On guard, you rascal!

and rest information about travel

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.

If a family member are small on dollar just effortlessly sign up for an online payday advance that is incomparable, easy, and speedy today!

In his January 2003 State Of The Union, President Bush made his case for war in Iraq. He included this now-infamous 16-word deception about Iraq’s nuclear capability: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”2
But the White House had known for nearly a year that this claim was false. In February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the unsubstantiated claim that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons.3
Wilson had discovered that the claims were bogus and documents used to support the claims had been forgeries. He reported this to the CIA, and the CIA told the White House.3
Why Did The President Ignore Wilson’s Findings And Lie? It’s About Iraq

Why did President Bush use the discredited nuclear claims in his January 2003 State of the Union Address to make the case that Iraq was a nuclear threat? They wanted to invade Iraq.
A CBS News polling report in late 2002 made clear, “there is no consensus on adopting a pre-emptive strike policy in general—except where a nuclear attack against the United States is contemplated…”4
Only well after the war had begun would the Washington Post report on “a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their subordinates…made allegations depicting Iraq’s nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views.”5
Wilson Strikes Back—Exposes Bush’s Lie In Lead-Up To War

Six months after the President’s 2003 State of the Union Address, as Bush’s WMD and nuclear claims began to unravel, Wilson went public and exposed the Bush Administration’s false nuclear claims in a New York Times op-ed.6
The full July 6, 2003 op-ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” can be read here: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070
The White House saw Wilson as a major threat. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff was so angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA officer, that he monitored all of Wilson’s television appearances and urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against him, former aides say.”7
White House Retaliates—Outs Valerie Plame Wilson As CIA Agent

The week after Wilson’s op-ed in the New York Times, “two senior administration officials” were cited by conservative columnist Robert Novak in his column outing CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.8
The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), originally formed to sell the war to the public, “morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims.”9 WHIG was run out of Vice President Cheney’s office, and included Cheney’s Chief of Staff “Scooter” Libby, top Bush strategist Karl Rove, and other top Bush administration officials.
Not only did this leak end Valerie Plame Wilson’s 20-year career as a CIA covert agent, but it also exposed a longstanding CIA front company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, where Plame worked and put at risk many of the undercover agents who had worked with Wilson in the past.10
Today’s Indictment—White House Official Obstructed Investigation Into The Lie

Today’s indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson. He also was charged with perjury and making false statements to FBI agents. The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around the same issues, among possible others.
Former President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.”11
Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when he said, “I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative—it’s abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.”12
The American people must know this important truth: Today’s indictment is about a cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq.

Enough said.

#42 Charles Howard, I agree.

I admit to being a moral relativist. But I’m not a hypocritical moral relativist as those who worship Bush-Christianism.

Maybe Hinderaker knows for certain that Plame never left the country after July 1998 (this would exempt her from the plain language of IIPA as posed on his site even if her identity were also classified). Somehow I doubt it.

So Hinderaker appears to be using a hair-splitting argument with an unsupported assumption to butress his assertion of “you cannot convict, she was not covert.” This smells like “it depends on what is is” or perhaps more like “the income tax is voluntary because the 15th Amendment was never properly ratified.”

If you refer to me at a “defender of the Right,” and you presume to know what I think, you are wrong. I do not consider myself morally superior to you or anyone else. In fact, most of my ilk that I know are quite humble, which is a big part of Christianity. However, we are called to uphold morality (which cannot be defined as “individual choice”) and speak out against we think are wrong. Moral relativists are often offended when a “right wing wacko” speaks an opinion contrary to their worldview. They think they’re being preached to by someone who thinks himself to be morally superior. But that’s just their perception, it’s not necessarily true, though I do not purport to speak for all those holding Judeo/Christian beliefs.

In this light, and in an attempt to be consistent with what I just wrote, let me say that IF Mr. Libby is guilty (but I will not presume him to be so without due process), he was wrong to lie and obstruct justice.

I wish you all a pleasant evening. I have plans and will now check out.

For every one conservative site that you can point out that has them, I’ll be I can find two that do not. Not “ALL” do, without or without capital letters.

Accidentally misusing grammar is entirely different than being so ignorant of grammar that you accuse a site of bias based on that ignorance. Or is that basic premise beyond your comprehension ability.