Jack Rabbit drinks the Kool Aid: adventures on The Nation's website

[Jack Rabbit]

This is from my posts on this thread on the website of The Nation today and last night. Please see pages 4 and 5 of the discussion.

The Nation has a very liberal posting policy. I get to take on real, live Bush babies there.

They've been spewing nonsense since the Libby verdict about Valerie Plame not being covert. Generally, they're Victoria Toensing's talking points.

Specifically, they assert that since Fitzgerald did not bring charges against any one but Libby, that there was no underlying crime and that exposing Ms. Plame did no damage to national security.

Today, I decided to take on the persona of a mad man and argue that logic to its extreme.

This is called fun.

Let's see if we can follow the right wing logic about the Plame case see how well it works when applied to something unrelated.

No one was convicted of killing Nicole Simpson.

Therefore, she is not dead.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/21/2007 @ 11:08pm | ignore this person

.....killing Nicole Simpson.

Therefore, she is not dead.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/21/2007 @ 11:08pm | ignore this person

Come on, Rabbit, you must have forgotten someone was actually CHARGED for that kiling! Trust me, there was a "genuine" trial, with "genuine" prosecutor, "genuine" judge, "genuine" jury and even a "genuine" verdict.....

LMAO!

Posted by HAPPY 03/22/2007 @ 12:34am | ignore this person

Ah, but Happy, that's not the way it work in right wing lalaland.

You see, the one person charged was acquitted. So obviously, he didn't do it. And no one else was charged, so it stands to reason that nobody killed Nicole Simpson and, in fact, there is no evidence that any crime was committed.

Nicole Simpson is not dead.

I'm simply applying the logic (for want of a better word) that you and your friends apply to the blowing of Ms. Plame's cover. Libby was charged with perjury and obstructing justice, not with blowing her cover. No one was charged with that. Therefore, her cover wasn't blown. And there was no damage to the CIA's counterproliferation program. And for all we know, Valerie Plame works as an energy consultant for Brewster Jennings and never was a CIA officer specializing in counterproliferation.

Because no one was charged with blowing her cover, she must not have had a cover to blow and there was no crime.

At least that's your reasoning.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/22/2007 @ 02:32am | ignore this person

Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/22/2007 @ 02:32am

Hey Jack, as always, there is a fundamental logical flaw in your argument.

Nicole Simpson is dead. She was found slashed to death by a crazed killer, therefore we know a crime was committed. The fact that 12 ignorant idiots from LA chose to set OJ free in no way means that he was innocent or that there was no crime committed.

In the "Plame in a teapot" case, the prosecutor has never even alleged that a crime was committed, other than a trumpted up 'perjury and obstruction' charge purportedly committed to obstruct some 'crime' that has never been identified.

Ms. Coulter has a fundamental truth correct. Modern liberalism is nothing but an urban religion, and people such as yourself are nothing but its devotees. You are the fulfillment of Nietzsche's prediction: when god-based religions falter, secular religions will take over. Human nature doesn't change that much. Four centuries ago, people like you were burning witches at the stake and torturing people for heresy.


Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/22/2007 @ 07:27am | ignore this person

Note: the following is in response to an Ann Coulter piece posted by another user (omitted here)

I love it when Ann really gets going. This is so spot-on, it really bears repeating.

Global warming is supposed to be "science." It's hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert Einstein's letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further quantum mechanics."

Come to think of it, one can't imagine the pope writing a letter to Jerry Falwell saying, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further infallibility."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying -- which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/22/2007 @ 07:31am | ignore this person

The post of mine to which Ponti refers in the next post was one that mocked an earlier post of his.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/20/2007 @ 10:49pm

Funny, that's how I feel about you and your ilk, Ponti. The difference is, I argue in favor of beliefs that work, while you believe in ones that demonstrably do not.

Ah, I feel like finally we're making some progress here, Jack. Let's test your hypothesis. Which of the following is the most true:

There are many successful socialist countries in the world.

There are many successful capitalist countries in the world.


Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/22/2007 @ 07:38am | ignore this person

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/22/2007 @ 07:27am

A flaw in my argument? What utter nonsense. Nicole Simpson can no more be dead than Valerie Plame secret cover was blown. Otherwise, somebody who actually did the crime would have been convicted. But that didn't happen, so there can be no evidence of a crime. And if there were a crime, there would be evidence of it.

Therefore, in neither case was there any evidence of a crime or even a crime.

Nicole Simpson is not dead. QED.

Valerie Plame really worked as an energy consultant for Brewster Jennings. She could not have really been a CIA operative with a cover whose employment at the CIA was classified, but then to expose her would have been a crime. Brewster Jennings could not have been a CIA front, because then that would be classified and exposing it as a CIA front would be a crime, but there was no crime. But no one was charged with a crime, which means there must be no evidence of a crime which must mean there is no crime at all.

Valerie Plame obviously works for as an energy consultant for Brewster Jennings, which is obviously not a CIA front. QED.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/22/2007 @ 07:38am

Let's test your hypothesis. Which of the following is the most true:

There are many successful socialist countries in the world.

There are many successful capitalist countries in the world.

That's my hypothesis on this thread? Sir, I don't believe I've stated any such thing on this thread.

My hypothesis was that a crime was committed when Ms. Plame's cover was blown, until you right wing morons helped me see the light and demonstrated that there was no crime because nobody was charged; there could not even be evidence of a crime unless somebody is charged.

Now, I will admit that my conclusion that Nicole Simpson is not dead might be disputed in that somebody was charged with making her dead, but he didn't do it. We know he didn't do it because the jury said so. And, simply adding the logical statement that one is innocent until proved guilty, we arrive at the corollary to your reasoning that not only must the crime be alleged publicly by the prosecutor, but somebody must be actually convicted of the crime.

You have to admit that follows, too.

Therefore, since there was no crime in the exposure of Ms. Plame as a covert CIA operative, we must conclude that she worked as an energy consultant for Brewster Jennings, which was a legitimate business and not a mere CIA front. Ms. Plame obviously never worked for the CIA. If there were any evidence of it, somebody would be charged with blowing her cover.

Likewise, since OJ is innocent and no one else has been charged, there could have been no crime. The evidence presented at the trial did not prove that OJ did it, so it must not have been evidence of anything. Ergo, no crime was committed and Nicole Simpson is not dead.

We should also add to the hue and cry that Cathy Martin, currently an assistant to the Mr. Bush and prior to that to Mr. Cheney, should be charged with perjury. Why? Because she testified in Libby's trial that Libby and Cheney were discussing leaking Ms. Plame's association with the CIA to the press in order to discredit her husband, but that could not have happened because Ms. Plame never had an association with the CIA. That her job with the CIA was classified information was not true because she could not have possibly ever worked for the CIA because no one was ever charged with leaking her secret employment with the CIA to the press.

Which means that Libby has been wronged by the justice system. If Ms. Plame was never employed by the CIA, then he and Cheney could not have conspired to expose her as an employee of the CIA, as Mr. Fitzgerald stated to the court (and to which Ms. Martin testified). If any of that had happened, Cheney would have been charged under criminal statutes governing such things (if not the IIPA than something else). But he wasn't, so there can be no more evidence of Cheney ever having done such a thing than there can be evidence that O. J. Simpson or any one else killed Nicole Simpson. Thus, Libby could not have lied to the grand jury in order to protect Cheney from conspiracy charges arising from blowing Ms. Plame's cover, because Ms. Plame obviously had no cover to blow.

Ah, I see the light now.

By the way, Ponti, you have to stop saying that President Clinton was guilty of perjury. He obviously didn't lie. He's never been charged or convicted of anything, therefore there is no evidence that he lied. In fact, he obviously never had sex with that woman at all. Not even a blow job.

Speaking of who is not dead, it has always been quite obvious to me that Ms. Coulter is undead. Oh, that I ever doubted that fine lady's honor or credentials as a journalist! That I ever called her a liar, a propagandist, a hack or even a just plain lousy writer who couldn't hold a theme to save her life!

I really ought to apologize to you for suggesting last week after you cited a bunch of right wing rags as proof that your point of view is the correct one that citing Ann Coulter as an authority on the subject would completely destroy the last vestige you have as being the least bit serious,

Ah, but I see the light now. Ann Coulter is truth and beauty personified. She is a goddess.

By the way, Ponti, can I have some more Kool Aid, please? That stuff really tastes good.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/22/2007 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person

Geez, JACK I think you're being willfully thick. I'm sure that's a useful tool for you, but regrettably it's only useful when you're speaking to other leftists, such as those that argue that Clinton's lies under oath were 'only about sex,' when in fact they were more about sexual harassment. As with OJ, the fact that he evaded the charges in court does not prove his innocence, only that he was unable to be convicted under the law. Of course, we all now both OJ and Clinton are as guilty as sin, and the fact that they never had to pay for their crimes was more a reflection of the imperfection of our legal system as anything else.

In Nicole's case, we have as our starting point her battered body, which is proof in itself that a crime occurred. In Plame's case, we don't even have an underlying crime alleged. Of course, Fitz has gained a conviction of perjury and obstruction in Libby's case, but we are left to wonder why anyone would do such a thing when there is no known crime to cover up.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/22/2007 @ 1:59pm | ignore this person

Posted by PONTIFICUS 03/22/2007 @ 1:59pm

Exactly, Ponti, there was no underlying crime to cover up. If there were, Fitz would have said so.

And since Libby was not covering up a crime, he couldn't have obstructed justice. That would imply there was an underlying crime, but we know there wasn't because Fitz didn't say there was. That must mean there wasn't.

Prosecutors never refrain from trashing the people they don't charge with crimes just because they can't prove it, even though it would be unethical for them to do so. Why, just look at the way the LA and Ventura County DAs trashed Michael Jackson after he was found not guilty or after the DA decided he would be wasting his time to bring charges. Gee, your children are obviously safe around Michael Jackson. Why, Fitzgerald should be screaming to high heaven about somebody's guilt under one act or another, if somebody were guilty of a crime, even though he couldn't charge that person because Libby didn't tell the truth.

Because in your logic, there can be no crime at all unless it can be proved.

How dare you say we have Nicole's battered body as proof that a crime was committed when no one was convicted of any crime and no other person charged? There could no have been a crime, and therefore there is no body. By the same token, we cannot say that the fact that Ms. Plame's employment at the CIA is now common knowledge, whereas it used to be classified information is evidence of a crime. There was no cirme.

And I never signed papers with the US government 30 years ago in which I acknowledged I could be prosecutled for divulging classified information, just like Libby, Rove and Fleishcer did (apparently with Cheney's knowledge and blessing), because that must not be crime. And why would they have warned me that divulging classified information is a crime if it is not a crime. We know it is not a crime because you say so. And, simply by virtue of being a Bush booster, you know more than I on these matters, even though I spent three years in the US Army handling classified information.

And we know that's true because Ann Coulter says that any American to the left of Attila the Hun is guilty of slander, treason and withchcraft and that right wingers aligned with Attila the Hun, fighting those evil liberals, are the very embodiment of St. Michael the Archangel.

So, if there are no charges to be brought against anybody in the Plame case, there cannot be any evidence that Ms. Plame's cover was blown, because that would be evidence of an underlying crime, but there was no underlying crime.

And likewise, if the evidence against Mr. Simpson was insufficient to convince the jury that he was guilty, then he would have been convicted, or failing that, somebody else charged. Of course, Mr. Simpson is looking for the real killer and I'm sure he's looking just as hard as Mr. Bush looked for the leaker. But they are obviously wasting there time, because no one was charged at all in one case and no one has been charged who could be convicted in the other.

Therefore, there was no evidence of an underlying crime.

Valerie Plame's employment at the CIA was not a secret; she must have actually worked for Brewster Jennings when she said she worked for Brewster Jennings. QED.

No one but Mr. Simpson was charged with killing his wife, and he is innocent. There can be no underlying crime, there, either. Nicole Simpson is not dead. QED.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/22/2007 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person

Here's what I am confused about... Why would there be a law that ONLY protects CIA NOC agents overseas and not at home? You don't think that terrorists could come to the states and kill and undercover agent. Aren't people(agencies) in the USA working undercover right now trying to find the bad guys.

So according to the nut-lady Toensing we should out all undercover agents in the USA, because they are not really undercover here? Hey I mean that's what I understood her to mean.


Posted by FOXFIRE 03/22/2007 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person

Posted by FOXFIRE 03/22/2007 @ 3:47pm

Foxfire, you may be on to something.

That does indeed seem to be what the right wing is saying. Exposing a CIA officer whose employment at the CIA is classified and who has been giving a cover story about working for an energy consulting for years is not a crime. And exposing her cover empoyer as a CIA front did not damage to national security.

We know this because Ponti, Rio, Happy and Maasch say there was no underlying crime in this case, and Bush boosters are always right because they always repeat the Bush regime's infallible talking points. You can't go wrong with that. You know, the leader is always right (or, in the original Italian, il duce ha sempre ragione).

But, if Ms. Plame had a cover to blow and her employment at the CIA was classified, then there had to be an underlying crime. But there was no underlying crime.

Therefore, we could turn the CIA's classified Langley directory over to Osama himself and not be doing anything wrong.

Perhaps I will have to ask Ann Coulter for Osama's phone number. She knows I know it. After all, she knows what I know and think better than I do. But I seem to have mislaid it somewhere in my memory. Maybe Ms. Coulter can help me find it.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 03/22/2007 @ 4:03pm | ignore this person

[Warpy]

1. Nice job of screwing with their heads. Well done!

The measure of how well you've gotten to them is their constant attempt to hijack the discussion by throwing in non sequiturs like liberalism is a disease, socialism fails, blah blah blah. They don't do that garbage unless they know they're licked. It's called retreating to the familiar and safe.

It's like reciting a familiar prayer. It calms them as they're being shellacked.

[Der Blaue Engel]

2. This particular gem is Hi-LAR-ious!...

Four centuries ago, people like you were burning witches at the stake and torturing people for heresy.

:rofl: