since leak is now "good", "o.k." we need to lay out results of leak

[seabeyond]

dem bloggers and politicians now need to start connecting it to what plame did with wmds, to educate the public. now that they are finally hearing about plame, define her job. what she was working on. and what happened to the fake company that was set up to find the wmds as a result of bush leaking. then ask, how good is it we lost this operation?

[OzarkDem]

1. Reject the premise, as well

Dems have to be vocal in pointing out the fallacy of that argument.

There are no "good" leaks of WMD intelligence.

[seabeyond]

2. i agreee. simply by explaining the result of leak will reject

the premise. yet i aGREE. that is easily the conclusion

[GregD]

3. UK Bombing

I heard last night on 4th Estate Radio the comment that due to the Plame outing, the Brits had to quickly pull their agents who were investigating the big bombing that took place. It was stated that they were 2 days away from getting the big guy who planned it.

The question I was unclear about was timing. When was the UK bombing relative to the Plame outing, and is the above assertion correct?

[seabeyond]

5. there is a connection as far as bush priority. out plame, outed

the informant in the bombing during campaign 2004 for their advantage screwing uk and recently making public a letter Israel got from al queda undercover exposing their mission, just recently. again another part of the formula. but i dont think the outing of uk informant had anything to do with plame.

[Kansas Wyatt]

4. And add to that

Where her investigative road was leading, to whom, and who was involved.

In order to prevent future abuses by the same bunch of criminals and their spawn, all the facts need to be put on the record. No more cover-ups and back room arm twisting, to prevent the unthinkable from being exposed and justice. The only ones who have anything to lose, are the guilty ones involved and deservingly so.

[seabeyond]

6. i think it might be spin saying it was to get an opponent

personally what she and her company was doing would have effected what bushcos wanted to do. i think their motive may have well been to shut this bogus company down. i agree with you

[glarius]

7. Am I missing something?...Isn't the fact that Bush hid the fact HE was the

leaker the important fact to be considered?...I mean he was saying publicly, in front of the camera, that he would deal harshly with the person who was leaking and all the while the person was GEORGE W BUSH!....Isn't that, at the very least unethical, if not illegal?

[seabeyond]

8. i agree. strongly. that will be a given in any conversation

yet the repug will easily spin that too, though i dont let any of them slide. they already sit in the camp bush is a liar. have you seen the polls on did bush lie us into the war.

i think the repercussion is important for people to understand though. they dont KNOW this part of the equation. we do on this board. the public does not. it hasnt been publically discussed

but the get the leakers ass...... i think that is a killer for bush, regardless of the spin they put on the leak