or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse! - Page 9

post #321 of 498
Thread Starter 
Quote:
James Wilson

Joe Wilson.
post #322 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Let's see. James Wilson makes a report and you act as though that's the last word, as though he had full and complete knowledge. He spent 10 days there. Is it THAT surprising to you that there are people who weren't impressed with what he brought back? Who's being obtuse? According to the CIA press release, he didn't contradict anything. What Wilson's report did was fail to confirm the allegations. It couldn't deny them. THOSE are the FACTS. Work from there. Maybe the allegations couldn't be confirmed because they weren't true or maybe because there's some evidence that hasn't been uncovered. The Brits STILL haven't budged from their story, though.

Why wouldn't I treat what Joseph Wilson found as if it's the last word? He was sent by the CIA to investigate whether Niger sold "yellowcake uranium" to Iraq. He said no, it was virtually impossible. And the CIA disagreed based on foreign government officials knowing that their words will be heard by the US? That's it? That's their entire basis for rejecting the Wilson report? If you looked at what Wilson actually found, you too would treat his report as fact. Tenet's comments do very little to discredit his findings. In fact- Wilson was right all along. Do you seriously think that Niger sold "yellowcake uranium" to Iraq? I mean that's something that has been discredited for a while now!

Tenet says very clearly that the "report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad." That's really not what Wilson was sent to Niger for given that it's just one country. Perhaps that's why Bush's 16 words included "Africa" and not "Niger?"
post #323 of 498
Thread Starter 
I'm still wondering what the voracity of the report has to do with that a Senior Admin. Official outing a CIA operative in what was not only a felonious act, but an act that endangered the lives of CIA agents, networks, and the United States of America, purely for political revenge.
post #324 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Giant, what I'm talking about is the link you posted.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

You still have the nerve to post here?

And look what you making an ass out of yourself again. Take a good hard look at that page and then read below.
Quote:
www.fas.org is a link to the Federation of American Scientists.

Really? THanks for letting me know. Funny that I didn't know about that even though I've been getting aftergood's secrecy news for the past few years.* Do you even know who aftergood is? No. So get a clue.

*since you obviously lack the capability to discern it on your own, this is called sarcasm.
Quote:
just go there... that's what it links to! and the link you listed goes to the 1947 National Security Act

That's 50 USC 421!!!! That's it, genius! Man. You have real problems.
Quote:
as for the amendments, the only difference is that instead of listing the amounts of the fines, they changed it to indicate that you shall be fined under title 18. sorry, I stand corrected.

No!

You said "Actually, I pulled it straight off of the Government Printing Offices Access Site and copied it directly for you" which was a flat out lie. You then proceeded to use your lie to try to ridicule me.
Quote:
But at any rate, who cares, I posted the law someone asked for.

It matters because you parade around here and lie that you are a law professor. You clearly NOT a law professor (as you claim to be) and know little or nothing about law (so little you don't even know how to correctly cite US Code). You also consistently have no clue what you are talking about and then lie when called on it.
Quote:
Federation of American Scientists website as if it's some sort of authoritative site.

Did they alter the code? NO! So how does this matter at all? That's right it doesn't.

And do you even know what FAS is? Apparently not. Just like you don't know anything about law. Maybe you should find out about both rather than compulsively lying on appleinsider.
post #325 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Hypothetical question: had a similar scandal occurred under Bill Clinton's watch...in what ways (if any) would the reaction and fall-out have been any different?


For an administrator with an excellent record, very few missteps, respectability, and a consistent record of educational and intellectual excellence, even the smallest mistake can stick out like a sore thumb and be used in a compelling attack. It is much easier to attack the "good" for the rare mistake than to attack the incompetent for business as usual.

For the Bush administration, this kind of scandal is pretty close to business as usual (I mean if they can get away with lying to start a very destructive war and singlehandedly destroy the international credibility of the nation and create immense damage to the the economy in the process, they can pretty much get away with anything). So the Bushies see it as a non-issue.
post #326 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Joe Wilson.



Literally.
post #327 of 498
I want to make a bold statement here:

I think Bush had nothing to do with this in any direct manner. He did not issue the order to intimidate.

I also think he was never aware of anyone in his administration doing this. And to this point he is still out of the loop.

In that respect, Bush is competely innocent.

But he is not innocent of neglect of duty. He has been hired by the people of America to lead the country. And the fact that he has delegated every aspect of his job to others reflects on his incompetence. He has the duty to lead. In fact, his opinion on the issues (does he really have one) doesn't matter one bit. His administration wouldn't listen to him. He's a buffoon and a figurehead. He's a sllightly different kind of figurehead than we're used to. He's not there to make his administration or his country look good. Hardly could he do that. He's there to confuse. In the absense of his own responsibility, we are confused about who we have to blame. Who is actually making the decisions?

Another reason Bush is there as a figurehead is to serve as a scapegoat if it becomes necessary. Under the Republicans' worst case scenario we could vote to impeach. Then what happens? Would our country be any different with Dick Cheney at the helm, under an identical or near-identical administration? Hell, no. They have their insurance. Under the worst case scenario the administration still wins.

Our only way out is to vote a different party into the White House in 2004. Until then we can only look forward to the decline of the American ideal of liberty, justice and peace.
post #328 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox

This is what Bush said. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It's clear he was basing the claim on British intel.

Shawn, keyboard, bunge, do you guys have any ideas as to what's up with these two? This one, zaphod, keeps on asking about things that have been answered, only he doesn't know it because he refuses to read anything.

Is this what the 'conservative' side is now reduced to? It's really kind of sad to watch, actually.
post #329 of 498
Thread Starter 
I'm at a loss...
post #330 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton

But he is not innocent of neglect of duty. He has been hired by the people of America to lead the country. And the fact that he has delegated every aspect of his job to others reflects on his incompetence. He has the duty to lead. In fact, his opinion on the issues (does he really have one) doesn't matter one bit. His administration wouldn't listen to him. He's a buffoon and a figurehead. He's a sllightly different kind of figurehead than we're used to. He's not there to make his administration or his country look good. Hardly could he do that. He's there to confuse. In the absense of his own responsibility, we are confused about who we have to blame. Who is actually making the decisions?

That's a really interesting way to think about it. I hadn't really considered it that way, but it really seems right on.

Clearly, his whole problem with talking thing is considered an asset for similar reasons. It brings in confusion in another way because you never know if he means what he says. But what you're pointing out is much more insightful.
post #331 of 498
Thread Starter 
Couple that with the Brit Hume interview where he said "he just reads the headlines" other people feed him his information. I understand as president you can get all the info yourself, but this loafer thinks that not only delagation of duty is proper but this spoiled brat thinks that delagation of thinking is a virtue!

As helen thomas was quoted as saying... "Dumbest president ever..."
post #332 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Shawn, keyboard, bunge, do you guys have any ideas as to what's up with these two? This one, zaphod, keeps on asking about things that have been answered, only he doesn't know it because he refuses to read anything.

Is this what the 'conservative' side is now reduced to? It's really kind of sad to watch, actually.

*throws hands up in the air*

We're in, what, Day 3 of the scandal so far? Imagine when the ball really starts to roll. Nine pages of chatter just on the motivations of bush leakers and the background of the scandal is pretty good.
post #333 of 498
Thread Starter 
Yep ShawnJ,

Did you check out the number of views this thread has? A whole bunch. Guess there are a lot of "dogs chasing tails" us, dozens of blogs, the washington post, ny times, EVERY MEDIA OUTLET, CIA, CONGRESS, THE WHITE HOUSE, The WORLD...
post #334 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by Harald
In your own words, why is outing an agent of the CIA a felony?

Did I say that?

Apologies if I did. Working for CIA isn't like being a Supreme Court Justice, and shouldn't be.

I think a President "firing" a Supreme Court Justice would be a felony, but fortunately politics hasn't degraded to that point yet.
post #335 of 498
Our president doing something slimy? I'm shocked!
-Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of...
Reply
-Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of...
Reply
post #336 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Shawn, keyboard, bunge, do you guys have any ideas as to what's up with these two?

I dunno, but I think it gives me heartburn.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #337 of 498
Whoa.

John W. Dean essentially says sue the bastards (Salon). He brings up a great point about how important the civil suit in Watergate was.

Quote:
Regardless of whether or not a special prosecutor is selected, I believe that Ambassador Wilson and his wife -- like the DNC official once did -- should file a civil lawsuit, both to address the harm inflicted on them, and, equally important, to obtain the necessary tools (subpoena power and sworn testimony) to get to the bottom of this matter. This will not only enable them to make sure they don't merely become yesterday's news; it will give them some control over the situation. In the case of the DNC's civil suit, Judge Charles Richey, a good Republican, handled it in a manner that was remarkably helpful to the Nixon reelection effort. But any judge getting a lawsuit from Wilson and Plame today would be watched a lot more carefully.

...and much more in the article. very interesting! I hope the Wilsons do it.
post #338 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
someone asked for this:



A case to prosecute would require the following elements...

Thank you very much.

Aries 1B

aka: "Someone"
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
"I pictured myself sitting in the shade of a leafy tree in a public park, a stylus in hand, a shiny Apple Tablet computer in my lap, and a pouty Jennifer Connelly stirring a pitcher of gimlets a...
Reply
post #339 of 498
Quote:
You still have the nerve to post here?

And look what you making an ass out of yourself again. Take a good hard look at that page and then read below

should I run and hide because I know what I'm talking about and you don't like me? I think my life will go on just fine.. thanks though for your entertaining ignorance. It amazes me how upset you got when I posted the law on here first... and gave an accurate analysis of it. It's as though you just can't stand to have someone that's not you be right...


so sad for you.
post #340 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Oh James...

What can i say that was not said before in the wonderful posts above?

Oh I got one,

How do you know CIA agent lives weren't put in danger?

I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.

If you want to do rhetorical questions:

I can't guarantee there isn't an alien spaceship sitting in a U.S. government lab, any more than you can guarantee that there is.

Use common sense.

So you seriously believe anyone in any presidential administration would compromise a serious deep-cover CIA op just to "get revenge" on some wacko hack who criticizes you?

It seems more likely to me that if you wanted revenge on your political opponents, you'd do what Clinton did and request all the FBI files on every Republican in Congress, or maybe do an IRS audit of political commentators, etc. Even Clinton wasn't accused of compromising the CIA. He engaged in more normal forms of revenge.

The conspiracy theory goes so far beyond common sense, you're in the realm of UFO's. In answer to your question: I can't prove they don't exist.

You're the one out on a limb suggesting they do.
post #341 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by JamesBSD
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.

If you want to do rhetorical questions:

I can't guarantee there isn't an alien spaceship sitting in a U.S. government lab, any more than you can guarantee that there is.

Use common sense.

So you seriously believe anyone in any presidential administration would compromise a serious deep-cover CIA op just to "get revenge" on some wacko hack who criticizes you?

It seems more likely to me that if you wanted revenge on your political opponents, you'd do what Clinton did and request all the FBI files on every Republican in Congress, or maybe do an IRS audit of political commentators, etc. Even Clinton wasn't accused of compromising the CIA. He engaged in more normal forms of revenge.

The conspiracy theory goes so far beyond common sense, you're in the realm of UFO's. In answer to your question: I can't prove they don't exist.

You're the one out on a limb suggesting they do.

Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.

As far as your skepticism towards Presidential politics goes-- it sounds like pure naivety. I say that acknowledging the fact that you seem like a very intelligent person.
post #342 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by JamesBSD
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.

Who cares? When someone drives drunk they don't necessarily kill anyone, but you still go to jail.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #343 of 498
Quote:
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.

Although your point is well made, it's irrelevant. The only real issue here is that a law was potentially broken. If the law was broken, the individual who did so should be prosecuted.

It is true that what you say was probably on the minds of those who wrote the law, and that may be why they wrote it. Additionally, it might get us worked up, but it's really not the issue. The issue is the law. Not the CIA, not the politics of it.

Quote:
Who cares? When someone drives drunk they don't necessarily kill anyone, but you still go to jail.

Exactly....

(well almost, in most states DUI's get treated as misdemeanors and don't involve jail time unless they are repeat offenses, but you're point is still well taken.) You break the law, you get prosecuted because you broke the law, not because someone did, or may have gotten hurt.
post #344 of 498
Thread Starter 
You said:

Quote:
I can't guarantee that agents weren't endangered, any more than you can guarantee that they were.

If you want to do rhetorical questions:

I can't guarantee there isn't an alien spaceship sitting in a U.S. government lab, any more than you can guarantee that there is.

Here's some great answers:

Quote:
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.

As far as your skepticism towards Presidential politics goes-- it sounds like pure naivety. I say that acknowledging the fact that you seem like a very intelligent person.

Quote:
Who cares? When someone drives drunk they don't necessarily kill anyone, but you still go to jail.

You said:

Quote:
The conspiracy theory goes so far beyond common sense, you're in the realm of UFO's. In answer to your question: I can't prove they don't exist.

Did a Senior Admin Official call at least 6 reporters and tell them that there was a UFO at a base just outside Las Vegas?

Did karl rove call the wife of the UFO pilot "Fair Game"?

What's more real? A UFO or a guy coming back from Niger and then disupting what the president and the vice president claimed as a pretext to war?

You said:

Quote:
So you seriously believe anyone in any presidential administration would compromise a serious deep-cover CIA op just to "get revenge" on some wacko hack who criticizes you?

Yes. Without a doubt.


Quote:
You're the one out on a limb suggesting they do.

Not even worth responding to. No wait i'll let shawnJ respond again:

Quote:
Fortunately, the CIA, the Justice Department, every Democrat and moderate Republican out there, and 85% of the public think this is a serious issue. Your logic is extremely suspect in that it refuses to acknowledge that damage or no damage- it certainly puts agents' and contacts' lives at risk. It jeopardizes lives to reveal the identity of a CIA operative. This doesn't have to actually do a thing because it's a federal crime to leak the identity of a CIA operative. The extent of the damage done is being assessed by the CIA as we speak.

Try switching channels to a news network instead of a baseball game. You might learn something like the phrase "she's fair game" and the exact number of reporters that a Senior Admin. Official blew the cover of a CIA operative to..
post #345 of 498
Thread Starter 
Great article

http://nytimes.com/2003/10/03/opinion/03KRUG.html

I red heart Paul Krugman...
post #346 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Exactly....

(well almost, in most states DUI's get treated as misdemeanors and don't involve jail time unless they are repeat offenses, but you're point is still well taken.) You break the law, you get prosecuted because you broke the law, not because someone did, or may have gotten hurt.

Thank you for giving me editorial license. Makes the conversations flow more smoothly....

So, be it Bush, Clinton or Rove, I'm in favor of treason charges. Anyone else?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #347 of 498
Thread Starter 
Oh Jeebus H Christmas, This is getting obscene:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...003Oct2_2.html

From the Washinton Post:

Quote:
As pressure built on his aides, Bush joked about the matter. During a roundtable discussion with reporters for African news organizations, he was asked about three reporters in Kenya who were detained this week in what some journalists saw as an effort to intimidate them into revealing sources. The detention drew a condemnation from the International Federation of Journalists, which complained that the government has been harassing and brutalizing journalists.

"I'm against leaks," Bush said, to laughter. "I would suggest all governments get to the bottom of every leak of classified information." Turning to the reporter who asked the question, Martin Mbugua of the Daily Nation, Kenya's largest daily newspaper, Bush said, "By the way, if you know anything, Martin, would you please bring it forward and help solve the problem?"
post #348 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Oh Jeebus H Christmas, This is getting obscene...

I'm glad he can joke with reporters. I don't want a stuck-up, stuffy tight-ass as president. But this is obscene. It's not a joking matter, but he apparently doesn't understand the importance of a free press.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #349 of 498
Thread Starter 
From http://www.Calpundit.com via david corn:

Quote:
KEEP IT SIMPLE....Buzzflash interviews David Corn today, who reminds us that there's a good reason for the "slime and defend" campaign against Joseph Wilson:



Of course, Wilson is mad. Wouldn't you be? Of course, he wants to raise a stink.But this is a campaign of blaming the victim. The strategic point here -- and there is one -- is for the GOP'ers to make this scandal look like another one of those nasty partisan mud-wrestles that the public never likes. Turn it into a political controversy, not a criminal one. Then it all comes out blurry and muddy in the wash. (Bad metaphor, I know.) But that is the intent: to fuzzy up the picture and cause people to shrug their shoulders and say, "it's just politics."

That's also the goal of people who pretend that the whole thing is just "too complicated." Make it look like a "he said, she said" story and eventually everyone nods off because they can't keep up.


But the story is actually pretty simple. Top White officials blew the identity of an undercover CIA agent, potentially endangering both lives and intelligence operations, solely to gain political payback against a guy who had risen to the top of their enemies list.

That's not so complicated, is it?


Slime and defend.

The moderates in the republican party are having their party hijacked by this administration.


I really think the neo-con and the rightwingnuts have forgotten how close the last election was. Don't they realize even if they turn away a small percentage of independents and moderate republicans, that they are going to lose big? Or are they counting on court decisions and black box voting machines?

As the next occupant of the white house said this morning...

"But if you believe the recent poll numbers... George W Bush will need brothers in 49 other states to take this election"
post #350 of 498
Everyone thinks they are so clever coming up with these quips.

NOVEMBER 2004: THE BATTLE OF THE SOUNDBITES!!!!!!!!!
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Reply
post #351 of 498
Thread Starter 
Maybe they'll use this one...

A Senior Admin spilled, someone could have been....
post #352 of 498
Thread Starter 
Robert NoFacts has endangered the lives of people again...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Oct3.html

Quote:
The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

....

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.



"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.



When and why will bush JUNIOR simply get signed affidavits from his top level staff (including the VPs staff!) swearing to the fact they were not the leaker? You don't need justice dept for that mr "president".

Is he afarid to know something? Going the non-denial denial route eh?

Need the plausible denial huh?

Honesty and integrity my #$%...
post #353 of 498
I still have to support Novak's decision to print the name. If he hadn't, it potentially would have leaked anyway, but the CIA never would have known it was leaked. In that scenario, the damage could have been so much more devastating.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #354 of 498
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
I still have to support Novak's decision to print the name. If he hadn't, it potentially would have leaked anyway, but the CIA never would have known it was leaked. In that scenario, the damage could have been so much more devastating.

I agree. I am not saying he did not have the right to do it. The problem i have is his hemming and hahing of the term operative etc. afterwards. And his general focus of this a "bush bashing" and not a overtly political act by someone in this Admin.

As it turns out, because Bob has less/more "insert some quality here" then the other 5 or 6 reporters that sat or did not bite on the story, the story got out and ended up biting this administration on the behind.Ironic given his political leanings...
post #355 of 498
I agree his hemming and hawing is annoying.

One question, how did this all come back in the news recently? I mean, doesn't everyone remember when this first happened months ago? It was news back then. What revived it?
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #356 of 498
Thread Starter 
The washington post story stating that people researching on their own have linked a company mentioned as a cia front.
post #357 of 498
A link for those that suggest no actual harm has been done to Ms. Plume.

And for those too lazy to click...

Quote:
"Her career as an undercover operative is over," says former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski, now a prosecutor in Royal Oak, Mich. He was a classmate of Plame's during the year rookie spies spend at the Farm, the Camp Peary, Va., school where CIA recruits learn how to read code and sneak through checkpoints and memorize secret documents. At the Farm, Plame stood out, he recalls, for being the best shot with an AK-47 in the entire class. "She will no longer be safe traveling overseas," he says. "I liken that to the knee-capping of an athlete."
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #358 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
A link for those that suggest no actual harm has been done to Ms. Plume.

And for those too lazy to click...

I was watching Meet the Press this morning and they featured Robert Novak and Joe Wilson.

Wilson when pressed about the damage done to his wives career conceded that there had been no harm. That at most her job responsibilities would be changed. However Novak mentioned that when he called the CIA to investigate the name, that he was told then that she already would not be peforming any more overseas work.

I would bet that being a 40 year old woman with 3 year old twins has something to do with that and I would bet this true of she were a man as well.

She has lost no pay, no benefits, nothing as a result of this leak. Don't elude to the harm. Demonstrate it.

I also like how the Times knows there are two officials who leaked. They know this from... The Washington Post story that won't name sources either.

Finally Wilson today admitted he had no proof in naming Rove. He spun it as saying Rove represented the office where you would start an investigation first, but he had no proof of Rove wrong doing.

However I suppose Wilson will be justified by all of you for smearing Rove and naming names without an iota of proof or guilt.

I would post the transcript but it hasn't appeared yet since it ran just this morning.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #359 of 498
The irony of all this is how Bush was defended up to and after the election. "Well the president doesn´t need to be smart himself as long as he hire smart people to make the decisions".

Rummy: "All we need is a swift attack on Iraq. It will take a few weeks and then we can send almost all of our boys home while the population cheer at us and everything settles down"

Someone unknown: "Maybe if we tell that our critics wife is a CIA agent then we will gain something from it"

What if your president can´t make smart decisions himself or surround himself with smart people? WHat do you do then?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #360 of 498
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I was watching Meet the Press this morning and they featured Robert Novak and Joe Wilson.

Wilson when pressed about the damage done to his wives career conceded that there had been no harm. That at most her job responsibilities would be changed. However Novak mentioned that when he called the CIA to investigate the name, that he was told then that she already would not be peforming any more overseas work.

I would bet that being a 40 year old woman with 3 year old twins has something to do with that and I would bet this true of she were a man as well.

She has lost no pay, no benefits, nothing as a result of this leak. Don't elude to the harm. Demonstrate it.

I also like how the Times knows there are two officials who leaked. They know this from... The Washington Post story that won't name sources either.

Finally Wilson today admitted he had no proof in naming Rove. He spun it as saying Rove represented the office where you would start an investigation first, but he had no proof of Rove wrong doing.

However I suppose Wilson will be justified by all of you for smearing Rove and naming names without an iota of proof or guilt.

I would post the transcript but it hasn't appeared yet since it ran just this morning.

Nick

So tell me, Mr. Trump, if all your life you've wanted to be a doctor, and you trained for it, and you were good at it, and you loved what you did, then all of a sudden you were told you couldn't be a doctor any more, and that you had to sit behind a desk and be an administrator, but that your benefits, pay, everything else would stay the same, would you like that? Wouldn't your career have been damaged? You've obviously never done a job that you loved before.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse!