Mickey

Why should that make a difference? Besides, when its treason, I think the right word is "traitor", not "mole".

Let me state for the record my support of an independent counsel being appointed to investigate the recent leak of information to the Washington Post about the CIA operating secret interrogation centers in Soviet era prisons in Eastern Europe. I think this should be investigated completely and vigorously. I think that any elected official that may be implicated in the leak should immediately resign and any employee involved immediately fired. Further, a trial on charges of treason should take place against anyone involved if the evidence warrants the charge. Who will join me in calling for a truly independent investigation?

Yep, that is all they need, just a little better PR. If they did, the economy would be doing great, gas would be cheap, the budget would be balanced, the war in Iraq would be a stunning success and it would be over. They just need catchier jingles. What they need isn't better PR, they need better policies. Maybe having your chief political man, Rove, in charge of policy was not such a hot idea. Just a thought.

How many Americans died in Europe in the two years after Germany's surrender? Let me help you out: The quickest answer to your question about post-surrender casualties in WWII is: Hardly any. There appears to have been virtually no hostile fire in Germany or Japan after the surrenders of those countries." Post surrender casualties WWII

Well, you have to understand that a war has very little political appeal for a President unless it comes complete with a victory ceremony. Thus, he had to declare and end to something even though it was clear that there was no end in sight at the time or even now. Thus, he declared an end to "major operations". It was a non-victory, victory speech. A victory speech that didn't need to be associated with an actual victory if you will. I think the soldiers deserved a victory lap at that point, the President, perhaps, not so much.

Covert, classified, whatever. It may sound strange but rather than rely on your opinion on that matter, I am relying on the prosecutor and the CIA. The indictment says that she was classified, ie, covert, ie, crime to knowingly divulge the identity of. That is where Rove and Libby are avoiding getting charged with violating the IIPA, Fitz can't prove that they knowingly divulged the identity of a classified agent. The fact that they divulged her and that she was classified are no longer arguments that hold any water save for those who just can't give up any of the talking points on this issue that they have taken and spread as gospel for the last two plus years. From Libby's indictment: "At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community." Read that to yourself, slowly, repeatedly until it finally sinks in that she was classified. Now read what the indictment has to say about "classified" CIA personnel: "The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them." Revealing her identity was a big deal, it was bad and why it is that you insist on minimizing it, excusing it, striving to find some way off the hook for your favorite freaks is as tiring as it is revealing. I have company in that opinion, people like William F. Buckley: "We have noticed that Valerie Plame Wilson has lived in Washington since 1997. Where she was before that is not disclosed by research facilities at my disposal. But even if she was safe in Washington when the identity of her employer was given out, it does not mean that her outing was without consequence. We do not know what dealings she might have been engaging in which are now interrupted or even made impossible. We do not know whether the countries in which she worked before 1997 could accost her, if she were to visit any of them, confronting her with signed papers that gave untruthful reasons for her previous stay — that she was there only as tourist, or working for a fictitious U.S. company." Further: "The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted." Well, you know Buckley, just another liberal gone wild.

Its a subject changer. Makes little difference one way or the other. The question is whether or not the administration overstated the nuclear charge against Iraq and did so without proof enough to warrant the charge. The Niger story was not reliable and the CIA told Hadley that in October of 2002 with two e-mails and a phone call from George Tenet. Nothing changed on that between then and the State of the Union Address save for the documents turned over by the Italian reporter believed, as reported in La Repubblica, to have originated with Italian intel (SISMI). Those were the Niger forgeries. Thats where all this Italian stuff comes from and it started long before October of 2002. What did Hadley and Nicolo Pollari talk about in their now acknowledged meeting in September of 2002? What was Pollari's involvement with the forgeries traced to former SISMI asset Rocco Martino? Is it mere coincidence that Hadley met with Pollari just when the administration was fighting with the CIA over the veracity of the Niger story and then, a month later, suddenly documents from Italy and allegedly originating from Italian intelligence show up to bolster the administration position on the Niger story? If we had a divided government, this would be getting investigated up the wazooo. We don't so the only investigation is being done by other sources, mainly the press. Heck, the FBI concluded their investigation without even interviewing Martino. When an Italian news magazine does a more complete investigation of an issue than the FBI, were all in a deep pile of spaghetti.

" Seventh: Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the FEC." So what? The CIA is not the justice deptartment and apparently had no such rule. How would making a political contribution compromise her identity as a covert CIA operative anyway? I'll bet she signed her name to her checks as well, so freaking what? Its not like she wrote "Wilson, Valerie E., covert CIA agent" on the contribution check. Thanks for the non-fact. "• Fifth: More important than the inaccuracies is the fact that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse." Yeah, why should we trust the CIA to decide who is and who is not covert and should remain that way, better to let Bob Novak decide. How would the CIA have prevented Wilson from writing what he wrote? He was not an agent, he was a civilian. I do agree however that the CIA should have known the risks involved as certainly, they had to be fools if they thought that her classified status would stand in the way of Rove, Cheney, Libby and company from mounting their smear campaign. The CIA should have known that they would be willing to violate the law if it served their purposes. "• Fourth: Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense..." Wilson wasn't paid for his work. I have never been to Niger but I am told that Paris it is not. You talk about partisan spin, well, what it this crap about "...at taxpayer expense"??? Isn't that "spin" trying to make it look like Wilson was looking for the government to fund a vactation to beautiful Niger? The CIA asked him to go, who should have paid for it, Aunt Fanny? "• Third: When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report" What, is she an expert on CIA debriefing procedures? Is she in a position to tell us what it is that a "competent intelligence agency" would or would not do? Wilson tells the guy what happened and that person writes it all down, yeah that is absolutely unheard of. Not. That information was not forwarded to the WH? I'd like to see some sources on that, in fact, I beleive that point is very much in dispute. Weren't privy to the fruits of that report? Again, I'd like to see a source on that. They were certainly privy to the CIA's position that the story was not reliable. Two e-mails and a phone call from Tenet to Stephen Hadley in October 2002 attest to that. I don't have time for the rest. Suffice it to say that this article sheds no new light, it just makes the same conservative talking points on this story that we have heard over and over and over. This is spin from the right and yes, there is plenty on the left as well. Just don't dress this pig up and tell me its anti-pig.

As near as I can tell, the Italian documents which were a mix of real reports from the late 80's or thereabouts and forgeries were supposedly the basis for Italian reports from SISMI in November of 2001 that Saddam was buying Niger yellow cake. As the story goes, the CIA thought nothing of the information at the time, it just wasn't credible. The US didn't have the doucuments at that time, that happened much later, in October of 2002. The same information got in to the hands of the British, in fact the forged documents that later got so famous also did. That was the basis for Blair making the charge in early 2002. Immediately British intel leaks followed saying it was a crock. Cheney pressed the CIA to take it seriously and that eventually resulted in Wilson's trip in March of 2002. It is believed that at that point the US may have had transcriptions of the forgeries. The British claim that they had a source other than those documents but certainly one of their sources was the forgeries. They have never identified the other source. Wilson came back and said it was a crock which he reported to CIA and he assumed they passed the info on up the chain to Cheney. Then, in Sept. and early Oct. of 2002, the President wanted to make the charge, the same one Blair had kinda sorta maybe made already. Hadley is the guy who really wanted it in the Cinn. speech. It turns out that he met with the head of SISMI on September 9, 2002, precisely when the administration and the CIA were fighting over the veracity of the Niger story, still, 6 months after Wilson's trip. The CIA memo'd the crap out of Hadley that it was a crock and Tenet personally contacted Hadley and so the administration backed off and did not make the claim in Cinn. Suddenly, a reporter from La Parma (I think that is the name), is contacted by a source, a businessman about some documents he thinks she would be interested. She gets the forged documents from him, a guy who has been identified as Rocco Martino, a former SISMI guy, then making a living passing info to the French and top Belgians. The reporter didn't think much of the documents and wanted to go to Niger to check it out but her editor said no way, give them to the Americans which she did. The documents were taken to our Rome embassy so State had the first crack at them and thought it was BS. Same with CIA. Not so that Iraq group or whatever it was called nor with defense. Bang, it gets into the SOTU speech but is carefully worded to refer only to British intelligence. Fact is, the British "evidence" was the same "evidence" we had, the same old forgeries. Anyway, that is the gist of it from what I understand, much of that is based on the reporting of Josh Marshall of TPM who has followed this story like a dog. He has even interviewed Martino, something the FBI didn't bother to do before reaching the conclusions they did on the whole mess. Check Marshall's stories on this, he had two posts: Italian Connection I and Italian Connection II which, as I recall summarize it all up pretty well. Bib, I have not the foggiest, clue of a hald-assed notion that any of this is true. I am simply following the story as it goes on. It is interesting and funny enough to catch my interest even without knowing how much truth there is to it. I think it is interesting that the story is slowy starting to get into the American Press. Hadley was even asked about the September 2002 meeting in a press gaggle the other day. The worst implication was that he solicited Italy's help to drum up some proof of the allegations the Italians had been pedaling since November 2001, any proof, even bogus proof. Sure enough, the proof is delivered to the American Embassy in Rome a month later. That is the story of the freaking year if it is true, that the administration asked the Italians to fabricate some proof for them that got paraded in the SOTU speech just a few months before war. Because we have effective one party rule right now, there can be no real adversarial investigation of any of this. All you have to try and dig out the truth of this, whatever it is, is the press and Fitzgerald. We will see. Even if its all BS, its certainly entertaining.

The results are also different. Fortunately, this President has managed to save us from all that peace and prosperity, thank God. I don't think I could have stood another minute of that madness. I only wish he could run for a third term.

"soon" they will be imposing islamic law.

I'm making the opposite point. Much easier for a fundamentalist christian to edge other christians his way than for a radical muslim to transform christians into radical muslims. The radical christian and the average christians are already on the same cultural and societal page to begin with. The radical muslim and christians are about as different as you can get, nothing at all in common. My originial point was that it was pretty far fetched to suggest that a relative handful of French muslim extremists would "soon" bring islamic law to France in a new revolution. I didn't think it plausible that 52 million non-muslims would permit a couple hundred thousand muslim extremists take over the country. Given the growing power of the religious right in this country and the relatively small numbers they started out with, it was suggested that a few radicals could have that type of an effect. I thought the analogy ill-fitting given that edging chritians to be, if you will, more christian would be a heckuva lot easier than turning millions of christians into radical muslims. For complete replays, highlights and stats of this thread watch "Inside the PPP" on HBO, thursdays at 9:00pm.

...in your opinion. Thus, I would never declare control of your womb nor force you to terminate your pregnancy.

I think that there is an element of self aggrandizement involved. How rewarding it must be to think of one's self as rescuing babies from slaughter at the hands of Godless abortionists. Oh to be an instrument of God, you can see how attractive being a baby rescuer must be. On the other hand, there isn't much of an ego kick to teaching sex education or the use of contraceptives. Besides, many of those same people have objections to contraception. That smacks of sex for pleasure rather than procreation which can be a big, big no-no. That's only one small step away from homosexuality, sex for non-procreative reasons.

Actually stopping abortion and simply making it illegal are two different things. I thought you were originally stating that people who want Alito tossed if he would overturn Roe only take that position because they think it would mean an end to legal abortions. Do you think those 57% would change their minds on Alito if they were assured that they could still get illegal abortions the same way people buy drugs, in a seedy part of town from some crook? I don't think so. Sticking to legal abortions, I think more than a "few" states would make it illegal. I would start with Idaho, S.Dakota, N. Dakota, Georgia, S. Carolina, N. Carolina, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, La., Miss., Alabama, Ark., Montanna, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Oaklahoma, Missouri and Nebraska. Other states might but I'd be less sure about say, Minnesota, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada. Pennsylvania? Maybe, they elected Specter and Rick the freak Santorum. I think it would be waaaay more than a few. Then you get to the national scene. Again, very little problem there. Isn't making abortion illegal a plank in the Republican Party platform? Is there a single republican in the Senate who wouldn't get targeted as a dead RINO walking by the religious right if they opposed a national ban? If they have the votes to confirm enough nominees to the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, why wouldn't they have the votes to pass a national ban? I'd love to see a Repbulican Senator explain how he thinks abortion is murder so he wants Roe overturned but would draw the line at supporting a national law banning abortions because he thinks murder is okay as long as the murders are going on in New York or California. Real defensible position there. The bottom line is that 57% of people would rather see Alito's nomination fail if he would overturn Roe and they hold that position because they do not want to lose the ability to decide this for themselves, not because they are deluded, not becuase they are not as smart as you and not because they don't understand perfectly well what is at stake. If Democrats decide that Alito is likely to overturn Roe (no one could ever be certain), they should filibuster because doing so would be what the majority of Americans want and trashing that would be frustrating the will of that 57% majority. The republicans might be able to do just that, they may even have the gall to do just that but lets not pretend it is democratic. Bush was elected because of national security, for most, that issue trumped abortion. He was not elected to see to it that Roe v. Wade be overturned. He was elected and he gets to select the nominees but lets not for a moment pretend that he had a mandate to do that. The democrats, if subsequent, reputable and reliable polls back that figure up, would be shirking their responsibility if they didn't filibuster Alito providing they believe that he is likely to overrturn Roe. If he is not, then all he has to do is say that during the hearings. "Roe v. Wade is a valid precedent and is good law and although there is room for constitutional refinement on a host of related issues, the basic holding of Roe is sound now and for the forseeable future."

No difference. If I stop you from terminating a pregnancy, you have a baby you didn't want and if not for my actions would not have had. Same result, your opinion, their womb, their life. Anti-abortion activists are not trying to force women to have babies who don't want them? Hmmmm.......are you willing to state that no groups who oppose abortion don't also oppose contraceptives?

He used a specific number in one post and in another he used "will soon". I didn't mix up anything, I quoted him so as not to avoid confusion. Yeah, that worked. The Muslim community or the Muslim extremist community? You seem to use them interchangably. Newbie was specific, "muslim extremists will have a lot of power in France." Enough power even to credibly attempt to bring about Islamic Law in France. How will that happen? How many muslim extremists are there in France? Do you know? There aren't many muslims, period, in France, less in fact than are in the US. Certainly not every muslim is an extremist in France or anywhere else. So I will go back to my question, how will, say a million (being generous here) muslim extemists have so much power "soon" that they will be able to mount a credible attempt to bring Islamic Law to France against the oppositon of 52 million or so non-muslim French? Are they Super-Mega Power Ranger Muslims, able to convert Christians in a single bound? C'mon, it was an anti-French rant and a twisted one at that, taking satisfaction in the troubles of another people.

What he said was "...but a 5-10% Christian minority can..." Hence my question, about only 5-10% of Americans being Christian. Do you think that comparinmg 1% radical christians in a nation that is 95% christian to a nation where there are 1% radical muslims in a nation that is 90% christian is fair(numbers are for the sake of argument)? Lets say you have two rooms and in each are 10 people. In Room A you have 9 christians and 1 fundamentalist christian. All are Americans, all speak english, all were born christians, grew up christian, had christian parents, had christian grandparents, chritsian great grandparents and celebrate Christmas. In Room B, you have 9 chritisans and 1 radical muslim. The muslim was born in another country or his parents were, French is his second language and, other than being a French citizen like the chritstians, he has absolutely nothing in common with the 9 French Christians save for a general dislike of the US (they are french after all). Will the radical muslim have a better chance at convincing French Christians to abandon their history and their culture to adopt Islamic Law in Room B or will the radical Christian in Room A have a better shot at convincing his fellow, less zealous Christians, to oppose partial birth abortion and go to church twice a week instead of just on Sunday? The analogy doesn't fit.

The difference being that he isn't seeking to force you to have an abortion but you would force him to have a baby. That is, of course, assuming that you both had operational wombs which, frankly, would be a much bigger story than even abortion but, I digress.

So you acknowledge that there would be no legal impediment to a national ban on all abortions? The only problem would be political, right? Because if that is the safeguard, then abortion will definitely be illegal nationally. Those 57% numbers do not translate to the House and Senate. That poll doesn't respect political boundaries, it is a national poll. Congressman and Senators are not elected in a national election. That's how, metaphorically, 5 people in Kansas have as much power in the Senate as thousands of people from New York. Thus, the abstract, exists only on a map, creation that is a "state" is more important than actual live people. In a national poll, people count more.

That certainly seemed to be Newbie's point, that France is getting what it deserves and from a subjective standpoint, it seemed to me that he was happy about that.

Do you have a tough time equating "...new political power that will fill the secular political void with Islamic law..." with the imposition of Islamic Law in France? If he is not suggesting that the "new political power", ie, muslim extremists in France, will impose, ie, "fill the...void with Islamic law..." what is he saying? Clearly, I was waaaay off the mark in reading "Islamic Law" to mean "Islamic Law" and "Muslim extremists" to mean "Muslim extremists" not to mention equating the words "will soon" with the words "will soon". How about "...muslim extremists will hold a lot of power in France...", do you agree with that? Are a handful of extremist going to be able to hold a lot of power in a nation of 52 million non-muslims? Because if that is the case, we are in far more peril than France since we have almost 7 million muslims.

Actually, that is exactly what he wrote. Here is what he said: "I predict that within 10-20 years Muslim extremists will hold a lot of power in the French government. WAY TO GO, YOU BLEW IT! I smell another revolution." And then he said: "France will soon have a new political power that will fill the secular political void with Islamic law in an attempt to tear down the French Constitution/Rights of Man." Do you agree or disagree that France "will soon" have Islamic Law imposed upon them by a "new political power", ie, "Muslim extremists"? Back to the history, please tell me what drastic action the US took while European democracies did nothing in reaction to Hitler's policies prior to 1939? Care to discuss the reaction in the US to Chamberlain's proclamation that a lasting Peace had been forged after Munich? Look, if you are just one of those people who thing France is the origin of all evil, just tell me and I will stop trying to have a rational discussion with you about France let alone other European powers. If you are one of those France=bad people, just say so.

No, it wouldn't be immediate. However, what in the world would stop the Schiavo congress from enacting a law doing just that? The only thing that allowed the Supreme Court to strike down the so called "partial birth abortion ban" was Roe. If the Congress can dictate a ban on partial birth abortions, it can dictate a ban on abortions. Scalia and company are already on the record on that issue. If Roe goes, abortion goes. Just a matter of time. Ironically, those who so long proclaimed their allegiance to limiting government power will be the authors of one of the largest expansions of government power in history. O'Connor once opined that if you concede to the state the power to force a pregnancy to term, you cede to the state the power to force a pregnancy, to forcibly terminate a pregnancy, to limit pregnancy, etc, etc. That is why, as a conservative, she was all for reasonable restrictions but was dead set on preserving the primary fact of Roe, that the government is just not going to be involved, beyond a certain point, in the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy.