This kind of BS is so infuriating you want to scream. But no matter what the facts they just keep swift boating away! No wonder Americans are so poorly informed they'r drowning in bull sh-t and deceit!

I've actually thought about this question quite a lot.  I'm not sure of why Republicans seem to deny the obvious, but I have a hypothesis.  Republicans are raised with the ideas that Democrats are traitors (just look at the titles of their books, like Ann Coulter's and others).  I think they just can't wrap their heads around the idea that it is Republicans are putting this country in danger, so they are looking for any justification to deny it.

<span class="Apple-style-span">Humpty Dumpty took the book and looked at it carefully. `That seems to be done right --' he began.</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">`You're holding it upside down!' Alice interrupted.</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">`To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">seems</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span"> to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">`Certainly,' said Alice.</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">`And only </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">one</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span"> for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">`When </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">I</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span"> use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you </span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span">can</span&gt<span class="Apple-style-span"> make words mean so many different things.'</span&gt

<span class="Apple-style-span">`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'</span&gt

Larry, I think you are the one on oxycontin.

After all this time, after tens of thousands dead, after (probably hundreds) of CIA assets neutralized in their effectiveness, you actually expect the remnants of this machine to acknowledge facts???

You are a waaay smart guy.  I bow to the superior intellect ;<)

But soothe your incredulousness with a scotch, cause these boys have cornered the market on deluuuusional drugs, as Lewis Black would say.

I would actually be afraid to take a hit of that shit, and I remember Owsley acid.....

Smile when you talk about the tin foil hat crowd, fella.....

Certainly, if I were trying to argue in favor of Libby, Rove or whoever else might wind up involved, I'd hope that the "she wasn't really undercover" argument would hold water.  It's a surefire winner.  If true.

But if the CIA says she was undercover, than she's undercover.  If the CIA says she's undercover even while revealing her own identity on Oprah, she's still undercover.  It's the CIA's job to say who's undercover and who isn't, after all.  Even if she's under bad cover or ineffective cover, if the CIA says she's undercover, that's what she is.

What's odd to me is that these are the Republicans behind the Patriot Act.  These are the Republicans who say, at least when security and military issues come up, that you just have to accept increased government power and they've even argued that people who are too vocally concerned about civil liberties or government abuses are treading into either traitorous or at best unhelpful territory.

And yet... now they don't trust the CIA to classify its own agents?  Okay.  A little weird, though.  A little weird. 

FWIW, I just posted a diary at the DailyKos addressing Boot's idiotic and distorted op-ed in Wednesday's LA Times about the Plame scandal:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/2/191055/886

I'm still trying to figure out which of these guys are still true believers (which would effectively require massive doses of oxycontin and/or a lobotomy, and of which Boot appears to be one), which are trying to defend their past support of the administration to save face even though they now realize that they were wrong, and which are simply shilling for their man because it's what they're paid or told to do.

I suppose that in the end it doesn't really matter as they're all lying idiots who take us all for sheepish fools.

Maybe now that the grandfather of their movment, WFB himself has weighed in and more or less said that Rove should be hung and Libby should die in jail they will start to realize how serious this is.

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200511011324.asp

No need to bother. I still got the point and with all of the extra characters it has that certain charm you don't find in actual print.

Sad when an entire segment of our society, in an effort to avoid reality, creates a world of nonsense. Eventually Alice did wake up...but still...what an adventure. 

As the Greeks say, “the fish rots from the head”.  Truth, integrity, honor, decency, duty, and competence are words that will never be used to describe this Presidency.  Bush is of course ultimately responsible, but the continuing exposure of the Cheney/Rumsfeld blinding character flaws and incompetence is staggering. Their policy of torture and detention of prisoners is so irrational and harmful to our interest, it seems almost maniacal — Doctor Strangelovian.  The prewar manipulation of intel to deceive the public to go to war, and the character assassination and falsehoods about the Wilson’s are also profound indications of deviant character.
This morally and intellectually bankrupt White House set the tone—disinformation and  lies became the norm, justifiable because of their unquestioning beliefs in their goals. Judy Miller is the living symbol of MSM’s critical role as accomplice to the White House in public deception.  The righteousness of the war justifies abandoned of journalistic professionalism, honesty, and sound and balanced investigative reporting.
The deceptions continue, and become even more extreme as the truth slowly emerges.  In Thursday’s WaPo editorial, the paper dismisses the Senate action to call for an accounting of pre-war intelligence, saying the debate over the war is over.  This is an argument made by an ideological zealot supporter of the war, not a leading media institution entrusted to serve the nation’s best interests. Their position is clearly inconsistent with the public’s need to know, a key factor to an effective democracy, and the purpose of the press’s protections in the 1<sup>st</sup&gt Amendment.

If the CIA says shes undercover even while revealing her own identity on Oprah, she's still undercover.

Now that the "facts" are out there on the internets for all to see, it's only a matter of time before they start claiming that Plame outed herself on Oprah.  Now excuse me while I crush up these painkillers....

Heard on C-Span that Victoria Toensing has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today with the same tired spin. 

Lies are used because the lies work. People have an intuitive notion of what "undercover" means, and Valerie Plame doesn't quite fit that notion. So, it would take a conscious effort on the part of such people to absorb what the CIA and Fitzgerald are saying. The lie is addressed to such people, and it probably works with many of them.

With a nod to Kos and Americablog for the link http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200511011324.asp

William F. Buckley says "cover" matters.  Will be interesting to see how/if the Toensings and other shills-of-the-moment in the Republican apologist party respond to him.

Right Wing pundits insist that without an indictment on the disclosure of Plame’s covert job at CIA means that there is no problem, no harm, no foul. Even as Fitzgerald states clearly that national security was harmed, they chortle on that since it brings no political harm to your politics, then it is okay. By this, they are in concord with those who have been willing to sacrifice the security of this nation on the altar of their personal politics.
 
On the issue of the courts deciding that the spurious claims that Plame was a not a covert agent are without merit, Boot is advancing a baseless claim. Fitzgerald's investigation into the alleged leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative by Bush administration officials is not merely a probe into whether the disclosure violated the IIPA, and if the conditions are not met, then no crime has been committed.
 
As Victoria Toewnsling and other right wing hacks have on <span>distorting the authority of Fitzgerald's investigation Boot is attempting to narrow its scope to an investigation of if a single law has been broken.
</span&gtFitzgerald’s mission is not conditioned or restricted in any such manner.
"The Honorable Patrick J. Fitzgerald United States Attorney Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Patrick:
At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.
Sincerely,
/s/ James B. Comey James B. Comey Acting Attorney General"
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/ag_letter_feburary_06 _2004.pdf
<span>Boot's insistence that the Special Counsel and courts have not determined the state of Plame’s covert status with respect to the IIPC guidelines is merely a misdirection in this affair. Plame’s classified, covert status is not in question according to the overarching mission and plenary powers of Fitzgerald’s authority to investigate the unauthorized disclosure of Plame’s employment with the CIA. Fitzgerald is authorized to investigate the disclosure under any law relating to this, not only the IIPC.

Narrowing, as Right Wing propagandists have the subject of the pertinent laws with respect to this investigation only to the IIPC is fallacious. It is nothing more than a cheap trick to demand the application of the terms of a law that is difficult to enforce in effort to avoid legal retribution. The Special Counsel is not under any such mandate to do so.
</span&gt<span>The federal courts did not decide their cases to grant the Special Counsel and Grand Jury with full subpoena power of a criminal investigation under Branzberg upon the requirements of the IIPC but on broader legal issues. When one says that the courts did not address the issue of Plame’s covert status according to IIPC guidelines, who ever said that they did or had to?

They rejected the claim that Plame was not covert and for the intents of the broader terms of the investigation the courts have decided that her status was classified and covert.
</span&gtThe amicus brief filed by Toewnsling on behalf of Miller attempted directly to short circuit the investigation by forcing the courts to apply the guidelines of the IIPC on the covert status of spies to the investigatory powers of Fitzgerald and the grand jury. This was merely a ploy to force the courts to apply the strictest guidelines to Plame’s covert status at CIA.
 
The courts rejected this ploy, and Fitzgerald stated that in the indictment of Libby. The laws pertinent to his mission include statutes other than the IIPC on national security matters.


the other perenint laws are:

 
Espionage Act of 1917

Title 18, Section 793.

Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
The Reagan Administration used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute Samuel Morrison in 1984, and there Morrison merely leaked photos of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that even if a leak might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.


Title 18, section 371:
 
Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

Fitzgerald has already mentioned that there was a concerted effort to reveal Plame’s classified employment to the media.

 
<span>What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government."  Would telephoning or meeting with reporters to reveal a covert CIA asset whose identity would be compromised fit this description? Highly likely.
</span&gt


Title 18 Section 641.
 
<span>Public money, property or records
</span&gt

Most relevant for this situation, Jonathan Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641

<span>
This law prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it was used in the Randel case to cover just such leaks.</span&gt

Irene-

If you don't have your GOP talking points ready to post, please don't just lurk in the group and downrate comments that you think you don't like.  It's not about you. 

I went to read the column to see what all the fuss was about, and the first thing I see is this:

"But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives."

The clear implication is that there was no crime committed at all. So the indictment was just for fun and giggles? I'm sure that would be great news for Scooter - he wouldn't have needed to go to that arraignment today.

I slept well, thank you.

I'm not a Republican, I'm a liberal Democrat who values maintaining the high signal-to-noise ratio on this site. That you presume that I was one?

I find that indicative of the quality of this thread. I rated comments elsewhere highly last night. I found this thread was different in comparison. Quite a few comments on this thread struck me as particularly "unhelpful" in response to Larry Johnson's interesting entry. One rating description is "not helpful." I used it on the comments that seemed too similar to the circle jerk and "amen brother" thoughtless echo-chamber banter common on many other sites.

As a reader, I was truly disappointed that I had spent time reading comments where there was little added to Larry Johnson's position piece. Where there were no new or challenging thoughts, just robot-like repetition of liberal talking points on this story, which I already know quite well, thank you very much. I'd hate to see this site go in the direction of high noise, low signal, self-reinforcing, back-slapping, towel-snapping chatter of low substance.

I find this site valuable because it usually doesn't have such chatter to wade through.

It's not about you.

Consider the idea that there are many more of us lurkers here than commenters and that if we rated more often it might be a good thing. Lurkers are the audience that doesn't bother to write unless there is the possibility of saying something new and helpful. Yet they contibute to those high technorati ratings that help pay the bills. If lurkers chose to stop reading instead of expressing their opinion of quality by thoughtful rating: your website, it's got problems.

Finally, as long as I am commenting, I would like to mention something worth saying. I would to thank Josh Marshall for furnishing this site where high signal-to-noise ratio has been relatively prized so far.