<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Gary,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You are learning very well from your mentor Dale Courtney about failing to
include all relevant parts of a quote to make your point:</DIV>
<DIV><SPAN id=article><FONT color=black size=2><SPAN id=article><SPAN
id=intelliTXT>
<P><FONT color=#0000ff>'Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know her legal
status, but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her
identity.</FONT></P>
<P>[Left out]</P>
<P><FONT color=#0000ff>"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said.
"They might not have known what my status was but that alone - the fact that I
worked for the CIA - should have put up a red
flag."'</FONT></P></SPAN></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>Or perhaps you didn't
notice that the article appeared to be from its style an"analysis" or OP/ED
piece not a straight-forward news report.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>[Notice also, like
Courtney, you didn't write what the quote actually said.]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>As I pointed out, but
which you carefully avoided addressing, it is not what Plame thought her status
was, but what the way the law defines it which is the germane point
here.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>Aside from that, perhaps
you might be kind enough, now that we have the whole quote and other relevant
information, to comment upon the ethics and perhaps the adherence to government
honesty in this case.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>Was the outing of Plame
as payback for her husband correctly pointing out that the administration's view
of the Iraq/Africa nuclear connection was clearly wrong, if not a deliberate
lie, a fine, a honest, ethical act by the administration or a despicably
treacherous, if not childish one? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>Please bear in mind that
this charitably called "misinformation" was used by the Bush
administration as a key point to persuade a
much-too-gullible-about-the-president's-honesty congress to approve entering a
horribly destructive morass of which there does not seem to be a practical or
honorable way to exit from or of undoing the damage to the image and
influence of our country in the world community.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>In the past you have
refused to respond to simple questions whose answer might force you to take a
stand against one or more of your heroes by saying "I don't do homework
assignments." If that is your position here, then we will all understand
that you are afraid to directly comment on the issue raised by the
question. That's hardly a valorous position for someone participating in a
discussion of an issue, but such considerations have not deterred your
abstinence in the past.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>W.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:01 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in
the matter</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My understanding came in part from:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A
href="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070317/D8NTJUS80.html">http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070317/D8NTJUS80.html</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The 1982 statute IS the law. Ms. Plame and her
ridicules twit of a spouse, Joe 'sippin tea by the pool' Wilson like to
characterize her position with the CIA as 007 when the fact of the matter is she
didn't quite manage to ascend to the level of Mrs. Moneypenny. Even the special
prosecutor realized that the woman came about as close to being a double naught
spy as Jethro Bodine did. Analyst does not equal covert operative,
period.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Perhaps a special prosecutor should look into
securities being offered here on the V by unlicensed and unscrupulous vermin. It
would make as much sense and net the same minor level of
undesirable.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@adelphia.net
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:56
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they
will not testify under oath in the matter</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Gary writes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>"My understanding was that when Ms.
Plame was on the stand before congress the other day she was asked if she
thought that she met the criterion for being a covert agent under the
Intelligence identities Act of 1982, she ruefully admitted that she did not
know if she met that standard or not."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Although it is unclear where "your understanding" comes from since you
did not enlighten us with a source, the rest is irrelevant.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Plame was a CIA agent engaged in covert CIA activities including
intelligence gathering about Iraq's alleged attempts to buy nuclear material
in Africa. It doesn't matter what she believes her status under the 1982
statute is; what matters is how the law defines her activity. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>No evidence has ever been introduced by the Bush Administration to show
that they carefully researched such matters before she was outed in
retaliation for having the administration's lies with very tragic consequences
exposed. Outing a CIA agent (read spy) without justification is
high treason as you clearly understand from your comments about the NYT,
although you seem to have forgotten that justification is part of the
issue.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gary further writes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>"A minor player has been convicted
of having a poor memory and will doubtless be pardoned by the Commander in
Chief before he does so much as 10 minutes in jail."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Let's see. A person who is one of the highest administrative aides
to a very political vice president has a "poor memory." In high office,
almost everything done, save pencil sharpening or fingernail clipping, is
considered in the light of its political consequences and
ramifications. One little slip by such an aide on a public matter,
and hence from those whom he/she advises, is to be rigorously avoided. A super
memory for details, not a poor one, is an absolute prerequisite for such
a position.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>However, if you <STRONG>really</STRONG> think that poor Scooter really
has a poor memory, perhaps you'd be interested in purchasing some initial
stock in a silver mine that promises to return triple your money for each year
you hold it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:44 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath
in the matter</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>My understanding was that when Ms. Plame was on
the stand before congress the other day she was asked if she thought that she
met the criterion for being a covert agent under the Intelligence identities
Act of 1982, she ruefully admitted that she did not know if she met that
standard or not. If she wasn't sure of her status under the act, how, exactly
would Libby, Rove, and Armitage? The fact that nobody has been charged with
her 'outing' belies the notion that a treasonous crime was
committed in this regard.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think that it's quite clear that there
was zero substance to the 'plamegate' incident and that it was just
another instance of the democratic's doing their best to make the current
administration look bad. And with the help of a liberal media, their
mission was accomplished. And what a monumental accomplishment it was. A minor
player has been convicted of having a poor memory and will doubtless be
pardoned by the Commander in Chief before he does so much as 10 minutes in
jail. Ya'll should ought to be proud.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If you really feel that a good hanging would be
just the ticket to brighten up your dreary day, why don't you look to the NYT.
More secrets harmful to the USA have been leaked from that cesspool in the
last six months then from all the current administration members over the
entirety of their careers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:28
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Vision2020] ...but they will
not testify under oath in the matter</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><STRONG>And we will believe them? Yeah,
right.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What a bunch of irresponsible, lying chickenshits!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>And while we are at it, why weren't Libby, Armitage, and Rove tried and
hung for treason in the Valerie Plame matter?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<H3>White House to allow Rove, Miers to be interviewed in firings of U.S.
attorneys</H3>
<P>WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House will allow the president's top
political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers
to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing
of several U.S. attorneys was handled, <FONT color=#0000ff><STRONG>but they
will <FONT size=5>not</FONT> testify under oath in the
matter</STRONG></FONT>, Rep. Chris Cannon said Tuesday.</P>
<P>The announcement came after current White House counsel Fred Fielding met
with members of the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, who
had considered using subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and their two deputies
to reveal what they knew about the reasons behind the firings of at least
seven U.S. attorneys.</P>
<P>But Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters after the meeting with
Fielding that the offer from the White House is incomplete: "We would be
able to interview the four people we requested ... <FONT
color=#0000ff><STRONG>but only in private, not under oath and with no
transcript</STRONG></FONT>."</P>
<P>Schumer said lawmakers would try to get tougher requirements for the
interviews. And he and House Judiciary Committee head Rep. John Conyers both
said their committees will move forward to approve the use of subpoenas to
get White House officials to testify under oath.</P>
<P>That would not mean that subpoenas would be issued immediately, only that
the committees would be able to use them. (Posted 3:16 p.m.)</P></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>