i'm profoundlly ambivalent about abortion, but in fact, i know several women for women an abortion has been a matter of convenience, and more than one time in a least a couple of cases. the fact that one of them is now in the 24th week of an unplanned preganancy w/ twins is deeply ironic. as to "getting my ass handed to me," it takes a special kind of obtuseness to believe that's what's happening here, but go on with your bat self...
I'm not coming down on you; you made a very valid point. I was making a technical point that has no impact really.
no problem- we're good. i thought FB's post was willfully misrepresenting the facts, and jumping to conclusions even after his sponsors in the media had repudiated theirs. he, and BMJ, just can't seem to let it go...Must...have...last...word....
<b>Originally posted by Batman Jones 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?</b> I thought I was famous for not equivocating? Which is it? What I said was that Nugent had lifelong FRIENDS and BANDMEMBERS who were black and latino, yet you seemed to insist on your understanding of Nugent as a racist. Well, in my experience most racists don't have friends or colleagues if they can help it of other races. I'm not backpedalling. I'm only admitting to a doozy-- which I knew it was when I wrote it. <b>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.</b> See here's the problem: I never posted a word about this not being a crime. My posting was an objection to FB citing "a felon in the White House." We had some sidebars about what constituted evidence, but I never said that there was no crime commmitted. If you spent as much time trying to read and understand what I wrote instead of re-casting it for your nefarious purposes, we wouldn't have so many conflicts, Eddie! (just kidding-- I love Eddie Haskell) <b> 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.</b> Me outrageous? Arent' you the one who demeaned my pro-Life position because I eat meat? <b<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.</b> I don't believe that I've used the word whimsy-- maybe I have-- but convenience is one I'll stick by. What is the motivation for the majority of women who have abortions? Are they all on a death track if the carry the pregnancy to term? I don't think so. Is it that they don't want a child or can't afford a child? More likely. That, sir, makes it a choice of convenience. Sorry but I don't know what else to call it. Even if they feel bad about it, it is a choice of convenience. I don't find any of the other pro-Lifers saying anything much different about the choice to have an abortion. I'm not sure why you see me standing alone on this matter-- except you put me there. <b> 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.</b> Why is it hypocrisy not to agree with you down the line? I make a distinction between humans and other animals. Believe it or not I'm not even a cannibal! <b>And Tyson himself didn't say he was asked to stop just before climax. Another historic giddyupian backpedal. Truly funny stuff.</b> I never said he did. I was just pointing that up as one example of a gray area. Remember, in the part you fail to cite, I said that there are many, many examples or possibilities. Another distortion of my point of view. <b>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.</b> Clever tactic, Boy Wonder. Not a damn thing has changed except I have to correct your version of what I said. At least 4 major corrections in this answer alone. Can you blame me for not letting you have the last word?
My ironyometer just broke. From the article: "Attorneys for the news organizations said yesterday that their decision to submit the brief underscores deep concern in the journalism community over special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's tactics." The media orginazations are filing a briefing to protect their journalists, and the future of their ability to have confidential sources. If the prosecutor succeeds in either forcing the journalists to reveal their sources, or send them to jail for not doing so, the future of political reporting could take a major blow. This is a maneuver made in their own self-interest. Have they suddenly uncovered a new story which shows no crime was commmitted? What is it? Oh, there's nothing in the article. Any other juicy articles showing how there's no crime committed? What you're not getting here is that the media outlets aren't the ones prosecuting the case. You may feel that way, but the prosecutor is the one in charge. Has he dropped the case? If he drops his case, or a grand jury decides that there was no crime committed, then you can come in here crowing and calling people out. But you ain't got jack right now. What you've got is media giants (including those loathsome liberal ones) making a friend-of-the-court filing saying there's no crime committed when a while back they were reporting that there may have been one. You're taking this as definitive evidence that there was no crime. After all, if the despised liberal press is retreating from the case, then that must be definitive proof, right? Uh, no. FB has already made it concrete clear that a felony has been committed. Even giddy can't deny that. More irony: if the media, motivated by self-preservation of their business, makes a court filing claiming that there's no crime committed, then voila, there's no case. But if the most basic rules of logic and common sense clearly show a crime is committed, and an obvious motive right next to it, oh no no no... Only a grand jury can decide that. Fine. We'll leave it at that. That's the best thing you've got this whole thread anyway. Leave it to the jury. That's how it should be anyway. But logic and common sense trump media giants acting in self interest. Somebody with high enough security clearance outed an undercover agent to these journalists. This agent did work on WMD back when the White House had to cook up support for the Iraq war. The crime has been committed. Motive is there, the means is there, the timing is all there. You want to say "leave it to the jury", fine. You want to say this media filing in court trumps that, okay. I'm becoming accustomed to y'all sticking your heads in the sand. What are you so stressed about anyway? Bush won the election. Dan Rather got busted and tooled. These are good times for y'all. The story is interesting. Many liberal media types would like to see someone in W's cabinet roast, so it's ironic to see them saying there's no crime and working against the success of their case. But if you see that it's made in preservation of their business, it's explicable. Besides, nothing may every truly become of the case, because some major constitutional freedom of press/freedom of speech issues are at hand. It may indeed come to pass that the prosecutor may not be permitted to force the journalists to reveal the sources or jail them. If that happens, the case is probably dead. But if he is permitted, anybody with common sense knows that this is probably pointing to someone in the administration getting back at Plume for contradicting the Iraq/WMD case. Oh, and FB is pwning all y'all. This post was pretty much unnecessary.
I only popped up eight times?? I'm shocked! Hey, I've been out of town, and finally got to read this thread. The biggest story here, from what I can tell, is that there's no story here. The media, as FB and many others pointed out, are merely trying to protect their employees. I have no problem, by the way, saying flat out that either there is a felon in the White House connected to the outing of Plame, or that Novak is a damned liar, and should be fired. He hasn't been fired, and there is an on-going investigation that, in my opinon, will eventually bear fruit. If it doesn't, then I will happily say, "Golly, I may have gotten it wrong!" I don't expect to have to do that. Time will tell. Keep D&D Civil!!
That isn't what the media is saying, nor is it even what their lawyers are saying. The media is saying there isn't evidence that they(meaning the media) committed a crime. They aren't denying at all that Plame's identity was outed.
No, I posted the facts and links to back them up. You either ignore facts, or read too much into a legal brief filed by lawyers trying to protect reporters from going to jail. Here are the facts: Valerie Plame was an undercover operative working on issues related to WMD's. Her husband investigated a claim that Iraq was going to trying to buy yellow cake uranium. Her husband discovered that Iraq wasn't trying to buy yellow cake uranium. Someone with top security clearance leaked Plame's true identity. That is a felony. Robert Novak published that leak. At first Ashcroft was investigating the case, then he turned it over to a special prosecutor. Congress was also investigating, then when it was apparent that it was a criminal matter, the FBI, investigated and the Grand Jury was brought in. The prosecution of this felony that has been committed has really put the pressure on the reporters. News agencies don't want reporters held in contempt, or forced to reveal sources for fear they won't get any future sources. The news agencies hired attornies to file briefs saying that nothing is wrong, please leave our reporters alone. Those are the facts. Not one journalist who reported the story has gone back and claimed his report was false, not one newspaper had to go back and print a retraction, correction, or apology. Your celebration of innocence is misguided and not based on anything definitive in the least.
We have a case where there is enough evidence to convene a grand jury to investigate a potential breach of national security in which the identity was revealed of CIA agent who worked in the WMD field. Basso is any part of the statement above not established fact? But you don't think this is story that the media should report in depth? Your concern for national security is as underwhelming as your support for democracy is shallow.
sigh, once more 1) newspapers pimp story alledging a felony committed in the publication of a CIA operative's name. 2) newspapers lead charge for an independent counsel. 3) said independent counsel calls said newspapers' columnists before grand jury. 4) said columnists refuse to reveal sources. 5) said columnists are threatened w/ contempt and jail time. 6) said newspapers have collective emily litella moment. 7) end of story.
Your facts are skewed. Before number 1 happened you forgot to mention that somebody with top security level revealed Plame's identity, thus committing a felony. Then the newspapers give the case only moderate coverage. Your number 2 is wrong. It was Bush's own justice department and congress that were investigating first and decided to call in the independent counsel, based on the merits of the case. 3-5 are pretty accurate. 6. Newspapers don't once take back any of the stories or retract one word that they published regarding the case. Their lawyers do file a brief saying that the reporters haven't committed any crimes. 7. End of story.
there are numeous instances in which a cia operative's name, even one under cover, could be legitimately revealed. your assuming a felonious instance, but this is just your assumption, not fact. in fact, the facts would appear to contradict you, and when you are proven wrong, may i assume you will make a substantial contribution to the tip jar to reimburse clutch for all the bandwidth you've wasted on this story?
Actually, there is a law that makes it a felony to reveal the name of an undercover intelligence operative. This law was signed by GHWB IIRC and TMK does not carve out even a single "instance" in which such an operative's name could be "legitimately revealed." No, based on the law that is in force, someone committed a felony. The "assumption" that has been made is that the felon is working in the WH, but that is a reasonable assumption given that 90% of the people with access to Plame's identity and contact with Novak work in the WH. Who is making assumptions now? There is an ongoing investigation by a special prosecutor and a grand jury is looking over the actual facts (as opposed to what you claim are "facts"). Can we make the same assumption of you?
a showing of criminality under the statute would require that plame have been a covert agent whose identity the CIA was taking active steps to conceal; and that the leaker revealed her identity maliciously and with the intent of damaging U.S. national security. whoever gave plame's name to novak almost certainly doesn't meet that threshold. for your convenience, here's a link to the tip jar.
Her name was not known to the public, Tenet made that clear when he advised the Justice Department to investigate. I would say that leaking the name in retaliation for her husband's report regarding the yellowcake flap certainly qualifies as malicious. Moving target? I have never heard word one about "intent" to damage national security. Certainly not when one sticks their head in the sand to ignore facts.
So if my intent when I robbed the bank was to get an adrenaline rush then the fact I took money is not a criminal offense.
i didn't write the statute. good luck trying to make it mean something it doesn't. here's a link to move onmove on, perhaps you can start a letter writing campaign. be sure to hit the tip jar on your way out!
Can you provide anything to support this "intent" clause, or are we supposed to take your word for it?
