Originally posted by bunge
This argument is weak Nick. You're just spinning to avoid answering my question.
Your Clinton analogy isn't good. There were hundreds of competing opinions on the subject. In this case we have one.
So I'll ask again, even though I imagine you'll spin and avoid again. But since we don't have any other prevailing opinions on the subject, if we assume this guy's opinion is correct, how would this effect your opinion of the situation? If he's right, and she's no longer safe to travel outside of the United States, what penalty would be strong enough for those that are responsible for the apparent leak?
We only have hypotheticals to work with at this point in time so don't hide from the issue. I can't believe you completely side stepped the issue the first time.
My Clinton analogy is perfect. If there were more than this former classmates opinion supporting the contention, I'm sure the Times would have tossed it in as support. Even most newspaper articles toss in several quotes that support a position. Time found one. I don't know if they didn't seek opinion on the opposite perspective but if they didn't they didn't post an opposing quote. Hardly fair and balanced
in my book.
If she is unable to travel outside the United States without safety concerns, I don't know what the punishment would be. How would you even prosecute that? In that line of work it is always an inevitability you would think and thus you must mentally be prepared for it. Even if her position weren't leaked as claimed by a White House Official, her cover could still have been blown at some time and that would mean no more travelling abroad.
So I guess you would need to determine to what degree the danger was unleashed early in a job in which that outcome was already a possibility and attempt to prosecute that. I don't know if that is the answer you wanted but it is sort of convoluted question. You are basically saying she is less safe and how do you prosecute someone being less safe?
Likewise if you were truly in deep cover cover, why would you send your husband with no expertise to research in the field in which you are both an expert and deeply undercover? It sounds like Plume is at least partially responsible for her own demise with her cronyism. If you are an expert on weapons of mass destruction and posing as an energy consultant, do you really send your husband who has no cover to Africa to ask about Uranium used for power being possibly used for weapons of mass destruction?
Now the Washington Post has some quotes from the shows I mentioned yesterday so I will move on to those...Washington Post
Joseph Wilson, a seasoned diplomat in both Republican and Democratic governments, said President Bush's top political aide Karl Rove, while likely not the source of the leak, later "gave legs" to a newspaper column that revealed his wife's identity as a CIA operative.
"I do have a number of people, or a person in whom I have a high degree of confidence, who has told me that Karl Rove told him that my wife is 'fair game', and that was one week after the leak," Wilson told CBS "Face The Nation."
So now Rove isn't the leaker, but a pusher. How do we know? Well a number of people... well one person I trust told me she is fair game.
The guy is all over the place.
Wilson said it now appeared his wife's name was actually leaked by someone outside the White House, as an act of revenge to stop him and others from questioning the intelligence used to go to war with Iraq.
"This administration apparently decided the way to do that was to leak the name of my wife," he told NBC's "Meet The Press."
Nice language there Post. He didn't question the intelligence he wrote a column condemning the Bush position. Likewise I like how he can no longer claim the leak is within the White House but yet still claim it is the administration after him. This guy and his claims get weaker by the day.
Wilson said he and his wife, a specialist in unconventional weapons who worked overseas, have become increasingly concerned she might be a target because of the disclosure and "as a consequence of that, have begun to rethink our own security posture."
Sounds pretty tame compared to the accusations made around here.