wow way to ignore the point.

This is not about left or right the name could have been found out. If the NY times did not print it someone else would. And no one likes to get scooped.

__________________

So if it's about morality, where's your outrage over the outing of Valerie Plame? Don't give me that sh!t lecture. This is all about your hostility towards anybody who refuses to worship at the altar of the great George W Bush. Pffft.

__________________
January 20, 2009 - The end of an error.

I ignored nothing... I was asked why I labeled the NY Times "liberal" and I explained it. The story is not about left or right, and I acknowledge that.

The NY Times was not asked not to publish the story, they were asked not to reveal the name of the interrogator in their story, because it would put him and his family at risk. The mans name was not central to the story, but the NY Times published it anyway.

It's irresponsible for the Times to put that man and his family at risk, just so they could make their story appear more credible. Human life should be more important than peddling an agenda, and it suprises me you don't see it that way.

If the media is so liberally biased, why does it bang liberal candidates over nonsensical non-issues and manufactured crises instead of pumping them up? Durrr, because there isn't a Liberal bias. That's why.

__________________

There was no threat the guy did not torture anyone.

He had never worked under cover.

Others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books.

The agency backed him up because it helped them to do so. but this was about this guy not wanting to be named.

__________________

The CIA wouldn't have asked them not to publish the mans name if that were true. The man was involved in the interrogation of a high ranking al Qaida member, and in case you haven't noticed, people are murdered by radical Islamic extremists every day for a hell of a lot less.

Again, it just amazes me how so many people can condone such reckless behavior in the name of their political agenda.

The media's not Liberal.

__________________

This thread is not about Valerie Plame. Start a new thread, and I will be happy to respond.

Not scum and non issue.

Since the man never worked undercover and his identity would be therefore easily discoverable, it is not "wrong" or "scummy" for the NY Times to decline the request of the CIA to not reveal his name. His name was not "secret" to begin with and according to the article was revealed by other named CIA interrogators who worked with him at the time.

He sounds like a man worthy of admiration for his work, which achieved great results while he turned down "training" in such "advanced" techniques as "waterboarding" and got better and more information without using torture and intimidation.

As for the comment on Bush or Bush administration "outing" an undercover and classified CIA operative during ongoing missions, I think that is fair game in this post since you stated that the NY Times article proved that the "liberal press is scum"

Funny thing, but this CIA operative that was outed was one that disagreed that there was any attempt or negotiations by Iraq to purchase uranium yellowbrick from Niger and her mission was contra nuclear proliferation.

But, regardless of that, "Outing" a classified undercover operative is more than "scummy", it is treason.

Armitage has admitted that he leaked her identity as a CIA operative, however said he didn't know she was undercover classified as his excuse. Scooter Libby was indicted, convicted and sentences for perjury in that investigation, but his prison sentence of 40 months was commuted by GWB. Armitage has not been charged with anything because prosecutors say they have not sufficient evidence that he knew she was undercover and classified. I rather find it hard to believe that the Dept. Sec. of State would not know or should know that information for the very reasons the CIA made the request of the Times, if he knew she was an operative at all, he should have made it his business to find out if she was undercover classified before opening his big mouth.

So the "outing" of someone who wasn't "in" to begin with is pretty "ho hum" in my book.

I guess if former Dep. Sec. of State Armitage didn't think it was wrong to tell the press that Valarie Plame was a CIA operative since he wasn't aware she was undercover, I don't see anything wrong with the NY Times revealing the name of a guy who never was undercover.

__________________


"I was there and I saw what you did.... saw it with my own two eyes"
Phil Collins--In the Air Tonight

No its about people being outed.

You care a lot about this guy but you don't care at all about Plame.

Its called hypocrisy and its a shame you can't recognize it.

__________________
Walt Whitman
"I say that democracy can never prove itself beyond cavil, until it founds and luxuriantly grows its own forms of art, poems, schools, theology, displacing all that exists, or that has been produced anywhere in the past, under opposite influences."