The Plame Kerfuffle is dead. It died 7/11/06.
RIP

"Fire the leakers!" - Bush
"Liar the feakers!" - Bush after three beers.

Hey, let's look at ol' Cliffy May's resume:

From 1997 to 2001, he served as the Director of Communications for the Republican National Committee. In that role, he was the Republican Party's staff spokesman, and appeared frequently on national television and radio programs. In addition, he managed all RNC communications activities, including long-range strategic planning; press, radio and television services; online services; TV and radio coaching; speech writing; advertising and marketing. He also served as the Editor of the official Republican magazine, Rising Tide.

Nope, no bias here.

congressive after one beer: ... burp ... [thud]

Frogmarch sWilson... Next comes sKerry. Merry Fitzmas, moobats!

BTW, "moobats" was in reference to Valerie Wilson, Vanity Fair centerfold for the looney left.

This Corn guy is still spinning this story! These absolute liars need serious prison time. For justice and the good of the country.

Having stated in the beginning of this fiasco,
and witchhunt against President Bush and his administration-"This couple, using the old tactic
of Hollywood leftists, knowingly caused this uproar, because they were looking and baiting for
a "bookdeal, that would also lead to a movie offer"....This, is nothing new with the Hollywood-
heads, in their leftist/liberal attitudes, to get off running with this story by Wilson, and pushing
it off on the general public, as truth. The MSM,
will run with these type stories day in, day out,
just to get this stuff out, and Wilson proved he could "use them, and get the couples' names bantied about, with thoughts of himself being portrayed in the "up and coming movie, as another
James Bond type"...In the meanwhile, he outed his own wife, and she later claimed it was done by others' infuriated with their political leanings.
Hogwash, they wanted and perpetuated this story,
to advance themselves, and engraciate themselves in Hollywood for all the bucks "down the road".
They should have to reimburse all the monies, for
their lame attempts at the publicity they sought,
and Joe Wilson lying, should land him in jail. I
hope the prosecutors are as tenacious with Wilson,
as they were to try to "bring down Bush and his advisors". If I were Libby, I'd sue the pants off these Wilson and his wife-the big covert operator-LOL, and make them pay-BIGTIME!

Umm...guys? Both Rove and Libby have admitted to leaking the fact that Joe Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. As we have seen, that doesn't necessarily make it a crime. Nevertheless, they did leak it. Accept it and move on, all this denial can't be healthy.

Off topic: Can someone please point Jo in the direction of some basic lessons in the proper use of punctuation? It hurts my brain to read that gibberish.

Of course, now that this investigation is winding down, it no longer seems to matter that the administration tried to silence a critic of the Iraq War, who actually was brazen enough to report findings from Niger that contradicted the uranium supply spin that it was spewing back in 2002.
It no longer matters that regardless of contradictory evidence, Bush put those sixteen little words in his State of the Union, alleging that Saddam was in fact, obtaining yellowcake from Niger to fuel his WMD's. That only led us into a nightmarish situation with no end, where 2500 + American lives have been lost, 20,000 servicemen and women have been maimed, at least 100,000 Iraqi lives have been lost, $2 billion a month in tax-payer funds have been wasted, and the military now fighting two major wars, is in a poor position to respond to more serious threats in North Korea, Iran and Palestine.

And of course now, it no longer matters that our leaker-in-chief, who promised to dismiss anyone associated with leaking Plame's identity was, at the time, ahem-being disengenuous with our citizenry.

No, what matters here is that Karl Rove is free and clear to mount his campaign to divide America even further in '06. Our justice system has triumphed once more.

"Novak asked CIA spokesman Bill Harlow for confirmation. Harlow confirmed the information and did not suggest to Novak that revealing her name might put her in danger."

Well, no, revealing her name may not have put her in direct danger, but he did say not to name her. Mark, THIS falls under telling the truth, but not the whole truth:

"Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified."

"classified"

There's another key word.

BUSH: "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

Fitzgerald said in his press conference announcing that Libby was indicted that Plame's status was classified. All White House officials have to sign a non-disclosure agreement saying they won't reveal classified information.

Also, as Harlow said, Plame DID NOT suggest Wilson for the trip. Other agents at the CIA wanted him and asked Plame to help facilitate getting him on board.

This leak of classified information was NOT for the benefit of the country, but for the benefit of the administration in a FALSE attack on a critic of the war. It exposed a loyal CIA agent who had worked for years to find information about WMDs in an effort to protect the United States.

Rove SHOULD be gone. He leaked classified information. I guess Bush's idea of "appropriate action" is a pay raise.

Kerfuffle is the gay-est word I have ever read.

This story is deader than dead. MSNBC and the loons on that station, such as Sissy Matthews and his two viewers, really pushed Plamegate and a Whitehouse Coverup. Now, they have egg all over their faces. Everyone knew that the Pimp and the Prostitute pushed this non-story using David Corn as his ally.

And of course we should believe every single word Bob Novak has ever uttered as the full, unvarnished, unassailable truth because his halo is positively radiant.

And anyone who disagrees with him is lying.

I guess that's what the present argument boils down to.

Tom claims "....in a FALSE attack on a critic of the war."

So so wrong, Tom

First,the attack came FROM the "critic of the war" when he LIED in his NYT article about the nature of what he found in Niger.

Second, a more subtle attack on the White House came when it was put about by Wilson and his cronies that it had been Cheney who sent him to check up on Bush. I clearly remember the lip-smacking glee of the media at the new "proof" of "dissension in the White House" and the gloating speculation of how Bush would view this proof of "disloyalty". The Cheney involvement was key to the whole thing---it was not enough to simply misrepresent the findings Wilson had actually presented to the CIA after his trip (which,by the way, supported the British claim) but the plan depended on using the lie to create division and distrust among White House staffers. So the Wilson contingent tried to implement a game of "Let's You And Him Fight".

Calling Wilson a liar referring to his NYT piece was not an attack---it was an accurate setting-straight of the record, the correction of a lie.

Making it clear that Cheney had not been involved in the selection of Wilson to go to Niger was not an attack. It was an accurate setting-straight of the record, the correction of a lie.

Passing on information which cleared up the question of how Wilson had been chosen for this assignment was not an attack. It was an accurate setting-straight of the record, the correction of a lie.

It just so happened that the third correction happened to include the name of a person who had once been covert and who was still listed in a classified list of covert agants, even though she had long ago been outed by Aldrich Ames, been called home, had married a man in the diplomatic corps (which,her boss had repeatedly stated, would have made it impossible for her to be covert anyway) and was well-known in DC as an analyist with the CIA, even having her name placed in Who's Who BY HER HUSBAND as a CIA employee.

The Left has had some success in arbitrarily attaching the word "agent" to the word "CIA" and thereby creating a false illusion.

Rico,
Didn't Novak swear to the same story under oath?
Hasn't his testimony held up after all the investigations?
Does Fitz think Novak is lying?
Did the Grand Jury indict Novak for lying?
Was anyone indicted for "outing" a CIA agent?

No, what it "boils down to" is that there is no "there" there.

Ashinine---why are you indulging in gay-bashing? Why are you expressing your Lib self in Hate Speech?

Kerfluffle is a silly, fluffy, meaningless word----to describe a silly, fluffy, meaningless event, which was turned into a scandal of major proportions only in the feeble minds of a few pointy-headed uber-Libs who eagerly await the next predigested pap to be fed to them by their minders. Gee, who knew it would strike a nerve in the Ashman?

"First,the attack came FROM the "critic of the war" when he LIED in his NYT article about the nature of what he found in Niger."

Almiranta,

Here is the op-ed, please point out the lies:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

"Second, a more subtle attack on the White House came when it was put about by Wilson and his cronies that it had been Cheney who sent him to check up on Bush."

First I've ever heard of the claim that Cheney requested looking into the possible Niger deal to check up on Bush.

No, the claim was that Wilson lied by saying it was Cheney himself to sent him to Niger. Wilson never made that claim. He correctly stated the chain of events that led him to Niger in the op-ed:

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government."

They used the false claim that Wilson said Cheney sent him directly as an excuse to discredit him as a man who only got the job because his wife suggested him. SHE DID NOT. But she was outed in the FALSE attack.

Almiranta at July 13, 2006 11:34 AM said:
even having her name placed in Who's Who BY HER HUSBAND as a CIA employee.

That didn't sound right to me; I mean even I would have been aware of that argument-ending bombshell if it existed. So I googled the Who's Who page itself, and you will find it doesn't say anything about her being CIA. We don't want the Left to be able to attack us over factual errors.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilson.whoswho.pdf

"Passing on information which cleared up the question of how Wilson had been chosen for this assignment was not an attack."

I just read this again from Almiranta. It's mindboggling. Wilson CORRECTLY stated the chain of events that led him to be selected to go to Niger in his op-ed.

NOTHING NEEDED TO BE CLEARED UP.

But that didn't stop them. Rove and Libby and a third party falsely put it out there that Wilson's wife, who's status as a CIA agent was classified, was a CIA agent and suggested him for the trip.

THAT'S the entire affair in a nutshell. Bush said anyone caught leaking classified information would be dealt with apporpriately. Still waiting to see what that means in Rove's case...

Bane said:
"Rico,
Didn't Novak swear to the same story under oath?"

I haven't read the testimony, and I'm guessing that you haven't either, because it's not public knowledge. All we know is what Novak has said he said under oath.

"Hasn't his testimony held up after all the investigations?"

Well, we know that Bill Harlow, who Novak named as his CIA confirmation source, testified that he "forcefully" warned Novak not to mention Plame. But again, all we really know is what Harlow said he said under oath.

We also know that although Novak eventually published the story that got the ball rolling, several reporters were contacted before him. Thus, the focus of the investigation shifted away from him. Personally, I think Novak had a lapse of judgement. But I doubt he would ever admit to it (even to himself). Likewise, it is entirely possible that Harlow had a lapse of judgement, too. In his case I think his mistake was that he may have trusted Novak too much. It's not like that was the first time the two had ever talked. I also think there was such a "thing" going on in the White House that someone was eventually going to suffer such a lapse. But one lapse isn't enough -- as is the case with most catastrophic failures, there isn't one single cause.

But the really sad part is that the nepotism charge was never central to the issue. I mean come on... if Plame really was central to the decision to send her husband to check out a very serious charge, then you would have to BOTH conclude (a) she was some pretty hot shit in the agency, and (b) she was such a hot shit, and the agency was so corrupt that they couldn't contain her nepotism. If EITHER ONE of those two things (or both) are not accurate, the argument falls apart. I don't have a problem with people ripping the shreds out of Wilson if they feel compelled to do so. Likewise, I don't have a problem with people standing up for him if they feel compelled to do so. That's politics, and he made himself fair game. Either way, it's important to keep the focus where it belongs.

"Does Fitz think Novak is lying?"

I honestly don't know. I do get the impression that he doesn't think he can prove he's lying even if he thinks he might be. I also think it doesn't matter one way or the other. See my comment to your next question.

"Did the Grand Jury indict Novak for lying?"

This one I can answer unequivocally -- no. In fact, NO reporters have been indicted for anything. But it is important to point out that reporters are rarely indicted for reporting leaks. The onus is on the leakers. And that, I would argue, is where it should be. It should be in this case, in the NSA surveillance case, and all the others.

"Was anyone indicted for "outing" a CIA agent?"

Again I can say confidently, no. At the same time I feel compelled to mention that I've been really guarded in my comments on this issue, and I will continue to be so. But one thing I will say is that I believe it was a very bad thing that Plame's name was revealed. I also doubt that anyone will be prosecuted for it. I always did. But that doesn't mean no one did anything wrong. When a murder occurs and no one is found guilty for it, it doesn't mean the murder didn't occur.

I will also say this: an indictment on such charges hinges both on (1) whether it can be proven that the outing was intentional, and (2) even if it was, whether it is in the national interest to prosecute the person or persons responsible. Very rarely do things rise to that level in the spook world. Far more often it's the case that some other way is found to deal with the situation. After all, once the cat is out of the bag it can't be put back in. And even when it can (which it can't in this case), the more important consideration is to prevent other "cats" from getting loose.

Bane said:
"Rico,
Didn't Novak swear to the same story under oath?"

I haven't read the testimony, and I'm guessing that you haven't either, because it's not public knowledge. All we know is what Novak has said he said under oath.

"Hasn't his testimony held up after all the investigations?"

Well, we know that Bill Harlow, who Novak named as his CIA confirmation source, testified that he "forcefully" warned Novak not to mention Plame. But again, all we really know is what Harlow said he said under oath.

We also know that although Novak eventually published the story that got the ball rolling, several reporters were contacted before him. Thus, the focus of the investigation shifted away from him. Personally, I think Novak had a lapse of judgement. But I doubt he would ever admit to it (even to himself). Likewise, it is entirely possible that Harlow had a lapse of judgement, too. In his case I think his mistake was that he may have trusted Novak too much. It's not like that was the first time the two had ever talked. I also think there was such a "thing" going on in the White House that someone was eventually going to suffer such a lapse. But one lapse isn't enough -- as is the case with most catastrophic failures, there isn't one single cause.

But the really sad part is that the nepotism charge was never central to the issue. I mean come on... if Plame really was central to the decision to send her husband to check out a very serious charge, then you would have to BOTH conclude (a) she was some pretty hot shit in the agency, and (b) she was such a hot shit, and the agency was so corrupt that they couldn't contain her nepotism. If EITHER ONE of those two things (or both) are not accurate, the argument falls apart. I don't have a problem with people ripping the shreds out of Wilson if they feel compelled to do so. Likewise, I don't have a problem with people standing up for him if they feel compelled to do so. That's politics, and he made himself fair game. Either way, it's important to keep the focus where it belongs.

"Does Fitz think Novak is lying?"

I honestly don't know. I do get the impression that he doesn't think he can prove he's lying even if he thinks he might be. I also think it doesn't matter one way or the other. See my comment to your next question.

"Did the Grand Jury indict Novak for lying?"

This one I can answer unequivocally -- no. In fact, NO reporters have been indicted for anything. But it is important to point out that reporters are rarely indicted for reporting leaks. The onus is on the leakers. And that, I would argue, is where it should be. It should be in this case, in the NSA surveillance case, and all the others.

"Was anyone indicted for "outing" a CIA agent?"

Again I can say confidently, no. At the same time I feel compelled to mention that I've been really guarded in my comments on this issue, and I will continue to be so. But one thing I will say is that I believe it was a very bad thing that Plame's name was revealed. I also doubt that anyone will be prosecuted for it. I always did. But that doesn't mean no one did anything wrong. When a murder occurs and no one is found guilty for it, it doesn't mean the murder didn't occur.

I will also say this: an indictment on such charges hinges both on (1) whether it can be proven that the outing was intentional, and (2) even if it was, whether it is in the national interest to prosecute the person or persons responsible. Very rarely do things rise to that level in the spook world. Far more often it's the case that some other way is found to deal with the situation. After all, once the cat is out of the bag it can't be put back in. And even when it can (which it can't in this case), the more important consideration is to prevent other "cats" from getting loose.

The only proven liar is Joe Wilson. He lied to the Senate. He has been thoroughly discredited.

Rico,
"an indictment on such charges hinges both on (1) whether it can be proven that the outing was intentional, and (2) even if it was, whether it is in the national interest to prosecute the person or persons responsible."

You know as well as I that an indictment can be issued on a ham sandwich. (Because the prosecutor gets to tell the GJ which laws apply, and what evidence they must consider and what evidence they must ignore, real fair system /sarcasm.)

Even under the Grand jury process no indictments were issued for "outing" anybody.

With respect to the rest; if Novak now issued public statements at odds with his Grand Jury statements, Fitz would haul him before the Grand Jury before you could say, "I guess that's what the present argument boils down to."

If it's a "very bad thing that Plame's name was revealed" indict her husband, and prosecute Aldrich Aims, but don't blame Bush.

I stand by my assertions that Novak is telling the truth now, and was when he wrote the original article, and when he was in the Grand Jury. No “there” there.

Tom,

Sure thing:

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

In "consistent with her own" we have a lie - Wilson says ealier in the piece that the Ambassador didn't believe the stories of Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake from Niger - In Wilson's CIA debriefing, he indicated that Saddam had, indeed, attempted to obtain yellowcake from Niger.

1. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report

2. Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so

Two more lies - Wilson makes a clear implication that VP Cheney sent Wilson on the trip - Wilson knew that it was entirely through the agency of his wife that he was selected and sent.

Face it, Tom, Wilson is a liar - and a long-ago exposed liar.

Stop standing by him - its making you look foolish.

"1. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report
2. Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so."

Mark, these statements are 100% accurate. Cheney's office wanted information about this alleged meeting. Because of the query, the CIA approached Wilson to go on the trip.

Honestly, how can you say these are lies? They are absolutely not.

"In Wilson's CIA debriefing, he indicated that Saddam had, indeed, attempted to obtain yellowcake from Niger."

In WIlson's debriefing TO THE CIA he shared "evidence" of the alleged meeting and gave his opinion that the evidence was not credible and that the meeting did not happen. Those he briefed gave more credence to the evidence than Wilson. Not a lie either. The ambassador did agree with Wilson's assessment.

Steve:

If my post is too difficult for you to keep up with (I reflect pauses in my punctuation, etc.)
then pass over it. You are not one of the most intelligent posters to this site, with all of your
innuendo, Bush-bashing and therefore I wouldn't consider your posts worthwhile either. If you don't like the way I post...like I said, MoveOn.

By the way folks, as my above post 'clearly states', both Plame and Wilson are publicity seeking opportunists, that used "her position, to further their own cause"..getting a book deal, with movie to follow from the liberal left MSM and
Hollywoodheads.

Today, you will note: They have filed a lawsuit to further this cause(whereas, I thought Libby should file one against them) so they will continue to be in "the limelight" and further the
publicity machine on themselves. They jumped the
gun with this lawsuit today, to preempt one by Libby against themselves. Don't you just love the MSM who jumped on this thing? These two want
to be the next "Mata Hari and James Bond"..what
an ego trip these two are on-Wow!

All 3 should file countersuits for Plame and the fatzo being nuisances.

Wilson, a publicity seeking opportunist AND a true American hero, according to G. H. W. Bush - CLICK HERE.

You go, Joe!

Oh, and Cheney said he WAS asking about the report when he wrote in his own hand in the margins of the op-ed piece "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb. to assess a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

A. Cheney's office DID ask the question that the CIA sent Joe to answer, JUST LIKE JOE CLAIMS, and much to the chagrin of Cheney.

B. As Cheney read the op-ed piece, he knew Joe's wife worked at the CIA, but later claims to not know Joe at all. Hmmm.

Jo, let me try this in a language you might understand:

Both, Libby, and Rove, have "testified under oath", that they lea,ked... Valerie Plame's identity" as a CIA AGENT." This is proven, and not, under real dispute... except by bushbots, such as "yourself". Now, please, stop "making up trash" to throw at, them in hopes of changing "the subject".,,

Ricorun said:
When a murder occurs and no one is found guilty for it, it doesn't mean the murder didn't occur.
Leave it to a moonbat to equate the so-called "outing" of a publicity hound who wasn't even "in" to murder.

Arrgh! Valerie Plame is trying to raise this fiasco from the dead. It's now ZOMBIE Plame Kerfuffle!!!

Tina,

You're right. They should countersue!

Jo,

I love your posts! Keep at'em! (If I may offer a suggestion, try hitting the backspace button-or the back-arrow button-when you make a mistake in your typing. I have to do that all of the time!) grin.gif

There is absolutely no chance that the Plame lawsuit will be decided before the November elections, unless there is a summary judgement to dismiss. In the meantime, it has been established that no crime occurred, and Plame wasn't outed becaue she wasn't covert.

The average American will tire of this nonsense and decide that Plame and Wilson are both partisan hacks, based on the fact that Fitzgerald has failed to uncover any crime or conspiracy. Any other attempt at describing all of this is far to nuanced for most people to even care.

So rather than fading into history, the failed attempt to discredit the Administration, by these two political hacks, will be resurrected, to the consternation of democrat candidates around the country. It will serve to remind the electorate how stupid, dangerous and desparate the left has become.

Moonbats like Wilson and Plame constitute part of the defeatocrat gift that keeps on giving.

Yeah, Phnxbmed, you're right.

Seems that even the kooks over at the Daily Kos don't think Plame has much of a chance:

" Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (a different Fitz than we are used to talking about) pretty clearly states that the president and executive officials have absolute immunity from civil liability for any action taken within the broadest view of their executive powers during their term of office."

So based on this Supreme Court ruling, its likely that the case will be thrown out.

But they are still calling it a 'moral victory' no matter what the outcome. That's probably what their excuse will be after the November election.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Seems that even the kooks over at the Daily Kos don't think Plame has much of a chance:

" Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (a different Fitz than we are used to talking about) pretty clearly states that the president and executive officials have absolute immunity from civil liability for any action taken within the broadest view of their executive powers during their term of office."

So based on this Supreme Court ruling, its likely that the case will be thrown out.

But they are still calling it a 'moral victory' no matter what the outcome. That's probably what their excuse will be after the November election.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!

phnxbmed,

These nutty lawsuits like this need to be stopped!

Lawsuits like this are everywhere. Just sue somebody, anybody, and everybody and hope you hit the "legal lottery". It's time those being sued are allowed to sue for all of their court costs, lost time, lost wages, plus damages. Now, there is basically no real penalty if they lose. Give it a try and if they don't win, no big deal -- except to those who were sued!

All of these ridiculous lawsuits and even more ridiculous judgments are yet another reason jobs and businesses are going overseas! It's time to put a stop to them!!!

AAR

Even the Al Qaeda Lawyer on CNN indicates that Fatzo and the prostitute don't have a legal chance. I would countersue them to bankrupt them or severely deplete their pockets and government pensions.

One of the Al Qaeda Lawyers on CNN said that the suit is likely to be thrown out. Its baseless.

Umm...guys?

This, Steve is the way to start a paragraph? I think NOT. It is something I've seen you do before, in response to continuing your statements
about what other bloggers write.

FYI, when I write on this site, I pause with ...
as I would pause if I were speaking. It is called
writing with inflection. Since you, think what I
write about is gibberish-just as you do with others who disagree with your liberal verbage-get over yourself genius. You've never had much to offer in the way of enlightening others.

Darby said: "Leave it to a moonbat to equate the so-called "outing" of a publicity hound who wasn't even "in" to murder."

Think what you want to think, dude. I am done with this topic. Bane, I apologize to you specifically. But I hope you appreciate that though I may turn out to be wrong on occasion, I never speak lightly.

Ricorun:

When a murder occurs and no one is found guilty for it, it doesn't mean the murder didn't occur.

You must be talking about Vince Foster. And, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I will concede the point.

Shrillary may not have been found guilty, but it doesn't mean she didn't do it to cover up a non-lesbian affair. Good call.

kritter -

Nice post. However, I did have one little quibble with this: "...$2 billion a month in tax-payer funds have been wasted..."

Actually, during the first couple years of the Iraq war, the US government was spending about $5 billion per month in Iraq. However, over the course of this last year, that figure has risen to approximately $10 billion of our tax dollars per month.

Money well spent, no doubt, especially since we don't actually have that money to spend! Oh well, we'll just put it on our childrens', grandchildrens', and great-grandchildrens' credit cards.

Jo,. this is writing, not speaking. You don't need to "write with inflection." No one cares how you would read aloud what you wrote.

Your writing reveals an unfamiliarity with the rudiments of punctuation, You sprinkle commas, and hyphens,-around like, confetti. You're an appallingly bad writer, even for a conservative.