To fire or not to fire?

[Hoot]

I want anyone in here to prove to me that Valerie Plame was NOT considered undercover by the CIA at the time Rove revealed her name.

Even if not currently engaged in undercover work, all CIA agents who previously were undercover are still considered undercover by the CIA. There is no statute of limitations in this regard.

Rove committed perjury with a Federal Grand Jury investigation when he said he wasn't involved in the leak.

Isn't perjury a big moral thing for you republicans? It was your talking point about Clinton, wasn't it? ( It's not the sex, it's the fact that he committed perjury)

Bush promised to fire ANYONE involved in the leak.

Can you say "flip-flop?"

Let's suppose I have evidence that someone in the White House is selling cocaine?

"Pssst....I can't tell you their name, but it's the President's wife!"

Hey! I didn't reveal her name, so I'm innocent of leaking any information.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

Rove had a moment of stupidity...he deserves to go.

Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop.

 

[teacher]

Even if not currently engaged in undercover work, all CIA agents who previously were undercover are still considered undercover by the CIA. There is no statute of limitations in this regard.

Yes there is. Five years. Hey hoot, congress makes the laws, not you.

 

[Pacridge]

I want anyone in here to prove to me that Valerie Plame was NOT considered undercover by the CIA at the time Rove revealed her name.

Even if not currently engaged in undercover work, all CIA agents who previously were undercover are still considered undercover by the CIA. There is no statute of limitations in this regard.

Rove committed perjury with a Federal Grand Jury investigation when he said he wasn't involved in the leak.

Isn't perjury a big moral thing for you republicans? It was your talking point about Clinton, wasn't it? ( It's not the sex, it's the fact that he committed perjury)

Bush promised to fire ANYONE involved in the leak.

Can you say "flip-flop?"

Let's suppose I have evidence that someone in the White House is selling cocaine?

"Pssst....I can't tell you their name, but it's the President's wife!"

Hey! I didn't reveal her name, so I'm innocent of leaking any information.

See how ridiculous that sounds?

Rove had a moment of stupidity...he deserves to go.

Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop.

Changing a promise in the middle of stream,
Is necessary when the culprit's part of the team.
But no matter how hard breaking the promise pains,
There's no way Bush will fire his brains.

 

[teacher]

I appologize if you're being serious with this post, but I just don't think it's real. Are you seriously attempting to debate with that post? If this is for real and not just to try to make me mad, then you should know, you've done nothing to furthur your side. Your entire defense rests on, "my massive brain remembers a law." How am I supposed to argue with that? I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I doubt you won any debates with those people you mentioned, I bet they just realized it was a helpless cause.

The law is the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If you chose not to offer any facts to refute this other than "I remember one," then there's no point to debating with you.

I'll tell you what, when you do remember that law, I'm sure there are some lawyers in Washington who would like to hear from you.



You don't sound credible when you say things like that in a post with spelling and grammer errors. I do not spell check, nor will use spell check in the future. Umm... figure out what I'm trying to say or skip over my posts?

The spell check was tongue in cheek. The rest.....well, it's the law. What can I say? If I did waste my time to go research (tempting) then it would unwad your panties over this whole Rove thing. Much more fun to watch you people work yourselves into a lather over something that is not against the LAW. The longer you pin your hopes on this the farther you will fall in the end. See ya....

 

[Nemo]

Is the law an ass?

 

[ncallaway]

Yes there is. Five years. Hey hoot, congress makes the laws, not you.

Alright. I've seen the 1997 number tossed around a bit (the year Plame was "not undercover"). I've seen this five year number a bit. Would someone please give me a source or something? I mean, it's apparent you won't "teacher", as you claim your time is above research (which may well be a valid claim. I've never actually met you, so I wouldn't know), but would someone?

I'm just curious because George W Bush's words (as well as John Ashcroft's) lead me to believe that this is criminal. And...they seem a lot closer to it than most of you. So, just for curiosity sake, does anyone that's thrown around the 1997 number and/or the bit about five years have a source to toss me?

 

[teacher]

Alright. I've seen the 1997 number tossed around a bit (the year Plame was "not undercover"). I've seen this five year number a bit. Would someone please give me a source or something? I mean, it's apparent you won't "teacher", as you claim your time is above research (which may well be a valid claim. I've never actually met you, so I wouldn't know),

Damn straight. Got top tens to write and a monkey army to attend to. Seen a little something a while ago, hang on a second.

Well it's not the statute, just a news story. But hell everyone around here acts like if it's on the net, it must be true. It's really against my self imposed rules of not giving nor asking for references but since you are civil, (unlike IValue freedom) maybe this will get you started.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45266

Hanity, Limbaugh, and Boortz have all gone into this in detail but I didn't really pay attention though. Maybe from that angle you can find something. But I did listen enough to remember the 5 year rule "IValuefreedom but not someones word".

I hope you find the statute and post it so "IValue freedom and not someones word" can choke on it and then I'll post a Top Ten on his ass and release a monkey platoon on him and all he loves then I'll start picking on him. :monkey

 

[IValueFreedom]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45266

Hanity, Limbaugh, and Boortz have all gone into this in detail but I didn't really pay attention though. Maybe from that angle you can find something. But I did listen enough to remember the 5 year rule "IValuefreedom but not someones word".

Wow. Those are some nice sources you have there... not biased in the least. lol.

Look at the names you've listed. Do you honestly think they don't have their own agenda to pass on?

You got your information from worldnetdaily.com. This is the same website that the next article over is about how Osama Bin Laden and al Queda has NOT ONLY successfully made and possesses nuclear weapons, but has ALREADY smuggled them into the U.S. thru the Mexican border. Sounds like a credible source to me...

Anyways, since you're so against doing research when you can just run your mouth, I'll post the law as it's written in the books for you now. Don't worry, it's not too long and the words are small. You should understand it. This is the actual law you're little "source" was referencing. Look to see if the five year stipulation is in it.

This is taken from the Freedom of Information Center. It's actually a credible source... no bias, just laws.

TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States, discloses any information that identifies an
individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive
classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
identifies such individual and that the United States is taking
affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified
intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more
than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)

So... I don't care how many times you read it, there is nothing in this law that says anything about being overt for five years.

My guess is that the five years came from some non lawyer individual who did some research and thinks they've found a loophole for Rove. I haven't heard any of the investigators or top officials use this as a possible defense, leaving me less inclined to believe it 1) exists or 2) is pertinent to the case.

Here's the tip of the day:

If you're not willing to do research, then don't debate someone on technicalities who is.

 

[cnredd]

My guess is that the five years came from some non lawyer individual who did some research and thinks they've found a loophole for Rove. I haven't heard any of the investigators or top officials use this as a possible defense, leaving me less inclined to believe it 1) exists or 2) is pertinent to the case.

I see IValueSniffingMyOwnAss has returned...

Look at the above statement in bold, genius...

I haven't heard of the investigators or top officials use this as a possible defense....WHY?

Because the investigation is not complete!

I'm willing to wait until I hear definitive answers from the investigation, whereas you continue to speculate on what the situation is currently(see "less inclined to believe" above).

Media reports, on both sides, are not meant to get to the truth; they are meant to sway...at the moment, you're a palm tree in a hurricane.

The media says to itself, "If more people like IValueUsedCondoms continue to be pulled in by this non-story, our ratings will go through the roof!"

Congrats...you've fallen for the bait...Now it's time to get that hook out of your mouth.

 

[teacher]

Wow. Those are some nice sources you have there... not biased in the least. lol.

Of course they're biased. But they have a huge audiance and try to get easily disproven facts correct.

Look at the names you've listed. Do you honestly think they don't have their own agenda to pass on?

Of course thay have an agenda. Just as Franken or Rhodes does. What's your point?

You got your information from worldnetdaily.com. This is the same website that the next article over is about how Osama Bin Laden and al Queda has NOT ONLY successfully made and possesses nuclear weapons, but has ALREADY smuggled them into the U.S. thru the Mexican border. Sounds like a credible source to me...

I don't doubt it. Though I said it was just some link when I posted it.
And I said maybe it would get ncallaway on the road to the information he wanted. I never tried to hide any of that. Rather said it up front. But the fact that I said it up front yet you try to ignore that and try to make me look bad speaks much to who has an "agenda" here. So you running your mouth has exposed the degree of hatred in your life. That makes me happy knowing you are so constantly miserable. Go find something tall and jump. Your not very bright are you?

And I know about your posted law. I've already read it. But like I told you before, the 5 year part was enacted after it. It's not in the same document. But I told you that before too. But you so fervently want to make me look bad you disregard that fact. But here I am pointing it out. Again. Every time you post you reinforce our view on your intelligence. Keep posting, it just makes it easier for me.

 

[cnredd]

Every time you post you reinforce our view on your intelligence. Keep posting, it just makes it easier for me.

Not as bad as Champs or Billo yet, but he's trying really hard...

 

[Hoot]

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

I think this paragraph alone disproves any 5 year non-covert status.

If you disagree....where's the 5 year proof?

So, let me see if I get this straight....?

Blowing the cover of a covert CIA agent....no big deal.

Blowing the President...Huge scandal!

Flip-flop, flip-flop.

 

[Pacridge]

I see IValueSniffingMyOwnAss has returned...

Look at the above statement in bold, genius...

I haven't heard of the investigators or top officials use this as a possible defense....WHY?

Because the investigation is not complete!

I'm willing to wait until I hear definitive answers from the investigation, whereas you continue to speculate on what the situation is currently(see "less inclined to believe" above).

Media reports, on both sides, are not meant to get to the truth; they are meant to sway...at the moment, you're a palm tree in a hurricane.

The media says to itself, "If more people like IValueUsedCondoms continue to be pulled in by this non-story, our ratings will go through the roof!"

Congrats...you've fallen for the bait...Now it's time to get that hook out of your mouth.

Is this part of your Liberals attack, Conservatives defend theory?

 

[ncallaway]

teacher, I appreciate the link.

Plame's circumstances don't meet several of the criteria spelled out in a 1982 statute designed not only to protect the identity of intelligence agents but to maintain the media's ability to hold government accountable, Victoria Toensing told WorldNetDaily.

Toensing refers to a 1982 statue that apparently has the five year mark somewhere within it, as later in the article they cite "federal code":

The federal code says the agent must have operated outside the United States within the previous five years. But Plame gave up her role as a covert agent nine years before the Rove interview, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

I searched for information on Toensing, and came up with a (liberal) site that was showing (or trying to show) a connection between Toensing and Novak (implying Toensing was trying to defend Novak). Here is that link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200501140005

When the [1982 Intelligence Identities Protection] act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment.

That again mentions a 1982 statue, so I made the assumption that Toensing is refering to the same 1982 statue that she was before. So I searched for "1982 Intelligence Identites Protection" (taken from the article) and came up with a site quoting legal code: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...s/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html
(the google query "1982 Intelligence Identities Protection" took me directly to section 421)

This is the same section that IValueFreedom quoted earlier. I couldn't find any referance to "5 years" at all. I searched around some nearby sections and didn't see anything. The article must've referanced other federal code, but I can't seem to come up with anything.

The only other person referanced in the article was New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. I searched around on the internet for him a bit, but couldn't find anything citing 1997, or the 5 year law. He did mention that Plame changed her cover in '94, however he still refered to her as "in cover". He points the finger at the government, and seems to think there was an issue in the leaking of this name.

All in all, I think the Democrats are engaging in hyperbole when they describe the White House as having put Mrs. Wilson's life in danger and destroyed her career; her days skulking along the back alleys of cities like Beirut and Algiers were already mostly over.

Moreover, the Democrats cheapen the debate with calls, at the very beginning of the process, for a special counsel to investigate the White House. Hillary Rodham Clinton knows better than anyone how destructive and distracting a special counsel investigation can be, interfering with the basic task of governing, and it's sad to see her display the same pusillanimous partisanship that Republicans showed just a few years ago.

If Democrats have politicized the scandal and exaggerated it, Republicans have inexcusably tried to whitewash it. The leak risked the security of all operatives who had used Brewster-Jennings as cover, as well as of all assets ever seen with Mrs. Wilson. Unwitting sources will now realize that they were supplying the C.I.A. with information, and even real agents may fear exposure and vanish.

C.I.A. veterans are seething, and rightly so, at the betrayal by their own government. Larry Johnson, who entered the agency at the same time as Mrs. Wilson, is a Republican who voted for President Bush — and he's so enraged that he compares the administration leaker to the spies Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen.

"Here's a woman who put her life on the line," Mr. Johnson said. "But unlike a Navy seal or a marine, she didn't have a gun to fight back. All she had to protect her was her cover."

We in journalism are also wrong, I think, to extend professional courtesy to Robert Novak, by looking beyond him to the leaker. True, he says he didn't think anyone would be endangered. Working abroad in ugly corners of the world, American journalists often learn the identities of American C.I.A. officers, but we never publish their names. I find Mr. Novak's decision to do so just as inexcusable as the decision of administration officials to leak it.

This scandal leaves everybody stinking.

The Kristof article can be found at: http://cryptome.org/plame-stink.htm

I'm stymied. Does anyone else have a source of the "5 year" number, or the 1997 number?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So... I don't care how many times you read it, there is nothing in this law that says anything about being overt for five years.

Not that I mind raining on someone else's self righteousness, but...

If you would have looked a little further you'd've seen this section with the definitions of terms:

Section 426. Definitions

For the purposes of this subchapter:
(3) The term ''disclose'' means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.

(4) The term ''covert agent'' means -

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency -

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
​

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and -

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
​

(5) The term ''intelligence agency'' means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(6) The term ''informant'' means any individual who furnishes information to an intelligence agency in the course of a confidential relationship protecting the identity of such individual from public disclosure.
​

Even if Mrs. Wilson doesn't qualify as a 'covert agent' under the definition of 1982 Identities Protection Act that doesn't mean that her identity and status were not classified information or that she did not qualify as covert under another set of criteria.

There could not be grounds for George W. Bush to call it "a criminal action" or for the CIA and DoJ to refer to it as "a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information" without classified information being involved.

Just because there was not a violation of one law does not mean that there was not a violation of any law.

Here's the tip of the day:

If you're not willing to do research, then don't debate someone on technicalities who is.

I disagree. I think debate is actually a great means for eradicating one's own ignorance.

 

[IValueFreedom]

Here's the format that cnredd and teacher like to use...

no, your wrong IValueMinimallyWittyInsult.

[teacher] no, I know I'm right, I heard it from some guy... some time ago. I know I'm right. It's the LAW. Congress makes the laws, and they're strickly interpereted by the AM talk show hosts were I get my information! I take people's opinions and present their views as what's right, but am far too busy commanding my made up monkey army like a 4 year old than to support the claims they/I make. Bow to my powers as I spam with idiocies therefore proving I'm right!

[cnredd] The investigation isn't over yet. And your already saying he's guilty!!! I realize this has NOTHING to do with the current conversation, as we are just debating law and not his guilt, but that doesn't stop me from taking the "high road!" I just add in whenever I feel the need to keep reminding people that there is an ongoing investigation even if it's a moot point, and I refuse to put my opinion out there for others to debate when I can just try and poke holes in arguements that I don't understand!

[together] Oh no! He's made an attempt to support what he claims! We don't want to actually debate on this website, we want to just flame!

your stupid IValueMinimallyWittyInsult#2

Sincerly
one of two idiots

Oh, and teacher, it's time for a little gammer lesson:

It's YOU'RE, a contraction for you are. It's not your. It's not like intelligence is a possession that can be passed on to another person (besides kids). Don't think that you didn't need this little lesson either. You can't blaming this on spell check or a typo. You missed two characters. If you had put just one of them in, spell check would have fixed the problem. How can you expect an insult on intelligence to mean anything if you can't even write a sentence any 9th grader in the country could do.

So, now teacher, It's up to you to do one of two things: Put up or shut up.

Either post the law, not some reference about it or a "news" review about it, but the actual law or shut your mouth. You claim you don't have the time, but it seriously took me 20 secs max to post my law. It will take you less time to get it and post it than to write some B.S. excuss for not having the time to do it.

Just go to the Freedom of Information Center and look it up. It's super easy. Or google it. Either way is fine. Or hey, since I'm in a good mood, just give me the name of it and I'll look it up for you.

So, here are your options:
1) Post the law
-or-
2) Shut your mouth because you don't support your claims.

 

[IValueFreedom]

Thank you Simon W. Moon. You're actually the first person to back up what they say. I was wrong.

You really should be posting more often, as you do the conservative portion of these forums justice, or at least you did in this thread.

This is exactly the type of proof and support needed to debate. All you others need to figure out what Simon did and copy him so you can stop posting messages like this:

no, your wrong IValueMinimallyWittyInsult.

[teacher] no, I know I'm right, I heard it from some guy... some time
ago. I know I'm right. It's the LAW. Congress makes the laws, and
they're strickly interpereted by the AM talk show hosts were I get my
information! I take people's opinions and present their views as
my own, but am far too busy commanding my made up monkey army
like a 4 year old than to support the claims I've stolen. Bow to my
powers as I spam with idiocies therefore proving I'm right!

[cnredd] The investigation isn't over yet. And your already saying
he's guilty!!! I realize this has NOTHING to do with the current
conversation, as we are just debating law and not his guilt, but that
doesn't stop me from taking the "high road!" I just add in whenever I
feel the need to keep reminding people that there is an ongoing
investigation even if it's a moot point, and I refuse to put my
opinion out there for others to debate when I can just try and poke
holes in arguements that I don't understand!

your stupid IValueMinimallyWittyInsult#2

Sincerly
one of two idiots

Oh, and teacher, it's time for a little gammer lesson:

It's YOU'RE, a contraction for you are. It's not your. It's not
like intelligence is a possession that can be passed on to another
person (besides kids). Don't think that you didn't need this little
lesson either. You can't blame this on spell check or a typo. You
missed two characters. If you had put just one of them in, spell check
would have fixed the problem. How can you expect an insult on
intelligence to mean anything if you can't even write a sentence any
9th grader in the country could do.


Again, I concede that I was mistaken in the law. It happens. Thanks to Simon though, I've been corrected.

At least I can listen to logic and reasoning and therefore change my views when wrong.

 

[IValueFreedom]

I disagree. I think debate is actually a great means for eradicating one's own ignorance.

True, it is. This is an excellent case, I was wrong, now I've been corrected. But in the context of what I wrote, it was meant to say,

"If you're going to make large claims in debate, back them up with proof, or you're not going to win against someone who provides actual evidence on their behalf."

Basically, saying stuff doesn't win debates, proving it does.

 

[cnredd]

Originally Posted by cnredd
I see IValueSniffingMyOwnAss has returned...

Look at the above statement in bold, genius...

I haven't heard of the investigators or top officials use this as a possible defense....WHY?

Because the investigation is not complete!

I'm willing to wait until I hear definitive answers from the investigation, whereas you continue to speculate on what the situation is currently(see "less inclined to believe" above).

Media reports, on both sides, are not meant to get to the truth; they are meant to sway...at the moment, you're a palm tree in a hurricane.

The media says to itself, "If more people like IValueUsedCondoms continue to be pulled in by this non-story, our ratings will go through the roof!"

Congrats...you've fallen for the bait...Now it's time to get that hook out of your mouth.

Is this part of your Liberals attack, Conservatives defend theory?

Nah...this was just having fun at someone else's expense.

Look at his responses...

You just like to argue don't you cnredd?

and...

Get off your high horse.

and

If I had to guess, you read my post looking for something to argue instead of absorbing and understanding the content and theme. Read the post and try and understand what the author is trying to get at instead of trying to find something to argue just so you can feel superior.
Grow Up.

As you can see...the topic is not Rove anymore...it's come down to personal attacks....I only give what I get. If he just disagreed, we could still have a debate; but he wanted to get dirty...and I can get dirty with the best of 'em.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

As you can see...the topic is not Rove anymore...it's come down to personal attacks....I only give what I get. If he just disagreed, we could still have a debate; but he wanted to get dirty...and I can get dirty with the best of 'em.

"But, Mom... He started it!"

 

[ncallaway]

Thanks for the pointer to the 5 year number, Simon. I missed it by about one section (I read up to 425 before giving up). I haven't seen the '97 number yet, but I'll look into it in a bit (I have some friends over at the moment, pressuring for use of my computer, so I have to be brief).

And, as to people being off topic, I disagree. This thread is still mostly on topic, with a few people tossing mindless insults into the mix.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Thanks for the pointer to the 5 year number, Simon. I missed it by about one section (I read up to 425 before giving up). I haven't seen the '97 number yet, but I'll look into it in a bit ...

IIRC, it comes from Wilson's book. He doesn't say that Mrs. Wilson has been specifically say that Mrs Wilson's been in country the entire time, but I think it's inferred from what he does say. They may have gotten married in '97.

 

[cnredd]

"But, Mom... He started it!"

Brought down to simplistic manner, but I agree.

There are times when some arguments can be debated thoughtfully and intelligently, and other times when certain people just need a swift kick in the ass.

I'll debate "If Iraqis Vote for USA to leave, do we?", but I'll just slam someone who puts up "Should Eurotrash be permitted to enter the United States?"

I'm sure you feel the same way, not only about some other posts, but also some of the people on here, too. You've been around long enough to feel that some people here are simply "undebatable", right?

 

[IValueFreedom]

They may have gotten married in '97.

They've been married since April of '98.

Maybe the last time she was overseas was in 1997? If that's the case and her name was leaked in 2003, then that's six years, making the law that I've been corrected on no good. Just a possiblility...

 

[teacher]

Every good fight needs a name. "The Rumble in the Jungle". "The Thriller in Manila". "The Monkey Fiasco". "The Great Bumbershoot Controversy". "The Buckner Debacle". (Still ongoing in "The London Bombers were Set Up" because the loser, (Christopher Brooks) refuses to admit defeat. And I suspect he never will, (he just logs off.)). And now this little skirmish which I shall dub "The IValueFreedom sanction". Key players will be identified and given due credit as this plays out.

Now I would have left this alone except for IValues terrible nasty attitude right up to and after the bitter end.

This, class, will be a study in civility, the ability to play well with others, human actions in the face of adversity, and a lesson why if you want to fuc*k with me, teacher, of the massive brain, you'd better have your ducks in a row.
I was made aware of this assignment from an operative (notice I don't leak) in my little fraternity. So I come take a peek at the drooling of the left over Roves' apparent illegal doings. Standard euphoria is displayed thus causing the overlooking of facts and research not done before pointing of fingers. Of course I'm teacher, of the massive brain, and I have the answer after seconds of viewing this debate. Thus my first post on subject at #30.

Can you say, "grasping at straws"?

I usualy try to give a idiom that illustrates nicely the whole situation. I also try to get people to think these thing through for themselves. And I'm an assho*le and just can't resist sometimes. My post brings out the riff raff right away.

Sure, can you say treason?

THE LAW states if the outed person has not been involved in covert activity, oversees, within the last five years, it's all good. Her last covert doings were in 1997. What's all the bruhaha about. Now I understand you Bush haters posistion and all but, damn, get it right and I'm right behind you. It's just the LAW folks. Try harder. Thus: "Grasping at straws". The massive brain remembers all. Next......

Hoot got me to come out quickly with facts in this matter. Rather than my usual period of chain jerking and cage rattling. Way to go hoot.

I don't know where you're receiving your information, but it's wrong.
The law is called the Itelligence Identities Protection Act and it doesn't stipulate anything about 5 years overseas. If I were you, I would think about getting my sources from somewhere else. You've been misinformed/purposely mislead.

There are three parts to the law
1) A government official with access to classified information about covert agents and intentionally exposes that person while the government is "taking affirmative measures to conceal" their identity. 10 years or $50,000
2) A government official in a different sector does the same thing as stated above (has a lighter sentence).
3) Any person (not restricted to government workers) exposes operatives knowing that they're covert and realizes that in doing so, will hinder U.S. inteligence. 3 years and/or $15,000

To say that Plame hasn't been covert since 1997 is just wrong. Period. It wouldn't make sense to have what you claim to be the law, and then have the Director of the CIA start a criminal investigation. I'm fairly sure the Director of the CIA knows what the laws are. Thankfully he doesn't get his information from the GOP. Besides that law... it may also be wise to charge him on perjury or obstruction of justice as Rove lied about having any involvement with the reporters to Fitzgerald during the investigation.

Now IValueFreedom is the exact person to whom my operative (whom I shall give the code name. "Big lug") pointed out to me. With due cause apperantly. Since he was so nice I return in kind.

[

I don't give a fuc*k what you think junior. It is not listed under that act. It came after. I refuse to search, post links, or any such bullshit. I am teacher, of the massive brain, and now complete monkey army, I remember stuff. I had a TSSBI before you were born. It's the LAW. You think someone as smart as Rove is gonna throw it all away just to prove Wilson a liar? Which is why he did what he did. Stop getting your news with those you agree with only. There's two sides to every story. You prove me wrong. You can't. I won't hold my breath. Your wrong. Prove me wrong and I'll apologize and send you Pez. Bur for now, I'll just eat Pez. If you can prove me wrong you would be the first to do so since I joined this site. I've said a lot. And posted only one link. PBS. Think you'll be the first sport? Just ask champs. And now Christopher Brooks. Speaking of whom. I've now been involved in "The Monkey Fiasco", "The Great Bumbershoot Controversy", and so now Mr. Brook's little dilemma I shall name...."The Buckner Debacle". Yes. Good luck.

Class dismissed.

And for Gods sake hit spell check would you. I'm not to proud to admit I do. Every time.

When spell check hits your name it comes back with "Alfredo". I can't make this shi*t up.

That should rile him up nicely.

I appologize if you're being serious with this post, but I just don't think it's real. Are you seriously attempting to debate with that post? If this is for real and not just to try to make me mad, then you should know, you've done nothing to furthur your side. Your entire defense rests on, "my massive brain remembers a law." How am I supposed to argue with that? I don't mean to burst your bubble, but I doubt you won any debates with those people you mentioned, I bet they just realized it was a helpless cause.

The law is the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If you chose not to offer any facts to refute this other than "I remember one," then there's no point to debating with you.

I'll tell you what, when you do remember that law, I'm sure there are some lawyers in Washington who would like to hear from you.



You don't sound credible when you say things like that in a post with spelling and grammer errors. I do not spell check, nor will use spell check in the future. Umm... figure out what I'm trying to say or skip over my posts?

Case in point. I'll now continue of another post so as not to run out of room.