I just helped circulate that in another post. It is ambiguous, but I am not sure which slant was meant. The "by definition" "proof" isn't definative IMO. It needs clarification by Wilson -- which I assume he will provide today.
--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, be aware there's an AP article on the > same topic that has a *very* misleading > sentence in reporting on yesterday's > Wolf Blitzer interview with Wilson: > > "But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in > an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified > her. 'My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak > blew her identity,' he said." > > The quote by itself is ambiguous, but in > context, Wilson meant that once Novak had > blown her cover, she was no longer covert > *by definition*. > > The wingnutosphere is going nuts with this > quote, claiming it's an admission that Plame > wasn't undercover after all, so her clandestine > status couldn't have been outed. AP really > screwed up; we're going to be hearing this > misreading for weeks. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
