Skip to comments.
Cia Leak: Not above the law (Freep this poll)
SEATTLE POST ^
| 10/30/2005
| Editorial
Posted on 10/30/2005 6:30:57 AM PST by DogBarkTree
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
Here is where the Seattle Compost poll stood: Was President Bush or Vice President Cheney involved in the disclosure of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative? 1.1% Bush, yes. 0.0% Bush, no. 17.7% Cheney, yes. 0.3% Cheney, no. 72.8% Both. 5.6% Neither. 2.6% It doesn't matter. Total Votes: 378
To: DogBarkTree
Seattle, what can you expect?
2
posted on
10/30/2005 6:33:29 AM PST
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: DogBarkTree
This is really a manufactured news story. What else is new. BTW. the DUmmies have already beaten the crap out of this poll.
3
posted on
10/30/2005 6:33:57 AM PST
by
satchmodog9
(Free choice is not what it seems)
To: DogBarkTree
Based on the allegations special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald laid out in the indictments Friday, it's increasingly evident that officials within the Bush administration disclosed Plame's identity as part of an effort to discredit Wilson's criticism of one of the pretexts for war against Iraq. But how? How would this discredit Wilson? Why doesn't the editorial explain this?
4
posted on
10/30/2005 6:34:12 AM PST
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
To: DogBarkTree
Extremely odd. How can anybody vote on a question of fact about which they have no knowledge?
5
posted on
10/30/2005 6:34:13 AM PST
by
Restorer
(Illegitimati non carborundum)
To: DogBarkTree
Based on the allegations special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald laid out in the indictments Friday, it's increasingly evident that officials within the Bush administration disclosed Plame's identity
It's increasingly evident only if you have an active desire that it be increasingly evident. What fertilizer.
6
posted on
10/30/2005 6:34:52 AM PST
by
Clara Lou
To: Restorer
That's the essence of polling.
7
posted on
10/30/2005 6:35:02 AM PST
by
Eric in the Ozarks
(Janice Rogers Brown is the only High Court nominee that is acceptable to me, period.)
To: DogBarkTree
Further evidence, as if any were needed, that you have to be a certifiable loony to write editorials for a major metropolitan newspaper.
8
posted on
10/30/2005 6:35:16 AM PST
by
speedy
To: DogBarkTree
"to discredit Wilson's criticism of one of the pretexts for war against Iraq."
Again, what is wrong with discrediting Wilson, when Wilson was spouting lies to undermine the US war effort?
9
posted on
10/30/2005 6:35:48 AM PST
by
frankjr
To: DogBarkTree
There goes that 'covert' word again.
She wasn't covert since the mid 90's when Aldrich Ames was arrested for spying!
To: tet68
I like how she is referred to as a covert CIA operative now. Wasn't she on the cover of Vanity Fair? I guess she was hiding in plain site. (When she wasn't running around Afghanistan disguised in her burkha interrogating terrorists and developing sources) I seem to remember when this thing started brewing a few months ago that someone posted a link on here that Joe Wilson stated on his web site that his wife worked as an analyst for the CIA. Does anyone have any information on this?
11
posted on
10/30/2005 6:38:13 AM PST
by
willyd
(No nation has ever taxed its citizens into prosperity)
To: DogBarkTree
The cancer eating away at America is metastasizing from the left.
12
posted on
10/30/2005 6:39:29 AM PST
by
OldFriend
(Fitzgerald is a Lawrence Walsh wannabe)
To: Restorer
It is the new model for reporting. Take an opinion poll first so you know which way to slant your reporting. All the MSM are doing it.
13
posted on
10/30/2005 6:40:44 AM PST
by
willyd
(No nation has ever taxed its citizens into prosperity)
To: willyd
THe Vanity Fair photo was taken after Novak's article I believe. Id like a firm word one way or the other if she was covert or not. Ive heard nothing official one way or the other.
To: AndyTheBear
That is NOT what happened at all! Fitz self righteously stood there and SAID a bunch of crap about "protecting national security" and all that but in the end he ADMITTED that there was NO UNDERLYING CRIME TO TRIGGER THE INVESTIGATION!
15
posted on
10/30/2005 6:41:20 AM PST
by
Blood of Tyrants
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
To: tet68
Seattle, what can you expect? What...you mean you don't believe this editorial board and the left in general cares about national security, maintaining the integrity of CIA agents, and lying to grand juries?
Me neither.
16
posted on
10/30/2005 6:43:20 AM PST
by
daler
To: frankjr
when Wilson was spouting lies to undermine the US war effort? Ah, but the sheeple don't know this was the reason. The MSM doesn't seem to want to mention this.
17
posted on
10/30/2005 6:43:21 AM PST
by
AndyTheBear
(Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
To: willyd
This rag is just disgusting.
18
posted on
10/30/2005 6:44:04 AM PST
by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: DogBarkTree
According to the authors of the law, she doesn't even come close. Anyway, if you're parking your sports car in the CIA parking lot, you ain't covert
To: DogBarkTree
I had a bright thought. Fitz wants to bring out the truth that Libby tried so clumsily to do. All the witnesses will serve this purpose. I don't mean the whole debate about why we went to war. I mean to bring ot what Matalin stated on Imus that Wilson is a fool and a liar. The journalists called will be pawns.
20
posted on
10/30/2005 6:50:34 AM PST
by
larryjohnson
(NOT the Larry Johnson from CIA)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-70 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson