Friday open thread
- al-Zawahiri engages his audience in a "fireside chat" about the imminent doom of the West. FDR's were a lot less apocalyptic.
- North Korea demands talks with the U.S. “for the purpose of discussing the issues related to ensuring the peace and security on the Korean peninsula."
- The U.S. House votes for pulling out troops by April. Maybe third time's a charm?
- A McCain aid is arrested for allegedly offering sex to an undercover officer . Do Republicans just have problems getting laid?
- Elephants are breaking free and roaming the streets? Wait, wrong link.
This is your Friday open thread. Treat it gently.
Submitted by pico on Fri, 2007-07-13 07:49
Tags:

Comments :
Today's first topic...Detante with Iran?
I opened my SF Chronicle this AM and what do I see....
I see an Op-Ed titled Detante With Iran. You should read it. It's short. But knowing that some here are averse to seeing what they don't like, here's the Cliff Notes:
"The Arabs' leeriness about Iranian hegemony has been revived by the unraveling of Iraq. Thanks to the U.S. invasion, Iraq is no longer a military rival to Iran, which has cultivated close ties to Iraq's Shiite majority. And America, the only other nation to challenge Iran's geopolitical ambitions, is struggling in the Iraqi quicksand. Iran now has a free hand to exert its influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories through pro-Iranian guerrilla and political forces....The Saudis would normally have challenged Iran's expansionist policy from behind the U.S. security shield, but the plight of U.S. forces in Iraq has shattered their faith in that shield, and they have begun courting Tehran. On March 4, the Arab world was mesmerized by TV bulletins showing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Saudi King Abdullah holding hands and smiling warmly in Riyadh....Now, smaller Persian Gulf Arab sheikhdoms, following in the Saudi footsteps, are also mending fences with Iran, with which they have had frosty relations in the past. Oman and the UAE had Ahmedinejad come for state visits. The foreign ministers of Kuwait and Qatar have announced they wouldn't let the Americans attack Iran from their soil."
and
"The animosity between "the Great Satan" and the member of "the Axis of Evil" will eventually give way to the new realities. Washington needs Iranian cooperation to end its disastrous occupation of Iraq, and Iran can't afford further economic sanctions, which U.S. opposition to its nuclear program would entail. Iran's likely acquisition of nuclear weapons capability -- rather than achieving the ability to manufacture the weapons -- could become a catalyst for a deal. Domestic public opinion wouldn't let any Iranian regime stop enriching uranium precipitously under Western pressure. Yet Iranian leaders should be taken at their word when they insist that they don't intend to make the bomb. They know that using a nuke against the United States or Israel would mean national suicide. Either of these countries could devastate Iran in a nuclear counterattack. "
dubya and Darth had wanted to steer the Arab world towards a Pax Americana. It seems they miscalculated slightly. Looks like it'll actually be Pax Iraniana and the NCAP crew will just have to whine and wince wile it sucks eggs.
Detente
While the writer makes some good points, we have a couple of things against us in dealing with Iran that makes today a very different situation than the Soviet detente:
1) the current Administration seems both unwilling and unable to pursue diplomatic initiatives, detente being a particularly tricky thing to pull off, and
2) the American people are not united in support of anything, be it detente, preemptive attack, or something in between.
We have definitely made our former allies in the ME nervous, and they are beginning to hedge their bets. To me, that is one of the the biggest fallouts from the Rumfeld doctrine of this war: we appear weak to our enemies and to our allies.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
RE: Detente
Sigh.
There MAY be some truth to this point but I don't believe that the issue can actually be summed up this neatly.
I doubt that any of these nations view us as being weak militarily ... as in they would be willing to go head to head in an actual war. So, in terms of taking and holding a piece of ground in a purely military face off I am not worried.
The problem comes in with respect to controlling the masses and providing security for the indigenous people after the fact. In this respect the locals are accustomed to the tactics of dictators and the Soviets for maintaining order. Since we are unwilling to employ those techniques it places a new burden on these people to learn how to maintain their own order. To rely on each other for support rather than the powerful oppressors which they have lived with for hundreds of years.
So, yes, our unwillingness to employ the tactics of the likes of Saddam or Pol Pot or Stalin makes us appear weak in the eyes of these people. What they need to realize is that they need to depend on themselves and not us for their own security.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Detante with Iran?
What about Detante FROM Iran?
The holocaust never happened ...
Israel should be wiped from the face of the Earth ...
Yea, that's what I call diplomatic.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Our options
are not infinite. I'm being pragmatic, not idealistic.
"Perplexity is the beginning of knowledge" -- Kahlil Gibran
Why is al-Zawahiri still using up oxygen?
I seem to recall something Bush said about "dead or alive" back in late 2001.
qui tacet consentire
you think
we haven't gotten him on purpose?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Perhaps
How else to explain this:
Link
qui tacet consentire
A McCain aid is arrested for
It is my thoery that to be a conservative, especially on social issues, requires a certain amount of sexual repression.
It's projection. Because of their own "demons", they attempt to fix all of society.
In the closet? Push for all the anti-homosexual legislation you can.
In a failing marriage? Deny others the right to marry, so you can validate in your own mind the value of marriage.
In my experience, those that are comfortable with their sexuality don't worry about other people's sexual preferences. Those in a happy and satisfying marriage don't feel that homosexual unions threaten the sanctity of marriage.
This has been my experience, mind you... but how come we're always finding that the biggest gay bashers turn out to be gay? (Haggard, etc)
...or that the biggest complainers about the sanctity of marriage and the breakdown of the nuclear family are adulterers? (Gingrich, etc)
Whenever I see some religious right mouthpiece on the stump talking about the evils of gay marriage, I wonder who his boyfriend is.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Baseless hyperbole detected!!!
OK, folks. Break it up. Nothing here to see, move along ...
Although, your point about projecting may just be a Freudian slip ...
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
It's only plagerism if I don't identify the source.
"Sixty eight percent of Republicans don't believe in evolution. On the other hand, only five percent of monkeys believe in Republicans."
---Stephen Colbert
And I got it from today's DKos.
Class Warfare - Republican style.
The Blackstone Group, the big buyout firm, has devised a way for its partners to effectively avoid paying taxes on $3.7 billion, the bulk of what it raised last month from selling shares to the public. Although they will initially pay $553 million in taxes, the partners will get that back, and about $200 million more, from the government over the long term.
Compassionate conservatism. How refreshing to know only the little people will pay for our government.
hot for hill
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
wow...
...well, if Hillary's cabinet would all look like the star of this video... I might have to change my position on a Hillary presidency.
Seriously though.... this is a continuation of the meme that Hillary is a lesbian.... a claim for which there has never been one shred of evidence. In fact, all evidence has been to the contrary.
...and besides... is this the storyline that the Republican smear machine really wants to push at this time? Is this their attempt at "swift-boating"? Have they lost interest in the "Vince Foster was Hillary's secret lover and was killed to cover up the affair" storyline?
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
I am pretty sure
this is done by a Hillary supporter as I found out about this video by listening to Fox News on the radio this morning, interviewing the girl who made it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I read a while back that the person who did this,
did it as a joke, not to try to Swift Boat Hillary.
I think it's funny as a joke. I'm not surprised there are those out there trying to make it into a serious statement.
There was the point in the film..
...where there was the "bi" followed a couple seconds later by the "lingual" on the screen.
This is to keep the idea out there that Hillary is a "closet lesbian".
Hey... if it derails her campaign, fine with me. But it smells of dirty pool.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Muslims upset about "Evan Almighty"
News Story Here
Sigh.
F*** all organized religions. F*** them all.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
relax man
it's just Malaysia... We are not talking about Western Freedoms being threatened here.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
What they should really be upset about...
...is the fact that Evan Almighty is a bad movie.
If they would've said, "Don't see this movie because it sucks", I could respect that.
But "Don't see this movie because it insults Islam"??
Don't see this movie because it insults our intelligence! ;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
exactly
this is why I did not see it. But there is no reason to slam all religion because some morons in faraway nutland decreed something stupid.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
There are plenty of reasons...
...to slam all religion.
This may not be one of them. ;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
David Vitter Watch -- Day Five
Link
There have been no Vitter sightings all week. But there is no truth to the rumor that Vitter's picture will appear on milk cartons throughout Louisiana.
qui tacet consentire
Personally...
...I don't care.
Prostitution should be legal and his sex life and adherence to his marital vows are of no concern to anyone but his immediate family.
Other than exposing him as a hypocrit, this story has no use.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Did you see what the New Orleans Madame said
Vitter liked? Diapers (on him), spankings (again, him) and more I won't mention.
Man, for a conservative who has said out loud that gays should have no rights, and should be publicly chastised for being gay, this guy is one solid hypocrite.
Honestly, I don't care what consenting adults do in their own time. But I do think that some one as into kink as he is shouldn't be in a position to moralize about anyone else. If the good citizens of Louisiana had a recall provision in their state constitution, I'd recommend they use it on this one.
Recall him for his hypocrisy...
...but not for his "kinky" sex life.
The human being is a sexual creature. As long as all participants in a sexual liaison are consenting, it's nobody's business...
...especially the government's.
Nevada has it right. You can't legislate away vice. Human's are programmed for vice. Let it be.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
really?
I didn't see that part. But if that's true, I think we should draw a line somewhere...
For example wearing diapers as a sexual fetish while screwing around with hookers and being married, should be grounds for public ostracism and flogging.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Why?
Why?
Seriously..... why?
Are we back in Plymouth in the 17th century or something?
It's not MY fetish... but it's also none of my business.
Everyone has some fetish... some more "interesting" than others.
Did any of the participants in Sen. Vitters' sexcapades do so unwillingly? If not... then America should butt out. No pun intended.
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
dude
it was a joke :) I don't care what that pervert does. :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
It Depends (pun intended)
We like our male politicians to be manly men, so if he gets caught banging a supermodel or three cheerleaders at once we wink and say, "Attaboy, Dave!"
If he wears diapers and wants to be disciplined we pretend that we never heard of him.
qui tacet consentire
makes sense
while there obviously should be no legal repercussions for someone wearing diapers, I would not vote for that person :)
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Well... that certainly explains...
Bubba's popularity.
"The dude is getting a hummer by a 20-year-old in the Oval Office. Yeehaa! You da man!"
;-)
Imagine Clinton's popularity if Monica were actually attractive?
;-)
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
she was alright
But I was angry anyways!
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Tucker Carlson apparently tried to discuss it yesterday.
Tucker felt it was nobodies business. However (there's always a however),
Glenn does a really good job of showing that some feel it's only a scandal if it's a Democrat doing the deed, If it's a Republican, we shouldn't even be discussing a "private" matter.
That's why the blogs are going crazy with this one.
Interesting that Tucker considers it
a private matter when a Congressman breaks the law.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Diapers?
Holy sh**. He's sunk for sure now.
In Louisiana you can get away with a lot of screwing around, but wearing diapers will get you tarred and feathered.
Do you suppose he uses Depends or Pampers?
qui tacet consentire
Someone who
sticks his nose into other people's private life should be exposed and dealt with as harshly for his own behavior as he advocated it for others.
Sic semper tyrannis
I disagree....
...let's get past eye for eye.
I agree with EJ Dionne Jr.... let's show how we Democrats are different.
Let's do the right thing.. not the thing that feels the best. i.e. exact vengeance.
Vengeance and tit-for-tat are not positive reactions.
We're more likely to win converts to our side if we practice what we preach... not if we jump all over Vitter.
Read EJ Dionne's latest column on the Washington Post's web site (Can't link, because it requires a free registration).
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” --- Albert Einstein
Did you know all it took to get a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to obtain nuclear materials is a PO Box?
Yes, it true. Congressional investigators set up a dummy company with no internet site or employees. Only a PO Box.
And the NRC gave them a license that would allow them to get the radioactive component to create a "dirty" bomb.
This is 6 years after 9/11.
Thank you George W Bush. Your leadership leaves me speechless and in wonder.
Victoria Toensing on the definition of Covert Agent
The primary purpose of the legislation was to protect the lives of those intelligence officers and agents residing overseas. Here is the relevant excerpt from Victoria Toensing's written testimony before congress
:
So, what makes Victoria Toensing an authority on this particular topic?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Victoria is a right wing whore.
She's a nobody. What she thinks is irrelevant.
She isn't an elected official. Her proclaimations run counter to what the CIA, the Federal Prosecutor, the Federal Judge say and you think she has any credibility. She has none. Stop using her as your golden standard. She's a prostitutes standard.
The sign of someone with no argument.
Demean the character of your opponent. This is a logical fallacy, BTW.
Were any of the people you mentioned first hand participants in the drafting of the legislation?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Who cares what Victoria Toensing says. How about you?
Do you have any of her notes from the time it was being passed? Writings on what she says it means now when she has motive to spin it really don't carry that much weight.
Really though, what is the point of this? Are you suggesting that leaking the identity of a CIA officer is A-OK? How's this, why don't you skip the legal debate which you aren't qualified to give and give your own opinion on the ethics of leaking her identity?
My only point ...
is that Valerie Plame was NOT covert under the law, and I intend to keep correcting the record on that point.
As to her notes, I have provided a reference to her written testimony which include excerpts from a Senate report that I do not have nor do I need it. Her written statement is a summary thereof and it would be silly for her to falsify a record that it will be obviously easy for the Senate to corroborate.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That is not your point
Woops, commented in the wrong thread before.
Your point is that Victoria Toensing says she was not covert under the IIPA. and that this is good enough for you.
Personally, I think someone who fought on D-Day actually 'served overseas' even if they didn't have a long term stationing there and that the plain reading of the law would imply that 'serving' overseas and being stationed overseas are different.
I'll just stick with the words of a former Republican President
But you are entitled to your own opinion... if only we knew what it was...
My opinion?
We are arguing a legal point, what different does it make what my opinion is?
Even so, I simply don't accept the fundamental premise that Valerie's name was even "leaked" in the sense that you all mean to imply it was.
The way her name got out there was no clear intent to "leak" anything. Armitage was gossiping and without thinking it slipped out. Simple as that. We all know this to be the case yet you people just won't let it go.
Should it have happened? No. Would things be better if it hadn't happened? Possibly. Was our intelligence gathering ability irrepairably damaged? Certainly not.
When do I think that it is "OK" for someone to intentionally and willfully disclose classified information? Never. But as we all know Armitage did not intend to "out" anyone nor did Fitzgerald turn up any evidence that anyone else had either. The simple fact of the matter is that a very extensive investigation failed to turn up any actionable evidence against anyone in the administration yet the lies and the slander continue unabated.
Why are we even talking about this anymore? Because I have to keep correcting the record IN RESPONSE to posts which simply want to continue the lies and the slander. I didn't bring this up again, someone up thread did. I wish you all would just drop the whole thing because it is patently clear that you are not going to get any administration heads on any pikes on this particular issue.
So my response is pretty set at this point. When I see the lie I will just correct the record. When people object I intend to just point them back to the past threads.
And this is an absurd example which is factually flawed to boot. The men that fought on D-Day were stationed (and therefore served) overseas for months and/or years. That's a long term stay. You make it sound like we flew them in the night before and that they were home for supper the night after.
If you ask a serviceperson where they served, they will give you a list of the places that they have been stationed, not a list that includes every day trip they over took. I know you don't like that, but that's the truth.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Serving overseas
Um... I think there is a flaw in that logic
For one thing, if you ask a serviceperson where they served, they will also include the battles.
No, we aren't argueing a legal point. There is no legal opinion in the room that I'm aware of. We might as well argue medicine (unless you are a lawyer or a doctor?)
Our intelligence gathering capability wasn't damaged? Certainly not?!? Have you seen the damage report? If not, how would you know? Any damage would also almost certainly be classified.
As I've said before, I don't give a rat's patoot about the IIPA. There was so much crap going on concerning properly protecting classified information in this.
RE: Serving overseas
Fair enough. I don't disagree. These battles, do they just sort of occur spontaneously over night with no advanced preparations or are the service people in question typically living and training in the region for prolonged periods both before and after the actual battle?
Even so, please provide a list of any major BATTLES, comparable to D-Day, that Valerie Plame was physically part of overseas in the past five years and I will evaluate your case...
I dare say that most of us aren't professional politicians either, but it seems we discuss a lot of politics here. Most of us aren't professional climatologists but we seem to discuss the merits or lack thereof of climatology science. Most of use are not creationists but we seem to have lots of discussion on the merits of creationism.
This is a silly comment. Whether I have a law degree or not I can certainly site the opinions of people who do, and Victoria Toensing clearly does in ADDITION to being a principle participant in the very negotiations concerning the law at hand.
See, this is why you people are such disingenuous hacks. Do we have to, again, go down the path of discussing the English Language and the fact that WORDS HAVE MEANINGS?
My quote:
Your deceitful rephrasing:
Of course I KNOW that you KNOW that words have meanings, which is why you purposely removed the critical one. Why would you do that? Would it be for a fine upstanding and honest motive? I think not.
So, you don't give a rat's patoot about the law (IIPA). That's fine, you can care about whatever rat's patoots that you want. The topic of discussion in THIS thread is the LEGAL definition of covert agent and the legislative intent of the law.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
RE: Serving overseas
I am still scratching my head over this comment. How is a link to a list of casualty estimates refuting the assertion that men who fought on D-Day were stationed in theatre for months and/or years prior to the battle?
Are you suggesting that the men who fought on D-Day were actually living in the United States the whole time and just commuted to Europe on a daily basis or arrived there a day or two before the operation began? This would have been an interesting accomplishment given the state of aviation and naval capabilities at the time.
Do you deny that the men who fought on D-Day were living outside the United States for prolonged periods of time in theatre?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Why do you dispute The CIA Director
Michael Hayden now?
When you have been so willing to give the CIA full authority on claims on other matters?
Hayden's Review that Verifies Plame was Covert
It is the economy, stupid.
Who's disputing him?
I have already admitted that the CIA calls her covert by their definition of covert. The dispute is whether that definition coincides with the definition and legislative intent in the law, which are the controlling factors.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
It seems to me
That we can discuss this fine point of law till we beat it to death and it still won't mater a bit until a court decides either way.
Sic semper tyrannis
I absolutely agree.
You all are free to keep claiming that Plame was covert, if you want, but I am likewise free to keep correcting the record as I see it. Fair enough (or do you somehow require that I let you call her covert but need to keep my mouth shut)?
[ This is directed more generally at those who want to call her covert than specifically at you, woodsman. ]
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
I'd be willing
to settle for now that there is a difference of opinion as to her legal status.
Sic semper tyrannis
I am fine with this.
But if others wish to keep expressing their opinions, I will do likewise.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
That's very generous of you
considering Federal District Court Judge Walton
, Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and CIA director General Hayden have all testified and affirmed in a Federal Court that Mz. Plame was indeed covert.
So thank you very much but this is a boolean question. The answer is either yes or no, black or white....there are no grays here. I appreciate your efforts to be diplomatic, but cutting the difference isn't possible on this question.
The fact that the disclosure also forced the closure of Brewster Jennings by the CIA....was that covert? Or was that just a registered side business of the CIA to try to cover expenses.
RE: That's very generous of you
Well, apparently they were mistaken.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Again
Hayden clearly stated she was a covered agent.
Are you calling the Director of the CIA a liar?
You can call the Sun the Moon as far as I am concerned, but that doesn't make you right.
The more you claim fiction as fact the more you damage your own credibility. No one is telling you to shut up just that you are misguided.
It is the economy, stupid.
Not lying, mistaken ...
incorrect, wrong, outside of the true facts, pick your favorite term(s).
Personally, I hold the standard of the term liar to mean direct intent to deceive. I have no reason to believe that the CIA Director has any such intent.
However, if we want to use the definition of "lie" that is utilized by --> MOST <-- liberals when discussing Bush "lying" about the pre-war intelligence ... well then I guess he is lying (by THAT standard).
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
More on serving overseas
The ones that were never 'stationed' in France because they trained in Britain and were part of the beach landing served on the beaches of Normandy even if they were never stationed there.
The ones who were aboard ships in the war in the Pacific and and whose official station was on board the ship throughout the war still 'served' at Iwo Jima even if their official address remained a ship address.
The reason I didn't quote 'irreperable' is because depending on your definition, all Humint losses are irreperable (you can't get sources back once their lost) or no damage is irreperable.
RE: Serving overseas
In thinking about this a bit more, don't you think that equating Valerie Plame taking a faux business trip with participation in D-Day just a little dismissive of the contribution of those who fought there? I am not trying to diminish the value of Plame's service, but I do think that this comparison has the effect of diminishing the service of the D-Day veterans.
Even so, this raises an interesting question in my mind (which is completely separate and apart from the legal issue), but just to follow your line a reasoning to it's logical conclusion what would you say is the minimum level of time and participation in a specific area that should be required to claim that you were "serving" there? [ Toensing is obviously claiming that the line was drawn at having had a permanent residence set up, or in other words you resided there. ]
A year? A month? A week? A day? A few hours?
Do you actually have to have performed some significant activity there or merely passed through? So, does a layover in a German airport while en route to Iraq count as having "served" in Germany on its face?
Do you have to have actually touched the ground there or is traveling through the airspace of some country sufficient? So, for instance, sitting in first class sipping a cool drink while traveling over, say, Libya qualifies as having served there and is, essentially, equivalent to having served on D-Day? This is obviously an extreme example but just where would YOU set the threshold?
DISCLAIMER: Again, we are NOW discussing our own hypotheticals which have absolutely NO bearing on the actual legal definitions and legislative intent ... just to be clear.
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
The way I see it now -
the law itself is seriously flawed.
Sic semper tyrannis
How long is service
If she was ever in jeopardy of being arrested for spying or espionage, then I would consider it service.
So flying through airspace or being on layover would not count, but meeting with or recruiting a foreign agent would.
Essentially the same as serving in the front lines on D-Day? Probably not from a karmic perspective considering the casualty rates, but the ship board officers who went in after the battle still risked getting sniped (even if few did) and while their risks were far less than the invasionary forces, I would never say that they didn't serve.
Actually, I'm sort of done with this.
I have provided testimony from a principle participant in the drafting of the legislation who has provided her first hand account of the events and the legislative intent. You don't like that, fine.
Where's your contravening evidence? Why hasn't Waxman corrected the record on this point as he said he was going to do at the end of the hearing where Toensing testified? If he did, then show me. If Toensing lied why isn't Waxman pursuing some sort of charges or at least holding press conferences and making lots of noise?
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree
Robert Novak
Who wrote the article that outed Plame but was somehow absolved of responsibility and criminality in the matter ( according to Toensing position he didn't knowlingly know, or was he given immunity ) will be interviewed on CSpan Sunday night. He will be discussing the sources for his stories over his long career.
He has a new book out and will also be discussing it on CSpans book TV, which takes calls form viewers.
It is the economy, stupid.
Well and good, but what force of law
do the non-legal opinions of law drafters have when determining the meaning of plain English? We sometimes cite the Federalist papers or the private letters of the founding fathers for guidance in ambiguous passages, but if what they meant isn't in the language, than it isn't in the language.
Unfortunately for Toensing, none of that is in the language. So either she's being dishonest about the "true" meaning of the statute, or she's the least competent law drafter in history. The statute says absolutely nothing about who the granting of covert status is "really" intended to protect, only that it's granted to
The CIA is correct about Plame's status as the statute is written. Are we supposed to call up Toensing re: every other statute, just to ask, "Look, we know what the words mean in plain English, but we also need to know what your personal intentions were"? If so, next time I'm pulled over for a speeding ticket, I refuse to pay until they track down the person who drafted the specific lines about speeding violations, just to make sure that they're enforcing it according to the intentions of the author.
You see why this is no way to run a legal system, right?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
RE: Well and good, but what force of law
You may not like it, but on controversial topics if there is a record of the legislative intent
the courts will take that into account when deciding cases. Two of her passages were obviously quotes from some Senate report so there WILL be a record of the negotiations someplace as well as previous versions of the legislation.
I can only assume that these will corroborate her account provided here, and like it or not this account is consistent with the view that the legislation was intended to apply to operatives living overseas (whether they be employees or ordinary citizens).
You can throw as many tantrums as you like, I still don't agree and thus far the first hand evidence is on my side.
No one said that Toensing wrote the entire text by herself. It was a collaborative effort which came out of a negotiation between the affected and interested parties. This is not necessarily her text, but her testimony clearly addresses the issue of legislative intent
from the perspective of a primary and first hand observer of the drafting process. As such, it is clearly relevant.
Oh, and if you actually READ the text I provided you will see that she was the "chief counsel for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence". That's hardly a "non-legal opinion."
Republican Maverick at Large
-4:Strongly Disagree; 0:Meh; +4:Strongly Agree