As the Plame Leak Turns
- Thread starter varwoche
- Start date
-
- Tags
- valerie plame
SezMe
post-pre-born
Yeah, isn't that the same Tenet that got the Freedom Medal. Now we know what he got it for.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Cain
Straussian
Goddamn, every afternoon I wake up hoping to see if there have been any indictments. Still nothing.
It's fun to hear conservatives already reciting their talking points -- you know, how perjury isn't a real crime. I mean, it's not like anyone is lying about getting a blowjob.
It's fun to hear conservatives already reciting their talking points -- you know, how perjury isn't a real crime. I mean, it's not like anyone is lying about getting a blowjob.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Okay, let's pretend that I'm a complete idiot (I know, I know) and please explain to me how Mr. Wilson's wife, Ms. Wilson, does not indicate one, and only one, person: Valarie Plame.
I have yet to understand how this argument (previously made when Rove only said "Wilson's wife" and not "Valarie Plame") makes any sense. If someone were to reference "That JREF admin with the 'Papa Funkosophy' title" would there be any doubt who was being refered to?
Well, she is Wilson's wife. So, I guess Republicans feel it depends on what your definition of is, is.
And I have been told by Republicans that lying under oath is a crime. Of course, they also told me for 30 years that deficits were bad...and they now say those are good. So I guess lying under oath is good now, too. Maybe it stimulates the economy when it is a Republican?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I would argue that there is a difference between an aide lying under oath and man elected to uphold the law lying under the oath. The difference is not a legal one but rather a degree of significance.
That being said, I would love to know what Bush and Chaney told the grand jury. If they have lied to the grand jury, even not under oath, it is at least, if not more of, a betrayal of trust of the American people as was Bill Clinton's perjury. More, perhaps, because Clinton's cover-up was petty in comparison to an organized attempt to quiet dissension to administrative policy by attacking the dissenter's family. (If it is, indeed, a cover up.)
If that is the case, which it certainly could be, then that is what all the fuss is about, Ed.
Not to mention what would happen to you or me if we outed a CIA operative during wartime, for whatever reason.
davefoc
Philosopher
I think you have been taken in a bit here Cain. This was a misdirection talking point.
Although talking points can be ridiculous, the basic idea is that by massive, mindless repetition at least some people come to believe them.
On the other hand a misdirection talking point is one that is so ridiculous and so hypocritical that even with constant repetition no one will believe it.
But that is when the beauty of the misdirection talking point kicks in. The misdirection talking point is so ridiculous that it diverts discussion from real issues and best of all it allows the true believers to proclaim their objectivity by attacking it. And even the sacrificial lamb that is tasked with putting it out (kay bailey hutchinson in this case) can recover by claiming that he didn't really mean it.
Grammatron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2003
- Messages
- 5,444
Something like this:
Cheney: How did he get that assignment?
Tenent: Mr. Cheney, I believe Wilson's wife who works for CIA got him that assignment.
I'm super-guessing here, though.
Regardless, I was merely pointing out an error in varwoche's post based on the information from the article he presented.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I still don't get it. How is that not the equivalent of
Tenent: Mr.Cheney, I believe Valarie Plame, who works for the CIA, got him that assignment.
???
A very minor error, I would say. She was not named in the strictest sense of the word, but she was certainly identified to the exclusion of all others. Seems more a semantics issue than anything else.
Wanna Bet?
If I win, you pay half of my $100 membership. If you win, I pay for your entire $100 membership. And still, both Rove and Libby must be indicted this week.
This is an overlay if I ever saw one, for you that is. First come first serve.
As a legitimate bookie, I must adjust the odds to the facts on the ground. Of course the new fact is the rumor of one or more impending indictments.
If I win, you pay half of my $100 membership. If you win, I pay for your entire $100 membership. And still, both Rove and Libby must be indicted this week.
This is an overlay if I ever saw one, for you that is. First come first serve.
davefoc
Philosopher
I thought somebody might find this Huffington editorial interesting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/plamegate-worse-than-wat_b_9522.html
Is Huffington justified in using the word "lie" in her editorial. Is it fair to categorize so much of what has gone on so far as lying? Is it conceivable that the lying was justified as part of an effort to solidify support for a war that was in the country's best interest even if the evidence in support of that idea was marginal?
Varwoche, I do feel a little guilty about the fact that I'm not a member of JREF. I have enjoyed their forum for several years now and they were generous to me and my wife at the last TAM. The problem with your proposition is that I think I'd lose.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/plamegate-worse-than-wat_b_9522.html
Is Huffington justified in using the word "lie" in her editorial. Is it fair to categorize so much of what has gone on so far as lying? Is it conceivable that the lying was justified as part of an effort to solidify support for a war that was in the country's best interest even if the evidence in support of that idea was marginal?
Varwoche, I do feel a little guilty about the fact that I'm not a member of JREF. I have enjoyed their forum for several years now and they were generous to me and my wife at the last TAM. The problem with your proposition is that I think I'd lose.