My comment here appeared with a refresh of the page, and it was listed in the recent comments without my intentionally refreshing the page.

Oh, you must mean the three contract pilots in the LA Times. I take it, then, that you feel that their compromise was more sensitive then than of Valerie Plame?

More? No. But from your lack of concern on their outing, I take it you feel their compromise was not as sensitive as that of Valerie Plame.

Which brings me back to my original question. That no one seems to want to answer. Why is Richard Armitage given a pass by those posting here? If outing Valerie Plame was really that big of a deal, the outrage on display here over her outing would include Armitage. That it doesn’t leads me to believe this is a political outrage and not a true one.

Still waiting.

Piss off. I mean it.

Oh, you must mean the three contract pilots in the LA Times. I take it, then, that you feel that their compromise was more sensitive then than of Valerie Plame?

I couldn’t be more disgusted. What do you have left of yourself to discard in their defense? Anything?

Just when I think the corniness of this blog can’t get any cornier, along comes Chris.

Smooooch…(me kissing the last of whatever you think I didn’t have to begin with goodbye)…

[deep breath] That’s it? That’s your response, to pretend to wonder if I know what I’m saying?

Okay. Okay, fine. Kiss your pretense to humanity down the river, Sue, along with the last vestiges of your self-respect, your morality, and your sense of shame. There obviously isn’t any aspect of your own character that you regard worthwhile enough to not jettison in defense of these monstrous people.

I couldn’t be more disgusted. What do you have left of yourself to discard in their defense? Anything?

Retired,
I would rate that source having as having the same credibility as Curveball. Maybe less.

Are you claiming the LA Times wrote a bogus story? Possible. Wouldn’t be the first time.

I must’ve missed something (not the first time). What actual three covert operatives that were outed are being referred to?

You mean Larry didn’t write about them? For shame. Are they not as important as our gal Val? The front company they worked for was also outed, but again, not as important as B&J. Priorities, my friend. Priorities. The Bush administration wasn’t involved in that leak.

Fitzgerald was prevented from investigating the crime by Libby’s lies, and damn near got Rove. If it wasn’t for an offhand comment by Viveca Novak that prompted Rove to “remember” the Hadley email, we would have had at least two trials. As it was it took Rove five trips to the GJ to tell the truth.

Perhaps, Sue, you can regale us all with your top ten prosecutions, or maybe your top five, just to show how much you know about why prosecutors pursue cases. Libby was tried and convicted on lying and obstruction which prevented the investigation from continuing, by a jury of his peers. Fitz and Walton were both BushII appointees, and Fitz made a point about charging the case he could prove beyond reasonable doubt. He also told Congress in the followup press conference to do more digging.

The defense made a point of putting the finger on Cheney in their opening statement, but dropped it once they knew the commutation fix (allowing 5th amendment stonewalling)was in. The fact that Bush did so only for Libby (not Rita or anyone else) in flagrant violation of the sentencing guidelines, the commutation process through the pardon attorney as well as the prosecutor (who normally gets a call), and W’s own pardon guidelines which were just rammed through by Gonzo appropriate in the Rita case, and Rita had a far better public service record than Libby does as a political hack. The commutation by itself was an obstruction of justice for these reasons, and it remains one where Bush did so to cover his own tail by keeping Libby silent.

How about the quote? Oh yeah, it doesn’t exist just like the straw man the RWers keep setting up.