[QUOTE=Scylla]
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.
[/quote]
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.