>>>How naive that you would think that just because an interested party in an investigation makes an oath, that the matter should be settled based on that.<<<
Hard to believe you wrote that without feeling foolish but I guess you're just plain tapped out of excuses now except that. What a great theory. A career CIA agent goes in front of congress and live TV cameras, takes her oath a then tells bald faced lies about issues her former employer can confirm or deny in minutes.
>>>Yep, she was deep undercover while she punched in daily in Virginia<<<
So to Bush loyalists a CIA agent can be just a little bit or a little more undercover depending on where on planet earth they are located at the moment? If he's on a park bench in Russia reading a newspaper with see through holes he's big time undercover but when he returns to headquarters to write his report at his desk he's not really that much undercover anymore. I understand....
>>>I guess you probably missed the testimony of Toensing- who actually WROTE the statute in question- who testified that there was no way in hell an outing occured<<<
Toensing is an ultra partisan rightwing lawyer with an ax to grind. It's also a fact that she can't possibly have access to all details regarding Plame's CIA personal file since it's classified. Pretty astonishing but not really surprising that you would take her word over the agent's own testimony under oath regarding her own covert status.
>>>How naive that you would think that just because an interested party in an investigation makes an oath, that the matter should be settled based on that.<<<
If testimony under oath in front of congress doesn't settle it, then what will?
AI
