your opinion of joseph wilson

[J. J.]

Freedom fighter.  Republicans sure hate him for showing that Bush lied with those 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union speech. 

The problem is that he lied about Cheney sending him to Niger.  If he would have been honest about that, I might be much more sypathetic toward him.

[J. J.]

Freedom fighter.  Republicans sure hate him for showing that Bush lied with those 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union speech. 

The problem is that he lied about Cheney sending him to Niger.  If he would have been honest about that, I might be much more sypathetic toward him.

You bought into the debunked right-wing talking points, Mr. 940-heads-is-insignificant. You shameless Republicans are the liars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://mediamatters.org/items/topic/200507140001

Unlike Bush, Wilson told the truth. You Republicans have a problem with the truth.

Well, JFRUAD, here is what he actually said:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

Once again, you've your  nickname JFRAUD.  He is what Wilson said, prior to the Novak column:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was never such a request from the VP office, and Cheney never suggested the trip or that Wilson be used.  He actually used the words "a little literary flair," when describing his recounting of the incidents.

An excellent article on this can be found here:  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp?pg=2

It recounts Mr. Wilson misleading the press when he was speaking to them as an unidentified source.

If he had not made this claim, I'd be substantially more pro-Wilson.  If he had said, "The CIA sent me, I investigated, found nothing, and reported back," I'd have a much higher opinion of him.  Mr. Wilson "embelishes" the truth the same way JFRAUD "embelishes" his knowledge of statistics, history, and the calendar.

[J. J.]

Stop saying JFraud, Mr. 940 heads and 60 tails are not statistically significant.  You are a pathetic partisan hack.  Read more carefully next time.

Once asgain, you've demonstrated your ignorance and dishonesty; I merely call the readers attention to it.

[J. J.]

Somewhere in between, but since I don't have that choice, a freedom fighter.

I would not choose "freedom fighter" only because of his "embelishments."  Had he come forward, not put in the things about the VP, nor made the other "embelishments," I'd call him he hero.  

I think there was an intelligence failure, I think the ignoring of his report was part of it, and I think he was right in publically calling attention to it.  If he'd stopped there, where the facts end, I might have actually voted for the guy for something.  Now, that is a pretty strong statement.

[J. J.]

Once again, JFRAUD has proven his total intellectual dishonesty by trying to hoighjack the tread and resopond to the quoted information.

He did prove one thing; Joe Wilson isn't the most dishonest person in the US.  JFRAUD ranks higher on the list.

[J. J.]

Once again, JFRAUD has proven his total intellectual dishonesty by trying to hoighjack the tread and resopond to the quoted information.

He did prove one thing; Joe Wilson isn't the most dishonest person in the US.  JFRAUD ranks higher on the list.

That you will not accept that 940 heads and 60 tails is statisitically significant is very relevant. It indictates that you have no intellectual honesty or integrity, and will never admit defeat, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Instead of admitting defeat you resort to juvenile names.

I claim complete and absolute victory[/i].  I've just demonstrated that you  have on this tread:

1.  Missstated what Wilson said, in his own words.

2.  Attempted, instead of admitting you were wrong, to change the subject.

3.  Started using the name first:

Freedom fighter. Republicans sure hate him for showing that Bush lied with those 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union speech.

The problem is that he lied about Cheney sending him to Niger. If he would have been honest about that, I might be much more sypathetic toward him.

You bought into the debunked right-wing talking points, Mr. 940-heads-is-insignificant. You shameless Republicans are the liars.

[Emphasis added]

Here we can see who started the "juvenile" name calling.  I'm more than happy to let the readers read this post and make a determination.  This alone should speak to to your intellectual honesty, or lack thereof,  and it is quite easy to demonstrate it in this thread.  I didn't even start out to try.  :-)

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140001


The bolded part is the problem.  That didn't happen.  Now either Wilson isn't telling the truth, or his wife lied to him.

Look, I've out of my way to say:

1.  The intelligence (The Butler Report) was bad.

2.  Wilson should be commended for revealing bad procedures at the CIA.

The problem comes in when he claims personal knowledge of things he doesn't and we claims the VP started this and it wasn't the VP.  It's his "literary flair" that creates the problem.

Let me give you an example.  If I found that there was a virus planted on the board, set to go off tomorrow, and reported it do Dave, I should be commended for it.  If I then said, "Jfern, planted it," and you didn't, I should be condemned for that.

[J. J.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507140001

Prove it. Link?

First you have the above link.

Second, here is one from the Weekly Standard.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp



And here is one from the arch conservative Washington Post. that sooooo supportive of Richard Nixon (that's sarcasm):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle


Not exactly "heroic."  That's unfortunate, because there really was a failure of intelligence.

[J. J.]

What failure of intelligence? Bush got his war. From his point of view, there was no failure.

No, the "yellowcake" should not have been in the State of the Union address. 

One of the reasons (but not the only one) FDR went after Hitler first was that the US believed that the Nazis were more advanced in atomic research; they were not, but intelligence thought they were.  It was an intelligence failure there too.