What is a definition of "neo-conservativism"?

It is nevertheless true. Would you like some more documentation?

Forget spin. What happened was that Billy Dale mishandled funds entrusted to him. He was fired and indicted for it, but was not convicted.

Neither Bill nor Hillary forced him to do what he did. In fact, he had been doing it for some time before they came to the WH.

If Clinton had not taken action when he realized what had been done, Dale's malfeasance would have been blamed on him. Indeed, some Clintonophobe sites do it anyway.

You were misled about the reasons for Dale's firing. You do understand why it is illegal to mingle public and personal funds don't you?


of the story was that Hillary and Bill wanted their own people in the travel office and ruined Billy Dale's career in order to get it done.

 

No, I simply started this back-and-forth with you by calling him despicable.

You are saying that she got what she "deserved," which is simultaneously foolish and disturbing. You will recall that, when Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate, he was there to find the truth, not do political damage. Joseph Wilson was and is a good man who is a career diplomat, and that is IRRESPONSIBLE of you to even suggest that he was there to smear Bush. You might know more about him if you bothered to read that book that nobody bought. But of course you seemingly indicated that book sales are the true measure of credibility, didn't you?

Furthermore, Wilson's wife was a CIA Operative until she was "outed" by that article. I am more than just a little appalled that you show no concern for this "outed" CIA operative and anyone who was compromised by this whole ordeal. In fact, you even say that she got "what she deserved."

To use incorrect grammar:
WHOSE SIDE ARE YOU ON??!!

In your first sentence to me, you wrote that it was wrong to "out a CIA agent," yet here you say that she received "what she deserved." Is this an amplification to mean that it is NOT wrong if you perceive some unfounded political motive on the part of the involved agent?

You keep pointing to the Butler Commission. I suppose that you would trust a British source over an American - one who worked for President Bush's father, by the way. Bottom line: the documents were forged. Again, they were forged.

You have an alarming obsession with John Kerry, don't you? That is the third time that you have interjected him into this discussion of Joseph Wilson, his wife, and Mr. Novak. Again, what is this fixation on John Kerry you possess? What relevance does Mr. Kerry have to the discussion you and I are having about these three people?

 

Even an act of disloyalty like this, won't shake some people's loyalty to their party.

 

Joseph Wilson and his wife became Democrat Party political operatives in the Kerry campaign.

The British government found that Iraq was trying to buy uranium.

There is no "fixation" with Kerry--I hardly think about him and his billionaire wife except to express relief that the American people rejected him.

 

Sorry Galatian, But some of us aren't party members. Let a better man come along in any party and I'll vote for him.

Nope, Peroutka wasn't a better man.

 

Wouldn't YOU, if someone "outed" your wife? But you already established that you think that she probably got "what she deserved," so this reply doesn't really surprise me. In other words, it's okay to "out" 'em if they ain't on our side, right? [sic]

And Joseph Wilson said that this was not the case.
Here is what Novak said about Joseph Wilson, in that article from July 14, 2003:

Sounds to me like Joseph Wilson might know a thing or two about the African continent.....

...............and yet you mentioned him once again - only this time you included his "billionaire wife." What does the inclusion of his "billionaire wife" do to reinforce your argument? As you have no problem with Wilson's wife getting "what she deserved," and now the introduction of Senator Kerry's "billionaire wife," [She is a former Republican, by the way - a lady who was urged by the GOP to run for her late husband's seat.] I can only guess that you feel that wives of politicians/diplomats from the other side of the aisle are "fair game."

 

Because he opposed abortion, and Bush didn't?

I'll have to disagree with you on that.

 

The Wilsons got what they deserved in that it was wrong and illegal to blow her cover but they deserved the fate (of being ignored) they received as Democrat Party operatives. His report was incorrect.

Senator Kerry misinformed the American people when he said that Iraq was not trying to buy uranium in Africa.

Here is what a writer published in the Christian Science Monitor

The British commission is as sharply critical of many of the MI6 spymasters' flawed conclusions as US investigators have been of the CIA's. But there is one striking departure: The British commission, chaired by Lord Butler, suggests that there is more substance to the story of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa than has hitherto been suggested. The British report says evidence "was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium." But it documents visits by Iraqi officials to the uranium-exporting nation of Niger, and says that British intelligence from several sources indicating that the purpose was to acquire uranium "was credible."

This conclusion has political implications. On Sept. 24, 2002, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that "Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, although we do not know whether he has been successful." On Jan. 28, 2003, in his State of the Union speech, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The Butler commission concludes that both statements were "well-founded."

And....In early 1999, the report states, Iraqi officials visited a number of African countries, including Niger, where uranium ore accounted for three-quarters of exports. British intelligence detected these visits and suspected Iraq wanted to buy uranium to restart its nuclear program. More intelligence suggested Iraq had sought uranium ore from the Democratic Republic of Congo and that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached. Also in 2002, the British received further intelligence from additional sources that the Niger visit was to negotiate the purchase of uranium ore, although analysts disagreed on whether a sale had been agreed and uranium shipped.

There is no need to wait until a mushroom cloud falls on America. FDR said that he would kill a rattlesnake that was coiled to strike before it could strike.

Click here for the complete reference

 

Very simply, this is NOT TRUE.
You have already established that "the Wilsons got what they deserved," and I am not sure why you reiterate this point. I find your comments more than just a little disturbing.

One more time: whose side are you on? Neither Wilson nor his wife are "Democrat Party operatives." Moreover, if you did a little research, you would find that this wasn't the first time that something was leaked to Novak.

Once more, you seemingly indicate your fixation with John Kerry. I never once mentioned John Kerry, yet this is one of several instances where you make a reference to the Senator. One more time: what is this fixation with John Kerry? Why is it that you continually make reference to John Kerry when I have never once interjected him into the discussion?

Yes, I have heard Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh say this over and over and over and over and over and over........................

 

Amigo, I don't know what else to tell you. Joe Wilson admitted that he switched parties and voted for Clinton. He is now a Democrat and has been for about ten years.

I seldom and almost never listen to Hannity or Limbaugh so any resemblence between their remarks and mine is pure coincidence. It is Condi Rice who asked if we were going to wait for an atomic bomb to fall on America before we acted. And that brings up the point that we may have to attack Iran in order to halt their production of atomic bombs, which they have promised to use against Israel. Do you think that France will join us against Iran? I myself doubt it.

The point is that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.

Finally, amigo, you started by asking why I repeated that the Wilsons got what they deserved. Because you said that they did not deserve for her cover to be blown. I was merely trying to point out that I agree with that point but other than that I consider their actions to be political.

 

That is NOT what you said, is it?
Here is what you posted on November 25th:

Notice that you accused them of being "Democrat Party operatives." You are either stating that'
1. Because they have switched party affiliation, their credibility has been eradicated.
2. The Wilsons are part of a Democratic conspiracy.

Therefore, you are either guilty of RADICAL partisanship or some form of paranoia.

That may be true, and if you aren't really listening to them, I am amazed that you have picked up on their talking points. Regardless of the source, it is amazing that this statement has been made, since none of the countries are known to possess an ICBM with a range sufficient to launch a strike on America.

IRAN? Who said anything about Iran? We have not finished the job in either Afghanistan or Iraq, and you are talking about Iran? I never interjected Iran into this discussion.

Wilson reported otherwise, didn't he?

...........and you are completely wrong.

On more than one occasion, you contradict yourself by saying that it was wrong, but then note that they got what they deserved.

Essentially, you have said that the ends justify the means.

One last time, to quote Bruce Springsteen: "God have mercy on the man who doubts what he's sure of."

 

Oops....

 

Amigo, you have hit on the greatest reason why Democrat Joe Wilson so richly deserves to be ignored. He was wrong about Iraq and their attempts to buy yellow-cake uranium in Africa. Lord Butler establish that, as I have posted above.

 

I would take the word of Joseph Wilson over the claims of another country. If you did any research on him, you would know that Joseph Wilson knew more than just a little bit about the continent of Africa. He says that the intel was bogus.

CMG, you have established that, in your mind, the ends justify the means, and you have absolutely no problems with "outing" a CIA operative, because she was, as you have egregiously claimed, a "Democrat Party operative." That speaks volumes about you in terms of radical polarization. I am honestly surprised that you have not yet labelled them as traitors.

 

For some people, party comes before everything. This is why America has declined to this point.

 

It's amazing how blinded people can become when they erect a false idol.

 

BiR, amigo, you have taken a one-time unintended ambiguity in a written paragraph, which I corrected immediately, and turned it into a Baptist Board federal case.

If you want to know the truth, I used to live out West, and I would give the death penalty to anyone who compromised American security by outing a CIA agent. So your charge is false and solely based upon a possible grammatical error.

I do not believe that the end justifies the means. I am a conservative.

As for Joe Wilson, he became a Democrat while working for Bush 41 according to his own statements. He was a minor figure in the government. He was wrong about Iraq.

Lord Butler and British intelligence confirmed American intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy yellow-cake uranium in Niger and Congo. That is part of the reason that Britian has fought beside us in Iraq.

As for your charge that you are surprised that I have not yet called Joe Wilson a traitor, that is baloney and you know it. He is not a traitor. He is a second-class bureaucrat who got his information wrong. If we listened to Joe Wilson, we might have done nothing and then faced an atomic explosion from Iraq on American soil. That is a chance that we could not afford to take.

If you want to debate, fine; if you want to parse grammar, then we can parse grammar but it seems to me that it would be pointless to argue grammar endlessly because you yourself probably make unintentional possible ambiguities from time to time. Is your motto, never give a sucker an even break?

The real issue here is that you charged that Novak could not define neo-conservative. I wonder what difference it makes to you about Novak's defining the term since you yourself are neither a conservative or a neo-conservative. Chances are, you would probably admit, you are a liberal or a neo-liberal, aren't you?

 

Is that why you stated that you want the Federal government to dispense foreign aid all around the world even if it isn't constitutional?

 

Are you sure about that?

A minor figure?
Here is what Mr. Novak wrote in that article:
"That's where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998."

You have said this yet again, so I will add (yet again) that I believe Joseph Wilson.

NO, if we had listened to Joe Wilson, perhaps we would have finished the job in Afghanistan, fighting the people who were responsible for an attack on our own soil. How could you possibly believe that a country who could not even defy the "no fly zone" we imposed over THEIR country have the wherewithal to attack us on our own soil?

Well, let's just take another look at YOUR comments:

From November 23, 2004 @ 8:13AM:

From November 25, 2004 @ 9:47AM:

From November 30, 2004 @ 08:30 AM:

Sounds to me like the ends justify the means. And you are right on one point, and I will even say it again: They did not deserve for her cover to be blown. CMG, let me try this one more time: THEY ARE ON OUR TEAM!!!!

No, I simply noted that I give no credibility to one who did such a despicable act. It wasn't the first time either.

"Chances are?"
When has my place as a liberal on this board not been clear?

 

BIR, to CMG anyone who doesn't bow at the liberal altar of the GOP is a liberal. To him, it's apprantly just a bad word with no real meaning.