Wilson's article was all lies, it was propaganda to hurt the President
and the truth was his wife got him the gig. She wasn't threatened or
inconvenienced in any way. The Russians blew her cover 10 years
earlier


On 10/24/05, Dana wrote:
> that's a *very* technical "no crime was committed." If they leaked the name
> of a CIA agent in order to hurt a government employee who had do nothing
> more than his duty to speak the inconvenient truth, then that is in the best
> tradition of the Nixon White House, bravo for making corruption a Republican
> tradition. Regardless of whether it can be proved that they knew at the time
> that the agent was undercover. How can you defend this stuff?
>
> Next thing you know Cheney will be saying "I am not a crook."
>
> Dana
>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Purchase Studio MX with Flash Pro from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized 
Affiliate and support the CF community.
http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=51

Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:177972
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54

Reply via email to