I say let him run his mouth.

He is a perfect example of the wack jobs that want to have McCain in office.

Grim is a better advertisement for Obama then any 527 commercial ever would be.

__________________
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."

Yep.

__________________

Why don't you go after leviathon435? He is the one who called you out, I merely agreed... But that wouldn't be productive to attack someone who is on your side of the political fence, now would it?

It does however, show how you have done everything in your power to go off topic and derail this thread... Just another day at the office, right Ann?

Grim. Once again, you are so blind to the truth you would walk into the side of a barn. I did post back to leviathan and he wound up apologizing because he was interpreting my words into something they were not. Second, I disagree with people who are in all areas of the spectrum, depending on the subject. Read the forum. You will see that I do not hold back my opinion, even if others that you have decided are on my side of the aisle agree or disagree.

Look lurkers! More lies, smears and spin from the dishonest and hypocritical Grim.

As for your topic... this is not a serious thread. You started it as a bait thread. Wah wah! Grimmy did not get anyone hooked at the end of his line... wah! Must be someone else's fault.

If you are unable to get anyone to engage in debate with you, perhaps it is your own fault and the fact that everyone here is sick of your constant running from threads and starting a nauseatingly high number of trolling threads.

__________________

You are one of the ones that accused me of a double standard. Now you refuse to admit you were wrong.

Your actions speak much louder than my words ever could.

How was he wrong?

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

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

Wow, what an amazing ability to rationalize.

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

Well, that is the difference between the liberal and the conservative brain... the ability to rationalize. ;)

__________________

If you dispute one fact I posted, please point it out.

Those are the facts about both incidents, so no rationalization is needed. The Times knowingly put that man and his family in danger by publishing his name. Valerie Plame was not put in danger by publishing her name, and nobody, including the CIA ever claimed any different.

Those are the facts.