Huh? You don't think it would be helpful for your enemy to know that there is, say, a Division outside Town X? They won't be able to shoot a rocket at that dividion, but they'd know it was there. Isn't that the point of censoring reporters in the field?

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

I think that was what the source of the leak (Rove, presumably?) was getting at... suggesting that a reporter reconsider the source of one facet of the "Bush is a liar/there are no WMDs" argument. Time will tell... I don't like all the chicanery (by either side) either, but there is almost certainly much more to this story that will be forthcoming, making some of the comments made here look pretty foolish.

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

The injustice lies in my being deprived of seeing Rove in chains, dammit!

But seriously, if there is any injustice at the end of this affair, it will be in the media's willingness to accept the administration's spin. Assuming the evidence won't support an indictment, then Rove will avoid prosecution and the Tim Russert crowd will just play along with the administration's claim that the whole affair was a left wing witch hunt. But what ever happened to W's pledge to bring honor back to the White House? So now being a non-criminal is all you need to be a leader in this administration? Rove may not be a criminal, but I don't see how the country benefits from his spreading around the identity of covert CIA agents. The injustice lies in the Republicans getting political advantage from conduct that is, IMHO, scummy.

The good news is that Fitzgerald seems to be such a straight shooter. I've heard a few people say that because he has put so much effort into this investigation, he will feel compelled to indict somebody. I don't think that is true. If he lives up to his reputation, the matter will be as fully investigated as the Constitution allows and that's all. There won't be any indictments returned just so he can save face.

1. I didn't say "langley", I said CIA. The idea is that if you are spying for A you try to convince B that you don't like/work for/associate with A. Not show up at the company picnic daily at A. Seemed obvious to me.

2. Again, seems to me, it's not wise to spend resources and training for a "secret agent" who is married to an ambassador. Ever seen what those guys and spouses do most of the time? Meet and greet and be nice to the high ranking guys at parties. Not really a place where info is tossed about. So the premise of the story seems wishy washy to me to begin with.

3. So there was no one else in the whole USA that had experience in Niger and was knowledgeable regarding WMDs, specifically uranium that can be converted to fissile material? That's just dumb. Although I could be wrong and will freely admit it when you post a .pdf copy Joe Wilson's physics degree or prove that he speaks French, Hausa or Djerma.

4. yes there were mistakes in his "analysis". See you other thread.

5. If this thread is about politically crucifying someone then maybe it's not. If, however, it's about national security, which I think it is, then Sandy Berger (who was NSA to Clinton, who knowingly violated the law, who destroyed documents, who did so during the 9/11 investigation, who pled guilty to said violation, ) is wholly relevent. BTW, it only cost him $10K for his "infraction", plus the TEMPORARY suspension of his security clearance.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

So, what does that change? Are you saying that there are no covert agents working at CIA? Why would you send a physicist to investigate a political matter? Here is what Wilson had to say about why the CIA (not his wife, by the way) invited him to go to Niger: "My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government." Sounds reasonable to me.

Hey, to each his own, OK? Like a pro. I'm busting with pride.

Sure, they just don't report through the front door. That would be stupid. Isn't that obvious?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

You know why submariners are in the 'silent service'?

Back early in WWII some reporter asked some Congressman why Japanese antisub warfare was inneffective against American subs. The brainless Congressman told the reporter that our subs could go over 100 ft deeper than the Japanese thought they could go.

back in the early days, post 9/11, some reporter asked Orrin Hatch how he (Hatch) could be so certain about Bin laden and Bin Laden's subordinates' locations. Hatch said it was because the NSA was tracking their satphone communications.

Those two stories have two responsible parties in common: Reporters and members of the legislative branch. In both cases, both parties compromised lives of our servicemen and endangered our country's war effort.

The thing to learn is that classified information maybe classified for reasons that the knucklehead in Congress doesn't know or understand. Same with reporters. Live feed from a reporter's satphone is an excellent intelligence and/or artillery target for a terrorist knowledgeable in signals.

Ask MedMech, and ask him how he knows.

Bot

The original point was made to show the sensitivity of the government to the leakage of any information whatsoever, no matter how minute. This can be compared to the deliberate undermining of the cover of a CIA operative and the resulting risk to her and the operation.

If the government is sensitive to this behavior on the part of a reporter, they ought to go after the culprit in the CIA exposure with a vengeance.

It all depends upon the status of the CIA employee. If she was covert, then it was a breach. If she was not covert, then it was not a breach.

Here's my latest tea-leaf reading.

The prosecutor has determined that no law was broken in the original release of Plame's name. But several people lied to the Grand Jury along the way. Prosecutors don't like that. It is what got Clinton's law license suspended. If they'll take-down a president, they'll take down any number of lesser mortals. And I think that is a good thing.

I don't like the high-and-mighty defying the law. Of all people, they should serve the public as examples of virtue. Go ahead and laugh, but that's what I believe. So when those wiseguys push the boundary, like Bernie Ebbers, let them sit in jail like a commoner.

If Rove did break the law, then I would love to see him share Ebber's cell.

Bot

Absolutly, I get really irritated when people say, regarding Clinton, Stewart, etc... "they just lied, no big deal". Having been in court and the victim of perjury I wish more people were prosocuted for it.
If Rove broke the law let him suffer the consequences. Likewise, if someone else did; Like maybe..... Sandy Berger.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Too bad the major media that interview libs arent that tenascious when the libs poo poo stupid answers, or non responsive answers.

What I dont understand, is, the guy said he isnt going to talk about it right now, what the hell didnt the reporter understand about that?

The Dems are all drooling right now, but it will blow by. They are desperate.

well, he certainly doesnt give a rats arse what stupid liberal democrats think, if they think at all. And rightly so,,,,

Lied to the grand jury, would that be like as in "I didnt have sexual relations with that woman"????

oh, nothing, ever

honor, hmmm, do you think getting blow jobs in the white house without your wifes permission is dishonorable? hahahha