1 Too bad you don't feel the same about the white house exposing a cia operative to punish the author of a report they didn't like. Even if the report was true. The article is not illegal. The White House exposure of Valerie Plame a an act of high treason. You need to get your priorities straight.

2 gee, deccles, I am really feeling that one. I am so glad we have super smart guys like you hanging around to spell out all the facts. I can't wait until the next election so I can vote for Hillary. You have convinced me.

3 Actually, Mr. K...you probably will vote for her. She's been best buddies with Newt G. recently! Deccles makes a very valid point, you have to admit. What happened to Valerie Plame was to quote Bush, "Absurd!". Not that I'm letting any media sources off my crook hook anytime soon.

4 Deccles, you need to have a reality check. Start with the timeline here: and just keep scrolling. One other little tidbit you probably missed: Valerie Plame's cover had been blown by Aldrich Ames back in 1994. She was no longer a field agent and was assigned DC desk duties. No cover to be blown, no crime committed. Better luck next time, Kossac.

5 they also mark their dead in the halls of the CIA with a single star, and no name Ford, these people are dead so what's the harm of releasing their name right? things are secret, for a reason.

6 he has no point....as Mashburn, uh, points out...maybe Newt and Hillary will have a love child. PS - I went to school with Newt's daughter. She was a hottie.

7 deccles, not a shred of proof that the white house outed Plame. And Plame didn't seem to mind too much, as she and her husband subsequently went on a speaking tour. Apparently nobody was harmed-- unlike the treasonous shit you Libs are up to, tearing your country down and getting people killed.

8 deccles, you have a wonderful point ... if one ignores that it has almost no factual basis...

9 Proof, proof, proof. Who needs it? Reasonable doubt should be enough to judge people on a personal basis.

10 Even if it won't be enough in court of law.

11 I'm not going to say anything ill of George Allen, but if he's the nominee I probably will vote for Hillary. Not that I don't think the world of his father.

12 Anyway, I guess I should say why I won't vote for Allen... but I don't really know. Then again, if he runs I'm pretty sure he'll beat Hillary, if for no other reason than that he looks a lot more like the Great Mr. Doody than does Bill's wife. And according to my theory of US Presidential politics the candidate who most resembles Howdy wins every time.

13 I have to kinda go with deccles on his statement regarding Plame. Whether or not damage was done, the timing suggests there was a less than stellar motive involved. I wouldn't go so far as to say "the White House" though. It was someone "in" the White House, but the statement implies that it was a mass consensus (the White House!) to "out" her. I think it detracts from what's right and wrong about it. However, there are some truths that kill and the press has shown a total lack of morality and common sense in this regard.

14 I am always in awe at how easily, and with no sense of shame, the subject can be changed. Congratulations libs. Of course the idea that you can excuse one set of bad behaviors by pointing out another is complete crap, but so what.

15 Defense Guy: It's barely relevant to raise the Plame issue, and had her life actually been placed in danger it might have been relevant here. But it wasn't, and of course had it been there's already a law in place to deal with the issue. Not so with regard to the press. We tolerate their general level of anti-Americanism and disregard for issues of national defense during "peace time" (as in the Glomar Explorer incident, for instance) but the only reason it's tolerated during war is the legacy of Vietnam, wherein the consensus (largely erroneous in my view) has been that they performed a service. I'd argue that by misrepresenting the Tet Offensive as a US defeat, and by publishing the Pentagon Papers, which was a self-critical study conducted by the military itself, their "service" was on behalf of the enemy. My impression is that this President and this Congress will not challenge the press, so if anyone is to hold the press remotely accountable IT IS US.

16 Damn, the subject got changed and I fell into the trap. [gack!]

17 It happens to me all the time Oyster. I suppose it is a compulsion of mine to refute the crap that so often gets posted in these comment threads.