Luvinmybaby

what hell kind of pain do you feel reading a message board? other than burning eyes? I hardly

think you felt the pain of my foot up your azzz.

From another thread:

Risto, Veiled Princess-

You both are pressing each other's buttons and it is obvious you will not agree on most anything. That said as adults you can both find ways to respect that other people will not always agree with you. Chances are that neither of you will convince the other of your perspective. Just be sure while posting to rescpect that the other person can have their own thoughts and that if you disagree you are able to give your arguement with supporting evidence.

Bottom line, by letting your emotions get the better of you, you not only weaken your arguement but you cross the line by personally attacking the other member which hurts this board. Please be warned that continuing to do this could result in a locked out account for a few days. I think you are both probably great people . I am sure if you take a few moments before you reply to each other you will not end up flaming back and forth.

I think he was saying the same thing here. A little maturity is in order here.

I'm not even sure I agree there really are (or should be) two sides - these things invariably come down to entrenched and diametrically opposed world views, which (I think) obscures the fact that issues like this one are far from clear cut - especially in the middle east, where there is a good deal of history contextualising the current events.

These days everyone seems to have an opinion on terrorism, but what I think often gets forgotten is that this is really business as usual in the middle east. 9/11 really only changed perceptions for people in the US.

One thing I do not think is justifiable is painting an entire people (and culture) with a broad brush, which some posters - specifically Risto seem intent on doing. Nothing wrong with a good debate, but the definition of debate does not generally include posting inflammatory one line comments (about how Israel should kill more Palestinians, or how "'that" group of people are 'uncivilised and barbaric'), links to racist websites and the like. On an immigration based forum - with a diverse international membership marginalising and insulting a whole section VJ members is rather below the belt in my view, and highly inappropriate.

You hit the nail on the head Fishdude. I love a good debate as much as anyone else and I do come down hard on one side of this topic. But when it gets to the point when neither side is going to give it then breaks down to a hurtful name calling flame war thats where I get out of it. That helps no one and only serves to hurt and cause pain. If the debate is civil and honest then I say go for it. But when its only insults and name calling then it seems the collective IQ of the topic drops to zero.

Ok, I retract the b!tch then. Flame away guys!!! Knock yourself out!!

Then don't read them, simple answer!

But it's like a train wreck! I don't want to watch but I am compelled to!

Oh, I can stand the heat. But I think with all thats going on over there that some emotions are running a little "high". It's no skin off my nose if some people want to argue endlessly but it does get to be a little tiresome to see it escalate into a endless flame war. I don't see the purpose of it all other than to get both sides pissed off. But, thats just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth, nothing.

Well, I've been here a bit longer than that B) and I have to admit that I joined in to the fray for entertainments sake. But my point is that it seems to be getting out of hand! We are not going to solve the mid-east problems here. That tiny spot of land has been fought over for as long as there have been humans on earth! The Jews, Romans, Persians, Arabs, British and coutless others have fought and claimed that land. All sides have blood on their hands. All sides spin and twist facts to meet their own ends. It will not end until the judgment day comes when the God of the Jews, Muslim, Christian or some little green men from mars comes down and settles it. We will not settle it here.

The off topic forum has been taken over by extremist from both sides. A pro Israel person posts something obviously meant to inflame the pro-muslim people here, we argue about it for a while then a pro-muslim person posts something equally inflammatory for the other side.

Personally I am getting sick of it. Grow up people!

Hi,

Is this 2nd IMBRA going only toi K3 or also K1 petitions? And it have to do w/ your response on the first...you met through dating service....

Thanks

I am a K-1 and not only did I get 2 RFE's, I got 3!

Wow!!!

As for who should pay for the evacuation of American citizens.... well isn't it obvious ? The complete cost of rescuing our people -- including the helicopters, the cruise ship, the restaurants and hotels in Cyprus, the airfares, the military escort, the whole shebang -- ALL of it should be billed to Israel.

Even though Hizballah started this whole mess?

Oh wait, I forgot. You're VJs very own Hizballah correspondent, aren't ya?

Only in your delusions.

And if you had any clue, you would know that it was Israel's ongoing civilian slaughter in Gaza, with the bombing of a family picnicing on the beach as the final cherry on top, that "started this whole mess."

But oh. I forget. You get your information from Ynet. LOL.

I really, really don't wish to get involved in these debates but the current death toll is sitting at something like 220 Lebanese and 21 Israelis -- Hezbollah may have "started it" but Israel's response has been incredibly disproportionate.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I would have thought the hostage situation called for Special Forces not a rain of bombs on civilian targets.

You are quite correct on both counts.

Have "any" Hezbollah been killed by Israel's assault on Lebanon ? The dead and wounded are overwhelmingly civilian non-combatants, as well as members of the Lebanese military and police forces that Israel keeps claiming are "not targets."

"Conventional" warfare is just about useless against a guerilla force.

The civilian casualties in Lebanon are the fault of the terrorist. They hide behind women and children, fire their rockets from peoples back yards and HOPE that the Isrealies cause civilian casualties. They are gutless cowards and should burn in hell.

Doesn't seem like that's working. I've heard the word Iran in the last few days at least as many times as I've heard the word Hezbollah.

I think Iran has underestimated Israel's resolve to survive. It seems that Iran is hoping that by instigating this conflict that the rest of the Arab world will come to Hezbollah's aid and gang up in Israel. Looks like that isn't happening. The end result will be a massive strike on Iran by Israel (possibly nuclear if it gets bad enough) and then the sh!t will really hit the fan.

Speaking to the Christians of this discussion. Does anyone see the coming war of armageddon starting here? It seems that this is the predictions of the book of revelations are coming.

Please, before the non-christians start another flame thread on me for this I am just asking the Christians this.

Well, since the name of this topic was "Novak confirms Rove was Plame source" and he showed an article about how Novak got his info I do think getting into Wilson and what he did or didn't find is off topic. It may be the narrow view and you are free to disagree but that is the way I see it.

Oh no, I am not angry at all. Just wanting to stay on topic. If you want to start a new topic and discuss what Wilson found or didn't find in Niger or why he was sent I would love to debate that. I personally don't like threads that start out on topic A and end up on topic Z. No way to carry on a coherent debate that way.

Steve, same comment to you, if you want to talk about Clinton and his problems that is best done in a new thread.

As I said, the point here is that is getting lost is that Wilson was essentially right. You didn't provide any mention of that whatsoever.

And that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Sorry, now you can have the last word.

You seem to see it as a politically motivated conspiracy fabricated by alleged 'liberals'. I see it as further evidence of this governments continued duplicity over the war, and a testament to how it respondes to any voice opposition with dirty tricks.

In any case I don't think 'liberals' actually exist in the sense that they are portrayed by the Likes of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly andn Rush Limbaugh, any more than you can go fishing in the sea and catch a mermaid.

Oh I see, liberals don't exist! Yet another vast right wing conspiracy!!

And with that ladies and gentlemen I will bid you goodbye. I think Fishy has made my point. Go ahead, I give you the last word.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered"-working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

Face it Fishy, the anti-Bush libs were hoping to get a big juicy scandal that would take out Rove, Cheney and maybe even Bush. It didn't work out for you. This one is dead. You need to move on the the next lib-manufactured media driven scandal and try your luck there.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife.

As I said above.

Read Novak's article from the other day (at the beginning of the thread).

Plame was the one that first had the idea to send Wilson. Plame WAS the CIA's counterproliferation official that sent him. It was an inside hachet job thought up by Plame and she used her husbands position to her own ends. If it were a "official" CIA operation Wilson would not have published his findings. It would have been secret!!! It was a setup from the begining.

But your getting away from the original point of the post. "Novak confirms Rove was Plame source" is an untrue statement. If you read the article I posted all of Washington knew Plame worked at the CIA. Rove was NOT the source and Novak himself said it wasn't a planned leak by Bush.

It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

You should have quoted the rest of the statment. That really says it all.

Read it from Novak himself:

Headline: Columnist Novak Comments on 'Anti-Bush Furor' - Robert D. Novak

Source: CyberCastNews

Date: October 01, 2003

By: Robert Novak

I had thought I never again would write about retired diplomat Joseph Wilson's CIA-employee wife, but feel constrained to do so now that repercussions of my July 14 column have reached the front pages of major newspapers and led off network news broadcasts. My role and the role of the Bush White House have been distorted and need explanation.

The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.

The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush.

This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered"-working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.

I think you need to check your facts a little closer. First of all, I saw the interview with Novak. He clearly stated that Rove was NOT the original source. Novak said that he only confirmed it. And even there is some dispute over that. Novak said that when he asked Rove about Plame Novak stated that Rove said "Oh' you know that to?" Rove states that he said "Oh, heard that to?" Very small difference but the bottom line is Rove didn't leak the name. Second point, Fitzgerald said that no one was charged with leaking Plame's name because SHE WASN'T COVERT AT THE TIME!!!!!! There wasn't a crime, thats why no one was charged!! Even the woman (I can't think of her name right now) that wrote the law about outing covert operators said that she wasn't covert. Jees guys! Get your facts right. You want Bush and all his cronies in jail so bad you make things up just to make yourselfs feel better!!!

You're right, he didn't leak it - but he was one of the primary 'confirming sources'. That's pretty crucial - because it provides legitimacy to the original claim.

Similarly why do you think it is that Scooter Libby is currently in jail awaiting trial for perjury and obtruction of justice. Obstructing, I might add the investigation that was to determine whether or not a crime (and breach of national security had taken place)

The argument that she was not 'covert' is little different to trial lawyers (of which the govt has many) twisting definitions and legalities to fit their interpretation of events. Fact was she did work for the CIA, she did have a classified 'non-official cover' status. That is not in doubt. The only question that has arisen is to what extent she was entitled to legal protection and secrecy.

Let me ask you this why do you think her name was leaked? Do you think it had nothing whatsoever to do with Joseph Wilson's trip to Nigeria and his informing the press that based on his investigation (and other reports) claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase raw uranium in 1999 were totally unsubstantiated?

Novak said that it wasn't a Bush administration source that gave him the name. He got it elsewhere. You can't "leak" a name that's in Who's Who!! She outed herself. She had no legal protection. She was just a office worker of little importance. Her goal was to damage the Bush adminastration for her own reasons. The trip to Nigeria was not givin to Wilson by anyone official. The whole thing was just a political ploy.

And another thing, If Plame was so worried about her "covert" status why in the world would she have her name in Who's Who? That is the original place that Novak said he got her name. Her and her husband are just anti-bush hacks that were doing their best to bash Bush. She is the one that sent her husband on that "fact finding" mission. The CIA didn't even authorize it.

I think you need to check your facts a little closer. First of all, I saw the interview with Novak. He clearly stated that Rove was NOT the original source. Novak said that he only confirmed it. And even there is some dispute over that. Novak said that when he asked Rove about Plame Novak stated that Rove said "Oh' you know that to?" Rove states that he said "Oh, heard that to?" Very small difference but the bottom line is Rove didn't leak the name. Second point, Fitzgerald said that no one was charged with leaking Plame's name because SHE WASN'T COVERT AT THE TIME!!!!!! There wasn't a crime, thats why no one was charged!! Even the woman (I can't think of her name right now) that wrote the law about outing covert operators said that she wasn't covert. Jees guys! Get your facts right. You want Bush and all his cronies in jail so bad you make things up just to make yourselfs feel better!!!

I wasnt referring to the written law, but the instructions on the I-129F when comparing to the RFE.

However to answer you, I actually read and understand it as one and the same. It refers to an approved petition that was filed within 2 years of filing the present one.

Oh God thank you Aussiewench! I didn't catch the difference when I mailed in my RFE. I have been sweating bullets worring about that.

Yes, The RFE asked 3 questions. In my original I-129, I only answered one since I did not use a marriage broker, and had never been convicted of a crime. I just noticed that the waiver language appears to be the only additional information on my RFE that was not on the I129

The language however is in the instructions for the new I-129F

Filing Limitations on K Nonimmigrant Petitioners.If you have filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any time in the past or previously had a K-1 visa petition approved within two years prior to the filing of this petition, you must apply for a waiver. To request a waiver you must submit a written request with this petition accompanied bydocumentation of your claim to the waiver.

Clerical errors do get made and this being a new implementation there is going to be a settling period for those at the service centers.

If you havent yet received the hard copy of the RFE, it may also very well be for something missing or incomplete with your petition and not as you are concluding. Let us know.

There are some subtle but important differences between the law and the RFE form. I was wondering what will be the standard.

This is from the law:

‘‘(i) the petitioner has not, previous to the pending petition,

petitioned under paragraph (1) with respect to two or more

applying aliens; AND ‘‘(ii) if the petitioner has had such a petition previously

approved, 2 years have elapsed since the FILING of such previously

approved petition.

This is from the RFE:

If you have filed two or more K-1 visa petitions at any time in the past OR previously had a K-1 visa petition APPROVED within two years prior to the filing of this petition, you must apply for a waiver.

Now, my question. Which one is the USCIS compelled to follow? If they go by the approved standard rather the filing standard do they go by when the first one was filed or when the first one was approved? If they go by the approved standard and they go by the approved date rather than the filed date for the first petition then I should have filed for a waiver. I didn't file a waiver, but my first petition was filed 2 years 2 months before my second one was but the first one was approved 1 year and 11 months before I filed the second one. Am I in for another RFE???

True. Which is why he shouldn't have signed up and would have been better served by joining some sort of political action group.

I would agree with you if he signed up after the war started, his beliefs would have been better served if he joined an anti-war PAC. However, the OP stated he signed up right after 9/11. Now, I don't know the man's mind but a few possibilities come to mind. First he could have joined up in a flush of patriotism and when the war in Iraq started he disagreed with the reasons for going. If that was the case then, as I stated before, he should have stood up then and resigned. Second, he could have joined because he got caught up in the moment of the aftermath of 9/11 and got cold feet when he knew he was going to get shot at. That makes him a coward from the beginning and he had no business joining at all. He made a commitment, swore an oath, took the training and when he was needed he failed in his duty. But he compounded his cowardice in another important way. When I was in the military I was instructed that I was barred from political speech while on active duty. I was also barred from criticizing the president in public. It's one of those freedoms you sign away when you join and you have to take that into account when you decide to join up. When he made up his mind to not obey his orders he compounded his crimes by publicly criticising the president. It is obvious to me anyway he did that to try and draw off of the anti-war sediments of the country and try to mitigate his culpability. He didn't even have the courage to take his punishment like a man. To me he is beneath contempt and in no way a hero.