TJ: Do you actually have any substantive criticism or or or you making strictly Ad Hominem attacks today?

-Dave Adams-

It didn't take long for the bad penny to show up. I think he has a secret crush on Larry.

Victoria Toensing is the worst kind of American, she's a right wing Republican first, a political assassin second, and an American third or fourth. However, she isn't unique, she's one of many.

Brent Budowsky says: This case is about obsessions, delusions, lies, misrepresentations........and the deliberate and aggressive distortions of the collection, analysis and public use of intelligence.

Exactly, and the aiding, abetting and defense of this arguably treasonous behavior will be forthcoming as soon as TJKING returns.

SeeDee

On the contrary, madison idea, how about starting at the TOP of the food chain and work in descending order. And, this time lets have a prosecutor chosen from the left side of the Democratic party.

What we've had, though great care was taken to portray Fitzgerald as a thorough, not-easily-intimidated, gung-ho prosecutor, is the work-over of one second-tier criminal who awaits a pardon and the real culprits (Cheney, Rove, and, yes, especially 'W') hope the dastardly affair is forgotten.

Shame!

John, in the last few weeks, you have increased your use of the theme that I or some other Republican is "Unamerican" or "treasonous". Then you turn around and falsely claim that George Bush or some other Republican has called a democrat unpatriotic or unamerican.

Each time I ask you for an example of George Bush or even some other Republican in the party leadership that has used those phrases, you run and hide out. Then you pop your head up out of your hole a few days later and repeat the lie again.

Since you are the worst, and I do mean the worst, on this board as far as making claims and then not backing them up, if I am aiding, abetting and defending "treason", that means I am guilty of a crime. If you claim Toensing is putting her personal interests before her support for her country, I think that is your own guilt and projection slithering out.

Please describe what proof you have that I will or have ever committed any crime especially treason. Your lies and slander are obnoxious and always make a clear demonstration of how little intelligence you bring to the discussion.

I fully expect you to fail to back up your blatherings and lies as usual. Give my regards to your hole.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson, for bringing us the words of Brent Budowsky.

I am incapable of understanding how an act of high treason by this administration has been treated so lightly. As ugly as the prosecutor purge was, it pales in significance in comparison to the outing of Valerie Plame in my opinion.

Best, Terry

TJ, this is easily resolved.

I agree with everything Bendt Budowsky says in his column here, what about you?

On March 31, 2007 - 4:03pm terry hallinan0 said:

It wasn't exactly an act of patriotism to reveal the identity of a spy, but those who revealed the identity to the press are the ones guilty of a treasonous act.

Agreed. As to Novak, like Toensing, he has proven to be in that class of political hack who are the lowest of the low, the "anything goes" gang.

In the Plame case, Novak reprised his role as a Rove flunky, one he originated in Bush 41's '92 campaign.

"....Valerie Plame was covert. Valerie Plame had served our country covertly within the last five year prior to the disclosure of her identity. To suggest otherwise today, when the facts are now beyond dispute, is that extraordinary combination of delusion and dishonesty that will be seen by history as the darkest side of national security disasters of the Bush years...."

How hard is it to have the Intelligence committee, formally request that the CIA release a statement that says, "..Regarding the legal term covert as it is used in the IIPA, Plame was covert, and furthermore CIA counsel believes the IIPA was violated...", so we can charge the person who broke this crime. If you are so insistant on the leaker being bad or whatever, let's get him and charge him. If you don't believe it is Armitage, which Fitz clearly believes, then let's find him and charge him.

"...It is immaterial whether the CIA Identities Act was technically violated. In my view it probably was; reasonable people can disagree; Patrick Fitzgerald said that lies threw sand in the gears of justice, so perhaps we will ultimately find out, perhaps not...."

OK, reasonable people, gather round. Some believe it was violated and others do not. Why can't we have the truth? Not from polling Budowsky's friends or OP-EDs or Waxman's sermonizing, but Why can't they compel Fitz to explain why he won't indict? Why not compel CIA counsel to state unequivocally? How hard is it to take a stroll down to accounting at Foggy Bottom and pull her file and have the appropriate government employees lay it out? My guess is the above two quoted paragraphs by Budowsky demonstrate why the truth won't come out. Either the IIPA would not have held up in this case, so Fitz dropped it or if it was applicable, the fact that it didn't point to the "usual suspects" or the desired suspects in the White House they "turned" the others in order to get someone at the white house. Either one of these possibilities are too embarrassing to the left to let the truth come out.

I don't remember Fitz saying "threw sand in the gears". If he said that in some super secret covert meeting that we aren't allowed to know about, well, OK. I remember him saying "threw sand in the eyes." But using your cute metaphor, if anybody threw sand in any gears, the fact that the leaker had been found (Armitage) that would be like throwing sand into the gears of the no longer necessary engines of the Titanic as it rested on the sea floor. The point would be moot if it weren't laughable.

So that leaves a lot of self righteous chest thumping that because a criminal case was circumvented in order to achieve a political end, then Republicans must not want to protect CIA agents through the IIPA because it wasn't broken and we won't claim that it was. Goofy logic.

Its not new to hide behind classified information to attack Republicans. Usually it goes, We know the Republican did it but we can't supply the proof or we'd have to kill you. Mr. Budowsky mentions the case of Richard Welch which for what its worth, after a quarter of a century his family has seen his Marxist murderers brought to justice. In the past, Democrats accused GHW Bush (41) of being involved in his murder in Greece because he was incoming CIA chief.

There is a long history of ex-CIA operatives writing articles and books that criticize Republicans (but we can't tell you cause its classified).

Here is a description of the leftist magazine that outed Welch. Phillip Agee, Timothy Butz and Norman Mailer were vocal critics of the CIA.

Just before Christmas I975, a tragedy had provided an opportunity to shift the scrutiny away from the CIA scandals. In Athens, Greece, the CIA chief of station Richard Skeffington Welch was assassinated on December 23, gunned down as he returned to his house from a party at the U.S. ambassador's residence. His death focused attention on the danger inherent in publishing the names of CIA agents. Welch had been identified as a CIA officer in a letter to the editor published by the Athens News a month earlier on November 25. The letter, signed by the "Committee of Greeks and Greek Americans to Prevent Their Country, Their Fatherland, from Being Perverted to the Uses of the CIA," denounced the CIA for its role in the installation of a reactionary Greek government. While Welch's assassins most likely learned about his CIA affiliation from this letter (or from his decision to live in an Athens house well known as a CIA residence), most of the blame for his death was aimed at CounterSpy, which also had printed Welch's name. In the midst of the Senate vote to confirm George Bush in January I976, intelligence officials were making no secret of their outrage over Welch's death and their fury at CounterSpy. A well-known reporter told editor Tim Butz that his own life had been threatened by angry former intelligence officers, and Butz began to carry a gun. Members of the New York intelligentsia, who had been drawn to CounterSpy by Norman Mailer, began to keep their distance. It was unseemly to be contributing money to a magazine accused of having blood on its hands. Even though CIA critics were put on the defensive by the Welch assassination, it did not take Bush long to appreciate that he had his work cut out for him when it came to casting the Agency in a positive light. Less than a month after taking over, he had to answer questions about a report by the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Although the House had voted to suppress the report at President Ford's request, someone leaked it. The whole report, known as the Pike Report after U.S. Representative Otis Pike, Democrat of New York, was reprinted in the Village Voice issues of February I6 and z3, I976. The Pike Report was shocking because it provided the first official overview of CIA excesses: the Agency ran large propaganda operations, bankrolled armies of its own, and incurred billions in unsupervised expenses. The report revealed that top CIA officials had tolerated cost overruns nearly 400 percent beyond the Agency budget for foreign operations and 500 percent beyond the budget for domestic operations, for years concealing their profligacy from Congress. The CIA also was said to have secretly built up a military capacity larger than most foreign armies; the CIA and FBI between them had spent $I0 billion with little independent supervision. Further, the CIA's single biggest category of overseas covert projects involved the news media: it supported friendly news publications, planted articles in newspapers, and distributed ClA-sponsored books and leaflets. The phony CIA dispatches had often found their way into domestic news stories, thus polluting with inaccuracies the news received by Americans.

I find it hilarious that after a generation of leftists endangering the life of soldiers, agents, officers, etc. they parade around sermonizing that the left is the only ones that care about agents.

Without going into detail I know people that were close to Welch, William Buckley and many of the assets in Beirut and Athens and I find it offensive when people use this political hatchet job as sanitization of the fact that they have been and to this day continue to undercut our ability to exercise our Intelligence functions. The IIPA was created to counter the fact that many leftwingers considered it their duty to endanger soldiers, agents, and officers.

As I have noted before, Hezbollah killed William Buckley in Lebanon. Your organization, VIPS works with anti-war groups that support Hezbollah. I find that offensive as well. You might get joy out of offending me, but the Marxists that killed Welch, Hezbollah that killed Buckley, and the Ex-CIA critics like Phillip Agee at Counterspy are all pariahs. If you would come down from your high horse for a minute, maybe you would agree to distance yourself from VIPS and their penchant for partnering with Marxists at UFPJ, ANSWER, CodePink, and Global Exchange.

If you don't like the fact that as it says above the left has had plenty of blood on its hands over the years regarding leaking, trying to claim that the right does it too, is no defense. Because the right does not do anything remotely close to what Norman Mailer, Timothy Butz and Phil Agee did.

"....And I hope the Waxman Committee leads the fight for truth and honor in the collection and use of intelligence, in the broadest sense...."

Does he really want the investigation to dig deep enough to uncover the truth? or does he like you, Larry want them to dig just deep enough for you to try to make political points and then dig no further. The exploitation by the left of the Intelligence community continues and in the mean time more Pearl Harbors and more 911s await us on the horizon. The left fiddles while the Intelligence community burns.

I am quite proud of you, Larry. This is one of your first reponses in some time that did not have some reference to sex with elephants or your midnight prayers that someone that hurt your feelings would be sodomized in a jail cell.

Your medication must be working and your progress is encouraging. I hope the subtraction of your anger will result in an addition of some lucidity to your articles.

"...Bush and Cheney are too smart to actually say the words "treason" or "unAmerican." ..."

Oh, Bush and Cheney, those evil geniuses. Curse them!!

With every decision there is a cost and benefit. Bush is asking a very important question. The administration has a program that it can prove to the congressmen saved lives by stopping attacks. The congressmen want it to stop and claim it was wrong that it had existed. Bush is clearly expressing that the congressmen need to defend their contention not just with the "benefits" of their decision, but the "costs". Pretending like it didn't save lives as a reason to not respond to Bush's question is evasion. If they are uncomfortable with the implication of sacrificing American lives, then take responsibility for the decision.

If it makes you feel "treasonous", when Bush points out the consequences of your policies, then that is your problem. Either counter his assertion of the consequences or take responsibility but running and hiding from them and then weeping that he is calling you a name that he is not is slanderous and weak.

Agreed. Why don't they charge Armitage with breaking the IIPA and put him in Jail? What is the reason for this, Larry?

The congressmen want it to stop and claim it was wrong that it had existed. Bush is clearly expressing that the congressmen need to defend their contention... 

No one wants to stop the program. Just require warrants and oversight.

Your comment just shows how much critical thinking you put behind what's going on and what you say. Much easier to parrot, isn't it? 

Critical thinking and judgment is "hard work," I know. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

On March 31, 2007 - 5:39pm TJKING said: I don't agree with everything he said...and no this does not resolve this.

You still accuse me of the crime of treason and you run and hide from your own words like a coward.

Those who defend the treasonous are treasonus themselves.

Now critique' Budowsky's column, don't run and hide as you are doing.

Larry,

Keep up the good work. I for one enjoy your columns very much. Don't change a fuckin' damned thing!

Have you been smoking four way acid again, you imbecile? Just because I don't agree with "everything" Budowsky said does not make me treasonous.

Example: He claims Fitzgerald used the phrase "Threw sand in the gears of the justice system", when in fact I believe the phrase was "threw sand in the eyes". You contend that since I do not agree with his non-factual representation regardless of the significance of the statement, makes me treasonous? Are you implying that your blind submission to "agree with everything" he wrote makes you a Patriot?

Everytime you get close to a keyboard you expose your self as a dunce and a liar. I can see why you constantly fail to back up your blathering non sequiturs.

On March 31, 2007 - 7:28pm TJKING said:

You contend that since I do not agree with his non-factual representation regardless of the significance of the statement, makes me treasonous?

I made no such contention.

Are you implying that your blind submission to "agree with everything" he wrote makes you a Patriot?

I implied no such thing.

Now critique the column and stop hiding.

"...The fact that MOST of his articles are laced with more hatred and vulgarities, than what you call "substantive" criticism, is worthy of mention in a forum that claims to promote reasoned debate...."

You say what is the big deal? As I said, I consider it unproductive and offensive. You obviously think a failure to address reasoned debate with logic is a step in the right direction because you have adopted two of his favorites, first to cuss some one out and then second to tell them to go away. Make the mean, bad man go away mommy!

Well, I've made my self clear, reasoned debate is preferable, You disagree. I am guessing you are basing your position on your poor qualifications to function in that kind of an enviroment.

TJ is wasting people's time and energy again.

Tom

Larry,

Let TJ write his 48 paragraph rebuttals. It keeps him busy while the rest of us figure out how to save the country from Cheney/Bush.

Tom

No, you clearly did. You asked if I agreed with everything and then based on that said I was guilty of treason. You are a buffoon.

SeeDee
JohnW 1141:
"angrier and angrier" is probably an apt description with some of them, but it is more nearly akin to witnessing what was once a brilliant mind suddenly beginning to know that madness is over-taking it.

It is as though six years of being wrong, badly wrong, on EVERY single issue is finally catching up with the TJKings, making them flail and curse and nit-pick....sometimes even at their friends.

SeeDee

No doubt about it, TJK, you have demonstrated your willingness to aid and abet treason by your endless twist and spin of the truths RE Bush's use of the '16 words' knowing full well that they were based on faulty intelligence..

The actions of the Bush administration RE participating in a charade to fool Congress (not a tough job, these past six years), involving the U.S. in an aggressive war against a nation that had not attacked us, attempting to abrogate the freedoms protected by the Constitution for the past 150 years, lying to the American public on the Energy conference of Feb. '01, the Medicare Prescription drug bill, and on and on

Almost any of those actions based on deliberate lies, concealment, and subterfuge (like the testimony before the 9/11 Commission...only with Dick Cheney present, not under oath, no record...what a joke!), rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The deliberate outing of a secret agent by the President, or by ANY OF HIS close advisors, is treason...and you are equally guilty of the same treasonous conduct when you attempt to defend it or refute the truth.

What the hell difference does it make whether Armitage was charged or not? We ALL know what occurred and no expansive b/s from you will change the truth.

SeeDee

I dunno, Terry, I tend to agree with you on the sheer dastardliness of the deliberate 'covert agent' outing, but, in the long run, the politicalization of the USA offices could be more damaging to the 'equal justice under law' that is a cornerstone of our democracy..

JohnW1141 made a pretty good case showing the attempt of the present cabal of crooks in the White House to dis-mantle our system of democracy and replace it with 'permanent rule' by the right-wing ideologues.

Yep.

On another note, Tom, I think that Toensing Doesn't Know Dick About Val should get the title of the year award. I love it!!

War does not determine who is right - only who is left. Bertrand Russell

JohnW1141 made a pretty good case showing the attempt of the present cabal of crooks in the White House to dis-mantle our system of democracy and replace it with 'permanent rule' by the right-wing ideologues.

You will get no argument from me on the harm that was apparently intended by the firing of the prosecutors but the outing of Valerie Plame struck at the heart of our national defense.

Treason consists of subverting the national defense rather than attempts to subvert the Constitution. The first is a criminal offense of the highest order. The second may even be allowable in extremis.

Best, Terry

Unless the Congress impeaches the entire adminstration and all those involved with it, then they win and America losses. In the near future there will be another GOP like-Bush bastard that will make the shit Bush has done look like a joke.

Demand the Truth for America

TJ,

Take the GOP responsibility and turn off the TV or change the channel.

Demand the Truth for America

Thanks for posting Budowsky's essay.

A couple of thoughts in response to TJ's witless comments:

It seems to me that the CIA, by not explicitly stating that Plame was a 'covert' agent or allowing Plame to do so, is trying to salvage and protect what little remains of any network of agents associated with Plame. What these agents don't need is major US headlines reporting
the CIA's confirmation that Plame was a covert agent. As it stands now, it's possible that a fast-talking CIA agent could concoct a story that an 'enemy' contact just might believe, like 'Oh, this is all just politics in the US, etc., etc.' I wouldn't want to be in that agent's shoes but it seems quite plausible to me that the CIA at least wants to afford its agents a chance to play that game, assuming they haven't all been withdrawn from the field by now.

Secondly, on TJ's comments about the left being anti-CIA. Certainly this is true to a large extent, particularly concerning the 'dirty tricks' department. During the Cold War the CIA carried out despicable and immoral political assasinations, supported fascist governments, etc., etc. The CIA can only be as intelligent and enlightened as the US government is itself. The anti-Communist hysteria for the 50 years after WWII led to many stupid and utterly paranoid policies. But most leftists would fully support covert intelligence that provides information concerning security threats that present a real 'physical' threat to the American people. Let the 'dirty tricks' department become the very last resort to an imminent threat, not just an easy kneejerk response to ideological differences. But given the fact that the CIA, by its secretive nature, might be prone to 'extreme' acts, every sensible leftist will agree that many, if not most, covert agents are info gatherers only, not assassins, and should be protected at all costs for the valuable security info they provide.

This has become the honeypot for the tinfoil hats. So you also want to join in and accuse me of committing the crime of treason?

This is priceless.

They must have slipped something in your coffee guys.

If I have committed a crime, See Dee...

... Call a cop!

Maybe you will get lucky and find a like minded Judge that will say, as you did:

What the hell difference does it make whether Armitage[TJK] was charged or not? We ALL know what occurred and no expansive b/s from you will change the truth.

Why let justice get in the way when your on a witch hunt, right?

You and JohnW deserve each other. Save a few bongloads for the rest of the tinfoil hats.

Treason: : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY
2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

New definition:
3. GOP, Bush and all GOP supporters very existance and involvement in Politics and Government.
4. America has been "Bushed" by the GOP only Americans can save America.

Demand the Truth for America

Easy Rider, I can safely put you in the category of people on this board that consider me unamerican, I will assume you join SeeDee and JohnW in thinking I have committed treason and am unpatriotic as well.

Great link, by the way.

What a jerk-off.

Mr. King,

May I ask a question? Who are you? Your rhetoric makes you out to be someone with bonafides enough to question Mr. Johnson's veracity, patriotism and legitimacy. I know who Mr. Johnson is, I am aware (as many others are) of his background and service to the nation, but I don't know anything about you or who you are or how you figure you have the right to criticize anything Mr. Johnson writes in the way that you do. You make it appear as though you have inside information as a result of your professional experience and you show nothing but contempt for those you do not agree with. Perhaps you have the experience and knowledge for this to be so but if you do I am not aware of it because I don't even know who you are. If you are what you imply you are then make yourself known so that readers like me will have some basis to judge whether or not your disrespectful and smarmy writings are justified in any way. Otherwise, I'll count you as just another pathetic right wing troll who is angered by having to face facts from a reliable source.

Thank you. I'll be looking forward to finding out who you are.

Phillip Agee?

Albert, you have lost your mind. Even Larry just explained a few hours ago how screwed up Phil Agee was and how much damage he did.

I will go further. The IIPA which is the crime that we have been talking about here for 5 years was created in reaction to the activities of Phil Agee who made it his hobby of outting anyone he could. When CIA operative Richard Welch was outed, he was murdered in Greece by Marxists.

He's your hero, Albert?

Wait, your hero is much more multidimensional than that.

Phil Agee is a communist spy who upon leaving the CIA went straight to the KGB. Declassified KGB documents show that he approached the KGB offered them everything and then went to Castro in Cuba and became a spy for Fidel.

He was there at the same time as the founders of Code Pink were working with the KGB.

With Cubans occupying Grenada Agee moved there. Reagan captured the island nation and ran the cubans out, so he went to work for the Communists in Nicauragua. When they were run out of town Agee left too. He now lives in Cuba and continues to be an enthusiastic communist supporter of Fidel Castro.

He is your ideal Patriot?

The other day, someone on this board joked that every american is a patriot.

You said:

"...Let me mention some real patriots....

frank snepp. john stockwell. phil agee. frank church. bill colby.

enemies of the gangsters that have seized the usa...."

Is this man who clearly betrayed his country your ideal patriot? Really?

I suppose the joke was true in the fact that with people like you Albert, the word has lost all meaning.

To minimize GOP complicity in leaking a covert agent's identity for political purposes, Victoria Toensing repeatedly asserts that Plame was not covert under the terms of the IIPA and therefore the entire Libby prosecution is meritless. Toensing hinges her argument on an assertion that in order to be considered covert under the IIPA, the agent must be, or must have been, stationed abroad, whereas the language of the IIPA refers only to "serving" abroad. Plame was apparently stationed in the U.S. but travelled on covert missions abroad during the time period relevant to the IIPA.

Given that Toensing claims to have drafted the IIPA, the precision of her legal writing can be inferred from the fact that the statute simply does not say what she says it is supposed to say. She goes on to assure us that Congressional intent was that service abroad reqired being stationed abroad. She cites to no evidence from the Congressional record for this contention, and only a fool would accept her say-so on this.

Why in the world is this harridan given so many opportunities in the media to spew her nonsense minimizing the Bush regime's high crimes?

OK, Did it occur to you I was asking a question, not making a statement of fact? (And no Novak did not commit a crime, we all know that).Apparently you were not aware that Armitage showed the document to Woodward. The document is classified. Make sense?

The CIA referral did not tell DOJ to investigate IIPA, it discussed unauthorized disclosure of classified information. Listen to the smoking gun tape. Armitage is showing the actual document to Bob Woodward. Judith Miller might have Security clearance but Woodward did not. A crime was commited, CIA asked DOJ to look into it, Fitz ignored it. Armitage was given a mulligan by Fitz! Why?

You complete me

SeeDee

Speaking of 'patriotism', TJK, how do you rate the patriotism displayed by our C-I-C in his younger days when his family manipulated a slot for him in the T-ANG, and in answer to the question "Do you volunteer for service in SE Asia?", 'W' checked a big fat 'NO'?

And what about his VP whose excuse in running from actual battle was "I had other priorities."

Some patriots, eh?

And by the way, you are the one who first alluded to 'patriotism' and 'treasonous' as descriptive of what 'Democrats' charge Bush/Cheney and buddies with.

And, since you're so persistent in keeping it in the thread, I can only guess you wish someone to ask you for your bona fide patriotic record.

So go ahead, tell us of your patriotic exploits.

I still am convinced that the very highest officials in the Bush administration committed treason in outing a secret operative, and anyone who tries to alibi for or deny such treason is guilty of aiding and abetting treason.

How else would you see it?

"...but I don't know anything about you or who you are or how you figure you have the right to criticize anything Mr. Johnson writes in the way that you do...."

I find it fascinating that about once a week it comes down to this. Someone accuses me of working for the RNC, Fox News, or people I've never heard of. What makes you question whether anyone on here has a right to speak or say anything that relates to these issues? We are all posters on a website and because I disagree with you, you can't accept that scores of millions of Americans disagree with you so they must be under someone's control or something. Face it, we have freedom of choice in this country and free speech and people use it to exchange ideas and some like to discuss matters with people they agree with and others like to exchange ideas with those that have a different viewpoint. I am the latter and you are apparently the former.

So far this weekend alone I have been called a traitor, unpatriotic, unamerican, an asshole, a jerk off, and a criminal who has committed Treason and from Larry that I'm thick as Mule Shit, and thats just for starters and I consider it fascinating. (I never as you asserted questioned Larry's patriotism and I am sure he has done fine service for our country and I commend him on that).If I were to do as you say and say that I am college student at a Jewish college that lives in Maine and loves the Yankees, I would be deluged with remarks about being A lobster loving, down easter, bronx bum wannabe, zionist punk kid. And that would be the nice ones. Since I am none of those things why should I feed the beast. Liberals are mostly angry, bitter people and I actually learn alot here. Some liberals are kind and inquisitive people. I really enjoy hearing them discuss ideas.

I point out factual discrepencies in Larry's articles and he refuses to provide an adequate defense, which in his frustration causes him to call names. Do I need to provide a bio in order to let the facts speak for themselves? I am not implying that I am anything other than a person discussing ideas. I am sure you were spurred to ask the question by Larry's certainty that he knows things about me which he does not. If you think my writings are as you say "disrespectful" to him, then you undoubtedly missed my requests this morning that he refrain from name calling and engage in reasoned debate, which lead to a dozen remarks about how I should go away and Larry's Mule Shit remark.

I only mention these things because I enjoy seeing an exchange of ideas and that is often hard to find here. I believe I have as good a reason to be here as anyone else, If you don't think I have the right to criticize, I'm sorry to hear that. I would be happy to offer to discuss ideas with you in the least "smarmy" way I possibly can. I hope my response does not disappoint you on your request.

Thanks for the relatively polite inquiry.

"Toensing Doesn't Know Dick About Val"

This was the headline on my Google news page. Congrats, Larry. I love it! It's just sooo 'to the point' and for the whole world to see. (Darn, I just remembered, I have Plame selected as a news item I want to see. Probably most people didn't get it on their news page.)

I never filed a claim for any one of those poor investments. Any windfall from them was not a result of my failing to make that choice. I am sure the character that you are so enamored with is the one that Frank Zappa alluded to. I will take your advice and read the book, and after doing so I will decide whether I want to imitate the teachings that you have adopted with such vigor.

My regards to you Mr. Wig.

This apologist for the scumbags has a distinct problem with reading and comphrehension...

cscs said:

If you don't like it, don't click on the little fucking link that says "Read More."

~OGD~

Crabapple said:

It seems to me that the CIA, by not explicitly stating that Plame was a 'covert' agent or allowing Plame to do so...

Plame has plainly stated she was a covert agent. Henry Waxman reported the head of the CIA stated Plame was a covert agent.

Victoria Toensing claimed that Plame was not a covert agent by definition of statute because Plame had not resided outside the U.S. in the last 5 years before she left the CIA. Plame stated she carried out missions outside the country. Toensing's claim that a covert agent must "reside" outside the counttry - whatever that might mean - has been disputed.

Seems to me quite plain that the CIA, along with Valerie Plame, has made it clear Plame was a covert agent. Obviously it might be unwilling to do so in other cases. Espionage agencies aren't known for their openness.

Clearly Plame was a covert agent outed by the Bush Administration in an effort at damage control of the exposure of the Niger fairy tale. Whether Armitage was the original source of the leak is immaterial, a red herring. Argument over technicalities in the law are beside the point. Anyone who has been in the position of having been entrusted with classified information knows they are not relieved of the duty of safeguarding because of leaks elsewhere.

The Bush Administration perpetrated an inexcusable crime when outing Valerie Plame.

I dearly hope that Fitzgerald will be given free rein to express his thoughts on his unwillingness or inability to pursue matters.

Best, Terry

On March 31, 2007 - 11:47pm TJKING said:

Easy Rider, I can safely put you in the category of people on this board that consider me unamerican, I will assume you join SeeDee and JohnW.

EasyRider, welcome aboard.

Thanks,

I feel very welcome and comfortable here with you folks.

Demand the Truth for America

John, considering the Bush administration's standard of proof, are you sure you really want to see it?

Since they have not gotten one single thing right in 6 years, accusing others of bad judgement would be laughable if it weren't so serious.

Jan Knaus

Another point about this "overseas" issue: Since Plame, according to her AND the Director of the CIA was covert, how in the hell can Toensing claim to know whether she went abroad or not? Has Gloria got airline information on when covert agents travel?

Should the CIA put out a press statement documenting Plame's covert travels? The only reason for them to do this is to show yet again that Toensing and TJ are fools who make declarations based on LACK of knowledge.

Enough damage has been done by outing Valerie. Publicizing her trips could endanger even more operations and covert allies.

Jan Knaus

"The CIA leak case is about using partisan and political pressure to distort and pervert the search for truth."

tellingly, at its most fundamental level, this is what the US Attorneys purge is about as well.

On April 1, 2007 - 11:06am EasyRider said: Thanks,

"I feel very welcome and comfortable here with you folks."

We're the side that fights for truth, justice, and the American way.

"...You and I are not the same sir. I'm just another person posting. I'm not trying to besmirch anyone--as you are...."

I do not claim that we are the same. We are the same in that we are both people that post to this website as you have stated. Contrary to your statement, you are trying to besmirch me.

We differ in another regard. As I have said, for any good deeds that Larry has done for this country, I commend him. Does that mean every statement he makes is descended from heaven? No.

You and I differ in the fact that you are implying that the truthfulness of a person's statements is primarily ascertained by what you believe to be their good standing and piety to your cause. Although character does matter, I believe a person's statements can be proven to be factual or false on the merit of the statement itself. If Larry makes a statement and I provide information that contradicts or factually proves his statement to be false, his saintly divination in your eyes should not preclude him from defending his statements like the rest of us mortals.

Einstein was asked once how he could defend his theory when a majority of his colleagues disputed it. He replied, "It only takes one to prove me wrong".

If Larry is wrong on something and that bothers you, I recommend you not wage war on the truth, out of loyalty to your friend.

I will not give you my home address, nor will I give you any other personal information, because as I have stated, it is not relevent to whether I have made a true statement or a false statement. Your interest is beginning to sound like a paranoid search for a conspiracy. I have been polite with you and you continue to attack with accusations. Your request is unreasonable under the circumstances and if you are in search of a conspiracy, it is all the more reason for me to relieve you with the fact that their is no vast right wing conspiracy here. I'm merely a person who posts on a website.

Regardless of your remarks of how rude and disrespectful I am, I will offer one more time. I would be happy to try to share ideas with you in the future. It would be helpful to maintain a reasoned debate if you refrain from your name calling.

zk0sm0 said:

"The CIA leak case is about using partisan and political pressure to distort and pervert the search for truth."

tellingly, at its most fundamental level, this is what the US Attorneys purge is about as well.

The coverup is all there is?

It is what is being covered up that is important, is it not?

The CIA leak was a terrible act of betrayal of America's intelligence service.

The US Attorneys purge has been an attempt to pervert the courts into an arm of the Republican campaign for dominance, notably through suppression of opposition vote.

Far worse than just the attempts to evade justice methinks.

Best, Terry

Right Jan, we don't want anymore factual information to muddy the waters here.

TJ

I have admit it. You are one sick asshole. I bet you a GOP lawyer. There is never a fact that you will not attack and try to reverse its meaning. You be a rich asshole.

(LOL) I just made a joke! But hey you have a lot of rich friends even if you have paid them they will sell you out when cornered.

Demand the Truth for America

TJKing

We've heard your "arguments," over and over, for week after week. We respond to them and you use spread debating tactics, constantly shifting and writing a dozen paragraphs at a time. We tell you what we think of you and you become an outraged victim.

If you were really trying to engage in argument, you would have taken the hint by now and left because you do not appear to have convinced anyone of anything. So, you must have some other motive. If it is just to get a rise out of the lefties on this site, then I think it's time we stop replying to you in any way.

Unless you would like to take up the offer and let us in on your professional credentials? We don't need your address, just tell us why you are qualified to challenge the truthfulness of so many experts in the field of intelligence.

Under current constitutional law jurisprudence, there is no way Novak can be prosecuted. Political speech is the highest protected form of speech - now it is arguable whether the outing of a covert officer is political speech but the undercurrent of politics will most probably win under any court hearing.

What Fitzgerald did was the most reasonable thing to do for a prosecutor - remember that it was a Criminal case - not a civil case where the evidentiary standards are much much higher - the jury has to believe BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT - it is not even 99% I believe and 1% I dont believe! What he did was the most reasonable thing to do by any prosecutor, especially one of his stature - and the fact that he was given a poor review at the justice department almost confirms his good judgment.

The first rule in statutory interpretation is to get the plain meaning of the word in contention. If the word is ambiguous is when you would go for Congressional Intent. Any first year law school student would know that researching legislative history is the most horrendous part of any legal research - she is harping on only that point is probably because she doesnt have any other credible arguments to make. Also, as several representatives pointed out - the language of the IIPA is not under consideration here, Congressional inquiry into a crime that occured in teh WH was under consideration. Another point - just like a murder doesnt have to happen to have an attempted murder conviction, perjury doenst need to have the underlying crime to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt - it just means he got caught lying red handed - so the Libby conviction does not in any way reduce the scope of the case.

Without resorting to the ad hominem attacks that seem to pervade the discussion, a couple pointers:
- Toensing's insistence on applying a specific legal definition of covert status doesnt mean Plame was not covert. What Toensing believes is her problem. But the point she is trying to make is that legal formalism is truth. The whole point was brought out by members of Congress asking her about her statements in teh Press that Plame was not covert - but again and again she repeated that she was analysing under the definition of covert as applied to that statute alone!
- There was naked partisanship in that hearing - but I thought the most obnoxious was teh Toensing questioning. She was defensive, very obnoxious and quite condescending! She even placed out of context Valerie Plame's statement that she is not a lawyer to try to imply that Valerie Plame admitted she was not covert!!!

Twice I have asked that you make known to us all the credentials you have for being so disrespectful and rude to Mr. Johnson. Instead of directly offering up your credentials you go off on a screed about other things. Thus, as I said in my first post to you, I must conclude you're just another pathetic troll. You leave me and all the others anxiously awaiting to learn of your expertise and experience, no choice Mr. King. You had your opportunity and by failing to produce any evidence whatsoever of the kind requested you do prove that you don't have any such credentials or experience. Would that this could keep you from going on and on and on. But alas, it cannot.

"...Hence Welch's murder, N17's first.It's not an easy call to make on moral grounds whether the exposure of Welch as CIA was justified..."

Kind of sounds like you are saying that Welch deserved to be gunned down in front of his wife. His son came to George H.W. Bush and wept.

Pres. Bush said it was one of the most difficult meetings of his life. Should he have told his son, your father had it coming?

I'm not sure why you mention it being the first. 32 Americans were killed or wounded by N17, not to mention other innocent human beings. And that doesn't count the splinter groups, like the one that fired a rocket into the US embassy two months ago.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt, Crabapple. What did you really mean?

Jan, here is your weekly attempt at censorship. I responded to you today because you mentioned my name in an attempt to use me as a prop for your indefensible ideas. If you can't defend them, don't say them.

Your accusations of unamericanism and unpatriotic behavior seems to be a favorite theme with you. I'm still waiting for you to provide examples of our Republican leaders using those phrases against people.

So she doesn't know, the Special Prosecutor may or may not know, but her husband knows. People here seem to know and furthermore are convinced without evidence that people at the white house knew.

but for the crime to have been committed, I understand they had to have known that you were covert. And you don't have any direct linkage that they knew that you were covert at that point.

TJ, your use of the language implies that you are either a native speaker/writer of American english, or if not, reasonably well taught.

Therefore, I presume for this discussion that you are capable of recognizing that rep. Davis was asking V.P.W. was whether she was certain about whether the involved administration officials knew of her covert status. I presume further that you are capable of recognizing that she understood her own status with the sort of certainty that anyone who's been covert for *decades*.

Therefore I conclude that you are willfully playing word games here.

General Hayden made the CIA's position on her status clear, in written form, in a letter delivered to rep. Waxman which was read into the record at the start of the hearing.

I find rep. Davis' line of questioning fairly interesting, if a bit partisan. It seems he is trying to give cover to the administration by asking whether the CIA failed to make her status clear in every paragraph, every sentence of communication with the administration. It seemed to be an effort to try to lay the blame at the hands of the CIA by failing to make her status (covert) and employment status (classified) clear enough to convince the administration to keep quiet about her status rather than releasing all of it to the press.

I watched the hearing with some interest, from the moment it began until midafternoon when I really had to get back to work. I could find no instant of doubt in Ms. Plame Wilson's testimony about her status, including whether she understood that status to be covert under the specifications of IIPA. She was honest, however, in admitting her lack of *specific knowledge* that *specific administration officials* were aware of her status under IIPA. This is exactly the problem that P. Fitzgerald had in trying to unravel how the information was released.

This is an administration that coverted (by at least one report that I remember) many thousands of previously unclassified documents into classified status almost immediately upon taking office. This is an administration that refused to inform several members of congress about information in its possession due to that information being classified. This is an administration that knows how to protect its information with the same commitment a mother bear brings to the care of her cubs. The president was unequivocal about finding out who released the classified information that they were tracking communications last year.

Many of us find it interesting, therefore, that this administration that is *nearly flawless* at controlling the flow of "valuable national security information" would make the mistake of releasing information that took out major assets in the counter proliferation division in the operational side of the CIA. This combination of observations just doesn't pass the smell test.

P.S. My wife and I were somewhat concerned at the start of the invasion of Iraq that it was politically motivated, but we figured that scouring the landscape, they would find *something*. It seems to me that the lack of WMD is essentially clear evidence that one of two statements is true:

1) They were negligent in pre-war research in failiing to be *certain* about the reasons for going to war;

2) They knew the evidence was slim but went into this war knowing of the insufficiency of evidence.

For many of us who are not "peaceniks" or "lefties" or any of the derogatory terms you like to throw around, we do want one thing from our government:

When you send our youth into the path of destruction, you have a commitment that your information is absolutely certain, and that you take their lives and sacrifices seriously.

After four years, we have empirical observation that there were no WMDs (well, there was that single cache of *17 year old* rustbuckets of out-of-date "chemical" weapons" that required nearly 3.5 years to find). Planning for the post-invasion management of the nation whose infrastructure our military demolished was either nonexistent, criminally negligent in its presumptions, or simply corrupt from the get-go.

No, I think she is bringing in a legal technicality to make a point that isnt under scrutiny.