Hey BT... I'm with you on this! These people infuriate me. They ask questions, and then when the person tries to answer, they talk over them and repeat their point like a broken record, doing their best to make sure the other person isn't heard.

The thing with Liberals is that they keep repeating lies, over and over.

I personally think that Valerie Plame was not lying... exactly, but rather, she was purposely being vague and consequently, disingenuous.

The problem is, at one point in her life, she WAS covert. So for her to say, I was a covert agent is not a lie. The fact that she never was forced to qualify exactly WHEN she was covert poses a problem for all Liberal arguments.

Now of course, they'll use semantics to try and cover up this obvious omission, but the fact remains that when her name was revealed, she was no longer covert.

This is why when Waxman stated "General Hayden! General Hayden, head of the CIA, told me personally that she was. If I said that she was a covert agent, it wouldn't be an incorrect statement?"

The issue is that he is conveniently leaving out all references to time... as everyone knows that at one time, she was a covert agent. When anyone tries to narrow down the scope of this argument by defining it within time, Waxman and all other democrats say "No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not giving you -- I'm not yielding my time to you."

____________________________________________________

"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine

I may be mistaken, but I saw in another report that it HAD been more than five years since Plame served outside the country. 

Jules, keep on truckin' there and spewing BS.

I dunno why you guys keep trying to lie to make a point.  Why not try making the point from a position of strength?

Oh, you ain't got a position of strength with this Bimbo (Plame).

Here's the transcript.  Read it and weep.  Try reaaaal hard to find the interpretation of the 'law' that Toensign wrote and even Waxman could not argue that point.

TOENSING: Well, lets just take those one by one. As I said, I was there. I was the chief drafter for chairman --

WAXMAN: I'm not asking for your credentials. I'm asking how you reached those conclusions. Do you --

TOENSING: That's part of my credentials is because I know what the intent of the act was.

WAXMAN: I'm not asking what the intent of the act was.

TOENSING: Well that’s the question.

WAXMAN: Do you know that she was not a covert agent?

TOENSING: She is not a covert agent under the act.

WAXMAN: Okay, so --

TOENSING: You can call anybody anything you want to in the halls of the CIA.

WAXMAN: General Hayden! General Hayden, head of the CIA, told me personally that she was. If I said that she was a covert agent, it wouldn't be an incorrect statement?

TOENSING: Does he want to swear that she was a covert agent under the act?

WAXMAN: I'm trying to say as carefully as I can. He reviewed my statement, and my statement was that she was a covert agent.

TOENSING: Well, he didn't say it was under the act.

WAXMAN: Okay, so you're trying to define it exactly under the act.

TOENSING: That's important.

WAXMAN: No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not giving you -- I'm not yielding my time to "

You can slink back under your rock now.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

You have lied Jules.

" In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. "

Furthermore Toensing said it applies to persons overseas, and THEN, went through a long explanation of how that FURTHER became apllied to persons here in the USA- first the CIA said they needed rollout rollin turnovertime - 3 years - then they said they needed protectionfor thosenot back yet, and as Toensing characterized it , they finally flatout asked the CIA how long they wanted in the statute provsion and their answer was 5 years - which was written in and adopted.

 So you CLAIMING Toensing said " Only overseas" is WRONG, and is a LIE.

Now, you have been  " OUTED "

The epitomy of the pot calling the kettle black.

LOL You crack me up!

Most of the CIA's agents aren't flashy blondes driving around the DC area in an expensive looking convertible sports car like they are some sort of James Bondette.  Talk about keeping a low profile, or what?

Who would expect a spy to be a mother?   Anybody privy to the information Aldrich Ames passed to the Russians.  

"The most damaging breaches have often been committed by insiders, such as former CIA officer Aldrich Ames, who was convicted in the mid-1990s of spying for the Russians and revealing dozens of undercover operations and agents' identities to his handlers. In fact, Plame was among those recalled from their overseas assignments at the time, out of concern - never confirmed, former CIA officials said - that she was among those whom Ames had exposed.
"

Recall that the CIA neither confirnms nor denies anything as a matter of policy.

And the Cubans!

"The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article — you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage — Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."

One of which was Valerie Plame's identity.

Come now, Mr Journalist, what do YOU really know about the CIA?  Have you ever worked for them? 

The meanest thing Waxman did was attribute this statement.

You can see here the distortions that are coming out of the idiot womb.

I dunno, why do they think they can get away with the gross misrepresentation of it?

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Armitrage wasn't the only one who disclosed her status. See Disclosures of Valerie Plame Wilson's Classified CIA Employment.

Until yesterday, she said nothing about her status or what she did. She said that she regretted the photograph, but since she was no longer undercover I fail to see how it is relevant.

You are an ignorant deceptive con artist who doesn't pay attention.

The distinction was made in the hearings over the word "covert", and covert under the identities Protection Act.

It IS NOT against the law to "out" a "covert" Plame under the IPA.

What DID come forth, is another complaint, which is, even WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of a protected status - WHICH NOONE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD- AS TESTIFIED TO IN THE LIBBY TRIAL AND REPEATED AND TESTIFIED TO IN THIS HEARING - WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER IPA PROSECUTION ....

 a no-no - and that would in layperson's terms "sloppy slip-ups" when it comes to "revealing classified INFORMATION" which includes in this case - agreeing with a reporter that you heard the same thing when they ask....

LOL - The truth is finally EXACTLY APPARENT. DEMOCRAT CONGRESSPERSONS DO THE EQUIVALENT ON A DAILY BASIS.

 So,now the retarded left is down to arguing that " Bush people " blew it and revealed "classified information" in a sloppy and "irresponsible manner" which Waxman the whining liar cried " is wrong" - because reporters asked them what everyone asking already knew, and they agreed they heard it too.

 I'll tell you,hearing Toensing point out the GIGANTIC LEAKS of the NYT was a breath of fresh air - broke up the dem BS nicely.

 Nonetheless, the whole whine is down to - an obscure EO - about SLOPPY USE of classified information - written as an a reminder to try to remember what "might be in your opinion even if you have no idea" possibly considered classified at any low or unknown level.

 So - it doesn't matter one WHIT wether or not Plame the leftwing flame was covert, non-covert- coveredup - naked or insane.... but----- if where she worked was SIMPLY AND MERELY CONSIDERED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION....AND SOMEONE LET IT OUT NOT EVEN KNOWING JUST THAT... as she put it - there should have been a red flag....LOL - ask Armitage if HE SAW ANY RED FLAGS

THEN REMIND YOURSELF - THE CIA SPOKESPERSON CAME OVER TO THE VICE PRESIDENTS OFFICE AND TOLD LIBBY AND CHENEY ABOUT PLAME BEING MARRIED TO JOE WILSON AND FAILED TO MENTION THAT WAS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- AND DELIVERED IT IN A NON CHALANT MANNER- AND NEVER ASKED THAT IT BE PROTECTED - GIVING THE IMPRESSION THAT IF REPORTERS CALLED SAYING THEY HEARD IT AS WELL, ONE COULD EASILY AND LEGALLY CONCUR.

 Henry Waxman says everyone should have a fit over it...

I remind you - SANDY THE SLOPPY BURGLAR -takes the cake on "releasing" classified information from it's properly bounded areas - while being observed and after BEING WARNED NOT TO REPEATEDLY.

 Now, if you'd like to cry some more - go ahead, but NOONE is going down in this over IPA - EVER= PERIOD. 

 That means of course YOUR SIDE LIED FROM THE BEGINNING.

You -- apparently can live with yourself and that.

 I'd rather stop seeing your pathetically disruptive lies, but then again, shame is nowhere to be found in your desire for absolution from your sins, which you no doubt will continue to pursue.  

Sigh... Did you even read what I posted? You make claims without links to show those claims as facts, then respond with an obtuse question. What is the point of even posting here?

What really cracked me up reading Jules and reading the Waxman commentary was the double-standard.

In two cases Democrats were caught in scandal during an election and both times got out of the race too close to the election. Election law states, as Tom Delay and Mark Foley found out, that if you bag out of an election too close to the election your name stays on the ballot.
In both casees the Democrats were allowed to place their substitutes ON The ballot.

The reason was that the INTENT of the law was the priority. So what do you have in this case is Waxman says that THE INTENT of the law wasn't important and that he DOESN"T CARE about the INTENT.

To a Liberal Laws only matter when it's convenient to them and they don't when it's inconvenient. That's the heart of liberalism.

Of course as has been said Bill Clinton lied under oath and it was no big deal.

In Fact, during the Clinton investigations and trials the bad guys were the Prosecutor and Linda Tripp and any woman who was sexually harrassed by BC.

Waxman would commit such an obvious perjury in front of his own committee

Waxman wasn't under oath. He was the one asking the questions. So he couldn't commit perjury could he?

Do try to get even the simplest facts correct.

And please stop making sweeping generalized statements comprising your opinions, or your "interpretations" of peoples motives, and pretending they are facts.

Such as the one I have just illustrated.

And if you truly are a "journalist," no wonder the profession is in such a parlous state.

The answer is socialism. But only if the question is:

"What's the fastest way to impoverish, enslave and destroy people?"

If El Guapo here was enough to drive you off, you must not have much starch.  Let us make clear to you that El Guapo is no conservative.  That should be obvious to anyone who reads enough of his posts.

Stick around.  I don't have much interest in this Plame thing, believing this to be an entirely manufactured scandal, so I usually don't debate the topic, except insofar as to raise obvious questions about the legitimacy of all this, questions that people like YOU in the media should be asking, but do not.

There are many other topics I have lots of inetrest in.  I'd enjoy demolishing a few of your liberal notions on those.  Why do I assume liberal, you might ask?  Well, you DID say you were a member of the press corps.   75-80% of them are liberals of various stripes according to a recent poll.  None of the conservatives would be in here asserting the tommy rot you posted above.  That makes you a leftist's leftist.   This poll is also a fact, so don't tell me you have seen a fact on this thread.  

As a self proclaimed journalist that makes anything you have to say on this site untrustworthy if you dont back it up with evidence,

Why you ask

Simple your posts already show that you are a Democrat, this is a site dedicated to showing that your profession has an agenda and is selectively skewing the news/facts to support it,taking these into account why are you here? Your post says to see what the right had to say about the media, yet all you have done is post things designed to anger, used half truths to promote a lie. You of course are going to write an article on NB and are just trying to get quotes to cherrypick and try to prove an untruth by showing these to people who are too busy to check anything you might say.

I suggest you check your facts very carefully on this. You are asserting Berger didn't destroy anything, and that he only took copies home.

First, no one knows if he took any originals home with him. You see, that's the problem of taking things home. You're not supposed to take secret materials home.

Second, your statement of "He was cleared to see them" follows your statement of "He took ... documents home", and you are clearly trying to suggest that since he was cleared to see them, then he is also cleared to see them at home.  You certainly don't know anything about protecting secret documents, do you? You are not allowed to take secret documents home with you. Period. And if he was, somehow, allowed to take secret documents home, why did he stuff them in his socks and pants? That clearly is not allowed.

Berger was up to no good. And for you to try to compare Bergers actions to Libby is disengenious at best. There is no comparison; one act is not more noble than the other act. They need to be evaluated separtely.

As a journalist, I suspect you are still leaning how to deal with Who, What, When, Where, and Why. If you continue to use this Newsbusters blog, I'm sure we can all help you along. But it appears you have a ways to go, so be patient and try to learn a lot.

So, Jules, do you think you can just ignore my posts?

You seem to be quite blind when I give you a number of facts and then run around posting outside the box.

ACA

...

Quoted from:  'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)

Where did Waxman agree that Plame was not covert?

All of the points that you are trying to make have been hashed over repeatedly all over the conservative media and the mainstream media and not a single one has been sustained by any evidence at all. They are merely claims.

As you must well know by now, Armitage was not the only one who leaked. Others did, too. Fitzgerald stated that he was unable to pursue the investigation because Libby perjured himself and obstructed justice and that is why he was on trial. And, I would add, that is exactly what he was convicted of by a highly qualified jury of his peers that spent nine days deliberating the charges in excruciating detail.

Your opinions about whether or not it should have been referred to the Justice Department are irrelevant because you don't really know anything about the case except what you are getting from people who don't know anything about it either. The case was not routinely referred. It came from the highest levels of the CIA -- the Director of the CIA and the counterespionage division (not the Inspector General as I stated earlier in haste) -- and it was strong enough for a Republican Attorney General to recuse himself, the appointment of a (Republican) special counsel, and prolonged court proceedings that went as far as the Supreme Court.

You are grasping at wisps -- not even straws. You have demonstrated that you are not a serious, well-informed observer, but a hopelessly biased zealot who uses irrelevant conjecture to advance totally improbable conclusions and rejects any evidence that contradicts your frankly absurd accusations. You are wasting my time. I have nothing further to say to you.