Your story about driving to work doesn't prove anything. It only shows that you have even less of an idea than the rest of us about how covert operation works. If you would read up more on the Plame case you would learn that covert operatives often have periods of time where they do exactly what Plame did. That makes sense, because Plame was a covert agent. Sam provided clear cut evidence provided in a court of law, by the U.S. govt. which were the people who hired her, and designated her as covert. If you wish to deny that she was covert, it will take a lot more than your own fanciful delusions about where she drove to work. As for your misstatements about the Senate report, you are wrong. It said nothing about that except in the after thoughts of some partisan senators. IT was in their own private remarks that they made those statements, and not related directly to evidence or testimony. It is yet another issue of which you have shown yourself to be more ignorant than even a casual follower of the case.
How can someone who runs away every time he is challenged have the nickname "Conquistador"? Yours should be "sir tail between his legs."
So much to respond to...sorry about the late entry. Be looking for your quote. Sorry No Worries...this is going to the Federal Circuit which is unlikely to reverse. They just don't reverse very often. I've gotta agree with Sam on this one. If it comes from a 1746 declaration, you can assume that it is accurate testimony or a perjurious statement. Unless proven to be perjury, the statement will be treated as accurate testimony. I think we can move on accepting the testimony on its face as true. Let's assume that everything you said there was true. Let's also assume that the testimony that Plame was covert is true. These are two separate issues. Prosecuting one is not mutually exclusive to prosecuting the other. Also, the prudent thing to have done would be to remove her from service PRIOR to investigating her for inappropriate behavior. You bring this up to obfuscate. It is a red herring. Oh, and Scooter was convicted, but in a lame duck move, Bush pardoned him. It isn't that he did nothing wrong or was vindicated...he just doesn't have to do his time. Just because there have not been any indictments doesn't mean there is no case. If there is no investigation, that may be due to political reasons. If there is still an investigation, the feds take years in larger cases to indict. That is why they have a 95% plea deal or conviction rate. When did you become a pro wrestler Jorge? That would explain the apparent roid rage. All of this being said. I voted for Bush. I generally tend to the conservative. But I do NOT dondone this or any other administration outing operatives, even if they are "docked" at the moment. This becomes dangerous business. I am truely disappointed with Bush...I expected bad stuff out of Cheney. I had hoped that Bush would keep him in check. I was wrong.
I thought yall renamed him The Conquistadork. /me wishes he knew where that chopped pic of Jorge as The Conquistadork was. sorry yall, I got nothing to contribute, but its always nice to see Jorge get owned yet again. and this time by a guy that probably votes pretty close to Jorge in most cases...big diff....Refman aint a partisan hack. god, ya gotta love the D&D sometimes.
I totally agree that the lawsuit should have been dismissed. But your post completely disregards the tenor of the dismissal.
