So now we sell out our own?

[elder999]

When a close friend of mine asked me to officiate at his wedding ceremony up near Silverton, Colorado, I was honored, and my wife took it as another opportunity to get the mountain bikes into the high country. My buddy’s marriage was a positive, happy life change for us to share and celebrate with him, and we’d get in a little recreation.

Indeed, the wedding was a happy event. We spent the second night in Telluride, Colorado, at the Sheridan Hotel-one of our favorite places. After another day of getting my butt whupped by my wife and the San Juan Mountains, we prepared (bath and lots of Ben Gay for me) to go out for dinner at one of the town’s better restaurants. My wife turned on CNN, and sat, dumfounded. She cranked up the volume so I could hear in the tub. The conversation was on how two “senior administration officials” had gone to conservative columnist Robert Novak and exposed the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Her assignment-weapons of mass destruction.

We were beyond ourselves with indignation-and questions. Why in the world would you blow the cover of one of you own agents, and put her in harm’s way- not to mention endangering her contacts abroad? Why would anyone give up an agent? Had this ever happened before? How many countries reveal the names of their operatives? Why?

As the commentary and analysis on CNN continued, things became clearer, although quite disturbing. As soon as we got home we hit the Web, and there it was on Newsweek.com. It appears that the administration deems it necessary to destroy a career CIA operative’s cover in retaliation for something her husband wrote for The New York Times. The operative’s husband, former Ambassador (to Iraq, among other places) Joseph Wilson, at the “request of the CIA, had traveled to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium there, “ The report was false, although our esteemed leader used the allegation in the now controversial State of the Union address.

It becomes more complex: according to Novak’s “senior administration officials,” who leaked the story, it was Wilson’s wife’s own undercover operative, Valerie Plame, who sent him on this fact-0gathering mission to Niger.

In other word, the ambassador’s piece in the NYT’s and his report that, indeed, there was no possible connection between Iraq and uranium in Niger was now poison to the administration.

Although you are not privy to the inner working of the CIA, blowing the cover of a secret operative seems to me to be treasonous.What possible justification could one have to endanger that person’s life by revealing her name? This is not a case of spy vs. spy or a corrupt officer trading secrets, and, therefore, their need to give them up.

The result is that it must send chills up the back of every operative working in secret, believing that he or she is serving their country. Not since the Nixon administration have I seen such corruption of power. While there is a lot of noise about investigating whether King George lied, Congress really needs to look into this extreme breach of security and threat to our nation. It does not matter if you’re a Democrat or a Republican, conservative or liberal, if you are at war-as this administration is so often reminding us-would you reveal one of your operatives?

Surely, this is treason, and every man and woman in the service of their nation needs to be protected by a Congressional investigation that roots out this inexcusable breach of security for the sake of politics. Anything else will continue to endanger our “other troops” if their reports are unsatisfactory to this administration.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Corruption in Power?

Clinton administration - corruption defined. Painted with scandal from day one
Carter administration - let's surrender to the USSR now!
Johnson administration - can we say bribes?
Kennedy administration - lies, lies, lies, betrayals, and doing all for personal glory
Truman - how about we appoint more Soviet spies to the State Dept?

Nixon - screwed himself more than he did us.

Never expect much from your elected officials. If you want to talk treason, read Ann Coulter's latest book.

:beer:

[bruceb]

You know ... that reminds of a science fiction comedy where justice was very swift in the future. When asked how that was possible the official replyed they had shot all the lawyers.

Well, maybe it is time to declare open season on reporters? Close down the establishments that reported this breach, and put national guard soldiers on the doors for a week or so ...while we investigate the investigators? Put the shoe on the other foot, as it were?

Nah .... too kind ...

I don't give a rat's behind about the uranium, or WMDs ... with what we did find in Iraq, all the violations of human rights and support for terrorism, that should have been more than enough to level the military forces there.

But this ... this outright sell out!

Somebody is gonna have to answer for this, and charges should be brought to bear against the offending partys. Moving the line from a general report to a specific report that puts people in harms way, and compromises or sells out our own .... if we can't shoot them, some jail time is definitely required here!

It is time for a good hard slap to the world of new reporters to put that line back in place again.

[Ben Bartlett]

Yeah, that was pretty disgusting alright. Bush should fire the people who were responsible for that one. Not only was the CIA operative compromised, but so were any missions she worked on, and organizations she worked for. It's absurd that an administration that prides itself on secrecy would leak something like that.

As for Ann Coulter, yeah, she makes great reading... if you're the kind of person who likes to laugh at inane conspiracy theories. Don't get me wrong, I love Ann Coulter, for the exact same reason most conservatives who prefer to rely on rational arguments, as opposed to hyperbole, hate her: she makes conservatism look bad. Every time she foams at the mouth over "liberal traitors", or praises McCarthy, she makes conservatism look worse to the more moderate people who make up the majority of the voting population. So I, as well as many others on the left, hope she continues her ranting. It helps our side considerably.

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Corruption in Power?

Clinton administration - corruption defined. Painted with scandal from day one
Carter administration - let's surrender to the USSR now!
Johnson administration - can we say bribes?
Kennedy administration - lies, lies, lies, betrayals, and doing all for personal glory
Truman - how about we appoint more Soviet spies to the State Dept?

Nixon - screwed himself more than he did us.

Never expect much from your elected officials. If you want to talk treason, read Ann Coulter's latest book.

:beer:

"I steal but other do it too so it should be o.k." is the least credible rebuttle in argument.

Basically, you know it is wrong but someone don't want to admit it. So you bring out other similar cases to imply that it is somehow o.k. Often people who employ this argument aren't that forgiving when the other side of ideological camp do likewise. Not listing Iran Contra of Regan administration is a good sign of that, not to mention Nixon who had to quit in disgrace.

An typical case of political partisanship overriding any sence of what is right and wrong. When you think about it is exactly what happen in the above mentioned case?

[Shitoryu Dude]

Her books would make much better reading without the incessant name calling that pads out her writing by half or more. The shrill finger pointing really doesn't do her any good, nor does her insistance that god is the source of all morality. She does, however, detail her facts quite well with extensive notes and sources. There are a great many things that cannot be denied based on known factual data.

1) Joe McCarthy did not do a fraction of what is attributed to him.
2) Everyone he named did turn out to be a confirmed Soviet spy and they were high government officials. He actually missed hundreds of individuals that were later confirmed as Soviet agents.
3) He was not part of the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was a Senator and his own investigation into Soviet activity within the State Dept started later. Most of what is attributed to McCarthy was actually the HUAC
4) The press, particulary that worthless rag The New York Times, might as well have been called Pravda since the early 30's.
5) The actual truth of the McCarthy era is practically unknown anymore because of 4)
6) Alger Hiss and the rest of the commies that were exposed previous to McCarthy's investigations were not only confirmed by The Venona Project (Army Intelligence), the FBI, and the CIA to be paid Soviet agents, but their accusers were exhonerated after the NYT smear campaigns that lasted for decades
7) President Kennedy himself considered McCarthy to be a patriot and stated so publically
8) The "horrors" of being investigated and "blacklisted" by McCarthy or the HUAC usually resulted in a job at Harvard and/or spending a few years working their career in France and living lavishly
9) The "Red Scare" was more a product of the press, particularly the NYT, than anything else.
10) Roosevelt and Truman were commie dupes/sympathizers and knowlingly/willingly placed Soviet agents in positions of extreme important and relied heavily upon them for advice. We can thank that sort of behavior for the resulting Warsaw Pact after WWII

I remember when I was a kid and the issue came up on the news one night the first thing my dad said was that "Joe was right", then he called the press a pack of liars. You have to realize that Joe McCarthy was extremely popular when he was exposing Soviet spys and that by and large the greater portion of the country supported him by margins of 3 to 1 in many cases. The blacklisting of various hollywood types was done by the HUAC and the "naming names" was done at the behest of liberal Democrats in an attempt to smear those associated with the "Red Scare".

Ann Coulter is no doubt correct that in a few decades time we will be reading op-ed pieces in the NYT of how Carter and Clinton won the cold war and saved the constitution.

:beer:

[Ian McDonald]

I have to agree with Spanky here, the actions of this administration are unconscionable. This group will go down in history as the worst administration in US history to date. Harvey, get a life. You can bash Clinton all you want, but he could never approach the deception, greed, and injustice fomented by the Bush crowd. He may have grated on your nerves and I thought that many of his policies and programs were more like your Republican vision of the world than a true liberal intellectual's, which he pretended to be but was not. He may have tried to please everybody and ended up in disgrace, but he did not send us off on an illegal romp and stomp in a foreign country in order to make money for his friends. I never did understand why you Republicans hated him with such vehemence just because he was a bit of a satyr.

Now Bush Jr. and his crew have defied international law, public opinion (propagandized American consumerist lunkheads don't count), common sense, history, CHRISTIAN VALUES, the rule of law.....I could go on. Bush is a war criminal and should be tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity. He has done untold harm to American and foreign economic interests. We wil lbe suffering the economic fallout for years. He should be held responsible for every civialian casualty, death and disease case caused by our embargo of Iraq (you can throw Clinton in here if you want to Harv because he coud have ended it but didn't, although he did try but not hard enough).

And, although it probably wouldn't teach him amnything about empathy, Bush should hand deliver every death notice to each family of each and every dead soldier struck down in their youth by this disgusting war of greed and arrogance. The blood of every American casualty in this crisis, both military and civilian, is on his hands. So the names of one or two CIA operatives are nothing to these guys. 51 dead and counting. 52 dead and counting. How many died in Viet Nam? 50,000+? They had numbers 51 and 52 also.

[Shitoryu Dude]

You are living in a world of make believe. Reality and data prove you to be incorrect. Amazing how many people form their opinions based on nothing more that what they read in the papers. Try cracking a book open once in a while and learning what is actually said/done instead of repeating mindless rhetoric.

And I have a life - one based upon reality.

:beer:

[Paul Kerr]

Depends which book you crack open Harvey:rolleyes:

[A. M. Jauregui]

I believe that it is a common practice to have throwaway (expendable) agents that can be discarded with little loss to the organization as a whole.

Anyway politicians always blames themselves last... Scapegoats have been used since time immemorial. The more things change the more they stay the same, sadly.

[Shitoryu Dude]

The book should be one that uses FACTS instead of opinion. You all remember what FACTS are, don't you? Or has rhetoric, lies and smear campaigns replaced objective evidence?

Even if the book in question has its own interpretation of those FACTS, the FACTS themselves are not in question.

Of course, it has always been the standard tactic of those without any data of their own (or when all the data is unpleasant to their position) to respond by changing the subject and engaging in screaming rhetoric. 'Fessing up would be too much pain to bear.

:beer:

[elder999]

FACT is, Nixon went to China, established detente with the Soviets, and took steps to withdraw from the quagmire that was Viet Nam.

Fact is; he was a crook, a megalomaniac, and a liar.

FACT is, I established the beginnings of my own personal aflluence during Ronald Reagan's terms of office, and while economists and liberals alike may argue abot their validity, I had no complaints about his economic policies-but I was young.

Fact is, his administration resulted in 26 felony indictments, including the convictions of Oliver North and Poindexter-late of DARPA, Total Information Awareness and the terrorist lottery thingy.

FACT is, Clinton's administration took place during a time of unprecedented growth for America's economy, and a budget surplus for the first time in more than 30 years-make of it what you will-if Slick Willy can't take credit for a good economy, neither can Reagan.

Fact is, Clinton lied about getting laid. Period. It was perjury,and that's the only crime he committed. His administration resulted in all of two felony convictions-his for perjury, and one of his advisors for contempt of court.

FACT is, Bush has removed two brutal, repressive regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. What comes for those countries now ("I don't think America should be in the business of nation building.") and what history makes of it remains to be seen.

Fact is, he's driving our economy into the toilet, rolling back every positive measure that's been taken for the environment, set things up so that his corporate cronies rake in massive profits AND deal with nations with whom trade is supposed to be restricted, used up whatever good will we had with other nations, made tax cuts for the rich while cutting back programs for the poor and other social initiatives, andLIED, LIED,LIED since the day he threw his hat into the ring.

Oh, and don't get me started on the systematic disregard of the Constitution....

As for the throwaway agent thing-yes, that is part of the game, but not at all what this is a case of.

Don't really care about McCarthy and HUAC right now, he's dead;it's history, and we're talking about NOW.

[Shitoryu Dude]

I could easily dispute your last facts as being more opinion than objective. The tax cuts for the rich is outright silly - the rich are who pay nearly all the taxes, out of proportion to their income I might add. Who else would get the tax cuts?

As for Nixon - he was a deeply flawed individual who made many mistakes. Humphery though, was infinitely worse - Nixon was by far the better alternative.

Clinton lied about getting laid because it was also part of an ongoing investigation. He covered it up because it would have helped establish his previous behavior patterns. Nobody cared about Monica getting her knees dirty and her dress stained - it was all about Clinton's previous tactics of sexual harrassment. The misdirection of the press on that issue has everyone thinking it was about blowjobs in the oval office - it was far different than that.

Is our economy really going into the toilet? While it is nowhere near as nice as the fake bubble economy, I've lived through far worse. Economies cycle - you can't expect it to remain rosy forever, though it would be nice if they did. Liberals love to raise taxes and push though social agendas, conservatives love to cut taxes and tell people to get off their ass and get to work. One person's "needed social program" is another's waste of tax money. I do think Reagan and Bush can take credit for Clinton's economy - it wouldn't have happened if they hadn't defeated the Soviet Union and rolled back Carter's disasters. Clinton just coasted when she should have been doing more to find corporate evil - but that would have popped the bubble even faster.

My opinion is that Clinons are vile, worthless, honorless liars.

While I don't think our current president is any prize, the alternative would have been a lot worse. We'd all be surrended to the Taliban right now if Gore was president.

Anyway - we are spending far too much time arguing this and not paying attention to the real topic. I don't know what is going on with the outed spies, but I think it sounds fishy as all hell.

:beer:

[elder999]

The law bars anyone from revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative who has worked overseas in the past five years.

There's currently an FBI investigation.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Well, then - let's put some people behind bars, or hang them for treason if it comes to that. I have no problem with dishing out appropriate punishment to criminals.

:beer:

[Ben Bartlett]

Geez, Harvey, you're as bad as Coulter. "We'd all be surrended to the Taliban right now if Gore was president"? Give me a break. For a guy who claims to rely on facts, you are remarkably fond of hyperbole. You're entitled to your own opinions, of course, but can we at least stick to credible arguments?

As for the outed spy thing, it was members of the administration getting back at Joseph Wilson. There's no doubt about that. Now, do I think Bush knew about this? I do not (at least I'd hope not; I'd like to give the guy the benefit of the doubt). But he should do something about it. That sort of behavior is unacceptable, to say the very least, and endangers our national security.

[Shitoryu Dude]

I find Gore to be a superfluous, overbearing, narcistic sissy. I think he's a total coward of the likes of Carter and when September 11 happened he would have most likely funded a study group to find out why terrorists hate us rather than go kick their ass back into the stone age.

Enemies are faught with the intention of winning, not appeased. Trying to placate someone who is doing their best to kill you is a shortcut to ending up dead.

Just my opinion, of course.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
I find Gore to be a superfluous, overbearing, narcistic sissy. I think he's a total coward of the likes of Carter and when September 11 happened he would have most likely funded a study group to find out why terrorists hate us rather than go kick their ass back into the stone age.

Carter wasn’t exactly a coward. He’s a good example of what happens when a good man tries to be President based on his morals, when ruthlessness is what is sometimes required. Brave, in its own way, but completely ineffectual.

I share much of your opinion on Gore, however, and on Sept. 11 and in the months leading up to action in Afghanistan, I was glad Mr. Bush was President.
That’s changing more and more, though,and I was never one to not criticize what I thought was wrong, and he’s one wrong dude. The more you look at it, the more it becomes obvious. He’s not necessarily evil, but he doe appear to be morally bankrupt in his equating what’s best for the country (read “all of us”) with what’s best for corporate America.

[Shitoryu Dude]

I wish he'd pull the bible out of his butt for a start.

I much rather would have voted for his brother Jeb based on what I know about him (which isn't all that much really, just that he seems to engage his brain a bit more often than George). I also have problems with some of George's staff - Rice and Powell seem to be good choices to me, Ashcroft seems to be in his element, but Rumsfield scares the living crap out of me. That is one person I can see as deliberately setting up an Orwellian state and spying on everyone.

:beer:

[tb055]

Colin Powell is as bad as the rest of them. Check the case against him out.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/122600-103.htm

[Don Cunningham]

The CIA seems to be suffering a lot of embarrassing disclosures recently. I recall a scandal many years ago in Japan after which many CIA contractors resigned in protest because their covers were being routinely comprimised by CIA employees. Many believed the direct employees were envious of the higher incomes paid to contractors. The problem was that CIA employees attached to the U.S. embassy had political and diplomatic immunity, whereas the contractors were subject to prosecution under Japan's espionage laws.

[Vapour]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
The book should be one that uses FACTS instead of opinion. You all remember what FACTS are, don't you? Or has rhetoric, lies and smear campaigns replaced objective evidence?

Even if the book in question has its own interpretation of those FACTS, the FACTS themselves are not in question.

Of course, it has always been the standard tactic of those without any data of their own (or when all the data is unpleasant to their position) to respond by changing the subject and engaging in screaming rhetoric. 'Fessing up would be too much pain to bear.

:beer:

"One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. "I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments."

And another insightful comment.

"It's worth thinking of Coulter as a kind of inverse (Michale) Moore: where's he's ugly and ill-kempt, she's glamorous and impeccably turned out. ... But what they have in common is more significant: an hysterical hatred of their political opponents and an ability to say anything to advance their causes (and extremely lucrative careers)."

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030705

And, Carter wasn't a pussy by today's standard.

http://www.guerrillanews.com/human_rights/doc782.html

As of rich bearing the heaivest burden of tax, you are factually wrong. Major source of tax is income so middle class are taxed heaviest. This fact that highest *earners* are taxed heaviest is often spinned to imply that rich berar the heaviest burden of tax, which is not the case. Properly rich people can avoid paying income tax especially now that Bush made it easier.

If ideology (in your case, neo con) is your guide to books reading, you are going to live in "a world of make believe" no matter how many books you read.

[Shitoryu Dude]

The "rich" do in fact pay the most taxes, not only as a quantity, but also as a percentage of their own income and as an overwhelming percentage of the actual taxes paid. This is so easily checked out and readily acknowledged by everyone that it is not in dispute. The dispute arises on the fairness of screwing over those who are "rich" in deference to those who are "poor". Socialists believe that wealth needs to redistributed to those who are a batch of lazy asses who won't work. Therefore it is "fair" to steal from the "rich" to give to the worthless. "Properly Rich" people still pay the lion's share of taxes, no matter how many "loopholes" they find.

Having read the full article you linked to I can't see where it disagrees with anything I posted. Should you wish I can also quote selected phrases to make it mean what I want it to, as you did. I have already stated my opinion of Ann Coulter as less than glowing - she does, however, get her details and facts right. While she may be hysterical on many points, the underlying basis for it is not debatable.

:beer:

[elder999]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
The "rich" do in fact pay the most taxes, not only as a quantity, but also as a percentage of their own income and as an overwhelming percentage of the actual taxes paid. This is so easily checked out and readily acknowledged by everyone that it is not in dispute. The dispute arises on the fairness of screwing over those who are "rich" in deference to those who are "poor". Socialists believe that wealth needs to redistributed to those who are a batch of lazy asses who won't work. Therefore it is "fair" to steal from the "rich" to give to the worthless. "Properly Rich" people still pay the lion's share of taxes, no matter how many "loopholes" they find.

Having read the full article you linked to I can't see where it disagrees with anything I posted. Should you wish I can also quote selected phrases to make it mean what I want it to, as you did. I have already stated my opinion of Ann Coulter as less than glowing - she does, however, get her details and facts right. While she may be hysterical on many points, the underlying basis for it is not debatable.

:beer:

Harvey, I can safely say, as one of the "rich," that I only pay income tax on the first $85,000 of my salary;I do not to mention other forms of income, but safe to say that they are taxed at rates lower than payroll taxes.

I'll stress again: I can safely say that.

Hajime is essentially correct about the middle class bearing the greatest burden as far as income tax goes.

These are not the issue, though. The issue is an administration that lies so much it is threatened by the truth to the extent that it will jeopardize the lives of people working for it and sworn to protect it out of pettiness.

It was vindictive, pure and simple; a treasonous act motivated by revenge.It wasn't even an attempt to discredit. I cannot express how disheartening this is to me personally.

[Ben Bartlett]

The fact that the rich pay a higher tax burden than determined by their income is true, but deceptive, as a large portion of their wealth doesn't come from their income. They in fact pay a smaller percentage of the tax burden than the percentage of the total wealth they control (if I remember correctly, it was something like 70% of the total wealth, and 50% of the total tax burden). You can't just look at income, you have to look at property, stock, etc., to see what's actually going on.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Ben Bartlett
The fact that the rich pay a higher tax burden than determined by their income is true, but deceptive, as a large portion of their wealth doesn't come from their income. They in fact pay a smaller percentage of the tax burden than the percentage of the total wealth they control (if I remember correctly, it was something like 70% of the total wealth, and 50% of the total tax burden). You can't just look at income, you have to look at property, stock, etc., to see what's actually going on.

I think I said that.

[Mitch Saret]

This thread has skewed onto many different fronts. The first being the topic at hand. I totally agree with Aaron on this one, we need to find out why this was done and appropriately punish those responsible.

Only one other thing I would like to comment on...


Now Bush Jr. and his crew have defied international law, public opinion (propagandized American consumerist lunkheads don't count), common sense, history, CHRISTIAN VALUES, the rule of law.....I could go on. Bush is a war criminal and should be tried in the Hague for crimes against humanity.

other than being wishful partisan thinking, I am just curious as to what you are referring to?

You also state


He may have tried to please everybody and ended up in disgrace, but he did not send us off on an illegal romp and stomp in a foreign country in order to make money for his friends.

Did you miss Somalia, Bosnia, Mogadishu, not to mention bombing Iraq? All these nations our troops were sent to for much fewer reasons than we went to Iraq. If you are against Iraq, and from your statements I can assume you are, you must have been against these "illegal" acts as well.

[Shitoryu Dude]

You actually think that only income is taxed? Not only are you taxed on your income, you are taxed on your earnings from stocks and bonds. Your property is taxed, your purchases are taxed, "luxury items" have an extra tax placed upon them. When you die the government tries to steal all that you have left. There are taxes for everything - and only "the poor" are left out of it for the most part.

Trust me, at my income bracket I am taxed far more than most people are - my "loopholes" a mortgage (like most people have) and a measly few grand in charitable deductions. Oh yeah, I'm just hiding zillions away in my secret offshore accounts. You people have been watching way too many Miami Vice reruns or something.

:beer:

[Ian McDonald]

Well Mitch,

I'm no peacenik but I don't seem to be able to recall that Clinton engaged in "nation building" in Somalia, Bosnia, and Mogadishu after deposing local governments (whether dictatorial or not) and imposing a puppet government subservient to his American Corporate business associates and their friends and families. (Remember, the US had a relatively minor role in Bosnia and did not operate unilaterally.)

We should not sell out our own and we should not compromise our values. (I hope that FBI investigation yields results.) Neither should we devolve into a society where we only deal with "people like us" and everybody else in the world is there to be used, either as a resource or a target.

Sorry Mitch and Harv. There is absolutely no comparison with the policies and actions of the Clinton administration and the current one, regardless which side of the political fence you are on. They are greatly different in purpose, degee, and effect.

Hey Harvey, just how big is your comic book collection anyway? (Sorry, I just can't help myself:p )

[elder999]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
You actually think that only income is taxed? Not only are you taxed on your income, you are taxed on your earnings from stocks and bonds. Your property is taxed, your purchases are taxed, "luxury items" have an extra tax placed upon them. When you die the government tries to steal all that you have left. There are taxes for everything - and only "the poor" are left out of it for the most part.

Trust me, at my income bracket I am taxed far more than most people are - my "loopholes" a mortgage (like most people have) and a measly few grand in charitable deductions. Oh yeah, I'm just hiding zillions away in my secret offshore accounts. You people have been watching way too many Miami Vice reruns or something.

:beer:

Well...what about 401K, IRA,Tax Free municipal bonds(I liked those)mutual funds.....

C'mon, Harvey.I fired my accountant for suggesting the formation of an offshore corporate trust-mostly because my finances are subject to intense government scrutiny;it was a good idea, but,because of my job, I am subject to annual audits and polygraphs by agencies other than the IRS. No point in even trying to go there, for now;I have more than enough money as it is....

As for the interventions of past administrations, and their various malfeasances-associated or otherwise-those are history, and I prefer to talk about what's happening NOW. Comparisons are pointless, as Hajime has pointed out, the crimes of others are no justification to commit crimes oneself.

[Ben Bartlett]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
You actually think that only income is taxed?

I do not think that only income is taxed, but the income tax is the only progressive tax. The others are either flat or regressive. One excellent example of this is Social Security. Since only the first $75,000 or so of your income (I forget the exact amount, but it's around there) has Social Security taken out of it, it hits people who make less than that harder than it hits people who make more than that. And that's only one example out of many. If all taxes were progressive, then I'd be a happy little liberal.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Progressive taxes immoral and unjust.

:beer:

[elder999]

Originally posted by Ben Bartlett


I do not think that only income is taxed, but the income tax is the only progressive tax. The others are either flat or regressive. One excellent example of this is Social Security. Since only the first $75,000 or so of your income (I forget the exact amount, but it's around there) has Social Security taken out of it, it hits people who make less than that harder than it hits people who make more than that. And that's only one example out of many. If all taxes were progressive, then I'd be a happy little liberal.

$76, 200.

A key feature of our federal tax system is its progressive nature. The higher your taxable income, the higher your marginal rate. Your marginal rate is the rate of tax you pay on your next dollar of taxable income. The rates for 2002 start at zero, then 10%, 15%, and go as high as 38.6%. In certain circumstances(ours), the top rate can approach 50%.

You can reduce or eliminate your tax by allocating income to different family members in lower marginal tax brackets. For example, I can pay my 17-year-old daughter as much as $7,700 to work for my unincorporated business, and she'll owe zero taxes. I can deduct the $7,700 as a business expense and save on my own income, Social Security and Medicare taxes. If I'm in the 30% bracket, and normally pay 15.3% as a self-employed individual in Social Security and Medicare taxes, I'll save more than $3.488 in taxes in one year. I'll have additional savings on my state income tax, and now the IRS is helping to finance my daughter's college education.

Income allocation between brackets works even if you're not self-employed. In that case, rather than moving earned income, you can shift investment income from higher to lower bracketed family members. If I shift $10,000 in mutual funds earning 10% into my son's name, I will have shifted $1,000 in income from my bracket to his. Remember though, that while this will clearly save you tax dollars, the $10,000 now belongs to him. There are techniques, such as a family limited partnership, which will allow you to make this kind of shift without losing control of the funds.

The tax code is filled with deductions and “loopholes” for you that serve a variety of purposes -- some noble, some less than noble. And if Congress insists on enacting them, it makes sense to take advantage of them. If you don't, you're making an involuntary contribution to the IRS. (You can always make voluntary contributions to the government and when paid, they would be deductible.)

The most important strategy for cutting your taxes is to know what is allowable to you as a deduction.

Knowledge is the key to recognizing what the law does and doesn't mandate. Of course, not everyone has the flexibility to rearrange his or her life in response to every twist and turn of the tax laws. But if you can just cut $1,000 off your tax bill each year and invest that money in an IRA account, after 20 years you'll have close to $60,000 to add to your nest egg -- and $160,000 after 30 years.

If you can convert taxable income into non-taxable income you have reduced your taxes. The simplest way to do this would be to invest in tax-free rather than taxable investments. For example, if you're in the 27% bracket in 2002 and 2003, a tax-exempt yield of 5% is the equivalent of a taxable yield of 6.85%. On a $100 investment, 6.85% is $6.85 out of which you pay 27%, or $1.85 in taxes. This leaves you with $5 after tax, or the same as a 5% tax-free return on the original $100. (The 27% rate drops to 26% in 2004 and 25% in 2006.)

The higher your tax bracket, the more advantageous tax-exempt income becomes. For example, if you were in the 38.6% bracket in 2002 and 2003, the 5% tax-exempt yield becomes the equivalent of an 8.14% taxable yield. Suddenly, you're getting investment returns close to the historical returns provided by the stock market.

You can also minimize your gross income by modifying your compensation arrangement with your employer. For example, you might ask your employer to pay your college tuition in lieu of a bonus. Alternatively, in compensation negotiations, you might give up additional cash in exchange for alternatives to “earned income.” Such alternatives might include hospitalization premiums, group life insurance premiums, accident and health plans, or other forms of non-taxable compensation.

Participation in dependent care assistance programs or qualified retirement plans also reduces your gross income. The concept is the same: Convert taxable income into money that's outside the government's reach. In this example, we're talking about expenses you would have made anyway, only now you'll end up saving money. In effect, have the IRS help pay for what you would have bought anyway.

[Shitoryu Dude]

This message has been brought to you by Aaron's H&R Block Tax House :D

When it becomes worthwhile, my wife and I will most likely set up a trust (or inherit part of one) to deal with property. Most of the other tax "loopholes" aren't available to us.

I'd feel much better if there was just a flat tax and deductions were extremely limited. More money kicking around in the economy and less in the hands of the government is a good thing.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude

I'd feel much better if there was just a flat tax and deductions were extremely limited. More money kicking around in the economy and less in the hands of the government is a good thing.

Me too.(Though I'll happily take advantage while I can.:p )

I'd also feel better if Bush weren't doing such a good job of simulatneously manipulating the media, fooling people like you and letting the proverbial foxes run wild in the henhouse.:mad:

...and his people weren'tt doing such reprehensible things as blowing the cover of our own agents to be vindictive.

[Shitoryu Dude]

OK - find one example of a politician or administration that does NOT manipulate the media and attempt to fool people. :p Can't do it can you?

I happen to be conservative on many matters - perhaps they are doing what I approve of.

My personal opinion is that most goverment types and politicians all deserve to be hung after a few years on general principles - and not just the ones in this country.

:beer:

[elder999]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
OK - find one example of a politician or administration that does NOT manipulate the media and attempt to fool people. :p Can't do it can you?

I happen to be conservative on many matters - perhaps they are doing what I approve of.

My personal opinion is that most goverment types and politicians all deserve to be hung after a few years on general principles - and not just the ones in this country.

:beer:

Well, note that I said "doing such a good job of manipulating." I think he's taken undue advantage of the "War on Terror," and has the likes of you completely buffaloed.

So....you approve of blowing the cover of one of our covert operatives for petty political revenge?

You think we should drill ANWAR, reduce the stringency of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and restrictions on emissions in general?

You believe that increased exploitation of the natural resources in our national forests and monuments, and on indian reservations-against the will of the people that live there-is good for the country?

You approve of the USA PATRIOT Act?

You believe America is better off without the 1st, 4th, 5th,6th, 8th and 14th amendments?

You think it's for your own good that the FBI can spy on your purchases, reading material, travel, Internet use and political activity, without your knowledge and with little justification?

You may just think that it's okay that valuable social programs have been gutted and hamstrung financially, but is it okay that the same person who has done the guttin' and hamstringin' has bragged about, taken credit for and pledged support for those same programs while doing so?


Don't get me started...........he's done all of these,or proposed them-and worse, and he has nearly two years left.

We'll see how you feel about him-and what he's done-then........

[Shitoryu Dude]

So....you approve of blowing the cover of one of our covert operatives for petty political revenge?

No, I don't


You think we should drill ANWAR, reduce the stringency of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and restrictions on emissions in general?

Drill baby, drill, drill, drill. The clean water act item I think you are referring to is based on what is commonly called "junk science" - I have read both sides of the issue and the numbers weren't jiving. As for the EPA - caused more trouble than it is worth, we should dissolve it.


You believe that increased exploitation of the natural resources in our national forests and monuments, and on indian reservations-against the will of the people that live there-is good for the country?

Yes - Resources unexploited are not really resources are they?

Personally I feel that the reservations should be abolished for a large number of reasons.


You approve of the USA PATRIOT Act?

You believe America is better off without the 1st, 4th, 5th,6th, 8th and 14th amendments?

You think it's for your own good that the FBI can spy on your purchases, reading material, travel, Internet use and political activity, without your knowledge and with little justification?
QUOTE]

Can't say I agree with any of that. Let's not forget the gun-grabbing legislation currently in the House that Bush said he supported. As if he didn't know that a Republican who pissed off the NRA was committing political suicide.

[QUOTE]You may just think that it's okay that valuable social programs have been gutted and hamstrung financially, but is it okay that the same person who has done the guttin' and hamstringin' has bragged about, taken credit for and pledged support for those same programs while doing so?

I don't think very many social programs are "valuable" - most of them are misguided and a waste of money. Like any politician, I think Bush is pretty two faced about the whole thing.

Then again - I didn't vote for him as much as I voted against Gore and that other idiot. While I may not be very happy with the current administration, I feel it is much better than our alternative options.

:beer:

[Charlie Kondek]

Sorry to come in so late, fellas, but Harv, I really must question this:


Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
1) Joe McCarthy did not do a fraction of what is attributed to him.

Nonsense. I'm sorry, but most history books disagree, and they recently uncovered more transcipts that prove what a bully he was.


2) Everyone he named did turn out to be a confirmed Soviet spy and they were high government officials. He actually missed hundreds of individuals that were later confirmed as Soviet agents.

We have reason to believe this is true, that there were more uncovered spies. However, the "spies" he did uncover were almost to a man KNOWN COMMUNISTS, mostly labor activists IIRC. Really, his ability was in being a self-hyping bully capitalizing on post-war fear. And he mostly bullied people with only the most marginal connections to communism, political liberals, ushering in a time of great paranoia, racism, centrism, and illusion. He was a horrible destructive force and Coulter is a BIG FAT LIAR to say otherwise.


3) He was not part of the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was a Senator and his own investigation into Soviet activity within the State Dept started later. Most of what is attributed to McCarthy was actually the HUAC

But McCarthy had a lot to do with fuelling the HUAC's fire AND McCarthy did do his own misdeeds. Coulter has issues with "the liberal press" and "revisionists historians" and that's why she makes claims like "most of what people say McCarthy did he didn't do." Rubbish.


8) The "horrors" of being investigated and "blacklisted" by McCarthy or the HUAC usually resulted in a job at Harvard and/or spending a few years working their career in France and living lavishly

Simply untrue for so many people whose careers were ruined by these witch hunts. This is blatant left-hating masquerading as conjecture and smelling like sour grapes.


9) The "Red Scare" was more a product of the press, particularly the NYT, than anything else.

So first you say there was good reason for a Red Scare and now you're saying it was not only untrue but the NYTimes fault?


10) Roosevelt and Truman were commie dupes/sympathizers and knowlingly/willingly placed Soviet agents in positions of extreme important and relied heavily upon them for advice.

What the hell? "Comrade, what do you think ought to be done about this Japan situation? Lissen, cable Joe Stalin and ask him should we drop the bomb on those barbarians."

"Da, Comrade Truman."

Harv, you're way too smart to be reading a demagogue like Coulter.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Question all you want, but her footnotes and quotes are meticulous in their detail, as are the rest of her books. While you may not agree with her conclusions her data is not suspect.

:beer:

[elder999]

Harvey, as far as extending the ban on "assault rifles," well, you should do like I have done and just "sportsterize " your semi-auto and/or militaryrifles. They get waaay less attention that way, and can do the same things they always did..(It's funny how I didn't need to do this to my M-1s, which ARE military weapons, but thought it best to do this to my SKS-which is really my plinking toy!)

Thanks for weighing in on the Coulter/McCarthy thing, Charlie.

Harvey, one thing the Clean Water Act reforms that Bush is making will do is decrease the water fowl population. This will happen because small inland wetlands-really just large puddles-are the breeding grounds for migrating waterfowl, and currently protected under the Clean Water Act. Under this protection, farmers have and incentive to maintain them, but when it is removed, there will be no incentive for them not to drain them for increased farming and/or devlopment. Ducks don't breed in deeper lakes, so as these "puddles" are eliminated, the waterfowl population will decrease.

About the EPA, and the Clean Water Act:I grew up in the Hudson Valley, and I can tell you that the Hudson is cleaner now than it was 100 years ago-thanks in part to diminishing industrial impact in that region, but also to the Clean Water Act and the EPA.

As for the "drill, baby drill," thing, you sound like a lot of other greedy consumer Americans: completely uneducated on the cost vs. gain prospectus of such endeavors. Take ANWAR as an example:the estimate-and estimates are all we have, since the Exxonc survey was sealed, but even if those estimates are completely on the mark, and, given the production at Chevron and BP's nearby Sourdough station we have no reason to believe they are not, according to a recent U.S. Geological Survey, only portions of ANWAR's oil are recoverable. Almost two thirds of the oil is too expensive for oil producers to ever extract with current technology; if they did they would be forced to sell at a loss. Indeed, the amount of "economically-recoverable" oil is estimated to be a six to eight-month supply spread out over 50 years. If we started drilling tomorrow, we would not see a drop of oil for at least 10 years. - Despite reassurances from the oil industry that drilling would be accomplished in an environmentally-friendly manner, well, they said the same thing about Prudhoe Bay-and that's an environmental disaster.The bottom line is that drilling ANWAR makes no economic or environmental sense. It would only be a bone thrown to Bush's coporate cronies-it would probably have no impact on what we pay at the gas pump, or decreasing our dependence on foreign oil.



Of course, maybe you think we should start cutting down the redwoods in Muir Forest or Sequoia National Forest for lumber,hmmm?

Having spent a fair amount of time on various Indian reservations all over the country, in some ways, I have to agree with you.The bottom line, though, is that reservations are supposed to be sovereign nations; the people are supposed to have a degree of autonomy and control of their resources, and they haven't-and they don't. The U.S. government has been systematically stealing from them almost as quickly as corporate America discovered their resources.If you were to visit the Dine(Navajo) or Hopi reservations here and in Arizona, you would find the same poverty, alchoholism and violence that you find at other resrvations, but you would also find people living in their traditional way, whose traditional life is threatened by corporate development, and who view the exploitation of natural resources as a grave insult to the land that sustains them. If they say "don't mine here," or "don't drill here," well, that should be the very end of it.

[Shitoryu Dude]

The EPA also brought us Snail Darters, the Spotted Owl, and last years water debacle in the Klamath Basin. I find the EPA to be little more than the church at which the Sierra Club worships in many regards - many of our environmental laws are based on knee jerk reactions to hyped data that is highly suspect. If we are going to keep the EPA around it needs to be overhauled and have the bunny huggers removed.

Your perspective of Prudhoe Bay differs radically from mine. Did you know that workers still get eaten by Polar Bears up there?

I personally don't see the appeal of living in the "traditional way" when that is essentially a stone age, nomadic culture. I have known a great many native Americans in my time - I was not impressed by them as a whole.

I think we have gone well into some serious thread drift here...

[elder999]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
The EPA also brought us Snail Darters, the Spotted Owl, and last years water debacle in the Klamath Basin. I find the EPA to be little more than the church at which the Sierra Club worships in many regards - many of our environmental laws are based on knee jerk reactions to hyped data that is highly suspect. If we are going to keep the EPA around it needs to be overhauled and have the bunny huggers removed.

Your perspective of Prudhoe Bay differs radically from mine. Did you know that workers still get eaten by Polar Bears up there?

I personally don't see the appeal of living in the "traditional way" when that is essentially a stone age, nomadic culture. I have known a great many native Americans in my time - I was not impressed by them as a whole.

I think we have gone well into some serious thread drift here...

In some respects, I have to agree. Some species can't adapt, and are bound to become extinct.

oooh-workers get eaten by polar bears?Dig it: THAT's WHAT BEARS DO!
Of course, polar bears having a steady diet of workers, and becoming habituated to human support(trash, etc.) IS an environmental disaster, Harvey.

You don't have to see the appeal of living the traditional way-or be impressed by those that do.As an American, though, you a should support their right to, and recognize that your government has promises to uphold with them in regards to their land and how it is used.
That's not just a Bush thing, though he certainly isn't proposing to make it any better.

As for thread drift, well, you're right, but it's funny just how screwed up our President and his administration are....

[Shitoryu Dude]

Of course its screwed up - its being run by politicians!!

[Ben Bartlett]

My last note on this subject: for an interesting critique of Ann Coulter's book, by a conservative pundit (David Horowitz, to be precise), go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/942157/posts

Of course, since I'm a liberal, I don't agree with some of what he says, but it's a fairly well-thought out piece, and clears up some of her more absurd notions, such as Truman being a Communist sympathizer.

[Shitoryu Dude]

Good read - an nicely lacking the hysterical finger pointing of Coulter.

Still don't think very highly of Truman.

:beer:

[Mitch Saret]

Ian,

In reference to military action, us going in, there is no difference between any of the mentioned nations. It's the after math that's different. And if you look at the history, in Mogadishu and Somalia President Clinto did act unilaterally. In Iraq, while opponents claim President Bush has acted unilatterally he most definitly has not. As has been discussed in other threads, over 30 nations have been involved in this action, several actually supplying combat troops. In Bosnia, wasn't Milosivic removed? Wasn't another interim government installed until their own could be?

The similarities are there, you just have to be willing to see them.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Mitch Saret
Ian,

In reference to military action,

No, we weren't. The betrayal of covert agentsby the administration was not a military action. It was vindictive and petty vengeance by a corrupt gang that can't face the truth, and hates it when anyone tells the truth and that truth is against their interests..

[Shitoryu Dude]

You just described every government the ever existed or will exist.

Be pissed off, but not surprised.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
You just described every government the ever existed or will exist.

Be pissed off, but not surprised.

I am pissed off; I am only suprised at the gullibility of the American public and media. Why isn't anyone else as outraged as I am at this?

[Shitoryu Dude]

My guess is that its because its not exactly a "new" thing. We've all beocome cynical and generally distrusting of government.

Watching the government screw somebody over just to spite them is SOP anymore. Just wait, it will get worse as time goes by.

:beer:

[Charlie Kondek]

Originally posted by Shitoryu Dude
Question all you want, but her footnotes and quotes are meticulous in their detail, as are the rest of her books. While you may not agree with her conclusions her data is not suspect.

:beer:

This is one of the reasons why I like disagreeing with you, Harv. You just shrug and go, "Well, there's my opinion, here's what I base it on, if you don't agree, tough sh*t."

Don't get me wrong, I still think you're out of your mind and that your way of life is strange and threatening, but I respect you.

:kiss:

[Charlie Kondek]

Ben,

Thanks for the read. I, too, disagree with much of it. I'd have to crack open the books to recall a lot of what I know about McCarthy's era, but one of the things I feel I should mention is that thousands of people in all levels of industry - and academy - lost their jobs as a result of his hysteria, not just the Hollywood folks that were in the public eye. As Horowitz points out, McCarthy exposed "spies" that were already exposed by the FBI - and compromised the bureau in doing so. Like I said, he ruined careers and left a stamp on American history that lingers to this day, especially in the minds of "pundits" like Coulter and Horowitz. The Republicans tolerated him at the time because he was getting them good press and attacking the Truman administration, when Eisenhower took office and McCarthy continued to attack the admin. as a "rat's nest of pinko spies," the Repubs pulled his plug. IIRC, he died of alcohol-related symptoms in '57 after being publically exposed and humiliated in '54.

To say that he and his ilk represent the finest hour of American politics is not only dubious and fallacious but, well, stupid!

[Shitoryu Dude]

Strange and threatening? Pretty harsh words for a lifestyle that consists of karate, BBQ, gourmet cooking, and watching vampire movies.

Hell, I'm still worked up about buying a new Barcalounger for the downstairs TV room.

:beer:

[Charlie Kondek]

:laugh:

[elder999]

...the real point of all this being that "two senior administration officials" violated national security in the name of vengeance, or intimidation, as Wilson has alleged:


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a key figure in the Iraq-Niger uranium controversy, accused the Bush administration on Monday of using intimidation tactics to stifle criticism about its handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from the African country, but returned to say it was highly doubtful such a transaction had occurred.

President Bush ( made the Iraq-uranium claim in his January State of the Union speech. Critics have said the Iraq-Niger assertion, which later was found to be based partly on forged documents, showed the administration had tried to hype intelligence to make a case for going to war.

Wilson, on a panel of speakers at the National Press Club, said there had been several attempts to discredit him, but mainly through an article by Chicago columnist Robert Novak that said two senior administration officials said Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the uranium report. Novak's column named Wilson's wife and said she was a CIA operative on weapons of mass destruction.

Wilson would only speak about his wife's employment in hypothetical terms without confirming her place of work. But he said if Novak's column was true, then the Bush administration had breached national security by revealing the name.

"Any time that a senior administration official leaks the name of a CIA operative, even one in the weapons of mass destruction business, what that senior administration official is doing is a breach of national security," Wilson said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030805/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc_3

[Mitch Saret]

Aaron, when I referred to the military action that was a sub conversation with Ian and me. He was saying the war in Iraq was illegal and such, I compared it to several other actions, etc.

In regards to the abomination of an undercover operative being comprimised, I agree with you totally on. I may not have your knowledge of security issues, at least not anymore, if I ever did, bnut I know a big blunder when I see it. My unit had a classified mission I was on during the early 80's. It's still classified. My wife can't understand why I won't tell her anything about it. I agree with her, I can't see what it would hurt, but that's not my call. Just as it shouldn't have been the call of the two thatexposed this agent. Those heads, and any others responsible, should roll!

[A. M. Jauregui]

I really hope that some heads do roll in a way that can be seen my the masses. But sadly I feel that the only ones that currently is and will continue to be punished is the Wilson family.

Nondisclosure sucks ass...

[Gene Williams]

I want to have Ann Coulter's baby...or whatever. God, I love to hear liberals whine...sounds like the running down of an overused engine that was never overhauled:D

[Charlie Kondek]

Yeah, Gene. We like to hear conservatives sputter, too. Like a steam engine about to burst apart from overheating. All that hot air and nowhere to escape.

[Vapour]

Let Just Pray.

http://www.larryflynt.com/national_prayer_day.html

[elder999]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030930/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_14


WASHINGTON - The Justice Department (news - web sites) launched a full-blown criminal investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA officer, and President Bush directed his White House staff on Tuesday to cooperate fully.


The White House staff was notified of the investigation by e-mail after the Justice Department decided late Monday to move from a preliminary investigation into a full probe. It is rare that the department decides to conduct a full investigation of the alleged leak of classified information.

White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales told the staff: "You must preserve all materials that might in any way be related to the department's investigation." Presumably that would include telephone logs, e-mails, notes and other documents.

[L-Fitzgerald]

I realize the thread deals with claims about "selling out our own" however, comparisons were made to other Administrations. So as far as Bill & Hill go I would never want to become friendly with either of those two. Over 100 individuals that were intimate to their dealings in Arkansas have died.

As for the subject of the thread, the wife of a US Ambassador being an undercover operative for the CIA, not as uncommon as people would believe.... or does anyone think that people that work for Old Foggy bottom are similar to the local banker in your home town?????????????

Give me a break, the news is going ballistic about this story and acting as if G-W himself picked up the phone. Not to mention the WMD that have been found - yes - in the Bekka Valley under control of Syrian troops. Or did everyone miss that headline not unlike back in August when US troops discovered some of the lastest model Russian built aircraft, banned under the UN sanctions buried in the sand. Nope not one major station carried this story. And here's the link for those that need to see it first hand......

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/6/105528.shtml

[elder999]

Originally posted by L-Fitzgerald
I realize the thread deals with claims about "selling out our own" however, comparisons were made to other Administrations. So as far as Bill & Hill go I would never want to become friendly with either of those two. Over 100 individuals that were intimate to their dealings in Arkansas have died.

As for the subject of the thread, the wife of a US Ambassador being an undercover operative for the CIA, not as uncommon as people would believe.... or does anyone think that people that work for Old Foggy bottom are similar to the local banker in your home town?????????????

Give me a break, the news is going ballistic about this story and acting as if G-W himself picked up the phone. Not to mention the WMD that have been found - yes - in the Bekka Valley under control of Syrian troops. Or did everyone miss that headline not unlike back in August when US troops discovered some of the lastest model Russian built aircraft, banned under the UN sanctions buried in the sand. Nope not one major station carried this story. And here's the link for those that need to see it first hand......

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/8/6/105528.shtml

Your "Rush Limbaugh" is showing, pal.

1. What happened during th Clinton Administration is called "history."We're talking about right here and now.

2.www.worldtribune.com is the only "source" for the "Bekaa valley" scenario-and hardly a reputable one. The likes of Rush Limbaugh ran with it as coming from the paper of the same name-no relation-and the press hasn't bitten, which is why no one has carried it.
You bit, though.

3.The upcoming report on WMDs in Iraq, from David Kay-a colleague of mine, and former inspector, as well as head of the current effort to find anything, will no doubt have some evidence of biological and possibly chemical weapons, but, by all accounts, no smoking gun-nothing conclusive,

4. From your own news source:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/25/125143.shtml

5. I said this was a criminal action by someone in the bush administration-it's now a criminal investigation-deal with it.

[L-Fitzgerald]

but I don't listen to the Rush man, he's almost as radical as those on the left.....

and keep in mind if the news sources are unreliable don't shoot the messenger..... but you have to admit that the press is running its own agenda, and although I hate to use such a large brush, but everyone ignores the obvious. At one level or another those that work in the State Department are not just ordinary folks..... ask the people that were approached by Oleg Penkovsky in the 60's.......... and for those that may not know, he's the Russian that saved the US from having nuclear war over Cuba, though Kennedy almost blundered into it after the fact.

[Senjojutsu]

Aaron,
Well since you won't find some of these tibits on the news tonight, excluding maybe "fair and balanced reporting" Fox News.

By the way has Katie Couric or Paula Zahn asked the usual question on air yet about this matter - What did President Bush know about this leak and when did he know it? Wait till some guest says the "I" word, they'll reach climax for sure.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/29/235714.shtml

Novak: Wilson's Wife Not a Covert CIA Agent

...According to columnist Robert Novak, who revealed Mrs. Wilson's name in his July 14 column, sources at the CIA expressly told him she was not a spy. "According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives," Novak told his audience on CNN's "Crossfire." "So what is the fuss about?" he asked, then wondered aloud, "Pure Bush-bashing?"...


http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/29/143328.shtml

Wilson: I Made Up Rove Leak Allegation

...Former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson admitted Monday morning that he fabricated a key part of his allegation that the White House deliberately blew his wife's cover as a CIA weapons analyst. Wilson has accused top Bush political strategist Karl Rove of leaking the name to columnist Robert Novak, telling a Seattle audience last month that he wanted "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." But he told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday that he got "carried away" and made up the Rove allegation out of thin air....


http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp

Spy Games - Clifford D. May,

Was it really a secret that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?

...It's the top story in the Washington Post this morning as well as in many other media outlets. Who leaked the fact that the wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV worked for the CIA?

What also might be worth asking: "Who didn't know?"...


http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200309291239.asp

16 Words to the Wife - Mark R Levin

...Joe Wilson is back.

Wilson was a much sought-after guest and either appeared on news programs, or was cited as an authoritative source. And Wilson clearly relished every second of his 15 minutes of fame.

This raises another question: Why would the CIA choose Wilson as the administration's fact-finder on the Niger uranium issue knowing that his wife's activities might become exposed? Well, in the same Robert Novak column that reveals the identity of Wilson's wife, Novak reports that it was Plame herself who recommended her husband for the job!

Shouldn't it have occurred to someone in CIA management that sending the husband of an agency operative on a highly sensitive, high-profile mission could jeopardize that operative's activities?
...

[Ben Bartlett]

Ah, the National Review. Another wonderful waste of good lumber. Bob Novak may be saying now that he thought Plame was an analyst, but he certainly didn't say that at the time. And even if *he* did think that, whoever leaked it to him certainly knew the truth (and, according to other reporters who got the same leak, it came from the White House, not the CIA). As for the whole "who didn't know?" thing, the fact is, most people. Including the people she conducted operations on (they know now, of course... and her field was WMD, too. Ah, irony). Wilson did admit he got carried away with the Karl Rove thing, so that much is true. Saying he "made it up out of thin air" is a bit much, though... he was just angry and personalizing it when he shouldn't have. And it was not Plame who recommended Wilson for the job- Wilson didn't know any of the people who asked him to it (and, frankly, he was a logical choice, as he knew all the parties involved in Niger). This was a blatant attempt to discredit Wilson by outing his wife. The CIA ain't pleased about it, either, which is why they've requested that the Justice Department look into it. If Bush were smart, he'd find the two people who leaked the information and fire them- then he'd at least be clear of the whole thing. Why he's not doing so is a mystery to me. All any members of the administration will say is that "the Justice Department is handling it", which is a bit of a cop-out, since Bush could make the necessary calls if he wanted to (and someone, who also leaked to the press, knows who the two people are, but won't say... so the information is out there). It'll be interesting to see where this goes, but like I said, if I were Bush, I'd cut this off before it gets any worse. The CIA already ain't happy with the administration... this can't be making things any better, and the press is just waiting to sink their teeth into this one.

[kimiwane]

I believe that it is a common practice to have throwaway (expendable) agents that can be discarded with little loss to the organization as a whole.

Every agent is part of a network. Suppose you were an agent of, say, Syria and you had suspicions that someone else was a foreign (US) agent. So you surveil him and gather information on where he goes and with whom he talks. Two years later, you find out that he was, in fact, working for CIA.

Now what about all the people with whom he had been observed? Everyone of them (including any other US agents) would be under tighter scrutiny, and some might be killed.

There is no such thing as a "throwaway" agent--at least not on the level of Plame.