[cgbg]

Still this does not sound like that big a deal to me. I can not imagine implication of the donor list could be anything that the public at large could easily understand. It can not be even as simple as Chinese dishwahsers donating several months pay to he campaign?

lol

Look, the Times wrote an encyclopedia on the "Plame Affair" and all the liberals got from that was that "Cheney ruthlessly exposed an enemy".

The Times writings were totally misleading if not just false, the details were extremely complicated, but the attack stuck in the minds of their readers.

The bottom line--the details of Hillary's "bad deed number 516" (after the Times helped cover up or justify the first 515 of them) won't matter. It is enough that the Times pontificates that this one is a "Big Deal". Rush is right--if they say she is toast she is toast (because the liberal readers and followers will fall in line).

[RatsDawg]

“Look, the Times wrote an encyclopedia on the “Plame Affair” and all the liberals got from that was that “Cheney ruthlessly exposed an enemy”.”

I am currently taking an American Government class at my local college. During one class period we were talking about current events, and one was about Kucinich wanting the impeachment of George Bush. A student asked the professor, “What would they impeach him for? Do they really have anything?” My professor then went on a rant about how she “Thinks” Cheney had something to do with the Plame Affair. She said that she “Thinks” the Bush Administration put out Valerie Plames name just to put her in danger, because the Bush Administration hates her husband for what he did in Niger.

Her “facts” and arguements for the whole deal really made me question her intelligence. I don’t think she knew that Plame was NOT covert. I don’t think she knows that Libby was NOT convicted for spilling the beans on Plame but for lying under oath.

I was going to blurt out, “So if her life is in SO much danger, why did she pose in Time Magazine?”