Oh Dear...The facts get in the way again.

[CockySOB]

I just dont get it ,why do people continue to deny she was covert when the very people who determine whos a covert agent HAVE said she is covert.


Why do you people do this?

Is it the same reason you believed cooked up evidence that Sadam was in cohoots with AQ?

That Tillman was killed by the enemy?

That Lynch was a little Rambo?

That we did NOT use white phospherous in Fallughia?

That Piles of WMDs were just waiting for us in Iraq?

That people who lose 3 limbs in service of their county deserve to be trashed?

That people who win medals in service of their country need to be trashed?

That people who adopt childern of color deserved to be trashed?

You see you believe so little if the facts its getting pretty hard to take.

This is part of the reason this country is in such a mess.

That is what happens to a country which tosses aside facts and makes decisions based on propaganda instead of facts.

Have you suffered a concussion recently, or are you under the influence of mind-altering pharmaceuticals?

The reason I ask is that many of the instances you cite above are prime examples of why you don't simply trust someone's opinion as absolute fact. Yet you are claiming that the opinion that Plame was covert per the statutes IS fact. How convoluted is that? You find an opinion you like and you embrace it with blind faith as the absolute truth. Silly child, that is why we submit such questions to the court and follow strict rules for introducing evidence to support our arguments - so that an unbiased (hopefully) third party can determine the legal facts of an event.

So again I say, where is the court ruling which definitively states that Plame was a covert intelligence agent protected under the existing US Codes? Anything else is just opinion, and for every opinion you care to cite, I can find others whose opinions contradict your cites.

I still can't get over the fact that your cites above relate to instances when the government line gets contradicted, and yet you claim that the same government should be taken at it's word that Plame was covert under the legal definition of such.

 

[Truthmatters]

The very people who determine wether or not she is covert have sadi she is covert.

They have said that the things she has done until the day she was outed classified her as covert.

Now you can go through the girations you are going to go through to try to deny this is fact so Im going to stand back and wacth you spin now.

OK Ive got the popcorn go.

 

[Gunny]

It doesn't "stand up to scrutiny" because the right is still insisting on spinning it that way rather than acknowledge that the admin outed a CIA agent and broke the law, probably at the instruction of Cheney.

Unsubstantiated allegation.

You know of any other undercovers outed by government officials?

I don't know of ANY. First, Plame did not meet the legal definition of "undercover" when her cover was so-called compromised. Second, the attention brought on her was the DIRECT result of her self-agrandizing, left-wingnut husband's big mouth.

lol re the CIA. Point taken. But again, they wouldn't have referred the matter to DOJ unless Plame were undercover.

WHO actually referred the matter?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/...-plame-covert/

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2sqcwk

 

[Care4all]

Statements from not one, but TWO DCIA's, to the fact that Valerie Plame was a covert operative until she was outed...An unclassified summary of her employment history with the CIA, attached as an exhibit to Patrick Fitzgerald's sentencing memorandum...All are unsubstantiated opinion? And you accuse anyone who thinks otherwise of being delusional?

Your protestations notwithstanding your support of Libby in this matter falls right in line with the backers of the Bush administration and its lawlessness.

Thank you for the link to exhibit A.

Now, Why do you think the Vice President made a concerted effoet for his boys to leak this in the Press?

Why do you think the VP thought that "Saying" that Wilson's wife sent him would HELP the vp with the situation with Wilson?

Was that the sole excuse of the VP, That Wilson Hated the Administration because his wife hated the administration and that is why according to the vp that wilson made the results of his trip up out of thin air with no rhyme or reason, and this is why Plame authorized him to go to NIger?

hahaha lol

The VP, was consumed with what wilson told America, that the 16 words in Bush's state of the union address was BLATENTLY FALSE regarding saddam acquiring yellowcake from Africa.

What is funny is that over the last few years there have been a variety of fabricated excuses from the right on why what Cheney did was all ok in Love and War. Amazing that Americans can accept a TRAITOR when he is "on their side"... I call Cheney a TRAITOR only because that is what President Bush 1 called people that leak Classified status and information to the public that could harm our intelligence and the life of our intelligence agents.

First we have the right saying that she is not covert because she had not traveled overseas on official CIA business for the last 5 years. They used Victoria Tunsing as their person that KNOWS the law and refutes Plame's status.

this was proven wrong, she had worked overseas 7-10 trips on official CIA business within the last year or two of working for them.

Then the republicans say that Wilson was lying about the vp's office sending him and that his wife, Plame is the one that sent him...

Again, that was proven as another false statement from the right. Plame was not even capable of sending her husband on a trip like this, but EVEN IF she had, why would this discredit his trip?

The VP's office was who requested info on Niger and the reason the CIA sent Wilson on the fact finding trip

The other lie was that Plame and Wilson HATED the administration for putting us in this War in Iraq and that they were just "trying" to get back at the administration by Lying about this trip.

Wilson was sent to Niger in February of 2002, this was just 5 months after 911, the twin towers were still burning and OVER a YEAR BEFORE the administration decided to go in to a war with Iraq.

GOT THAT?

Wilson's trip was over a YEAR BEFORE the President declared war on Iraq and a YEAR before the President uttered those 16 lying words in the State of the Union.

There was no Iraq war going on when Wilson was sent to Niger.

so again, this blatent lie of an excuse by those on the right was proven ridiculous and false.

-------------------------------------------------

I think the Repblicans think that if they could just continue to make up lies on this issue that it would just "go away" or DEFLECT from the actual actions of the President and the VP regarding the:

misleading, hyped and outright fabricated statements that they made to the American people, to justify going to war with Iraq.

They mislead us, with twisted and unreliable information, IN TO A WAR.

And The VP would out an agent, in order to cover his own ass.

 

[Gunny]

I just dont get it ,why do people continue to deny she was covert when the very people who determine whos a covert agent HAVE said she is covert.


Why do you people do this?

Is it the same reason you believed cooked up evidence that Sadam was in cohoots with AQ?

That Tillman was killed by the enemy?

That Lynch was a little Rambo?

That we did NOT use white phospherous in Fallughia?

That Piles of WMDs were just waiting for us in Iraq?

That people who lose 3 limbs in service of their county deserve to be trashed?

That people who win medals in service of their country need to be trashed?

That people who adopt childern of color deserved to be trashed?


You see you believe so little if the facts its getting pretty hard to take.

This is part of the reason this country is in such a mess.

That is what happens to a country which tosses aside facts and makes decisions based on propaganda instead of facts.

People do not determine what "covert" is, the LAW does. When are "you people" going to quit arguing THAT minor little detail?

 

[CockySOB]

The very people who determine wether or not she is covert have sadi she is covert.

They have said that the things she has done until the day she was outed classified her as covert.

Now you can go through the girations you are going to go through to try to deny this is fact so Im going to stand back and wacth you spin now.

OK Ive got the popcorn go.

Erm, wrong again! The CIA uses a different definition of "covert" than is presented in the US Codes. While the CIA might have considered her "covert," their opinion does NOT carry the weight of law. Certainly a judge would take their opinion into consideration in such an evidentiary hearing, but the statutory definition WILL take precedence.

The only people going through gyrations here are the mental midgets who are simply willing to say, "if the CIA said it, it MUST be the gospel!" And guess what TM? You're in that group.

 

[Gunny]

Thank you for the link to exhibit A.

Now, Why do you think the Vice President made a concerted effoet for his boys to leak this in the Press?

Why do you think the VP thought that "Saying" that Wilson's wife sent him would HELP the vp with the situation with Wilson?

Was that the sole excuse of the VP, That Wilson Hated the Administration because his wife hated the administration and that is why according to the vp that wilson made the results of his trip up out of thin air with no rhyme or reason, and this is why Plame authorized him to go to NIger?

hahaha lol


The VP, was consumed with what wilson told America, that the 16 words in Bush's state of the union address was BLATENTLY FALSE regarding saddam acquiring yellowcake from Africa.

What is funny is that over the last few years there have been a variety of fabricated excuses from the right on why what Cheney did was all ok in Love and War. Amazing that Americans can accept a TRAITOR when he is "on their side"... I call Cheney a TRAITOR only because that is what President Bush 1 called people that leak Classified status and information to the public that could harm our intelligence and the life of our intelligence agents.


First we have the right saying that she is not covert because she had not traveled overseas on official CIA business for the last 5 years. They used Victoria Tunsing as their person that KNOWS the law and refutes Plame's status.

this was proven wrong, she had worked overseas 7-10 on official CIA business within the last year or two of working for them.

Then the republicans say that Wilson was lying about the vp's office sending him and that his wife, Plame is the one that sent him...

Again, that was proven as another false statement from the right. Plame was not even capable of sending her husband on a trip like this, but EVEN IF she had, why would this discredit his trip?

The VP's office was who requested info on Niger and the reason the CIA sent Wilson on the fact finding trip

The other lie was that Plame and Wilson HATED the administration for putting us in this War in Iraq and that they were just "trying" to get back at the administration by Lying about this trip.

Wilson was sent to Niger in February of 2002, this was just 5 months after 911, the twin towers were still burning and OVER a YEAR BEFORE the administration decided to go in to a war with Iraq.

GOT THAT?

Wilson's trip was over a YEAR BEFORE the President declared war on Iraq and a YEAR before the President uttered those 16 lying words in the State of the Union.

There was no Iraq war going on when Wilson was sent to Niger.

so again, this blatent lie of an excuse by those on the right was proven ridiculous and false.

-------------------------------------------------

I think the Repblicans think that if they could just continue to make up lies on this issue that it would just "go away" or DEFLECT from the actual actions of the President and the VP regarding the:

misleading, hyped and outright fabricated statements that they made to the American people, to justify going to war with Iraq.

They mislead us, with twisted and unreliable information, IN TO A WAR.

And The VP would out an agent, in order to cover his own ass.

I think you loony lefties should continue to make up YOUR lies and distort facts on the topic. I see nothing here but unsubstantiated rhetoric, sprinkled with just enough facts to attempt to legitimize what is clearly a BULLSHIT argument.

 

[CockySOB]

People do not determine what "covert" is, the LAW does. When are "you people" going to quit arguing THAT minor little detail?

Who needs the rule of law when you have the rule of barking moonbats? These kids don't have a freaking clue, and frankly their arguments are so weak as to be laughable. I just love how TurthMatters posted a list of instances where the official government line has been successfully questioned, yet then he goes right back to the idea that we should just trust that the CIA and Fitzgerald's opinions are solid fact. The irony is delicious!

 

[Care4all]

Who needs the rule of law when you have the rule of barking moonbats? These kids don't have a freaking clue, and frankly their arguments are so weak as to be laughable. I just love how TurthMatters posted a list of instances where the official government line has been successfully questioned, yet then he goes right back to the idea that we should just trust that the CIA and Fitzgerald's opinions are solid fact. The irony is delicious!

Can you and Gunny answer 1 simple question?

You both CLAIM she was not a covert agent according to the law, Guny even gave a link for the Law.

Can you point to "IN THIS LAW", what section you believe disqualifies Plame from this Law and Statute as a classified undercover agent?

Please, stop with the loose statements with no back up and get down to the knitty gritty and show us how the two of you have come to YOUR conclusions that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, with protection covered under the law.

please, do this for all of us, it would be greatly appreciated.

And then we can argue over THAT for the next two hours!

But , we need some SUBSTANCE from your side and not simply conjecture with no reasonable "back up".


care

 

[Gunny]

Who needs the rule of law when you have the rule of barking moonbats? These kids don't have a freaking clue, and frankly their arguments are so weak as to be laughable. I just love how TurthMatters posted a list of instances where the official government line has been successfully questioned, yet then he goes right back to the idea that we should just trust that the CIA and Fitzgerald's opinions are solid fact. The irony is delicious!

A couple of simple facts ...

TM and care base their arguments on emotional appeal, wishful-thinking intellectual condescension, and unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's SOP. It's usually a smokescreen for a partisan based argument full of more holes than Bonnie and Clyde.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2sqcwk

THIS IS FACT NOT EMOTION!

It is tape of the congressional testimony where it is PROOVEN that Plame was covert.

Why do you people do this?

 

[Truthmatters]

Listen to the congressman QUOTE the CIA as saying ON RECORD that Plame is covert!

THIS IS UNDENIABLE FACT!

 

[Gunny]

THIS IS FACT NOT EMOTION!

It is tape of the congressional testimony where it is PROOVEN that Plame was covert.

Why do you people do this?

How many times are you going to ask the same stupid question and receive the same answer?

And i have repeatedly responded with "Why do YOU PEOPLE do this? and still no answer. But I hardly need a response from you to explain something as obvious as the sky.

It's pure partisan bullshit, is "why you people do this."

 

[Gunny]

Listen to the congressman QUOTE the CIA as saying ON RECORD that Plame is covert!

THIS IS UNDENIABLE FACT!

That the statement was made is the only "fact." The statement is an opinion, not the law that defines "covert."

Complexity really baffles you, doesn't it?

 

[Care4all]

A couple of simple facts ...

TM and care base their arguments on emotional appeal, wishful-thinking intellectual condescension, and unsubstantiated rhetoric. It's SOP. It's usually a smokescreen for a partisan based argument full of more holes than Bonnie and Clyde.

I'd call your opinion conjecture and not based on FACTS, but EMOTIONS, especially since neither of you are willing to support your own CONJECTURES regarding this...

Let's have some substance here

PLEASE show us why you THINK that Plame was not classified undercover according to the Law and Link YOU provided.


Please show us, how the law disqualifies Plame as a covert agent/classified undercover.

PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

pretty please.

 

[Care4all]

That the statement was made is the only "fact." The statement is an opinion, not the law that defines "covert."

Complexity really baffles you, doesn't it?

Why do you say it is only an opinion? Did Hayden give clearance and vet OPINIONS to be released before the committee stated as FACTS?

I think not.

Try again.

 

[CockySOB]

Can you and Gunny answer 1 simple question?

You both CLAIM she was not a covert agent according to the law, Guny even gave a link for the Law.

Can you point to "IN THIS LAW", what section you believe disqualifies Plame from this Law and Statute as a classified undercover agent?

Please, stop with the loose statements with no back up and get down to the knitty gritty and show us how the two of you have come to YOUR conclusions that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, with protection covered under the law.

please, do this for all of us, it would be greatly appreciated.

And then we can argue over THAT for the next two hours!

But , we need some SUBSTANCE from your side and not simply conjecture with no reasonable "back up".


care

Here's the rub, Care4All, the burden is on the government and the agent to provide evidence that they DID take the requisite steps to conceal Plame's identity and relationship to the government. That means the burden is on the government (and you if you are supporting their assertion) to show that they took the required "affirmative measures to conceal" her identity and relationship to the CIA.

And what did the CIA tell Bob Novak when he called them up and asked if she worked there? YES. C'mon, you can say it. Either Plame was NOT a covert agent, or the CIA royally screwed the pooch and blew her cover way back then.

Frankly Care4All, your attempt at deflection is pathetic. The burden lies in showing the Plame WAS covert per the relevant statutes, not in proving she was not. The prosecution has to present a case before defense counsel has to consider any kind of argument. Remember the little legal issue called "reasonable doubt?" It is the prosecution who must show that Plame WAS covert per the statutes before it can require the defense to show she was not. Moreover, the prosecution chose NOT to present any information about Plame's status at the Libby trial, preferring to claim their research into her status was "not discoverable," something which Libby's defense team was denied access to. What does this tell you, clairvoyant one? That perhaps Fitzgerald's investigation into Plame's status showed she was NOT covert per the statutes and that his best course of action would be to avoid any charges against Libby which brought that into the official court record? Hmmm... sounds like the way things went down to me.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/2sqcwk

watch this short clip all the way through and then explain to me how it was allowed to take place in congress unless she was covert?

this is why I keep asking "why do you do this".

I am so very tired of a party like the republicans being so bankrupt of morals that they have to continue to DENY FACTS to hold thier positions.