"Meet my CIA Wife," said Joe Wilson.

[Cervaise]

@What the .... ?!?!

The question is … did he actually introduce her as such before she was “outed” by Novak and are those crocodile tears he is crying?

No. Next?

Please take this bullshit talking point back to the freeper board or someplace else it will be masturbated over. Thank you.
Is it actually a talking point if it isn’t at all pointy?

[elucidator]

Its kind of a nerf talking point.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@What the .... ?!?!

The question is … did he actually introduce her as such before she was “outed” by Novak and are those crocodile tears he is crying?

Only to Billary. And the tears are alligator, we don’t have crocodiles in America.

[Scylla]

@SteveG1

No, you’re on base. Blowjob, war. Lying about blowjob, lying about war. Stained dress and soggy cigar, body bags. Yeah, I think a lot of dead people is a lot more serious.

So, if it turn out Plame was introduced as a CIA agent socially then it would mean nothing was wrong with outing her since she was already out, and Libby’s perjury wouldn’t matter or be important.

Right?

Actually no. Perjury is perjury. The context doesn’t matter:

Is equivalence a fallacy? Libby/Clinton

[SteveG1]

@Scylla

So, if it turn out Plame was introduced as a CIA agent socially then it would mean nothing was wrong with outing her since she was already out, and Libby’s perjury wouldn’t matter or be important.

Right?

Actually no. Perjury is perjury. The context doesn’t matter:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=342035

Whose talking points are you reading? Plame was not out. She also had various contacts and front companies in other countries that were compromised. All, to get back at her husband. The whole war was one set of lies after another, one cover up after another. When Wilson wrote his piece in the Times, the White House decided to descredit him by claiming his CIA wife had sent him (another lie).
On to the perjury - perjury is perjury. But, if you can make that charge stick, then it raises other questions and can lead to charges being filed on other people for other things, such as conspiracy. In that sense, the context does matter.

[ElvisL1ves]

One’s authority to out an officially-covert agent is not dependent on whether anyone else has done so as well.

Outing a covert agent is outing a covert agent. The context doesn’t matter.

[DanBlather]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

It was just a snow job, people! Get over it–you can’t impeach the president over a snow job!

Daniel

Can you ask for re(d)dress?

[John_Mace]

I’m still waiting for Scooter’s press conference where he says:

[Looking into the camera, wagging his finger] I did not have covert relations with that woman… Valerie Plame.

The Washington Post has a good article on some of the implications of her “outing” were, although they made it clear that the full extent will never be made public. I can’t find a link, but one piece of fallout was the Boston company Plame told people she worked at turns out to be a CIA front, and had to be shut down. The article was reprinted in my local paper today, the JS Merc, as “CIA mum on outing’s effetcs”.

[GIGObuster]

@Scylla

So, if it turn out Plame was introduced as a CIA agent socially then it would mean nothing was wrong with outing her since she was already out, and Libby’s perjury wouldn’t matter or be important.

The right wing media are experts in the art of “ifs” and make them sound that they are dealing with facts. It is clear to me now that the (moonie) Washington Times, right-wing talk radio, Fox and many others in the so-called liberal media, reported (and continue) to report as fact that Valerie Plame was outed socially. It is a big pile of bull manure.

Is the effort to mislead the public by lying not important?

Heads should roll like in the mistake of the Bush military papers by CBS. Or will this swindle to the American audience and readership should be ignored because it benefited the Republican cause?

[John_Mace]

@GIGObuster

It is clear to me now that the (moonie) Washington Times, right-wing talk radio, Fox and many others in the so-called liberal media, reported (and continue) to report as fact that Valerie Plame was outed socially. It is a big pile of bull manure.

And yet, there is still not one link in this entire thread to support that claim. I don’t doubt that some right-wing commentators (eg, Coulter) are spouting that, but they can spout that on ANY new network or in any newspaper. Where, though, is it being reported as straight news? I don’t watch FoxNews all that much, but I do generally watch Special Report w/ Brit Hume, and I haven’t seen anything remotely like that reported there. In fact, his analysis panel (last 20 minutes of the show) pretty much ripped that idea apart.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Fitzgerald said in his press conference yesterday that Plame’s friends and neighbors did not know she was a CIA agent.

[ElvisL1ves]

@John Mace

I don’t doubt that some right-wing commentators (eg, Coulter) are spouting that, but they can spout that on ANY new network or in any newspaper. Where, though, is it being reported as straight news?

How many people do you really think are that fastidious about the difference? The purpose of putting it on a network’s talk shows is to “get it out there”, without any fallout from having reported it as news. The listeners of the talk shows just know “I heard on (the channel I usually watch) that Plame was already out to her neighbors”, without any questioning as to its truth. IOW it’s just well-poisoning.

[SteveG1]

@Liberal Oasis

Oliver Willis: “Bottom line: The White House leaked classified information to the media, while a member of the White House staff lied under oath and obstructed justice. And they’re supposed to be the national security party.”

@Fitzgerald

…if national defense information – which is involved because her affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified – if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act.
… If [the indictment’s allegations against Libby are true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action…
…one of the harms in obstruction is that you don’t have a clear view of what should be done.
And that’s why people ought to walk in [to] the grand jury … take an oath, [and] tell us the who, what, when, where and why – straight.

@Liberal Oasis

Justice has (so far) been obstructed, and facts regarding the true reasons we were taken to war have been covered-up, by Libby’s underhanded effort to discredit Joe Wilson, ruin his wife’s career, and his subsequent lies about it.
Furthermore, neither George W. Bush or Dick Cheney have disavowed and distanced the White House from Libby’s actions.
Bush said in 2000, “in my Administration, we will ask not only what is legal but what is right, not what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves.”

I guess the story has changed now that MOST people would expect him to keep his word and fire people (?)

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

How many people do you really think are that fastidious about the difference?

I would hope the people on this board are.

The purpose of putting it on a network’s talk shows is to “get it out there”, without any fallout from having reported it as news. The listeners of the talk shows just know “I heard on (the channel I usually watch) that Plame was already out to her neighbors”, without any questioning as to its truth. IOW it’s just well-poisoning.

But we don’t have any proof that it’s been put on ANY network yet. Talking about the “why” before we even have the “what” is ludicrous.

[GIGObuster]

@John Mace

And yet, there is still not one link in this entire thread to support that claim. I don’t doubt that some right-wing commentators (eg, Coulter) are spouting that, but they can spout that on ANY new network or in any newspaper. Where, though, is it being reported as straight news? I don’t watch FoxNews all that much, but I do generally watch Special Report w/ Brit Hume, and I haven’t seen anything remotely like that reported there. In fact, his analysis panel (last 20 minutes of the show) pretty much ripped that idea apart.

I still mantain that if outfits like FOX add their news division ratings with their editorial shows, that they indeed are reporting that.

To be more specific, they are editorializing. However, one has to bury the head in the sand to ignore that many people like What the … !!! can not separate editorials from straight reporting, and then vote accordingly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.html
That was the article that gave cover to the bloviators of the right to mislead and continue to mislead the american people. Being very technical about it, the excuse that they are giving only an opinion does not wash, as the right-wing continues to mislead the american people with pretend news.

Inside Politics

Several neighbors, when reached by The Washington Times earlier this month did, indeed, know she worked at the CIA.

That IMO goes beyond editorializing.

The gasbags of the right continue to pass that lie as a fact:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510270009

[SteveG1]

@GIGObuster

To be more specific, they are editorializing. However, one has to bury the head in the sand to ignore that many people like What the … !!! can not separate editorials from straight reporting, and then vote accordingly.

I know a lot of people like that. They believe Fox, they believed the Swifties, and anything that falls short of absolute idolatry of the administration is treason. When the news stories or editorials parrot what they want to hear, it is good reporting. When they don’t, it’s the Liberal Media Conspiracy. Is it that they can’t separate it all out, or that they simply refuse to?
Funny thing is, bashing the president (right now) is treason (some really say that), but these same people were the worst bashers of previous Democrat presidents. Cognitive dissonance at its very best.

[John_Mace]

@GIGObuster

I still mantain that if outfits like FOX add their news division ratings with their editorial shows, that they indeed are reporting that.

To be more specific, they are editorializing. However, one has to bury the head in the sand to ignore that many people like What the … !!! can not separate editorials from straight reporting, and then vote accordingly.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.html
That was the article that gave cover to the bloviators of the right to mislead and continue to mislead the american people. Being very technical about it, the excuse that they are giving only an opinion does not wash, as the right-wing continues to mislead the american people with pretend news.

That link doesn’t work for me. It comes up blank.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050724-115427-7011r_page2.htm

That IMO goes beyond editorializing.

If you actually read that story, it doesn’t make the claim that Plame was outed by her husband. In fact, the guy who supposed made that claim says he was misquoted, and clarified:

Mr. Rustmann, however, disputes all this. He told James G. Lakely of The Washington Times on Friday that he never said Mrs. Plame told all her friends and family she worked at the CIA.

This looks more like a gossip column reporting on a dust-up between two ex-CIA agents. It hardly makes the case for Plame already being outed, and doesn’t even mention her husband. A far cry from what the OP is saying, but at least you’ve come the closest of anyone to giving a link.

[GIGObuster]

@John Mace

This looks more like a gossip column reporting on a dust-up between two ex-CIA agents. It hardly makes the case for Plame already being outed, and doesn’t even mention her husband. A far cry from what the OP is saying, but at least you’ve come the closest of anyone to giving a link.

Fixed link:

Rove fight escalates

And in the last post, there are also links to this article in Media Matters, The last link mentions were the gasbags of the right reporded it:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510270009

Coulter, York, and Limbaugh’s suggestion that many of Plame’s neighbors were aware of her covert status apparently originated in a July 15 article – and two subsequent editorials – in The Washington Times, although Limbaugh was the only one to cite the Times directly. As Media Matters for America noted at the time, the only neighbor mentioned by name in the Times report, David Tillotson, told the newspaper that he “absolutely didn’t know” she worked for the CIA, which corroborated the assessment of other neighbors who were mentioned by name elsewhere.

However, the article also cited Fred Rustmann, a former supervisor of Plame’s at the CIA who claimed that “[h]er neighbors knew” of her CIA employment. Yet even though Rustmann was not Plame’s neighbor and had supervised her for only one year at the beginning of her career, a July 19 Times editorial used his account to baselessly conclude that “most of Plame’s neighbors in Northwest Washington said they knew she worked for the CIA.” The claim was then repeated in a July 26 Times editorial, which stated that "numerous neighbors were aware that she worked for the agency.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@DanBlather

Can you ask for re(d)dress?

Actually, it was (like the President), blew.

Daniel

[GIGObuster]

@John Mace

If you actually read that story, it doesn’t make the claim that Plame was outed by her husband. In fact, the guy who supposed made that claim says he was misquoted,
.

Several neighbors, **when reached by The Washington Times earlier ** this month did, indeed, know she worked at the CIA

.

One guy being misquoted is irrelevant to way this was reported; clearly they reported (editorialized) that the WT “confirmed” the early report with more “witnesses”. And that is in quotes since the latest reports show that they pulled that confirmation out of their asses.