Abysmul, read the senate report. It starts on page 36 of the report (probably not page 36 on your PDF viewer).<
>
<i></i>

Thanks Berrew. Reading it as time allows. (shhh I'm at work) <i></i>

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

Quote: I'm not going to register for access to the NYPost.<
>
<
>
http://www.bugmenot.com ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

<
>
<
>
Are you fucking serious, Jateki?<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
You agree that a CIA covert operative deserves to have her cover blown because her husband lied about some politcal crap? You think it's "the right thing"?<
>
<
>
That's freaky neo-con Rush Limbaugh shit right there. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

Thanks! <i></i>

I lose at ezcodes. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

Quote:Again, for the record, Rove did the right thing.Yay! The more we say it the truer it becomes. <i></i>

Quote:<
>
Are you fucking serious, Jateki?<
>
<
>
<
>
The only way these people have to spin at this moment, painted into the corner that they are, is to pretend Rove did the right thing. Sadly, if they wage their usual marketing campaign, they will be relatively successful at convincing the "average" american of it.<
>
<
>
Most appropriate image I've seen in a long time....<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
Let the spin begin. <i></i>

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.<
>
<
>
I think this is what causes some people trouble. It does sound like he's indicating that the Vice President ('s office) wanted this done. But if you read page 38/39 it seems that Cheny asked for CIA analysis of the the issue and the CIA sent him a report in responce to this request (Feb. 12). <
>
<
>
It then sounds like the CPD looked at the info they had (having already responded to the VP's single request and having communicated with the Departments of State and Defense) and decided to "obtain additional information". <
>
<
>
Sounds like 2 things happened. The VP did ask for some info, and got it. It sounds like the VP's involvement ended at that point. <
>
<
>
Next (after some involvement by the Department of State and Defense) the CPD decided to do some more research on the issue (for lack of a better term). CPD officials didn't recall exactly how Wilson's name came up, but there are documents that show his wife pushed him forward as a candidate for the job. (Even though Wilson at one time claimed this never happened.)<
>
<
>
Now back to the quote above...<
>
Quote:<
>
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.<
>
There's the confusing part. The agency had already provided a responce to the VP's office... after they had done that (and talked to the Departments of State and Defense) they decided to get "additional information". <
>
<
>
So, Wilson claimed that he was asked to take the trip to resond to the VP's request... but the VP had already been responded to and there's nothing in the report, that I see, that indicates that he asked for a follow up before the "early March" request (which is after Wilson had gone on his trip). So why would CIA officials tell him this was for the VP (don't forget the report indicated that the Departments of State and Defense had also previously asked questions)? The VP had already been given the info he asked for.<
>
<
>
It just doesn't seem that Wilson was sent on this trip to "provide a response to the vice president's office". <
>
<
>
It seems that:<
>
<
>
the VP, the State Departement, and the Department of Defense had all asked questions. A report was issued (as noted the one to the VP was slightly different than the others, for some reason)<
>
<
>
the CIA decided to do some more research (because questions had been asked, and answered, my multiple parties)<
>
<
>
Wilson's wife suggested her husband when she learned of this new investigation/trip/whatever<
>
<
>
Wilson went<
>
<
>
the VP then finally asked for a follow up.<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
In the end I think there's a little nit-picking and arguing over details by the anti-Wilson people and a little self important exaggeration on Wilson's part. Wilson indicated that he went to provide a response to the VP's office (he did not say "the VP sent me") but it seems like he went because multiple parties had ask for CIA info (and got it) and then the CIA THEN decided that the info wasn't enough/good enough and they (the CIA) decided to get more. <i></i>

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

Even more interesting, this whooooole thing is over intelligence which indictated IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.<
>
<
>
Which, is true. <
>
<
>
Wilson spoke out after Bush completely ignored his report, and stated that intelligence had indicated the opposite of what he had found. <
>
<
>
Then to discredit Wilson and his statments, Rove went to the press. This also served as a warning to anyone else who wanted to speak out.<
>
<
>
And remember, Wilson was a Bush, Sr. appointee, who also supported Bush, Jr's presidential campaign. Yep, they were this vicious to "one of their own".<
>
<
>
And underneath this steaming pile o' bullshit remains the facts that the administration willfully ignored any intelligence reports which did not support their agenda of going to war against Iraq, over the 'WMD' issue.<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>
<
>

<
>
Keep my head from exploding?... You can help!
<i></i>

Quote:Are you fucking serious, Jateki?<
>
I was trolling due to extreme boredom at work. Thanks for playing.<
>
<i></i>

However, I was being serious about reading what Matt Cooper has to say in Time Magazine. <i></i>

Quote:Sounds like 2 things happened. The VP did ask for some info, and got it. It sounds like the VP's involvement ended at that point. That might be - but Wilson wouldn't know that - he knows only what he was told, which was that the CIA wanted validation of data for the VP Office. That is undoubtedly what they told him, since it mentions in the Senate report that they were concerned about that data that they had sent up due to the short window to gather data. <i></i>

Tarot, the reality of it is that none of the people who are staunchly defending every rationalization of the war will have the balls to do so in 10 years, once this administration is gone and we start seeing more and more truth that they have kept hidden from us. I can't wait. Defending Bush once this administration is out of office and we learn of even more lies will be tantamount to defending Nixon during Watergate, or our presence in Vietnam. Divisive issue at the time, but does anyone argue now that our presence there was a mistake?<
>
<
>
Sadly, the realization that many are coming to that Bush is a big fuckup (see recent poll data) is too late - you already voted him in office. You're stuck with him, might as well enjoy the disfunctionalism while it lasts! - joxur<i></i>

Going by the example of Vietnam, I'd say that assertion is wrong. <
>
<
>
Sarissa Candyangel <i></i>

Aye, however dumb it was to preemptively strike Iraq then find out our reasons for preempting were wrong, the numbers of insurgents, the environment, and the kinds of troops aren't the same as in Vietnam.<
>
<
>
In Vietnam there were many more North Koreans, mostly NVA, fighting the US, they were supported by both the USSR and China, it was triple canopy Jungle in most areas making ambushes much more easy to setup and execute, and after the draft was enacted many people there were not volunteer forces.<
>
<
>
The Vietnam "situation" that people were worried about before the war started, hasn't happened, and for the foreseeable future, it doesn't seem likely that it will either. I am encouraged, to see more progress going on in Afghanistan, though I do think troop levels are a bit low.<
>
Arch Lich of Lanys (Retired)<
>
<i></i>

Quote: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.<
>
<
>
Maybe so, but the person who wrote the law knows exactly why they wrote it and if this circumstance fulfills that criteria. The person who wrote it said it did not.<
>
<
>
Quote: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.<
>
<
>
I am going to answer you based on a known poster's response to me at one time. Let me give you the back story.<
>
<
>
As you all argue, (but it isn't the complete story), Bill Clinton was tried for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. There was AMPLE evidence that he did more than this. I
ought it up once that there was a book written by the man who investigated all the evidence for the HoR. (No, not Ken Starr). I also at the time mentioned that he was a staunch Democrat all of his life to which someone replied, "Doesn't mean a thing" the book is wrong. Of course, the same people who did not believe this book (without having read it), pretty much believed everything Richard Clark wrote in his book.<
>
<
>
Ok, no problem. The reason Clinton was not tried for more was because the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats
okered a deal to not try him for anything more. Interestingly, the Democrats tried to make off with Classified documents during that investigation much as Sandy Berger did when he was examining documents in 2004. Iirc, the trial lasted about a week and the prosecutor got to speak for two days. No witnesses were allowed to be called, no cross examination, nothing. Bear with me, I am getting to my point.<
>
<
>
So, my point is: At the time I first
ought this up, I was told in no uncertain terms that the following was true (by a well known poster), "Bill Clinton did nothing wrong because he was not convicted". Not one of the posters here spoke up and said that could be incorrect. Not one. I dropped the issue. What was the point in continuing from there?<
>
<
>
So, now I reiterate. Until he is prosecuted and found guilty, he did nothing wrong. And furthermore, if he is not prosecuted, all of these arguments about how he did this and did that and even though that is not against the law it is still unethical will probably be found to be not true. I am only using the same Lanys precedent set down by a well known poster and ratified (by no comments denying it) by the community.<
>
<
>
So, again, I say, the point is moot until he is tried and convicted.<
>
<
>
And before anyone says, "Get over it, Clinton has been out of office for 5 years", I was only doing it to prove a point. <i></i>

Quote:The reason Clinton was not tried for more was because the Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats
okered a deal to not try him for anything more<
>
<
>
This portion just made me chuckle. I don't buy that as the real reasoning for a second. Could it possibly be that they didn't want to look like they were beating more of a dead horse than they already were, or not wanting to go full-blown into a witch hunt? <i></i>

It's almost funny to see how politically jaded some of you fuckers are.<
>
<
>
MY PARTY/POLITICAL STANCE/ CAN DO NO WRONG. and if it's not that, it's THEIR PARTY/POLITICAL STANCE/ IS WRONG, PERIOD.<
>
<
>
Do you guys have a button on your person somewhere that turns the bullshit off? <i></i>

Bush at a June 10, 2004, press conference after the G8 summit:<
>
<
>
Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?<
>
<
>
BUSH: That's up to --<
>
<
>
Q: And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?<
>
<
>
BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.<
>
<
>
McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press
iefing:<
>
<
>
McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.<
>
<
>
[...]<
>
<
>
Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?<
>
<
>
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.<
>
<
>
Q: At a minimum?<
>
<
>
McCLELLAN: At a minimum.<
>
<
>
Note, both questions did NOT ask if the person had to be found guilty to be fired from the administration. I agree, it is up to the courts to decide whether or not Karl Rove
oke the law. It is also up to Bush to decide if he is a man of his word and will remove someone who leaked information, as he said he would. <i></i>

BJ: It's somewhat difficult to comment on an issue you have given no reference points on, and a conversation that occurred 5 years ago that you remember verbatim but I have no recollection of. <
>
<
>
That aside, supposing that everything you say is correct, that the Republican Congress decided they were only going to go after Clinton over perjury when they had clear evidence that he had done far more, that would explain the hypocrisy of that one poster. <
>
<
>
That would not explain your own hypocrisy. If you truly hold to these beliefs, then they should apply whether the person in office is Republican, or if they are Democrat. If you don't, then it's not a belief, just partisan window dressing.
<i></i>

new bit of info:<
>
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politi...?id=941034<
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
<snip><
>
Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.<
>
<
>
Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story. The conversation eventually turned to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration's Iraq war policy and the intelligence it used to justify the war, the source said.<
>
<
>
The person said Rove testified that Novak told him he had learned and planned to report in a weekend column that Wilson's wife, Plame, had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims of alleged nuclear material sales to Iraq.<
>
<
>
So Novak told Rove that he (Novak) new her name, that she worked for the CIA, and he was going to write a column containing that information? <i></i>

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

What is hypocritical? All I am saying is if he is guilty, try him and convict him, and if he is not, then don't.<
>
<
>
Why the personal attacks on me? Because I am not crying to put Rove in jail before he has even been charged?<
>
<
>
I don't see any of you calling for Berger to be jailed and yet he
oke some laws regarding classified material. Who is being hypocritical here?<
>
<
>
It's funny when (and IF actually) Republicans do it, then they somehow deserve jail, but when Democrats do it, it isn't even mentioned but by maybe 2 posters.<
>
<
>
My conversation was not 5 years ago, it was just last year. I have not even been on these boards 5 years. I have not even played EQ 5 years. And it wasn't a conversation with you, why did you assume it was? I have not even known you 5 years.<
>
<
>
It's funny how people dismiss things from this book and when Richard Clark says something like, "We foiled thousands of terrorists attacks" with no proof of such people here just believe it. <i></i>

<
>
<
>
All I gotta say is it's amazing how many people stood up and called the then unknown source a traitor who should be hanged a year ago, who now all of a sudden think it was no big deal, or even "the right thing to do" now that it's found to be one of Bush's lovers.<
>
<
>
That's what makes these boards fun! On no, something bad about the Republicans, I better call my local office and learn what I'm supposed to believe!<
>
<
>
<i></i>

_________________
Magic in Fribur's World

Quote:It's funny when (and IF actually) Republicans do it, then they somehow deserve jail, but when Democrats do it, it isn't even mentioned but by maybe 2 posters.<
>
No.<
>
<
>
Both Party's bullshit should and is called on these boards. Don't bitch about it not being.<
>
<
>
In my opinion, there is a vocal majority of posters on this board that are liberal or Democrats. However, for every poster who can't seem to get Bill Clinton's cock out of their mouth there's also a poster who can't seem to achieve an erection without Fox News echoing faintly in the background.<
>
<
>
I agree with Monocot when she says that following your party blindly is ridiculous; Especially since members of both Parties seem to be leading themselves off a fucking
idge. <i></i>

Quote:What is hypocritical? All I am saying is if he is guilty, try him and convict him, and if he is not, then don't.<
>
<
>
And I'm saying, even if he's not meeting the requirements of that law, what he did violates the trust of his office. If I give confidential information from my company that could be used by a competitor, I may not be violating any federal statutes, but I don't think my company would want to have me there afterwards. <
>
<
>
Quote:Why the personal attacks on me? Because I am not crying to put Rove in jail before he has even been charged?<
>
<
>
I don't see anyone asking for him to be jailed without due process. I'm saying with what is already known (that he released that information which Rove has already confirmed) he shouldn't be entrusted with the position he's in. If you felt I was making a personal attack on you, I apologize. My post was made as I was getting ready to leave for work, and was written in haste. <
>
<
>
Quote:I don't see any of you calling for Berger to be jailed and yet he
oke some laws regarding classified material. Who is being hypocritical here?<
>
<
>
If Berger
oke some laws regarding classified material, then yes he should be punished for that. <
>
<
>
Quote:My conversation was not 5 years ago, it was just last year. I have not even been on these boards 5 years. I have not even played EQ 5 years. And it wasn't a conversation with you, why did you assume it was? I have not even known you 5 years.<
>
<
>
I never said it was with me. The reason I thought it was 5 years ago is that it's the only time period you gave. If it was only one year ago, I can probably tell you why you didn't get much reaction. It's very difficult to summon any fire for going after someone who has no power. Clinton is out of office, had something come out about that while he was in office I'm sure there would have been a lot more response. Rove is actively making decisions right now that affect the country. <
>
<
>
There was a lot of talk after Bush took office on how he was cleaning up the corruption and graft of the Clinton office. It's a shame to see that was just words. <
>
<
>

<i></i>

I think all this talk about anyone being hypocritical might as well stop. Both sides here are guilty of it all the time.<
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
If Berger
oke some laws regarding classified material, then yes he should be punished for that. <
>
<
>
There was ZERO cry from the "left" here for Berger to be ran out of town as a bad guy. Yet, after the dust around him started to settle, Berger plead guilty and acknowledged intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism. <
>
<
>
So it goes both ways. <i></i>

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

I don't remember that at all, did Berger end up getting fired? ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

It's interesting to me that the "conservative" defense has become entirely one of "well, other people are bad guys too" and attempts to deflect from their own guilt by pointing at others. "But, but, but..."<
>
<
>
It's even more interesting to me that so much of the psychology of that lies in the classic "victim" pose. <
>
<
>
Raise your standards higher, guys. <i></i>

Eh. I tend to have repub leanings, and I still think both sides are full of shit.<
>
<
>
Go Go Registered Independent. =P Thamul Lightfingers <
>
Logistics Specialist, Miners' Local #628<
>
<Fallen Legacy> on Stromm<i></i>

All I can say is... I am disspointed that with so many great minds here, no one appears to have done any real research on their own.<
>
<
>
Valerie Plame's Husband Outted her<
>
<
>
All I did was google Joe Wilson Valarie Plame<
>
<
>
/sigh... this is the reporters source, and this "undercover" agent has not been undercover for 9 years. Treason? Please. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:It's interesting to me that the "conservative" defense has become entirely one of "well, other people are bad guys too" and attempts to deflect from their own guilt by pointing at others. "But, but, but..."<
>
<
>
It's even more interesting to me that so much of the psychology of that lies in the classic "victim" pose.<
>
<
>
Raise your standards higher, guys.<
>
<
>
Exactly how many conservatives here are using this defense? I don't see it, I know a couple of us were talking about hypocrisy (on both sides). Most of the conservatives that I know (in real life outside this forum) are witholding final judgement on the issue to see what the courts say and/or simply don't think Rove did anything wrong. <i></i>

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

Quote:<
>
I don't see it,<
>
<
>
<
>
I bet you don't. <i></i>

"Valerie Plame's Husband Outted her"<
>
<
>
hehe, I'd seen that linked in a news story a few days ago... some of the right wing radio folks have talked about that too <i></i>

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

Annastazia: I fail to see how that outed her as a CIA operative. I will admit I read that fairly fast, but unless I'm missing something there, all it says is that he's married to Valerie Plame, information that's freely availiable on his wedding certificate. If you are seeing something there I'm not, please let me know.
<i></i>

Quote:It's interesting to me that the "conservative" defense has become entirely one of "well, other people are bad guys too" and attempts to deflect from their own guilt by pointing at others. "But, but, but..."<
>
<
>
Show us.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

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

Read. Start with any of your typical conservative yaptrap blog and just start following links. <i></i>

Ahh, you were not addressing us (those of us here on the forums) when you said:<
>
<
>
Quote:<
>
Raise your standards higher, guys. at the end of your blanket accusation. I assumed you were saying that "conservatives" here in this thread were who you were talking about.<
>
<
>
My bad. <i></i>

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

I think my posting history has made it pretty clear that if I am calling a specific person or persons out for a specific statement, that I'm really not shy about calling them by name.<
>
<
>
I've just been very interested watching "conservatives" through this entire process. For a crowd that prides themselves on "strength" in character and action, by and large, they are adopting a victim stance that is amusing to watch, while they wait for the big wigs to start the marketing campaign to convince the average american that "Sure, Rove did it, but that's ok." <i></i>

Quote:Annastazia: I fail to see how that outed her as a CIA operative.<
>
<
>
The #1 rule of being a CIA operative is that no one is allowed to use their name. She was known as Valarie P. to even her closest co-workers. No one (with the exception of her husband and children) is "allowed" to know her real name. The reason this is "outing" her is because anyone with intent to harm an agent knows something small about their life, but can not do very much because they can not get her name.<
>
<
>
This story was not reported for so long because it is completely irresponsible to report it at all in the light that it is being reported. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Rugen, <
>
<
>
I am a conservative and the thing that you seem to be missing in the quote you use is that what Rove did was nothing. I do not dispute that he used Valarie's name at that point, but he also referenced that he heard it from a reporter. Additionally, she had not been a covert-op for 9 years so... there is no issue with using her name. <
>
<
>
No victim here. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:The #1 rule of being a CIA operative is that no one is allowed to use their name.I am sure that John Le Carre or whoever that spy novel guy was might say that. Have you ever worked in the industry? Are you absolutely positive about this statement? From my tiny, trivial dealings with such things, I find this statement doubtful at best. Public characters can and do perform classified work under some sort of cover. <i></i>

Quote:Additionally, she had not been a covert-op for 9 years so... there is no issue with using her name. OK - let us assume that this is true. Then the President and his advisors moronic, since why would he care that a CIA employee without a cover was revealed to be a CIA employee working without a cover? Since the latter is not true, then I suspect that your statement is simplistic. <
>
<i></i>

"My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.<
>
<
>
http://www.nynewsday.com/news/na...-headlines <i></i>

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

Ahh well, I stand corrected. So Bush and his advisors are morons. Thank you, Mr. President, for being dim-witted enough to let this garbage propagate for months. Either that, or for being dim-witted enough to let your advidors lead you about by the nose, while this entire business was being milked for some clever political plan that we don't see yet, perhaps/<
>
<i></i>

Quote:The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.<
>
<
>
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH <i></i>

I'm not 100% sure, Berrew, but I think that I had read that the White House was told by the Prosecuting Attorney (in this case) to shut up about the case...<
>
<
>
Don't have time to search for a link right now. <i></i>

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

I am talking about Bush's initial comment about firing the person who revealed Valerie Plame. It takes an immensely dense and incompetant CIA director not to be on the ball about this one from the minute the smoke showed. It takes an even-more dense and clueless President not to ask the ovbious question.<
>
Or, of course, it takes an incredibly devious President/Cabinet who deliberately spreads misinformation for some clever reason that I don't get quite yet.<
>
<i></i>

Quote: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.<
>
<
>
That could mean Novak didn't blow her cover, or it could mean that the second he did blow her cover she wasn't a clandestine officer anymore. Given the source I'm thinking the second interpretation is what he was going for.<
>
<
>
Replace day with second and the second interpretation becomes much more clear. Take into consideration that the question was about something that happened the same day as the leak and the reason he used day instead of second is understandable.<
>
<
>
It's still not very clear, but it doesn't let Rove off the hook yet. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

<
>
In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."<
>
<
>
But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.<
>
<
>
If you didn't follow the link, there is some context for you. <i></i>

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

That's not context, that's someone explaining how things went, and not even doing it properly.<
>
<
>
This is context :<
>
<
>
transcripts.cnn.com/TRANS...
.01.html<
>
<
>
Quote:BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.<
>
<
>
What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.<
>
<
>
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.<
>
<
>
BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?<
>
<
>
WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department.<
>
<
>
The question is about a photo opp for Wilson.<
>
<
>
Not to mention, if she wasn't a clandestine officer at the time Novak's story appeared, how did he "blow her identity"? ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

Am I the only one who sees the irony in a homosexual making ignorant blanket statements about groups of people.<
>
<
>
Is bigotry and ignorance only intolerable when people attack you, Rugen? <i></i>

Well, is this all much ado about nothing? This is still in the court system, and officially hush hush. At this time, I think, the grand jury hasn't handed down any charges in this case have they? <i></i>

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

Quote:I am sure that John Le Carre or whoever that spy novel guy was might say that. Have you ever worked in the industry? Are you absolutely positive about this statement?<
>
<
>
I am 100% positive about my statement. One of my best friends from college joined the CIA, and then dissapeared for 5 years. When he came back he said he couldnt talk about it. I kinda knew what happened, so I asked him some questions about what the rules were for covert ops in the CIA, and he shared. So yea... I know. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:Well, is this all much ado about nothing? This is still in the court system, and officially hush hush. At this time, I think, the grand jury hasn't handed down any charges in this case have they?<
>
<
>
Welcome to the world of politics. Remember slick Willie's blow job in the oval office? Conservatives sure didn't wait for the facts there, heh.<
>
<
>
Granted, two wrongs don't make a right, but I have a hard time listening to conservatives say 'wait for the conviction' after the bull shit of Lewinskigate.<
>
<
>
Not that you were among them, I don't know if you were or not. ---------------------------------<
>
Burog Warrior of Oryx<i></i>

Quote:Conservatives sure didn't wait for the facts there, heh.<
>
<
>
I agree... many conservatives (me included) jumped the gun to early on this. Unfortunately there was no real way to research it at the time, unlike this case. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:<
>
Is bigotry and ignorance only intolerable when people attack you, Rugen?<
>
<
>
<
>
If the statement in question were an example of bigotry and intolerance, you'd have a point. As it is, you're shooting blanks.<
>
<
>
Please try again. <i></i>

Quote:I've just been very interested watching "conservatives" through this entire process. For a crowd that prides themselves on "strength" in character and action, by and large, they are adopting a victim stance that is amusing to watch, while they wait for the big wigs to start the marketing campaign to convince the average american that "Sure, Rove did it, but that's ok." <
>
<
>
Isn't this the statement you made Rugen? I think thats what is
ing reference. I don't take offense, but I rarely do. <
>
Chicks dig the ears.<
>
<
>
<i></i>

Quote:I agree... many conservatives (me included) jumped the gun to early on this. Unfortunately there was no real way to research it at the time, unlike this case.<
>
<
>
True, here at least we have some public record of some of what when on behind close doors. <i></i>

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

I rarely use quotes around specific words by accident. (ie, "conservatives") There's a reason for it. Sometimes I forget to place them there, even if I am thinking them, but that was not the case here. <i></i>