puella
Posts: 2457
Joined: 12/2/2004
Status: offline
|
I was not going to reply to your last post to me, both because I had things I had to take care of for work that were more important, and because I found the nature of your post well beyond the acceptable boundaries of logical debate. You have on more than one occasion and in more than one thread resorted to the tactics of belittling and humiliation as a what I have interpreted to be an attempt on your part to try to 'dom' me into submitting... or shutting up when I am making relevant points. (funny that, on this site)
What is so highly ironic about that (a word which again, is becoming more and more of a staple these days) I have never resorted to that sort of tactic in my dealings with you, in fact, I have gone out of my way to try to keep things amicable and appropriate.. and never never personal.
I am not going to go wade in tedium and parse your post line by line by line, and really there is no need to. I will however address a few of the more pertinent points of misinformation.
.
I have told you that I posted this OP after having watched the official hearings held in Congress about the outing of covert agent Valerie Wilson, I was shocked by the inappropriateness of the comment Congressman Westmoreland made, given Wilson had already previously given sworn testimony to the fact that she entered her workplace as a governmental employee who worked for her nation, not a governmental employee who worked for a political party's agendas. To imply that she had lied under oath and was some how more driven by whom she voted for than by all her years of training as an agent and her years of excellent service under Republican as well as Democratic administrations was not only shocking, but inappropriate given the venue. Several of the congresspersons on the panel thought so and made sure that it was on the official record, as well.
I have never maintained that I do not have biases. Everyone has biases. I do maintain that you can do your job without your personal preferences coloring everything you do and say, and instead work on the basis of reason, logic and appropriate conduct. Judges do so, every day. Psychologists and social workers do so, every day. Police officers do so, every day. Teachers do so, every day. I know that I do in my own work, every day. If the only way you could be impartial in your work was to not register to a party to vote .... we would not have any elected officials.
I did not address every single idea you brought up because many of them were previously debunked, and because to be honest.... the barrage of distractions misinformation was a veritable blitzkrieg. It takes very little time to throw out an idea without any substantiation or factual defense. It takes far more time to to rebut those ideas and provide the information and facts from credible and legitimate sources to ensure that the nonsense is shown to be not sense, and certainly not fact.
I have provided more facts with verifiable legitimate sources linked to them than just about anyone in these posts. I do not post her to spend time playing the Hannity and Colmes How to Confuse the Issue with Unsubstantiated Allegations Game. I try to always provide well reasoned and excellently researched information (and almost always give links to support my research) to allow people to have a fuller picture. Believe it or not, I am not here to spend countless useless hours disproving every piece of misinformation you toss at me. At some point, as I said above, you just have to decide to agree to disagree, when it becomes so painfully obvious that no matter how much verifiable factual information you provide, over and over (often answering the same false allegations repeatedly in the same thread), it is just a waste of time, and I am not willing to waste my time.
My decision to stop addressing your points was made in the most amicable of ways, and in no way an abandonment of my premise or avoidance of your blur of questions. Again, many of your questions do not even need links (and it is not my job to do all your work for you) to show the faultiness of your logic. The Amicus Curiae is a prime example... I told you it was tossed out of court (meaning that the judge ruled against those who brought it to him) and that had it been decided otherwise, there would not have been an official Federal Investigation, as the outing of a covert agent would have been a moot point (that was also the logical reasoning behind Federal Prosecutor Fitzgerald. He could not have pursued a case investigating the out of a covert agent, if the agent was not covert. Thus, when he had proved that she was covert, which he publicly announced, the investigations began).
Finally, the constant argument that Valerie Wilson was not covert is just plain ridiculous. It has been legally, and officially proved and stated as the truth of the matter. Federal Prosecutor Fitzgerald made an official statement confirming it, General Hayden (head of the CIA and in charge of issuing agents cover) made an official statement verifying it as true. Valerie Wilson testified under oath that it was true.
I am not sure if you have yet watched the hearings or read the transcripts. At the time of my first post, I had and you had not, even through all your assertions. I will provide a portion of the transcripts that will perhaps provide you with some needed information.
CUMMINGS: Ms. Wilson, first of all, thank you for your service. Ms. Wilson, even today your work for the CIA is so highly classified that we’re not permitted to discuss the details, but we can clarify one crucial point — whether you worked undercover for the CIA. You said your position was covert but I’ve heard others say you were not covert. In fact, one of the witnesses who will testify a little bit later, Victoria Toensing, is making that same argument. In an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post on February 18, she says it quite bluntly. She says, “Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years.” I know there are restrictions on what you can say today, but is Ms. Toensing’s statement correct?
WILSON: Congressman, thank you for the opportunity. I know I’m here under oath, and I am here to say I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. Just like a general is a general whether he is in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan, when he comes back to the Pentagon, he is still a general. In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back to a temporary assignment in Washington, they, too, are still covert.
CUMMINGS: Is it possible that Ms. Toensing had more information than you do about your work or had access to secret document that you don’t?
WILSON: I would find that highly unlikely, congressman, because much of that information about my career is still classified.
CUMMINGS: On Wednesday night, I know that Mr. Waxman, our chair, and Congressman Reyes, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA. And Mr. Waxman told me that Gen. Hayden said clearly and directly, "Ms. Wilson was covert." There was no doubt about it. By the way, the CIA has authorized us to be able to say that. In addition, I understand that Chairman Waxman sent his opening statement over to the CIA to be cleared and to make sure that it was accurate. In it, he said, "Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA." "Ms. Wilson was undercover." The CIA cleared these statements. I emphasize all of this because I know that there are people who are still trying to suggest that what seems absolutely clear isn’t really true and that you weren’t covert. And I think one of the things we need to do in this hearing is make sure there isn’t any ambiguity on this point. Just three more questions, did you hold this covert status at the time of the leak? Did you — the covert status at the time of the leak?
WILSON: Yes I did, congressman. Yes.
CUMMINGS: Number two, the Identities Protection Act refers to travel outside the United States within the last five years. Let me ask you this question. Again, we don’t want classified information, dates, locations, or any other details. During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?
WILSON: Yes I did, congressman.
CUMMINGS: Finally, so as to be clear for the record, you were a covert CIA employee and within the past five years from today, you went on secret missions outside the United States. Is that correct?
WILSON: That is correct, congressman.
CUMMINGS: I want to thank you and I hope this committee now has cleared up the issue of covert, whether Ms. Plame was a covert agent, and I yield back.
This all just illustrates my point.. that further engagement with you on these issues is, in fact, pointless. That is why I chose to shake hands and agree to disagree. Why you chose to patronize and belittle is probably something only you will ever really know, but I have found your 'suggestions' precious and egregious and believe that any further communications should be nothing more than exchanges of facts related to the issue debated, not the person presenting them.
< Message edited by puella -- 3/19/2007 8:38:06 PM >
_____________________________
We must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom...... The Simpsons
War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." ...Ambrose Bierce
"Don't you oppress me!"....Stan/Loretta
|
RE: Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? H... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread