You know, the way some people talk, when someone is assigned any sort of covert status for a particular job, it means that all of a sudden they vanish from visible society, skulk in darkened alleys and abandoned warehouses, and wear dark sunglasses while speaking through a voice changer.

Valerie Plame never claimed that the CIA made her entire existence 'covert'.

She never claimed that they gave her an invisibility cloak, or face replacement surgery, or rubbed off her fingerprints.

The covert part was that Brewster Jennings was a CIA front, and that her job was therefore a CIA position. Brewster Jennings would hardly have succeeded as a front company if everyone employed by the firm were faceless nobodies in dark glasses and trench coats.

I haven't read the letters yet, but ask yourself these questions...
* IF the CIA was sure she was covert why was a criminal referral necessary?
* Why did Fitzgerald avoid the covert aspect by stating he wouldn't address it.
* Why wouldn't the current CIA director testify under oath that she was covert?
* But mainly, why bring it up now regarding Libby's sentencing but not at trial? Libby wasn't convicted for ANYTHING regarding Plame's status, it wasn't a factor. But here is the prosecutor trying to present something he couldn't prove in court as evidence?

It like getting a speeding ticket and when you go to court and plead guilty, the prosecutor tells the judge they also think your car is stolen so they should give you jail time. If this isn't misconduct by a prosecutor, it should be.

Sysprog--

To the victors belong the spoils, and they also write the history that will be taught in the future. This is a fight we had better win.

American Heritage The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:

...communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect.

That's the kicker with propaganda. The information "may be true or false". The purpose of propaganda is to COMMUNICATE IDEAS, not to figure out what is true or false. We have courts with specific procedures and rigorous rules of evidence to do that. In the political arena, true or false is irrelevant. It is the message, the idea that is important.

Aghast as some may think this is, the reality is that truth is complicated and thats why trials can be mind numbingly boring and can take ages to complete, because as obvious as the facts are to one person, they are not to another. Dems need to get over the facts and concentrate on the ideas. The repubs are not delusional, they know exactly what they are doing when they spread their half truths and falsehoods, they have an agenda and IDEAS they want to COMMUNICATE. Dems need to attack their ideas not their facts. In the political arena, ideas trump facts, perception trumps results. Ok in Iraq, you could say reality is catching up with Bush/Cheney propaganda, but geeez it's 4 years and counting. Instead of attacking their facts, a completely slippery slope, attack their goofy grasp of facts. Dems do not have to waste time proving that an apple is not a potatoe, they have to spend time communicating the IDEA that America does not want people running the country who do not know the difference between an apple and a potatoe.

With Tony Snows outright lie, the lie is not important. It is almost impossible in the political arena to "prove" someone lied, even in a court of law it is very difficult. (Which makes Libbys conviction even more damning) What is necessary is to COMMUNICATE the IDEA that Tony like many current day republicans, behind their noble and serious facade, act dishonestly with regularity.

I would bet that U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton is better informed on the issues of the case than is shooter242.

I'd actually stake quite a bit on it.

But of course the whole exercise is one of blowing smoke.

"I haven't read the letters yet,"

We know.

No kings,

Robert

He means the letters that words are made out of.

Lots of 'em on the interthing.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Libby_Sentencing_memo052507.pdf

This should stand for all time as the definitive shooter analogy:

"It like getting a speeding ticket and when you go to court and plead guilty, the prosecutor tells the judge they also think your car is stolen so they should give you jail time."

It's as senseless as any "straight" argument we get from shooter, and thus is the perfect analogy.

As I understand it:

Valerie Plame worked as an agent for the CIA through the firm Brewster Jennings & Associates.

As Valerie Plame was outed, so was the entirety of the shell corporation and anyone remotely tied to it.

How many agents, counter agents, and friends to the US were outed because of this administrations treasonous act?

How many have disappeared?

How many were murdered?

Where is the after action report?

Are we missing the bigger story here?

To what extent did the outing of Valerie Plame destroy our intelligence capabilities about Iranian WMDs? If it did destroy our intelligence gathering capabilities wouldn’t that be to Dick Cheney’s benefit? Was this a godsend for those advocating war with Iran?

This isn’t that complicated. Since Cheney wants to hype Iran’s WMD capabilities (like with Iraq) then “real” intelligence (that they are actually years away from the possible fear-mongering scenarios he wants to spread) would be an obstacle for pushing for war with Iran.

If you want to go to war with Iran no matter what, then it doesn’t matter what they’re really doing does it? Then, from that point of view, intentionally destroying our intelligence gathering capabilities is very beneficial – since there are no experts with evidence to contradict you.

If this is the case, then outing Plame was not only payback for Wilson telling the truth about our bogus evidence used to go to war with Iraq, it also “cleared the runway” (intelligence-wise) for making false accusations against Iran by limiting what we know about them.

If this wasn’t so mind-boggling stupid, I’d almost be tempted to say, “too clever by half.”

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/05/01/764/68446