You Can''t Tell The Players...?

[AGBF]

For those who cannot tell the players without a scorecard (I do not know what a scorecard is, but I am sure all of you do), here is a chart and a timeline showing how and why the Bush administration punished Joseph Wilson by revealing that his wife Valerie Plame (aka Valerie Wilson) was a CIA agent.

Timeline with Photographs

Deborah

 

[Rank Amateur]

I''m confused, was Plame an agent, operative, or "just" an employee of the CIA?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/31/2005 12:44:57 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
I''m confused, was Plame an agent, operative, or ''just'' an employee of the CIA?

You''ll have to call Dick Cheney; I am sure he will be glad to tell you everything about her, including her home address. No one tells me anything about CIA employees.

Deb

 

[movie zombie]

heard an interview this very a.m. with a guy that had been in CIA training with ms plume in 1985. didn''t listen as closely as i should have but it seems that there are several categories of agents: some with protection under the Geneva Convention [if caught spend some time in jail and then be released} and some that aren''t [if caught can be executed]. she was directly placed to deal with people who want to pass us info but don''t want to do it through a government per se. she was NOT covered by the Geneva Convention and had she been caught, could face execution for her crime against the state in which she was apprehended.

peace, movie zombie

 

[Rank Amateur]

It seems to me odd that such a minor player would get any sort of attention from the VP. Couldn''t they just have her fired if her conduct was so objectionable to the top brass?

Clearly, outing this desk-jobber did not put her in harm''s way. So why all the fuss?

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 10/31/2005 4:57:27 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
It seems to me odd that such a minor player would get any sort of attention from the VP. Couldn''t they just have her fired if her conduct was so objectionable to the top brass?

Clearly, outing this desk-jobber did not put her in harm''s way. So why all the fuss?

RA, it was the conduct of her HUSBAND that was so objectionable to the top brass. ms plame did nothing wrong other than to be married to a man who recognized this administrations lie and spoke up and told the truth.

ms plame was not a desk jobber but was imbedded in the oil industry to get information for us as a national security issue. she had contacts and was getting accurate information about oil reserves in saudia arabia among other things. after she was outed, those sources all dried up. we can no only rely upon what the saudis tell us. additionally, she was not covered by the Geneva Convention and had she been caught could have been executed. and then again, IT IS AGAINST OUR NATIONAL SECURITY LAWS TO OUT AN AGENT!

the fuss is that she was outed to get even with her husband. the fuss is that the law regarding national security was broken at the highest levels. the fuss is that oil is a national security issue. the fuss is that she did nothing wrong. the fuss is that any agent of ours in the world is now fair game to be outed by this or any other administration unless we enforce our laws regarding this issue.

we were all put in harms way by her outing and scooter has obstructed justice to find out just who did it.

peace, movie zombie

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/31/2005 4:57:27 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
It seems to me odd that such a minor player would get any sort of attention from the VP. Couldn''t they just have her fired if her conduct was so objectionable to the top brass?

Clearly, outing this desk-jobber did not put her in harm''s way. So why all the fuss?

So why all the fuss over Monica Lewinsky? She didn''t harm Bill Clinton. At least physically.

The "fuss" is about the President breaking laws (against exposing agents) for political gain and using his position to intimidate people who dare to tell the truth when it disagrees with the lies he wants to spread (like Ambassador Wilson who was showing there was no yellowcake available to Iraq).

Deb

 

[Rank Amateur]

I understand all that.

But it''s the motivation of the parties involved which interests me (we seem to have all politics here and little truth).

Wilson had gone public and was going to do his damage regardless. He has the ear of the very willing NYT. He was all too happy to write and go on the telly. I understand the attempts to discredit him, but who cares about his wife? The entire fiasco is very odd to me.

In the end some people will never believe the war was justified (even without the Wilsons'' tales) and others will always regard taking Iraq as the correct thing to do. The remainder is just posturing to justify your position.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/1/2005 11:51:11 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
Wilson had gone public and was going to do his damage regardless. He has the ear of the very willing NYT. He was all too happy to write and go on the telly. I understand the attempts to discredit him, but who cares about his wife?

You say you understand, "all that". I wrote that it was about intimidation. I don't think you really do understand intimidation.

Intimidation means frightening other people into submission. If one publicly harms anyone who speaks up against him (as Bush harmed Wilson by going after his wife), others will think twice before they dare speak out.

I think it is also about vengeance.

Maybe you should go back and see, "The Godfather" again. "The Godfather" and the Plame affair are both about intimidation and vengeance.

Men who try to intimidate others have to show that their enemies are punished. They have to make sure everyone knows their enemies get punished. It isn't about whether Bush needed Plame exposed or not. She was incidental. The whole world had to see that if Wilson dared to write the truth about Iraq, that the President could get him. There was nowhere he could hide. His wife was exposed.

It was also about revenge-vengeance-against Wilson. Vito...I mean George...took it real personal. He really wanted to get that b*stard who dared to expose his lies about Iraq so publicly.

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

If the outing was such a detriment to V.Plame safety than WHY was she willing to have her front head shot on the COVER of Vanity Fair? Geez, even now *I* could pick her out of the crowd. Yeah, so she''s already "out" - but, human nature would dicate wanting to stay under the radar. Many ex spies still keep their alter idenity in tact never revealing their previous profession.

I''m a bit with R/A on this one. It all sounds odd. And, somewhere between the two camps is the truth. In the end, it''s all about political motivation.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/1/2005 2:51:36 PM
Author: fire&ice
If the outing was such a detriment to V.Plame safety than WHY was she willing to have her front head shot on the COVER of Vanity Fair?

Well, as I said earlier, CIA agents do not flock to me to tell me their motivations, but I could guess at this one.

If I were a CIA agent exposed by the President for his own petty political reasons and I saw he was getting away with it, I''d be riproaring mad. I''d go on television, radio, and onto magazine covers to make sure the guy who ruined my career was ruined in return.

Like R/A, you haven''t read (or seen), "The Godfather" enough. It''s helpful when one wants to understand Neanderthals (be they Presidents with low IQs or CIA agents).

Deborah

 

[Rank Amateur]

Please. Saying that there was an attempt to "frighten" these people "into submission" is far far too melodramatic.

Unless we're talking about Vince Foster.

Maybe we should watch fewer movies and not more.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/1/2005 5:41:36 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
Please. Saying that there was an attempt to 'frighten' these people 'into submission' is far far too melodramatic.

...and it was who that appointed you head of the Académie Anglaise?

Deb

 

[rubydick]

There seems to be an incredible amount of disinformation out there regarding the Plame affair. Hope I can clear some of it up.

Joseph Wilson was a lifelong State Dept. employee, someone who rose to the level of Ambassador. His prior postings not only included many in Africa (including Niger, which is why he was suggested for the yellow-cake investigation), but he was also the acting US Ambassador to Iraq prior to Saddam''s invasion of Kuwait (1991, when Dubya''s dad was President; the ill-fated April Glaspie was US Ambassador to Iraq; she was out of the country).

According to Wilson, he voted for George H.W. Bush in the 1992 election. He gave donations to both major parties. He has a letter of commendation for his service from George H.W. Bush. Hardly the behavior of someone who hates America. He was not paid a dime for the Niger trip, which involved traveling to one of the world''s poorest countries. Hardly what could be labeled a "junket."

Valerie Plame was Joseph Wilson''s second wife, and he her second husband. She was recruited by the CIA straight out of college at age 22 in 1985 (Penn State; the CIA heavily recruits from the elite NE US universities, all the better to influence future politics; these schools are heavyweights when it comes to the upper crust of both US business and US politics). Her father was a lieutenant colonel in the US Air Force; he later went to work in the National Security Agency, a divsion of the govt. that is far more secret than the CIA. Her elder brother was a US Marine. Again, hardly the background of someone who hates America.

According to ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson, who went to spy school with her, the identity of everyone there was secret. They had to lie about their work to everyone. But for Plame, she actually worked as a super-secret NOC (non-official cover) agent, which meant that she worked without the benefit of diplomatic immunity. If she was exposed while abroad, she could have been arrested and even executed, and the US govt. could do nothing to save her on an official basis.

Compounding the crime of outing her secret identity, Plame''s area of expertise was in the non-proliferation of WMD''s. Precisely the issue that we supposedly went to war with Iraq over. Hardly a "desk-jobber." Indeed, the CIA had set up an entire front company to assist her work.

Now why do we know all of this, why, Fire&Ice asks, has Plame''s picture been made public? Because Karl Rove and Scooter Libby decided to reveal the fact that she worked for the CIA to several journalists (Tim Russert, Judith Miller, Robert Novak, Matthew Cooper are those we know of), one of whom (Novak) chose to write about it. And it wasn''t enough for Novak to publish her name. In a later column, he also published the name of her front company. Kind of hard to stuff that genie back into the bottle when it''s released via a nationally-syndicated column.

Why isn''t Novak the center of this case? We don''t know, but it was probabaly because Fitzgerald believed his testimony. We don''t know because that testimony is secret.

Rank Amateur asks why Plame would get attention from Dick Cheney. The answer is most likely two-fold. First, if you want to hurt someone, you can do it directly. But it is often more effective to hurt a family member, to remind someone that no man is an island. The message was clear to Joe Wilson: we will hurt you, one way or another.

But more importantly, by going after Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, Bush, Cheney and the rest of this cabal were sending a clear message to anyone in government, but particularly those in the CIA and other intel agencies, that if they decided to become a whistleblower, they were fair game. Indeed, according to Hardball''s Chris Matthews, Karl Rove told him after the Novak column appeared that Wilson''s wife was "fair game." In other words, if you go against us, we will destroy you and those you love.

So, Rank Amateur and Fire&Ice, I hope that clears up some of the disinfo that you''ve apparently been dining on.

One final note. What has been lost in all this is the fact that not only is it illegal to knowingly disclose the identify of undercover CIA agents to the press, it is also illegal to disclose those identities to anyone not authorized to have that information. The spy biz is run on a need-to-know basis. Just because you might have a top-secret clearance does not mean you are entitled to know the identities of all the government''s undercover agents. According to what we now know, Cheney probably violated the law by revealing Plame''s identity to Libby, and certainly Libby broke the law by revealing Plame''s identity to Ari Fleischer.

There is one area where I will agree with Rank Amateur and Fire&Ice, and that''s that Bush, Cheney, Libby, Rove & Company were heavily motivated by politics. Along with a healthy fear of being found out and thrown out of power and into jail.

I do believe motivation is important. "Moral relativism" is the term I believe many in the Republican party are fond of using to describe such situational ethics. But I cannot imagine a situation where it would be ethical to endanger national security by outing a secret agent involved with stopping the proliferation of WMD''s because you wanted to punish her husband for calling you on your own lies regarding leading the nation to war. Nor, can I imagine, that such an act is legal.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 11/1/2005 11:51:11 AM
Author: Rank Amateur
I understand all that.

But it's the motivation of the parties involved which interests me (we seem to have all politics here and little truth).

Wilson had gone public and was going to do his damage regardless.

RA, i'm puzzled: what damage was Wilson doing other than telling the truth about his report to this administration? bush lied in his speech knowing full well that Wilson's report discredited his claims. yes, Wilson went public with the truth of his report refuting bush's lies. should we the people not be entitled to the truth?!

and, yes, it is the motivation of the parties involved that interest me as well, particularly this administrations need to lie and many americans willingness to accept those lies even when said lies have been proven to be lies.

peace, movie zombie

ps i often think the world would be a better place if more people went to more movies...........

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/1/2005 11:31:06 PM
Author: Richard Hughes

So, Rank Amateur and Fire&Ice, I hope that clears up some of the disinfo that you''ve apparently been dining on.

Once again, Richard, you ASSume that I did not know any of what you wrote. Oh wait, only YOU know the TRUTH. Only YOU have the CORRECT information. I''m glad you, once again, cleared that up.

And, of course, you did not seem to acknowledge my question in it''s content (SURPRISE). If her identity was such a secret and she was so concerned about her safety of the "outing" - why appear FULL HEAD SHOT on the COVER of Vanity Fair - her OWN choice. The White House didn''t call up Vanity Fair & get a secret photo to PLANT on the cover. At least AGBF acknowlegded that she didn''t understand the motivations of the CIA. I don''t either. I just found it odd.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/2/2005 2:06:50 AM
Author: movie zombie

Date:

particularly this administrations need to lie and many americans willingness to accept those lies even when said lies have been proven to be lies.

peace, movie zombie

ps i often think the world would be a better place if more people went to more movies...........

Here in lies the semantics. Misinformation? or Lies? Not debating - just pointing out a difference of opinion - not necessarily mine.

The world would be a better place if people went to movies as civilized people - no text messaging, cell phones, 4 year old children at R rated movies, the encouragement of the movie theaters to buy popcorn in BULK! I love to go to the movies; but, it''s not as relaxing as it once was because of the above.

 

[rubydick]

Date: 11/2/2005 8:45:49 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 11/1/2005 11:31:06 PM

Author: Richard Hughes

So, Rank Amateur and Fire&Ice, I hope that clears up some of the disinfo that you've apparently been dining on.

Once again, Richard, you ASSume that I did not know any of what you wrote. Oh wait, only YOU know the TRUTH. Only YOU have the CORRECT information. I'm glad you, once again, cleared that up.

And, of course, you did not seem to acknowledge my question in it's content (SURPRISE). If her identity was such a secret and she was so concerned about her safety of the 'outing' - why appear FULL HEAD SHOT on the COVER of Vanity Fair - her OWN choice. The White House didn't call up Vanity Fair & get a secret photo to PLANT on the cover. At least AGBF acknowlegded that she didn't understand the motivations of the CIA. I don't either. I just found it odd.

This is a mystery. Odd that I have to keep explaining what you say you already know. Her identity was a secret up until the point when Robert Novak outed her in his nationally syndicated column. After her identity was made public, it was no longer secret. Secret means secret, public means public. They are mutually exclusive. After the press, neighbors, relatives, diplomats, etc. know what your real occupation is (was, in her case; her covert career was destroyed within minutes of Novak's column), there is no longer a secret. According to one CIA source who went public, anyone previously associated with Plame or her front company would have been rolled up within hours or days of her outing. According to Fitzgerald, the crime was not just to Plame, but to the entire nation.

But the biggest mystery is something I still can't fathom. How can otherwise intelligent people continue to remain in denial about such an administration, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary? All I'm left with is what one wonk was recently heard to cry: "Can some intern please give him a bl*w j*b so we can impeach him?"

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/2/2005 10:21:40 AM
Author: Richard Hughes
All I'm left with is what one wonk was recently heard to cry: 'Can some intern please give him a bl*w j*b so we can impeach him?'

As I have posted here, before, I do not know that Mr. Bush has had any in the Oval Office or any recent ones from anyone but Mrs. Bush in any geographical location, but there have been allegations made about his having extra-marital affairs in the not so distant past. Usually allegations of Presidential extra-marital sex make the conservatives upset. Mr. Bush having driven a former girlfriend for an illegal abortion in Texas before Roe versus Wade made abortions legal should also upset his ultra-conservative base. So far, however, it appears that George Bush has made alcohol abuse, cocaine abuse, and extra-marital sex quite acceptable to the right wing.

Jimmy Carter, my personal favorite out of recent Presidents, has written a new book about the moral bankruptcy of the current administration. Since he was our FIRST born-again Christian President I would think that the Christian right might pay him some heed! He is an extremely intelligent and a decent man (although I agreed with Cyrus Vance on Iran) and an actual veteran of the armed services (the Navy). Why isn't he embraced by the Right? He doesn't even have any sexual scandals in his past save that he confessed to having "lusted in his heart". I could forgive that!


Deborah

 

[movie zombie]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"Misinformation is information that is incorrect, but not because of a deliberate attempt to mislead. Believers in misinformation are said to be misinformed but not lying. It is commonly confused with disinformation. The spreading of disinformation is a purposeful attempt to spread a known falsehood, whereas misinformation is the result of ignorance."
and from dictionary.com: a lie is

"1-A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2-Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. "

even though Wilson''s report was clear that there was no truth to the claim and the administration knew this for some time prior to the bush speech, bush and crew put the statement in the speech anyway and broadcast that statement to the American people and around the world as a claim of fact knowing full well it was not true. they were not misinformed: they knew it was a lie. therefore, their spreading of disinformation was a deliberate lie.

again, it is amazing how many Americans are ok with being lied to by their very own government.

peace, movie zombie

 

[fire&ice]

One would have to believe "intent" in order to claim no semantics. One would have to believe *their* sources as plenty exist of the opposite.

And, he could have sexual relations with an Intern. The crime would be the lying that he DID NOT have sexual relations with that women.

I simply can not understand someone who believes that others should believe the conclusions (without a doubt) they themselves have come to.

The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. And, it seems that if anyone in this current administration adopted every homeless dog in America and gave them a good life ( nice thing) some would protest foul that they didn''t adopt the cats. Somewhere in that a scandel would ensue and the democrats would have to see to it that the cats are adopted too. Same can be said about any admin. Same old song.

And, maybe it''s the way my mind works - if I was outed as a CIA agent and still concerned (as they have repeatly said) about my safety - the last thing I would do is to CHOOSE to put my mug on the FRONT COVER of a nationally read widely circulated magazine.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/2/2005 5:19:51 PM
Author: fire&ice
And, it seems that if anyone in this current administration adopted every homeless dog in America and gave them a good life ( nice thing) some would protest foul that they didn''t adopt the cats. Somewhere in that a scandel would ensue and the democrats would have to see to it that the cats are adopted too.

OK...it''s a plan. Now how do we get that first admin official to adopt all the stray dogs, thereby setting all the wheels in motion? If this scenario ensued the US would be a far better place! Right? Let''s get it moving!

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/2/2005 5:31:17 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/2/2005 5:19:51 PM
Author: fire&ice
And, it seems that if anyone in this current administration adopted every homeless dog in America and gave them a good life ( nice thing) some would protest foul that they didn''t adopt the cats. Somewhere in that a scandel would ensue and the democrats would have to see to it that the cats are adopted too.

OK...it''s a plan. Now how do we get that first admin official to adopt all the stray dogs, thereby setting all the wheels in motion? If this scenario ensued the US would be a far better place! Right? Let''s get it moving!

Deb

The OUTRAGE of it! What about the CATS! Don''t they deserve to be adopted as well. HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THEM!

I just know it''s a conspiracy against cats! They want to stomp out cats!

Geez, am I sick of politics? I can smell November.

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 11/2/2005 5:56:04 PM
Author: fire&ice

Geez, am I sick of politics? I can smell November.

november always smells of roasting turkey to me!

peace, movie zombie

 

[rubydick]

Date: 11/2/2005 5:19:51 PM
Author: fire&ice
And, he could have sexual relations with an Intern. The crime would be the lying that he DID NOT have sexual relations with that women.

I simply can not understand someone who believes that others should believe the conclusions (without a doubt) they themselves have come to.

And, maybe it's the way my mind works - if I was outed as a CIA agent and still concerned (as they have repeatly said) about my safety - the last thing I would do is to CHOOSE to put my mug on the FRONT COVER of a nationally read widely circulated magazine.

The issue is impeachment, not whether one lied under oath. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath about sex. Republicans felt that Clinton lying about sex with an intern rose to the level of an impeachable offense. We know this because they impeached him. Apparently they believe that lying a nation into war, one which has killed over a 100,000 innocent Iraqis plus more than 2000 of our own troops does not reach that level. According to the recent polls, most Americans now believe Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq, which is why his poll numbers are at an all-time low. And yet I have not heard impeachment mentioned by a single Republican member of Congress. Why?

As for being worried about Valerie Plame's picture going on a national magazine after she was already outed and her picture could be found in any simple internet search, that's like scolding someone for smoking while they walk through the smoldering ashes of their home that an arsonist has just burned to the ground. The danger was not so much to her, but to those living abroad who previously worked with her.

But really, the synapse gap in the Plame affair is no different than that during the ruthless Republican attacks on John Kerry's Vietnam war record (while conveniently ignoring the fact that Kerry volunteered for service while Dubya used daddy to jump the que and get into the National Guard).

Even a child can make these moral distinctions. I've asked you a number of times just where the bar lies for you. What evidence would you need to convince you to change your beliefs regarding Bush? You've chosen only to attack me with this "you think you're so smart" stuff, while avoiding the central question.

Thus what I am left with is a sense of bewilderment. Is it hapless naivete or utter disingenuity? Or simply that you have yet to be convinced. If the latter, please let us know what sort of thing would convince you, what sort of evidence would change your mind.

 

[fire&ice]

Richard, once AGAIN, you seem to have the NEED to EXPLAIN things to me. I am not a child. I form my own OPINIONS. Why do YOU feel the need to have others see the same things that YOU see? The simple phrase in your initial post says it all - (paraphrase) - the madegascar "Politically Aware" - it''s a prevailing theme with you. They are "politically aware" because they see things in your same light. Be it you think it''s a personal attack or not - you say the same thing over and over and over again. You have the answers. I don''t listen. You can''t even seem to grasp the simplicity in being on the front cover of a magazine. It''s laughable that you "ask questions". You don''t ask open ended questions. You "ask" for anyone who doesn''t believe your gospel as to WHY they don''t believe.

Yes, November - I should be smelling Turkey! Our Gub. race here is a nasty one. I''ve been campaigning for a candidate for two years. The "other" candidate refers to the negative spin adds as "a political strategy". It stinks. But, I''ve already voted and will be leaving the State for a stint - so maybe it''s time for roasting Turkey smells.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/3/2005 9:05:49 AM
Author: fire&ice
Our Gub. race here is a nasty one. I''ve been campaigning for a candidate for two years. The ''other'' candidate refers to the negative spin adds as ''a political strategy''. It stinks. But, I''ve already voted and will be leaving the State for a stint - so maybe it''s time for roasting Turkey smells.

Unfortunately, I was not prescient enough to obtain an absentee ballot...and will also be out of state on Election Day. I always vote, so this makes me crazy .

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/3/2005 9:20:32 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/3/2005 9:05:49 AM
Author: fire&ice
Our Gub. race here is a nasty one. I''ve been campaigning for a candidate for two years. The ''other'' candidate refers to the negative spin adds as ''a political strategy''. It stinks. But, I''ve already voted and will be leaving the State for a stint - so maybe it''s time for roasting Turkey smells.

Unfortunately, I was not prescient enough to obtain an absentee ballot...and will also be out of state on Election Day. I always vote, so this makes me crazy .

Deb

Are you registered to vote in VA? Because if you are, you can vote. You simply call your local registra & make arrangements to vote in person. That''s precisely what I did & do with frequency as every other year my planned trip cooresponds with election day. We live in a small hamlet (12,000 voters w/ around 10,800 voting every election - VERY PROUD of that fact!); but, I do think other precints offer the same service.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/3/2005 9:31:20 AM
Author: fire&ice
Are you registered to vote in VA? Because if you are, you can vote. You simply call your local registra & make arrangements to vote in person.

Absolutely. I voted here last year. I just assumed it was too late to do an absentee ballot. The deadline in Connecticut was well before the election (weeks before). Do you know what the law is in Virginia?

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/3/2005 2:13:37 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/3/2005 9:31:20 AM
Author: fire&ice
Are you registered to vote in VA? Because if you are, you can vote. You simply call your local registra & make arrangements to vote in person.

Absolutely. I voted here last year. I just assumed it was too late to do an absentee ballot. The deadline in Connecticut was well before the election (weeks before). Do you know what the law is in Virginia?

Deb

I''m unsure of the deadline for mailing an absentee ballot to you; but, you can absentee ballot in person. Let your fingers do the walking in the blue government pages. Find your county then look for either "Registra" or "Voter''s Registra". Call them. I don''t know if it''s just our county; but, you can go into the office, fill out the form as to why you won''t be here & vote. In fact, our''s has a machine that can be used. We''ve done it many times. The two weekends before the election they have office hours. It took about 2 minutes.