Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Right wing logic: Never believe your lying eyes, always trust what the radio or FAUXNews tells you." Left wing logic: Never believe yourlying eyes, always trust what CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC tells you."
Originally Posted By jonvn "She's a patriot and an american hero." Yes, she is. And she was treated like dirt by this Administration, which endangered our national security over internal politics. They really are revolting.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh If Ms Plame did not want politics intruding on her personal life, she shouldn't have intruded her personal life into politics. She was the one who recommended her husband for a mission, and then sat back while he mischaracterized what he found on it.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Not at all. You're assuming that some meant to "destroy" her career - no one did. The Bush adminstration just wanted to know why someone was claiming he found something different then what the CIA told them he found, and then truthfully told reporters who asked. If anyone "ruined" Ms Plame's career, it was her husband, by misrepresenting what happened on his "mission" to all the reporters he was talking to. I wish someone would "destroy" my career so I can get 2.5 million to write a book about it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If Ms Plame did not want politics intruding on her personal life" There is no excuse whatsoever for what happened to her, and anyone with a shred of patriotism in their body would be disgusted by her outing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Unlike what has happened when CIA officials have leaked to reporters, Ms. Plame's "outing" did not harm our national security at all. I love my country, but I'm not at all disgusted about what has happened to Ms Plame.
Originally Posted By jonvn Yes, well, that's not what others have said, and I'd take the opinion of a chimp over someone who lies constantly anyway.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>My, my, what a Beaumandy thing to say (albeit for the left). << That's a terribly insulting thing to say!
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>"Right wing logic: Never believe your lying eyes, always trust what the radio or FAUXNews tells you." Left wing logic: Never believe yourlying eyes, always trust what CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC tells you."<< That's certainly not the point I was trying to make. Perhaps some people DID pay attention to the trial and can speak to what happened themselves instead of relying on what "El Rushbo" or FAUXNews, CNN, etc. tells them. The only sources of news aren't corporate-owned networks, you know. Politically intelligent logic: get your news from multiple sources and question EVERYTHING.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <By blowing her cover, they also blew the 'shell' corporation that she worked for, endangering possibly hundreds of other investigators, and irrepairably harmed our ability to track nuclear proliferation. > An excellent point, often overlooked by those on the right. Whether or not Plame herself was covert, this whole episode did in fact expose her shell corporation, exposed others who "worked" there, and rendered years of work by others who "worked" there useless. At the very least, Novak, Armitage, Rove, and others who spoke to the press about her were guilty of not considering the full implications of what disclosure would mean. And although Armitage was the original source for Novak, others were simultaneously discussing her status with other members of the press - Novak was simply the first to publish her name, but others that, say, Rove was talking to MIGHT have been first (but Novak takes that dubious "prize").
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <An excellent point, often overlooked by those on the right.> Not overlooked. There's simply no evidence it occurred. In fact, there's a considerable amount of evidence that her shell company was compromised several years earlier.
Originally Posted By ElKay "there's a considerable amount of evidence that her shell company was compromised several years earlier." Prove it! And as far as Valery Plame being or not being covert, Rep. Waxman in the hearings last week mentioned the fact that he spoke directly with CIA director, Gen. Hayden and was told that Ms. Plame was in fact considered by the CIA as covert. Likewise, it was the CIA's legal department that filed a complaint with the Justice Dept. when the Agency found out about the uncovering of Ms. Plame's cover. It's plane stupid that folks still are trying to claim that Ms. Plame was not classified as covert. This comes directly from the CIA, not the DNC offices. What is sooooo crazy is that the "loyal Bushies" on this site would have gone absolutely ape had the exact same circumstances occured in Clinton's Admin. I'm sure they would say Clinton shows so little regard for the safety of our agents that he'd be willing to protect his "pot smoking, draft dodging, womanizing hide and let thousands of our agents and their peace loving contacts dangle in the wind. Funny isn't how some would blame the victim and try to make excuses for the perps, just like Clinton would?
Originally Posted By ElKay Going back to post #37, Dougie respond to my posting. Me: <USA Ingleias, was axed for not knuckling under to the pressure by two New Mexico GOP Congressional members.> Dougie:"It's more likely that Mr Ingleias was axed because of his policy of not prosecuting voter fraud." Wrong again, Ingleisa was being leaned on by two GOP members of New Mexico's Congresional delegation --Sen. Dominici and a House member to name a date for the procecution of the NM State Treasurer. It seems like this non-case would have been more appropreatly be the province of the NM Attorney General. Sort of a "states rights" issue. Why make it a federal case? Oh, and folks be careful when you hear "loyal Bushies" whinne about "voter fraud". Recall that was the excuse that Gov. Jeb Bush used to direct Katherine Harris to go out and purge the Florida voter rolls which disenfranchised perhaps thousands of Black voters who almost all were registered Dems and HAD NOT committed any crime (unless you consider voting Democrat a crime), paving the way for the 2000 Florida election debacle. Also consider the GOP has a well earned reputation of trying to supress minority and immigrant voters here in CA by threatening arrests for voter fraud. Voter fraud, GOP look to thy self. Me: <Prove it, Dougie, you've been wrong too often to get away with that kind of statement.> Dougie: "Here's a link to a March 2005 e-mail from Kyle Sampson to Harriet Miers in which Sampson notes unhappiness with Ms Lam's performance. The Cunningham scandal didn't break for another three months." No matter how you slice it, USA Carol Lam was on the hot seat for her prosecution of Cunningham. Even if she was on the short list of being fired, until today there's hasn't been any credible WH or DOJ dicussion on exactly why they didn't want to keep her around. She had good fitness report from the Bushies and I believe it was the FBI that lauded her effectiveness in office. Regarding Lam, everything points to Cunningham. See: <a href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16931334.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation" target="_blank">http://www.realcities.com/mld/ krwashington/news/nation/16931334.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation</a> " "There were clearly U.S. attorneys that were thorns in the side for one reason or another of the Justice Department," Feinstein said. "The attorney general has said he did not know what was going on ... that is very difficult for me to believe." Feinstein said Lam notified the Justice Department on May 10, 2006, that she planned to serve search warrants on Kyle Dustin "Dusty" Foggo, who'd resigned two days earlier as the No. 3 official at the CIA. On May 11, 2006, Kyle Sampson, then Gonzales' chief of staff, sent an e-mail to deputy White House counsel William Kelley, asking Kelley to call to discuss "the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires." The e-mail did not spell out what the "real problem" was, and it was unclear whether Kelley and Sampson talked later." Sooo even IF Sampson didn't target Lam before Cunningham's investigation, it sure looks suspicious that the WH and DOJ wanted to still get rid of her after she started the probe and still more suspect AFTER she got a conviction. More later. Dougie:"And I think you're confusing who is often wrong, and who is rarely wrong. You're the one who usually abandons debates due to a lack of facts." Sorry Dougie, you're wrong again. I've got plenty facts, but I do have a life and I have a low "gag" factor, especially when I read drivel on some discussion boards. <AGAIN, Dougie, you're waaaay off base here.> Dougie: "No, I'm not. The appointments of US Attorneys is a political matter. One of the perogatives of executive power is setting priorities on what types of crimes are prosecuted. It's the way it's always been." See that's where neocons don't understand the principles of AMERICAN democracy. Yes, USAs are political appointees, however, they are supposed to check their political activities at the door when they swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That's where the Bushies get EVERYTHING WRONG
Originally Posted By JohnS1 Why is it that some of the same people who are supposedly so concerned about the impacts of exposing Flame and compromising her agency, (eg CNN and the NY Times) not so conscientious when they decide to publish troop movements, war tactics, and negative statements about the war by "anonymous sources" when there are questions about such information compromising the safety of soldiers in Iraq?
Originally Posted By jonvn Do they do that? The difference is, are the troop movements classified info? And really, the press has the right to publish what they want. No one is going after the traitor bob novak for publishing this information, he's just being considered low life for doing it. Now, if the admin started announcing SECRET troop movements, that'd be something, wouldn't it? I mean, what if they announced something that endangered an entire division just for political purposes. Would that upset you? I think it should. It's really the same sort of thing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Prove it!> Why? So you can ignore the proof and keep repeating liberal talking points? From an October 11, 2003 NY Times column by Nicolas Kristof: "First, the C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994. So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons. Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc" — which means non-official cover, like pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead." You can find more by Googling "Aldrich Ames" and "Valerie Plame". And regarding post 74, it looks like your mind is made up, and you're not willing to look at any evidence to the contrary.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Would that upset you? I think it should. It's really the same sort of thing.> No, it's not. No damage was done to our national security when Valerie Plame was "outed".
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm sorry, are you involved with our intelligence network in such a way that you would know whether or not "no damage" was done? No? Oh, then you don't know what you're talking about, do you. At the very least, a undercover officer's identity was exposed, and that is damage enough. I actually watched part of the hearings on this. It's a national disgrace. Yet one more from this Administration.
