[Preechr]

Oh my god this is great:

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

Funny, you seem to think she's a "story" every "time" you want to "dismiss" "Max" or anybody "else" who brings up her being "outed".

It matters that members of the executive branch went after the wife of a political enemy who made them look silly. It matters that they publicly outed a covert CIA agent. This matters, yes.

From the post you quoted:

"Richard Armitage was the one that "outed" Plame, if anybody, and Fitzpatrick KNEW that before the hearings began. This was simply a witch-hunt for process crimes from the beginning. Maybe they were looking for tips of your larger iceburgs, but if all they could come up with to that end was contradictory testimony that highlighted other contradictory testimony, why are you so proud to call this a victory? This is no where near on the same level as Sandy Berger, whom I know you disapproved of yet didn't use to paint the Clinton Royal Family red with the blood of innocent babies..."

Kevin, is Richard Armitage a cog in a gear of the Gigantic Republican Smear Machine?

I talk about it because it has never mattered and it never will and it aggravates me to see it being treated as an actual topic of public debate, in much the same way as the Jerry Springer Show makes me just a bit sick. If I actually ever brought it up, it was likely to illustrate the modern "left's" dependence on the ignorance of "Joe Six Pack," our good ol' American strawman...

When people talk about the time at which she was "outed" they are using the media defined point in time at which it could be proven someone knew mentioned it improperly. Improperly, in this context, meaning when it could be proven in a hearing. I said from the beginning that her employer was public knowledge among her peers and acquaintances at the time. I'll say now that she was told to quit after an internal investigation into the question of just how secret her secret identity actually was.

It says right in your link (below) that the CIA "allowed" the proceeding to continue. The agency had provided her with protection of her identity up to a point that was retroactive to the date at which she was "outed." The protection was a service provided, and services cost something to a consumer. She was supposed to be paying the price of keeping her mouth shut about it at least, and she was deemed to be in violation of the contract at the inevitable point at which she was inevitably "outed" in a newspaper, given (if nothing else) the political nature of her involvement in CIA assignments of people as unreliable as her husband to diplomatic missions meant to determine truths about things as sensitive as the run up to war with Saddam's Iraq?

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

It matters that the Right-Wing noise machine spent the last two years attempting to argue the contrary. This matters.

Uh huh? Why?

If you start lying about stuff and I spend the next two years calling you a liar, why would that make me more likely to be a liar?

How bout instead of lying you just started being generally wrong about most things, and I just pointed it out sometimes... would I be somehow wrong sometimes because you were?

How about if I'm calling you a liar all the time but you never lie... Would that make me eventually right, forcing you to lie?

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

So hard did they try, so smug did they become, that Conservative media called for investigations into the claim.

Obviously, it was a story as long as you were right. Now? Ho hum...

Here's the headline and byline for the story you just quoted: "Investigate the CIA
An "outing" was the result of either incompetence or an effort to undermine the White House."

Are you saying there hasn't been enough investigation, firings, reorganizations and relegislation that you aren't yet quite convinced that "incompetence" exhibited in the function of the CIA at that time hasn't been aptly proven, at least to the degree that your radar actually starts to pick up on reality?