If Clinton should have been able to account for 9/11/2001 sometime between 1996-1999, basso should've been able to appreciate a future need to have a clearly defined and documented opposition to Clintons lack of forsight only a year in advance in 2000.
Your logic is puzzling to the point that I have a hard time convincing myself you actually believe what you're saying. Clinton is responsible for 9/11 because of his lack of foresight to predict security failures two years after his 2nd term? Huh?
9/11 occured 8 months after clinton's term ended, and the cole bombing was in the fall of 2000 while clinton was still in office. he had plenty of opportunity to act and chose not to. that said, he's on record, post april 2003 as being in favor of the war and believing there were WMD.
Clinton did act after the Cole bombing. Clinton made all the plans and then gave them to Bush. Clinton chose not to hand the new president with very little foreign experience a war. That may or may not have been right. But to claim he did nothing is ridiculous. Nothing is what Bush did every time Clarke tried to meet with him to discuss the plans and put them into action. It is pretend to say that Clinton did nothing, since I've posted a long list of the actions taken by Clinton several times on this website. You blame Clinton while ignoring the fact that Bush and his people ignored the very plans that Clinton handed over and Clarke was trying to get implemented. Meanwhile did you have a chance to look through that other thread? It is 8 pages long. I believe the part you are interested in starts on page 6 and continues to page 7. I have read the statute and read the thread, and see nothing to back up your claim that the person who outs the operative has to knowingly be damaging national security. I don't think that it would be a good use of this site's resources for me to post all 8 pages here. But if you would like to find the support for you claim is in the statute and backed up by the author of that statute, please do. Otherwise we should conclude that you were mistaken when you posted that bit.
i'm only blaming clinton to the extent that you and others here have tried to blame bush. as to the intent stipulation, it's in there and has been posted before here in the greater plame thread. sorry you can't find it.
Basso, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought that you were mistaken when you claimed it was in there. I went back and read the thread. I also allowed for the possibility that I just missed it. But having looked again. The claim you made about intent to damage national security doesn't exist in that thread, the statute, or this thread. The reason I can't find it is because it doesn't exist. There is a bit about intent. But it only states that the person who leaks the name has to know the operative was undercover. There NOTHING about having the intent of comprimising national security in that thread or statute. You are simply incorrect on this one. Either you didn't remember correctly or you are just making it up now. I invite you to look back at the thread. I have done so a number of times now.
you really need to improve your reading comprehension skills: “The statute was specifically `crafted with care’ to be used in limited circumstances, because Congress wanted to `exclude the possibility that casual discussion, political debate, the journalistic pursuit of a story on intelligence, or the disclosure of illegality or impropriety in government will be chilled by the enactment of the bill. Congress intended only disclosures that `clearly represent a conscious and pernicious effect to identify and expose agents with the extent to impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States.’” http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww...&articleId=9473 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=93432&page=6&pp=30&highlight=plame+statute check page 6.
You need to be more careful when making claims. That does not say a thing about intending to damage national security. It only mentions the intel activities of the U.S. Exposing a covert operative who specializes in working on WMD's would seemingly qualify in that regard. It would definitely qualify given that Plame's cover business was also blown and all other agents who used that business for cover at the very least would have to change their cover business, and at the worst would put their lives and those that interacted with them in jeopardy of losing their lives. The claim you made about damaging the national security just doesn't exist.
you're such a friggin' idiot: "insofar as the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation;" http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&star...sT2Cbb0iQGHrOzkAg&sig2=FyliNyLiOnu7BPPbBpNmsA and i can't believe you're attempting to parse the clear opinion of the author of the statute. i'm done with this issue. you've been proven to be nothing but a dissembler who cares nothing for the actual truth. believe what you want, the statute, and the intent thereof, as expressly detailed by the statutes author, is clear.
Dont be so touchy Basso. You are the one who made a claim that doesn't exist. Again national security wasn't mentioned. I think intentionally an NOC operative clearely is an injury to the U.S. If that was in retribution to Wilson's report then the intent is also clear. The more I read what you post, the more I don't understand where you are coming from with your defense. The actual truth is exactly what I am after. It is fine to disagree, I don't see why those that disagree with you are friggin' idiots or dissemblers who care nothing for the actual truth. Though I wonder if by selectively editing quotes form sources how concerned you are with the 'actual' truth. If you need to try decaf, or put me on ignore. I've been nothing but civil, and invited you to present your side. That's all it takes. This is just a bbs, and not a reality show, or talk show where creating a tizzy and being dramatic will get you higher ratings.
you seem to be arguing that "intent to injure the U.S. or provide advantage to a foreign nation" does not equate w/ "national security?" is that the basis of your arguement, semantics?
How was the "intent to injure the U.S. or provide advantage to a foreign nation" proved in any of the high profile spy cases in US previously? If the defense of a "spy" were "I was merely trying to make a few more easy bucks for myself, didn't think much about the consequence, and certainly not intending to jeopadize US", would you buy that argument? Would you believe his intent was harmless?
basso, my point is: If Karl Rove were put in a trial on the charge of "jeopadizing US national secury" by revealing (casually or not) the identity of a CIA operative, what would any possible defense he'd come up with be different from the claim "I just wanted to make some money" insisted by a "spy"?
Just to be clear, if someone were to reveal the names and locations of all our undercover agents, but it was done just for notoriety and to make money on book sales - not intending to harm anyone - you do not believe this would be illegal?
A "fair and balanced" alternative would be whether or not he/she was a close aid to an Administration in charge at the time of revelation.
My mistake as my memory had fogged on the election date. 8 months or 2 years, my point was that if anyone is to blame, shouldn't it be the person who's watch under which it occurred? It's not like Dubyah went in to the White House cold turkey, he was briefed on the top operations.
cabbage you are giving basso new air to breathe, we have been beating a dead horse and you intervened.
Just an aside... I can't help but wonder if Valerie Plame's name was one of the 10 operatives that Bolton requested the names of while Undersecretary for Arms Control. The names the WH wouldn't release to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during the confirmation hearrings.... Now wouldn't that be interesting...
