We’re going in circles. You’ve supported the relevance of your statute, and I’ve accepted it. Your original claim was that your statute applies because we were talking about Rove, not Libby and that is a bullshit argument and I did not accept it until you supported it properly.
I’m not so sure. Is your statute punishable? Title 18 is.
Ok.
:rolleyes:
I cited mediamatters. It is a cite.
I’ve already demonstrated them to be unreliable in at least one circumstance.
If you had read it, you would know that Statute 50, dealing with National Defense, provides for sentences of imprisonment, with sentences to be served consecutively, and also notes that such crimes may also be punishable under Statute 18, dealing with Criminal Procedure.
Maybe you’re confusing ‘rebuttal’ with ‘refutation.’ :rolleyes:
I’ve pointed out that:
I’ll let others judge whether that qualifies as a refutation, but it damned sure is a rebuttal of any claim that Rustman doesn’t have a credibility problem on account of saying that “most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee,” as you reminded us back in post #118.
Most.
The one you made a big deal about was Cliff May (who wasn’t a friend or neighbor of the Wilsons anyway), but by his own testimony, he seems to say he found out after the Wilson op-ed, when (as I’ve already discussed) Plame’s name and affiliation were being blabbed all aroound town. Who were the other five?
(As the WaPo said back in September 2003, "A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson’s wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson’s account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush’s use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.")
After Novak, you mean? You keep on saying that matters.
Three, actually. But we’re talking about Rustman’s credibility here, remember? He said that most of Plame’s friends and neighbors knew.
If this is true, isn’t it odd that the three neighbors that have gone on record all were surprised to learn in Novak’s piece that Plame was CIA - including both of the next-door neighbors? That’s enough (by any standard except yours) to create a put-up-or-shut-up moment for Rustman, to say Rustman should be able to produce one of those friends or neighbors who knew, to demonstrate that he wasn’t just BSing.
I thought you were the only one reading the thread. Apparently no one is. 
(I won’t get on your ass for not reading the whole thread, but you should at least read the posts responding to the things you say. :))
Here’s a piece of the Hannity & Colmes transcript, via a real left-wing site:
So, Rustman says you can be NOC after having been under official cover.
Is he reliable, or not?
Well, yeah. Maybe he meant it some other way, but that’s all that one can glean from his words. All the rest is reading in.
I’ll step aside and let you argue it out with yourself. Get back to me when you’re done.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I
The relevance is that Joe Wilson going public about that trip in an op-ed doesn’t in any way, shape, or form point to his wife.
[quote]
You addressed them both, that’s true. You did so poorly.
A post earlier you concede he’s credible. “Does Rustman know a great deal about undercover work? Yes; never argued to the contrary.”
She told him on the first kiss, second date. This is a rather blase attitude to her own cover upon which we presume lives were depending. I see no logic in your argument, above. If Armitage was kissed Novak would it be allright for him to tell?
Yes, I do. I have logic, and cites from Rustman who you concede knows undercover work, we have the Aldritch Ames incident, we have the fact that she appears not to have taken her cover very seriously, the fact that she did not serve abroad after 1997 but worked at Langley, married Wilson, had kids, suffered postpartum depression, etc. etc.
Do you think she was a bad agent?
No thanks. I already discussed it with Elucidator, and he has not seen fit to challenge my conclusion. If you want to pick it up from there, you may.
You’ve called into question 1 statement that he made. You wish to project that that rebuttal applies to other unrelated statements even though you conceed he is an expert on undercover work.
Your argument does not hold water.
He may very well be an expert in undercover work. My doctor is an expert in medicine, but unless he has directly examined me, he is not an expert as to my condition. Similarly, a man who has had limited contact at a great remove in time can hardly be called an “expert” regarding whether or not Ms Plame was a covert agent. Has he offered us any special expertise regarding Ms Plame specificly to her status in the given time frame. Not to my knowledge. Advise.
He was her boss and spymaster for “a few years.”
A secret admirer emailed me this:
We are, of course, excited to hear that Mr. Broder has an opinion.
I take it by your phrasing that you would like to suggest that this is somehow relevent. Of course, the crucial question is which years.
Feh, that Washington Post article was an opinion piece with nothing new.
Just more sand in the ump’s eyes, the reality remains that this is already old news to the Prosecution, and there is no hint of this changing anything. (this is why I see all Scylla’s efforts so far as just a smoke screen.)
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/15463796.htm
And BTW I can not speak for others, but I am not fixed on Rove at all, if there is anyone whom he needs to apologize it is the President and the Wilson’s, Rove was IMO a “simple” foot soldier in this mess.
Armitage though has already apologized:
Lets see if the ones that confirmed the leak have the fortitude of resigning because they should ashamed of what they did… Nah, not holding my breath for that, specially when I think the Vice-president was involved in this.
Cool. I’ll have to use that one myself sometime.
Yesterday, you confused rebut with refute; today it’s knowledgeable with credible.
I believe I said this before, but I have never tried to claim that Plame was the perfect CIA agent.
Rustman doesn’t support you on this.
Not relevant.
Nor this.
None of these things supports your claim that Joe Wilson outed Valerie Plame prior to Novak’s column.
But feel free to keep throwing shit at the wall. Eventually some of it might stick, even though if I were you I’d prefer a better choice of decor.
Why, do I get to give her a spanking?
Feel free to start a “was Valerie Plame a good CIA agent or a bad CIA agent?” thread. If I decide the topic interests me, I’ll be there. If not, then I won’t.
You reached a conclusion in your debate with yourself? Excellent.
Kind of you not to provide spoilers.
Oh wow, a Wise Old Broder column. Is that supposed to mean something, other than snooze time?
But, by all accounts, she was very good. So, what does this tell you? The logical conclusion was that she wasn’t very deep undercover at all, and telling Wilson was no big deal.
Her undercover status, “no big deal,” according to her own actions.
Nice job handwaving there, Chico.
Answer the question.
Feel free to stick a broomstick up your ass sideways. It’s a germaine question. Her competance applies directly her actions. If she’s competant her lack of care concerning her cover tells us something.
No. With Elucidator.
You can go back and read it if you want. I see no reason why I should reexplain for some ignorant twit who can’t bother to follow the discussion.
RTF:
Almost slipped by the first time (you are sneaky little guy, aren’t you?.)
Please quote me where I make that claim, oh builder of strawmen, twister of words, bearer of false witness, duke of disingenuosity.
Well, according to Rustman:
Since she started at the CIA directly out of college in 1985, that would presumably put it at sometime in the 1985-87 timeframe, depending on how long the trainee/training programs took.
IOW, a decade before the events that he claims blew her cover. Which explains why friend Scylla believes he could authoritatively say that those things blew her cover: I guess he was at such a remove that he could evaluate impartially these things he knew nothing about in any official capacity. And he would of course know in detail whether her friends and neighbors in 2003 knew she was CIA prior to Novak’s column, despite his CIA career having ended some years previously.