting here at the Netroots Nation conference in Austin, Texas with several thousand other online activists. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Party Speaker of the House, the third most powerful politician in the United States, is up on the podium, doing her best to damp down the mounting criticism of the Democratic Party's shameful collaboration in funding the war and aiding and abetting the Bush administration's shredding of the Constitution.
Before Pelosi speaks, an announcement is made from the podium that disruptions will not be tolerated--if any of us express our frustrations too passionately with Pelosi and the sell-out Democratic Party leadership we will be arrested. The first question the Netroots moderator poses to Pelosi is about impeachment. This generates considerable applause and cheers from the crowd. Pelosi, notorious for proclaiming that "impeachment is off the table," artfully dodges the question and evasively talks about censuring the Bush administration and getting tough on Karl Rove. This generates polite clapping from the front of the room, where all the tables have apparently been "reserved" for Pelosi fans. In contrast I can see groans, grimaces, and shaking of heads from many of us, the netroots rabble, sitting at the back of the hall.
I resist a strong urge to get up and leave. How long will the centrist bureaucrats of Netroots Nation and groups like MoveOn roll-over for lowest common denominator Democrats and Barack Obama? After an hour of rather boring rhetoric by Pelosi, Al Gore makes a surprise appearance on the stage, letting Nancy off the hook.
http://www.counterpunch.com/cummins07192008.h...

The judiciary Committee held a hearing on Friday in response to Kucinich resolution to Impeach Bush , but called the meeting Executive powers something. you can find the witness list and discussion on Koz. I watch it for 6 and one half hours. They may replay it this weekend. on C- span. There are a lot of serious people who want this done and don't think its too late. Kucinich also had an Impeachment res. for Cheney in Nov of 2007, which is still on the shelf. Found out that Gonzales was in the process of being Impeached before he resigned. The Constitutional Lawyer that was on the case , was on Fridays Panel. I don't know why Pelosi won't comply to the majority? I think she thinks it will ruin the Dems chances. I think just the opposite it would show the Dems want to put the Constitution in order.

[Jim Says]

Scott J wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why aren't you able to answer my question?
Or admit that you got it wrong?
It's an easy thing, and you still haven't done it.
Here it is again:
Can you provide some verifiable evidence that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent at the time she was exposed as a CIA agent by the press?
Please answer the question before you tell me about your 'study habits' once again. I have no doubt you 'highlight' your books.
I'm really not impressed with your research is you can't back up the assertions you make with something that verifys them.
And if you can't do that... eat some crow like the rest of us when we're shown to be incorrect and admit that you were in error.
That's really the problem here... and it's your problem.

In my Bush study, I never mentioned Plame, or the incident. What I did say was that Libby wasn't charged with outing a covert CIA agent, and wasn't convicted of it either. He was convicted on perjury because the court decided to believe that Tim Russert's fuzzy memory on not remembering telling Libby, was true, and Libby's of thinking Russert told him wasn't.
Do you agree or disagree with that? Frankly, the above is all that is relevant, it was what the entire court case was about.

[Jim Says]

jingjing wrote:

<quoted text>And mayb if we're lucky, he'll start with you.

Who is he?

[Scott J]

SOBE wrote:

This is off topix, but what in the world is in the water over there??? 8 Limbs, two faces, geesh!
http://www.weirdasianews.com/2008/07/24/2-fac...

She'd make a great Republican if she'd been born over here!

[BamBam]

Jim Says wrote:

<quoted text>
Scott,
The bottom-line here that you are failing to grasp is that my post on the history of G.W.'s administration is the only well researched, true history put forth on this thread. The way it was written is how I gather information. I read, and I read a lot. I never read without a highlighter with me to mark the quotes, or topics I want to return to. When I want to do a study on someone, or a period of history, I pull together all the books that I have read on it, go through them and pull out the relevant highlights and make compile a notepad full of facts on the topic I intend to write about. Then I sit down and put all of this data together in a readable format, tweak it a few times, then put forth for your reading pleasure and for your educational benefit.
So, thusly, rather than just throwing your opinions where you believe that I am wrong. Prove them, I happily stand by mine, it is well researched, well written, and true.

Some people use lying as a strategy. You are obviously lying, you continue to get caught and continue to deny even the bald-faced lies.

Don't waste too much time on trying to prove your point with links, you are not "operating" on this blog in good faith.

The consequences of lying
Discovery of a lie tends to discredit other statements by the liar. Another consequence of a discovered lie is that it undermines trust which is a binding agent of human relations. One trusts that another is truthful. When a lie is discovered then the state of mind and behavior of the lie teller is no longer predictable. Trust then decreases and is perhaps even completely withdrawn.

Bald-faced lie - A bald-faced lie is a lie that is told when it is obvious to all concerned that it is a lie. For example a child who has chocolate all over his face and denies that he has eaten the last piece of chocolate cake is a bald-faced liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Consequences...

[SOBE]

Scott J wrote:

<quoted text>
She'd make a great Republican if she'd been born over here!

LMAO With all the McCain flip flopping lately he just might morph into a two facer!

[SOBE]

BamBam wrote:

<quoted text>
Some people use lying as a strategy. You are obviously lying, you continue to get caught and continue to deny even the bald-faced lies.
Don't waste too much time on trying to prove your point with links, you are not "operating" on this blog in good faith.
The consequences of lying
Discovery of a lie tends to discredit other statements by the liar. Another consequence of a discovered lie is that it undermines trust which is a binding agent of human relations. One trusts that another is truthful. When a lie is discovered then the state of mind and behavior of the lie teller is no longer predictable. Trust then decreases and is perhaps even completely withdrawn.
Bald-faced lie - A bald-faced lie is a lie that is told when it is obvious to all concerned that it is a lie. For example a child who has chocolate all over his face and denies that he has eaten the last piece of chocolate cake is a bald-faced liar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie#Consequences...

The sad part is they don't even know they are lying. They really really believe what they are saying. We had Ann Fan, Motorhead and the likes before Jim. But I must say he is totally lost. At least the others finally realized. At least I think, haven't heard from them for awhile. Jimbo here is so full of himself.