Wow.<
>
<
>
Mcclellan looks like he is drowning.<
>
<
>
I'm glad the press there kept on him. Go Go David Gregory. <i></i>

/shrug, after establishing the stonewall he could have probed on other sensitive issues looking for a kidney punch. The one he kept on is already going to blow up.<
>
<
>
Finding another chink is more valuable than making him say 'no comment' 20 times. This is key to how the administration has gotten by on so many issues, the opposition gets tunnel vision. <
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Quote:To me that's one of the most important issues the libertarians stand for. The entire point of having a small and limited government is to make it so they only have to step in when one citizen is impinging on the rights of another citizen. If someone wants to drink a caffeinated bevarage, smoke a cigarette, or shoot up heroin in their own home and don't commit any crimes while they're doing it, let em. Am I ever going to do the latter two? Nope, but it's really none of my (or the governments) business if someone else wants to. The bottom line is it's not the governments place to make sure it's citizens treat their own bodies well. We apparently recognize to some extent, since there's no law against stuffing your face at every meal or never exercisizng. Freedom of choice is one of the values paramount to this countries ideals, and unless a drug user directly harms someone else we really have no right, in my opinion, to go after them for it.<
>
<
>
P.S. I'm aware their are other laws targeting the type of "crime" that only hurts the person doing it (there's a term for these, but I can't remember it) and I think they're completely wrong too. <
>
<
>
But your agrument falls apart when a person is addicted to heroin, they will do almost anything for that next hit. You can not tell me with a straight face that there is not a relationship between drug use/abuse and crime. At that point it is no longer a "victemless crime" Karthun<
>
<
>
Hockey didnt die in 2004 it died in 1993, and Norm Green still sucks.<i></i>

Quote:You can not tell me with a straight face that there is not a relationship between drug use/abuse and crime.<
>
<
>
Kinda convienent arguement when drug use itself is a crime, huh?<
>
<
>
Guess you meant violent crime? ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

When was the last time there were big gun battles over the sale of alchohol ? O thats right, prohibition. <i></i>

Quote:When was the last time there were big gun battles over the sale of alchohol ? O thats right, prohibition. <
>
<
>
During the 20's you didnt have many people jumping into identity theft and bank robbery to support their alchohol habit.<
>
<
>
Dont get me wrong, I am in favor of decriminaliztion of use of pot and other "soft" drugs. I do feel that distribution and intent of sale should still be illegal. The social impact that hard drugs cause on society is too high to bare.<
>
<
>
That is unless you think it should be legal to turn your house into a meth lab and just dump the byproducts into the drain. Or have a meth lab operate on a lake I used to fish on and dump into the lake. Karthun<
>
<
>
Hockey didnt die in 2004 it died in 1993, and Norm Green still sucks.<i></i>

But duuuuuuude, if smack was legal it'd be like....... $1 a hit!<
>
<
>
Before and after prohibition, the alcohol peddlers had gun battles over racketeering, prostitution, loan sharking, etc. It has nothing to do with the legality of what they sell. Illegally imported (rather untaxed) alcohol and cigarettes are still big ticket items for black market sales in the US.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

God this pisses me off...<
>
<
>
As a Federal employee, I WOULD BE FIRED MERE SECONDS after being caught doing something like this. I'm not kidding either. We had a case here where they called in security while the offending employee (in a much less serious ethics violation) packed her stuff and they escorted her off the base...permanently.<
>
<
>
As far as I'm concerned, this is the only solution:<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
(I love Americablog!) <i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

After due process of course. <
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Or they could just pull a Padilla on him. <
>
<justice nazi>No due process for you!</justice nazi> <i></i>

Put him in gitmo - joxur<i></i>

Quote: After due process of course. <
>
<
>
Why bother, he will be pardoned within minutes of his confession. It's nice to have good ol'boys in high places. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

It's fun to see the White House on the defensive. But it doesn't really look as though anything will come of this. <i></i>

Quote:But your agrument falls apart when a person is addicted to heroin, they will do almost anything for that next hit. You can not tell me with a straight face that there is not a relationship between drug use/abuse and crime. At that point it is no longer a "victemless crime" <
>
During the 20's you didnt have many people jumping into identity theft and bank robbery to support their alchohol habit.<
>
It doesn't fail. A heroin addict is no different than an alcoholic. True, niether now or in the past were there many cases of identity theft to buy a drink, but there were and are countless cases of murder, robbery, assault, manslaughter as a result of drinking and driving, child or spousal abuse, and many other crimes directly linked to drinking which could have been prevented in an alcohol free society. The bottom line is that it's wrong to outlaw victimless crimes on the grounds that the person commiting one might go on to commit a crime with a victim. Buying a kitchen knife isn't a crime, stabbing someone with one is. If knives were iilegal there would be a decrease in stabbing wound victims, but we don't outlaw knives because it's not really our business to worry about the what-ifs when we sell one to someone.<
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
Dont get me wrong, I am in favor of decriminaliztion of use of pot and other "soft" drugs. I do feel that distribution and intent of sale should still be illegal. The social impact that hard drugs cause on society is too high to bare.<
>
<
>
That is unless you think it should be legal to turn your house into a meth lab and just dump the byproducts into the drain. Or have a meth lab operate on a lake I used to fish on and dump into the lake. Well first of all I agree with you, marijuana should be legalized immidately, the double standard posed by comparing it to alcohol is crazy, and it shouldn't even be a question. However the point many anti-marijuana politicians make is actually a valid one: it's a slippery slope. Now do I think marijuana and crack are really comporable? Of course not. However it's true that if we legalize marijuana on the basis that it's not the governments business what I do in my own home to my own body the question becomes why not heroin? My answer is: there isn't a reason, hence my stance on legalizing all drugs. But to someone like you, who beleives in legalizing some drugs but not others it's a difficult question. <
>
<
>
Ironically the best tool for this debate isn't the iilegal drug marijuana, it's the legal drug alcohol. Marijuana isn't addictive and can't flat out kill you in one session from overdose, alcohol is addictive easily can kill you from overdose, and people die every year in just that way. Now my point isn't to say "oo look how bad alcohol is", my point is that really we're ALREADY on a slippery slope, because besides "well we don't want to change the status quo" there's no real argument to back up our decision to pick certain drugs to keep legal over others.<
>
<
>
Quote:That is unless you think it should be legal to turn your house into a meth lab and just dump the byproducts into the drain. Or have a meth lab operate on a lake I used to fish on and dump into the lake. Oh come on, that's a horsehit analogy and I'm sure you knew it as soon as you wrote it. The difference is obvious, one of the principles this country and the libertarian party were founded on is the old saying "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins". So in other words you want to abuse drugs: fine. You're swinging your fist in empty air, you have the right to do that. You want to dump those drugs into the drain or into a lake, harming OTHERS you've now hit a nose, and you've now
oken the law. I think you know all this already, and I'm not sure why you'd make such a poor analogy on purpose. <
>
<
>
<i></i>

Heroin is more addictive than alcohol, and an addict does not use it to commit the crime, they commit the crime to use it.<
>
<
>
Some drugs have a higher social cost in terms of health and crime when compared to others, that is a basis for only partial legalization.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Cigarettes are more addictive than alchohol. However, we don't jail people for smoking until after they have hit up a convenience store to pay for their nicotine "habit." <i></i>

I've actually seen studies published that indicate Nicotine withdrawl symptoms are about as severe as Heroin withdrawl symptoms. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

It's about freedom. We should not be telling individuals what they can and cannot do with their own lives. The real "social problem" is having our jails packed to the
im with people that have simply chosen to put a substance into their own bodies. If it naturally makes them harmful towards other people, that's one thing, but 90 percent of these drugs don't do that. It's also about responsibility. If 1 person out of 100 people cannot learn to, for example, not drive a car while under the influence of alcohol, that does not mean we should ban alcohol altogether. Just because some people aren't responsible with something doesn't mean all others cannot be. <i></i>

Quote:Heroin is more addictive than alcohol, and an addict does not use it to commit the crime, they commit the crime to use it.<
>
<
>
Some drugs have a higher social cost in terms of health and crime when compared to others, that is a basis for only partial legalization. Well I don't agree with that argument, but sure, I understand what you're saying. However what about marijuana? From that basis I can only assume you're pro legalization, since again using alcohol as a baseline it's less addictive, and people are less likely to commit a crime as a result. The problem is alcohol sets up a nasty double standard, since it's one of the most dangerous drugs in existence, even if we don't want to admit it. <
>
<
>
Look at the way we're so careful to seperate alcohol from "drugs" despite the fact it IS a drug. Alcohol poisoning instead of drug overdose. Alcoholic instead of drug addict. The problem with drugs AND alcohol among teenagers. Why do we do this? Because when it comes down to it if we wiped the slate clean and took an objective look we'd see alcohol is more in the "hard drug" category than the soft one. You say heroin is more addictive. Is it? Are you sure about that? To you it probably is, to a hardcore alcoholic who can litterally DIE from withdrawls if he tries to quit cold turkey I wouldn't think so. Again I'm not trying to advocate alcohol be banned again, but my point is the line between so called soft and hard drugs isn't so clear. <
>
<
>
<i></i>

I don't know the stats anymore, but I remember when I worked at a halfway house for early-release convicts that the local studies we had showed that a majority of crimes (of ALL types) were committed under the influence of alcohol. As I remember, it was vastly more than under the influence of illegal drugs.<
>
<
>
Regarding Rove - it seems that Arky is pretty quiet today. Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

I dunno about heroin, but I think shit like PCP shouldn't be allowed, considering the psychosis that often accompanies it. Lord Ssoth<
>
<
>
Their citizens (all of them counted as such) glorified the mythology of rights...<
>
and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can survive.<i></i>

_________________

Quote:It's about freedom. We should not be telling individuals what they can and cannot do with their own lives. The real "social problem" is having our jails packed to the
im with people that have simply chosen to put a substance into their own bodies. If it naturally makes them harmful towards other people, that's one thing, but 90 percent of these drugs don't do that. It's also about responsibility. If 1 person out of 100 people cannot learn to, for example, not drive a car while under the influence of alcohol, that does not mean we should ban alcohol altogether. Just because some people aren't responsible with something doesn't mean all others cannot be.<
>
<
>
Social costs rise VERY quick when you have to resort to crime to support your habit. When does society have the right to say enough is enough? Before or after the 3rd time you are in the ER because of an OD and you dont have the cash to pay for the bill? Karthun<
>
<
>
Hockey didnt die in 2004 it died in 1993, and Norm Green still sucks.<i></i>

So we should outlaw food too then since the cost to society is so great from people stealing it. Social costs too high. <
>
<
>
The social cost of many different freedoms is pretty high, but not so high that we should have the government telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. The drug itself is not forcing someone to commit a crime. Just like anything else taken to extents, responsibility is necessary. <
>
<
>
Bottom line - social "costs" will be lower with those people committing crimes to support the habit, than costs associated with simply putting everyone in jail who is caught using it. It is simply unfair to treat one person who is using drugs at least somewhat responsibly(to the degree where he/she is not hurting society) - and treat another person who is committing all manner of crimes and evils - as the same deal, both criminals. <i></i>

I guess the problem I have with deciding to legalize or not to legalize some substance is one of statistics. Basically, there are no absolutes in life (well, besides war, death and taxes) and so it comes down to statistics and what we decide we're comfortable living with.<
>
<
>
I hate using analogies so bear with me. I'm not trying to compare using drugs to building cars, I'm just trying to demonstrate why I believe statistics are important.<
>
<
>
Take an automobile maker. If the seat belts on their automobiles failed 100% of the time, we probabaly wouldn't allow that auto maker to import (much less sell) their automobiles in the U.S. What if their seatbelts only failed 10% of the time? Or in only 10% of their cars? 1%? 0.0001%(that would be 1 out a million fail)? At what point do we say their seat belts are safe enough to allow them to import and sell their cars here? Do they have to have a 0% failure rate?<
>
<
>
This is the issue I see. There are no absolutes. Nothing will have a 0% failure rate. Nothing will have a 100% success rate. How close to 0 or how close to 100 does it have to be to be allowed?<
>
<
>
You mentioned kitchen knives earlier in relation to stabbing wounds. I will assume for the purposes of my discussion that you meant intentional stabbing wounds. One would imagine that a very low percentage of kitchen knives that are sold end up being used to stab another person. They are also very useful in the home when used in a benign way. This is why I would believe kitchen knives are allowed in the U.S.<
>
<
>
Now I will admit that I'm not a very good Googler. It usually takes me a long time to find what I'm looking for, if I find it at all. I haven't seen actual statistics on any of what I'm about to discuss so please feel free to let me know how it really stands.<
>
<
>
Let's look at some possible statistics. Take a group of 10,000 folks who are steady, middle-class working people with no addictive habits. If given the choice of smoking pot legally in the privacy of their own home on a regular basis, 5,000 say they would. That would mean half of the middle-class working people in the U.S. might take up smoking pot regularly if given the chance to do so legally. No big deal so far.<
>
<
>
Ok, say over the course of the next year, all 5,000 of the people who smoke pot regularly in their own homes are fired because of issues related to smoking pot (they come into work smelling of pot which makes their co-workers sick, they're chronically late, their work suffers because they are under the influence while at work, etc . . .) Now we have just lost half the middle-class workforce due to allowing this drug to be legal.<
>
<
>
On the other hand, maybe it would be 1,000 people out of 10,000 decide to smoke regularly and their performance and expieriences at work do not differ from those who only decide to smoke seldomly or not at all. <
>
<
>
Or maybe 10 people decide to do it and the side effect is they are not fired but they do not receive as large of raises or promotions as quickly than the rest of the study group.<
>
<
>
As you can see I have fear of making drugs legal. I don't know what would happen if pot were made legal. Would it be detrimental to the U.S. as a whole? Would I have to be uncomfortable because the guy in the next cubicle smells like pot and it makes me naseus(*sp)?<
>
<
>
Similar thoughts could be made about heroin and intentional tramatic non-victimless crimes (that is crimes where someone other than the user is physically hurt in some way). Say 50% of people who had not intentionally caused harm to someone in the past(that does not include harm in a "rage" of some sort) would use heroin given the opportunity to do it legally. Then after 1 year, 100% of them do cause intentional physical harm at least once and cause it on average of 5 times per heroin user over the course of the year. Do you think this would be cause to not allow the drug?<
>
<
>
What if some new incredibly addictive drug comes around and it's purported to give the highest high of any other drug around. However it has a mortality rate of 80% 24 hours after a single use. These might be well known facts but would we allow a legal drug that has that high of mortality rate when our cars must be much safer?<
>
<
>
Like I said, there are no absolutes in life, there are only "good enoughs" or "within tolerable limits". What is the limit? How will we define the limit? How will we test to see if the limit has been exceeded or not?<
>
<
>
I appoligize for being so verbose but I guess I just want folks to know what I worry about when speaking of legalizing drugs.<
>
<
>
On a side note I'd like to
ing up a question. It has been stated that our prisons are filled with people who just want to ingest substances. Are there any stats on this? Does anyone know what percentage of our currently incarcerated citizens are serving for drug possetion alone? I mean without other charges. Dabiegel 65th Epic Human Agnostic Monk<
>
Biegel 60th Dwarf Cleric Worshiper of Brell Serilis<i></i>

_________________
Biegeldog 60 Night Elf Hunter
Kathanya 24 Dwarf Priest

Officer for Bene Factum

The amount of alcohol one must consume to become an alcoholic is far greater than the amount of heroin one must consume to become an addict. Heroin withdrawal symptoms are severe and can also kill. Anyway an argument from this stance is one to outlaw alcohol, not to use it as a basis for legalization.<
>
<
>
Nicotine addicts do not stick up convienience stores and gut new construction sites to feed their habit, they just shoplift cigarettes.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005...-security/<
>
<
>
Interesting to see how Fox is trying to spin it...(video on this page doesn't work in firefox)
<i></i>

Quote:Let's look at some possible statistics. Take a group of 10,000 folks who are steady, middle-class working people with no addictive habits. If given the choice of smoking pot legally in the privacy of their own home on a regular basis, 5,000 say they would. That would mean half of the middle-class working people in the U.S. might take up smoking pot regularly if given the chance to do so legally. No big deal so far.<
>
<
>
Ok, say over the course of the next year, all 5,000 of the people who smoke pot regularly in their own homes are fired because of issues related to smoking pot (they come into work smelling of pot which makes their co-workers sick, they're chronically late, their work suffers because they are under the influence while at work, etc . . .) Now we have just lost half the middle-class workforce due to allowing this drug to be legal.<
>
<
>
First off, that's exceedingly unrealistic. I know literally dozens of folks who smoke pot on a semi-regular basis. They all have full time jobs from managing a retail store to working in hospitals. None of them let pot get in the way of their work.<
>
<
>
Much like alchohol, which is much more addictive, and already legal.<
>
<
>
Quote:On the other hand, maybe it would be 1,000 people out of 10,000 decide to smoke regularly and their performance and expieriences at work do not differ from those who only decide to smoke seldomly or not at all.<
>
<
>
Or maybe 10 people decide to do it and the side effect is they are not fired but they do not receive as large of raises or promotions as quickly than the rest of the study group.<
>
<
>
It's all down to choice. You can choose when to smoke pot. Do it just before you go to work, or even at work, and you risk getting fired. Alchohol works the same exact way. I often go out on weekends and have quite a few drinks with some friends. I never drink just before work, or during work. Personal responsibility is a surprisingly unknown or unsupported concept these days. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

Quote:Interesting to see how Fox is trying to spin it...(video on this page doesn't work in firefox)<
>
<
>
Just another example of why Fox News needs to have it's
oadcast license revoked. Personal bias disguised as journalism is reason enough, but add incitement to commit treason and you've got a winning combo.<
>
<
>
How come when it was a reporter in the field giving away troop positions in Iraq they want someone's head, but when it's the Deputy White House Chief of Staff in the Holy Trinity of White House Administrations releasing classified material they're giving away medals?<
>
<
>
Oh and can you guys please take your "Legalize Pot, man, Come On Dude" conversation to another thread plz thnx? Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

I am a bit confused about that. Republican politicians across a
oad spectrum are passing this off as Dem propaganda, and I guess I must be missing their point. Somehow, because Mr. Wilson's wife's actual name wasn't used by Rove makes it OK? What am I missing here? <i></i>

You're missing the whole rally behind your party bullshit. This time it's the GOP. /shrug ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

Or did he say that she
oke protocol to authorize the trip for her husband and the revelation that she is an undercover agent arose from that?<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

I don't think so, Sarissa. From what I can tell, Joe Wilson might have stretched the truth or just didn't know when he claimed that his wife wasn’t involved in the process. She mentioned him as a good candidate for an informal "look-see" in Niger due to his contacts there, but she didn't participate in either the pre-
iefing discussions or the de
ief. I can't see what protocol this would
eak, really. Nonetheless, this is irrelevant to the issue at stake. The motives behind Rove matter not in the least. Valerie Plame's "real" job was not publicly known. I know of folks who work at Langley. They won't discuss *what* they do there, but it's known that they are employees there. Apparently, she had a cover job. <
>
<
>
For someone in Rove's position, making the decision to reveal a covert CIA employee is NOT in his job description. Several news sites point to Rove as a "whistle-blower", as though he were heroically revealing some illegal activity somewhere, instead of being upset that this guy that he didn't like probably stretched the truth about some stuff that he said. Of course, what JW really seems to have been doing (IMO) is keeping his wife's employment hidden, which is what he should have done. What did Rove expect him to say - that his wife, a covert CIA agent, recommended that he make a pro bono tour of Niger to answer questions asked of the agency by Cheney?<
>
<
>
<
>
Lupic Wulfsib<
>
Khardin, clueless n00b hunter; {Crimson Brigade}, Llane Realm<i></i>

Quote:It's all down to choice. You can choose when to smoke pot. Do it just before you go to work, or even at work, and you risk getting fired. Alchohol works the same exact way. I often go out on weekends and have quite a few drinks with some friends. I never drink just before work, or during work. Personal responsibility is a surprisingly unknown or unsupported concept these days. <
>
<
>
This isnt about pot. I am in favor of decrimilizion of soft drugs. It is the hard drugs that carry a very heavy toll on society where I believe they should stay illegal.<
>
<
>
Irony on your personal responsibility part. How many people that go into the ER for a drug OD actually pay the bill? Karthun<
>
<
>
Hockey didnt die in 2004 it died in 1993, and Norm Green still sucks.<i></i>

If you drive each day back and forth to CIA headquarters in Langley it can't be much of a secret that you work at the CIA. <i></i>

_________________

Also, I think it is folly to assume that Judith Miller's source is Rove. <i></i>

_________________

Quote:If you drive each day back and forth to CIA headquarters in Langley it can't be much of a secret that you work at the CIA. Ahh - I didn't know you were in her carpool. Thanks for clearing that up!<
>
<
>
I will repeat, for those that missed it. She had a cover job. It's not up to me to determine how thin or thick that cover was - but she had one.<
>
<i></i>

That depends on how the trip was arranged or, with reference to all of this, how her involvement with the trip became known. From the testimony it sounds like he knew she was party to arranging it but did not know she was an undercover asset.<
>
<
>
Still way too early to have even half the story, but /shrug.<
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

For news junkies, this whole "story" is great stuff. <
>
I just finished reading yet another op/ed style article on the Wall Street Journal's opinion web page:<
>
<
>
opinionjournal.com/editor...=110006955<
>
<
>
"Whistleblower" may be the word of the day. LOL <i></i>

_________________
"It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional."
-A. Scalia

The data indicates that her memo recommending him to investigate wasn't the creation of a new effort, but part of decisions already made by her superiors to check out a few facts. I imagine that her superiors had other options as well, and chose to allow this unclassified tour as one intelligence avenue. <i></i>

Wow.Quote:Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves.From his written information, JW says, "... was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report... The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."<
>
Quote:But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalistsSo... Rove didn't even know his side of the story was true! And as a member of Bush's staff, he automatically implies that the other journalists are correct, even though he has no clue. Man, this guy is slick.<
>
Quote:The same can't be said for Mr. Wilson, who first "outed" himself as a CIA consultant in a melodramatic New York Times op-ed in July 2003.Stupid comment. His trip was unclassified.<
>
Quote:In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa,There is NO evidence that he lied about what he found on his trip (though he might not have interpreted it correctly - after all he isnt a CIA analyst). <
>
<
>
Quote: how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, <
>
From JW's written comments, "...As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged...."<
>
Quote:or even why he was sent on the missionTHis is the only credible statement, and can be attributed to the fact that he didn't want to out his wife (or any CIA employee).<
>
Now we see why that is an "opinion" and not an attempt at real journalism - its just a bunch of incorrect statements, well written and put together in a cohesive format.<
>
<i></i>

Quote:But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists<
>
According to US Code Title 50, Chapter 15, Subchapter IV, Section 421 - "Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources"<
>
Quote:(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.<
>
The key phrases are here:<
>
<
>
1) Quote:...having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent...<
>
and here:<
>
<
>
2a) Quote:...intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information...<
>
and here:<
>
<
>
2b) Quote:...knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States...<
>
You can see why Mr. Rove's comments ALL ALONG have been carefully worded. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing the entire time. It's going to be hard to prove that ALL of those parts are true. However, there are significant clues if they can be backed up:<
>
<
>
1) His weakest argument is his protestation that he "did not know her name." <
>
<
>
The Code's words (and all other federal regulations, while possibly more restrictive, cannot be less restrictive than the US Code) don't mention the word "name." It talks about "identifying" a "covert agent." While my marriage just happened several weeks ago and my name is still different from my husbands, I can be "identified" as HIS WIFE. With that information alone, ANYONE can go find a copy of our marriage license (public information) and find my name. If I am "identified" as my daughter's mom, ANYONE can go to the school records and find out who I am. So, it doesn't flippin' matter that he didn't share her name...HE SHARED HER "IDENTITY." <
>
<
>
2a) Rove's minions are arguing that he did not know that she was a "covert agent" when he talked to Cooper.<
>
<
>
Give me a
eak!<
>
<
>
Look, she was a covert operative for the CIA, only people with access to classified information would even KNOW that she worked for the CIA and ESPECIALLY WHAT SHE DID for the CIA! Cooper's email made it clear that Karl Rove revealed 2 things:<
>
<
>
- Ambassador Wilson's wife worked for the CIA<
>
<
>
- She worked in the area of Weapons of Mass Destruction<
>
<
>
I don't know about you, but I can't imagine too many folks specifically working in that area being able to go home and discuss the details of their day or even identify their job around the family dinner table or at a neighborhood cocktail party!<
>
<
>
2b) If it WAS the case that he HAD learned her identity from other journalists, it was his duty as a Federal employee (who took the same "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic" oath that I took 13 years ago) to report such a
eech to the CIA and investigate who leaked that information to these unnamed journalists. If any Joe Schmo like myself were found to NOT have reported such a
eech, at the very least it would cost me my job.<
>
<
>
This is why you are not hearing a peep from the more conservative military folks on this board. It doesn't friggin' matter if Joe Wilson was the biggest horse's ass on the planet. It doesn't matter WHAT Joe Wilson said. Just the information we posses right now is enough to show that Karl Rove is someone who would SELL OUT the folks serving our country in dangerous positions to enable those in the Administration to achieve their agenda. He would do this in order to "punish" a perceived "betrayer."<
>
<
>
Ironically, I find Rove's actions to be the very definition of betrayal. Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

Just as an interesting aside:<
>
<
>
Quote:With that information alone, ANYONE can go find a copy of our marriage license (public information) and find my name.<
>
<
>
Not if you file a confidential license, which I have. The only way to obtain a copy of our license is through court order (unless myself or my husband specifically in person requests a copy).<
>
<
>
Originally those licenses were for "secret marriages". People who didn't want others to know they had married, for whatever reason. Today they're an excellent choice for law enforcement or anyone who doesn't want an excessive amount of personal information available as public record. (Since it has name, addresses, next of kin information, next of kin address, work information, work address, etc.)<
>
<
>
It doesn't apply in this case, because it was well known WHO his wife was, and thus readily identifable, but just wanted to toss that out because most people probably aren't aware of it.
<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

The woman who wrote the law said that based on the information available to us right now, he did not
eak the law.<
>
<
>
So, the point is moot until such time as more info is available. <i></i>

Correct, Bj. It would surprise me greatly if there is anything but a weak case against Rove; why else would he release Cooper from his confidentiality agreement? Because he is not directly connected with Valerie Plame, he can plead a lack of knowledge (as he has), and unless direct evidence is found, criminal intent will be impossible to prove.<
>
<
>
So, let us assume Rove's innocence, and look at the incident in that light. He receives a phone call from Cooper about another topic, then mid-conversation, switches to a complaint about Wilson's information. At this point, he says that though he has no direct knowledge that Wilson's wife works for a certain agency, that he has heard rumors to that effect. Think about the moral implications here - the President's closest advisor just told a reporter "I don’t know if xxx is true, but..." Talk about a complete slimy, cover-your-ass, politics-by-innuendo situation. Revile isn't even close to the emotion that I feel towards someone on the President's staff who set in motion an attempt to blow a CIA agent's cover. For all that Rove knows, the result of his little political game could be the death of contacts that Plame worked with while overseas with her husband (remember, he has NO clue what Plame does in the CIA - he is innocent of that knowledge). All because of a small bump in the road heading towards the president's agenda in Iraq.<
>
<
>
The president has said publicly that he will fire the person who outed Plame. He didn't say "after a successful criminal prosecution, I will...", because I suspect that he feels as I do about the whole situation. Of course, he is now in a real quandary, as a close, personal friend has been clearly implicated. Who knows, this might be the first time that he finally sees that people that we all like can still do bad things.<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Who knows, this might be the first time that he finally sees that people that we all like can still do bad things.<
>
<
>
One of the hardest lessons you'll ever learn in life.<
>
<
>
I don't hate Bush for constantly covering for his friends. I empathize heh. I know there've been times where I either covered up or took the blame on some really dumb shit a friend of mine did... for no other reason then that he was my friend.<
>
<
>
Doesn't mean it was the right thing for me to do though. Or that it's been the right thing for Bush to do. I'm just pointing out that before people get on their pedestal about how Bush has been covering for his "cronies" they need to take a step back and think about how hard... how really, incredibly HARD... it is to not cover for someone you really like, no matter what they've done, no matter what it might make you into or what other people might think about you afterwards. <i></i>

I empathize with Bush, but I don't sympathize. There are a huge number of incredibly tough things that you have to do to be a good President, and as much as I like Bush as a human being, I haven't seen any of the signs that he is willing to accept those personal costs. We will see what happens here, and what logic is used if he doesn't send his good friend away from the inner political circles for the duration of his term.<
>
<i></i>

BJ:
eaking the law, and
eaking the trust you are given two different things. If someone was blowing National security information, then whether a law was
oken or not, that isn't someone I would want in a high level security position. <
>
<
>
Conservatives talked about the wrongness of Clinton commiting perjury. Why can't you equally condemn someone who put american intelligence and american lives in danger?
<i></i>

Particularly someone who has a history of leaking information.<
>
<
>
I am, however, not holding my
eath on him being fired. The hypocrisy of the "conservatives" knows no bounds. <i></i>

Quote:The hypocrisy of the "conservatives" knows no bounds.<
>
This works both ways.<
>
<
>
This shouldn't exactly have to be explained to you. <i></i>

Quote:<
>
This works both ways.<
>
<
>
This shouldn't exactly have to be explained to you.<
>
<
>
Exactly<
>
<
>
Lying about getting a BJ in the oval office? ... grounds for impeachment.<
>
<
>
Revealing the identity of undercover CIA operatives? ... grounds for having an awards cerimony.<
>
<
>
Yes, it's all coming together now. Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Fired? If he is guilty he should be sent to prison. This is a serious offense and many are just waiting to see if any charges are filed. If he is charged with a crime, I think Bush needs to fire him, until then he is fine waiting. <i></i>

The New York Post has an editorial on the story today.<
>
<
>
http://www.nypost.com/postopinio.../25925.htm <i></i>

_________________
"It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional."
-A. Scalia

That was the most fair and balanced editorial I’ve read in a very long time. I’m looking forward to reading what Matt Cooper has to say in Time Magazine. <i></i>

Guys, read my rebuttal with data extracted from Joe Wilson's own words. They disagree with every point made by the editorial, except for 2: (1) that Wilson claimed that his wife was not involved, and (2) that his analysis was incorrect.<
>
<
>
Actually, in hindsight, it turns out that he was right, but as an amateur, his testimony carries little weight.<
>
<
>
The real point is cleverly ignored in that editorial. That Rove, for whatever motives, perhaps even altruistic (but that is unlikely, given his history), decided to tell a reporter that he had heard rumors that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. the justification given?Quote:And the Bush administration needed defending from Joseph Wilson — who shopped his lies and found a willing buyer in The New York Times. Riiiight. I see. Despite the fact that the information that Rove claims to be refuting - WAS NEVER SAID!!! In JW's own, written words, he NEVER CLAIMED that he was sent on a mission from Cheney - he clearly says in his infamous rant, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa�, quoted again in its entirety Quote:In Fe
uary 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. OK, so what JW really said was that he was requested to go to Niger by... The CIA. The CIA (not Tenet) told him that Cheney's office, NOT Cheney the man, wanted some verification about the report.<
>
<
>
What's more - even if it was a malicious lie set up to smear the president, Rove had NO business, IMO, pushing reporters to out a CIA agent. None at all. If the incident was of "grave national security implications", as claimed by the editorial (tho I dont see them. what grave implications?), then it was up to the CIA to disclose the false information, not some miscellaneous advisor for the president on a whim.<
>
<i></i>

The naivete of the folks here continues to astound me. ANyone who ever belives that a president's hatchetman speaks the trueth is seriously deluded. From Washington to Bush Jr., its only the fools who actually take their words at face value - press included. DOesn't *anyone* research theire own facts any more?<
>
<
>
p.s.: if you want to see more slanting, try reading Official Extracts of the Senate Report. "Fair and unbalanced", my eye - that is data taken out of context. Free press <> unbiased press. Believe the stories about puppies and fires at face value, but on controvertial issues, try getting some motivation and read the written support documentation, folks.<
>
<i></i>

So, someone in the VP's office (not the VP) has the power to order the CIA to carry out specific operations like the one Wilson went on? I'd like to know the legality of that. <i></i>

_________________
"It so happens that everything that is stupid is not unconstitutional."
-A. Scalia

Quote:The woman who wrote the law said that based on the information available to us right now, he did not
eak the law.<
>
Actually, I believe what was said was that, based on the information we have now, there is no definitive proof that he
oke the law. As I stated in my previous post, it's clear that he violated the "identity" part of the equation. The part that's difficult (if not impossible) to prove is whether or not he gleaned from classified information that she was a covert operative.<
>
<
>
Besides, the people who write the laws are not the ones who determine guilt or innocence of potential offenders - that's the job of the judges who interpret the laws.<
>
Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis

I'm not going to register for access to the NYPost.<
>
<
>
I am saddened by anyones support for Rove on this.<
>
<
>
It somehow feels fitting to want to knock his ass down in the sandbox and throw sand on him. Raethorn<i></i>

Indeed. There are many laws on the books that were not written properly. Intent of the writers and what is actually written down and passed are not always the same thing.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

I forgot to mention...you don't need to have
oken the law to have violated the conditions of a security clearance.<
>
<
>
One can lose a clearance for sharing information that is a lot less than classified. Brigitmorgan<
>
Night Elf Druid<
>
<
>
My new blog: Blue Oasis (Be gentle, it's my first time)<i></i>

_________________
Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis