I think the sh*t just hit the fan...

[YeLLowBoaT]

Aide takes the 5th... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fired_prosecutors)
The wolfs have already been circling, I think the 1st vulture just landed.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

What do you guess the crime is? NOBODY is accusing one.:idea:
Congress is trying to "investigate", a non-crime, in an area they are not entitled to investigate, because it is an area of consitutionally separated power that they have no ability to legislate on. Congress is way out of it's bounds issuing subpoenas for something they have no authority to force testimony in, in an area of law that they have no ability to legislate on.
Tell me what foul was done, by the president firing people who worked for him, as long as he liked them to work for him. He is authorized to fire a political appointee any time he wants, for any reason he desires, work performance, ability, or wrong fingernail polish color or trim length.
It is step 3 in the chess match congressional democrats want to play. 1 Bush cabinet aide has already been convicted of a bad memory, over a NON-CRIME, who the hell in their right mind would ALLOW such a fishing expedition?
You cannot fail to answer the subpoena, without being in contempt, but you CAN fail to say a damn thing, that you just might get in the wrong order, and get jailed on a bad memory, over a NON-CRIME.
Heard about this yesterday, and I applaud the stand.
Now, explain why she SHOULD testify in the above situation instead of telling congress "bite me".

[YeLLowBoaT]

Well it looks like there is a crime some where to me... by taking her 5th ammendment rights, she is ether refusing to incriminate herself by testifing or she is taking the 5th to not testify for another reason... which would be contemp and/or obstruction of justice and etc...
So there is a crime.
Also I have yet to see anywhere in case law or the constitution where it says they can't do what they are doing.( kind of fuzzy on the case law... its been a long time since I have had polsci) In artical one section 8 it does say they have the power to:
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court
No where in section 9 ( limiting of congresses powers) does it say they can't do what they are doing.
Then again, it would not shock me at all this does go to the supreme court and case law is made over this.

[Old Texan]

Well it looks like there is a crime some where to me... by taking her 5th ammendment rights, she is ether refusing to incriminate herself by testifing or she is taking the 5th to not testify for another reason... which would be contemp and/or obstruction of justice and etc...
So there is a crime.
Also I have yet to see anywhere in case law or the constitution where it says they can't do what they are doing.( kind of fuzzy on the case law... its been a long time since I have had polsci) In artical one section 8 it does say they have the power to:
No where in section 9 ( limiting of congresses powers) does it say they can't do what they are doing.
Then again, it would not shock me at all this does go to the supreme court and case law is made over this.
After reading the article I would be more inclined to believe there is a witch hunt going on rather than a crime. Aides are being advised by their lawyers not to testify in order to avoid being scapegoats at the end of another factless probe intended only to tear apart the Whitehouse in the media.
I fear we are presently immersed in the biggest political muckraking expedition in the nation's history. Heap the blame on Bush, but it becomes more evident the real blame and shame goes to the Leahys, Schumers, and Murthas. These folks are playing politics when they should be doing the jobs the were elected to do.

[Bow Tie Omega]

After reading the article I would be more inclined to believe there is a witch hunt going on rather than a crime. Aides are being advised by their lawyers not to testify in order to avoid being scapegoats at the end of another factless probe intended only to tear apart the Whitehouse in the media.
I fear we are presently immersed in the biggest political muckraking expedition in the nation's history. Heap the blame on Bush, but it becomes more evident the real blame and shame goes to the Leahys, Schumers, and Murthas. These folks are playing politics when they should be doing the jobs the were elected to do.
You guys, it is real simple. This is simply retribution for the Clinton Impeachment. They believe that President Bush perpetrated a crime by firing those attorneys, although every President in recent history has done this exact thing. Pelosi was asked if Impeachment of the President was an option, her response................"Absolutely"!

[ULTRA26 # 1]

What do you guess the crime is? NOBODY is accusing one.:idea:
Congress is trying to "investigate", a non-crime, in an area they are not entitled to investigate, because it is an area of consitutionally separated power that they have no ability to legislate on. Congress is way out of it's bounds issuing subpoenas for something they have no authority to force testimony in, in an area of law that they have no ability to legislate on.
Tell me what foul was done, by the president firing people who worked for him, as long as he liked them to work for him. He is authorized to fire a political appointee any time he wants, for any reason he desires, work performance, ability, or wrong fingernail polish color or trim length.
It is step 3 in the chess match congressional democrats want to play. 1 Bush cabinet aide has already been convicted of a bad memory, over a NON-CRIME, who the hell in their right mind would ALLOW such a fishing expedition?
You cannot fail to answer the subpoena, without being in contempt, but you CAN fail to say a damn thing, that you just might get in the wrong order, and get jailed on a bad memory, over a NON-CRIME.
Heard about this yesterday, and I applaud the stand.
Now, explain why she SHOULD testify in the above situation instead of telling congress "bite me".
Smokin,
It's perjury when it relates to sexual matters and a "bad memory" when it relates to a matter involving national security. Per Rove, Plame was "fair game" Per Fitzgerald's investigation, that is yet to be determined.
How about the truth? Doesn't the truth matter? Oh I forgot, anything but the truth these days is just a "bad memory" Please!
The sh*t has just begun to hit the fan, and everyone is running for cover.
John M

[Schiada76]

You guys, it is real simple. This is simply retribution for the Clinton Impeachment. They believe that President Bush perpetrated a crime by firing those attorneys, although every President in recent history has done this exact thing. Pelosi was asked if Impeachment of the President was an option, her response................"Absolutely"!
They "believe" no such thing. What they believe is the MSM will give any attempt to smear the administration as much coverage as they want.
What's the crime?

[wsuwrhr]

ding
ding
ding
These folks are playing politics when they should be doing the jobs the were elected to do.

[Bow Tie Omega]

They "believe" no such thing. What they believe is the MSM will give any attempt to smear the administration as much coverage as they want.
What's the crime?
There is no crime. They(The Bush Administration) did nothing wrong. And the Dems will believe what ever suits their needs. And if saying that attorneys were fired unjustly suits their needs, then that is what they believe, to hell if it is the truth or not. Mark my words, this is about retribution. I have heard the term impeachment 3 times in on hour. Prior to Clinton being impeached, the last time we had heard that term was during the Nixon Administration, and then the Legislative Branch had a legitimate gripe.

[Bow Tie Omega]

They "believe" no such thing. What they believe is the MSM will give any attempt to smear the administration as much coverage as they want.
What's the crime?
There is no crime. They(The Bush Administration) did nothing wrong. And the Dems will believe what ever suits their needs. And if saying that attorneys were fired unjustly suits their needs, then that is what they believe, to hell if it is the truth or not. Mark my words, this is about retribution. I have heard the term impeachment 3 times in on hour. Prior to Clinton being impeached, the last time we had heard that term was during the Nixon Administration.
This is the new play book for winning the presidency, in their eyes anyways.

[redneckcharlie]

This whole thing is a joke! Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. So when is Clinton and his aides going under oath to answer why that administration fired over 90 US Attorneys? If someone broke the law, present it to a grand jury and indict them. Otherwise, get your ass back to the job you were hired to do!:mad:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Seems we will all find out soon enough what has been going on. My guess is that it is far deeper than just "bad memories".
JM

[Schiada76]

Well I'm sure there is some kind of crime being commited here because well there just has to be right?
I mean those damn Bushies have got to be covereing something up and the best way to do it is fire the attorneys that know exactly what the crime/crimes are because then there would be no way in hell those guys would go and tell the world all the facts about the Bush syndicates crimes because we all know getting fired doesn't get anyone pissed off right?
That's why all the fired attorney's have been subpoenaed to testify against that damn Bush right? They have been supoenaed haven't they?:idea: :rolleyes:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Seems we will all find out soon enough what has been going on. My guess is that it is far deeper than just "bad memories".
JM
Yep. It's politics. Tying up the executive branch with frivolous hearings etc is an old tactic, that both parties have used when they control the legislature and the opposition has the executive branch. The Bush Administration should have been prepaired for it and they should not have flinched in their response. They really need to get some better PR people.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Well I'm sure there is some kind of crime being commited here because well there just has to be right?
I mean those damn Bushies have got to be covereing something up and the best way to do it is fire the attorneys that know exactly what the crime/crimes are because then there would be no way in hell those guys would go and tell the world all the facts about the Bush syndicates crimes because we all know getting fired doesn't get anyone pissed off right?
That's why all the fired attorney's have been subpoenaed to testify against that damn Bush right? They have been supoenaed haven't they?:idea: :rolleyes:
You're talking as if you are 2 years old. Bush is no more immune to basic political BS than any of those before him. If Bush or his folks have been less than truthful, you and I have the right to know. Little difference to what the Rep's did to Clinton. Witch hunt? Maybe or maybe not. I for one would like to know. In your world that makes me an ignorant, lib, hyrocrite, POS, right?
JM

[Bow Tie Omega]

You're talking as if you are 2 years old. Bush is no more immune to basic political BS than any of those before him. If Bush or his folks have been less than truthful, you and I have the right to know. Little difference to what the Rep's did to Clinton. Witch hunt? Maybe or maybe not. I for one would like to know. In your world that makes me an ignorant, lib, hyrocrite, POS, right?
JM
Everyone has a right to know what is going on in their goverment, no matter their party affiliation. BUt if we are going to get on the Bush Administration about this, then we better drag up why the Clinton Administration did it, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter and so-on and so-on. I want to know why all of them did this exact same thing and why nobody had an issue with it in the past.

[Schiada76]

You're talking as if you are 2 years old. Bush is no more immune to basic political BS than any of those before him. If Bush or his folks have been less than truthful, you and I have the right to know. Little difference to what the Rep's did to Clinton. Witch hunt? Maybe or maybe not. I for one would like to know. In your world that makes me an ignorant, lib, hyrocrite, POS, right?
JM
No, ignoring the facts paint the picture of who you are.
You missed my point in the above post.
If there was any crime committed the fired prosecuters would be the first to speak up. Why haven't they? Why haven't they been forced to testify, or have they?
If there is anything to know they would know it, until they speak up it's nothing more than a partisan witch hunt supported by MSM.
Why do you suppose we haven't heard from them?:rolleyes:
As far as being immune to basic political BS what does that have to do with the facts? I try to deal in the truth, in fact, not feelings or beliefs. If there was a crime prosecute it, hell just name it, they haven't done that either.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Everyone has a right to know what is going on in their goverment, no matter their party affiliation. BUt if we are going to get on the Bush Administration about this, then we better drag up why the Clinton Administration did it, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter and so-on and so-on. I want to know why all of them did this exact same thing and why nobody had an issue with it in the past.
IMO the attorney firing is being used as a means to ask other questions, where it is believed, Bush and/or his people have lied. Citing the facts as being "a bad memory" about a "non crime" with regard to Libby's recent guilty verdict, is unacceptable in my book. If it is believed that wrong doing has occurred, within the administration, I believe that any public official or aide should be required to submit to an examination under oath. The only time testifying under oath is problem is when there is something to hide. Again, the truth isn't about the quality of one's memory.
As I commented earlier, the sh*t is beginning to hit the fan and the peeps around our Pres are running for cover.
We all we see how this plays out.
JM

[Moneypitt]

This whole thing is a joke! Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. So when is Clinton and his aides going under oath to answer why that administration fired over 90 US Attorneys? If someone broke the law, present it to a grand jury and indict them. Otherwise, get your ass back to the job you were hired to do!:mad:
Yep, what he said. If there was a crime indict who ever was responsible, period. Our Constitution does not allow fishing expeditions without probable cause. If there is probable cause, arrest someone!!! I'm really tired of politics and politicans, F'n lawyers. Quit digging in a dry hole and do something that needs to be done, like illegal immigration reform/enforcement!!!! AND DO IT YESTERDAY or sooner............MP

[Bow Tie Omega]

Yep, what he said. If there was a crime indict who ever was responsible, period. Our Constitution does not allow fishing expeditions without probable cause. If there is probable cause, arrest someone!!! I'm really tired of politics and politicans, F'n lawyers. Quit digging in a dry hole and do something that needs to be done, like illegal immigration reform/enforcement!!!! AND DO IT YESTERDAY or sooner............MP
Very well said..........Well, the RNC is finally responding via Fox News....Fox is doing a big special this weekend on the classified documents that Sandy Burger had shoved down his pant leg, leaving the White House. They want to find out why he was not punished for purposely stealing classified documents. Be careful what you wish for libs, pay backs are a bitch.

[YeLLowBoaT]

I thought this was heiring was like a grand jury, the purpose to which is to find out if there was a crime committed.(or atleast if it can be proscuted.)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Very well said..........Well, the RNC is finally responding via Fox News....Fox is doing a big special this weekend on the classified documents that Sandy Burger had shoved down his pant leg, leaving the White House. They want to find out why he was not punished for purposely stealing classified documents. Be careful what you wish for libs, pay backs are a bitch.
If Burger stole classified documents, he should be punished. I tired of corrupt government bu**sh**.Matters not if Dem or Rep As I recall, Burger has already faced this issue and was fined 50K. Don't think he can be tried again for the same crime.
JM

[Bow Tie Omega]

If Burger stole classified documents, he should be punished. I tired of corrupt government bu**sh**.Matters not if Dem or Rep As I recall, Burger has already faced this issue and was fined 50K. Don't think he can be tried again for the same crime.
JM
The million dollar question is why he stole them and who he stole them for....Do you see a pattern........ WIth that being said, I am sick and tired of politics not related to viable, positive action for our country. I am sick and tired of watching these people ruin lives of mostly good people caught in the wake of political BS. These days, I would be much more inclined to vote for an intelligent non-politician with good ideas, instead of a professional politician. There is a reason most of these professional politicians are also attorneys.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The million dollar question is why he stole them and who he stole them for....Do you see a pattern........ WIth that being said, I am sick and tired of politics not related to viable, positive action for our country. I am sick and tired of watching these people ruin lives of mostly good people caught in the wake of political BS. These days, I would be much more inclined to vote for an intelligent non-politician with good ideas, instead of a professional politician. There is a reason most of these professional politicians are also attorneys.
Amen!
JM

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Smokin,
It's perjury when it relates to sexual matters and a "bad memory" when it relates to a matter involving national security. Per Rove, Plame was "fair game" Per Fitzgerald's investigation, that is yet to be determined.
Plame was "outed" to reporters by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. I guess you missed that in the other thread.
WHY DID FITZGERALD NOT INDITE ARMITAGE?????? Armitage confessed to FBI 3 months before Fitzie was put on the job. NO CRIME!!!!! With NO CRIME, why was libby tried for "lying to a grand jury (Perjury), and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE????? What "justice" was "obstructed"????
How about the truth? Doesn't the truth matter? Oh I forgot, anything but the truth these days is just a "bad memory" Please!
The smart people's attorney's have watched Libby hung for "lying to cover up a non-crime" and advised them to not say squat or they will be so deeply investigated that if they get a single detail wrong, they will likely be hung out just like Libby. YOU DO NOT HAND YOUR ENEMY A GUN AND BULLETS after they threaten to beat you senseless; "Here, use thes instead."
I guess you have full notes on every single meeting you have been involved in in the past 6 or 8 years? If you EVER, testify, UNDER OATH, as to the content of those meetings, to a Grand Jury, and get a single detail wrong, YOU COULD BE CHARGED WITH PERJURY.
I like the truth more than most people, and demand it more often, but there is NO CRIMINAL ACT HERE, NO CRIMINAL ACT EVEN ALEDGED. Just what illegal act is congress investigating???? Have you heard of one I have missed? What is it?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Citing the facts as being "a bad memory" about a "non crime" with regard to Libby's recent guilty verdict, is unacceptable in my book.
Then do explain why, the admitted "outer" of Valerie Plame, as an employee of the CIA, directly to the FBI, Richard Armitage, was not indicted with violation of the Covert Identities Protection Act?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I thought this was heiring was like a grand jury, the purpose to which is to find out if there was a crime committed.(or atleast if it can be proscuted.)
A Grand Jury is only conveneable AFTER A CRIME HAS BEEN PROVEN, and is for the purpose of determining IF SUFFICIENT PROOF EXISTS TO CHARGE SAID INDIVIDUAL(S) IN SAID CRIME.
A GJ is NOT convened to FIND a crime.

[Flyinbowtie]

The last election has given a fringe group of left-wingnuts (Cindy Sheehan, et.al) a feeling of power. They believe that the fact that the Democrat Party now holds a slim margin in both house of congress is a direct result of, "their" politcal strength, and that Pelosi & Reid are beholdin' to them for their current power.
This isn't true, and it is demonstrated to be false every single day that both houses of congress continue to investigate instead of legislate. This is a classic bait and switch. The Democrat Party was voted in as a result of the Republican Majority being voted out; this wasn't a landslide or a mandate for them to rule, and the proof is in the fact that they do not hold a veto-proof majority on most issues.They can't do what they wanted as in pass the laws they promised their base,(Thank God) and can only try to appease their base by taking swings at the executive branch which is currently held by the Republicans.
Firing U.S. Attorneys isn't exactly new, as has been pointed out.
Frankly, I think you'd have to be nuts to talk to anybody from the Feds about anything after the Libby persacution, ahh, I mean prosecution. If somebody gets a woodie for you and can spend 20+ million to hire a special prosecutor to perform a colonoscopy on you, and find out that you didn't tell the feds the truth about something, whether you did so with intent or not, and whether doing so covers a crime or not, and..well, subpeona me. I'll take the fifth, on the grounds that if my memory is fallible I might inadvertently tell a lie and I don't wanna go to jail for that.
I think that the entire focus of the Democrat Party for the next two years is to cause as little as possible to happen in DC that might be good, and to blame The Hated President for everything good that doesn't happen, everything bad that does happen, and every thing else they can think of.
Think about it, 2008 will be the Final Great Election controlled by the last vestiges of the 1960's / Haight-Ashbury / George McGovern gang, and they finally have the finest socialist ever to come out of New York (via Arkansas:rolleyes: ) to run.
This is it for them.
I am holding out hope (just a little hope) that the American people will see through this charade, examine the character of the actors in it, look at their legislative records, and vote the vast majority of the bums out. Let 'em go get real jobs and see what it is like to work for a living, and get some people in offce with the courage to do what is right for the future of the country; redfine it's borders, reinvigorate it's manfacturing base, explain to the presidents of Iran and Venezuela and the nutcase in North Korea exactly how we dropped the Tomahawk down Kaddaffi's stovepipe, etc.

[eliminatedsprinter]

The last election has given a fringe group of left-wingnuts (Cindy Sheehan, et.al) a feeling of power.
A left-wingnut is is now speaker of the house. That is more than just a feeling of power. Fortunately (in a perverse sort of way) both party's legislators have forgotten how to use it. For so many years now, legislators have been doing the work of bureaucrats (ie constituant services) and then letting bureaucrats due their work (writing vague laws and leaving them for bureaucrats to interpret) that the main things they now do (besides the above) are just play political games and piss away money on earmarks (buying votes) in their districts.:(

[Old Texan]

What's ironic about all these Congressional "investigations" is how they complain about the Patriot Act being invasive to the public's privacy. I'm really getting fed up with hearing how the left (and the bulk of the Dem party is left U26) is all for the privacy rights of everyone from "Juan the Wetback Busboy" to Valerie "007" Plame, yet when it serves their "ambitious" wild goose chases they will force (subpeona) every citizen within spitting distance of a political target to testify about what said target had for breakfast or what he had drycleaned in the past six months. And if they refuse, there is hell to pay.
Flyinbowtie is right on about our government being overrun by the 60's Revolutionairies. These folks had their heads up their asses back then and are proving it now that they have achieved positions of power and influence. Pelosi has Code Pink and the Sheehan posse demanding their "way out wacko wishes" be honored. It will be interesting on how Ms Nancy responds, the good of the country or the wims of the "freaks" who claim they are owed something. Ah, Socialist Utopia, what a concept.....:rolleyes:
It's about time to give some "Government Cheese" to the Libs to go with their "Whine".......if only the Administration would have the balls to do it.

[Schiada76]

I like the truth more than most people, and demand it more often, but there is NO CRIMINAL ACT HERE, NO CRIMINAL ACT EVEN ALEDGED. Just what illegal act is congress investigating???? Have you heard of one I have missed? What is it?
The only crimnal "act" here is I HATE GEORGE BUSH!!!!!!!
I HATE him! He must be a criminal!!!!!:rolleyes: :D

[OKIE-JET]

Actually folks, I think the big crime here is the fact that we as a nation are responsible for turning out edumacated idiots....who in turn show up in what must be record numbers to elect the idiocracy. I have never understood how one person could be a career politician if they were to show their stupidity through either personal actions or voting record. Money and Power usually get what they're supposed too, but they dont cover up the fact that they are fukin morons, and more than likely should not be making decisions for the masses. At least in my eyes.:idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

A Grand Jury is only conveneable AFTER A CRIME HAS BEEN PROVEN, and is for the purpose of determining IF SUFFICIENT PROOF EXISTS TO CHARGE SAID INDIVIDUAL(S) IN SAID CRIME.
A GJ is NOT convened to FIND a crime.
Smokin, your definition of a Grand Jury is a bit off. If a crime "has been proven" there would be no need for a GJ
In the American common law legal system, a grand jury is a type of a jury which determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments. A grand jury is traditionally larger and distinguishable from a petit jury, which is used during a trial.
Legislators and prosecutors, by definition, clearly have different roles.
FYI, I have testified under oath on many occasions and in many different arenas I have testified in front of a Grand Jury on 2 occasions. You don't get indicted for telling the truth.
The only criminal "act" here is I HATE GEORGE BUSH!!!!!!!
I HATE him! He must be a criminal!!!!!.
Schiada76, More of your 2 year old like babble. You state that you like the truth more than most but you reject it anytime someone accurately portrays Mr. Bush. There have been many criminal acts, exposing Plame for one. No charges will ever be filed for this act of treason as it would take out, at the least, number 2 in charge.
If any of the current investigations pertained to suspected improper behavior of a Dem/Lib most of the folks in this forum would be giving their full support.
Focusing on right or left, instead of what is best for America and it's people, is causing our great Country to fail. The US is 5% of the world population and the US accounts for 50% of the world spending on military. We import far more than we export, our largest industries are on the brink of collapse, we have little in the area of Homeland Security (borders and ports) and out debt to the rest of the world continues to grow ant an uncontrollable pace. Our system of government, is broken and IMO on the verge of collapse. In another thread, in PR forums, a few have suggested that we nuke Iran.
F'n brilliant.
Also, just curious how may of you have seen US dollars hard at work in Dubai.
We are falling and falling fast. We no longer have the resources to police the world, let alone our own Country. The cost of the war in Iraq is over $4,000,000 an hour. We have no way to support this without continued borrowing.
Accept that there are higher taxes, both Federal and SSI, before us. Supporting a political view that promises fewer or equal taxes, while encouraging war, isn't even vaguely logical.
I'm full to the brim with all of the left right bullshit that is preached in this forum. The libs are lying hypocrites and the righties are neocons. Please!!!
We as Americans must come together as one and start working on the real issues. Continuing with the current "one up ya" way of doing things, is costing us our Country and way of life.
John M

[Old Texan]

If a crime "has been proven"
There have been many criminal acts, exposing Plame for one.
Focusing on right or left, instead of what is best for America and it's people, is causing our great Country to fail. The US is 5% of the world population and the US accounts for 50% of the world spending on military. We import far more than we export, our largest industries are on the brink of collapse, we have little in the area of Homeland Security (borders and ports) and out debt to the rest of the world continues to grow ant an uncontrollable pace. Our system of government, is broken and IMO on the verge of collapse.
I'm full to the brim with all of the left right bullshit that is preached in this forum.
Smokin' said if a crime was proven, meaning one existed. You didn't "read" what he "said".
Bush didn't expose Plame nor did anyone commit a crime exposing her. That is not what the hearings and trials were about. Why can't you see these facts?
Name one or any "specific" criminal act you claim Bush has committed. Well????
Which party spends the most time focusing on there next election plans? I'll give you a hint, it's the one with 2 sitting Senators coming out 2 years prior to the election and hitting the campaign trail. Is this "what's best for America?"
Also I want to hear "your story" on how and which of our industries are about to collapse.
Since you are "full to the brim" why to you continue to throw old theories about political and world events on the fire with a constant "hate Bush" glow and continue the use of terms such as "neocon" and other Lib catch phrases?
And most of all prove you aren't just another far left Democrat by giving us a plan, a "real" plan.
I for one would welcome a good nation saving / friendly plan from the Democratic side of the aisle. I don't hold any particular allegiance to the Rep side except they have far less left leaning, Socialist yearnings, and for the most part have common sense views for the welfare of the country and it's moral climate. The big problem with the GOP is they let the "spoiled brat" elitists dominating the Dem party have their way to easily. It's time the government got busy and worked on solving the nations woes rather than worry about all the non issues being focused on that concern getting back at the administration and trying to capture the 2008 elections.
The Republican side ain't perfect but the current clan of Democrats sure isn't in the mood to work with anyone so what Mr. John M do you suggest we do?

[Schiada76]

In the American common law legal system, a grand jury is a type of a jury which determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments. A grand jury is traditionally larger and distinguishable from a petit jury, which is used during a trial.
So name the "alleged crime" no one has to date.
Schiada76, More of your 2 year old like babble. You state that you like the truth more than most but you reject it anytime someone accurately portrays Mr. Bush. There have been many criminal acts, exposing Plame for one. No charges will ever be filed for this act of treason as it would take out, at the least, number 2 in charge.
You have completly ignored every fact posted on this subject. Name the "many criminal acts". Really try, educate us.
.
I'm full to the brim with all of the left right bullshit that is preached in this forum. The libs are lying hypocrites and the righties are neocons. Please!!!
We as Americans must come together as one and start working on the real issues. Continuing with the current "one up ya" way of doing things, is costing us our Country and way of life.
There is no "one up ya" in this debate. You have been repeatadly asked to name the "crime" or "crimes". You can't. There aren't any.:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

In the American common law legal system, a grand jury is a type of a jury which determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments. A grand jury is traditionally larger and distinguishable from a petit jury, which is used during a trial.
So name the "alleged crime" no one has to date.
Schiada76, More of your 2 year old like babble. You state that you like the truth more than most but you reject it anytime someone accurately portrays Mr. Bush. There have been many criminal acts, exposing Plame for one. No charges will ever be filed for this act of treason as it would take out, at the least, number 2 in charge.
You have completly ignored every fact posted on this subject. Name the "many criminal acts". Really try, educate us.
.
I'm full to the brim with all of the left right bullshit that is preached in this forum. The libs are lying hypocrites and the righties are neocons. Please!!!
We as Americans must come together as one and start working on the real issues. Continuing with the current "one up ya" way of doing things, is costing us our Country and way of life.
There is no "one up ya" in this debate. You have been repeatadly asked to name the "crime" or "crimes". You can't. There aren't any.:rolleyes:
Schiada76, I thought you were much brighter that you are coming across.
I'm not here to debate you or answer your questions. I expressed some very important facts about our Country and it's direction and you are still some sort of state of dilusion making comments You have been repeatadly asked to name the "crime" or "crimes". You can't. There aren't any
Also, please learn how to post and quote in this forum. You continually screw up what was said by who. You didn't post the explanation of the Grand Jury system, but you have twisted things so that it says you did. If this is some sort of game that you're playing let me know, and I will play to
JM

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Smokin' said if a crime was proven, meaning one existed. You didn't "read" what he "said".
Bush didn't expose Plame nor did anyone commit a crime exposing her. That is not what the hearings and trials were about. Why can't you see these facts?
Name one or any "specific" criminal act you claim Bush has committed. Well????
Which party spends the most time focusing on there next election plans? I'll give you a hint, it's the one with 2 sitting Senators coming out 2 years prior to the election and hitting the campaign trail. Is this "what's best for America?"
Also I want to hear "your story" on how and which of our industries are about to collapse.
Since you are "full to the brim" why to you continue to throw old theories about political and world events on the fire with a constant "hate Bush" glow and continue the use of terms such as "neocon" and other Lib catch phrases?
And most of all prove you aren't just another far left Democrat by giving us a plan, a "real" plan.
I for one would welcome a good nation saving / friendly plan from the Democratic side of the aisle. I don't hold any particular allegiance to the Rep side except they have far less left leaning, Socialist yearnings, and for the most part have common sense views for the welfare of the country and it's moral climate. The big problem with the GOP is they let the "spoiled brat" elitists dominating the Dem party have their way to easily. It's time the government got busy and worked on solving the nations woes rather than worry about all the non issues being focused on that concern getting back at the administration and trying to capture the 2008 elections.
The Republican side ain't perfect but the current clan of Democrats sure isn't in the mood to work with anyone so what Mr. John M do you suggest we do?
Tex,
I read Smoken post and understodd it clearly. I responded with facts.
Both parties have played "the one up ya" or as far back as I can remember.
Enough is enough.
John M

[Schiada76]

Good grief leftists are dense.
You keep claiming crime this, lie that, treason this blah blah blah.
Everytime you try to refer to an actual incident you get shot down with a fact which you blindly ignore and go off some tangent that has nothing to do with the debate.
Take this very thread for instance. Do remember what it is about?
Questioning people under oath in search of a crime that hasn't been commited. :rolleyes:

[OutCole'd]

Good grief leftists are dense.
What's your definition of a Leftist? Anyone who does not agree with President Bush?

[Schiada76]

QUOTE=OutCole'd;2469745]What's your definition of a Leftist? Anyone who does not agree with President Bush?[/QUOTE]
No, the nitwits that are on a witch hunt with no evidence of crime, the nitwits that will read a factual, provable statement, and completely ignore it, the nitwits that openly lie repeatedly, amongst other things.
I actually support prosecuting any politician that is convicted of a crime.
I don't support fishing expeditions for no reason.
BTW I don't "agree" with the President on everything you might think.
If he or anyone in his administration is guilty of a REAL crime put them jail.
Ultra can't name a crime but he wants them prosecuted anyway because he is a leftist ideologue that doesn't care about any facts what so ever.:rolleyes:

[Old Texan]

QUOTE=OutCole'd;2469745]What's your definition of a Leftist? Anyone who does not agree with President Bush?
No, the nitwits that are on a witch hunt with no evidence of crime, the nitwits that will read a factual, provable statement, and completely ignore it, the nitwits that openly lie repeatedly, amongst other things.
I actually support prosecuting any politician that is convicted of a crime.
I don't support fishing expeditions for no reason.
BTW I don't "agree" with the President on everything you might think.
If he or anyone in his administration is guilty of a REAL crime put them jail.
Ultra can't name a crime but he wants them prosecuted anyway because he is a leftist ideologue that doesn't care about any facts what so ever.:rolleyes:
Schiada, you think maybe we're speaking (typing) to fast? Just my opinion but the majority of our posts seem to A) be going over his head, B) completely ignored, C) he just won't "read" what is being "said", some sort of refusal to face reality?
JM, if you don't want to answer or debate just say so, don't claim people don't know what they are talking about. And if you choose not to answer direct questions don't squirm around and complain. You have the opportunity to directly answer specific questions rather than come back with a rhetorical off topic reply. Your choice. ;)

[Moneypitt]

I have a very simple solution to the grand jury issue. We change the procedure to where the prosecutor, be it a city atorney, district attorney, US attorney, or a special prosecutor appointed for a particular case due to conflict with the US att. office, BE SWORN IN, UNDER OATH, prior to the proceedings starting. Any false acusations, under oath, would be PERJURY. Any "fact" he proposes to the grand jury, later found to be without merit, or false, would be PERJURY. It has been said most grand juries would indict a ham sandwich, because they only here the prosecutor's side and the ham sandwich isn't there to defend it's self. Now if the prosecutor is on a fishing expedition, and he comes up empty, he lied to the grand jury that there was a crime, PERJURY..........I seem to remember something in jolly old England about the Barrister going to prison with the guilty defendant because he told the court/jury the defendant was innocent....And he was sworn to uphold the truth as an officer of the court. How about the same for false accusations by the prosecutor??? I guarentee you the false cries of guilt would stop....MP

[ULTRA26 # 1]

QUOTE=OutCole'd;2469745]What's your definition of a Leftist? Anyone who does not agree with President Bush?
No, the nitwits that are on a witch hunt with no evidence of crime, the nitwits that will read a factual, provable statement, and completely ignore it, the nitwits that openly lie repeatedly, amongst other things.
I actually support prosecuting any politician that is convicted of a crime.
I don't support fishing expeditions for no reason.
BTW I don't "agree" with the President on everything you might think.
If he or anyone in his administration is guilty of a REAL crime put them jail.
Ultra can't name a crime but he wants them prosecuted anyway because he is a leftist ideologue that doesn't care about any facts what so ever.:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
You sir have no idea who or what I am yet you continue with your the "leftist ideologue" comments. One doesn't have be be guilty of a crime to submit to and EUO. There have been many issues involving the Bush administration, that have raised questions that I believe deserve honest (under oath) answers. And to you that makes me some sort of idiot. (as you have previously labeled me). If it is suspected that the Bush administration has broken laws, then questioning those involved is proper. Why would you put these people above questioning? It is simple yet it appears to difficult for you to comprehend.
"I actually support prosecuting any politician that is convicted of a crime. I don't support fishing expeditions for no reason."
This comment is senseless. One is not convicted of a crime without being prosecuted first. Many are prosecuted and found innocent. OJ for example. Also, questioning someone under oath and prosecuting someone are not one in the same
Because your political views are not consistent with mine, doesn't mean I'm a a leftist liar. I may be allot of things but a liar isn't one of them.
Gathering evidence, through questioning, of those who are suspected of committing, or having knowledge of a crime, is hardly a "fishing expedition". Questions must be asked and honestly answered to determine the facts. Again, the facts are what leads to prosecution and sometimes conviction.
I can not state that crimes have been committed because noone has been convicted. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
I have a very simple solution to the grand jury issue. We change the procedure to where the prosecutor, be it a city atorney, district attorney, US attorney, or a special prosecutor appointed for a particular case due to conflict with the US att. office, BE SWORN IN, UNDER OATH, prior to the proceedings starting. Any false acusations, under oath, would be PERJURY. Any "fact" he proposes to the grand jury, later found to be without merit, or false, would be PERJURY. It has been said most grand juries would indict a ham sandwich, because they only here the prosecutor's side and the ham sandwich isn't there to defend it's self. Now if the prosecutor is on a fishing expedition, and he comes up empty, he lied to the grand jury that there was a crime, PERJURY..........I seem to remember something in jolly old England about the Barrister going to prison with the guilty defendant because he told the court/jury the defendant was innocent....And he was sworn to uphold the truth as an officer of the court. How about the same for false accusations by the prosecutor??? I guarentee you the false cries of guilt would stop....MP
Sorry but the Grand Jury doesn't operate in such a manner
JM

[OutCole'd]

I have a very simple solution to the grand jury issue. We change the procedure to where the prosecutor, be it a city atorney, district attorney, US attorney, or a special prosecutor appointed for a particular case due to conflict with the US att. office, BE SWORN IN, UNDER OATH, prior to the proceedings starting. Any false acusations, under oath, would be PERJURY. Any "fact" he proposes to the grand jury, later found to be without merit, or false, would be PERJURY. It has been said most grand juries would indict a ham sandwich, because they only here the prosecutor's side and the ham sandwich isn't there to defend it's self. Now if the prosecutor is on a fishing expedition, and he comes up empty, he lied to the grand jury that there was a crime, PERJURY..........I seem to remember something in jolly old England about the Barrister going to prison with the guilty defendant because he told the court/jury the defendant was innocent....And he was sworn to uphold the truth as an officer of the court. How about the same for false accusations by the prosecutor??? I guarentee you the false cries of guilt would stop....MP
I totally agree, and as long as this was held to both parties, it would be great.

[eliminatedsprinter]

What's your definition of a Leftist? Anyone who does not agree with President Bush?
Since there is a specific historical answer to this and since I use the term 'Leftist". I will answer with the meaning.
In the late 19th century, fights would often break out on the floor of the French Parlament between the Communists/Socialists and the members of other ideological beliefs and or parties. Thus the Communists and Socialists were moved to the left side of the hall in order to avoid further physical confrontations. The terms "Leftist" or "Left Winger" specifically refer to Communists, Socialists, or those with communistic or socialistic leanings. The term "Right Winger" is a bit of a catch all term, because it applies to all ideologies, other than communisim or socialism. A "Far Right Winger" is anyone, of any ideology, who is strongly opposed to communiisim or socialism. Of course, all forms of Capitolism are "Right Wing" ideologies.

[Flyinbowtie]

Ultra26#1
"Focusing on right or left, instead of what is best for America and it's people, is causing our great Country to fail. The US is 5% of the world population and the US accounts for 50% of the world spending on military. We import far more than we export, our largest industries are on the brink of collapse, we have little in the area of Homeland Security (borders and ports) and out debt to the rest of the world continues to grow ant an uncontrollable pace. Our system of government, is broken and IMO on the verge of collapse"
Amen. We agree.
I don't see an opening to dramatically decrease spending on defense, simply because of the times we live in. I wish it was different, but this is the reality of the times.
I certainly think that Homeland Security is a joke as long as our borders remain uncontrolled, and this will remain until we as a country care enough to elect someone, left, right middle, whatever, who will address the problem.
Until enough of our citizenry care enough about the world beyond the curb in front of their front yard, and they shut off American Idol and vote for public servants who have the future of the nation in mind, we are in trouble. 40-odd percent of the people voting is a travesty.
I love strong, intelligent politcal debate. I know a lot of folks who differ from me in my views, but I don't hate them or want to grind them into the dust. One of the reasons the Constitution limits federal authority and holds all other lawmaking powers, etc. at the state level is to give the Fed the authority to only do what we all agree upon. Politics has become a dirty word today, and it shouldn't be. I think mass electronic media, in it's endless search for a soundbite, bears some responsibility for that.
If a bunch of us sit down with a case of beer at the lake, and discuss the way we believe things should be done, we'd find a few things we agree on and a few we don't.
Why can't government today do the same thing, move on the obvious, get those things rolling, and then attack each item of contention on it's own, one at a time, until an answer is reached?
Personal power, party loyalty, fundraising, holding grudges and counting coup on an, "enemy" has become the SOP, and to hell with the best interests of the country. It sounds alot like the Roman Senate right before the collapse of the Empire.
I thought for a brief moment on 09-12-2001 that we had finally been slapped hard enough to make us circle the wagons. Sadly, that brief moment of togetherness on the steps in DC was just another clip for the news.
We're in trouble.

[Schiada76]

I think the only thing liberals can comprehend is leftwing dogma.
That's why I have such a lack of patience trying to debate one.
What I really get a kick out of is when you try to simplify your respones so you have at least a small chance of them comprehending you they claim you're juvenile, 2 years old, not intellegent etc.:D
A couple of years ago we had some friends over for martini's, one of whom was a liberal. I asked him why he hated Bush so much. His first response was Bush cost him his job in his chosen field. I pointed out he was unemployed before Bush was elected. He said "so what" it's still his fault.:D
I asked him again other than that why did he hate Bush so much, other than Iraq. He locked up, asked for five minutes to "collect" his thoughts. I came back out, he asked for five more. When I came back out he shrugged his shoulders. He still hates Bush for the same reasons. (none).:D
Facts are Kyptonite to libs.

[Schiada76]

No, the nitwits that are on a witch hunt with no evidence of crime, the nitwits that will read a factual, provable statement, and completely ignore it, the nitwits that openly lie repeatedly, amongst other things.
I actually support prosecuting any politician that is convicted of a crime.
I don't support fishing expeditions for no reason.
BTW I don't "agree" with the President on everything you might think.
If he or anyone in his administration is guilty of a REAL crime put them jail.
Ultra can't name a crime but he wants them prosecuted anyway because he is a leftist ideologue that doesn't care about any facts what so ever.:rolleyes:
You sir have no idea who or what I am yet you continue with your the "leftist ideologue" comments. One doesn't have be be guilty of a crime to submit to and EUO. There have been many issues involving the Bush administration, that have raised questions that I believe deserve honest (under oath) answers. And to you that makes me some sort of idiot. (as you have previously labled me). If it is suspected that the Bush administration has broken laws, then questioning those involved is proper. Why would you put these people above questioning? It is simple yet it appears to difficult for you to comprehend.
"I actually support prosecuting any politician that is convicted of a crime. I don't support fishing expeditions for no reason."
This comment is senseless. One is not convicted of a crime without being prosecuted first. Many are prosicuted and found innocent. OJ for example. Also, questioning someone under oath and prosucuting someone are not one in the same
Because your political views are not consistant with mine, doesn't mean I'm a a leftist liar. I may be alot of things but a liar isn't one of them.
Gathering evidence, through questioning, of those who are suspected of commiting, or having knowledge of a crime, is hardly a "fishing expedition". Questions must be asked and honestly answered to determine the facts. Again, the facts are what leads to prosicution and sometimes conviction.
I can not state that crimes have been committed becuase noone has been convicted. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
JM[/QUOTE]
Sweet!
You think a GJ should be convened anytime someone that doesn't agree with you wants to get you under oath. No crime even needs to be suspected except in a pipe dream.
Stalin would be proud.:D

[Schiada76]

I believe Ted Kennedy killed and ate the Lindbergh baby.
Someone convene a Grand Jury and lets start asking him questions.
See, at least I have the balls to make up a crime, there's not even a made up one for this "shit hits the fan" scenario.:D

[OutCole'd]

Since there is a specific historical answer to this and since I use the term 'Leftist". I will answer with the meaning.
In the late 19th century, fights would often break out on the floor of the French Parlament between the Communists/Socialists and the members of other ideological beliefs and or parties. Thus the Communists and Socialists were moved to the left side of the hall in order to avoid further physical confrontations. The terms "Leftist" or "Left Winger" specifically refer to Communists, Socialists, or those with communistic or socialistic leanings. The term "Right Winger" is a bit of a catch all term, because it applies to all ideologies, other than communisim or socialism. A "Far Right Winger" is anyone, of any ideology, who is strongly opposed to communiisim or socialism. Of course, all forms of Capitolism are "Right Wing" ideologies.
Thanks! I do understand the correct definition, it just seems to me here that anyone who does not agree with the current administration is automatically a left wing liberal nut job, that's all. Kinda makes it hard to have a conversation like this.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I think the only thing liberals can comprehend is leftwing dogma.
That's why I have such a lack of patience trying to debate one.
What I really get a kick out of is when you try to simplify your respones so you have at least a small chance of them comprehending you they claim you're juvenile, 2 years old, not intellegent etc.:D
A couple of years ago we had some friends over for martini's, one of whom was a liberal. I asked him why he hated Bush so much. His first response was Bush cost him his job in his chosen field. I pointed out he was unemployed before Bush was elected. He said "so what" it's still his fault.:D
I asked him again other than that why did he hate Bush so much, other than Iraq. He locked up, asked for five minutes to "collect" his thoughts. I came back out, he asked for five more. When I came back out he shrugged his shoulders. He still hates Bush for the same reasons. (none).:D
Facts are Kyptonite to libs.
How can you or anyone else positively debate the current administration with straight face? Where are all of the so called facts that the libs are so fearful of? The majority of your jabber has been "tell me what the crime is" "there has been no crime" libs dems idiots, yada yada yada.
How can you imply with a straight face that your friend or anyone else who can't stand Mr. Bush, feels this way for no reason? Again, you're making yourself look pretty silly
JM

[eliminatedsprinter]

Thanks! I do understand the correct definition, it just seems to me here that anyone who does not agree with the current administration is automatically a left wing liberal nut job, that's all. Kinda makes it hard to have a conversation like this.
Well that's not right. People who do not agree with ME are liberal left wing nut jobs!;) ;)
The only person on these boards, that I can for sure say is a "Far Leftist" is Poster X. Poster X is an open advocate of "Utopian Socialism". Since "Utopian Socialism" is the oldest and most extreme form of Socialism, then it is not an insult to refer to him as a Leftist, but rather an accurate discription of his ideological orientation.
On a side note, as a person who is still a registerd Democrat, it is hard for me to resist calling all other Democrats Leftists. This is because the party's leadership has gone so far left, that individualists like myself can in no way support them anymore.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Smokin' said if a crime was proven, meaning one existed. You didn't "read" what he "said".
Also I want to hear "your story" on how and which of our industries are about to collapse.
And most of all prove you aren't just another far left Democrat by giving us a plan, a "real" plan.
Tex, Ford and Chrysler are is serious trouble. This isn't something new.
I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else in these forums.
"just another far left Democrat" Does this statement suggest that the far right Republicans have a plan?
As I have repeatedly stated, it is going to take the best minds we have, from all political parties, to come up with a real plan. Asking me to provide a "real plan" was a compliment.

[Schiada76]

How can you or anyone else positively debate the current administration with straight face? Where are all of the so called facts that the libs are so fearful of? The majority of your jabber has been "tell me what the crime is" "there has been no crime" libs dems idiots, yada yada yada.
How can you imply with a straight face that your friend or anyone else who can't stand Mr. Bush, feels this way for no reason? Again, you're making yourself look pretty silly
JM
Typical lib can't face facts or comprehend a simple sentence.
The facts are every time you or any other leftist says they believe or they think or they feel there was a crime or a lie from this admin and you actually state one these pseudo wrong doings they are immediatley shot down with verifiable fact. SLSS has posted the truth in response to your mad ramblings about treason and outing a CIA covert operative and you blithley ignore him.
You spew on and on about how we need a GJ to interrogate the Bush administration and the only reason you can come uip with is you hate him.
Now again I'll try to explain another simple point. I did not imply my friend hates Bush for no reason I stated very clearly that he admits hating him and when pressed as to why he cannot come up with an answer. He is also a left wing ideologue.
For the record i did not call you an idiot and a liar. I did state and I stand behind it that anyone that believes that the Bush admistration lied to get us into Iraq is an idiot or a liar. There are videos and quotes all over the net showing the clintoons, Kerry, Putin, Blair, Mossad etc. etc. etc. saying the same damn thing. Left wing wing nuts will only say Bush lied and ignore everyone else because they are idiots or liars.
Regarding your first sentence, how can you possibly debate anything without fact?:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Typical lib can't face facts or comprehend a simple sentence.
The facts are every time you or any other leftist says they believe or they think or they feel there was a crime or a lie from this admin and you actually state one these pseudo wrong doings they are immediatley shot down with verifiable fact. SLSS has posted the truth in response to your mad ramblings about treason and outing a CIA covert operative and you blithley ignore him.
You spew on and on about how we need a GJ to interrogate the Bush administration and the only reason you can come uip with is you hate him.
Now again I'll try to explain another simple point. I did not imply my friend hates Bush for no reason I stated very clearly that he admits hating him and when pressed as to why he cannot come up with an answer. He is also a left wing ideologue.
For the record i did not call you an idiot and a liar. I did state and I stand behind it that anyone that believes that the Bush admistration lied to get us into Iraq is an idiot or a liar. There are videos and quotes all over the net showing the clintoons, Kerry, Putin, Blair, Mossad etc. etc. etc. saying the same damn thing. Left wing wing nuts will only say Bush lied and ignore everyone else because they are idiots or liars.
Regarding your first sentence, how can you possibly debate anything without fact?:rolleyes:
"Typical lib can't face facts or comprehend a simple sentence" Now you are considering yourself a lib That's a switch.
I read everythng Smokin had to say as well as the link regarding the laws protecting covert agents. The matter of the covert status remains are part on the Fitzgerald investigation. There is a question as to Plame's covert status at the time of the leak as well as the potential for future covert operations. Becuase noone was charged with a crime doesn't mean that a crime wasn't commited. At least, Smokin generally post information that has some factual basis. You just jabber on about those damn lib liars.
"You spew on and on about how we need a GJ to interrogate the Bush administration and the only reason you can come uip with is you hate him"
You just made that up. And you call me a liar? Oh I forgot, you just have a bad memory, so it's OK
Once again, I am through discussing anything with you. You sir have a terminal case of Bush fever. Hope you get well soon
JM

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Schiada76, More of your 2 year old like babble. You state that you like the truth more than most but you reject it anytime someone accurately portrays Mr. Bush.
That was a poorly done quote of MY statement Ultra.
There have been many criminal acts, exposing Plame for one.
Just how was it a criminal act? I very nearly READ you the act you want to accusde under, IT DID NOT APPLY! Why? Because PLAME WAS NOT COVERT.
The naming in the press of a CIA ANALYST is not a criminal act.
No charges will ever be filed for this act of treason as it would take out, at the least, number 2 in charge.
Why isn't congress impeaching someone? All it takes is A CRIME?
For the third time, WHAT JUSTICE DID LIBBY OBSTRUCT?
Congress hates Bush and have been PROMISING AN IMPEACHMENT for at least 2 years. WHY WON'T THEY?
Yes, Ultra has crossed over the line into "fact ignorer".
More facts to ignore Ultra:
The US is 5% of the world population and the US accounts for 50% of the world spending on military.
The US also has the most obsenely HUGE Gross National Product (money made every year) of ANY NATION ON EARTH, and the LEAST MIL SPENDING PER GNP. Under 3% of the GNP is spent on the millitary, less than at ANY TIME IN HISTORY. (I looked it up a year ago, 2.8%)
Do you know what the soviets spent on the mil compared to their GNP?
Try 30%, and it broke them.
Do you know how huge the National Debt was, in 1947, compared to the GNP, the ammount of money the country MADE in a year?
Try 120%, and it destroyed the country. :rolleyes:
Current Natl Debt is 60% of GNP, and the sky is falling.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I believe Ted Kennedy killed and ate the Lindbergh baby.
I think this definitely needs to be investigated, at the congressional level. Rove HAD to have something to do with it, and Ultra has information VITAL to the solving of this heinous crime, well, 2 crimes, murder and canabalism.
Convene the Grand Jury NOW! WE NEED JUSTICE!!! :D :D

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The majority of your jabber has been "tell me what the crime is" "there has been no crime" libs dems idiots, yada yada yada.
And yours has been repeated accusations of a crime, which has been proven repeatedly to not be a crime. No, wait, that's different. :confused:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

That was a poorly done quote of MY statement Ultra.
Just how was it a criminal act? I very nearly READ you the act you want to accusde under, IT DID NOT APPLY! Why? Because PLAME WAS NOT COVERT.
The naming in the press of a CIA ANALYST is not a criminal act.
Why isn't congress impeaching someone? All it takes is A CRIME?
For the third time, WHAT JUSTICE DID LIBBY OBSTRUCT?
Congress hates Bush and have been PROMISING AN IMPEACHMENT for at least 2 years. WHY WON'T THEY?
Yes, Ultra has crossed over the line into "fact ignorer".
More facts to ignore Ultra:
The US also has the most obsenely HUGE Gross National Product (money made every year) of ANY NATION ON EARTH, and the LEAST MIL SPENDING PER GNP. Under 3% of the GNP is spent on the millitary, less than at ANY TIME IN HISTORY. (I looked it up a year ago, 2.8%)
Do you know what the soviets spent on the mil compared to their GNP?
Try 30%, and it broke them.
Do you know how huge the National Debt was, in 1947, compared to the GNP, the ammount of money the country MADE in a year?
Try 120%, and it destroyed the country. :rolleyes:
Current Natl Debt is 60% of GNP, and the sky is falling.
Smokin,
As I recall, I quoted your statement exactly. Not sure what you're talking about
I don't ignore facts. I do ignore statements that claim to be fact espeically when the staements only a tell a part of the story.
I usually respect what you have to say, but this time you are blowin smoke out of your butt. What I have stated has been true and you know it. Plame's status at the time of the leak, prior status and future status, remains under investigation. You are well aware of this. And you give me shit for ignoring facts.
And yours has been repeated accusations of a crime, which has been proven repeatedly to not be a crime. No, wait, that's different. :confused:
The matter of whether Plame's identity was covered under the act is still under debate; some claim that she wasn't assigned overseas within 5 years of her "outing", but David Corn and Michael Isikoff have reported that she was. But even if she wasn't, identifying Plame as an agent also revealed the identities of other CIA agents associated with Brewster, Jennings.
$4,000,000 an hour is being spent on the war in Iraq
If you actually believe that this Country is not in financial trouble, I've given you too much credit in the past. I am aware of what Libby was charged with and convicted of. A bad memory, right?
I didn't file the charges against Libby and I wasn't involved in his conviction. Neither were you.
Thanks! I do understand the correct definition, it just seems to me here that anyone who does not agree with the current administration is automatically a left wing liberal nut job, that's all. Kinda makes it hard to have a conversation like this.
The most sensable thing anyone, including me, has said thus far
Enough
JM

[Schiada76]

I think this definitely needs to be investigated, at the congressional level. Rove HAD to have something to do with it, and Ultra has information VITAL to the solving of this heinous crime, well, 2 crimes, murder and canabalism.
Convene the Grand Jury NOW! WE NEED JUSTICE!!! :D :D
I have the proof, I bought digital pictures of the entire event from Dan Rather. Even got it on video.:jawdrop:

[Moneypitt]

Hey, lets put Senator Kennedy UNDER OATH and ask him about a road, a bridge, and a canal...............Would poor memory be an obstruction of justice?? Or would an alcoholic black out defense be used? Maybe the 5th?........Now that is a case the grand jury could sink their teeth into...........MP

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Hey, lets put Senator Kennedy UNDER OATH and ask him about a road, a bridge, and a canal...............Would poor memory be an obstruction of justice?? Or would an alcoholic black out defense be used? Maybe the 5th?........Now that is a case the grand jury could sink their teeth into...........MP
I believe that there may be a statute issue. Should Kennedy have been allowed to walk on that one?? Hell no. Just more political Bu**sh*t
JM

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I once located a statement by Kennedy (yes, I did) where he stated that he was not in the car. He exited the car at the intersection a 1/4 mile or so from the bridge, and loaned her the car, his intent was to walk home.
So, he loaned his car to a drunk woman, who crashed it and died, murder or manslaughter? I think murder, and no statute of limitations problem.
Now, if he can't remember all the details of his statement perfectly, Perjury too, Obstruction of Justice of course.
Believe her status as "questionable" all you want to Ultra. How many more years of no indictment is it going to be "investigated"?
The fact is, for 3 years now, or is it 4, the "outer" is known, by his own admission, she has not served in a covert capacity in A DECADE, since Aldrich Ames was proven, she is a 9-5 analyst, nobody special, or secret. Even her very HUSBAND, has stated, that "at the time of her "outing", she was not covert", period, dot, out.
The CIA specifically told the reporter, Bob Novak, WHO ASKED THEM IF HE COULD USE HER NAME, that though they would prefer that he didn't, they were not going to get excited over it.
Novak's very words from "The CIA Leak," published on October 1, 2003:
He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered.
If it turns out she WASN'T, after spending a week in congress recently claiming she WAS, will she be charged with Perjury and Obstruction?
I'll wager that answer to be "no".

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I once located a statement by Kennedy (yes, I did) where he stated that he was not in the car. He exited the car at the intersection a 1/4 mile or so from the bridge, and loaned her the car, his intent was to walk home.
So, he loaned his car to a drunk woman, who crashed it and died, murder or manslaughter? I think murder, and no statute of limitations problem.
Now, if he can't remember all the details of his statement perfectly, Perjury too, Obstruction of Justice of course.
Believe her status as "questionable" all you want to Ultra. How many more years of no indictment is it going to be "investigated"?
The fact is, for 3 years now, or is it 4, the "outer" is known, by his own admission, she has not served in a covert capacity in A DECADE, since Aldrich Ames was proven, she is a 9-5 analyst, nobody special, or secret. Even her very HUSBAND, has stated, that "at the time of her "outing", she was not covert", period, dot, out.
The CIA specifically told the reporter, Bob Novak, WHO ASKED THEM IF HE COULD USE HER NAME, that though they would prefer that he didn't, they were not going to get excited over it.
Novak's very words from "The CIA Leak," published on October 1, 2003:
He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered.
If it turns out she WASN'T, after spending a week in congress recently claiming she WAS, will she be charged with Perjury and Obstruction?
I'll wager that answer to be "no".
How about a source Smokin
JM

[Bow Tie Omega]

Boy I missed alot today:D :D :D ! With that being said, Instead of fighting each other, why dont we start our own political party, it has to be a catchy name, maybe the Logic Party, we can all be Logicians. The rules are simple, we vote for intelligent, non-politicians. They have to serve the will of the people, via either special elections, have ballots on innitiatives at town hall style meetings or email style ballots, one name, one ballot. The representatives from our party has to go with the will of the people, no special interests, they serve the people who elected them. If they do not, they are banished from the party and will not be supported again. I have had it with the political BS. If I was running for office, I know in my heart I would vote for what my people wanted, even if it was blatantly against what I personally believed in. I would be there to serve not myself, but the people who voted me in. There is to much BS going on, I have really had it.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

How about a source Smokin
JM
Fine, I'll dig it all up again and source it for ya.
I gave you Bob Novak's collumn.
Homework, see below.

[Old Texan]

Tex, Ford and Chrysler are is serious trouble. This isn't something new.
I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else in these forums.
"just another far left Democrat" Does this statement suggest that the far right Republicans have a plan?
As I have repeatedly stated, it is going to take the best minds we have, from all political parties, to come up with a real plan. Asking me to provide a "real plan" was a compliment.
Ford and Chrysler as well as GM are in trouble, mainly in the US market. Chrysler seems to be perpetually in trouble through the years in spite of being owned by Daimler Benz. In overseas markets these companies are actually doing quite well.
Now then why is it they are having trouble in the US? A lot to do with costs, mainly costs of benefits and a mess of a pension plan. These problems were brought about years ago by labor union negotiations and unrealistic expectations of the future. The same problems in may ways the nation faces with Social Security.
Additionally the Ford, Chrysler, and GM plants in majority are not up to par with the Nisssan, Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai plants in regards to technology and operations efficiency. Once again these problems are union driven.
So what's my point? Your post makes me believe you attribute the "Big 3" peril to the current administration. Do you? If so explain how that can be. If not look at the real problems of the auto industry traditional "Big 3" and tell the class how they have arrived at this juncture, one of a dismal future.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Ford and Chrysler as well as GM are in trouble, mainly in the US market. Chrysler seems to be perpetually in trouble through the years in spite of being owned by Daimler Benz. In overseas markets these companies are actually doing quite well.
Now then why is it they are having trouble in the US? A lot to do with costs, mainly costs of benefits and a mess of a pension plan. These problems were brought about years ago by labor union negotiations and unrealistic expectations of the future. The same problems in may ways the nation faces with Social Security.
Additionally the Ford, Chrysler, and GM plants in majority are not up to par with the Nisssan, Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai plants in regards to technology and operations efficiency. Once again these problems are union driven.
So what's my point? Your post makes me believe you attribute the "Big 3" peril to the current administration. Do you? If so explain how that can be. If not look at the real problems of the auto industry traditional "Big 3" and tell the class how they have arrived at this juncture, one of a dismal future.
Tex
In no way do I attribute the issues with the big 3 to the current administration. Excessive employee costs forcing sub-standard quality outsourcing, that generates countless recalls and rebuilds, and competitors focused on being at the top of their game. Bottom line, quality and cost.
Heath care costs, UAW demands, lack of pride or laziness, and failure to apply current technology, are the basics.
BTW "and tell the class how they have arrived at this juncture" came across as patronizing, which isn't necessary.
Fine, I'll dig it all up again and source it for ya.
I gave you Bob Novak's collumn.
Homework, see below.
I did my homework
John M

[Old Texan]

BTW "and tell the class how they have arrived at this juncture" came across as patronizing, which isn't necessary.
Thicken that skin up a little bit, OK. And maybe work on the old sense of humor a little. :)
A lot of the Left / Right consternation seems to involve not being able to laugh at situations or one's self for that matter. We can be serious and still have humor. Life ain't worth living without humor in my opinion.
By the way the "tell the class" line is a favorite of your bud PX. 'Course that would also explain your reasoning that it's "patronizing" as PX is the master of "patronizing".
Folks just seem to take a lot of things personal and out of context these days. I wonder why that is? May have a lot to do with the communications problem that seems to exist.
Just a thought.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Thicken that skin up a little bit, OK. And maybe work on the old sense of humor a little. :)
A lot of the Left / Right consternation seems to involve not being able to laugh at situations or one's self for that matter. We can be serious and still have humor. Life ain't worth living without humor in my opinion.
By the way the "tell the class" line is a favorite of your bud PX. 'Course that would also explain your reasoning that it's "patronizing" as PX is the master of "patronizing".
Folks just seem to take a lot of things personal and out of context these days. I wonder why that is? May have a lot to do with the communications problem that seems to exist.
Just a thought.
Tex,
Poster and I come from very different places and have very different views. I agree that humor is a necessity, and by the way, I got a good laugh from your post outlining the difference between Libs and Cons.
Being called a lib liar, because I don't approve of the current administration, and it ways, gets old. It also takes away much of the benefit of discussing the issues. I find no enjoyment in arguing. Intelligent communication is a completely different story.
I believe that you and share many of the same views and in the past we have agreed on many. There are too many folks involved in the PR forum who state repeatedly in essence that if your not behind our current President, then you are a commy, lib liar who is incapable of understanding facts. I find this mentality narrow and short sighted. I also believe that this mentality will do nothing positive with regard to the resolution of of the problems facing this nation. None of the serious problems facing our Country will be solved without sacrifice by all. The sooner we face this fact, the sooner we can get started get this Country back on track.
I was astounded when I learned that the war in Iraq, is costing the American people $4,000,000 and hour. Knowing that we have done little to nothing to secure our ports and borders, while spending 4 mil and hour on a war that, IMO, can't be won, makes me crazy.
There was an old Beatles song that I believe applies to what's needed today.
"COME TOGETHER"
JM

[Old Texan]

And the renowned Senator from Hyannis Port speaks out. The conspiracy is unveiled at last, setting up voter fraud coverup. Nothing gets by Teddy by George. I cannot believe that a Republican administration would appoint prosecutors partisan to Republican issues right under TK's pointy nose. You've got 'em now Teddy, better go hit the early happy hour and celebrate.:rolleyes:
Look out folks here comes an out of control Oldsmobile right up the Whitehous steps, #%&#@* "Look out for that reflection pond!!!! Oh my, I hope he can still swim........:rolleyes: :devil:
Kennedy: Justice firings are keyed to '08 vote
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | March 29, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Senator Edward M. Kennedy yesterday accused President Bush of using the Department of Justice to further his administration's "right-wing ideology," saying that veteran prosecutors were replaced by political operatives in key states to ensure that "reliable partisans" are in place in time for the 2008 presidential election.
Sign up for: Globe Headlines e-mail | Breaking News Alerts Kennedy noted that the recent rash of firings among US attorneys put new top prosecutors in place in several presidential swing states, including Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Minnesota, and Arkansas.
At least two of the eight US attorneys fired by the administration refused to investigate spurious claims of voter fraud that were initiated by Republicans, Kennedy said. Two of the new US attorneys, meanwhile, had documented records of pursuing GOP goals, one as a Justice Department official and the other as a top aide to White House political adviser Karl Rove, he said.
"The administration views our system of justice as merely another arena for furthering its right-wing ideology," Kennedy said in a speech at the National Press Club. "The conclusion is inescapable that the administration has methodically placed reliable partisans in positions where they can influence the outcome of the 2008 election."
The speech by Kennedy, a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, came a day before a former top Justice Department official is scheduled to appear before the committee.
Lawmakers said they plan to grill D. Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, about the firings and about the involvement of Gonzales and White House officials in the decision-making.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, warned that today's testimony is unlikely to reveal a "smoking gun."
Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said the committee will continue to piece together the facts -- even if Gonzales resigns. "We'll finish this investigation before we have a confirmation hearing for a new attorney general" if Gonzales resigns, he said.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Valerie Plame, Starting at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame)
3rd paragraph under "Carreer", an article in TIME magazine is related, ,"NOC, NOC. Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent", an article published in the October 19, 2003, issue of Time magazine, Michael Duffy and Timothy J. Burger.
Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a "nice European city." Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. "[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, 'Yeah, he works for us,'" says Rustmann. "The degree of backstopping to a NOC's cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is." . . . . Though Plame's cover is now blown, it probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat.
Here's you the complete article: FOI Nok Nok article (http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/nocnoc.html)
Now, from CNN:
Aired July 14, 2005 - 17:00 ET Transcript
CNN WOLF BLITZER REPORTS (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html)
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.
She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...
So much for her being "covert".
Now, by the way, so much for her "ended carreer". About 4 lines later in the interview:
BLITZER: Valerie, your wife, still has a job at the CIA.
WILSON: She has gone back to it.
On to the "crime", of outing a Non-covert "operative".
The abraviated explanation from Wikipedia (same page):
"The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act . . . makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the name of a covert agent".
The long version: United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4
(http://http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act) Also known as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Read it all.
The first 3 sections all read virtually identically as "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, [B]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,
Now, "Covert":, From the IIPA again, see above.
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
Wilson's own book, "The Politics of Truth," states he and Plame both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997 and never again were stationed overseas – placing them in Washington at least six years before the 2003 "outing."
Fitzgerald's own words"
And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion
Plame was not covert, period, thus, revealing her identity WAS NOT CRIMINAL. Sourced.
Now, Wilson, I cannot access the Who's Who book online, I ain't paying $100 just to source it cut/paste for ya. Sorry.
On this blog-page ar Free-republic, is a posted PHOTOCOPY of the entry Joe Wilson from the 2005 Who's Who In America book. It's not text, it's a picture of the book's text (http://http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457846/posts)
The relevant text is "m. Valerie Elise Plame, Apr. 3, 1998," which not only appears in the 2003 edition, but ALL editions from 1999-2005!
Here's the entire book page, from the "leftie" site talkingpointsmemo.com (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilson.whoswho.pdf)
Then there are the conversations Wilson had with a general while waiting to go on Fox News:
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.
Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 – more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.
World Net Daily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242)
On the page is a link to an interview on the John Batchelor Radio Show where he stated the same thing about Wilson revealing her.
Half-way down the Plame page is the section on Richard Artmitage, here's the bit that got Libby:
According to Armitage, as interviewed by Martin and reported by CBS News online, "when Libby was indicted in October 2005 on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to investigators, Fitzgerald said Libby was the first official to discuss Plame in a conversation with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. . . . After Fitzgerald's comment about Libby at a news conference, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward reminded Armitage that he had made a passing comment to him days before Libby's conversation with Miller. That meant that Armitage, not Libby, had been the first to mention it to a reporter, and he quickly informed the prosecutor of that recollection."
Libby apparently THOUGHT HE WAS FIRST, CLAIMED IT, AND LIED. Definition of Lying involves actually KNOWING YOU ARE LYING, ie, knowing the truth and saying something else, NOT BEING WRONG THINKING YOU WERE TELLING THE TRUTH.
Ok, and from FOX on the Armitage-name-drop, to Bob WOODWARD, FIRST, Not Novak:
WASHINGTON — The No. 2 State Department official met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified that an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame.
Official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage held a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.
Armitage Met With Woodward (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209738,00.html)
Miriam Webster online: Definition of Lying (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Main Entry: lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE, PREVARICATE, EQUIVOCATE, PALTER, FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.
Now, congressman Waxman got Plame to testify, after the Libby conviction
Waxman read a statement, which said among other things:
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.
This was classified information.
Plame testified:
"In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction program. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence."
”
When asked by the committee the definition of the term "covert", Plame responded: "I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the CIA is taking affirmative steps to ensure that there is no links between the operations officer and the Central Intelligence Agency." When asked if she was ever told whether her status fit the definition under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Plame replied: "No," adding "I'm not a lawyer, but I was covert. I did travel overseas on secret missions within the last five years...[but] no, no one told me that [I fit the definition under the IIPA]."
All exerpted from Wikipedia, but reachable at the Congressional Reccord as well. The Plame Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Plame.27s_testimony)
The thread Freak started on the Libby Trial (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110907)

[Schiada76]

Oh my, that's going to give someone a cranial seizure.:eek: :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Valerie Plame, Starting at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame)
3rd paragraph under "Carreer", an article in TIME magazine is related, ,"NOC, NOC. Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent", an article published in the October 19, 2003, issue of Time magazine, Michael Duffy and Timothy J. Burger.
Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a "nice European city." Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. "[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, 'Yeah, he works for us,'" says Rustmann. "The degree of backstopping to a NOC's cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is." . . . . Though Plame's cover is now blown, it probably began to unravel years ago when Wilson first asked her out. Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat.
Here's you the complete article: FOI Nok Nok article (http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/nocnoc.html)
Now, from CNN:
Aired July 14, 2005 - 17:00 ET Transcript
CNN WOLF BLITZER REPORTS (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/14/wbr.01.html)
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.
She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in "Vanity Fair" appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...
So much for her being "covert".
Now, by the way, so much for her "ended carreer". About 4 lines later in the interview:
BLITZER: Valerie, your wife, still has a job at the CIA.
WILSON: She has gone back to it.
On to the "crime", of outing a Non-covert "operative".
The abraviated explanation from Wikipedia (same page):
"The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act . . . makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the name of a covert agent".
The long version: United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4
(http://http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act) Also known as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Read it all.
The first 3 sections all read virtually identically as "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, [B]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,
Now, "Covert":, From the IIPA again, see above.
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
Wilson's own book, "The Politics of Truth," states he and Plame both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997 and never again were stationed overseas – placing them in Washington at least six years before the 2003 "outing."
Fitzgerald's own words"
And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion
Plame was not covert, period, thus, revealing her identity WAS NOT CRIMINAL. Sourced.
Now, Wilson, I cannot access the Who's Who book online, I ain't paying $100 just to source it cut/paste for ya. Sorry.
On this blog-page ar Free-republic, is a posted PHOTOCOPY of the entry Joe Wilson from the 2005 Who's Who In America book. It's not text, it's a picture of the book's text (http://http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457846/posts)
The relevant text is "m. Valerie Elise Plame, Apr. 3, 1998," which not only appears in the 2003 edition, but ALL editions from 1999-2005!
Here's the entire book page, from the "leftie" site talkingpointsmemo.com (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilson.whoswho.pdf)
Then there are the conversations Wilson had with a general while waiting to go on Fox News:
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.
Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 – more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."
"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.
World Net Daily (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242)
On the page is a link to an interview on the John Batchelor Radio Show where he stated the same thing about Wilson revealing her.
Half-way down the Plame page is the section on Richard Artmitage, here's the bit that got Libby:
According to Armitage, as interviewed by Martin and reported by CBS News online, "when Libby was indicted in October 2005 on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to investigators, Fitzgerald said Libby was the first official to discuss Plame in a conversation with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. . . . After Fitzgerald's comment about Libby at a news conference, Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward reminded Armitage that he had made a passing comment to him days before Libby's conversation with Miller. That meant that Armitage, not Libby, had been the first to mention it to a reporter, and he quickly informed the prosecutor of that recollection."
Libby apparently THOUGHT HE WAS FIRST, CLAIMED IT, AND LIED. Definition of Lying involves actually KNOWING YOU ARE LYING, ie, knowing the truth and saying something else, NOT BEING WRONG THINKING YOU WERE TELLING THE TRUTH.
Ok, and from FOX on the Armitage-name-drop, to Bob WOODWARD, FIRST, Not Novak:
WASHINGTON — The No. 2 State Department official met with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003, the same time the reporter has testified that an administration official talked to him about CIA employee Valerie Plame.
Official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act, show then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage held a one-hour meeting marked "private appointment" with Woodward on June 13, 2003.
Armitage Met With Woodward (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209738,00.html)
Miriam Webster online: Definition of Lying (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary)
Main Entry: lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE, PREVARICATE, EQUIVOCATE, PALTER, FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.
Now, congressman Waxman got Plame to testify, after the Libby conviction
Waxman read a statement, which said among other things:
During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was under cover.
Her employment status with the CIA was classified information prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958.
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.
This was classified information.
Plame testified:
"In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction program. While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence."
”
When asked by the committee the definition of the term "covert", Plame responded: "I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the CIA is taking affirmative steps to ensure that there is no links between the operations officer and the Central Intelligence Agency." When asked if she was ever told whether her status fit the definition under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Plame replied: "No," adding "I'm not a lawyer, but I was covert. I did travel overseas on secret missions within the last five years... no, no one told me that [I fit the definition under the IIPA]."
All exerpted from Wikipedia, but reachable at the Congressional Reccord as well. The Plame Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair#Plame.27s_testimony)
The thread Freak started on the Libby Trial (http://www.***boat.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110907)
Valarie Plame at Wikopedia
Valerie E. Wilson (born Valerie Elise Plame April 19, 1963, in Anchorage, Alaska) is a former United States Central Intelligence Agency officer who held non-official cover (NOC) status prior to the public disclosure of her CIA identity in an American newspaper. Her classified CIA identity was leaked publicly in a syndicated newspaper column, published on July 14, 2003, by Robert Novak, who identified Mrs. Wilson, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, as "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" named "Valerie Plame." Her legal name, however, has been Valerie E. Wilson since her marriage to Ambassador Wilson in 1998.[1] Ambassador Wilson's Op-Ed critical of the George W. Bush administration published in the New York Times ("What I Didn't Find in Africa") on July 6, 2003, Robert Novak's response to it in his column the next week (July 14), identifying Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a "CIA operative," and the possible sources of the leaks leading to Novak's disclosure have become subjects of extended controversy. Vice President Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been convicted of four felony counts brought by the United States Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel and the Wilsons have filed a civil suit (Plame v. Cheney) against Libby and Cheney, presidential advisor Karl Rove, and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
In late 2003 the political controversy, commonly referred to as the Plame affair, the "Plame scandal," "Plamegate," or the "CIA leak scandal", resulted in the Justice Department referring the FBI investigation to the United States Office of Special Counsel, headed by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury to probe alleged violations of criminal statutes, including the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation has not determined whether the public exposure of Plame's name violated any criminal statutes. No one has been charged specifically for leaking Plame's identity. "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, however, was charged with covering up facts about his role pertaining to the leaks. The five-count indictment of Libby included obstruction of justice (one count), making false statements (two counts), and perjury (two counts). On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of four of the five counts. He was acquitted on one count of making false statements (see United States v. Libby). Novak has yet to be charged for his involvement.
On September 5, 2006, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Novak's "primary source" for the disclosure of the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, publicly identified himself, after seeking permission to do so from Special Counsel Fitzgerald, to whom he had identified himself as the likely person at the start of the investigation.[2] The Wilsons' civil action, which includes initially Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has been amended to include Armitage.[3]
Subsancially different than your Wik. More from Wik
In his press conference of October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Fitzgerald explained in considerable detail the necessity of "secrecy" about his Grand Jury investigation that began in the fall of 2003––"when it was clear that Valerie Wilson's cover had been blown"––and the background and consequences of the indictment of Lewis Libby as it pertains to Valerie E. Wilson.[29] Fitzgerald's subsequent replies to reporters' questions shed further light on the parameters of the "leak investigation" and what, as its lead prosecutor, bound by "the rules of grand jury secrecy," he could and could not reveal legally at the time.[30]
Official court documents released later, on April 5, 2006, reveal that Libby testified that "he was specifically authorized in advance" of his meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller to disclose the "key judgments" of the October 2002 classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Libby's testimony, "the Vice President later advised him that the President had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE [to Judith Miller]."[31] According to his testimony, the information Libby was authorized to disclose to Miller "was intended to rebut the allegations of an administration critic, former ambassador Joseph Wilson." A couple of days after Libby's meeting with Miller, Condoleezza Rice told reporters that "We don't want to try to get into kind of selective declassification" of the NIE, adding "We're looking at what can be made available."[32] A "sanitized version" of the NIE in question was officially declassified on July 18, 2003, ten days after Libby's contact with Miller, and was presented at a White House background briefing on weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq.[33] The NIE contains no references to Valerie Plame or her CIA status, but the special counsel has suggested that White House actions were part of "a plan to discredit, punish or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson."[34] Bush had previously indicated that he would fire whoever outed Plame.[32]
A court filing by Libby's defense team argued that Valerie Plame was not foremost on the minds of administration officials as they sought to rebut charges made by her husband, Joseph Wilson, that the White House manipulated intelligence to make a case for invasion. The filing indicated that Libby's lawyers did not intend to say he was told to reveal Plame's identity.[35] The court filing also stated that "Mr. Libby plans to demonstrate that the indictment is wrong when it suggests that he and other government officials viewed Ms. Wilson's role in sending her husband to Africa as important," indicating that Libby's lawyers planned to call Karl Rove to the stand. According to Rove's lawyer, Fitzgerald has decided against pressing charges against Rove.[21]
The five-count indictment of Libby included obstruction of justice (one count), making false statements (two counts), and perjury (two counts). On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one count of making false statements. United States v. Libby
NOC
[B]Non-official cover (NOC) is a term used in espionage (particularly by the CIA) for agents or operatives who assume covert roles in organizations without ties to the government for which they work. Such agents or operatives are typically abbreviated in espionage lingo as a NOC (pronounced "knock").
An agent sent to spy on a foreign country might for instance pose as a journalist, a businessperson, a worker for a non-profit organization (such as a humanitarian group), or an academic. Non-official cover is contrasted with official cover, where an agent assumes a position at a seemingly benign department of their government, such as the diplomatic service. If caught, agents under non-official cover are usually trained to deny any connection with their government, and do not have many of the protections offered to (for example) accredited diplomats who are caught spying. Some countries have regulations regarding the use of non-official cover: the CIA, for example, has at times been prohibited from disguising agents as members of certain aid organizations, or as members of the clergy.
The degree of sophistication put into non-official cover stories can vary considerably. Sometimes, an agent will simply be appointed to a position in a well-established company which can provide the appropriate opportunities. Other times, entire front companies can be established in order to provide false identities for agents. Examples include Air America, used by the CIA during the Vietnam War, by the eponymous film. Another is Brewster Jennings & Associates, used by the CIA in WMD investigations and made public as a result of the Plame Affair.
Whether Plame was an NOC at the time she was outed is not at issue. Past and potential operations as NOC is. As stated by defintion, NOC status is for covert operations. It has been clearly established that during her time at the CIA, Plame had NOC/covert status. As I've stated previously, it is yet to be determined if the outing of Plame, who had prior NOC/covert status and potentially future NOC/covert status was crime. The law in this regard is vague and ambiguous.
Libby believed that he was the first to expose Plame. ie his intent was to be the first to exppose. Fitzgerald wanted Cheney, and Libby was clever enough to keep his e-boss off the hook.
It doesn't appear to me to be over.
Smokin, based on the way you see things you must believe that OJ didn't do it?
John M

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Whether Plame was an NOC at the time she was outed is not at issue.
THAT is exactly the issue, whether or not she was a "covert opperative" when her ID was revealed. Jesus christ man, since she was not, the statute you and others wanted Cheeney, Rove, and Bush to hang for, does not apply.
Past and potential operations as NOC is. Wrong.
There is NO PROVISION in the IIPA that concerns itself with FUTURE POTENTIAL status, read it. PAST status only matters for 5 years. Read it. Future potential status could make revealing MY identity a crime, since I just MIGHT, one day, work for CIA.
As stated by defintion, NOC status is for covert operations. It has been clearly established that during her time at the CIA, Plame had NOC/covert status. Untill 1997, 10 years ago, 6 years before she was "outed" by Armitidge.
As I've stated previously, it is yet to be determined if the outing of Plame, who had prior NOC/covert status and potentially future NOC/covert status was crime. The law in this regard is vague and ambiguous.
Read the statute again, it says NOTHING about "future" status, and past status times out at 5 years, 5 years Ultra. The only thing vague and ambiguous about the statute is your comprehension of it.
It doesn't appear to me to be over.
According to Fitzgerald, IT IS!. His exact term is "inactive". Do I need to source or define that one too?
Smokin, based on the way you see things you must believe that OJ didn't do it?
So just how do you divine that one? I have looked at the evidence, have you? I Do have an opinion on that one, but, just as you are wrong about your understanding of the IIPA1982, you are again,. WRONG.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

THAT is exactly the issue, whether or not she was a "covert opperative" when her ID was revealed. Jesus christ man, since she was not, the statute you and others wanted Cheeney, Rove, and Bush to hang for, does not apply.
Wrong.
There is NO PROVISION in the IIPA that concerns itself with FUTURE POTENTIAL status, read it. PAST status only matters for 5 years. Read it. Future potential status could make revealing MY identity a crime, since I just MIGHT, one day, work for CIA.
Untill 1997, 10 years ago, 6 years before she was "outed" by Armitidge.
Read the statute again, it says NOTHING about "future" status, and past status times out at 5 years, 5 years Ultra. The only thing vague and ambiguous about the statute is your comprehension of it.
According to Fitzgerald, IT IS!. His exact term is "inactive". Do I need to source or define that one too?
So just how do you divine that one? I have looked at the evidence, have you? I Do have an opinion on that one, but, just as you are wrong about your understanding of the IIPA1982, you are again,. WRONG.
1. I meant not at issue as it known that she was not in an NOC role at the time she was outed.
2. You say 5 years. For this to be acurate, the law must state that the ID of a covert agent is no longer classified after 5 years following last NOC status. If one is written in this matter, I stand corrected. I've found no such law.
Comparing your future ID to the ID of a member of the CIA and former covert agent, in support of your position, isn't realistic.
I find if difficlut that believe that there is no law or code of ethics that allows such a breach of security. As long a Plame remained a member of the CIA who had been condiderd NOC, at, any time during her tenure, her ID should have remained classified. In thie absence of specific language stating that the ID of a covert agent is no longer classified after five years, none of your points matter. If you can educate me with such a law, I will thank you and ask you to accept my apology for wasting your time.
3. The case on point is related to at what point after a covert mission
does a covert agent lose hir or her rights under IIPA11982. IIPA1982 is very clear.
Thanks

[Moneypitt]

John, I don't take sides here, but even I can see the logic here. There was no crime, period. So Libby was charged with obstructing justice over a non crime, and even then he was mistaken as to his involvement in this non crime. Pretty straightforward there John, regardless of which side of the isle you're on, there was no crime commited. The investigation was fueled by a strong desire to find any hint of wrong doing, and they couldn't find any crime, nothing, other than forgeting the sequence of events, and what was said about them. "I lied, I thought I had commited a crime as charged, but I was mistaken about being involved, so when I said I was involved it was a lie".....What is wrong with this picture??? Really John, no crime, no cover up....MP
PS And certainly no comparision to OJ. You can tell, there were no threats of rioting...........

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I'm done with this one Ultra. The way the law reads is not the way you WANT the law to read, and you would apparently be surpriesd as to what "ethics volations" that you or I would not do because of our personal morals ARE LEGAL.
The entire reason for the IIPA was an EX-COVERT AGENT wrote a book, named names, named opperations, ruined a whole host of opperations, blew DEEP covers, and, while it was IMO unethical as hell, it WAS LEGAL at the time, untill IIPA 1982.
The law was written, in part, as a response to several incidents where Central Intelligence Agency agents' identities were revealed. Under then existing law, such disclosures were legal when they did not involve the release of classified information. In 1975, CIA Athens station chief Richard Welch was assassinated by the Greek terrorist group November 17 after his identity was revealed in several listings by a magazine called CounterSpy, edited by Timothy Butz. A local paper checked with CounterSpy to confirm his identity.
Another major impetus to pass the legislation was the activities of ex-CIA agent Philip Agee during the 1960s and 70s. Agee's book CIA Diary and his publication of the Covert Action Information Bulletin (CAIB) blew the cover of many agents. Some commentators say the law was specifically targeted at his actions, and one Congressman, Bill Young, said during a House debate that "What we're after today are the Philip Agees of the world."
The law passed the House by a vote of 315–32, with all opposing votes coming from Democrats. The law passed the Senate 81–4, with the opponents being Democratic Senators Joseph Biden, Gary Hart, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Republican Senator Charles Mathias.
As of July 2005, there has only been one successful prosecution involving the statute. In 1985, CIA agent Sharon Scranage was sentenced to five years, and served 8 months, for giving the names of other agents to her boyfriend in Ghana.

[YeLLowBoaT]

Just to clear one thing up...
You can be charged( and convicted) of "obstruction of justice" even if the investagtion did not result in a crime being discovered.
its like in football... You deflected as pass and made it imcoplete, but you were called for pass interference doing it... yes you cuased a imcoplete pass, but you skrewed yourself doing it.

[Schiada76]

SLSS,
Debating a leftist is useless. Facts mean nothing to them.:D :D :D

[Old Texan]

This is addressed to Ultra26:
John, I believe one of if not the major contention the majority of us have about both the Plame controversy and the Fed prosecutors controversy, is why are these really the high profile issues they've become?
Valerie Plame obviously wasn't in danger and the history of her position reveals she wasn't "outed" by the Whitehouse. The federal prosecutors were removed within the content of the law and here again there really hasn't been any evidence supporting wrongdoing. Why then are they high profile stories? And why are they demanding so much high dollar scrutiny?
You complain of the high cost of the Iraq War and I agree that's a lot of money, but what about the immense costs of these 2 seemingly frivolous investigations? Doesn't this wasted money concern you?
John these 2 investigations are basically political witch hunts attempting to take down the administration. They are kept alive by the same refusals to give in that you yourself are exhibiting in this thread.
This is the foundation of the rift between the Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, or whatever moniker you want to hang on what in essense is in the end basically a segment of our nation's citizens hatred and resentment for George W. Bush in particular and any Republican President in general.
You say want the rift to go away and you want change for the good of the country yet allow your blind hatred for OUR President drive the wedge deeper.
Sadly this is a lot of what goes on day after day in the Capitol and it spreads to hundreds of forums similar to this one and other venues thoughtout the nation.
I disagree with a lot of the Bush policy and I disagreed with a lot of Clinton's, Bush 1's, Reagan's, Carter's, and more, but the blind hatred and juvenile refusals to work together in our government is plain ridiculous especially when it's driven by folks with the questionable morals and integrity of Kennedy, Ms Clinton, Reid, Feinstein, Murtha and more. There's your controversy, why isn't it as heavily pursued as Valerie Plame??????

[OutCole'd]

This is addressed to Ultra26:
John, I believe one of if not the major contention the majority of us have about both the Plame controversy and the Fed prosecutors controversy, is why are these really the high profile issues they've become?
Valerie Plame obviously wasn't in danger and the history of her position reveals she wasn't "outed" by the Whitehouse. The federal prosecutors were removed within the content of the law and here again there really hasn't been any evidence supporting wrongdoing. Why then are they high profile stories? And why are they demanding so much high dollar scrutiny?
You complain of the high cost of the Iraq War and I agree that's a lot of money, but what about the immense costs of these 2 seemingly frivolous investigations? Doesn't this wasted money concern you?
John these 2 investigations are basically political witch hunts attempting to take down the administration. They are kept alive by the same refusals to give in that you yourself are exhibiting in this thread.
This is the foundation of the rift between the Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, or whatever moniker you want to hang on what in essense is in the end basically a segment of our nation's citizens hatred and resentment for George W. Bush in particular and any Republican President in general.
You say want the rift to go away and you want change for the good of the country yet allow your blind hatred for OUR President drive the wedge deeper.
Sadly this is a lot of what goes on day after day in the Capitol and it spreads to hundreds of forums similar to this one and other venues thoughtout the nation.
I disagree with a lot of the Bush policy and I disagreed with a lot of Clinton's, Bush 1's, Reagan's, Carter's, and more, but the blind hatred and juvenile refusals to work together in our government is plain ridiculous especially when it's driven by folks with the questionable morals and integrity of Kennedy, Ms Clinton, Reid, Feinstein, Murtha and more. There's your controversy, why isn't it as heavily pursued as Valerie Plame??????
I agree with a majority of what you write here. My contention is what about the hatred that Clinton faced when he was President and the opposition he faced from the right? I see this as nothing more than payback from how he was treated when he was in office. You talk about hatred for Bush, was there not the same hatred for Clinton? Did he not face the same pointless investigation after pointless investigation? To me it's just ground hog day, every day with politics. Neither party can get the things done they should be getting done because they are always defending themselves from the other party instead of working together for a common good. Both parties are guilty of this. Can't lay all the blame on the left here.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Wrong.
There is NO PROVISION in the IIPA that concerns itself with FUTURE POTENTIAL status, read it. PAST status only matters for 5 years. Read it. Future potential status could make revealing MY identity a crime, since I just MIGHT, one day, work for CIA.
Smokin,
As is stated previoously, I am unable to find any law that states past covert status only matters for 5 years. I too deal with facts, and when one is alleged, I ask for proof. Please forget about the issue of a crime being committed and and point all of us here to the law that states that the ID of a covert agent becomes unclassified 5 years after hir or her last covert mission. Again, we don't want the facts misstated. I suspect that your comment "PAST status only matters for 5 years" isn't so.
Tex,
By Libby's own admission, he exposed the ID of Plame. Whether outing Plame caused her to be in danger is not the issue here. Plame was outed for political reasons. Seems everyone has forgotten that the investigation into this matter came as a result of outrage from the CIA and not some laftist group. The law with regard to declassifiying the ID of a covert agent is vague and for this reason, this is viewed by some as a non-crime. IMO, the CIA must be viewed as off limits when it comes to playing political games by any side. If Plame was outed by a Dem, most on this forum, would be singing a different song. We all should remember how Rep's dealt with attacking the Clinton administration.
$4,000,000 per hour for Iraq. Cost of investigations hardly compare
I suspect Feinstein will be.
MP
The investigation into Plame affair came as result of outrage from the CIA. If outing Plame was proper, then why the outrage?
JM

[Old Texan]

I agree with a majority of what you write here. My contention is what about the hatred that Clinton faced when he was President and the opposition he faced from the right? I see this as nothing more than payback from how he was treated when he was in office. You talk about hatred for Bush, was there not the same hatred for Clinton? Did he not face the same pointless investigation after pointless investigation? To me it's just ground hog day, every day with politics. Neither party can get the things done they should be getting done because they are always defending themselves from the other party instead of working together for a common good. Both parties are guilty of this. Can't lay all the blame on the left here.
I agree, it's seemingly never ending. Don't forget Nixon.
But with Nixon and Clinton, both were found guilty of something or in Nixon's place he resigned. My problem with the Left/Dems/whatever is unlike say Tom Delay who resigned in the face of investigation claiming he wanted to protect the party by steeping aside, the Diane Feinstein's won't resign.
Sure she stepped down from her committee but if the allegations prove true will she have the courage/sense/dignity to step down from her office? We'll have to wait and see.
I just see too much elitism on the Dem side of the aisle for my liking. The Rep side is bad enough but that's just my personal view- Republicans are the lesser of the evils.
Still the USA has got the best thing going, we just need to find away to remove all the career political scum and that's what can't be figured out.

[Schiada76]

I agree with a majority of what you write here. My contention is what about the hatred that Clinton faced when he was President and the opposition he faced from the right? I see this as nothing more than payback from how he was treated when he was in office. You talk about hatred for Bush, was there not the same hatred for Clinton? Did he not face the same pointless investigation after pointless investigation? To me it's just ground hog day, every day with politics. Neither party can get the things done they should be getting done because they are always defending themselves from the other party instead of working together for a common good. Both parties are guilty of this. Can't lay all the blame on the left here.
The investigations aren't pointless when the end result is clear evidence of criminal behavior by the Potus amongst others. The libs are trying to make things up to pusue the current administration non of it is sticking. The only thing that gives any these of these accusations legs is the blatent hatred of this admin by MSM.
If the current administration is gulity of criminal behavior, convict them and punish them. If not they should STFU and do their jobs.
I think a lot of the problem stems from the fact that the last administration was so pathetic, the crimes they commited but weren't pursued for are almost endless. Don't forget they were caught with over 900 IRS (or was FBI) files on their political oponents. A member of the Nixon administration went to jail for five years for having one in his possesion. The bribes, selling the Lincoln bedroom for politiacl favor, Mark Rich etc. etc. These were real and blatent crimes, there were so many that the left wing loons figure the current administration must be guilty of some thing. Mistakes yes, crimes no evidence yet.
I voted for that fcn turd Clintoon the first time he ran, but I learn from my mistakes and will never, ever vote for another Democrat as long as I live. They cannot be trusted. Look at the last Dimocrap presidents, Jiminy Catuh who put us in the current mess in the middle East, and Bill Clinton who let the terrorists BOMB the WTC with no response and brought us 911.

[Schiada76]

OT,
Don't forget Nixon was driven from office for just thinking about doing what Clinton actually did.
Nixon was not involved in Watergate, he was invloved in trying to cover it up.
At least he had enough integrity to resign.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

This is addressed to Ultra26:
John, I believe one of if not the major contention the majority of us have about both the Plame controversy and the Fed prosecutors controversy, is why are these really the high profile issues they've become?
Valerie Plame obviously wasn't in danger and the history of her position reveals she wasn't "outed" by the Whitehouse. The federal prosecutors were removed within the content of the law and here again there really hasn't been any evidence supporting wrongdoing. Why then are they high profile stories? And why are they demanding so much high dollar scrutiny?
You complain of the high cost of the Iraq War and I agree that's a lot of money, but what about the immense costs of these 2 seemingly frivolous investigations? Doesn't this wasted money concern you?
John these 2 investigations are basically political witch hunts attempting to take down the administration. They are kept alive by the same refusals to give in that you yourself are exhibiting in this thread.
This is the foundation of the rift between the Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative, or whatever moniker you want to hang on what in essense is in the end basically a segment of our nation's citizens hatred and resentment for George W. Bush in particular and any Republican President in general.
You say want the rift to go away and you want change for the good of the country yet allow your blind hatred for OUR President drive the wedge deeper.
Sadly this is a lot of what goes on day after day in the Capitol and it spreads to hundreds of forums similar to this one and other venues thoughtout the nation.
I disagree with a lot of the Bush policy and I disagreed with a lot of Clinton's, Bush 1's, Reagan's, Carter's, and more, but the blind hatred and juvenile refusals to work together in our government is plain ridiculous especially when it's driven by folks with the questionable morals and integrity of Kennedy, Ms Clinton, Reid, Feinstein, Murtha and more. There's your controversy, why isn't it as heavily pursued as Valerie Plame??????
Tex, No hatred just dislike for a man I do not trust or respsct. Nothing blind about my feelings about the Pres. Mr Bush's low approval rating is the direct result if his politics. No need to continue discussing this issue as has been beaten to death. Dislike and hate are very different
John M

[Old Texan]

Tex, No hatred just dislike for a man I do not trust or respsct. Nothing blind about my feelings about the Pres. Mr Bush's low approval rating is the direct result if his politics. No need to continue discussing this issue as has been beaten to death. Dislike and hate are very different
John M
Blind is meant to define without specific reason. Lack of trust and respect are feelings generally brought about by specific reasons. Dislike and hate are basically different degrees of an emotion. Just my views by the way.
I guess we'll not get a clarification on what drives the importance of the pursuit of wrongdoing in either the Plame or Fed attorney issues then?
Your above reply could be construed by some as "dodging" the question. I for one am completely unconvinced either incident is valid enough for all the money and effort put forth. This thread started over 1 incident and you've debated the 2nd at length. Must be some importance in your opinion, I'm just trying to see what that importance is......:confused:
If they have been beaten to death, why is there so much effort being put forth by the Dems to investigate? The Fed investigation isn't showing any signs of slacking off?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Blind is meant to define without specific reason. Lack of trust and respect are feelings generally brought about by specific reasons. Dislike and hate are basically different degrees of an emotion. Just my views by the way.
I guess we'll not get a clarification on what drives the importance of the pursuit of wrongdoing in either the Plame or Fed attorney issues then?
Your above reply could be construed by some as "dodging" the question. I for one am completely unconvinced either incident is valid enough for all the money and effort put forth. This thread started over 1 incident and you've debated the 2nd at length. Must be some importance in your opinion, I'm just trying to see what that importance is......:confused:
If they have been beaten to death, why is there so much effort being put forth by the Dems to investigate? The Fed investigation isn't showing any signs of slacking off?
Tex,
Please let me know what question I appear to be dodging and I will answer it the best I can. If you are referring to the Plame issue, I find the outing of a current or former covert CIA agent totally improper. CIA covert agents are one of our main sources of world intelligence. Plame's ID, nor any other member of the CIA with current or past covert status should be purposely provided to the media. Doing so compromises the covert integraty of other covert CIA agents and missions. The CIA itself, was outraged by Plame's outing, as I am. I see not supporting Plame's ID as not support one of our troops, which she clearly was. The IIPA1882 makes no reference as to when a covert agent's ID is no longer considered classified. Smokin, stated that a covert agent's ID is only protected for 5 years. When asked to provided such a law, he responded that there is no law written in the manner that I described, and chose to withdraw. Most in these forums want facts, as I do., thus the reason I asked Smokin to provide documentation of this 5 year law. For taking the position that I have I have been called, amount other things a lying lib. As I have stated earlier, I may be many things, but a liar isn't one of them. I take great pride in being truthful. I try to be informed but sometimes error in this regard. While you and I don't always agree, communicating with you is done on an adult level. There is no name calling or any other childish stabs being taken at one another. It's obvious that I have no love loss for the current administration. The way I see Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, hardly suggests that I am a lying lib, or anything that the resembles the same.
Quite frankly, I'm not overly supportive if the Fed Attorney issue. I am not privy to what the investigators in this matter are trying to uncover. I am well aware that Bush had the right to fire these folks any reason at all. However, it seems that if the matter is to be dealt with at all, it should be done so under oath.
John M

[YeLLowBoaT]

OT,
Don't forget Nixon was driven from office for just thinking about doing what Clinton actually did.
Nixon was not involved in Watergate, he was invloved in trying to cover it up.
At least he had enough integrity to resign.
Hey smart guy... Nixon left by CHOICE... No one forced him to do anything.
Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.

[Old Texan]

Tex,
Please let me know what question I appear to be dodging and I will answer it the best I can. If you are referring to the Plame issue, I find the outing of a current or former cover CIA agent as totally improper. CIA covert agents are one of our main sources of world intelligence. Plame's ID, nor any other member of the CIA with current or past covert status should be purposely provided to the media. Doing so compromises the covert integraty of other covert CIA agents and missions. The CIA itself, was outraged by Plame's outing, as I am. I see not supporting Plame's ID as not support one of our troops, which she clearly was. The IIPA1882 makes no reference as to when a covert agent's ID is no longer considered classified. Smokin, stated that a covert agent's ID is only protected for 5 years. When asked to provided such a law, he responded that there is no law written in the manner that I described, and chose to withdraw. Most in these forums want facts, as I do., thus the reason I asked Smokin to provide documentation of this 5 year law. For taking the position that I have I have been called, amount other things a lying lib. As I have stated earlier, I may be many things, but a liar isn't one of then. I take great pride in being truthful. I try to be informed but sometimes error in this regard. While you and I don't always agree, communicating with you is done on an adult level. There is no name calling or any other childish stabs being taken at one another. It's obvious that I have no love loss for the current administration. The way I see Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, hardly suggests that I am a lying lib, or anything that the resembles the same.
Quite frankly, I'm not overly supportive if the Fed Attorney issue. I am not privy to what the investigators in this matter are trying to uncover. I am well aware that Bush had the right to fire these folks any reason at all. However, it seems that if the matter is to be dealt with at all, it should be done so under oath.
John M
Thanks John. Fair enough.
So I guess you don't want drop by this fall and do any dove hunting with Dick Cheney? :D
I don't know whether you heard or recall the story back in the learly 90's or so when Bush Sr. was roasted by the press for shooting a Meadowlark he'd mistaken for a dove. Chances are if this incident had happened today with Bush Jr. he'd be facing some sort of "Game Violation Infraction" by Congress. :devil:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Tex,
That was a good laugh.
We'll get through all of this BS, hopefully, sooner than later.
If you ever make it out this way, lets have a beer together. (Coors Light for me):) :)
John M

[Schiada76]

Hey smart guy... Nixon left by CHOICE... No one forced him to do anything.
Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.
I didn't say he was forced. He was faced with impeachment
and chose to resign, ostensibly to prevent the office of the POTUS from being dragged through the mud.

[Schiada76]

So, liberal boys, what about the title to this thread?
Where's the Shit hitting the fan?
So far it's nothing but more partisan bullshit from the left. Do you mean it's their bullshit hitting the fan?:eek: :D :D

[Schiada76]

If Valerie Plame's "outing" was such a horrific breach of trust and security why did the left put her on the cover of Vanity Fair.
To protect her identity?:D :D

[Old Texan]

So, liberal boys, what about the title to this thread?
Where's the Shit hitting the fan?
So far it's nothing but more partisan bullshit from the left. Do you mean it's their bullshit hitting the fan?:eek: :D :D
Teddy K's reply about the setup for the 2008 election is actually pretty factual as far as the DNC's thought process goes no matter how stupid it sounds. It's all about getting in power. I quite frankly think the Party's leadership is that shallow. They want complete control and when they get it they have no clue what to do with it.
The Democratic party of today is nothing like the Democratic party of the past. Zell Miller's book of several years back gives a real view of what is and has happened among the Dems. Look at the female element and tell me which one of these ladies is a leader- Hillary, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Sheila Jackson Lee?
All socialist leaning/outright activists with questionable histories of ethics. Not the kind of people I want making decisions.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Smokin,
As is stated previoously, I am unable to find any law that states past covert status only matters for 5 years.
That is because in your desire to continue grinding this axe, you ARE NOT READING THE LAW.
I already linked you to the TEXT OF THE LAW, not just Wikipedia's "understanding" of it.
Again, your homework, done for you. US Federal law, in all it's glory, as written by some congressman somewhere.
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982
United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4
Section 426, "Definitions"
Subpart 4 (enhancing of relevant parts is mine)
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4/Section 426/Subpart 4 defines the folowing terms:
classified information
authorized
disclose
covert agent
intelligence agency
informant
officer
employee
Armed Forces
United States
Just in case the fact that it is posted on Wikipedia is as much of a problem for you as it is for poserx, here's the orriginal source link, to Cornell Law School U.S. Code Collection - IIPA Definitions (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000426----000-.html)
point us all here to a law that states that the ID of a covert agent becomes unclassified 5 years after hir or her last covert mission.
See above, United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4/Section 426/Subpart 4
Again, we don't want the facts misstated. I suspect that your comment "PAST status only matters for 5 years" isn't so.
Your suspicion is wrong.
See United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4/Section 426/Subpart 4, , as advised 5 or 6 times now, twice above, sourced from 2 locations, one a well known law school.
"Covert Agent" IS defined by Federal Law, and, as a US citized employed or retired from, an inteligence agency, whose identity is classified (just a classified identity does not make a covert agent), MUST HAVE SERVED OVERSEAS WITHIN 5 YEARS PAST.
I leave all the irrelevant text in United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4/Section 426/Subpart 4 just so you don't think I am "clipping" it to create a nonexitent definition. Maybe that is what is confusing. Here's the relevant lines:
Line1 - The term “covert agent” means
Line2 - a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency
Line3 - whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information
Line 3.9 - and (very relevant word)
Line 4 - who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States
Now, what portion of Federal Law Title 50 US Code do you still not understand?

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The IIPA1882 makes no reference as to when a covert agent's ID is no longer considered classified.
Wrong.
United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4/Section 426/Subpart 4
Smokin, stated that a covert agent's ID is only protected for 5 years. When asked to provided such a law, he responded that there is no law written in the manner that I described,
Wrong, I did NOT say there is no such law, becuase there is.
United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4/Section 426/Subpart 4
and chose to withdraw.
No, I had an appointment last night with the local chapter of my drinking and running club, for the 10th Anniversary of the creation of the Tornado Alley Hash House Harriers, complete with visitors from other nearby chapters and the return of our founder on a visit from Canada.
A pub crawl is more interesting than arguing this.
I will also NOT be on tonight, for the same reason, the party after today's run.
Most in these forums want facts, as I do., thus the reason I asked Smokin to provide documentation of this 5 year law.
And I have given it to you, about 8 or 9 times now, I've lost count.
United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4/Section 426/Subpart 4

[SmokinLowriderSS]

When asked to provided such a law, he responded that there is no law written in the manner that I described, and chose to withdraw.
First posted on page 3, post # 70, by me.
Now, "Covert":, From the IIPA again, see above.
(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;
And that is, drum roll here please ..............................................
United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4/Section 426/Subpart 4

[SmokinLowriderSS]

SLSS,
Debating a leftist is useless. Facts mean nothing to them.:D :D :D
I keep trying. :(
:D :D

[Schiada76]

After reading your post yesterday I went out back and had a conversation with a stump. It absorbed more than Ultra did.:D
OT, This country is in very very serious trouble. It is headed towards socialism rapidly. The masses are no longer being educated and they are imbued with a sense of entitlement as soon as they hit school age.
They are turning out more and more people like Ultra. He can't comprehend anything other than the leftist dogma he's been brainwashed with and the saddest thing about it is I think he truly believes he's impartial.:(

[SmokinLowriderSS]

2. You say 5 years. For this to be acurate, the law must state that the ID of a covert agent is no longer classified after 5 years following last NOC status. If one is written in this matter, I stand corrected. I've found no such law.
Negative Ghostrider.
The law, is not concerned with the date of a person's Non Official Cover Status Ultra, The Status date is IRRELEVANT TO THE LAW.
The law concerns itself with the DATE OF RETURN FROM OVERSEAS ASSIGNMENT of spying (sorry, "inteligence gathering activities").
NOC status date, IRrelevant.
Return from overseas service date, relevant.
I know it is not written the way you want it written, but you keep denying the law THAT IS WRITTEN, AS IT IS WRITTEN.
A spy (let's just call a spade a spade here) could return from overseas, in January 2001, directly from having a "deep cover" "official" cover, work a desk for 5 years, the last 3 under a NOC, never be stationed overseas again (visits, vacations, junkets, fact-finding missions DO NOT COUNT), then retire, and, since 6 years have passed, it is NOT ILLEGAL to make them a public figure.
Status date does not count.
Stationing overseas date DOES.
Hell, Plame as far as the law is written, Plame could have been a Deep Cover Spy, all the way untill June 2003, then changed to a NOC, but NEVER STATIONED OVERSEAS AFTER 1998, and her "outing" is Legal because unless she was recently posted overseas, she was not, per the law, "covert", regardless what her CIA "status" was.
United States Code/Title 50/Chapter 15/Subchapter 4/Section 426/Subpart 4
Are we clear on this yet Ultra?
This dead horse is coming to pieces from the beating it's getting.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

By the way Ultra,
it was UNETHICAL for Senator Feinstein to sit on an appropriations committee that approved funding to a defence subcontractor HER HUSBAND HAD INVESTMENTS IN.
His investments were LEGAL.
Her sitting on the committee while funding his investments was UNETHICAL, but LEGAL.
See the other thread for further discussion on this topic.

[Schiada76]

So "Where's the Shit"?
To paraphrase Clara Peller. (RIP):D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA
David Corn
In the spring of 2002 Dick Cheney made one of his periodic trips to CIA
headquarters. Officers and analysts were summoned to brief him on Iraq.
Paramilitary specialists updated the Vice President on an extensive
covert action program in motion that was designed to pave the way to a
US invasion. Cheney questioned analysts about Saddam Hussein's weapons
of mass destruction. How could they be used against US troops? Which
Iraqi units had chemical and biological weapons? He was not seeking
information on whether Saddam posed a threat because he possessed such
weapons. His queries, according to a CIA officer at the briefing, were
pegged to the assumptions that Iraq had these weapons and would be
invaded--as if a decision had been made.
Though Cheney was already looking toward war, the officers of the
agency's Joint Task Force on Iraq--part of the Counterproliferation
Division of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations--were
frantically toiling away in the basement, mounting espionage operations
to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have. The JTFI was
trying to find evidence that would back up the White House's assertion
that Iraq was a WMD danger. Its chief of operations was a career
undercover officer named Valerie Wilson.
Her specific position at the CIA is revealed for the first time in a
new book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of
the Iraq War, by the author of this article and Newsweek's Michael
Isikoff. The book chronicles the inside battles within the CIA, the
White House, the State Department and Congress during the run-up to the
war. Its account of Wilson's CIA career is mainly based on interviews
with confidential CIA sources.
In July 2003--four months after the invasion of Iraq--Wilson would be
outed as a CIA "operative on weapons of mass destruction" in a column
by conservative journalist Robert Novak, who would cite two "senior
administration officials" as his sources. (As Hubris discloses, one was
Richard Armitage, the number-two at the State Department; Karl Rove,
Bush's chief strategist, was the other. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby,
Cheney's chief of staff, also talked to two reporters about her.) Novak
revealed her CIA identity--using her maiden name, Valerie Plame--in the
midst of the controversy ignited by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson,
her husband, who had written a New York Times op-ed accusing the Bush
Administration of having "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the
Iraqi threat."
The Novak column triggered a scandal and a criminal investigation. At
issue was whether Novak's sources had violated a little-known law that
makes it a federal crime for a government official to disclose
identifying information about a covert US officer (if that official
knew the officer was undercover). A key question was, what did Valerie
Wilson do at the CIA? Was she truly undercover? In a subsequent column,
Novak reported that she was "an analyst, not in covert operations."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested that her
employment at the CIA was no secret. Jonah Goldberg of National Review
claimed, "Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington
cocktail circuit knew that already."
Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations
officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration. Armitage,
Rove and Libby had revealed information about a CIA officer who had
searched for proof of the President's case. In doing so, they harmed
her career and put at risk operations she had worked on and foreign
agents and sources she had handled.
Another issue was whether Valerie Wilson had sent her husband to Niger
to check out an intelligence report that Iraq had sought uranium there.
Hubris contains new information undermining the charge that she
arranged this trip. In an interview with the authors, Douglas Rohn, a
State Department officer who wrote a crucial memo related to the trip,
acknowledges he may have inadvertently created a misimpression that her
involvement was more significant than it had been.
Valerie Plame was recruited into the CIA in 1985, straight out of
Pennsylvania State University. After two years of training to be a
covert case officer, she served a stint on the Greece desk, according
to Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who supervised her then. Next
she was posted to Athens and posed as a State Department employee. Her
job was to spot and recruit agents for the agency. In the early 1990s,
she became what's known as a nonofficial cover officer. NOCs are the
most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend
to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of
diplomatic immunity. They might claim to be a businessperson. She told
people she was with an energy firm. Her main mission remained the same:
to gather agents for the CIA.
In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined the
Counterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in with
Joseph Wilson; they later married.) She was eventually given a choice:
North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001,
she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer--before
9/11--word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit
was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of
9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed
in charge of its operations group.
There was great pressure on the JTFI to deliver. Its primary target was
Iraqi scientists. JTFI officers, under Wilson's supervision, tracked
down relatives, students and associates of Iraqi scientists--in America
and abroad--looking for potential sources. They encouraged Iraqi
émigrés to visit Iraq and put questions to relatives of interest to the
CIA. The JTFI was also handling walk-ins around the world.
Increasingly, Iraqi defectors were showing up at Western embassies
claiming they had information on Saddam's WMDs. JTFI officers traveled
throughout the world to debrief them. Often it would take a JTFI
officer only a few minutes to conclude someone was pulling a con. Yet
every lead had to be checked.
"We knew nothing about what was going on in Iraq," a CIA official
recalled. "We were way behind the eight ball. We had to look under
every rock." Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor
operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence
officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to
Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming--wrongly--were for a nuclear
weapons program. (The analysts rolled over the government's top nuclear
experts, who had concluded the tubes were not destined for a nuclear
program.)
The JTFI found nothing. The few scientists it managed to reach insisted
Saddam had no WMD programs. Task force officers sent reports detailing
the denials into the CIA bureaucracy. The defectors were
duds--fabricators and embellishers. (JTFI officials came to suspect
that some had been sent their way by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National
Congress, an exile group that desired a US invasion of Iraq.) The
results were frustrating for the officers. Were they not doing their
job well enough--or did Saddam not have an arsenal of unconventional
weapons? Valerie Wilson and other JTFI officers were almost too
overwhelmed to consider the possibility that their small number of
operations was, in a way, coming up with the correct answer: There was
no intelligence to find on Saddam's WMDs because the weapons did not
exist. Still, she and her colleagues kept looking. (She also assisted
operations involving Iran and WMDs.)
When the war started in March 2003, JTFI officers were disappointed. "I
felt like we ran out of time," one CIA officer recalled. "The war came
so suddenly. We didn't have enough information to challenge the
assumption that there were WMDs.... How do you know it's a dry well?
That Saddam was constrained. Given more time, we could have worked
through the issue.... From 9/11 to the war--eighteen months--that was
not enough time to get a good answer to this important question."
When the Novak column ran, Valerie Wilson was in the process of
changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she
prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told
colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator--to rise up a notch
or two--and then return to secret operations. But with her cover blown,
she could never be undercover again. Moreover, she would now be pulled
into the partisan warfare of Washington. As a CIA employee still sworn
to secrecy, she wasn't able to explain publicly that she had spent
nearly two years searching for evidence to support the Administration's
justification for war and had come up empty.
Valerie Wilson left the CIA at the end of 2005. In July she and her
husband filed a civil lawsuit against Cheney, Rove and Libby, alleging
they had conspired to "discredit, punish and seek revenge against" the
Wilsons. She is also writing a memoir. Her next battle may be with the
agency--over how much of her story the CIA will allow the outed spy to
tell.
Smokin,
An article on Plame. Please accept my apology for the the 5 year piece and for wasting your time. While I have been unable to cofirm, however I find it hard to believe that you would invent. Nonetheless, there is significant information available to confirm much of what I have expressed.
BYW, IMO, Feinstein is toast. It won't take much investigation, as her actions are obvious.
John M

[ULTRA26 # 1]

After reading your post yesterday I went out back and had a conversation with a stump. It absorbed more than Ultra did.:D (
If you ever learn to communicate like an adult,,,,, Nevermind, not something that's likely to happen.
Have a nice day
John M

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I have no intertest in confirming, or denying what may or may not have been future career plans by Plame/Wilson, because, in the story of the Plame name-dropping/investigation/accusations of crime/Libby Trial/conviction/likely upcoming overturn on appeal, her possible future plans and desires, while relevant to her carreer, are totally irrelevant to the scope of the criminal investigation that occured, and ended, crimeless.
Unfortunately, a carreer derailment may have occured, which would suck, but, it is VERY easy to have happen in the inteligence/spying business. It's not a carreer ender, unless she wants it to be, IF she has the skills to be in management in Washington as opposed to actually snooping overseas.
Now, I have a morning Hangover Run/Breakfast to attend to. :D

[Old Texan]

David Corn is in the Top Five Bush Bashers in the media. Not saying he's a liar but he is far from an objective source of information on anything poilitcal. David is a "Hater" not a "Disliker".
The following excerpt from Wikopedia tells Novak's view of Mr. Corn's view on the Plame isuue.
Corn had been personally involved in the early coverage of the Plame affair, the controversy over leaks to the media of the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame. After Plame's identity was revealed by Robert Novak in a column July 14, 2003, Corn was the first to report that Plame had been working covertly, in an article posted July 17.[12] [13] He criticized Novak for publishing the information, raising the possibility that the leak of Plame's identity might have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.[14]
Novak, for his part, disputed that Plame had actually been a covert operative, at least by the time her identity was revealed. He also objected to the negative portrayal of him in Hubris, for which he blamed Corn more than Isikoff. He said of Corn, "Nobody was more responsible for bloating this episode." Novak felt that Corn was too close with former ambassador Joseph Wilson, Plame's husband and a key figure in criticism of the administration's arguments for invasion.[15]

[SmokinLowriderSS]

If you'd only seen the Corn-slanted stuff I was trying to decipher every so often as I spent the hours I did referencing my facts last week.
HE'S still dead certain there was a crime committed, and it just MIGHT have been "high treason" according to him. :rolleyes: What a putz.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

If you'd only seen the Corn-slanted stuff I was trying to decipher every so often as I spent the hours I did referencing my facts last week.
HE'S still dead certain there was a crime committed, and it just MIGHT have been "high treason" according to him. :rolleyes: What a putz.
Smokin,
Are you stating that the Corn artical is not factual?
JM

[SmokinLowriderSS]

What I am saying, to be both blunt and "kind" is that Corn is a bit "elastic" with his conclusions from any "facts" he can locate.
Simmilar to Mikey Moore, but without the creativity.
Note my sourcings tried very hard to be politically "neutral".

[SmokinLowriderSS]

After a heavier scan, that is one of the very Corn articles I found giving you the sourcings you asked for. Unfortunately for it, it was mostly a teaser for a book, and conjecture, unprovable, on Plame's FUTURE, which was totally irrelevant to the question, "accused illegality of naming Plame in mid-2003".
It had a few tidbits which were chasable into verifiable info, some of which was referenced, just not to Corn's OP-ED piece.
Of course, I'm not asking you to source everything Corn alledges.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Smokin,
Are you stating that the Corn artical is not factual?
I ask you again.
"Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction."
Your words Smokin
Obviously noone can prove anything to your satisfaction, except you. You make that perfectly clear in every post. You seem to be able to "source" the opposite of any information you don't agree with. A truley amazing skill. I'm beginning to wonder.
JM

[eliminatedsprinter]

David Corn is an unreliable source. I wouldn't believe him anymore than I would David Duke. I don't know what Valerie Plame did for the CIA and after reading David Corn I still don't. What I do know, is that she was a federal employee and I have not heard anyone deny that she recommended her husband for doing a job for the Government. That is a major federal ethics violation that should have got her fired and possibly facing criminal charges. Every year we have to take an ethics refresher class on line and that is one of the major things they say to never, ever do...:)

[ULTRA26 # 1]

David Corn is an unreliable source. I wouldn't believe him anymore than I would David Duke. I don't know what Valerie Plame did for the CIA and after reading David Corn I still don't. What I do know, is that she was a federal employee and I have not heard anyone deny that she recommended her husband for doing a job for the Government. That is a major federal ethics violation that should have got her fired and possibly facing criminal charges. Every year we have to take an ethics refresher class on line and that is one of the major things they say to never, ever do...:)
ES,
If recommending friends or relatives for doing a Govt jobs was a crime, Mr Bush would have been sentenced to life.
Wik
The CIA leak scandal (2003) (sometimes described as "the Plame Scandal" or "the Plame affair") is an American political controversy involving high-level officials of the George W. Bush administration and members of the media resulting in a federal grand jury investigation, a criminal trial, and an on-going civil suit. Beginning in mid-June 2003, according to federal court records, Bush Administration officials discussed the classified CIA employment of Valerie E. Wilson (also known as Valerie Plame) with various reporters. A July 14, 2003 newspaper column entitled "Mission to Niger," by Robert Novak disclosed her name and status as an "operative" who worked in a CIA division on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Following this, Mrs. Wilson's husband, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson alleged that his wife's identity was covert and that members of the George W. Bush administration knowingly revealed that information as retribution for his New York Times op-ed entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa," of 6 July 2003. The CIA filed a complaint with the United States Department of Justice, requesting a federal investigation claiming that Plame's CIA status was classified information (leaking the identity of a covert agent knowingly is a criminal act). Attorney General John Ashcroft referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Special Counsel, directed by Patrick Fitzgerald, who convened a grand jury. The CIA leak grand jury investigation revealed that Plame was not a covert agent under federal law; however, because of misrepresentationts during the investigation, it led to an indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, who resigned hours after his indictment. The ensuing federal trial United States v. Libby began on January 16, 2007. On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted on four counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, and he was acquitted of one count of making false statements. His lawyers have announced that they will seek a new trial and, failing that, will appeal his conviction.[1][2][3] Special Counsel Fitzgerald has stated that he does not expect anyone else to be charged in the case: "We're all going back to our day jobs."[3] Libby is, however, still named as a party in an on-going civil suit that the Wilsons have brought against Libby, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, and Richard Armitage.
The CIA filed the complaint, not some BS Lib movement. The CIA stated that Plame's ID was classified. Plame was outed, this is not disputed. A non-crime determined by those who report to the perpetrators.
Corn and Duke??? That's a stretch
JM

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
If recommending friends or relatives for doing a Govt jobs was a crime, Mr Bush would have been sentenced to life.
Corn and Duke??? That's a stretch
JM
I do not know about the President, but as a federal employee (like Mrs Wilson or Myself) it is absolutly a major ethics violation, that is punishable by firing and or possible criminal charges. The mistake that the Bush administration made was that they should have filed a complaint and got her fired and then outed her and discredited the report.
Corn and Duke?? No stretch at all, in regards to their reliability as sources.
I have seen and heard them both say things, that are so false, they could only be lying through their teeth. While Duke may be more repugnant in many of his views (esp on race and religion etc) both are blatently biased and are equally poor sources of objective information.
In short, while they differ greatly in their ideologies, they are both very poor choices, if you are seeking honest objective information.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I do not know about the President, but as a federal employee (like Mrs Wilson or Myself) it is absolutly a major ethics violation, that is punishable by firing and or possible criminal charges. The mistake that the Bush administration made was that they should have filed a complaint and got her fired and then outed her and discredited the report.
Corn and Duke?? No stretch at all, in regards to their reliability as sources.
I have seen and heard them both say things, that are so false, they could only be lying through their teeth. While Duke may be more repugnant in many of his views (esp on race and religion etc) both are blatently biased and are equally poor sources of objective information.
In short, while they differ greatly in their ideologies, they are both very poor choices, if you are seeking honest objective information.
ES,
Who would be a more objective person to read? It appears as if you view Plame as a lib. Is this true? Your statement:
"The mistake that the Bush administration made was that they should have filed a complaint and got her fired and then outed her and discredited the report." Why becuase the report wasn't true?
Thanks
John M

[SmokinLowriderSS]

The CIA filed the complaint, not some BS Lib movement. The CIA stated that Plame's ID was classified. Plame was outed, this is not disputed. A non-crime determined by those who report to the perpetrators.
JM
It was determined to be a non-crime BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTELIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT OF 1982, not by anyone reporting to anyone.
In short, while they differ greatly in their ideologies, they are both very poor choices, if you are seeking honest objective information.
Exactly what I said Ultra, just a bit differently. VERY POOR CHOICE IF YOU WANT OBJECTIVITY.
I try very hard to be objective, unlike some.
Oh, and I am telling you, again ULTRA, I don't give a whit if the Corn Op-ED you posted is factual or not, because 90% of it is IRRELEVANT to the discussion here.
I am not debunking it, I am UNINTERESTED in it. I am also uninterested in spending 2 or 3 hours, AGAIN, proving OR DISPROVING any parts of it.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It was determined to be a non-crime BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE INTELIGENCE IDENTITIES PROTECTION ACT OF 1982, not by anyone reporting to anyone.
Exactly what I said Ultra, just a bit differently. VERY POOR CHOICE IF YOU WANT OBJECTIVITY.
I try very hard to be objective, unlike some.
Oh, and I am telling you, again ULTRA, I don't give a whit if the Corn Op-ED you posted is factual or not, because 90% of it is IRRELEVANT to the discussion here.
I am not debunking it, I am UNINTERESTED in it. I am also uninterested in spending 2 or 3 hours, AGAIN, proving OR DISPROVING any parts of it.
Smokin, you're the man.
John M

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
Who would be a more objective person to read? It appears as if you view Plame as a lib. Is this true? Your statement:
"The mistake that the Bush administration made was that they should have filed a complaint and got her fired and then outed her and discredited the report." Why becuase the report wasn't true?
Thanks
John M
Who would be more objective to read??You mean between Duke and Corn?
I honestly don't know, flip a coin between the lying ethnocentric right wing bigot or the lying ideological left wing bigot. Both are useless to me.
Is Plame a Lib? I don't know. My take is, she and her husband are extremely ethically challenged. Such people tend to be what those of us in clinical care refer to as "poor historians" of facts.
Was the report true. Considering the ethics of the author, there is no way to tell, thus it is useless and his trip and pay were a waste of tax money, that he and his wife should have to pay back to the federal government. The report started out as a major ethics violation, there is no reason to trust it, and every reason to doubt it's credibility.

[eliminatedsprinter]

ES,
Who would be a more objective person to read? It appears as if you view Plame as a lib. Is this true? Your statement:
"The mistake that the Bush administration made was that they should have filed a complaint and got her fired and then outed her and discredited the report." Why becuase the report wasn't true?
Thanks
John M
Who would be more objective to read??You mean between Duke and Corn?
I honestly don't know, flip a coin between the lying ethnocentric right wing bigot or the lying ideological left wing bigot. Both are useless to me.
Is Plame a Lib? I don't know. My take is, she and her husband are extremely ethically challenged. Such people tend to be what those of us in clinical care refer to as "poor historians" of facts.
Was the report true? Considering the ethics of the author, there is no way to tell. Thus it is useless and his trip and pay was a waste of tax money, that he and his wife should have to pay back to the federal government. Remember, his report started off as the result of a major ethics violation, thus there is no reason at all to give it any credibility and every reason to doubt it's integrity.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Who would be more objective to read??You mean between Duke and Corn?
I honestly don't know, flip a coin between the lying ethnocentric right wing bigot or the lying ideological left wing bigot. Both are useless to me.
Is Plame a Lib? I don't know. My take is, she and her husband are extremely ethically challenged. Such people tend to be what those of us in clinical care refer to as "poor historians" of facts.
Was the report true. Considering the ethics of the author, there is no way to tell, thus it is useless and his trip and pay was a waste of tax money, that he and his wife should have to pay back to the federal government. Remember, his report started off as the result of a major ethics violation, thus there is no reason at all to give it any credibility and every reason to doubt it's honesty.
EP,
I was looking for a suggestion for someone different who is more objective.
Where do find any information that say Wilson, both Mr. and Mrs have ethics problems. I have searched have haven't found anything like that, however I do not read Rush.
Thanks
JM

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Since you want me to do SOMETHING with Corn ........
What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA
David Corn
In the spring of 2002 Dick Cheney made one of his periodic trips to CIA
headquarters. Officers and analysts were summoned to brief him on Iraq.
Paramilitary specialists updated the Vice President on an extensive
covert action program in motion that was designed to pave the way to a
US invasion. Cheney questioned analysts about Saddam Hussein's weapons
of mass destruction. How could they be used against US troops? Which
Iraqi units had chemical and biological weapons? He was not seeking
information on whether Saddam posed a threat because he possessed such
weapons. His queries, according to a CIA officer at the briefing, were
pegged to the assumptions that Iraq had these weapons and would be
invaded--as if a decision had been made.
I wonder how much of the above is classified, and how much conjecture, both unprovable.
Though Cheney was already looking toward war, the officers of the
agency's Joint Task Force on Iraq--part of the Counterproliferation
Division of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations--were
frantically toiling away in the basement, mounting espionage operations
to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have. The JTFI was
trying to find evidence that would back up the White House's assertion
that Iraq was a WMD danger. Its chief of operations was a career
undercover officer named Valerie Wilson.
Again, I wonder how much of the above is classified, and how much conjecture, both unprovable.
Her specific position at the CIA is revealed for the first time in a
new book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of
the Iraq War, by the author of this article and Newsweek's Michael
Isikoff. The book chronicles the inside battles within the CIA, the
White House, the State Department and Congress during the run-up to the
war. Its account of Wilson's CIA career is mainly based on interviews
with confidential CIA sources.
Book advertisement
In July 2003--four months after the invasion of Iraq--Wilson would be
outed as a CIA "operative on weapons of mass destruction" in a column
by conservative journalist Robert Novak, who would cite two "senior
administration officials" as his sources.
History, what is the relevancy of Novak's accused political leaning?
(As Hubris discloses, one was
Richard Armitage, the number-two at the State Department; Karl Rove,
Bush's chief strategist, was the other. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby,
Cheney's chief of staff, also talked to two reporters about her.)
Book advertisement
Novak
revealed her CIA identity--using her maiden name, Valerie Plame--in the
midst of the controversy ignited by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson,
her husband, who had written a New York Times op-ed accusing the Bush
Administration of having "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the
Iraqi threat."
History
The Novak column triggered a scandal and a criminal investigation. At
issue was whether Novak's sources had violated a little-known law that
makes it a federal crime for a government official to disclose
identifying information about a covert US officer (if that official
knew the officer was undercover). A key question was, what did Valerie
Wilson do at the CIA? Was she truly undercover? In a subsequent column,
Novak reported that she was "an analyst, not in covert operations."
White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested that her
employment at the CIA was no secret. Jonah Goldberg of National Review
claimed, "Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington
cocktail circuit knew that already."
History
Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations
officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration. Armitage,
Rove and Libby had revealed information about a CIA officer who had
searched for proof of the President's case. In doing so, they harmed
her career and put at risk operations she had worked on and foreign
agents and sources she had handled.
Conjecture, possibly highly clasified, and definitely unprovable.
Another issue was whether Valerie Wilson had sent her husband to Niger
to check out an intelligence report that Iraq had sought uranium there.
Hubris contains new information undermining the charge that she
arranged this trip. In an interview with the authors, Douglas Rohn, a
State Department officer who wrote a crucial memo related to the trip,
acknowledges he may have inadvertently created a misimpression that her
involvement was more significant than it had been.
Book advertising
Valerie Plame was recruited into the CIA in 1985, straight out of
Pennsylvania State University. After two years of training to be a
covert case officer, she served a stint on the Greece desk, according
to Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who supervised her then. Next
she was posted to Athens and posed as a State Department employee. Her
job was to spot and recruit agents for the agency. In the early 1990s,
she became what's known as a nonofficial cover officer. NOCs are the
most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend
to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of
diplomatic immunity. They might claim to be a businessperson. She told
people she was with an energy firm. Her main mission remained the same:
to gather agents for the CIA.
Only partially accurate.
In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined the
Counterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in with
Joseph Wilson; they later married.)
History
She was eventually given a choice:
North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001,
she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer--before
9/11--word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit
was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of
9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed
in charge of its operations group.
Classified or conjecture, you decide.
There was great pressure on the JTFI to deliver. Its primary target was
Iraqi scientists. JTFI officers, under Wilson's supervision, tracked
down relatives, students and associates of Iraqi scientists--in America
and abroad--looking for potential sources. They encouraged Iraqi
émigrés to visit Iraq and put questions to relatives of interest to the
CIA. The JTFI was also handling walk-ins around the world.
Increasingly, Iraqi defectors were showing up at Western embassies
claiming they had information on Saddam's WMDs. JTFI officers traveled
throughout the world to debrief them. Often it would take a JTFI
officer only a few minutes to conclude someone was pulling a con. Yet
every lead had to be checked.
"We knew nothing about what was going on in Iraq," a CIA official
recalled. "We were way behind the eight ball. We had to look under
every rock." Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor
operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence
officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to
Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming--wrongly--were for a nuclear
weapons program. (The analysts rolled over the government's top nuclear
experts, who had concluded the tubes were not destined for a nuclear
program.)
Mostly again, conjecture or release of classified, and little is verifiable.
The JTFI found nothing. The few scientists it managed to reach insisted
Saddam had no WMD programs. Task force officers sent reports detailing
the denials into the CIA bureaucracy. The defectors were
duds--fabricators and embellishers. (JTFI officials came to suspect
that some had been sent their way by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National
Congress, an exile group that desired a US invasion of Iraq.) The
results were frustrating for the officers. Were they not doing their
job well enough--or did Saddam not have an arsenal of unconventional
weapons? Valerie Wilson and other JTFI officers were almost too
overwhelmed to consider the possibility that their small number of
operations was, in a way, coming up with the correct answer: There was
no intelligence to find on Saddam's WMDs because the weapons did not
exist. Still, she and her colleagues kept looking. (She also assisted
operations involving Iran and WMDs.)
When the war started in March 2003, JTFI officers were disappointed. "I
felt like we ran out of time," one CIA officer recalled. "The war came
so suddenly. We didn't have enough information to challenge the
assumption that there were WMDs.... How do you know it's a dry well?
That Saddam was constrained. Given more time, we could have worked
through the issue.... From 9/11 to the war--eighteen months--that was
not enough time to get a good answer to this important question."
Conjecture or classified, who knows, unprovable.
When the Novak column ran, Valerie Wilson was in the process of
changing her clandestine status from NOC to official cover, as she
prepared for a new job in personnel management. Her aim, she told
colleagues, was to put in time as an administrator--to rise up a notch
or two--and then return to secret operations. But with her cover blown,
she could never be undercover again. Moreover, she would now be pulled
into the partisan warfare of Washington. As a CIA employee still sworn
to secrecy, she wasn't able to explain publicly that she had spent
nearly two years searching for evidence to support the Administration's
justification for war and had come up empty.
Conjecture on Plame's future plans.
Valerie Wilson left the CIA at the end of 2005. In July she and her
husband filed a civil lawsuit against Cheney, Rove and Libby, alleging
they had conspired to "discredit, punish and seek revenge against" the
Wilsons.
Funny how they are both trying desperately to NOT TESTIFY UNDER OATH now that the Libby trial is over. Both have put out so many conflicting statements to the press they have ... ummmm ...... "problems".
[She is also writing a memoir. Her next battle may be with the
agency--over how much of her story the CIA will allow the outed spy to
tell.
Also a movie. Retire to a modest pension, or sue, and also make a fortune from royalties to a best-seller and a movie deal. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
There, I wasted an hour there.
By the way, Corn's bookwriting history:
1994 Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades, biography of Ted Shackley; Joseph Finder in the New York Times claimed Corn was seriously distorting history to blame Shackley for a series of CIA failings.
Corn became a harsh critic of President Bush. His next book was titled The Lies of George W. Bush
charging that Bush had deliberately and systematically "mugged the truth" as part of his political strategy. It found fault with the media for failing to report this effectively
He paired up with Isikoff to write Hubris.
Reviewers sympathetic to their thesis commended the book for its comprehensive analysis of the march to war, although one thought the coverage of the Plame affair bordered on the obsessive
Corn had been personally involved in the early coverage of the Plame affair
Corn was the first to report that Plame had been working covertly (and apparently IN ERROR)
He criticized Novak for publishing the information, raising the possibility that the leak of Plame's identity might have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (apparently he can't read the law well either).
Oh, from his website:
Too bad, the court handed George W. Bush the presidency in 2000. The five justices who ruled for Bush back then are partially responsible for years of Bush administration neglect regarding global warming.
Watching Rove win the guffaws of the assembled was also an unsettling experience. This fellow is responsible for an administration that has done much damage to the nation and the world. He deserves no giggles.
Yep, he's a balanced and un-biased source. Do forgive me for doubting his credibility ULTRA.:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Smokin,
You're amazing. Have you ever heard of OCD. I have bit of it and I suspect you might too. It's going around.
My fiirst thought is if this fiction, I would say that Corn is extremely inteligent ad creative.
Based on your take on the article there was more than handful of areas that you found, unverifyable or classified. Is this man bright enough to be able to have created much of this from his head? It is CIA related, so he has a head start If not then I would lean toward believeing the majority being truthful. I wan't overly impressed wih his writting style. I need to read a couple more of his pieces to forn a conclusion.
JM

[eliminatedsprinter]

EP,
I was looking for a suggestion for someone different who is more objective.
Where do find any information that say Wilson, both Mr. and Mrs have ethics problems. I have searched have haven't found anything like that, however I do not read Rush.
Thanks
JM
I don't read or listen to Rush either. I have seen him many times as a guest on talk shows etc. But I have always viewed him more as an entertainer who likes to poke fun at the left, rather than as a source of information.
Sorry about misreading your comment. I thought you were saying that the analogy of Corn to Duke was a stretch.
I'll tell you who to find for a referrance for the Wilson's ethical problems, yourself and your federal government. Read the code of ethics we have all signed to follow and then look at the undisputed fact, that she recommended her husband for that paid assignment to go to Niger, then make up your mind for yourself. It is an easy call. She committed a blatent violation and then tried to hide behind her covert CIA status, to keep it from being acted upon, it is not only an ethics violation, but an abuse of her CIA status as well.
He!!, I feel guilty if I take a break from my documentation to spend a few minutes on HB, on federal time, even though we are allowed some personal time on the internet esp when my work is caught up.:rolleyes: :) ;)
If I ever did what she did, I'd have trouble sleeping at night. But hey, that's just me. I'm one of those honest government workers, who wants to serve his country for a fair wage, by helping those who have defended our freedom. What do I know about federal ethics?
P.S. I know how to find you a referrance for our expected ethical conduct, on such matters, on our agencies training site, however, my searching here at home on google didn't turn up anything (actually it turned up too much crap to sift through). Perhaps tomorrow, if I have the time, I'll look it up there and find something you can link to. I'm sure the government wont mind if I revisit our on line, manditory ethics training course, even though I have already passed it (again) this year. ;)

[Schiada76]

Sooooooooooo, Where's the sh it lib boys?:D
It must just be on it's way to the fan and hasn't actually hit it yet, right?

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I don't read or listen to Rush either. I have seen him many times as a guest on talk shows etc. But I have always viewed him more as an entertainer who likes to poke fun at the left, rather than as a source of information.
Sorry about misreading your comment. I thought you were saying that the analogy of Corn to Duke was a stretch.
I'll tell you who to find for a referrance for the Wilson's ethical problems, yourself and your federal government. Read the code of ethics we have all signed to follow and then look at the undisputed fact, that she recommended her husband for that paid assignment to go to Niger, then make up your mind for yourself. It is an easy call. She committed a blatent violation and then tried to hide behind her covert CIA status, to keep it from being acted upon, it is not only an ethics violation, but an abuse of her CIA status as well.
He!!, I feel guilty if I take a break from my documentation to spend a few minutes on HB, on federal time, even though we are allowed some personal time on the internet esp when my work is caught up.:rolleyes: :) ;)
If I ever did what she did, I'd have trouble sleeping at night. But hey, that's just me. I'm one of those honest government workers, who wants to serve his country for a fair wage, by helping those who have defended our freedom. What do I know about federal ethics?
P.S. I know how to find you a referrance for our expected ethical conduct, on such matters, on our agencies training site, however, my searching here at home on google didn't turn up anything (actually it turned up too much crap to sift through). Perhaps tomorrow, if I have the time, I'll look it up there and find something you can link to. I'm sure the government wont mind if I revisit our on line, manditory ethics training course, even though I have already passed it (again) this year. ;)
Thanks ES
John M

[eliminatedsprinter]

Thanks ES
John M
Found it. It is under U.S.Code Chapter 18 sec 208.:idea:
No federal employee may take any part in any decsion, that in any way, effects the finances of themself, their spouse, or their children. Ie we may not reccommend any of the above for any paid position or job (which Mr Wilson's trip to Niger was) with the government.
I remembered this because:
A. It was one of the specific examples on the test we take every year (Almost the exact senario).
B. I work with a friend who's mother also works for the Government and they have to be very careful to never to involve themselves in anything that envolves each others employment.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Found it. It is under U.S.Code Chapter 18 sec 208.:idea:
No federal employee may take any part in any decsion, that in any way, effects the finances of themself, their spouse, or their children. Ie we may not reccommend any of the above for any paid position or job (which Mr Wilson's trip to Niger was) with the government.
I remembered this because:
A. It was one of the specific examples on the test we take every year (Almost the exact senario).
B. I work with a friend who's mother also works for the Government and they have to be very careful to never to involve themselves in anything that envolves each others employment.
Not disputing you but I am unable to find your statement in the code cited:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 11 > § 208
§ 208. Acts affecting a personal financial interest
(a) Except as permitted by subsection (b) hereof, whoever, being an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government, or of any independent agency of the United States, a Federal Reserve bank director, officer, or employee, or an officer or employee of the District of Columbia, including a special Government employee, participates personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest—
Shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply—
(1) if the officer or employee first advises the Government official responsible for appointment to his or her position of the nature and circumstances of the judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter and makes full disclosure of the financial interest and receives in advance a written determination made by such official that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the Government may expect from such officer or employee;
(2) if, by regulation issued by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, applicable to all or a portion of all officers and employees covered by this section, and published in the Federal Register, the financial interest has been exempted from the requirements of subsection (a) as being too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of the services of the Government officers or employees to which such regulation applies;
(3) in the case of a special Government employee serving on an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (including an individual being considered for an appointment to such a position), the official responsible for the employee’s appointment, after review of the financial disclosure report filed by the individual pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, certifies in writing that the need for the individual’s services outweighs the potential for a conflict of interest created by the financial interest involved; or
(4) if the financial interest that would be affected by the particular matter involved is that resulting solely from the interest of the officer or employee, or his or her spouse or minor child, in birthrights—
(A) in an Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians,
(B) in an Indian allotment the title to which is held in trust by the United States or which is inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, or
(C) in an Indian claims fund held in trust or administered by the United States,
if the particular matter does not involve the Indian allotment or claims fund or the Indian tribe, band, nation, organized group or community, or Alaska Native village corporation as a specific party or parties.
(c)
(1) For the purpose of paragraph (1) of subsection (b), in the case of class A and B directors of Federal Reserve banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall be deemed to be the Government official responsible for appointment.
(2) The potential availability of an exemption under any particular paragraph of subsection (b) does not preclude an exemption being granted pursuant to another paragraph of subsection (b).
(d)
(1) Upon request, a copy of any determination granting an exemption under subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3) shall be made available to the public by the agency granting the exemption pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. In making such determination available, the agency may withhold from disclosure any information contained in the determination that would be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5. For purposes of determinations under subsection (b)(3), the information describing each financial interest shall be no more extensive than that required of the individual in his or her financial disclosure report under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
(2) The Office of Government Ethics, after consultation with the Attorney General, shall issue uniform regulations for the issuance of waivers and exemptions under subsection (b) which shall—
(A) list and describe exemptions; and
(B) provide guidance with respect to the types of interests that are not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services the Government may expect from the employee.
Please let me know if this is not the code you are citing
Thanks
JM

[eliminatedsprinter]

Not disputing you but I am unable to find your statement in the code cited:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 11 > § 208
§ 208. Acts affecting a personal financial interest
(a) Except as permitted by subsection (b) hereof, whoever, being an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government, or of any independent agency of the United States, a Federal Reserve bank director, officer, or employee, or an officer or employee of the District of Columbia, including a special Government employee, participates personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest—
Shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply—
(1) if the officer or employee first advises the Government official responsible for appointment to his or her position of the nature and circumstances of the judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter and makes full disclosure of the financial interest and receives in advance a written determination made by such official that the interest is not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services which the Government may expect from such officer or employee;
(2) if, by regulation issued by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, applicable to all or a portion of all officers and employees covered by this section, and published in the Federal Register, the financial interest has been exempted from the requirements of subsection (a) as being too remote or too inconsequential to affect the integrity of the services of the Government officers or employees to which such regulation applies;
(3) in the case of a special Government employee serving on an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (including an individual being considered for an appointment to such a position), the official responsible for the employee’s appointment, after review of the financial disclosure report filed by the individual pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, certifies in writing that the need for the individual’s services outweighs the potential for a conflict of interest created by the financial interest involved; or
(4) if the financial interest that would be affected by the particular matter involved is that resulting solely from the interest of the officer or employee, or his or her spouse or minor child, in birthrights—
(A) in an Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or community, including any Alaska Native village corporation as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians,
(B) in an Indian allotment the title to which is held in trust by the United States or which is inalienable by the allottee without the consent of the United States, or
(C) in an Indian claims fund held in trust or administered by the United States,
if the particular matter does not involve the Indian allotment or claims fund or the Indian tribe, band, nation, organized group or community, or Alaska Native village corporation as a specific party or parties.
(c)
(1) For the purpose of paragraph (1) of subsection (b), in the case of class A and B directors of Federal Reserve banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall be deemed to be the Government official responsible for appointment.
(2) The potential availability of an exemption under any particular paragraph of subsection (b) does not preclude an exemption being granted pursuant to another paragraph of subsection (b).
(d)
(1) Upon request, a copy of any determination granting an exemption under subsection (b)(1) or (b)(3) shall be made available to the public by the agency granting the exemption pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 105 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. In making such determination available, the agency may withhold from disclosure any information contained in the determination that would be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5. For purposes of determinations under subsection (b)(3), the information describing each financial interest shall be no more extensive than that required of the individual in his or her financial disclosure report under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978.
(2) The Office of Government Ethics, after consultation with the Attorney General, shall issue uniform regulations for the issuance of waivers and exemptions under subsection (b) which shall—
(A) list and describe exemptions; and
(B) provide guidance with respect to the types of interests that are not so substantial as to be deemed likely to affect the integrity of the services the Government may expect from the employee.
Please let me know if this is not the code you are citing
Thanks
JM
It is.
I did not attempt to quote the code.
But it is all right there in section (a) plane as day. That first pragraph covers it.
Want the translation??;) :)
In english that section says (among other things):
We may not make a recommendation that can effect the financial intrest of our spouse, ie, prospective employment etc...
In very very simple english it says:
We can't recommend our spouses for a federal government job.
It just can't get much clearer than that. :)
This is very basic stuff that all federal workers from groundskeepers to big wig CIA agents are supposed to know.
It was not at all illegal for Mark Wilson to take that job and go to Niger. What was illegal was for his wife to recommend him for it. For him to legally have taken that job he would have had to have applied for it on his own and she would have had to have kept her mouth shut and stayed as far out of it as possible. Remember this whole flap started, because she was outed for recommending him for that job.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It is.
I did not attempt to quote the code.
But it is all right there in section (a) plane as day. That first pragraph covers it.
Want the translation??;) :)
In english that section says (among other things):
We may not make a recommendation that can effect the financial intrest of our spouse, ie, prospective employment etc...
In very very simple english it says:
We can't recommend our spouses for a federal government job.
It just can't get much clearer than that. :)
This is very basic stuff that all federal workers from groundskeepers to big wig CIA agents are supposed to know.
It was not at all illegal for Mark Wilson to take that job and go to Niger. What was illegal was for his wife to recommend him for it. For him to legally have taken that job he would have had to have applied for it on his own and she would have had to have kept her mouth shut and stayed as far out of it as possible. Remember this whole flap started, because she was outed for recommending him for that job.
Wasn't Joe Wilson already a Govt Ambassador prior to his trip to Niger? Which raises the question of whether or not there was financial gain as a result of Plame's recommendation. I am just trying to fully understand how the law was broken. I'm not trying to argue.
Thanks
JM

[eliminatedsprinter]

Wasn't Joe Wilson already a Govt Ambassador prior to his trip to Niger? Which raises the question of whether or not there was financial gain as a result of Plame's recommendation. I am just trying to fully understand how the law was broken. I'm not trying to argue.
Thanks
JM
No problem
Joe Wilson was retired from the Foreign service (Last worked there under Clinton) and has since managed "J C Wilson International Ventures Corp." (a private international consulting firm, no doubt, consisting of himself).
That is what he was doing professionally, in 02 when he was hired by the CIA to go to Niger, on his wifes recommendation........:idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

No problem
Joe Wilson was retired from the Foreign service (Last worked there under Clinton) and has since managed "J C Wilson International Ventures Corp." (a private international consulting firm, no doubt, consisting of himself).
That is what he was doing professionally, in 02 when he was hired by the CIA to go to Niger, on his wifes recommendation........:idea:
EP.
Again. thanks for the info. Some eye opening stuff
JM

[eliminatedsprinter]

No sweat, that's what this is all about, trading thoughts and ideas.:D
Of course it would be better if it was by or on a lake, but I'm usually too busy stuffing my face with food, or filling my ears with wind and boat noise to talk politics by the lake....:D ;)

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I highlited the portions that apply to Valerie Plame/Wilson.
Not disputing you but I am unable to find your statement in the code cited:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 11 > § 208
§ 208. Acts affecting a personal financial interest
(a) Except as permitted by subsection (b) hereof, whoever, being an officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States Government, or of any independent agency of the United States, a Federal Reserve bank director, officer, or employee, or an officer or employee of the District of Columbia, including a special Government employee, participates personally and substantially as a Government officer or employee, through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation, or otherwise, in a judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he, his spouse, minor child, general partner, organization in which he is serving as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee, or any person or organization with whom he is negotiating or has any arrangement concerning prospective employment, has a financial interest—
Shall be subject to the penalties set forth in section 216 of this title.
Please let me know if this is not the code you are citing
Thanks
JM
Strangely enough, the same parts would seem to appear to Sen Feinstein, which I Italicized.
Thus the bold italics apply to both.

[eliminatedsprinter]

I highlited the portions that apply to Valerie Plame/Wilson.
Strangely enough, the same parts would seem to appear to Sen Feinstein, which I Italicized.
Thus the bold italics apply to both.
Many years ago she helped draft and pass a bill that gave federal education funds to many private schools and private educational firms. I was a bit puzzled at the time, because it was not part of her party's ideology to give public school funds to private educational outfits. Then I found out that her husband owned one of those outfits that got a big chunk of those funds and it all made sense...I guess her ethics haven't been too pure for a while now.....

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Somehow, it does not surprise me.

[Schiada76]

So why haven't the leftists here piped up screaming LIAR!!!! Convene a GRAND JURY!! Impeach!!!! She's a NAZI!!!!! Traitor!!!!:confused: :confused: :D
I'm really surprised they haven't, honest, really surprised.;)

[71tahiti]

Mostly Cali people and nevada peeps in here.. INDY guy here... Who out there ELECTS these clowns!!!! H. Reid, Pulogsi, Boxer.. If its up to these global warming IDIOTS, We will all be rowing F*&^ng CANOES!!!! They are more interested in bashing Bush than putting forward a comprehensive plan. Hell They have a potenial 12 million new voters. Bunch of Pandering Sissy Ass Leaders on the democrat side, at the moment. THEY NEED TO JUST LOOK BACK IN HISTORY to realize what we face.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Local loons who really should know better does it, and the welfare class who'll vote for anyone who hands them a $20.
Look at Teddy K. Nobody in their right mind would elect that guy. but he's been a senator for 3+ decades, maybe 4.