Skip to comments.
Pollard to get another day in court
Internet Jerusalem Post ^
| Aug. 14, 2003
| THE JERUSALEM POST INTERNET STAFF
Posted on 08/14/2003 8:10:40 PM PDT by Phil V.
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
To: WestPacSailor
I operate based on the facts that I have and the public has - all right. Your reference to publicly unknown facts is a form of fallacy and demagoguery
41
posted on
08/15/2003 7:39:27 AM PDT
by
eclectic
To: eclectic
fallacy and demagogueryBe carefull, you might hurt yourself using big words like that before you take the training wheels off!
Seriously though, I'm refuting your statements based on the facts that I have and my facts contradict your facts. Who's facts are right? I guess we each believe ours are. However comma I know that I have MORE facts than you do, by fact of my job, and I can tell you that you do not have ALL the facts.
Your position is common, but not necessarily the only one held by Americans.
42
posted on
08/15/2003 7:44:33 AM PDT
by
WestPacSailor
(Nothin' says lovin' like full auto!)
To: WestPacSailor
Seriously though, I'm refuting your statements based on the facts that I have and my facts contradict your facts.This is no way to win an argument at a public forum. You have to argue based on the publicly available facts. For all I know your facts are just made up by intelligence offcials to cover up their real failures
43
posted on
08/15/2003 7:57:54 AM PDT
by
eclectic
To: eclectic
Actually, there is no way to win an argument with you. No matter what facts you are faced with you will continue to see a 'vast government conspiracy' and a 'cover up' because that's what you want to believe.
They say ignorance is bliss. You must be one ecstatic puppy.
44
posted on
08/15/2003 8:01:46 AM PDT
by
WestPacSailor
(Never run out of altitude, airspeed and ideas all at the same time.)
To: PhilDragoo
You have posted exceptional insights but I have problems with one issue.
It boggles my mind to consider that Reagan's Secretary of Defense Weinberger was dishonest. Are you trying to tell me Reagan's Weinberger was a disingenuous liar? If this is true what is left for me to believe in?
45
posted on
08/15/2003 7:46:01 PM PDT
by
HISSKGB
To: HISSKGB
From John Loftus and Mark Aarons,
The Secret War Against the Jews, St. Martins Griffin, 1994, page 402:
Far from being the super spy that "Cap" Weinberger portrayed him to be, Pollard was a low-level incompetent with an exaggerated opinion of his own worth. CIA officer Ricky Ames may have exaggerated Pollard's leaks in order to conceal his own work for the Russians. As a practical matter, Pollard had little access either to communications intercept or satellite data, let alone secret NSA codes. According to the security officers familiar with the Pollard case, his primary access was to U.S. Navy data banks on ocean shipping. His private focus was on arms shipments to terrorists, which was fairly routine material.
~~~
Ames was the Russians' jewel and avoided detection by manipulating his superiors including Weinberger.
This was just after Carter's DCI Stansfield Turner fired 800 case officers crippling CIA's humint to this very day.
Clinton fired Woolsey who was onto Ramzi Yousef's being an Iraqi agent, then installed Deutch who bragged his intention was to "f--k them" [CIA]--which he did.
Deutch compromised 17,000 CIA files on his unsecure home computer logged onto Russian sites.
Deutch was covered by Nora Slatkin who did to CIA DO what Hazel O'Leary did to Energy (which Bill Wen Ho Richardson finished).
Now there are missiles coming into the West Bank which are the counterpart to the attempts to bring missiles into the U.S.
With Soros bankrolling the Democrats and Khodorovsky doing the same for the Communists and Chechens, it is certain to be an interesting fourteen months.
46
posted on
08/15/2003 11:08:56 PM PDT
by
PhilDragoo
(Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
To: eclectic
"Free American hero Jonathan Pollard!"
Not!
47
posted on
08/15/2003 11:23:57 PM PDT
by
Penner
To: PhilDragoo
If you will notice, everything Loftus says about this issue comes from undocumented and unnamed sources. This means we are left with the choice of believing Reagan's Secretary of Defense Weinberger or John Loftus.
48
posted on
08/16/2003 8:30:06 AM PDT
by
HISSKGB
To: HISSKGB
You're left with the choice of believing convicted spy Aldrich Ames or John Loftus.
49
posted on
08/16/2003 4:15:08 PM PDT
by
PhilDragoo
(Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
To: PhilDragoo
I can't understand what you are telling me. Weinberger, as Secretary of Defense, was privy to more information than you, I or John Loftus would ever have. If you think Weinberger was wrong, so be it but I have seen no concrete provable reasons to challenge his decisions.
50
posted on
08/16/2003 8:10:24 PM PDT
by
HISSKGB
To: HISSKGB
And you brought that up with John Loftus when Luis Gonzalez had him on his Free Republic radio program.
51
posted on
08/16/2003 8:23:09 PM PDT
by
PhilDragoo
(Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
To: PhilDragoo
I did what?
52
posted on
08/16/2003 8:38:16 PM PDT
by
HISSKGB
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson