the point bnb, is we don't know this is a felony. there's a tremendous amount of trumped up speculation by people with an obvious axe to gring, but we know nothing. a cia agent's name was mentioned in the paper. that's all we know. everything else is just speculation, or wishful thinking.
basso we know that his own lawyer admits he discussed Plame before the Novak article (possibly to three different reporters).
We also know the status of that CIA agent. That is not up for debate. Valerie Plame was an NOC operative for the CIA. That is a matter of fact. Anyone who knowingly exposes an agent like that has committed a felony. I don't see where there was any doubt that she was knowingly outed.
My point, dear Bass...was i didn't want a bunch of replies calling him a felon..or simply saying 'he committed a felony.' Them legal terms mean nothing to me. Looks like you're much less convinced of his possible involvement than his Lawyer. Oh well....you're still holding out for the big WMD find, if I recall .
once again, talking to a reporter about wilson's wife isn't by itself a felony. there's knowledge about plame's status, as well as intent. the last is especially critical, and was added to the statute so as not to criminalize inadvertent "outings" such as that propagated by John Kerry during the Bolton hearings. i know you'd all like to wish it was something else, and perhaps it will be, but right now we just don't know. so crow away, but just don't be so sure you won't be eating it soon.
Basso I went back to that thread and read it. I read the statue again as well. The piece by one of the authors of the '82 legislation does not say that the outings must be done with the intent of damaging national security. It says that the person must know the operative was undercover, and that the operative has to have been assigned outside the nation in the last couple of years. If you can find anything different from that thread please post it here. I've searched it, and found nothing like you claim exists there. It is possible you are confusing a couple of qualifiers for it go against the statute, or it is possible that in my re-reading I didn't see it. I looked over the whole thread and read the articles, but it is after a long day of work for me. Feel free to post the part that says it has to be with the inent of comprimising national security. I haven't found anywhere that it exists.
Now you have seen a link. Hopefully, you clicked on the link and heard Clinton admit that he didn't arrest bin Laden because of a legal technicality. Have you a rejoinder, moon? Or is this yet another instance of you retreatinig after butting heads with your intellectual superior?
Oh I have no illusions that he won't "litigate" his way out of this. LIke bnb said, this "is" X10. Just like everything else in this administration.
Clinton was not lying about that. Clinton is a big liar, but he wasn't lying about that. Clinton said there was 'talk' about an offer. There was. The talk was investigated it wasn't credible, end of story. The entire case comes from Mansoor Ijaz. Ijaz is the person who claims he acted as middle man about the offer. The offer sounded good so National Security advisor Sandy Berger met with him. Ijaz was an investment banker with a huge stake Sudanese oil. Ijaz urged Berger to lift sanctions against Sudan. Sudan had sanctions against them because they harbored terrorists such as Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and they are the leading state sponsor of slavery. So Ijaz who is the source for this story and later went on to be reporter for Fox News was arguing their case. Daniel Benjamin who was the director of counterterrorism at the time had this quote about Ijaz. "Either he allowed himself to be manipulated or he's in bed with a bunch of genocidal terrorists." Ijaz said that Sudan was ready to hand over Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. does not conduct diplomacy through self appointed private individuals. The U.S. did talk to the Sudanese govt. They pursued every possible lead regarding an offer, and no such offer existed. Clinton did not ever say he was offered Osama Bin Laden by the Sudanese. He merely said there was talk about it which was true. Read all about it by either Joe Conason or Al Franken.
Clinton mentioned Bin Laden not having committed a crime, but he also never once said he was offered Bin Laden.
LIE He said the following: 1) He knew bin Laden was plotting to commit a crime against the US 2) He *chose* not to bring him over because of a legal technicality 3) He pleaded with the Saudi’s to take him (implying that he had the ability to move him) That woman came on and said there was no offer. Not Clinton. Clinton’s words pointed directly towards him having the ability to bring him over. He chose not to. Given Clinton’s history of word games, he probably told that woman to say what she said, knowing it was a lie, so that she would be lying, not him. Sound familiar? Depends on what the meaning of “is” is? I didn’t inhale? Typical Clinton fact obfuscation.
TJ the facts have been posted. Make up scenarios that make people look like they said what you wish they had all day long, but it won't change the facts.
Actually, I just got a chance to read the transcript (the entire transcript) and his comments seem completely reasonable. He never said the Sudanese offered bin Laden, though there was the inference that Clinton could have brought him here. He also said (in the next sentence) that there was no legal way we could have brought him here. Clinton did exactly the right thing given everything we knew at the time, a fact that is explained well if you read the rest of that transcript, as are the reasons we didn't invade Afghanistan in '99 or '00. So, to recap: 1 - The Sudanese never offered up bin Laden. 2 - Clinton may have been able to get him, but lacked legal justification which was still necessary pre-9/11. 3 - I will always have an answer for your tripe. 4 - I have my intellectual superiors on this board, but you are definitively not one of them.
So we all agree that Clinton didn't bring bin Laden here because of a legal technicality. And you are OK WITH THAT??? Upholding legal precedent is more important than saving 3,000 lives and untold billions worth of economic damage??? You libs have lost your mind. Clinton had the chance and chose not to act. That is a fact by his own admission.
I didn't see either basso or Trader_Jorge demanding the head of Ossama bin Laden around here before 9/11/01. Nor did I see either GH Bush or GW Bush burning the midnight oil, clammoring for his arrest. Shouldn't Bush Sr. bear slightly less than 1/3 of the responsibility? After all, al-Qaeda was formed by bin Laden in 1988. That means slightly less than 2/3 time to Clinton, less than 1/3 time to Bush Sr., and a miniscule percentage to Bush Jr. If Clinton bears responsibility for not using the Minority Report to see that al-Qaeda would become more violent, shouldn't the same apply equally to Bush? Maybe we can blame Warren G. Harding for WWII and the Holocaust, since he didn't stop the NSDAP, which later became the NAZI party, when Hitler took over in his first year of power? After all, after a crime like the failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, it should have been clear to everybody in the world that mass genocide was the ineviatable result.
Clinton also issued an order to assassinate Osama Bin Laden, and did more to fight terrorism than anyone before him. He handed plans for all the things Bush is now doing over to Bush prior to 9/11. The facts are that Osama was never offered to be handed over. I do not agree that Clinton only didn't bring Osama over because of a legal technicality. This is all a sidewhow which draws attention away from the issue this thread was created around. So if Basso or anyone else would like to post the part of the statue or comments from one of the legislators who came up with the statute that says it had to be done with the intent of comprimising national security we can move on.
dude, just shut up already. we get get it... liberals hate america. you love america. conservatives are the smartest people EVER. liberals kill puppies. bush & co. can turn water into wine. liberals and terrorists secretly meet once a week to drink beers, oggle ladies.... and kill puppies. bush & co. have never made a mistake. liberals are mistakes. blah blah blah. yada yada yada. i'm voting for you next election, cuz you're the MAN.
