Right. That’s the only reasonable interpretation of “intent on acquiring.” Even a strict dictionary reading supports this:
No spin going on here. “Intent on acquiring” can only mean a purposeless act of navel gazing. Sheesh.
sheesh indeed - care to supply me with the evidence that Saddam was “intent on acquiring” nukes, per your dictionary definition? AFAICR, the best evidence to that was statements he made to his staff from time to time. He did not have the materials necessary, there was no place that was set up to build such a device, (per inspections especially the last inspection that was done c/o the coalition forces). and the ‘evidence’ that he’d attempted to even obtain some of the necessary materials was forged. so, wherein do you base your contention that there was an “intent” as you’ve so neatly drawn out? seems to require some verifiable actions.
unless, of course, it’s exactly as relevant as intently examining navel lint.
Where I come from, we said “fixin’ to” for “intent on acquiring.”
We would have said “vigorously trying” sometime when we were actually doing something, but we never seemed to get much done.
This is a straw man. The question is whether or not the NIE essentially advanced the same position that Libby did with Miller. It’s the essential point debated in this thread–i.e., what was uniquely unethical about the exchange with Miller? Why did Libby’s recent testimony elicit outrage when the 2003 “official” declassification did not?
Stop moving the goalposts while the kick is in the air, if you please. You foolishly argued that “intent on acquiring” doesn’t essentially equate with “vigorously trying,” then when it’s demonstrated that your argument is nonsense, you change the question. Forget it, I’m not falling for it.
Well, there you go. I guess that settles it. I think.
bull fucking shit.
you said [uqote] It’s splitting hairs in my book. “Intent on acquiring” and “vigorously trying” are about the same. They certainly aren’t worlds apart.
[/quote]
and since we know conclusively that there’s absolutely no proof about “Vigorously trying” to obtain yadaydaydyadyady, and your claim is that it’s pretty much the same as “intent on acquiring”, I’ve demonstrated that there is indeed a difference between the two, but even if we take your definition of intent on acquring there exists no evidence that even that wasn’t true.
so, far from ‘moving the goal posts’, if you wish to continue w/sports like metaphors, you’re left swinging at the plate for the 3rd time while the catcher has the ball
“Intent on acquiring” does have a different connotation to my ear than “vigorously pursuing.” I don’t think you did demonstrate that her argument was nonsense. “Something that is intended” and “pursuit” are not the same thing at all.
If you say that they do equate, then we may replace the words “intent on acquiring” in the NIE with “vigorously pursuing,” and it is fair to ask you in what way Saddam was vigorously pursuing nuclear material. No moving goalposts.
bull fucking shit.
you said
and since we know conclusively that there’s absolutely no proof about “Vigorously trying” to obtain yadaydaydyadyady, and your claim is that it’s pretty much the same as “intent on acquiring”, I’ve demonstrated that there is indeed a difference between the two, but even if we take your definition of intent on acquring there exists no evidence that even that was* true.
so, far from ‘moving the goal posts’, if you wish to continue w/sports like metaphors, you’re left swinging at the plate for the 3rd time while the catcher has the ball
(in original mis coded post, I wrote “wasn’t true” but I got caught up in the double negatives. there’s no proof that at his definition that even the ‘intent’ was true. - since all the evidence I"ve seen so far is statements from his staff saying essentially, yea, he wanted 'em. but no definative steps were taken to even begin to assemble the materials necessary, the place necessary, etc.)
You did, did you? Where did that occur? And I will not–I repeat NOT–be pulled into your straw man. There are about a thousand threads on this board about whether or not there was real evidence to support the war. Resurrect one if you have a hard-on to beat that dead horse agan.
This thread is focusing on why Libby’s recent testimony was such a startling relvelation, something out of the blue that provides evidence for, for, well you know, for–for what? That’s my point, Ms. Bull-fucking-shit. Even if we accept your point in its entirety about the reliability of the evidence for moving to war, that doesn’t make Libby’s testimony into something it wasn’t. Sorry.
Right, right. If I’m “intent on acquiring” your sister in bed, as opposed to “vigorously pursuing” her ass, you’d be A-OK with that, right? Please. Let it rest. This is silly.
If my sister were underage, there’d be a significant legal difference.
Huh?
another demonstration of the huge difference 'tween ‘intent on acquiring’ and ‘vigorously pursuing’ - it’s quite illegal to 'vigorously pursuing an underage female for bedding, being ‘intent on it’ won’t get you to jail. acting on it will.
There’d be a difference between deciding you were going to go after an underage girl, and actually IMing an underage girl to get her to agree to meet you somewhere.
Get it?
This continues to be silly. See the definition I provided. “Intent on” (e.g., “The state of one’s mind at the time one carries out an action”) is an important distinction only to hair-splitters. “Pondering an acquisition” is not the same as being “intent on acquiring,” as much as you’d like it to be. This is really a silly exercise in semantical nitpicking.
In the phrase “intent on acquiring,” “intent” is an adjective, not a noun.
Take your pick. They’re different than pursuing. It’s not nit-picking, given that it’s crucial to your argument.
You know, the legatlity-of-the-Plame-leak horse has been pulverized to atoms. The semantic quibbling and deliberate obtuseness are enough to make one’s eyes bleed.
I have a request: Could the Mod Gods smile upon us all and change the bloody title of this thread so we can be rid of its stench?
That CBS thing is confusing the issue. Bush authorized the leaking of some (dis)information. The author is taking it on faith that what was leaked included Plame’s identity, in order to tie it to the ‘firing’ statement. He may have leaked Plame, and they’re all lying, but it’s not known.
Why not focus on what is known and acknowledged, and be outraged about that? He selectively let stuff out, they re-phrased it, and he clearly didn’t think what he was ‘keeping classified’ was really a matter of national security.
Because the thread title says Bush illegally outed Plame, and that’s what we’re all arguing about, isn’t it? Right? What? Well, prove he outed Plame, dammit. You can’t, can you! Hah! What? Why, what were you talking about? WHAT?