>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.
After some soul-searching, I have to concede you are right to a large extent. My assertion that The CIA provides its political masters with false intelligence because that is what its political masters want to hear, is idle speculation.
Actually, I have no way to be certain why the CIA has been funded so lavishly for the last 50 years to make up this stuff. I guess my presumption that the actual result is the desired result is down to my being a little autistic. I tend to assume that the obvious answer, is the true answer. In other words, I have a little trouble grasping complex human behaviour.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas