I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Psst! John Conyers wife is now fair game. Pass it on!
Conyers ROCKS!!!!!
Gotta love those democratic Michigan ongressmen. Now if only a few equally outraged republicans would follow his lead...
and congressmen too
"you were involved in a subsequent effort to push this classified information to other reporters and give it even wider currency"
what is this? Does he know something we don't? or is he merely forcing Rove to defend in public against Wilson's "allegations?"
The only decent and humane response to the resignation of Karl Rover will be: "GOOD RIDDANCE"
Frogmarch his ass out right of the White House. . .in handcuffs.
>what is this?
He's talking about the "fair game" calls.
Good letter.
For a mealy-mouthed "plague on all their houses" ... this matter is just unbelievably "complex," i.e., the administration has no defense so let's just give them a free pass, see Kristof in today's Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/1...ion/
11KRIS.html
Repost:
...Kristoff's column. Very informative, yet what a dick-head. He's got awesome sources and sheds much light on the truth behind the Valerie Plame scandal, but his attacks on Democrats for wanting a serious investigation, comparing such a pursuit to that of the Repugs in the past, distracts from the graveness of the offense committed, though he does afterward compare it with Ames' treason. He must believe he has more of a right to criticise than the Dems, and believes that an Ames level treason by the republicans should not be a scandal.
Maybe Henry Gonzales will now ask Dr. Robert G. Joseph about his role in all of this.
This is the same douchebag that went to Baghdad saying we should trust Saddam right?
Shit. Of course I meant Rep. Henry Gonzalez!
Did media-hyped black quarterback Condi ever get back to him regarding his letter to her?
Homer,
If it is, he's certainly got a better track record than all those douchebags who said we should trust Bush.
Conyers is colored, er, I mean a niggra, er, I mean African American. Therefore, he is practicing identity politics! Also, he is a Libral. Therefore he is partisan! And negative!
See how easy that is?
Love the letter, hate the punctuation. "[T]he journalist, Chris Matthews, [...]".
Besides being only a borderline journalist if one at all, Chris Matthews is neither the only journalist nor the archetypical journalist. Far better to have written "the journalist Chris Matthews" or simply "journalist Chris Matthews".
The only douchebag that went to Baghdad and entrusted Saddam with WMDs was Rumsfeld.
So where is Frank Wolf (R-VA 10th) who represents the CIA? Where is Senator Warner? George Allen????
John Conyers is a great American.
Last night on TV I saw a commercial for Serta, the one with a bunch of sheep in it, and Joe Wilson's name came up in it as I guess he is the next door neighbor of the guy in the commercial.
Do you think that a smoking gun?
Homer: while I agree with you it is not civil to call Mr. Rumsfeld a "douchebag". Why do you hate America?
It's even less civil to call a douchebag "Rumsfeld." Douchebags aren't murderous war-criminals.
As Penis Miller might say:
"To call Rumsfeld a douchebag would be an insult to bags filled with douche."
So, can anyone explain to me why Dr. Robert G. Joseph wasn't immediately fired when it was discovered that he had put the 16 words in the SOTU?
All you hear is "Hadley this, Hadley that..." but Joseph was named as Mr. 16 Words and is most likely the Spook-buster.
Why is the media so silent about him?
John Conyers email if anyone wants to show him some appreciation: john.conyers@mail.house.gov
Does this mean Conyers will get his office bugged too?
Dear sumwon,
Please shut the fuck up about Dr. Robert G. Joseph.
Love,
grytpype
56k - these are very dishonorable men. They would pimp their own mothers rather than go against Chimpy. I feel sorry for the rank and file CIA folks they are getting it from all directions.
frog-march (vt) : to seize from behind roughly and forcefully propel forward
Now that's what I'M talkin about.
grytpype -
As soon as the media starts looking at Dr. Robert G. Joseph and examining his possible role in Traitorgate - as well as the 16 words - I'll happily move on to another topic.
Until then, go fuck thyself.
Oh, and Atrios, I think it's spelled Roverer, with an umlaut over the 'o'.
As in "Karl Rove was frog-marched out the door."
"in handcuffs"
I think Homer is referring to "Baghdad Jim" McDermott who went with Rep. Bonior to Iraq last October.
This from an editorial that ran a few days later in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
"They said they would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted," McDermott said, referring to places where Iraq is suspected of storing or making weapons.
"And until they don't do that, there is no need to do this coercive stuff where you bring in helicopters and armed people and storm buildings."
The Iraqis could very well be feeding McDermott a line that he's buying too quickly.
But the congressman rightfully points out that once you start revving up the helicopters and storming buildings, the cost of war becomes so painfully real: U.S. soldiers come home in body bags.
That editorial is from October 1, 2002. So, Homer, who was right?
AnneW -
I just now sent my supportive e-mail to John Conyers, and I urge every other Eschaton regular (or newbie) to do the same.
Thanks, Anne, for posting Congressman Conyers' e-mail address and making this supportive gesture extremely easy for all of us to undertake.
I still say the leaker is Clinton's penis.
Phil laments the punctuation of Conyers' letter because the congressman wrote: "Recent reports indicate that you told the journalist, Chris Matthews, and perhaps others. . ." However, as Phil suggests, it's not certain that Matthews is a journalist at all, rather than merely an entertainer or a talking head. Therefore, you might read Conyers' letter as suggesting that Rove passed the story to at least 2 and possibily more people. To wit, Rove told:
1) the (unnamed)journalist
2) Chris Matthews
3) possibly others
Anne W:
That address doesn't work for me. Am I doing something wrong.
I want to send my support and ask for stronger action.
The last paragraph is laughable -- one needn't go back "over three decades" to find an administration that would "stop at nothing to smear and intimidate its critics."
It was 1998, and the president was Bill Clinton. It was Clinton's advisors, men like James Carville and Sid Blumenthal, who trashed anyone who came forward to disclose the vile actions of the president.
'Course, that didn't get played in the media the same way this has. Those disclosures were even substantiated...here we have a woman who is neither an "operative" nor "undercover" -- and yet people act like someone outed the Pope!
Shame on all of you. Get a plan and sell it to the voters, rather than attacking the good and decent people in the White House. Thank God the grownups are in charge now...
Mega-dittoes GOP blogger!
pssst, got any of that hillbilly heroin?
Nice of you to leave out the adjective from Conyers' letter, to wit, "truth-telling", from paragraph two.
Seventy million dollars wasted investigating a $100,000 LOSS in a land deal, and your beloved pres, such as he is, won't even ask his staff to sign an affidavit.
Get serious or go away.
FYI: "Substantiated" = possessing of merit. Truthful.
Get a dictionary, dimwit.
And, by the way, it's not a "leak" if it is general knowledge; it's also not illegal if it involves someone who is neither an "operative" nor "undercover."
GOP blogger, you've had a busy day here.
When we're talking about the Bushies, we're talking about serious crimes, sweetie.
But don't take my word for it. I trust that the CIA will explain it to you.
"Recent reports" seems a poor standard for making accusations.
Rape (Juanita Broderrick) is not a serious crime?
Obstruction of Justice is not a serious crime?
Perjury is not a serious crime?
I bow to you, "pie," if you can answer each of those with a straight face.
? (Proven?) Yes. and Yes. And soon, the Bushies will have to face the prospect of charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
Did I say Clinton was innocent? He personally behaved badly. He brought shame on himself, but he was an effective president. The world respected and admired him.
Bush's policies have dishonored and weakened us as a country. I'll patiently wait for all this to play out, because I know his downfall is inevitable.
The only decent and humane response to the resignation of Karl Rover will be: "GOOD RIDDANCE"
To which I'll add: "Don't let the door slam you in the ass on the way out. (Save that for your cellmate.)
I hope Conyers doesn't need to fly anywhere any time soon.
Fine. All's fair. Let's have exactly the same kind of investigation into this affair that we had into Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate and the lewinsky matter. (I leave out Broaddrick, Jones, Willey and the rest of the Glorious Mysteries of the Wingnut rosary because even Ken Starr thought them meritless.) Two independent counsels, and we get to fire the one who isn't giving us the answers that we want. Two House Committee investigations and two Senate investigations before we even get to the final impeachment thing.
Two independent counsels, and we get to fire the one who isn't giving us the answers that we want. Two House Committee investigations and two Senate investigations before we even get to the final impeachment thing.
What say you, GOP blogger?
I mean, are you interested in being fair and doing the right thing, or are you determined to win at all costs?
I hope you're happy. I am.
"Fear is the mind killer": see, you drew the penis flies. It's your fault. Clinton's penis is their sole biological niche, and they can sniff it out from miles away.
Hey guys, Clinton's penis is over at "Fear the mind killer"'s house right this minute! Swarm over there!
Dear nitwit,
Juanita Broaddrick: no contemporaneous proof or confirmation. Not to mention evidence, police report, etc. etc. etc. On March 30, 1998, Broaddrick entered into an affidavit denying that she had been raped.
Clinton was found not guilty on a charge of Obstruction of Justice, by a 50 -50 vote by the Senate. Remember?
Perjury was the other impeachment charge he was called to answer, and by a 55-45 vote the Senate rejected it.
Given the fat blowhard's problems right now, I don't think you're going to argue that being charged = guilt, now are you?
"It was Clinton's advisors, men like James Carville and Sid Blumenthal, who trashed anyone who came forward to disclose the vile actions of the president."
You really are too dim to live. No wonder you're a Republican. Back it up with facts or drop dead. And no, Juanita Broderick doesn't count, any more than John McCain's "black love child" counts. Someone in the Bush administration committed a federal felony by "outing" Valerie Plame -- that's a fact. That you can't find it in yourself to denounce such behavior shows the utter absence of a moral compass. I hope you don't have children.
GOP: Brodderick--no there, there. Obstruction of justice--didn't happen.
Perjury--nothing prosecutable.
The three GOP prosecutors (that's Three. GOP. Prosecutors.) came up dry, as the third one admitted in his report. Oh, and Vince Foster committed suicide. How did you miss that serious crime?
Rape (Juanita Broderrick) is not a serious crime?
Rape is a serious crime.
Juanita Broderrick?
Discredited. Recanted. Non-starter.
Obstruction of Justice is not a serious crime?
Obstruction of Justice is a serious crime.
Who was indicted and convicted? How many dollars did Kenneth Starr spend? How many convictions did he get?
Perjury is not a serious crime?
Perjury is a serious crime.
Who perjured? Do you have evidence the Special Prosecutor did not? Who was indicted? Who was convicted?
I bow to you ... if you can answer each of those with a straight face.
You needn't bow to anyone; just blow us all.
Oh, and have a nice day.
I do have one complaint about Conyers' letter: the Bushistas have definitely changed the tone in Washington--at least they have made the administration officeholders the ones who are shrill (sorry, Krenis) and obstructionist.
Just to close the loop for GOP Stalker oops I mean Blogger, it should also be mentioned that a number of former Federal Presecutors, including the Republican Governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, testified before the House of Represeantatives that the charges against Clinton did not hold legal water. The vote to bring them of course passed on a party-line vote.
So fuck you, and the horse you rode in on. You might want to start getting your news from sources other than Rushbo, since it looks like he's hoist on the petard of his own hypocrisy and lying, for the foreseeable future.
And by the way, GOP blogger, the outing of a CIA operative is extremely serious. Yes, more serious than a blowjob. But it seems the repubs control both houses. It's going to take longer to get to the bottom of this because of stonewalling by the White House and its base. Don't give me that crap that nothing illegal occurred. We both know better.
What's most important here? I'd like you to answer that.
GOP:
I never said the Clinton accusations weren't "substantiated" or truthful, though most were wildly exaggerated. I merely pointed out that you failed to include the adjective in the current case.
Come back when you've learned to read.
Why, exactly, is the CIA so upset if Ms. P. was simply a desk jockey? Your assertion that it was widely-known that she was/is CIA has been "discredited". Your thesaurus should show that as an antonym of "truthful", "substantiated".
Zizka: You may have misunderstood. Let me clarify:
I think Karl Rove, Bush's Brain, might also be Clinton's penis! That would explain a lot. For example, why Bush is such a dickhead...
http://www.gwbush04.com/
Well, GOP Blogger has disappeared. Why? Is he so insecure about his position that he can't defend it?
pie,
Light always makes the roaches run.
To GOP Blogger, if you're still logged on (I missed your "pearls of wisdom" earlier because I was eating a delicious dinner of crabcakes):
The GOP claims to care more about America's security than the Democrats. Valerie Plame, undercover agent was exposed by someone in the Bush White House, thereby not only compromising her but the nation's security in general. How exactly is this an example of Bush et al. making us all safer from terrorists? If it doesn't make us safer, and maybe makes us a wee bit unsafer, can the GOP continue to make this claim?
I'm just curious.
Here's the killer graf from an article TPM is linking to....
"The background on an agent typically is not common knowledge," said a U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Whoever leaked (the information) probably wasn't supposed to have access to it."
I've had this sneaking suspicion all along. Remember when some Clinton flunky got his hands on a bunch of FBI files? Well, Rove has HIS pudgy little hands on CIA covert files. And, remember, his every thought is political. Worse? You can't handle worse.
Re -- Kristof's column today:
Time and again Kristof feels compelled to insert a "to be sure" "evenhanded" sop to Bush in his op-ed pieces. I think it's because he's scared to be labelled "Krugman II". Maybe he still thinks he has White House sources that he doesn't want to piss off. (Maybe he was one of the six journalists who got the Plame story.)
Look over most of his articles in the last year-- e.g., In one, he faulted Bush's seriousness for a whole article, then said he was serious about at least one issue -- stem cell research, not pointing out that Bush was lying about "60" lines.
From Talking Points Memo
Leak of CIA officers leaves trail of damage
By Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - It's just a 12-letter name - Valerie Plame - but the leak by Bush administration officials of that CIA officer's identity may have damaged U.S. national security to a much greater extent than generally realized, current and former agency officials say.
Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush critic Joseph Wilson, was a member of a small elite-within-an-elite, a CIA employee operating under "nonofficial cover," in her case as an energy analyst, with little or no protection from the U.S. government if she got caught.
Training agents such as Plame, 40, costs millions of dollars and requires the time-consuming establishment of elaborate fictions, called "legends," including in this case the creation of a CIA front company that helped lend plausibility to her trips overseas.
Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, whose name has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, formerly the agency's chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis.
Now the GOP cockroach is gone, let's start thinking of the future.
What are we gonna do if the Repugs stonewall? 'Cause players, you know they will. Cheney gave a good example this week talking about Iraq.
If Justice won't appoint a special prosecutor, exactly what are our options?
If Rove just laughs at Conyers, what can Conyers do?
Korporate Amerika doesn't want to see the Party shook up, and their media controls the thoughts of about half of the people out there. Where's the outrage? Here? Fine.
In the Hon. J. Conyers office? Bravo.
How do we get the blue collar masses thinking about frog marching RoveCo out of the White House?
This is kinda like Elliot Ness writing a letter to Al Capone asking him to stop his criminal ways. How long are we going to keep our head in the sand. The only way to remove these crooks is by force. We are under the control of a dictator and the Republican Party are his SS.
Josh Prophet, someone on the latest thread (Return of Big Government) is suggesting a similar solution. I'd like to think there's a step or two between where we are now and "force." But I can't honestly think of anything. How f*cking sad.
I'm a 16 year old California girl, and I've been follwing this whole Bush Administration mess from day one. I'm a Democrat in a sea of Republicans at my school, and we have debates all the time. I enjoy blowing my fellow students and even teachers away with all of the unseen hypocrisies in our government. So help me out here, I need some ammo. Is anyone going to be tried for treason in all of this? And if not what kind of example is this setting for my generation?
Is anyone going to be tried for treason in all of this?
It's unlikely
And if not what kind of example is this setting for my generation?
A bad one. We tried to do better, those of us like me, who remember and fought against Vietnam. We failed. I hope you can do better.
Kristoff's column got one thing right.
We in journalism are also wrong, I think, to extend professional courtesy to Robert Novak, by looking beyond him to the leaker. True, he says he didn't think anyone would be endangered. Working abroad in ugly corners of the world, American journalists often learn the identities of American C.I.A. officers, but we never publish their names. I find Mr. Novak's decision to do so just as inexcusable as the decision of administration officials to leak it.
Everyone needs to continue to email or write creators syndicate, the Chicago Sun-Times and CNN to have him fired for treason.
He may not be liable under the law, but his job requires public support. Your silence supports him.
Even if the criminal investigation goes nowhere, there is still the civil suit possibility. Hell, maybe even Larry Klayman will find a way to sue, like he's doing on the energy meetings. (BTW -- why was it up to a nut like Klayman to pursue that -- where's the Dem. version?)
The Courts are not yet packed with right wingers, and (below the Supremes) a civil suit could cause problems.
And the Dem. candidates have to pound the issue now and through the campaign, especially if they stonewall the investigation. The issue apparently resonsates with the public, which must be reminded of the damages caused solely for the sake of vengeance.
Dr. Pedant ~ Thanks for the insight. My father is also a Vietnam Vet. I can still remeber being a little girl and asking my mom 'is today was the day my daddy would die?'. He was exposed to Agent Orange, and was almost killed because of it. Hes a great role model for me, hes out there fighting this war too, at least in the sence of writing letters to newspapers, and raising hell with congressmen. Looks like we gotta tough this out together and make sure that BushCO is gone in 04.
I like how GOP Blogger vanished. What a fool.
I've been waiting for a REAL GOP member who isn't a wingnut to show up on these boards for a chat or three, but we only seem to get the idiots who can't see past the tip of Clinton's penis.
CAgirl16
Be very, very careful. You doubtless have your name on somebody's list who will try to wreck your future. You need to keep up the good fight; but don't expect any kind of reasonable rational response from the teachers you have to fight against. Look for allies, and don't try to alienate casually. Of course, some people you have to alienate- never give a toad anything but a frogmarch.
And never ask for a recommendation from an antagonistic teacher!
Also, try to find out the facts. Don't trust the Democrats, either. Or anyone you meet in cyberspace, including these pages. Follow out the data: and where you can not view the facts with your own eyes, get as many views as you can and look very, very carefully at the people who try to give you the hardest sell.
Read Al Franken's books.
Read Greg Palast's books.
Read Molly Ivin's books.
Read and try to understand Paul Krugman's books. Even his textbook, when and if you have the right tools.
It's easy to see the hypocrisy around you. If you want to change it, it's fundamentally important you try to understand who the people are that originate the hypocrisy and exactly what they're trying to accomplish with it. But don't expect to change too many people- I'm convinced most of us really, really don't want to know what is going down!
Yes, like the pResident, whose brain IS Clinton's penis.
CAGirl: An addition to Kelley's reading list: Big Lies by Joe Conason. Also, subscribe to Salon.com. Good luck. Sorry my generation f*cked up, but we tried!
Rick B--I keep waiting for one of the Capital Gang to slam Novak in an Outrage of the Week. "My outrage is that CNN hasn't fired this lying whore with an acute case of 'Short Man's Syndrome' for his vindictive collusion with traitors in the White House...." I mean Capital Gang is showbiz, and this would be a good plot twist, no?
Thanks for all the advice everyone, and I'll definately try to add those books to my reading list. I've got my library card handy. But tonight's date night, and I'm outta here. We'll have to talk again!
I'm confused--California Girl is sixteen, but she remembers worrying about her father dying in VietNam?
Did I miss something?
Nah Chunky, I think it's the rest of us who missed something.
Hello there, Califor---uh, I mean Mr. Ashcroft.
That was very amusing.
What--me making a fool of myself? Stop by tomorrow, chances are you'll see the same thing.
Chunky:
almost dying of Agent Orange is something soldiers did quite a long time after the Vietnam War was over.
I noticed the age discrepancy, too, with CAGirl. If she's legit, then she was referring to the after-effects of Agent Orange, not to combat. Read her post again. I'm still suspicious.
You're hardly a fool, Dr. Pedant. You were trying to help somebody.
It is ambiguous. Guess all those OxyContins I've been popping have made me paranoid.
I tended to give CAGirl the benefit of the doubt. I mean, if "she"'s some old perv posing as a teenage girl, this is hardly the most rewardingly erotic site for it. But who knows these old pervs--maybe the CAGirl persona has taken over completely and "she" is ordering Tori Amos CDs on Amazon this moment....
Well, lo and behold, I finally get a chance to catch up, start reading the comments, and come across CAgirl...my daughter!!! I was cooking dinner and I thought she was chatting with her friends! And my daughter was two when her dad, my husdand, was diagnosed with major health issues related to his exposure to Agent Orange in Viet Nam. It took years to figure out what was wrong with him and we just returned this week from a trip to the transplant unit at the VA hospital in SF. The fact that Bush was a deserter pissed her off and she has been following this administration closely. It's a big topic of discussion in her AP classes and I just got an email from one of her teachers complimenting her on her thoughtful contibutions. The Plame story caught her eye and she is the one who brought it up in class. She also worries about all the kids left at home whose parent may not come back. She knows she's one of the lucky ones.
So to all of you who responded, thanks.
DAMN YOU KARL RO -- I MEAN CALIFORNIA GIRL 16!!
Wow -- a guy steps out to eat a little dinner and get some work done, and he's called a cockroach.
I also don't have a tie on, because I've been working on my house; not playing Smart Guy on the computer in my room in my parents' basement.
If V.P. was so undercover, why not use her cover to deny the "outing"? Boy, she's some spy! All she had to say is "These claims that I'm a spy are ridiculous -- everyone knows I work for the ______________," and it all goes away. But NO, instead she and her hubby see movie and book rights, and political hay to make, and _support_ the assertion. This essentially confirms what could have plausibly been denied.
If she's an operative, my name is Chelsea...and I was an UGLY 13-year old.
Ciao!
I just read some more posts...CAgirl is not an imposter, just a very worried teenager. I don't post here often so my name might not be familiar either. I ususally hang out at dKos. My daughter regularly checks out my favorites list, and "Eschaton" is listed.
If I'm interpreting GOP Blogger's argument correctly, committing a crime is OK as long as the victim keeps it out of the newspapers.
Not at all.
I'm responding to the hysteria over her "cover" being "blown" (for the sake of argument, I'll assume that 1. She was an operative and not an analyst and 2. She was undercover).
The CIA's purpose in giving people "covers" is to provide its operatives with an ability to deny that they are employed by the CIA, as well as providing the government with the ability to deny that a given person is a spy.
Here's how it applies:
- VP is "outed."
- VP says "I'm not a spy -- that's preposterous. I work for the US Department of Energy. See, here are my credentials."
- US Gov't says "VP isn't a CIA employee -- she works for the Dept. of Energy."
- No one has proof she's a spy, and issue goes away.
NOW, THAT SAID, I agree that if someone leaked this information, and it is true that she is an operative (NOT AN ANALYST) and was undercover, a crime was committed. Those are a lot of "if's" and I'm not confident that a bunch of pimply peaceniks (who for the other 51 weeks a year hate the CIA and everything it stands for) blogging from their parents' basements know more than, say, the US Dept. of Justice or the CIA.
GOP Blogger...I don't think you could play Smart Guy anywhere!
Is GOP Booger for real, or is he just parodying the stupidity of Bushbot talking points? How the hell could Plame have denied her status once BushCo had outed her? You don't get clandestine cover back any more easily than you get virginity back. Booger also says upthread that Dems are acting as if the Pope had been outed, showing he has zero comprehension of what an analogy is. It isn't secret that the Pope is the Pope. The analogy would only make sense if the Pope is a CIA agent. Which would be news, I admit. Booger can't think straight or tell the truth about anything; I just hope his "Ciao" is the first accurate thing he's ever said
GOP Blogger, you're describing "official cover." Valerie Plame is said to have been under non-official cover. This occurs when an operative's position is such that they can not be said to be working for the United States Government in any capacity.
Just a nitpick. I'm glad you agree that President Bush's top men have committed a serious, treasonous crime.
Well, for one, Kimo proves my point -- you all resort to the personal attacks instead of responding to the argument made.
Next: I may not have been clear enough for you, Draco, but my statement referring to "outing" the Pope was meant to refer to a sudden and surprise claim that the Pope was gay. Does that make sense now? I apologize for using "outed" in two ways in the same sentence. My thought was that context provided enough meaning, I guess I was wrong.
See ya!
GOP: No ifs ands or buts about it, you got nuthin.' Your own White House senior administration official said his own colleagues revealed her identity for political revenge. The CIA demanded an investigation. Your precious AG says he will investigate. Gosh, even your precious President Bush says he'd like to know the truth.
Where are your ``ifs''?
Go read up on NOC, non-offical cover.
Come back when you understand the difference between an agent who works under offical cover and can say "I work for the governemnt," and one who is deeper than that.
Hey, blockhead -- Your Pope analogy only works if for "outed" you mean "shoved out of that particular closet," and in this case, by his (the Pope's) gay lover, presumably by being caught in flagrante delicto with him. That's basically the scope of the Plame "outing." When the person most in the position to know whether something is really true or not (being a wingnut, the only kind of argument from authority you may be familiar with is an Ad Verecundiam fallacy, but that's an improper authority...but I digress) gives confirmation one way or the other, it's generally considered to be true. In this case, that means Plame doesn't have any more "plausible deniability" left, because the people who "outed" her were the proper authorities on her actual status.
I realize this must be hard for you to grok, and I don't think anyone here is a fan of the CIA in particular, but scandal is scandal, especially when it's most likely treason, too.
GOP Booger, you hopeless dumbfuck, your analogy still doesn't make sense, since outing the Pope as a queer would show his hypocrisy railing against queers at every opportunity, often with no provocation. There's no parallel to blowing the cover of a CIA operative supposedly working for US security, where lying about CIA status is part of the job. The Pope shouldn't lie about being queer; CIA undercover operatives lie about their status by definition. Get it? GET IT, you loathesome ultra-moron? Ciao already. Ciao, goddam you. Ciao, a thousand times Ciao. And look up "analogy" while you're Ciaoing. Cockroach--hahaha
Tit for tat GOP - "...not playing Smart Guy on the computer in my parents' basement." Get your facts straight once again...CAgirl is, a girl. And she's not playing...GOP'ers like you scare the hell out of her! She's deadly serious and deeply offended by criminal acts being swept under the carpet. Fine example for the next generation.
i would prefer Bushit brain was nabbed closer to the convention. lots of upheaval to stir things up.
Rape (Juanita Broderrick) is not a serious crime?
Obstruction of Justice is not a serious crime?
Perjury is not a serious crime?
I bow to you, "pie," if you can answer each of those with a straight face.
Okay then, GOP Blogger, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You're RIGHT ON BOARD for: an independent inquiry, lengthy as need be, and at the taxpayer's expense, 24/7 coverage of each revelation, and, of course, impeachment.
RIGHT?
Or, are you just a trolling, partisan piece of crap?
Yes, I thought you might be.
GOP Blogger, the President has stated that the leaking of Plame's name was, indeed, a serious leak. Are you disagreeing with the President? Why do you hate America?
Letter to Nicholas Kristoff re Oct. 11 column
Mr. Kristoff,
I have been a great admirier of your columns until today. I am feeling betrayed by your defense of the Bush administration. You probably deny that it is a defense, but belittling the need for a special counsel in light of Ashcroft and Bush's close ties to Karl Rove - is not productive.
Any ammunition you provide for Bush & Co. is treason (even though you may consider it your journalistic duty to be"even-handed" and you obviously pride yourself in that). It is treason because you are aiding an enemy that gives no quarter to either opposition or the truth. This country is in great danger of totally losing the ability to effectively protest; through the media, the courts, the congress monopoly and turncoat democrats who support the administration.
Can you not err by omission? Must you use your awesome powers as one of the best investigative journalists around who has a true international perspective - to help Bush cover up the one incident that might provide a chink in his armor? Do you really want to contribute to four more years of destroying dissent, the environment, the separation of powers, democracy itself?
The Republicans don't need your help. To be nakedly partisan: we do: desperately!
You probably are indignant that anyone would ask you to "compromise." But when the enemy is always "right" and has the greatest "might" in the world - and doesn't know the meaning of the word "compromise" do you give him an advantage?
Think David and Goliath. If you were David would you pull your punches?
If someone leaked this information,
The information is public. How do you think it got that way?
and it is true that she is an operative (NOT AN ANALYST)
This was reported by Novak and confirmed by the CIA
and was undercover,
Also confirmed by the CIA.
a crime was committed.
I'm glad you agree.
Frog-March
Definition:
1. [v] carry someone against his will upside down such that each limb is held by one person
2.[v] march a person against his will by any method
Definition 2 is nice, but 1 would be OH SO SWEET!
algol
CAgirl:
All the proposed reading material ROCKS, I can't add anything there except Michael Moore. I would also add Moore's films, especially "Roger & Me" because of its prescience.
BUT
Sometimes the left can be as hysterical as they right. Not very often, but sometimes. There are good conservatives and bad liberals. Read EVERYTHING with a grain of salt, remember Occam's Razor, and most of all, don't go digging for tinfoil hat stuff when you can get the dirt on the powers that be just by reading what they did that day. The best clandestine stuff is happening right in the open.
I live in Congressman Sensenbrenner's district who Conyer's sent a copy of his request that Rove resign. I can assure you the Milwaukee Republican representative who was a Clinton impeachment manager will save Conyer's letter in the event he should run out of toilet paper.
That said, I am very grateful to Conyer's for putting Rove right in the spotlight where he belongs for this most dispicable act of political Mc Carthyist assination of a totally uninvolved spouse. Even if she were not a covert agent the whole thing should be condemned by all professional journalists, politicians, and government officials.
CAGirl and others,
The internet is a great tool. But don't take people like GOP Blogger too seriously. I'm sure you don't let their phony arguments inform your view of fundamental issues. You should also be careful not to let what they say distort your view of real live conservatives.
There are a lot of "trolls" out there who will say just about anything to get a rise out of people. It doesn't mean they actually think that way. So although there are some over-the-top left-wing and right-wing comments here, they don't necessarily represent the considered view of anyone in particular... it's more likely some teenage or college-age prankster.
p.s. if you really want to be well informed, seek out opposing viewpoints from intelligent people and in different media. (blogs, newspapers, heck, even tv)
There is plenty of room for disagreement among reasonable people. If you spend too much time in one crowd, even if you agree with them a lot, you are shortchanging yourself.
Too easy, on the Clinton's not guilty crowd.
He settled the harassment suit with $. He was disbarred in Arkansas. Starr did not find the charges meritless -- that is an overinterpretation. It is in fact so overinterpreted as to be dishonest. If charged does not equal guilty, then also remember that not guilty does not equal innocent.
The fix was in in the Senate. Trent Lott had already decided it wasn't going to go through, and saved Clinton's butt. That's the assessment of the Democratic activist lawyers who worked on the Starr report.
then also remember that not guilty does not equal innocent.
Umm. By the nature of the laws we live with, yes, it does.
"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't just a pithy phrase.
Trent Lott had already decided it wasn't going to go through, and saved Clinton's butt.
Why?
Village Idiot is well named, methinks. Although Village Confabulator might be even better.
Consider: A woman is raped, and knows for certain who the attacker is. He is found not guilty. Does she, or her friends and family, have to regard him as innocent? Of course not. The law must regard him as innocent, but there is no social obligation on anyone's part to do the same. Thus, President Clinton cannot be officially regarded as anything but innocent. He would not be automatically out of consideration for a judicial or diplomatic post, for example. But anyone voting on his confirmation could legally and morally take his previous actions into consideration.
In similar fashion, this Wilson thing might turn out to be officially not a crime because some part of the action does not exactly fit the statute -- whether Ms. Plame has served overseas in the last five years, for example. The culprit might then be officially not guilty in terms of the law -- but W would have every right to fire him (or her) over the incident.
"Innocent until proven guilty" has a specific meaning, but people often expand it improperly to cover other situations.
I am mildly puzzled that the insistence on a single interpretation of the Clinton scandals continues to be of such importance to liberals. To deviate even slightly from the mantra that it was All About Sex, and the result of years of attempted persecution for nonexistent or unimportant events still inspires rage. Something deeper than mere belief in a favorite politician's innocence seems to be at stake here.
Oh, I missed it.
Dr. Pedant, "confabulate" has a specific meaning. It is not a synonym for "lying." You may have to change your handle.
Go read up on NOC, non-offical cover.
Come back when you understand the difference between an agent who works under offical cover and can say "I work for the governemnt," and one who is deeper than that.
I am mildly puzzled that the insistence on a single interpretation of the Clinton scandals continues to be of such importance to liberals.
Let me put it this way: it's not the hate, it's the hypocrisy.
I don't care that Republicans hate Clinton. He did several things I didn't approve of, and a couple of things I can't forgive him for until he apologizes (*cough*DOMA*cough*)...
But what bothers us liberals (you know, people like Jefferson, Franklin, and their wacko leftist cohorts) is that Republicans don't seem to feel compelled to uphold these standards with their own.
They persistently hounded Clinton from the day he took office, finally attempting to impeach him for lying about something immaterial to the case at hand.
Now, we have a serious accusation aimed at the Bush regime, coming from within the government itself, and so many of the same people who harassed Clinton don't even seem to care that two people working in the White House have been accused of treason.
I'm in favor of finding out whether a crime was committed.
Then, will we get an apology from all of you when nothing happened? If you're so concerned with "being above the fray," I'm sure you'll do so.
Then, will we get an apology from all of you when nothing happened?
To say "when nothing happened" implies your presumption that no crime has been committed.
The CIA's own analysis is at odds with that perception, however, and this is why they asked DOJ for an investigation.
They have concluded that a crime was committed, and the next thing to find out is who did it.
If the White House is completely uninvolved in this incident, Bush could easily ask everyone on his staff whether they had anything to do with it. He could, but he refuses to do so. Why do you suppose that is? Is he that incurious? Does he just not care that a high-ranking administration official has accused two people on his own staff of treason?
Don't feel compelled to uphold these standards on their own...
Well that's the frequent accusation. I think Democrats really, really want it to be true. But look at the resignations in the face of scandal on the Republican side. That's what we expect, and we get it. It is growing clearer to me what is happening on this site. By and large, you create cartoon conservatives and then criticize them. I don't think many of you have grasped how easy that is to do about any political group, and how pointless it is. Centris and conservative responses to Clinton, to Bush, to Ahnold, to a hundred people, are quite varied and fairly consistent from scandal to scandal, accusation to accusation. This characterization of monolithic response allows you to quote two sources from the right which disagree and claim they are being hypocritical.
As to CIA cover: I didn't know the language for any distinctions of operating cover until a few weeks ago, and neither did any of you. But you now declaim forcefully on what you claim is obvious. It's not obvious. It's what you've been fed to think.
By and large, you create cartoon conservatives and then criticize them.
And here I've been complaining the Bush regime made satire redundant.
Dear Mr. Conyers,
Only three years ago "our nation was scarred by an Administration that would stop at nothing to smear and intimidate its critics". Of course, that pack of liars were excused, since of course liberals profess no morals and are thus not expected to have morals. Much like you, you freedom hating socialist piece of garbage. Shame on the people of your state for voting you into office. You are a bad reflection on them.
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
