"non-outing of a non-covert CIA employee?"
Are you a complete fool Mark? Just because you repeat this lie over and over doesn't make it so.

It should come as no surprise that no matter how corrupt, how morally depraved, how incompetent Republicans have become, brainwashed believers will never sway.

The followers of a cult always find excuses and ignore evidence. Just look at the Foley "spin" coming from the Republicans.

It's all Democrats fault. Never themselves.

Wade

Lomstradamus,

What is really funny is how it is now years after it was known Wilson became a Kerry advisor a month before he wrote his proven lies in the New York Times, that you on the left are still believing that Plame was outed in order to punish Wilson...

The fact that Scooter Libby tries to stack the court with unrelated information about national security matters, the names of foreign leaders and details about various terrorist groups is an admission of guilt. He wants to hamper the normal procedings of the court.

Mark, you simply MUST quit baiting the KoolAid Left by bringing up Plame/Wilson. It is fun, I know, but way too easy. It is like trolling for idiots---you sloooowly drag the reference past them and they are on it like kittens on string.

They NEED Plamegate, Mark. They need it desperately.

The Left has no heroes. They have "leaders" who demagogue them into fits of hysterical frenzy, but they have no heroes.

And here came Wilson/Plame, with the credentials the Left could get behind. She is blonde, pretty, and was once a covert agent. He was in the diplomatic corps, and was once even an ambassador, though usually assigned a far less elevated position, such as aide d'affairs.

But for an anti-American, anti-classified-information, Left, which is always claiming to be patriotic while trashing the country and while spreading our secrets far and wide, the Plame/Wilson thing was a gift. With Plame, they can pretend that they really ARE pro-America, pro-defense, and in favor of keeping classified information classified.

So anything showing Plame to be an ordinary CIA employee whose covert status was far in the past, and/or showing Joe to be a conniving liar wannabe celebrity is going to strike a nerve.

Turning on the Plame light will have the Usual Suspects scurrying around, as you see every time you do it.

Hey, Wade, name ONE Republican defending Foley. Just one. Take your time.....

There aren't any. Everyone on the right is in agreement that Foley is a creep, and no one is defending him. Certainly no one is claiming that he is innocent, or set up by Dems. He did what he did.

But we are noting that while the Dems piously drone on about how Foley was a danger to young pages, they had information that could have protected these same young pages, and cynically made the decision to let Foley continue his harassment because they knew their information would have more impact if they sat on it till right before a make-or-break election for them.

Two separate things, Wade. Not the same thing at all. What Foley did was not the fault of Dems----he is a creep, all by himself. But the fact that the Dems had the information it would have taken to stop him and callously chose to wait to release it, thereby leaving pages at risk, can only be blamed on those who did it.

As for "...followers of a cult always find(ing)excuses and ignore (ing) evidence...." I am glad to see you recognizing that fact, Wade. Now you just have to follow that line of thinking and see how it applies to the cultish radical Left, who have steadfastly ignored the evidence in the Plame case, as well as the hundreds preceding it---Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Johnny Huang, etc.

I know that the latest Airhead "wisdom" is that Republicans are mindless bushbots walking in lockstep, but I also know that to believe this is to deny the evidence, which is that conservatives critique the President and often refuse to agree to White House agendas.

What makes this approach so hysterically funny is that "cult" an excellent description of the Democratic Party for the past fifteen years, as they have lined up to parrot the most bizarre statements, flying in the face of fact and history, just because the statements were made by the BDS Left. What could be more cultish that mindlessly repeating "Fake---But Accurate"?

Your denial of the facts of the Plame case are proof in point of a cultish mindset, in which you are told WHAT to believe and then mulishly discard anything which does not support that instruction.

Almiranta, you've always been extreme loose with facts and you never back up your allegations with evidence (for instance you still haven't provided me any links about Giap's 1985 memoirs which I requested you nearly a MONTH ago BTW).

First you imply that Wade is saying the Repblicans are "defendig" Foley. Wade said no such thing.

No one is claiming either that Republicans accuse Democrats of "setting up" Foley. I have proof however that Republican apologists are accusing the pages of "setting up" Foley: Drudge called it "a prank" from the pages; Dobson called it "sort of a joke by the boy and some of the other pages".

Instead, you are accusing Dems of having the "information that could have protected these same young pages, and cynically made the decision to let Foley continue his harassment". Until you can back up that allegation, it's a blatant lie. You are hereby called upon to either back up that allegation or retract it.

Brian Ross and other newsmedia all have stated that their source was a Republican. So your allegation that the Dems "sat on it till right before a make-or-break election" is your second lie. Back up that allegation or retract it.

Until than I have every right to call you a serial liar.

Call away, yellowish willy. Call away. You say "Until you can back up that allegation, it's a blatant lie." That is simply silly. An allegation is NOT a "blatant lie" unless it first is proven to be false and then proven that I knew it was false and tried to decieve by making you, or anyone, believe something I knew to be untrue.

You see, it's this goofy Lib thing of simply redefining words and then acting as if the new definition means something that makes you such a laughingstock. You simply must get a grip and learn how to use a dictionary.

If you demanded some "links about Giap's 1985 memoirs.." then you demanded of the wrong person. I never quoted Giap, so it would have been silly to demand that I link to anything he said. I did say that in my library, which is in storage and inaccessible at the moment, I had once read something which discussed the North Vietnamese efforts to broker some kind of agreement that they would not be tried as war criminals when they surrendered, and I asked if anyone else had read that and could direct me to the source as I could not remember what it was.

Rather than sink to your level and start making wild and beliggerent accusations, I will just point out that you are, once again, completely wrong. Surprise, surprise.

And don't tell me what I "imply". I am fed up with the Loony Left's dependence on crystal balls. Or whatever it is you people use to determine other peoples' secret motives. Wade whimpered about a Republican "spin". I tried to figure out how any Republican was "spinning" anything, and along those general lines asked Wade if he knew of any Republicans who were defending Foley. No implications at all, willy. Right out there.

But you slip in your view that those who think Foley was led on by the page who did the IM messaging are "apologists". Nice spin, willy.

The page himself said he and some buddies led Foley on as a joke. But that came out AFTER it was learned that whoever had the IM copies, someone identified as a Democratic activist if I remember correctly, had had these copies for months. Now, if the Dem knew it was a prank, it was pretty nasty to reveal them as if he truly thought they reflected something sinister. But if he thought the IMs were a real pursuit of a young man by an older predator, and he did not reveal them, he did make a decision to allow Foley to continue prowling, in the interest of saving the dirt for an October Surprise.

Now I know you have a hard time following along, willy, but take your time on this one. To my way of thinking, that Dem was either a sneaky and dishonest SOB who knew what he had was a joke played by some kids on an older creep, but figured he could use it anyway to create the wrong impression, OR he thought the IMs showed a dangerous prowler and decided to let him continue prowling till revealing the information best served the party---not the kids who might be harassed in the meantime. Which was it, willy-lad?

Are you absolutely sure that Ross was talking about the IMs and not the benign and innocuous E-mail? Because the source of the e-mail was a Republican, but all I have heard has been that the IMs were released by a Democrat.

So if you just don't know the difference between an e-mail and an IM, does that make you a liar? Or just a Democrat apologist? Or just a neorad puppet parroting the party line and getting snotty when that line falls apart? So so snotty. I might even say bitchy.

An allegation is NOT a "blatant lie" unless it first is proven to be false and then proven that I knew it was false and tried to decieve by making you, or anyone, believe something I knew to be untrue.

Weaseling out Almiranta? You are wrong. An allegation without backing it up with facts is a priori a blatant lie. In your logic, it would be okay for me to accuse you of having beaten a child to death. I don't have to back that up with facts or anything: it's up to you to proof that you have never beaten a child to death. It's impossible to proof a negative. Good luck with that.

Re Giap: Mark was using a quote attributed to Giap that doesn't exist and when I requested Mark to back that up. Mark choose not to respond but you jumped in and demanded that I should find that quote. Read that again: I should find a quote I know that doesn't exist!!!!. When you jumped in, it became your responsibility. You weaseled out with some comment about your house in disarray and blah blah blah. Is Google situated in your basement?

Wade whimpered about a Republican "spin". I tried to figure out how any Republican was "spinning" anything, and along those general lines asked Wade if he knew of any Republicans who were defending Foley.

But you slip in your view that those who think Foley was led on by the page who did the IM messaging are "apologists".

The page himself said he and some buddies led Foley on as a joke

AFTER it was learned that whoever had the IM copies, someone identified as a Democratic activist if I remember correctly

Weaseling out with statements like "proven that I knew it was false and tried to decieve by making you, or anyone, believe something I knew to be untrue" is disgusting: you think you have the right to say anything you like. Others have to proof that it's not true PLUS they have to proof YOU KNEW it wasn't true. Almost as disgusting as you beating an innocent and helpless baby to death because you didn't like the color of it's skin. That's revolting.

An allegation is NOT a "blatant lie" unless it first is proven to be false and then proven that I knew it was false and tried to decieve by making you, or anyone, believe something I knew to be untrue.

Weaseling out Almiranta? You are wrong. An allegation without backing it up with facts is a priori a blatant lie. In your logic, it would be okay for me to accuse you of having beaten a child to death. I don't have to back that up with facts or anything: it's up to you to proof that you have never beaten a child to death. Good luck with that.

Re Giap: Mark was using a quote attributed to Giap that doesn't exist and when I requested Mark to back that up. Mark choose not to respond but you jumped in and demanded that I should find that quote. Read that again: I should find a quote I know that doesn't exist!!!! When you jumped in, it became your responsibility too. You weaseled out with some comment about your house in disarray and blah blah blah. Is Google situated in your basement?

Wade whimpered about a Republican "spin". I tried to figure out how any Republican was "spinning" anything, and along those general lines asked Wade if he knew of any Republicans who were defending Foley.

But you slip in your view that those who think Foley was led on by the page who did the IM messaging are "apologists".

The page himself said he and some buddies led Foley on as a joke

AFTER it was learned that whoever had the IM copies, someone identified as a Democratic activist if I remember correctly

Weaseling out with statements like "proven that I knew it was false and tried to decieve by making you, or anyone, believe something I knew to be untrue" is disgusting: you think you have the right to say anything you like. Others have to proof that it's not true PLUS they have to proof YOU KNEW it wasn't true. Almost as disgusting as you beating an innocent and helpless baby to death because you didn't like the color of it's skin. That's revolting.