David wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:26:45 -0400, dxAce
wrote:



Carter-K8VT wrote:

dxAce wrote:


What law did Rove break?

Holy Cow!

Stop the presses!

The dx (self-appointed) "ace" actually responded without name calling!

Credit where it's due...

To address your adult question, the grand jury is currently trying to
determine what law, if any, was broken. However, in the meanwhile, can
you say "ethics" (or rather lack thereof)?

So in other words Rove broke no law, correct?

Keep trying, 'tard.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm



Thus far, lying to the Feds, obstruction of justice, probably
violating his Form 312 pledge.

Damn... he's beginning to sound more and more like Kerry with each passing day!

Now there's a boy who belongs in jail, right along with his pal Teddy.

LMAO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

"David" wrote in message
...
The Disclosures of Valerie Wilson's Identity


Who wrote this fine leftist propaganda piece Komrade David?

http://www.yubanet.com/artman/publis...le_23080.shtml

Rep. Henry A. Waxman - CaliPornia DemoCommunist

Henry A. Waxman represents California's 30th Congressional District, which
includes the complete cities of Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Agoura Hills,
Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, Westlake Village and West Hollywood, as
well as such areas of Los Angeles as Beverly-Fairfax, Pacific Palisades,
Brentwood, Beverlywood, Topanga, Agoura, Chatsworth and Westwood.

The HollyWood Communist Actors Guild has kept him in office since the
Anti-War movement in the 70's.

The Communist organization "Democracy Now" loves Henry Waxman.
http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/gr...asp?grpid=6891

Henry Waxman subjects himself to an interveiw with Red diaper baby Amy
Goodman, Co-creator of Democracy Now
http://www.discoverthenetwork.com/in...asp?indid=1692

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../07/12/1411222

Please notice that the DemoCommunists [Communists undercover] continue to
disregard prudent security interests of the United States in order to
further their Leftist/Progressive/Socialist/Communists political agenda's.

His voting record is interesting:

Jul 14, 2005 - House Vote
H.R. 3100: East Asia Security Act of 2005
Official Title: To authorize measures to deter arms transfers by foreign
countries to the People's Republic of China.

Vote Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]: Nay

Jun 22, 2005 - House Vote
H.J.Res. 10: Flag Desecration resolution

Vote Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]: Nay

-=jd=-:

At this point, I always lose the conversation.

My gov't (public servants, from bush on down--my employees really)
have no "rights", other than the simple rights equal to those held by
other citizens.

In any test, where a balance between "ethics" and the "peoples' right
to know" is in question, it always will tip in favor of the people.

While "being secure in ones' person" is a valid entitlement, our
servants have no expanded or other "rights." Indeed, if they ever
behave in any manner which is not beneficial to citizens as a whole,
their immediate removal and possible confinement comes into question.

While this "controversy" wages, if there is any question,
what-so-ever, that this is merely a ruse to hold the public enthralled
in disinformation or mechanizations and/or manipulations, those
individuals need to immediately be brought before a court and their
actions and intentions examined closely--or, such examined by our
representatives in congress--if appropriate...

John

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
. 20...
On Sat 23 Jul 2005 10:52:06a, David wrote in
message
:

On 23 Jul 2005 15:35:43 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


Stop the presses!! rickets confirmed as 'tard!

-=jd=-

Laugh as you will. These people have committed an unprecedented
act
of wreckless disregard for an ongoing intelligence operation,
endangering national security and putting dozens of human assetts
in
danger.



If by "These people", you mean the journalists involved who
mentioned Plame
by name, then you may be on to something. If by "These people" you
mean the
interviewee's who merely admitted to having heard a similar rumor,
then you
are confused.



While you ignore this, and choose to instead engage in juvenile
name
calling, we are all put in deeper peril by those we entrusted to
make
things better.


"Those we entrusted to make things better" are well on their way to
doing
so *in spite* of your continued parroting of unsubtantiated,
plagiarized,
blog-drippings or any messsage posted on usenet. And brace
yourself -- We
*will* continue to laugh at your expense. You prompt us to do so.


-=jd=-
--
My Current Disposable Email:

(Remove YOUR HAT to reply directly)

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:30:59 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:


-=jd=-:

At this point, I always lose the conversation.

My gov't (public servants, from bush on down--my employees really)
have no "rights", other than the simple rights equal to those held by
other citizens.

In any test, where a balance between "ethics" and the "peoples' right
to know" is in question, it always will tip in favor of the people.

While "being secure in ones' person" is a valid entitlement, our
servants have no expanded or other "rights." Indeed, if they ever
behave in any manner which is not beneficial to citizens as a whole,
their immediate removal and possible confinement comes into question.

While this "controversy" wages, if there is any question,
what-so-ever, that this is merely a ruse to hold the public enthralled
in disinformation or mechanizations and/or manipulations, those
individuals need to immediately be brought before a court and their
actions and intentions examined closely--or, such examined by our
representatives in congress--if appropriate...

John
Since these people work in the Executive branch, the head of that
branch is responsible. If someone is dragging his feet it is that
person.

David wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:30:59 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote:


-=jd=-:

At this point, I always lose the conversation.

My gov't (public servants, from bush on down--my employees really)
have no "rights", other than the simple rights equal to those held by
other citizens.

In any test, where a balance between "ethics" and the "peoples' right
to know" is in question, it always will tip in favor of the people.

While "being secure in ones' person" is a valid entitlement, our
servants have no expanded or other "rights." Indeed, if they ever
behave in any manner which is not beneficial to citizens as a whole,
their immediate removal and possible confinement comes into question.

While this "controversy" wages, if there is any question,
what-so-ever, that this is merely a ruse to hold the public enthralled
in disinformation or mechanizations and/or manipulations, those
individuals need to immediately be brought before a court and their
actions and intentions examined closely--or, such examined by our
representatives in congress--if appropriate...

John
Since these people work in the Executive branch, the head of that
branch is responsible. If someone is dragging his feet it is that
person.

I knew it! It's all Bush's fault, isn't it, 'tard boy?

LMAO at the left-wing whack job!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

On 23 Jul 2005 18:08:03 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


I’m not sure how “vital” and “secret” a desk-job would be; nor am I certain
that Rove admitting he heard a similar rumor equates to “political
revenge”. But you keep slinging stuff at the wall and perhaps one day you
may accidentally get something to stick. Until then, your parroting and
plagiarizing of (so far) unsubstantiated, wishful-thinking, “drama-queen”
theatrics will only get you gales of derisive laughter! It is fun watching
you attempt to spin clear facts into they are not.

-=jd=-
You are showing your ignorance. Why did the CIA refer charges to the
DOJ if no harm was done?

-=jd=- wrote:

On Sat 23 Jul 2005 12:30:59p, "John Smith" wrote
in message :

-=jd=-:

At this point, I always lose the conversation.

My gov't (public servants, from bush on down--my employees really)
have no "rights", other than the simple rights equal to those held by
other citizens.


As a general rule, that is the status quo. I do not know of anyone who
disputes that. Except, based on their behavior, it might be presumed that
the media feels they should be able to violate most any other “right” in
their pursuit of the “freedom of the press”.

In any test, where a balance between "ethics" and the "peoples' right
to know" is in question, it always will tip in favor of the people.

While "being secure in ones' person" is a valid entitlement, our
servants have no expanded or other "rights." Indeed, if they ever
behave in any manner which is not beneficial to citizens as a whole,
their immediate removal and possible confinement comes into question.


Nor should they be held to a higher degree than those who would judge them.
Rove admitting to “hearing a similar rumor as Novak” does not, in my humble
opinion, equal any cause for immediate removal and/or confinement.

While this "controversy" wages, if there is any question,
what-so-ever, that this is merely a ruse to hold the public enthralled
in disinformation or mechanizations and/or manipulations, those
individuals need to immediately be brought before a court and their
actions and intentions examined closely--or, such examined by our
representatives in congress--if appropriate...

Then target the journalists/media. So far, (it may yet change) this looks
to be something they have cooked-up and are perpetuating. The media brought
up Plame first. As far as I have seen reported, Rove merely said “I’ve
heard that same rumor too”. Then the media (and the Rove-haters) equated
that to “confirmation”. Any other reasonable and prudent person would agree
that all Rove is guilty of is admitting to hearing the same rumor. Based on
that evidence alone, anyone who equates that to confirmation is being
patently unreasonable and imprudent.

Being patently unreasonable and imprudent is the hallmark of the left-wingers!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

-=jd=- wrote:

On Sat 23 Jul 2005 01:28:00p, David wrote in message
:

On 23 Jul 2005 18:08:03 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


I’m not sure how “vital” and “secret” a desk-job would be; nor am I
certain that Rove admitting he heard a similar rumor equates to
“political revenge”. But you keep slinging stuff at the wall and perhaps
one day you may accidentally get something to stick. Until then, your
parroting and plagiarizing of (so far) unsubstantiated,
wishful-thinking, “drama-queen” theatrics will only get you gales of
derisive laughter! It is fun watching you attempt to spin clear facts
into they are not.

-=jd=-
You are showing your ignorance. Why did the CIA refer charges to the
DOJ if no harm was done?


Ha! Aren’t you the optimistic one to claim ignorance on anyone else’s
behalf! As far as I am aware, they (CIA) did not “refer charges” (You’re
probably a cop-show fan, judging by your lingo). It is my understanding
that they requested an investigation into the matter. No more, no less.
After that request was made, the agency is “hands-off”. The results of the
DOJ’s investigation will determine if federal law was violated and/or if
the agency needs to tighten up it’s policies & procedures, or patch a loop-
hole, or if nothing afoul of the law took place at all. Let me go ahead and
make a prediction on *your* reaction, regardless of the outcome:

If the DOJ finds no federal law violated, no impropriety -OR- finds the
media at fault for the ruckus, you will scream that the investigation was
rigged and was actually a massive conspiracy led by Bush to prevent Bush
(himself) from being impeached, indicted, tarred, feathered, whatever.

However, if the DOJ investigation finds federal law *was* violated and an
indictment is sought against some Bush administration staffer, you will
scream that the investigation was rigged and was actually a massive
conspiracy led by Bush to prevent Bush (himself) from being impeached,
indicted, tarred, feathered, whatever.

The left-wingers pride themselves on being un-happy no matter what happens.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

On 23 Jul 2005 19:28:34 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



Ha! Aren’t you the optimistic one to claim ignorance on anyone else’s
behalf! As far as I am aware, they (CIA) did not “refer charges” (You’re
probably a cop-show fan, judging by your lingo). It is my understanding
that they requested an investigation into the matter. No more, no less.
After that request was made, the agency is “hands-off”. The results of the
DOJ’s investigation will determine if federal law was violated and/or if
the agency needs to tighten up it’s policies & procedures, or patch a loop-
hole, or if nothing afoul of the law took place at all. Let me go ahead and
make a prediction on *your* reaction, regardless of the outcome:

If the DOJ finds no federal law violated, no impropriety -OR- finds the
media at fault for the ruckus, you will scream that the investigation was
rigged and was actually a massive conspiracy led by Bush to prevent Bush
(himself) from being impeached, indicted, tarred, feathered, whatever.

However, if the DOJ investigation finds federal law *was* violated and an
indictment is sought against some Bush administration staffer, you will
scream that the investigation was rigged and was actually a massive
conspiracy led by Bush to prevent Bush (himself) from being impeached,
indicted, tarred, feathered, whatever.

You are too predictable...

-=jd=-
There should be aCIA report outlining the damages caused by the
revelation. Since that report has not been ''leaked'' one must assume
that it makes the WH look worse than they already do.

David wrote:

On 23 Jul 2005 19:28:34 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



Ha! Aren’t you the optimistic one to claim ignorance on anyone else’s
behalf! As far as I am aware, they (CIA) did not “refer charges” (You’re
probably a cop-show fan, judging by your lingo). It is my understanding
that they requested an investigation into the matter. No more, no less.
After that request was made, the agency is “hands-off”. The results of the
DOJ’s investigation will determine if federal law was violated and/or if
the agency needs to tighten up it’s policies & procedures, or patch a loop-
hole, or if nothing afoul of the law took place at all. Let me go ahead and
make a prediction on *your* reaction, regardless of the outcome:

If the DOJ finds no federal law violated, no impropriety -OR- finds the
media at fault for the ruckus, you will scream that the investigation was
rigged and was actually a massive conspiracy led by Bush to prevent Bush
(himself) from being impeached, indicted, tarred, feathered, whatever.

However, if the DOJ investigation finds federal law *was* violated and an
indictment is sought against some Bush administration staffer, you will
scream that the investigation was rigged and was actually a massive
conspiracy led by Bush to prevent Bush (himself) from being impeached,
indicted, tarred, feathered, whatever.

You are too predictable...

-=jd=-
There should be aCIA report outlining the damages caused by the
revelation. Since that report has not been ''leaked'' one must assume
that it makes the WH look worse than they already do.

LMAO... you sure do make a lot of assumptions, 'tard boy!

dxAce
Michigan
USA

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm