Dems Go Woo-Woo for Scandal Puffs

[corplinx]

Today I heard the shrillness get to the ridiculous. Democrats "argued" that an independent counsel should investigate an information leak in the white house.


Why does it need a special counsel? Because they say, the guy who they want to be guilty (Rove) has past ties to someone not involved with the investigation (Ashcroft).

Mind you, there is no evidence Rove was actually the leak or involved with the leak at this point. This is woo-wooism at its best.

Would it be too reasonable just to ask for people directly involved with the investigation to recuse themselves _if_ and _when_ they get a suspect? And if recusals are too much of mess, then appoint a counsel?

Democrats, anything to win 2004.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by corplinx


Democrats, anything to win 2004. [/B]




:clap:

[DavidJames]

Two peas in a pod :)

[corplinx]

Also, don't you love how Ammanpour said that FoxNews were the administrations footsoldiers; however CNN employee Bob "nofacts" Novak is the real tool?

How come FoxNews didn't get this leak?

[Mr Manifesto]

Learn a new word, corplinx (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26633).

[jj]

Way to go, NTW, oh, sorry, it's Corps this time.

Somebody committed treason here. A lot of people seem to link it to someone (or two) in the administration. If so, that's beyond appalling.

You seem to me to be in a very uncomfortable position, where you're ridiculing people for being upset over treason.

Is that another example of the Honor of the Corps? It seems, well, odd, to me.

[corplinx]

"Somebody committed treason here. A lot of people seem to link it to someone (or two) in the administration. If so, that's beyond appalling."

Unproven. If proven very disturbing. If you would like to talk about the seriousness of this, please direct your comments to one of the threads about it.

"You seem to me to be in a very uncomfortable position, where you're ridiculing people for being upset over treason."

You must be a psychic since nothing in my post is even remotely related to what you are talking about. And a bad psychic at that since I think that if this leak was against the law it should be fully investigated and prosecuted.

"Is that another example of the Honor of the Corps? It seems, well, odd, to me. "

Did you even read the post at the top?

Where is anyone saying that outing a CIA agent isn't bad in this post?

jj, you are going back on the ignore list where you belong. This is a thread about the current shrill witchhunt going on and the lack of reason. Are you just argueing for the hell of it or something?

Don't answer that question, I won't see the answer anyway.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
"Somebody committed treason here. A lot of people seem to link it to someone (or two) in the administration. If so, that's beyond appalling."

Unproven. If proven very disturbing. If you would like to talk about the seriousness of this, please direct your comments to one of the threads about it.

I said "if so". Your reason to argue, therefore, is?

"You seem to me to be in a very uncomfortable position, where you're ridiculing people for being upset over treason."

You must be a psychic since nothing in my post is even remotely related to what you are talking about. And a bad psychic at that since I think that if this leak was against the law it should be fully investigated and prosecuted.

Quite, so then why did you immediately deny Democrats their civil, constitutional right to object here? That's what you're doing, you're already calling to narrow the investigation and to disqualify anyone who isn't your party from engaging in discussions of government or political speech.


WHY?


"Is that another example of the Honor of the Corps? It seems, well, odd, to me. "

Did you even read the post at the top?

Yes, I did. You clearly slam half of the country for caring, in the very title of the article, too! You've just implied that half of the country should have no civil rights because they are mentally incompetant. THAT IS A DIRECT IMPLICATION OF YOUR TITLE!

Where is anyone saying that outing a CIA agent isn't bad in this post?

I didn't say you did. As you might see elsewhere, I agree, outing covert ops is entirely offensive, to say the least. What you did was to advocate manipulation of the investigation. No, you're hardly the only one.

My position? Investigate it. If it leads to Rowe, it does. If it leads to a cabinet position, follow it. If it leads to an elected official (no, I do NOT expect this), follow it. If it leads to somebody breaking into the CIA HQ at night (I surely hope I don't need to expect that), rather obviously follow it...

jj, you are going back on the ignore list where you belong. This is a thread about the current shrill witchhunt going on and the lack of reason. Are you just argueing for the hell of it or something?

This is a thread attempting to tar the investigation with the title "witch hunt". Something far more serious than anything ever suggested in Whitewater went on here, it's an act of treason, yet you're calling this a 'witchhunt'? Need I point out how badly this indicts the balance of your views?

Don't answer that question, I won't see the answer anyway.
Run and hide. Shame the Corps some more.

You should be ashamed of yourself. When you imply that half of the country is mentally incompetent, you're simply engaging in stereotyping intended to deny civil rights to that half of the country.

I have NO idea who is responsible, AND WE SHOULD FIND OUT. LET US NOT START, AS YOU WOULD DESIRE, TO RESTRICT THE INVESTIGATION!

This puts a rather different slant on the phrase "well, if you have nothing to hide", doesn't it?

To attempt to exclude consideration of the administration (especially when this administration has already been shown to be dishonest about civil rights (the claim that nobody would use the Patriot Act to bother citizens, coupled with Ashcroft's directive of last week requiring that they use it if at all possible), willing to misuse federal agents to political ends (the Texas Legislator fiasco), and so on, is simply unreasonable.

Given the performance of people in the past two years, yes, it is unreasonable to expect that people in this administration who SHOULD recuse themselves WILL recuse themselves.

Of course, since you cut off dialog every time you're faced with the real meaning of your onslaught against civil rights, you won't be replying.

We'll add that to your slate of dishonor.

[Shinytop]

It is totally amazing that anybody would not want an independent prosecuter, especially the Republicans. I don't trust Ashcroft for 30 seconds.

Honor of the corps? Okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, if you say so.

[Evolver]

Gee. So what you're saying is the Democrats are acting just like the Republicans did from 92 to 2000. Big F'n deal! If they are all houning each other and investigating and prosecuting every little thing, maybe it'll minimize the damage either side will try to do to us.

[Evolver]

And what are the Dems so upset about? It's not as if someone got LAID. It was only someone's life put in jeopardy. :wink:

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx
Today I heard the shrillness get to the ridiculous. Democrats "argued" that an independent counsel should investigate an information leak in the white house.


Why does it need a special counsel? Because they say, the guy who they want to be guilty (Rove) has past ties to someone not involved with the investigation (Ashcroft).

Mind you, there is no evidence Rove was actually the leak or involved with the leak at this point. This is woo-wooism at its best.

Would it be too reasonable just to ask for people directly involved with the investigation to recuse themselves _if_ and _when_ they get a suspect? And if recusals are too much of mess, then appoint a counsel?

Democrats, anything to win 2004.

Do you have a basis for your claims as to what motivated the requst by Democrats for special counsel?

Or, to put it in your childish lexicon, are you claiming psychic powers?

It is a crying shame that the administration is not putting itself in a position where it avoids the appearance of impropriety. Wanting to keep such a possibly explosive issue in house seems quite suspicious. Their "only career employees will be involved" dodge is really suspicious, as it seems to acknowledge a conflict of interest at some level.

I can't see how having employees investigate an incident where the results could be an embarassment to the boss is not a conflict of interest. Plus, your question of why couldn't they recuse themselves once a suspect is found just isn't reasonable. An investigation usually starts by naming all possible suspects and then excluding them and adding others. Reports to date suggest anyone in the White House with knowledge of the identity should be a preliminary suspect.

Why not avoid the appearance of impropriety and get an independant investigator?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Do you have a basis for your claims as to what motivated the requst by Democrats for special counsel?

Or, to put it in your childish lexicon, are you claiming psychic powers?


Several of the democrats today who called for an independent counsel named Rove. Do you watch the news? John Kerry for one did it. I saw a montage of the various calls for independent counsel. To have a counsel, you have to have a reason. The reason most consistently given is because of the Rove-Ashcroft connection.

Nancy Pelosi said that if ever there was a need for an independent counsel that it was now. She gets my "shill of the day" award.

[corplinx]

By the way, I think if I hear one more rationalization of "but they did to Clinton!" that I may have to slap someone with a baloney detection kit.

You can't demonstrate inconsistency on my part by showing inconsistency on someone else's part. That isn't how the fallacy works.

[Clancie]

Oh, I was just going to post about Clinton! :( Well, I will anyway. :)

Corplinx, seriously, if two senior administrative officials in the Clinton White House had committed such a treasonous act--probably for revenge against an ambassador who spoke out against Clinton's foreign policy--what would you say?

Would you honestly say, "Sure, Janet Reno can find someone in her Justice Department to honestly investigate her friends in the White House, it doesn't matter that they're all friends, and all loyal to Clinton and his staff. They'll definitely do a fair and impartial investigation! No question of it!"

Now, honestly. Do you really think Republicans would think that was okay when such a serious crime had been committed by Clinton senior officials? Or do you think they'd be criticizing it as being just like the old saying, "the fox guarding the hen house"?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx


Several of the democrats today who called for an independent counsel named Rove. Do you watch the news? John Kerry for one did it. I saw a montage of the various calls for independent counsel. To have a counsel, you have to have a reason. The reason most consistently given is because of the Rove-Ashcroft connection.

Nancy Pelosi said that if ever there was a need for an independent counsel that it was now. She gets my "shill of the day" award.



I've seen no stories where anyone directly accuses Rove. I don't watch TV news. Like I said, in a proper criminal investigation anyone in the administration with knowlege and opportunity is a reasonable suspect. Naming Rove as a possible suspect is reasonable. Saying he is guilty wouldn't be.

The reason for independant counsel is to avoid appearance of impropriety. Lifetime justice employees are investigating people that control their careers, political appointment or no.

Again, like I said, is there a good reason to not do it? It's a potentially huge scandal that could possibly sink the president. How is using his direct employees to investigate not a conflict of interest?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by corplinx
By the way, I think if I hear one more rationalization of "but they did to Clinton!" that I may have to slap someone with a baloney detection kit.

You can't demonstrate inconsistency on my part by showing inconsistency on someone else's part. That isn't how the fallacy works.

You can use past cases to develop a pattern of custom and practice. Is there something wrong with that?

[corplinx]

"Would you honestly say, "Sure, Janet Reno can find someone in her Justice Department to honestly investigate her friends in the White House, it doesn't matter that they're all friends, and all loyal to Clinton and his staff. They'll definitely do a fair and impartial investigation! No question of it!"

Reno lead the justice department. She was not the investigator. I would have no problem with the justice deparment investigating our highest figures no matter who their temporary figurehead is.

[UnrepentantSinner]

While I disagree with corplinx's sentiment, I have to admit the thread title is one of the funniest I have seen in a long long time. :roll:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Democrats, anything to win 2004.
It is quite true that either party will use whatever it can to win the election. Dubya's dad did it with the "Willie Horton" story, one of the most underhanded political tricks of all time. I'm quite sure the Democrats will make as much political mileage out of this as they can.

But there is a difference. This is truly a treasonable offense. I'm sure Bush's hands are clean, so he won't suffer too badly. But it is still a dirty trick by the party that has turned dirty tricks into an art form. Where is the outrage?

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tricky


But there is a difference. This is truly a treasonable offense. I'm sure Bush's hands are clean, so he won't suffer too badly. But it is still a dirty trick by the party that has turned dirty tricks into an art form. Where is the outrage?

Dirty trick? Really? I wish someone would point out the advantage that something like this gives to republicans?

Now I heard Barbra Boxer try to make a case that the White House was doing this to keep people down. But that makes little or no sense as the backlash is greater than any perceived benefit.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by SRW
Dirty trick? Really? I wish someone would point out the advantage that something like this gives to republicans?
Dirty tricks are more than just for winning elections. They are also for punishing people who cross you. They probably hoped this would go under the radar, and they almost succeeded. It has been more than a month since the incident, and had Wilson not been so determined to make this public, it might have stayed under radar. Now it will bite them. Try as I might, I can't feel sorry for them.

Originally posted by SRW
Now I heard Barbra Boxer try to make a case that the White House was doing this to keep people down. But that makes little or no sense as the backlash is greater than any perceived benefit.
But they certainly didn't count on any backlash. It was a miscalculation. Certainly you don't believe the leak came from people trying to harm the Bush administration.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

Where is the outrage?

Its on every channel I turn on. This thread isn't about someone possibly breaking a very serious law. This thread is about the nonsense and posturing that follows.

Mind you, this story has been out there for a months. The sudden "outrage" makes me curious.

When it comes to people leaking classified information, I am reminded by none other than Don Rumsfeld who lectured staffers and the washington press members at a daily briefing at the beginning of the Afghan conflict.

If someone intentionally leaked this information, my guess is it will not sit well with some other members of the adminstration.

However, once again, this thread is about the current wide-eyed opportunism going on.

Can we not agree that the call for a counsel is a bit premature?

Even further, I would guess that a counsel is a bit of a waste on a case this clearcut.

You have Novak.
You have his "sources".

There isn't a papertrail. The only thing you can subpoena is phone records.

The only way to solve this mystery is of Novak snitches or the guilty part speaks up.

Can anyone give me one solid reason why justice investigators can't pursue this first?

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tricky


But they certainly didn't count on any backlash. It was a miscalculation. Certainly you don't believe the leak came from people trying to harm the Bush administration.

Didn't count on any backlash Ok so you are saying that who ever did this was stupid. So it is the work a a fool or someone who wanted to do harm to Bush. Are you saying we should rule out both possibilities? Thats right only instigate the Republicans.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by SRW


Didn't count on any backlash Ok so you are saying that who ever did this was stupid. So it is the work a a fool or someone who wanted to do harm to Bush. Are you saying we should rule out both possibilities? Thats right only instigate the Republicans.
No, I'm not saying they were fools. After all, there are probably tons of things that happen in politics that never see the light of day. Whoever leaked this must have thought this would be one of them. Lot's of people do things that would be very embarrassing if they were ever revealed, but they think that those things won't be revealed. (Somehow the name Monica Lewenski comes to mind.) Are those people fools? No. They simply guessed wrong.

It is truly odd what winds up being important in politics. Who would have thought a third rate burglary would bring down President Nixon.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tricky

No, I'm not saying they were fools. After all, there are probably tons of things that happen in politics that never see the light of day. Whoever leaked this must have thought this would be one of them. Lot's of people do things that would be very embarrassing if they were ever revealed, but they think that those things won't be revealed. (Somehow the name Monica Lewenski comes to mind.) Are those people fools? No. They simply guessed wrong.

It is truly odd what winds up being important in politics. Who would have thought a third rate burglary would bring down President Nixon.

Leaking a story to a reporter in the hopes that it will never see the light of day. Nope no foolishness there. No I believe the smart thing to do is wait until there is some proof before making accusations of dirty tricks or anything else.

I still do not see an advantage that this gives anyone.

[peptoabysmal]

From what I understand, this centers around the release of the woman's maiden name?


The leak of the woman’s maiden name, which NBC News and MSNBC.com are not reporting, could be a violation of federal law.


Story (http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp)

Ambasador Wilson has had his wife's maiden name up on his bio page for some time now:

At the bottom of this page. (http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html)

And duplicated on this page. (http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html)

[jj]

Originally posted by Suddenly


You can use past cases to develop a pattern of custom and practice. Is there something wrong with that?

It depends whether or not it supports his religious-right buddies in the white house or somebody else.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by SRW


Leaking a story to a reporter in the hopes that it will never see the light of day. Nope no foolishness there. No I believe the smart thing to do is wait until there is some proof before making accusations of dirty tricks or anything else.

I still do not see an advantage that this gives anyone.
Okay. "Never seeing the light of day" was the wrong phrase. I should have said, "They were guessing it wouldn't become an issue." Perhaps they were thinking that the damage to Wilson would be much worse than the damage to bush. I agree, it wasn't smart, but then I have not seen a pattern of the Bush administration doing the "smart" thing.

[shanek]

Originally posted by corplinx
Democrats, anything to win 2004.

That just puts them in good company with the Republicans.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek


That just puts them in good company with the Republicans.
A Song comes to mind:

Take good care of what you've got
My father said to me
.......
And keep all good company, Uh huh, Uh hunh.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek


That just puts them in good company with the Republicans.

No doubt.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Tricky

Okay. "Never seeing the light of day" was the wrong phrase. I should have said, "They were guessing it wouldn't become an issue." Perhaps they were thinking that the damage to Wilson would be much worse than the damage to bush. I agree, it wasn't smart, but then I have not seen a pattern of the Bush administration doing the "smart" thing.

I agree it was not a smart move which does tend to implicate the current administration. I just do not see how it damages Wilson,
or gives any political advantage to Bush, even if by some miracle it never became an issue.

I heard this morning that Novak is saying that it was an off hand remark that he overheard, and not a leak. If true it does not excuse someone for telling secrets within ear shot of a reporter.

[subgenius]

Witchhunt by the Dems (even though its the CIA who asked for the investigation)? Such an assertion is an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue. It ain't going away.
So some want an independent investigation, some don't, that is not unreasonable under the circumstances. If the Dems pile on a story that someone else started who can blame them?

As far as Novak saying (now) it was an offhand remark, see my thread about what he said on July 22.

[jj]

Originally posted by SRW


I agree it was not a smart move which does tend to implicate the current administration. I just do not see how it damages Wilson,
or gives any political advantage to Bush, even if by some miracle it never became an issue.

I heard this morning that Novak is saying that it was an off hand remark that he overheard, and not a leak. If true it does not excuse someone for telling secrets within ear shot of a reporter.

There is a clear reason to threaten people who dare to truthfully disagree, it's called 'extortion'. Not sure if it's the case here.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by corplinx
Today I heard the shrillness get to the ridiculous. Democrats "argued" that an independent counsel should investigate an information leak in the white house.


Why does it need a special counsel? Because they say, the guy who they want to be guilty (Rove) has past ties to someone not involved with the investigation (Ashcroft).

Mind you, there is no evidence Rove was actually the leak or involved with the leak at this point. This is woo-wooism at its best.

Would it be too reasonable just to ask for people directly involved with the investigation to recuse themselves _if_ and _when_ they get a suspect? And if recusals are too much of mess, then appoint a counsel?

Democrats, anything to win 2004.

Ok Shrillness..Democrats..which Democrats? Please point out the passages You consider shrill. ( please don't post cappiquitic man he gives me gas )

"Why does it require a special council?"... because they say ...Who says? name them . Quote quotes..don't post hearsay as fact or even unsubstansiated scribble...Who said?..because there is an indication that the people who committed this crime were involved ( at least in terms of thier affiliation ) with the agencies would investigate the crime...hardley what one would call a disinterested study

It matters not wether Rove was involved ...someone in a official capacity BROKE THE LAW, This deserves a complete investigation.. I'll say one thing , the stain on monicas dress weighs heavy on all sides, You cannot expect one sort of behavior from the left aisle and another from the right.

So as to your suggestion , let's leave this one alone and believe the White Houses topical denials...Ya Right?

Verbiage,verbiage,general denial, Rush quotes, more generalizations..bla...bla.... damn Trvth ..KILL IT!

[corplinx]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel

It matters not wether Rove was involved ...someone in a official capacity BROKE THE LAW

You are a psychic then. You accuse me of using hearsay (even though it was from watching news coverage that I expect the average _informed_ forum poster has watched also) but you go posting unsubstantiated things yourself.

Don't be hating........

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
Witchhunt by the Dems (even though its the CIA who asked for the investigation)?

A legitimate investigation is not a witchhunt. This investigation has been ongoing for several months. The current shilling and baseless calls for a counsel are what I call a witchhunt.

Can I make it clear again that when the law is broken it should investigated in a _proper_ manner?

The current calls I have seen for a counsel either (A) don't support invoking the counsel or (B) are based on unsubstantiated claims (Rove, etc).

Unless there is a _tangible_ conflict of interest, I don't see why this shouldn't go on.

This is Novak and possibly one or more white house staffers, pretty simple. This isn't exactly a web like iran-contra.

[subgenius]

69% of the American people want an independent counsel appointed. They are not all unreasonable.

[jj]

Originally posted by corplinx
This is Novak and possibly one or more white house staffers, pretty simple. This isn't exactly a web like iran-contra.

Interesting. How do you know that? Can you prove it?

It was, after all, pretty hard to prove Whitewater, even with the Starr Chamber going on and on and on and on.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius
69% of the American people want an independent counsel appointed. They are not all unreasonable.

Yes yes, we should lead this country based on opinion polls. Didn't 72 percent of americans think Saddam was connected with 9-11? If so, it must be true.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by corplinx
Also, don't you love how Ammanpour said that FoxNews were the administrations footsoldiers; however CNN employee Bob "nofacts" Novak is the real tool?

How come FoxNews didn't get this leak?

Because Novak has been a long time loyal supporter of the conservative party? I think he and the administration really miscalculated what the reaction would be to this story. They've gotten away with murder for so long, they probably just assumed the press would look the other way here as well.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx


Yes yes, we should lead this country based on opinion polls. Didn't 72 percent of americans think Saddam was connected with 9-11? If so, it must be true.
Man, once in a while concede the reasonable. I knew this would be your response. I didn't cite the poll for the proposition that we should run the country on polls.....but for the proposition that an IC is not an extreme position to take....
Its not exactly a witch hunt if so many think an IC is a good idea....the 70% must include some Republicans.....as far as "tangible" conflict of interest its an accepted proposition that "apparent" conflicts of interest are important to recognize to insure the appearance of fairness.....but nothings going to change your mind....
Bush is the one with the greatest interest in finding the truth and having the public believe that it is the truth.....unless the truth is going to hurt.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Okay, I see a lot of partisan baiting going on in the world over this one and I'd like to point out some important things people seem to over look.

Let's go back to Clinton, first.

Clinton was NOT impeached fro getting a hummer.

Clinton was impeached for purgery (which I admit, I can't spell). It is a crime.

Because Clinton committed a crime, he should have been impeached. Just the way it is. He, essentially, was impeached because he was an idiot.

Now, the current situation:

If the allegations are true (I have a very uneasy feeling that they are, but that's just my friggin-sense tingling.), then someone in the administration (two someones, actually) have commited something of a more seriouse crime than Clinton. They have committed treason. I do not pretend to know who was involved. I will not name any names. I will say WHOEVER was involved, be it by leaking the info, approving the leak, or ordering the leak, needs to be prosecuted.

I find it odd that there was a special prosecutor for Clinton, but there shouldn't be one for this. This is a much LARGER issue. It has much larger implications. I think it should not even be a matter for discussion, there should be a special prosecutor assigned immediately.

If the administration has nothing to hide, they should welcome this action.

[subgenius]

And a point related to the thread: It is reasonable to want an IC. It is reasonable to not want one.
Demonizing one over the other is unreasonable.
My guess is that Bush will offer up the ones responsible quickly without an IC. Its in his interests to do so.
Unfortunately, with so many Americans in favor of an IC, that may leave lingering doubts. That would be the point of an IC.
Leaks investigations rarely go anywhere anyhow, although they have rarely involved such a serious bit of information.
I'm willing to assume, for now, that Bush didn't authorize this. However, that doesn't get around responsibility for hiring the people that did it. How much responsibility is up to the voters to decide.

[SRW]

I could be wrong but wasn't the law, that would apply to a special councel, not renewed?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy

I find it odd that there was a special prosecutor for Clinton, but there shouldn't be one for this.

In a truly braindead act, congress invoked the counsel for whitewater (remember that turd hunt?). The perjury, obstruction of justice, and misleading a grand jury charges came along later and were added to the counsel's duties.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by corplinx


You are a psychic then. You accuse me of using hearsay (even though it was from watching news coverage that I expect the average _informed_ forum poster has watched also) but you go posting unsubstantiated things yourself.

Don't be hating........

I wasn't hating guy, just very upset .This isn't a childish prank like stealing all the 'w's' off all the typewriters. This at best was ruining an agent that probably cost an ungodly amount of money to develop ( remember it IS the government) and at worst could possibly cost someone thier life.

As far as posting unsubstantiated things The Novak piece states "unnamed White House sources". Joseph Wilson the husband of the outed agent also talked to different reporters who also attrubited this story to "unnamed White House sources". Since the story is true in re the woman's employment and history neither Mr.Novak nor the other sources ( which Mr.Wilson stated he would reveal if subpoena) have any apparent reason to lie. The reporters that talked to Mr.Wilson quoted the official "unnamed source" as also saying that the agent , Valery Plame, was "fair game.


I wouldn't call that unsubstantiated.

An assessment of Ms.Plame's job description:

"Valerie Plame was not simply an analyst or a data cruncher. She was an operative running a network dedicated to tracking any person or nation that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. That sentence deserves to be written twice. She was an operative running a network dedicated to tracking any person or nation that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists."

So much for scandal puffs