Here's what I can't figure out re Plame/freeperland...

[janx]

How much in denial can people be? How can they think that Plame wasn't undercover when a special prosecutor is taking *this long*, requiring multiple visits from people in some of the highest levels of government?

??

Notice the relatively low numbers of posts in these threads. Also notice the relatively high number of views compared to the number of posts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=cialeak

Have they been told to ignore it? Do they peek in and then cover their eyes and ears?

It's mind boggling!

[existentialist]

1. I think it is just

the head in the sand reflex. They don't want to know, so they will pretend that it doesn't exist.

[janx]

3. But...it's pretty important, isn't it?

The Miers threads are on fire, another one appearing each minute. That's not good news.

The Plame matter is much more explosive in nature.

But maybe the head-in-sand reflex trumps even common sense or survival in freeperland.

[yankeedem]

2. Somehow it is all "Hillary's" doing, though

"Someone is going to blow Cooper's cover. He's married to Mandy Grunwald, Hillary's best friend and media advisor and ran Bubba's last campaign. I think Hillary even gave her a baby shower at the White House).

Mandy's father died in February. He was Chief Op-Ed at Time, Inc. for years and was the first to say Nixon should jump ship (in not a friendly tone.) Lo and behold, right after he died, deep throat came out.

Notice that Hillary says nothing against Rove. Bubba however (must be the medicine) blurted out that Rove is a genius and if he went, the Dems could reign again.
11 posted on 10/09/2005 8:50:07 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)

See, Hillary MADE Rove leak the name of Valerie Plame. Now doesn't that make more sense than your wacky lib theories?:sarcasm:

[janx]

4. Oh man...

:rofl:

[Straight Shooter]

19. Since when did Clinton declare Rove a genius?

And why should I believe somebody who doesn't know how to spell Sacagawea's name correctly?

Artist's rendering of Sacagawea, whose life remains a mystery:

[walldude]

5. Even the WH admits she was undercover

they can't even agree with those they worship.

[JoZbean]

6. They know they can't debate this one........

The clamps are on tight and they can barely breathe, let alone speak.

[janx]

8. I participated in one of those threads,

and the only guy who answered me is probably from *here*!

[PuraVidaDreamin]

7. It's not head in the sand- They know it's Lights Out

The party is over!
They are shaking in their boots.

This scares them more than terra alerts

[rateyes]

9. They would have reason to ignore

it, if it was just about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act----whether or not she was undercover, though, really doesn't matter much at this point, because CLASSIFIED INFORMATION was passed to many people by many people unauthorized to have it--a violation of the Espionage Act----if Fitzgerald does what he took an oath to do, and that is prosecute people who have broken the law---then the whole damned administration is going down.

The freepers are keeping their head in the sand, because, like an Ostrich they are afraid to open their eyes to the truth. No matter, though, when the indictments come there will be no hiding after that. Their house of cards is getting ready to fall.

[janx]

10. Wouldn't they at least discuss it in more than fifty

comments per thread? One has 99 or so...

[rateyes]

11. Freepers only think what they are told to think...

How many RW "talking heads" are talking about espionage act, conspiracy, etc. etc. etc.-----Their talking points have all been about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. They are probably right to believe how hard that is to prove----but, it's about lying this country into war, and destroying a whole CIA front operation. Somewhere deep inside, maybe sub-conciously, the freepers know that their "pals" in the Bush administration are corrupt---but they are still floating down that big river in Egypt.

[janx]

12. Denial can't be that strong. It can't be!

It's like the woman who covered her ears on CSPAN when she was listening to Randi Rhodes!

[rateyes]

22. As one who has dealt with a lot of grieving people...

I can tell you that denial can be a damned strong response. Have you ever known someone to set up a "shrine" to a loved one, and leave it in place for years after their death....never changing a thing in their "room".....somehow believing that it's all a dream...and, that they will be back to inhabit that room again?

I'm telling you, when people get stuck in the "denial" stage of anything, especially grief, it can really mess them up....but, the freepers are going to get a "reality" check real soon, and there won't be any denying it then.

[janx]

23. Let's hope not, because this is a different kind of denial,

it seems to me. One hell of a lot of people have died because of some geopolitical pipe dream.

I hope I don't sound angry at you; I'm just angry that people like the freepers can be so easily manipulated.

[rateyes]

27. No, you don't sound angry,

and I hope I don't sound angry at you....I, too am, not so much angry (although, that too is present), but am constantly amazed at the psychology of of "group mentality." People who would normally not engage in "evil" acts, when part of a group will participate in, or at the very least consent to, evil--and, many times the reason for it is to "protect" the group.

It happened at My Lai with Lt. Calley. It happened with the Rodney King beating. In a strange way it happened in Waco with David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, and with the ATF. It happened, and happens with the Ku Klux Klan. It even happens in churches when for some odd reason they feel "threatened" by a perceived enemy. It's happening in radical Islam---"I hate my enemy more than I value my own life, and I must blow myself up to "protect" Islam (Arabic for PEACE)," is the mentatlity. It's happening with the Freepers. And, it can happen here at DU, too, if we don't keep a check on it.

If a trusted leader all of a sudden whips a group up into a "frenzy" and then aims the group's agression at an enemy--there is no telling what can happen. It's scary.

In the Freepers' minds right now, Fitzgerald is not a prosecutor doing his job of investigating a possible breach of the law---he is an "enemy" trying to bring down their leadership---if that happens, much of what they have "fought" for comes crashing down around them---and, while not advocating violence (for now), they are "circling the tents," calling all of the accusations against Rove, etc. ridiculous. They can't believe they're leadership would do such things--so they won't even take a logical look at what is going on--it's easier for them, as a group, to deny that's it's true and attack the messenger rather than each one of them taking an impassioned assessment of the situation.

The Freepers, as a group, have one overall goal of "taking over the country" and passing their agenda and forcing the world to live according to their "ideals," and have decided that the ends justify the means. If that means CIA operations have to be compromised, that they have to put people's lives in danger (including sending other people's kids to war to die)--then they will do it.

I think these indictments coming down are going to send hard-core right-wingers over the edge. We haven't seen anything, yet. If Fitzgerald indicts all the people that deserve indicting (and, I hope he does), the hatred of the Freepers in all of its "nastiness" will come pouring out. It's gonna be ugly.

[Seansky]

13. txs. so much for looking this up. seems to me the numbers of views

indicate they aren't ignoring it since they are actually actively "reading" it. Maybe they are just worried to be associated with this, or maybe they are just crossing their fingers that the entire RW/reps don't get stained by the amount of corruption? Or maybe you are right, they continue being in denial.

[kskiska]

14. A lot of them even think that the result of these hearings

will be Joe Wilson being indicted. Go figure.

[janx]

17. There is no logic in that at ALL.

None.

[kskiska]

24. Case in point…

http://lucianne.com/threads2.asp?artnum=239898

WASHINGTON -- The prosecutor in the CIA leak case is exploring a range of possible crimes, lawyers in the case say, suggesting that the investigation has moved well beyond its initial focus on whether anyone in the Bush administration illegally disclosed the identity of a CIA operative.

Comments:
Reply 1 - Posted by: wacko, 10/8/2005 9:40:14 AM

Seems to me the statute in question would apply to Joe Wilson and the New York Times for the initial publication of his account of his trip to Niger. Dare one hope that Wilson himself will be frog-marched?

--------

Reply 4 - Posted by: UtahLurker, 10/8/2005 10:18:33 AM

I'm beginning to have grave doubts about this prosecutor--it's as if he's determined the end result, and is manipulating all the pieces to fit into that result.
I hope I'm wrong, and that what he's actually doing is getting ready to expose the two most obvious culprits - Joe and Valerie Wilson - and bring them to justice. And along with them, some sort of reckoning for Judith Miller's tip-off to the Muslim Imans running a 'charity' in a mosque that was under surveilance (by this prosecutor) for terrorist connections...

[janx]

25. Oh my...

Those are two very good examples.
It's lunacy!

[NJCher]

21. OMG!

A lot of them even think that the result of these hearings will be Joe Wilson being indicted. Go figure.

Choke! Gasp!! Weeze!!




Cher

[snippy]

15. I have never seen any freeper discuss Judge Tatel's opinion in the

Cooper/Miller case. The judges who have been involved in this case are the only people who have written about this case after seeing Fitzgerald's evidence. I think the following portion of Judge Tatel's opinion sheds the most light.

. . .

In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special counsel has established the need for Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas.

One last point. In concluding that no privilege applies in this case, I have assigned no importance to the fact that neither Cooper nor Miller, perhaps recognizing the irresponsible (and quite possibly illegal) nature of the leaks at issue, revealed Plame’s employment, though Cooper wrote about it after Novak’s column appeared. Contrary to the reporters’ view, this apparent self-restraint spares Miller and Cooper no obligation to testify. Narrowly drawn limitations on the public’s right to evidence, testimonial privileges apply “only where necessary to achieve (their) purpose,” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 403 (1976), and in this case the privilege’s purpose is to promote dissemination of useful information. It thus makes no difference how these reporters responded to the information they received, any more than it matters whether an attorney drops a client who seeks criminal advice (communication subject to the crime-fraud exception) or a psychotherapist seeks to dissuade homicidal plans revealed during counseling (information Jaffee suggested would not be privileged, see 518 U.S. at 18 n.19). In all such cases, because the communication is unworthy of protection, recipients’ reactions are irrelevant to whether their testimony may be compelled in an investigation of the source.

Indeed, Cooper’s own Time.com article illustrates this point. True, his story revealed a suspicious confluence of leaks, contributing to the outcry that led to this investigation. Yet the article had that effect precisely because the leaked information—Plame’s covert status—lacked significant news value. In essence, seeking protection for sources whose nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson—the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own. Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires.

. . .

Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security or more vital to public debate, or had the special counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash. Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming the district court’s orders compelling their testimony.

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf

This portion of the opinion immediately followed the several pages of redacted material which contained Fitzgerald's evidence and arguments filed under seal. I think Fitzgerald obviously convinced Judge Tatel that crimes were committed. Which probably is why the coprophagic freepers ignore it.

[janx]

16. Are they even aware of it?

I might do a search and check.

[janx]

26. I TAKE BACK EVERYTHING I SAID. LOOK:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499681/posts

They ARE concerned...

[KittyWampus]

18. Janx, I experienced denial when my beloved cat Myrna was dying.

people have great imaginations and can come up with all kinds of rationalizations and strategies for avoiding the Truth.

The longer it takes to sink in, the more powerful the explosion when the walls finally come tumbling down.

[janx]

20. I'm sorry about Myrna, and you are right.

They do. But this is so important, and their denial has allowed the deaths of so many for so long.