If I caught Glenn Greenwald compromising his integrity like that I’d stop paying attention to what he wrote

If you had no integrity yourself it wouldn't bother you one bit. You'd think it was a selling point. If you were as guilty as sin and he was your lawyer, your advocate, you'd be glad he was as duplicitous and mendacious as you, until you both went to jail. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen. Rarely, in fact. These people are rarely held accountable, as Sysprog's instance of the Steel tycoon is one of far too many examples.

Covert vs. Classified

http://www.reachm.com/amstreet/archives/2005/11/06/covert-vs-classified/

Just because she traveled "undercover" doesn't mean she was "covert".

Congressional testimony:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25290

Click the link there that says: Valeria Plame Covert status vs. undercover or classified

A covert agent has dealings only with their handler and that person is the only one who knows what is going on.

Valerie Plame was a "handler" or case officer. She handled humint assets in the field.

Plame was known to many people at the CIA.

Sure. She was "known" to all of her neighbors, too. None of them knew what she did.

Not only that, but she drove in the front gate at CIA headquarters everyday for five years.

No one works that hard. How do you know what gate she drove thru? Are you a spy? Were you hiding in the trunk?

I don't see how you can be "covert" when you openly enter the gate of a spy agency everyday.

Well, you watch The Sopranos and Survivor. Reality TV!

it's not about an accidental slip of the tongue and the like ...

there are, doubtless, plenty of internal mechanisms to deal with chatty-cathies and gossips like Armitage (he admitted to being an inveterate gossip)... that have nothing to do felony prosecution and jail time.

The "smoking gun" for me has always been the question of who actually had provable access to covert and/or NOC status ...

but, regardless, splashing the information about as "gossip" would make proving a genuine leak damn near impossible ...

like the stopped clock, sometimes "gossip" is accidentally accurate ... or so one could argue.... smirk smirk ... plausible deniability is all that's required.

Gossip about who works for "the agency" is common -- I can think of several prominent journalists who have often been said to have ties.

I would guess we can't answer these questions, Michael, because the information is secret and the people are under cov--um, I mean, huh. You must remember that a nucular capable country can be invaded, but a Democrat-contributing anti-American ex-diplomat nepotist is a threat to everyone who loves freedom.

We see the difference between Glenn Reynolds and Glenn Greenwald very clearly in this post.

In an update, Glenn Greenwald got the date of Snow’s remark wrong and he immediately corrected it.

Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, got everything about this story wrong, yet he refuses to acknowledge a mistake, issue a correction, or make an any sort of an apology insisting that’s only done for “original reporting” not commenting on “news stories.”

But commenting on “news stories” is what bloggers do. That’s what Reynolds does every single day. But he insists that when his comments are proven “wrong” and what he insisted was a “fact” is proven wrong, that there is no need for him to correct that false perception or even acknowledge that his comments were wrong because he didn’t file the “original” report.

He is claiming, in effect, “rightwing blogger infallibility” - how utterly pathetic.

If I caught Glenn Greenwald compromising his integrity like that I’d stop paying attention to what he wrote, I’d stop taking him seriously. I’d be disappointed in him if he didn’t correct a minor error in a post, let alone got every single thing wrong about a story. I expect his comments on “news stories” to be accurate and factual. Nothing less.

That’s the difference between these two bloggers. One has integrity, one doesn’t; one has readers who expect integrity and one doesn’t.

Greenwald readers expect honest factual comments on “new stories” whether or not it coincides with their views; Reynolds readers, in contrast, expect reporting and comments on “news stories” that coincides with their views, regardless of whether or not it is factual or honest.

That’s a very big difference.

Fuck you prunes

You don't know shit you dumbfuck.

That's no way to treat prunes.

Prunes are a natural laxative and you are clearly full of shit.

Prunes s your best friend. Without prunes you would end up like Mr. Creosote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TqQz1gFOSs

You don't know shit you dumbfuck.

Present your credentials and maybe you'll be taken seriously. Otherwise we have to take it you're quoting from Robert Ludlum and John Le Carre.

Thank you Mr. Greenwald for your consistently interesting and factual journalism. The lack of it in our Corporate owned/controlled press is literally killing this country.

I wonder if any of us can even begin to imagine if the outing of a covert CIA agent had happened under a Democratic administration? Oh my.

My title remains the right wing talking point on this subject. Armitage, who told Novak is the culpable one.

Many have addressed how this is false and in fact Armitage is unfortunately not prosecutable for his actions since he was not cleared to know Plame's identity anyway.

However, if I adopt the stance of a right winger who believe such things, I get the following:

Rove and Libby also told various reporters about Plame. Shouldn't they be prosecuted alongside Armitage? Does the fact that the reporters they told didn't publish that info somehow clear them, where I believe Armitage has done something wrong?

Also, since the President promised to fire anyone involved with leaking the name of a covert CIA operative, shouldn't Rove be fired forthwith? He is a man of his word, right?

yet another internally incoherent right wing canard.