Please pass nationally
08-24-2004, 09:04 AM
#481
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
"nvrpc" <diversity53@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10imb2kgfe2mtee@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
> I'll soom be seperating myself from this screwed up society
> anyway.
Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
needed in r.a.m.j+w.
Jeff
news:10imb2kgfe2mtee@corp.supernews.com...
<snip>
> I'll soom be seperating myself from this screwed up society
> anyway.
Good, watch out for the Door-*** interface. Your OT political BS is not
needed in r.a.m.j+w.
Jeff
08-24-2004, 09:46 AM
#482
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Bill, see if you can follow along here.
1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
point)
2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
serving as a trusted aide.
Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
in fact were behind it all along.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
point)
2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
serving as a trusted aide.
Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
in fact were behind it all along.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
08-24-2004, 09:46 AM
#483
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Bill, see if you can follow along here.
1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
point)
2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
serving as a trusted aide.
Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
in fact were behind it all along.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
point)
2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
serving as a trusted aide.
Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
in fact were behind it all along.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
08-24-2004, 09:46 AM
#484
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Bill, see if you can follow along here.
1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
point)
2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
serving as a trusted aide.
Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
in fact were behind it all along.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
point)
2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
serving as a trusted aide.
Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
in fact were behind it all along.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
08-24-2004, 09:46 AM
#485
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Bill, see if you can follow along here.
1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
point)
2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
serving as a trusted aide.
Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
in fact were behind it all along.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
point)
2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
serving as a trusted aide.
Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
in fact were behind it all along.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
08-24-2004, 10:15 AM
#486
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
"Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his
handlers do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this
deliberate leak, and in fact were behind it all along."
I'm sure he cares as much as Kerry did when he made his treasonous
remarks in front of the senate when he got back from 'nam.
Jeff Lowe wrote:
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
>
>> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
>>leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
>>must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
>>quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
>>it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
>>likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
>>everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
>
>
>
handlers do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this
deliberate leak, and in fact were behind it all along."
I'm sure he cares as much as Kerry did when he made his treasonous
remarks in front of the senate when he got back from 'nam.
Jeff Lowe wrote:
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
>
>> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
>>leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
>>must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
>>quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
>>it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
>>likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
>>everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
>
>
>
08-24-2004, 10:15 AM
#487
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
"Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his
handlers do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this
deliberate leak, and in fact were behind it all along."
I'm sure he cares as much as Kerry did when he made his treasonous
remarks in front of the senate when he got back from 'nam.
Jeff Lowe wrote:
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
>
>> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
>>leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
>>must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
>>quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
>>it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
>>likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
>>everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
>
>
>
handlers do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this
deliberate leak, and in fact were behind it all along."
I'm sure he cares as much as Kerry did when he made his treasonous
remarks in front of the senate when he got back from 'nam.
Jeff Lowe wrote:
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
>
>> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
>>leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
>>must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
>>quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
>>it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
>>likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
>>everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
>
>
>
08-24-2004, 10:15 AM
#488
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
"Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his
handlers do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this
deliberate leak, and in fact were behind it all along."
I'm sure he cares as much as Kerry did when he made his treasonous
remarks in front of the senate when he got back from 'nam.
Jeff Lowe wrote:
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
>
>> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
>>leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
>>must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
>>quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
>>it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
>>likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
>>everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
>
>
>
handlers do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this
deliberate leak, and in fact were behind it all along."
I'm sure he cares as much as Kerry did when he made his treasonous
remarks in front of the senate when he got back from 'nam.
Jeff Lowe wrote:
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
>
>> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
>>leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
>>must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
>>quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
>>it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
>>likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
>>everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
>
>
>
08-24-2004, 10:15 AM
#489
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
"Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his
handlers do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this
deliberate leak, and in fact were behind it all along."
I'm sure he cares as much as Kerry did when he made his treasonous
remarks in front of the senate when he got back from 'nam.
Jeff Lowe wrote:
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
>
>> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
>>leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
>>must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
>>quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
>>it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
>>likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
>>everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
>
>
>
handlers do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this
deliberate leak, and in fact were behind it all along."
I'm sure he cares as much as Kerry did when he made his treasonous
remarks in front of the senate when he got back from 'nam.
Jeff Lowe wrote:
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
>
>> You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
>>leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
>>must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
>>quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
>>it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
>>likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
>>everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
>
>
>
08-24-2004, 04:29 PM
#490
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Please pass nationally
Hi Jeff,
"(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
apparently they are.
I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
------ing these lies, that have no fact.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> > You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> > leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> > must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> > quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> > it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> > likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> > everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.
"(Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official"
What the f**k does that mean? Did he swear to it? Name, names? What
makes you think this would be the President's job to find out if this
was a white house leak. Like any company, or business administration, or
your school they're not set up to investigate crimes. And this was a
criminal act that could have cost lives, let the court handle it, as
apparently they are.
I'm sure you've seen criminal acts, and wonder whether you should
make a citizens arrest, or maybe closer to your age, tattled on them. At
any rate it's not your responsibility to prosecute and punish that
person, again call the police, it their job. In the mean time, stop
------ing these lies, that have no fact.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Lowe wrote:
>
> Bill, see if you can follow along here.
> 1) A CIA operative's identity is reveled in the national news media, with
> the leaker (Novak) saying his source is a senior administration official (
> That's the Bush administration if you haven't been following up to this
> point)
>
> 2) Revealing a CIA operative's identity is a high crime that exposes not
> only the operative and their family and associates, but anyone who has had
> contact with that operative in the past to question, suspicion, and
> retribution. These past contacts are the foreign nationals we rely on to
> provide the intelligence that allows our country to fight terrorism.
>
> 3) There are now two ways to handle this at this point: First, the
> administration can try to sweep it under the rug and stonewall the
> investigation, which is what has happened to date, OR, second, The
> administration could clean it's own house. There are not too many "senior
> administration officials" are there? Polygraph all of them and hang the
> criminal out to dry. The alternative is to have a TRAITOR in the time of war
> serving as a trusted aide.
>
> Of course there is always the possibility that the president or his handlers
> do not give a ---- about who dies as a result of this deliberate leak, and
> in fact were behind it all along.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:412A7613.7B344014@***.net...
> > You work on your comprehension! "he probably didn't know about the
> > leak at the time, but now he knows it happened." All that tells me is he
> > must be clairvoyant! What proof did he offer? What hear say is he
> > quoting? All you're doing is ------ing a rumor, let the courts research
> > it, it's their job, and not anyone else's as you imply. They more than
> > likely they'll find it to be simple back stabbing like what happens
> > everyday in corporate espionage. I believe you own GW an apology.