OT - No "Mia Culpa's" from the Liberals on Plame Issue
ML
would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
Plame case."
But, alas, no. They must have "moved on" to another smear campaign.
http://www.slate.com/id/2148555
--
ML
FL Turbo
The inimitable Christopher Hitchens nails it again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his July 12 column in the Washington Post, Robert Novak had already
partly exposed this paranoid myth by stating plainly that nobody had
leaked anything, or outed anyone, to him. On the contrary, it was he
who approached sources within the administration and the CIA and not
the other way around. But now we have the final word on who did
disclose the name and occupation of Valerie Plame, and it turns out to
be someone whose opposition to the Bush policy in Iraq has様ike Robert
Novak's様ong been a byword in Washington. It is particularly
satisfying that this admission comes from two of the
journalists柚ichael Isikoff and David Corn謡ho did the most to get the
story wrong in the first place and the most to keep it going long
beyond the span of its natural life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not to mention that Armitage's boss at the time was one Colin Powell.
Not to worry about moving on, though.
Despite the way the Plame Game has fizzled out, you can be sure that
the braindead Liberals will still chant the same Mantra as always, of
how the Bush administration "outed" Double Super Secret Agent 000, to
punish the Truthteller Joe Wilson.
Let them eat yellowcake.
Bob
ML wrote:
> You'd think there would be a few honest liberals out there. A few who
> would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
> Plame case."
This honest liberal will step right up to the plate and admit that
there is no such thing as a "Mia Culpa". Perhaps you mean "Mea Culpa"?
Isn't it embarassing when you spell a word in your subject line?
>
> But, alas, no. They must have "moved on" to another smear campaign.
>
"Smear campaign" - what nonsense. As revealed in the article, the
super-secret leaker was a member of the Bush administration.
Apparently, though, the fact that he worked for Bush Senior and the
State Department disqualifies Armitage from being a Bush insider, and
he is therefore some sort of liberal mole. Yeah, right...
- Bob T.
> http://www.slate.com/id/2148555
>
> --
> ML
bonkey
Lol. Keep displaying your ignorance. This guy was anti-bush. Maybe do a
little research.
--
Bonkey
"There is an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to."
-----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
bonkey
> ML wrote:
> > You'd think there would be a few honest liberals out there. A few who
> > would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
> > Plame case."
>
> This honest liberal will step right up to the plate and admit that
> there is no such thing as a "Mia Culpa". Perhaps you mean "Mea Culpa"?
> Isn't it embarassing when you spell a word in your subject line?
Isn't it embarrassing to misspell embarrassing and say spell when you mean
misspell when you are trying to be all superior.
--
Bonkey
"There is an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to."
______________________________________________________________________
Bob
bonkey wrote:
> On Aug 30 2006 8:53 AM, Bob wrote:
>
> > ML wrote:
> > > You'd think there would be a few honest liberals out there. A few who
> > > would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
> > > Plame case."
> >
> > This honest liberal will step right up to the plate and admit that
> > there is no such thing as a "Mia Culpa". Perhaps you mean "Mea Culpa"?
> > Isn't it embarassing when you spell a word in your subject line?
> >
> > >
> > > But, alas, no. They must have "moved on" to another smear campaign.
> > >
> > "Smear campaign" - what nonsense. As revealed in the article, the
> > super-secret leaker was a member of the Bush administration.
> > Apparently, though, the fact that he worked for Bush Senior and the
> > State Department disqualifies Armitage from being a Bush insider, and
> > he is therefore some sort of liberal mole. Yeah, right...
> >
> > - Bob T.
> >
> > > http://www.slate.com/id/2148555
> > >
> > > --
> > > ML
>
> Lol. Keep displaying your ignorance. This guy was anti-bush. Maybe do a
> little research.
Right... the next announcement from the Bush Administration will be to
declare that Donald Rumsfeld is anti-Bush, and that is why he has
botched the Iraq War so badly.
- Bob T.
WuzYoungOnceToo2
> On Aug 30 2006 8:53 AM, Bob wrote:
>
> > ML wrote:
> > > You'd think there would be a few honest liberals out there. A few who
> > > would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
> > > Plame case."
> >
> > This honest liberal will step right up to the plate and admit that
> > there is no such thing as a "Mia Culpa". Perhaps you mean "Mea Culpa"?
> > Isn't it embarassing when you spell a word in your subject line?
>
> Isn't it embarrassing to misspell embarrassing and say spell when you mean
> misspell when you are trying to be all superior.
Doh!!
Bob
You forgot the apostrophe - it's spelled "D'oh". How
emmmbbbarrrasssinnggg!
- Bob T.
bonkey
So rather than research and admit you are wrong, you just regurgitate the
lie. Wow you are liberal.
--
Bonkey
"There is an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to."
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> You forgot the apostrophe - it's spelled "D'oh".
And here I thought it was just a made-up word that didn't even have a
proper spelling.
Say...are your middle and last names "And Weave"?
Bob
WuzYoungOnceToo2 wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > You forgot the apostrophe - it's spelled "D'oh".
>
> And here I thought it was just a made-up word that didn't even have a
> proper spelling.
No, it's a made-up word that does have a proper spelling.
I should know better than to flame anybody for spelling, though - my
internal Karma function forces me to misspell at least one word when I
do.
>
> Say...are your middle and last names "And Weave"?
Very amusing. Perhaps you can explain to me how Armitage's involvement
in Plamegate is supposed to make Liberals apologize for anything. Is
it because Armitage is relatively moderate for a member of the Bush
administration and therefore counts as an honorary liberal?
- Bob T.
WuzYoungOnceToo2
> WuzYoungOnceToo2 wrote:
> > Bob wrote:
> > >
> > > You forgot the apostrophe - it's spelled "D'oh".
> >
> > And here I thought it was just a made-up word that didn't even have a
> > proper spelling.
>
> No, it's a made-up word that does have a proper spelling.
Well then, thank goodness we have people like you, a storehouse of such
vital information, here.
> I should know better than to flame anybody for spelling, though
Yeah, you should.
> Very amusing. Perhaps you can explain to me how Armitage's involvement
> in Plamegate is supposed to make Liberals apologize for anything. Is
> it because Armitage is relatively moderate for a member of the Bush
> administration and therefore counts as an honorary liberal?
I might explain it, if it weren't for the fact that I didn't assert it
and am not sure I've put the whole thing together myself yet. I was
just remarking on your failed diversionary tactic.
Minor Glitch
As is usually the case, this story has become more a story about the cover
up than about the original "scandal" (see, e.g., President Nixon,
President Clinton). Libby was pissed about the op-ed published concern
Ambassador Wilson's trip to Africa -- that was political. Libby asked the
State Department to check out how Ambassador Wilson got asked by the CIA
to go to Africa and learned that his wife was a covert operative. In the
process of collecting this information for Libby, Armitage found out about
the Wilson/Plame connection and casually disclosed it during seperate
meetings on other topics to Woodward and Novak. Indeed, it appears he was
not even sure he was the source of the story until a couple of months
after Novak's original piece.
But the story doesn't end there... Libby goes before the grand jury and
testifies that he couldn't have leaked the story to reporters because he
learned of the Wilson/Plame connection from reporters. That was a lie!
He learned about the connection from the State Department. So now Mr.
Libby faces perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
History repeats itself.
-mg
P.S. Didn't Mia Culpa win an Academy Award a couple of years ago?
______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
da pickle
> P.S. Didn't Mia Culpa win an Academy Award a couple of years ago?
High Noon II - Revenge of the wife
da pickle
> Very amusing. Perhaps you can explain to me how Armitage's involvement
> in Plamegate is supposed to make Liberals apologize for anything. Is
> it because Armitage is relatively moderate for a member of the Bush
> administration and therefore counts as an honorary liberal?
Don't keep this up, Bob. You are too nice a guy.
Minor Glitch
> > But, alas, no. They must have "moved on" to another smear campaign.
> >
> "Smear campaign" - what nonsense. As revealed in the article, the
> super-secret leaker was a member of the Bush administration.
> Apparently, though, the fact that he worked for Bush Senior and the
> State Department disqualifies Armitage from being a Bush insider, and
> he is therefore some sort of liberal mole. Yeah, right...
>
> - Bob T.
Relax Bob. Armitage was in the state department but he was clearly not a
political guy like Rove and Libby. He admits that he gave the information
but did not realize its significance when he gave it and did not even
realize he was "the source" until a few months after Novak published his
piece... Libby then chose to lie to the Grand Jury... that was not a good
idea...
-mg
www.makemelotsofmoneybyclickingonmylink.com
____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Bob
You're a nice guy, too, Pickle. And your wife is a sweetie! I miss
the Venetian...
I'm not sure what exactly it is you are advising me to not "keep up",
though...
- Bob T.
Tom White
> Libby then chose to lie to the Grand Jury... that was not a good idea...
Remains to be seen if he lied.
Back when Libby was first charged I remember Bob Beckel on
Fox describing how he got in a similar jam with the Justice
Department. Justice seized his office logs then quizzed him
on their contents. Beckel couldn't consult his logs to answer
the questions, gave some answers that contradicted his logs,
and ended up in a long legal hassle.
abe.buc...@gmail.com
WTF this is US politics - there are NO liberals in America, well, maybe
Nader. We've got two right wing parties, one deep right and one
fascist.
da pickle
>> Don't keep this up, Bob. You are too nice a guy.
>
> You're a nice guy, too, Pickle. And your wife is a sweetie! I miss
> the Venetian...
>
> I'm not sure what exactly it is you are advising me to not "keep up",
> though...
I miss the Venetian too ... it was a blast. (Plame has flamed out!)
bonkey
> WTF this is US politics - there are NO liberals in America, well, maybe
> Nader. We've got two right wing parties, one deep right and one
> fascist.
This is a new record for the dumbest thing I have ever read on this group.
--
Bonkey
"There is an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to."
_____________________________________________________________________
Joseph I. Mion
<lipse...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You'd think there would be a few honest liberals out there. A few who
> would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
> Plame case."
1. "Liberals" have nothing to do with it. The operative word is
"Patriotic Americans Who Despise People Who Break This Country's Laws."
2. All of us PAWDPWBTCLs are eagerly awaiting a similar apology
regarding Whitewater and its related fiascos, an infinitely more
expensive and wasteful investigation that was a red herring and
political smear campaign from the get-go.
3. PAWDPWBTCLs are also eagerly awaiting the impeachment of the
President Who Would Be King for his blatant and openly admitted
violations of the Constitution of the United States and other laws of
this country.
Do I hear the crickets chirping on these last two? I thought so.
Don't you believe in the laws of this nation? Or do the laws only
apply when it suits your point of view?
---Joseph
WuzYoungOnceToo2
>
> 1. "Liberals" have nothing to do with it. The operative word is
> "Patriotic Americans Who Despise People Who Break This Country's Laws."
OK. Identify the law that was broken by the individuals in question
with regard to the so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame. So far the
special prosecutor has come up snake eyes on that one.
> 2. All of us PAWDPWBTCLs are eagerly awaiting a similar apology
> regarding Whitewater and its related fiascos, an infinitely more
> expensive and wasteful investigation that was a red herring and
> political smear campaign from the get-go.
You mean, the "fiasco" that yielded at least 15 federal indictments,
and just about as many convictions/guilty pleas?
> 3. PAWDPWBTCLs are also eagerly awaiting the impeachment of the
> President Who Would Be King for his blatant and openly admitted
> violations of the Constitution of the United States and other laws of
> this country.
Please provide quotations that constitute "openly admitted violations
of the Constitution of the United States and other laws".
Joseph I. Mion
WuzYoungOnceToo2 <WuzYoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK. Identify the law that was broken by the individuals in question
> with regard to the so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame. So far the
> special prosecutor has come up snake eyes on that one.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----0
00-.html
If the law wasn't violated, then so be it. Nonetheless, an
investigation is clearly warranted. This is a serious crime.
> Please provide quotations that constitute "openly admitted violations
> of the Constitution of the United States and other laws".
Well, here's a law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
And here's another law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#sect
ion2
And another:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#a
mendmentiv
And a legal opinion discussing how our President has tried to make
himself a King:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf
You can follow the links in any of these articles to extract the open
admissions you seek, but I think you're just being coy:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/claiming-right-to-break-law.h
tml
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008071.php
Fuck off. I've got better things to do with my limited time than
pander to a moron and find citations to stuff that any grade schooler
could find using a simple google search:
president bush fisa
Have fun, you America hating motherfucker.
---Joseph
FL Turbo
<joe_...@ceeoecks.net> wrote:
>In article <1157046809.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>WuzYoungOnceToo2 <WuzYoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> OK. Identify the law that was broken by the individuals in question
>> with regard to the so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame. So far the
>> special prosecutor has come up snake eyes on that one.
>
>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----0
>00-.html
>
>If the law wasn't violated, then so be it. Nonetheless, an
>investigation is clearly warranted. This is a serious crime.
>
The investigation was indeed conducted, by an honest and fearless
prosecutor named Patrick Fitzgerald.
One would have to assume that he and his staff knew all about those
laws that you referenced in your post.
Fitzgerald knew long ago that the unnamed government official who
leaked Plame's identity to Robert Novak was Richard Armitage.
Did he indict Armitage for his "serious crime"?
No, of course he did not.
That brings up one big question.
Why did Fitzgerald keep his investigation open long after he KNEW that
Armitage was the leaker, and furthermore that there was no crime
committed originally?
For anyone silly enough to want to go through all the twists and turns
in the Plamegate fiasco, I highly recommend a blog by one Tom Maguire,
who is widely acknowledged as the Keeper of All Things Plame.
If all you know about the kerfuffle is what you have read from Glenn
Greenwald, TruthOut and Jason Leopold, please read the following
disclaimer.
CAUTION!!
Keep a damp washcloth handy to drape over your forehead.
Reading about Plamegate in all its excruciating detail can cause brain
overheating from severe cognitive dissonance.
In extreme cases it can literally cause your head to explode.
Good luck, sir.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/
Here is a little blurb out of one of the latest articles there.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First up is Investor's Business Daily:
Did Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald Lie?
Plamegate: Patrick Fitzgerald's three-year manhunt to track down who
blew Valerie Plame's CIA "cover" has been exposed as a costly sham. He
apparently knew all along that his man was not Scooter Libby.
...
The latest revelations raise a question of far more gravity: Did
Fitzgerald publicly lie? Let's look at the facts:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those not willing to take the risk of reading through all those
gory details and having their head explode, here is a succinct
summary.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/184464.php
----------------------------------------------------------
August 29, 2006
Plamegate Wrap-up: Short 'n Sweet
So what have we learned from this escapade?
Fitzgerald's got nuttin'. Richard Armitage is a coward. Joe Wilson is
a liar and a hack. Valerie Plame is a super-secret media whore. Rove
is a non-factor. Novak was doing his job. Russert is silent. Mitchell
is silent. Bush is vindicated. Cheney is off the non-hook. Keith
Olbermann is a jackass. Chris Matthews is in catatonic depression.
Mark Ash and Jason Leopold are on suicide watch. Larry Johnson is
incredulous. Ray McGovern is speechless. Bill Keller is mute. The
Democrats are in denial. David Corn is slinking away from his original
zeal. Scooter Libby is paying for dishonesty over a crime that wasn’t
committed. Judith Miller spent time in jail for nothing. The MSM are
pretending they had nothing to do with it. The US taxpayer is furious.
The left is hysterical. The right is chuckling. The average American
doesn’t really care.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or as some VRWC commentators noted.
The KosKidz were expecting a Harley on Fitzmas morning and all they
got was a lousy Scooter.
WuzYoungOnceToo
> In article <1157046809.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> WuzYoungOnceToo2 <WuzYoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > OK. Identify the law that was broken by the individuals in question
> > with regard to the so-called "outing" of Valerie Plame. So far the
> > special prosecutor has come up snake eyes on that one.
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----0
> 00-.html
>
> If the law wasn't violated, then so be it. Nonetheless, an
> investigation is clearly warranted. This is a serious crime.
I thought we had an investigation. Have you been living in a cave?
> > Please provide quotations that constitute "openly admitted violations
> > of the Constitution of the United States and other laws".
>
> Well, here's a law:
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36.html
>
> And here's another law:
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#sect
> ion2
>
> And another:
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#a
> mendmentiv
>
> And a legal opinion discussing how our President has tried to make
> himself a King:
>
> http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/eGov/taylorpdf/06%2010204.pdf
>
> You can follow the links in any of these articles to extract the open
> admissions you seek, but I think you're just being coy:
I think you're just being illiterate. Citing pieces of the
Constitution, and opinion blogs, does nothing to substantiate your
claim regarding "openly admitted violations of the Constitution of the
United States and other laws".
> http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/claiming-right-to-break-law.h
> tml
>
> http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008071.php
>
> Fuck off. I've got better things to do with my limited time than
> pander to a moron and find citations
Apparently, you don't.
> to stuff that any grade schooler could find using a simple google search:
And yet you couldn't find any yourself.
> Have fun, you America hating motherfucker.
Always refreshing to dialog with reasonable adults such as yourself.
jarrett40
ML wrote:
> You'd think there would be a few honest liberals out there. A few who
> would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
> Plame case."
You misspelled a 3 letter word.
jarrett40
leande...@hotmail.com
president used his authority to declassify the portions of the October
2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document that
detailed the intelligence community's conclusions about weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.
Wilson had accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence
to exaggerate the weapons threat in Iraq.
Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in the filing that Libby
testified before a grand jury that he was authorized by Bush, through
Cheney, to leak information from the intelligence estimate.
Because Bush declassified the intelligence document, the White House
does not view Libby's conversations about it as a leak. But that
determination is difficult to make without knowing precisely when Bush
decided to declassify the information.
Libby passed the information about the document to New York Times
reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003. It was 10 days later, on July
18, when the same portions of the document that Libby discussed with
Miller were released publicly.
ML wrote:
> You'd think there would be a few honest liberals out there. A few who
> would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
> Plame case."
>
Bob
Larry C. Johnson, Yahoo
How low can they go? I refer of course to the latest vitriol directed
at Valerie and Joe Wilson by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Fred
Hiatt of the Washington Post, who claim that Joe Wilson, not Bush
Administration officials, is responsible for destroying his wife's
cover and exposing her as a CIA operative.
Hitchens battle with the bottle may account for his addled thinking,
but what is Hiatt's excuse? Both men perform like Cirque du Soleil
contortionists in dreaming up excuses for the nutty and destructive
policies and actions of the Bush Administration. In watching their
behavior we see a parallel with the devotees of Jim Jones who gathered
in Guyana almost 30 years ago to drink poisoned kool aid.
Let's focus on the Post's Fred Hiatt. In today's Post editorial page,
Hiatt writes:
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the
end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go
public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out
-- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and
that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
The claim that Joe Wilson's op-ed from July of 2003 was a pack of lies
and misrepresented the truth is an old rightiwng, White House canard.
Here is what Joe Wilson said in the July 2003 op-ed:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four
documents in United States government archives confirming my mission.
The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing
in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A.
report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the
office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).
While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in
government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our
political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I
understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If,
however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain
preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that
we went to war under false pretenses.
False claim? False claim my ass! There were at least four reports. We
now know that the National Intelligence officer for Africa in January
2003 briefed the White House that the Iraq/Niger claim was bunk. Even a
partisan Senate Intelligence Committe report cites repeated efforts by
the intelligence community to warn the President's advisors that
reports claiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium, including British
reoirts, were not credible.
What is so bizarre is that the White House did admit that it was wrong
to put the infamous 16 words into the State of the Union Address (of
course, they blamed the CIA), just days after Wilson's op-ed appeared.
If, as Hiatt claims, Wilson's op-ed was false, then why did the White
House correct the record by confirming the substance of his claim?
Hiatt also portrays an astonishing ignorance of national security
affairs. He offers up this goofiness referring to Joe Wilson's
"culpability" for exposing his wife's job:
He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists
such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been
sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.
Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the
National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last
U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson
was uniquely qualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least
was) a common acitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department,
Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the
behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in
dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times
when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own
assets.
There was nothing on the public record or in any public document
identifying Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative. That information
was classified. Sending Joe on a mission to Africa does not point the
finger at her. Moreover, she did not make the decision to send him.
That is another of Hiatt's lies and is routinely echoed by rightwing
hacks. As Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post in July 2005:
"They [the White House] said that his 2002 trip to Niger was a
boondoggle arranged by his wife, but CIA officials say that is
incorrect. One reason for the confusion about Plame's role is that she
had arranged a trip for him to Niger three years earlier on an
unrelated matter, CIA officials told The Washington Post." (Washington
Post, 27 July 2005)
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that
he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had
with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said
he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without
revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized
the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be
revealed. (Washington Post, 27 July 2005)
We are forced to revisit this nonsense because we have now learned that
in addition to Libby and Rove, Richard Armitage also was shooting off
his mouth about classified information. Regardless of Armitage's role
as an initial source for Novak, we are still left with the fact that
Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby abused their power and were
actively engaged in a coordinated effort to discredit Joe Wilson for
his behind the scene efforts to alert the public to the falsehoods in
the President's State of the Union address.
While Richard Armitage may have had no malicious intent, the same
cannot be said for Cheney, Libby and Rove. They knew exactly what they
were doing. According to The Washington Post, during the week of July
6, 2003, "two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to
at least six Washington journalists." Sometime after Novak's column
appeared, Rove called Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball" and
told him that Mr. Wilson's wife was "fair game."
And we have the document released by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald
in United States v. Libby, that provides a copy of notes Cheney had
written in the margins of Mr. Wilson's July 6 op-ed. In a court filing,
Fitzgerald stated that the notes demonstrated that Cheney and Libby
were "acutely focused" on the Wilson column and on rebutting his
criticisms of the White House's handling of the Niger intelligence.
Those notes became the basis for Republican National Committee talking
points circulated and repeated by Ken Mehlman and others.
Why is this relevant? Today the Bush Administration is once again
trying to manufacture a case for war. They are calling critics of its
policies on Iran and Iraq "appeasers" and decrying the lack of
intelligence on Iran. It is deja vu all over again to quote Yogi Berra.
They whine about a lack of intelligence on Iran but refuse to accept
responsibility for their own role in destroying Valerie Plame's
undercover work, which was focused on monitoring the flow of nuclear
technology to Iran. They may not have fully understood what Val was
doing because of her cover status. But that's the point. They don't
think these things true. Their only goal is political survival.
Perhpas the new attention on the Plame affair will fuel public support
for accountability in government. The gang of political thugs currently
in the White House refuse to be held accountable for anything. With the
help of enablers like Fred Hiatt and Christopher Hitchens and others in
the main stream media, it is no wonder that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld
skate from disaster to disaster, oblivious to the field of debris left
in their wake.
We must also remember that the Government sanctioned attack on the
Wilsons is not an isolated event. Just ask former Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill or National Security Advisor Richard Clarke. Add to this
list the names of the two CIA Baghdad Chiefs of Station who were
savaged for their prescient early warnings that Iraq was moving into a
civil war. The Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that
President Bush and his minions prefer destroying those who call them to
account for failed policies rather than admit error and take corrective
measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United States.
As we move towards a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised that
people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you choose
to blow the whistle you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal
assault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney
also are sliming America.
-- No Quarter
Source: Yahoo
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060902/cm_huffpost/028557
Joseph I. Mion
<noe...@notime.com> wrote:
> The investigation was indeed conducted, by an honest and fearless
> prosecutor named Patrick Fitzgerald.
All well and good, FL.
My point was that IF there was a CRIME committed, THIS was the crime.
Crimes, it should be noted, are committed all the time, and
investigations are launched to investigate those crimes and/or to
determine whether a crime was even committed. Sometimes they find one
way, sometimes another. This does not obliterate the need to
investigate and charge people when a crime was found to be committed.
---Joseph
Joseph I. Mion
WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think you're just being illiterate. Citing pieces of the
> Constitution, and opinion blogs, does nothing to substantiate your
> claim regarding "openly admitted violations of the Constitution of the
> United States and other laws".
>
> > http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2005/12/claiming-right-to-break-law.h
> > tml
> >
> > http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_01/008071.php
> >
> > Fuck off. I've got better things to do with my limited time than
> > pander to a moron and find citations
>
> Apparently, you don't.
>
> > to stuff that any grade schooler could find using a simple google search:
>
> And yet you couldn't find any yourself.
>
> > Have fun, you America hating motherfucker.
>
> Always refreshing to dialog with reasonable adults such as yourself.
You didn't follow instructions. I said to follow the links in the
article(s) to find what you seek (or, find what you wish to remain
completely ignorant about.) There were some very "incriminating"
quotes directly in those articles by a number of Bush mouthpieces that
claimed, effectively:
a. We've been spying on American citizens by circumventing FISA.
b. We believe we have the right to do so.
I do not feel the pressing need to dredge up GWBs own quotes of
December 2005, especially to appease a troll, but now that I have given
you the specific month and year, it might make it easier for you to be
a good citizen and inform yourself so that you can make better
decisions in the future.
Otherwise, I have to wonder why you hate America so much.
---Joseph
FL Turbo
On 2 Sep 2006 08:42:26 -0700, "Bob" <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
>Larry C. Johnson: 'Smearing the Wilsons and sliming America'
>
>Larry C. Johnson, Yahoo
>
>How low can they go? I refer of course to the latest vitriol directed
>at Valerie and Joe Wilson by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Fred
>Hiatt of the Washington Post, who claim that Joe Wilson, not Bush
>Administration officials, is responsible for destroying his wife's
>cover and exposing her as a CIA operative.
>
>Hitchens battle with the bottle may account for his addled thinking,
>but what is Hiatt's excuse? Both men perform like Cirque du Soleil
>contortionists in dreaming up excuses for the nutty and destructive
>policies and actions of the Bush Administration. In watching their
>behavior we see a parallel with the devotees of Jim Jones who gathered
>in Guyana almost 30 years ago to drink poisoned kool aid.
>
Koolaid.
Indeed.
>Let's focus on the Post's Fred Hiatt. In today's Post editorial page,
>Hiatt writes:
>Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the
>end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go
>public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out
>-- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and
>that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
>The claim that Joe Wilson's op-ed from July of 2003 was a pack of lies
>and misrepresented the truth is an old rightiwng, White House canard.
>Here is what Joe Wilson said in the July 2003 op-ed:
>
Actually, the whole kerfuffle was triggered by a columnist named Bob
Novak, identifying Joe Wilson's wife as an employee of the CIA, who
recommended him for the Niger mission.
The charge was that some administration official "leaked" her name.
The Fitzgerald investigation was started to find out exactly who did
that, and if that official should be indicted for the crime of
exposing a covert CIA agent.
In hindsight, we see that Fitzgerald concluded that there was no crime
committed, and indicted no one for that leak.
When Fitzgerald started asking reporters to testify, even the NY Times
started claiming that there was no crime there.
Funny how the NYT changed their tune when it was their own people
being investigated, isn't it?
>
>
>Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four
>documents in United States government archives confirming my mission.
>The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing
>in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A.
>report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the
>office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).
>While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in
>government to know that this is standard operating procedure.
>
So then, Mr. Larry C. Johnson, exactly who has seen these reports?
Personally, I haven't seen any such documents.
How about you, Bob?
Have you seen any documents out of the CIA, the embassy, or anyone
else as to exactly what Wilson's reports said?
>The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our
>political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I
>understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If,
>however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain
>preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that
>we went to war under false pretenses.
Notice how he skips right over the little issue of what he actually
reported to the CIA, right back to his charges of going to war under
false pretenses?
>False claim? False claim my ass! There were at least four reports. We
>now know that the National Intelligence officer for Africa in January
>2003 briefed the White House that the Iraq/Niger claim was bunk. Even a
>partisan Senate Intelligence Committe report cites repeated efforts by
>the intelligence community to warn the President's advisors that
>reports claiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium, including British
>reoirts, were not credible.
>
And in the reality based world, the British government, via the Butler
report, still maintains that Saddam did indeed send a trade mission to
Niger.
The last I heard, Niger's principal exports are chickpeas, goats and
yellowcake.
>What is so bizarre is that the White House did admit that it was wrong
>to put the infamous 16 words into the State of the Union Address (of
>course, they blamed the CIA), just days after Wilson's op-ed appeared.
>If, as Hiatt claims, Wilson's op-ed was false, then why did the White
>House correct the record by confirming the substance of his claim?
>
It would probably be instructive to quote those exact 16 here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And notice the key word "sought".
It is not "BOUGHT".
A favorite straw man argument by Lefties is to claim that Bush said
that they BOUGHT yellowcake.
In perfect 20-20 hindsight, it was a big mistake of the Bush
administration to back off from that statement.
It was true then, and it is still true today.
It enabled Joe Wilson, et al to keep spinning the yarn.
>Hiatt also portrays an astonishing ignorance of national security
>affairs. He offers up this goofiness referring to Joe Wilson's
>"culpability" for exposing his wife's job:
>
>
>He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists
>such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been
>sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.
>
>
>Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the
>National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last
>U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson
>was uniquely qualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least
>was) a common acitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department,
>Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the
>behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in
>dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times
>when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own
>assets.
>
It might be a very good time to ask here why Joe Wilson was not
required to deliver a written report, and also why he was not asked to
sign a non-disclosure agreement.
And if the CIA "wants information and does not want to expose its own
assets", why did they allow Joe Wilson to hang his assets out in a NYT
article?
If this is now common activity at the CIA, it is now even more screwed
up than its worst critics imagine.
>There was nothing on the public record or in any public document
>identifying Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative. That information
>was classified. Sending Joe on a mission to Africa does not point the
>finger at her. Moreover, she did not make the decision to send him.
>That is another of Hiatt's lies and is routinely echoed by rightwing
>hacks. As Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post in July 2005:
>"They [the White House] said that his 2002 trip to Niger was a
>boondoggle arranged by his wife, but CIA officials say that is
>incorrect. One reason for the confusion about Plame's role is that she
>had arranged a trip for him to Niger three years earlier on an
>unrelated matter, CIA officials told The Washington Post." (Washington
>Post, 27 July 2005)
>
Yes, that trip to Niger three years earlier opens another CanOWorms.
But that is another subject beyond the scope of this argument.
>Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that
>he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had
>with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said
>he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without
>revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized
>the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be
>revealed. (Washington Post, 27 July 2005)
And here is probably the time to mention that Bob Novak didn't just
fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
He has been around more than long enough to know when a government
official is only telling him that they would be merely unhappy to see
an item published VS when he would be in a heap of trouble for
publishing it.
>We are forced to revisit this nonsense because we have now learned that
>in addition to Libby and Rove, Richard Armitage also was shooting off
>his mouth about classified information. Regardless of Armitage's role
>as an initial source for Novak, we are still left with the fact that
>Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby abused their power and were
>actively engaged in a coordinated effort to discredit Joe Wilson for
>his behind the scene efforts to alert the public to the falsehoods in
>the President's State of the Union address.
>
Joe Wilson was trying to "...alert the public to the falsehoods in
the President's State of the Union address." ???
GMAFB
In fact, those 16 word were absolutely true both then and today.
>While Richard Armitage may have had no malicious intent, the same
>cannot be said for Cheney, Libby and Rove. They knew exactly what they
>were doing. According to The Washington Post, during the week of July
>6, 2003, "two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to
>at least six Washington journalists." Sometime after Novak's column
>appeared, Rove called Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball" and
>told him that Mr. Wilson's wife was "fair game."
>
Rove called Chris Matthews to say that?
First time I've heard that.
Any verification of that?
>And we have the document released by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald
>in United States v. Libby, that provides a copy of notes Cheney had
>written in the margins of Mr. Wilson's July 6 op-ed. In a court filing,
>Fitzgerald stated that the notes demonstrated that Cheney and Libby
>were "acutely focused" on the Wilson column and on rebutting his
>criticisms of the White House's handling of the Niger intelligence.
>Those notes became the basis for Republican National Committee talking
>points circulated and repeated by Ken Mehlman and others.
>
Any wonder why the Bush administration wanted to know just who this
Joe Wilson was, and why he was making those charges against them in
the NYT?
Another GMAFB moment.
>Why is this relevant? Today the Bush Administration is once again
>trying to manufacture a case for war. They are calling critics of its
>policies on Iran and Iraq "appeasers" and decrying the lack of
>intelligence on Iran. It is deja vu all over again to quote Yogi Berra.
>They whine about a lack of intelligence on Iran but refuse to accept
>responsibility for their own role in destroying Valerie Plame's
>undercover work, which was focused on monitoring the flow of nuclear
>technology to Iran. They may not have fully understood what Val was
>doing because of her cover status. But that's the point. They don't
>think these things true. Their only goal is political survival.
>
Heh.
Another giant leap into uncharted territory.
Probably a good time to talk about Ms. Plame.
At one time, she was a genuine CIA covert agent, along with one Larry
C. Johnson.
That came to an end with the discovery of Aldrich Ames as a traitor.
Among the covert agents that he outed was one Valerie Plame.
At that point, her covert status was gone.
She then went to work in CIA headquarters as an "analyst".
Often times I have referred to her as a "glorified file clerk", but
that probably is unfair.
Bob Novak called her an "operative".
In any event, to portray her as Secret Agent 000 is nonsense.
>Perhpas the new attention on the Plame affair will fuel public support
>for accountability in government. The gang of political thugs currently
>in the White House refuse to be held accountable for anything. With the
>help of enablers like Fred Hiatt and Christopher Hitchens and others in
>the main stream media, it is no wonder that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld
>skate from disaster to disaster, oblivious to the field of debris left
>in their wake.
>
Hell, I would settle for just some accountability in the CIA.
It probably is way too much to ask for some accountability in the MSM.
If they spent even 1/4 of the time questioning Joe Wilson as they did
any pro-Bush official it would be an improvement.
>We must also remember that the Government sanctioned attack on the
>Wilsons is not an isolated event. Just ask former Treasury Secretary
>Paul O'Neill or National Security Advisor Richard Clarke. Add to this
>list the names of the two CIA Baghdad Chiefs of Station who were
>savaged for their prescient early warnings that Iraq was moving into a
>civil war. The Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that
>President Bush and his minions prefer destroying those who call them to
>account for failed policies rather than admit error and take corrective
>measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United States.
>As we move towards a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised that
>people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you choose
>to blow the whistle you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal
>assault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney
>also are sliming America.
>
Pfffft.
What a bunch of self serving bloviation.
>-- No Quarter
>
>Source: Yahoo
>http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060902/cm_huffpost/028557
Good old HuffingandPuffington.
As big a collection of Moonbats as you are likely to find anywhere in
the blogosphere.
And then there is Mr. Larry C. Johnson.
Here is his most famous quote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Declining Terrorist Threat
New York Times | July 10, 2001 | Larry C. Johnson
The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia --
or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia -- you should take
appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny, eh?
Only about 2 months before September 11, 2001.
Mr. Larry C. Nostradamus
So why is he held in such high esteem by Moonbats everywhere?
This might help explain it.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=ZWQ0ZjA1OTQ4NTQ0ZTUxNDcxNDk0ODBjMmIxOTE3NGY=
Only the conclusion here.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
As for his connections — how he knows enough to speak about the CIA
after 17 years away — well, that’s where the openness ends. “I’m not
going to get into the specifics of how I know what I know,” Johnson
says. And that’s that.
Of course, that doesn’t really matter to Johnson’s fans in the press
and the left-wing blogs. Johnson is celebrated not so much for what he
knows as for what his fans hope he knows: that the Bush administration
is corrupt, traitorous, and a danger to national security. These days,
he can always find someone to listen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not the least of which is HuffingtonandPuffington.
FL Turbo
>AOL NEWS: The White House has declined to provide the date when the
>president used his authority to declassify the portions of the October
>2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document that
>detailed the intelligence community's conclusions about weapons of mass
>destruction in Iraq.
>
>Wilson had accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence
>to exaggerate the weapons threat in Iraq.
>
Wilson has said a whole lot of things at a whole bunch of different
times.
Probably the best excuse for him is that he is like a politician.
Able to tell the rubes in Iowa one thing, and the elites in New York a
whole different thing.
At least most politicians don't make a secret of whose side they're
on.
Wilson won't admit whose side he is on.
>
>Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in the filing that Libby
>testified before a grand jury that he was authorized by Bush, through
>Cheney, to leak information from the intelligence estimate.
>
Uh, do you have some direct quote from Fitzgerald on that statement,
or are you just making that up?
>Because Bush declassified the intelligence document, the White House
>does not view Libby's conversations about it as a leak. But that
>determination is difficult to make without knowing precisely when Bush
>decided to declassify the information.
>
The White House is required to sit back and watch Joe Wilson do his
spinning without any rebuttal?
>
>Libby passed the information about the document to New York Times
>reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003. It was 10 days later, on July
>18, when the same portions of the document that Libby discussed with
>Miller were released publicly.
>ML wrote:
>> You'd think there would be a few honest liberals out there. A few who
>> would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
>> Plame case."
>>
>> But, alas, no. They must have "moved on" to another smear campaign.
>>
Hell, the Demos haven't even been able to "move on" even from 2000.
One of the greatest Whyizzits is why an organization that calls itself
MoveOn is totally incapable of moving on.
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> You didn't follow instructions. I said to follow the links in the
> article(s) to find what you seek (or, find what you wish to remain
> completely ignorant about.)
Oh, hell...you didn't say it was a scavanger hunt. I thought you
actually had some links to support what you were claiming. My mistake.
> There were some very "incriminating"
> quotes directly in those articles by a number of Bush mouthpieces that
> claimed, effectively:
>
> a. We've been spying on American citizens by circumventing FISA.
> b. We believe we have the right to do so.
How the fuck does "we believe we have the right to do so" constitute an
admission of Constitutional violation?
> I do not feel the pressing need to dredge up GWBs own quotes of
> December 2005
Of course not. People making claims they can't support never do feel
the need to support them.
> especially to appease a troll
Meaning, someone who has challenged your claims.
> but now that I have given
> you the specific month and year, it might make it easier for you to be
> a good citizen and inform yourself so that you can make better
> decisions in the future.
Sorry Scooter, but finding evidence to support the claim is YOUR job,
not mine.
> Otherwise, I have to wonder why you hate America so much.
I only hate the parts containing child molesters like you.
Joseph I. Mion
WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoun...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh, hell...you didn't say it was a scavanger hunt. I thought you
> actually had some links to support what you were claiming. My mistake.
I did. I gave you the links. You didn't follow instructions.
> How the fuck does "we believe we have the right to do so" constitute an
> admission of Constitutional violation?
"We did it. We believe we have the power to do it." It's real simple.
Don't parse out what you don't want to hear.
> Sorry Scooter, but finding evidence to support the claim is YOUR job,
> not mine.
No. It's the job of every American who believes in the rule of law.
You apparently do not. Continuing to bury your head in the sand and
deny what sort of laws your president is breaking is hardly what I'd
consider patriotic. Do yourself and your country a favor and get
informed.
Otherwise, I can only assume that you hate this country and would
rather have a dictatorship. That's surely what your president is
aiming for.
---Joseph
WuzYoungOnceToo
>
> I did. I gave you the links. You didn't follow instructions.
Sorry Sparky...but sending someone on a goose chase does not constitute
substantiating your arguments. You know what you can do with your
instructions.
> "We did it. We believe we have the power to do it." It's real simple.
> Don't parse out what you don't want to hear.
Saying that you did something and that your legal council has
determined that it is within your Constitutional powers is NOT an
admission of a Constitutional violation. Why you think it is...who
knows.
> > Sorry Scooter, but finding evidence to support the claim is YOUR job,
> > not mine.
>
> No. It's the job of every American who believes in the rule of law.
OK. I accuse you of stealing charitable contributions to orphanages.
Is it everyone's duty to try to find evidence to support that
assertion?
> You apparently do not.
Your position is apparently so weak that you need to resort to these
tired fallacies.
> Continuing to bury your head in the sand and
> deny what sort of laws your president is breaking is hardly what I'd
> consider patriotic. Do yourself and your country a favor and get
> informed.
Swallowing accusations with not supporting evidence is not becoming
"informed".
> Otherwise, I can only assume that you hate this country and would
> rather have a dictatorship.
Is that really all you can do?
William Coleman
"ML" <lipse...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156941507.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: You'd think there would be a few honest liberals out there. A few who
: would have the cajones to step up and say "Yeah, we were wrong on the
: Plame case."
:
: But, alas, no. They must have "moved on" to another smear campaign.
Sorry to be late to this thread, boys, but I have been busy in other
threads. I got to this thread while trying to determine if Hiroshima Facts
and WuzYoungOnceToo are both sock puppets of the King of Nitpickers.
I need the help of the internet geeks on this issue, so I am starting a new
thread "The sockpuppets of the King of Nitpickers". Here is the OP of that
thread --
I made this post in the thread "OT: the lies and bullshit of RMHisCOOL,
part 1" in an effort to determine if Hiroshima Facts posting in this thread,
and WuzYoungOnceToo, posting in the thread "OT - No "Mia Culpa's" from the
Liberals on the Plame Issue", are both sockpuppets of the King of
Nitpickers. I also crossposted my post to the Plame thread.
My limited knowledge of interpreting Internet Headers prevents me from
conclusively determining if Hiroshima Facts = WuzYoungOnceToo, although I
strongly suspect it. Both posters are ultranationalistic Nazis defending
the indefensible. American World War II atrocities in the case of Hiroshima
Facts. Obvious treason by Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Libby in the outing of
covert CIA operative Valerie Plame in the case of WuzYoungOnceToo.
Both posters are endlessly argumentative assholes who will never admit they
are wrong about anything.
Both are posting from Google Groups using a yahoo.com email address.
Several of the Internet Headers are identical, but the NTTP Posting Servers
are different.
Not enough to convict, but certainly enough to indict.
Can one of you internet geeks help me out here? Do I have a case, or are
all of the similarities just coincidences?
Here is my original post where I started my investigation --
"Bob" <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
news:1157426080.8...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
:
: hiroshi...@yahoo.com wrote:<snip>
:
: > Hiroshima Facts
: >
: > Department of Truth and Reality
:
: DPWuz, is that you?
A truly inspired guess, and very likely correct. Notice the dismissive "you
know nothing at all" tone of the post. Notice the extremely dishonest
technique of snipping what I said, then acting like I never said it. Notice
the refusal to simply show that he knows the definition of Collective
Punishment by quoting the Geneva Conventions' definition of Collective
Punishment.
Yup. Fits DP7/Wuz/Luvin's modus operandi perfectly. Further notice the new
sock puppet name.
LMFAO!!! This submoron knows I have all his many sock puppets killfiled, so
he creates a new sockpuppet to make sure I will read his ignorant bullshit
and waste my time arguing with him, when I already know I am 100% correct.
Let's see if Hiroshima Facts has ever posted to RGP before.
Well, Hiroshima Facts has an extensive posting history on many different
usenet groups. That also fits DP7/Wuz/Luvin's modus operandi. Let's see if
we can do an RGP author search to see if Hiroshima Facts has ever published
to RGP before.
Looks like Hiroshima Facts had posted to RGP a total of two times before on
RGP. The first post is in the thread "has kerry done anything to help us
military" posted on March 8, 2004, about 2.5 years ago. Amazing that
Hiroshima Facts shows up in this thread after a posting hiatus of 2.5 years.
Yup. This post is classic DP7/Wuz/Luvin. Defending the U.S. military
against charges that the American bombers participated in the firebombing of
Dresden. He states in the 3/8/2004 post that the American bombers bombed
the Dresden railyards, while British bombers burned the city. Yet in the
current thread, he claims the firebombing of Dresden was a British
operation. There is an obvious contradiction here. But DP7/Wuz/Luvin is
the King of Nitpickers, so we know he will be able to pick enough nits to
show there is no real contradiction.
He further exculpates the USA from blame for the nuclear blasts by claiming
that the nuclear weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually
intended for military targets and the 100,000 civilians killed in each city
are "collateral damage".
LMFAO!!! is this classic DP7/Wuz/Luvin or what? We all know that the King
of Nitpickers is an ultranationalistic warmongering pig who thinks nothing
the U.S. military has ever done is blameworthy in the least. This is
absolutely classic stuff from the poster all of RGP loves to hate. This
post is so classic, here it is in its entirety --
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/b4ed6378d4a36af4
"Rich" <anonym...@paranoid.org> wrote in message
<news:404663c4$0$63415$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> On Mar 3 2004 1:20PM, the pickle wrote:
> > Yes, there is always some gratuitous atrocity
> > in war, but American servicemen are seldom the usual offenders. It is
> > simply not the "American" way.
> Bullshit. You're believing too much American propaganda. What about
> killing peasants in free fire zones and reporting them as enemy
> casualties?
[more classic King of Nitpickers. He has no rebuttal for this classic
atrocity, so he just cruises right past it without comment.]
> What about the bombing of Dresden?
American bombers focused on the Dresden railyards.
The city was burned by British bombers.
> What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Civilians targets, yes. But also significant military targets.
The Hiroshima bomb exploded nearly directly above a large base (the
headquarters of the Japanese Third Army and the headquarters in charge
of the defense of Kyushu), and nearly all of the 20,000 soldiers on
the base were killed instantly.
The Nagasaki bomb was intended for the Kokura Arsenal, but was
diverted by the weather to the outskirts of Nagasaki, where it
exploded between the "Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works" and the
"Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works/Torpedo Works", damaging both
beyond repair.
__________________________________________
OMFG!!! Notice the extreme mastery of minute details. Yet another trademark
of the King of Nitpickers. Notice the flagrant attempt to absolve the U.S.
military for all blame for Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
I would bet $100 that Hiroshima Facts = DP7/Wuz/Luvin.
Let's look at the other post which Hiroshima Facts has published in his
entire posting history on RGP, on February 10, 2004. Again, here is the
entire post, from the thread "OT: America is a sick joke". Judge for
yourself whether this sounds exactly like the King of Nitpickers --
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/abea387100531df2
"Gary Leddering" <anonym...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<news:4027f791$0$226$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
> American intelligence had intercepted Japanese communications of
> high-ranking military and goverment officials as early as July 1945
> clearly stating their intentions to surrender.
The Japanese were hoping to get the Soviets to mediate surrender
negotiations and help them get more favorable terms.
We were not interested in either negotiating or providing them with
better terms, so this was largely irrelevant.
> With or without the bomb they were going to surrender.
We had no way of knowing what Japan intended to do if their "Soviet
mediation" gambit fell through.
> According to a large majority of insider and historical accounts
> the bomb was dropped to preclude further East Asian penetration
> by the USSR. It was the first strategic move of the Cold War.
The consensus of historians is that the bombs were dropped with the
goal of forcing Japan to make an unconditional surrender.
The stuff about impressing the USSR is limited to anti-American
propaganda.
_______________________________________
LMFAO!!! It's our boy, the King of Nitpickers, I just know it. Just how
sick is this pathetic fuck??? I remember Kilgore Trout tracing this idiot
to some other usenet newsgroup, where the King of Nitpickers was posting
with multiple sockpuppets to create the impression that many posters agreed
with him.
Would it surprise you if this usenet degenerate has literally hundreds of
sockpuppets which he uses to post to dozens of usenet newsgroups? It
certainly wouldn't surprise me.
He uses a sockpuppet until he becomes the laughingstock of the newsgroup,
then he trots out another sockpuppet, since everyone has killfiled his
previous sockpuppet. He has already done this on RGP, when he abandoned
DP75089 when that sockpuppet became known as an endlessly argumentative
asshole who had no clue.
All the sockpuppets post with a newsreader, so let's see if we can find out
anything from the internet headers. Here are the Internet Headers from the
latest post by Hiroshima Facts --
Path:
newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: hiroshi...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: OT: the lies and bullshit of RMHisCOOL, part 1
Date: 4 Sep 2006 19:26:44 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
References: <LEQKg.2813$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
<Li2Lg.6228$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.103.250.151
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157423210 3839 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2006 02:26:50
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 02:26:50 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.103.250.151;
posting-account=O_tAuw0AAACWI6W0znjUQK6KkBqvL2hC
Xref: news.earthlink.net rec.gambling.poker:1599995
X-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:26:51 PDT
(newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Whoops. Looks like he is actually posting with Google Groups. Am I correct
on this? What about the sdsu.edu? Obviously San Diego State University. I
am no expert on internet headers. Does that indicate he is posting from San
Diego State University, or just that newshub.sdsu.edu is a server in the
path? Any assistance from anyone would be appreciated.
And is newshub.sdsu.edu part of his unique path, or it that just part of how
all messages get to me? Let's see what the internet headers look like for
Bob's post --
Path:
newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Bob" <b...@synapse-cs.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: OT: the lies and bullshit of RMHisCOOL, part 1
Date: 4 Sep 2006 20:14:40 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <1157426080.8...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
References: <LEQKg.2813$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
<Li2Lg.6228$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.123.223.234
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157426086 12901 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2006 03:14:46
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 03:14:46 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 SBSSERVER01
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: 74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.123.223.234;
posting-account=412rEgwAAAAtD53quApugFn-FKTSUPqj
Xref: news.earthlink.net rec.gambling.poker:1600007
X-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:14:46 PDT
(newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Whoops again. Bob's path is identical to the path of Hiroshima Facts.
Looks like the path just indicates how the message got to me. I guess we
need to look at the NNTP posting hosts --
Hiroshima Facts -- 66.103.250.151
Bob -- 66.123.223.234
Now we are getting somewhere. If we can tie another DP7/Wuz/Luvin
sockpuppet to the NNTP posting host with IP = 66.103.250.151, our work will
be done.
First, I need to go into Options > Read and check "expand grouped messages"
so I can sort every message whose header I have downloaded.
Done. Now let's sort the RGP folder by author. I may have a problem here,
since I think I killfiled all of the sockpuppets of the King of Nitpickers.
Whoops one more time. I thought expanding grouped messages would sort all
messages in the folder, but the sort is still by the name of the
threadstarter. I think I understand now why DP7/Wuz/Luvin NEVER starts a
thread. You can't find his sockpuppets by sorting the RGP folder by author.
Houston, we have a problem. How am I going to find a post by one of the
King of Nitpickers sockpuppets, since I have them all killlfiled?
What happens if I remove all of his sockpuppets from my killfile? Will
messages from the sockpuppets reload if I download next 1000 headers
repeatedly?
Fuck. I have a huge killfile. Clicking on the email column does not sort
the killfile by email address.
Looking through my killfile, I only find the following sockpuppets --
No DP7 or Luvin sockpuppets killfiled since I set up my most recent
killfile. How much do you want to bet that half the endlessly argumentative
braindead trolls in my killfile are sockpuppets of the King of Nitpickers???
Jesus H. Christ on a pogostick. Just how sick and starved for attention is
this Nazi scumbag???
OK. Should I remove the Wuz sockpuppets from my killfile and see if I can
reload message headers from the Earthlink news servers from these
sockpuppets?
Here's another question. Does Google Groups show the internet headers?
Let's do an RGP author search on one of the Wuz sockpuppets and see if
Google Groups gives us the internet headers.
LMFAO!!! the last post by WuzYoungOnceToo to RGP using email address
wuzyoun...@yahoo.com was made on September 4, 2006 in the thread "OT -
No "Mia Culpa's" from the Liberals on the Plame Issue". What is the King of
Nitpickers up to in this thread?
I am laughing so hard I am going to have a heart attack. The King of
Nitpickers and his fellow Nazi scum, Francis Lee Turbo, are trying to make
the absurd case that no laws were broken in the outing of covert CIA
operative Valerie Plame. Please read the entire thread. Bob and Joseph I.
Mion are bodyslamming the attempts of these Nazi totalitarians to defend the
indefensible -- the obvious treason of outing a covert CIA operative. Just
to give you the flavor of the thread, here is Mion's latest reply to the
King of Nitpickers --
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker/msg/858edd10a4bd4f6c
article <1157389755.377575.223...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
WuzYoungOnceToo <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh, hell...you didn't say it was a scavanger hunt. I thought you
> actually had some links to support what you were claiming. My mistake.
I did. I gave you the links. You didn't follow instructions.
> How the fuck does "we believe we have the right to do so" constitute an
> admission of Constitutional violation?
"We did it. We believe we have the power to do it." It's real simple.
Don't parse out what you don't want to hear.
> Sorry Scooter, but finding evidence to support the claim is YOUR job,
> not mine.
No. It's the job of every American who believes in the rule of law.
You apparently do not. Continuing to bury your head in the sand and
deny what sort of laws your president is breaking is hardly what I'd
consider patriotic. Do yourself and your country a favor and get
informed.
Otherwise, I can only assume that you hate this country and would
rather have a dictatorship. That's surely what your president is
aiming for.
---Joseph
_______________________________________________
Please go read the entire thread. You will see the Nazi scumbags Wuz and
Turbo in all their glory, defending treason and pretending no laws were
broken in the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.
OMFG!!! The Nazi apologists King of Nitpickers and Francis Lee Turbo think
they can somehow absolve Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney from
having committed obvious treason through legalistic nitpicking. Go and read
the entire thread. You will see how Turbo and Wuz think they create enough
confusion and doubt with their Nazi bullshit and nitpicking to obscure the
obvious facts --
Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and Dick Cheney committed clear and unambiguous
treason by outing the covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. Rove, Libby, and
Cheney committed this treason for the disgusting motive of discrediting a
serious exposer of the WMD lies, Joe Wilson. Rove, Libby, and Cheney should
be tried for treason and executed publicly after being convicted.
George Bush not only authorized this treason, but had contemporaneous
knowledge of the treasonous plot to out Valerie Plame. Bush has also
committed treason. He should be impeached and removed from office. Then we
should see if we can find another example of treason by Bush. Shouldn't be
too hard. Then we should try and convict the impeached Bush for treason, so
we can publicly execute him also.
But I digress. Let's see if the post of the Wuz sockpuppet will give us
internet headers from Google Groups.
Yup. Here they are --
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!postnews.google.com!i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: OT - No "Mia Culpa's" from the Liberals on Plame Issue
Date: 5 Sep 2006 07:17:16 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <1157465836.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
References: <1156941507.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<300820062020374857%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
<1157046809.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
<310820062222326754%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
<1157118822....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
<020920061113196915%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
<1157389755.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<040920062355126541%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.0.171.210
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157465842 10376 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2006 14:17:22
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:17:22 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <040920062355126541%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.0.171.210;
posting-account=Jsb7AwwAAACChiJH6kg0YtPNyg7F7La6
OK. The paths are diffferent, but I got the Hiroshima Facts Internet
Headers from my newsreader, which got the message header from the Earthlink
news servers, while I got the WuzYoungOnceToo Internet headers from Google
Groups. That explains the different paths.
The NTTP Posting Host is 64.0.171.210. Not the same as Hiroshima Facts NTTP
Posting host IP address, 66.103.250.151. Someone help me out here. Does
this prove conclusively that Hiroshima Facts and Wuz are not one and the
same? Or can you have different NTTP Posting Hosts within a short period of
time?
Of course, Wuz could have accounts with two different ISPs. That would also
give different NTTP Posting Hosts, would it not?
While waiting for someone more knowledgeable about interpreting Internet
Heders than me to clarify the issue, is there anything else in the Internet
Headers for Hiroshima Facts and Wuz which shows they are coming from the
same source?
Let's compare the Hiroshima Facts and Wuz Internet Headers side by side to
see the similarities --
Hiroshima Facts --
Path:
newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!postnews.google.com!e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: hiroshi...@yahoo.com
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: OT: the lies and bullshit of RMHisCOOL, part 1
Date: 4 Sep 2006 19:26:44 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <1157423204.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
References: <LEQKg.2813$v%4....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
<1157393882.4...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>
<Li2Lg.6228$xQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.103.250.151
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157423210 3839 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2006 02:26:50
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 02:26:50 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.103.250.151;
posting-account=O_tAuw0AAACWI6W0znjUQK6KkBqvL2hC
Xref: news.earthlink.net rec.gambling.poker:1599995
X-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 19:26:51 PDT
(newsspool2.news.pas.earthlink.net)
Wuz --
Path:
g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!postnews.google.com!i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "WuzYoungOnceToo" <wuzyoungonce...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Subject: Re: OT - No "Mia Culpa's" from the Liberals on Plame Issue
Date: 5 Sep 2006 07:17:16 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <1157465836.5...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
References: <1156941507.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
<300820062020374857%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
<1157046809.5...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
<310820062222326754%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
<1157118822....@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>
<020920061113196915%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
<1157389755.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
<040920062355126541%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.0.171.210
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1157465842 10376 127.0.0.1 (5 Sep 2006 14:17:22
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 14:17:22 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <040920062355126541%joe_...@ceeoecks.net>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
.NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=64.0.171.210;
posting-account=Jsb7AwwAAACChiJH6kg0YtPNyg7F7La6
Wow! A LOT of identical entries. Both are posting from Google Groups using
a yahoo.com email address. Several other headers are also identical. Does
this prove that Hiroshima Facts = WuzYoungOnceToo?
As I said previously, I am no expert in interpreting Internet Headers. In
fact, you can see from the way I have stumbled around, I don't know much at
all on this subject.
Can one of you internet geeks help me out here?
I guess I have to leave the investigation here for now. I am convinced
Hiroshima Facts = WuzYoungOnceToo. Both posting from Google Groups using a
yahoo.com email address. Other Internet Headers are identical.
Both posters are ultranationalistic Nazis. Hiroshima Facts defends obvious
American atrocities in World War II. Wuz defends obvious treason by Bush,
Cheney, Rove, and Libby. Both are endlessly argumentative nitpickers who
will never concede they are wrong about anything.
The modus operandi is exactly the same. The MO of the King of Nitpickers.
So, King of Nitpickers, care to confirm or deny that Hiroshima Facts and
WuzYoungOnceToo are both your sockpuppets?
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Department of Agitation, Propaganda, and Demagoguery
________________________
Please visit my weblog, Ramashiva Rules --
http://www.ramashivarules.blogspot.com
Before clicking on the URL, please set your monitor's resolution to 1152x864
or higher and turn off Ad Blocking. Please help me out by clicking on the
affiliate banners at the top of the page, the Amazon book links on the
right, and the Google ads.
Windows Live Messenger -- ramas...@hotmail.com
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOU YIOS SOTER (corrupted version)
IESOUS CHRISTOS THEOS YIOS SOTERES (true version)
Sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come, follow me.
-- Jesus Christ
God told me to smite Al Qaeda, so I smote them. Then God told me to smite
Saddam, so I smote him also.
-- George W. Bush, Liberator of Afghanistan and Iraq
Minor Glitch
> I got to this thread while trying to determine if Hiroshima Facts
> and WuzYoungOnceToo are both sock puppets of the King of Nitpickers.
>
> I need the help of the internet geeks on this issue, so I am starting a new
> thread "The sockpuppets of the King of Nitpickers". Here is the OP of that
> thread --
Who gives a shit?
-mg
-------