Campy

No, you going back and editing your posts without the benefit of letting people know you did sucks. Hmmm... An interview, on Fox News, By Brit Hume no less, with an attorney who has an interest in this case... Okey-dokey... A Bill of Attainder... Too funny. So that's all you got?

So you're referencing a Bill of Attainder? I'll stick to the Espionage Act of 1917, thanks. EDIT: For those of you not familiar with Bills of Attainder - Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial. The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed." http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm

Well, it seems that obstruction of justice is a given. This "law" that I keep seeing being bandied about by right-wing lemmings is something of a mystery to me. I'm not sure which law states that a person must be a covert operative when their name is leaked by the president's advisor to be a crime, but I am familiar with the Espionage Act of 1917. Section 'D' of said Act delineates various acts which constitute espionage: To put it bluntly, you just don't go and advertise the names of CIA operatives. It's not only stupid, but as the analysts at STRATFOR have said, if US humint is "blind" in the wrong spot at the wrong time, it could be deadly. Leaking a CIA operative's name to the press, especially one that was covert at one point in time, could most certainly cause injury to the US.

I can hear it already: "Well if they wouldn't have made them out of wood - perhaps a more forgiving material instead - then Bobby wouldn't have died when he struck it going 80 mph. Damn them, damn them all to hellllll!" Sorry, have to work in a Heston/Apes movie reference in every thread regarding gun control

Because I was responding to Gavin's post where it was mentioned in the article he referenced that Wilson was "the only that lied." I don't see where the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of Wilson's report(s) is relavant to the adminstration's obstruction of justice and flaunting the law. But then again, I didn't post it, I only responded to it. Yes and no. This may be semantics, but it's not the aggresivesness with which they respond that I find disturbing. It's the tactics they use. Well that's reassuring I guess, but there seems to be a fair amount of disagreement on whether the law was broken. I believe it was. OK... Are you sure that you and I had that discussion? I don't think we did...

To which law, exactly, are you referring?

I never said the two were related, they were brought up by others. The thread took a 90-degree turn somewhere up there. My post was in response to the assertion that Wilson's "factual inaccuracies" are "directly tied to the case the administration put forward to go to war." That may or may not be true. We already know that Cheney's office set out to discredit Wilson. There's no telling if their efforts were successful, or if Wilson did lie. The article that Gavin referenced seems to take the position that Wilson lied. A senior official seems to think that there is a "cabel" (his words, not mine) between Cheney and Runsfeld which led to the administration's choice to go to war (the other stuff was more FYI). IMO it's a bit more than "disagreeing with policy-making process." It brings into question who's pushing whose agenda in the shrub house. If a former senior official believes that, then I, as a private citizen, have no problem believing that Cheney's office is capable of executing a successful character assasination.

I don't have anything against the 2nd Ammendment - in fact, I'm quite for it, but I'd be less inclined to say the "good guys won." IMHO, it's more a case of "common sense prevails." I never understood how that ever went anywhere to begin with. Isn't it a bit like suing IBM because (God forbid) your kid meets up with a pedophile he/she met online? Or suing GM because a drunk driving an Oldsmobile hit you?

You're right, "shrinking government" may have been a poor choice of words. Go ahead and insult me for it. Blame me, I must be part of the problem. Go ahead. It fits in well with your whole "people are stupid" and "government bad" schtick. Because that never gets old. Really. What I should have stated was that he reduced the White House staff by 25%, trimmed the federal bureaucracy by 200,000-plus positions, streamlined government procurement by doing away with over 15,000 pages of obsolete regulations, cut federal spending by $255 Million and reduced the deficit. I thought you advocated a smaller, less intrusive, federal government? Or is that only when it's convenient for another one of your inane rants?

For starters, I'd say that the article Gavin posted, claiming that the only person who lied was Wilson, was trying to put a fair amount of blame on his shoulders, wouldn't you? Interestingly enough, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff for the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, makes no mention of Wilson's alledged "inaccuracies which are directly tied to the case the administration put forward to go to war," but instead chooses to put the focus on the policy-makers (imagine that). http://news.ft.com/cms/s/afdb7b0c-40f3-11d...000e2511c8.html EDIT: That link does go to a web page belonging to the bastion of that evil liberal media, the Financial Times.

Irony, I hardly knew ye. But let's blame the evil liberal media? That, my friend, is a copout of staggering proportions.

Case in point:

You and cablelady looking to hook up with Coy Wire?

And you're smart enough to know that voting for an incumbent president who had the economy growing and the size of government shrinking doesn't make one a liberal. The media has a responsibility to their shareholders to turn a profit. If that means not offending anyone by being too PC, who cares? If that means blasting away at a president for getting an extramarital hummer while ignoring that the investigation was actually to look into land deals, so what? And believe me you, there are liberals out there who think that the media is too conservative. Big deal. It's an unfortunate trap into which far too many otherwise intelligent people fall. It's a way to discredit the messenger when they don't like the message.

Wilson's truthfuness, or lackthereof, is not the issue. The fact that the administration outed a CIA operative in retribution of his dissent is the issue. We know that Libby and Rove spoke to reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame. We know that two of Cheney's staffers have flipped and are providing the special investigation with evidence that Cheney's office coordinated an attempt to discredit Wilson. We've just learned that Bush knew about Rove leaking the name in 2003. Bush wasn't happy with him, and reprimanded him, a full year before he went on television and assured us that there was no White House leak, but if they should find one, the person would be fired and prosecuted. Weren't impeachment charges brought against Clinton for obstructing justice - because he BS'd us about getting a blowjob in the oval office? Isn't obstructing justice in the investigation of outing CIA operatives a slightly more egregious act than trying to cover up an extramarital hummer? But that's right, let's blame Wilson.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4357684.stm I bring this up, not because I can or cannot justify their actions, but this could prove to be a pretty interesting development. A military action, executed outside of the safety net of a declared war, is just that - a military action. At what point do mistakes, if one was made, in such a situation become criminal? Could this case ultimately have farther reaching effects, like to the status of Gitmo detainees (ie, POWs vs foreign nationals being denied due process)? It bears worth watching...

Truly.

Holy crap. No wonder they thought he was an idiot!

There's a "correlation" to be sure. But given that teams in the lead run a lot toward the end of games, I'm a bit leary of saying it's "causation."

I'm thinking the same thing.

Was that really ever in doubt, regardless of your position on the war?

A national holiday wouldn't make much sense. It'd lessen the tax revenue we need to foot the tab for Iraq's $75 Million trial.

The Raiders claim he has bruised ribs, a strained groin, and bruised "pelvic area." That can't feel good. The official NFL injury report only references the bruised ribs.

The Raiders are 31st against the pass. Whatever works.