Well, aside from all the BS that is this whole Plame case, now that I've seen pictures of her I know what covers I'd like her under!

Well Lorie you certainly know what it is to write a document full of lies but you have to remember not everyone is like you.

An obvious lie. Also obvious was her use of the word "covert" while avoiding the context of the law. "I am not a lawyer" stuff.

Does she think we're that stupid?

Lame. No wonder the CIA is so screwed up.

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she(Plame) said.

Perhaps still thinks she's undercover. Shhhhhhh....

She's playing the "how do you define "is" nuance game with the word "recommended".

Nice try, Val. See you on the next Vanity Fair cover. Or, who knows, maybe Hugh Hefner will come calling instead.

Gee Lori, I glade that provided the whole text of her statement (not)!

She also said that there is documentation and the source of the document that backs-up her story and Waxman requested a copy of the document.

I do not think that she would offer-up a fake document that does not exist.

Boy, keep serving up the same lies. The Senate committee may have conducted an exhaustive investigation, but the entire committee did not find that Plame was responsible for sending Wilson. Lori, be honest. Have you really never heard that the Democrats on the committee refused to sign off on that part of the report? With all of the times that's been mentioned, is your retention really that bad? Since just about half of the committee refused to endorse the finding, how can you possibly support the use of term "unequivocally," which is the exact opposite of what happened?

As for the memo from Plame, she has said that she was asked for a memo listing her husband's qualifications. Disbelieve her, as I'm sure you will, but it's certainly a reasonable enough explanation that it makes the memo something less than a smoking gun.

And nice try attempting to recall "what the meaning of is is." Unfortunately, it just looks moronic. Of course the meaning of words matter, especially in a legal sense. Words like "recommend" and "suggest" can have different meanings in a legal context. What kind of question is that?

And Robert the original, the head of the CIA testified today that Plame was covert. I suppose that made you sick, too? Funny how the only people insisting she wasn't covert are the people with absolutely no actual knowledge of the whole thing.

Gee Barney, when Plame produces that document and it says what she says, then you can gloat. Of course she could offer up a fake document, nobody is going to make her get it.

Did hugh leave the house without his helmet, and fall off his tricycle and bumb his head?

Lorie, Kim quibbled with my use of "legal" vs. "recieved" definition of Plame's status, but the fact has been revealed that the DCI (Hayden) declared her status "Covert". Let's call it De Facto Covert, because Toensing insists the term Covert is only applicable re: the law she formulated back in the day as a civil service(?) category. Unfortunately for the Bushies, the Agency assigned her as a specialist in the ostensible employ of Brewster-Jennings which is itself a Covert (shell) company and by Agency definition, the CIA officers employed there are COVERT, hence Hayden's statement read today. But put that aside. The crux of the matter has ALWAYS been INTENT! The INTENT of those who chose to punish (secretly, NOT administratively!) an EMPLOYEE (of the CIA), period! (Where's the civil service union on this anyway?) Bush feigned outrage, but NO INVESTIGATION WAS EVER UNDERTAKEN! THAT is the bombshell, Lorie. Bush lied AGAIN! I would have been pleased for Plame just to get her story told today, but then the White House security mutt, Knolly upstaged her with PROOF POSITIVE that this admin will step on anyone, and were SO sure they would get away with it. How could they imagine the Dems would piss in their Wheaties!

Words like "recommend" and "suggest" can have different meanings in a legal context. What kind of question is that?

True, then again, passing along someone's name and qualifications to a superior is not a legal matter. Even if, as she claims, someone else asked her to submit an e-mail summarizing her husband's qualifications, then what exactly was she doing? A peer review? Qaulifactions analysis? If there was any potential for conflict of interest (i.e. nepotism, and obviously there was...this WAS/IS her husband for crying out loud) then she should have declined the request.

Call it "recommended", "reviewing" or whatever, it's close enough for jazz and, apparently, government work.

Rob, lol.

Poor Joe & Valerie. They must really be desperate for that Hollywood movie. The truth would not make for a good screenplay however. Hence, the lies, lies, lies.

In other words, your post is effectively, already obsolete. Plame has been vouched for by Hayden. Prepare ye the way for All the President's Men ,version 2.0.

Plame clearly lied under oath . She can be my cellmate anytime. Under the Covers.

it sounds really silly and really desperate to claim thet Plame perjured herself today in the manner that Lorie (and virtually every other right wing blog) suggests.

why on earth would the woman lie in front of congress if there were such explicit documents in existence and so readily available to refute her testimony?

Of course your answer will be that she has no fear of prosecution because the massive congressional/governmental/media consipracy against this administration is sympatheic toward her and only persecutes republicans for perjury (like Bill Clinton)

I think there's an epidemic of PDS going around the right wing blogosphere today.

Lorie and some of the others of the Whizbang variety are true believers. They couldn't see the truth if it hit them square in the face. Not only are you dishonest Lorie; you're lazy as well. Rarely do we see any of your own research. Rather you find some drivel written by another true believer, paste it up and draw erroneous, disingenuous and outright false conclusions. You should be ashamed of yourself for this kind of dishonest crap.

I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.

Joe just followed her into a CIA Meeting and was chosen for the Niger trip . He had no idea why he was there? Who is she kidding. Liar

The Droolers now believe Hayden? A Bush Appointee?

First off, back when this Senate Investigative Committee was issuing its report the Senate was controlled by Republicans. Consequently, the veracity of any report such a committee would issue is definitely in doubt.

In addition, "offering up someone's name" is NOT the same thing as recommending him. I guess an analogous situation would be if one were to have a high-ranking vacancy at one's worksite and one were to say something like, "Sally Smith is a person who merits consideration for this promotion." Note, you are not recommending Sally over anyone else, you are not even saying she would succeed if promoted; instead, you are merely saying she deserves consideration by those who will make the decision.

Herman:

Your point is taken. However, I'll repeat what I said:

If there was any potential for conflict of interest (i.e. nepotism, and obviously there was...this WAS/IS her husband for crying out loud) then she should have declined the request.

That would happen in almost ANY business, especially if someone was a family memeber. Example: If my wife wanted to come work or contract for my company, I would decline ANY and ALL requests for her qualifications and background for fear of it being perceived as nepotism.

I notice that Herr Tony "The Fox" Snow of the Bush Propaganda Ministry has come up with a new and improved explanation for the latest of the ongoing lying scandals of this corrupt presidency. it's a really good one: it's the "hazy memory" defense for AG Gate. It's Nixonian in its audacity. Actually, these guys make Nixon and his gang look like amateurs.

You want to talk about lies? Try getting a modicum of intellectual honesty and call out this corrupt administration for its latest round of lying and perjury.

Am I wrong..or does Hugh spew alot of meangingless gobblely goop?

Stand by for the "we're not liars - we're just incompetent" defense next...

lies, lies, lies.... that's all they know how to do is lie.

And, as you can see from the pattern here at Wizbang when the bloggers get something wrong -- - it takes an act of Congress (literally - or in this case Congressional subpoenas) to get a conservative to admit their mistake and issue a correction or retraction -- further evidence of the total lack of integrity on the part of not only Washington DC conservatives, but every-day conservatives as well.

A true believer such as you might think the truth was meaningless, so i suppose you might be correct in that context.

Hugh, you make all kind of accuations but offer nothing to back up your big mouth. How may times has someone stuffed a fist in it lately.

The congressional investigation are available (other than those still classified) go read them as Lorie evidently has. You (hugh) should hurry and get another series of mental health treatments. BDS has a good hold on you and soon will become total insanity. Ooop's too late.

Hugh didn't fall of his Tricycle and hit his head. His momma won't let him play (especially on hard surfaces), so as you can see by all evidence he doesn't play well with others.

I do so love the comedy of the left wing. They know they are a lost cause but won't admit it. If I hated this country and everyone in it as bad as they claim to, I damn sure wouldn't live here. Either move or take a long jump off a tall building. I recommend the suicide angle as it will prevent your problems from spreading.

Tough words and a belch from an over the hill old man Scraps. Have uou looked under your bed lately? There might be a leftie or even a commie under there. Better lock and load.

To BryanD and the trolls:

I guess since Plame was covert we can expect an indictment of Armitage any day now. Right?

All politics aside, Hugh strikes me as a frothing, hateful, histrionic jerk. Ad hominem attacks and generalized poo-flinging do not count as reasoned debate. Why he hasn't been banned is beyond me.

but NO INVESTIGATION WAS EVER UNDERTAKEN! THAT is the bombshell, Lorie.

There wasn't? So Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has just been a figment of our imaginations since his appointment by the DOJ to ""prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice."

Am I missing something here?

Funny Insomnia, that's how i see posts like the drivel written by Lorie today and yesterday - hateful, histionic, poo-flinging and utterly dishonest. Ergo my "comment." See, that's what the thingee above where you type in your name says, "comment." Not "debate."

Poor Hugh, Lee, Barney and the rest.

The non scandal is over and they again have nothing. Reach for your lithium guys, and wait until the next non scandal. Even Fitzgerald last week said she was classified. Never mentioned covert. Oops, you lose again.

Next time don't put so much faith in proven liars. It's not wise. You wind up humiliated.

I did not recommend him.
I did not suggest him.
There was no nepotism involved.
I did not have the authority
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I do not like them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Speaking of pathetic, John Dean is now saying the fired attorneys non scandal is "Bush's watergate."

Yeah, and Iraq is Vietnam, and so on and so on. Can you guys ever get out of the past and into the future? And you whine when we bring up the last administration which wasn't long ago, and whose wife is now running for POTUS. Yet we shouldn't bring that up - lol.

It's now official. Liberals are a laughingstock.

Greg,

ROFLMAO!!!

It's just too easy, isn't it!?

While watching the hearing, Rep. Davis brought up a good point. How or why should people know she was covert? Well duh, figure a Republican Congress critter would ask that. What in the Fuck is a covert agent? Nobody is suppose to know, except the CIA.

It is a proven fact she was covert, and someone outed her to the famous Novak. Big deal, right? Just like giving secrets about a new weapon to a foreign country.

This matter, no what side of the aisle you live and breath about, concerns all Americans. Until the hearings are over, all evidence is gathered, quit your lies, counter lies, etc. Lets wait for the facts.

Aw hell, blame Clinton.

She wasn't covert. Covert agents don't walk freely in and out of Langley in the open for anyone to see.

And where is the prosecution of the leaker who outted her if she was covert? Oh that's right, cuz she wasn't.

Nice try Allen, but you lose. Seriously, guys, just sit back and maybe something else will come up.

Meanwhile, the global warming scam is coming apart too. And this is too funny:

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/this_is_getting_too_easy/

Allen, no, we're more concerned with leaks in the NYT that jeopardize our national security. But we won't hold our breath waiting for the liberals to care about that.

Had to check, but yes she was under oath and she lied like a worthless dog to congress. Now we'll see if anyone in congress has the balls to charge her. They have the written documents that prove without a doubt she was involved and they witnessed her lie. Anyone want to be the dhimmi's don't have the balls to do anything about it. I'll make a 99% sure bet, they won't do one thing except try to project her guilt to someone else.