digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Valerie Plame's Lawsuit Dismissed

breitbart.com — A federal judge on Thursday dismissed former CIA operative Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration in the CIA leak scandal

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • serpicolugnut, on 10/11/2007, -57/+22...and a million libDiggers wept uncontrollably.
    • Charlotte_Web, on 10/11/2007, -25/+7In the words of Dana Carvey impersonating H. Ross Perot, "That is HIGH-larious."
    • hipnerd, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13"U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments."

      It wasn't dismissed for lack of foundation, and it wasn't dismissed with prejudice. The judge was clear that this is purely a jurisdictional issue. Cheney is still a big tool and Plame is free to refile.
      • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"Though [Judge] Bates said the case raised "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," he said there was no legal basis for the suit." http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070719/D8QFTN080.html
      • Thefascist, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Yes, but in america the penis actually goes into the vagina, instead of wasting our time arousing the woman we are actually ***** them.
        • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1and by "woman" you mean plastic doll.
        • Thefascist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I was trying to post this in the article about americans having less sex than the rest of the world. I clicked on this story by accident.
      • Thefascist, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1you know now that I'm reading my comment after some time has passed I find it to be very lame.
    • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6na-na-na-boo-boo
      hahahahahaha......suck it libs!
      • DangerMouse9, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4Are you enjoying this ass raping of our country? Are you proud to support people that would rather see you dead than be able to afford health care? Do you enjoy having all your freedoms stripped away?

        I guess you're too ***** partisan to open your eyes and see how badly you're being ***** over so you have to mock others when they fail at trying to make things right.

        Enjoy your totalitarian dictatorship you're helping create.
        • iamlutheran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0LOL He must be enjoying it very much.
    • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4insults is all you fake conservatives have left, isn't it?
      • HaywoodGiablomi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Hey, that's great. Just think: in about ten years you'll be old enough to actually vote for these douche nozzles.
        • HaywoodGiablomi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@ queenstarsha: Sorry if my last appeared aimed at you. It was supposed to have gone to the author of this little gem [likely drafted in crayon]:

          na-na-na-boo-boo. hahahahahaha......suck it libs!


  • zelig, on 10/11/2007, -16/+19HA!! Told you so.
    • Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -7/+12The judge didn't dismiss the case because it had no merits, he dismissed it because of jurisdiction.
      • zybch, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2And you actually believe that?

        Here, have another jug of neo-con koolade!
  • klmay65, on 10/11/2007, -46/+24Next week on Liberal Myths...
    Terrorists will leave us alone if we get out of the Middle East.
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -12/+18This week on conservative myths: Valerie Plame was not covert, Armitage was the original source of the leak, Libby was convicted for having a bad memory.
      • p51d007, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2not a MYTH, it is FACT......she was NOT covert
        • freewheeling, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Fitzgerald says that she was. The CIA said that she was. Why would the CIA ask for an investigation into the leaking of a covert agent's name if that agent wasn't covert? The fact that people are actually still arguing this is a sign of how uninformed many people are.
    • Dralha, on 10/11/2007, -8/+20The conservative myth is that as long as American troops continue to get slaughtered in Iraq, the terrorists won't bother plotting to attack the Glorious Homeland.
    • sundancekid503, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21You're right, the terrorists hate us for our freedom! Yet for some reason they don't actually attack the countries that are free-er than us. Hmmmmmmm.....
      • Wargalas, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11You mean like Australia, Britain, France, Spain, etc...?
        • sundancekid503, on 10/11/2007, -5/+9No, I mean like Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Finland.

          Most of the countries you mentioned meddled in the middle east as well. In fact all of them have to varying degrees, and none of those countries are bastions of freedom.
        • elebrio, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3Maybe you forget the Danish Mohammed cartoons and the fatwa's issued against them?
        • sundancekid503, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6"Maybe you forget the Danish Mohammed cartoons and the fatwa's issued against them?"

          Which resulted in what? Nothing? A few rocks at the embassy?
          • LadyBeGood, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Ask Theo Van Gogh about the nice Danish Muslims. His voice might sound a little bubbly, what with the slit throat and all.
        • 10lbhammer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2oops wargalas, I accidentally dugg you up... please, someone, rectify the situation for me!!
    • tidu, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8I find it really funny that there are actually people that believe these terrorists just got up one day and said "Those people suck" and started plotting against us. If we had a huge country occupying our lands, especially holy lands (yes, we have them, we call them churches) I think there would be a LOT of resentment toward that country. Some people disregard the logic and keep telling themselves "We're doing the right thing, we're the good guys" You know what's funny? the terrorists are telling themselves the same. exact. thing.
      • jdibiase, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4That doesn't explain why so many more Iraqi civilians are being killed by the insurgents.
    • HallsOfMandos, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5You don't even know what 'liberal' means, do you? I think you would find that leaving the Middle East is actually a 'Conservative' position.
  • HughBetcha, on 10/11/2007, -4/+24I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
    • pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1seriously, who would have thought a bush appointed judge would dismiss a case that made the administration look bad? not the same judge who threw out a case regarding the release of Cheney's Energy Taskforce records...
  • zosimov21, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1741 page pdf from the judge about the ruling
    https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv1258-52
  • DavidBGie, on 10/18/2007, -21/+10Digg this up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • nblsavage, on 10/18/2007, -14/+1no
      • DavidBGie, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Ah Ha! You are at -12 diggs (vs my -10) . Your neolib friends have betrayed you! Turn away from evil!
  • Kewlduderules, on 10/11/2007, -23/+16This is really no big surprise. Bush and his cabal are in cahoots with the federal courts- most of them at least.
    • DavidBGie, on 10/18/2007, -20/+7Most lawyers are Democrats. Your theory is weak.
      • siszam, on 10/18/2007, -3/+17Just because you can make things up doesn't make it true.
      • hipnerd, on 10/18/2007, -3/+4Judges are appointed by the executive branch and Bush has been steadily politicizing all facets of government, including the judiciary. Even if "most lawyers are Democrats," Bush hasn't been appointing Democrats to the judiciary.
  • hittnrun, on 10/18/2007, -23/+21I cannot believe this case was dismissed. Didn't this judge know she was a covert agent in charge of the supply cabinet?

    lol
    • swrostmore, on 10/18/2007, -7/+13Nuclear non-proliferation, actually.
      • hittnrun, on 10/18/2007, -2/+0She needs to find a new line of work then. She sucks at that.
  • demicritter, on 10/18/2007, -35/+14Hahahaahahaha. Watch all the moonbats take flight over this one. "See how Bush controls everything!" I predict that tinfoil sales will triple over the next week.
    • Stormwysper, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4And I predict you get dugg down for that comment.
  • quakerorts, on 10/11/2007, -12/+36They knew this would be an uphill fight. Apparently if you're in the government you have carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want!
    • AlfaSub, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Not quite. Scooter already was convicted, remember? Even though he was pardoned, he was still convicted. Whether or not Bush should face the consequences for pardoning Scooter is beside the point.
      The judge didn't rule that "the government has carte blanche privileges to do whatever it wants". What he essentially ruled was "the relevant parties have already been punished, and there is no provision in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act providing for further, civil, monetary damages". The judge has essentially stated that civil damages are not applicable in the given case because the actions already have criminal implications. You may disagree with the logic that a federal crime precludes civil damages, but it is the way the law works.
      The law works this way to prevent double jeopardy. Imagine the family of a murder victim suing the murderer for wrongful death even after he has been convicted for life in prison. The law is designed to prevent multiple penalties from being applied to a single crime. If you want people like Scooter to be liable for monetary damages as well, write your nearest senator and ask for an amendment in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act that has that effect.
      Until then, stop bitching and moaning. While judges can (and often do) bend the law for people in power, they rarely break it, and certainly didn't break it in this case.
      • anonym41414, on 10/18/2007, -1/+0What? You made every single word of that up. Seriously. Everything was wrong.

        1. Libby wasn't convicted of any crime related to the disclosing of Plame's identity. He was convicted of giving a false account to the special prosecutor who was investigating to determine whether a crime had been committed.

        2. Libby wasn't pardoned. His sentence was commuted. Different legal concept.

        3. The judge in this case ruled that the Plames had no cause of action in federal court. There was nothing in there about punishment.

        4. Double jeopardy doesn't apply in civil court. It only protects you from being tried twice for the same crime, not from being sued for damages resulting from criminal activity. OJ Simpson was famously sued after being acquitted.
  • WMD404, on 10/11/2007, -15/+45Figures. No point in trying to fight these rat bastards. This judge was appointed by- TADA! Chief Justice Roberts. http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/bates-bio.html
    The devil takes care of his own.
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -4/+28The same judge also supported Cheney's right to not respond to FOIA requests.
    • Grouser, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Bates is a members of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where he rubber-stamps warrant applications for wiretaps and break-ins. In 2004, the last year for which I found data, only 5 applications were rejected out of almost 19,000.
      • tmk40, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1and your point is??? We are in a time of war and we are deciding to TAKE CARE of those threats...and not let them sit around and develop into cells that can really hurt us. There is no greater responsibility that the president has.
    • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5awesome, scary digging.

      so the "jurisdiction" problem is apparently that in a court manned by a republican, valerie plame can't get justice.
  • biotch, on 10/11/2007, -13/+13Such a shame...
    I think people should seriously question why they think its so great that someone is not even allowed to bring a case to our government even with such mounted evidence against it.
  • siszam, on 10/11/2007, -14/+39When has the Bush administration NOT gotten away with murdering, lieing, and destroying the country? This is nothing new.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -6/+21OK, so let me get this straight - a federal judge doesn't have jurisdiction to hear a case where government officials have leaked classified information about a CIA operative to the press?!?
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3From the document: "For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that, under controlling Supreme Court
      precedent, special factors -- particularly the remedial scheme established by Congress in the
      Privacy Act -- counsel against the recognition of an implied damages remedy for plaintiffs'
      constitutional claims. The Court also finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the tort
      claim because plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies under the Federal Tort
      Claims Act, which is the proper, and exclusive, avenue for relief on such a claim."

      The judge said he didn't have jurisdiction over the tort part of the case, which is true; he doesn't. It was dismissed for different reasons, jurisdiction was only one of them.
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1OK, so what would those administrative remedies be? They can't sue in federal court, and they can't sue in state court - what other avenues do they have?
    • diggnatious, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1while I take republicans to task for always bringing up Clinton for ***** that goes on under Bush. I have to refer to the Supreme Courts finding that Clinton could be sued by a private person (Paula Jones) for something he supposedly did. So, why not Bush?
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5This is not at all surprising, but still...very unfortunate. The US really does have one law for those in power, and one law for the rest of us.
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -8/+21This is not at all surprising, but still...very unfortunate. The US really does have one law for those in power, and one law for the rest of us.
    • neuropsychguy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Or for celebrities, or rich people, or poor people, or any other group. Unfortunately, justice is not blind. The U.S. justice system is quite good but not without flaws.
  • Dralha, on 10/11/2007, -10/+16Clearly the judicial branch of government is now under the control of the executive branch.
  • ziffel, on 10/11/2007, -9/+21The judge who dismissed her case was a Bush appointee.
  • blacklist, on 10/11/2007, -16/+11Well here comes 300+ articles on this, all blaming bushhitler, manbearpig, and anyone else that can even remotely be blamed. Maybe someone can figure out how global warming is responsible.
  • brainScan, on 10/11/2007, -6/+17A $57 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner for lost pants goes through, but this gets dropped?!?! Ridiculous.
    • endersadvocate, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1you're an idiot.
      The judge threw that case out and made him pay the defense's legal fees. And, he was not re-appointed.
      Deserved it though, ***** *****.
  • Gundabad, on 10/11/2007, -14/+9I'm glad to see there is finally some justice in this case. I'm no bush-lover, I think he's screwed up more than he's done good, but some people are so blind with bush-rage they start pushing distorted facts. This story grew way too out of control with misinformation. Valerie Plame and her husband were way out of line in their actions.
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13That's got to be a bad joke. How exactly were Plame and Wilson "out of line?" I t hink you are confused about who the victims are here.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9@Gundabad: That simply doesn't make sense. How was Wilson "out of line" by reporting that the yellowcake papers were forgeries? Even more, how was Valerie out of line, considering she'd done nothing at all except to marry Wilson?

      How the hell do you manage to defend people who've leaked classified information to the press in order to smear a diplomat?! How the hell have you spun reality when you think that the *Wilsons* were out of line?!
      • FRANKeB, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Yup, and then Republicans say that if you are against the war and speak out about it, somehow that makes you guilty of treason. Yet exposing your own CITIZENS and CIA OPERATIVES is just politics? Last smoke + firing squad.
        • Gundabad, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think people should speak out against the war if that's the way they feel. There's no way you can call that treason, but Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson wanted to be the ones to take Bush down, and in their eagerness they just screwed up. Really delve into the facts here people. Nobody exposed anybody because she was never a covert agent, and this mission she sent her husband on was a complete farce. Maybe they had good intentions for the country, maybe they were just doing it for personal prestige, but they really screwed up here and have absolutely no case. There's plenty more valid anti-Bush stuff to be out there fighting so please, stop wasting your time on this Valerie Plame battle.
  • brucefrench, on 10/11/2007, -14/+7It's amazing the conspiracy theories these LOONS come up with isn't it
    • crichton101, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yeah I know, every time I listen to one of those LOONS they blame everything on the Democrats and the Liberals. Terrorism? It's the Liberals fault. Crime in the USA? Liberals Fault. Car accidents? Liberals again.. Stubbed my toe? Damn Godless liberals.
  • Setter, on 10/11/2007, -11/+9EPIC WIN.
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Epic loss for the CIA and the rule of law.
  • jakdracula, on 10/11/2007, -10/+10Good.
  • cambrown99, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Good thing they fired all those Federal Judges
    • phatt-matt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They didn't fire any Federal Judges. Get your facts straight.
    • anonym41414, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1You know, every time I see a comment like this, I'm tempted to digg it UP. But I'm afraid that the people who see it won't understand the point.

      Federal judges cannot be fired, ever. They're appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, they serve for life or until they retire, and they cannot be removed from office except by impeachment before the Senate.

      The Bush administration dismissed seven (or eight, depending on who you include) United States attorneys, who are not judges, are appointed by the President to four-year terms and serve at the pleasure of the President and thus can be dismissed lawfully at any time for any reason at all.
      • chicofaraby, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"can be dismissed lawfully at any time"

        Obstuction of justice isn't lawfull.
  • elebrio, on 10/11/2007, -17/+8I wish someone would put Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame on trial, under oath, so they are forced to admit they are liars, or go to jail for perjury.
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9They have both already testified, under oath, and unlike I. Lewis Libby did not perjure themselves or obstruct justice.
      • elebrio, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Testifying before a dog and pony show senate sub committee is not nearly the same thing. Nice try tho.
      • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8I realize you are very attached to your talking points, but the senate hearings divided their time equally between Republicans and Democrats.
        • elebrio, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3What talking points are those? That I want liars exposed? How many times did Joe Wilson say Cheney sent him to Niger? You are blinded by ideology if you really believe any of the complete BS to come out of either of those two's mouths.
        • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4Wilson said he was sent to Niger as the result of a request by the Office of the Vice President. This is a known fact and has been corroborated, under oath, by members of Cheney's staff.
  • HisShadow, on 10/11/2007, -9/+11Way to go, 'merica. Screw truth and justice, right now it's all about protecting the career criminals in office. Pardon the traitors, punish the wronged and send more soldiers to die for a lie. Mission Accomplished.
  • michaeljsmalley, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1BURIED FOR DUPE:
    http://digg.com/politics/Unbelieveable_Judge_dismisses_Valerie_Plame_s_lawsuit_against_White_House
    • davenp35, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Actually mine was posted WAY before yours was. Nice try tho.
    • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2Thanks for the link, I'll digg that one too
      • GTPilot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1LOL, talking to yourself with swrostmore michaeljsmalley?
        • michaeljsmalley, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1LOL. NO. Actually, the funny part is that I didn't post that comment! Someone actually gave me a pity digg. Honestly, I didn't realize he posted his before mine (I was sitting there today waiting to snipe this story as soon as I saw it on any web outlet, so I figured nobody hit it before me). Sorry for the misunderstanding. I love how a community of people I can relate so well too also are waiting there ready to shoot me out of the sky as soon as I am in error. I guess if I wanted a civil response I could have posted to reddit huh?
  • Darel99, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Regardless if you are republican or Democrat or other this is unjust and the judge needs to be arrested! I'm a republican and I'm sick of it.
    • Downtowne, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4You are not a Republican...and if you were we would kick you out. You're an Idiot.
      • chicofaraby, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Exactly. Republicans have to agree not to think.
  • swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -7/+10Why does the GOP hate the CIA? Why are they so adamant about the Office of the Vice President's "inalienable right" to expose covert CIA agents? What does the GOP have against national security?
    • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2if iran doesn't get closer to nukes, republicans don't get another war. duh.
  • Rabbittt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7The judge merely said he wasn't the right person to hear the case and that Plame, et al., should seek remedy elsewhere, through the Federal Tort Claims Act, already set up for their kind of problem.. The fight is far from over!

    Digg the truth..
  • scudshooter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Bush: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of. " He added that he did not know of "anybody in my administration who leaked classified information."
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

    Libby "further testified that he at first advised the Vice President that he could not have this conversation with reporter Miller because of the classified nature of the NIE," the court papers said. Libby "testified that the Vice President had advised [Libby] that the President had authorized [Libby] to disclose relevant portions of the NIE."
    http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm
  • blackbamboo, on 10/11/2007, -9/+6opps guess they better rewrite the last few chapters of their book they planned on selling for a few million. Freaking covert agent my ass. Hiding right out in the open. She was desk jockey in the paper pushing section of the CIA along with the other washed up wanna be spies. Her stupid government job husband was out of work until they sent to Niger....ofcourse he screwed that whole trip up so in order for his wife to go on extended paid leave and him to make himself famous for book a deal they made this ***** up. Two liars. Typical washington D.C. liberal lifer government workers. Feeding at the trough of redistributed wealth. How in the hell do you have twin babies at home and work as a spy. What is this hollywood? Useful idiots for the socialist mob running amuck in D.C.. ha ha
    • freewheeling, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4This is what happen when you get your news from Fox and talk radio.
  • michaeljsmalley, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Ha! Actually, the funny part is that I didn't post that comment! Someone actually gave me a pity digg. Honestly, I didn't realize he posted his before mine (I was sitting there today waiting to snipe this story as soon as I saw it on any web outlet, so I figured nobody hit it before me).
  • LadyBeGood, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2Ask Theo Van Gogh about the nice Danish Muslims. His voice might sound a little bubbly, what with the slit throat and all.
  • queenstarsha, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5a more complete story:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6792246,00.html

    the judge dismissed it based on "jurisdiction." plame intends to keep fighting.

    good for her.
  • huntrm, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Am I the only one here that is more interested in this woman's looks/body, then her court case? I'm looking for the headline of, "Valerie Plame in Playboy!"
  • LadyBeGood, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3The CIA needs more eye candy like Ms. Plame. She probably makes a good pot of coffee, too.
  • blubolt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3She is MUCH hotter than Ann Coulter - but she needs to go after Richard Armitage - Not the President. Libby never said anything........
  • Compared2What, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4Clearly this should really make the whacko left-wing BDS powered DiggBotts go crazeeeeeeeeee
  • tmk40, on 10/11/2007, -5/+4This is sooooo funny...and justly deserved as well. So many libs have no clue whatsoever about the fine points of law and just want to dumb this down...screaming about "one standard for Bush and another for the rest of us". There was no substance to arguments that Cheney and Bush conspired to out Valerie Plame. They had EVERY RIGHT to respond to Joe Wilson's nutty ideas that passes for serious analysis these days. Joe Wilson and his wife will have to get their celebrity boost somewhere else. Hooray!!!!!!! The system actually works!
    • phatt-matt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I just wish the Senate would go after Plame and Wilson for perjuring themselves. Both told lies in front of the Senate. She told the Senate committee that she didn't send her husband. We now know that was a lie. Wilson said he made the trip on behalf of the Vice President. That was a lie.
      • freewheeling, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Not true. Plame did not send Wilson to Niger, even CIA and Fitzgerald said so. Plame wrote a recommendation after Wilson was chosen. This was manipulated by Cheney and Co. to imply Plame did send Wilson so as to question his credibility. Wilson was only guilty of telling the truth when his saw report was being misrepresented to make a case for war.
  • Infantrydude, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4I looked in vain in this lawsuit for the name "Richard Armitage" the man who admitted to being the leak. Or even Colin Powell his boss, who knew about the leak. Armitage kept quiet until after the trail was over to admit his wrong doing. So how does Libby have anything to do with "blowing" Plame's cover?
    • davenp35, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Shhhhh. Don't tell the liberals. You might mess up their belief in DailyKos lie after MoveOn lie. Their motivated reasoning is becomming more and more blatant.
      • LadyBeGood, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2The Democrats are sniveling worms. They tremble, wet themselves, and roll over to expose their soft white underbellies when KING CHENEY walks into the room. The cowards don't even have the balls to impeach Bush. They make me want to vomit razor blades. Assholes.
    • diggtomanjeri, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Try looking a little harder next time. He was added to the lawsuit in September of 2006, joining Cheney, Libby and Rove who were already on.
  • maskinonge, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1"Unsavory"?
    If Ms. Plame had been a code breaker at Bletchley Park in WW11, Churchill would have had the leaker (Cheney) and the leakee (Novak) summarily shot as the treason's cowards/profiteers that they are.
    Ah, for the good old days.
    • hittnrun, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2she wasn't a code breaker. everyone at the CIA isn't a fvcking spy. Some are clerks. Plame was one with connections. Her husband was/is a douche. She shouldn't have used her connections to get her husband a job. Didn't that dude at the World Bank do this for his girlfriend and you losers whined about it? OK, it's over, get over it moonbats. Move on to your next crackpot schemes.
      • diggnatious, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1What Job? Wilson wasn't paid to go to Niger. His credentials for going were impeccable. His findings were critical to determining if Iraq was going to attack the United States. He found NO evidence of such. If the country was going to go to war, it had better have been for the right reasons and for truthful reasons. Wilson, horrified as the rest of us should have been, exposed the lie that was the Niger uranium findings.
  • precision4u, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Classified material gets leaked to the press - all fine and dandy as long as it goes to your political agenda (not pointing fingers, just stating a fact)

    Agent gets outed - Mentallity is to get to the bottom of it. (again, political agenda - it is wrong/right to leak the name depending on your agenda)

    I have little sympathy for anyone who goes to work for the government. Be it a soilder, a civi, politician, whatever. You know you are getting into the mud arena going in. To be suprised when its flunged is retarded.

    The problem is the exceptions that keep on being made. When you make an exception to say, allow a whistleblower to release classed material and nothing is done - you set a precedent. No suprises here.

    Start holding everyone accountable - regardless of the exception - and maybe this wouldn't happen.

    Or, keep your agenda and let the games continue.

    back to my hut..
    The problem is not black and white.
  • gramatoncleric, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1The point is moot here. Little does everyone know but she was outed as an agent years before the white house tried to mess with her husband. Really, nothing that wasn't already public knowledge was leaked by the white house.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.