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"
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?
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 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...
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?
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."
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.
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?
The Leak: 2 Senior Admin. Officials outed Joe Wilson's wife in an act of politcal revenge.
The Push: A week after the story broke in July, Karl Rove continued to push this story to reporters. Famous Quote by K-A-R-L "She's fair game."
If she was NOC (which eveyone short of bob nofacts) is hinting she is then this is a felony; whether or not bullets where or where not fired upon her or a kidnaping was or was not attempted is irrelevent.
Maybe she didn't even get a hang nail by being outed Phew! Looks like her fingernails where saved!!! She might have not even had her hair mussed and it still:
A) Could have resulted in the bringing down of networks charged with capturing terrorists or worse REAL weapons of mass desctruction.
A potential breach of national secuirty which was a direct effect of an act of political REVENGE from this administration in which 2 Senior Administration Officials potentially broke the law to wreak politcal revenge on a former Ambassador by proxy thru his wife.
C) Was a Felony.
D) Future cia opertaives may not speak up for fear of political REPRISAL LET"S ALL PUT THAT IN OUR THOUGHT PROCESSORS AND DWELL ON IT!
Two Senior Administration Officials spilled someone could have been killed.
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.
I wouldn't take it as far as you have. Her intellect, and expertise will still be used for analysis here at home. It is obvious she had initiated this change before the leak.
So to fit your metaphor it would be more like working for the local hospital instead of being a medic for the military. You would still use your knowlege and expertise. However you just would choose to no longer travel and place yourself in harms way.
There are lots of men and women that make this decision because of life changes. The fact that she made her's shouldn't be attributed exclusively to the leak.
She will no longer be safe when traveling overseas. That's been demonstrated.
As for Rove, he has been pegged by people (reporters) other than Mr. Wilson or Mr. Novak.
When traveling? I think it is that she would no longer be convincing when using her fronted business overseas. I have heard nor read any reports of there being danger involved. You are welcome to post some links to something I may not have read though. I will give it a read.
The Leak: 2 Senior Admin. Officials outed Joe Wilson's wife in an act of politcal revenge.
A charge made by Mr. Wilson based off the Washington Post piece. His information is from the papers which makes it as convincing as you or I going on a talk show and alleging it.
Quote:
The Push: A week after the story broke in July, Karl Rove continued to push this story to reporters. Famous Quote by K-A-R-L "She's fair game."
Also alleged by Mr. "Frogmarching" Wilson. He said he knows this information because it was told to him by a reporter. Is there any possibility the reporter would be playing him for a fool in hopes of getting an angry Wilson to spill some more information?
Quote:
If she was NOC (which eveyone short of bob nofacts) is hinting she is then this is a felony; whether or not bullets where or where not fired upon her or a kidnaping was or was not attempted is irrelevent.
Wrong again. It is a felony if the person who named her had clearance to obtain such information and then named her. If the person who named her had no clearance but happened to guess or name her anyway just because she worked for the CIA, then it isn't a felony.
Quote:
A) Could have resulted in the bringing down of networks charged with capturing terrorists or worse REAL weapons of mass desctruction.
A potential breach of national secuirty which was a direct effect of an act of political REVENGE from this administration in which 2 Senior Administration Officials potentially broke the law to wreak politcal revenge on a former Ambassador by proxy thru his wife.
C) Was a Felony.
D) Future cia opertaives may not speak up for fear of political REPRISAL LET"S ALL PUT THAT IN OUR THOUGHT PROCESSORS AND DWELL ON IT!
Those are possibilities if every allegation is true which it could be.
However consider the flip side for a moment. We are talking about unnamed sources and freedom of the press. Could it not put a damper on that as well? Bob Novak has been chastized for not naming his sources. However the Washington Post produced pieces naming two operatives without naming sources. By attacking the press, you could also put a damper on it and the information it passes on.
Quote:
Two Senior Administration Officials spilled someone could have been killed.
Where's the Honesty and Integrity?
Novak appeared to give full disclosure of all information short of naming the actual officials. He said it was mentioned off hand and no one handed him the information nor was it leaked to him. He asked who's idea it was to send Wilson and they said his wife. He called the CIA to confirm and they never mentioned the wife was any sort of national security risk. They mentioned they didn't want the story run. (Might be portrayed as cronyism to send a husband with no intelligence training to look for Uranium purchases)
Bob Novak and David Broder went into depth on this during Meet the Press this morning. They basically said the press needs to have a compelling reason to withhold the information. (you know that whole free speech thing) A particular agency or person not wanting a story run isn't a reason to withhold information. National Security is a compelling reason (when not abused) but was not named to Novak.
When traveling? I think it is that she would no longer be convincing when using her fronted business overseas.
Nick, the quote doesn't in any way imply what you're saying. It doesn't say 'it's not safe for the CIA to use her because she'd be recognized,' it says that it's no longer safe for her to travel outside the U.S. I can't believe this spin you're putting on the quote. It's not referring to how the CIA could use her effectively, it's referring to her safety and nothing else.
Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?
Nick, the quote doesn't in any way imply what you're saying. It doesn't say 'it's not safe for the CIA to use her because she'd be recognized,' it says that it's no longer safe for her to travel outside the U.S. I can't believe this spin you're putting on the quote. It's not referring to how the CIA could use her effectively, it's referring to her safety and nothing else.
Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?
Your quote isn't from the CIA. Your quote is from a classmate who is formerly with the CIA. Once you leave an organization or even when you are in an organization as long as you claim your views are yours alone, your opinion is yours.
The CIA has not even provided protection for her. Don't you think they would do so if she were in danger?
One quote does not a department response make. Most stories find one disagreeable member of the opposite party to chastize whatever is occuring. Does that mean the whole party agrees to or is taking the actions of that one member?
The classmate was simply listed as a former member of the CIA. We don't know his expertise, experience or if he would even know the nature of her job.
So if I found one member or even one former member of the Democratic Party that thought Clinton should have been impeached, then by your spin the whole party agreed to that impeachment. That just isn't so in either of these cases.
It would be sort of like how Wilson used his CIA terms "inconclusive" report to declare Bush lied.
Your quote isn't from the CIA. Your quote is from a classmate who is formerly with the CIA. Once you leave an organization or even when you are in an organization as long as you claim your views are yours alone, your opinion is yours.
The CIA has not even provided protection for her. Don't you think they would do so if she were in danger?
One quote does not a department response make. Most stories find one disagreeable member of the opposite party to chastize whatever is occuring. Does that mean the whole party agrees to or is taking the actions of that one member?
The classmate was simply listed as a former member of the CIA. We don't know his expertise, experience or if he would even know the nature of her job.
So if I found one member or even one former member of the Democratic Party that thought Clinton should have been impeached, then by your spin the whole party agreed to that impeachment. That just isn't so in either of these cases.
It would be sort of like how Wilson used his CIA terms "inconclusive" report to declare Bush lied.
Nick
This argument is weak Nick. You're just spinning to avoid answering my question.
Here's what I said:
Quote:
Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgeable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?
You're ignoring this on purpose. That's weak.
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.
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?
The problem is, that's not how we do it here. If someone violated the law, they should be prosecuted according to the law. But if they didn't, should they still be penalized even if she's unable to travel oversees?
Comments
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"
NOVEMBER 2004: THE BATTLE OF THE SOUNDBITES!!!!!!!!!
A Senior Admin spilled, someone could have been....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Oct3.html
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 #$%...
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...
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?
And for those too lazy to click...
"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."
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
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?
Originally posted by trumptman
She has lost no pay, no benefits, nothing as a result of this leak. Don't elude to the harm. Demonstrate it.
She will no longer be safe when traveling overseas. That's been demonstrated.
As for Rove, he has been pegged by people (reporters) other than Mr. Wilson or Mr. Novak.
The Leak: 2 Senior Admin. Officials outed Joe Wilson's wife in an act of politcal revenge.
The Push: A week after the story broke in July, Karl Rove continued to push this story to reporters. Famous Quote by K-A-R-L "She's fair game."
If she was NOC (which eveyone short of bob nofacts) is hinting she is then this is a felony; whether or not bullets where or where not fired upon her or a kidnaping was or was not attempted is irrelevent.
Maybe she didn't even get a hang nail by being outed
A) Could have resulted in the bringing down of networks charged with capturing terrorists or worse REAL weapons of mass desctruction.
C) Was a Felony.
D) Future cia opertaives may not speak up for fear of political REPRISAL LET"S ALL PUT THAT IN OUR THOUGHT PROCESSORS AND DWELL ON IT!
Two Senior Administration Officials spilled someone could have been killed.
Where's the Honesty and Integrity?
Originally posted by tonton
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.
I wouldn't take it as far as you have. Her intellect, and expertise will still be used for analysis here at home. It is obvious she had initiated this change before the leak.
So to fit your metaphor it would be more like working for the local hospital instead of being a medic for the military. You would still use your knowlege and expertise. However you just would choose to no longer travel and place yourself in harms way.
There are lots of men and women that make this decision because of life changes. The fact that she made her's shouldn't be attributed exclusively to the leak.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
She will no longer be safe when traveling overseas. That's been demonstrated.
As for Rove, he has been pegged by people (reporters) other than Mr. Wilson or Mr. Novak.
When traveling? I think it is that she would no longer be convincing when using her fronted business overseas. I have heard nor read any reports of there being danger involved. You are welcome to post some links to something I may not have read though. I will give it a read.
Nick
Originally posted by keyboardf12
My take away from the morning talk shows.
The Leak: 2 Senior Admin. Officials outed Joe Wilson's wife in an act of politcal revenge.
A charge made by Mr. Wilson based off the Washington Post piece. His information is from the papers which makes it as convincing as you or I going on a talk show and alleging it.
The Push: A week after the story broke in July, Karl Rove continued to push this story to reporters. Famous Quote by K-A-R-L "She's fair game."
Also alleged by Mr. "Frogmarching" Wilson.
If she was NOC (which eveyone short of bob nofacts) is hinting she is then this is a felony; whether or not bullets where or where not fired upon her or a kidnaping was or was not attempted is irrelevent.
Wrong again. It is a felony if the person who named her had clearance to obtain such information and then named her. If the person who named her had no clearance but happened to guess or name her anyway just because she worked for the CIA, then it isn't a felony.
A) Could have resulted in the bringing down of networks charged with capturing terrorists or worse REAL weapons of mass desctruction.
C) Was a Felony.
D) Future cia opertaives may not speak up for fear of political REPRISAL LET"S ALL PUT THAT IN OUR THOUGHT PROCESSORS AND DWELL ON IT!
Those are possibilities if every allegation is true which it could be.
However consider the flip side for a moment. We are talking about unnamed sources and freedom of the press. Could it not put a damper on that as well? Bob Novak has been chastized for not naming his sources. However the Washington Post produced pieces naming two operatives without naming sources. By attacking the press, you could also put a damper on it and the information it passes on.
Two Senior Administration Officials spilled someone could have been killed.
Where's the Honesty and Integrity?
Novak appeared to give full disclosure of all information short of naming the actual officials. He said it was mentioned off hand and no one handed him the information nor was it leaked to him. He asked who's idea it was to send Wilson and they said his wife. He called the CIA to confirm and they never mentioned the wife was any sort of national security risk. They mentioned they didn't want the story run. (Might be portrayed as cronyism to send a husband with no intelligence training to look for Uranium purchases)
Bob Novak and David Broder went into depth on this during Meet the Press this morning. They basically said the press needs to have a compelling reason to withhold the information. (you know that whole free speech thing) A particular agency or person not wanting a story run isn't a reason to withhold information. National Security is a compelling reason (when not abused) but was not named to Novak.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
When traveling? I think it is that she would no longer be convincing when using her fronted business overseas.
Nick, the quote doesn't in any way imply what you're saying. It doesn't say 'it's not safe for the CIA to use her because she'd be recognized,' it says that it's no longer safe for her to travel outside the U.S. I can't believe this spin you're putting on the quote. It's not referring to how the CIA could use her effectively, it's referring to her safety and nothing else.
Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?
Originally posted by bunge
Nick, the quote doesn't in any way imply what you're saying. It doesn't say 'it's not safe for the CIA to use her because she'd be recognized,' it says that it's no longer safe for her to travel outside the U.S. I can't believe this spin you're putting on the quote. It's not referring to how the CIA could use her effectively, it's referring to her safety and nothing else.
Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?
Your quote isn't from the CIA. Your quote is from a classmate who is formerly with the CIA. Once you leave an organization or even when you are in an organization as long as you claim your views are yours alone, your opinion is yours.
The CIA has not even provided protection for her. Don't you think they would do so if she were in danger?
One quote does not a department response make. Most stories find one disagreeable member of the opposite party to chastize whatever is occuring. Does that mean the whole party agrees to or is taking the actions of that one member?
The classmate was simply listed as a former member of the CIA. We don't know his expertise, experience or if he would even know the nature of her job.
So if I found one member or even one former member of the Democratic Party that thought Clinton should have been impeached, then by your spin the whole party agreed to that impeachment. That just isn't so in either of these cases.
It would be sort of like how Wilson used his CIA terms "inconclusive" report to declare Bush lied.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Your quote isn't from the CIA. Your quote is from a classmate who is formerly with the CIA. Once you leave an organization or even when you are in an organization as long as you claim your views are yours alone, your opinion is yours.
The CIA has not even provided protection for her. Don't you think they would do so if she were in danger?
One quote does not a department response make. Most stories find one disagreeable member of the opposite party to chastize whatever is occuring. Does that mean the whole party agrees to or is taking the actions of that one member?
The classmate was simply listed as a former member of the CIA. We don't know his expertise, experience or if he would even know the nature of her job.
So if I found one member or even one former member of the Democratic Party that thought Clinton should have been impeached, then by your spin the whole party agreed to that impeachment. That just isn't so in either of these cases.
It would be sort of like how Wilson used his CIA terms "inconclusive" report to declare Bush lied.
Nick
This argument is weak Nick. You're just spinning to avoid answering my question.
Here's what I said:
Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgeable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?
You're ignoring this on purpose. That's weak.
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.
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?
The problem is, that's not how we do it here. If someone violated the law, they should be prosecuted according to the law. But if they didn't, should they still be penalized even if she's unable to travel oversees?