Trying to Smear Joe Wilson (Again)
There they go again. Rightwing hacks making up facts. The latest comes from retired Generals and Fox News Contributors Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney who went on John Batchelor's radio show and claimed:
"that Joe Wilson more than once in 2002 in the green room at Fox New Channel in Washington D.C. boasted about his wife the "CIA desk officer." McInerney has the same memory and more, since both he and Vallely were on FNC between 150 and 200 times in 2002 each..."
Well boys and girls, I too was a Fox News Contributor in 2002 and spent a lot of time in the Green Room with both Vallely and McInerney. I saw them but never saw Joe Wilson. What is really curious is that I know I spent more time with Vallely and McInerney than Joe Wilson ever did and the subject of my wife (or their wives) never came up.
I first met Joe Wilson in the Spring of 2003 and he did not mention his wife.
We were at a seminar hosted by the Nixon Center. At the time I did not know that Joe had married the woman I knew as Valerie P. Although Joe knew that I worked at the CIA he did not take that opportunity to unburden himself of protecting his wife's identity. In fact, he said nothing about his wife. Not even a wink and a nod.
Sadly, Paul Vallely and Tom McInerney have a track record of saying silly things on air and getting their facts flummoxed. Vallely, for example, appeared on the O'Reilly Factor on 8 May, 2003 and offered the following ludicrous claim:
"It appears from reports that we are getting now that the mobile vehicles that they had, you know they found one up north that was sanitized. They found all the historic data of a weapons program but haven't found the actual biological or chemical weapons.
It appears that a lot of those weapons were transited out of Baghdad through Syria and now are buried in the Bekaa Valley as deep as 30 to 40 meters. The Syrians are looking the other way. The only way this is going to be validated, Bill, we are going to have to take on that Bekaa Valley challenge some way or another to validate if this is true or not."
Sorry Paul. You were duped.
What is so pathetic is that both Vallely and McInerney present themselves as military experts on special operations when neither has held any position of any importance with those forces. In fact, neither has ever held compartmented clearances required to know about those special programs. Given their track record of getting military facts wrong there is no doubt they are wrong about Joe Wilson.
Larry -
Rhetorical question:
As generals knowing about the classified world, at least to some degree, why would they do nothing when Wilson said his wife was a CIA desk officer? Shouldn't they have done something, if it had really happened?
I just keep thinking about the weakness of people and their views when lying is their chosen way of doing business...
November 8, 2005 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, why would Wilson boast about that?!
He was an ambassador himself. I'm not thinking that CIA stuff would impress him either.
November 8, 2005 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
what i like is the way they knew this all this time and never once felt obligated to call up patrick fitzgerald!
November 8, 2005 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure I buy Larry's argument this time.
How can Larry challenge the credibility of two FOX pundits and their account of conversations three years ago in the green room of FOX studios that they've only now conveniently remembered at an opportune moment after a prolonged Republican and FOX campaign to smear the Wilson’s?
I mean, it's virtually unimaginable they'd lie about such things now, and certainly stand nothing to gain by doing so, making their impartiality unquestionable. Besides, nothing says credibility to me like suppressed memories.
November 8, 2005 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amb. Wilson's attorney is demanding Vallely retract his statement. The letter was sent Wilson's counsel, Christopher Wolf, to both Ballely and WND
"As you know, that assertion and the claim that Ambassador Wilson revealed to you or to anyone that his wife worked for the CIA is patently false, and subjects you and anyone publishing your statements to legal liability," states the letter.
"We are writing to demand that you immediately retract the assertion attributed to you and to insist that you stop making the false allegation. In addition, we request that you identify all persons or entitites (sic) to whom you made any claim that Ambassador Wilson revealed his wife's employment at the CIA to you."
-WND, Nov 5, 2005
November 8, 2005 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will you please stop it, NickDoe.
I just spewed coffee all over my keyboard! It not nice to make people laugh so hard when they are drinking.
November 8, 2005 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
This sort of smear tactics just sicken me to my stomache. Thankyou for speaking out about your experience.
dlw
November 8, 2005 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is the target audience here the electorate in general, or more specifically the potential jurors for the Libby (and Rove and ???) trial?
November 8, 2005 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
More banality from the right. It seems to me that these retired corporals generals know exactly on which side their bread is buttered and are only to happy to stay in the good graces of their masters at Fox.
November 8, 2005 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez mjshep -- I get the hint that you gotta a kick out of Nick joshing you there about the credibility, or should I say lack thereof, of the good General.
Now about Larry Johnson saying:
Was this about the same time that Maj. Gen. Vallely was interviewed by Greta Van Susteren relating to the Pentegon's Office of Strategic Influence back in February 2002 where the good General was heard to say something along the line of:
Source: Ascot Advisory Services - Weekly Update February 2, 2002
Now -- How much credibility am I expected to give this character who advocates misinformation in public?
November 8, 2005 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both of these scuzballs are graduates of West Point. That honor code thing, I guess, is just meaningless, useless PR.
November 8, 2005 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's not nice to make people laugh so hard when they are drinking."
Preznit's reply to the August 6th memo PDB?
November 8, 2005 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouldn't they have to repeat their claims before a grand jury? Their stories undercut charges that Fitzgerald is considering filing. Also they are accusing Wilson of a felony.
November 8, 2005 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tip on how to insult an officer: Don't do it by calling him an enlisted man (in front of an enlisted man, it's like insulting a Dr. by calling him a nurse...at the nurses station...oh.. forget it...)
November 9, 2005 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question, why are they "Rightwing hacks out to smear Joe Wilson" but you aren't a "Leftwing hack out to smear Bush/Chenney et al"? You both state opinions as fact. At least he is on the record as to who he talked to. He said he heard it from Wilson, they can both tell thier stories, and let us decide. In your posts you talk to "former officials..." and 99% on this site just slurp it up. It's the same thing, just to a different audiance.
November 9, 2005 2:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another question: Why is making a claim that Joe Wilson is wrong in his statements a "smear" and making the same claim about someone on the right "correcting the record"?
November 9, 2005 2:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I apologize.
November 9, 2005 4:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Why is making a claim that Joe Wilson is wrong in his statements a "smear" and making the same claim about someone on the right "correcting the record"?"
Because the guys on the right are douche bags. I hope this clears things up for you.
November 9, 2005 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if these guys have set themselves up for an appearance as witnesses for the defense in Libby's trial? How will they hold up under cross? Remember they will be under oath. I am also concerned why men would not have been outraged that Joe Wilson outed a Covert CIA Agent! Wouldn't they be obliged to notify the Agency immediately? Shouldn't Fitsgerald question them as possible leakers?
November 9, 2005 6:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I heard the same crap from the Swiftasses. So, if I proclaimed I saw you screwing your 3 year old daughter. You would reply "Let him say whatever he wants about me. he's entitled to his opinion" When someone lies and slanders someone it is NOT Opinion it is Slander and should not be tolerated from the Left or the right!
November 9, 2005 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter anyway, as far as the Libby indictment is concerned. Even *if* Wilson did what those two jokers claim, that wouldn't exculpate Libby. But what they claim would never stand up in court, anyway. Whether the evidence against Libby stands up in court, well, that's a matter these two dudes can't decide, but only poorly influence.
November 9, 2005 8:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here from Crooks and Liars is a list of appearances by Vallely and Wilson on Fox, and this list doesn't show any common dates. Someone should ask Vallely exactly when Wilson revealed his wife's CIA connection.
November 9, 2005 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What you said. It's sort of like what happened in the New Jersey governor's race: News media and pundits deem equivalency in saying the campaign was nasty, comparing (1.) a calculated GOP smear and (2.) a policy attack by the Democrats, to wit from wire reports:
Corzine accused Forrester, a Republican businessman, of being part of the state's "pay-to-play" culture of awarding no-bid government contracts to political donors. Forrester tied Corzine, a former Wall Street executive, to a convicted businessman and former Gov. Jim McGreevey, who resigned over an extramarital gay-sex scandal.
Forrester, who had repeatedly raised family values against the divorced Corzine, ran a TV ad quoting Corzine's ex-wife. She had told The New York Times: "All I could think was that Jon did let his family down, and he'll probably let New Jersey down, too." Joanne Corzine said her former husband's political ambitions destroyed their 33-year marriage.
SEE THE "EQUIVALENCY"?
November 9, 2005 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Putting aside that, others have already shown you, not all "claims" are of equivalent value, the idea that these clowns (as i noted above) have known this all this time and only now are surfacing should astonish even ideologically blinkered propaganda robots.
like you.
and as a further note: when joe wilson writes that there's a question over whether the bush administration twisted intel on iraq, that's a legitimate question. when the response is, wilson was an unqualified hack who was sent on the mission by his wife, the well-known cia analyst whom wilson himself outed, that's a smear.
get the difference?
November 9, 2005 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rather ironic for Democrats to accuse the Republicans of smear campaigns considering John Kerry's ENTIRE presidential bid last year was one giant smear campaign of president Bush. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. It's called hypocricy folks.
November 9, 2005 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
so, uh, i guess this is you then smearing the swifties. know whats really funny? when people BECOME the thing they hate. keep it up. we're laughing all the way; at you.
November 9, 2005 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
howie, let me help you. everyone, except you guys has KNOWN this wasnt about leaking a NOC's name. see? he had no need to mention this back before fitzy finally told the world, mostly for you guys' consumption since you were a little behind the curve, that there was no "leak" crime committed. so now, that the only charge is that libby told some reporters something, and they (the reporters) are saying that it was the first time they heard it, the issue will be "who knew what when". when did the reporters know, becasue if their memories are faulty, and they actually did know what libby told them already, there is no case here. if wilson told vallely, and other reporters have said they knew, and wilson can be shown to have had a history of doing this blabbering. get it now? the information was not needed when it was presumably about leaking a name. he (vallely) knew that was bogus, so he kept his mouth shut. this is no smear against wilson, genius boy. this is about the intergity of the reporters. get it all now?? good luck.
November 9, 2005 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
dude, she wasnt a noc. there was no leak. please keep up, ok? this is getting tedius with you guys. and THATS funny!
libby was not charged with leaking a covert agents name. this is about the reporters and their recollections, ok?
November 9, 2005 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Sarge ...
You sure have a load of lines in the water ...November 9, 2005 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
because people working as a desk officer at the cia isnt really anything to be concerend about, dude. good god. so you mean everyone who works at the cia, the secretarys, the janitors areant allowed to say where they work? or there spouses? see now?? he was saying something innocuos. becasue his wife wasnt a noc. and therefroe they (the general guys) would not have thought anything of it at the time. when the investiagtion began, it was presumably about leaking an agents name. they KNEW, like everyone else who analyzed it, there was no crime becasue she wasnt covert. and they probably thought "well, yeah, of course she wasnt covert, he told me about her", so why would they say anything. the case was obviously bogus. so now, since all that is at issue is what libby told reporters, and what the reporters knew and when they knew it, it seems to be kind of important, IF wilson had a histroy of blabbering her name, and other reporters knew the infomration already. ya got it now? its pretty simple.
November 9, 2005 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
hey howie, you have GOT to riddle me this: on joe wilson's own website he has an article he wrote in Feb 2003, now thats AFTER 16 word/SOTU and BEFORE invasion he says this: <span class="document_body">There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. </span><span class="document_body">And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.
source: http://www.politicsoftruth.com/editorials/big_cat.html
now, he was all-knowing, right? to you guys. so was he lying when he said saddam had WMD's and would USE them?? come on now, was he? or was he just one of those lil ole dupes like all the dems, and all of us, and well, all the other intelligence agencies in the world. was he THAT stupid? or a genius/liar? how does it all fit together, howie? ya know, logically?
...cue the crickets......</span>
November 9, 2005 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks crato. it's pretty clear to me what you are all about. peace. and good luck.
November 9, 2005 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears as if someone's mother left him home alone from school with the keys to the computer room ...
All in the space of 30 minutes... Too bad Fred hasn't had the time to post more often than 6 times in the last week...
I suspect that it takes away from his quality time at Freep-a-zoid Central.
November 9, 2005 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
double secret pinky shake, ok? i am at a clinet, and billable! shhhh.
November 9, 2005 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
would you care to respond to my points, big guy? or is running smear campaigns against me about all YOU do here? :)
seriously, i just joined this thing a couple days ago. and when i am at a client i spend more time goofing off. no time in the office for this stuff.
what do you think if this wilson flap/vallely flap?
November 9, 2005 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fred, i have no idea what your nitwit babble is supposed to mean.
truly.
my guess is that, like so many of the propaganda robots on the right, you want to continue to fuzz over the distinction between chemical and biological weapons as weapons of mass destruction and nuclear weapons, the only true weapons of mass destruction.
my further guess is that, like so many of the propaganda robots on the right, you don't understand what wilson said in his op-ed: that there was strong reason to believe that the administration was twisting the available intel on nuclear weapons.
but those are only guesses, because you don't seem able to frame your thoughts in an intelligent way that would allow someone who isn't already part of the "i hate joe wilson" propaganda robot club to understand what you are driving at.
still, let's stay with the guess for a moment: yes, it did seem reasonable, prior to the war, to think that saddam might still have chemical and biological weapons. no, it did not seem reasonable that he had nuclear weapons. yes, if he had chemical and biological weapons, and if he believed that the US wasn insistent upon killing him, that there was no reason for him not to use those weapons. no, that doesn't mean that the Niger story is true. yes, joe wilson had no problem staring down saddam. no, you aren't fit to shine joe wilson's shoes.
November 9, 2005 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
A fred, is it beyond you to make sense?
apparently.
November 9, 2005 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
you are funny dude. you missed the point completely. thats ok. your are overly emotional. that leads to impairment of critical thinking. just relax. take yoga. meditate. it realy works. i know it makes you feel better to attack me, thats ok. i WANT you to feel better. and if rambling on like that, attacking me, does the trick, so be it. and i know you are REALLY much smarter than me, all i had to do was ask you. peace brother.
November 9, 2005 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
i had several comments here, trying help explain, replying to some folks, re: this issue. looks like they got removed. wonder why? i guess our diversity (of thought and ideas) ISN't our strength; not here.
but just for fun, heres one last try at it so you can relax: vallely knew that the issue was NOT about outting a agent. most folks, legal folks, who looked at this issue knew that, a long time ago. so in answer to the question WHY didnt he bring this up after july '03, he didnt bring it up because it was not pretinent at the time. the issue was was she outted, and he had nothing to do with that, so why bring it up. in answer to the question, why didnt he say something when wilson spoke about plame to him (in '02), he wouldnt have batted an eye because wilson did not represent her as anything other than a desk jockey. thats not classified or non-disclosable, so he (vallely) wouldnt have said anything at the time in 2002 either. it was a non-issue. now, the meat: the reason it becomes important now, is that the case involves recollections of people, mostly libby and the journalists of what they heard, when they heard it, re: plame and her status. THAT was not known to be an issue until fitzmas day, what was it, last friday? so the heart of the issue is when did the reporters know her status, and are they correct about not knowing it prior to libby telling them. and of course did libby tell them, when he says he didnt. so if wilson had a histroty of blabbing it to people, then it becomes plausible that other pople heard the same thing, and knew about her. other journalists have been saying it was being tossed around the community for months. so many people knew. and then it starts to become somehwat non-plausable that these reporters didnt know about her when they say libby told them. thats about it. hope it helps. not very sexy, and doesnt smear the generals like the comments that are allowed to stay here do. doesnt smear anybody. just the facts as best we know them. but you all can go back to your nasty little comments, the ones that stay (funny how some do aint it?). and then make sure to remove any dissenting voices. wouldnt want to have to THINK now would we?
good luck folks. peace.
November 9, 2005 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The following is additional Freep-a-zoid troll bait . . .
Add this latest rambling, mumbo-jumbo and derogatory retort of a personal nature to my previous list here that was properly and thoughtfully removed from this thread by the moderator.November 9, 2005 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you mostly, Mr. Johnson, but according to his bio, Vallely has 15 years in experience which does include "special ops." And RWers will demand to know how could you possibly be in a position to "know" his security clearance level, anyway.
It doesn't help to exaggerate, as it tends to weaken one's credibilty. Leave that stuff to the RW zealots.
I'd lose that last paragraph of your otherwise thoughtful, thought-provoking, and VERY credible post.
Your pal,The WorkerBee
;-)
November 9, 2005 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The continuing attacks against Wilson only show the fear of war supporters that the justifications will continue to crumble.
Can we agree that Wilson was right in his assessment of the Niger claim? If not, there's no basis for conversation. If yes, let's ask again: why did we go to war?
I remember it this way---Saddam was part of the terror problem (many 9/11 references). Before "taking him out" we were persuaded to try the U.N. The inspectors were allowed in, due to the array of armed forces on his borders. The point then was the disarming resolutions. The administration then asserted, alone, that Saddam had not complied, so in we went. This sequence says that the final issue at the time of invasion was weapons. Full stop.
No weapons, so now we hear it wasn't the issue. Apparently the purpose was transforming the Middle East. If the administration felt we were not capable of understanding this theory and needed a sex-appeal sales pitch using those scary weapons that shows contempt for the public.
The facts speak: the public justification for war was weapons, Wilson was right, and he is being attacked in a vain attempt to distract us and bury history.
November 10, 2005 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is you don't know what's a lie or slander. I haven't heard Joe Wilson call him a liar, and say they never discussed it.
November 10, 2005 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...ideologically blinkered propaganda robots. like you."
Dude, why can't you guys have a civil discussion without all of the name calling?
Now:
when joe wilson writes that there's a question over whether the bush administration twisted intel on iraq, that's a legitimate question. when the response is, wilson was an unqualified hack who was sent on the mission by his wife, the well-known cia analyst whom wilson himself outed, that's a smear.
So no one is allowed to think that Joe Wilson wasn't qualified to go and investigate the Niger deal?
No one can question why he was sent ? He claimed it was "in response to an inquiry by the Vice President" come to find out he wasn't sent by anyone connected to the VP, he was sent at the recomendation of his wife, who works at the CIA, who he could have protected from any scrutiny if he had done his job and reported to the CIA. He's the one who decided to get a little publicity and write an op ed piece, he opened his family up to the scrutiny. If he's as smart as y'all say he is, didn't he realize how things work in Washington? Hell he worked for Clinton, didn't he see how well the powers that be in Washington can find out things?
Can no one ask why he, before the invasion, spoke as if he had personal knowlege that Sadaam had WMD's and planned to use them?
Why is Joe Wilson untouchable?
He's just another Washington "blow hard" too full of himself to see how comical he looks to "middle America." You guy's pick the strangest poster boys. Only 39% of those polled today say they want a Republican Congress in 2006, and you guys are half way to screwing that up too.
November 10, 2005 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter anyway, as far as the Libby indictment is concerned. Even *if* Wilson did what those two jokers claim, that wouldn't exculpate Libby.
100% true. Why? because the Libby indictment has nothing to do with "outing" an undercover CIA operative, and everything to do with lying to investigators and possibly the grand jury. Itdoesn't say any thing about Dick Chenney, Carl Rove, George Bush, pre war intell, Sadaam's WMD's (or not), secret prisons, Abu Garaib or any other stuff Howard-Harry-Nancy are trying to claim.
November 11, 2005 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
As generals knowing about the classified world, at least to some degree, why would they do nothing when Wilson said his wife was a CIA desk officer? Shouldn't they have done something, if it had really happened?
We're back to the original charges, since Plame wasn't "covert" Wilson didn't out her either. His only problem comes up if he lies about what he told the General.
November 11, 2005 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
i call people ideologically blinkered propaganda robots when they behave that way. There is nothing civil about the kind of crap we keep hearing, which is tedious to keep debunking time and time again.
So, from the top: Wilson was perfectly well qualified for the trip, which was a diplomatic mission to Africa, an area that he knew diplomatically. How is he unqualified? The purpose of his trip wasn't to ascertain whether saddam could steal uranium in the dark of night, it was to see if there was a reason to believe a sales agreement had been signed.
Wilson didn't say that Cheney sent him. He said an inquiry from the OVP led to his trip, which is indisputably true.
He was not sent at the recommendation of his wife, which the CIA has flatly disputed. Even if it were true that he was recommended by his wife, she was in no position to "send" him, which is again indisputably true.
He did his job and reported to the CIA, but his job wasn't classified, and he was under no obligation not to discuss his trip. Meanwhile, what in the world does the Clinton administration have to do with the notion that you question how intelligence is being used, your family is fair game? We are conceivably at a moment in our politics where if you run for office, your family is fair game (and the evidence for that is mixed); we are not at a moment in our politics where noting that intel is being exaggerated is a basis for your family being dragged into the public debate, and is certainly no business for any senior administration official to discuss a CIA employee, up to and including the frickin' janitors who work at Langley.
He did not speak "as if he had personal knowledge that Saddam had WMD's and planned to use them." That is, quite simply, a misreading of what he wrote, and a willful misreading at that, comparable to willfully insisting that he wrote that Cheney had personally asked him to go to Niger.
Joe Wilson isn't untouchable (nor is he anyone's "poster boy"), although, of course, as it happens, the Duelfur Report proves that he was 100% correct (as were the ambassador to Niger and the marine general who also looked into this). Making stuff up about Joe Wilson is, of course, making stuff up: it has nothing to do with civil discourse or anything else.
Other, of course, than ideologically blinkered propaganda robot-ism.
November 11, 2005 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, of course, that's a mischaracterization of the indictment and the circumstances surrounding it.
The charge is that Libby lied in order to cover up other behavior, on which the prosecutor has reached no conclusion at all, although the prosecutor has reached a conclusion that it's not acceptable to out a CIA agent under any circumstances, regardless of whether the outing fits the legal standard for a crime or not.
November 11, 2005 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
One does love to read the right-wingers insisting that Plame "wasn't" covert.
What one doesn't understand is how any ratiocinative process known to adults would lead them to this conclusion.
November 11, 2005 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 11, 2005 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred said:
Well actually you did have several comments here "trying [to] help explain, replying to some folks, re: this issue."
And yes ... They have been removed from this thread. Although, they're actually stored in the "Hidden Comments" section and available for reading.
The problem I found was not so much your rightful opinions you expressed on this subject, but the derogatory nature and unkind names you called people that you were debating.
If you'll notice, in the "Rating Comments" with this particular post I gave you a three (3) ... Not for the reason that I agree with the opinions you've shared -- but more for the fact that you stuck to the subject and refrained from name calling... (almost) ...
Good job Fred!
November 13, 2005 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Freddie Einstein:See Howard's explanation and ratiocinative posted above.
And I'll send ya' the bill . . .
December 6, 2005 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recall what Larry originally wrote here above on Nov 08:
So -- I thought I'd take the time and post this just in case Larry Johnson doesn't visit the Cafe and post his latest piece relating specifically to the experience and background listed in the Fox News' bio of their military expert Paul Vallely.
Now you can run over and read:
Hi Sarge . . . It's that little chigger.
December 6, 2005 3:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's interesting, what you seem to find interesting. I saw some insinuation by your hero, but no actual question of any of the specifics in Gen Vallely's Bio. If there is a falsehood point it out for the world to see, show your evidence, don't take the "Marla Mapes" course in journalistic ethics and throw out a maybe/possibly/if you squint and wave your fingers infront of your face it'll look like it might be something is kind of wrong. Spit it out, if there's a lie there let's have it, if not go back to the drawing board.
P.S. Chigger, nothing, that wasn't even worthy of a "Cherry Point Sand Flea." Better luck next time.
December 6, 2005 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink