To hear is to obey!
You betcha. He made a pretty extreme claim that, if true, should have been easy enough to produce at least some evidence of, but none has turned up.
I assume he’s expert on undercover work, but there’s not a reason in the world he should know whether Plame’s friends and neighbors knew of her employment with the CIA on July 13, 2003. Yet he was willing to be interviewed by the Washington Times and tell their reporter that most of her friends and neighbors knew she was CIA.
That’s an extremely serious strike against his credibility, and until it’s cleared up, it casts a cloud over anything else he says about this case.
In addition to the stain from coming into contact with the odious Washington Times.
What it tells me is that (a) Joe Wilson had a long list of security clearances, (b) this was a guy she thought she might be marrying soon, (c) she should get this on the table in their relationship at some point, and (d) that point was earlier with someone who had all those security clearances than it would have been if it had been you or me.
And frankly, I don’t give a flip. This is only relevant to the question of whether Plame’s CIA status was known prior to 7/14/03 if you can show that either Wilson was in fact a poor choice of person to trust and proceeded to ‘out’ her before that date, or that Wilson was hardly the only one that Plame revealed her CIA affiliation to.
Well, none of the items you presented was germane to the claim you were making, which was that Joe Wilson outed Valerie Plame sometime between their second date and the publication of Novak’s column on 7/14/03.
I think I’ve established the unreliability of Rustman as a witness. Just because you want to bring up some side issue doesn’t mean we all have to play.
And if you want people to debate with you any new side issues that you care to bring up, I’ll give you a hint: this isn’t the way.
Ooh, it tells us something. Well, that changes everything. (Maybe ‘that’ is really 9/11, wearing a clever disguise!)
Anyway, just because a question you raise shows ‘something’ doesn’t mean I have to care about it. Your game here seems to be one of bringing in more and more side-issues as you cease contesting other points.
I’m not interested in your side issues. See you in some other thread, unfortunately.
Needless to say, this isn’t going to change my mind about joining you in a trip down Side Issue Alley.
And then you proceed to cite a bunch of irrelevant crap.
Meant to post this earlier, but apparently it didn’t post:
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.
Good night, and good luck.
Ok. So you’re refusing to answer. Fuck off, then.
By the way…you asked for the quote? Remember? Right there above. Time for your weasel dance.