Nice post, Brad. On a much lesser level, I sympathize utterly with the amount of effort it takes to combat the relentless and presumably largely supplemented tidal wave of dispicable lies and distortions. The hardest part of it is the way the experience can blight one's faith in humanity. But the resources struggle is not to be sneezed at.

I guess one has to look upon the funny side of life. After all, it's kind of hilarious that these rightwingers are trying to sell the American People on the idea that a spy isn't a spy unless he or she is scuttling around in a black cloak and has x-ray glasses!

Brad, I'd be interested in exactly what Tammy said that was incorrect, and indeed hear your exact refutations (since you were unable to do so on Tammy's show). I'd like to read them.

I'm a right winger from Chicago who loves Tammy's books and listens to her via the internet as much as I can.

Lastly, it may be of interest to you that her website is now a blog. You can now post comments directly on there.

Spin Doctors like Tammy Bruce, Sean Hannity etcetera belonging to the Military-Industrial Complex's mass media are approaching the end of the great game. It's to be expected that they employ downright censorship to pigeon-hole the Truth. A book could be written on these scripted ways to dismiss the opposing factual evidence. Keep up the good work of exposing these people for what they represent and getting to the heart of the matters that are affecting our nation.

Steve F - I have to run out for the rest of the day (and thus, I had to blog all the above quickly), but here is a link --- now added to the story above --- to help get you started. It's from a CIA classmate of Plame/Wilson's.

Beyond that, any actual investigation into the myriad materials available on the matter will quickly show you that Tammy was completely wrong in all of her statements. Pure, unadulterated, unapologetic spin.

I'm sure others here can give u still more links throughout the day if you're unable to find them yourself.

Once again, thank you, Brad. You are a gem and a gentleman...I've been flat broke lately...but as soon as I catch up with essentials, I'll be contributing...you are doing the right thing...and doing it well.

SHE, the "tammy thing", is just another liar cashing in on the "right-left thing", at the expense of truth and America, like the "coulter thing"...these "things" are a curse on America.

Steve F --- stop following around counterfeit idiots like the "tammy thing" and "bush" and start being honest with youself. Don't you know a liar when you hear one? Don't you know what is correct behaviour towards others and what is not correct or good? It's simple..."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"..."Take the log from your own eye...etc. etc." The "bush, tammy, coulter and others" are just excuses to pursue evil policies that hurt everyone and make the few rich.

Let's hopefully give her audience more credit than to believe everything she is saying. I would guess, as with Bush's poll numbers dwindling, that her audience would be too, spewing that crapola.

I would be interested to know how many other callers they had in defense of the truth that they wouldn't put through. Credible Bush-supporting news based on facts? Not anymore. Just secrecy and "stay the course" and "trust me" - screw that. We don't trust you anymore, Mr. Bush, nor anyone in your corrupt administration, nor anyone who's ever spent more that an hour with you in person.

I can almost relate to the anger you must have felt in the car driving, Brad. This whole nightmare is so frustrating. Don't get down, for every person who hears the crap, there are 3 of us out here getting the truth ) and we're helping to spread it. Thank you for trying/accomplishing everyday!

By statute (the IIPA), a covert agent must have regularly worked outside the US within the past five years, and at the time of the leak, Valerie Plame had not worked outside the US for nine years. The CIA yanked her back to HQ and kept her there after the arrest of Aldrich Ames in 1994, because they believed that Ames blew her cover.

Brad,

It's great that you phoned the program and did what you could to try to set the record straight. It sets an excellent example.

Brad:

You shouldn't have told them who you were...just act like a regular average caller. I'm sure they would've let you through, as they filter out callers who can make them look bad.

DUDE BRAD
MOST CERTAINTLY THIS GIRLIE NEEDS DA MULLET...YOU SHOULDA GONE OVER TO DA STUDIO AND GIVEN HER GOOD OLE FASHION SCREW.......LISTEN TO HER TALK.....SHE NEEDS IT MAN....KEEP UP DA GOOD WORK BRO! GENE TERRI FORT ELLIE, WE LOVE YA BABY!!

JIMMO:

You might be interested to know that the IIPA act is not actually what they are proving, and if they do prove the IIPA act it will be Miller and her accomplice who initiated the leak.

In fact, for some time now they have been analyzing a much easier to convict law, which is under Chapter 37, and which I noticed Brad's refutation had not mentioned yet.

I think it would be not only desirable but appropriate to analyze this law in any discussion about the event, or its affect on national security

Controlling law 793, 794 & especially 798 make it a felony to reveal classified information at any time for any reason

Especially in the subject at hand, related to national defense matters.

Just like the no-defense defense for Delay, you can not assume a legal case has no grounds just based on some obscure law or a lack of a "list". In fact if you follow the law to its conclusion, what's so is there was a breach of national security.

Rove, Libby, in fact anyone passing information signed a non-disclosure agreement. Except Cheney, who actually has clearance to receive. And that agreement was violated the second Brewster Jennings & Plame were spread to the PRESS.

Not only violated, the entire operation was dismantled as a result. Each of these controlling LAWS apply to the investigation.

Doug E.

I'm new here and really love your blog. I call 790 WNIS (Norfolk, VA) all the time. We have a libertarian (pro-choice republican) during drive time and I'm always calling to counter some nonsense or other. The rest of the day is the hate-a-rama of Boortz, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and Weiner-Savage. I believe that the true-believers will have to be confronting some very uncomfortable truths before too long. We should all remember to show compassion. When that doesn't work; I think ridicule will. I try not to be a hater, but can be sarcastic as hell. Again, love the blog!

Checked out the Tammy (Earl?) Bruce website.....she really blew me...away, I mean....

Ugh. Just following the trail, reviewing the program content of whatever fucked up stations she's on and seeing the likes of Hannitttttty and Bill O'Lielly, I began to experience sudden nausea and the hairs on the back of my neck stood on end....I followed the links to her actual website and found yet another "right-wing", self-hating, homosexual whore...

Just like Mehlman, Rove, Gannon/Guckert, this sorry bitch is selling out to the Repugnantcan toadies. In exchange for a career (of sorts), some measure of fame and personal financial gain, she's just whoring herself out for the DELUSIONAL party line without regard to actual human costs of Chimpy the Sock Monkey's blatantly criminal enterprises....

As my eyes were beginning to bleed, and trying (as most liberals do) to see the good in people, I thought of the one good thing one might say about her: She's more fuckable than Mann Coulter.

Brad and co,

What a surprise. I posted the hard evidence on Tammy's blog and she has everything set on moderation just like "Blogs for Bush" which came up with this BS and the Tom Delay defense.

They can't handle conflicting facts, or in plain english, they can't handle the truth?

Doug E.

Hah!

If you go to Tammy's website now, she has posted my comments. Looks like the truth will be heard, hopefully it starts opening up at least some closed minds to the real subject at hand.....

Strike up another victory for the 6 or 7 squad!!

Doug

"Steve F --- stop following around counterfeit idiots like the "tammy thing" and "bush" and start being honest with youself."

Peggy, I indeed listen to all opinions from all sides, watch CNN, MBNBC, Fox News, read various websites and do all I can to listen to all.

The reason I "support" Tammy Bruce, is because, like me, she is gay and realizes that certain radicals from the left are doing more to segregate our community, in fact making the segregation factor even stronger than it was 5 years ago.

In addition, I became interested in Tammy Bruce during GLADD's attack on Dr. Laura in 2000. Like Tammy, I was able to seperate Dr. Laura's opinions on marriage, children, and family from "Dr Laura hates gay people and wants them dead". Tammy Bruce was brilliant in articulating this thought in her book "The New Thought Police".

I support president Bush on the war (as explained fifty thousand times in a seperate thread) and do not buy into the liberal rhetoric of warmongering or the rhetoric that Bush is trying to oppress blacks or gays. I do however, attack him, LIKE Ann Coulter has, on issues such as spending, being a ninny to liberals, and nominating a nitwit like Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

Coulter is an incredible articulator who, with some amazing GPA scores and an Ivy League law degree is a master at the art of debate. Yes I think she's right a huge portion of the time, but I also know that she gets a kick out of making liberals go crazy. But I do believe in her heart she is a staunch conservative who believes what she advocates.

All in all, I do not worship the ground that these people walk on, and am open to hearing debate against their thoughts and opinions.

I was not being condescending to Brad when I asked him what his rebuttals were to her "lies" and I also advised that you could post comments on her blog. If she IS indeed wrong, or lying, then fine...I will accept that characterization. Though I will admit that it will be hard for me to believe from a liberal gay woman, who once was the President of N.O.W. in Los Angeles (since she left the roles have plummeted). In my opinion, she is a perfect example of an American who has been on both sides of the political fences. She also remains a liberal (which I am not) but contends that people all have more in common than not, and is convinced that the radical left and it's activist groups have started this "extreme" politics war in the first place and how the organizations like N.O.W. and GLADD based on today's standards have nothing to do with the noble intentions of the civil rights movements for blacks and gays set up decades ago. I agree with her.

But as I say, if Brad is correct, so be it. I am reading into what he linked to. But just because I'm "curious" about what his answers to her were, or because I'm a right winger doesn't mean I bow at the feet of anyone. .

This is a huge national security issue.

I honestly can't tell anymore when they are lying or when they are just feeding off the years of lies and misinformation they have had tossed at them.

They lie to these people so much that when reality hits their cult following in the form of say, indictments, the cult feels persecuted.

Rush has trained millions in a mindset void of reality in many ways. When things don't go right for his cult, they feel persecuted. They know since Rush told them how things work, when things go bad, they feel increasingly cheated and willing to LIE to "even" the score.

This is how cults relate to the world.

"The reason I "support" Tammy Bruce, is because, like me, she is gay and realizes that certain radicals from the left are doing more to segregate our community, in fact making the segregation factor even stronger than it was 5 years ago."

Hmm.. what "radicals" would these be?

Santorim, if he had his way, and is a member of "your party", would have you strung up and shot.. When "liberals" are trying to make sure you are afforded the -same- legal rights under marriage as "straight" people, you say they are trying to segragate you?

Seriously.. give me some examples of "lefties" working at segragating "gays". And no, a timeline 'starting' from 200 years ago [and running through today] that shows a bunch of crap about dems/repugs isn't gonna cut it. I'm pretty sure you know all about the comments from the right about you "queers" and your religious base despises you.. but please, show me "liberals" who are trying to segragate you..

"Coulter is an incredible articulator who, with some amazing GPA scores and an Ivy League law degree is a master at the art of debate."

As for "articulator", you didn't listen to her stutter and stammer during her interview with Brad and Ron. And, as was touched upon in the "other thread".. she debates like she's still in college defending the position of "the holocaust was good".. lies and distraction and spin do NOT make for "good debate" in the real world... while it may win over "supporters", it also wreaks of "this agenda is good for us rich white folks but we're gonna try to convince everyone that it's better for -all- people.. nevermind the obvious lie about it"..

Again, debate amung intelligent people is -supposed- to be about "getting the truth out", not "making you believe my lie".

Tammy's bored because she doesn't have the intellect and imagination for the topic so she shoos it away like some fake elitist shooing her nanny.

"The reason I "support" Tammy Bruce, is because, like me, she is gay and realizes that certain radicals from the left are doing more to segregate our community, in fact making the segregation factor even stronger than it was 5 years ago."
So Says Steve F.....

Is the disconnect in this Log Cabin Repugnantcan thinking due to Ecstasy use?

Sorry dude...I wish I could be more charitable here, but this sort of thinking is just fucking nuts.

I've always felt issues of basic civil rights for all Americans are literally tethered to the concept of "life, liberty and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS" - which may be the most beautiful phrase in the history of civilized governance -

'The pursuit of happiness' addresses a rather etherial concept that must be considered as being unique to the individual under the law. If 'all men are created equal' then it stands to reason that all men (and women) are equally entitled to freely pursue a life that makes them 'happy'!

Which, of course, leads us to 'Gay Marriage'....and WHO IS IT that steadfastly opposes it???

You guessed it!! Repugnantcans!! Often, closeted, self-hating, yet homophobic Repugnantcans who - at every opportunity - use it to PANDER to narrow-minded, bigoted, yet self-righteous, intolerant, selfish, born-again "Christians" with a penchant for Bible quotes, but no actual recall or respect for Jesus' message of Peace, Love and Understanding.

Dude - please... snap out of it.

Steve, by swearing fealty to a man-whore like Coulter you are proving why nobody takes you seriously.

She is about as articulate as a 40% off rag. And if she stands for true conservatism, than conservatism is for certain dead.

She spins more than she gives facts. I bet if she realized Delay actually was involved in a crime, and that Plame was related to national security & national defense, she would shut her mouth.

But reality doesn't seem to spin into these people's world--only very rarely, like in the case of George Will.

Conservatives seem to like anything that gets them off the hook, including lies and intentional murder, and not mind or have any qualms at all about it.

And by the way, liberals were not responsible for segregating gays. That's got to be the biggest load of BS yet. Intellectuals and fundies segregated gays until they both went to war over it, now they all want to "ban gays" for bullshit like being different. And the disgusting culture we have just gets worse and worse as we discriminate more, especially the Ann Coulter's against the blacks.

Doug E.

Steve F:

You seem like a smart guy. How can you be for the Iraq War? Why?

You must realize by now, there were no WMD's and the Bush administration knowingly mislead the public. You must know their 2nd reason was ties between Sadaam & Al Quada; both were debunked.

So, why are you for the war? Because we're bombing democracy down their throats? Killing tens of thousands of civilians? Creating a breeding ground for terrorists where there was none?

You must realize, that terrorism escalated enormously worldwide since Bush attacked Iraq. Bush disregarded all dissenting opinions from experts.

Look up Fascism, and notice how what the Bush administration does is the very definition of fascism:

1. Distrust of reason (my way or the highway; disregard scientific thought; intelligent design)
2. Denial of basic human equality (suppression of the poor & black vote via intimidation and other tactics; attacking non-white countries constantly)
3. Total annihilation of opponents, not working with them.
4. Government by an elite group (corporate America & the 1% rich; self-appointment via electronic voting machines)
5. Push their views as a way of life, not just government (mixing religion with government, calling discenting views "unpatriotic", etc...)
6. Racism & Imperialism ("us & them" attitude, we're better than them, so we should ram our way of life down their throats by gunpoint/bombs)
7. Opposition to international law and order (Wars, pulling out of Kyoto, John Bolton, etc...etc...)
8. Control the media (fake news reports, suppressing facts, shills in the media like Judith Miller, Rush Limbaugh, etc...)
9. Nationalism (flag waving, flags everywhere they are, hicks have flags on their pickup trucks, god is on our side, not theirs)
10. Militarism (wars, wars, wars, halliburton, etc...)

The sad thing, is that these creeps stole their way into office via electronic voting machines made by their rich cronies, therefore they've stolen our democracy. This may not be Hitler's fascism, but it's some very close "cousin" to real fascism (fascism lite?). And it has no place in a country like ours. These guys are not even Republicans, they should've called themselves a different party. The Republicans themselves should revolt against them. And you should too.

It was a clever ploy trying to shame people into not comparing them to Hitler, but they are using the fascism playbook.

Exactly why are you for the war??? Don't just say, "I'm for the war...." Why???

Dan I agree except for one thing.

These guys are definitely republicans. Nixon was always a fascist, and did the same thing without buying the media. Reagan supported the perverted Zionism in Israel during the 60s and wanted to wipe-out world cultures on behalf of Jerusalem. He was black-mailed into doing Iran-Contra and being a traitor.

Further, republicans at their core are the brown-shirt party. This is just what needs to be accepted. They are ignorant to facts, overly obssessive, and constantly feel persecuted.

Republicanism began with them and will die with them. A true party of the people will need to arise from all this, and hopefully take all the conservatives, libertarians and progressives into it who became alienated from their party.

Something like the Unionists Green Party, a movement that sparks global change. Its going to happen, republicans sink in the ship.

Doug E.

Log onto the radio station web site, there's a section to send comments and a list of who advertises on the station.

http://www.kabc.com/contactus.asp

I sent a note so maybe 6-7 of us could let Ms. Bruce know how much support Brad has.

Being Canadian, my letters probably are ignored but I want them to know Brad has listeners and readers from all over the globe.

Steve F. there's another blog you should check out...

AmericaBlog.org, I think you'll find that they cover topics of interest to you.

Steve F # 2, you said "Brad, I'd be interested in exactly what Tammy said that was incorrect,"

She's (Tammy Bruce) telling them that Valerie Plame/Wilson was not a covert CIA agent. That she couldn't have been because "she drove to work every day at the CIA building." That she was nothing more than a bureaucrat with a desk job at the CIA and so she was never outed.

The memo was marked "S" for secret, meaning she was undercover.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072105Z.shtml

Memo central to probe of leak was written by state dept. analyst.
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Ohmygod, the shill is back. Steve F. is not a real person, guys and girls. Steve F. is a professional shill! Read how he writes here! He doesn't even sound the same! It's a different guy using the same pseudonym!

The Bush WH spends up to 250 million a year to directly influence the media. And BLOGS ARE MEDIA! So the Republicans hire hacks to troll the more progressive blogs, like this one, and disrupt them:

Why? Several reasons:
1. To make drop-ins believe that there are two sides to all these issues--i.e. to provide fair and balanced reporting, like the MSM provides (LOL).
2. To distract regular readers, to obfuscate and confuse.
3. To drain off organizational energy, so that the discussion descends into quarrelling, thereby boring most readers.

These professional shills have different strategies, for example:
1. Sounding reasonable, in other words "I can be convinced you're right if you give me facts." But of course no facts or logical arguments are sufficient.
2. Changing the subject entirely, e.g. "poor people don't pay income taxes."
3. Being obnoxious by sheer obtuseness.

Jimmo... Karla... Steve F....

STOP WASTING YOUR TIME ON THEM!

"Coulter is an incredible articulator who, with some amazing GPA scores and an Ivy League law degree is a master at the art of debate."

Then Anne Coulter is a textbook example that high GPA scores and achieving degrees at high-status institutions is not necessarily an indication of being able to manage critical thinking sucessfully. (Or maybe this is an indication of the anaemic level of critical thinking in the U.S. currently)

How's this for being a "master debater"?

Anne Coulter (cornered by a Canadian journalist) still insisted that Canada had sent troops to Vietnam. She paused after the journalist tried to help her out of this embarrassing faux-pas by telling her that we sent troops to Korea but not Vietnam, but then she stuck her foot into her mouth a bit more. She obnoxiously retorted, "I'll have to check into that."

"The CBC never received a call back." smirked the journalist at the end of his Anne Coulter piece.

Incredible articulator! LOL!!!
(sorry, I couldn't let that one go without a comment)

Unirealist: Exactly what I thought....

Unlike Nittany Lion and other conservatives, Steve F. has a peculiar modus operandi.

You know the kind of motivation that would make someone suspect.....

He is really Jim Dyke of the ACVR! Ah hah....

See, they are hiring paid disinformation plants who think they are CIA to troll everywhere.

Doug E.

Hey Karla,

Is this Tom Delay and friend's sordid new love affair with Michigan?

Klu Kluks Klan Television coming to Midwest Michigan, support for destroying Gays and Blacks across the midwest

I bet they are real proud of that one! The republicans embody their true racist agenda once again, free hand-outs and scalpels for all....

Doug E.

"Coulter is an incredible articulator who, with some amazing GPA scores and an Ivy League law degree is a master at the art of debate. Yes I think she's right a huge portion of the time, but I also know that she gets a kick out of making liberals go crazy."

Cool. Glad I don't have amazing GPA scores and didn't get an Ivy League law degree to "master" the "art of debate".

Otherwise, I wouldn't have gotten such a kick out of making Ann Coulter go crazy. Or at least, helping her walk off the show when she couldn't, apparently, keep up with one non-Ivy League debater.

Keep making noise, folks! Ain't nobody else gonna do it for ya!

"We are the ones we've been waiting for." (Old Hopi, or Navajo? phrase...)

It is so unfair!! Karly "Turd Blossom" Rove and Tammy Virgin Queen get all the good publicity for outing Valerie Plame. I helped Turd Blossom with the "outing" and I got no credit!! It is so unfair. As an ace White House Press reporter and Turd Bolssoms "Toy Boy" I should get some credit for the brave and valid outing of the evil and wicked CIA agent. We hot Faux Military Stud-Whores and Fox-Talon repoters should at least get the Nobel Prize for spelling!! very truly yours, Jeffy "Scoop" Gannon, Ace Reporter White House Stud-Whore

p.s. I approve this posting: F-Y Cheney, Halliburton War Hero

Jim #7

"Working outside the US" is a very vague notion. In the law who is an "employee" and who is a "contractor" can be vague. And it certainly varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Likewise, the term "outside" can become vague. Remember the recent medical marijuana case was considered to be "interstate commerce" even tho everything was grown in one state for one person's use.

The "Working outside the us" standard can be met by working on projects that have an impact outside the US.

Clearly the WMD espionage that goes on concerning Iraq has an effect outside the US. And the front company they used worked outside the US. An agent that was killed as a result of the outing happened outside the US.

The defense you offer is a lame defense, just like Rove's "I didn't give her total name" defense is lame.

The identity is the key, and what impact the work has outside the US is also a key. It does not turn on the physical locus of the employee.

Furthermore, who can say Valerie Plame did not leave the US physically in persuit of her duties? That would be classified information, illegal to disclose as well.

One of the more relevant topics in the Plame-Gate affair is the tainted and perverted platform upon which it stands:

"Fitzgerald's status differs in one potentially important respect from the independent counsels who investigated alleged wrongdoing during earlier administrations. They reported to a panel of appellate judges, while Fitzgerald reports to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who at least theoretically must approve any indictment." (link here).

The fox will tell the chickens whether or not anything has happened to the eggs. This is the concept of bu$hit "justice", not american justice.

However, I can't imaging a situation where even the AG can quash a grand jury indictment. If things have gone that far down we are doomed.

Randi Rhodes of Air America says she reads Brad Blog. So Randi, if your reading I have a suggestion.
Al Franken has discussed going off air and running for office.
How about putting Brad's resume under your boss' nose as Al's replacement.
And then while your in there, do something about your contract with WJNO so we can get ALL of Air America in Palm Beach.

Love ya

Brad - re: #31 - I'm impressed that you know that phrase. The elders of the tribes have always had much to teach us, nice to see some folks are still listening.

Here it is in its entirety:

*****

The Hopi Elders Speak

We Are the Ones
We've Been Waiting For

You have been telling the people that this is the Eleventh Hour.

Now you must go back and tell the people that this is The Hour.

And there are things to be considered:

Where are you living?

What are you doing?

What are your relationships?

Are you in right relation?

Where is your water?

Know your garden.

It is time to speak your Truth.

Create your community. Be good to each other. And do not look outside yourself for the leader.
This could be a good time!

There is a river flowing now very fast. It is so great and swift that there are those who will be afraid. They will try to hold on to the shore. They will feel they are being torn apart, and they will suffer greatly.

Know the river has its destination. The elders say we must let go of the shore, push off into the middle of the river, keep our eyes open, and our heads above the water. See who is in there with you and celebrate.

At this time in history, we are to take nothing personally. Least of all, ourselves. For the moment that we do, our spiritual growth and journey comes to a halt.

The time of the lone wolf is over. Gather yourselves!

Banish the word struggle from your attitude and your vocabulary.

All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration.

We are the ones we've been waiting for.

—The Elders Oraibi
Arizona Hopi Nation

Hey Brad,

It doesn't surprise me one bit that that Tammy Bruce would not want to bring on an informed guest to talk about facts. That is simply not how right wing radio works. They want callers who will just talk spin because it helps them with their echo chamber. They don't want debate... they want to create a feeling of consensus. Very few of the big timers are really there because they want to discuss an issue.

But I am soooo glad that you published your experience on your blog... because some people might see it and think. People need to know that right wing radio is about implementing top down strategies of social control.

SteveF. said: "The reason I "support" Tammy Bruce, is because, like me, she is gay and realizes that certain radicals from the left are doing more to segregate our community, in fact making the segregation factor even stronger than it was 5 years ago."
I find this to be one of the most bizarre things I've seen posted anywhere of late. I am not gay myself, but personally know several people who are. Not one of them feels the way you say you do about the "radical left" and their treatment and attitude toward gays. They feel exactly the opposite - that the extreme "right' consistently attacks gays, makes them feel imperfect, infers that their "condition" is"treatable", that they have no rights as human beings to be in a legal relationship...the list seems endless. You are, indeed, a shill as others have pointed out. You have simply proven that you can spit out propagana as well as the next Bushie liar. Does this mean you can graduate from the same program as Gannon/Guckert now? Or are you one and the same?

Stop George #28 -

"How's this for being a "master debater"?"

For God sakes, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard that phrase used in my lifetime, I would already be part of that top 1% in income. WTF!?!?! It's not funny.

#36 Thank you for posting the Elder's quote. I have heard that what has been kept secret ie: the saced teachings of the Hopi, etc., is now being revealed because the time is at hand. I hope and pray these people survive to usher in a new world which has deep respect for the earth and all living beings. An aside....98% of the indiginous people of America are gone, according to a speaker at the Million More March. Have we committed genocide in our Country, I say we have. (Perhaps the remainder are the Chosen Ones...so much for Robertson, Dobson, and their ilk) M4

#36 - thank you for posting this - it speaks volumes for those of us who have been despairing over all of the garbage that this administration has piled on the country.

And Brad - I've been reading this site for quite some time, many thanks for all that you have done. I will be donating as soon as I get paid again... (I hope it's soon! :rolleyes:)

* SIGH *

All this vitriol.

I long for the days of harmony to return.

Ironically, that is happening with the Harriet Miers situation. Progressives and Conservatives alike hate her. And they are both angry at Bushco for it.

The last time that Liberals and Conservatives got together was just after 9/11. The one exception was that people supported the president; now, they all hate him for it.

Dear KBE - thank you so much for following Brad's righteous lead and sharing the whole lesson with us. I had heard parts before, but be sure I'm going to save this nugget. May the Great Spirit show herself to us all before it's too late. The time is now

Love and Peace, Bob in Prague

Anyone else for Tom Brown Jr for President?

Brad,

You need to read this page to get tips on getting through the phone screeners of hate radio...
http://www.freewayblogge...com/funwithhateradio.htm

I have heard the argument before, and the basic argument is this: Some homosexuals are too flamboyant and aggressive, this scares middle America. The Left doesn't condemn this behavior. Therefore, it is the Left's fault that gay people scare middle America.

It's a BS argument. I am the first to admit that some people are scared by Pride parades and that ACT UP also did some things that I found to be personally horrific in St. Patrick's cathedral. But it is all part of this strategy to lump all Left groups into the exotic and radical fringe. It's just like saying that Bush is "with" Timothy McVeigh and the KKK. Sure, they stand on the same side of the political spectrum, and surely the KKK would prefer a Bush over a Kerry any day of the week... but they are at the lunatic fringe. Saying they are one and the same is an unfair argument that only carries weight with unfair, uninformed, or wilfully ignorant people.

And, at the end of the day, I'd rather be painted as tolerant of radical queer activists than to be considered tolerant of radical white supremacists.

For the many reality-challenged trolls here, one of which I addressed in my post #33, and which Brad addressed in his post #4 above, I present some of the text of the statute they have never read but know so much about in the neoCon "talking points", a.k.a. bu$hit.

It is also for the phony "judges should not be activists" fans who do not know a court opinion from a legal treatise. So here is some text to read:

"(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agentWhoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified informationWhoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agentsWhoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."(Title 50, War and National Defense, Chapter 15, National Security, Sub-chapter IV, Protection of Certain National Security Information, Section 421, link here).

For the simpletons, like Rove and his lawyer, the RNC talking point rappers, and trolls here pukeing on everyone else, I would like to introduce you to some reality.

However, since you have no appetite for it, just read it and freep ... you know, tell us about how not giving the "name" is absolutely not identifying the agent, where it mentions "working at a desk", and other bu$hit that stinks to high heaven.

#27 on Trolls -

They way they work, it is pretty obvious that Trolls, Rush, Bill O, Ann C, Tammy, etc. on the various payroll sources diligently study -

25 Rules of Disinformation

I enjoy detecting how many of these rules are used, and how creatively applied per 100 words from these jerks. I have noticed increasing repetition of exact same phrases, and lack of variety in the "echo chamber" of "news" sources. Maybe they are getting tired or desperate, or will simply burst into flames. Fun to watch.

Here are the real defenses to the felony charges which can be brought pursuant to Sec. 421 (which I mentioned in post #47):

Section 422. Defenses and exceptions(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agentIt is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.(b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title 18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense under such section.(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply (A) in the case of a person who acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, or (B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to classified information.(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligenceIt shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to transmit information described in such section directly to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate or to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.(d) Disclosure by agent of own identityIt shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.

So again I point out that the defenses Rove and Libby have offered in the public eye are not valid defenses.

Note that the last sentence uses the term "himself" and has no female connotation.

Just as it would be lame to say this statute, therefore, only applies when males are the agents, it would also be lame to accuse judges who read it to apply to both male and female agents of being "activist" because they do not "strictly" interpret it.

The neoCons confuse "strictly" with "absurdly".

Maybe Steve F. can tell us why, if Plame was not undercover and therefore no crime was committed, is there an investigation?

No crime = No investigation.

Steve F, wouldn't the CIA know whether one of their own was undercover or not? Wouldn't the CIA know whether Plame was undercover? If no crime was committed, why would the CIA go to the department of justice for an investigation? Hmmm?

If there's no there there? Wouldn't it take Plame's supervisor all of about 5 seconds to say "yes" or "no" as to whether there is a crime (revealed identity) and the need for an investigation?

Also, if Plame was just a lowly desk jockey, why would she also have the authority to send CIA-sponsored fact-finding missions to Africa? The GOP talking points are fucking retarded.

Fortunately, there ain't much spin in a court of law.

Remember Steve F, it's that "Rule of Law" thing comming back to bite you in the ass.

Whether you are a professional dis-info freak, or a brain-washed retard, your world is about to get shattered.

UNIREALIST you are a trip and I thought you were kidding before.

I certainly am not paid to prattle about politics, I sure wish i was.

I find it a little funny though, that in a discussion started about the "outing" of Valerie Plame, that UNIREALIST is trying to "out" me as a shill for the Bush Administration.

If only my life were that exciting!.

TLV said

"I am not gay myself, but personally know several people who are. Not one of them feels the way you say you do about the "radical left" and their treatment and attitude toward gays."

LOL and "Will and Grace" is your favorite show, right?

This is just like a white man saying, "I listen to jazz, hip-hop, and my best friend in the 3rd grade was a black kid named Antron".

But assuming you really know many gay people, is this their opinion when they are one on one with you, or is it their opinion when you are with them at a gay club and surrounded by friends? Most people I know with this attitude spend the majority of their time in nightclubs and various bathhouses where logical thought outside of the bar and Abercrombie is non-existant.

I ask that because many gays, when I speak to them, one on one, say that they are tired of being defined by the sexually complusive radicals in our gay elite. Gay Pride celebrations (though they are fun fun fun) are the only thing that people see when the news cameras come out to get a glimpse of the drag queen with the big orange hair, or the man in leather chaps minus the underpants. Most gay friends I know are not willing to do anything on a Saturday night unless it involves going to a "gay" niteclub. For people trying to compare the black civil right's movement to that of the gays, I ask them to acknowledge the fact that I've never had to go to a public restroom marked "homosexuals only" or have been forced to sit in the back of a bus. In addition to that, Dr. King worked hard crossing the country, giving speeches, being attacked, and whatnot. I have't seen these things happening to Joan Garry, nor do I see her doing anything but sitting on a podeum telling our community what is wrong with republicans.

Despite what my personal belief on gay marriage is, this is definitely an issue where democracy needs to reign. The 11 states indeed that voted pro FMA were indeed majorily democrats, blacks, hispanics, and blue collar workers. But liberals want to portray this as some sick-vile republican strategist move to oppress homosexuals. But the truth is, if they let that states decide on all of these issues like gay-marriage and abortion on demand, and are confident that a majority agree with them, they wouldn't need the Supreme Court to hand these things to them.

How about switching the way gays are portrayed in the limelight of pop culture to allow people a better chance to embrace the community rather than prattling around in groups in Abercrombie at nightclubs and segregating themselves from society. Needless to say, I cheered the day "Queer as Folk" had it's finale.

Wanna talk oppression of homosexuals? How about an honorable statesman like Saddam Hussein who supported homosexuality as a crime with the same death-penalty consequences as rape and prostitution. For all the whining liberals do about the "casualties" in Iraq, I have yet to hear one gay activist say "thanx George". Do you know how many gay Iraqis would have been slaughtered by now, not to mention the rest of his peeps that were gassed due to corruption with the U.N.

This world we live in.

Steve F - Perhaps the reason they don't say "thanx George" for removing Saddam and his death-penalty prosecution of homosexuals (as you charge, though I cannot personally confirm) is that George W. BUsh's own death-penalty for scores of thousands of innocent women, men and children (likely many of them gay) in Iraq goes far beyond what Saddam Hussein might have ever done to gays when he was in power.

As to your absurd comment:
"For people trying to compare the black civil right's movement to that of the gays, I ask them to acknowledge the fact that I've never had to go to a public restroom marked "homosexuals only" or have been forced to sit in the back of a bus."

Have you never heard of Mathew Sheppard?

Have you never heard of Rev Fred "Gods Hates Fags" Phelps?

As to "democracy" ruling in these matters, you may be unfamiliar with it, but there's a document called the U.S. Constitution that you may wish to read. One of its, and our Republics, purpose is to maintain the voice and the rights of the *minorities* in this country. I realize that only matters to you when it's a minority you give a damn about --- other than that, majority rules! --- but you really ought to learn a bit about your own country.

Beyond that, however, nice job in changing the subject all together from the criminal Bush regime which you support! Mission Accomplished!

Hello again Steve F...hey I think we have moved beyond the question of was Valerie Plame a "real CIA operative" to - was anything illegal and or treasonous done to her and by whom? Lets let the cards fall where they may. Anyone (like you and Tammy for instance) who is now trying to backpedal and say hey she was just a desk jockey looks very much to me like they are seeing the writing on the wall and are trying to soften us up and minimize the inevitable damage.

...more thought on the above. I am very aware we have a big international problem with islamisict terror (now much, much bigger since your hero Bush sent us to Iraq) and I hate to think that because of her outing an incident is more likely to occur due to another operative with a sensitive relationship with critical intel that was spoiled.

I don't know how any gay person could wheel and deal with some of these radicals who believe:

Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

Most fundamentalists cite the first part: "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act." But never finish the sentence in mixed company.

If you look at what they believe and how they believe, surely they would not forget the second part of this sentence: "they shall surely be put to death."

I cannot believe that someone would "team up" with these people to accomplish their agenda of tax cuts and national security, or whatever the common cause is that y'all have found.

I say this as a heterosexual Christian man who believes that marriage, theologically speaking, is defined by an openness to create new life. You are making a deal with the devil when you traffic with these hate-filled Pharisees who want not only to codify morality, but want to enforce it. This is the essence of idolatry to attempt to program God's children, created with love and free will, to walk through the motions to satisfy a limited and shortsighted vision of Christ's Kingdom.

What a fool to throw in your lot with people who hate gay people, black people, whatever kind of people... What a fool to accomodate them in exchange for a little treasure and a little power. I'd rather be killed by Osama bin Laden himself than support the agenda of these radical fundamentalists. If you, Steve F, would stop consorting with these people... or at least tell them they are wrong... the world would be a better place.

You have to wonder why Rove & Libby felt it necessary to lie to the grand jury to not let it be known that they talked to reporters about this non-undercover CIA agent?

That seems rather stupid of people of Rove & Libby's experience to need to lie about don't you think?

This Republican talking point about Plame not being undercover because she works in the CIA building is just a load of crap. The CIA are the ones who requested the independent counsel in the first place. Why would they do this to answer questions about this "desk jockey"?

The Republicans are so brazen in their lies that with a straight face they say that Plame outed herself in Vanity fair in November 2003, when all the pertenent articles outing her were in July 2003.

They are so corrupt that they thing they can get away with saying November is before July.

So Tammy Bruce is gay. Good for her. Is there some secret handshake between gay people I didn't know about, that says blatant lies by a gay person on the radio are a-ok to other gay people?

Their strategy:
---------------------
Not wanting to talk about an ongoing investigation.

While

Priming the pump so that they can say this crime was "no big deal."
---------------------
It all seems to be pointing in one direction: they think someone is getting nailed and they want to minimize the damage.

DeLay is doing the same thing.

Johnny #56

That's exactly it. If Plame wasn't undercover, why do they have to lie?

And on top of that:

This is getting real juicy real fast will Judy Miller revealing her security clearance, on top of that special code from Scooter about turning aspen roots (I mean, WTF is that shit?), and her history of reporting what turned out to be the most hyped-up, cooked-up false WMD evidence on the front page of America's "Paper of Record". We've just accelerated to Warp 8.7 towards the Conspiracy Quadrant.

Wow, many personal questions and comments to address but one quick note of this early on.

Why would Joe Wilson (a laughably "official" sent by the CIA to Africa) draw attention to himself, especially if he really WAS sent by the CIA, knowing that Val was an undercover CIA agent, by writing an Op-Ed to the New York Times in the first place if he was so "concerned" about his wife being exposed in the first place?

I'm reading all of the published literature on the whole ordeal including the links on here. One thing that seems to be certain is that Valeria Plame is indeed a woman who hardly wants to be left alone.

Then the dignified Vanity Fair photo of the two of them. These people are hardly dignified, and they are certainly falling into the category of "nuts that liberals love to defend".

I'm just wondering why Vanity Fair never published a photo of Jesse Jackson and Cindy Sheehan as the "antiwar" Bonnie & Clyde.

I'm still reading and there is so much here in the 3 short months since the Novak response.

"Why would Joe Wilson (a laughably "official" sent by the CIA to Africa) draw attention to himself, especially if he really WAS sent by the CIA, knowing that Val was an undercover CIA agent, by writing an Op-Ed to the New York Times in the first place if he was so "concerned" about his wife being exposed in the first place?
"

I guess it would have something to do with a) no one supposedly knowing she's an undercover agent? and b) just because "he's" doing work for the CIA doesn't mean she does?

There is no "reason" to believe she's with the CIA unless someone SAYS she is.. like Rove and Libby did.. get it? That's the whole point of being "undercover".. her "cover" could have been any of hundreds of jobs that the wife of an international arms inspector does.. *shrug* just a thought..

And what does posing for a picture have to do with any of it? you don't think people have seen her? did Vanity Fair say "Joe Wilson, international arms inspector and his Undercover CIA Operative wife Valerie Plame"? uh.. don't think so.. (course, I've not seen the pic )

and.. - a g a i n -.. if she undercover and her position is CLASSIFIED and she's doing things APPROVED OF by the CIA, WTF does any of it have to do with anything? See, -trying- to make it a issue is "distraction".. see, Rove and Libby OUTED AN UNDERCOVER AGENT, and you want to "spin it" to minimalize THETREASONOUS ACT committed by Rove and Libey (and now, perhaps Cheney is gonna be sucked under too).. I don't get it.

Steve,
I think I have an idea of the point you are attempting to make concerning the very,very far out image of gays by the far left. This is the sort of "liberal" image that I also shy away from. I'm more of a moderate left leaning sort. I had a similar reaction to the speakers at the war protest in DC. I thought "wow, this doesn't represent me" and I am opposed to the war. Most americans are in the middle and that includes gay americans. All of the gay people I know live very normal lives and have good social and moral values. I agree that isn't the image one gets from watching the gay pride parade. I wonder however why you would want to aline yourself with people who consider you an abomination. A member of my family was recently married to her partner (she lives in portland,or and at the time same sex marriages were being preformed). She and her partner were welcomed and embraced by our" liberal" relatives. The "conservative right wing" family members not only boycotted the reception but went so far as to send hateful messages.
I understand why you don't feel represented by the far end of the left, Neither do I. I just can't quite figure why you would want to join with people who think you should be dead and sent to hell. Just curious.

That's called spin. VALERIE PLAME had her cover blown and that was a federal crime, and it also included the entire operation Brewster Jennings which tracks WMD across the world.

The issue is NATIONAL SECURITY. She wasn't even revealed until June-July 2003.

Doug

Steve F's points are pointless. Each is just wrong or can be answered with "So what?" You're just annoying noise in the background, Steve.

Steve F probably thinks Rove will get a medal and Joe & Valerie Wilson will be indicted. I don't know if Stevie here has actually made those claims (it's not worth reading him carefully), but other nutty wingers have tried to make that point.

We'll soon see whose information is the most reality based.

Steve F gets a lot of responses.

Steve, you think liberals are hurting gays? You repeat a lot of things directly from rightwing philosophy, try thinking for yourself.

GOP politicians hide the fact that they're gay, and vote for anti-gay legislation. Several have been recently outed for doing this, you know who they are.

Why do you make excuses for the GOP? I will never understand gay & black GOP-backers.

I'm getting sick of you not directly answering people's questions.

What about all the outed GOP politicians, who voted anti-gay??? Will you please answer? I think there was one, recently, in the Northwest, like Washington or Oregon, and I've been reading about others. There's a lot of closet gay GOP'ers. Being a closet gay politician is the best way to hurt gays. There's websites dedicated to outing gay politicians, because they hurt the gays so much.

Since you're relatively new to this site, I think we should set the record straight that just because we point out how corrupt the GOP is, doesn't mean we are pro-Democrat. We are truth-seekers. Rightwingers think that when you bash the GOP, you're pro-Democrat.

Both parties stink on ice. Sadly, the Dems stink less, and that's not saying much.

Doug, you're right, the GOP are the brownshirts, I stand corrected.

The 2 biggest issues remain the controlled media & the electronic voting machines. All other corruption flourishes because of these 2 things. Correct those 2 issues, and you correct a thousand other issues.

There's no independent media looking out for the populus except the internet, and in print American Free Press. It's because it's controlled by corporate America, and their mission isn't to inform the American people of important news. Just get that in your head right now, no news on TV is trying to inform Americans of important news, and they aren't going to, either. It's not setup to be corrected, it's not going to get corrected, until someone starts some cable news channels not owned by corporate America. Don't even entertain the idea that TV news is going to change. It's not going to...

So, what kind of terror act will coincide with the handing down of indictments by Fitzgerald? I say it will be big, brought to you by the guys who brought us 9/11...it will be big, because the indictments are big. Very sad.

#67 Big Dan, good question, I hadn't even thought of that one. You are right, I wonder what is planned if Fitzgerald lives to the end of the month.
Bird flu will suddenly appear in every state of union...dropped on our cities by the 'birds'..oh my.
I mention that one because the hype around that is getting louder and bush has a plan...to deal with it militarily. Forewarned..forarmed...that goes for us too, to see whatever 'it' is, for what 'it' is...... distraction. This is hard work, keeping on top of all of the lies

BIGDAN

"Steve, you think liberals are hurting gays? You repeat a lot of things directly from rightwing philosophy, try thinking for yourself."

Well now seriously Dan. If I did not think for myself, I would be whining with the rest of the community that thinks we are victims. It seems that you wouldn't mind me jumping on a bandwagdon, just as long as it's the right or (in your case) the "left" one.

I felt a very different way about activism 10 years ago when I was more of an idealist and thought that "Give Peace a Chance" was a doctrine when in reality it was just a dream. LOL.

In any case, I have alot of comments to answer. But from first hand experience, it's the loathing unjust victimizations of my community that appaul the rest of the country. The extreme activists. Life aint all that bad for us gay folk...LOL.

In addition BEJAM, I was making a point about Joe Wilson (to SAV also)...this case looks pretty convincing to me - a right winger - that Libby is going to get indicted and probably convicted of at least something, as yesterday Patrick Fitzgerald announced 2 smaller charges of Obstruction of J on Libby's behalf, but still nothing intentional on Karl Rove. I think the President will live up to his word and fire Rove on the spot though, and as a matter of fact I am predicting that by the time I return back here from NYC next week, there is going to be a major "announcement" made. It seems as if Rove and Libby are running out of options for excuses and Judith Miller is an much a dimbulb as the Wilsons are.

I still think it's odd that Wilson - even though he was ticked at the White House's dismissal of his report - wasn't following the law of priority when he made this a national thing by writing an Op-Ed to the New York Times knowing that Plame was an undercover agent. You know darn well he had to know that conservatives would have dismissed his claims, and looked into his "official" trip to Africa by uncovering the idea that it was Valerie who sent him on a safari paid for by you and me.

I think the left can rest easy on Rove and Libby. Regardless of jail time, it's apparent that they are as dimwitted as the rest of the players are in this game.

I contend that Wilson and Plame were not as interested in keeping her name as secret in the first place, but it in noway excuses Rove and Libby for breaking the law which seems to be getting closer and closer to happening each day.

At this point, I certainly am in support of Rove and Libby losing their jobs instantly, and as I say, I think something along those lines are going to happen by Monday. If they aren't canned for breaking the law, certainly for being nitwits.

And after all this, Bush's refuge to disappointed right wingers like myself, is bringing on Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court! Oay Vey!

Big Dan #67

While that is possible, the times they are a changing.

I mean, now the admin realizes the people are not behind them and neither are responsible republicans who are not going to stoop to crime as the admin has.

To top it off, Cheney's war against the CIA has insured that he is watched.

Not everybody is asleep at the wheel now as they were before.

This spotlite may temper their behavior, and they may go down with a whimper.

Comment #16:
The reason I "support" Tammy Bruce, is because, like me, she is gay and realizes that certain radicals from the left are doing more to segregate our community, in fact making the segregation factor even stronger than it was 5 years ago.

**How can you say the left has done more to segregate when the 'right' wants to change the constitution to devalue you and your life style! Things are worse than 5 years ago (notice the number 5 bush years). It seems there's a deep set denial in your blood that wants to side with the 'right' as if the word's definition implied correctness?

I support president Bush on the war (as explained fifty thousand times in a seperate thread) and do not buy into the liberal rhetoric of warmongering or the rhetoric that Bush is trying to oppress blacks or gays. I do however, attack him, LIKE Ann Coulter has, on issues such as spending, being a ninny to liberals, and nominating a nitwit like Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
**There is no liberal rhetoric here, the war was preplanned and based on lies, that's not partisan that's facts...because of those lies and people are dying everyday and more will because of supporters like you, so alas blood is on your soul too because you have been told the truth and refused it! Why would you support bush's war? Yes every war has been based on lies, but if we the people don't stand up and jail this president another and another will drag our country into bankruptcy and innocent death for greed and power..again not partisan, but criminal! Death and destruction is real and not a support the pres issue! We are less safe today than 5 bush years ago, that's a fact. It's a fact that everytime thier polls go down they use fear to bring them up, is that OK with you, seems so?

Coulter is an incredible articulator who, with some amazing GPA scores and an Ivy League law degree is a master at the art of debate. Yes I think she's right a huge portion of the time, but I also know that she gets a kick out of making liberals go crazy. But I do believe in her heart she is a staunch conservative who believes what she advocates.
**So she and other genius have worked to destroy truth now and throughout history, don't mean they should be allowed to lie to the public for their causes. Lies in media when presented as news should be illegal unless they pre-disclose that what they are saying is based on rumours or hearsay!

Steve F,

So, "life ain't quite so bad for us gay folks"???

What do you call being 2nd class citizens, not being able to get married. COME ON!!! Don't even pretend that you are "equal" in this country. And don't pretend the GOP isn't anti-gay. That's BULLSHIT!

And I'm not on "the left".

I think Steve F just exposed himself, with his ridiculous comments about gays.

I don't think you're gay, Steve. And, I think you're a conservative apologist.

There is not one gay I know, who would ever say "things ain't so bad for gays". You are not gay.

DAN, Nobody has classified me as a 2nd class citizen. It's funny how you are more interested in portraying me as a victim than I am.

Gays were never allowed to get married. This is a crazy issue, and without stating my own opinions on gay marriage, I have to say that there is nothing written in the constitution, EVEN in the fourteeth amendement, that gives made up rights to gays and abortionists.

However, if indeed the majority of this country were going to, in a democratic way, decide that abortion and gay marriage are agreed upon, then fine. This is the part where judicial activism comes in. Lefties on the bench who make up "constitutional" rights to privacy and create these scenarios to hand things like abortion on demand and gay marriage to liberals.

I urge liberals to not be afraid of democracy. In the end, it does not matter what Bush, I, Rush Limbaugh, or anyone thinks about abortion or gay marriage as a general matter. What does matter is that we have our own personal opinions on it, and that through DEMOCRACY, things are lawful or illegal.

When it comes down to two seperate entities viewing the constitution in very different ways, I definitley support the idea of originalism when it comes to what is ACTUALLY WRITTEN in words.

But as I say, liberals are terrified of democracy. If the majority of this country wants me to get married under the same jurisdiciton as a man and a woman, then fine. This country is great for that option.

Lastly you are wrong about the GOP. You are manipulating an originalist position on interpreting the constitution to an argument that the GOP is made up of people who want to oppress blacks and homos. That is a lie. What they support, is what I support...LET DEMOCRACY RULE! As I pointed out earlier to Brad, a huge portion of the 11 states that passes pro FMA were majorily by democrats! In addition Oregon (where they thought would fail) the FMA passed by 57%, indeed a state that Bush lost in. A state that is made up of mostly democrats!

These are facts Dan, the constitution is a factual document that has been twisted to serve agendas. But the fact that people exist view the Constituion in a "originalist" manner, doesn't mean they hate. Learn to seperate bud.

Steve, simple questions: Should gays be allowed to get married? And, is the GOP against gay marriage?

You are not gay, by the way...

Here's a link to the war that you're for: we just killed 25 civilians, and 18 of them were children:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101805J.shtmlh

Steve, you are a 2nd class citizen, if you cannot get married by law. If you can't get married, you are not equal. I think that's pretty simple, and I think everyone reading both our posts agrees with me.

Is black, white? Steve? Is 2 + 2, 4? Steve? Are you equal, if you can't get married?

...and, you begin your posts by seemingly answering someone's question, and then cut/pasting some HUGE conservative propoganda shitstorm after your "personalized" opening comment...

You are a conservative/rightwing propogandist, who is on some mission here on this blog. And you're not gay...NO WAY!!!!!!!!!

Exit JIMMO......enter STEVE F...

...keep trying...

I guess I'm surprised at the dialog that's gone on in this comment list. It's not obvious to me that Steve F or Jimmo are shills, maybe because I know people who honestly think as they do. But in any case there's been a lot of venom directed at them, which seems just plain rude to me, and has gotten in the way of dealing substantively with their arguments, IMHO. I think all the anger and namecalling are unnecessary, wrong, and counterproductive (from a practical standpoint).

Not to toot my own horn, but after reading Brad's initial post on this, I went over to Tammy Bruce's website and posted a few understated, fact-oriented comments, as did Doug Eldritch whose comments I see above. They haven't been rebutted effectively by other posters, so I'd say that's a victory for our side.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think that the namecalling and emotional arguments tend to be ineffective, or worse; we only really need to argue using the truth, and understatement can be a lot more effective, for many reasons, than bluster.

My apologies if I seem to be scolding anyone - it's more my intent to influence the quality of the discussion than put anyone down.

Yes Steve #74 you surely a plant idiot from the right that is afraid of liberals and bored with his own blog sites. You apparently don't believe in victims giving your GOP greedy ass away and your not gay or happy either. We 'liberals' are afraid of the republican form of democracy (or really lack of democracy) that is more like being in prison in your own country, not like living in a free nation. I hope the camera gets installed in your crapper first by big brother!

PS to Steve that thinks the pres will live up to his word and fire Kove or whomevery....BS alert! He's never fired anyone, he makes them miserable enough to quit, but never fire...that takes balls of which he has none. Now 'whomever' will quit then be hired back as a consultant...remember Brown!

Joe Fass re: #79 - I was trying to think of a polite and unadversarial way to put into words what you just said - as you said, not directed at anyone specific, just gently expressing to everyone how important the task is before us, and how crucial it is that we stay focused. Thank you.

Hey y'all, the time of the neo-cons is, for all practical purposes, over. We are in the majority now, and some of the things we've wanted are finally happening - maybe not fast enough for some of us but still, it's a start, and it's better than it was a year ago. Let's celebrate small victories, shall we?

As far as Steve F. above, he may or may not be gay - but does it really matter? Remember, there are many Republican supporters who are gay, and though I personally could not with good concience throw myself in with those who preach intolerance and who think it's their place to decide everyone else's morals, obviously some can and do. Perhaps Steve F. just hasn't reached that place in his life where he has met someone with whom he wants to make a lifetime commitment, or perhaps he hasn't been put into a really bad situation yet - like the kind that would make you furious when someone tells you, for instance, that you have no legal right to make medical decisions for your partner if they are incapacitated, but that someone else who is related, whether or not they love and cherish the person, will be handed that right. Perhaps he's still searching for his "niche" - even some of us in our 40's, with well established lives and a sense of purpose, are still questioning and adjusting our journey - and that is, after all, what keeps us growing. At any rate, whether he is gay or not, whether he is a Republican shill or someone who is honestly concerned enough and open minded enough to come here and question those of us who don't see things the way he does, has no bearing on who we are or where we are going.

Please reread my post in #36 above. The time has come. This is no time to be distracted, we have to prepare to take over when the fortress crumbles and those inside are left powerless. There's a lot of damage that's been done, we have a lot of work to do.

And we need to be kind to those who were confused before, to gently welcome them into the light. It's just the right thing to do.

Are we ready?

I have absolutely no venom towards them, that is incorrect. Zero. I welcome them, too. I do have the right to debate them, don't I? Unlike rightwing sites, where there is no debate.

Steve F is a good writer, but I still think there's something suspicious about him.

Maybe Brad should open up an "open thread", because I want to know why Steve F is gay and is obviously against gay marriage and is a Republican, and I want to know why Steve F is for the Iraq War, which he didn't answer that question, either. He likes to post massive conservative lessons in his replies, that are just giving him a forum to post them, while not answering questions. Does anyone get that?

I have no animosity towards Steve F, JIMMO, & the whole rightwing crew (if they are separate people). But, I don't like to let someone post massive conservative/rightwing philosophies on unbiased sites, with no rebuttal. That's what rightwing sites are for...

If you don't dispute them, you're condoning their flawed philosophies. And, is this flawed, or what? A gay man who is against gay marriage??? Should we not point this out???

Steve F: if you are truely for strict interpretation of the constitution, which I am too, you should be a Libertarian and read the American Free Press. And you should be against all the atrocities of the Bush administration against the constitution. One is, the right of Habeous Corpus, which is the right for every citizen to NOT be held indefinitely with no charges. Bush's Patriot Act allows the executive branch to rescind this constitutional right. That's just one of many examples of how the Bush Administration is trampling the constitution. Ben Franklin said that anyone who would sacrifice some liberty for safety, deserves neither. That's Ben Franklin, my friend.

DAN
"Steve, simple questions: Should gays be allowed to get married? And, is the GOP against gay marriage?"

First of all, in the overall debate of the FMA, it does not matter what my personal opinion on gay marriage is! What matters, is that when it comes time to vote on it, that my vote is counted on whatever my beliefs are. I'd say that's about as bi-partisan as someone can get.

No The GOP Isn't "against" gay marriage. Not the G.O.P. as a whole, that is false.

Now the TRUTH is, certain members of the G.O.P. are against it. But so are members of the Democratic party. Even John Kerry and Bill Clinton knew how lopsided the public opinion on extended gays rights (rights that extended outside of civil equality) and gay marriage and stayed away from it as well....Kerry even admitting that he was against it!

Your vague background drop featuring the G.O.P. wearing crosses around their necks waiting to beat you over the head with a King Jame's Bible is a grossly unfair characterization.

Interms of my NOT being gay, thank you for mentioning that. That indeed substantiates (if not out and out PROVES) the point that anyone with liberal views are unable to stomach an alleged "minority" getting past the liberal nonsense rhetoric and understanding how this country operates on the grounds of fairness. Because you are irked that I am able to seperate the evil G.O.P. to placing the responsibility of gay isolation back in the laps of the "victims" themselves, you are willing to create an idea that is totally UNTRUE.

Your final observations are only possible for charcterizing someone who is able to realize true equality.

Ada, after reading your posts, I think this answers you as well.

I am for gay marriage, and I disagree that it should be OK only if the majority wants it. This is not something to vote on. Lynch mobs were the majority back then. That's why the courts are where to decide this. In a court of law, it is not the majority, it's what's right. One man can be right, even if 99 are against him. The constitution says that all men are created equal. That means gays have the same rights as heterosexuals.

Steve F. ... Big Dan said what I wanted to say: that there are times when majority rule *isn't* appropriate. I think we can all agree that a simple majority of Americans would probably *not* have voted to allow blacks to vote, during the 18th and early 19th centuries, and we can also agree that it's a good thing that blacks can now legally vote. So, can you lay out why you view gay marriage and/or gay civil unions differently? For example, is there a reason why homosexuals should not be able to make medical decisions for their partners? Or do you support civil unions with all the same legal rights as marriage, and your issue is with the religious implications of the term?

So ... we've gotten off track ... does anyone have want to brainstorm about how to rectify this situation where Tammy Bruce and others who (IMHO) play fast and loose with facts have control of the airwaves - OUR airwaves - whereas Brad, who (IMHO) takes great pains to bring us both readily available and hard-to-find facts, is left begging for donations?

"I felt a very different way about activism 10 years ago when I was more of an idealist and thought that "Give Peace a Chance" was a doctrine when in reality it was just a dream. LOL."

Now we get it.. you're jaded.. gave up on being happy and settled for being well-off financially..

"I still think it's odd that Wilson - even though he was ticked at the White House's dismissal of his report - wasn't following the law of priority when he made this a national thing by writing an Op-Ed to the New York Times knowing that Plame was an undercover agent. "

Again your lack of logic astounds me.. though, does explain a lot about you.. How is his writing about this in ANY WAY related to his wife being an Agent? You make it sound like he's supposed to be under a rock because she's an agent.. The POINT of her being "under cover" is -not- to prevent anything else happening in life (for her or her husband).. His stirring a rucus about the WH has -nothing- to do with her being an Agent, EITHER way.. His life is independant of her being an Agent, it's not driven by her being an Agent.. get that through your head and make the distinction.. If you don't, you'll keep beeting a dead horse that has no merit to your positions.

" You know darn well he had to know that conservatives would have dismissed his claims, and looked into his "official" trip to Africa by uncovering the idea that it was Valerie who sent him on a safari paid for by you and me."

"uncovering".. LMFAO.. they MADE IT UP. Go read the REPORT FROM THE CIA who said THEY sent him, NOT Val. Your wing-NUT friends made up that LIE to try and "distract and disinfo" the point. The SWORN AFFIDAVITS say that the CIA ASKED Val to put Joe on the list of "candidates".. Then the CIA PICKED HIM.. Val didn't do jack to "send him", it was NOT "her idea", she did NOT "volunteer him".. Go read the official reports.. at least, that's what I gathered after hearing all the crap from the right about how it was all cooked up by Val.. See, the "insinuation" was that the WH somehow asked for "validation" on the contract.. -that- part I think ended up being rumor, wasn't it? but to answer that, the right pushed it on Val.. -also- in an attempt to "minimalize the offical nature of the investigation", which you are -still- trying to do.. it WAS an official investigation, NOT something "cooked up by the Wilsons".. If I'm mistaken, please show me some official reports since the last I read indicates what I've stated is "fact"..

SAV
"Now we get it.. you're jaded.. gave up on being happy and settled for being well-off financially.. "

That's your characterization, and your bitter responses are perhaps telling about your own life and your "jaded" element. LOL> I see the intellectual that you are though can make such an "observation" based upon fact...LOL....wouldn't this be "drawing a conclusion" such as "right wingers" did when they found out that Valerie suggested Wilson for the trip. So in essence yes, Valerie Plame sent her husband on a mission.

It seems you just want to fight SAV, which is fun as it's entertaining watching you run into circles. Out of that same post you will also see that I support Rove and Libby being canned. I even referred to them as "nitwits"....did you read that part?

Lastly, try and comprehend what I am saying here! JOE WILSON was on a trip via his CIA wife referring him for the job...the same woman who was "undercover". Seeings as this was in the throws of liberal antiwar propoganda, I would say that Wilson's "job" (LOL) was pretty important. So important that indeed it could have turned out to be a huge story. After it had little effect, he himself wrote the most famous newspaper in the nation and trashed the Bush administration. At that point, people had to gather what they knew of the situation. Depending on who you are, you could view the fact that his "undercover" wife referred him for the job - HER SUGGESTION - is a little discrediting, so we know that in someway that this information was going to be revealed.

Which is why I maintain that Valerie Plame was a nitwit, as an "undercover" agent to recommend her HUSBAND to investigate a "reason" we went to war, knowing that it was a possibility that this was going to gain so much press.

I also maintain that Joe Wilson was a nitwit for addding to it by writing the New York Times.

But the final point SAV, is that you obviously do not read and are obessed with arguing with me, because if you DID read the entire post, you would have seen me say

"I contend that Wilson and Plame were not as interested in keeping her name as secret in the first place, BUT IN NOWAY EXCUSES ROVE OR LIBBY FOR BREAKING THE LAW"

SO Sav, lastly, how do you explain the Vanity Fair coverage afterwards? The photo? Do you think Valerie Plame is enjoying the attention?

"Lastly, try and comprehend what I am saying here! JOE WILSON was on a trip via his CIA wife referring him for the job...the same woman who was "undercover"."

lasty, again, try and understand that, as I understand it and from the articles I have read, Val did not "refer him", she was ASKED to put his name on the list. There was a LIST.. Joe was SELECTED from a LIST that his name was on because the CIA ASKED Val to PUT IT THERE.. Or so was the article I read.. I recon I should go track that down to make sure I'm not confused (hey, it happens )

"Which is why I maintain that Valerie Plame was a nitwit, as an "undercover" agent to recommend her HUSBAND to investigate a "reason" we went to war, knowing that it was a possibility that this was going to gain so much press."

firstly... or thirdly? or shit.. ninethly? It was BEFORE we went to war, he discredited the papers BEFORE we went to war. He PROVED Shrubby was LYING (even before he lied.. neat trick, but when Shrubby said "british intel", he knew it was bullshit)

"But the final point SAV, is that you obviously do not read and are obessed with arguing with me, because if you DID read the entire post, you would have seen me say

"I contend that Wilson and Plame were not as interested in keeping her name as secret in the first place, BUT IN NOWAY EXCUSES ROVE OR LIBBY FOR BREAKING THE LAW""

Lots of lasts with you.. And, MY point is, your "contention" is bullshit.. no proof.. no logical reason.. just spin. Makes it "easier" to accept the "guilt" when you can try to distract from it.. make it seem like "it was only a matter of time before they did it to themselves.. really.. if they had just waited, they'd not be in prison".. or so, that's what your "distraction" seems to be doing (or attempting to) here.

"SO Sav, lastly, how do you explain the Vanity Fair coverage afterwards? The photo? Do you think Valerie Plame is enjoying the attention?"

another example of your distraction ploy.. 2 of your boys are likely going away for treasonous acts, and you try to bring in something totally unrealted? like "hey, she got something out of it.. it's not -that- big of a deal".. well, what about the DEAD AGENT because of all this? Was he tired anyway and in need of a rest? Her "enjoying" the attention is not even remotely related to the treason commited by the Republican party.. YOUR party, whom you STILL staunchly support. SPIN BABY SPIN!

Wing-nuts.. gotta love 'em..

SteveF (Steve Flesher) may be gay, but he's certainly not well-informed. If he is, then he's an unrepentant, unAmerican apologist for corrupt, anti-American power mongers.

Despite his claims that he's "read all the links here" he continues to drop one piece of debunked nonsense after another here. Including the wingnut talking point that Valerie Plame sent Ambassador Joe Wilson to Africa. She didn't. She couldn't. And to repeat the same horseshit over and over again is either purposely destructive, antithetical to truth-telling, or simply meant to obfuscate the truth to cover for criminal behavior.

SteveF said (his words in italics):

"Why would Joe Wilson (a laughably "official" sent by the CIA to Africa) draw attention to himself, especially if he really WAS sent by the CIA, knowing that Val was an undercover CIA agent, by writing an Op-Ed to the New York Times in the first place if he was so "concerned" about his wife being exposed in the first place?"

When was the last time that you personally faced down a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein on behalf of George H.W. Bush just before an imminent war, Steve?

To smear Wilson as "laughable" is reprehensible.

After you've worked for decades for four different American Presidents (or was it 5?), please let me know. Until then, you can keep posting your unrepentant swill over at GayConservative.org

"I'm reading all of the published literature on the whole ordeal including the links on here."

And apparently, you're also a liar, otherwise, you wouldn't have written half the completely incorrect garbage here that you have.

One thing that seems to be certain is that Valeria Plame is indeed a woman who hardly wants to be left alone.

Feel free to share one iota of evidence to that effect.

These people are hardly dignified, and they are certainly falling into the category of "nuts that liberals love to defend".

You're a reprehensible person, who is apparently as morally bankrupt as Tammy Bruce. No wonder you're a fan.

Sadly, you are both bereft of an ounce of self-respect or respect for a single American ideal.

The final comment worth quoting from you:

"liberals are terrified of democracy."

And Gay Conservatives apparently haven't a clue that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is meant to protect the rights of the *minority*.

Go take a history lesson, Steve. And not from Sean Hannity.

Shame on you.

Wow. Steve F., that doesn't make much sense. You're saying Plame shouldn't have recommended her husband, because she should have known that the Bush administration was going to want to discredit whatever conclusion he was going to reach by illegally outing her as a CIA employee?

I mean, I get it ... you're maintaining that both Plame and Wilson were careless, or worse (attention hounds), as evidenced by Wilson's column (sure to draw attention to him) and the Vanity Fair shoot afterwards. (I still think she's pretty unidentifiable in the photo, but I understand your point). But, consider this: Perhaps Plame was just an agent doing her job. Her group is looking into claims of Hussein seeking yellowcake in Niger ... she knows her husband has contacts and experience there ... she suggests his name. Someone else makes the final call. She has no reason to suspect that her name or identity will ever have anything to do with her husband's mission, because why would it? Then, Wilson finds no support for the claim, but the administration uses it anyway as perhaps the biggest and scariest argument for war. Wilson's a patriot, and knows Americans and others will die in war, and sees, in his opinion, an administration that is lying to the country. So he has good reason to speak out, again with no good reason to suspect his wife's cover would be compromised (he'd have to anticipate retaliatory foul play).

Isn't this plausible?

By the way, I haven't seen the whole story on whether Plame suggested Wilson or not ... but I did post a link on Tammy Bruce's page for this story to a report given to the Senate Intelligence Committee, where there was no mention of initiative on Plame's part in the sending of Wilson to Niger. I can see what Steve F. might be saying: she probably suggested him and (and what, the CIA is covering that up because they hate Bush?) it's only that official reports don't mention that part. But still, so what? Maybe she knew of the need and put in a good word for her husband. You wouldn't do the same for your spouse? As Brad's saying, it doesn't have anything to do with the illegality of breaking her cover, and it doesn't even mean that she's a nitwit.

Click on the following to get an idea of Steve's writing. Unfortunately, unlike BRAD BLOG, old Steve-o doesn't allow for comments on his site for his writing...

"and it doesn't even mean that she's a nitwit."

[and I'll continue]

and it doesn't even mean it has -any- relavance on what was found in Niger.. that being a LIE by Shrubby.. and it doesn't have -any- connection to the WH engaging in TREASON in retaliation..

see that? yes? no? still stuck in spin mode? Go read Tom Tomorrow's toon.. let it out.. it's ok.. the release will make you feel better.. no problemo..

Brad #96

LMFAO.. YOU GO BRAD!

we love ya!

Joe Fass - Congrats on Tammy having allowed your comment on her site. Despite her having invited me to comment on it, she has yet to post my comment. It's only been 48 hours since I attempted to post it.

*grins @ Brad*

Damn you're good.

Brad - No kidding! What a joke. Lemme see if I can slip another comment on there ...

Brad ... I just submitted the following over at Tammy's site ...

By the way, I've been following an open discussion over at Brad Friedman's website (https://bradblog.com/archives/00001926.htm) ... seems Brad tried to bring the things to light that I have, above, on the air with Tammy, but was denied, despite his experience with this topic (you can read the story via that link). He also submitted a comment, right here, to this page, about the same time I did. Tammy, is someone editing these posts for you? Wouldn't an open discussion be more valuable to your listeners/readers?

Wow! Thats an eye opener. I was starting to feel sorry for the way Steve was being hammered. Good work Brad.

RESPONSE TO SAV:
“There was a LIST.. Joe was SELECTED from a LIST that his name was on because the CIA ASKED Val to PUT IT THERE.. Or so was the article I read.. I recon I should go track that down to make sure I'm not confused (hey, it happens )”

Article? By the links provided here (which are incredibly biased), by typing in “Valerie Plame” into an online encyclopedia search base, I was able to read from beginning to present of the “Plame Affair”. (Don’t worry, by now I am aware of your extreme distaste of a factual time line) the closest thing I was able to find that did not support the assertion of a CIA official that Valerie “offered up” Joe’s name was by another CIA official. The end of the time-lined story in it’s entirety was supported with various articles and quotes from conservative commentators as well as the left’s watchdog MMFA. So, if you can do so, please reveal the source in which states that “Joe was SELECTED from a LIST that his name was on because the CIA ASKED Val to PUT IT THERE”.

“It was BEFORE we went to war, he discredited the papers BEFORE we went to war. He PROVED Shrubby was LYING”

No, a “biased” Joe Wilson, who “had extensive ties to the Democratic Party throughout much of his time in Washington. Wilson was an unabashed supporter and donor to the Kerry/Edwards campaign for the presidency. In 2000, he donated to Vice President Gore’s election, as has his wife, Valerie Plame. In the mid-eighties, Wilson worked for Gore as a congressional staffer. He has donated money to such liberal stalwarts as Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy. He has in the recent past spoken to liberal “527” groups like Win Without War, which is a part of MoveOn.org.” wrote a report after being “allegedly” “offered up” by his wife for the mission stating many points that have been rebutted by MANY sources including the “bipartisan” Senate Intelligence Committee Report. (Just out of curiosity, are you insinuating that the SICR was indeed partisan to the Bush administration, if so please explain). You are passing this off as FACT. It’s not a fact, SAV. It is a theory that you accept, but one that I find questionable. We can agree to disagree on it, but if you have something “solid” to show me, that all of what I have read on this whole charade missed the one thing that you know, I really want to see it. I’m not calling you a liar, just asking you to share. In other words, it cannot be established as fact just because you or Brad say that it is.

“And, MY point is, your "contention" is bullshit.. no proof.. no logical reason.. just spin.”

Refer to the previous paragraph asking you for “solid” evidence on your findings so that we can be sure that I am the only one who fits into this category. .

“Makes it "easier" to accept the "guilt" when you can try to distract from it.. “

I have no “guilt” to accept. The only thing I am guilty of is debating. I am not Rove or Libby. The words “IN NO WAY EXCUSES” what Rove and Libby did I think was pretty clear on this. We agree on that! But I am wondering why you rant endlessly about my questioning the motives or the brains of 2 people with obvious “liberal” interests that may be partisan based on the evidence of their political ties to the parties and election campaigns mentioned above. Incidentally in the DeLay case, liberals don’t mind using DeLay’s “friendship” with Abramoff as “evidence” that he is corrupt. So are conservatives not allowed to use the same “theory of association” that liberals do with “corrupt” Republicans? [Which is an interesting point, after all of Earle’s latest “evidence” on DeLay, liberal debaters still use the DeLay-Abramoff friendship as one of their first “points”).

“another example of your distraction ploy.. 2 of your boys are likely going away for treasonous acts, and you try to bring in something totally unrealted?” [in reference to my question put to you regarding Valerie Plame’s photo in Vanity Fair].

No SAV, I was asking you, as part of a discussion point, what you personally felt about it. I truly wanted your opinion. I have honestly in conversing with you folks, tried to acknowledge every question put to me, but at the same time have been accused repeatedly for avoiding questions. Why is it that I am the only one required to answer questions? If you choose not to answer the question, then it will remain unanswered. No sleep lost here. My questions and points are right here in print, it would be far easier to distract you in actual conversation by throwing loops out at you without you having the advantage of re-reading them as you do here. In my experience with you, I have determined that you do not miss much.

By reading Brad’s links and doing extensive research on my own, I have come to agreement with you on the guilt probability of Rove and Libby. My questioning that actual report of Joe Wilson is a separate issue. I’m glad we found common ground on one aspect of this. .

RESPONSES TO BRAD:

“SteveF (Steve Flesher) may be gay, but he's certainly not well-informed. If he is, then he's an unrepentant, unAmerican apologist for corrupt, anti-American power mongers.”

LOL, I thought it was only right-wingers like Ann Coulter who suggested “Un American” or “Treason”or “Anti-American”. Seems okay if liberals do this, eh? So much for right and wrong. This statement is a total generalization that lacks the facts and evidence that you seem to demand. Can you say “Double Standard”?

“Despite his claims that he's "read all the links here" he continues to drop one piece of debunked nonsense after another here. Including the wingnut talking point that Valerie Plame sent Ambassador Joe Wilson to Africa.” [By the way, you said “one piece of debunked nonsense after another here”...other than the piece about Valerie sending Joe to Africa, what were the other pieces?]

The only problem Brad, is that “all the links here” are not operating on substantial fact. They are byproducts of “alleged” liberal propaganda, which admittedly may be what’s happening on the other end of this. But I thought the point of discussing such points of views was to examine all evidence from all angles and come to an agreement with what seems to be “fact” and what seems to be “partisan”. I appreciate the fact that Larry Johnson was part of the CIA. (This is part of why I had determined that the “desk job” arguments discrediting Valerie Plame were invalid - even by Tammy Bruce - someone I like) but then throughout the article Johnson’s description of Bob Novak being a “colostomy bag” and calling a Washington Post columnist a “nitwit” and a “moron” is no better than me insisting that Val was a nitwit for “allegedly” “offering up” Wilson, and that Wilson was a nitwit for drawing attention to himself and his wife when he should have been thinking of Valerie’s safety in the first place. Johnson’s adjectives led me to believe that he may be just a little bit liberal and partisan, so therefore, I read other sources and came to the same conclusion - that Rove’s and Libby’s probability of guilt was likely. Incidentally like with SAV, where is your “solid evidence” that the claim of Valerie Plame “offered up” Joe Wilson is indisputably false. In the link you provided, I didn’t see it.

[One interesting fact that I just found that in searches among the following databases based on the terms “Larry Johnson, Valerie Plame”, I found the following: New York Times: 0 results, Los Angeles Times: 0 results, Chicago Tribune: 0 results, Lexis Nexis: 0 results, Chicago Sun Times: 0 results, Boston Globe: 0 results. In a search on the Associated Press, I found two whole articles written by the same author, DONNA DE LA CRUZ, one article was written July 22nd and the second was written on July 23rd. In yahoo search results, in reference to Larry Johnson, the first site that comes up with the Larry Johnson you are using as credible evidence is indeed the same site you provided me with. I wonder why all of the major newspapers across this country have not jumped at the chance to purchase the articles from Ms. De La Cruz in their pursuit to sell newspapers.] Perhaps you should write them all attacking them for avoiding the real truth?

“When was the last time that you personally faced down a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein on behalf of George H.W. Bush just before an imminent war, Steve? To smear Wilson as "laughable" is reprehensible.”

Well thanks to George Bush, Brad, I am happy to report that none of us have to do that now . I wasn’t smearing Wilson’s entire career as laughable, I was smearing his ability to produce a non partisan report based upon the facts provided in real literature about the “Plame affair” from credible news sources that people actually read!

[Regarding Valerie Plame not wanting to be left alone]
“Feel free to share one iota of evidence to that effect”

As a general matter, people who want to be left alone don’t do Vanity Fair. Is this just an observation based on the right wing? Since when does common sense have a bias?

“You're a reprehensible person, who is apparently as morally bankrupt as Tammy Bruce. No wonder you're a fan.”

Let me get this straight: 1.) When Ann Coulter accuses a lefty who supported not going to war “because France didn’t approve” of being Anti American, she gets labeled as a “wing nut”. When you say it about the other side, it’s truth? 2.) When Dr. Laura says that children are best of with a Mommy and Daddy and that having children outside of the context of what is best for them is morally reprehensible, she’s a bigot, but when you categorize someone as “reprehensible” because they share a different view of the constitution than you do, it’s truth?

“And Gay Conservatives apparently haven't a clue that the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is meant to protect the rights of the *minority*. Go take a history lesson, Steve. And not from Sean Hannity.”

Define “rights”. Is it voting rights? Civil Rights? Yes I totally agree with you. But outside the realm of civil equality is where the line is drawn by the original context of the Constitution. Marriage for 2 men is not a civil right. It is an issue that needs to be decided on by the People. “We the people”. By the way, being the historian that you are, can you illustrate one of the so-called examples of when democracy is not a good idea without using “gay marriage” or “abortion”? By the way Brad, according to the Constitution who says that marriage is just a union between 2 people? Why can’t it be 3 or 4? Just curious. Again your rebuttal and “invented” constitutional rights in regard to gay marriage or abortion on demand, is a typical liberal answer. One question for ya Brad....or SAV...or anyone....would you agree that democracy would prove that liberals were not in the majority for the above issues. Also, isn’t is a violation of all humans in the country to say that they have no say in defining/redefining institutions? Who’s right’s are more important?

“Click on the following to get an idea of Steve's writing. Unfortunately, unlike BRAD BLOG, old Steve-o doesn't allow for comments on his site for his writing...”

You will be happy to know, that through my slow but sure learning of Frontpage2003 and HTML tricks, that comments will be available. Until then, you are free to email me, it may take me a while to respond, but I will and you are free to use whatever portions you like to cut and paste any “debate” you could possibly stand to endure on anything that I have written. I guarantee a response until the site is in full operation.
:-).

Regarding the marriage, those are excellent posts with a lot of information. Its late here (3am) I will get to them tomorrow. I see they required a lot of thought! Good job. And Goodnight.

BTW in the spirit of true "democracy" in my support of free speech I just made my first official donation to Brad's cause. (no SAV not because I am rich) and I promise you I will not be able to sneak this in as a business deduction LOL.

Now I get it..

This would help explain the neoCons

can we get a scan of Shrubby and his crew?

If Steve F would allow comments on his site he would not have to come over here to become a tape recorder and "stay the course" (be stubborn) by replaying his own stuff over and over ad nauseum, while ignoring the rest.

Got any pictures of you with the president Steve, or jeffie gannon?

"No SAV, I was asking you, as part of a discussion point, what you personally felt about it. I truly wanted your opinion."

I have no knowledge of the Vanity Fair article. Do I think "she's an atention monger"? No idea.. never looked into it because I've never found that to be germain to the White House outing a covert agent. I am of the impression that a lot of people pose for pictures.. some like it, some don't. I don't see her plastered all over common press outlets.. but, again, I don't pay all that close attention.. To be fair, I've seen a LOT of Joe though.. based on that -limited- exposure, I'd say "no, she's not an attention whore" as you imply *shrug*

I wasn't trying to "avoid answering", I have no distinct position, and it's not relavant to the conversation. I tend to [at least try to] stick to what might be relavant points to the debate.

"LOL, I thought it was only right-wingers like Ann Coulter who suggested “Un American” or “Treason”or “Anti-American”. Seems okay if liberals do this, eh? So much for right and wrong. This statement is a total generalization that lacks the facts and evidence that you seem to demand. Can you say “Double Standard”?"

Actually, the difference here is.. Ann and her ilk call you "un american" if you dissent with the president over his illegal war. Brad called you "un american" (and I'm going by memory, and NOT speaking for Brad, I'm sure he'll respond if he sees anything he feels merits it) because we're talking about "stolen elections" and "unverifiable votes" in another thread, and you don't seem to support making sure our Democracy is truely secure. To deny the -fact- that those machines provide no real "security" or "transparency" in the vote is to support rigged elections. Anyone that supports election fraud (or the potential for it), is, by definition, anti-american. Disagreeing with your president is -far- from un american.. You're a history buff.. I'm sure you know how all the founding fathers talked about citizens keeping the government in check? that requires "asking questions" and the like.. get it?

SAV as I stated in the other thread, I'm all for democracy working. In terms of "stolen elections" we obviously disagree on that. However, I would seriously love liberals to select the voting pattern, and I mean that with all my heart.

Citizens are allowed to keep the government in check as you say. That's why I support democracy. You're entitled to your opinion and I hope you do something constructive with your energy to work with others to make sure the next election and polling is to your satisfaction.

I hope we stay in touch to see how that process develops and to see what the outcomes will be.

"according to the Constitution who says that marriage is just a union between 2 people? Why can’t it be 3 or 4? Just curious. Again your rebuttal and “invented” constitutional rights in regard to gay marriage or abortion on demand, is a typical liberal answer. One question for ya Brad....or SAV...or anyone....would you agree that democracy would prove that liberals were not in the majority for the above issues."

First, all men are created equal.. with certain unalienable rights.. life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.. So, when the "law" talks about a "legal arrangment between [two people]", that's something that is a matter of "law", but "law" shouldn't discriminiate.. right? how can we be considered "equal" if I get something under the law that you don't? The law for "driving a car" doesn't say anything about ethnicity.. or gender.. or religion.. right? At the determined age, 16 in most states, you get to prove your "ability" to drive. you pass, you get a liscense. Why is it that the religious right based on "faith", and others who feel "fags are not normal people" get to get married and "you don't"? I don't get that entire premise. And, no, "democracy" doesn't always rule.. see, that's what the courts are about. DESPITE what you "might want", if what you want craps on the rights of someone else, the court explains to "the masses" that they don't have the right, as a "majority" to shit on the "minority".. get it? that's the ENTIRE point of the Supreme Court, isn't it?

Now, to answer the "specific question".. The Constitution doesn't talk about marriage at all. What the Constitution -does- talk about is equality for all citizens. That means, if the States or Feds decide that "something is to be law", it has to be "fair to everyone".. The 'definition' of marriage as between 'man and woman' clearly has the context of "2 people".. (your question of 3 or 4 or 5 has been determined to typically happen between groups where there are some psychological instability (dysfunction, abuse, control issues, etc etc).. or so I understand it.. personally, I don't care if 50 people "get married" but the law prohibits that [for various reasons, but that's beyond the scope of -this- conversation] ) So, when the LAW provides for certian PRIVLIDGE, that PRIVLEDGE isn't supposed to "discriminate against a specific group".. -thats- Anti-American... get it?

Now, do you want to talk "marriage" in a generic context? Religious people claim it's all about babies.. have to get married to have babies.. though, biology doesn't support that.. LAW originally had marriage about PROPERTY.. You married a woman, she became "your property". The "legal construct" of marriage is sepperate from the "personal construct".. therefore, the "legal construct" has to be "fair and equal", or it's not a "valid law". Now, the "states" get to make their own rules.. and CA now has gay marriage (isn't it the same as the full legal rights as hetro-marriage?), if I recall correctly.. and several courts in various states have upheld that the state "has to honor the marriage" of gay people. YOU want to "undo the Constitution by Democracy", but the Fed can't do that.. All the States have to participate (well, the amendment would need to be ratified).. And, how pathetic that the "most important document in American History" is gonna be bastardized to "limit rights"? Wasn't the Prohibition the last time that was done by ignorant assholes?

I'll grant you this.. "democracy" seemingly has shown that "womens reproductive rights" and "gay rights" are not something the "majority implanted representitives" have support.. Haven't there been "referendums" to keep abortion legal in some states, and the same for gay marriage? The "leaders" are blocking it, and that implies the 'democracy' wanted it shut down.. but when the popular vote surpasses the 'representitives', that's something.. -and-, it's beside the point.. The Constitution, not the "majority" or "democratic process" protects rights. If your rights are being stepped on, it's not the "majority" that fixes it, it's the Constitution that tells the "majority" "too bad, they get the same rights since there's no -reasonable- reason to prevent it"

and again, I'm not an expert on this stuff .. just seems to me the Constitution is all about "protecting rights".. especially in the face of government trying to "restrict them"

“When was the last time that you personally faced down a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein on behalf of George H.W. Bush just before an imminent war, Steve? To smear Wilson as "laughable" is reprehensible.”

BTW, I am glad to see that liberals are willing to measure the extent of Saddam's tyranny when it comes to defending a patriot-turned-clown like Joe Wilson.

But I guarantee if a conservative measured Saddam's tyranny in an effort to defend the President is when liberals are so ready to remind us that Saddam posed no threat onto our country whatsoever. (Though Clinton's top advisor George Stephanapolis in 1997 begged to differ as conservatives do today)

Astounding!

The amount of misinformation and ignorance on display at this blog is just mind-boggling. Apparently none of you have bothered to actually read the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, because if you had, you'd know that the outing of Valerie Plame on July 14, 2003 could not possibly have been a crime, for the simple reason that on that date she did NOT meet the statutory definition of "covert agent." The statute defines "covert agent" as follows:

(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....

Based on Joseph Wilson's own book, "The Politics of Truth" (sic), Valerie Plame's last foreign assignment ended in 1997. Thereafter, she resided and worked continuously in the U.S. Therefore, on the date she was outed by Robert Novack (July 14, 2003), she had NOT served outside the U.S. within the past 5 years as required by the statute. She therefore did not meet the definition of "covert agent" under the statute, and it was perfectly legal to have identified her as a CIA agent on that date. In other words, NO ONE can be charged with a crime for outing Plame--not Libby, not Rove, not Novack, not anyone--because no crime was commited.

You libs crack me up. When are yall going to realize that lies and attacks won't get you the power you so desire? OMG I love reading liberal rags like these. GREAT ENTERTAINMENT!!!!

You libs crack me up. When are yall going to realize that lies and attacks won't get you the power you so desire? OMG I love reading liberal rags like these. GREAT ENTERTAINMENT!!!!

Investors this week will be hoping the Consumer Price index (CPI) shows a similar lack of inflationary growth, disenospaginasweb com as that would bode well for bets that the Federal Reserve will end its 18-month rate hiking campaign soon fleurs-et-sens http://www.fleurs-et-sens.com/link.html