No, the people who "pimped the story for a year now" say that they should not be forced to reveal their sources unless there has been an indictment. Trouble is, without the sources, there may be no indictment. That does not mean that a crime has not been committed. The media is covering their collective a$$es regarding sources. This isn't an "about face" at all and anyone who thinks it is has lost the ability to analyze information.
This goes right up there with 'maybe wetback means something else where he's from' for most impressive stretch by a giddyup. I've seen every episode of Leave it to Beaver about five or six times. I get that it's supposed to be some kind of insult -- it just doesn't make any sense. But that's nothing new.
Where the felon is, might be up for discussion. You didn't ask for evidence of who or where the felon is. You changed your argument at the midway point. You asked if there was evidence a crime had been committed. There is. Now I say that the person is in the whitehouse, because only a handful of people have the kind of top level security clearence that it would take to find the information. Guess where that handful of people work, and who they work for? In addition Novak's column that outed this intel agent serving the U.S. as an undercover operative he mentioned a whitehouse source. I don't think anyone from the whitehouse should be locked up without a trial, but unless the CIA outed their own agent and then convinced Novak to label it as a whitehouse source, the culprit is in the whitehouse.
Hilarious to see Basso, TJ, BigT all just salivating and jumping up and down at this non-story, lol! "ah-HA! Legal briefings made by media outlets to keep their reporters from going to jail! AT LAST! THE ADMINISTRATION IS EXONERATED OF THE FILTHY LIES OF THE LIBERALS!!!!!!" Bush won the election. What are you so uptight about? FB is laying the smackdown on all of you. Great stuff.
<b>Originally posted by FranchiseBlade Where the felon is, might be up for discussion. You didn't ask for evidence of who or where the felon is. You changed your argument at the midway point. You asked if there was evidence a crime had been committed. There is.</b> You cite the result of the "crime" as evidence. I maintained correctly that that was not evidence. Further, from the get-go you cited "a felon in the White House." That is conviction of the WH with no named suspect and no evidence to support the accusation. <b>Now I say that the person is in the whitehouse, because only a handful of people have the kind of top level security clearence that it would take to find the information. Guess where that handful of people work, and who they work for? </b> Not into guessing. Tell me. <b>In addition Novak's column that outed this intel agent serving the U.S. as an undercover operative he mentioned a whitehouse source. I don't think anyone from the whitehouse should be locked up without a trial, but unless the CIA outed their own agent and then convinced Novak to label it as a whitehouse source, the culprit is in the whitehouse.</b> By labeling it "a White House felon" you are clearly trying to link this event to GWB. There's a big difference in implication between a WH source and a WH felon.
<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones This goes right up there with 'maybe wetback means something else where he's from' for most impressive stretch by a giddyup.</b> That was a doozy, but I was sick of you relentlessly calling Nugent a racist in front of his lifelong black and latin friends. You'll just have to understand... oh, you won't and that's the problem. <b>I've seen every episode of Leave it to Beaver about five or six times. I get that it's supposed to be some kind of insult -- it just doesn't make any sense. But that's nothing new.</b> You are a trouble-maker. You drag up old threads (you've even done it here) and quote them out of context to make trouble. Other examples: 1. You demean my anti-abortion position as not being sufficiently pro-life because I eat meat. 2. You wrangle my sympathy for Tyson's questionable conviction on rape charges into my alleged support of essentially a rape-on-demand option for men. And this is all just in the last month....
Giddy, again the result of the crime is evidence that the crime has been committed. Not only is that my theory it is legal theory. If there is a body that has been strangled to death, we know there has been a murder. We know because we have seen the RESULT. When somebody exposes a clandestine CIA operative then a felony has happened. OK the people who have the needed security clearence to uncover the identity of a clandestine CIA operative all work in the Whitehouse. Therefore it would be reasonable to assume the felon works in the whitehouse. That isn't proven as of yet, so I won't convict anyone. But it is reasonable, likely, and almost certain that the felon works in the whitehouse. If you don't believe it, then please tell me who else has top level security clearance and is able to get that kind of information? WH sources don't all have that kind of security clearance. folks that work in the whitehouse do. That does not mean that I am linking it directly to GW Bush. But someone he appointed that works closely for him. The list would include: Rove, Doug Feif, Cheney, Condi Rice, etc. etc. There are probably about 20 - 30 people who have the kind of access it would take. They are all part of the whitehouse.
Yes, I didn't express myself very well. Being outed is evidence that a crime was committed, but it is not evidence against anybody in particular or even against someone in the White House. I don't know much about levels of security clearance in the WH and I'm not sure where you get your information that makes you so sure t hat you do... Didn't Novak out the agent more than anybody else involved?
actually, the analogy doesn't hold up. finding someone strangled to death, is not, in and of itself, evidence of a crime being committed. there's only a dead body. even ligature marks on the neck are only evidence of the manner of death, not that a crime has been committed. similarly, discovering a CIA operative "in the clear" is only evidence that she's no longer undercover. how she got that way, is what the investigation by the independent counsel is attempting to "uncover." there are circumstances where she could be revealed as a CIA operative, formerly undercover, that are perfectly legal. they may be unethical, they may be entirely above board. what's significant here, is that those who have been clamoring the loudest for an investigation, who have been touting the "crime" before the evidence is in, are now realizing that they may have been wrong all along. surely they owe the taxpayers an apology, and perhaps some reimbursement for the expense, for their partisan witch hunt.
I'm not naming anyone in particular. That wasn't what you initially questioned. I noted as have others that a crime was committed. I didn't accuse any one person of doing it. I did mention where the possible suspects would come from.
You are right about the strangulation. The analogy I should have used is that a body was found with the throat slit from behind. Now we know in that case a crime was comitted. Basso, if you ignore certain facts, such as intel officials saying that Plame most definitely was a clandestine operative working on WMD issues, until she was outed, then you could make that argument. However, we do know that CIA officials have maintaned that she was undercover until she was outed, and the felony committed. We aren't seeing that those who touted their having been a crime realizing they were wrong in the slightest. We are seeing some lawyers for news agencies saying their reporters haven't comitted any crimes and shouldn't be jailed. Nowhere in what you posted does it suggest they were wrong. When that happens papers pring apologies and corrections. Show me when one of the outlets mentioned prints one of those. The brief filed by lawyers from the media doesn't in any way trump multiple investigations, and the grand jury. Those groups are investigating the crime, because a crime was committed.
You said "a White House felon." That is what I was objecting to. That language ignores your use of "possible" and "suspects."
Thank you Perry Mason. I appreciate the spirit of your delineation of the point, but point, in fact, isn't suicide a crime?!?!
Ok as long as you don't try and say that a crime hasn't been committed. Yes it is not 100% certain that the felon was from the whitehouse. It is only about 94% certain. I will give you that tiny crack in the door. But since the pool of suspects with both the motive, and the means to do the crime come from the whitehouse, I was talking about a whitehouse felon.
the point of a grand jury is to determine whether a crime has been commited, not to investigate a crime. if the GJ determines the eveidence warrants it, then they'll issue an indictment. even then, then, our judicial system is built on the presumption of innocence. until someone has actually been convicted of a crime, one cannot say a crime has been committed. it may walk like a duck and quack like a duck, but until the duck is found guilty in a court of law, it's not a duck.
and the point of the thread is that those yelling the loudest that it's a duck now agree that perhaps it was a red herring all along.
Give me a f-ing break. There has been enough evidence to convene a grand jury. The media has reported this because it is a significant story. Should they not report on this story?
go back and read the article. the very media reporting it because it was "significant" are now saying, "uhmmmm, not so much."
It wasn't a doozy where you're concerned. You're famous round here for that sort of equivocating. But spinning it now to say you were just concerned for those "lifelong" Latino fans Nugent so lovingly (and habitually) referred to as wetbacks is an especially hilarious backpedal. You're a funny guy, giddy. I'm sure one or two blacks voted for David Duke in Louisiana. If I call him a racist, am I being mean to them? I don't "make" trouble, giddy. I just tell the truth and you think it's trouble. The sincere, first thing that popped into my mind when you started posting about whether or not a crime was committed in this case was your rape post. I found it deeply appalling, so it stuck with me. Sorry, but you've no one to blame but yourself for that one. It's similar to Jorge talking about his passionate support for the troops reminding me how he considers homeless vets societal bloodsuckers. If you are going to post outrageous stuff here, don't blame me for remembering it and re-posting it. I don't do it to cause trouble or to pick on you. I do it because some of the stuff you post here is so incredible. I didn't demean your anti-abortion position; I questioned the depth of your pro-life philosophy. I don't demean anyone's anti-abortion position. I'm anti-abortion. Ask MadMax, twhy or the other major pro-lifers here if I've ever picked at that scab without provocation. You asked for it when you repeatedly insinuated abortion was a matter of convenience or whimsy for the majority of women who've had one. I don't have any problem with an opposition to abortion, but that stuff was really offensive to me. All I did was point out your hypocrisy vis-a-vis convenience over principle. Again, if you're upset by that, it's your fault not mine. I didn't invent your changeable ethics; I only pointed them out. And Tyson himself didn't say he was asked to stop just before climax. Another historic giddyupian backpedal. Truly funny stuff. That's enough about all that though. I'm sorry I ever derailed (should have known if I addressed you you'd come back with 99 weird, ever changing defenses for that original indefensible post). You can have the last word on this stuff. I'm sure it'll be good for a laugh. I'm ducking out of this bit though. Having too much fun watching you and basso get your asses handed to you by the guys basso tried to call out.
