An excellent NPR report on the White House exposing a CIA agent.

[Drake Tungsten]

Considering what Pincus said, I think I'd question Woodward's credibility. He has plenty of reason to heap scorn on the case--if it really wasn't a big deal, then his ass may not be in big trouble. Otherwise, it may be. Why Woodward, a reporter, is qualified to decide if leaking a CIA agent's identity is a big deal or not is beyond me.

I'll take the stance of CIA agents over his any day

Poor Woodward. You're a hero when you help bring down a Republican administration, but you aren't credible if you dismiss attempts to bring down another Republican administration as unimportant.

Also note the recurring pattern...

[Dinner]

I would like to know who this source is Woodward isn't revealing. All we know is he's a senior white house person who is not Libbby. This still leaves the White House with dirtier hands then ever.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Considering what Pincus said, I think I'd question Woodward's credibility. He has plenty of reason to heap scorn on the case--if it really wasn't a big deal, then his ass may not be in big trouble. Otherwise, it may be. Why Woodward, a reporter, is qualified to decide if leaking a CIA agent's identity is a big deal or not is beyond me.

I'll take the stance of CIA agents over his any day

Poor Woodward. You're a hero when you help bring down a Republican administration, but you aren't credible if you dismiss attempts to bring down another Republican administration as unimportant.

Also note the recurring pattern...

Unforuntatley for you and your crew, it was the people in the Administration that made this more than just a political question when they outted the CIA agent as a means of revenge.

This was a serious mistake, especially after they tried to blame their own lies about Iraq on poor CIA intelligence reports.

It was only a matter of time before the CIA struck back.

[Ted Striker]

By the way, I wonder if all this CIA bashing from the White House struck a nerve with Bush's Dad, considering his close history and relationship with the organization.

[Drake Tungsten]

Unforuntatley for you and your crew, it was the people in the Administration that made this more than just a political question when they outted the CIA agent as a means of revenge.

Your boys ever going to find any evidence that this is what really happened? Two years and still nothing...

Face it, Woodward is probably right. Plame's identity most likely got to the press through idle Beltway gossip and all the folks who pushed this investigation like it was another Watergate are going to look like jackasses when it amounts to nothing.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Unforuntatley for you and your crew, it was the people in the Administration that made this more than just a political question when they outted the CIA agent as a means of revenge.

Your boys ever going to find any evidence that this is what really happened? Two years and still nothing...

Yes, we've been waiting on Phase 2 for 2 years now.

Face it, Woodward is probably right. Plame's identity most likely got to the press through idle Beltway gossip and all the folks who pushed this investigation like it was another Watergate are going to look like jackasses when it amounts to nothing.

I'll take the CIA's own opinion about it over yours.

But thanks.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
By the way, I wonder if all this CIA bashing from the White House struck a nerve with Bush's Dad, considering his close history and relationship with the organization.

After all the **** ups and incompetence going back several administrations, why shouldn't they be bashed?

[Dinner]

It's clear as day that is what occurred and even a Republican appointed independent council came to that conclusion. The problem is that by law you must prove what a person was thinking when they committed the crime and that is impossible unless they are stupid enough to admit it. That just leaves the cover up which is very provable.

Not surprising that just like Nixon and the Reagan White House it is the cover up which will get them in the end.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
After all the **** ups and incompetence going back several administrations, why shouldn't they be bashed?

Whether or not they deserve it is beside the point.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Whether or not they deserve it is beside the point.

I'd say that it is the entire point.

[Drake Tungsten]

It's clear as day that is what occurred and even a Republican appointed independent council came to that conclusion.

In case you haven't noticed, Fitzgerald's timeline and theory just got shot to ****...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd say that it is the entire point.

What your point is I could care less.

What THE point is, is that the White House was foolish to keep publicly pushing the CIA and to scapegoat them by blaming their own incompetence and lies on them.

Outting an agent to the public pretty much crossed the line.

It was only a matter of time before they took revenge.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Considering what Pincus said, I think I'd question Woodward's credibility. He has plenty of reason to heap scorn on the case--if it really wasn't a big deal, then his ass may not be in big trouble. Otherwise, it may be. Why Woodward, a reporter, is qualified to decide if leaking a CIA agent's identity is a big deal or not is beyond me.

I'll take the stance of CIA agents over his any day

Poor Woodward. You're a hero when you help bring down a Republican administration, but you aren't credible if you dismiss attempts to bring down another Republican administration as unimportant.

Also note the recurring pattern...

And when did I ever proclaim Woodward a "hero" before? Save your strawmen, please.

[Drake Tungsten]

You don't think Woodward is a hero for bringing down Nixon? Man, you better not let any of your fellow travellers hear that (at least not the old ones)...

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
What THE point is, is that the White House was foolish to keep publicly pushing the CIA and to scapegoat them by blaming their own incompetence and lies on them.

Lies is a charge that you'd have to work a bit harder to make stick considering the statements coming from the Clinton Admin on. Incompetence would be the better charge to stick to stick to seeing as how even if the WMD had been there the justification for war would still had been slim.

What your point is I could care less.

My point which you conceeded is that the CIA deserves to be bashed on the record alone. So what's wrong with giving them the bashing they've earned.