Caption This Windswept Washinton Post Picture?

[CorpGovActivist]

The main URL, plus /wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/08/14/PH2007081400549.jpg

Caption?

- Dave

[Skidmore]

1. Neocon Volumizercream--a little dab will do ya...

[CorpGovActivist]

2. OMG...

:spew:

- Dave

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CatWoman]

4. well

"someone" had to say it.....

[CorpGovActivist]

5. I May Not Agree...

... but as the http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=defend+right+to+say+it&spell=1">saying goes.

- Dave

[fascisthunter]

28. You are a Republican?

lol

[Bitwit1234]

6. Where's the piece of crap candidate he is so light weight

I guess the wind blew him where he belongs.

[CorpGovActivist]

7. Oh, Bitwit...

... you never fail to deliver.

- Dave

[Skidmore]

8. Wonder if Bit works on commission?

[CorpGovActivist]

9. What's the Metric upon Which the Commission Is Based?

n/t
- Dave

[Skidmore]

10. Snuffling.

[CorpGovActivist]

11. .

<---- snickering

[OneGrassRoot]

12. Is that a sex thing?

:evilgrin:

[Skidmore]

15. Only if the Precious is involved.

[OneGrassRoot]

17. Oooooh....sweet!!! Good answer! :) n/t

[CorpGovActivist]

19. I Can't Stop Laughing

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

- Dave

[Skidmore]

22. ....

:evilgrin:


:smoke:

[CorpGovActivist]

24. Check Your Inbox...

... :rofl:

momentarily

*gasp*

- Dave

[Richard Steele]

35. She's allowed to keep whatever falls over the edge of the bridge. nm

[CorpGovActivist]

46. OMG

That was one of my http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=billy+goats+gruff&gbv=2">favorite bedtime stories.

- Dave

[alfredo]

13. Please lock this

[TahitiNut]

14. "Blow or Suck? You Decide!"

:shrug:

[CorpGovActivist]

18. Mel Brooks Called...

; )

- Dave

[TahitiNut]

34. May the Schwartz be with youuuyoyoy ...

:rofl:

[CorpGovActivist]

42. I See Your Irony...

... is as sick as mine!

: )

- Dave

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. By golly, there is a resemblence!

[CorpGovActivist]

21. Reminiscent of How Many Humans...

... come to resemble their lapdogs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=642qxehEcGg

- Dave

[Kingofalldems]

20. What is this thread about?

[CorpGovActivist]

23. A Washington Post Picture n/t

[Skidmore]

25. And snuffling.

[CorpGovActivist]

26. Stop IT!

I'm ticklish, UNCLE!!!

- Dave

[CatWoman]

29. glad to see I'm not the only one in the dark

I'm also glad to notice that this poster posts AT LEAST one (I'm being generous) such post an hour.

[Kingofalldems]

30. I know now

It's about a picture. :rofl:

[gulliver]

27. A bird and a worm.

[TZ]

31. nice flamebait dude

I love fellow Dems who compare other Dems to pukes..How very ROVIAN of you....

[CorpGovActivist]

32. The WaPo Photo Editor Should Be Flogged...

... with one of Hillary's floppy answers.

- Dave

[Kurovski]

33. Swept Away... by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August

Karl Rove..........Gennarino Carunchio

Hillary Clinton....Raffaella Pavone Lanzetti

William Clinton....Signor Pavone Lanzetti

[CorpGovActivist]

36. Subversive Types ...

... like you rock.

; )

- Dave

[The Magistrate]

37. Beauty And The Beast, Sir, Makes A Fair Caption For It....

[CorpGovActivist]

38. Why, Magistrate, Sir...

... you made a funny!

; )

- Dave

[Kurovski]

39. He does that a lot.

:D

He ends up locking some of his own best material.

[The Magistrate]

40. What Did You Find So Humorous, Sir?

[CorpGovActivist]

41. Beauty and the Beast...

... classic humor, literary, and in good taste.

: )

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

43. "I wish to thank Senator Clinton’s Staff for their assistance to date." -David A. Smith 9/20/06

[CorpGovActivist]

44. Wow - An Actual Proof of Reading!

And actual proof that I was in Clinton's camp, and was turned off by her policy stances.

I like her as a Senator, and hope she remains there for many years to come.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

47. Proof of reading

Now that I know yer awake and listening, I have some questions (yes, I've been reading).

"Goodbye" email to coworkers upon expiration of work contract:

"I have been genuinely pleased to have been affiliated with such a great company...." - David A. Smith, (@Halliburton.com) April 23, 2003 (long after receiving internal emails regarding Nigerian bribe cover up)
.........................................................................

"However, it quickly became clear that something was wrong. The e-mails centered around how to defend the company from a Federal investigation that the Houston home office had just learned about, arising under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."

"... I began to read the e-mails more carefully. As I did, it became apparent that the responses I had mistakenly received were from the company’s entire "damage control fire brigade": the public relations flaks were weighing in on how to spin the investigation, should it become public knowledge. The attorneys (both in-house and external) were weighing in on how to mount a legal defense, and how to keep the DOJ and SEC thrown off the scent. Government Relations personnel were weighing in on how to call in favors from the Executive Office of the President – including specific mention of making contact with the Vice President’s office."

You say you were "Aghast" at this, and....

"When I alerted the original sender (the Halliburton attorney), he fired back an angry e-mail, ordering me to destroy all copies of the e-mails I had received, and to send him a signed written letter to the effect that I had done so. Rather than thanking me for proactively (and quietly) alerting him to his mistake, he essentially "shot the messenger" – acting as if I were the one who had done something wrong."

You never say that you retained copies or alerted anyone. I infer that you did destroy them as instructed?

You did not alert anyone, you merely told the story to your mother, who, to your horror, apparently leaked it against your wishes: "Because I (expletive deleted) have a (expletive deleted) voicemail that suggests that maybe you (expletive deleted) did!"

"In late July 2004, I received a phone call from Mr. Peter Clark, the Deputy Chief of the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. He informed me that another U.S. Attorney was on the line with him, along with two FBI agents from the Houston Field Office."

He asked you about the emails. I think one is required to answer questions of a DOJ investigator.

"He informed me that I was free to share the details of our conversation (and of the FBI activities resulting from those conversations) with anyone I chose – including, he said very pointedly, the media."

...in July 2004. But you did not share it with media.


My questions are, how do you see yourself as a "whistleblower", when you did not share this information with anyone but your mother, and sat on it until contacted by a DOJ investigator (minimally a year and a half, maybe 2-1/2 later) and were asked about it?

And why were you "genuinely pleased to have been affiliated with such a great company" long after you knew about attempted coverup of "dirty bribe money"?

And why did your letter to Sens. Byrd and Rockefeller include so many very over-the-top partisan comments and statements of your intentions to fund PACs? To me, it seemed scripted in such a way and designed so that the senators would toss it, as containing hints of Quid Pro Quo, ie., "do this, as I'm going to fund PACs".

Had I been them, I'd have ignored such a letter with advertisements about Bingo games, juvenile name-calling of senators, stated intentions to fund PACs and nonexistent websites.

[CorpGovActivist]

50. Why, Yappy, I Do Declare...

... you *really* HAVE been reading!

1. The good-bye e-mail kept lines of communication open, and allowed me to continue receiving information.

2. "You never say that you retained copies or alerted anyone. I infer that you did destroy them as instructed?" The data is the subject of ongoing criminal investigations. You draw uninformed inferences at the peril of looking foolish.

3. "He asked you about the emails. I think one is required to answer questions of a DOJ investigator." I think it is fair to say that the answers I gave were more than satisfactory for the purposes of the ongoing criminal investigations.

4. "...in July 2004. But you did not share it with media." Did you accurately portray the reasoning behind this, assuming that you read it?

"My questions are, how do you see yourself as a 'whistleblower', when you did not share this information with anyone but your mother, and sat on it until contacted by a DOJ investigator (minimally a year and a half, maybe 2-1/2 later) and were asked about it?"

Are you familiar with the story of http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jeffrey+wigand+tobacco+whistleblower">Dr. Jeffrey Wigand?

"And why did your letter to Sens. Byrd and Rockefeller include so many very over-the-top partisan comments and statements of your intentions to fund PACs?"

It got the right people's attention.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

57. Yip

1. The good-bye e-mail kept lines of communication open, and allowed me to continue receiving information.

Or rather, you didn't want to burn your bridges to returning to work in the future for "such a great company"? After all, you did not alert anyone to what you knew, and were horrified when you learned your mother had told someone.

2. "You never say that you retained copies or alerted anyone. I infer that you did destroy them as instructed?" The data is the subject of ongoing criminal investigations. You draw uninformed inferences at the peril of looking foolish.

I draw the inference by what you wrote. You did not say that you saved or turned over any emails, (that you were instructed to destroy them and were required to sign a document affirming that you had done so) but suggested to investigators to look at company email backups.

3. "He asked you about the emails. I think one is required to answer questions of a DOJ investigator." I think it is fair to say that the answers I gave were more than satisfactory for the purposes of the ongoing criminal investigations.

I don't dispute that you eventually gave answers, once finally contacted by DOJ investigators, years after the occurrence, after your mother's accidental leak.

4. "...in July 2004. But you did not share it with media." Did you accurately portray the reasoning behind this, assuming that you read it?

No, I never figured out quite what your reasoning was to have kept it under your hat for so long until contacted by an investigator... why after the investigator suggested you could share it with media, you still kept quiet before the election. Maybe I'm dense, can you explain it clearly?

"My questions are, how do you see yourself as a 'whistleblower', when you did not share this information with anyone but your mother, and sat on it until contacted by a DOJ investigator (minimally a year and a half, maybe 2-1/2 later) and were asked about it?"

Are you familiar with the story of Dr. Jeffrey Wigand?

Dr. Wigand did not wait until contacted by investigators as a result of his mother accidentally leaking against his wishes.

Likewise, Stephen Heller did not sit on the internal emails relating to Diebold's attorneys for years.

"And why did your letter to Sens. Byrd and Rockefeller include so many very over-the-top partisan comments and statements of your intentions to fund PACs?"

It got the right people's attention.

Perhaps you'd fill us in on Byrd's & Rockefeller's response to this.

[CorpGovActivist]

58. Patient Pat on the Head...

"Perhaps you'd fill us in on Byrd's & Rockefeller's response to this."

How about I fill you in on Senator Clinton's?

Her senior Senate staff suggested, among other things, that I throw this information to Pete Domenici.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

59. You said you "got the attention of the right people".

So who were "the right people" whose attention you got?

I asked about Byrd & Rockefeller's response.

Do you want to discuss this or not? Or do you want to discuss small pets instead?

Why did you not put out the information you had, either before being contacted by the investigator, or after you were told you were free to do so (in July 2004) before the election?

3-1/2 or 4-1/2 years after receiving the emails about bribery coverup, you dream up the idea of going public, along with soliciting donations:

I note that your letter to Byrd and Rockefeller is dated 9/20/2006.

The same day, you started your website soliciting donations, 9/20/2006, with the notation: "Donations of up to $12,000 per year are excluded from gift tax.".:eyes:

You joined DU six days later, 9/26/2006.

Wonder if Dr. Wigand started soliciting donations on the very day he decided to go public with the truth (actually, I can't find a place on his site to donate).

[CorpGovActivist]

60. Ongoing Criminal Investigations and Prospective Indictments

"So who were 'the right people' whose attention you got?"

The list isn't exhaustive, but it includes the DOJ, FBI, and SEC. Lawmakers and senior staffers would probably prefer that their names be left out of it at this point.

"I asked about Byrd & Rockefeller's response."

Keep reading.

"Do you want to discuss this or not?"

Sure.

"Why did you not put out the information you had, either before being contacted by the investigator, or after you were told you were free to do so (in July 2004) before the election?"

I've already explained that. Keep reading.

As for the rest of your carefully cherry-picked dates, you missed some time and some events. Keep reading.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

61. Yap

".... the DOJ, FBI, and SEC."

The DOJ and FBI were investigating this for years before you wrote to Byrd & Rockefeller. THEY contacted YOU because they'd been investigating already and got wind of your mother's accidental "leak". SEC was investigating well before this, too.

"As for the rest of your carefully cherry-picked dates, you missed some time and some events."

Thee ONLY dates that I have are those that YOU have provided, and those that are availabe on Whois and DU user profile.

So correct where I have it wrong. Clarify, and fill us in.

No, you apparently don't want to discuss this, as shown by your obtuse "keep reading". You don't wish the matter to be clarified for anyone reading here, you prefer snark, joshing with pals, promoting yourself and being cryptic.

You spend more time describing Pommeranians than discussing the subject that you would like people to think is an important matter in a way that DUers might understand.

Even your OP picture post is incomplete. It's an illustration for an exceedingly ugly RW smear article. Yet you would not provide a link... but you did utilize an inflamatory graphic that represented the intent of the article. Why not simply link to the entire piece that it is intended to illustrate? Maybe because it would be just a little too obvious and clear why you saved a RW smear since August?

[CorpGovActivist]

62. Your Heartfelt Use...

... of logical fallacies is breathtaking, and should be studied.

I have honestly rarely seen so many serial non-sequiturs strung together before; you remind me of a guy I used to play basketball with, who could bring players of both teams and all the officials to a standstill, doubled over in laughter on the court, with his creative stringing-together of profanity.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

63. Moreover...

... you're using many of the PR flak tactics that Cathy Mann - the Halliburton/KBR spokesflak who commented on both the gang rape allegations and the FCPA allegations I raised - trotted out of the ol' rightwing playbook. See #40 in this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2558742&mesg_id=2558742">thread.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

64. Screw it.

You never answer a genuine question, your links are generally to google search pages. You care nothing about clarifying anything, preferring to send folks galavanting all over the internet in search of whatever vague and convoluted thing you pretend to mean, rather than a simple cut and paste and straight forward answer.

You accuse me of "cherry picking dates", I asked for any corrections that you felt were needed.

This isn't a new technique on DU by any stretch, though most of those who sent DUers on time-wasting wild goose chases, link after link, and those making breathless amazing unsubstantiated accusations against dems with promises of upcoming 'proof' are gone now.

Yeah, they're nearly all gone, now.

[CorpGovActivist]

65. Thanks for Reminding Me...

... that an interactive timeline feature should be added to the next site update, to prevent cherry-picking dates.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

66. "The next site update"? The one set up on 9/20/2006 and updated last on 9/20/2006???

Or the bingo game site that you advertized to senators to fund PACs? The one that sells non-existent bingo games? The one that will take donations up to $12,000 per year per donation? Which one?

[CorpGovActivist]

67. The One I've Been Asked...

... to keep under wraps by those I respect - and whose own efforts I would not jeopardize for anything - until the time is right.

That one.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

68. I see. Perhaps we all see.

The Ultra Super Special Secret site. Shhhhh.... It's under wraps. Super Duper Secret until "The Special Magic Time" arrives. Then we'll all be STUNNED by the dazzling amazements!

Yeah, I think we all see.

[CorpGovActivist]

69. Oh, You Are a Peach!

Thank you, quite sincerely, for all the belly laughs.

I've never seen a sarcasm stream flow only uphill before.

Does it ever flow downstream to Hillaryville?

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

70. A peach?! WTF??!!! I thought I was a Pommeranian.

[CorpGovActivist]

71. If I Ever Own a Pomeranian (Highly Unlikely)...

... I plan to name it Peaches.

- Dave

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

72. Your response is totally inappropriate and out of line

You could have said you have already answered TIW's questions. You could have posted links to those answers. You could have dismissed her with one of your wiki-witticisms or some such, but instead you attempted to smear her by association. And no one who has followed troubleinwinter's posts on this forum would ever find any credibility in your charge. You owe her an apology.

[CorpGovActivist]

73. I Think - Given the In-Depth Reading She's Clearly Done ...

... that she is being intentionally obtuse, and the "why didn't he bring this up while he worked here" meme *was* one wielded by Ms. Mann of Halliburton.

- Dave

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

74. That justifies your smear?

I have been known to refer to people I don't like as bastards, and so did Dick Nixon, therefore my characterization of people as bastards is Nixonian, and my use of invective is straight out of the right-wing playbook? That's about as much of a stretch.

You may not like her questions, but no way, no how is troubleinwinter a wielder of right-wing memes.

[CorpGovActivist]

75. In This Particular Instance...

... the argument is the same: Cathy Mann of Halliburton says that the timing is suspect (ignoring the steps I took to seek guidance), so does the poster in question.

- Dave

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

80. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander

Whether or not your attacks on Sen. Clinton meet with approval from those on the left, those same attacks are made by those on the right. Are all attacks then from one direction, or can the same questions be raised by either side?

Leaving to prepare for guests. Happy New Year.

[CorpGovActivist]

81. Happy New Year!

Political spectrums - like the color wheel - sometimes wrap around.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

77. These are not my words: "why didn't he bring this up while he worked here"

I asked why you call yourself a "whistleblower" when you never carried the information to anyone at any time. Eventually, your mother accidently leaked it (you were extremely upset that she had), and the DOJ inspector called and questioned you. If I recall correctly, you hadn't worked for H/KBR for over a year when contacted by the inspector?

If I have gotten something wrong in my understanding of timing or whatever, I have asked that you correct it. You have not, but rather, called me "peaches". Why you find the matter funny, or unworthy of helping others to understand and follow, I do not know.

Yes, I did take the time to read what you have written. I have asked some questions.

I don't understand why you seem to view diversionary snarky jokes about fruits and small pets more worthy of your time than seriously explaining the matter to DUers when questions are posed.

[CorpGovActivist]

78. The Timing of Telling...

... seems to be more of an issue to Ms. Mann and you both than the information shared.

"Eventually, your mother accidently leaked it (you were extremely upset that she had),"

Yes, I was extremely upset that she took it upon herself to tell a political campaign without bothering to consult me about the implications it might have; she had no idea what stage the investigations were in, and the fallout it caused was not particularly pleasant.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

82. Had you brought your information to anyone at that point?

You certainly don't indicate that you had.

You tell 'your story' to Senators Byrd and Rockefeller (years later), but NEVER claim to have told anyone but your mother. Then you got a call from the Kerry campaign who passed it along to DOJ/FBI, already investigating the matter and answered questions from the federal investigators.

"she had no idea what stage the investigations were in". You have not suggested that you had given any information to any 'investigations' at all prior to that time. You don't indicate that you knew "what stage the investigations were in". You don't say that you had previously given any information whatever prior to what your mother leaked through the campaign.

If you wish to clarify or change the story you wrote to Byrd & Rockefeller, I'm all ears.

[CorpGovActivist]

83. "Im all ears."

My grandfather used to say: "The Good Lord gave us two ears and one mouth, and expected us to use them in that same proportion."

My mom put me in a very difficult position, but it was salvaged.

Clarifying beyond what is already public would undo much of the scrambling and salvaging that had to take place.

I remain in awe of Senator Kerry for defering to the ongoing investigation.

- Dave

[troubleinwinter]

86. Maybe

You still do not say if your famed "whistleblower" self ever presented anything at any time prior to your mother's leak.

You don't say much of anything of content, though you do talk a lot.

I will acknowlege that your letter to Halliberton/KBR upon expiration of your contract was well written as someone who would like to be positively considered for future employment with the "great company".

Sorry your mother blew that for you.

I will leave off wasting my time & typing skills on your posts now. See you down the road. Maybe.

[CorpGovActivist]

87. Happy New Year...

... and may you continue to use your "typing skills" as a most useful foil.

- Dave

[CorpGovActivist]

45. That Assistance Was Indeed Helpful...

... and weighed heavily in my decision of whom to support. It was not, however, sufficient to overcome the stances Senator Clinton has taken on the trail for higher office.

- Dave

[BuyingThyme]

48. Before. After.

[CorpGovActivist]

49. I Need Another Cup of Coffee

:spew:

:rofl:

- Dave

[Richard Steele]

54. LOL!

After WHAT, I'd be too afraid to even ask!
It was BAD, whatever it was!
:rofl:

[CorpGovActivist]

55. The Mummy...

... http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=the+mummy&gbv=2">comes to mind.

Fun movie!

- Dave

[DemGa]

51. Looks Presidential vs. Is a rotten scoundrel

[CorpGovActivist]

56. Looks Can Be Deceiving...

... who would've thunk that Rove was an evil political mastermind, to look at him?

; )

- Dave

[lonestarnot]

52. Did the same wind blow them both?

Ack!

[leftchick]

53. ick

and icky

[CorpGovActivist]

76. And...

... don't forget http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ickes+clinton+administration">Ickes.

- Dave

[leftchick]

88. a Freudian slip on my part?

:)

[CorpGovActivist]

89. Quizas, Quizas, Quizas!

Perhaps.

; )

- Dave

[ok_cpu]

79. ...

[Rex]

84. Looking into the wind vs. farting into the wind.

Golden vs. Turdish.

[CorpGovActivist]

85. "A Goldleafed ...

... <redacted> is still a <redacted>."

One variation of the saying my grandfather like to use: "You can bronze a <redacted>, but it's still a <redacted>."

- Dave