Please explain why outing a non-official cover CIA agent for political purposes

[IM2]

Once again I agree with JC. There is no excuse to be made. None period. The claim that Plames work was known in DC is just another of the long line of bullshit excuses made by republicans when they fuck up. Cheney committed an act of treason.

He should have been impeached but he and Bush stonewalled their way out of it. And they both lied about an act of treason. Libby lied about an act of treason. Clinton lied about getting his dick sucked, which any married man would do including our holier than thou asswipes here.

On top of that getting your dick sucked usually does not end up in a grand jury trial. The pursuit of pussy outside of your wife does not either. The heritage foundation paid Paula Jones, and even then, the actions should never have been brought up while he was president. Because they happened long before he was president. This is just another example of what the republican fascists will do to get power.

[Velleity]

I have seen the focus of this argument shift on different occassions. In one instance it has been "Cheney is NOT the ONE who outed her" in otherwords perhaps Armitage or Libby, and in another it's "well, she wasn't REALLY covert anyway". When I see both of these arguments being made it tells me they (republicans) are trying to end run around the fact that her identity and purpose as a CIA operative was compromised and that, in a nutshell, is TREASON. Any excuses as to who, why, whether or not covert, etc...is just "tap-dancing as fast as they can". And once again it's a classic case of it's ok when THEY(republicans) do it because they somehow are patriots who do everything for some greater good that us godless liberals just can never understand. I call bullshit.

 

Don't forget their "unified executive theory" wherein they espouse the idea that the president is above the law.

[Velleity]

Once again I agree with JC. There is no excuse to be made. None period. The claim that Plames work was known in DC is just another of the long line of bullshit excuses made by republicans when they fuck up. Cheney committed an act of treason.

Yes, it is irrelevant but I don't even believe that any of that is true. If I recall correctly Fitzgerald said that it wasn't true.

He should have been impeached but he and Bush stonewalled their way out of it. And they both lied about an act of treason. Libby lied about an act of treason. Clinton lied about getting his dick sucked, which any married man would do including our holier than thou asswipes here.

I think the problem with impeachment would have been the same as the problem with Clinton's impeachment, which is to say that it would have been done straight across party lines.

You can't do that. If you're going to impeach a president you really have to have bi-partisan support for it to be legitimate. You can't have parties impeaching the other parties' presidents every time they have a majority. We would have anarchy.

On top of that getting your dick sucked usually does not end up in a grand jury trial. The pursuit of pussy outside of your wife does not either. The heritage foundation paid Paula Jones, and even then, the actions should never have been brought up while he was president. Because they happened long before he was president. This is just another example of what the republican fascists will do to get power.

This is true, and it shows how pathetic "conservatives" really are. But it still has nothing whatsoever to do with outing a non-official cover CIA agent for political purposes.

[Velleity]

I have seen the focus of this argument shift on different occassions.

Ah, the freedom of not having to deal with things like logic, or relevance, or consistency, or reality. . .

[Observer]

I have seen the focus of this argument shift on different occassions. In one instance it has been "Cheney is NOT the ONE who outed her" in otherwords perhaps Armitage or Libby, and in another it's "well, she wasn't REALLY covert anyway". When I see both of these arguments being made it tells me they (republicans) are trying to end run around the fact that her identity and purpose as a CIA operative was compromised and that, in a nutshell, is TREASON. Any excuses as to who, why, whether or not covert, etc...is just "tap-dancing as fast as they can". And once again it's a classic case of it's ok when THEY(republicans) do it because they somehow are patriots who do everything for some greater good that us godless liberals just can never understand. I call bullshit.

You got out again, eh?

I suggest you borrow one of John Boy's dictionaries and look up the definition of the word TREASON before you throw it out there again.

Since you seem to be having trouble following the discussion, let me simplify it for you. Plame's identity and relationship to the CIA was known to a large number of people in the Washington area long before Novak's article made her name a household word. There is no evidence to suggest she was "outed" by the Vice President for political reasons, or any other reason. That allegation originated as a deliberate attempt by the President's political opponents to discredit him. This resulted in a two year investigation and the waste of millions of taxpayer dollars, at the end of which, the US Department of Justice could find no crime.

[Observer]

Revisiting Ivans Argument (Clinton Impeachment vs. Plame leak)

 This needs discussed a lot more. For some reason Republicans really used the whole “Clinton Lied” meme and tortured him over it. The thing is when you look at consequences and what was being lied about (a blowjob) versus outing a CIA agents identity, and which action they choose to defend versus which one they went ballistic over….do you see my point?

 Now, noone disputed that Clinton lied under oath about sex. But, for godsakes it was sex. A frickin blowjob. Did it really matter? Was that a matter of treason or national importance? No. Shame? Absolutely.

Ah... moral relativism.

Of course, if he had been lying to protect himself in a civil action brought by YOU, you would have been screaming for his head.

Clinton lied under oath. His crime was the same as that with which Libby was charged, yet I don't see you crying about him not going to prison for it.

[johnhp]

and certainly no evidence that the Vice President engineered that exposure, for political purposes or any other reason.

"Defendant further testified that on July 12, 2003, he was specifically directed by the Vice President to speak to the press in place of Cathie Martin (then the communications person for the Vice President) regarding the NIE and Wilson. Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare “on the record” statement, and to provide “background” and “deep background” statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time). Even if someone else in some other agency thought that the controversy about Mr. Wilson and/or his wife was a trifle, that person’s state of mind would be irrelevant to the importance and focus defendant placed on the matter and the importance he attached to the surrounding conversations he was directed to engage in by the Vice President."

Douchebag

[Observer]

Obs, you can't make the argument that there was no violation of the IIPA. You don't have that information and clearly you don't have an understanding of how a federal prosecutor works.

It is pretty obvious that I know more about both than you do.
 

I am outraged that Cheney would do this and you should be outraged too. Unfortunately you're not outraged because you're too enmeshed with your ideology.

I am not outraged because there was no crime committed. You should be ashamed of yourself for making false accusations against VP Cheney.

[Observer]

Ah, the freedom of not having to deal with things like logic, or relevance, or consistency, or reality. . .

You enjoy it, don't you?

[johnhp]

Ah... moral relativism.

Of course, if he had been lying to protect himself in a civil action brought by YOU, you would have been screaming for his head.

Clinton lied under oath. His crime was the same as that with which Libby was charged, yet I don't see you crying about him not going to prison for it.

...willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; 18 USC

[Velleity]

You got out again, eh?

I suggest you borrow one of John Boy's dictionaries and look up the definition of the word TREASON before you throw it out there again.

Since you seem to be having trouble following the discussion, let me simplify it for you. Plame's identity and relationship to the CIA was known to a large number of people in the Washington area long before Novak's article made her name a household word. There is no evidence to suggest she was "outed" by the Vice President for political reasons, or any other reason. That allegation originated as a deliberate attempt by the President's political opponents to discredit him. This resulted in a two year investigation and the waste of millions of taxpayer dollars, at the end of which, the US Department of Justice could find no crime.

Talking points. All talking points, and all bullshit.

[Velleity]

It is pretty obvious that I know more about both than you do.

What's obvious is that you can't think for yourself and you rely completely on your stupid ideology and "conservative" talking points.

[Observer]

What's obvious is that you can't think for yourself and you rely completely on your stupid ideology and "conservative" talking points.

If you don't have anything to contribute, why not just shut the Hell up?

You have not added one single fact or piece of evidence in this thread. All you have done is repeat a bunch of unsubstantiated Leftist bullshit.

That is all you EVER do.

Were criminal charges ever brought against ANYONE for "outing" (as you like to put it) Valerie Plame?

Two years, millions of dollars and not a single indictment.

There is a reason for that, you know. There was no crime committed.

[IM2]

There were indictments, and thats why Libby was found guilty.

[Observer]

Libby was found guilty of a totally separate crime, one with which he should never have been charged.

It had nothing to do with a violation of the IIPA.

You are just posting to suck up to Velleity, aren't you? You really don't have any idea about what is being discussed here.