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

[Truthmatters]

Don't you think making a baseless accusation against the President because you're nothing but a left-wingnut hack is intellectually dishonest?

I do.

Wilson's claims were baseless in which way?

 

[Gunny]

This writer did not sight anything he claimed .Im not going to do his and your homework either.

WHO would expect you to do homework for them when you don't even do your own?

 

[Truthmatters]

I give you my homework all the time Gunny.

I sight experts and facts.

You dont like them because they make it harder for you to just continue with your preconcieved notions about this admin being the good guys no matter what.

 

[Gunny]

Wilson's claims were baseless in which way?

Your baseless accusation that Preident Bush lied, Einstein.

 

[Gunny]

I give you my homework all the time Gunny.

I sight experts and facts.

You dont like them because they make it harder for you to just continue with your preconcieved notions about this admin being the good guys no matter what.

You cite garbage. I don't like them because they are .... garbage.

I never once have portrayed this administration being the good guys no matter what. You're talking out your ass. However, YOU continually attempt to portray this administration as bad guys no matter what, with nothing but thoughtless, baseless rhetoric.

 

[maineman]

Gunny - are you suggesting that the DCI does NOT know which of his employees are covert?

are you suggesting that you know better than he does who is covert and who isn't?

 

[Truthmatters]

You cite garbage. I don't like them because they are .... garbage.

I never once have portrayed this administration being the good guys no matter what. You're talking out your ass. However, YOU continually attempt to portray this administration as bad guys no matter what, with nothing but thoughtless, baseless rhetoric.

I gave you a link to video of congressional testimony and you call it garbage?

It is beyond me why you do this?

Im getting really tired of this Maine he accepts NO evidence no matter how verifiable it is.

 

[CockySOB]

Gunny - are you suggesting that the DCI does NOT know which of his employees are covert?

are you suggesting that you know better than he does who is covert and who isn't?

Irrelevant. The problem is that the DCI has not tried to get a ruling that Plame was covert per the US Codes, instead relying on the definition used internally by the CIA which does NOT meet the the statutory requirements.

Calling someone "covert" does not mean that said person is "covert" as a matter of law. If it is determined in Federal court that Plame was a covert intelligence agent per 50 USC 421 then by all means go after the person(s) who illegally disseminated classified information about her identity and relationship to the CIA. But without that legal finding of fact, there was no crime committed and the de facto understanding must be that those calling Plame "covert" are NOT speaking in a legal sense, but rather in a lay sense.

It's a simple matter of law. Prove a crime took place and prosecute it, or fail to prove a crime took place and drop it. (BTW, it is a legal fact that Libby committed perjury, made false statements to Federal investigators and obstructed justice - all as a result of his conviction.)

 

[CockySOB]

I gave you a link to video of congressional testimony and you call it garbage?

It is beyond me why you do this?

Im getting really tired of this Maine he accepts NO evidence no matter how verifiable it is.

And I get tired of seeing your ignorant (or perhaps stupid) arguments which continually fail to recognize the realities of the legal process in favor of your delusional claims and emotional flights of fancy. Perhaps when you come back to the little place I like to call "reality," you'll be able to understand what is going on.

 

[Gunny]

Irrelevant. The problem is that the DCI has not tried to get a ruling that Plame was covert per the US Codes, instead relying on the definition used internally by the CIA which does NOT meet the the statutory requirements.

Calling someone "covert" does not mean that said person is "covert" as a matter of law. If it is determined in Federal court that Plame was a covert intelligence agent per 50 USC 421 then by all means go after the person(s) who illegally disseminated classified information about her identity and relationship to the CIA. But without that legal finding of fact, there was no crime committed and the de facto understanding must be that those calling Plame "covert" are NOT speaking in a legal sense, but rather in a lay sense.

It's a simple matter of law. Prove a crime took place and prosecute it, or fail to prove a crime took place and drop it. (BTW, it is a legal fact that Libby committed perjury, made false statements to Federal investigators and obstructed justice - all as a result of his conviction.)

What he said ....

 

[Gunny]

And I get tired of seeing your ignorant (or perhaps stupid) arguments which continually fail to recognize the realities of the legal process in favor of your delusional claims and emotional flights of fancy. Perhaps when you come back to the little place I like to call "reality," you'll be able to understand what is going on.

 

[Truthmatters]

Gunny - are you suggesting that the DCI does NOT know which of his employees are covert?

are you suggesting that you know better than he does who is covert and who isn't?

yes they have been doing it all day long

 

[Truthmatters]

They seem to think Plame was not proven covert in a court of law so that means she wasnt.

Just bizarre thinking.

why would court having to Prove she was covert when our own government says she was covert.

Bush himself called it a crime originally

 

[Gunny]

Gunny - are you suggesting that the DCI does NOT know which of his employees are covert?

are you suggesting that you know better than he does who is covert and who isn't?

I am suggesting that an agent is not covert simply because the DCI says so. "Covert" is defined by law; yet, there is no legal determination in this case. Merely someone's testimony that she was.

 

[Gunny]

yes they have been doing it all day long

You betcha. It could have only been done once except you keep wanting argue the law with a lawyer.

 

[Truthmatters]

Hes still wrong she has beren determined to be a covert agent by our own gov

 

[Gunny]

They seem to think Plame was not proven covert in a court of law so that means she wasnt.

Just bizarre thinking.

why would court having to Prove she was covert when our own government says she was covert.

Bush himself called it a crime originally

A perfect example of the disconnect between you and this argument.

One, Plame was NOT "proven" covert in a court of law.

Second, there has been no legal ruling in this case that she was covert IN ACCORDANCE WITH the law.

The DCI does not determine who is and is not covert. The law does.

How hard IS this?

 

[Annie]

Hes still wrong she has beren determined to be a covert agent by our own gov

Where? Authoratative, not by your standards.

 

[Truthmatters]

http://tinyurl.com/bjqqa


here is some documentation

 

[Truthmatters]

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.

The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak seven days later.