Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (10231)	10/1/2003 8:54:13 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793698

Thanks for confirming (for me) that the Dems have zero interest in the substance involved here, and are all about form. Let me drop you a hint. If the facts about Wilson turn out as I suspect, you'll be singing a different tune. Major scandal here, on the level of the BBC go-for-broke attack on Blair that backfired. Only here, Bush isn't at the mercy of the liberals, his own party is foursquare behind him. Right now he's being attacked by such "magnates" as Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. LOL! Enjoy it while it lasts, if that's what you enjoy. Wilson is already smelling like yesterday's fish. Making Lieberman look like a statesman (which he used to be).

To: JohnM who wrote (10231)	10/2/2003 11:46:23 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793698

No, the real question is who committed the clear crime of leaking her name. No, John, there has been no crime until someone confesses to it, pleads guilty, or is found guilty by a judge or jury. This is a basic legal precept that you seem to forget. It underscores the silly political games that are being played by the Dems in their heat to tar Bush with something. The public has seen all of this foolishness before when the GOP mistakenly went after Clinton for his peccadillos. The voters will punish the Dems for subjecting them to another media-intense pseudo-scandal. There are lots of non-criminal ways that Novak may have known that she was employed by the CIA--it could have been an open secret in DC; she may have told him; there could have been an innocent disclosure; or, more likely, Novak may have simply put two and two together.