Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Plame before Congress

Valerie Plame Before Congress 2007

  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#41 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 20 March 2007 - 08:16 PM

You know if you asked me what my labor level is at my job I honestly could not tell you.

I am the type of person that just does the job.  When and if I get promotions I go, "Okay, that's good." but I'm not one to say and that labor level?  

But I am a labor level-my bosses and the corporations knows what it is...they could tell you.

So if the CIA says she was covert that should be the official word.
"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#42 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 21 March 2007 - 11:38 PM

View PostHibblette, on Mar 20 2007, 06:16 PM, said:

You know if you asked me what my labor level is at my job I honestly could not tell you.

I am the type of person that just does the job. When and if I get promotions I go, "Okay, that's good." but I'm not one to say and that labor level?

But I am a labor level-my bosses and the corporations knows what it is...they could tell you.

So if the CIA says she was covert that should be the official word.

That's a well, d'oh thing. :wacko: If the CIA says she was covert, she was covert.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#43 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 22 March 2007 - 11:35 AM

Ooh, lost track of this thread --
I don't see it as that, Specs; the point I got was that it's alarming, or just plain un-credible, that after this broke that her superiors didn't pull her aside to discuss this.  One would think there'd be at least one DefCon-like scramble meeting with her if her career was so abruptly and thoroughly derailed.  


At any rate, here's Novak's latest:

http://www.washingto...?referrer=email

Was She Covert?

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, March 22, 2007; Page A21

Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra could hardly believe what he heard on television Friday as he watched a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic committee chairman, said his statement had been approved by the CIA director, Michael Hayden. That included the assertion that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative when her identity was revealed.

As House intelligence committee chairman when Republicans controlled Congress, Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Plame's status from the CIA but got only double talk from Langley. Waxman, 67, the 17-term congressman from Beverly Hills, may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who would misrepresent the director of central intelligence. Waxman was correctly quoting Hayden. But Hayden, in a conference with Hoekstra yesterday, still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The former CIA employee's status is critical to the attempted political rehabilitation of former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. The Democratic target always has been Karl Rove, President Bush's principal adviser. The purpose of last week's hearing was to blame Rove for "outing" Plame, in preparation for revoking his security clearance.

Claims of a White House plot became so discredited that Wilson was cut out of Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign by the summer of 2004. Last week's hearing attempted to revive a dormant issue. The glamorous Mrs. Wilson was depicted as the victim of White House machinations that aborted her career in intelligence.

Waxman and Democratic colleagues did not ask these pertinent questions: Had not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?

Instead of posing such questions, Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert and cited Hayden as proof. Hayden's endorsement of Waxman's statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats.

These issues were not explored by the only two Republicans who showed up at last week's hearing. Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, the committee's ranking Republican and former chairman, is a skilled legislator but is not prone to roughhouse with Waxman. Unwilling to challenge Plame's covert status, Davis blamed the CIA instead of the White House for her alleged exposure. The other Republican present -- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a second-termer from metro Atlanta -- seemed awed by the beautiful woman facing him. "If I seem a little nervous," he began, "I've never questioned a spy before."

Davis had e-mailed the committee's other Republicans requesting their presence. Where were they? I asked Rep. Christopher Shays, who during nine previous terms in Congress had proved a tenacious questioner at hearings. "We felt the committee is so biased," he replied, "we would do better to just stay away."

...

Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982, if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.
....
==============================================================================

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#44 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 22 March 2007 - 05:30 PM

View PostNittany Lioness, on Mar 22 2007, 09:35 AM, said:

Ooh, lost track of this thread --
I don't see it as that, Specs; the point I got was that it's alarming, or just plain un-credible, that after this broke that her superiors didn't pull her aside to discuss this.  One would think there'd be at least one DefCon-like scramble meeting with her if her career was so abruptly and thoroughly derailed.  


At any rate, here's Novak's latest:

http://www.washingto...?referrer=email

Was She Covert?

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, March 22, 2007; Page A21

Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra could hardly believe what he heard on television Friday as he watched a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing. Rep. Henry Waxman, the Democratic committee chairman, said his statement had been approved by the CIA director, Michael Hayden. That included the assertion that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative when her identity was revealed.

As House intelligence committee chairman when Republicans controlled Congress, Hoekstra had tried repeatedly to learn Plame's status from the CIA but got only double talk from Langley. Waxman, 67, the 17-term congressman from Beverly Hills, may be a bully and a partisan. But he is no fool who would misrepresent the director of central intelligence. Waxman was correctly quoting Hayden. But Hayden, in a conference with Hoekstra yesterday, still did not answer whether Plame was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The former CIA employee's status is critical to the attempted political rehabilitation of former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. The Democratic target always has been Karl Rove, President Bush's principal adviser. The purpose of last week's hearing was to blame Rove for "outing" Plame, in preparation for revoking his security clearance.

Claims of a White House plot became so discredited that Wilson was cut out of Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign by the summer of 2004. Last week's hearing attempted to revive a dormant issue. The glamorous Mrs. Wilson was depicted as the victim of White House machinations that aborted her career in intelligence.

Waxman and Democratic colleagues did not ask these pertinent questions: Had not Plame been outed years ago by a Soviet agent? Was she not on an administrative, not operational, track at Langley? How could she be covert if, in public view, she drove to work each day at Langley? What about comments to me by then CIA spokesman Bill Harlow that Plame never would be given another foreign assignment? What about testimony to the FBI that her CIA employment was common knowledge in Washington?

Instead of posing such questions, Waxman said flatly that Plame was covert and cited Hayden as proof. Hayden's endorsement of Waxman's statement astounded Republicans whose queries about her had been rebuffed by the agency. That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats.

These issues were not explored by the only two Republicans who showed up at last week's hearing. Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, the committee's ranking Republican and former chairman, is a skilled legislator but is not prone to roughhouse with Waxman. Unwilling to challenge Plame's covert status, Davis blamed the CIA instead of the White House for her alleged exposure. The other Republican present -- Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a second-termer from metro Atlanta -- seemed awed by the beautiful woman facing him. "If I seem a little nervous," he began, "I've never questioned a spy before."

Davis had e-mailed the committee's other Republicans requesting their presence. Where were they? I asked Rep. Christopher Shays, who during nine previous terms in Congress had proved a tenacious questioner at hearings. "We felt the committee is so biased," he replied, "we would do better to just stay away."

I had a response half typed out, then found this diary at Daily Kos that said it so much better.  

Although I wanted to make one additional comment on using Robert Novak as a source for anything concerning the legitimacy of the outing of Plame.  You have got to be kidding!!  The man couldn't see past his bias on the topic if his life depended on it.  And some might argue that his life does depend on her "not" being "covert".  You know what I mean?!

L C Johnson's Diary

Quote

First and most important, he does not dispute that CIA Director Michael Hayden authorized a statement read by Henry Waxman at last Friday's hearing that states very clearly:  Valerie Plame Wilson worked in an undercover position since February 2002 until she was outed in Novak's column.  Her status was covert and was considered to be classified information.  And, as defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, she carried out classified missions overseas during the period 2002-2003.

All Novak can do is whine about the fact that General Hayden would not give this same information to Republican Peter Hoekstra.  Why would that be?

Well you fat dumb f**k, ever hear of the Scooter Libby trial?  Hayden did not weigh in on the matter of Valerie's covert status as long as it was an issue that could surface in the criminal trial.  He did not want to be in the position of having to go on the stand and divulge classified information.  Once he started talking about Valerie and Brewster Jennings he would have been on a road that would expose more information that the CIA would rather keep secret.

Novak's stupidity continues unabated with his rhetorical question, "how could she be undercover if she drove to Langley?"  Well Bob, here is a news flash.  You still cannot divulge the real name of the Director of Operations, who goes by the name of Jose.  Why?  Because he is undercover.  And, he drives to CIA Headquarters everyday just outside of McLean, Virginia.  In fact, there are thousands of undercover personnel who drive thru the gates everyday.


Nittany Lioness said:

...

Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982, if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.
....
==============================================================================

And this comment is about what exactly?  The law doesn't say stationed overseas in Section A, it is mentioned in Section B, as I've posted several times now.  So what is your point, and more importantly how does this relate to Toensing's testimony [which BTW sang the same tune you are]?  The law says what it says.  You can all argue that it doesn't mean what it says, but too bad.. it says what it says.

Which I will post for you to read again...

Quote

(4) The term “covert agent” means

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

Note that section does not say resided.  Nope it sure doesn't. Also note the "or" at the end of section A, which then goes to Section B.  [following me so far...?]

Now section B does state another set of circumstances that can exist that would determine if an agent was covert, AND that section does say "resided", but this is why I emphasized the "or" between section A and section B.  You do know what that means don't you?  [In case you don't'] it means that either definition defines covert, not BOTH definitions--EITHER.  An agent is covert if they meet Section A's requirements, or they are covert if they meet Section B's requirements.

You, Novak and Toensing can all talk like Section A doens't exist and say what it says, but it does.  If Section A meant "resides" then there would be no need for Section B, which is substantially the same except for residency requirements. You think lawmakers write laws that need to be repeated in two sections?  No, they don't.  They write law like this [in sections] when different sets of circumstances fall under the same provision.

So read all the Novak you like and sing the song you like, but you sound just as bad as Toensing did when she gave her testimony.  Section A, says what it says.  You all just like Section B better because it fits the case you want to make.  Too bad, so sad, it just isn't written the way you like..

*sigh* if the law had only said "and" at the end of section A instead of "or".   :rolleyes:

Edited by Cait, 22 March 2007 - 05:32 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#45 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 22 March 2007 - 07:03 PM

To help out everyone, this is the section of the IIPA that defines all the terms in the act. [emphasis added is mine]

Quote

For the purposes of this subchapter:

        (1) The term "classified information" means information or
      material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented,
      pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a
      regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive
      order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against
      unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
        (2) The term "authorized", when used with respect to access to
      classified information, means having authority, right, or
      permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute, Executive
      order, directive of the head of any department or agency engaged
      in foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, order
      of any United States court, or provisions of any Rule of the
      House of Representatives or resolution of the Senate which
      assigns responsibility within the respective House of Congress
      for the oversight of intelligence activities.
        (3) The term "disclose" means to communicate, provide, impart,
      transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.
        (4) The term "covert agent" means -
          (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an
        intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed
        Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -
            (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member
          is classified information, and
            (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within
          the last five years served outside the United States; or

          (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship
        to the United States is classified information, and -
            (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an
          agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance
          to, an intelligence agency, or
            (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an
          agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or
          foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of
          Investigation; or


          © an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose
        past or present intelligence relationship to the United States
        is classified information and who is a present or former agent
        of, or a present or former informant or source of operational
        assistance to, an intelligence agency.

        (5) The term "intelligence agency" means the Central
      Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the
      Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or
      foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of
      Investigation.
        (6) The term "informant" means any individual who furnishes
      information to an intelligence agency in the course of a
      confidential relationship protecting the identity of such
      individual from public disclosure.
        (7) The terms "officer" and "employee" have the meanings given
      such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5.
        (8) The term "Armed Forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force,
      Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
        (9) The term "United States", when used in a geographic sense,
      means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United
      States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
        (10) The term "pattern of activities" requires a series of acts
      with a common purpose or objective.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#46 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 23 March 2007 - 08:27 AM

Well shazaam.  My coffee was caustic enough, and I haven't gotten all the crusties out of my eyeballs yet.  
Despite that delightful harlequin jester that accompanies Cait's posts, for several threads there's been personal hostiilty toward me which I've been trying thus far to ignore.  Surely invectives about a poster's ability to comprehend the word 'or' is an insult to another EI'er?  Lil' help, mods?  

And btw - that 2nd quote is Novak still.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#47 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 23 March 2007 - 11:38 AM

View PostNittany Lioness, on Mar 23 2007, 06:27 AM, said:

Well shazaam.  My coffee was caustic enough, and I haven't gotten all the crusties out of my eyeballs yet.  
Despite that delightful harlequin jester that accompanies Cait's posts, for several threads there's been personal hostility toward me which I've been trying thus far to ignore.  Surely invectives about a poster's ability to comprehend the word 'or' is an insult to another EI'er?  Lil' help, mods?  

And btw - that 2nd quote is Novak still.

If you think someone challenging your opinion is being caustic and hostile, so be it.  I suppose we all see the opposition as caustic and hostile now-a-days.  My apologies if you were ofended in any way.

The truth is, I'm merely challenging what you say using source material.  We can all get lost in our own emotional beliefs sometimes, which is why I usually only argue something that has some definitive 'end game'--in this case the IIPA which is at the heart of this debate.  

As to the second quote, I did not realize it was still Novak.  None of it was in a quote [software quote] and I thought that last bit were your thoughts.  So the comprehension lesson was for Novak apparently.

Although, you did post it as if it had some relevance... so ???

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#48 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 23 March 2007 - 02:25 PM

View PostNittany Lioness, on Mar 22 2007, 09:35 AM, said:

Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982, if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.
....

Apparently neither Toensing nor Novak has actually read the IIPA. Living overseas is not a requirement for a covert operative - it's simply one of a number possible conditions that would qualify a person as covert.

And Novak has an axe to grind (he's the one that let the cat out of the bag in the first place, so self-justification is high on his list :p).

But truly, if you had read what Cait posted instead of berating her for her sarcasm, you would have seen that your cherrypicked quotes were dead wrong. Period. Or maybe you did read it, and you just aren't into admitting your sources were wrong?

Edited by Rhea, 23 March 2007 - 02:26 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#49 Hibblette

Hibblette
  • Islander
  • 4,228 posts

Posted 23 March 2007 - 03:10 PM

She was in the CIA working for the Government and they did what they did to a fellow American.

The significance of her being covert though is important because to have outed her is treasonous.  Plain and simple.

If any of us did something like that we would already have disappeared.

Edited by Hibblette, 23 March 2007 - 03:11 PM.

"There are many ways of going forward, but there is only one way of standing still."  FDR explaining why Liberals are so often divided and Conservatives are so often united.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."  Will Rogers

#50 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 23 March 2007 - 03:27 PM

View PostRhea, on Mar 23 2007, 12:25 PM, said:

View PostNittany Lioness, on Mar 22 2007, 09:35 AM, said:

Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982, if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years. Waxman hectored Toensing, menacingly warning that her sworn testimony would be scrutinized for misstatements.
....

Apparently neither Toensing nor Novak has actually read the IIPA. Living overseas is not a requirement for a covert operative - it's simply one of a number possible conditions that would qualify a person as covert.

And Novak has an axe to grind (he's the one that let the cat out of the bag in the first place, so self-justification is high on his list :p).

But truly, if you had read what Cait posted instead of berating her for her sarcasm, you would have seen that your cherrypicked quotes were dead wrong. Period. Or maybe you did read it, and you just aren't into admitting your sources were wrong?


Thanks Rhea!! :)

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#51 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 26 March 2007 - 03:18 PM

House Oversight Committee Webpage

Quote

Monday, March 26, 2007
Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity
Committee Requests CIA Documents Related to Disclosure of CIA Agent
Citing concerns that a Senate Intelligence Committee report may be inaccurate, Chairman Waxman asks the CIA for Agency memos related to Ambassador Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger and the subsequent disclosure of Ms.Wilsons covert status. Ms. Wilson recently testified before the Oversight Committee that the Senate report incorrectly claims that she was responsible for her husbands mission, and that the CIA official who authored related memos attempted to correct the Senates distortions was denied the opportunity to clarify the matter.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#52 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 10:05 AM

Cait writes:
"If you think someone challenging your opinion...The truth is, I'm merely challenging what you say..."

Nice try.  You were deliberately being thoroughly, unnessarily ugly.  
And why?  Because I apparently "sung a song" by posting an article by someone intimately involved in the very topic and dared to take a contrary position to some in this discussion.

Insults to another poster with mock comprehension jabs and eye rolls is of course not "merely" offering a polite counter point.  
And Rhea conveniently flies past that to claim *I* berated?   :blink:  I see, I see, said the blind man.  

You people bully here with constant snappings of "what's yer point, huh?!" so much it's tiresome;
gee wizz - whatever could be the sorry lil' point in posting commentary on "Plame before Congress" (the thread title, dears) and testimony of the person who helped craft the very language of the IIPA.  
Yea, way out in left field, what a tangent. Mmm-hmm.

I'm disappointed the mods didn't acknowledge the peppered rudeness.  I thought there was a new attitude here that sarcasm was only going to be tolerated when it's directed at political targets, not EI individuals.  Are we expected to endure this mean clowning?  "So be it", is that it?

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#53 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 10:14 AM

^

View PostCait, on Mar 23 2007, 09:38 AM, said:

If you think someone challenging your opinion is being caustic and hostile, so be it.  I suppose we all see the opposition as caustic and hostile now-a-days.  My apologies if you were offended in any way.

Just for the record and for peace in the community, I'll apologize again.  I am truly sorry if you were offended.

I would like to ask one thing, when you quote sometime attributed to me, could you please quote it accurately.  The way you have it represented is completely out of context and actually appears to say something I simply did not say.

Thanks you.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#54 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 11:41 AM

You didn't say what?  In the "wrong" context of what?  Nonsense.
That quote is accurately demonstrating your sly attempt to qualify and therefore wiggle out of your 1st apology by characterizing your tone as merely a challenge of opinions.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#55 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:07 PM

Nittany, she has now apologised twice. I realise that you're upset, but isn't that enough?

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#56 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:31 PM

Sometimes no it is not enough.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#57 Cait

Cait

    Democracy Dies in Darkness

  • Moderator
  • 10,810 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 12:51 PM

View PostNittany Lioness, on Mar 27 2007, 08:05 AM, said:

Cait writes:
"If you think someone challenging your opinion...The truth is, I'm merely challenging what you say..."

OK, here we go.  Above is what you attributed to me, and bellow is what I actually said.

You'll note that the first sentence I wrote [taken as a whole] doesn't say I'm challenging your opinion as you mis-quoted.  It says "*If* you think challenging your opinion is caustic and hostile, then so be it".  

The second paragraph [in my [post], first sentence, states that I'm challenging your opining *using* source material.. which is again very different in meaning to what you represented in your quote.

Now you can play the "I don't' know what you are talking about game all you like.  You can also feign some kind of upset and continue this.  Ask anyone.  I can play that game, although I'd rather not.

I chose to apologize because I was genuinely sorry for any upset.  However, after the reception to my apologies, I'm going to just give a big "never mind".  I thought we were supposed to be "excellent". I thought we were supposed to apologize when and if we crossed the line.  My mistake.

View PostCait, on Mar 23 2007, 09:38 AM, said:

If you think someone challenging your opinion is being caustic and hostile, so be it.  I suppose we all see the opposition as caustic and hostile now-a-days.  My apologies if you were offended in any way.

The truth is, I'm merely challenging what you say using source material.  We can all get lost in our own emotional beliefs sometimes, which is why I usually only argue something that has some definitive 'end game'--in this case the IIPA which is at the heart of this debate.  

As to the second quote, I did not realize it was still Novak.  None of it was in a quote [software quote] and I thought that last bit were your thoughts.  So the comprehension lesson was for Novak apparently.

Although, you did post it as if it had some relevance... so ???


View PostNittany Lioness, on Mar 27 2007, 09:41 AM, said:

You didn't say what?  In the "wrong" context of what?  Nonsense.
That quote is accurately demonstrating your sly attempt to qualify and therefore wiggle out of your 1st apology by characterizing your tone as merely a challenge of opinions.

It is your choice to see my words the way you like.  I did not mean them that way, and I think my choice of words was plain in that regard.  I have apologized twice and both have been rejected as insincere.  That is also your choice.  I did mean them, but there is no way to prove that other than by saying the words given the limitations of the Internet.


View PostG1223, on Mar 27 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

Sometimes no it is not enough.

G, I give you a VERY wide berth around here.  One you often do not deserve, but I give it because of the amount of time we have known each other and sheer loyalty.  Don't press it.

Edited by Cait, 27 March 2007 - 12:57 PM.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

Source:
http://www2.nybooks....r-survival.html


#58 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 01:49 PM

View PostG1223, on Mar 27 2007, 10:31 AM, said:

Sometimes no it is not enough.

Bullsnickey. That's two apologies. Once should have been enough.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#59 Nittany Lioness

Nittany Lioness

    Craving a little perspective.

  • Islander
  • 3,537 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 04:45 PM

Reasonable people are likely to accept apologies that didnt amount to:  Im sorry you overreacted by taking my completely legitimate, snark-free opinion as hostile!

Perhaps if you acknowledged the rude sarcasm instead of trying your level best to state, twice, that it was merely a challenge of ideas.  Oh - with sources.  :D

Cait writes:
You'll note that the first sentence I wrote [taken as a whole] doesn't say I'm challenging your opinion as you mis-quoted. It says "*If* you think challenging your opinion is caustic and hostile, then so be it".

Thats a distinction without a difference, hon.  I misquoted nothing.  You do know what ellipses mean?  Oop, my apologies - that was sarcastic of me.
The purpose of my quote was to demonstrate that youre really intimating that your posts were fine and dandy.
What you did there was couch your barbed posts as just challenging my opinion - business as usual, and couched my erred hostile interpretation (If you, NL, think ) as being in my own head, and so tough luck, thats how its gonna be.  Nice.

quote:
states that I'm challenging your opining *using* source material which is again very different in meaning to what you represented in your quote.

No its not.   :lol:
Your sneaky point was that your posts were proper.  Hey everybody, I merely gave an opinion, see?!  And theyre sourced, so of course theyre Teflon when it comes to objecting to my tone!
Links and sources dont do a damn thing to erase your or debacle; its not salient to what I was pointing out.

quote:
I can play that game,

Obviously.

quote:
although I'd rather not.

Obviously.

quote:
I thought we were supposed to apologize when and if we crossed the line.

Now were getting somewhere!  You admitting you crossed the line has my gratitude.  
So now I thank you, and I happily drop this.

I'm cold Howard.jpg


#60 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 27 March 2007 - 04:48 PM

I got to say bullcrap back. First if we are going to go with that then I say I am sorry and that covers all wounds. You have to accept what is being said at you by me and then after saying I am sorry you MUST lose the anger you have at my statement.

If you are going to make that the rule then get ready for a new level of sniping.
Sorry Rhea you have to take the really mean spirited comment and I make because I said I was sorry accept the apology.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Valerie Plame, Before Congress, 2007

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users