| Quote (ksdb @ Oct. 25 2005,09:46) | ||
That's out of character, but I won't hold you in irregard for it. 
|
Why, that's might decent, even ruthful of you!
Why, that's might decent, even ruthful of you!
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,11:22) | ||
| Of course, I read the WP article. It was also critical of Wilson. I thought it was a fair, truthful article which is why I posted it. Don’t get me wrong - I don’t claim or praise Wilson because he’s some kind of Saint or even a whistle-blower. I praise him because he came forward & stuck his career on the line by criticizing the administration & correcting Bush’s misstatement in the State of the Union address. And look where it got him - his wife got outed AND THAT’S THE REAL ISSUE HERE NOT WILSON!!! <!–QuoteBegin>
|
The person most responsible for Wilson’s wife being outed is Wilson himself. He speculated to David Corn that his wife might have a covert position. How responsible is that??
“Gee honey, I told the media that you might be a secret agent. Hope that doesn’t tip off any of your enemies.”
“It’s okay dear, just as long as we can be on the cover of Vogue.”
"Sure and maybe I can write a book and make the talking-head circuit on TV."
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,11:22) |
| That’s correct (indirectly), but he never said that Cheney asked him to do it, that’s what the right-wing tried to claim & it was a lie and they were caught in their lie. That was the first smear they tried to pin on Wilson. |
Wilson’s own comments were the reason why Novak, Miller and Cooper were contacting Libby and Rove: to find out why Cheney sent Wilson on the trip. Wilson has only himself to blame for making it sound this way and the WH was doing nothing more than denying the assertion.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,11:22) |
| If you read Wilson’s rebutal, he explains all the stuff about him misspeaking. |
I already pointed out Wilson’s convenient omissions of details and facts. He either misunderstood what was really going on or is just trying to cover his own backside.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| The person most responsible for Wilson’s wife being outed is Wilson himself. He speculated to David Corn that his wife might have a covert position. |
I’ve heard you make this argument but I don’t follow it at all. Certainly, if it was as simple as that, then a Special Prosecutor wouldn’t have spent 2 years investigating this case, and the CIA wouldn’t have asked for the investigation. Why don’t you write Patrick Fitzgerald telling him he’s wasted alot of money on nothing and that he should indict Joe Wilson himself? This just seems silly to me.
Wilson talked to Corn after the Novak article came out, so I really don’t see your point at all?
Read Wilson’s rebutal to the Senate Committee. He seems to address all these issues.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,13:33) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
I’ve heard you make this argument but I don’t follow it at all. Certainly, if it was as simple as that, then a Special Prosecutor wouldn’t have spent 2 years investigating this case, and the CIA wouldn’t have asked for the investigation. Why don’t you write Patrick Fitzgerald telling him he’s wasted alot of money on nothing and that he should indict Joe Wilson himself? This just seems silly to me. Wilson talked to Corn after the Novak article came out, so I really don’t see your point at all? Read Wilson’s rebutal to the Senate Committee. He seems to address all these issues. |
This gets at the heart of what Hutchison was referring to; bear with me:
Novak’s column mentioned Plame by name and her position as a CIA “operative” on WMD. The only emphasis on Plame was being the CIA insider who recruited Wilson for the job. Nothing was said whether that was good, bad, indifferent or that it brought Wilson’s veracity into question. In fact, Novak suggested that the White House needed to look deeper into Wilson’s report and that it was valuable. End of story …
Until later, in David Corn’s article, Joe Wilson makes a very big deal out of Novak’s casual mention of his wife’s name. It’s the political heat generated by Wilson’s speculation that makes the entire matter seem conspiratorial and vindictive when this was not at all suggested in Novak’s story. Democrats continued to make a fuss about investigating the matter until Bush acquiesced.
Today, there is little if anything to show that the leak was intentional or premediatated, so now it’s being suggested that Fitzgerald should pursue perjury and obstruction of justice charges: technicalities that transcend the intent of the original investigation. It’s like cops pulling you over to check for DUI and then giving you a ticket for not wearing your seat belt, despite your being sober. Nevertheless, there’s still political pressure to complete this investigation, even though it might not be for the same reasons it was started.
And again, I already told you I’ve read Wilson’s rebuttals and was not impressed. There’s a great deal about what happened that he misunderstood and misassumes. His reaction to the whole situation is extremely opportunistic. If he had any real integrity, he would have gone through internal channels immediately after the SOTU in February 2003 to notify the WH that their position on Niger was questionable, based on his findings. Wilson let it go until July.
BTW, I found this quote in USA Today.com today: Is this an example of Cheney spreading lies about Wilson??
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| “I don’t know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back,” Cheney said at the time. “… I don’t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn’t judge him. I have no idea who hired him.” |
OK - bear with me then. I undestand what you are saying & I agree Wilson should have kept his mouth shut, but identifying Plame as a CIA operative was enough because she already had “cover”, i.e., she worked as an energy consultant for some company in Boston I think. All anyone needed was Novak’s information to blow her cover.
But seriously, there wouldn’t have been a 2 year investigation if it were that simple.
I, of course, hope that Rove and/or Libby get indicted but I think it’s funny that my liberal friends (and Franken) are frothing over this. It’s stupid to speculate what the SP is going to do. See - I made fun of my liberal friends.
Wilson NEVER said that Cheney asked him to go to Niger - this is a right-wing lie. This is what he said:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office. |
Even if Wilson got the Cheney part wrong, as some others have tried to discredit him on, it’s not relevant to the discussion, as the WP article I cited today indicated.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,15:13) |
| OK - bear with me then. I undestand what you are saying & I agree Wilson should have kept his mouth shut, but identifying Plame as a CIA operative was enough because she already had “cover”, i.e., she worked as an energy consultant for some company in Boston I think. All anyone needed was Novak’s information to blow her cover. But seriously, there wouldn’t have been a 2 year investigation if it were that simple. I, of course, hope that Rove and/or Libby get indicted but I think it’s funny that my liberal friends (and Franken) are frothing over this. It’s stupid to speculate what the SP is going to do. See - I made fun of my liberal friends. |
Also according to USA Today.com:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Disclosing the identify of a covert CIA agent can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent is classified as working undercover. |
There’s no indication that Cheney, Libby, Rove, Mickey Mouse or anyone knew that Plame was undercover and knowingly disclosed such information to the media. Novak contacted the CIA directly. You’d think they would have protected her identity if it was covert, but they didn’t.
Who knows - isn’t this what the SP is trying to find out?
It’s my understanding that Cheney MAY have known that she had cover because there was a report about a memo that Collin Powell indicating her name should be kept secret.
IMO - all these articles coming out every day about this are STUPID.
My original beef in this thread was Hutchinson’s statements this Sunday on the Today show. This is a pre-emptive, right-wing talking point in case there are indictments. If there are, you’ll hear alot more like what she said.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,15:19) |
| Who knows - isn’t this what the SP is trying to find out? It’s my understanding that Cheney MAY have known that she had cover because there was a report about a memo that Collin Powell indicating her name should be kept secret. IMO - all these articles coming out every day about this are STUPID. My original beef in this thread was Hutchinson’s statements this Sunday on the Today show. This is a pre-emptive, right-wing talking point in case there are indictments. If there are, you’ll hear alot more like what she said. |
I heard about the report sent to Powell. The question now is why was Plame mentioned in that report if she had very little to do with getting Joe Wilson the job?? Why should she be mentioned at all, especially if she had a covert position to protect??
Because they were trying to deal with Wilson, why do you think??? I believe that the original smear was based on very little information but when did that ever stop a right-winger from making outrageous statements. After all, do you know how many people Clinton has killed?
Are you suggesting that there’s no way for the President or some high level official to get that kind of information, or are you suggesting that she wasn’t under-cover, or what?
You ask too many questions. If you’re going to put forth “theories”, put 'em forth.
I know this isn’t really my argument (though it’s been kinda fun in a car wreck sorta way to lurk on…) but something that’s been said interests me.
KSDB said:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Today, there is little if anything to show that the leak was intentional or premediatated, so now it’s being suggested that Fitzgerald should pursue perjury and obstruction of justice charges: technicalities that transcend the intent of the original investigation. It’s like cops pulling you over to check for DUI and then giving you a ticket for not wearing your seat belt, despite your being sober. Nevertheless, there’s still political pressure to complete this investigation, even though it might not be for the same reasons it was started. |
I’ll let others here argue whether the perjury charges against the former President for his history of sexual behavior transcended the intent of the original investigation, which had something to do with fraud related to a failed real estate deal as I recall. That stuff is old news and I really don’t care about it at this point.
The above quote interests me though. See, a cop that pulls you over for suspected DUI has every right to ticket you for failure to wear a seatbelt, whether you blow a 0.08 or not. In fact, that cop can pull you over for just about anything he or she can justify as “probable cause” and then search your vehicle and/or your person in the name of that real or fictitious probable cause and cite you for ANY violations that are found. The original intent of the stop is pretty much immaterial once a violation of the law is found. Lotta people (many on the Right wing of the politcal spectrum) refer to this as “law and order”.
So it is with this issue, at least in my mind. It does seem that maybe Ms. Plame’s identity wasn’t knowingly divulged for the purpose of somehow putting her husband “in his place”. If, however, falsehoods were told to a sitting Grand Jury in an effort to obscure the activities of Government officials, even if those activities didn’t break any laws, then the telling of the falshoods is a violation of the law and should be prosecuted when discovered. Just like that seat belt ticket you deserved, even though you were sober…
Now, I’ve been watching Mr. Fitzgerald ply his trade in Chicago for some time. Been making a number of political enemies on both the Right and the Left for his tenacious persuit of violations of the law, he has. The nature of the violation and it’s intent doesn’t seem to bother him much. You break the law and Fitzgerald finds out about it, you’re likely going to see a judge. That’s his job, and by all accounts, he takes it seriously.
There’s certainly political pressure for him to wrap up this investigation, and it’s coming from both sides. It may be affecting the chattering classes, but I’m sure Mr. Fitzgerald couldn’t care less about it, and won’t let any of it affect any decisions he makes on the matters at hand. If there were violations of the law uncovered during his investigation, they will be prosecuted. If there were no violations, they won’t. This to me is the heart of the matter. The rest of it is foolishness that won’t be remembered for very long.
O.K. end of my bloviation. The rest of you are free to continue to disagree…
Clavastudio - welcome to the thread! We won’t know anything until the investigation is done. It’s all speculation as to whether there was an actual crime commited or not, or whether there was perjury or not.
What we don’t agree is who is the bad guy: Wilson or Rove/Libbey, or somebody else.
People like me believe the administration attacked Wilson because he openly called the admin on the SofUnion Niger mistake. I think the evidence shows that, i.e., motive, victim and crime. I’ve also listened to Wilson & he’s very intelligent & I have no reason to disbelieve him.
People like ksdb believe that it’s Wilson who is a partisan, self-serving person who is trying promote himself. Although they’ve never said exactly what his motive was. He thinks that this is just some liberal, baised conspiracy created by the media.
When the SP releases his findings, then we’ll know.
PS - what I actually find ironic about all this is that Novak’s original article wasn’t even that negative - Mission to Niger
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,16:17) |
| Because they were trying to deal with Wilson, why do you think??? I believe that the original smear was based on very little information but when did that ever stop a right-winger from making outrageous statements. |
What smear?? Novak wanted to know why Wilson was railing on the administration if Cheney was the one who sent him to do the investigation. Rove and Libby told the press that Cheney didn’t authorize Wilson’s investigation (which he didn’t), but that it appeared that Plame helped him get the job (which she did). They knew this because of the state department report to Powell which apparently mentioned her name. There was no reason for this report to mention her at all (even though it was marked “S”) unless she played a significant role in the investigation.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,16:17) |
| After all, do you know how many people Clinton has killed? |
This is an irrelvant statement. If you don’t want people to change the subject on you, then make it a practice not to do it yourself.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,16:17) |
| Are you suggesting that there’s no way for the President or some high level official to get that kind of information, or are you suggesting that she wasn’t under-cover, or what? |
If she played such a minor role in getting Wilson the Niger mission, her name didn’t need to be in the state department report that outed her. If the CIA was worried about her identity and covert status, they would not have sent out any information to the state department nor elsewhere with her name attached. Nor should they have talked to Novak and confirmed her involvement.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,16:17) |
| You ask too many questions. If you’re going to put forth “theories”, put 'em forth. |
I ask questions because I don’t have all the answers about questionable activities. If you are unable or unwilling to provide answers, then let it go.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| What smear?? |
Oh come on - ksdb, are you trying to tell me that they didn’t try to discredit/smear Wilson after he wrote the WP article. They were so many smears on Wilson, I can’t count them all.
I didn’t say that Novak was doing the smearing, although his article was an attempt to be-little Wilson’s trip to Niger and make it unimportant. That’s a form of smear IMO.
My statement about Clinton was fasicous.
We have no idea how the admin. got her name. My guess is that they asked for information about Wilson. All the right-wing pundits have said that was no problem for the admin. to obtain information on it’s enemies - Wilson. One said that this morning on the Today Show.
| Quote (clavastudio @ Oct. 25 2005,16:19) |
| I know this isn’t really my argument (though it’s been kinda fun in a car wreck sorta way to lurk on…) but something that’s been said interests me. |
| Quote (clavastudio @ Oct. 25 2005,16:19) | ||
| KSDB said: <!–QuoteBegin>
I’ll let others here argue whether the perjury charges against the former President for his history of sexual behavior transcended the intent of the original investigation, which had something to do with fraud related to a failed real estate deal as I recall. That stuff is old news and I really don’t care about it at this point. The above quote interests me though. See, a cop that pulls you over for suspected DUI has every right to ticket you for failure to wear a seatbelt, whether you blow a 0.08 or not. In fact, that cop can pull you over for just about anything he or she can justify as “probable cause” and then search your vehicle and/or your person in the name of that real or fictitious probable cause and cite you for ANY violations that are found. The original intent of the stop is pretty much immaterial once a violation of the law is found. Lotta people (many on the Right wing of the politcal spectrum) refer to this as “law and order”. |
I don’t disagree that the police can do it; but if they start focusing on seat belts and other violations, then the purpose of curbing DUIs is highly diluted. It may not be the best way to utilize law enforcement resources. Time spent with seat-belt violations might allow serious DUI situations to go unchecked.
In the Plame case, the focus should be on an actual violation of law regarding the exposure of a verifiably covert agent.
Regarding Bill Clinton, he was being sued in a civil lawsuit by Paula Jones. Ken Starr didn’t just accidentally or incidentally find out that Clinton was harassing women and lying to cover it up. Clinton’s lies were specifically aimed at avoiding liability in Jones’ civil rights lawsuit, which he eventually settled. Seems pretty obvious that he did that which he was accused of. He was conveniently cited for contempt of court for his dishonesty AFTER the impeachment trials - how fortuitous was that??
| Quote (clavastudio @ Oct. 25 2005,16:19) |
| So it is with this issue, at least in my mind. It does seem that maybe Ms. Plame’s identity wasn’t knowingly divulged for the purpose of somehow putting her husband “in his place”. If, however, falsehoods were told to a sitting Grand Jury in an effort to obscure the activities of Government officials, even if those activities didn’t break any laws, then the telling of the falshoods is a violation of the law and should be prosecuted when discovered. Just like that seat belt ticket you deserved, even though you were sober… |
Again, I don’t disagree that perjury or other lesser charges may be merited and should potentially be prosecuted, but there was a concrete goal of trying to find out who leaked the identity of an alleged “covert” agent that is meanwhile put aside in the process.
| Quote (clavastudio @ Oct. 25 2005,16:19) |
| Now, I’ve been watching Mr. Fitzgerald ply his trade in Chicago for some time. Been making a number of political enemies on both the Right and the Left for his tenacious persuit of violations of the law, he has. The nature of the violation and it’s intent doesn’t seem to bother him much. You break the law and Fitzgerald finds out about it, you’re likely going to see a judge. That’s his job, and by all accounts, he takes it seriously. |
This sounds great.
| Quote (clavastudio @ Oct. 25 2005,16:19) |
| There’s certainly political pressure for him to wrap up this investigation, and it’s coming from both sides. It may be affecting the chattering classes, but I’m sure Mr. Fitzgerald couldn’t care less about it, and won’t let any of it affect any decisions he makes on the matters at hand. If there were violations of the law uncovered during his investigation, they will be prosecuted. If there were no violations, they won’t. This to me is the heart of the matter. The rest of it is foolishness that won’t be remembered for very long. |
Relevant, incidental violations may be appropriate to pursue, but there should still be a greater emphasis on determining whether or not the identity of a truly covert CIA agent was compromised.
| Quote (clavastudio @ Oct. 25 2005,16:19) |
| O.K. end of my bloviation. The rest of you are free to continue to disagree… |
Thanks for the comments. Please feel free to jump in as you wish.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,16:55) | ||
<!–QuoteBegin>
Oh come on - ksdb, are you trying to tell me that they didn’t try to discredit/smear Wilson after he wrote the WP article. They were so many smears on Wilson, I can’t count them all. I didn’t say that Novak was doing the smearing, although his article was an attempt to be-little Wilson’s trip to Niger and make it unimportant. That’s a form of smear IMO. |
Nonsense. Explain which of these Novak comments in the story belittled Wilson or his trip to Niger:
“Wilson showed ‘the stuff of heroism.’”
"Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was ‘highly unlikely,’ "
"The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson’s advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. "
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,16:55) |
| My statement about Clinton was fasicous. |
… as well as unrelated and unnecessary.
| Quote (Mr Soul @ Oct. 25 2005,16:55) |
| We have no idea how the admin. got her name. My guess is that they asked for information about Wilson. All the right-wing pundits have said that was no problem for the admin. to obtain information on it’s enemies - Wilson. One said that this morning on the Today Show. |
The administration had a right to clear up the confusion arising from Wilson’s criticisms of the administration. Again, Wilson’s own words suggested the VP was more directly involved than he really was. When Novak released Plame’s name, Wilson simply assumed it was retaliation instead of realizing it was a clarification of facts. It was a knee-jerk reaction that has lingered and has the left wing “stuck on stupid” (to borrow a phrase from Lt. Gen. Honore).
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Ken Starr didn’t just accidentally or incidentally find out that Clinton was harassing women and lying to cover it up |
I could be remembering all of this wrong, and if so, forgive me. I really didn’t care too much about the former President and whether he lied or not, and what about. He’s a politician, and as such is liar in my book…they all are to certain extent. My recollection, however is that Mr. Starr wasn’t initially hired to investigate a civil lawsuit related to sexual harrassment brought by Paula Jones. He was hired to investigate a failed land deal by the Whitewater partnership that may or may not have involved fraud by the man who later became President.
It’s quite possible that the former President’s rude behavior towards women happened at the same time as his involvement in land speculation, but was it the initial driving force for Mr. Starr’s investigation? I guess I’m missing how being an abusive jerk to a subordinate is enough of a part of real estate fraud to be part of the “greater emphasis” standard you are advocating. Maybe you have a handy link that would help me understand exactly what Mr. Starr’s mission started as; as I say, I could be misremembering all of this old stuff.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| In the Plame case, the focus should be on an actual violation of law regarding the exposure of a verifiably covert agent. |
Quite so. Couldn’t agree more. I certainly hope that members of the White House staff didn’t do this, especially a White House that has been so outspoken about security for the American people they were elected to protect. If members of the White House staff committed no crime regarding exposure of a covert agent they should have no worries about be honest towards the investigator. If, even though the crime of exposing a covert agent was NOT committed falsehoods WERE told to the investigator, falsehoods that need not have been told since no crime was committed, there SHOULD be serious repercussions and such needless falsehoods SHOULD be part of the central focus of the investigation. Stated another way, why on earth would otherwise intelligent people with access to the finest legal counsel available to anyone in America tell an investigator anything but the truth, especially about a crime that they didn’t commit? Don’t make no sense to this simple mind, but I’m not a lawyer or a Government official. In my mind, lying to an investigator about a crime you didn’t commit is WAY worse than doing the right thing and just telling the truth.
I have enough confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald’s abilities that I believe we’ll soon find out the truth. Not the truth as either of the main political parties in this country perceives it be for their own purposes, but the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” that is presented when men of character get to do their jobs correctly.
And thanks for being so civil to someone who generally hates playing in this particular sandbox, KSDB…
You’re so funny (and predictable). The whole article has a negative tone to it.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| WASHINGTON – The CIA’s decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet’s knowledge. |
This first paragraph belittles Wilson’s trip immediately. I’m sure there are many things done at a low-level in the CIA, but Novak had to make the statement & set the stage.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Wilson’s report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. |
It was classified at the time, so how could Novak even make these claims?
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. |
You’re the big one on media bias. Why did Novak even have to make this statement? It added nothing to his story.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
|
CIA officials did not regard Wilson’s intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson’s briefing remains classified. |
How did he know this, he acknowledges that it was classified?
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| After the White House admitted error, Wilson declined all television and radio interviews. “The story was never me,” he told me, “it was always the statement in (Bush’s) speech.” The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson’s advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now – in its and in the public’s interest. |
Novak was defending his pals all through this article about a couregous hero.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| My recollection, however is that Mr. Starr wasn’t initially hired to investigate a civil lawsuit related to sexual harrassment brought by Paula Jones. He was hired to investigate a failed land deal by the Whitewater partnership that may or may not have involved fraud by the man who later became President. |
That’s correct. The Whitewater investigation was going nowhere, so they had to start getting Clinton on something else. This was after he had already investigated travel-gate, Vince Foster.
But on 1/12, Linda Tripp contacts the office of Whitewater Independent Counsel Ken Starr to talk about Lewinsky and the tapes she made of their conversations. So on 1/16/1998, Starr receives permission to expand his investigation into whether Clinton and his close friend Vernon E. Jordan Jr. encouraged a 24-year-old former White House intern to lie under oath about her alleged affair with the president.
They just keep investigating till the found something they could follow. The whole thing was a sham on Starr’s & the Republican’s part.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| I have enough confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald’s abilities that I believe we’ll soon find out the truth. Not the truth as either of the main political parties in this country perceives it be for their own purposes, but the “truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” that is presented when men of character get to do their jobs correctly. |
Personally, I think that’s the best thing I’ve heard about the whole business. Funny thing, how rare integrity is.