Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Plame is infuriated at the CIA, which crumpled when expected to defend her, and then made excessive redactions to her book.

Advocate wrote:

Plame is infuriated at the CIA, which crumpled when expected to defend her, and then made excessive redactions to her book.

Why? I thought she cared about protecting classified information? Oh, its about her and her book then, is that it?

Advocate, There are so many similarities between politics and religion; once a person believes in something, there isn't much that will change one's mind. The brain does funny things to people; it doesn't matter how well versed in ethics or right and wrong. It's a human frailty.

I would suggest a new picture for your posts then, Roxi. I think you should be open to an improvement?

Just who is being tasteless here? I merely made a suggestion of a new way of doing something, thats all, which might result in something more tasteful than what we see all the time. I thought that was welcome here, as imposter and Roxxxanne suggested?

Okie, I have a suggestion for you. Please put your mind in gear before you post.

Regarding the CIA redactions, it seems to me that there was excessive classification, which is a major problem in the federal government. Moreover, the CIA should have given Plame the benefit of the doubt considering how the administration, the CIA, and the judge who threw out her civil case, screwed her over.

Advocate, There are so many similarities between politics and religion; once a person believes in something, there isn't much that will change one's mind. The brain does funny things to people; it doesn't matter how well versed in ethics or right and wrong. It's a human frailty.

I believe that one's basic underlying moral conviction really is what mainly determines one's political leanings

I would suggest a new picture for your posts then, Roxi. I think you should be open to an improvement?

Just who is being tasteless here? I merely made a suggestion of a new way of doing something, thats all, which might result in something more tasteful than what we see all the time. I thought that was welcome here, as imposter and Roxxxanne suggested?

okie wrote:

I would suggest a new picture for your posts then, Roxi. I think you should be open to an improvement?

Oh you mean the picture that I put on a dating site and got 800 or so (at last count) e-mails from men wanting to meet me, that picture?

Apparently, there are an awful lot of heterosexual men who disagree with you. You are heterosexual, aren't you?

Or are you?

okie wrote:

I would suggest a new picture for your posts then, Roxi. I think you should be open to an improvement?

Oh you mean the picture that I put on a dating site and got 800 or so (at last count) e-mails from men wanting to meet me, that picture?

Apparently, there are an awful lot of heterosexual men who disagree with you. You are heterosexual, aren't you?

Or are you?

Quote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Advocate, There are so many similarities between politics and religion; once a person believes in something, there isn't much that will change one's mind. The brain does funny things to people; it doesn't matter how well versed in ethics or right and wrong. It's a human frailty.

Cicerone imposter, I think you've actually touched on something here that may be a huge elephant in the room, but perhaps the reason is open to a wide degree of opinion. The point of my comment is that I believe that one's basic underlying moral conviction really is what mainly determines one's political leanings, so that the two worlds of politics and religion are eternally attached whether anyone desires to separate them or not. Those that are staunchest in their belief in personal responsibility or personal moral responsibility are generally on one side of the spectrum, while those that believe government is the one entity responsible for almost everything are on the other end of the spectrum.