--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> > > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> > [...]
> > > > And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a 
regulation 
> > > > whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according 
to 
> > THEIR 
> > > > definitions. Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an 
unusual 
> > way, 
> > > > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not 
the 
> > > > lawmakers.
> > > 
> > > Whats your point? So did the CIA say she is covert per the 
statute?
> > 
> > They asked for a criminal investigation...
> 
> A lot of people called for it didn't they?  Congress. The press, the
> outraged public.

The Republicans control congress...

The press ignored the matter for the first few months UNTIL a 
criminal investigation was launched. 

The outraged public hadn't even heard of the issue until the 
investigation (my brother, who is extremely widely read politically, 
hadn't hear of it) --only readers of http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com 
and other liberal blogs or who were total news junkies, had heard 
anything about it.




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/
 


Reply via email to