Dick, in this long moronic diatribe, are you drunk, you seem to have forgotten that the Bush Administration brought all of this heat onto itself by leaking Plame's name to the press. Too bad Plame didnt have a black baby like John McCain or maybe Karl Rove would have been able to save this one for the Dick and Bush.

Nice shot at Castro and Carter by the way, when Bush is impeached are you going to apply for a job as President of the United States of America, or is the stench of scandal and George Bush's driving of the Republican Party into the side of a mountain going to keep you out of office.

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." — George Walker Texas Ranger Bush-Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

You proclaim you are not, but I submit that you are, slowly and inexorably getting drawn into this argument again!

Yes, it is a technical “classification” which made her covert. That would be the classification given to her by the CIA where she worked. Read the memo. She had traveled at least 10 times to seven different countries. And to quote the CIA’s document: “At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 June 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.”

In fact, she was not covert by the time she appeared in Vanity Fair in their January 2004 issue. This is because Robert Novak outed her in July, 2003.

Also, I would note, as an aside, that it is not me who is professing that she was a covert CIA agent; it is the CIA which is stating that as a fact in documents submitted as evidence in a Federal prosecution.

I would also note in passing that Joseph Wilson who you characterize as “a low level flunky ambassador” was General Services Officer at the embassy in Niger from 1976 to 1978, Administrative Officer in the US Embassy in Togo from 1978 to 1979, Administrative Officer in the US State Department from 1979 to 1981, Administrative Officer in the US Embassy in South Africa from 1981 to 1982, Deputy Chief of Mission in Burundi from 1982 to 1985, Deputy Chief of Mission in Congo from 1986 to 1988, Deputy Chief of Mission in Iraq from 1988 to 1991, Ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, Political Adviser to Commander in Chief U.S. Armed Forces, Europe EUCOM, in Stuttgart, Germany from 1995 to 1997, Special Assistant to President and Senior Director for African Affairs for the National Security Council from 1997 until 1998.

Excellent credentials.

Y’all don’t have a leg to stand on. Valerie Plame was covert and y’all supported the release of that information to the enemies of the United States for purely political reasons.

Sorry, this is not “just a memo.” It is a document from the CIA filed as exhibit A in a Federal prosecution case. Here’s the story in case you missed it:

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak

Or if you want another source, here’s the Wall Street Journal’s admission that the memo is from the CIA and that Plame was covert:

“Mr. Fitzgerald's filing does purport to answer one long-lingering question in this saga. Exhibit A in Mr. Fitzgerald's filing is a memo from the CIA, asserting that in October 2005 (which is to say, 15 months before the trial began), the CIA declassified her employment status and acknowledged that, in the agency's view, she had been a covert agent during the 18 months prior to her exposure in Robert Novak's July 2003 column about her husband.”

If you have a WSJ subscription you can read it all here:

Fitzgerald Doubles Down

Now I know that facts will not sway some people, even facts established in Federal court submitted under oath and not refuted. It allows them to maintain their fantasy view of the world where just wishing makes it so. However, I am not one of those people. If you have any actual evidence or facts which support your assertion, I’d be happy to review them.

I am curious though. Why do you so adamantly support this treasonous action of outing a covert CIA agent?

Jeffy,

Read the article you quoted - it states "No one was ever charged with the leak of Plame's name itself, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents."

THERE WAS NO CRIME!!!!

There was a crime. Scooter Libby was tried by Patrick Fitzgerald and found guilty on three counts of lying and obstruction of justice. You need to pay attention, it was in all the papers.

I certainly do not want to speak for Beaver but no one (Richard Armitage) was prosecuted for outing Plame.

Armitage should be in jail if an outing occurred.

Libby had no impact whatsoever on this 'investigation' and was a sacrificial lamb- why? I guess Fitgerald had to justify the ridiculous length and scope of this 'investigation' considering he knew from the first day that Richard Armitage was Novak's source. Someone had to be prosecuted, it could have just as easily been John Dickerson, David Gregory, Ari Fleischer, Walter Pincus, Tim Russert or Matthew Cooper since none of their stories/recollections matched either.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

You are absolutely correct there was no prosecution for outing the covert CIA agent. Fitzgerald, the Republican prosecutor, clearly stated that he could not prosecute that because Scooter Libby lied and obstructed justice and therefore prevented that prosecution. That is what Libby was found guilty of and why he is awaiting sentencing.

Still hoping for rain…

had not been on assignment outside the U S for over 6 years and therefore absolutely no one could have outed her as a covert agent
under the code section dealing with revealing the identification of a covert agent. That code section requires that the agent must have been assigned out of the U S and must have been back in the U S less than five years.

Jeff, time to quit beating a dead horse.

JeffC,

Even if I were to agree that Plame was "Classifed" or "Covert", then Libby's lies had nothing to do with the outing. Armitege's outing of Plame to Novak et. al., came weeks before the article was printed. And then the lies that Libby supposedly made, came AFTER she was outed by Novak.

And since, you suggested that the Vanity Fair article visa via Plame herself could not "out" an "outed" agent, then Libby could not have hindered the investigation, since Fitzgerald knew about Armitage in the very first week of his investigation.

Fitzgerald, like Wilson, saw this event as an opportunity to make a name for himself, so he didn't like the small fish that he caught as soon as he put his hook into the water, with Armitege. He wanted someone in the Whitehouse. So he questioned people in the WH who couldn't take the 5th Amendment, as I would have recommended. He forced them going before Grand Jury after Grand Jury until they caught him lying about a matter that had no real significance.

Again, Fitzgerald and Wilson were looking to politicize the process, neither had the integrity of looking for the truth.

I may reluctantly grant you that Plame may have been covert, but as you said, once Novak outed her, she was not longer considered Covert.

If Armitege was either closely associated with the WH or was pro Iraq War, he would have been prosecuted, but it didn't fit into the overall media set up that Plame was outed for political reasons by the evil Bush Administration. She was outed by a Career Civilian.

NO! Say it isn't so!

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

You have been inexorably drawn back into the argument.

Again though, you overlook the fact that Novak’s column referred to two top administration officials.

just a confirming source. Novak asked them directly that he had been told that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was directly involved in pushing to have her Amb. Husband with no experience to do the investigation. That for some reason, her husband was given no exhaustive debriefing. That her husband had been given a pass on writing a brief to the CIA. That her husband had not been required to hold the information "confidentially". And that her husband was given clearance to write a public letter to the NYT that slammed the adminstration with impunity.

The Administration officials reply to Novak, "thats what I heard".

Thats the second source that you claim was the evil outing.

If there was an outing it was Armitege.

C'mon JeffC, you are smarter than your postings. This was never about the outing of a "covert" agent. It was about politicizing the Iraq War/Bush Administration to the American Public.

This was much ado about nothing, that snowballed due to the politics into a huge story for no other reason than to smear the Republicans.

The Dems weren't scared of the outing of an agent. The day that the Dems take things like this serious, they will fire all of the Left wing Chairs of their House sub committees on intelligence. Remember Leahy probably got someone killed for his outing, and nary a word is mentioned of that.

Nor to the treasoneous behavior of those Dems that went to Iraq in the days before the war, and since, who have encouraged the terrorists into continuing their fight, by publically telling the world that we are losing and that we don't have the resolve to stay there until the job is done.

So wrap yourself in the American Flag in protecting Plame, but remember men and women are dying because Democrats have given hope and encouragement to the terrorists all over this world.

I wish your sence of indignation of the Plame matter would be proportionally equal to this travesty as well.

We may have to agree to disagree about this. To me, the outing of a covert CIA agent is fairly serious. It endangers not only the agent but puts everyone in foreign countries who dealt with the agent in the past at risk. The CIA certainly thought it was serious since they were the ones who initially demanded the investigation. You seem to forget that inconvenient fact when you write, “This was never about the outing of a "covert" agent. It was about politicizing the Iraq War/Bush Administration to the American Public.”

Not only wrong, but selective: “So wrap yourself in the American Flag in protecting Plame, but remember men and women are dying because Democrats have given hope and encouragement to the terrorists all over this world.”

Please see my: post to Mixer.

I haven’t seen y’alls outrage against the Generals and against Kissinger for saying the same thing.

Wrap myself in the flag? I don’t think so. Seems like you are attacking the messenger because the facts are not on your side.

"...the outing of a covert CIA agent is fairly serious. It endangers not only the agent but puts everyone in foreign countries who dealt with the agent in the past at risk."

I couldn't agree more!

If you know of anyone at anytime who outs a covert CIA agent- I will be the first to call for the death penalty for the treasonous maggot!

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

You would deny, for political reasons, that the event occurred. There is no question that Plame was outed. The CIA itself was the agency bringing the charges. Tell me what evidence you have to refute the CIA's initial charge and complaint that Plame was outed.

Kenneth Duberstein was an inadvertent player but not a source.

"An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source.(SINGULAR) He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left."
Jeff, YOU MUST read Novak's own words regarding this issue. Please.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

I don't believe that's true, Mixer.

If memory serves, no less than FOUR people yakked to Novak about Plame in order to compromise a CIA network and put lives at stake for political gain.

Those four were Libby, Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove and Armitrage. Let's see, Fleischer cut a deal and ratted out Bush, Rove initially lied his keister off under oath but then had a miraculous rememberance when a Time magazine staffer blabbed that she implicated Rove, Armitrage claimed it was an axcident (riiiiight) and Libby perjured himself left right and center and thought he could get away with it. He didn't.

But as Novak said, once someone gives you the name the rest is just confirmation. There is still a vigorous argument to be made as to whether she fit the definition of being 'covert'.

For what it's worth, I cannot take seriously a grown man named 'Scooter' but I do think he was caught in the Martha Stewart trap. Of course I never liked her either. Rove is the devil. Rove is most of what's wrong with the Republican party. Ari Fleisher isn't smart enough to 'hatch a plot'. Armitage though, Armitage is an idiot and has a long standing reputation as a gossip. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Your article was written years later after Novak’s original July 14, 2003 column in which he outed Plame. Here is Novak in his original article:

“Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.”

Mission To Niger

Okay Jeff. We are never going to get anywhere on this.

I made my argument. You discounted every source and called the man who ‘outed’ her a 'revisionist'.

You are unable to answer several of the questions I have asked and cannot explain why Armitage was not prosecuted.

Yet, somehow, you know that Plame was a covert agent, despite the women who wrote the law (and the CIA) saying she was not.

And apparently you also believe that some evil Republican plot was hatched to blow her cover with the help of anti-war activist and the widely disliked Richard Armiitage.

You have also disregarded the confessions of the man who outed her and call Novak's confessions of sources as 'revisionist'.

Obviously, despite any evidence to the contrary, you feel the two officials were Libby and some unknown Republican operative (Bush maybe?) and I feel it was Armitage and Armitage.

Now, can you please tell us all why Armitage and Libby were not indicted for 'Outing' a 'Covert' CIA agent as you and 'Slate' magazine contend?

I think you agree that Fitzgerald knows that Armitage was one of the guys who told Novak and has shown he is more than willing to ruin lives and indict a Republican - so why no indictment for 'Outing' Plame?

Here - run this down Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, stated in a July 14, 2005 interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN that "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

Or this one:

Plame commited Pergory in this case, why wasn't she indicted? :

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzUyMzgyZmVjZDUzYWRjYTU2YmM1MWEwZDYzNTI3OGQ=

Also, let's play the Joe Wilson outed Plame outed herself in 'Who's Who' game: http://www.movermike.com/posts/1130605800.shtml

Or better yet, accept the fact that the multi-million dollar investigation showed she was not covert and therefore could not have been outed by Armitage or Libby, or anyone else.

Bye Jeff, have a good weekend.

__________________________________________________________________

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

I called Novak a revisionist because of the article you posted where he is trying to wiggle out of having outed the covert CIA agent and you were posting it under the title: “Novak claims Armitage and no one else”. I merely cited Novak’s original article where he clearly stated that there were TWO administration officials. You were the one who insisted to me, “YOU MUST read Novak’s own words…”

You also state as a fact about me, “Obviously, despite any evidence to the contrary, you feel the two officials were Libby and some unknown Republican operative (Bush maybe?) and I feel it was Armitage and Armitage.”

No! Everyone now knows, thanks to the investigation, who was the second source. Here it is from Novak’s own writing:

Novak: Rove confirmed Plame's identity

You are correct in, “And apparently you also believe that some evil Republican plot was hatched to blow her cover.” I would not use the “evil” characterization but it is clear that after Wilson wrote his article, the White House, directed by the Vice President’s office, went into high gear to defame and discredit Wilson which started this whole affair.

And, repeating again, Fitzgerald himself said the reason nobody could be tried for outing the CIA agent is that Libby lied and obstructed justice.

It would be the first one to tell you about them. Although I guess if you are on a conference call and they speak simultaneously you could pretend it was two.

So, all the reading you have done points to Libby and Rove? Gee, and I thought it was Armitage who 'outed' a non-covert, covert desk jocky. He will be relieved since he too thought he 'outed' Plame.

Glad we had this chat.

(Note to self, if ever caught doing something wrong by Jeff - confess like Armitage, Jeff will ignore it, remove me from the suspect list and deny it ever happened.)

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

When you were putting the words in my mouth that I did not say: “Obviously, despite any evidence to the contrary, you feel the two officials were Libby and some unknown Republican operative (Bush maybe?) and I feel it was Armitage and Armitage.” I concede I was in error in only clarifying the part about the “unknown Republican operative.”

In the future I will be more careful and refute both parts of what you imagined I said.

You are right, it was Armitage and Rove. Libby was the one lying to the prosecutor about it.

I apologize!

"Fitzgerald, the Republican prosecutor,"

You are better at making your arguments than this red herring garbage.

If being a Republican was a political consideration or motivator for Fitzgerald he would have nailed Armitage (widely disliked by us 'Republican' types) and let little Scooter scoot on.

And we do need rain, so I guess I will go ahead and wash the car or take a motorcycle ride. Put out your house plants.

You will owe me big time though.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

He was always a Republican. He was appointed by Republicans after Ascroft was determined to be too corrupt to be trusted by the American people to handle the investigation. My point was that the prosecution was not done by MoveOn.org.

That makes my point - if Fitzgerald's motivation was 'political' he would have indicted Armitage (bad guy) and not Libby (good guy); therefore, referring to him as "Republican prosecutor Fitgerald" is just a red herring, indeed an insinuation that his motives were somehow political and that an outing did in fact occur. (Not)

Tell me then Jeff, why did you included your statement initially that he was a Republican? It was not relevant to the discussion, so what was your motivation?

If we mean ole' bad Republicans would have gotten what we wanted, we would have concluded that Scooter Libby had a memory at least as good as all those liberal journalists and that no investigation was necessary since Armitage was the "leak" and responsible for the alleged "outing" of a desk jockey at the agency back in June before Novak's column. We would have then given the 60 million dollars spent on the investigation to some undeserving "rich" guy to hire more people (create jobs) to build yachts for more "rich" guys. We are all about the 'rich' you know. Of course, if you raise our taxes we just pass it on to the little guys so we win regardless. Besides, if you are REALLY rich, like the Hollywood types, you have all the money you need and couldn't care less about taxes so you could placate your guilt by supporting absurd liberal causes at the expense of small business and the middle class. I digress.

Come on Jeff, my ADD id kicking in and I - gots ta go - I have yard work to do, and then I have to make it rain by washing the cars.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

You implied that it was political when you said: "Libby had no impact whatsoever on this 'investigation' and was a sacrificial lamb- why? I guess Fitgerald had to justify the ridiculous length and scope of this 'investigation' considering he knew from the first day that Richard Armitage was Novak's source."

Who was making him a "sacrificial lamb"? Why did he have to go to "ridiculous lenghts"? He did not. He was investigating a serious affair and my pointing out he was a Republican was to make the point that it was not political.

I bet that document was hidden here

Amazing that no one was prosecuted for the 'outing'. How do you explain that?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Yes, it is amazing. However I will just have to accept Fitzgerald’s explanation that it was Libby’s lies and stonewalling that prevented him from prosecuting anyone on that count. The administration was just lucky they had a lapdog to take the fall I guess. You can read Fitzgerald’s explanation here or scroll down in the story and watch the video:

Cheney's Suspected Role in Security Breach Drove Fitzgerald

Mixer, don’t tell me that you support these treasonous activities just because they were done by Republicans too?

There were no charges ever brought for outing Valarie. How many times do you have to be reminded that there was no treasonous act committed, except those by Sandy "Pants" Berger?

JeffC,

I am one of those 'naive' Republicans who thinks that Valerie Toensing actually knows what she is talking about since she wrote the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (which is what you are talking about violating here).

The best article I have read on this topic is here:

The Plame Fiasco

“Novak testified that Armitage told him on July 8, 2003, that it was Wilson's wife, "Valerie," who sent him on the Niger trip. Not until September 2006 did Armitage release Novak to reveal publicly that he had been the columnist's source.”

“The Post's Bob Woodward testified that Armitage told him on June 13, 2003, rather colorfully: Wilson's "wife's a [expletive] analyst at the agency."” Oops!!!

I am actually much more concerned about this treasonous act Jeff:

From the Headlines of Al Jazeera: Harry Reid Tells American Troops: YOU LOST IN IRAQ

And this:

Former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was sentenced Thursday to community service and probation and fined $50,000 for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives and intentionally destroying some of them.

CNN: Democrat removes and destroys highly classified documents from the national archives

Although I would have loved to see Richard Armitage go to jail for the leak since he is responsible for it.

MSNBC: The Leak Was Me!

___________________________________________________________________
Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

And wrong. But when you are right, (not very often), I am the first to join you! A $50,000 for Sandy Berger is outrageous. He should have gone to jail. I have no sympathy for him at all.

However, you should not put too much trust in Victoria Toensing’s somewhat fuzzy recollection of what she worked on as compared to the actual law.

Here is the actual law as it exist on the books:

(4) The term "covert agent" means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

Since the 1982 Act was actually amendments to the 1947 Act, Here is a link to the updated 1947 Act as amended if you want to scan through the whole laborious thing:

National Security Act of 1947

In Victoria Toensing’s editorial in the Washington Post she says this:

“At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

Here is the entire article:

The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?

As you can see, Toensing’s statement that, “It means permanent assignment in a foreign country” is erroneous. There is absolutely no reference to “permanent assignment” whatsoever in the actual law.

I disagree that the 1947 law applies as it was written in this case; however, I will concede that it does apply to eliminate that ONE aspect of my previous argument and move the argument forward.
____________________________________________________
I am thankful that we both agree Sandy Berger should have been punished MUCH more severely.
____________________________________________________

Okay, let's move forward.

The portions of my argument you disregarded are the portions that is most applicable and most relevant in my opinion.

“Novak testified that Armitage told him on July 8, 2003, that it was Wilson's wife, "Valerie," who sent him on the Niger trip. Not until September 2006 did Armitage release Novak to reveal publicly that he had been the columnist's source.”

“The Post's Bob Woodward testified that Armitage told him on June 13, 2003, rather colorfully: Wilson's "wife's a [expletive] analyst at the agency."” Jeff - this is before the 'Outing' dates listed in your fax that you posted to head this blog.

Armitage says "I screwed up".

Here's a LEFT WING blog on the topic:

Fitzgerald KNEW Armitage was the leak from the start. (But moved forward with a witch hunt anyway.)

Robert Novak- the 'leaker' says Armitage was his source:

Jeff - again, this is before the 'Outing' dates listed in your fax that you posted to head this blog. ARMITAGE is the leaker regardless of whether it was a crime or not!

Come on JeffC, everything I said in the first blog was dead on and you know it. IF a law was broken, Richard Armitage is the jerk who broke it. Put his butt in jail!

By the way, I am still looking for your opinion on this act of treason:

We are intellectually honest when we are intellectually consistent in our moral outrage.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

I have no problem at all with trying Armitage and, if found guilty, then sentencing him to jail or whatever.

And, I have heard over and over the argument: Fitzgerald KNEW Armitage was the leak from the start. (But moved forward with a witch hunt anyway.)

What this argument consistantly ignores is the fact that in Novak's article he clearly referred to TWO administration officials. He knew Armitage but did not know the identity of the second leaker.

I remain,
Watching the sky, hoping for rain.

AL JAZEERA : DEMOCRATIC LEADER Harry Reid to American Troops: YOU LOST IN IRAQ

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

You say: “We are intellectually honest when we are intellectually consistent in our moral outrage.”

I submit that you are not consistent in your moral outrage.

Reid said:

"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Harry Reid, the senate Democratic majority leader, told reporters. Reid, who held talks with George Bush on Wednesday, said he told the president that he thought the war could not be won through military force.

General Peter Schoomaker said (in 2004) "the power of information" and how the conflict is portrayed and perceived also has a major impact on the outcome. "This war that we're in cannot be won militarily," he told defense reporters here.

US Army chief: Iraq "cannot be won militarily"

There is "no way" the war in Iraq can be won by the United States and its allies, a former Army commander said Friday as he called for the troops to be withdrawn. General Sir Michael Rose, who commanded the United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia-Hercegovina from 1994 to 1995, said coalition forces in Iraq were facing an impossible situation.

"There is no way we are going to win the war and (we should) withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don't," he said.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070601/tuk-britain-military-iraq-a7ad41d.html

"We're losing and we have no contingency plan in place to turn this conflict around," the senior military planner said. "At the present time, we are engaged in a no-win scenario."

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7162.shtml

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who helped engineer the US withdrawal from Vietnam, says the problems in Iraq are more complex than that conflict, and military victory is no longer possible.

Iraq victory not possible: Kissinger

“The US military commander in Iraq is looking for further reinforcements while admitting that the war cannot be won without reconciliation with militants.”

New commander says there is no military solution in Iraq

If Plame was covert- which the investigation says she wasn't. Okay Jeff, you are in that slippery slope of reading too many liberal blogs:

This is what Harry Reid said:

‘I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — [know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,’’

NOT JUST YOUR COMMENT THAT:

"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,"

This is what he said- support it or don't Jeff, the rest is your explanation of what he ‘meant’ to say in this other statement is spin. (Revision.)

So Jeff, does it "hurt our troops" to tell them -- and the enemy -- that our Marines and G.I.s are risking their lives in a lost cause before they even suit up and start their engines for this morning's patrol?

Yet, you won't even call for his resignation?

Let’s be completely honest Jeff….. not take a half a sentence from one man and add words to ‘explain’ another.

Guess who said this and when: “"This will be won at the informational level and at the economic level, with the support of the military for security, and diplomatically."
"This is a tug between whether or not nation states, rule of law, civilization are going to succeed over everything that is the reverse of that. It really is a clash of ideas,"
"And this notion of how people are informed, what they think, and how it's described is a very powerful piece of this deal," he said.
"So are we winning? Well, we're not going to win it militarily. We are going to win it when Iraqis take ownership,"
it offers "an extraordinary opportunity to have a different Middle East."

Well Jeff, that was the same speech you parsed for less than a sentence by General Peter Schoomaker – in the only American article you choose to cite. (I really don’t care what foreign officers or those who are not actually there assume Jeff.)

Funny Jeff, you oppose immediate withdrawal from Iraq and yet you accuse me of being “… not consistent in your moral outrage” and yet Jeff you attack the Iraq war and those who support it while saying you do not favor immediate withdrawal. How is that being consistent?

And please, give me an example where I was not morally outraged in one instance while I was in another of the same type since you do not feel my 'moral outrage' is consistently applied and have accused me of such.

I think you are confusing my blogings with someone else’s.

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

I wasn’t there and cannot find a copy of Reid’s speech. However, this is what I did find:

From the article you posted:

“Reid said he told Bush on Wednesday that he thought the war could not be won through military force, but only through political, economic, and diplomatic means.”

From the same paper the day before, reporting on the speech:

"The (Iraq) war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization," Reid said in a news conference.

Later Thursday on the Senate floor, Reid said: "As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course -- and we must change course." The war funding bill should contain a timeline to "reduce combat missions and refocus our efforts on the real threats to our security," he said.

U.S. Republicans battle charge Iraq war is lost

Let me parse out this part that I totally agree with: "As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost.” I am the one who has been saying here over and over that we should negotiate with the Iraqis, Iran and Syria to settle the war in Iraq. I called for negotiations over two years ago here and in letters to the editor of this newspaper. And what kind of abuse have I gotten for it! Now, finally, the Bush administration is beginning to start to think about negotiations because they realize at long last that their strategy cannot win the war. And what is the response from Republicans? Abuse being heaped upon the administration by Republicans for considering negotiations with Iran and Syria. I hope that they can stand up to it but I doubt it.

I am in total agreement with General Sheehan’s assessment of the administrations strategy when he turned down the war czar job:

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job.

3 Generals Spurn the Position of War Czar

And you ask, “So Jeff, does it "hurt our troops" to tell them -- and the enemy -- that our Marines and G.I.s are risking their lives in a lost cause before they even suit up and start their engines for this morning's patrol?”

What a crock, Mixer. First of all, the troops over in Iraq are not fools. They are perfectly aware that there is massive division in the US over the Iraq war. Especially now with over 70% of the people against continuing the war and over 58% believing it was a mistake to begin with. They aren’t hurt by the debate going on in the US even if they disagree with it.

Secondly, and let me put it to you as a question, what do you think “hurts the troops” more, discussing it or supporting a failed strategy that has resulted in 3480 soldiers dead, 132 in May, with an additional 25,242 wounded?

Here is an open letter to Congress from retired Generals. Argue with them:

Dear Members of the 110th Congress,

We are writing to urge you to take immediate action to protect our troops.

We are concerned that the plan to deploy additional troops to Iraq, coupled with the serious readiness deficiencies, have left our armed forces in a state of emergency.
The situation in Iraq, grave and deteriorating, is troubling to us both as former military commanders and as American citizens. Top military officials have consistently acknowledged that the repeated and lengthy deployments are straining the Army, Marine Corps and Reserve and National Guard forces, and are taking a heavy toll on critical war fighting equipment.

We urge you to put pressure on the Iraqi government to take control of their own country and relieve the burden from American troops by setting a clear and definite timeline for a phased and deliberate redeployment of American combat forces from Iraq by no later than August 2008. We urge you to ensure that our troops meet the readiness standards required to protect Americans both at home and abroad. We urge you to ensure that those who serve in the name of this country receive the health care and support they need when they return to us.

Thank you for your consideration of our views. We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,

Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, Ret.)
Former President of the National Defense University

Brigadier General John Johns (USA, Ret.), PhD
Former Combat Arms Officer; Professor, national security strategy, National Defense University

Colonel Richard L. Klass (USAF, Ret.)

Captain Lawrence Korb (USNR, Ret.)
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, Installations and Logistics), 1981-1985

Major General Mel Montano (USANG, Ret.)
Former Adjutant General of New Mexico

Lieutenant General William E. Odom (USA, Ret.)
Former Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the Army, and former Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, 1977-1981

You said you did not support a complete and immediate withdrawl...that statement placed you squarely between immediate withdrawl and unconditional support - far left and far right views. Where do you stand now Jeff?

When are you going to show me where I used inconsistent "moral outrage"?

Come on Jeff- don't get angry and emotional - I sense that your name calling in on the rise. I am not a hypocrite with 'selective moral outrage', I am not a liar (bunk), and I am not a crock artist.

I know exactly what the troops feel and what it means to be pulled out of (and put in to) a mission for political reasons.

So, have you changed to position that you do NOT support a complete and immediate withdrawal or have you changed you mind?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

It just seems that it is focused entirely on Democrats. Where is your outrage against Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan and Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard, Jr. (USA, Ret.), and Brigadier General John Johns (USA, Ret.), and Colonel Richard L. Klass (USAF, Ret.), and Captain Lawrence Korb (USNR, Ret.) and Major General Mel Montano (USANG, Ret.) and Lieutenant General William E. Odom, all of whom support my and Reid's position?

So you are saying that you have changed your position on Iraq and now agree with Reid that we should have immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq?

I criticized Republicans when we debated the economy, remember? I criticized Republicans when I criticized Fitzgerald (a Republican), Libby, and Rove.

Heck Jeff, even my new moniker is a criticism of Bush's policy on immigration.

I disagree with you on Iraq. I think it is worth the fight- you don't. I know what we are trying to do takes more time than we have given it and war costs lives (although this is nothing like past wars).

I also know what a powerful difference it will make to have an ally and a democracy in Iraq where the terrorists, Islamic fascist Radicals, and Iranians all want to take over.

I have not changed my mind on Iraq Jeff. Nor has my resolve been weakened since September 11, 2001. I am in it for the duration. I also think we need to consider military options in Iran and Syria.

So I have selective moral outrage because I don't agree with most democrats on the Iraq war? Okay, when is the last time you criticized a Democrat? You won't even acknowledge that Harry Reid should have never, ever said that the war is lost while we have troops in the field.

The truth is Jeff, I actually think we are winning the war in Iraq. I also think we are losing the war at home.

The military will do it's part in Iraq. The liberals in America however will subvert the war by reliving their glorious anti-Vietnam days - and boy have they.

The truth is that Al Qaeda is depending on the Cindy Shehans, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reids of the world to fold and balk and destroy our will to fight and they are exceeding al qaeda's expectations.
___________________________________________________________________
Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

"I wasn’t there and cannot find a copy of Reid’s speech. However, this is what I did find:

Allow me to take you there Jeff. Harry Reid said what I told you that he said. (((Which was "I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — [know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.")))

Proof for Jeff: Harry Reid in his own words.

Why would you hate it when I am (occasionally) right? You do want the facts- don't you?
_________________________________________________________________

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

I agree with this statement by Reid:

"As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course -- and we must change course."

If we modify the above statement to qualify it with the, "As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq" then I can agree with it too.

So if you 'MODIFY' Harry Reid's statement (that you initially denied was true) you can agree with it?? You have lost it Jeff.

Here is what he said actually said "I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense, and — you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows — [know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

You called it 'Bunk' on me. Now, instead of admitting he did say it when I prove he did - you say that

"If we modify the above statement to qualify it with the, "As long as we follow the president's path in Iraq" then I can agree with it too."

I can't believe this is what your keen debate skills have become.
You know Jeff, 'modifying statements' changes them.

You are a woman. If you modify that statement - it's true too.

You are a Republican. Modify that too.

You want to know the truth and are open minded. Modify that too Jeff.

Goodnight Jeff - no modification needed, or is there?

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

I am not changing what Reid said. I should have been more clear. I'm saying that if you were to take Reid's statement and add that modifier, then I would agree with it. In no way am I denying he said it. You provided the link I could not find and there is no question.

I'm going to take a break. I've got baby backs on the grill and after long consideration, I have come to the conclusion that I am not going to change your mind tonight. Another time, maybe. I've still got eight months to convince you to vote for Hillary.

You might be a Bill Richardson man but you are not going to vote for Hillary.

_______________________________________________________________________

Democrats on Iraq before the polls changed

Great read guys. Jeff... If you've got some of those baby backs leftover give me a yell.

Where's that rain????

________

"That man was Griffin Judicial Circuit District Attorney Scott Ballard".

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY