Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    It was not intentional, it was not political. It was simply a conversation between Richard Armitage and Robert Novak when they were discussing her husband's role in the yellow cake uranium investigation. A gig that she got him.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
    Personally, I'm uncertain that it was not intentional nor political. It sounds like Ms. Plame was a 'pawn in the the game.'

    A court filing by Libby's defense team argued that Plame was not foremost in the minds of administration officials as they sought to rebut charges – made by her husband – that the White House manipulated intelligence to make a case for invasion. The filing indicated that Libby's lawyers did not intend to say that he was told to reveal Plame's identity.[42] The court filing also stated that "Mr. Libby plans to demonstrate that the indictment is wrong when it suggests that he and other government officials viewed Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa as important," indicating that Libby's lawyers planned to call Karl Rove to the stand. According to Rove's lawyer, Fitzgerald decided against pressing charges against Rove.[34] , The five-count indictment of Libby included perjury (two counts), obstruction of justice (one count), and making false statements to federal 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, or anyone else.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

    ?


    • #77
      Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

      Originally posted by jet57 View Post
      The larger point that you seem to missing is that under Bush, the plame exposure was intentional and very politlical, thus it was intended to be punitive. In the Obama instance; while I find it a real problem, there is nothing in it to find that it was intentional, therefore accidental: bad office skills.

      Michael Savgage is saying that there are Republican moles in the adminstration that are causing these problems and he's very right-wing, so which sounds more plausable to you?
      Oh, I don't doubt the Republicans have moles in the Obama administration. I would be very surprised if there weren't quite a few moles from the opposing party in every administration. Some put there knowingly (by the administration) and some unwittingly hired posers. But it does not make sense to me that someone in Obama's position would hire someone into a higher profile role without a complete and exhaustive background check so the likelihood that "causing these problems" is pretty remote, in my opinion.

      I also account for this as an error. But it was an error, a mistake, nonetheless and the station chief was outed JUST as effectively as he would have been if someone had some nefarious motive. That, in my opinin, is the point of this entire thread: Obama's administration made a mistake and, as Matt pointed out in the OP, the usual suspects (Obama apologists) have shown up (present company excepted) to defend them, minimize the mistake that was made, or deflect responsibility for the mistake onto something else (like "well Bush administration did it too" ... which has zero to do with this current mistake).

      However, I do not believe the Plame affair was purposeful or political.

      ?


      • #78
        Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

        Originally posted by Quinn View Post
        Personally, I'm uncertain that it was not intentional nor political. It sounds like Ms. Plame was a 'pawn in the the game.'


        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame
        Libby didn't out her. From your quote above:

        No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak, or anyone else.
        Robert Novak was delving into the allegations that Mr. Wilson was making about the yellow cake uranium affair. He interviewed Armitage, Colin Powell's assistant and Armitage revealed that Plame was the one who got Mr. Wilson the job of investigating the affair and that he was her husband and she was a CIA operative. Libby had nothing to do with the disclosure, he simply got caught up in the ensuing investigation. And, that was after the Special Prosecutor already knew who outed Plame. The Special Prosecutor was tasked with discovering who outed Plame and he did so the first week into the investigation. Armitage admitted it. The investigation should have stopped at that point. From then on, it was nothing but a witch hunt.
        Last edited by Sluggo; 05-30-2014, 06:17 AM. Reason: Fixed Quote Tags

        ?


        • #79
          Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

          Originally posted by Quinn View Post
          Personally, I'm uncertain that it was not intentional nor political. It sounds like Ms. Plame was a 'pawn in the the game.'


          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

          Valeria Plame herself says:

          CNN) - Another CIA official whose cover was blown by a presidential administration said the inadvertent outing of an intelligence official in Afghanistan by the White House was colossally stupid and will have repercussions for the intelligence community.

          But Valerie Plame, whose identity was infamously leaked by the Bush administration in 2003 and touched off a scandal, said on Wednesday its an apples to oranges comparison as it appears to be a mistake, rather than a malicious takedown.
          ....

          Plame was outed by members of George W. Bushs administration in 2003 after her husband. former ambassador Joe Wilson, was critical of the White House and Iraq war. In a July 2003 column, journalist Robert Novak, citing two senior administration officials, noted that Plame was a CIA operative.

          Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage admitted to first revealing Plame's name. And Novak confirmed that former President George W. Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, was the second source confirming the information.

          "It all comes down to intent. What happened with me, my name was intended to be leaked in retaliation against my husband who was a fierce critic the Bush administration and the Iraq war," Plame said.

          http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ssally-stupid/

          ?


          • #80
            Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

            Originally posted by tsquare View Post
            Richard Armitage to Robert Novak, yes.

            And Scooter Libby want to jail for it...
            Actually President Bush commuted his sentence so he didn't actually serve jail time.

            And Libby was charged and convicted of lying to federal investigators about who leaked Plame's name.

            ?


            • #81
              Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

              Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
              Valeria Plame herself says:
              In the September 4, 2006 issue of Newsweek magazine, in an article titled "The Man Who Said Too Much", journalist Michael Isikoff, quoting a "source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities", reported that Armitage was the "primary" source for Robert Novak's piece outing Plame. Armitage allegedly mentioned Wilson's CIA role to Novak in a July 8, 2003 interview after learning about her status from a State Department memo which made no reference to her undercover status.[13] Isikoff also reported that Armitage had also told Bob Woodward of Plame's identity in June 2003, and that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Armitage's role "aggressively", but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward".
              Novak, in an August 27, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, stated that although he still would not release the name of his source, he felt it was long overdue that the source reveal himself.[14] Armitage has also reportedly been a cooperative and key witness in the investigation.[15] According to The Washington Note, Armitage has testified before the grand jury three times.[16]
              On August 29, 2006, Neil A. Lewis of The New York Times reported that Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 article, which named Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative" and which triggered the CIA leak investigation.[17]
              On August 30, 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Wilson's CIA role in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak.[18] The New York Times, quoting people "familiar with his actions", reported that Armitage was unaware of Wilson's undercover status when he spoke to Novak.[19]
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...e_(politician)

              Armitage inadvertently outed her. He did not know she was a covert operative. He knew she was a CIA employee who got a job for her husband. Wilson and Plame filed a lawsuit claiming damages and it was dismissed by a Federal judge. Even the Obama administration has refused to pursue the issue.

              Wilson v. Cheney[edit]
              Main article: Wilson v. Cheney
              On July 13, 2006, Joseph and Valerie Wilson filed a civil lawsuit against Rove, Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other unnamed senior White House officials (to whom they later added Richard Armitage)[46] for their alleged role in the public disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified CIA status.[47] Judge John D. Bates dismissed the Wilsons' lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds on July 19, 2007;[48][49][50][51] the Wilsons appealed. On August 12, 2008, in a 2-1 decision, the three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the dismissal.[52][53] Melanie Sloan, of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which represents the Wilsons, "said the group will request the full D.C. Circuit to review the case and appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court."[52][54] Agreeing with the Bush administration, the Obama Justice Department argues the Wilsons have no legitimate grounds to sue. On the current justice department position, Sloan stated: "We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson. The government’s position cannot be reconciled with President Obama’s oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions."[55]

              On June 21, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.[56]
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

              ?


              • #82
                Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                Even the Obama administration has refused to pursue the issue.
                Good to see the Obama Administration is not being petty.

                ?


                • #83
                  Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

                  Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                  Actually President Bush commuted his sentence so he didn't actually serve jail time.

                  And Libby was charged and convicted of lying to federal investigators about who leaked Plame's name.
                  STILL focused on Bush and his administration instead of, you know, the actual topic of this thread, I see.

                  ?


                  • #84
                    Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

                    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                    STILL focused on Bush and his administration instead of, you know, the actual topic of this thread, I see.

                    It's the direction the thread took.

                    Take it up with Tsquare and OldmaDan for talking about it, as I was responding to them.


                    I do like how you said this:

                    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                    However, I do not believe the Plame affair was purposeful or political.
                    lol.....

                    ?


                    • #85
                      Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

                      Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                      It's the direction the thread took.

                      Take it up with Tsquare and OldmaDan for talking about it, as I was responding to them.


                      I do like how you said this:



                      lol.....
                      Obviously still one who believes MSNBC over the facts...

                      you are STILL incapable of acknowledging the fault of the Obama administration ... but I do like how you try to blame tsquare and dan for your Obama sycophancy: That was a nice twist.

                      ?


                      • #86
                        Re: White House reveals identity of CIA Station Chief

                        Originally posted by Good1 View Post

                        you are STILL incapable of acknowledging the fault of the Obama administration ... .
                        Because it's not a question. It's not up for debate.

                        Of course somebody at the White House made a mistake. That's obvious.

                        I never denied that.

                        It's very bizarre that you're hounding me to state the obvious for you, especially when it's not a question and I certainly never denied it. Nobody denied it. The White House didn't deny it.


                        lol.....you have been barking up the wrong tree this whole time.

                        ?

                        Working...
                        X