GTAVercetti 0 #151 November 3, 2005 QuoteNo, Bill... I'm not kidding at all.... you, along with the mouthpieces in the news media, keep howling about "outing" her, when there has been NO evidence that she was an active agent at the time. If Libby perjured himself or obstructed justice, then he will be convicted of it and, I'm sure, end up with a much harsher sentence than Clinton or Berger got. If you are a covert agent and you go inactive, do all your sources, confidants, and contacts go inactive too? No. Instead, those bridges get burned. So, if she WAS inactive, a crime has not been committed(which could be why no such charge had been filed)...but it is still disgraceful. In any case, it is beside the point. Libby lied. Crime or not, he lied during an official investigation to determine if there WAS a crime. Idiot.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #152 November 3, 2005 Here is an interesting blurb about that very thing from Reason.com "The other big story of the week neatly dovetails with the Alito nomination on the vitally important personnel-is-policy front, a reality one must never lose sight of in D.C. Scooter Libby was (and is) a die hard war hawk, a man utterly convinced that removing Saddam Hussein from power would be good for America. And what do you know, America up and invades Iraq and kicks Saddam out of power. Libby was so convinced of the correctness of his worldview that when a flaky former ambassador connected to the CIA threw sand in the White House's war machine, Libby moved to drum up a little bad press on an administration critic. This is pretty much standard operating procedure in Washington. So that gives us a standard D.C. intra-government pissing match between the CIA and White House, which the CIA then takes to the Justice Department with a demand for an investigation. OK, a little bit like running to the principal, but still fair by political standards. The investigation starts, then Libby does the inexplicable—he lies to investigators. Repeatedly. Big elaborate, reckless lies. Why? Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald can say all he wants that it is not his job to answer that question—and in a narrow sense he is right, as the charges against Libby do not need an answer—but the larger investigative picture sure does. Either Libby did not know the law when he testified, figured he didn't owe the truth to an investigator put up by the CIA, or something else as yet unknown motivated him."Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #153 November 3, 2005 If they were reliable sources, I would think that they would be taken over by another agent. So where are the burnt bridges? Where are the reports of networks being rolled up? What do you mean, there aren't any reports? This was evidently Ms. Bond we're talking about, right? Surely after a year, there should have been SOME report of SOME contact that was burned...that is, IF she was active in anything approaching a recent timeframe... QuoteIn any case, it is beside the point. Libby lied. Crime or not, he lied during an official investigation to determine if there WAS a crime. Idiot. Agreed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #154 November 3, 2005 QuoteIf they were reliable sources, I would think that they would be taken over by another agent. So where are the burnt bridges? Where are the reports of networks being rolled up? What do you mean, there aren't any reports? This was evidently Ms. Bond we're talking about, right? Surely after a year, there should have been SOME report of SOME contact that was burned...that is, IF she was active in anything approaching a recent timeframe... I didn't say burned as in outed or kill, but turned into a worthless contact. And no, there would not necessarily be a report on it. That is not always information that the public gets.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #155 November 3, 2005 QuoteI didn't say burned as in outed or kill, but turned into a worthless contact. And no, there would not necessarily be a report on it. That is not always information that the public gets. Except when leaked by the white house for political gain, anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #156 November 3, 2005 QuoteAnd no, there would not necessarily be a report on it. That is not always information that the public gets. I could imagine some VERY remote possibilities where it would not be publicized, but on the other hand, it seems much more probable for the news to run with it to say "See how efficient our CI people are?" I don't know that ABC/NBC et al would carry the story, but I'm pretty confident that some news agency in the affected country would...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #157 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteI didn't say burned as in outed or kill, but turned into a worthless contact. And no, there would not necessarily be a report on it. That is not always information that the public gets. Except when leaked by the white house for political gain, anyway. Or stuffed in pants/socks and destroyed, perhaps? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #158 November 3, 2005 I can't recall ever having read or seen a single current news report about networks of spies being rolled up anywhere for any reason. I think you're confusing Tom Clancy books with reality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #159 November 3, 2005 QuoteOr stuffed in pants/socks and destroyed, perhaps? I know you're joking...but come on guys. Clinton is so 1990s. Why does every defense of the foul deeds commited by the current admin result in the invocation of past deeds by people who were already prosecuted, convicted, and no longer in power? Yes, Berger was a scum bag, but we don't have to worry about him anymore. You may think Clinton was the worst president ever, but we don't have to worry about him anymore. Right now, today, we have lying criminals in the whitehouse. And you guys don't seem to give a shit. It's fucking ponderous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #160 November 3, 2005 QuoteQuoteOr stuffed in pants/socks and destroyed, perhaps? I know you're joking...but come on guys. Clinton is so 1990s. Why does every defense of the foul deeds commited by the current admin result in the invocation of past deeds by people who were already prosecuted, convicted, and no longer in power? Yes, Berger was a scum bag, but we don't have to worry about him anymore. You may think Clinton was the worst president ever, but we don't have to worry about him anymore. Right now, today, we have lying criminals in the whitehouse. And you guys don't seem to give a shit. It's fucking ponderous. Why don't we just keep going and point out shit that was done by EVERY president? I mean really, why just stop at Clinton? We could use EVERY past action by leaders as an excuse for the current ones!! as Duff man sayz, "OH YEAH!!!" mnleatx - losing a CIA asset does not mean that their cover was blown or that it has to be a national story...in any country. It could very well mean that that asset does not have faith in being a contact anymore because shit like this happens. And chances are, that would remain classified for many years.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #161 November 3, 2005 And "Blame Bush" is so 2000. It's called a difference of opinion. Am I happy with everything that Bush has done during his Presidency? Nope - I wish that he'd wrapped up Afghanistan before going into Iraq. I wish he'd stand up on his back legs and veto some of the bullshit that has come across his desk. You think Bush is "the worst President ever". I think Clinton qualifies for that title on several fronts. Nothing wrong with either of our opinions, just means we have different viewpoints.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #162 November 3, 2005 >you, along with the mouthpieces in the news media, keep howling about > "outing" her, when there has been NO evidence that she was an active >agent at the time. I think you might need to review the definition of "active undercover agent." It means there IS no public evidence. There is, of course, evidence that can be revealed to specific persons - like prosecutors. Here's what the prosecutor said on the issue: -------------------- - Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community. - The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them. ----------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #163 November 3, 2005 The difference is, one of them is still doing damage. That's the one that worries me. Yes, it's ok to have different viewpoints. But the endless drudging up of past misdeeds of completely unrelated third parties in DEFENSE of the current administration is ridiculous, tiresome, and irrelevant. Feel free to continue using that as your debate tactic, just recognize it for what it is, a red herring. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #164 November 3, 2005 http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005237 There's also the testimony the Commission heard Wednesday from Patrick Fitzgerald. The former Manhattan prosecutor was asked about his 1998 indictment against Osama bin Laden that asserted that al Qaeda had an "understanding" with Iraq that it would not "work against that government" and that "on certain projects, specifically including weapons development," they would "work cooperatively." Mr. Fitzgerald testified that "there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other." Ooooops. Fitzgerald said there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, and that they had agreed to work together to develop weapons which we all know isn't true. He's obviously mentally unstable and unable to see the truth when it smacks him in the face. There goes the whole case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
