Check the first six DEFINITIONS of the word on there (dictionary.com). The definitions all contain the word “false” (one says “make-believe”).

Unlike most people who mouth off on the internet, I always know what I’m talking about.

Rick Moran said:
no one has yet answered the question; “What were 500 tons of yellow cake uranium still doing at the nuclear research center of Al-Tuwaitha in Iraq when American tanks rolled into Baghdad?”
Sitting on the ground. Where everyone knew it was.

This whole line of argument seems to me to be a deflection strategy, or an indirect ad-hominem:

A. Lefties believe Joe Wilson is a cool guy
B. Lefties believe that the outing of an undercover agent for political purposes is a crime
C. Joe Wilson is a jerk, therefore lefties are wrong about A, therefore they must also be wrong about B.

What am I missing here?

From Dictionary.com’s definition of pretense:

9. any allegation or claim: to obtain money under false pretenses.

The dictionary’s example includes “false pretense!” If you want to get your panties in a wad, at least know what you are talking about.

You made two mistakes in your response…

1) You assumed I was referring the CIA specifically, which I wasn’t. I was referring to individuals working within the security establishment who think it’s their privilege - by virtue of their morally superior political orientation, apparently - to play politics. Check it out for yourself - Plame and Wilson never were disinterested parties in this so-called scandal. Both of them were/are active in Democratic party politics and generous contributors.

2) You assumed that everyone who works in the security astablishment are all dyed-in-the-wool patriots. While I can accept the notion that most people who work for such agencies are motivated by factors other than mere necessity, the most egregious acts of treason also tend to be committed by members of the IC, which makes sense due to the nature of the business. Do the names Robert Hansen or Aldrich Ames ring a bell?

No evidence that is made publicly available - because if that kind of evidence was in the public domain the agents in question wouldn’t remain “covert” for very long because suspcious foreign governments could use these same sources to discover if some suspected American is an agent of ours The US government will neither confirm nor deny ANY claims about almost ANY suspected agents status as a covert agent for the same reason they won’t confirm or deny if ANY given warship has the capability to launch nuclear missiles - any firm admission or denial discloses information to potential adversaries. Its really sad how so many people have no problem understanding this concept when it is used to justify refusing to answer questions regarding terrorist surveillance programs, only to completely “forget” when it is their ox that is gored.

This is the same bullshit Kennedy pulled with the “missle gap” lie - he knew it was bullshit but that Eisenhower & Nixon couldn’t prove it was a lie without comprimising the existence of the U2 and the overflights of the USSR. Eisenhower knew that even a statement like “its a lie but we cant tell you how we know” could raises Soviet suspicion that they had an information “leak” and potentially comprimise the whole thing. Thankfully, Eisenhower and his administration cared more about the national security of this country than about politics and refuting a pack of bald-faced lies (which were more egregious and cynical than anything credited to Joe Wilson).

This administration, however, saw some 2-bit pompous gasbag, whose allegations were relatively weak at best, as an unignorable threat that demanded refutation. Even then, the only refutation they really needed was to point out the fact that he was only one man, with limited access to info, whose investigation mainly consisted in conducting voluntary interviews with Nigerian officials who themselves may not have known, or cared to tell him, the whole truth.

Frankly, I remember being thoroughly unimpressed with the “conclusions” of his op-ed for the afore-mentioned reasons and certainly didn’t see them as proof that Bush ‘misled’ us into war (because they weren’t). I knew the Dems would pounce on it but, since it wasn’t really a “smoking gun”, I felt it would soon fade away and wouldn’t lead anywhere.

Instead I became increasingly amazed as I saw the response to these minor allegations become progressively more unhinged and divorced fromboth common sense and reality . From the “outing” of a covert agent, to ridiculous claims that the CIA was a nest of traitors who were willing to sabotage the security of the nation they swore to protect simply to embarass Bush, to Kennedy-style allegations that she wasn’t really covert and demands for proof to the contrary which obviously cannot be supplied without risking sources and methods , to snide comments that displayed both abyssmal ignorance of real-world intelligence operations and a callous disregard for the lives of the foreigners who are on OUR side (“Even if she was covert, its not like she was a James Bond superspy, so how much harm could her outing have really done anyway?”. The reality is that most CIA ‘covert agents’ dont sneak around in the dark*, but rather travel “openly” under false pretenses. Her cover was an employee of a fake company doing legitimate business in Iran . Once her cover was blown any Iranian seen meeting with her in public, or known to have done business with her “company”, is immediately placed under suspicion of being an American agent).

Finally, I watched as it was all rationalized by the idea (repeated by Bruce above) that we must, above all, stop “continually taking “the high road” and not fighting back and challenging the left’s distortions of the truth” … an idea which has now been taken so far that even breaches of national security are (despite obligitory denials) openly justified as needed to “stop the left”. “Nothing improper was done….but even if it had been it would have been justified because her husband is a leftist asshole and a liar ” *wink*

None of this should have been necessary to respond to a clown like Wilson. If they had played it cool this would be over by now, but they flipped the hell out and started this chain of events. They have no one to blame but themselves, and I don’t understand how otherwise smart individuals can fall for these lame-ass “points” and excuses.

*Covert and Clandestine are two different things. “Clandestine” activities derive their security from not being detected - but if detected are recognisable for what they are. “Covert”, on the other hand, refers to activities which are done openly but under false pretenses. A night-time raid into Iranian territory by a military unit wearing US uniforms is “clandestine”. A spy who travels openly on a commercial flight to Iran under the pretense of doing business there, is “covert”. Obviously something can be both clandestine and covert, but an agent can be “covert” and still be “high profile” in his assumed persona.

Translation: Looks like Bush will be pardoning Libby after all.

“False pretense” is redundant, I’m getting sick of people using it. A pretense is, by definition, false.