castledoom.com

[Morticcia]

Salon.com has posted a copy of a document which clearly indicates that Valerie Plame was covert and was outed by the inimitable Robert Novak. Gee I wonder who gave Libby the authority to out a covert operative? Couldn't be Tricky Dick Cheney? Hmmm....

In January of 2002 our little Valerie was assigned to a Counterproliferation Division, "where she served as the Chief of the CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq." Not such an unimportant job in the run up to the Iraq war, really. Yet because her husband went against the grain of this administration she and the work she was involved with was compromised.

Any outrage? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Morticcia]

Oooooooh....the sounds of silence....since no one's here I think I'll do a silly dance....


*twirls and twirls and twirls and twirls and falls down and pukes*


:)

[Che]

Morti, what is there to say?

Until the gutless Dem's are ready to impeach the traitors to America, King George and Dickless Cheney, there is little to be done.

To me, the best solution would be to stand ALL politicos, Dem and Rep, against a wall and shoot them.

[JuntaJoe]

I could live with that, Che. ;)

It was politics, Tish.

Both the administration and Valerie's husband were risking her cover when they went after each other. The news media might have figured her out without administration help when they went digging on the husband when he locked horns with the administration.

You also forget there is yet another player in this. I can't remember his name now, but he was a State Dept. holdover from Clinton's administration that it appears helped Novac out. This guy was playing both ends against the middle.

Finally, you like to pick individual people out while I use the term administration. You get that many ambitious people running around with cross purpose agendas and you will always have a scandal.

I believe the last administration to be relatively scandal free was Ford's and I attribute that solely to the fact he was only in office for a short period.

[Che]

I'm wondering if '08 will not see several Libertarian Party candidates elected to Congress.

Voters are so disgusted with both "main-stream" parties that it is becoming more of a possibility.

On Valerie Plume... more D.C. hypocrisy is at play.

The White House says she was not a covert agent, but the CIA is holding up release of her book because she WAS a covert agent.

[JuntaJoe]

Was she a covert agent or not?

I doubt we could ever get a straight answer, honestly.

Remember that Valerie actually worked for the administration accused of "outing" her.

Unless she waves an official decoder ring or something, it becomes a he said - she said scenario.


Will we get a strong 3rd party candidate this time? I've been sure we would have one arising soon since Perot took a stab at it. And yet here we sit without one on the horizon. People keep running back to their old parties no matter what they do.

[Che]

Quote: Remember that Valerie actually worked for the administration accused of "outing" her.

Career gov't employees do not work for any administration.

Something Fredo and Monica Goodling seem to have forgotten.

[JuntaJoe]

You are talking principle, Che. I'm talking practicality.

Politics is the art of the possible.

[ExarKun]

JuntaJoe wrote:

Will we get a strong 3rd party candidate this time? I've been sure we would have one arising soon since Perot took a stab at it. And yet here we sit without one on the horizon. People keep running back to their old parties no matter what they do.

Don't you know the average American is breed that way, as strange as it may seem it is almost breed that any party other than the standard two can't be as good as them.

It is a real shame cause there is a lot of good 3'rd parties that could do a lot of good, but they will odds are never get more than what Perot got in 92, or so whenever he first ran.

[crispybacon]

I say that it'll take a couple bigger blunders on both sides of the Politifence before any 3rd party is seriously considered. It COULD be done, but it would require the biggest grassroots campeign since the civil rights movement or women's sufferage. People would have to be PISSED. It could happen, but not for a while.
________
SensualLady

[Morticcia]

:Soapbox:

JuntaJoe wrote: Was she a covert agent or not?

I doubt we could ever get a straight answer, honestly.

If you had looked at the doc, :read: Slurp, it is very clear she was COVERT and part of her job was dealing with weapon proliferation in the very goddarn location of the world where a large number of men and women of our armed forces are spending their time trying to stay alive.

Joe, you say "oh it's politics" and go on to play blame the victim. :clobber: :sick: :brick: :think: That's my favorite. :eyebrow:

The crux of this situation, the source of all my anger and ire, and with this administration that source has become a seemingly endless underground culvert, is that what this administration did WAS TREASONOUS!!!! TREASONOUS?!?!?!?!?!

And where is the outrage? Nowhere. Only, it seems, in the pit of my stomach. GRRRRrrrrrrr


:Soapbox:

[JuntaJoe]

Full of piss and vinegar today, Tish?

Your Salon link is bad, that's why I didn't read it to begin with. You might be able to see the link, but non-members only get a small blurb. No document. I'm not signing up there.

Ok, so you go get the document for me. Fine. Prove it is real by getting corroboration from a legit news service and forget trying to convince me with anything coming from a slanted source like Salon.

No wonder you are mad all the time. You give propaganda the same value as news. If I sat around buying into Michael Savage as a legit news source then I'd be raging from sunup until sundown all week long.

No, I'm not shutting your argument down. Just making you do the proper homework first.

[ExarKun]

I was thinking the same thing but I don't know Tish enough to say it, and JJ is right you can never know for certain, I mean who do you belive, you get 5 people to say it one way i'll get 5 to say it another.

[JuntaJoe]

ExarKun wrote: you get 5 people to say it one way i'll get 5 to say it another.

Now you've hit the crux of the issue.

Somewhere about the time of Eisenhower or Kennedy, all administrations have built a people wall to insulate the president. Problem is this people wall contains people with their own agendas.

Could Bush and Cheney been in on this? Possible.

Could there be underlings doing this of their own accord to "help" the president? Possible.

Could there be a leftover from an old administration doing this as revenge? Possible.

Could there be an underling with their own private windmill to tilt at? Possible.

Could the press be digging up fragments and slapping enough spin glue on this to make it look real? Possible.


What is needed is multiple and non-associated credible sources with corroborating facts to sort this out.

Nor do I see this happening during the end of the Bush administration. Something weird happens when there is a minority party president. The majority party begins to start dealing because they only have to jump a single hurdle to get pet projects done. Make a deal with the president on his pet issues and you get your own stuff through. No need to pander to the rest of the minority legislators with their own agendas. But piss him off and nothing gets done.

The Democrats in the Beltway are going to let this slide off the radar.

There is no justice in Washington. Only deals.

[Morticcia]

JuntaJoe wrote:
Your Salon link is bad, that's why I didn't read it to begin with. You might be able to see the link, but non-members only get a small blurb. No document. I'm not signing up there.


Can't comment on all, don't have time, however, must say following!

First, love how you don't read Salon but you know it's slanted because why? They don't ignore Bushes missteps like the right wingers do. LOL. Opinion and not fact? There goes your hypocrisy again. All news sources are slanted, even your vaunted AP sources, so again don't jump to conclusion just because you don't like what you read.

Second, you don't need to join Salon, because I have never joined. Though sometimes you need to watch a stupid ad to read the site. The article was actually a document like a pdf, like smoking gun has, that they were reprinting. It wasn't an article, but an actual "official" document of some sort. I will check the same when I get a chance as their links don't die like with newspapers and the like.

I'll be back....

[Morticcia]

Checked link, and yes all you had to do was watch the ad for a second, but I captured the .bmp file and converted to .jpg and attached.

Again, it's just a document, but unlike you right leaners, I do read Salon, and no I don't guarantee there isn't bias (who can, it's written by humans DUH!) but please tell me how you can prove lack of bias in your favorite news sites? When you can do that, then argue away. I'll be waiting.

Salon's War Room hosts bloggers on the left and right, highlighting each perspective on political news. That far surpasses the lunatic, biased infotainment of Mike Savage, so back off, Slurp.

It was an old archived review of a famous Russian hypnotist/mesmirest, the only dissenting voice I read about him anywhere on the web, which helped me realize I was chasing a dream on hoping hypnotism could help with my eating disorder.

It's this and more that make me trust them, more than I trust any other political news site, except may factcheck.org, though there not really a news site.

When network news, cable news, print media, including the friggin' New York Times allowed journalists (like the criminal Judith Miller) to prop up this administration's lies about why we need to invade Iraq in 2002 and 2003, it was little old muckraking news sites like salon.com that were challenging the administration, and challenging democratic, even more than republicans, as to why they were swallowing Bush's nonsense.

But that sure can't be enough proof for you. So I'll stop wasting my breath. Foolish girl, tricks are for.... :roll:

[Che]

Quote: First, love how you don't read Salon but you know it's slanted because why? They don't ignore Bushes missteps like the right wingers do. LOL. Opinion and not fact? There goes your hypocrisy again. All news sources are slanted, even your vaunted AP sources, so again don't jump to conclusion just because you don't like what you read

Morti, you know that JJ is a past master of using one of the oldest ploys around :twisted:

Fortunately, the GOP (Grand Old Perverts) have used the "discredit what you do not like by claiming bias" ploy so any times... it has lost most of its effect.

BTW, I'm also having a problem with the site... after clicking on the ad.

[Morticcia]

Exactly, Che. Also my dissenting view should be suspect because five people can have a different view, but somehow he doesn't bring this issue up when his points are made.

Here is a msnbc link to "Plame was covert agent at time of leak": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/. There is a link to the pdf of the whole document: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf

[Che]

On a new tangent, when is Robert Novak going to be charged and face a trial?

Novak clearly put being a traitor... ahead of his loyalty to the USA.

As did Cheney and Rove.

[Morticcia]

I guess our press are more interested in a tearful Paris returning to jail than they are in admonishing unlawful acts among their own ranks.

My only consolation is that Novak isn't at the wheel of government, like Cheney and Rove.