it would appear that the current strategy is to reasserrt the lie yet again...and again....and again.....

The truth (if uncontested) needs only be said once. It's the lies that must be yelled louder and LOUDER and LOUDER....

Not that I thought you didn't know this.

Cheers,

So Republicans and the Faux news are like the prototypical ugly American--if we (the people) don't understand their glorious vision the first time, they keep repeating it; but slower, louder, and with exaggerated enunciation:

WEEE ARRRRRE HEEERE TOOOOO SAAAVE YOUUUUU FROMMMMM THEEEEE BADDDDD GUYSSSSS. DOOOOOON'T MIIIIND THEEEE DEADDDD IRRRAAAAQIIIIIS OONNNNN THEEEE FLOOOORRRR ANDDDDD THAAAAAT CONNNNSTTTTTITTTTUUUUUTIONNNN THIIINGGGGYYYYYY.

We know who leaked the name of this "secret agent" - Richard Armitage, no (ahem) neo-con and a friend of Powell.

Why didn't fitzgerald charge him? He knew he would never get a conviction for a "secret agent" was well known in any case throughout Washington.

Greenwald and the rest of the ditto-heads - will you not give up this idiotic crusade? Maybe you could start going after Samuel Berger for his destruction of national security papers, but that wouldn't do would it?

Why didn't fitzgerald charge him? He knew he would never get a conviction for a "secret agent" was well known in any case throughout Washington.

Um, what are you talking about? Its already been established Mrs. Wilson's work at the CIA wasn't 'well known...throughout Washington'.

Greenwald and the rest of the ditto-heads - will you not give up this idiotic crusade? Maybe you could start going after Samuel Berger for his destruction of national security papers, but that wouldn't do would it?

Given Berger's transgression has already been dealt with, yet the original leakers of Mrs. Wilson's NOC are still at liberty?

And you idiots wonder why you're no longer trusted with important stuff like national security.

If the pundit-agents are individuals making an intentional misrepresentation -for money- can they not be sued in a civil court?

It's called fraud, I believe. I'd like to get Jonathan Turley's take on the matter.

Yours,

sp

I missed a personal insult!

Fuck you prunes - You don't know shit you dumbfuck.

I gotta admit, a poster who names themselves "ChillyDogg" probably knows shit better than me.

(sorry folks.)

Glenn, why did you leave out the Washington Post editorial page? The others you mentioned were all right wing commentators but the Washington Post is considered a credible source so when its editorial page repeatedly attacked the Wilsons and suggested Plame was not covert they did more damage.

I wouldn't count on ChillyDog being that much better informed, based on this particular comment:

[Read the article: Manufacturing belief]

[Read more letters about this article: Here]

My suggestion

If you want to know the origin of religion I suggest you read Julian Jayne's "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Carmel Mind".

Permalink Monday, May 14, 2007 09:40 PM

But, very sweet, no?

[emphasis added]

Glenn

I couldn't help laughing at the following quote from Libby's lawyers:

"...asking the Court and Mr. Libby to take the government's word on Ms. Wilson's status, based on secret evidence, without affording Mr. Libby an opportunity to rebut it. Such a request offends traditional notions of fairness and due process."

Do you think these guys have read the rules that will apply to the trials of "enemy combatants" now held a Gitmo?

Regards

Bill Keane

Glenn,

I wonder what you feel your role is here with this blog. I lean conservative, though I am very skeptical of the current administration's handling of many things, so I don't read a lot of Salon. I come for the sports column, which is quite good, but I can't stand most of the political commentary. The reason I dislike the commentary is because it is not geared at informing but merely in debating. Your blog is a good example.

I am genuinely confused about Plame's status with CIA and I think there is both left and right wing hyperbole going on. If I am to simplify here: left wing commentators decry Plame's outing as traitorous act that put an active CIA agent in danger while right wing commentators say she held an unimportant desk job. I think both statements contain some truth but also grossly overstate things.

It may be true that Plame was "covert" but it isn't clear that she was ever in any actual danger. The CIA may have been trying to keep her status a secret because it would aid in information gathering, not because if she was a known employee of the CIA it would have put her in danger. I think what the Fox News people you cite are really saying is something like "she may technically have been covert, but she wasn't Sidney Bristow trying to stop terrorist plots."

I still think there is some validity in that. Maybe I am wrong, but the way to argue the point is not to trot out a blurb from a CIA file and say "ha! look at all these lying liars!" I would like to see a description of what she was doing, how important it was and how it may have been impacted by her exposure.

The tactic you are taking makes you know better than folks you are criticizing - your ultimate goal is not to inform but merely lead the debate an earn accolades from people who already agree with you.

I am genuinely confused about Plame's status with CIA and I think there is both left and right wing hyperbole going on. If I am to simplify here: left wing commentators decry Plame's outing as traitorous act that put an active CIA agent in danger while right wing commentators say she held an unimportant desk job. I think both statements contain some truth but also grossly overstate things.

Two former CIA directors have stated she was covert, as has the prosecutor (a long time right wing Republican).

The problem is that she was, at times, using a front company as cover, and since her cover was blown, anyone else using the same company could have been blown, as well as their contacts in foreign countries. This means that it is not just risk to her, but to other CIA covert agents, activities, and contacts that were put at risk by her outing.

I think what the Fox News people you cite are really saying is something like "she may technically have been covert, but she wasn't Sidney Bristow trying to stop terrorist plots."

Based on my not above, this point is irrelevant.

I still think there is some validity in that. Maybe I am wrong, but the way to argue the point is not to trot out a blurb from a CIA file and say "ha! look at all these lying liars!" I would like to see a description of what she was doing, how important it was and how it may have been impacted by her exposure.

We will likely never know.

The tactic you are taking makes you know better than folks you are criticizing - your ultimate goal is not to inform but merely lead the debate an earn accolades from people who already agree with you.

Although I often agree with Glenn, his effect is to outline and uncover hypocrisy and untruths, which we need much more of in our media (regular or new). Your points above about Fox underlie this, as does the poll that watchers of Fox are more likely to be less informed about current event than watchers of The Daily Show (which isn't funny, when you think about it).

The treasonous outing of agent Plame may have been an attempt to silence those standing in the way of executing the Project for a New American Century. Her involvement in secret programs to control wmd has been reported widely.

Essentially, the Cheney Junta had no choice: They were all in.

Plame's hands-on involvement very likely meant bad news for those eager to launch the right wing think tanks' prized scheme to take over the region and secure it's assets. She had working knowledge of the Middle East's nuclear weapons development and the level of progress therein. That would be the last thing the Neo Cons wanted: Someone blowing their entire plan which had been in the making for years, if not decades.