Originally posted by General PutzerHe was convicted, but that wasn't the issue. Read the thread:
Oh, wow....so LtCol North was never convicted of all the awful things you've accused him of? Jeez, the ease with which you slander people.
Jerk.
Originally posted by Drumbo
Oliver North was never accused of any sort of corruption.....where do you get off? (emphasis added)
Originally posted by General PutzerDo you remember Tail Gunner Joe? Do you know what the darling of conservatives, Ann Coulter, has to say about Senator Joe and his accusations? Doesn't the military requires its officers to learn history any more?
Actually, I did work in intelligence at one point. "High up"? I took that to mean a very senior officer (O-6 or above)was the mole, not something I could imagine happening.
Originally posted by WulebgrYOU SAID HE WASN'T CONVICTED WELBGR...GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT IF YOU WANT AN INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT
He was convicted, but that wasn't the issue. Read the thread:
Originally posted by Drumbo
[b]Oliver North was never accused of any sort of corruption.....where do you get off? (emphasis added)[/b]
Originally posted by General PutzerLearn something about the court system. Not guilty, or overturned convictions, are not findings of innocence. He was guilty and convicted. The conviction was overturned on an important technicality, one that folks such as members of the ACLU spend their lives defending, and that many of North's fans usually protest when it helps others.
Then he was found innocent.
The assertion was made (by Drumbo) that he had not been accused. Even an overturned conviction, or an original not guilty verdict, cannot occur unless someone is not only accused, but also indicted. North was indicted on sixteen felony counts. He certainly was accused.
Originally posted by slimjimYes they were as I pointed out on the other page. The grounds for the conviction being overturned had nothing to do with factual innocence; it was what you right wingers call a "technicality" when other felons have their convictions overturned. I agree with the appeals court decision. However, Drumbo is wrong in claiming that North was never accused of corruption. And "General Putzer" is obviously a teenager or "mentally challenged".
He appealed and the convictions were overturned.
Originally posted by DrumboShow me the contradiction.
You're a real *******, Wulebgr, you say one thing, then contradict yourself. Shut the **** up.
Show me one sentence I've posted here that is false.
You said he wasn't accused. He was accused, indicted, and convicted on three of the sixteen counts. The convictions were overturned.
It's really fairly simple.
Getting back to the origins of this thread:
Did the Russians provide Saddam with intelligence?
Since some of the alleged intelligence was wrong, why was it wrong?
I suspect (but have no evidence) that the Russians had a mole, and that the U.S. allowed this mole so as to create an avenue for counter intelligence. The spy game is as treacherous an dinteresting today as it was during the height of the Cold War.
Originally posted by chancremechanicThe truth is exactly the opposite. Specifically, it was Truman, who decided on policy of confrontation with Russia and planted the seeds of the Cold War. NATO was created first, and Warsaw Pact later as a response to NATO.
Phuk Russia. They have never been, and never will be, true allies to America. Even in WW2, Stalin was plotting the cold-war....Nyet on Russia....