How can this be a "baiting" thread... Did you not see the quotes I posted?

The question is, do I have some sort of double standard... And the answer is NO!

The NY Times was told before hand by the CIA, that if they published this mans name, it would endanger him and his family. They published it anyway, and I think that was reprehensible, especially since his name was not a necessary component to the story.

When Robert Novak was about to publish Valerie Plame's name, no such warning was ever issued by the CIA. Someone from the CIA asked him not to publish her name, but never stated that if he did so, it would be breaking the law (which it wasn't) or that it would put her, or anyone else in danger (which it didn't).

Here is an excerpt from a Washington Post story about this issue:

There are ways of perceiving whether the government was actually taking the required necessary affirmative measures to conceal its relationship with Plame. We can look, for example, at how the CIA reacted when Novak informed the press office that he was going to publish her name. Did the general counsel call to threaten prosecution, as we know has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances? No. Did then-Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as we know is done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication? No. Did some high-ranking government official ask to visit Novak or the president of his newspaper syndicate to talk him out of publishing -- another common strategy to prevent a story? No.

Novak has written that the CIA person designated to talk with him replied that although Plame was probably not getting another foreign assignment, exposure "might cause difficulties if she were to travel abroad." He certainly never told Novak that Plame would be endangered. Such a meager response falls far legally shy of "affirmative measures."

The bottom line is, the NY Times knowingly put a man and his family in danger for no good reason. On the other hand, Robert Novak did not put anyones life in danger when he published Valerie Plame's identity in his story.

There is no double standard here... NONE.

And before you even go there, the CIA never stated that Plame was a covert agent prior to Novak's story either. In fact, they freely published her identity in a brief, and discussed her identity in phone conversations with the state department.

It was never stated in any way, shape or form by the CIA, that Valerie Plame's identity was classified prior to the Novak story. That's why there has never been anyone indicted for leaking her name... It's because nobody, including the CIA themselves, ever knew her identity was supposed to be classified.

If Libby, Armitage, Rove or Novak would have been told by the CIA or anyone else, that her identity was classified, or that the public discloser of her name would have put her or anyone else in danger of physical harm, I would have called for their heads... All of them...

But that wasn't the case.

Like I said, there's no double standard here... NONE

And you wonder why you get points...

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

Is it really necessary to post the same thing wtice?

__________________
"Have you no decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
-Joseph Welch

No, but he does it all the time. He wants to force people to accept his bait. I find it more fun to just laugh and point out his stupidity for all the lurkers so they can laugh along.

__________________

I don't know about the rest of you but I don't take too kindly to having someone who isn't a mod trying to control when, where, and what we may or may not say.

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

You mean ANOTHER baiting thread. Consider the source...

__________________

Well, some people don't get the message when they're being laughed at...

__________________

Go ahead and attack me... You sure as hell can't back up your accusations of a double standard, so defaulting to personal insults is what we all expect from you people.

Well, maybe you ought to deep six the personal attacks you're hurling at others.

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

Laughing at you is not a "personal attack". You have yet to go back to all of the threads where we buried you in facts. Until you go back and admit you were wrong, you have not one leg to stand on when demanding people do anything.

__________________