I seem to be speaking way over all of your heads

Yes, that's exactly the dynamic at play here. It's so obvious . . .

Well, if you'll go back to the original post in this thread, you'll find that none of you have responded on point, but have simply insisted on continuing the other thread onto this one. So yes, you've all missed the point. Color me surprised...

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Actually, genius, I started a new thread to try to get away from the unprovable "he said/she said" crap about Plame's status and whether or not a crime was committed, which question you can't answer and Fitzgerald hasn't either"

Are you kidding me? Again, since you just tend to ignore anything that proves you wrong, I'll quote Fitzgerald:

"Before I talk about those charges and what the indictment alleges, I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

As for whether or not a crime was committed, apparently there was, since Libby has been indicted. The indictment might not be for the original crime (yet) that was the cause of the investigation, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, that doesn't mean that crime wasn't also committed, just that charges haven't been brought yet.

"NO national secrets were disclosed to anyone"

Says you. Apparently everyone else disagrees with what you define as a national secret. I always thought, as a person who has held a clearance for many years, that anything classified was, by definition, a national secret. Silly me, I should have ignored all my briefings and picked up a copy of "Cousin Elwood's Guide to which secrets are important and which can be told to the media without regard for the consequences"

"NO one was endangered"

How do you have any possible way of knowing what the down-range effects of this might have been? Wait, let me answer that for you....You don't.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"Are you kidding me? Again, since you just tend to ignore anything that proves you wrong, I'll quote Fitzgerald:"
- - Proving once again that you're not listening, and you're still on the other thread. I heard Fitzgerald climb on his high horse and talk about what happens when the names of covert agents are leaked, and then I see Plame and Wilson on the cover of Vanity Fair and now they're celebrities. Spare me the tale of woe.

"In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community."
- - "Not widely known" is one long friggin' hike from top secret.

"Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."
- - So maybe her husband shouldn't have decided to attack the WH.

"The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."
- - And we still don't know who Novak's source was for this.

"As for whether or not a crime was committed, apparently there was, since Libby has been indicted. The indictment might not be for the original crime (yet) that was the cause of the investigation, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, that doesn't mean that crime wasn't also committed, just that charges haven't been brought yet."
- - Wake me when those charges are filed, would you?

"NO national secrets were disclosed to anyone"
"Says you. Apparently everyone else disagrees with what you define as a national secret."
- - So what national secret(s) was/were disclosed?

"NO one was endangered"
"How do you have any possible way of knowing what the down-range effects of this might have been? Wait, let me answer that for you....You don't."
- - So who was endangered? Plame and Wilson are now the toast of Broadway. You'd better pick someone else to hold out for sympathy.

So you still think Libby should rot in jail. Thank you for that long and involved excursion to give a simple answer to a simple question.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

There has been a feud between the CIA and the WH, with Dems throwing in with the CIA.

ok so where does fitzgerald fit in?

The CIA says she was classified; other sources say she was not.

what source says she was not classified that is more credible than the cia and patrick fitzgerald? <- please answer this

None. I think he's a well-meaning zealot. Perhaps you are too.

so you have no reason to think fitzgerald is a zealot, but you think it anyway. why?

Which means what?

it means that your attempt to compare the starr investigation to the fitzgerald investigation is inherently flawed. there is ample evidence that the starr investigation was nothing but partisan war. you have yourself admitted that you have absolutely no reason to believe that fitzgerald is some kind of political agent. yet you choose to believe it anyway, completely without cause other than it fitting your pre-determined conclusion.

There has been a feud between the CIA and the WH, with Dems throwing in with the CIA.
"ok so where does fitzgerald fit in?"
- - As of now, he's chosen to side with the CIA.

The CIA says she was classified; other sources say she was not.
"what source says she was not classified that is more credible than the cia and patrick fitzgerald? <- please answer this"
- - What makes the CIA credible? Just one thread up people are talking about how the CIA isn't to be trusted. But here, where it fits your needs, your willing to accept that they wouldn't ever lie! Let's ask Victoria Toensing, who helped draft the Identies Protection ActL

Toensing, the former deputy attorney general who helped draft Intelligence Identities Protection Act - which Bush critics insist was violated when Valerie Plame was identified to Novak - said earlier this year that it's unlikely any laws were broken in the case.

Writing in January in the Washington Post, former Assistant Deputy Attorney General Victoria Toensing explained that she helped draft the 1982 law in question.

Said Toensing: "The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct."

For Plame's outing to have been illegal, the one-time deputy AG explained, "her status as undercover must be classified." Also, Plame "must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years."

Since in neither case does Plame meet those criteria, Toensing argued: "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'"

The law also requires that the celebrated non-spy's outing take place by someone who knew the government had taken "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the U.S.

Toensing said that's unlikely.

In fact, the myth that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated in the Plame case began to unravel in October 2003, when New York Times scribe Nicholas Kristof revealed that she abandoned her covert role a full nine years before the Novak column.

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given [Plame's] name [along with those of other spies] to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994," reported Kristof. "So her undercover security was undermined at that time, and she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

The Times columnist also noted that Plame had begun making the transition to CIA "management" even before she was outted by Novak, explaining that "she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover ... to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having 'C.I.A.' stamped on her forehead."

Kristof concluded: "All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put [Plame's] life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over."

Stolen from NewsMax

"so you have no reason to think fitzgerald is a zealot, but you think it anyway. why?"
- - His behavior identifies him as a zealot, I think that goes without saying. Perhaps your confusing "zealot" with "partisan."

"it means that your attempt to compare the starr investigation to the fitzgerald investigation is inherently flawed. there is ample evidence that the starr investigation was nothing but partisan war."
- - Back up the truck there Buford. Two dozen Clintonistas were indicted, dozens more fled the country and/or took the Fifth to avoid prosecution. Partisan war? Give me a break. I think there was over a hundred years of jail time before it was all finished, and a pretty significant body count.

"you have yourself admitted that you have absolutely no reason to believe that fitzgerald is some kind of political agent. yet you choose to believe it anyway,"
- - I never said that. I said he could be a well-meaning zealot. Look the word up.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Just one thread up people are talking about how the CIA isn't to be trusted. But here, where it fits your needs, your willing to accept that they wouldn't ever lie!

what does what other people are saying in a completely different thread have to do with me? could you at least pretend like you are trying to make sense?

as far as alternate sources, your use of kristof is amusing. he's an op-ed writer.

and for toensing, i like how you make the first part of that sentence huge and red when the second half calls it a 'serious legal question'. and beyond that, why would toensing know? and furthermore, toensing is cia. you just got finished saying the cia was out to get bush, now you want to use cia?

and the fact remains; patrick fitzgerald has lived and breathed this case for the last 2 years and the first thing out of his mouth when he finally addresses the public is: Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

you have no counter-argument for this other than "i don't know maybe he's a zealot". that's pathetic, elwood, just pathetic. fitzgerald is not someone with an axe to grind. you have no logical reason to disbelieve what he said and you have no source to disprove it, just hot air and noise.

His behavior identifies him as a zealot, I think that goes without saying. Perhaps your confusing "zealot" with "partisan."

i'm quite aware what the word "zealot" means. you're playing semantic games to dance around the fact that you are embarrassingly and tragically off-base

Two dozen Clintonistas were indicted, dozens more fled the country and/or took the Fifth to avoid prosecution. Partisan war? Give me a break. I think there was over a hundred years of jail time before it was all finished, and a pretty significant body count.

"clintonistas"? yeah, you've got no horse in this race mr. "i'm above this partisan stuff"

"I heard Fitzgerald climb on his high horse and talk about what happens when the names of covert agents are leaked, and then I see Plame and Wilson on the cover of Vanity Fair and now they're celebrities. Spare me the tale of woe."

So the fact that Plame and Wilson were on the cover of Vanity Fair makes it ok that classified information was divulged? Where's the consistency in your opinion Elwood? In some threads you demand people be held accountable for leaks, and in others you say it's no big deal.



""Not widely known" is one long friggin' hike from top secret."

Really, are you learning disabled? Did you skip right to the "widely known" part and ignore the part that says "the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified."?



"So maybe her husband shouldn't have decided to attack the WH"

What does this have to do sith anything? It's ok to leak classified info because her husband attacked the administration? You've got to be high.



"And we still don't know who Novak's source was for this. "

Which is why no one has been indicted for that crime. Brilliant observation.



"So who was endangered? Plame and Wilson are now the toast of Broadway. You'd better pick someone else to hold out for sympathy. "

Do you seriously think that divulging the identity of a covert agent is only dangerous to that specific agent and no one else?



"So you still think Libby should rot in jail. Thank you for that long and involved excursion to give a simple answer to a simple question."

Man you have a real talent for making shit up, otherwise know as "lying." I never said Libby should rot in jail. What I said is that you are a moron. You apparently don't understand what "classified" means. You apparently don't care if someone leaks classified information, just so long as they are on your side of the aisle and the person it affects "had it coming to them." You deem yourself the judge of what is or isn't a national secret, who may or may not be hurt by leaking classified material, and which crimes are really worth prosecuting. I think that Libby should be held accountable for perjury and obstruction if he did, in fact, committ those crimes. I think people who leak classified info should be held accountable for those crimes. I think the general level of discussion in the Lavendar Room was lowered when you decided to return to posting.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"what does what other people are saying in a completely different thread have to do with me? could you at least pretend like you are trying to make sense?"
- - I only make sense if you read my posts. When you begin attempting to dissemble from the first line, you will miss the point over and over again, as you've demonstrated.

"as far as alternate sources, your use of kristof is amusing. he's an op-ed writer."
- - OK, let me give you a couple of others. But then I'm sure you'll have some reason do dismiss them as well:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/how_covert_was_.html

"and for toensing, i like how you make the first part of that sentence huge and red when the second half calls it a 'serious legal question'. and beyond that, why would toensing know?"
- - As a former assistant AG, currently working for the CIA? Shit Bubba, your right, YOU certainly would be the authority in this equation, not Toensing!! I don't know what I was thinking, actually consulting someone whose job it is to know this stuff!! And what she said was that "There is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as 'covert.'" She did NOT say that leaking it was the serious legal question. How can you so distort a direct quote? Or why would you even try?

"and furthermore, toensing is cia. you just got finished saying the cia was out to get bush, now you want to use cia?"
- - Well, "the CIA" is a collection of individuals. Certainly not everyone is on board for the feud.

"and the fact remains; patrick fitzgerald has lived and breathed this case for the last 2 years and the first thing out of his mouth when he finally addresses the public is: Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified."
- - Because that's what he was told by the CIA. And yet he still hasn't chosen to file any charges for this allegedley oh so serious crime, which as I pointed out is certainly not, as it's only served to make celebrities out of the Wilsons. Yeah, ruin my life why don't you. I couldn't stand being on the cover of Vanity Fair. Oh the humanity...

"Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community."
- - And yet I'm giving you sources who say that's not true. Is everyone a pathological liar in this world except you and Fitzgerald?

"The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

- - It would seem not, according to my sources.

"you have no counter-argument for this other than 'i don't know maybe he's a zealot'. that's pathetic, elwood, just pathetic."
- - I'm assuming the man's motivations are pure. Unlike you, I'm not going to damn a total stranger until I can see a reason to do so. A crime has been alleged, and he has investigated. It seems that he's done a piss-poor job, but maybe he'll get it together. Or maybe he's another partisan hack, I don't claim to know. I'm only claiming that he's wrong, not corrupt.

"you have no logical reason to disbelieve what he said and you have no source to disprove it, just hot air and noise."
- - So my sources are illogical, and yours are gospel. LOL

"i'm quite aware what the word 'zealot' means."
- - OK, so you're not stupid, just ignoring my words in order interpret my post to mean what you'd like it to mean.

"you're playing semantic games to dance around the fact that you are embarrassingly and tragically off-base"
- - IT would seem that that is your MO, not mine.

" 'clintonistas'? yeah, you've got no horse in this race mr. 'i'm above this partisan stuff' "
- - As I've said many times, yes I am above it. I don't support either side. I'm just proving beyond a shadow of a doubt just how partisan YOU are by saying that Starr was a hack (after indicting dozens in connection with real crimes) and Fitz is a national hero for one indictment of no consequence.

Grab a towel and wipe the foam off your mouth.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"So the fact that Plame and Wilson were on the cover of Vanity Fair makes it ok that classified information was divulged?"
- - No, it jsut makes a mockery of his claims that their lives have been ruined.

"Where's the consistency in your opinion Elwood? In some threads you demand people be held accountable for leaks, and in others you say it's no big deal."
- - I've posted support for my opinion that Plame was not a covert person nor one whose name or affiliation were classified. If I believed for one second that she was classified, I'd be on board with the prosecution.

If you can tear yourself away from being so impressed with yourself as the authority on this matter, I've posted three articles (one article and two links) that pretty well shatter the image of Plame as a covert or classified person.

"Really, are you learning disabled? Did you skip right to the 'widely known' part and ignore the part that says 'the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified.'?"
No, I have just read from numerous sources that nothing about her was classified at the time of Novak's column, nor for many years prior.

CE "So maybe her husband shouldn't have decided to attack the WH"
SG "What does this have to do sith anything? It's ok to leak classified info because her husband attacked the administration? You've got to be high."
- - Do you forget so quickly that with which you disagree? I've posted previously (and I think you've responed) that Wilson's attack on the WH was bound to bring out the facts about who he was, including who his wife was.

CE "And we still don't know who Novak's source was for this. "
SG "Which is why no one has been indicted for that crime. Brilliant observation."
- - And yet YOU seem confident that the "leak" (of unclassified information) came from Libby, even though someone else may have already leaked it.

"Do you seriously think that divulging the identity of a covert agent is only dangerous to that specific agent and no one else?"
- - You're right. Except Plame wasn't covert, even you've already agreed with that much.

"Man you have a real talent for making shit up, otherwise know as 'lying.'
- - Gee, let's descend into insults. I don't think I've called you any nasty names, have I? I've been sarcastic, but I haven't sunken to calling you a liar just because I can't make you drink my Kool Aid. It's reall sad if that's the best you can do.

"I never said Libby should rot in jail. What I said is that you are a moron."
- - Really, you never said what Libby did was wrong? I think I can find references to that in this post alone. Or are you suddenly saying the prosecution should back of and let him go? There are only two choices. Or have you been lying?

"You apparently don't understand what 'classified' means."
- - You apparently think I'm as dumb as you are, or else you're just struggling to avoid answering on point. Yes I know what classified means. I'm actually beginning to wonder if you do.

"You apparently don't care if someone leaks classified information, just so long as they are on your side of the aisle and the person it affects 'had it coming to them.' "
- - No, I don't care if someone leaks NON classified information. And I think that covert operatives should make it a point to keep themselves and their families out of national publications, don't you?

"You deem yourself the judge of what is or isn't a national secret"
- - Not at all, I've supplied more backup than you have.

"I think that Libby should be held accountable for perjury and obstruction if he did, in fact, committ those crimes."
- - So you do think he should rot in jail as I asserted above. You contradict yourself so quickly. I thought you'd at least wait for the next post.

"I think the general level of discussion in the Lavendar Room was lowered when you decided to return to posting."
- - No, but it was lowered dramatically when you chose to call me a liar just because you don't like what I'm saying. That's weak, brother. I thought better of you.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Well, whether she was covert or not is the threshold issue, which is why she didn't address the leaking aspect. It matters not without first making the determination of whether she was covert or her information classified.

As for why he didn't file charges--just because he isn't filing charges doesn't mean that no crime occurred. It simply means he can't prove one occurred and both the Espionage Act and the Identities Act are fairly difficult things to prove. Personally, I think the fact that he isn't bringing charges on those crimes undercuts the idea that he is a zealot because, after all, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, right?



He(slowguy) has gone to the primary sources on the issues--i.e. the CIA and Fitzgerald. That's all the back up he needs. You say you aren't judging what is or isn't classified, but in fact, that's exactly what you are doing. Labeling something as classified isn't a matter of the circumstances surrounding a piece of information. It's up to the appropriate agency whether something is classified or not.

Whether or not Libby(or Rove for that matter) was Novak's source, I don't think there is any real dispute that both Libby/Rove were involved with this situation, either as the original source or as a conduit.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"Well, whether she was covert or not is the threshold issue, which is why she didn't address the leaking aspect. It matters not without first making the determination of whether she was covert or her information classified."
- - Which is why I've now posted or linked three articles that demonstrably challenge any assertion that there was anything about Plame that qualified as classified.

"As for why he didn't file charges--just because he isn't filing charges doesn't mean that no crime occurred. It simply means he can't prove one occurred and both the Espionage Act and the Identities Act are fairly difficult things to prove."
- - So if you can't prove your crime, then Libby is not only not guilty, he's not even charged.

"Personally, I think the fact that he isn't bringing charges on those crimes undercuts the idea that he is a zealot because, after all, a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, right?"
- - Yep, and he has proved his zeal by indicting, even with no mustard or mayo...

"He(slowguy) has gone to the primary sources on the issues--i.e. the CIA and Fitzgerald. That's all the back up he needs."
- - Thankfully for Libby, that's not the case

"You say you aren't judging what is or isn't classified, but in fact, that's exactly what you are doing. Labeling something as classified isn't a matter of the circumstances surrounding a piece of information. It's up to the appropriate agency whether something is classified or not."
- - And it's disingenuous of the agency to call something classified when it is information that has been out for over nine years.

"Whether or not Libby(or Rove for that matter) was Novak's source, I don't think there is any real dispute that both Libby/Rove were involved with this situation, either as the original source or as a conduit."
- - The dispute isn't whether they talked about it, but whether they had any reason to suspect that there was anything wrong with talking about it, and further, whether there actually was anything wrong with talking about it. I'm making the case that since the information wasn't secret, all this is much ado about nothing. I'm also commenting that all the cover about the Wilson's being in danger and having their lives ruined is just plain BS.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

OK, let me give you a couple of others. But then I'm sure you'll have some reason do dismiss them as well:

i have great reasons to dismiss them... they are right-wing op-ed writers, one of which doesn't even have a job doing it. you actually linked to a blogger referencing another blogger.

Shit Bubba, your right, YOU certainly would be the authority in this equation, not Toensing!

i am not using myself as the authority here, i'm using patrick fitzgerald and his 2+ years of work on this case. your sources are significantly less qualified and trustworthy.

Well, "the CIA" is a collection of individuals. Certainly not everyone is on board for the feud.

aha. wonderful. so you use the statement that plame's identity wasn't known to determine whether or not a cia agent/staff/whatever is "on board for the fued"? that's your rubric? do you not see how that is a self-fulfilling prophecy and a logical circle? toensing has absolutely no more credibility than the many people who talked to patrick fitzgerald, yet you choose her "side" not on merit, but on what she says.

but one thing you fail to mention is that toensing is a republican and beyond that, she wrote the op-ed you failed to link to. funny that in her op-ed (she's an attorney, not a columnist) she charges plame with glory-hounding. a plank in toensing's eye makes her see the splinter in plame's. so actually your sources are nothing but partisan attack dogs. "a collection of individuals"... right.

And yet he still hasn't chosen to file any charges for this allegedley oh so serious crime, which as I pointed out is certainly not, as it's only served to make celebrities out of the Wilsons.

it has already been explained why charges weren't filed, but right on cue you ignore reality. this case required a lot of factors, many of which were heavily dependent on honest testimony, which fitzgerald obviously never got.

to quote the piece with toensing which you cite but do not link: A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

that's from attack dog toensing.

And yet I'm giving you sources who say that's not true. / So my sources are illogical, and yours are gospel.

right-wing op-ed columnists, bloggers and lawyers. partisan hacks that say it's not true. what wonderful sources. meanwhile i've got the guy who has worked for 2 years on this case, interviewed god-knows-how-many people, has absolutely no political horse in this race and was appointed by john ashcroft.

if we're making a case on merit and quality, i'm 10 miles ahead of you

IT would seem that that is your MO, not mine.

you have been reduced to "i know you are, but what am i?". a proud graduate of the pee-wee herman school of debate.

As I've said many times, yes I am above it. I don't support either side.

is this something you actually believe or something you say as an unqualified grab at credibility?

I'm just proving beyond a shadow of a doubt just how partisan YOU are by saying that Starr was a hack (after indicting dozens in connection with real crimes) and Fitz is a national hero for one indictment of no consequence.

starr got dozens of nobodies. fitzgerald got the vice president's #1 man. so sad, you are, so very dishonest.

"i have great reasons to dismiss them... they are right-wing op-ed writers, one of which doesn't even have a job doing it. you actually linked to a blogger referencing another blogger."
- - And still you won't discuss the merits. Can you say "partisan hack"?

"i am not using myself as the authority here, i'm using patrick fitzgerald and his 2+ years of work on this case. your sources are significantly less qualified and trustworthy."
- - So the assitant AG who helped write the legislation is less credible than a prosecutor? You'll have to help me with that bit of "logic."

"aha. wonderful. so you use the statement that plame's identity wasn't known to determine whether or not a cia agent/staff/whatever is 'on board for the fued'?"
- - Yes. She's willing to show the other side and gives substantiation for her view. Obviously, if one assumes there is subterfuge, she must not be a part of it.

"toensing has absolutely no more credibility than the many people who talked to patrick fitzgerald, yet you choose her 'side' not on merit, but on what she says."
- - The merit is outlined in my earlier posts and the links that support my opinion. You don't like it, but you don't address it, leading one to believe that you dismiss what you can't disprove.

"but one thing you fail to mention is that toensing is a republican"
- - And Fitz is a Dem. Your point? Are you saying htat we can only have this adjudicated by non-aligned persons? In that case, you'll have to accept my word, because I think I'm the only one here who isn't affiliated.

"funny that in her op-ed (she's an attorney, not a columnist) she charges plame with glory-hounding."
- - I don't think that's a stretch.

"a plank in toensing's eye makes her see the splinter in plame's."
- - Or maybe the splinter is actually there.

"so actually your sources are nothing but partisan attack dogs. "
- - If that makes it easier for you to dismiss them without addressing their statements, then please enjoy the sand that you're getting into your ears, Mr Ostrich.

"it has already been explained why charges weren't filed"
- - That they can't prove a crime, but you know one occurred? Yes, I've heard that.

"this case required a lot of factors, many of which were heavily dependent on honest testimony, which fitzgerald obviously never got."
- - Apparently not. I didn't hear him mention ANY of the points made by dissenters who say Plame was already outed.

"A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker."
- - Because the charges have serious consequences and are not to be used in such frivolous matters as what is at hand.

And yet I'm giving you sources who say that's not true. / So my sources are illogical, and yours are gospel.
"right-wing op-ed columnists, bloggers and lawyers. partisan hacks that say it's not true."
- - As opposed to the partisan hacks that say what you want to hear. How about addressing even the smallest part of what has been said regarding Plames outing nine years back? How about addressing Wilson's faux pas in making himself a public figure?

"meanwhile i've got the guy who has worked for 2 years on this case"
- - and hasn't come up with a crime...

"interviewed god-knows-how-many people, has absolutely no political horse in this race and was appointed by john ashcroft."
- - You claim he has no horse. I don't know whether he does or not, but by your standard (party affiliation) I guess he does.

"if we're making a case on merit and quality, i'm 10 miles ahead of you"
- - Only in your colorful imaginiation.

"you have been reduced to "i know you are, but what am i?". a proud graduate of the pee-wee herman school of debate."
- - Debate? Yes let's. Whenever you're done dismissing things that don't square with your view of things, we can do that. You can start by addressing the issue of Plame's outing nine years back. Can't do that? Then in a debate, you lose.

As I've said many times, yes I am above it. I don't support either side.
"is this something you actually believe or something you say as an unqualified grab at credibility?"
- - You weren't around when I was dissing Starr during the Whitewater days. You can dismiss me as a partisan if that makes you sleep better, but you'd be just plain wrong.

"starr got dozens of nobodies. fitzgerald got the vice president's #1 man. so sad, you are, so very dishonest."
- - Starr got dozens of fish, Fitz hasn't gotten one yet. If all this makes you think you're backing a winner, please take another dose of your medication.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

SOUP! (great name lol) already discussed the merits of those sources. They *are* hacks.
You've sourced bloggers, for Christ's sake. Bloggers!

And past that you sourced a former CIA woman after going leaps and bounds to say the CIA isn't trusthworthy. Past that you choose a former CIA woman who is now a Republican shill. And you still have the gall to pretend you have some ground to stand on?

---
And Fitz is a Dem.
---

Liar.
You are nothing more than a liar. You made that up out of thin air.
As SOUP! has already said, he was appointed by hyper-frightening Republican freakshow John Ashcroft for his outstanding work in Illinois, where he was appointed by yet another Republican (Peter Fitzgerald, no relation).

You are absolutely beyond the pale on this. Patrick Fitzgerald is lauded as a relentless and non-partisan guy who has dedicated his entire life to pursuing justice in cases like this.

You are a liar.
Your sources are The National Review and NewsMax. You are a Republican hatchet-man and a liar.

Since you're whining absurdly about how none of us are actually responding to your original post, I'm going to take the time to address it. After that, I'm through playing with you about this, it's too stupid of an argument even for me to spend time on. And that's saying something.

Somebody even claimed that it would be illegal to divulge the name of a CIA janitor!! That's an absurd thought.

What I claimed was that if a janitors association with the CIA was classified, it would be a crime to reveal it. Which is true, notwithstanding the fact that a janitor's identity is probably not classified.

- At some point, someone, presumably a highly placed official in the Bush administration, got upset that Joe Wilson was contributing to the "Bush lied/people died" campaign by claiming that he had information proving that Bush and MI-6 were wrong about Saddam trying to buy yellowcake.

Agreed.

In exposing Wilson's dissembling, it was disclosed that Wilson's wife works for the CIA

Agreed. This means, since you don't seem to be grasping the concept, that her identity as a CIA employee was revealed, which was a crime, since that relationship was classified.

Someone (doesn't matter who) cried "foul" over the disclosure mentioned

Agreed.

and Joe Wilson himself has since over-dramatized the effect of this dissemination

Irrelevent.

Considering that the two of them were on the cover of Vanity Fair and are now the toast of NY, it's a little hard to swallow that their lives are ruined or that they are in some danger. So the Wilson's have not been damaged.

Irrelevent. The point in criminalizing disclosure of classified information is primarily to protect the security of the nation.

Plame is not a covert agent and no one really cares that she works for the CIA

Irrelevent. She does not need to be a covert agent for her status to be classified. It matters nothing whether or not anyone cares that she works for the CIA, although I don't see how you've come to that conclusion, other than that you just made it up. Someone cared enough that they assigned a classified status to her association with the CIA.

A lot of people seemed to have known about Plame, including whoever told Robert Novak (as Fitz, you know who this person was, and it wasn't Scooter)

What people are you talking about? A lot of people with security clearances, presumably.

No secret information was released

Completely wrong. Her identity as a CIA employee was secret. It was released, as you've noted already.

Joe Wilson has written an op ed about his Niger trip and has - without proper authorization - revealed details about his mission that were not meant for public consumption.

"Not intended for public consumption" is not, as far as I know, the same thing as "classified."

Prosecute Wilson for leaking

For leaking what? Non-classified informartion that the Bush Administration didn't want the public to know? I don't think that's illegal.

Prosecute Judith Miller who reported the story but wouldn't divulge her source

What would the crime be?

Prosecute Novak for publishing the information

What would the crime be?

Prosecute a staffer in the VP's office because he makes a convenient scape-goat

A "staffer"? You mean the VP's chief of staff? OK. No, I wouldn't prosecute him because he makes a convenient scapegoat. I'd prosecute him because the grand jury found enough evidence that he lied under oath and to the investigators about an investigation into a crime- the disclosure of classified information.

Determining that no actual damage was done call "no harm, no foul,"

Nope. I don't know, in the first place, that no actual damage was done. I'm working under the assumption that if classified information is revealed, it has the potential to cause damage to national security. That's why information is classified, you know. Besides which, that isn't what I'm prosecuting him for- I'm prosecuting him for lying in an attempt to obstruct an investigation, which in and of itself is damaging to the pursuit of justice.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

what source says she was not classified that is more credible than the cia and patrick fitzgerald? <- please answer this

World Net Daily, clearly.

---

_______________________________________________

SOUP! is such a moron.

Dude, David Horowitz from NewsMax will tell you straight up that Plame is an attention-seeking whore who outed herself AND that Patrick Fitzgerald has phone sex with John Kerry.

WHAT'S THE PROBLEM, DUMBASS!?

Patrick Fitzgerald has phone sex with John Kerry

Really, who hasn't?

---

_______________________________________________

Certainly not Cousin Elwood, because he doesn't have any partisan leanings. He's Buddha on the goddam mountaintop.

"Do you forget so quickly that with which you disagree? I've posted previously (and I think you've responed) that Wilson's attack on the WH was bound to bring out the facts about who he was, including who his wife was. "

Again, since, as you say, I've already responded to this, what makes you think that Wilson's alleged attack on the White House makes it ok for this information to be divulged? Why does his behaviour have anything at all to do with the issue?

"And yet YOU seem confident that the "leak" (of unclassified information) came from Libby, even though someone else may have already leaked it."

You see, now this is why you get called a liar. Point to me where I said I am convinced Libby comitted this crime.

"I've been sarcastic, but I haven't sunken to calling you a liar just because I can't make you drink my Kool Aid. It's reall sad if that's the best you can do."

I'll wager that's because I haven't been making things up.

"SG-I never said Libby should rot in jail. What I said is that you are a moron."
- CE-Really, you never said what Libby did was wrong? I think I can find references to that in this post alone. Or are you suddenly saying the prosecution should back of and let him go? There are only two choices. Or have you been lying? "

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit. How do you make the leap from "Libby should be prosecuted for any crimes he committed" to "Libby should rot in jail."?

"SG-"I think that Libby should be held accountable for perjury and obstruction if he did, in fact, committ those crimes."
- CE-So you do think he should rot in jail as I asserted above. You contradict yourself so quickly. I thought you'd at least wait for the next post. "

Here again. Do you really wonder why I called you a liar? It's either that, or you're exceedingly stupid. You have to read the words on the screen, not the ones you want to be on the screen. I clearly said that Libby should be held accountable for any crimes he committed, if he did in fact commit crimes. You deliberately mis-represent that to mean I want Libby to rot in jail because you're argument is nonexistent and you can't call me a partisan hack unless I'm out to get Libby.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"And you still have the gall to pretend you have some ground to stand on?"

Until one of you blowhards responds on point, I have laid out a story (from three sources) that says Plame was outed nine years back. None of you want to touch it. I can only assume that flaming my sources makes you feel good, but it doesn't refute their story.

Yeah, you and Soup tell me that a current prosecutor is somehow much more credible source than a former assistant USAG. Sell crazy somewhere else, junior, we're all stocked up here. (Nicholson).

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

Given a much more intimate knowledge of the facts of the case, ya, I would say Fitzgerald has more credibility on the issue. Why would an assistant US AG who has no real connection or access to the investigation be anywhere near more knowledgeable?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

In lieu of an argument, Elwood quotes shitty movies.

Your sources are pure garbage, nothing but right-wing hacks.

Oh, and you're a liar.

"Since you're whining absurdly about how none of us are actually responding to your original post, I'm going to take the time to address it."
- - Thanks, but I wasn't even close to whining. I was just pointing out that you pinheads blow smoke without addressing points. You may win a consensus amongst yourselves that I'm a whacko, but you don't win a debate by walking away.

"After that, I'm through playing with you about this, it's too stupid of an argument even for me to spend time on. And that's saying something."
- - Yes, as we will see...

"What I claimed was that if a janitors association with the CIA was classified, it would be a crime to reveal it. Which is true, notwithstanding the fact that a janitor's identity is probably not classified."
- - Yep, you went for hyperbole. Nice of you to ALMOST admit that it was BS. FACT: No janitor has ever nor will ever have classified or covert status at the CIA.

At some point, someone, presumably a highly placed official in the Bush administration, got upset that Joe Wilson was contributing to the "Bush lied/people died" campaign by claiming that he had information proving that Bush and MI-6 were wrong about Saddam trying to buy yellowcake.

Agreed.
- - GASP!!!

In exposing Wilson's dissembling, it was disclosed that Wilson's wife works for the CIA

Agreed. This means, since you don't seem to be grasping the concept, that her identity as a CIA employee was revealed, which was a crime, since that relationship was classified.
- - Only if her status was truly classified, which is refuted soundly in several pieces that I posted or linked. It seems her identity a) is not even well guarded and b) was "leaked" over nine years ago.

Someone (doesn't matter who) cried "foul" over the disclosure mentioned

Agreed.

and Joe Wilson himself has since over-dramatized the effect of this dissemination

Irrelevent.
- - Not when Fitzgerald and Wilson's attorney spend all day last Friday trying this case on the air waves. How do we now get a jury pool that isn't poisoned?

Considering that the two of them were on the cover of Vanity Fair and are now the toast of NY, it's a little hard to swallow that their lives are ruined or that they are in some danger. So the Wilson's have not been damaged.

Irrelevent. The point in criminalizing disclosure of classified information is primarily to protect the security of the nation.
- - I agree. Where I disagree is that there was anything classified about her, and I disagree with his contention that their lives have been ruined, said contention being made to help sweeten the pot.

Plame is not a covert agent and no one really cares that she works for the CIA

Irrelevent. She does not need to be a covert agent for her status to be classified. It matters nothing whether or not anyone cares that she works for the CIA, although I don't see how you've come to that conclusion, other than that you just made it up. Someone cared enough that they assigned a classified status to her association with the CIA.
- - She would, however, need to be a covert agent in order for the Identies Act to apply, which is where this nonsense started. And the question before us today is this: When was her status classified, and has it been so during the past five (or nine) years. I've produced evidence that it was not.

A lot of people seemed to have known about Plame, including whoever told Robert Novak (as Fitz, you know who this person was, and it wasn't Scooter)

What people are you talking about? A lot of people with security clearances, presumably.
- - I don't know who I'm talking about, because Novak gave up his source in secrecy, and said source is NOT being prosecuted. Hmmm, I wonder why that might be... Maybe because he's not a prominent member of the WH staff, so netting him or her wouldn't be worth any good anti-Bush publicity? If you have an alternate explanation, I'd love to hear it, because whoever this person is, they outed Plame before or at least concurrently with Libby.

No secret information was released

Completely wrong. Her identity as a CIA employee was secret. It was released, as you've noted already.
- - And it wasn't secret, as I've posted repeatedly.

Joe Wilson has written an op ed about his Niger trip and has - without proper authorization - revealed details about his mission that were not meant for public consumption.

"Not intended for public consumption" is not, as far as I know, the same thing as "classified."
- - Apparently it's up to the CIA to decide if it's classified or not, right? Since they're working with Wilson, perhaps they don't want to rock their own boat. I would certainly think that an operation such as his (checking on the possible movement of fissionable materials to Iraq) should be a classified matter.

Prosecute Wilson for leaking

For leaking what? Non-classified informartion that the Bush Administration didn't want the public to know? I don't think that's illegal.
- - How about for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, by lying about what occurred there and attempting to inflame anti-US sentiment. Or perhaps his report WAS classified, as I believe it should have been.

Prosecute Judith Miller who reported the story but wouldn't divulge her source

What would the crime be?
- - Same crime. Her story outed Plame also.

Prosecute Novak for publishing the information

What would the crime be?
- - Same crime. His story outed Plame also.

Prosecute a staffer in the VP's office because he makes a convenient scape-goat

A "staffer"? You mean the VP's chief of staff? OK. No, I wouldn't prosecute him because he makes a convenient scapegoat. I'd prosecute him because the grand jury found enough evidence that he lied under oath and to the investigators about an investigation into a crime- the disclosure of classified information.
- - Thank you. You're the only person here who has responded to this post on point.

Determining that no actual damage was done call "no harm, no foul,"
Nope. I don't know, in the first place, that no actual damage was done. I'm working under the assumption that if classified information is revealed, it has the potential to cause damage to national security. That's why information is classified, you know. Besides which, that isn't what I'm prosecuting him for- I'm prosecuting him for lying in an attempt to obstruct an investigation, which in and of itself is damaging to the pursuit of justice.
- - I think that's a valid opinion and once again thank you for manning up and actually answering my post.

However, I must correct your last point. You (Fitz) were indeed prosectuting Libby for info leakage. Once you determine that no actual information was leaked and that Plame's ID was not a classified or secret item, you've got to have way too much time on your hands if you don't just walk away from this and shoot a scathing letter to the CIA about wasting your friggin' time with internicine bickering.

We could make a long list of all the government perjurers who were never prosecuted over the past 10, 20 or 50 years.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...

"Again, since, as you say, I've already responded to this, what makes you think that Wilson's alleged attack on the White House makes it ok for this information to be divulged?"
- - I didn't even get that far. What I said was that his taking the attack to the NYT simply guaranteed that his background would be scrutinized, and as one of my linked articles demonstrated, it took very little time or energy for one reporter to figure out she was CIA. So regardless of what Libby did, she was as good as outed as soon as the NYT published his blather.

"You see, now this is why you get called a liar. Point to me where I said I am convinced Libby comitted this crime."
- - Well then I apologize. I don't have time to review the record, but you seem to have been at odds with me on this for days, and since I'm saying Libby should be dismissed along with charges against him, I just assumed that all your bloviating was because you felt just the opposite. How nice to find that we agree on something!! ;-o

"I'll wager that's (Elwood not calling Slowguy a liar) because I haven't been making things up.
- - Not at all. I haven't made anything up either. It's just because I have more class than to make a statement like that. I thought you did too, but heck I guess I was wrong.

"Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit. How do you make the leap from 'Libby should be prosecuted for any crimes he committed' to 'Libby should rot in jail.'? "
- - Wow, I have to make an appointment with my Chiropractor. I laughed so hard at that I think I wrenched my entire spine!!! SG, seriously, rotting in jail is what happens after someone is prosecuted. Did you think this was just a TV show and he gets to go home if they find him guilty? The news reports said there was a max of 30 years in prison available if he's found guilty. How do I make that leap? How do you make the leap from saying that to putting on a straight face?? Dude, seriously?

[SG-"I think that Libby should be held accountable for perjury and obstruction if he did, in fact, committ those crimes."
CE-So you do think he should rot in jail as I asserted above. You contradict yourself so quickly. I thought you'd at least wait for the next post. " ]

"I clearly said that Libby should be held accountable for any crimes he committed, if he did in fact commit crimes. You deliberately mis-represent that to mean I want Libby to rot in jail because you're argument is nonexistent and you can't call me a partisan hack unless I'm out to get Libby."
- - OK, so take a stand then. Do you or do you not think Libby should be prosecuted? Oh wait, you already answered this just a scant few paragraphs up the page!!! You're going to commit a major crime soon, and you're setting up the insanity defense... I'm right aren't I? C'mon, you can admit it.

You're deliberately driving in circles. That's OK, because I know that a lot of people with too much time on their hands like to get into Internet brawls. Hey, it's safe and you can call a complete stranger a liar and still go to bed tonight with all your teeth. That's cool. I'm just glad you finally came out and demonstrated, even if not admitted, that you're just a sniper on the information superhighway, and that you don't actually have any opinion on this matter.

---

Cousin Elwood - Team Over-the-hill Racing
Brought to you by the good folks at Metamucil and Geritol...