I wasn't holding you to a legal standard, not even "more likely than not." All you have is unadulterated speculation. You don't know what the powers that be wanted to hear or that Plame didn't give them just that; you don't know that they don't want to hear the truth even if it isn't what they want to hear; and you don't know why Libby blew her cover. You know, in fact, nothing, except that you want to attribute the direst motives to US policymakers.
The guy who outed her went to prison because of it due to the investigation of a special prosecutor appointed to find out what happened. That is evidence against your suppositions.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 18, 2013, at 2:36 AM, Bill Bartlett <william7 at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> At 1:43 AM -0600 18/1/13, andie_nachgeborenen wrote:
>
>> Valarie Plame Wilson. Your speculations about why she was outed, told with your typical assurance as if you had personal knowledge, are mere uninformed speculation.
>
> It wouldn't stand up in a court of law, but that is not the standard I was aiming at. I am prosecuting a political case, not a criminal justice case. Mind you, loan me a couple of those CIA torturers for a few days and I'm sure I could get a full confession from Rumsfield (or anyone else). ;-)
>
>> My understanding with Bigelow is that she was told by the CIA that torture was not instrumental in the assassination of bin Ladin, but chose to ignore that information in favor of dramatic license.
>
> Told with typical assurance, implying you have personal knowledge. But nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. ;-)
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk