10/29   BTW, the right-wing spin is going to be very, very easy to predict:
        There may have been an unintentional outing of Plame, but the goal was
        always to protect America, and Wilson was wrong anyway.
        There will be no specific mention of Libby committing perjury, etc.,
        other than the "unintentional outing" - we thought everyone knew.
        \_ Hold on, what was Wilsong wrong about? - danh
        \_ You mean the partisan spin.  I'm right wing and my opinion is that
           perjury is a crime and should be treated as such.  If Libby purjored
           himself, I want him out of there.  Same as with Clinton.  When will
           politicians learn that the coverup is almost always worse than the
           crime? -emarkp
              \_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a
                 serious crime and should be treated as such.  I can't
                 follow you all the way as to saying that the coverup is
                 worse than the crime.  That may have been true with Nixon
                 and Clinton, but these felons comitted TREASON, not burglary
                 or adultery.  I know that word (treason) gets thrown around
                 by pundits inappropriately, but it literally applies here.
           \_ Nice to see something we can agree on, that perjury is a serious
              crime and should be treated as such.  I can't follow you all the
              way as to saying that the coverup is worse than the crime.  That
              may have been true with Nixon and Clinton, but these felons
              comitted TREASON, not burglary or adultery.  I know that word
              (treason) gets thrown around by pundits inappropriately, but it
              literally applies here.
              \_ No, I don't think treason applies here.  Especially since that
                 would be in the indictment. -emarkp
                 \_ I love this.  "not indicted, therefore, innocent of guilt."
                    Based upon your logic, no one in the whitehouse ever
                    leaked the identity of CIA agent neither.
                    \_ I love this.  My saying treason doesn't apply gets
                       twisted pretty fast.  I said I didn't think treason
                       applied here, not that there was no guilt.  Furthermore,
                       given the resources Fitzgerald has had, I think he'd
                       charge treason if he found it.  Some random anonymous
                       wanker on motd claiming treason has roughly zero value
                       IMO compared to a special prosecutor who's been pursuing
                       this for two years. -emarkp
                 \_ that is my problem with the conservatives.  it is not
                    ok to lie about sex, but it's perfectlly ok to lie
                    about war and leak of classified information.
                    \_ Precisely where did I say it was okay?  I specifically
                       said perjory is serious.  If Libby perjured himself he
                       should be in prison. -emarkp
                       \_ Have you really not noticed that your view is in the
                          very small minority among American conservatives?
                          Wake up!  The former party of small government
                          conservatism has become a proto-fascist organization.
                          \_ I disagree with the second part of your sentence,
                             but the first part (i.e. "former party of small
                             government") is one of the reasons I'm an I and
                             not an R now. -emarkp
                       \_ emarkp, why do you play the catch-22 game?  no matter
                          what you say it is going to be twisted, taken out of
                          context or as we see here, "you dont represent the
                          rest of conservatives even though i have no link to
                          prove that".
           \_ Never.  Because it works far more often than it doesn't.
        \_ I disagree.  This spin will take two forks.  First, they will
           repeat the perjury in suggesting the Valerie isn't a "real"
           operative and therefore can't be outed (example below).  Second,
           they will suggest that obstruction of justice isn't a real
           crime unless you can prove the underlying crime (example to
           follow since there are enough twits on soda they won't be able
           to help themselves).
        \_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years? -jblack
        \_ How can you "out" someone that had not been "in" for 10+ years?
           \_ yeah, you're doing it right.  The funny thing is that the
              "outing" part isn't what the indictments were for. -op
           \_ Comments like this are the reason that Fitzgerald specifically
              mentioned in his indictment that Valarie Plame-Wilson's status
              was NOT well known at the time of the initial crime.  Not only
              was her status classified, but her cover was still required
              as MANY operatives were posing as working for the same cover
              energy company she supposedly worked for.  By blowing her
              cover, they ruined a number of other covers as well.  Try
              reading the indictment and associated report before you
              condemn it.
              \_ I read it.  The indictment pertains to different
                 accounts given by Libby, Russert, and Miller, and
                 has nothing to do with Plame's status or revealing
                 her name.  Libby is being accused of misleading the
                 FBI during questioning because his accounts differ
                 from the reporters.
                 has nothing to do with revealing Plame's name.
                 has nothing to do with Plame's status.
                 In his news conference Fitz himself absolved Libby of
                 any guilt related to Plame "outing".  You are the
                 one who needs to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is
                 one who need to (re)read the indictment, which BTW is
                 poorly written and self-inconsistent.