that one blew my mind. i still don't get how they pulled that off. ...not that there's anything wrong with draft dodging. hey, speaking push-polls, i had this wonderful idea. i think we should organize a completely scandalous push-poll against karl rove. just because i love seeing irony bite someone in the ass. i mean, we could use real stuff about him too. but we should make up completely outrageous claims about him."how would your opinion about karl rove change if you knew he ate babies?""would you like karl rove more or less if you knew about his scandalous affair with president bush's dog, buddy?""would you approve of karl rove's position in the white house if you knew he was actually a space alien bent on world domination?""how would you feel about karl rove raping your daughter? your son?"the specially tailored ones would be even better. call up the kkk, and tell them he's really black and just wears a lot of makeup. then call up the naacp and tell them he's a card-carrying member of the kkk.i think it'd be fun.

---

אָרַח

it's an issue of degree, really. do you think there should be an out-of-bounds? yeah, but don't you think the right is so much better at it? yes, as i've said many times, the left needs to grow some balls.

---

אָרַח

sadly, i think tal is right. the president is clearly indicating that if a personal is found responsible, ie: criminal, that he will remove them. which should actually go without saying. of course you should not employ criminals in the whitehouse staff that's why we liberals thought it meant something more than "i'm not a complete dirtbag."so, let's wait for the findings. if someone is found responsible, and brought to trial, and bush does not fire them, then we'll have a pretty good lie on record.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-20-2005 12:14 PM

---

אָרַח

"like bill clinton?"i think a lie about outing a cia operative is a little more serious than a lie about where you put little willie jr. would agree to that, if he's proven guilty?

---

אָרַח

wish to recognize what, exactly, tal?weren't you the one saying we should wait to see what the investigation finds?

---

אָרַח

exlamation points! wow, you must have a really good point!!!!!!!! oh wait, no. that's right, i can do it tooo!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~1it's not the NAME that matters; it's the identity. people in other countries that we're spying on (or HAVE spied on in the past) are not retarded. heck, i can generally find people on the internet with less information. and we're talk professional spies, and wives of high-profile diplomats here.

---

אָרַח

yes.

quote:

---

But while she may no longer have been a clandestine operative, she was still under protected status. A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law. And even if the leak was not illegal, intelligence officials argue, it is not defensible. "I'm beyond disgusted," a CIA official said last week. "I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It's not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent."

---

nor, i might add, her husband. before you go off on how time magazine is a biased liberal media source, it may be important to note that wilson is not exactly portrayed in a good light in that article. it ends with a description of him pushing his book.so, it should be noted that while she was not clandestine (ie: in a foreign country, actively engaging in spy activities) her identity was still covert (ie: a secret). these two are different things. if one visits cia headquarters, they have a wall with stars on it. those stars are for fallen agents. there are no name. even after they died, their identities are still secret. i'm not after anyone. i think the whole affair is disgusting, especially the spin-game the right is playing on it.is rove guilty in my mind? yes, he is. so is everyone else involved in the whole thing. the identities of cia operatives is a matter of national security. it could potentially start a war, if a face is recognized. heck, i think even the news sources carrying the story with her identity right now are guilty, including the source i cited above.

---

אָרַח

yes, actually. words have meanings. covert status is an official status of the cia. for all i care, wilson could have set up rove. not that that sounds like something that would have happened -- whatever your opinion of rove, he's smarter than that.but "i think she worked for the cia." as what, a janitor? rove was implying that wilson got the assignment because of a contact at the cia -- his wife. this contact would have to have had a good deal of influence. in other words, she wasn't the secretary. like i said, the people we spy against are not retarded.think joe wilson's guilty? yeah, me too. if not of anything criminal, of miling the situation like a cash cow. yes, and? they're guilty too. is my line of reasoning hard to follow? what makes one person who divulges the identy of a covert operative guilty, but another innocent? a government employee, no matter where he got his information, divulged a covert operative to a media source, who then reported it. these actions are not in question.novak's guilty, rove's guilty, cooper's guilty. actually, that's ap. and when did i say anything about fox, hm?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-21-2005 04:12 PM

---

אָרַח

and you actually trust the cia? they're hardly exemplar of good christian morality, like karl rove, who never lies.

---

אָרַח

yes, tal, that is what it feels like talking to you.

Off Topic. Please do not respond to this post

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-22-2005 02:39 PM

---

אָרַח

no, karl rove wouldn't lie, I JUST KNOW IT! he's a fine upstanding young christian man! why would he lie, he's innocent! besides, he's not a target anyways, and he only heard it from reporters and besides it wasn't really a secret at all! everybody else is lying to smear rove, who's really an angel for the lord god himself!mmhmm.this is getting interesting. i wonder if they've finally gotten rove to paint himself into a corner here. i mean, he divulged the identity of a covert agent to a member of the media. no matter where he got his information, that's treason. and in a time of "war" isn't treason an executable offense? but hey, let's throw perjury on top of that!i want to hear bush come out and say "well, we're not technically at war..." i think that would be hillarious.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 07-23-2005 03:25 PM

---

אָרַח

it's kind of an old joke, actually, but there's some truth to it. who really runs things around the office?the secretaries.

---

אָרַח

well, make this two times: you're exactly right. however, this next bit could use some editting to adequately reflect the current debates:

---

אָרַח

lol

because we're not at war.we're just having a struggle.

---

אָרַח