Valerie Plame's testimony

[GonzoStyles]

Isn't it funny that none of the papers really talk about the CIA confirmation of Plame's undercover status at the time of the leak?

The panel yesterday briefly focused on the fact that she has been confirmed by the CIA as an undercover/covert operative entitled to legal protection at the time of the intentional leak.


It was the Bush admins stance that Plame was NOT undercover at the time of the outing, and they did their best to spread this misinformation around.

The story NOW from the Bush/Cheney admin is that they knew she worked for the CIA, but not undercover. Funny the judge told me in my youth
"Son, ignorance is no excuse"

But it seems like this administrations only excuse.

[jubaji]

The legal distinction of 'undercover' or not, is not simply someone at CIA saying she is. There was a law passed back in the 70's about all this. Anyway, the pertinent consideration is that no one has made the legal case that a law was broken in that respect. No charges have been filed against anyone in that regard. If they had been, we'd be talking about Armitage now. The only crime even proposed was the perjury/obstruction charge brought against Libby.

[GonzoStyles]

I can't understand your persistance in defending people who were trying to stifle the truth, or maybe you still believe that there is a garage full of WMD's somewhere?

Hell there is probably more factual evidence for UFO's than for that crock.

[jubaji]

Not defending anyone, only stating the facts. I'm sorry if that's not partisan enough for you.

[GonzoStyles]

In order for me to be partisan I would have to be a democrat, you shouldn't assume so much Jubaji. I don't trust ANY politician.

It just so happens that Bush & co have pretty much been in charge for the last 6 years, so I am gonna talk about them.

If and when we have a solid Dem administration, we can have fun as a team making fun of the evident hypocrisy in their actions, but for now I am gonna stick with the guys running things (into the ground)

You compared the obstruction of justice/perjury charge in the CIA leak trial to the Monica Lewinsky/Clinton affair?

Talk about viewing things through a partisan prism!

one guy lies to keep out of the doghouse, the other guy lies to stay out of the bighouse.

[jubaji]

In order for me to be partisan I would have to be a democrat

Not necessarily, but I know you're not real good with definitions.

[jubaji]

You compared the obstruction of justice/perjury charge in the CIA leak trial to the Monica Lewinsky/Clinton affair? .

Actually, I hadn't mentioned that anywhere on this thread, but it does seem reasonable to compare a perjury/obstruction of justice charge with a...perjury/obstruction of justice charge.

[GonzoStyles]

Actually, I hadn't mentioned that anywhere on this thread, but it does seem reasonable to compare a perjury/obstruction of justice charge with a...perjury/obstruction of justice charge.

well I do believe you made the comparison on the exact same subject in another thread where this came up, unless I am mistaken.


But lets look at that closer................

a comparison of perjury charges in a case of marital infedelity versus perjury charges in the case of the laws protecting undercover intel operatives is "reasonable"?

It doesn't seem like your that good at definitions either Jubaji!

in one case a married man lies and damages his family & public reputation

in the other an organized effort at the highest level of government is made to recklessly endanger people who risk their lives for the security of the American public, Uh Yeah!

IMHO I think you have a problem with the definition of "reasonable"

to try and compare the significance & consequences of the two is just a bit "partisan"

wouldn't you say?

[jubaji]

a comparison of perjury charges versus perjury charges

Right. See, that's how the law works whether you like it or not.

[jubaji]

oh please.

There are laws and then there are laws.

Wrong, that's not how the law works. In any case, here we are talking about the exact same law! Are you really this ignorant, or are your emotions just completely out of control?

[jubaji]

Yes, I am that ignorant and am totally and completely emotional right now.

So it seems, and your desperate and childish grasping at speculative straws only reinforces that impression.

[Tom Yum]

For example,You are poor? Simple, get an education. Of course, if you are poor you pretty much cannot afford an education, so you are stuck in a loop.

I extracted all of the non-political information from your post and pulled this segment out. If one wants an education, they can eventually get it by serving their country - GI bill. Plus they get a decent income and training during their service.

The poor are not hopeless; those who lack creativity and cannot tap into their motivation are.

[jubaji]

If this had happened on Bill Clinton's watch?

You are truly a champion of irrationality. I was hoping to spare you the obvious, but guess what? The only 'crime' anyone has been charged with did happen on Clinton's watch and he was the one who committed the crime.


Now, I guess you'll guess some more, fabricate situations and scenarios, and even supply whatever dialog you need to satisfy your fantasies and fixations.

Go ahead, idiot...

[jubaji]

shamelessly stupid

Just because no one has been charged yet, does not mean that no crime was committed.

Do you even read what you write?

[jubaji]

you would not have

you would have .

Ok, first step in you being a little less stupid is to remove those words from your posts.