--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > You're confusing the "need to know" issue with the security issue, BTW. > > And in Rove's job, he would have pretty much a blanket "need to know" > > access as long as it was authorized by the President. > > > Actually you introduced the need to know issue. I was quite fine > without it. >
But "need to know" is at the core of hte issue. You can have the highest possible security classification and NOT be authorized to know some trivial Confidential (lower classification level than Secret) matter. > > So I still don't get your dismissive 'sigh". I don't see any new > points here or rebuttals to what was said before. > > You apparently have an iron clad certainty that Rove has the security > clearance to know the covert status of someone who might be briefing > him on something. I understand that its reasonable to expect that he > has such. Totally stipulated to. But my singular and repeated > questions is: do have certain evidence of it? Without evidence to the contrary, why assume (or discuss) the far less likely alternative? Unless the investigator explicitly says Rove didn't have the security clearance that WE BOTH AGREE IS THE MOST LIKELY CASE, why are we arguing this point? > > And given that Lawrence O'Donnell, who is one of the most knowledgable > people I have heard on the topic, states he doesn't think Rove has > that clearance. And he writes for WEST WING fo GODS SAKE!!! -- what > more of an authority do you want than that!! :) > I think Lawrence O'Donnell, whoever he is, is talking through his ass even more than I am. You've already said that you think that Roveprobably did have the clearance, so why raise someone else's claim that he didn't and claim this guy is credible? > > > And would you stake your life and those of your family on your > certainty. (See adjacent post. This is not a cute resposne, but a > common exercise people in risk assessment use as a measure of 100% > certainty.) I never said it was 100% certainty, so why raise this issue? 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/
