Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Not enogh Americans are challenging this administration. The followng was sent to me by a friend.

parados' post (a couple back), modified to read how he should have typed it:

parados wrote:

Mr. Spruiell's argument seems to be that we should be as upset about information that the CIA CLEARED for publication as we are about information that the CIA felt was worthy of asking for a criminal investigation about its publication.

There is a HUGE difference between the 2 Mr. Spruiell . Even you have to see that.

My question is: What leaks? There is no mention of any leak at all in the article you posted Tico. To demand that the left be outraged over something you provide less evidence for than what has been provided to you about Plame's covert status is pretty funny. Where is your question demanding to know for certain that any information was a leak, let alone what information was supposedly a leak. Has a prosecutor pursued these unsubstantiated claims of leaks giving them any legitimacy at all? What evidence do you have that these leaks even existed?

parados wrote:

My question is: What leaks? There is no mention of any leak at all in the article you posted Tico. To demand that the left be outraged over something you provide less evidence for than what has been provided to you about Plame's covert status is pretty funny. Where is your question demanding to know for certain that any information was a leak, let alone what information was supposedly a leak. Has a prosecutor pursued these unsubstantiated claims of leaks giving them any legitimacy at all? What evidence do you have that these leaks even existed?

Variations of the word "leak" are used 9 times in the article I posted, not including the title. So I take issue with your statement that "[t]here is no mention of any leak at all in the article you posted Tico."

With all this "demon" and Satan stuff they throw around, the GOP is turning into The Church Lady, lol!

What about it? Again, your argument is with Admiral Inman, former Director of the National Security Administration and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence. I merely posted the article which you apparently disagree with.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados' post (a couple back), modified to read how he should have typed it:

parados wrote:

Mr. Spruiell's argument seems to be that we should be as upset about information that the CIA CLEARED for publication as we are about information that the CIA felt was worthy of asking for a criminal investigation about its publication.

There is a HUGE difference between the 2 Mr. Spruiell . Even you have to see that.

Why did you bother to post it without questioning if you don't agree with it?

Why do you continue to stress Mr Spruiell's points if you don't agree with them?

We are left pointing out your acceptance of Mr Spruiell's statements without raising a single question while in the same thread you have constantly questioned the validity of decisions by CIA lawyers about the criminal act of revealing Plame worked at the CIA.

I felt a pardon was called for, considering the altruistic motives for Morrison's actions, as well as his own history in service to the country.

I would like to discuss the confirmation that the CIA considered Plame to be covert. This was confirmed in today's WP article and seems to deflate your contentions that she was not.

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

parados' post (a couple back), modified to read how he should have typed it:

parados wrote:

Mr. Spruiell's argument seems to be that we should be as upset about information that the CIA CLEARED for publication as we are about information that the CIA felt was worthy of asking for a criminal investigation about its publication.

There is a HUGE difference between the 2 Mr. Spruiell . Even you have to see that.

Why did you bother to post it without questioning if you don't agree with it?

Where did I say I didn't agree with it? I found it interesting. Apparently you do to.

Quote:

Why do you continue to stress Mr Spruiell's points if you don't agree with them?

In what sense have I "stressed" his points? I've had to clarify that these were points made by Mr. Spruiell, in response to posts attributing these arguments to me.

Quote:

We are left pointing out your acceptance of Mr Spruiell's statements without raising a single question while in the same thread you have constantly questioned the validity of decisions by CIA lawyers about the criminal act of revealing Plame worked at the CIA.

Go ahead and raise your questions. Are you actually questioning whether these were leaks, or are you just trying to be obtuse?

As you ponder your response, bear in mind that I'm not identifying Mr. Inman's points as articulated by Mr. Spruiell, and concluding, therefore, that there were leaks by the CIA. Had I done so, it would certainly be appropriate for you to question whether these qualify as "leaks," ... if you really do question it. Then, we could debate what a "leak" is, and wouldn't that be fun?

That Plame is a "covert agent," however, is a conclusion that has been reached by many posters to this thread, and it is the basis for their conclusion that I have questioned.

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

parados' post (a couple back), modified to read how he should have typed it:

parados wrote:

Mr. Spruiell's argument seems to be that we should be as upset about information that the CIA CLEARED for publication as we are about information that the CIA felt was worthy of asking for a criminal investigation about its publication.

There is a HUGE difference between the 2 Mr. Spruiell . Even you have to see that.

Why did you bother to post it without questioning if you don't agree with it?

Where did I say I didn't agree with it? I found it interesting. Apparently you do to.

I find it a load of garbage. Filled with innuendo and little fact. It talks about leaks but never mentions any specifics other than a book that was cleared by the CIA. It claims that Plame was only an analyst in spite of a lot of CIA comments to the contrary.

Tico wrote:

Quote:

Why do you continue to stress Mr Spruiell's points if you don't agree with them?

In what sense have I "stressed" his points? I've had to clarify that these were points made by Mr. Spruiell, in response to posts attributing these arguments to me.

Your choice of the words "essentially highlighting" points to agreement and appears to stress his point as opposed to other word choices that would be sceptical or non committal. My point is how can he be "essentially highlighting" an hypocrisy when he never points to a single instance of a leak.

Tico wrote:

As you ponder your response, bear in mind that I'm not identifying Mr. Inman's points as articulated by Mr. Spruiell, and concluding, therefore, that there were leaks by the CIA. Had I done so, it would certainly be appropriate for you to question whether these qualify as "leaks," ... if you really do question it. Then, we could debate what a "leak" is, and wouldn't that be fun?

Fun to hijack the thread with another meaningless argument? Pointless other than to attempt to obfuscate on your part.

Tico wrote:

That Plame is a "covert agent," however, is a conclusion that has been reached by many posters to this thread, and it is the basis for their conclusion that I have questioned.

You accept Inman's argument without a single question but can't accept the statements of numerous sources concerning Plame being "covert". The point is well made Tico. You only argue with a conclusion when it serves you to do so then you go overboard in your disagreement.

I assume the basis for the conclusion the "leaks" Inman refers to were in fact "leaks," is that the information was disseminated to the public and was confidential. If you are going to question whether the information was (a) disseminated, or (b) confidential, state your question, and we can look into it.

Well, Tico, do you still question the basis that she was a 'covert agent?'

I know you will argue that this is different than an 'undercover operative' but you're really just splitting hairs, aren't you? Of course, it's difficult to expect a lawyer to do anything else.

Cycloptichorn