Time to Apologize to Plame/Wilson

"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>
>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place? Well,
>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>
>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>
>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>
>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like yourself
>>> just don't care about treason.
>>
>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>
> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who isn't a
> covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert agent, and she was
> outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the law.

Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else. I'll also
admit that the CIA has not always done that, but they come under US law just
like the rest of government. They are not judge and jury ... thats why
Fitzgerald was appointed.
>
> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.

Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works ... hint, its a govt of
laws. It you who should lay off the pipe, bro.
>
>
 
Joe Irvin wrote:
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>> Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>
>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>
>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>
>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>
>> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who
>> isn't a covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert
>> agent, and she was outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the
>> law.
>
> Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else. I'll
> also admit that the CIA has not always done that, but they come under
> US law just like the rest of government. They are not judge and jury
> ... thats why Fitzgerald was appointed.
>>
>> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
>
> Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works ... hint, its a govt
> of laws. It you who should lay off the pipe, bro.

Familiarize yourself with how jr and Cheney worked.
They are a disgrace to America
They ought to resign
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fh1num$700$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47341e04$0$17045$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do. They
>>>>> have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was found to
>>>>> have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really has no
>>>>> meaning, its just their opinion. To recognize this makes me
>>>>> treasonous???
>>>>
>>>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's name.
>>>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and Libby leaked
>>>> it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you miss it?
>>>
>>> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were convicted
>>> of leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial? Libby if I
>>> remember correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of justice. ...
>>> no one was charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>
>> Often people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when it can't
>> be proved exactly who committed the murder. Does that fact prove that no
>> murder was committed.
>
> No it doesn't, but we don't go around calling them murderers either.

We do when we know they murdered someone, whether they're convicted by law
or not.

> We do that only have they have been convicted of murder.

Crap. The law does not create a murderer due to statute. The act of murder
creates a murderer.

> You continue to say Ms Plame was 'covert', well she may be by your
> standards

WRONG. She was covert by the standards of the CIA. Your argument suggests
that the very people who assign positions in the CIA don't decide who those
people are and what their positions will be.

Your argument is ridiculous on its face.

but not by the Intell
> Ident Prot Act. ... Pretending that the conviction of Libby in some way
> validates your belief that she is 'covert.'

I make no such claim. She was covert BECAUSE THE CIA SAYS SHE WAS COVERT.
The CIA is the only authority in position to make such a determination
BECAUSE THE CIA DECIDES WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT COVERT.

You make not allowance at all
> that Ms Plame didn't fit the definition of 'covert' by the IIPA

George Bush is not President in accordance with the provisions of the US
Constitution either. But he's still president.

and that to
> try anyone, and especially R Armitage who had admitted 'outing' her would
> have been/should have been a slam dunk for Fitzgerald. I've admitted that
> Libby was guilty of what he was charged with. I've also said that I don't
> think it was right for whomever outed her. I also recognize that no
> matter who outed her it wasn't a crime because of her status at the CIA.

That's bullshit.

>>
>> I've seen some people swallow the Koolaid, but you're approaching the
>> sublime.
>
> Its you that is dogmatic ... you continue to call her 'covert.' ... there
> has been an investigation and trial and no one has been convicted of
> outing a covert agent, Ms Plame.

Again a fallacious argument. The fact that no one has been committed of a
specific crime does not mean the specific crime was not committed. Ted
Bundy was not convicted of several of the murders he was known to have
committed. Does that mean those girls weren't murdered? Does that mean
their murders were not a crime? No one was convicted of Nicole Simpson's
murder. Does that mean she wasn't murdered? Does that mean that her murder
wasn't a crime?

> At least one person has come forward and admitted outing Ms Plame, still
> no charges or trial to convict the 'outer/outers'. Remember finding out
> who outed Ms Plame was what this whole kerfuffle was about ... but I
> understand in your mind Ms Plame is 'covert.'

She was covert in the mind and in the decision of THE CIA. If they aren't
in a position to decide who is and who is not covert, NO ONE IS. I'm sure
that you'd love that to be the case so as to save the reputations of your
traitor heroes, Bush, Cheney, Armitage, Libby, et.al. But that's just not
the case. A covert agent was outed by those bastards, and both she and her
operation were compromised. Sadly, we will never know how many of the
agents under her control lost their lives due to that act of high treason,
but it is very likely that the murders or executions of agents working under
Valerie Plame are blood on the hands of the Bush Crime Family.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fh1okl$7ld$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>
>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>
>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>
>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>
>> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who isn't a
>> covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert agent, and she
>> was outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the law.
>
> Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else.

But the CIA STILL gets to determine who is covert and who is not. That's
not law, it's simple fact.

Your arguing that Simpson's wife was never murdered because the court
couldn't prove that Simpson murdered her and thus broke a law. Law, at
best, operates on the basis of facts but the law is not FACT. Reality is
FACT. And the reality is that Plame was a covert agent outed by the Bush
Junta

>>
>> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
>
> Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works

I am quite familiar with how the government works. Are you familiar with a
little thing I like to call "reality."

>... hint, its a govt of laws.

But the laws do not create FACT. The FACT is that Plame was a covert agent
and identified as such by the only people who could authoritatively do
so...the office of the Director of the CIA.

Pull your head out of the toilet and recognize reality.
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:47347707$0$17049$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
> news:fh1num$700$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:47341e04$0$17045$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>> They
>>>>>> have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was found to
>>>>>> have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really has no
>>>>>> meaning, its just their opinion. To recognize this makes me
>>>>>> treasonous???
>>>>>
>>>>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's name.
>>>>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and Libby
>>>>> leaked
>>>>> it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you miss
>>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were convicted
>>>> of leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial? Libby if I
>>>> remember correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of justice. ...
>>>> no one was charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>>
>>> Often people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when it can't
>>> be proved exactly who committed the murder. Does that fact prove that
>>> no
>>> murder was committed.
>>
>> No it doesn't, but we don't go around calling them murderers either.
>
> We do when we know they murdered someone, whether they're convicted by law
> or not.

We are a country of laws ... some murders do get away with murder because
for some reason or another they cannot be convicted. Legally they are not
guilty of murder. In Ms Plames case it was a slam dunk ... Mr Fitzgerald
knew who the leakers were ... quit pretending it was to difficult to convict
them. He didn't proceed because Ms Plame didn't meet the criteria of a
covert agent under the IIPA, ergo he didn't bring charges to a lost cause.
Keep pretending though, Mr Cranston, Ms Plame was a covert agent.
>
>> We do that only have they have been convicted of murder.

No, but we don't have someone admitted they murdered and then not try them
do we Mr Cranston? We don't call them murders if they have not been
convicted of murder ... one can get sued for that. Good thing we are a
country of laws.
>
> Crap. The law does not create a murderer due to statute. The act of
> murder
> creates a murderer.

Only you said that not me. Murder and its penalites are defined by the law.
We don't go around calling people murders who have not been convicted of
murder or we can be sued. Aren't you glad we live in a country of law.
>
>> You continue to say Ms Plame was 'covert', well she may be by your
>> standards
>
> WRONG. She was covert by the standards of the CIA. Your argument
> suggests
> that the very people who assign positions in the CIA don't decide who
> those
> people are and what their positions will be.
>
> Your argument is ridiculous on its face.

Of course it is for someone who doesn't believe in the rule of law.

> but not by the Intell
>> Ident Prot Act. ... Pretending that the conviction of Libby in some way
>> validates your belief that she is 'covert.'
>
> I make no such claim. She was covert BECAUSE THE CIA SAYS SHE WAS COVERT.
> The CIA is the only authority in position to make such a determination
> BECAUSE THE CIA DECIDES WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT COVERT.

Well, we really didn't need the IIPA then did we? .. we could have just let
the CIA be judge and jury. What penality is the CIA going to impose on the
leakers, they are well know aren't they. Familiarize yourself with the way
our government works ... we are a country of laws ... the CIA is judge and
jury. But you can still use the CIA when it suits your argument and then
when it doesn't always revert to the law ... it convenient and you win lots
of arguments.
>
> You make not allowance at all
>> that Ms Plame didn't fit the definition of 'covert' by the IIPA
>
> George Bush is not President in accordance with the provisions of the US
> Constitution either. But he's still president.

Sure he is ... as I said familiarize yourself with the law, the Constitution
is a good place to start. Why would you say Bush isn't President in
accordance with the provisions of the US Constitution? You are really into
the pipe.
>
> and that to
>> try anyone, and especially R Armitage who had admitted 'outing' her would
>> have been/should have been a slam dunk for Fitzgerald. I've admitted
>> that
>> Libby was guilty of what he was charged with. I've also said that I
>> don't
>> think it was right for whomever outed her. I also recognize that no
>> matter who outed her it wasn't a crime because of her status at the CIA.
>
> That's bullshit.

Ok she is covert because you want her to be covert ... it fits your scheme
of how the world should work.

>>> I've seen some people swallow the Koolaid, but you're approaching the
>>> sublime.
>>
>> Its you that is dogmatic ... you continue to call her 'covert.' ...
>> there
>> has been an investigation and trial and no one has been convicted of
>> outing a covert agent, Ms Plame.
>
> Again a fallacious argument. The fact that no one has been committed of a
> specific crime does not mean the specific crime was not committed. Ted
> Bundy was not convicted of several of the murders he was known to have
> committed. Does that mean those girls weren't murdered? Does that mean
> their murders were not a crime? No one was convicted of Nicole Simpson's
> murder. Does that mean she wasn't murdered? Does that mean that her
> murder
> wasn't a crime?

Mr Cranston, we are not talking about murder. Mr Bundy could only be
executed once ... I don't know how many people he admitted to murdering ...
OJ in his second trial was found guilty to a lesser degree, which implied he
murdered ... like I say it was by law, not inuendo. No one has even been
tried for 'outing' Ms Plame and we knew who did it. Think Mr Cranston.
>
>> At least one person has come forward and admitted outing Ms Plame, still
>> no charges or trial to convict the 'outer/outers'. Remember finding out
>> who outed Ms Plame was what this whole kerfuffle was about ... but I
>> understand in your mind Ms Plame is 'covert.'
>
> She was covert in the mind and in the decision of THE CIA. If they aren't
> in a position to decide who is and who is not covert, NO ONE IS.

I don't think you understand the concept of a country of laws ... the CIA
falls under the law.

I'm sure
> that you'd love that to be the case so as to save the reputations of your
> traitor heroes, Bush, Cheney, Armitage, Libby, et.al. But that's just not
> the case.

What I 'love' has no bearing on Ms Plame/Bush/Cheney,Armitage, Libby.

A covert agent was outed by those bastards, and both she and her
> operation were compromised.

In your mind yes.

Sadly, we will never know how many of the
> agents under her control lost their lives due to that act of high treason,
> but it is very likely that the murders or executions of agents working
> under
> Valerie Plame are blood on the hands of the Bush Crime Family.

Isn't it great living in a country of laws ... we can spout off all we want.
 
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:FGZYi.395$2n.308@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Joe Irvin wrote:
>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>> Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>
>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>
>>> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who
>>> isn't a covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert
>>> agent, and she was outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the
>>> law.
>>
>> Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else. I'll
>> also admit that the CIA has not always done that, but they come under
>> US law just like the rest of government. They are not judge and jury
>> ... thats why Fitzgerald was appointed.
>>>
>>> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
>>
>> Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works ... hint, its a govt
>> of laws. It you who should lay off the pipe, bro.
>
> Familiarize yourself with how jr and Cheney worked.
> They are a disgrace to America
> They ought to resign

What do you think I should be familiar with? Your opinion is noted.
>
>
 
Bull Pucky!

You boys say the CIA doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground, so why
would you think they knew anything about who was covert and who was just
putting in time?

Remember. The only ones left over there after Bubba got through messing with
the CIA were native Eastern liberal Democrats, and aliens with Motor Voter
Democrat registrations.
 
"Docky Wocky" <mrchuck@lst.net> wrote in message
news:bE0Zi.620$CI1.489@trnddc03...
> Bull Pucky!
>
> You boys say the CIA doesn't know it's ass from a hole in the ground,

Bush made sure of that.
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fh21hh$gg1$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47347707$0$17049$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fh1num$700$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47341e04$0$17045$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>> have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was found to
>>>>>>> have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really has no
>>>>>>> meaning, its just their opinion. To recognize this makes me
>>>>>>> treasonous???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's name.
>>>>>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and Libby
>>>>>> leaked
>>>>>> it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you miss
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were convicted
>>>>> of leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial? Libby if I
>>>>> remember correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of justice.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> no one was charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>>>
>>>> Often people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when it can't
>>>> be proved exactly who committed the murder. Does that fact prove that
>>>> no
>>>> murder was committed.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't, but we don't go around calling them murderers either.
>>
>> We do when we know they murdered someone, whether they're convicted by
>> law
>> or not.
>
> We are a country of laws ...

You can parrot that line for as long as you like and it's currently right up
there with "a stitch in time saves nine" and "a rolling stone gathers no
moss" Whether we are a country of laws or not doesn't change physical
reality. Nicole Simpson was murdered. The person who murdered her is a
MURDERER. The CIA says that Valerie Plame was covert. SHE WAS COVERT.

some murders do get away with murder because
> for some reason or another they cannot be convicted. Legally they are not
> guilty of murder. In Ms Plames case it was a slam dunk ... Mr Fitzgerald
> knew who the leakers were ... quit pretending it was to difficult to
> convict them.

I'm not the one pretending here. You're the one pretending that if no one
was convicted, no crime happened and that's just garbage and you know it.
That's why all you can really do here is parrot the same right wing talking
point over and over again. There's two ways to look at this. If we're a
nation of laws, WHY AREN'T the leakers in jail. The answer is WE'RE NOT A
NATION OF LAWS. We are and we nearly always have been a nation of selective
attention to the law.

> He didn't proceed because Ms Plame didn't meet the criteria of a covert
> agent under the IIPA, ergo he didn't bring charges to a lost cause. Keep
> pretending though, Mr Cranston, Ms Plame was a covert agent.
>>
>>> We do that only have they have been convicted of murder.
>
> No, but we don't have someone admitted they murdered and then not try them
> do we Mr Cranston? We don't call them murders if they have not been
> convicted of murder ... one can get sued for that. Good thing we are a
> country of laws.
>>
>> Crap. The law does not create a murderer due to statute. The act of
>> murder
>> creates a murderer.
>
> Only you said that not me. Murder and its penalites are defined by the
> law.

Crap again. Murder can be defined by law but murder is not created by the
law. The law only catches up to the reality of a deed. Murder exists
whether the law recognizes it as such or not.

> We don't go around calling people murders who have not been convicted of
> murder or we can be sued. Aren't you glad we live in a country of law.

I'd be glad if we did IN FACT live in such a country, but we don't. We live
in a country where right wingers like to say we live under the rule of law
so long as they don't get caught breaking it. At which point, they start
parsing and finding loopholes. You right wingers pretend to live by a
higher moral standard, but you're liars. You pretend to respect the law,
but only up to the point where it supports your agenda.

>>
>>> You continue to say Ms Plame was 'covert', well she may be by your
>>> standards
>>
>> WRONG. She was covert by the standards of the CIA. Your argument
>> suggests
>> that the very people who assign positions in the CIA don't decide who
>> those
>> people are and what their positions will be.
>>
>> Your argument is ridiculous on its face.
>
> Of course it is for someone who doesn't believe in the rule of law.

You don't believe in the rule of law. You believe in the rule of getting
away with what you can get away with. You neither abide by the spirit or
the letter of the law.

>
>> but not by the Intell
>>> Ident Prot Act. ... Pretending that the conviction of Libby in some way
>>> validates your belief that she is 'covert.'
>>
>> I make no such claim. She was covert BECAUSE THE CIA SAYS SHE WAS
>> COVERT.
>> The CIA is the only authority in position to make such a determination
>> BECAUSE THE CIA DECIDES WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT COVERT.
>
> Well, we really didn't need the IIPA then did we? .. we could have just
> let the CIA be judge and jury.

Judge and Jury OF WHAT? The question is whether or not she was covert. The
CIA says she was, the prosecutor says she was, the judge says she was.

> What penality is the CIA going to impose on the leakers, they are well
> know aren't they.

How does the CIA and penalties get into the argument. You're getting
incoherent because your argument is ridiculous on its face.

> Familiarize yourself with the way our government works ...

Been there and done that. You should try it.

> we are a country of laws ... the CIA is judge and jury.

No it's not. But the CIA is the sole determiner of what positions its
employees occupy and what their security clearance is and what their status
as agents are. And the CIA called for a criminal investigation because one
of it covert agents AS DETERMINED BY THE CIA ITSELF had been outed by a
vicious gang of criminals in the Bush White House.

> But you can still use the CIA when it suits your argument and then when it
> doesn't always revert to the law ... it convenient and you win lots of
> arguments.

Are you insane? Is that your problem? Look over this thread and you'll
note that it's YOU who's been harping about how this is "a country of laws"
even though every American knows that crime goes unpunished in this country
on a daily basis.

>>
>> You make not allowance at all
>>> that Ms Plame didn't fit the definition of 'covert' by the IIPA
>>
>> George Bush is not President in accordance with the provisions of the US
>> Constitution either. But he's still president.
>
> Sure he is ... as I said familiarize yourself with the law, the
> Constitution is a good place to start.

And you'll find that the USSC does not decide presidential elections.
You'll also find that George Bush did not have legal standing to go to the
USSC because he was not a citizen of Florida.

If you're going to quote the law, you might at least try to bone up on the
law.

>>
>> and that to
>>> try anyone, and especially R Armitage who had admitted 'outing' her
>>> would
>>> have been/should have been a slam dunk for Fitzgerald. I've admitted
>>> that
>>> Libby was guilty of what he was charged with. I've also said that I
>>> don't
>>> think it was right for whomever outed her. I also recognize that no
>>> matter who outed her it wasn't a crime because of her status at the CIA.
>>
>> That's bullshit.
>
> Ok she is covert because you want her to be covert

She "WAS" covert because the CIA says she was covert.

> ... it fits your scheme of how the world should work.

No. This is a case of you needing to have the world work in such a way that
a bunch of traitors in the White House can commit high treason for political
purposes and still leave you able to harp about how we're "a nation of
laws."

>
>>>> I've seen some people swallow the Koolaid, but you're approaching the
>>>> sublime.
>>>
>>> Its you that is dogmatic ... you continue to call her 'covert.' ...
>>> there
>>> has been an investigation and trial and no one has been convicted of
>>> outing a covert agent, Ms Plame.
>>
>> Again a fallacious argument. The fact that no one has been committed of
>> a
>> specific crime does not mean the specific crime was not committed. Ted
>> Bundy was not convicted of several of the murders he was known to have
>> committed. Does that mean those girls weren't murdered? Does that mean
>> their murders were not a crime? No one was convicted of Nicole Simpson's
>> murder. Does that mean she wasn't murdered? Does that mean that her
>> murder
>> wasn't a crime?
>
> Mr Cranston, we are not talking about murder.

YOU are talking about law. Murder is against the law. Bundy was never even
charged with the murder of many of his victims. But they were still
murdered and murder is still against the law.

Mr Bundy could only be
> executed once ... I don't know how many people he admitted to murdering
> ... OJ in his second trial was found guilty to a lesser degree, which
> implied he murdered ... like I say it was by law, not inuendo.

Then by your own admission this is not a nation of laws because Mr.
Simpson's second trial was a direct violation of the double jeopardy clause
of the United States Constitution.

> No one has even been tried for 'outing' Ms Plame and we knew who did it.
> Think Mr Cranston.

And yet she WAS outed, just like Nicole Simpson WAS murdered. In both cases
a law was broken.

>>
>>> At least one person has come forward and admitted outing Ms Plame,
>>> still
>>> no charges or trial to convict the 'outer/outers'. Remember finding out
>>> who outed Ms Plame was what this whole kerfuffle was about ... but I
>>> understand in your mind Ms Plame is 'covert.'
>>
>> She was covert in the mind and in the decision of THE CIA. If they
>> aren't
>> in a position to decide who is and who is not covert, NO ONE IS.
>
> I don't think you understand the concept of a country of laws ... the CIA
> falls under the law.

I don't think you either understand or WANT to understand the concept of the
rule of law. The notion of the rule of law is using the law when you can
find a loophole that covers the asses of your right wing icons. You neither
know nor care about the real damage done here.

>
> I'm sure
>> that you'd love that to be the case so as to save the reputations of your
>> traitor heroes, Bush, Cheney, Armitage, Libby, et.al. But that's just
>> not
>> the case.
>
> What I 'love' has no bearing on Ms Plame/Bush/Cheney,Armitage, Libby.

That's right. And no loophole has a bearing on whether or not Valerie Plame
was IN FACT a covert agent. That decision could only be made by the CIA.

>
> A covert agent was outed by those bastards, and both she and her
>> operation were compromised.
>
> In your mind yes.

In the mind of anyone who can recognize reality, yes. Your desire to
provide an Amen chorus to the treasonous bastards who outed her and
completely compromised her work...work that directly involved
anti-terrorism...is obvious. The people who outed Valerie Plame aided and
abetted the enemies of the United States and are guilty of High Treason.

>
> Sadly, we will never know how many of the
>> agents under her control lost their lives due to that act of high
>> treason,
>> but it is very likely that the murders or executions of agents working
>> under
>> Valerie Plame are blood on the hands of the Bush Crime Family.
>
> Isn't it great living in a country of laws ... we can spout off all we
> want.

Your inability to refute me or to even come to grips with the argument is
duly noted.

>
>
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fh21ku$gih$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:FGZYi.395$2n.308@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>> Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>
>>>> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who
>>>> isn't a covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert
>>>> agent, and she was outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the
>>>> law.
>>>
>>> Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else. I'll
>>> also admit that the CIA has not always done that, but they come under
>>> US law just like the rest of government. They are not judge and jury
>>> ... thats why Fitzgerald was appointed.
>>>>
>>>> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
>>>
>>> Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works ... hint, its a govt
>>> of laws. It you who should lay off the pipe, bro.
>>
>> Familiarize yourself with how jr and Cheney worked.
>> They are a disgrace to America
>> They ought to resign
>
> What do you think I should be familiar with?

Your own stupidity when it comes to the basis of the law in America.
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fh21hh$gg1$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:47347707$0$17049$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fh1num$700$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47341e04$0$17045$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>> have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was found to
>>>>>>> have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really has no
>>>>>>> meaning, its just their opinion. To recognize this makes me
>>>>>>> treasonous???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's name.
>>>>>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and Libby
>>>>>> leaked
>>>>>> it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you miss
>>>>>> it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were convicted
>>>>> of leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial? Libby if I
>>>>> remember correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of justice.
>>>>> ...
>>>>> no one was charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>>>
>>>> Often people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when it can't
>>>> be proved exactly who committed the murder. Does that fact prove that
>>>> no
>>>> murder was committed.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't, but we don't go around calling them murderers either.
>>
>> We do when we know they murdered someone, whether they're convicted by
>> law
>> or not.
>
> We are a country of laws ... some murders do get away with murder because
> for some reason or another they cannot be convicted. Legally they are not
> guilty of murder. In Ms Plames case it was a slam dunk ... Mr Fitzgerald
> knew who the leakers were ... quit pretending it was to difficult to
> convict them. He didn't proceed because Ms Plame didn't meet the criteria
> of a covert agent under the IIPA, ergo he didn't bring charges to a lost
> cause. Keep pretending though, Mr Cranston, Ms Plame was a covert agent.
>>
>>> We do that only have they have been convicted of murder.
>
> No, but we don't have someone admitted they murdered and then not try them
> do we Mr Cranston? We don't call them murders if they have not been
> convicted of murder ... one can get sued for that. Good thing we are a
> country of laws.
>>
>> Crap. The law does not create a murderer due to statute. The act of
>> murder
>> creates a murderer.
>
> Only you said that not me. Murder and its penalites are defined by the
> law. We don't go around calling people murders who have not been convicted
> of murder or we can be sued. Aren't you glad we live in a country of law.
>>
>>> You continue to say Ms Plame was 'covert', well she may be by your
>>> standards
>>
>> WRONG. She was covert by the standards of the CIA. Your argument
>> suggests
>> that the very people who assign positions in the CIA don't decide who
>> those
>> people are and what their positions will be.
>>
>> Your argument is ridiculous on its face.
>
> Of course it is for someone who doesn't believe in the rule of law.
>
>> but not by the Intell
>>> Ident Prot Act. ... Pretending that the conviction of Libby in some way
>>> validates your belief that she is 'covert.'
>>
>> I make no such claim. She was covert BECAUSE THE CIA SAYS SHE WAS
>> COVERT.
>> The CIA is the only authority in position to make such a determination
>> BECAUSE THE CIA DECIDES WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT COVERT.
>
> Well, we really didn't need the IIPA then did we? .. we could have just
> let the CIA be judge and jury. What penality is the CIA going to impose
> on the leakers, they are well know aren't they. Familiarize yourself with
> the way our government works ... we are a country of laws ... the CIA is
> judge and jury. But you can still use the CIA when it suits your argument
> and then when it doesn't always revert to the law ... it convenient and
> you win lots of arguments.
>>
>> You make not allowance at all
>>> that Ms Plame didn't fit the definition of 'covert' by the IIPA
>>
>> George Bush is not President in accordance with the provisions of the US
>> Constitution either. But he's still president.
>
> Sure he is ... as I said familiarize yourself with the law, the
> Constitution is a good place to start. Why would you say Bush isn't
> President in accordance with the provisions of the US Constitution? You
> are really into the pipe.
>>
>> and that to
>>> try anyone, and especially R Armitage who had admitted 'outing' her
>>> would
>>> have been/should have been a slam dunk for Fitzgerald. I've admitted
>>> that
>>> Libby was guilty of what he was charged with. I've also said that I
>>> don't
>>> think it was right for whomever outed her. I also recognize that no
>>> matter who outed her it wasn't a crime because of her status at the CIA.
>>
>> That's bullshit.
>
> Ok she is covert because you want her to be covert ... it fits your scheme
> of how the world should work.
>
>>>> I've seen some people swallow the Koolaid, but you're approaching the
>>>> sublime.
>>>
>>> Its you that is dogmatic ... you continue to call her 'covert.' ...
>>> there
>>> has been an investigation and trial and no one has been convicted of
>>> outing a covert agent, Ms Plame.
>>
>> Again a fallacious argument. The fact that no one has been committed of
>> a
>> specific crime does not mean the specific crime was not committed. Ted
>> Bundy was not convicted of several of the murders he was known to have
>> committed. Does that mean those girls weren't murdered? Does that mean
>> their murders were not a crime? No one was convicted of Nicole Simpson's
>> murder. Does that mean she wasn't murdered? Does that mean that her
>> murder
>> wasn't a crime?
>
> Mr Cranston, we are not talking about murder. Mr Bundy could only be
> executed once ... I don't know how many people he admitted to murdering
> ... OJ in his second trial was found guilty to a lesser degree, which
> implied he murdered ... like I say it was by law, not inuendo. No one has
> even been tried for 'outing' Ms Plame and we knew who did it. Think Mr
> Cranston.
>>
>>> At least one person has come forward and admitted outing Ms Plame,
>>> still
>>> no charges or trial to convict the 'outer/outers'. Remember finding out
>>> who outed Ms Plame was what this whole kerfuffle was about ... but I
>>> understand in your mind Ms Plame is 'covert.'
>>
>> She was covert in the mind and in the decision of THE CIA. If they
>> aren't
>> in a position to decide who is and who is not covert, NO ONE IS.
>
> I don't think you understand the concept of a country of laws ... the CIA
> falls under the law.
>
> I'm sure
>> that you'd love that to be the case so as to save the reputations of your
>> traitor heroes, Bush, Cheney, Armitage, Libby, et.al. But that's just
>> not
>> the case.
>
> What I 'love' has no bearing on Ms Plame/Bush/Cheney,Armitage, Libby.
>
> A covert agent was outed by those bastards, and both she and her
>> operation were compromised.
>
> In your mind yes.
>
> Sadly, we will never know how many of the
>> agents under her control lost their lives due to that act of high
>> treason,
>> but it is very likely that the murders or executions of agents working
>> under
>> Valerie Plame are blood on the hands of the Bush Crime Family.
>
> Isn't it great living in a country of laws ... we can spout off all we
> want.
>
>

jr and Cheney have no honor.
They ought to resign.
 
Joe Irvin wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:FGZYi.395$2n.308@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first
>>>>>>>>> place? Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill
>>>>>>>>> Gertz,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>
>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>
>>>> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who
>>>> isn't a covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert
>>>> agent, and she was outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the
>>>> law.
>>>
>>> Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else. I'll
>>> also admit that the CIA has not always done that, but they come
>>> under US law just like the rest of government. They are not judge
>>> and jury ... thats why Fitzgerald was appointed.
>>>>
>>>> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
>>>
>>> Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works ... hint, its a govt
>>> of laws. It you who should lay off the pipe, bro.
>>
>> Familiarize yourself with how jr and Cheney worked.
>> They are a disgrace to America
>> They ought to resign
>
> What do you think I should be familiar with? Your opinion is noted.


jr and Cheney have no honor.
They ought to resign
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4734aeb7$0$17054$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
> news:fh21hh$gg1$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>
>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:47347707$0$17049$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>
>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:fh1num$700$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>
>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:47341e04$0$17045$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>> have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was found
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really has no
>>>>>>>> meaning, its just their opinion. To recognize this makes me
>>>>>>>> treasonous???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's
>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and Libby
>>>>>>> leaked
>>>>>>> it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you miss
>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were
>>>>>> convicted
>>>>>> of leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial? Libby if I
>>>>>> remember correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of justice.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> no one was charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>>>>
>>>>> Often people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when it
>>>>> can't
>>>>> be proved exactly who committed the murder. Does that fact prove that
>>>>> no
>>>>> murder was committed.
>>>>
>>>> No it doesn't, but we don't go around calling them murderers either.
>>>
>>> We do when we know they murdered someone, whether they're convicted by
>>> law
>>> or not.
>>
>> We are a country of laws ...
>
> You can parrot that line for as long as you like and it's currently right
> up there with "a stitch in time saves nine" and "a rolling stone gathers
> no moss" Whether we are a country of laws or not doesn't change physical
> reality. Nicole Simpson was murdered. The person who murdered her is a
> MURDERER.

And I've never said any different.

The CIA says that Valerie Plame was covert. SHE WAS COVERT.

This is where you go astray. If the CIA said I was covert would I be
covert? If not why not ... you say they are the deciders of who is covert.
Its the country of laws thing again. There was no need for an
investigation, just the punishment had to be meted out.

> some murders do get away with murder because
>> for some reason or another they cannot be convicted. Legally they are
>> not guilty of murder. In Ms Plames case it was a slam dunk ... Mr
>> Fitzgerald knew who the leakers were ... quit pretending it was to
>> difficult to convict them.
>
> I'm not the one pretending here. You're the one pretending that if no one
> was convicted, no crime happened and that's just garbage and you know it.
> That's why all you can really do here is parrot the same right wing
> talking point over and over again. There's two ways to look at this. If
> we're a nation of laws, WHY AREN'T the leakers in jail. The answer is
> WE'RE NOT A NATION OF LAWS. We are and we nearly always have been a
> nation of selective attention to the law.

Sure we are, but we are not perfect, but then I've pointed that out also.

>> He didn't proceed because Ms Plame didn't meet the criteria of a covert
>> agent under the IIPA, ergo he didn't bring charges to a lost cause. Keep
>> pretending though, Mr Cranston, Ms Plame was a covert agent.
>>>
>>>> We do that only have they have been convicted of murder.
>>
>> No, but we don't have someone admitted they murdered and then not try
>> them do we Mr Cranston? We don't call them murders if they have not been
>> convicted of murder ... one can get sued for that. Good thing we are a
>> country of laws.
>>>
>>> Crap. The law does not create a murderer due to statute. The act of
>>> murder
>>> creates a murderer.
>>
>> Only you said that not me. Murder and its penalites are defined by the
>> law.
>
> Crap again. Murder can be defined by law but murder is not created by the
> law. The law only catches up to the reality of a deed. Murder exists
> whether the law recognizes it as such or not.

I never said murder was created by the law. Why are your wondering so far
away from Ms Plame?

>> We don't go around calling people murders who have not been convicted of
>> murder or we can be sued. Aren't you glad we live in a country of law.
>
> I'd be glad if we did IN FACT live in such a country, but we don't. We
> live in a country where right wingers like to say we live under the rule
> of law so long as they don't get caught breaking it.

I've never said 'right wingers' or anyone else are immune from the law ...
you seem to have lots of trouble with reality. If you remember I said
Libby should be held accountable. You have a knack for twisting things and
wondering.

At which point, they start
> parsing and finding loopholes. You right wingers pretend to live by a
> higher moral standard, but you're liars. You pretend to respect the law,
> but only up to the point where it supports your agenda.

Wow, you are wondering ... I've never mentioned 'loopholes' and parsed
anything.

>>>> You continue to say Ms Plame was 'covert', well she may be by your
>>>> standards
>>>
>>> WRONG. She was covert by the standards of the CIA. Your argument
>>> suggests
>>> that the very people who assign positions in the CIA don't decide who
>>> those
>>> people are and what their positions will be.
>>>
>>> Your argument is ridiculous on its face.
>>
>> Of course it is for someone who doesn't believe in the rule of law.
>
> You don't believe in the rule of law. You believe in the rule of getting
> away with what you can get away with. You neither abide by the spirit or
> the letter of the law.

And the reason I'm guessing is that I don't agree with you?????

>>> but not by the Intell
>>>> Ident Prot Act. ... Pretending that the conviction of Libby in some way
>>>> validates your belief that she is 'covert.'
>>>
>>> I make no such claim. She was covert BECAUSE THE CIA SAYS SHE WAS
>>> COVERT.
>>> The CIA is the only authority in position to make such a determination
>>> BECAUSE THE CIA DECIDES WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT COVERT.
>>
>> Well, we really didn't need the IIPA then did we? .. we could have just
>> let the CIA be judge and jury.
>
> Judge and Jury OF WHAT? The question is whether or not she was covert.
> The CIA says she was, the prosecutor says she was, the judge says she was.

I think YOU agreed that a law was broken when Ms Plames identity was
compromised ... breaking laws have consequences ... since you don't believe
the CIA comes unders US law, who punishes?

>> What penality is the CIA going to impose on the leakers, they are well
>> know aren't they.
>
> How does the CIA and penalties get into the argument. You're getting
> incoherent because your argument is ridiculous on its face.

Because a law was broken according to you ... Ms Plame was outed. If a law
was broken there is a penalty ... Since you don't believe the CIA comes
under US law and is a law unto itself ... what is the punishment? You do
agree that there should be punishment don't you?
>
>> Familiarize yourself with the way our government works ...
>
> Been there and done that. You should try it.

I'm not the one implying that the CIA is judge and jury

>> we are a country of laws ... the CIA is judge and jury.
>
> No it's not. But the CIA is the sole determiner of what positions its
> employees occupy and what their security clearance is and what their
> status as agents are.

I agree, but they have to follow the US law also. Do you think the CIA is
immune from the IIPA? It came about, if I remember correctly because of the
outing of a CIA agent, I think his name was Agee. When, what the CIA thinks
is law, and it clashes with US law, US laws trumps.

And the CIA called for a criminal investigation because one
> of it covert agents AS DETERMINED BY THE CIA ITSELF had been outed by a
> vicious gang of criminals in the Bush White House.

You cannot have it both ways, either the CIA comes under US law or CIA
jurisdiction. The mere fact that they called for an investigation is
recognition of what I've been saying all along ... they come under US law
....
>
>> But you can still use the CIA when it suits your argument and then when
>> it doesn't always revert to the law ... it convenient and you win lots
>> of arguments.

You are making up stuff now ... I've consistantly argued that the CIA comes
under US Law.

> Are you insane? Is that your problem? Look over this thread and you'll
> note that it's YOU who's been harping about how this is "a country of
> laws" even though every American knows that crime goes unpunished in this
> country on a daily basis.

I've never said, one time that our country of laws is perfect and crimes do
not go unpunished. We have laws against bank robbery, but because we do
have bank robberies doesn't mean that we don't have bank robbery laws, or
even that the laws are ineffective.

>>> You make not allowance at all
>>>> that Ms Plame didn't fit the definition of 'covert' by the IIPA
>>>
>>> George Bush is not President in accordance with the provisions of the US
>>> Constitution either. But he's still president.
>>
>> Sure he is ... as I said familiarize yourself with the law, the
>> Constitution is a good place to start.
>
> And you'll find that the USSC does not decide presidential elections.
> You'll also find that George Bush did not have legal standing to go to the
> USSC because he was not a citizen of Florida.

Look Bush won the election. Is that what you are upset about. Five
newspapers recounted the vote and Bush won. I think what you want is to
keep counting the votes until Algore wins Florida. Take a cold shower ...
its over ... Ms Clinton looks like she may take it all ... there is hope.
>
> If you're going to quote the law, you might at least try to bone up on the
> law.

When did I quote law? I've named the IIPA, thats not quoting law.

>>> and that to
>>>> try anyone, and especially R Armitage who had admitted 'outing' her
>>>> would
>>>> have been/should have been a slam dunk for Fitzgerald. I've admitted
>>>> that
>>>> Libby was guilty of what he was charged with. I've also said that I
>>>> don't
>>>> think it was right for whomever outed her. I also recognize that no
>>>> matter who outed her it wasn't a crime because of her status at the
>>>> CIA.
>>>
>>> That's bullshit.
>>
>> Ok she is covert because you want her to be covert
>
> She "WAS" covert because the CIA says she was covert.

See above.

>> ... it fits your scheme of how the world should work.
>
> No. This is a case of you needing to have the world work in such a way
> that a bunch of traitors in the White House can commit high treason for
> political purposes and still leave you able to harp about how we're "a
> nation of laws."

This is exactly what I mean ... you throw out all these charges like they
were real. Bro you are living a fantasy world. If you think this, write
your Congressman

>>>>> I've seen some people swallow the Koolaid, but you're approaching the
>>>>> sublime.
>>>>
>>>> Its you that is dogmatic ... you continue to call her 'covert.' ...
>>>> there
>>>> has been an investigation and trial and no one has been convicted of
>>>> outing a covert agent, Ms Plame.
>>>
>>> Again a fallacious argument. The fact that no one has been committed of
>>> a
>>> specific crime does not mean the specific crime was not committed. Ted
>>> Bundy was not convicted of several of the murders he was known to have
>>> committed. Does that mean those girls weren't murdered? Does that mean
>>> their murders were not a crime? No one was convicted of Nicole
>>> Simpson's
>>> murder. Does that mean she wasn't murdered? Does that mean that her
>>> murder
>>> wasn't a crime?
>>
>> Mr Cranston, we are not talking about murder.
>
> YOU are talking about law. Murder is against the law. Bundy was never
> even charged with the murder of many of his victims. But they were still
> murdered and murder is still against the law.

What was Bundy charged with then ... heavy petting? Isn't charging him for
everyone kind of expensive and redundant? He got the max.
>
> Mr Bundy could only be
>> executed once ... I don't know how many people he admitted to murdering
>> ... OJ in his second trial was found guilty to a lesser degree, which
>> implied he murdered ... like I say it was by law, not inuendo.
>
> Then by your own admission this is not a nation of laws because Mr.
> Simpson's second trial was a direct violation of the double jeopardy
> clause of the United States Constitution.

No it wasn't. I don't remember all the facts, but in the first trial he was
charged with murder I think it was, which took a higher threshold to prove
.... in his 2nd trial I think he was charged with 'wrongful death' a charge
that doesn't have as high a threshold to prove. Anyway it was 2 different
charges so it wasn't double jeopardy.

>> No one has even been tried for 'outing' Ms Plame and we knew who did it.
>> Think Mr Cranston.
>
> And yet she WAS outed, just like Nicole Simpson WAS murdered. In both
> cases a law was broken.

I'll agree she was killed by OJ, but it couldn't be proven ... so legally (a
country of laws) OJ was charged with wrongful death I think it was, which
could be proven. The results for Ms Simpson was the same, death, but OJ was
not convicted of murder. Sorry no cigar, bro

>>>> At least one person has come forward and admitted outing Ms Plame,
>>>> still
>>>> no charges or trial to convict the 'outer/outers'. Remember finding out
>>>> who outed Ms Plame was what this whole kerfuffle was about ... but I
>>>> understand in your mind Ms Plame is 'covert.'
>>>
>>> She was covert in the mind and in the decision of THE CIA. If they
>>> aren't
>>> in a position to decide who is and who is not covert, NO ONE IS.
>>
>> I don't think you understand the concept of a country of laws ... the CIA
>> falls under the law.
>
> I don't think you either understand or WANT to understand the concept of
> the rule of law. The notion of the rule of law is using the law when you
> can find a loophole that covers the asses of your right wing icons. You
> neither know nor care about the real damage done here.

I'll agree that there are loopholes in the law ... everyone uses loopholes
in the real world not just right wing icons.
>
>>
>> I'm sure
>>> that you'd love that to be the case so as to save the reputations of
>>> your
>>> traitor heroes, Bush, Cheney, Armitage, Libby, et.al. But that's just
>>> not
>>> the case.
>>
>> What I 'love' has no bearing on Ms Plame/Bush/Cheney,Armitage, Libby.
>
> That's right. And no loophole has a bearing on whether or not Valerie
> Plame was IN FACT a covert agent. That decision could only be made by the
> CIA.

I've already said in your world Ms Plame is covert. It must pain you that
Mr Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was and let them slide ... wonder why he
did that? He got Libby, you can keep pretending he got Libby for exposing
her.

>> A covert agent was outed by those bastards, and both she and her
>>> operation were compromised.
>>
>> In your mind yes.
>
> In the mind of anyone who can recognize reality, yes. Your desire to
> provide an Amen chorus to the treasonous bastards who outed her and
> completely compromised her work...work that directly involved
> anti-terrorism...is obvious. The people who outed Valerie Plame aided and
> abetted the enemies of the United States and are guilty of High Treason.

In your mind and world ....
>
>>
>> Sadly, we will never know how many of the
>>> agents under her control lost their lives due to that act of high
>>> treason,
>>> but it is very likely that the murders or executions of agents working
>>> under
>>> Valerie Plame are blood on the hands of the Bush Crime Family.
>>
>> Isn't it great living in a country of laws ... we can spout off all we
>> want.
>
> Your inability to refute me or to even come to grips with the argument is
> duly noted.

Good for you Mr Cranston ... you are a man of Your world ... in your world
Ms Plame is covert.
>
>>
>>
>
>
 
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:4734aef9$0$17035$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>
> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
> news:fh21ku$gih$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>
>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:FGZYi.395$2n.308@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>> Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who
>>>>> isn't a covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert
>>>>> agent, and she was outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the
>>>>> law.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else. I'll
>>>> also admit that the CIA has not always done that, but they come under
>>>> US law just like the rest of government. They are not judge and jury
>>>> ... thats why Fitzgerald was appointed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
>>>>
>>>> Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works ... hint, its a govt
>>>> of laws. It you who should lay off the pipe, bro.
>>>
>>> Familiarize yourself with how jr and Cheney worked.
>>> They are a disgrace to America
>>> They ought to resign
>>
>> What do you think I should be familiar with?
>
> Your own stupidity when it comes to the basis of the law in America.

I'm doing my best Mr Cranston. Hope Ms Plame sends you a 9 x 11color photo
of herself, suitable for framing ... it will look good in your world I bet.
 
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:iy3Zi.537$445.126@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Joe Irvin wrote:
>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:FGZYi.395$2n.308@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first
>>>>>>>>>> place? Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill
>>>>>>>>>> Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who
>>>>> isn't a covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert
>>>>> agent, and she was outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the
>>>>> law.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else. I'll
>>>> also admit that the CIA has not always done that, but they come
>>>> under US law just like the rest of government. They are not judge
>>>> and jury ... thats why Fitzgerald was appointed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
>>>>
>>>> Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works ... hint, its a govt
>>>> of laws. It you who should lay off the pipe, bro.
>>>
>>> Familiarize yourself with how jr and Cheney worked.
>>> They are a disgrace to America
>>> They ought to resign
>>
>> What do you think I should be familiar with? Your opinion is noted.
>
>
> jr and Cheney have no honor.
> They ought to resign

Send them off an e-mail. Maybe they will resign, you just don't know.
 
Joe Irvin wrote:
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4734aeb7$0$17054$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fh21hh$gg1$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47347707$0$17049$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fh1num$700$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47341e04$0$17045$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> place? Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors
>>>>>>>>>> like yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts
>>>>>>>>> do. They
>>>>>>>>> have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was
>>>>>>>>> found to
>>>>>>>>> have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really has
>>>>>>>>> no meaning, its just their opinion. To recognize this makes
>>>>>>>>> me treasonous???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's
>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and
>>>>>>>> Libby leaked
>>>>>>>> it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you
>>>>>>>> miss it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were
>>>>>>> convicted
>>>>>>> of leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial? Libby if
>>>>>>> I remember correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of
>>>>>>> justice. ...
>>>>>>> no one was charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Often people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when it
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> be proved exactly who committed the murder. Does that fact
>>>>>> prove that no
>>>>>> murder was committed.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't, but we don't go around calling them murderers
>>>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> We do when we know they murdered someone, whether they're
>>>> convicted by law
>>>> or not.
>>>
>>> We are a country of laws ...
>>
>> You can parrot that line for as long as you like and it's currently
>> right up there with "a stitch in time saves nine" and "a rolling
>> stone gathers no moss" Whether we are a country of laws or not
>> doesn't change physical reality. Nicole Simpson was murdered. The
>> person who murdered her is a MURDERER.
>
> And I've never said any different.
>
> The CIA says that Valerie Plame was covert. SHE WAS COVERT.
>
> This is where you go astray. If the CIA said I was covert would I be
> covert? If not why not ... you say they are the deciders of who is
> covert. Its the country of laws thing again. There was no need for an
> investigation, just the punishment had to be meted out.
>
>> some murders do get away with murder because
>>> for some reason or another they cannot be convicted. Legally they
>>> are not guilty of murder. In Ms Plames case it was a slam dunk ...
>>> Mr Fitzgerald knew who the leakers were ... quit pretending it was
>>> to difficult to convict them.
>>
>> I'm not the one pretending here. You're the one pretending that if
>> no one was convicted, no crime happened and that's just garbage and
>> you know it. That's why all you can really do here is parrot the
>> same right wing talking point over and over again. There's two ways
>> to look at this. If we're a nation of laws, WHY AREN'T the leakers
>> in jail. The answer is WE'RE NOT A NATION OF LAWS. We are and we
>> nearly always have been a nation of selective attention to the law.
>
> Sure we are, but we are not perfect, but then I've pointed that out
> also.
>>> He didn't proceed because Ms Plame didn't meet the criteria of a
>>> covert agent under the IIPA, ergo he didn't bring charges to a lost
>>> cause. Keep pretending though, Mr Cranston, Ms Plame was a covert
>>> agent.
>>>>
>>>>> We do that only have they have been convicted of murder.
>>>
>>> No, but we don't have someone admitted they murdered and then not
>>> try them do we Mr Cranston? We don't call them murders if they
>>> have not been convicted of murder ... one can get sued for that. Good
>>> thing we are a country of laws.
>>>>
>>>> Crap. The law does not create a murderer due to statute. The act
>>>> of murder
>>>> creates a murderer.
>>>
>>> Only you said that not me. Murder and its penalites are defined by
>>> the law.
>>
>> Crap again. Murder can be defined by law but murder is not created
>> by the law. The law only catches up to the reality of a deed. Murder
>> exists whether the law recognizes it as such or not.
>
> I never said murder was created by the law. Why are your wondering
> so far away from Ms Plame?
>
>>> We don't go around calling people murders who have not been
>>> convicted of murder or we can be sued. Aren't you glad we live in
>>> a country of law.
>>
>> I'd be glad if we did IN FACT live in such a country, but we don't. We
>> live in a country where right wingers like to say we live under
>> the rule of law so long as they don't get caught breaking it.
>
> I've never said 'right wingers' or anyone else are immune from the
> law ... you seem to have lots of trouble with reality. If you
> remember I said Libby should be held accountable. You have a knack
> for twisting things and wondering.
>
> At which point, they start
>> parsing and finding loopholes. You right wingers pretend to live by
>> a higher moral standard, but you're liars. You pretend to respect
>> the law, but only up to the point where it supports your agenda.
>
> Wow, you are wondering ... I've never mentioned 'loopholes' and parsed
> anything.
>
>>>>> You continue to say Ms Plame was 'covert', well she may be by
>>>>> your standards
>>>>
>>>> WRONG. She was covert by the standards of the CIA. Your argument
>>>> suggests
>>>> that the very people who assign positions in the CIA don't decide
>>>> who those
>>>> people are and what their positions will be.
>>>>
>>>> Your argument is ridiculous on its face.
>>>
>>> Of course it is for someone who doesn't believe in the rule of law.
>>
>> You don't believe in the rule of law. You believe in the rule of
>> getting away with what you can get away with. You neither abide by
>> the spirit or the letter of the law.
>
> And the reason I'm guessing is that I don't agree with you?????
>
>>>> but not by the Intell
>>>>> Ident Prot Act. ... Pretending that the conviction of Libby in
>>>>> some way validates your belief that she is 'covert.'
>>>>
>>>> I make no such claim. She was covert BECAUSE THE CIA SAYS SHE WAS
>>>> COVERT.
>>>> The CIA is the only authority in position to make such a
>>>> determination BECAUSE THE CIA DECIDES WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT COVERT.
>>>
>>> Well, we really didn't need the IIPA then did we? .. we could have
>>> just let the CIA be judge and jury.
>>
>> Judge and Jury OF WHAT? The question is whether or not she was
>> covert. The CIA says she was, the prosecutor says she was, the judge
>> says she was.
>
> I think YOU agreed that a law was broken when Ms Plames identity was
> compromised ... breaking laws have consequences ... since you don't
> believe the CIA comes unders US law, who punishes?
>
>>> What penality is the CIA going to impose on the leakers, they are
>>> well know aren't they.
>>
>> How does the CIA and penalties get into the argument. You're getting
>> incoherent because your argument is ridiculous on its face.
>
> Because a law was broken according to you ... Ms Plame was outed. If
> a law was broken there is a penalty ... Since you don't believe the
> CIA comes under US law and is a law unto itself ... what is the
> punishment? You do agree that there should be punishment don't you?
>>
>>> Familiarize yourself with the way our government works ...
>>
>> Been there and done that. You should try it.
>
> I'm not the one implying that the CIA is judge and jury
>
>>> we are a country of laws ... the CIA is judge and jury.
>>
>> No it's not. But the CIA is the sole determiner of what positions
>> its employees occupy and what their security clearance is and what
>> their status as agents are.
>
> I agree, but they have to follow the US law also. Do you think the
> CIA is immune from the IIPA? It came about, if I remember correctly
> because of the outing of a CIA agent, I think his name was Agee. When,
> what the CIA thinks is law, and it clashes with US law, US laws
> trumps.
> And the CIA called for a criminal investigation because one
>> of it covert agents AS DETERMINED BY THE CIA ITSELF had been outed
>> by a vicious gang of criminals in the Bush White House.
>
> You cannot have it both ways, either the CIA comes under US law or CIA
> jurisdiction. The mere fact that they called for an investigation is
> recognition of what I've been saying all along ... they come under US
> law ...
>>
>>> But you can still use the CIA when it suits your argument and then
>>> when it doesn't always revert to the law ... it convenient and you
>>> win lots of arguments.
>
> You are making up stuff now ... I've consistantly argued that the CIA
> comes under US Law.
>
>> Are you insane? Is that your problem? Look over this thread and
>> you'll note that it's YOU who's been harping about how this is "a
>> country of laws" even though every American knows that crime goes
>> unpunished in this country on a daily basis.
>
> I've never said, one time that our country of laws is perfect and
> crimes do not go unpunished. We have laws against bank robbery, but
> because we do have bank robberies doesn't mean that we don't have
> bank robbery laws, or even that the laws are ineffective.
>
>>>> You make not allowance at all
>>>>> that Ms Plame didn't fit the definition of 'covert' by the IIPA
>>>>
>>>> George Bush is not President in accordance with the provisions of
>>>> the US Constitution either. But he's still president.
>>>
>>> Sure he is ... as I said familiarize yourself with the law, the
>>> Constitution is a good place to start.
>>
>> And you'll find that the USSC does not decide presidential elections.
>> You'll also find that George Bush did not have legal standing to go
>> to the USSC because he was not a citizen of Florida.
>
> Look Bush won the election. Is that what you are upset about. Five
> newspapers recounted the vote and Bush won. I think what you want is
> to keep counting the votes until Algore wins Florida. Take a cold
> shower ... its over ... Ms Clinton looks like she may take it all ...
> there is hope.
>>
>> If you're going to quote the law, you might at least try to bone up
>> on the law.
>
> When did I quote law? I've named the IIPA, thats not quoting law.
>
>>>> and that to
>>>>> try anyone, and especially R Armitage who had admitted 'outing'
>>>>> her would
>>>>> have been/should have been a slam dunk for Fitzgerald. I've
>>>>> admitted that
>>>>> Libby was guilty of what he was charged with. I've also said
>>>>> that I don't
>>>>> think it was right for whomever outed her. I also recognize that
>>>>> no matter who outed her it wasn't a crime because of her status
>>>>> at the CIA.
>>>>
>>>> That's bullshit.
>>>
>>> Ok she is covert because you want her to be covert
>>
>> She "WAS" covert because the CIA says she was covert.
>
> See above.
>
>>> ... it fits your scheme of how the world should work.
>>
>> No. This is a case of you needing to have the world work in such a
>> way that a bunch of traitors in the White House can commit high
>> treason for political purposes and still leave you able to harp
>> about how we're "a nation of laws."
>
> This is exactly what I mean ... you throw out all these charges like
> they were real. Bro you are living a fantasy world. If you think
> this, write your Congressman
>
>>>>>> I've seen some people swallow the Koolaid, but you're
>>>>>> approaching the sublime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its you that is dogmatic ... you continue to call her 'covert.'
>>>>> ... there
>>>>> has been an investigation and trial and no one has been convicted
>>>>> of outing a covert agent, Ms Plame.
>>>>
>>>> Again a fallacious argument. The fact that no one has been
>>>> committed of a
>>>> specific crime does not mean the specific crime was not committed.
>>>> Ted Bundy was not convicted of several of the murders he was known
>>>> to have committed. Does that mean those girls weren't murdered? Does
>>>> that mean their murders were not a crime? No one was
>>>> convicted of Nicole Simpson's
>>>> murder. Does that mean she wasn't murdered? Does that mean that
>>>> her murder
>>>> wasn't a crime?
>>>
>>> Mr Cranston, we are not talking about murder.
>>
>> YOU are talking about law. Murder is against the law. Bundy was
>> never even charged with the murder of many of his victims. But they
>> were still murdered and murder is still against the law.
>
> What was Bundy charged with then ... heavy petting? Isn't charging
> him for everyone kind of expensive and redundant? He got the max.
>>
>> Mr Bundy could only be
>>> executed once ... I don't know how many people he admitted to
>>> murdering ... OJ in his second trial was found guilty to a lesser
>>> degree, which implied he murdered ... like I say it was by law, not
>>> inuendo.
>>
>> Then by your own admission this is not a nation of laws because Mr.
>> Simpson's second trial was a direct violation of the double jeopardy
>> clause of the United States Constitution.
>
> No it wasn't. I don't remember all the facts, but in the first trial
> he was charged with murder I think it was, which took a higher
> threshold to prove ... in his 2nd trial I think he was charged with
> 'wrongful death' a charge that doesn't have as high a threshold to
> prove. Anyway it was 2 different charges so it wasn't double
> jeopardy.
>>> No one has even been tried for 'outing' Ms Plame and we knew who
>>> did it. Think Mr Cranston.
>>
>> And yet she WAS outed, just like Nicole Simpson WAS murdered. In
>> both cases a law was broken.
>
> I'll agree she was killed by OJ, but it couldn't be proven ... so
> legally (a country of laws) OJ was charged with wrongful death I
> think it was, which could be proven. The results for Ms Simpson was
> the same, death, but OJ was not convicted of murder. Sorry no cigar,
> bro
>>>>> At least one person has come forward and admitted outing Ms
>>>>> Plame, still
>>>>> no charges or trial to convict the 'outer/outers'. Remember
>>>>> finding out who outed Ms Plame was what this whole kerfuffle was
>>>>> about ... but I understand in your mind Ms Plame is 'covert.'
>>>>
>>>> She was covert in the mind and in the decision of THE CIA. If they
>>>> aren't
>>>> in a position to decide who is and who is not covert, NO ONE IS.
>>>
>>> I don't think you understand the concept of a country of laws ...
>>> the CIA falls under the law.
>>
>> I don't think you either understand or WANT to understand the
>> concept of the rule of law. The notion of the rule of law is using
>> the law when you can find a loophole that covers the asses of your
>> right wing icons. You neither know nor care about the real damage
>> done here.
>
> I'll agree that there are loopholes in the law ... everyone uses
> loopholes in the real world not just right wing icons.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure
>>>> that you'd love that to be the case so as to save the reputations
>>>> of your
>>>> traitor heroes, Bush, Cheney, Armitage, Libby, et.al. But that's
>>>> just not
>>>> the case.
>>>
>>> What I 'love' has no bearing on Ms Plame/Bush/Cheney,Armitage,
>>> Libby.
>>
>> That's right. And no loophole has a bearing on whether or not
>> Valerie Plame was IN FACT a covert agent. That decision could only
>> be made by the CIA.
>
> I've already said in your world Ms Plame is covert. It must pain you
> that Mr Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was and let them slide ...
> wonder why he did that? He got Libby, you can keep pretending he got
> Libby for exposing her.
>
>>> A covert agent was outed by those bastards, and both she and her
>>>> operation were compromised.
>>>
>>> In your mind yes.
>>
>> In the mind of anyone who can recognize reality, yes. Your desire to
>> provide an Amen chorus to the treasonous bastards who outed her and
>> completely compromised her work...work that directly involved
>> anti-terrorism...is obvious. The people who outed Valerie Plame
>> aided and abetted the enemies of the United States and are guilty of
>> High Treason.
>
> In your mind and world ....
>>
>>>
>>> Sadly, we will never know how many of the
>>>> agents under her control lost their lives due to that act of high
>>>> treason,
>>>> but it is very likely that the murders or executions of agents
>>>> working under
>>>> Valerie Plame are blood on the hands of the Bush Crime Family.
>>>
>>> Isn't it great living in a country of laws ... we can spout off all
>>> we want.
>>
>> Your inability to refute me or to even come to grips with the
>> argument is duly noted.
>
> Good for you Mr Cranston ... you are a man of Your world ... in your
> world Ms Plame is covert.

jr, Cheney, et al should resign.....Period
 
Joe Irvin wrote:
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:iy3Zi.537$445.126@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:FGZYi.395$2n.308@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first
>>>>>>>>>>> place? Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill
>>>>>>>>>>> Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who
>>>>>> isn't a covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert
>>>>>> agent, and she was outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of
>>>>>> the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else. I'll
>>>>> also admit that the CIA has not always done that, but they
>>>>> come under US law just like the rest of government. They are not
>>>>> judge and jury ... thats why Fitzgerald was appointed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works ... hint, its a
>>>>> govt of laws. It you who should lay off the pipe, bro.
>>>>
>>>> Familiarize yourself with how jr and Cheney worked.
>>>> They are a disgrace to America
>>>> They ought to resign
>>>
>>> What do you think I should be familiar with? Your opinion is noted.
>>
>>
>> jr and Cheney have no honor.
>> They ought to resign
>
> Send them off an e-mail. Maybe they will resign, you just don't know.

You are perfectly willing to accept
unethical,dishonorable acts by
your Republican friends.

437 days and they will be gone!

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over,
their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight,
restore their government to its true principles.

It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and
incurring the
horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt.

But If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till
luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the
principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."

--Thomas Jefferson, June 4, 1798, in a letter to John Taylor after
passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fh2ijh$1r8$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4734aef9$0$17035$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fh21ku$gih$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>> news:FGZYi.395$2n.308@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>>> Joe Irvin wrote:
>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47341d22$0$17017$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first place?
>>>>>>>>>>> Well, according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the CIA DOES get to determine who a covert agent is and who
>>>>>> isn't a covert agent. According to the CIA, Plame WAS a covert
>>>>>> agent, and she was outed by the Bush Junta in FULL VIOLATION of the
>>>>>> law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, the CIA has to follow US laws just like everyone else. I'll
>>>>> also admit that the CIA has not always done that, but they come under
>>>>> US law just like the rest of government. They are not judge and jury
>>>>> ... thats why Fitzgerald was appointed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stop smoking the Bush crack and wake up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Familiarize yourself with how the US govt works ... hint, its a govt
>>>>> of laws. It you who should lay off the pipe, bro.
>>>>
>>>> Familiarize yourself with how jr and Cheney worked.
>>>> They are a disgrace to America
>>>> They ought to resign
>>>
>>> What do you think I should be familiar with?
>>
>> Your own stupidity when it comes to the basis of the law in America.
>
> I'm doing my best Mr Cranston.

Learn to read attributions, moron.
 
"Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
news:fh2iaf$1k7$1@news04.infoave.net...
>
> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4734aeb7$0$17054$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>
>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>> news:fh21hh$gg1$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>
>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47347707$0$17049$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:fh1num$700$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:47341e04$0$17045$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:fgqd52$sn5$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Lamont Cranston" <Lamont.Cranston@EvilFigher.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:fgq3j6$jo7$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:fgpuhn$e8m$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:472fedd0$0$17059$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Joe Irvin" <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:fgo3lo$jav$1@news04.infoave.net...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:9h3vi3hgvl4lh09ahcar8r5pls503ed2qd@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 12:59:11 -0500, "Joe Irvin"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ji3486@sccoast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why was Plame sitting at a desk in Langley in the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> place?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>according to Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> MOONIE TIMES??
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> V Plame, covert agent, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, according to the CIA, she was. But I guess traitors like
>>>>>>>>>> yourself just don't care about treason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The CIA doesn't get to determine what the law is, the courts do.
>>>>>>>>> They
>>>>>>>>> have to follow the law just like everyone else. No one was found
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> have leaked Ms Plame's name, so what the CIA says really has no
>>>>>>>>> meaning, its just their opinion. To recognize this makes me
>>>>>>>>> treasonous???
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Armitage, Rove, and Libby all were found to have leaked Plame's
>>>>>>>> name.
>>>>>>>> Armitage leaked it to Novak, Rove leaked it to Cooper, and Libby
>>>>>>>> leaked
>>>>>>>> it to Miller. All of this came out in Libby's trial. Did you miss
>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't miss anything, I don't think. Which one of them were
>>>>>>> convicted
>>>>>>> of leaking Ms Plame's name, the reason for the trial? Libby if I
>>>>>>> remember correctly was convicted of purgery/obstruction of justice.
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> no one was charged with leaking Ms Plame's name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Often people are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder when it
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> be proved exactly who committed the murder. Does that fact prove
>>>>>> that no
>>>>>> murder was committed.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it doesn't, but we don't go around calling them murderers either.
>>>>
>>>> We do when we know they murdered someone, whether they're convicted by
>>>> law
>>>> or not.
>>>
>>> We are a country of laws ...
>>
>> You can parrot that line for as long as you like and it's currently right
>> up there with "a stitch in time saves nine" and "a rolling stone gathers
>> no moss" Whether we are a country of laws or not doesn't change physical
>> reality. Nicole Simpson was murdered. The person who murdered her is a
>> MURDERER.
>
> And I've never said any different.
>
> The CIA says that Valerie Plame was covert. SHE WAS COVERT.
>
> This is where you go astray.

No. It's where you go astray. You grab for the loopholes and hold on tight
because you are not a believer in the rule of law. You're a believer in the
rule of the sleaziest.

>
>> some murders do get away with murder because
>>> for some reason or another they cannot be convicted. Legally they are
>>> not guilty of murder. In Ms Plames case it was a slam dunk ... Mr
>>> Fitzgerald knew who the leakers were ... quit pretending it was to
>>> difficult to convict them.
>>
>> I'm not the one pretending here. You're the one pretending that if no
>> one was convicted, no crime happened and that's just garbage and you know
>> it. That's why all you can really do here is parrot the same right wing
>> talking point over and over again. There's two ways to look at this. If
>> we're a nation of laws, WHY AREN'T the leakers in jail. The answer is
>> WE'RE NOT A NATION OF LAWS. We are and we nearly always have been a
>> nation of selective attention to the law.
>
> Sure we are, but we are not perfect, but then I've pointed that out also.
>
>>> He didn't proceed because Ms Plame didn't meet the criteria of a covert
>>> agent under the IIPA, ergo he didn't bring charges to a lost cause. Keep
>>> pretending though, Mr Cranston, Ms Plame was a covert agent.
>>>>
>>>>> We do that only have they have been convicted of murder.
>>>
>>> No, but we don't have someone admitted they murdered and then not try
>>> them do we Mr Cranston? We don't call them murders if they have not
>>> been convicted of murder ... one can get sued for that. Good thing we
>>> are a country of laws.
>>>>
>>>> Crap. The law does not create a murderer due to statute. The act of
>>>> murder
>>>> creates a murderer.
>>>
>>> Only you said that not me. Murder and its penalites are defined by the
>>> law.
>>
>> Crap again. Murder can be defined by law but murder is not created by
>> the law. The law only catches up to the reality of a deed. Murder
>> exists whether the law recognizes it as such or not.
>
> I never said murder was created by the law. Why are your wondering so far
> away from Ms Plame?

The analogy is apt.

>
>>> We don't go around calling people murders who have not been convicted of
>>> murder or we can be sued. Aren't you glad we live in a country of law.
>>
>> I'd be glad if we did IN FACT live in such a country, but we don't. We
>> live in a country where right wingers like to say we live under the rule
>> of law so long as they don't get caught breaking it.
>
> I've never said 'right wingers' or anyone else are immune from the law ...

That's your agenda.

>
> At which point, they start
>> parsing and finding loopholes. You right wingers pretend to live by a
>> higher moral standard, but you're liars. You pretend to respect the law,
>> but only up to the point where it supports your agenda.
>
> Wow, you are wondering ... I've never mentioned 'loopholes' and parsed
> anything.

The word your desperately searching for is "wandering." Learn to spell
before you post.

>
>>>>> You continue to say Ms Plame was 'covert', well she may be by your
>>>>> standards
>>>>
>>>> WRONG. She was covert by the standards of the CIA. Your argument
>>>> suggests
>>>> that the very people who assign positions in the CIA don't decide who
>>>> those
>>>> people are and what their positions will be.
>>>>
>>>> Your argument is ridiculous on its face.
>>>
>>> Of course it is for someone who doesn't believe in the rule of law.
>>
>> You don't believe in the rule of law. You believe in the rule of getting
>> away with what you can get away with. You neither abide by the spirit or
>> the letter of the law.
>
> And the reason I'm guessing is that I don't agree with you?????

If you don't agree that a CIA agent is covert when the CIA says the agent
is, then it's hardly just me you're disagreeing with. You're disagreeing
with cold reality.

>
>>>> but not by the Intell
>>>>> Ident Prot Act. ... Pretending that the conviction of Libby in some
>>>>> way
>>>>> validates your belief that she is 'covert.'
>>>>
>>>> I make no such claim. She was covert BECAUSE THE CIA SAYS SHE WAS
>>>> COVERT.
>>>> The CIA is the only authority in position to make such a determination
>>>> BECAUSE THE CIA DECIDES WHO IS AND WHO IS NOT COVERT.
>>>
>>> Well, we really didn't need the IIPA then did we? .. we could have just
>>> let the CIA be judge and jury.
>>
>> Judge and Jury OF WHAT? The question is whether or not she was covert.
>> The CIA says she was, the prosecutor says she was, the judge says she
>> was.
>
> I think YOU agreed that a law was broken when Ms Plames identity was
> compromised ... breaking laws have consequences ... since you don't
> believe the CIA comes unders US law, who punishes?

Spurious argument. It's not necessarily true that breaking laws has
consequences. Under this administration, breaking laws usually leads to
promotion.

>
>>> What penality is the CIA going to impose on the leakers, they are well
>>> know aren't they.
>>
>> How does the CIA and penalties get into the argument. You're getting
>> incoherent because your argument is ridiculous on its face.
>
> Because a law was broken according to you ... Ms Plame was outed. If a
> law was broken there is a penalty

If the law is justly applied and only if the law is justly applied, devoid
of politics and devoid of influence. That's where your "rule of law"
chimera disappears in a puff of backroom cigar smoke.

... Since you don't believe the CIA comes
> under US law and is a law unto itself

Quote where I said that. Put it right here========> If you can't cite me
on that specific statement, move onto another argument because you've got no
traction on this one.

>>
>>> Familiarize yourself with the way our government works ...
>>
>> Been there and done that. You should try it.
>
> I'm not the one implying that the CIA is judge and jury

Neither am I. Unless you can cite me to the contrary.

>
>>> we are a country of laws ... the CIA is judge and jury.
>>
>> No it's not. But the CIA is the sole determiner of what positions its
>> employees occupy and what their security clearance is and what their
>> status as agents are.
>
> I agree, but they have to follow the US law also.

And where did they not do so in the Plame case. Is calling for an
investigation a failure to follow the law? How? Cite.

> Do you think the CIA is immune from the IIPA?

Do you think the IIPA is immune from reality?

>
> And the CIA called for a criminal investigation because one
>> of it covert agents AS DETERMINED BY THE CIA ITSELF had been outed by a
>> vicious gang of criminals in the Bush White House.
>
> You cannot have it both ways, either the CIA comes under US law or CIA
> jurisdiction. The mere fact that they called for an investigation is
> recognition of what I've been saying all along ... they come under US law

There you go again. So WHAT?

> ...
>>
>>> But you can still use the CIA when it suits your argument and then when
>>> it doesn't always revert to the law ... it convenient and you win lots
>>> of arguments.
>
> You are making up stuff now ... I've consistantly argued that the CIA
> comes under US Law.

Learn to read attributions.

>
>> Are you insane? Is that your problem? Look over this thread and you'll
>> note that it's YOU who's been harping about how this is "a country of
>> laws" even though every American knows that crime goes unpunished in this
>> country on a daily basis.
>
> I've never said, one time that our country of laws is perfect and crimes
> do not go unpunished. We have laws against bank robbery, but because we
> do have bank robberies doesn't mean that we don't have bank robbery laws,
> or even that the laws are ineffective.

And it also doesn't mean the laws ARE effective or just.

>
>>>> You make not allowance at all
>>>>> that Ms Plame didn't fit the definition of 'covert' by the IIPA
>>>>
>>>> George Bush is not President in accordance with the provisions of the
>>>> US
>>>> Constitution either. But he's still president.
>>>
>>> Sure he is ... as I said familiarize yourself with the law, the
>>> Constitution is a good place to start.
>>
>> And you'll find that the USSC does not decide presidential elections.
>> You'll also find that George Bush did not have legal standing to go to
>> the USSC because he was not a citizen of Florida.
>
> Look Bush won the election.

Not according to the Supreme Court. Bush was appointed, not elected.

>>
>> If you're going to quote the law, you might at least try to bone up on
>> the law.
>
> When did I quote law? I've named the IIPA, thats not quoting law.

Of course it is.

>
>>>> and that to
>>>>> try anyone, and especially R Armitage who had admitted 'outing' her
>>>>> would
>>>>> have been/should have been a slam dunk for Fitzgerald. I've admitted
>>>>> that
>>>>> Libby was guilty of what he was charged with. I've also said that I
>>>>> don't
>>>>> think it was right for whomever outed her. I also recognize that no
>>>>> matter who outed her it wasn't a crime because of her status at the
>>>>> CIA.
>>>>
>>>> That's bullshit.
>>>
>>> Ok she is covert because you want her to be covert
>>
>> She "WAS" covert because the CIA says she was covert.
>
> See above.

Same to you.

>
>>> ... it fits your scheme of how the world should work.
>>
>> No. This is a case of you needing to have the world work in such a way
>> that a bunch of traitors in the White House can commit high treason for
>> political purposes and still leave you able to harp about how we're "a
>> nation of laws."
>
> This is exactly what I mean ... you throw out all these charges like they
> were real. Bro you are living a fantasy world. If you think this, write
> your Congressman

People who state we live in a nation of laws only when the law suits there
purpose are the ones living in a fantasy world.

>
>>>>>> I've seen some people swallow the Koolaid, but you're approaching the
>>>>>> sublime.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its you that is dogmatic ... you continue to call her 'covert.' ...
>>>>> there
>>>>> has been an investigation and trial and no one has been convicted of
>>>>> outing a covert agent, Ms Plame.
>>>>
>>>> Again a fallacious argument. The fact that no one has been committed
>>>> of a
>>>> specific crime does not mean the specific crime was not committed. Ted
>>>> Bundy was not convicted of several of the murders he was known to have
>>>> committed. Does that mean those girls weren't murdered? Does that
>>>> mean
>>>> their murders were not a crime? No one was convicted of Nicole
>>>> Simpson's
>>>> murder. Does that mean she wasn't murdered? Does that mean that her
>>>> murder
>>>> wasn't a crime?
>>>
>>> Mr Cranston, we are not talking about murder.
>>
>> YOU are talking about law. Murder is against the law. Bundy was never
>> even charged with the murder of many of his victims. But they were still
>> murdered and murder is still against the law.
>
> What was Bundy charged with then ... heavy petting? Isn't charging him
> for everyone kind of expensive and redundant? He got the max.

For every murder? Hardly. He wasn't even charged with all of them. Read
up on it. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

>>
>> Mr Bundy could only be
>>> executed once ... I don't know how many people he admitted to murdering
>>> ... OJ in his second trial was found guilty to a lesser degree, which
>>> implied he murdered ... like I say it was by law, not inuendo.
>>
>> Then by your own admission this is not a nation of laws because Mr.
>> Simpson's second trial was a direct violation of the double jeopardy
>> clause of the United States Constitution.
>
> No it wasn't. I don't remember all the facts, but in the first trial he
> was charged with murder I think it was, which took a higher threshold to
> prove ... in his 2nd trial I think he was charged with 'wrongful death' a
> charge that doesn't have as high a threshold to prove. Anyway it was 2
> different charges so it wasn't double jeopardy.

So murder isn't wrongful death? Murder isn't murder. Is that what you're
saying?

>
>>> No one has even been tried for 'outing' Ms Plame and we knew who did
>>> it. Think Mr Cranston.
>>
>> And yet she WAS outed, just like Nicole Simpson WAS murdered. In both
>> cases a law was broken.
>
> I'll agree she was killed by OJ, but it couldn't be proven ... so legally
> (a country of laws) OJ was charged with wrongful death I think it was,
> which could be proven. The results for Ms Simpson was the same, death, but
> OJ was not convicted of murder. Sorry no cigar, bro

So according to your logic, Mrs. Simpson wasn't murdered because no one was
convicted of her death. That's YOUR fantasy world....'bro.'

>
>>>>> At least one person has come forward and admitted outing Ms Plame,
>>>>> still
>>>>> no charges or trial to convict the 'outer/outers'. Remember finding
>>>>> out
>>>>> who outed Ms Plame was what this whole kerfuffle was about ... but I
>>>>> understand in your mind Ms Plame is 'covert.'
>>>>
>>>> She was covert in the mind and in the decision of THE CIA. If they
>>>> aren't
>>>> in a position to decide who is and who is not covert, NO ONE IS.
>>>
>>> I don't think you understand the concept of a country of laws ... the
>>> CIA falls under the law.
>>
>> I don't think you either understand or WANT to understand the concept of
>> the rule of law. The notion of the rule of law is using the law when you
>> can find a loophole that covers the asses of your right wing icons. You
>> neither know nor care about the real damage done here.
>
> I'll agree that there are loopholes in the law ... everyone uses loopholes
> in the real world not just right wing icons.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure
>>>> that you'd love that to be the case so as to save the reputations of
>>>> your
>>>> traitor heroes, Bush, Cheney, Armitage, Libby, et.al. But that's just
>>>> not
>>>> the case.
>>>
>>> What I 'love' has no bearing on Ms Plame/Bush/Cheney,Armitage, Libby.
>>
>> That's right. And no loophole has a bearing on whether or not Valerie
>> Plame was IN FACT a covert agent. That decision could only be made by
>> the CIA.
>
> I've already said in your world Ms Plame is covert.

You're an parrot.



>> Your inability to refute me or to even come to grips with the argument is
>> duly noted.
>
> Good for you Mr Cranston ... you are a man of Your world ... in your world
> Ms Plame is covert.

Learn to read attributions. It would make you look a little less stupid
than you're looking now.

>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
 

Similar threads

B
Backlink Hut Backlink Review
Replies
0
Views
128
Backlink Hut
B
P
Evaluation, just a study
Replies
0
Views
120
PeterBrida
P
Cloaked
  • Locked
  • Sticky
Terms of Service and Disclaimer
Replies
0
Views
2K
Cloaked
Cloaked
S
Seattle defense, Wilson too much for Buffalo Bills
Replies
0
Views
23
Sports News
S
WorldNews
Congress, at odds with Trump, eyes Russia hack probe
Replies
0
Views
35
WorldNews
WorldNews
Back
Top