"Plame Outed As Non-Covert CIA Employee" YouTube clip

[MsMagnificent]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjB5XRFbLD8

It can't be (freely) commented on, but you CAN vote it down!

[Tellurian]

1. Well, we knew that was coming..

Blame the messenger is the signal of last resort!

[medeak]

2. wish you hadn't posted

as idiot will get more views.

[MsMagnificent]

3. It needs to be voted down

and soon, before the person who posted it cuts off the option to rate it.

Only a few have viewed it, and from its one 'honor' it appears most voted it up.

[TomClash]

4. It can be FREEPERLY comment on though

:)

[tiptoe]

5. Gee, I suppose, then, that if her opinion had been sought -- directly or otherwise -- by WH lawyers

she'd have advised as she did at hearing: Plame would not be legally considered "covert...under the act."

I didn't see her full testimony: Was she asked or did she volunteer the qualifications for a CIA operative to be considered *legally* "covert...under the act"? (Was there something special about Plame's employment that disqualified her as "covert...under the act"...Or might she believe it possible to argue any CIA undercover operative as disqualified from consideration as "covert...under the act"?)

[rocktivity]

6. TORO TURD!

Sixteen seconds of Icky Vicky's testimony and the case is dead in the water? By the way, why would a covert agent have an employeer OTHER than the CIA?

:rofl:
rocknation

[whistle]

7. Victoria Toensing, "I did not give that blow job under the definition

....of what a blow job is. So, it was not a blow job under the act.":wtf:

[Rageneau]

8. Why vote this clip down?

We're not Freepers, who think that shutting off the message changes the facts behind it. IMHO, there should never be ANY reason to try to "vote down" any political commentary.

Besides, in this clip, Waxman clearly got the better of her.

[MsMagnificent]

10. It's not shutting down the message

it's who agrees with it. If the population is small, partisan and insular then you get a skewed approval rating; which is obviously what was done here.

You don't approve of 'DU'ing' polls then?
Not even when the Repube's will cheat their asses off? In an ideal world, I'd agree it's wrong -- but this is FAR from an ideal world, and then again this isn't a strictly controlled statistical study.

Statistics mean a lot, they are one of the primary tools of information
and Disinformation.

[tiptoe]

9. Synopsis: "Valerie Plame and the Incredible Shrinking Cover Story"

Valerie Plame and the Incredible Shrinking Cover Story Ernest Partridge, Crisis Papers

Valerie Plame Wilson was not a covert agent (so says Victoria Toensing), and furthermore the White House did not know that she was a covert agent (so says Rep. Tom Davis). It's all the fault of the CIA for not telling the White House that she was covert.

That appears to be the essence of the Bush loyalist's rebuttal to Valerie Plame Wilson's testimony to Henry Waxman's Committee hearing. That this account is a flat-out contradiction is of concern only to elite nit-picking liberals and not to the aforementioned loyalists whose elaborate excuses transcend mere logic.

Like mariners stranded on an iceberg adrift in the Gulf Stream, the Bush apologists have less and less to cling to as, with time, the refuting testimony and evidence accumulate.

It has now come to the point that pro-Bush apologetics are so pathetically lame and absurd that their defenses serve only to strengthen the case against the Busheviks. Case-in-point: the testimony last Friday of Victoria Toensing before the Waxman Committee.

The "not really a covert agent" dodge
...