i'm guessing you missed this bit from judge bates' ruling: [rquoter]"there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials"[/rquoter]
LOL, how does "his wife works for the CIA" rebut criticism? Wilson: Bush used a bunch of fake evidence. Flunkies: yeah but HIS WIFE IS A CIA AGENT!!!! BOO YAH! Yeah, I use the "but his wife works for the CIA!" to rebut criticism all the time. It's perfectly valid - the other day a friend of mine said I'd gained weight - well I just dropped the "wife works for the CIA" line on him and BAM - shut his ass up for good. And thanks for answering the rest of post. Which you can't.
LOL, at SamFisher still trying to stick to his guns despite being proven wrong time and again on this case. Give it up Sam, you lost. The case was dismissed, no Administration officials went down, and the Plame/Wilson combo has serious egg on their face. You are fighting a losing (lost) cause.
you are the lost cause. regardless of who "wins" or who "loses" there is something called class. we all screw around here and i'm as guilty as the next of throwing the occasional grenade at fellow posters but damn, please show a veteran of the armed forces a little more respect. or do you doubt his 21 years of service to our country?
If this answer is based on the same level of ignorance that you have exhibited here about the legal system and common sense in general than I would prefer to skip it. PS, was the part of the post you just ignored answered too? You know, that you're non-covert agent fantasy, makes absolutely no logical sense? Hurry up and answer, or else I will be forced to humble you by explaining that your wife works for the CIA. You know bassmaster, you could avoid all this embarrasment by just admiting that you are willing to give up covert agents to promote the president's agenda - i mean you are a rigid unabashed partisan willing to apologize or play off any transgression of the Bush admin no matter how major or minor. We all know this, you make no secret of it. Nobody cares if you admit that on a BBS. It would be significantly less embarrassing than the time we caught you stealing articles and passing them off as your own posts, and as far as reputational harm - you can't hurt what isn't there and doesn't matter anyway.
sam- please point me to the conviction of anyone, even outside the administration, for their criminal outing of this heroric cia agent. even an indictment would suffice. please. put up or shut up. until then, you have no case.
First of all, I did not disrespect cmiller in any way. If he comes into the thread from a partisan stance, which he did, then should be treated as any other poster. I never doubted his service, do you? Is that why you bring it up? You need to show me more respect. I am The_Conquistador.
Did you read the article? The judge dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds but seemed to go out of his way to say that this doesn't mean there wasn't something unsavory about what the Admin. did. While it legally gets them off the hook this is hardly vindication for the Bush Admin..
This is completely off point and in no way responsive to any assertion that I have made in this thread. I've asked you how you reconcile your stated belief that outing covert agents is wrong with the fact that it occurred here and you have no problem with it. Alternatively, in your hypothetical non-reality based universe where Plame was not covert, I'm asking you what possible logical relevance would outing somebody's wife as a non-covert CIA official have to defending the administration's false testimony on Niger uranium (the answer is none) - in other words I'm showing you why and how your hypothetical non-reality based universe cannot rationally exist. This naturally brings us back to the first question. You said that outing covert agents for poltical gain was wrong. Apparently the president himself agreed, which is why he appointed Fitzgerald to investigate it. Now that it has been established that that has occurred (by at least 3 people, Armitage, Rove, and Libby if my count is correct) do you feel they were wrongful to do so?
basso, stop. You are embarrassing yourself. Sam showed you that it was proven in court that she was covert. Rather than admit you are wrong you start talking Bates' reasons for dismissing the lawsuit. Among those reasons was never a mention that she wasn't covert. I never seen a person miss so many opportunities to save face when given a suitable way out of a position they have foolishly gotten themselves into. Trying to claim that she wasn't covert after Sam's clear cut proof is like staring a poodle in the face and trying to tell the world that poodles are extinct.
