6/2/2007
meathead is a dunderhead
dun·der·head
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
dun·der·head /ˈdʌndərˌhɛd/
–noun
a dunce; blockhead; numbskull.
I’m going to type this really slow so that meathead can keep up. (In case you don’t understand that sentence, it’s a joke: meaty is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.)
First, he claims that I’m lying by saying that Plame is not and was not covert, so it’s not a ‘gotcha’. Yet, as you can see in this post, a lot of people are saying that, and providing the proof behind the assertion, while all he does is sit there and rant like a little kid sitting on the potty waiting for his mommy to wipe is butt.
she was outted in 1994 by aldrich ames. she was moved to a desk job because of it, because her cover was blown. even wikipedia says it. it isn’t because we say it, it’s because that’s the truth of the matter, it’s a fact, it’s not something that i made up, which is in stark contrast to the ‘liar liar pants on fire’ type of accusations that meaty makes with nothing to back them up but tantrums and whining or a link to the lying msm. just because someone like joel seidman wrote about it and directly quoted the stupidity out of the pdf file doesn’t mean the contentions are true. You have to look at the credentials of the people who are writing about it, and compare it to the rest and be able to squeeze out a rational thought. And that is something our meaty has a problem doing, time and again, since his goal is to discredit, malign, attack and call the Wide Awakes names, not to make sense of arguments. He is more the adult version of a little spoiled brat on the playground rather than a worthy adversary who can stand his ground in an argument.
She follows that up with another lie in the very first sentence:
Meatball sure is a demanding idiot; if not completely stupid; He sends me an email with no link about Fitzgerald’s grandstanding and using a document he claims is ‘unclassified’ that isn’t dated, during the sentencing phase of Libby’s farce of a trial…
The PDF document in question is in fact dated, which is evident to anyone who reads it:
Datestamp of recent court filing
What is a lie, exactly, meathead? Is a lie something that you don’t have the brain cells to comprehend, so you just like to fling the word around to get a rise out of people? In my world, it’s not a lie when someone says things, provides links and quotes to back up the position and you are too stupid to follow links and read the articles I cite.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
lie1 /laɪ/ noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying his way out of difficulties.
—Idioms
8. give the lie to,
a. to accuse of lying; contradict.
b. to prove or imply the falsity of; belie: His poor work gives the lie to his claims of experience.
9. lie in one’s throat or teeth, to lie grossly or maliciously: If she told you exactly the opposite of what she told me, she must be lying in her teeth. Also, lie through one’s teeth.
[Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lyge; c. G Lüge, ON lygi; akin to Goth liugn; (v.) ME lien, OE léogan (intransit.); c. G lügen, ON ljūga, Goth liugan]
Okay, take this in real slow. I haven’t done anything here with an intent to deceive,or even made a false statement. I’ve simply looked at the documents and applied common sense; weighing out what Fitzgerald is saying as opposed to what Victoria Toensing has said, who helped to draft the legislation that defines Plames ‘covert’ status (The Identities Protection Act of 1982)
Let’s remember that Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury, and that violation of the Identities Protection Act was not found in court, this pdf document is during the sentencing phase of the trial. So any other characterization that you’re making of this is completely disingenuous, and dishonest, if not an outright lie.
Actually, meaty, I didn’t say that the pdf file is undated, it’s a court filing, of course it’s dated! The pdf document that Fitgerald used to posit the notion that Plame was covert is comprised of some 30 pages, and all, except for three, are a transcipt of Plame’s testimony before Waxman’s House on Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, what Johnson refers to as Waxman’s ‘dog and pony show’. (Johnson, 2007) It is the Summary, not the entire content of the pdf file, that was unclassified, therefore, the statement that I made earlier still holds muster. In fact, if you’d bothered to read that part of the document, it is called the UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY OF VALERIE WILSON’S CIA EMPLOYMENT AND COVER HISTORY.
It’s unfortunate that the Summary is undated, so it’s not possible to determine whether it was an attachment to the CIA’s Referral Memo, which demanded an investigation of the supposed leak of Plame’s “covert” status.
It is the Summary that I was referring to that was undated, not the Fitgerald pdf file. You really don’t have all that much going on upstairs, meaty. The Summary says “covert” operatives, [alleging that Plame was one], travel on duty overseas using their own names, even traveling under their own name with US Government officials. WOW, that’s a stretch. Johnson then asks:
Just how “covert” can this really be? Are we to suppose that foreign intelligence services don’t keep tabs on US travelers — especially those traveling as officials of the US government — and don’t try to establish a profile for “covert” operatives?
It really bends the definition of ‘covert’ completely around, doesn’t it?
The Summary is in the pdf file (it is NOT the pdf file itself):
It’s unfortunate that the Summary is undated, so it’s not possible to determine whether it was an attachment to the CIA’s Referral Memo, which demanded an investigation of the supposed leak of Plame’s “covert” status.
I’ve been quoting two attorneys: Victoria Toensing, who helped craft the Identities Protection Act of 1982, and Al Johnson, who is a retired attorney. And in this post I quote more than that; it’s more than ‘rightwingedness’. It’s simple facts and the ability to reason and compare the language used, and to use critical thinking.
And what has meathead offered? Argumentum ad hominem, desphysmisms and hyperbole, and the rather unflattering picture of himself as a man who has managed only cowardice; to go after a teenage boy and a woman to make a political point.
A point, by the way, that he’s failed to make, although his hatred of the Wide Awakes and ‘rightwingers’ is duly noted.
Sorry, meaty, I can’t hold your hand to explain everything in your empty narrow little world, but thanks for the laugh and the exposure into the dark caves of idiotaria!
Next time, follow the links and read the articles before you go off half-cocked like that, you continue to reveal yourself as a foolish individual with absolutely no grip on reality or common sense.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Meat For Brains would not be able to form a coherent sentence if it were not for the word lie in all of its forms. The fact that he misuses the term aside, his only argument against anything is that someone is lying.
Dunderhead is a mild description of whatever that waste of human flesh is. He needs to get out of his momma’s basement and learn something about the world.
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
June 2nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
And even if we cooked and ate it, not even appetising,
Plame was NOT covert.A covert agent does not get into her car and drive to work at Langley.A covert agent does not have a husband who brags at parties of “his wife the secret agent”
Meathead is as usual…wrong.
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Meatbrain, you are mistaken. The cover page of the PDF is labled as evidence (specifically, Exhibit A), the date stamp is clearly when the clerk of the District Court admitted it into evidence or accepted it as an Exhibit and not a time/date stamp of the CIA. The summary itself is NOT dated. but is rather more than likely a transcript of the pages which were declassified.
Note please that I said you were mistaken, I’m not calling you a liar, however, the intent and factualness of the date stamp should be clear to anyone not trying to obfusticate the intent of the time/date stamp. So now the question arises is it a lie, or just crass stupidity. I’m not sure which is worse.
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Stupidity can’t be fixed, and neither can the propensity for lying.
I think he uses that ‘liar liar pants on fire’ thing because it’s always gotten him attention with his mother.
As far as some of the other disingenuous arguments he uses, if he’s spent any time in school, he should know they’re not appropriate for use in a debate (reference the philosophical writing manual) these are the particular points that he seems to ignore about appropriate debating of points;
He does that all the time. When he sent his original email to me, he had nothing but his sentence, no link, and no quote. In the world of meat-for-brains, his word is GOLDEN; you don’t need a link, you just have to bow down in shock and awe of his great intellectual ability and grasp of…********, I guess.
He does that all the time; here he’s calling me a liar and discounting everything that’s been put up that doesn’t agree with his preconceived notion. Plame was not proven in the trial to be a ‘covert’ operative. The trial was not about that, and even Fitzgerald said in 2005 that he wasn’t trying to prove that Libby violated the. For this to come up in the sentencing phase of a perjury trial, and presented in this way in this document, is indeed odd.
He does that all the time. Example: the date stamp on the pdf document is not the date of the summary.
He does that all the time; he calls my statement “Plame was not covert” a “lie”, distoring the meaning of what I said. Either it’s true, or it’s not, and as far as the experts are telling us, it seems as though it’s true. Is meatbrain a lawyer? It doesn’t even seem as though he’s read through the pdf document that he’s referencing, and he doesn’t seem to know what he’s looking at. So how can you have a discussion with someone who has no brain?
I think his theme song should be ‘if only I had a brain’.
Above everything else, the ’somebody thinks something’ is what Meathead does constantly. It is the item he’s the most consistently guilty of, in every post about us. I don’t need to think about what I think, all I need to do is look at the meat-for-brains because he knows all. He’s the master of time and space; he knows what I think before I think it. I’ve never run across someone who has so much tunnel vision where other peoples’ opinions are concerned.
He does this, too.
Apparently not able to distinguish between the Summary and Fitzgerald’s PDF document, Meatbrain broadbrushes it and laps up what the msm spews (which is part of Fitzgerald’s dishonest document)-none of these people, including the clueless people in the msm who are repeating the ‘plame was covert according to an unclassified CIA document’ meme-seem to be able to distinguish the facts from the hyperbole.
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I have a question, Pal Meatybites, if this is in the custody of Fitzgerald, what other documents did he withhold from the defence in discovery? What other documents did he say he did not have when the case went to trial?
Why was the defence not shown these at the trial?
And to this day there has been not one shred of proof of any shape or size that says that ANYONE “leaked” her name, including Armitage who ADMITTED IT…the trial was a farce.
This is like that farcical ’sealed vs sealed” which the DUmpmonkeys believed was the “indictment”…that never was…add to that the Truthout LIE that Karl Rove had been indicted (he hadn’t been and never will be, and you have..nothing.
What you have is a political witch hunt which has yielded zero results and zero proof..and if he had hard evidence, why wasn’t it used AT the trial?
So what we have, rump chops with garlic, is a whole lotta nothing.
God, you’re getting desperate. In all these years there has not been one shred of proof of any kind of wrongdoing by the Bush administration.Had there been, do you think for one minute that the supposed majority who hate him would hesitate to use it???
Wake up and smell the coffee, Meathead, what you have are a slew of allegations, and no hard proof of any kind.
To use an Aussie phrase, put up…or SHUT UP.