Call Bush to Action on Science, Math, and Engineering Educat

Jim Thompson · Aug 7, 2005

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:niv9f15c11qf5ghlv0mt2d9icm3rpat1ll@4ax.com...
[snip]

At whose urging did the CIA send Joseph C. Wilson to Africa?

Answer: Valerie Plame

The whole thing was a rig-job set up by the dirt-bag Democrats.

Valerie Plame has never been an "operative", she had a desk job ala
"Three Days of the Condor".

That pretty much echoes the Karl Rove position, except that you left out
this part: "I didn't actually give Novak her name. I just said it was
Wilson's wife".

That seems to be hearsay.

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Richard Henry · Aug 7, 2005

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

keith · Aug 7, 2005

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 10:27:05 -0700, Richard Henry wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

You're the one who has already convicted Novak. I was sure you had an
idea what you convicted him of, Red.

--
Keith

Jim Thompson · Aug 7, 2005

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:27:05 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Bob Monsen · Aug 7, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:27:05 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

That covers "outing" an "operative".

...Jim Thompson

Some remark about brown eyes comes to mind... Have you been reading the
Washington Times again? You do realize they are owned by the Moonies,
and make stuff up, right?

The CIA took this leak seriously enough to contact the Justice
Department. There is a grand jury investigation into this matter. They
are probably going to put somebody in jail for it. The CIA takes this
kind of thing very seriously, with good reason. The original impetus for
the law was the assasination of a station chief after being exposed by
some former agent's book. In addition, after a leak of this sort
happens, all sorts of problems are created, since they need to clean up
any possible connections from the agent's entire career by doing things
like relocating agents that may have been associated with the person,
and folding ongoing operations that could have been compromised.

Read this if you really want to understand the controversy; here as some
links:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507250005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508050005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508010006
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508050010
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=947707

(mediamatters is a media watchdog organization. The last link is a
column by Eric Alterman, who is a liberal commentator.)

--
Regards,
Bob Monsen

If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has
so much as to be out of danger?
Thomas Henry Huxley, 1877

Jim Thompson · Aug 7, 2005

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:05:17 -0700, Bob Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:27:05 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...

On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

That covers "outing" an "operative".

...Jim Thompson

Some remark about brown eyes comes to mind... Have you been reading the
Washington Times again? You do realize they are owned by the Moonies,
and make stuff up, right?

The CIA took this leak seriously enough to contact the Justice
Department. There is a grand jury investigation into this matter. They
are probably going to put somebody in jail for it. The CIA takes this
kind of thing very seriously, with good reason. The original impetus for
the law was the assasination of a station chief after being exposed by
some former agent's book. In addition, after a leak of this sort
happens, all sorts of problems are created, since they need to clean up
any possible connections from the agent's entire career by doing things
like relocating agents that may have been associated with the person,
and folding ongoing operations that could have been compromised.

Read this if you really want to understand the controversy; here as some
links:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507250005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508050005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508010006
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508050010
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=947707

(mediamatters is a media watchdog organization. The last link is a
column by Eric Alterman, who is a liberal commentator.)

"***Special right-wing pundit meltdown edition**", sure impresses me,
NOT!

Let's wait until the dust from the cow patties settles, then tell me
about it again.

In the meantime might I suggest you actually read the wording of the
law?

And I certainly don't read the Washington Times, or any other "Times"
for that matter ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Richard Henry · Aug 7, 2005

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:atocf1lpom47cdugnrck9qvqkk8p46scc3@4ax.com...

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:27:05 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

That covers "outing" an "operative".

I thought maybe you were referring to the First Amendment. Novak and his
newspaper have the right to publish, but they are still responsible for the
results of their action. That was settled years ago in the Pentagon Papers
case.

BTW, neither Robert Novak nor Karl Rove has the power to decide who is or is
not an undercover operative. That falls to the CIA, part of the State
Department, part of the Executive Branch, headed by W. So, in theory, at
least, W can exercise his authority and declare Ms. Plame not to be an
undercover operative, and therefore not entitled to protection. However, he
took the opposite tack when the initial disclosure occurred, vowing to fire
whoever was responsible. We shall see what we shall see.

Please note that none of that misdirection changes the veracity of the
original Niger yellowcake story.

Richard Henry · Aug 7, 2005

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:3i5df1pfobgqqc5490b37ng5b3q7gsv3la@4ax.com...

In the meantime might I suggest you actually read the wording of the
law?

Please enlighten us with a quote (or at least a pointer).

keith · Aug 8, 2005

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:55:23 -0700, Richard Henry wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:atocf1lpom47cdugnrck9qvqkk8p46scc3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:27:05 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

That covers "outing" an "operative".

I thought maybe you were referring to the First Amendment. Novak and his
newspaper have the right to publish, but they are still responsible for the
results of their action. That was settled years ago in the Pentagon Papers
case.

....and how many in the PP case went to jail?

BTW, neither Robert Novak nor Karl Rove has the power to decide who is or is
not an undercover operative. That falls to the CIA, part of the State
Department, part of the Executive Branch, headed by W. So, in theory, at
least, W can exercise his authority and declare Ms. Plame not to be an
undercover operative, and therefore not entitled to protection. However, he
took the opposite tack when the initial disclosure occurred, vowing to fire
whoever was responsible. We shall see what we shall see.

You're nutz! Her identity was blown long before Novak. She blew
herself at many parties.

Please note that none of that misdirection changes the veracity of the
original Niger yellowcake story.

It seems that history doesn't agree with your distaste for GWB. The
*fact* is that there was evidence that SH was trying to buy yellow-cake.
The congressional investigation showed Wilson to be a *LIAR*. ...no
surprise. Rove, if anything, was trying to save the bacon of the stupid
reporters; "don't go there".

--
Keith

Jim Thompson · Aug 8, 2005

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:57:09 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:3i5df1pfobgqqc5490b37ng5b3q7gsv3la@4ax.com...

In the meantime might I suggest you actually read the wording of the
law?

Please enlighten us with a quote (or at least a pointer).

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Aug 8, 2005

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:55:23 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:atocf1lpom47cdugnrck9qvqkk8p46scc3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:27:05 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

That covers "outing" an "operative".

I thought maybe you were referring to the First Amendment. Novak and his
newspaper have the right to publish, but they are still responsible for the
results of their action. That was settled years ago in the Pentagon Papers
case.

BTW, neither Robert Novak nor Karl Rove has the power to decide who is or is
not an undercover operative. That falls to the CIA, part of the State
Department, part of the Executive Branch, headed by W. So, in theory, at
least, W can exercise his authority and declare Ms. Plame not to be an
undercover operative, and therefore not entitled to protection. However, he
took the opposite tack when the initial disclosure occurred, vowing to fire
whoever was responsible. We shall see what we shall see.

Please note that none of that misdirection changes the veracity of the
original Niger yellowcake story.

What "Niger yellowcake story" ?

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Aug 8, 2005

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:34:51 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:55:23 -0700, Richard Henry wrote:

[snip]
...W can exercise his authority and declare Ms. Plame not to be an
undercover operative, and therefore not entitled to protection. However, he
took the opposite tack when the initial disclosure occurred, vowing to fire
whoever was responsible. We shall see what we shall see.

You're nutz! Her identity was blown long before Novak. She blew
herself at many parties.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Richard Henry · Aug 8, 2005

"keith" <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in message
news

an.2005.08.08.01.34.48.914719@att.bizzzz...

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 17:55:23 -0700, Richard Henry wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:atocf1lpom47cdugnrck9qvqkk8p46scc3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:27:05 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry"
rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

That covers "outing" an "operative".

I thought maybe you were referring to the First Amendment. Novak and
his
newspaper have the right to publish, but they are still responsible for
the
results of their action. That was settled years ago in the Pentagon
Papers
case.

...and how many in the PP case went to jail?

What was settled was that the government had no right of prior restraint:
they could do nothing to the papers until they published the Papers.

BTW, neither Robert Novak nor Karl Rove has the power to decide who is
or is
not an undercover operative. That falls to the CIA, part of the State
Department, part of the Executive Branch, headed by W. So, in theory,
at
least, W can exercise his authority and declare Ms. Plame not to be an
undercover operative, and therefore not entitled to protection.
However, he
took the opposite tack when the initial disclosure occurred, vowing to
fire
whoever was responsible. We shall see what we shall see.

You're nutz! Her identity was blown long before Novak. She blew
herself at many parties.

Cite, please.

Please note that none of that misdirection changes the veracity of the
original Niger yellowcake story.

It seems that history doesn't agree with your distaste for GWB. The
*fact* is that there was evidence that SH was trying to buy yellow-cake.

Cite, please.

The congressional investigation showed Wilson to be a *LIAR*.

Cite, please

...no

surprise. Rove, if anything, was trying to save the bacon of the stupid
reporters; "don't go there".

Interesting spin.

Richard Henry · Aug 8, 2005

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:q6edf1pg4q9k8rp4tsm6g77bhmmmoni48a@4ax.com...

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:55:23 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:atocf1lpom47cdugnrck9qvqkk8p46scc3@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:27:05 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:c8acf15ktb713c8bseeic0sd395pg0r2q7@4ax.com...
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 22:34:45 -0700, "Richard Henry"
rphenry@home.com
wrote:

That brings up another question: why isn't Novak in jail?

You need to read the fine print in the law to get your own answer.

Which law?

That covers "outing" an "operative".

I thought maybe you were referring to the First Amendment. Novak and his
newspaper have the right to publish, but they are still responsible for
the
results of their action. That was settled years ago in the Pentagon
Papers
case.

BTW, neither Robert Novak nor Karl Rove has the power to decide who is or
is
not an undercover operative. That falls to the CIA, part of the State
Department, part of the Executive Branch, headed by W. So, in theory, at
least, W can exercise his authority and declare Ms. Plame not to be an
undercover operative, and therefore not entitled to protection. However,
he
took the opposite tack when the initial disclosure occurred, vowing to
fire
whoever was responsible. We shall see what we shall see.

Please note that none of that misdirection changes the veracity of the
original Niger yellowcake story.

What "Niger yellowcake story" ?

You don't know what any of this is about, do you?

Here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

You leftists weenies and SO single-minded!

Whatever makes you think I am a leftist? I am fairly well off,
conservative, US Navy veteran, three kids and four cars, million-dollar home
in the suburbs, work in the defense industry. That doesn't mean I have to
be stupid.

Richard Henry · Aug 8, 2005

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:6qddf1lda214osq92jt0nar0u6oukl4fkq@4ax.com...

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:57:09 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:3i5df1pfobgqqc5490b37ng5b3q7gsv3la@4ax.com...

In the meantime might I suggest you actually read the wording of the
law?

Please enlighten us with a quote (or at least a pointer).

I heard it read aloud on FNC, I think by Hannity. It has so many
weasel words regarding criminal intent that I doubt anyone will even
be charged, let alone do time.

Here, I looked it up for you:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

It looks like the weaseling will between 3, 5 or 10 years.

Bob Monsen · Aug 8, 2005

Richard Henry wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:6qddf1lda214osq92jt0nar0u6oukl4fkq@4ax.com...

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:57:09 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:3i5df1pfobgqqc5490b37ng5b3q7gsv3la@4ax.com...

In the meantime might I suggest you actually read the wording of the
law?

Please enlighten us with a quote (or at least a pointer).

I heard it read aloud on FNC, I think by Hannity. It has so many
weasel words regarding criminal intent that I doubt anyone will even
be charged, let alone do time.

Here, I looked it up for you:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

It looks like the weaseling will between 3, 5 or 10 years.

I'm not a laywer, but it sounds like Novak, Rove, Scooter Libby, and
Judith Miller are in big trouble. Ms Plume clearly met the criteria set
up by the law. Novak (and Rove) knew she was undercover CIA, and yet
went ahead and disclosed her name. Novak was warned by the CIA not to
print the story for security reasons, and went ahead anyway. I guess he
figured Bush had the mojo to quash any investigation. I include Scooter,
because he is clearly the original leak. Miller probably got it from
him, and passed it on, which is why she is refusing to roll on him; she
is in for up to 10 years in the slammer if she lets this be known.

--
Regards,
Bob Monsen

If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has
so much as to be out of danger?
Thomas Henry Huxley, 1877

Paul Burke · Aug 8, 2005

Jim Thompson wrote:

There you go. Methodists derive from Luther. They tend not to push
their religious ideas on others.

Not very much. The Methodist movement originated as a revival of the
Church of England (which was NOT Lutheran, Henry's original vision was
of a private local Catholic church), in the early 18th century. It was
rather a reaction against the Church's distaste for 'enthusiasm' which
resulted from the experiences of the English Civil War, but which also
led to a rather bloodless formalism.

Interestingly enough, it was American independence that drove the
Methodists to separate from the Church of England. As for not forcing
their views on others, this may be true today, but the historian
E.P.Thompson described them in the 19th century as 'emotional terrorists'.

Paul Burke

Jim Thompson · Aug 8, 2005

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:21:56 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com>
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:q6edf1pg4q9k8rp4tsm6g77bhmmmoni48a@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:55:23 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:
[snip]

Please note that none of that misdirection changes the veracity of the
original Niger yellowcake story.

What "Niger yellowcake story" ?

You don't know what any of this is about, do you?

You're so dense you can't recognize when someone is yanking your chain
?

Here's a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

You leftists weenies and SO single-minded!

Whatever makes you think I am a leftist? I am fairly well off,
conservative, US Navy veteran, three kids and four cars, million-dollar home
in the suburbs, work in the defense industry. That doesn't mean I have to
be stupid.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Aug 8, 2005

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 08:23:50 +0100, Paul Burke <paul@scazon.com>
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

There you go. Methodists derive from Luther. They tend not to push
their religious ideas on others.

Not very much. The Methodist movement originated as a revival of the
Church of England (which was NOT Lutheran, Henry's original vision was
of a private local Catholic church), in the early 18th century. It was
rather a reaction against the Church's distaste for 'enthusiasm' which
resulted from the experiences of the English Civil War, but which also
led to a rather bloodless formalism.

Interestingly enough, it was American independence that drove the
Methodists to separate from the Church of England. As for not forcing
their views on others, this may be true today, but the historian
E.P.Thompson described them in the 19th century as 'emotional terrorists'.

Paul Burke

Since it's been 25 years since I've been inside a Methodist church
(for a funeral), I can't really discuss Methodism. They certainly
weren't pushy 50 years ago when I last attended services. But ISTR
that the branch I attended claimed a direct connection to Lutheran
principles.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Richard Henry · Aug 8, 2005

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:vaqef1h476m32nkh2h4agr7k85bdai11ut@4ax.com...

On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:21:56 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:q6edf1pg4q9k8rp4tsm6g77bhmmmoni48a@4ax.com...
On Sun, 7 Aug 2005 17:55:23 -0700, "Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com
wrote:
[snip]

Please note that none of that misdirection changes the veracity of the
original Niger yellowcake story.

What "Niger yellowcake story" ?

You don't know what any of this is about, do you?

You're so dense you can't recognize when someone is yanking your chain
?

Sorry. Too tired last night. Out in the sun all day at my son's soccer
tournament, then an hour-long practice for mu old-farts team.

You leftists weenies and SO single-minded!

Whatever makes you think I am a leftist? I am fairly well off,
conservative, US Navy veteran, three kids and four cars, million-dollar
home
in the suburbs, work in the defense industry. That doesn't mean I have
to
be stupid.

Then why do you cite only leftist publications?

Leftist? In this thread I have cited the Arizona Secretary of State,
Cornell University law reference, and Wikipedia. Which of those do you
consider to be leftist?

Maybe you're a RINO?

What's a RINO?

Call Bush to Action on Science, Math, and Engineering Educat

Jim Thompson

Guest

Richard Henry

Guest

keith

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Bob Monsen

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Richard Henry

Guest

Richard Henry

Guest

keith

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Richard Henry

Guest

Richard Henry

Guest

Richard Henry

Guest

Bob Monsen

Guest

Paul Burke

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Richard Henry

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor