From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #669 Dead-Flames Digest #669, Volume #48 Tue, 25 Oct 05 12:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: American dead in Iraq reaches 2000 (Walter Karmazyn) Re: cheney = traitor ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? (DB) Re: Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? (brew ziggins) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: NFL, week 7 (brew ziggins) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (leftie) Re: NFL, week 7 (Brad Greer) Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("frndthdevl") Re: Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? ("Bzl.") Re: cheney = traitor ("imsjry") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Carlisle") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("RickNBarbInSD") Re: cheney = traitor (Brad Greer) Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: RIP Wellington Mara (Brad Greer) Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info ("Dave Kelly") Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) (kpnnews@yahoo.com) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Walter Karmazyn Subject: Re: American dead in Iraq reaches 2000 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:49:08 -0700 http://www.afsc.org/2000/ W ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:19:42 -0700 "DG" wrote in message news:ltlsl15r1t7joov9ju5ihlfpkbv0ga6nsd@4ax.com... > > > So this prick leaked the name to the man who told the times. Time for > these guys to be charged, tried and let justice take it's course. This leaking business is much ado about nothing, especially as you describe it. Cheney isn't being accused of leaking anything, the Vice President of the United States is being accused of talking about a CIA agent with his chief of staff. If they can't discuss the CIA, who can? That's not leaking. Libby may have leaked the info to a reporter, and he may have lied about it to the investigators. That's the potential crime here, not the 2nd most powerful man in the government discussing secrets. Of course Cheney can discuss CIA business with others with top security clearances. Or is the CIA supposed to operate without anyone, even the Veep, knowing who they are and what they do? If somebody leaked the name and if somebody lied they should be called to account, tried, and punished accordingly. But this is such small potatoes compared to the other things this administration has done. Its fun to watch them squirm, and its gonna be fun to watch one or more of them face a judge and maybe even a jury. But there is no serious damage done to the CIA by any of this, certainly not by Cheney discussing it with his chief of staff. The minor damage done came after that, and was perpetrated by Libby or whoever. Cheney is off the hook unless someone is willing to testify to a conspiracy to leak the name led by Cheney. I can't imagine that happening, even as prosecutors try to flip Libby or whoever with threats of jail time. Those guys aren't gonna rat out Cheney even if he was the instigator. And we have no evidence that he was. EGBH ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 10:55:18 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Ray wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > Ray wrote: > > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > They got arrogant and played hardball. > > > > > > > > All indications suggest as much, yes. In this case, however, all > > > > indications suggest "playing hardball" included the outing of a covert > > > > CIA officer. Carlisle, earlier in this thread you stated that you > > > > didn't see why the outing of Plame was a big deal. After reading the > > > > responses here, including Marcinkowski's testimony, do you still not > > > > see what the big deal is, or have you changed your perspective on this? > > > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > No, I haven't changed my perspective. The law should be enforced...I'll > > > quote from the WSJ/Opinion Journal today: > > > "In July 2003, Joseph Wilson used his insider status as a former CIA > > > consultant to accuse the Bush Administration of lying about Iraq WMD as > > > an excuse to go to war. A political furor erupted, and Mr. Wilson > > > became an antiwar celebrity who joined the Kerry for President > > > campaign...Amid an election campaign and a war, Bush Administration > > > officials fought back. One way they did this was to tell reporters that > > > Mr. Wilson's wife, CIA analyst *Valerie Plame, had been instrumental in > > > getting him the CIA consulting job. This was true-though Mr. Wilson > > > denied it at the time-as a bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence > > > Committee documented in 2004" > > > *"Ms. Plame was surely not undercover, and her own husband had > > > essentially made her 'outing' inevitable when he exploited his own CIA > > > consulting status to inject himself into the middle of a presidential > > > campaign."-from same piece 10/24/05 > > > Any of that off the mark? > > > > Yes, starting off with the very first sentence, which is a lie. If you > > disgree, then re-read Wilson's July 2003 essay, which I've already > > posted in this thread. As you can see if you actually read Wilson's > > essay, it did not accuse Bush Administration of lying but instead > > merely raised the possibility. > > > > This disinformation was published in, not suprisingly, a WSJ editoral. > > Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag? > > > > There are things that are not "on the mark" as well, including most > > importantly the declaration that Plame "was surely not undercover" - > > which is another lie. If you disagree, then substantiate how it is > > known that Plame "was surely not undercover" - thanks. > > > > You are far too credulous re- what you read in right wing rags, > > Carlisle - you're being playing played. > > "Carlisle - you're being playing played." It's true that I get alot of > my print news from the WSJ. So do I - except from their editorial page. > And yes, the Editorial page is biased > pro-business conservative. The WSJ Editorial page is a rag - they routinely grossly distort and lie. Just as they did in their editorial that you cited here. > Although we will continue to disagree. I > will say it's a reputable source for information..Ray will say it's a > "rag". We will go around and around in circles. I will become tired and > worn down from arguing with all the Old Guard of rmgd and leave my > computer. Charges will be thrown at me as I don't properly respond to > Richard, Ray, Steve, Ken, JC (hey young bruther), at least I don't Dave > Kelly's name in here. So I'm purposely going outside of the WSJ/Opinion > Journal for my information. I'm going to read The New Republic and the > Washington Post. Here is an investigative piece from the Post that > sheds a different light on Mr. Wilson. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401690_pf.html Carlisle, at issue here is whether Plame was outed as a CIA agent by the Bush Administration, and/or Bush Administration officials committed purgery during the investigation, correct? In which case, there is nothing in the Post article that addresses the issue at hand. The article addresses right-wing talking points raised by the WSJ editorial page and others who seek to change the topic - to Wilson's credibility. This is just a side issue and nothing more. For example, did Plame in fact recommend that Wilson go to Niger, even though both Wilson, and reportedly the CIA, insists otherwise? Who cares? That makes no difference in the context of whether Plame was outed as a CIA agent by the Bush Administration. It's a non-issue, Carrie - nothing but a diversion. And it's classic Bush Administration/right-wing rag tactics - if you can't address the issue attack the messenger to divert the issue. And the sick thing is that it works - even reputable newsapapers like the Post pick up the talking points, which gives some readers the incorrect impression that this stuff actually means something of importance with regards to whether the Bush Adminstration outed Plame. So back to the issue at hand: Carlisle, do you agree that, if Plame was a covert operative and the Bush Administration outed her, that that is a big deal? Also: As I have demonstrated to you, the Wall Streeet Journal grossly distorted and lied in the editorial page that you had cited. Doesn't that disgust you, and make you less inclined to believe them in the future? Please answer these questions, thanks. Ray ------------------------------ From: DB Subject: Re: Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:06:06 -0400 ba ba booie wrote: > Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? > > > Just wondering if any reviews are out from last nites show. Anyone here > go? Good, bad, ugly? > > > booie....... > > > The NYT gave it a mediocre review in the Metro Section. DB ------------------------------ From: brew ziggins Subject: Re: Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:10:23 -0400 Thus spake ba_ba_b00ie@webtv.net... > Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? > > > Just wondering if any reviews are out from last nites show. Anyone here > go? Good, bad, ugly? Apparently it was the same set they played in London, but with the addition of 'Tales of Brave Ulysses'. Tell you what, if I paid $400 to see f&cking Cream and they DIDN'T play ToBU, I would be one unhappy camper. Check the message boards at http://www.cream2005.com/ for more info. -- bruce higgins ithaca ny most of the day, we were at the machinery ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:10:44 -0700 > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401690_pf.html > > Carlisle, at issue here is whether Plame was outed as a CIA agent by > the Bush Administration, and/or Bush Administration officials committed > purgery during the investigation, correct? Yes, perjury before a grand jury has to be taken seriously... > > In which case, there is nothing in the Post article that addresses the > issue at hand. The article addresses right-wing talking points raised > by the WSJ editorial page and others who seek to change the topic - to > Wilson's credibility. This is just a side issue and nothing more. For > example, did Plame in fact recommend that Wilson go to Niger, even > though both Wilson, and reportedly the CIA, insists otherwise? Who > cares? That makes no difference in the context of whether Plame was > outed as a CIA agent by the Bush Administration. It's a non-issue, > Carrie - nothing but a diversion. And it's classic Bush > Administration/right-wing rag tactics - if you can't address the issue > attack the messenger to divert the issue. And the sick thing is that > it works - even reputable newsapapers like the Post pick up the talking > points, which gives some readers the incorrect impression that this > stuff actually means something of importance with regards to whether > the Bush Adminstration outed Plame. > > So back to the issue at hand: Carlisle, do you agree that, if Plame was > a covert operative and the Bush Administration outed her, that that is > a big deal? All right. It IS a big deal if the law was broken because that means criminal penalties. > > Also: As I have demonstrated to you, the Wall Streeet Journal grossly > distorted and lied in the editorial page that you had cited. Doesn't > that disgust you, and make you less inclined to believe them in the > future? I will be reading between the lines. The facts are still in play as far as I can read. This discourse has made the whole leak/Plame/Wilson issue more interesting for me. What this is really all about is the run-up to the Iraq War and how it was presented/handled/sold. Wouldn't you agree? > > Please answer these questions, thanks. There you have it. > > Ray your welcome, Carrie ------------------------------ From: brew ziggins Subject: Re: NFL, week 7 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:11:45 -0400 Thus spake amurawa@hotmail.comspamsucks.... > "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message > news:1130157700.663993.261430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > > New England finally goes a week without losing anyone to injury. > > At least you've already settled on your excuse, right... hehe... > > Somewhat related, I loved the poll question on CBS today... If you could > pick one quarterback to lead your team on a game-winning drive, who > would you pick... I expected the options to be: > > a) Tom Brady > b) Tom Brady > c) Tom Brady > d) Tom Brady > e) I'm an idiot. Don't mind me. In the regular season, I might go with Peyton. But in the playoffs, Brady is my boy. -- bruce higgins ithaca ny most of the day, we were at the machinery ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:22:43 -0700 Carlisle wrote: >>So back to the issue at hand: Carlisle, do you agree that, if Plame was >>a covert operative and the Bush Administration outed her, that that is >>a big deal? > > All right. It IS a big deal if the law was broken because that means > criminal penalties. Nothing to say about the ethical matters of the case? How 'bout the practical matters concerning the relationship of the administration to the intelligence community or the matter of the reasons for war having been fabricated (which underlies this whole thing)? "restoring dignitude...." ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: NFL, week 7 Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:25:10 -0400 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:11:45 -0400, brew ziggins wrote: >Thus spake amurawa@hotmail.comspamsucks.... >> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote in message >> news:1130157700.663993.261430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> >> > New England finally goes a week without losing anyone to injury. >> >> At least you've already settled on your excuse, right... hehe... >> >> Somewhat related, I loved the poll question on CBS today... If you could >> pick one quarterback to lead your team on a game-winning drive, who >> would you pick... I expected the options to be: >> >> a) Tom Brady >> b) Tom Brady >> c) Tom Brady >> d) Tom Brady >> e) I'm an idiot. Don't mind me. > >In the regular season, I might go with Peyton. >But in the playoffs, Brady is my boy. As long as you've got Vinatieri to kick. ------------------------------ From: "frndthdevl" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:26:12 -0700 leftie wrote: > Fire on the Mountain NOT the Hunter/Garcia song though. However Yonder just killed that song a few weeks ago in Portland. Nice sbds available on bt from most of the current tour. Darrol Anger played with them both nights in Portland,get those shows. Kind of astounding no representation from this here group of self admitted afficionados of good music have regaled us with reports of the current killer Yonder tour. 2 nights in Chicago? Nobody there? LOL Boston,New York,Philadelphia with Sam Bush ? Nobody? Nobody in Falls Church,yeah I know,at these shows you probably could not sit down and would have to dance the whole time. Bummer ------------------------------ From: "Bzl." Subject: Re: Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:27:34 -0400 "DB" wrote in message news:djls7n$kg4$1@eri0.s8.isp.nyc.eggn.net... > ba ba booie wrote: >> Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? Just wondering if any reviews >> are out from last nites show. Anyone here >> go? Good, bad, ugly? booie....... > > The NYT gave it a mediocre review in the Metro Section. > > DB http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/arts/music/25cream.html?8dpc Sounds like it's really good if you didn't know what they played in London; almost exact show. Summary in NYT: "You couldn't afford a ticket? It's really all right. Watch the DVD." ------------------------------ From: "imsjry" Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:30:43 -0700 Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: > "DG" wrote in message > news:ltlsl15r1t7joov9ju5ihlfpkbv0ga6nsd@4ax.com... > > > > > > So this prick leaked the name to the man who told the times. Time for > > these guys to be charged, tried and let justice take it's course. > > > This leaking business is much ado about nothing, especially as you describe > it. > > Cheney isn't being accused of leaking anything, the Vice President of the > United States is being accused of talking about a CIA agent with his chief > of staff. If they can't discuss the CIA, who can? Are you really that naive???? ------------------------------ From: "Carlisle" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:38:43 -0700 leftie wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > >>So back to the issue at hand: Carlisle, do you agree that, if Plame was > >>a covert operative and the Bush Administration outed her, that that is > >>a big deal? > > > > All right. It IS a big deal if the law was broken because that means > > criminal penalties. > > Nothing to say about the ethical matters of the case? The law is there to enforce the ethics.. > > How 'bout the practical matters concerning the relationship of the > administration to the intelligence community or the matter of the > reasons for war having been fabricated (which underlies this whole thing)? You mean the "run-up to the Iraq War and how it was presented/handled/sold"? This concerns me too. We may even be on the same page!! > > "restoring dignitude...." Good one! ------------------------------ From: "RickNBarbInSD" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:42:54 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > The law is there to enforce the ethics.. It sounds as though you're suggesting here that anything, as long as it's legal, is ethical. You're not, are you? :0 Rick ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: cheney = traitor Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:48:16 -0400 On 25 Oct 2005 11:30:43 -0700, "imsjry" wrote: > >Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote: >> "DG" wrote in message >> news:ltlsl15r1t7joov9ju5ihlfpkbv0ga6nsd@4ax.com... >> > >> > >> > So this prick leaked the name to the man who told the times. Time for >> > these guys to be charged, tried and let justice take it's course. >> >> >> This leaking business is much ado about nothing, especially as you describe >> it. >> >> Cheney isn't being accused of leaking anything, the Vice President of the >> United States is being accused of talking about a CIA agent with his chief >> of staff. If they can't discuss the CIA, who can? > >Are you really that naive???? I don't think EGBH is being naive. You may well believe that Cheney discussed the agent's identy with his chief of staff and told him to leak it to the press, Cheney may well have done that. But proving it is a whole different ball of wax. Going after Cheney's chief of staff is easy, going after Cheney is not. Now it's possible that the chief of staff of the vice president of the United States doesn't have a security clearance to discuss the real identities of agents. If that's the case, then you have something on Cheney. But if the guy is cleared to have the conversation then what, exactly, did Cheney do wrong that you can prove in a court of law? ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:48:40 -0700 Ray wrote: > Carlisle wrote: > > "Carlisle - you're being playing played." It's true that I get alot of > > my print news from the WSJ. > > So do I - except from their editorial page. > > > And yes, the Editorial page is biased > > pro-business conservative. > > The WSJ Editorial page is a rag - they routinely grossly distort and > lie. Just as they did in their editorial that you cited here. > > > Although we will continue to disagree. I > > will say it's a reputable source for information..Ray will say it's a > > "rag". I overlooked last this part in my first reading. Yes, obviously I will (and did) say "it" (the WSJ editorial page - *not* the WSJ in general) is a "rag". Because it is. And again: NOT BECAUSE THE WSJ EDITORIAL PAGE HAS A CONSERVATIVE BIAS, BUT BECAUSE IT ROUTINELY GROSSLY DISTORTS AND LIES. See the difference? That difference is key, whether you see it of not. And that they routinly grossly distorts and lies is NOT SUBJECTIVE. When you read the WSJ editorial page you are regularly being fed lies Carlisle - as I demonstrated to you in the editorial page that you cited here. Do you not agree, at least, that the WSJ editorial page that you cited here contained gross distortions and lies? Wilson did NOT, as the WSJ editorial you cited stated, in July 2003 accuse the Bush Administration of lying. And it is NOT TRUE, as the WSJ editorial you cited stated, that Plame "was surely not undercover" - this is another WSJ editorial page LIE. These are WSJ editorial page LIES, Carlisle. And this is a FACT - it's NOT subjective. And the Plame "was surely not undercover" LIE is a big one - since of course if Plame was in FACT "surely not undercover" then the federal investigation into would have been much ado about merely "political hardball", but not a criminal actvity. Now, it *may* be that Plame was not undercover - unlikely, but that may, possibly be true (though why the CIA would have requested a federal invesigation into her outing, and why the invesitgation then proceeded, would then be a mystery). But *at this time* it is NOT "surely" known to be the case that she was not undercover - THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATION FOR THIS CLAIM. It's a LIE. Carlisle: in earlier in this thread that you stated "I still don't know why this is as big of a scandle as it's turned out to be." The disconnect here, the reason why you "still don't know" why this is a big deal is because you continue to believe the LIES of WSJ editorial page, the National Review, and others who are saying that Plame wasn't covert. Your are being disinformed, and you are believing that disinformation to be truth - this is why you "still don't know". You are keeping yourself from knowing. > We will go around and around in circles. As long as you continue to evade recognizing and acknowledging LIES for what they are, yes. Ray ------------------------------ From: Brad Greer Subject: Re: RIP Wellington Mara Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:51:04 -0400 On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 13:04:10 -0400, "Don Bean" wrote: >Im a Jets fan but I know what the Giants are all about... They are an old >school organazation and there fans have been with them for a long time. Its >like a big family.. And It all started at the top.. Football fans everywhere >and especially NY fans were all sad today when they heard the news... RIP Mr >Mara > Giants fans are known for never giving up their season tickets (which is why they estimate it will take you 150 years to get tickets if you join their waiting list now). The Mara family has been good to the fans overall (we'll set aside the '70s, when internal feuding between Wellington and Jack put the team into a deep funk) and we'll miss Wellington's presence a lot. I'm sure there will be a few banners at Giants Stadium this Sunday, as well as some sort of tribute to one of the last "old school" owners. ------------------------------ From: "Dave Kelly" Subject: Re: need RRE 7/6/03 info Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:28:18 GMT "frndthdevl" wrote in message > Kind of astounding no representation from this here group of self > admitted afficionados of good music have regaled us with reports of the > current killer Yonder tour. * I have no patience....NO patience for 3rd string hippie jam grass bands. none....NONE! ------------------------------ From: kpnnews@yahoo.com Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 25 Oct 2005 11:57:46 -0700 Ray wrote: > Ray wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > "Carlisle - you're being playing played." It's true that I get alot of > > > my print news from the WSJ. > > > > So do I - except from their editorial page. > > > > > And yes, the Editorial page is biased > > > pro-business conservative. > > > > The WSJ Editorial page is a rag - they routinely grossly distort and > > lie. Just as they did in their editorial that you cited here. > > > > > Although we will continue to disagree. I > > > will say it's a reputable source for information..Ray will say it's a > > > "rag". > > I overlooked last this part in my first reading. Yes, obviously I will > (and did) say "it" (the WSJ editorial page - *not* the WSJ in general) > is a "rag". Because it is. And again: NOT BECAUSE THE WSJ EDITORIAL > PAGE HAS A CONSERVATIVE BIAS, BUT BECAUSE IT ROUTINELY GROSSLY DISTORTS > AND LIES. See the difference? That difference is key, whether you see > it of not. And that they routinly grossly distorts and lies is NOT > SUBJECTIVE. When you read the WSJ editorial page you are regularly > being fed lies Carlisle - as I demonstrated to you in the editorial > page that you cited here. Do you not agree, at least, that the WSJ > editorial page that you cited here contained gross distortions and > lies? Wilson did NOT, as the WSJ editorial you cited stated, in July > 2003 accuse the Bush Administration of lying. And it is NOT TRUE, as > the WSJ editorial you cited stated, that Plame "was surely not > undercover" - this is another WSJ editorial page LIE. > > These are WSJ editorial page LIES, Carlisle. And this is a FACT - it's > NOT subjective. > > And the Plame "was surely not undercover" LIE is a big one - since of > course if Plame was in FACT "surely not undercover" then the federal > investigation into would have been much ado about merely "political > hardball", but not a criminal actvity. Now, it *may* be that Plame was > not undercover - unlikely, but that may, possibly be true (though why > the CIA would have requested a federal invesigation into her outing, > and why the invesitgation then proceeded, would then be a mystery). They hate the Whitehouse? Kurt ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .