PDA

View Full Version : Plame was covert


the Talking Can
05-29-2007, 08:26 PM
We already knew this, but for the flat earthers out there - one more time:

Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment


WASHINGTON - An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

The summary is part of an attachment to Fitzgerald's memorandum to the court supporting his recommendation that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former top aide, spend 2-1/2 to 3 years in prison for obstructing the CIA leak investigation.

The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.

Undercover travel
The unclassified summary of Plame's employment with the CIA at the time that syndicated columnist Robert Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 says, "Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for who the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

Criminal prosecution beat national security
After the Novak column was published and Plame's identity was widely reported in the media, and according to the document, "the CIA lifted Ms Wilson's cover" and then "rolled back her cover" effective to the date of the leak.

The CIA determined, "that the public interest in allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed outweighed the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from the official disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment and cover status."....

DUH! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/)

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 08:30 PM
Valerie Plame hated America and loves the terrorists. She's an enemy to freedom.

Slick32
05-29-2007, 08:32 PM
The question I would ask might have something to do with what was the exact nature of her 'covert' operations?

Some of that type of activity is only covert to hide the fact that someone is part of any agency the gov doesn't want disclosed. Somewhat like the Air Force guys that were assigned to Lima Site 85 in Laos in March of 1968. All AF with Lockheed ID's. All MIA or KIA.

I seriously doubt that Plame was involved in any covert activities that were very sensitive. I would also surmise that her outing was of very little bother to the CIA. Minor players have minor impact.

Donger
05-29-2007, 08:40 PM
She may well have been covert. As I understand IIPA, however, that's not enough.

the Talking Can
05-29-2007, 08:41 PM
The question I would ask might have something to do with what was the exact nature of her 'covert' operations?

Some of that type of activity is only covert to hide the fact that someone is part of any agency the gov doesn't want disclosed. Somewhat like the Air Force guys that were assigned to Lima Site 85 in Laos in March of 1968. All AF with Lockheed ID's. All MIA or KIA.

I seriously doubt that Plame was involved in any covert activities that were very sensitive. I would also surmise that her outing was of very little bother to the CIA. Minor players have minor impact.

good lord...I thought only patteau was that stupid

let me guess, outing a CIA covert operative for politcal reasons = supporting the troops and loving America?

Serving your country means nothing...Counterproliferation is minor...if a Republican says so.

Obstruction of justice and perjury, also laudable...if you're a Republican.

I bet if we hang around long enough Kotter will show up and demand we impeach Clinton again.

the Talking Can
05-29-2007, 08:43 PM
She may well have been covert. As I understand IIPA, however, that's not enough.

may?

water may be wet?

Donger
05-29-2007, 08:45 PM
may?

water may be wet?

Like I said, that's still not enough for violate the law.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 08:48 PM
Well, I believed her when she was covert in that televised hearing after the Libby case went down. My libertarian sources said she was all along.

She said she was no longer able to do the work she was trained to do.

Libby and Cheney should pay her a huge severance salary for 15 years as a remedy though instead of what... 26-30 years in jail. That's a bit too much time for that imo.

Donger
05-29-2007, 08:49 PM
Well, I believed her when she was covert in that televised hearing after the Libby case went down. My libertarian sources said she was all along.

She said she was no longer able to do the work she was trained to do.

Libby and Cheney should pay her a huge severance salary for 15 years as a remedy though instead of what... 26-30 years in jail. That's a bit too much time for that imo.

What law did they violate?

go bowe
05-29-2007, 08:59 PM
good lord...I thought only patteau was that stupid

let me guess, outing a CIA covert operative for politcal reasons = supporting the troops and loving America?

Serving your country means nothing...Counterproliferation is minor...if a Republican says so.

Obstruction of justice and perjury, also laudable...if you're a Republican.

I bet if we hang around long enough Kotter will show up and demand we impeach Clinton again.again?

that made me chuckle...

but seriously, don't give him any ideas...

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 08:59 PM
What law did they violate?
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)
(governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)
(http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html)


From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 6, 1997]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 6, 1997 and November 30, 1998]
[CITE: 50USC421]

TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


etc. etc.


Seems like a tort as well. But I'm no lawyer.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 09:00 PM
What law did they violate?

:spock:

Intelligence Identities Protection Act

Donger
05-29-2007, 09:07 PM
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)
(governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)
(http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html)




Seems like a tort as well. But I'm no lawyer.

Nor am I, thank God. But I was under the impression that in order to violate IIPA, the person had to knowingly and intentionally expose a covert officer or agent.

Did Libby or Cheney know that Plame was covert spook?

Donger
05-29-2007, 09:08 PM
:spock:

Intelligence Identities Protection Act

See above.

patteeu
05-29-2007, 09:18 PM
Plame was covert

So what?

Libby and Cheney should pay her a huge severance salary for 15 years as a remedy though instead of what... 26-30 years in jail. That's a bit too much time for that imo.

Why should they pay anything at all? It's not clear that anyone broke the operative law and besides, it was Richard Armitage who exposed her.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 09:25 PM
Nor am I, thank God. But I was under the impression that in order to violate IIPA, the person had to knowingly and intentionally expose a covert officer or agent.

Did Libby or Cheney know that Plame was covert spook?

Did I say they did? I just said she was covert and should get a huge severence package because she could no longer do the work she was trained to do. That it seemed like a tort. Ya' know a wrongful act or whatever even if negligent.

So you'll have to ask them. Or get all the facts uncovered in the investigation.
I didn't follow this one real close.

But I don't think, despite punditry claims, intent is impossible to prove.
Based on my sources of data, there's supposed to be a wealth of case law interpreting the term "intentionally," because it is a term found in criminal statutes.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 09:28 PM
So what?



Why should they pay anything at all? It's not clear that anyone broke the operative law and besides, it was Richard Armitage who exposed her.
See my above post...because at the very least it was negligent and she can't do the work she was trained to do. They did try to cover it up for some reason.

Wouldn't you rather see that, than 26-30 years in jail for Libby?

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 09:48 PM
Eh....screw all this....she's just a wench who lost her job because her new bosses didn't "like" her, or her wussy husband. That's the way the cookie crumbles. :shrug:

Besides, what we REALLY should do is impeach Bill Clinton, again....damn it! And then we should execute him. :cuss:

I predict it will happen in....about, oh, two weeks. ;)



Which ain't soon enough. :cuss:



EXTREME TIC, for TC's bemusement....

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 09:56 PM
On a more serious note, I'll be eager to see that someone is tried and convicted, IF a real law was truly broken here....I'm sure Mr. Fitzgerald will be issuing an indictment any day now. :thumb:

Taco John
05-29-2007, 10:17 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how far people are willing to shove their head up Bush's ass in order to "be right."

Donger
05-29-2007, 10:20 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how far people are willing to shove their head up Bush's ass in order to "be right."

Yeah, the law's funny that way.

If Bush or any of his people violated the law, f*ck them. Prosecute.

Taco John
05-29-2007, 10:23 PM
Yeah, the law's funny that way.

If Bush or any of his people violated the law, f*ck them. Prosecute.



Newsflash- the verdict already came down: Guilty.

Donger
05-29-2007, 10:26 PM
Newsflash- the verdict already came down: Guilty.

Unless I'm mistaken, Libby wasn't convicted of violating IIPA, right?

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 10:27 PM
Newsflash- the verdict already came down: Guilty.For the "leak?"

You're confused, again.....Isaac.

From the Can's link: No one was ever charged with the leak of Plame's name itself, which would have been a crime only if someone knowingly gave our information about someone covered by a specific law protecting the identities of covert agents.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 10:29 PM
Libby was convicted and found guilty of obstructing justice regarding the investigation of the leak as well as perjury to the Grand Jury.

Donger
05-29-2007, 10:31 PM
Libby was convicted and found guilty of obstructing justice regarding the investigation of the leak as well as perjury to the Grand Jury.

Was he found guilty of violating IIPA?

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 10:32 PM
Was he found guilty of violating IIPA?
I answered you earlier.

Mr. Kotter
05-29-2007, 10:32 PM
Was he found guilty of violating IIPA?

Such "technical" parts of the law bore demagogues, Donger.

Donger
05-29-2007, 10:35 PM
I answered you earlier.

And that was a "no," right?

Taco John
05-29-2007, 10:36 PM
Unless I'm mistaken, Libby wasn't convicted of violating IIPA, right?


At this point, the legal football is just a sideshow. I think we all understand by now that this administration operates on politics first, national interest second.

Libby probably won't be convicted, but that doesn't mean that the IIPA wasn't violated.

Like I said... I'm always amazed at how far people are willing to shove their heads up Bush's ass in order to "be right."

CHIEF4EVER
05-29-2007, 10:39 PM
Libby probably won't be convicted, but that doesn't mean that the IIPA wasn't violated.

It also doesn't mean it was. But don't let the presumption of innocence until indisputable proof of guilt is provided deter you from a rant against those who want fairness.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 10:40 PM
And that was a "no," right?

They weren't prosecuted for that.

But that was the law under question that was investigated but which was obstructed along with perjury.

I know what you're trying to do. You think a clear "no" they weren't convicted means they absolutely didn't. You just don't know that. The investigation was obstructed.

Again, my original point was simply to say I felt she was covert because people on the right made a HUGE case that she wasn't. That's what the thread is about, right?

I never participated in any discussions or debates on this scandal, as I wanted to wait until the end. So I don't know why you're lumping me in with anyone who did. I just felt that the truth was that Plame was indeed covert.

Taco John
05-29-2007, 10:42 PM
It also doesn't mean it was. But don't let the presumption of innocence until indisputable proof of guilt is provided deter you from a rant against those who want fairness.


You're telling me you just want fairness!? ROFL

Please. I could dig through the archive to find more than a dozen posts from you slandering Valerie Plame. Don't talk to me about fairness when you've got your nose firmly planted in Rove's jock.


Answer me this "Mr. Fairness": why would they obstruct an investigation if everything was on the up and up?

CHIEF4EVER
05-29-2007, 10:44 PM
You're telling me you just want fairness!? ROFL

Please. I could dig through the archive to find more than a dozen posts from you slandering Valerie Plame. Don't talk to me about fairness when you've got your nose firmly planted in Rove's jock.


Answer me this "Mr. Fairness": why would they obstruct an investigation if everything was on the up and up?

Please do. Shall we bet a hundred dollars in advance of your hyperbolic failure?

Donger
05-29-2007, 10:56 PM
At this point, the legal football is just a sideshow. I think we all understand by now that this administration operates on politics first, national interest second.

Libby probably won't be convicted, but that doesn't mean that the IIPA wasn't violated.

Like I said... I'm always amazed at how far people are willing to shove their heads up Bush's ass in order to "be right."

So, that's a "No, Libby wasn't convicted of violating IIPA?"

Just want to be clear.

Donger
05-29-2007, 11:00 PM
I just felt that the truth was that Plame was indeed covert.

She may well have been. However, this purpose of this thread was to (I assume) consider whether or not she was ever covert. As far as I know, IIPA is the only law that covers that aspect of her employment with respect to Libby.

Since it would seem that Libby was NOT convicted of violating IIPA, I fail to see why it is revelant.

Taco John
05-29-2007, 11:15 PM
So, that's a "No, Libby wasn't convicted of violating IIPA?"

Just want to be clear.


Not so far. So far, he's "merely" been found guilty of obstructing justice and deterring the investigation to determine if the IIPA was in fact breached.

An idea why they'd obstruct an investigation if everything was on the up and up?

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 11:19 PM
She may well have been. However, this purpose of this thread was to (I assume) consider whether or not she was ever covert. As far as I know, IIPA is the only law that covers that aspect of her employment with respect to Libby.

Since it would seem that Libby was NOT convicted of violating IIPA, I fail to see why it is revelant.
For me, having the idea of whether or not she was covert was my main issue of contention in the matter because the right asserted strongly that she was not as a statement of fact. That's all I wanted to say about it.

stevieray
05-29-2007, 11:20 PM
So, that's a "No, Libby wasn't convicted of violating IIPA?"

Just want to be clear.

just two more weeks...

Donger
05-29-2007, 11:26 PM
Not so far. So far, he's "merely" been found guilty of obstructing justice and deterring the investigation to determine if the IIPA was in fact breached.

An idea why they'd obstruct an investigation if everything was on the up and up?

Is he still under investigation?

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 11:32 PM
Again, my original point was simply to say I felt she was covert because people on the right made a HUGE case that she wasn't.

I just felt that the truth was that Plame was indeed covert.

BEP is capable of feeling truth. Everybody here is on notice...

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 11:34 PM
...when you've got your nose firmly planted in Rove's jock.

Uh, oh. That guy you were berating the other day for his homoerotic imagery must have "turned" you.

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 11:36 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how far people are willing to shove their head up Bush's ass in order to "be right."

Yikes. Twice in one thread. We'd better whisk you off to Ted Haggert's therapist ASAP.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2007, 11:37 PM
Was he found guilty of violating IIPA?

Was OJ found guilty of murder? What about any number of perps who cop pleas down to smaller crimes? Does that mean they didn't violate the larger crime?

Of course not.

Being an apologist to this degree ruins any credibility you may have left.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 11:38 PM
BEP is capable of feeling truth. Everybody here is on notice...
Well now....as I said earlier my reading libertarian reading sources made a strong case for her being. Then I'd see a rw blog or debate it was otherwise, so for awhile I went back and forth on it. But it's good to have that aspect settled...at least for me.

BTW, don't you feel God as Truth for you?

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 11:40 PM
BTW, don't you feel God as Truth for you?

No.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2007, 11:41 PM
Awe! You're just covering up.

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2007, 11:51 PM
Awe! You're just covering up.

Nope, I'm just not impressed with feelings. I prefer thought.

Accepting God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ was a decision I made based on accumulated evidence. For the majority of my life I was a rather outspoken atheist with a definite woody for Ayn Rand's work.

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=pd_sim_b_3/102-2679893-6024169

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310240506/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-2679893-6024169

You could start there.

Ugly Duck
05-30-2007, 12:06 AM
I seriously doubt that Plame was involved in any covert activities that were very sensitive. I'm curious as to the basis of your "serious doubt." It sez right in the article that she worked on non-proliferation, but its been out for some time that her job was to monitor the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Thats just about as serious a topic as one could work on in the CIA. Its very important that we know where the Russian nukes are, monitor North Korean & Iranian nuclear progress, etc.. Heck, monitoring them activities is just about as sensitive as it comes & that was Plame's job. So where does your "serious doubt" come from?

jAZ
05-30-2007, 12:24 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/05/29/BL2007052901024.html

Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, May 29, 2007; 1:22 PM

Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame until that line of investigation was cut off by the repeated lies from Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Libby was convicted in February of perjury and obstruction of justice. Fitzgerald filed a memo on Friday asking U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who will sentence Libby next week, to put him in prison for at least two and a half years.

Despite all the public interest in the case, Fitzgerald has repeatedly asserted that grand-jury secrecy rules prohibit him from being more forthcoming about either the course of his investigation or any findings beyond those he disclosed to make the case against Libby. But when his motives have been attacked during court proceedings, Fitzgerald has occasionally shown flashes of anger -- and has hinted that he and his investigative team suspected more malfeasance at higher levels of government than they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."

The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President." (My italics.)

Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President." (My italics.)

Up until now, Fitzgerald's most singeing attack on Cheney came during closing arguments at the Libby trial in February. Libby's lawyers had complained that Fitzgerald was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up -- and that set Fitzgerald off. As I wrote in my Feb. 21 column, the special counsel responded with fire: "There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week. . . . He had those meetings. He sent Libby off to [meet then-New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two-hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant has obstructed justice and lied about what happened. . . .

"That's not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there."

To those of us watching the investigation and trial unfold, Cheney's presence behind the scenes has emerged in glimpses and hints. (The defense's decision not to call Cheney to the stand remains a massive bummer.) But I suspect that people looking back on this story will see it with greater clarity: As a blatant -- and thus far successful -- cover-up for the vice president.

Donger
05-30-2007, 04:34 AM
Was OJ found guilty of murder? What about any number of perps who cop pleas down to smaller crimes? Does that mean they didn't violate the larger crime?

Of course not.

Being an apologist to this degree ruins any credibility you may have left.

We aren't speaking about OJ or anyone else, are we? Libby was found guilty. He didn't plea, right?

He was not found guilty of violating IIPA. That's a fact. Sorry if you don't like it, but I fail to see how that has any bearing on my credibility, although it is amusing that you think that you're qualified to be the judge of that quality.

the Talking Can
05-30-2007, 05:19 AM
Not so far. So far, he's "merely" been found guilty of obstructing justice and deterring the investigation to determine if the IIPA was in fact breached.

An idea why they'd obstruct an investigation if everything was on the up and up?

You aren't going to get an answer. These people gave away their intelligence and principles the day Bush was elected.

Outing a covert agent during a War is perfectly OK as long a Republican does it. Nothing is more important than the Party.

That fact that they lied - from the begining - about her status is also not important. Being wrong is of no consequence to Republicans. The idiots on TV, the idiots here, they won't ever admit it. They can't.


Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

duh

Slick32
05-30-2007, 05:19 AM
good lord...I thought only patteau was that stupid

let me guess, outing a CIA covert operative for politcal reasons = supporting the troops and loving America?

Serving your country means nothing...Counterproliferation is minor...if a Republican says so.

Obstruction of justice and perjury, also laudable...if you're a Republican.

I bet if we hang around long enough Kotter will show up and demand we impeach Clinton again.

Tell me what your definition of covert might be.

I'm pretty sure you do not have a clue what the scope of the word means in respect to the operatives. Your only basis of knowledge here is probably from some of the movies you've seen.

Clinton won't be impeached unless the people of NY finally decide that she is a crook.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 05:21 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, Libby wasn't convicted of violating IIPA, right?

You can't throw facts into the equation, that isn't fair.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 05:26 AM
I'm curious as to the basis of your "serious doubt." It sez right in the article that she worked on non-proliferation, but its been out for some time that her job was to monitor the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Thats just about as serious a topic as one could work on in the CIA. Its very important that we know where the Russian nukes are, monitor North Korean & Iranian nuclear progress, etc.. Heck, monitoring them activities is just about as sensitive as it comes & that was Plame's job. So where does your "serious doubt" come from?

The same place all of the other facts in this thread come from. I don't have the same cloak and dagger mentality that you do. The Soviets have been gone for years and the secrecy that she was involved in was not on the same scale as you are attempting to put it. There are secrets between the two main political parties in the US that have more security than anyone working on the non-proliferation of WMD's.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 06:42 AM
Nope, I'm just not impressed with feelings. I prefer thought.

Accepting God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ was a decision I made based on accumulated evidence. For the majority of my life I was a rather outspoken atheist with a definite woody for Ayn Rand's work.

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=pd_sim_b_3/102-2679893-6024169

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310240506/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-2679893-6024169

You could start there.

Heck I was just jokin' with ya' with my last post.

But if ya' want to get into it....I believe in such a thing as gut instinct ( not regarding Plame)....it's often more correct than direct evidence. This is where men are just plain wrong. A women's intuition is always correct. We know things you men will never know with your super reliance on logic. It's just an ability we have over you.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 06:57 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how far people are willing to shove their head up Bush's ass in order to "be right."

Speaking of "head up ass".

Armitage's Leak
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, September 14, 2006; Page A21
When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week that he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.
First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column.
An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.
A peculiar convergence had joined Armitage and me on the same historic path. During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview. I tried to see him in the first 2 1/2 years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me -- summarily and with disdain, I thought.
Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage's office said the deputy secretary would see me. This was two weeks before Joe Wilson outed himself as author of a 2002 report for the CIA debunking Iraqi interest in buying uranium in Africa.
I sat down with Armitage in his State Department office the afternoon of July 8 with tacit rather than explicit ground rules: deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even to an anonymous State Department official. Consequently, I refused to identify Armitage as my leaker until his admission was forced by "Hubris," a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn that absolutely identified him.
Late in my hour-long interview with Armitage, I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson -- who lacked intelligence experience, nuclear policy expertise or recent contact with Niger -- on the African mission. He told The Post last week that his answer was: "I don't know, but I think his wife worked out there."
Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission. As for his current implication that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column -- implying to me that it continued reporting Washington inside information.
Valerie Plame Wilson's name appeared in my column July 14, 2003, but it was not until Oct. 1 that I was contacted about it by Armitage, indirectly. Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's close friend and political adviser, called me to say that the deputy secretary feared he had "inadvertently" (the word Armitage used in last week's interviews) disclosed Mrs. Wilson's identity to me in July and was considering resignation. (Duberstein's phone call was disclosed in the Isikoff-Corn book, which used Duberstein as a source. They reported that Duberstein was responsible for arranging my unexpected interview with Armitage.)
Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage's current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was "no partisan gunslinger."
Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.


:rolleyes:

CHIEF4EVER
05-30-2007, 07:16 AM
You aren't going to get an answer. These people gave away their intelligence and principles the day Bush was elected.

Outing a covert agent during a War is perfectly OK as long a Republican does it. Nothing is more important than the Party.

That fact that they lied - from the begining - about her status is also not important. Being wrong is of no consequence to Republicans. The idiots on TV, the idiots here, they won't ever admit it. They can't.

We're never going to get an intelligent post from Talking Can and Hamass. These people gave away their intelligence and principles the day they became Dumb-O-Craps.

Stuffing classified documents in your pants that are needed by the 9/11 Commission and later destroying them to cover up your complicity and that of your boss in the deaths of thousands of Americans is OK as long as a Dumb-O-Crap does it. Nothing is more important than the Party.

The fact that they have lied constantly - from the time Slick Willie was elected - about their complicity in 9/11 through their inactivity, complacency and outright bumbling is not important. Being incompetent, dishonest and wrong is of no consequence to a Dumb-O-Crap. The idiots on TV, the idiots here, they won't ever admit it.

See how easy it is to point fingers and vilify the other side? This type of post is sooooooooo typical for a liberal. Rather than defend their position with facts, they try to point fingers and vilify their opponents in the most whiny ass possible way. This deflects from their inability to debate conservatives with anything resembling facts. It also covers up the fact that they have no ideas, just complaints.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 07:25 AM
Speaking of "head up ass".
:rolleyes:


11-17-2005, 02:57 PM
Post #45
Radar Chief

If Woodward, along with Andrea Mitchell and the rest of the “CIA reporting media” knew just who Valerie Plame was, it’d be kinda hard to “leak” her identity wouldn’t it? And since there’s no identity to leak, cover to be blown, kinda renders moot the “obstructing justice” charge, don’t ya think? What was that you were just say’n ‘bout “purposely remaining ignorant”?

You guys want facts? Libby WAS convicted and found guilty of obstructing justice. And she was covert not some CIA secretary.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 07:52 AM
11-17-2005, 02:57 PM
Post #45
Radar Chief



You guys want facts? Libby WAS convicted and found guilty of obstructing justice. And she was covert not some CIA secretary.

So? Armitage has admitted that he was the source for the “leak”.
But hurray for the “Bush id teh Debil” conspiracy theorists. You got some shmuck that no one even knew about until a show trial “exposed” him.

Chief Henry
05-30-2007, 07:55 AM
So? Armitage has admitted that he was the source for the “leak”.
But hurray for the “Bush id teh Debil” conspiracy theorists. You got some shmuck that no one even knew about until a show trial “exposed” him.



Your not fair RC. Your f'n with there intelect now by bringing up this nuggett about Armitage.

stevieray
05-30-2007, 07:58 AM
So? Armitage has admitted that he was the source for the “leak”.
But hurray for the “Bush id teh Debil” conspiracy theorists. You got some shmuck that no one even knew about until a show trial “exposed” him.

hey, they've got their opinion as fact, too!

Cochise
05-30-2007, 08:00 AM
Your not fair RC. Your f'n with there intelect now by bringing up this nuggett about Armitage.

That's funny.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 08:00 AM
So? Armitage has admitted that he was the source for the “leak”.
But hurray for the “Bush id teh Debil” conspiracy theorists. You got some shmuck that no one even knew about until a show trial “exposed” him.
Conspiracy theorists? Aren't you the one who keeps saying Saddam/Iraq was connected to the 9/11 conspiracy.

I only put that quote up because this thread is a Pot Calling Kettle exercise in that the right made a HUGE case for Plame not being covert. Did you or did you not make such a case for this?

You gotta stop defending these guys... and relying solely on defensiveness on their behalf....they are driving our party over a cliff.

the Talking Can
05-30-2007, 08:12 AM
This thread is proof.


wow, you people can't even read...like Neanderthal dumb here...

there was a trial people, evidence was presented, it was all made public...there is absolutely no ambiguity about Libby's role in revealing the identity of a Covert agent, an identity he learned about from Dick Cheney...Libby testified to this you ****ing morons

He initially tried to lie and say he learned it from Tim Russert, then HIS OWN NOTES REVEALED THAT HE FIRST HEARD IT FROM DICK CHENEY.

This is public record. GOOD GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID. This is a fact established in trial.

Look, I can't make you read. I can't make you not be a dumbass. And I can't make you not be dishonest.

Radar Chief, well, you're just sad...a sad, ignorant fool.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 08:16 AM
Conspiracy theorists? Aren't you the one who keeps saying Saddam/Iraq was connected to the 9/11 conspiracy.

Uh no. And if you’d read what I’ve posted you’d know better than to assume that.

You gotta stop defending these guys...they are driving our party over a cliff.

I’m not defending anyone. I’m presenting facts and pointing out hypocrisy, “pot, kettle, black exercise” as you put it.
If you wanna be pissed at Bush, you can. It’s your prerogative. But at least be pissed for real reasons, like border security, health care reform, growing budget deficit, etc….hell I could come up with a hundred reasons not to like him and none of it has to do with this made up :BS: that Teej and tTC want to cry about.
This is a distraction from real issues.

tiptap
05-30-2007, 08:20 AM
Nope, I'm just not impressed with feelings. I prefer thought.

Accepting God in the incarnation of Jesus Christ was a decision I made based on accumulated evidence. For the majority of my life I was a rather outspoken atheist with a definite woody for Ayn Rand's work.

http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785242198/ref=pd_sim_b_3/102-2679893-6024169

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

http://www.amazon.com/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310240506/ref=pd_sim_b_2/102-2679893-6024169

You could start there.

No wonder you surrendered to the dark side. Ayn Rand's is just a atheistic protrayal of Platonic worship of the uberman or philosopher king and as such was never democratic in tone. It was a easy switch from a flawed humanistic worship of superiority to a devine revealed acceptance of a perfect, but hidden to human understanding, diety.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 08:20 AM
This thread is proof.


wow, you people can't even read...like Neanderthal dumb here...

there was a trial people, evidence was presented, it was all made public...there is absolutely no ambiguity about Libby's role in revealing the identity of a Covert agent, an identity he learned about from Dick Cheney...Libby testified to this you ****ing morons

He initially tried to lie and say he learned it from Tim Russert, then HIS OWN NOTES REVEALED THAT HE FIRST HEARD IT FROM DICK CHENEY.

This is public record. GOOD GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID. This is a fact established in trial.

Look, I can't make you read. I can't make you not be a dumbass. And I can't make you not be dishonest.

What part of “Armitage admitted being the source” did your “Neanderthal” mind not get?

Radar Chief, well, you're just sad...a sad, ignorant fool.

:LOL: Coming from the idiot chasing shadows, I’ll accept that as a compliment. :thumb:

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 08:22 AM
I’m not defending anyone. I’m presenting facts and pointing out hypocrisy, “pot, kettle, black exercise” as you put it.

You're doing the same thing you're accusing the other side of. In fact you're deflecting. Your word not mine. The subject of the thread is regarding Plame being covert or not.

That lead article isn't about the case itself, who broke the law regarding covert operatives....it's about Plame being covert or not. Yet, the right comes in and deflects it to the other specifics of the case instead. I'd say that's being defensive.

If you wanna be pissed at Bush, you can. It’s your prerogative. But at least be pissed for real reasons, like border security, health care reform, growing budget deficit, etc….hell I could come up with a hundred reasons not to like him and none of it has to do with this made up :BS: that Teej and tTC want to cry about.
This is a distraction from real issues.

Let me make one thing clear, you don't dictate to me what reasons I must base my discontent with Bush on in a free country. But the ones you listed are some.


But this is NOT about Bush.It's about a case made by the right on Plame.
You're distracting from the FACT that you, and the right in general, made a case for Plame not being covert when she indeed was. This is now FACT.

Ugly Duck
05-30-2007, 08:26 AM
The Soviets have been gone for years and the secrecy that she was involved in was not on the same scale as you are attempting to put it.

True... but it is far more likely that Al Queda will plant a nuke in an American city than it was for Russia to attack us during the Cold War. Those Russian nukes falling into the wrong hands are very important to us for that reason. We also don't want Iran & North Korea to get nukes. That is why the CIA hires operatives like Plame to monitor proliferation. Sure, its not on the scale as the Soviets - but still it would be a very big deal if AQ planted a nuke in NY. Or Kansas City.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 08:31 AM
No wonder you surrendered to the dark side.

Well now that's a respectful thing to say regarding a man's belief and why he believes it. He was simply answering me, regarding facts, evidence and truth as brief digression. You just wanna go after him now for being religious. Not the right thread.

Ayn Rand's is just a atheistic protrayal of Platonic worship of the uberman or philosopher king and as such was never democratic in tone.
You don't have a clue what Ayn Rand believed since this is a GROSS mis-characterization.

The Soviet state was the Platonic model that had a Philosopher King because he was supposed to be wiser and know what's best for the people...hence centralized control, centrally managed economies and more power to the state. She was from the Soviet Union and passonately spoke out against this set up having lived under it and finding it oppresssive. Her set up is based on the individual. It is inherently more democratic as people are empowered to make their own choices. It is the opposite of collectivism.

And she as an atheist.

Cochise
05-30-2007, 08:36 AM
so, was Armitage the source? Or was it Cheney?

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 08:38 AM
You're doing the same thing you're accusing the other side of. In fact you're deflecting. Your word not mine. The subject of the thread is regarding Plame being covert or not.

Who made you the “Topic Police”? :shrug:
Problem with this is that I was responding to Teej who was vicariously convicting Rove for “leaking” based solely on the obstruction conviction of Libby.

That lead article isn't about the case itself, who broke the law regarding covert operatives....it's about Plame being covert or not. Yet, the right comes in and deflects it to the other specifics of the case instead. I'd say that's being defensive.


You mean like “deflecting” from what I posted with a quote from a year and a half ago? That kinda “defensive”?
Never mind that nothing I posted in that quote has changed.

Let me make one thing clear, you don't dictate to me what reasons I must base my discontent with Bush on in a free country. But the ones you listed are some.

Good for you.

That lead article isn't about the case itself, who broke the law regarding covert
But this is NOT about Bush.It's about a case made by the right on Plame.
You're distracting from the FACT that you, and the right in general, made a case for Plame not being covert when she indeed was. This is now FACT.

Really? I’ve yet to read anything that explains away the FACT that DC reporters already knew who Plame was and what she did. Or that she had been working in the CIA building, walking in and out of the front door, for a while.

Donger
05-30-2007, 08:40 AM
This thread is proof.


wow, you people can't even read...like Neanderthal dumb here...

there was a trial people, evidence was presented, it was all made public...there is absolutely no ambiguity about Libby's role in revealing the identity of a Covert agent, an identity he learned about from Dick Cheney...Libby testified to this you ****ing morons

He initially tried to lie and say he learned it from Tim Russert, then HIS OWN NOTES REVEALED THAT HE FIRST HEARD IT FROM DICK CHENEY.

This is public record. GOOD GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID. This is a fact established in trial.

Look, I can't make you read. I can't make you not be a dumbass. And I can't make you not be dishonest.

Radar Chief, well, you're just sad...a sad, ignorant fool.

ROFL

So, if Libby knowingly outed a covert agent, why was he not tried and convicted of violating IIPA?

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 08:43 AM
so, was Armitage the source? Or was it Cheney?

According to the author of the article that supposedly “leaked” Plame’s name, it was Armitage.
But this was never really about a CIA agents identity, it’s about an excuse to revenge impeach Bush so that fact will go ignored.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 08:48 AM
Who made you the “Topic Police”? :shrug:
Well, you've done the same to me. Just responding in kind. Guess we're even now. We can start with a clean slate from here on out. Fair?

Problem with this is that I was responding to Teej who was vicariously convicting Rove for “leaking” based solely on the obstruction conviction of Libby.
Fine.

You mean like “deflecting” from what I posted with a quote from a year and a half ago? That kinda “defensive”?
Never mind that nothing I posted in that quote has changed.
Oh I see. That means the guilty verdict for obstruction of justice is invalid then.
But you're calling someone else ignorant. I was just using that as a fact based point because the allegation there were no facts at all for one side.


Really? I’ve yet to read anything that explains away the FACT that DC reporters already knew who Plame was and what she did. Or that she had been working in the CIA building, walking in and out of the front door, for a while.
That's not illogical at all, unless you drop out the sequence of events through time. Such chronology should be part of logical thinking as it's how and where the facts fall and come together that paint the whole story. This doesn't mean, they knew BEFORE she was outed as you seem to be implying. It as looked into after she was outed and it was all over the press. Makes sense to me unless one is blinded by partisanship.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 09:08 AM
Oh I see. That means the guilty verdict for obstruction of justice is invalid then.

:spock: I’m have no idea how you can come to that conclusion based on what you quoted. :shrug:
Or is this some of that “deflection” you claim to abhor? :hmmm:

But you're calling someone else ignorant. I was just using that as a fact based point because the allegation there were no facts at all for one side.

This is starting to look like you’re obsessed with me, BEP.
I called tTC “ignorant” because that’s what he’s claiming about everyone that doesn’t follow verbatim his rhetoric.
I mentioned “head up ass” to Teej because that’s what he implied of everyone for the same reasons as tTC. Did you not read what I quoted when posting my comment? :shrug:

That's not illogical at all, unless you drop out the sequence of events through time. Such chronology should be part of logical thinking as it's how and where the facts fall and come together that paint the whole story. This doesn't mean, they knew BEFORE she was outed as you seem to be implying. It as looked into after she was outed and it was all over the press. Makes sense to me unless one is blinded by partisanship.

And who exactly do you mean by “they”?
It’s already been established that Armitage was the leak. Is he the “they” you speak of? Or are you being “blinded by partisanship” and still trying to make the connection to Cheney and Rove?

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:12 AM
:And who exactly do you mean by “they”?
It’s already been established that Armitage was the leak. Is he the “they” you speak of? Or are you being “blinded by partisanship” and still trying to make the connection to Cheney and Rove?

What you wrote....I just used a pronoun for it.
Really? I’ve yet to read anything that explains away the FACT that DC reporters already knew who Plame was and what she did. Or that she had been working in the CIA building, walking in and out of the front door, for a while.

But obsessed with you? Nah! Just some "blowback." :p ROFL :) <-------because I know you love these things.

jAZ
05-30-2007, 09:15 AM
Fitzgerald believes Cheney was the ultimate source and suspects strongly that Cheney conspired to expose the identity of a covert CIA agent. But that Libby's lies prevented a complete investigation of that fact.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:16 AM
:spock: I’m have no idea how you can come to that conclusion based on what you quoted. :shrug:
Or is this some of that “deflection” you claim to abhor? :hmmm:

"There you go again."—Ronald Reagan

In 2005 you claimed the obstruction of justice charge was invalid as Plame was not covert so there was nothing leaked. You said here, again 2007, nothing had changed those words for you. (paraphrased) Cognitive dissonance or do you follow your own words now?

jAZ
05-30-2007, 09:18 AM
ROFL

So, if Libby knowingly outed a covert agent, why was he not tried and convicted of violating IIPA?
Why is this suddenly rocket science?

Fitz was investigating Cheney for a conspiracy to out a covert CIA agent for political purposes.

He believes this to be the case.

Libby lied during that investigation and prevented complete investigation of the facts.

Fitzgerald wasn't able to obtain sufficient facts to go after Cheney.







None of that has to do with Libby outing a CIA agent.

Again, why is this rocket science.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 09:18 AM
What you wrote....I just used a pronoun for it.


But obsessed with you? Nah! Just some "blowback." :p ROFL :) <-------because I know you love these things.

That’s not what you quoted with that comment.
This is.

You mean like “deflecting” from what I posted with a quote from a year and a half ago? That kinda “defensive”?
Never mind that nothing I posted in that quote has changed.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:23 AM
That’s not what you quoted with that comment.
This is.
Guess were not communicating 'eh?
Never mind that nothing I posted in that quote has changed.

That quote being the following:
(at least as I read it)

If Woodward, along with Andrea Mitchell and the rest of the “CIA reporting media” knew just who Valerie Plame was, it’d be kinda hard to “leak” her identity wouldn’t it? And since there’s no identity to leak, cover to be blown, kinda renders moot the “obstructing justice” charge, don’t ya think?
What was that you were just say’n ‘bout “purposely remaining ignorant”?
He WAS convicted by a jury of obstructing justice....so that hasn't changed for you? If so...then it's true that the right has become completely detached from reality.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 09:25 AM
"There you go again."—Ronald Reagan

In 2005 you claimed the obstruction of justice charge was invalid as Plame was not covert so there was nothing leaked. You said here, again 2007, nothing had changed those words for you. (paraphrased) Cognitive dissonance or do you follow your own words now?

If translated into English this means what I think you mean, yes. I still think the “obstruction” conviction was for Fitz to save face. IOW, it’s the best he could come up with after spending all that money investigating.
Sucks for Libby though.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 09:29 AM
He WAS convicted by a jury of obstructing justice....so that hasn't changed for you? If so...then it's true that the right has become completely detached from reality.

Wow, so my opinion now encompasses all that is “the right”? :eek:
I’m honored, I guess. :sulk:

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:32 AM
If translated into English this means what I think you mean, yes. I still think the “obstruction” conviction was for Fitz to save face. IOW, it’s the best he could come up with after spending all that money investigating.
Sucks for Libby though.
Fine. But that's an opinion as well. It is still a fact Libby was found guilty of it. in a court of law. As such, it is no different than someone on the other side still believing someone broke the law on outing covert agents even if that never came down in a court of law. That's all I'm saying.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:33 AM
Wow, so my opinion now encompasses all that is “the right”? :eek:
I’m honored, I guess. :sulk:
Well, if you ask me, it seems most on the right have a similar stand and are in denial over her covert status. It may not be all though.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 09:39 AM
Well, if you ask me, it seems most on the right have a similar stand and are in denial over her covert status. It may not be all though.

Her “covert status” is/was shakey at best. Recognition of that is not “denial”.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:43 AM
Her “covert status” is/was shakey at best. Recognition of that is not “denial”.
The facts do not support this pov.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 09:44 AM
The facts do not support this pov.

Yes they do. :p

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:45 AM
Yes they do. :p
So, in other words, she lied under oath in that public hearing I saw on tv?

Prove it.

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 09:49 AM
So, in other words, she lied under oath in that public hearing I saw on tv?

Prove it.

IIRC I posted some information in that 1 ½ year old topic you got that quote from.
Find it yourself. :p

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 09:52 AM
IIRC I posted some information in that 1 ½ year old topic you got that quote from.
Find it yourself. :p
I'm not talkin 1.5 years ago. That's not the time frame I'm operating in right now. I'm talkin' what she said this past fall's hearing, post Libby trial, about being covert and no longer able to do the work she was trained to do. You're still claimin' it's shaky at best. Lol!

Taco John
05-30-2007, 10:27 AM
Who made you the “Topic Police”? :shrug:
Problem with this is that I was responding to Teej who was vicariously convicting Rove for “leaking” based solely on the obstruction conviction of Libby.



No I wasn't... I was convicting Rove of politicizing the federal government.

You're gener'ly a conf'sd personal'ty, so'n I don' mind settin' ya straight!

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 10:35 AM
I seriously doubt that Plame was involved in any covert activities that were very sensitive.
Do you have any particular reason to "seriously doubt" that, other than the fact that it mimicks what the accused have said to marginalize their offense?

I would also surmise that her outing was of very little bother to the CIA. Minor players have minor impact.
Do you have any particular reason to surmise this, other than the fact that it mimicks what the accused have said to marginalize their offense?

Cochise
05-30-2007, 10:46 AM
Do you have any particular reason to surmise this, other than the fact that it mimicks what the accused have said to marginalize their offense?

I've heard a lot of commentators say that while she was covert, it was common knowledge in Washington. Therefore, I think what he is saying is that there was little to no actual damage.

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 11:04 AM
I've heard a lot of commentators say that while she was covert, it was common knowledge in Washington. Therefore, I think what he is saying is that there was little to no actual damage.In most of those cases, the "commentators" didn't actually know if it was common knowledge in Washington or not, they were just taking what the accused outers were claiming in their own defense and running with it. Furthermore, there are a lot of things that are common knowledge in Washington (on Capitol Hill, in the Pentagon, etc.) that are considered classified to the general public and foreign powers. That little damage came of it is more of a testimony to the ability of the CIA to keep her out of harm's way once her identity became public than to the actual potential for harm. If the outing had been a bit less public, and the CIA had not discovered it before they sent her out on another covert operation, and she had fallen afoul of parties to whom she had been outed, how much harm might there have been?

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 12:11 PM
No I wasn't... I was convicting Rove of politicizing the federal government.

You're gener'ly a conf'sd personal'ty, so'n I don' mind settin' ya straight!

:spock: This'n might be where the cornfusion is'a come'n from.

It never ceases to amaze me how far people are willing to shove their head up Bush's ass in order to "be right."

Apparently you don’t even know what your point was. ROFL

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 12:13 PM
I'm not talkin 1.5 years ago. That's not the time frame I'm operating in right now. I'm talkin' what she said this past fall's hearing, post Libby trial, about being covert and no longer able to do the work she was trained to do. You're still claimin' it's shaky at best. Lol!

:LOL: In the future, I’ll try to remember that facts have a shelf life that expires the moment you don’t want to hear about it. :thumb:

Radar Chief
05-30-2007, 12:16 PM
BTW 100.

Chief Henry
05-30-2007, 12:41 PM
How in the hell did this thread get to 100 posts ?

Unbeleavable...

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 02:11 PM
:LOL: In the future, I’ll try to remember that facts have a shelf life that expires the moment you don’t want to hear about it. :thumb:
How's that?

I took a two year old post of yours,to prove that what was said did not pan out as alleged. You're wrong, it's apparent I wanted to hear about it. You're the one that doesn't want to hear about it. Projection.

Now quit squirmin'!

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 03:59 PM
I've heard a lot of commentators say that while she was covert, it was common knowledge in Washington. Therefore, I think what he is saying is that there was little to no actual damage.


Seems to me this line of thinking is akin to believeing the next time Sedated decides to get wasted and hop behind the wheel, it's no big deal as long as he doesn't actually hit another car killing Mom, Dad, and the 2.7 kids. After all, there would be little to no "actual damage".


Frankly, I think the Plame affair is much ado about nothing, but I find this defense particularly lacking in respect for the law. It's the law, or it isn't. :shrug:

Slick32
05-30-2007, 04:49 PM
Do you have any particular reason to "seriously doubt" that, other than the fact that it mimicks [mimics] what the accused have said to marginalize their offense?


Do you have any particular reason to surmise this, other than the fact that it mimicks [mimics] what the accused have said to marginalize their offense?

Do you have any particular reason to question my facts? I have not kept up on the case so there is no reason for me to attempt to mimic what the accused have said.

Oh, I provided a solution to your spelling problem.

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 05:26 PM
Do you have any particular reason to question my facts? I have not kept up on the case so there is no reason for me to attempt to mimic what the accused have said.
I didn't question your facts. In order to question facts, facts must first be present to be questioned. You presented no facts. "I seriously doubt" and "I surmise" are not phrases one generally uses to preface an item presented as fact.

Oh, I provided a solution to your spelling problem.
Thanks, though it wasn't a particularly egregious error (a "k" is added in most sense and tense alterations of the word).

Slick32
05-30-2007, 05:36 PM
I didn't question your facts. In order to question facts, facts must first be present to be questioned. You presented no facts. "I seriously doubt" and "I surmise" are not phrases one generally uses to preface an item presented as fact.


Thanks, though it wasn't a particularly egregious error (a "k" is added in most sense and tense alterations of the word).

Which facts do you have to back up your claims, and that is all they are unless you have some inside information from the CIA.

As for your 'non egregious' error. Get a little thicker skin, find the humor in the correction and move on.

Seriously doubt and I surmise that the following might indicate how I doubt or surmise.

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 06:53 PM
Which facts do you have to back up your claims, and that is all they are unless you have some inside information from the CIA.
What "claims" did I make? Only that the accused have offered the same thin excuses as you. Beyond that, I have made no judgment whatsoever as to how serious her undercover work was or what degree of harm she might have risked. Contrast that with your comment to the effect that your opinions of Ms. Plame's duties amounted to fact.

As for your 'non egregious' error. Get a little thicker skin, find the humor in the correction and move on.
Were you under the mistaken impression that I was terribly bothered that you caught me in a tiny spelling error?

Seriously doubt and I surmise that the following might indicate how I doubt or surmise.

While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity — sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias — but always using cover — whether official or non-official cover (NOC) — with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

Are you alleging that somewhere in there is a factoid that supports your contention that what you've opined of the seriousness of Ms. Plame's duties is more than a partisan opinion? Are you of the impression that those "at least seven [trips] to more than ten countries," always under cover and sometimes under an alias, were sightseeing tours for Arthur Frommer?

Slick32
05-30-2007, 07:07 PM
What "claims" did I make? Only that the accused have offered the same thin excuses as you. Beyond that, I have made no judgment whatsoever as to how serious her undercover work was or what degree of harm she might have risked. Contrast that with your comment to the effect that your opinions of Ms. Plame's duties amounted to fact.


Were you under the mistaken impression that I was terribly bothered that you caught me in a tiny spelling error?


Are you alleging that somewhere in there is a factoid that supports your contention that what you've opined of the seriousness of Ms. Plame's duties is more than a partisan opinion? Are you of the impression that those "at least seven [trips] to more than ten countries," always under cover and sometimes under an alias, were sightseeing tours for Arthur Frommer?

What I'm saying is that nobody knows the depth of her covert activities and that arguing in any respect that she was our version of James Bond is ludicrous.

The bigger picture is that if she was that important of a covert agent there would have been some solid evidence that would have put Libby in jail for a long time. She was a minor player in minor ops. If you can't see the results of the trial and all of the allegations that were set aside you might be just looking because of the administration.

Your spelling error might have been nothing, but it must have meant something to you because you took way too much time to reply and re-reply because of it.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 07:20 PM
What I'm saying is that nobody knows the depth of her covert activities and that arguing in any respect that she was our version of James Bond is ludicrous.
Nobody? Not herself or her boss? I'm having a hard time believing this is true. I don't know if anyone suggested she was a version of James Bond either complete with cars that turn into submarines so she can escape her daring missions. It's irrelevant.

The bigger picture is that if she was that important of a covert agent there would have been some solid evidence that would have put Libby in jail for a long time.
That is immaterial as far as I can see. How would this be so?
How important someone is leads to solid evidence?

Besides the investigation was obstructed so how could they get "solid " evidence?

She was a minor player in minor ops.
Prove it.

If you can't see the results of the trial and all of the allegations that were set aside you might be just looking because of the administration.
Results? Libby was convicted of 4 out of 5 counts or some such.

What do the results of the trial have to do with what duties she had as a covert agent, anyway. I don't see the connection here. It seems non-sequiter.

patteeu
05-30-2007, 07:24 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/05/29/BL2007052901024.html

Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Tuesday, May 29, 2007; 1:22 PM

Special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has made it clearer than ever that he was hot on the trail of a coordinated campaign to out CIA agent Valerie Plame until that line of investigation was cut off by the repeated lies from Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Libby was convicted in February of perjury and obstruction of justice. Fitzgerald filed a memo on Friday asking U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who will sentence Libby next week, to put him in prison for at least two and a half years.

Despite all the public interest in the case, Fitzgerald has repeatedly asserted that grand-jury secrecy rules prohibit him from being more forthcoming about either the course of his investigation or any findings beyond those he disclosed to make the case against Libby. But when his motives have been attacked during court proceedings, Fitzgerald has occasionally shown flashes of anger -- and has hinted that he and his investigative team suspected more malfeasance at higher levels of government than they were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Friday's eminently readable court filing, Fitzgerald quotes the Libby defense calling his prosecution "unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by politics." In responding to that charge, the special counsel evidently felt obliged to put Libby's crime in context. And that context is Dick Cheney.

Libby's lies, Fitzgerald wrote, "made impossible an accurate evaluation of the role that Mr. Libby and those with whom he worked played in the disclosure of information regarding Ms. Wilson's CIA employment and about the motivations for their actions."

It was established at trial that it was Cheney himself who first told Libby about Plame's identity as a CIA agent, in the course of complaining about criticisms of the administration's run-up to war leveled by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. And, as Fitzgerald notes: "The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."

The investigation, Fitzgerald writes, "was necessary to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others. This was particularly important in light of Mr. Libby's statement to the FBI that he may have discussed Ms. Wilson's employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President." (My italics.)

Not clear on the concept yet? Fitzgerald adds: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President." (My italics.)

Up until now, Fitzgerald's most singeing attack on Cheney came during closing arguments at the Libby trial in February. Libby's lawyers had complained that Fitzgerald was trying to put a "cloud" over Cheney without evidence to back it up -- and that set Fitzgerald off. As I wrote in my Feb. 21 column, the special counsel responded with fire: "There is a cloud over what the Vice President did that week. . . . He had those meetings. He sent Libby off to [meet then-New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two-hour meeting, the defendant talked about the wife. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant has obstructed justice and lied about what happened. . . .

"That's not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there."

To those of us watching the investigation and trial unfold, Cheney's presence behind the scenes has emerged in glimpses and hints. (The defense's decision not to call Cheney to the stand remains a massive bummer.) But I suspect that people looking back on this story will see it with greater clarity: As a blatant -- and thus far successful -- cover-up for the vice president.

More prosecutorial misconduct I see. Nothing beats being able to smear a guy without having to prove anything in court.

patteeu
05-30-2007, 07:29 PM
You aren't going to get an answer. These people gave away their intelligence and principles the day Bush was elected.

Outing a covert agent during a War is perfectly OK as long a Republican does it. Nothing is more important than the Party.

That fact that they lied - from the begining - about her status is also not important. Being wrong is of no consequence to Republicans. The idiots on TV, the idiots here, they won't ever admit it. They can't.

Yeah, getting out the truth behind a dishonest critic of the war is, according to tTC, bad from a national security perspective, but outing a secret terrorist surveillance program, a covert interrogation system for high value detainees, a black program aimed at tracking terrorist financial transactions, and a clandestine effort to destabilize the government of a terrorist sponsoring enemy during wartime are classic examples of pure patriotism. You're full of integrity, tTC. :rolleyes:

patteeu
05-30-2007, 07:33 PM
Conspiracy theorists? Aren't you the one who keeps saying Saddam/Iraq was connected to the 9/11 conspiracy.

It's funny how the Bush critics have so much trouble getting this straight.

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 07:34 PM
What I'm saying is that nobody knows the depth of her covert activities and that arguing in any respect that she was our version of James Bond is ludicrous.
Funny, except for this post of yours, I've not seen the words "James Bond" pop up anywhere. Who has made such a claim? Sure it may be ludicrous to assume she's been jetsetting around the world in flying cars, armed with torpedos, explosive ballpoint pens, and x-ray glasses. Only problem is, nobody is assuming that, afaics, nor does it have any bearing on what is being alleged. One doesn't have to be 007 to have one's life put in danger by being outed as a covert operative, or to have one's career as a covert agent effectively ended by being outed in such a manner. Nor is it particularly ludicrous to assume there is a very real chance that somebody in Bush's administration may have been behind it, in retaliation for her husband's outspoken criticism of Bush's handling of prewar intelligence.

The bigger picture is that if she was that important of a covert agent there would have been some solid evidence that would have put Libby in jail for a long time.
Uh, you are aware that Libby was convicted, right? And that his sentencing doesn't occur until June? And that he could be facing up to 25 years? He didn't exactly walk away scott free, though he still may if Bush pardons him, as many expect him to do.

She was a minor player in minor ops.
And you know this how?

If you can't see the results of the trial and all of the allegations that were set aside you might be just looking because of the administration.
We must have been following different trials, because the one I was following ended with Libby being found guilty on multiple charges.

Your spelling error might have been nothing, but it must have meant something to you because you took way too much time to reply and re-reply because of it.
I type pretty fast. The two responses together took less than thirty seconds. Is that "way too long" in your world?

chagrin
05-30-2007, 07:36 PM
Yeah, getting out the truth behind a dishonest critic of the war is bad from a national security perspective, but outing a secret terrorist surveillance program, a covert interrogation system for high value detainees, a black program aimed at tracking terrorist financial transactions, and a clandestine effort to destabilize the government of a terrorist sponsoring enemy during wartime are classic examples of pure patriotism. You're full of integrity, tTC. :rolleyes:


You rule :clap:

Perfectly put and perfectly summarizes the hypocritical stance on the patriot law - excellent!

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 07:37 PM
More prosecutorial misconduct I see. Nothing beats being able to smear a guy without having to prove anything in court.
I love it! Holding the administration accountable is now called "prosecutorial misconduct." Gorgeous!

Slick32
05-30-2007, 07:37 PM
Nobody? Not herself or her boss? I'm having a hard time believing this is true. I don't know if anyone suggested she was a version of James Bond either complete with cars that turn into submarines so she can escape her daring missions. It's irrelevant.

Let me clarify the comment so you can understand it. Nobody on this board has any clue as to what she did and whether it was of substance or not. The only knowledge is that someone outed her name as a covert agent and the bandwagon started rolling.



Besides the investigation was obstructed so how could they get "solid " evidence?

I've seen the accusation that the investigation was obstructed but I haven't kept close enough watch to know for sure, and I sure as hell don't care.



Results? Libby was convicted of 4 out of 5 counts or some such.

None of the things he was convicted for was for outing Plame. Does that tell you anything? IF she was that important there would have been something for the witch hunt to uncover.

patteeu
05-30-2007, 07:38 PM
Fitzgerald believes Cheney was the ultimate source and suspects strongly that Cheney conspired to expose the identity of a covert CIA agent. But that Libby's lies prevented a complete investigation of that fact.

But yet, it was Armitage, no political ally of Cheney's, who actually leaked the info. That Dick Cheney is one diabolically clever guy. Almost as omnipotent as Karl Rove.

The fear on the left of Rove and Cheney is thick.

mlyonsd
05-30-2007, 07:41 PM
More prosecutorial misconduct I see. Nothing beats being able to smear a guy without having to prove anything in court.

Isn't Fitzgerald the dim bulb that gave immunity to the one that actually leaked the info? BRILLIANT!

Then he spent how many millions of dollars trying to implicate and catch the administration as being part of it?

Kind of ironic that those which saw the Starr investigations as witch hunts don't see this one that way too.

The fact is Plame and her husband should have been outed.

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 07:41 PM
Yeah, retaliating against a critic of the war is bad from a national security perspective, but outing a secret domestic surveillance program, a covert interrogation and torture system for high value detainees, a black program aimed at tracking financial transactions of Americans in the guise of looking for suspected terrorists ...
FYP

Slick32
05-30-2007, 07:42 PM
Funny, except for this post of yours, I've not seen the words "James Bond" pop up anywhere. Who has made such a claim? Sure it may be ludicrous to assume she's been jetsetting around the world in flying cars, armed with torpedos, explosive ballpoint pens, and x-ray glasses. Only problem is, nobody is assuming that, afaics, nor does it have any bearing on what is being alleged. One doesn't have to be 007 to have one's life put in danger by being outed as a covert operative, or to have one's career as a covert agent effectively ended by being outed in such a manner. Nor is it particularly ludicrous to assume there is a very real chance that somebody in Bush's administration may have been behind it, in retaliation for her husband's outspoken criticism of Bush's handling of prewar intelligence.


[QUOTE=Nightwish]Uh, you are aware that Libby was convicted, right? And that his sentencing doesn't occur until June? And that he could be facing up to 25 years? He didn't exactly walk away scott free, though he still may if Bush pardons him, as many expect him to do.

None of the things he was convicted for was for outing Plame. Does that tell you anything? IF she was that important there would have been something for the witch hunt to uncover.


And you know this how?

Super elevated Toppest of top secret clearances, but mostly common sense.

We must have been following different trials, because the one I was following ended with Libby being found guilty on multiple charges.

Again, none of the things he was convicted for was for outing Plame. Does that tell you anything? IF she was that important there would have been something for the witch hunt to uncover.


I type pretty fast. The two responses together took less than thirty seconds. Is that "way too long" in your world?

It apparently bothers you in some way, you still are hanging on it.

I don't really care how fast you type. I do all of mine with one finger.

patteeu
05-30-2007, 07:45 PM
Isn't Fitzgerald the dim bulb that gave immunity to the one that actually leaked the info? BRILLIANT!

Then he spent how many millions of dollars trying to implicate and catch the administration as being part of it?

Kind of ironic that those which saw the Starr investigations as witch hunts don't see this one that way too.

The fact is Plame and her husband should have been outed.

Yep, yes, I think so too, and agreed.

patteeu
05-30-2007, 07:46 PM
FYP

You've got to know something about what's going on to fix anyone's post.

mlyonsd
05-30-2007, 07:48 PM
Yep, yes, I think so too, and agreed.

I think there's a term for it. Hypo..something or other. Can't really remember.

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 07:51 PM
Let me clarify the comment so you can understand it. Nobody on this board has any clue as to what she did and whether it was of substance or not. The only knowledge is that someone outed her name as a covert agent and the bandwagon started rolling.
I'll ask you again, do you think her multiple trips around the world, under multiple identities, taking care not to demonstrate any affiliation with the CIA, were just to gather tourist info for Frommer's Guide? Is the CIA in the habit of sending accountants and office gofers on errands to foreign nations under false identities?

I've seen the accusation that the investigation was obstructed but I haven't kept close enough watch to know for sure, and I sure as hell don't care.
You should pay better attention, then. Obstruction was one of the convictions.

None of the things he was convicted for was for outing Plame. Does that tell you anything? IF she was that important there would have been something for the witch hunt to uncover.
Wrong. Because of the obstruction that took place, although they know the crime of outing a covert agent (a treason-level offense, by the way) was committed, they don't know who first committed the offense. They know only that Libby, himself an unauthorized recipient of the information, provided her name to reporters. What they haven't been able to discover, due to the obstruction on the part of Libby and others, is who gave her name to Libby, who first dropped her name outside authorized circles - that's the person who would face treason charges. And the widely generated theory is that it was Cheney, but it hasn't been proven. If it is, and he's found guilty, he'll hang for it.

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 07:52 PM
It apparently bothers you in some way, you still are hanging on it.

I don't really care how fast you type. I do all of mine with one finger.
If it bothers you to think that it bothers me, then I suggest you talk to someone about it.

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 07:53 PM
You've got to know something about what's going on to fix anyone's post.
So that means we won't be seeing you fixing anyone's posts anytime soon? Glad to know it, but I'm not sure why you wasted a whole post to tell us.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 07:54 PM
Wrong. Because of the obstruction that took place, although they know the crime of outing a covert agent (a treason-level offense, by the way) was committed, they don't know who first committed the offense. They know only that Libby, himself an unauthorized recipient of the information, provided her name to reporters. What they haven't been able to discover, due to the obstruction on the part of Libby and others, is who gave her name to Libby, who first dropped her name outside authorized circles - that's the person who would face treason charges. And the widely generated theory is that it was Cheney, but it hasn't been proven. If it is, and he's found guilty, he'll hang for it.

So you are saying that Libby was a scape goat and someone else was guilty of a treason-level offense?

He'll hang for it? I seriously doubt that and if you believe that any credibility you have anywhere is gone.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 07:56 PM
If it bothers you to think that it bothers me, then I suggest you talk to someone about it.

It doesn't bother me what you do. If it was of no consequence you wouldn't have mentioned it other than in passing. I suggest you find someone to help you out. Try getting a spell checker, it might help.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 07:58 PM
You've got to know something about what's going on to fix anyone's post.

When someone gives you a FYP and edits what you wrote it just means that they couldn't understand what you wrote and tried to edit it into what they thought it had to mean. Their inability to follow your thought is actually what FYP stands for.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 08:01 PM
When someone gives you a FYP and edits what you wrote it just means that they couldn't understand what you wrote and tried to edit it into what they thought it had to mean. Their inability to follow your thought is actually what FYP stands for.


That, or they are just messing with you. :p


Lighten up, Francis.

NewChief
05-30-2007, 08:03 PM
When someone gives you a FYP and edits what you wrote it just means that they couldn't understand what you wrote and tried to edit it into what they thought it had to mean. Their inability to follow your thought is actually what FYP stands for.

Hey! I've got the anti-FYP market cornered very nicely over here in DC. Don't go intruding on my territory. Baby Lee can certify my claim.

I hate FYP posts, but I think you misread the rationale behind them. They're usually an attempt to make some kind of clever (usually falling far short) segueway between two divergent, often oppositional, ideas. I do agree that they have a smarmy tone of oneupmanship, though. It's as if the person is saying, "Yes, well. That's what dumbasses like you might think, but if you were clever and smart like me, you'd have written this."

keg in kc
05-30-2007, 08:04 PM
When someone gives me an FYP and edits what I wrote it just means that they know I'm the biggest idiot on the face of the earth and I should be mocked.FYP

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 08:11 PM
FYP

A bit obvious, but :LOL:

It's as if the person is saying, "Yes, well. That's what dumbasses like you might think, but if you were clever and smart like me, you'd have written this."


You say that like it's a bad thing. :)

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 08:39 PM
So you are saying that Libby was a scape goat and someone else was guilty of a treason-level offense?
The treason-level offense is committed when someone who has clearance to possess top secret information passes it along, without authorization, to someone who does not have said clearance. Libby never had that clearance. Somebody who did have it, passed it along to him, or passed it along to someone who passed it along to him. Once it has reached that level, the information is pretty much fair game, relatively speaking. That's why you won't see the reporters who printed the information going to prison for doing so. Libby was not her ultimate outer.

He'll hang for it? I seriously doubt that and if you believe that any credibility you have anywhere is gone.
If he's (whoever it turns out to be) convicted of it, he'll hang for it. Maybe not literally from the neck until dead, but he will (or should) be punished appropriately for a treason-level offense (it is often death or life imprisonment).

Nightwish
05-30-2007, 08:43 PM
It doesn't bother me what you do. If it was of no consequence you wouldn't have mentioned it other than in passing.
It was mentioned only in passing. You decided to continue to make an issue of it, so I kept responding, just having some fun with you. Take that as you will.

I suggest you find someone to help you out.
Ah, will Pee Wee Herman never be permitted to rest?

Slick32
05-30-2007, 09:04 PM
It was mentioned only in passing. You decided to continue to make an issue of it, so I kept responding, just having some fun with you. Take that as you will. :rolleyes:


Ah, will Pee Wee Herman never be permitted to rest?
:shake:

Ugly Duck
05-30-2007, 11:03 PM
And you know this how?

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/0/c/bush_sheep.jpg

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 11:15 PM
None of the things he was convicted for was for outing Plame. Does that tell you anything? IF she was that important there would have been something for the witch hunt to uncover.
I know that...I never said it was. Anyhow, that's irrelevant to what I said. There wasn't even a trial for that, it was for perjury to a grand jury and obstructing justice on that investigation...it couldn't take place. So, I disagree with your speculation though which is pure opinion.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 11:17 PM
It's funny how the Bush critics have so much trouble getting this straight.
It's funny how Bush shills keep denying the "offical" govt version of events in 9/11 Commission Report but accuse other's of conspiracy theories. Projection.

patteeu
05-30-2007, 11:46 PM
It's funny how Bush shills keep denying the "offical" govt version of events in 9/11 Commission Report but accuse other's of conspiracy theories. Projection.

FYI, arguing that there's evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda affiliates is different than arguing that Saddam was behind 9/11. Also FYI, the evidence of a collaborative relationship that Radar has pointed out to you on numerous occasions, regardless of how persuasive or nonpersuasive you find it, post dates the 9/11 commission report so it's unlikely that it was considered in the development of that report.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 11:59 PM
FYI, arguing that there's evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda affiliates is different than arguing that Saddam was behind 9/11. Also FYI, the evidence of a collaborative relationship that Radar has pointed out to you on numerous occasions, regardless of how persuasive or nonpersuasive you find it, post dates the 9/11 commission report so it's unlikely that it was considered in the development of that report.
Those numerous occasions, except for the last one, were also responded to and shown how they were not valid enough, one being the translations... nor has the govt accepted any of them either.Even Bush is now on record as saying it there were no ties, and Wolfowitz regardless of how persuasive or non persuasive you find it. I would think a formal pronoucement would have come out if they were valid. Keep believing in conspiracy theories though.

BTW I like what Bush is doing now, but you probably would be a critic of him now. That is his dealing more with the realist camp, State Dept folks, regarding talking to Iran as a means to help in Iraq despite the displeasure of the Cons who are trying to wrest that influence away from him.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 05:47 AM
Those numerous occasions, except for the last one, were also responded to and shown how they were not valid enough, one being the translations... nor has the govt accepted any of them either.Even Bush is now on record as saying it there were no ties, and Wolfowitz regardless of how persuasive or non persuasive you find it. I would think a formal pronoucement would have come out if they were valid.

Link to Bush/Wolfowitz saying there were not ties? I think you are confused on that point in the same way you were confused in post 64.

Keep believing in conspiracy theories though.

Some conspiracies actually turn out to be true, but it's ironic that you say such a thing given that you believe Obama and Hillary are a part of a bipartisan conspiracy to attack Iran.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 06:59 AM
How's that?

I took a two year old post of yours,to prove that what was said did not pan out as alleged. You're wrong, it's apparent I wanted to hear about it. You're the one that doesn't want to hear about it. Projection.

Now quit squirmin'!

:spock: Projection? Your words, BEP.

I'm not talkin 1.5 years ago.

Or is this some of that “cognitive dissonance” you were screeching about yesterday? :shrug:

dirk digler
05-31-2007, 07:23 AM
Link to Bush/Wolfowitz saying there were not ties? I think you are confused on that point in the same way you were confused in post 64.



Patteeu is correct, Bush\Cheney have always maintained that there were some ties\links between Saddam and AQ. IMO it is their only justification left for going into Iraq that hasn't substantially been dis proven.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 07:43 AM
Isn't Fitzgerald the dim bulb that gave immunity to the one that actually leaked the info? BRILLIANT!

You know, I’d forgotten about that but he did. Didn’t he also state at a Dem meeting that he would “get Cheney” before the investigation began? IIRC, Hannity was playing the audio of it on his show.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 07:47 AM
Ah, will Pee Wee Herman never be permitted to rest?

:LOL: Not sure what it has to do with anything, but that was funny.
A radio show out of Tulsa, “Breakfast Club Zoo” on KMOD FM, was doing a bit about the names of ice cream flavors Ben and Jerry’s would never use and one of them was “Pee Wee Herman’s hand cranked vanilla”. ;)

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 08:00 AM
Those numerous occasions, except for the last one, were also responded to and shown how they were not valid enough, one being the translations...

:LOL: I’ve presented facts that represent pieces of the puzzle, you’ve yet to present anything but your doubts. You can continue to have your doubts but it’s a bit funny that you try to elevate them to anything beyond being just your doubts.


Even Bush is now on record as saying it there were no ties, and Wolfowitz regardless of how persuasive or non persuasive you find it. I would think a formal pronoucement would have come out if they were valid.

Link? I heard Bush speaking just a week or so about it and that’s not what I heard him say.

I would think a formal pronoucement would have come out if they were valid.

ROFL You know, if you weren’t on here claiming that Libby’s conviction for perjury meant Valerie Plame was a “covert agent” this wouldn’t be nearly as funny. :thumb:

Keep believing in conspiracy theories though.

Says the neo-con demagogue. LMAO

Nightwish
05-31-2007, 09:21 AM
You know, if you weren’t on here claiming that Libby’s conviction for perjury meant Valerie Plame was a “covert agent” this wouldn’t be nearly as funny.I wouldn't say that his conviction for purjury means that she was a "covert agent." But I would say that the CIA document alluded to in the opening post indicating that she acted in an official capacity for the CIA under a false identity on numerous occasions (which is what "covert agent" means) means she was a "covert agent." Of course, the article didn't provide a direct link to that document, so it could be made up, but if it is an accurate representation, and the CIA did report that she was a "covert agent," then I'd say it's a safe bet she was a "covert agent."

PS - I stand corrected, the article does provide a link to the actual document. If you still have doubts that she was a covert agent, maybe this line in the report will help: "This determination means that the CIA declassified and now publically acknowledges the previously classified fact that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee from 1 January 2002 forward and the previously classified fact that she was a covert CIA employee during this period."

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 09:46 AM
PS - I stand corrected, the article does provide a link to the actual document. If you still have doubts that she was a covert agent, maybe this line in the report will help: "This determination means that the CIA declassified and now publically acknowledges the previously classified fact that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee from 1 January 2002 forward and the previously classified fact that she was a covert CIA employee during this period."
Yup! I saw her on tv testifying that she was. Good enough for me and this just seals it. But ya' know how Radar resorts to the tactics of an 8 year old arguing with a sibling and gets personal when he's losing on factual points.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 09:55 AM
I wouldn't say that his conviction for purjury means that she was a "covert agent." But I would say that the CIA document alluded to in the opening post indicating that she acted in an official capacity for the CIA under a false identity on numerous occasions (which is what "covert agent" means) means she was a "covert agent." Of course, the article didn't provide a direct link to that document, so it could be made up, but if it is an accurate representation, and the CIA did report that she was a "covert agent," then I'd say it's a safe bet she was a "covert agent."

PS - I stand corrected, the article does provide a link to the actual document. If you still have doubts that she was a covert agent, maybe this line in the report will help: "This determination means that the CIA declassified and now publically acknowledges the previously classified fact that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee from 1 January 2002 forward and the previously classified fact that she was a covert CIA employee during this period."

Of course, my first question is how “covert” can she be when she used her own name during some of those 7-10 trips? And going to work walking in and out the front of the CIA building?

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 09:57 AM
Yup! I saw her on tv testifying that she was. Good enough for me and this just seals it. But ya' know how Radar resorts to the tactics of an 8 year old arguing with a sibling and gets personal when he's losing on factual points.

:LOL: I’m just giving back what you project.
As evidenced by your need to feel you’re “winning” a conversation. :thumb:

Nightwish
05-31-2007, 10:14 AM
Of course, my first question is how “covert” can she be when she used her own name during some of those 7-10 trips?Covert enough that even using her own name, she was still using an assumed identity that did not identify her as connected with the CIA, while conducting CIA business. Some people seem to think that "covert" requires the deepest of covers, invisible on many levels. Methinks said people have seen too many Bond films.
And going to work walking in and out the front of the CIA building?I'm sure there are quite a few covert agents who enter and exit the same way. Doesn't change their covert status. And I doubt that it seriously endangers them, since I'm sure the CIA takes measures to insure that their buildings aren't being staked out by foreign agents on a regular basis.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 10:15 AM
Link to Bush/Wolfowitz saying there were not ties? I think you are confused on that point in the same way you were confused in post 64.
It's comes up very easily using google.
Some conspiracies actually turn out to be true,
I agree.
History is also full of them and average people are convicted of it regularly.
But it has a definition.

...but it's ironic that you say such a thing given that you believe Obama and Hillary are a part of a bipartisan conspiracy to attack Iran.
It's only ironic to those who throw the term "conspiracy" around without regard to the actual meaning of the word. This is a perjorative used by certain people routinely, when others doubt motives.

You provide a perfect example here.I never said Obama or Hillary were engaged in any "conspiracy". You used that word. What I said was Obama and Hillary were on record in their own words ( I gave links too) that striking Iran was an option. Even some of their actions such as Obama throwing some of his money and weight to PACs that supported Lieberman to help his election instead of the anti-war party candidate. Just because you weren't persuaded by it doesn't make that a conspiracy. This brings me back to my original point. Radar believes in certain conspiracies himself.

BTW, don't forget the Dems have started more wars than Reps and Reps get us out of them as a basis for my argument on Obama and Hillary. Bush governs to the left of LBJ.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 10:21 AM
Covert enough that even using her own name, she was still using an assumed identity that did not identify her as connected with the CIA, while conducting CIA business. Some people seem to think that "covert" requires the deepest of covers, invisible on many levels. Methinks said people have seen too many Bond films.
I'm sure there are quite a few covert agents who enter and exit the same way. Doesn't change their covert status. And I doubt that it seriously endangers them, since I'm sure the CIA takes measures to insure that their buildings aren't being staked out by foreign agents on a regular basis.
Good job....even though these things are pretty simple and obvious.
Time for RadarCon to go to his room like a spanked boy.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 10:24 AM
Radar believes in certain conspiracies himself.

Like?
Only “conspiracy” I can think of is the one where you’re chasing me around. And that’s less of a “conspiracy” as it is just plain creepy. ;)

Direckshun
05-31-2007, 10:26 AM
Of course, my first question is how “covert” can she be when she used her own name during some of those 7-10 trips? And going to work walking in and out the front of the CIA building?
Exactly how much about spying do you know?

Just curious.

In case you're just going on, you know, what you think a spy would be like.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 10:31 AM
Covert enough that even using her own name, she was still using an assumed identity that did not identify her as connected with the CIA, while conducting CIA business. Some people seem to think that "covert" requires the deepest of covers, invisible on many levels.

It does seem to be a matter of degree doesn’t it.
Much like differing security clearances.
While she may not have announced to everyone what she did, it’s apparent that anyone paying attention could’ve figured it out on their own.

I'm sure there are quite a few covert agents who enter and exit the same way. Doesn't change their covert status. And I doubt that it seriously endangers them, since I'm sure the CIA takes measures to insure that their buildings aren't being staked out by foreign agents on a regular basis.

I’m sure that agents not involved in much that would endanger them, or our national security, probably could come and go by the front door, but then that gets back to degree.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 10:33 AM
Time for RadarCon to go to his room like a spanked boy.

Wow! Now you want to spank me? :eek:
Am I going to have to get a Planet Restraining Order on you. :p

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 10:37 AM
Exactly how much about spying do you know?

Just curious.

In case you're just going on, you know, what you think a spy would be like.

Probably slightly more than the average Joe citizen, but then it’s less about “spying” and more about security clearance, keeping secrets.
While in the Army, I maintained a NATO Secret + clearance. The “NATO Secret” part probably isn’t that much of a secret since anyone that knows what I did knows that is mostly about transmitted frequencies. The “+” part had to do with something I’ve ironically forgotten all about. Sorry. ;)

Direckshun
05-31-2007, 10:39 AM
Probably slightly more than the average Joe citizen, but then it’s less about “spying” and more about security clearance, keeping secrets.
While in the Army, I maintained a NATO Secret + clearance. The “NATO Secret” part probably isn’t that much of a secret since anyone that knows what I did knows that is mostly about transmitted frequencies. The “+” part had to do with something I’ve ironically forgotten all about. Sorry. ;)
Dude, I had no idea. That's awesome.

I must say I defer on the subject.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 10:46 AM
Dude, I had no idea. That's awesome.

I must say I defer on the subject.

Like I posted, my job was more about keeping secrets than finding them.
I’m certainly no expert on spying.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 12:14 PM
It's comes up very easily using google.

You know, you should take just as much heat for relying on antiwar.com as recxjake takes for relying on newsmax.

Just as I suspected, not only did you get this wrong for the very reasons I predicted, but the author of the article lies about several other things as well.

Here is the transcript (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3208) from the Laura Ingraham radio program on which Wolfowitz supposedly said there were no ties between Iraq and al Qaeda:

Q: And when did you start to think that perhaps Iraq had something to do with [the 9/11 attacks]?

Wolfowitz: I’m not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it. I think what the realization to me is -- the fundamental point was that terrorism had reached the scale completely different from what we had thought of it up until then. And that it would only get worse when these people got access to weapons of mass destruction which would be only a matter of time.

So it convinced me that we couldn’t continue to treat terrorism as a kind of law enforcement problem where you wait until after the thing happens and then you convict people based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and you put them in jail and that will somehow deal with terrorism. I mean that’s after all more or less the approach we’ve been following for 20 years or more. And even retaliation doesn’t work against that kind of threat that what you really got to do is, eliminate terrorist networks and eliminate terrorism as a problem. And clearly Iraq was one of the country -- you know top of the list of countries actively using terrorism as an instrument of national policy.

First, Wolfowitz is not saying that there were no ties.

Second, he's not saying that there were no collaborative ties.

Third, he's not even saying that Saddam wasn't personally involved in 9/11.

What he is saying is that he isn't convinced and is even doubtful that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. He says NOTHING about his view on whether or not Saddam's regime had ties, collaborative or otherwise, with al Qaeda. NOTHING.

By contrast, here is how the author of the article (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold13.html) on antiwar.com describes the exhange:

In an interview with conservative radio personality Laura Ingraham, Wolfowitz was asked when he first came to believe that Iraq was behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

"I'm not sure even now that I would say Iraq had something to do with it," Wolfowitz said in the interview, aired Friday.

The characterization of Ms. Ingraham's question is misleading. It suggests that at one time Wolfowitz "believe[d]" that Saddam had a relationship to the 9/11 attacks when her actual question merely asks when he first thought that there "might" have been a connection (even if he never got to the point where he actually believed a connection had been established).

But this isn't the author's only deception, the article is filled with deceptive comments and false conclusions. For example, suggesting that the administration "successfully convinced" the public that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 despite the fact that the President himself had explicitly indicated that no firm proof had been established. And as another example, suggesting that a statment by Don Rumsfeld which indicated that we had "bulletproof" evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda was somehow contradicted by the Wolfowitz statement, which it wasn't.

This is really a shoddy piece of work and it makes me wonder once again why it is that those who ride the Bush Lied People Died bandwagon always seem to need to lie when they are trying to make their case?

The bottom line is that you've been snookered again BEP. You obviously need to be a little more skeptical about the propaganda you read at antiwar.com.

penchief
05-31-2007, 12:33 PM
Anyone still defending the neocon slimeballs who have hijacked our government needs a reality check, IMO.

We've hit rock bottom with Cheneyburton when it comes to sleaze. This country needs a emergency enema.

Does it matter to the hard righties if she was covert? No. All the more reason to dismiss those who religiously defend this administration as sheep.

Cochise
05-31-2007, 12:36 PM
...This is really a shoddy piece of work and it makes me wonder once again why it is that those who ride the Bush Lied People Died bandwagon always seem to need to lie when they are trying to make their case?

The bottom line is that you've been snookered again BEP. You obviously need to be a little more skeptical about the propaganda you read at antiwar.com.

yow. Ownage

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 12:42 PM
Anyone still defending the neocon slimeballs who have hijacked our government needs a reality check, IMO.

We've hit rock bottom with Cheneyburton when it comes to sleaze. This country needs a emergency enema.

Does it matter to the hard righties if she was covert? No. All the more reason to dismiss those who religiously defend this administration as sheep.

Is this your offer to be the nozzle?

Nightwish
05-31-2007, 12:46 PM
It does seem to be a matter of degree doesn’t it.
Much like differing security clearances.
While she may not have announced to everyone what she did, it’s apparent that anyone paying attention could’ve figured it out on their own.



I’m sure that agents not involved in much that would endanger them, or our national security, probably could come and go by the front door, but then that gets back to degree.
I'm not sure that I buy any of the arguments that her outing, in and of itself, represented a risk to national security. However, if we have high level officials in our government who feel free to blow the covers of covert field agents, without authorization to do so, and thus putting those agents and their families at risk, I think that allowing such people to remain free to do so does represent a risk to our national security. I do buy the arguments that disclosing her identity was a very low tactic, that it may very well have put her and her family in danger, and that there is a very, very real chance that it was politically motivated.

Nightwish
05-31-2007, 12:54 PM
yow. ownage
This is what you call "ownage?" One party spinning to counter the journalistic spin of another? Point/counterpoint doesn't qualify as "ownage," in my book. Pat succeeded in demonstrating that the article's conclusions are not the only ones that could be reached from examing the facts in question. Ownage, in my opinion, would be if he actually managed to convince anyone that not only could differing conclusions be reached, but also that the conclusions that he reached are, in fact, better supported by said facts. He didn't even attempt to do that. Had he moved beyond parry and into riposte, then I might agree that he "owned" her on that one. Far from it.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 01:04 PM
I'm not sure that I buy any of the arguments that her outing, in and of itself, represented a risk to national security. However, if we have high level officials in our government who feel free to blow the covers of covert field agents, without authorization to do so, and thus putting those agents and their families at risk, I think that allowing such people to remain free to do so does represent a risk to our national security. I do buy the arguments that disclosing her identity was a very low tactic, that it may very well have put her and her family in danger, and that there is a very, very real chance that it was politically motivated.

Who authorizes such a thing? The President, that's who. And apparently, the President has delegated this authority to his Vice President. Of course, Richard Armitage wasn't authorized to disclose classified information so far as we know, but he's not really the guy you'd expect to be carrying out a politically motivated career assassination on behalf of the neocons, either.

Nightwish
05-31-2007, 01:07 PM
Who authorizes such a thing? The President, that's who. And apparently, the President has delegated this authority to his Vice President.At least that's the story Bush and Cheney seem to have come up with to defend themselves after the fact. Whether it actually went down like that in reality is probably quite another story. And you're still left with the question of why Bush would specifically authorize Cheney to leak the name of a covert agent that just happened to be the wife of one of his sharpest critics, if it wasn't for political retaliation. Legal or not, it was about as low a tactic as they could have resorted to, and the fact that you're still defending them for it speaks volumes.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 01:07 PM
I'm not sure that I buy any of the arguments that her outing, in and of itself, represented a risk to national security. However, if we have high level officials in our government who feel free to blow the covers of covert field agents, without authorization to do so, and thus putting those agents and their families at risk, I think that allowing such people to remain free to do so does represent a risk to our national security. I do buy the arguments that disclosing her identity was a very low tactic, that it may very well have put her and her family in danger, and that there is a very, very real chance that it was politically motivated.

I can agree with most that, particularly the “sleezy political trick” part even if we may disagree on who pulled the trick and their motivations.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 01:08 PM
This is what you call "ownage?" One party spinning to counter the journalistic spin of another? Point/counterpoint doesn't qualify as "ownage," in my book. Pat succeeded in demonstrating that the article's conclusions are not the only ones that could be reached from examing the facts in question. Ownage, in my opinion, would be if he actually managed to convince anyone that not only could differing conclusions be reached, but also that the conclusions that he reached are, in fact, better supported by said facts. He didn't even attempt to do that. Had he moved beyond parry and into riposte, then I might agree that he "owned" her on that one. Far from it.

You can't draw two equally plausible conclusions about what Wolfowitz meant from what he said. He was clear and he was consistent with his past statements.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 01:11 PM
Of course, Richard Armitage wasn't authorized to disclose classified information so far as we know, but he's not really the guy you'd expect to be carrying out a politically motivated career assassination on behalf of the neocons, either.

Which brings up the point, WTF was he thinking? Seriously, what’s his real motivation here?
Was it an attempt to smear Bush? Plame? Or simpley because he thought he’d get away with it, which he apparently has?

Nightwish
05-31-2007, 01:12 PM
You can't draw two equally plausible conclusions about what Wolfowitz meant from what he said. He was clear and he was consistent with is past statements.
You can draw two conclusions. Which one is more plausible is rather relative. You'll have to forgive me if I don't jump immediately on the [insert spinner's] version is more plausible, just because [insert spinner] says so bandwagon.

dirk digler
05-31-2007, 01:25 PM
But this isn't the author's only deception, the article is filled with deceptive comments and false conclusions. For example, suggesting that the administration "successfully convinced" the public that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 despite the fact that the President himself had explicitly indicated that no firm proof had been established. And as another example, suggesting that a statment by Don Rumsfeld which indicated that we had "bulletproof" evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda was somehow contradicted by the Wolfowitz statement, which it wasn't.



This is the only part I disagree with you about. This administration IMHO mudded the waters and there was a deliberate lack of clarity in their message. On one hand they would say Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and on the other hand linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq.

At one time 70% of Americans believed Iraq had something to do with 9/11. This was by no accident and IMHO this administration wanted to keep that way so they could sell the Iraq war to the American people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

Bush's opponents say he encouraged this misconception by linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq. Indeed, administration officials began to hint about a Sept. 11-Hussein link soon after the attacks. In late 2001, Vice President Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official.

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Cheney was referring to a meeting that Czech officials said took place in Prague in April 2000. That allegation was the most direct connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks. But this summer's congressional report on the attacks states, "The CIA has been unable to establish that [Atta] left the United States or entered Europe in April under his true name or any known alias."

Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002.

Cochise
05-31-2007, 01:26 PM
This is what you call "ownage?" One party spinning to counter the journalistic spin of another? Point/counterpoint doesn't qualify as "ownage," in my book. Pat succeeded in demonstrating that the article's conclusions are not the only ones that could be reached from examing the facts in question. Ownage, in my opinion, would be if he actually managed to convince anyone that not only could differing conclusions be reached, but also that the conclusions that he reached are, in fact, better supported by said facts. He didn't even attempt to do that. Had he moved beyond parry and into riposte, then I might agree that he "owned" her on that one. Far from it.

When someone says that someone else said X, reading from shill website Y then another poster produces the actual quote showing that Y is taking significant liberties with the intent of the comment, that would be ownage. Showing someone who was swallowing up propaganda that they are wrong in black and white qualifies.

go bowe
05-31-2007, 02:38 PM
I'll ask you again, do you think her multiple trips around the world, under multiple identities, taking care not to demonstrate any affiliation with the CIA, were just to gather tourist info for Frommer's Guide? Is the CIA in the habit of sending accountants and office gofers on errands to foreign nations under false identities?


You should pay better attention, then. Obstruction was one of the convictions.


Wrong. Because of the obstruction that took place, although they know the crime of outing a covert agent (a treason-level offense, by the way) was committed, they don't know who first committed the offense. They know only that Libby, himself an unauthorized recipient of the information, provided her name to reporters. What they haven't been able to discover, due to the obstruction on the part of Libby and others, is who gave her name to Libby, who first dropped her name outside authorized circles - that's the person who would face treason charges. And the widely generated theory is that it was Cheney, but it hasn't been proven. If it is, and he's found guilty, he'll hang for it.treason?

where's jaz?

he will explain it to you, just ask...

penchief
05-31-2007, 04:15 PM
Is this your offer to be the nozzle?

Duh.....

If you aren't willing to do an inventory you are part of the problem. Anyone with a mind can recognize the pattern that has been established by a "bought and paid for" figurehead government designed to play on our pride while depriving justice in favor of power and greed.

Thank you very much for your participation.

Nightwish
05-31-2007, 04:35 PM
When someone says that someone else said X, reading from shill website Y then another poster produces the actual quote showing that Y is taking significant liberties with the intent of the comment, that would be ownage. Showing someone who was swallowing up propaganda that they are wrong in black and white qualifies.
To begin with, he didn't show that "significant liberties with the intent of the comment" were taken, since the "intent of the comment" was never conclusively or even persuasively established. Secondly, one person who routinely swallows up propaganda (patteeu) showing another that a different interpretation of the intent of the comment (patteeu's interpretation versus the author's interpretation) is available does not in any way, shape or form establish that the initial interpretation (the author's) was wrong, and thus that BEP was wrong. What you have is two posters thrusting their opinions at each other wrt what the interview absolutely intended to convey with her question. What you lack from either side is "ownage."

Nightwish
05-31-2007, 05:10 PM
treason?Yes, it can fit the bill, especially the part of the definition where it includes "giving aid to an enemy" as a form of treason. Deliberately compromising the identity of a covert agent who was working to infiltrate an enemy, especially during a time of war (she was working undercover to track weapons smuggling into and/or out of Iraq, from what I've found), which has the additional consequence of undermining and compromising that agent's spy network, is, in effect, working against the security interests of your country. And whoever was ultimately responsible for doing so, should be tried for treason, or some variant thereof (such as espionage). Outing a covert intelligence agent is not a small-time, petty white-collar crime, it's big time.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 06:09 PM
Which brings up the point, WTF was he thinking? Seriously, what’s his real motivation here?
Was it an attempt to smear Bush? Plame? Or simpley because he thought he’d get away with it, which he apparently has?

According to Robert Novak, he thinks it was just a careless slip from someone who likes to talk a lot as opposed to some kind of Machiavellian scheme. I'm paraphrasing what I heard Novak say in an interview (I believe it was on radio, maybe Hannity's show, or possibly on Fox News after he became a Fox contributor).

patteeu
05-31-2007, 06:14 PM
You can draw two conclusions. Which one is more plausible is rather relative. You'll have to forgive me if I don't jump immediately on the [insert spinner's] version is more plausible, just because [insert spinner] says so bandwagon.

Plausibility/reasonableness is the whole game here. Sure you can draw more than one conclusion in the same way you might do so given that the sun has risen in the east on every day of our collective lives. On the one hand you could guess that the sun will rise in the east again tomorrow because the trend is too strong to bet against. But on the other hand, you could conclude that we are way overdue to have the sun rise in the west. Of course, one of these conclusions is far more reasonable than the other.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 06:27 PM
This is the only part I disagree with you about. This administration IMHO mudded the waters and there was a deliberate lack of clarity in their message. On one hand they would say Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and on the other hand linking al Qaeda to Hussein in almost every speech on Iraq.

At one time 70% of Americans believed Iraq had something to do with 9/11. This was by no accident and IMHO this administration wanted to keep that way so they could sell the Iraq war to the American people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

I can understand your argument and you aren't the only one who sees it that way, but IMO, the members of the Bush administration have been quite honest about their thoughts on this matter from the beginning.

Early on, when there was a lot of uncertainty, it was natural to consider the possibility that there was a terrorist sponsoring nation involved in the 9/11 attacks. Knowing that Saddam's regime had proven itself willing to work with terrorists and having indications from the Chechs that an Iraqi agent had met with Mo Atta prior to the attack, led them to believe there was a possible link. Despite this, the administration was pretty clear that they hadn't established a firm connection between Saddam and 9/11.

But Iraq was still related to our GWoT in the way it was conceived by the administration. Even if there was no operational relationship between the two at all, Saddam was an outlaw who had used terrorism as a tool of his foreign policy. The Bush conception of the GWoT wasn't narrowly targeted at al Qaeda, it was targeted at radical islamic terror organizations AND the states that harbored them and used them. Saddam fell into this latter category so it was natural that his regime would be mentioned in GWoT speeches. I can't prove that there weren't any people within the administration who were thinking that it would be helpful if they could plant the false connection between Saddam and 9/11, but since you can't read minds any better than I can, you don't know whether this is the case either. Given that there are legitimate reasons for mentioning both in GWoT speeches and given the undeniable honesty with which the administration dealt with the fact that they hadn't established a solid link between the two, I think it's unfair to jump to the conclusion that they were trying to deceive the country into believing something they never really said.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 06:30 PM
Yes, it can fit the bill, especially the part of the definition where it includes "giving aid to an enemy" as a form of treason. Deliberately compromising the identity of a covert agent who was working to infiltrate an enemy, especially during a time of war (she was working undercover to track weapons smuggling into and/or out of Iraq, from what I've found), which has the additional consequence of undermining and compromising that agent's spy network, is, in effect, working against the security interests of your country. And whoever was ultimately responsible for doing so, should be tried for treason, or some variant thereof (such as espionage). Outing a covert intelligence agent is not a small-time, petty white-collar crime, it's big time.

I wonder why Pat Fitzgerald spent the bulk of his time and money a pursuing relatively small time prosecution instead of going straight after Armitage then. It sounds to me like there's a hole in your treason theory.

dirk digler
05-31-2007, 07:44 PM
I can understand your argument and you aren't the only one who sees it that way, but IMO, the members of the Bush administration have been quite honest about their thoughts on this matter from the beginning.

Early on, when there was a lot of uncertainty, it was natural to consider the possibility that there was a terrorist sponsoring nation involved in the 9/11 attacks. Knowing that Saddam's regime had proven itself willing to work with terrorists and having indications from the Chechs that an Iraqi agent had met with Mo Atta prior to the attack, led them to believe there was a possible link. Despite this, the administration was pretty clear that they hadn't established a firm connection between Saddam and 9/11.

But Iraq was still related to our GWoT in the way it was conceived by the administration. Even if there was no operational relationship between the two at all, Saddam was an outlaw who had used terrorism as a tool of his foreign policy. The Bush conception of the GWoT wasn't narrowly targeted at al Qaeda, it was targeted at radical islamic terror organizations AND the states that harbored them and used them. Saddam fell into this latter category so it was natural that his regime would be mentioned in GWoT speeches. I can't prove that there weren't any people within the administration who were thinking that it would be helpful if they could plant the false connection between Saddam and 9/11, but since you can't read minds any better than I can, you don't know whether this is the case either. Given that there are legitimate reasons for mentioning both in GWoT speeches and given the undeniable honesty with which the administration dealt with the fact that they hadn't established a solid link between the two, I think it's unfair to jump to the conclusion that they were trying to deceive the country into believing something they never really said.

Thanks for responding.

IMO they mudded the water not to deceive but I think as a PR move to sell the Iraq war to the American public. They didn't say explicitly that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 but they threw Saddam's name and Iraq when discussing 9/11 to leave that impression. There is no other reason to explain why 70% of Americans believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

from the March 14, 2003 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq
American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.
By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

mlyonsd
05-31-2007, 07:49 PM
I wonder why Pat Fitzgerald spent the bulk of his time and money a pursuing relatively small time prosecution instead of going straight after Armitage then. It sounds to me like there's a hole in your treason theory.
Did I mention Fitzgerald was a dumb ass yet?

go bowe
05-31-2007, 08:44 PM
I can understand your argument and you aren't the only one who sees it that way, but IMO, the members of the Bush administration have been quite honest about their thoughts on this matter from the beginning.

Early on, when there was a lot of uncertainty, it was natural to consider the possibility that there was a terrorist sponsoring nation involved in the 9/11 attacks. Knowing that Saddam's regime had proven itself willing to work with terrorists and having indications from the Chechs that an Iraqi agent had met with Mo Atta prior to the attack, led them to believe there was a possible link. Despite this, the administration was pretty clear that they hadn't established a firm connection between Saddam and 9/11.

But Iraq was still related to our GWoT in the way it was conceived by the administration. Even if there was no operational relationship between the two at all, Saddam was an outlaw who had used terrorism as a tool of his foreign policy. The Bush conception of the GWoT wasn't narrowly targeted at al Qaeda, it was targeted at radical islamic terror organizations AND the states that harbored them and used them. Saddam fell into this latter category so it was natural that his regime would be mentioned in GWoT speeches. I can't prove that there weren't any people within the administration who were thinking that it would be helpful if they could plant the false connection between Saddam and 9/11, but since you can't read minds any better than I can, you don't know whether this is the case either. Given that there are legitimate reasons for mentioning both in GWoT speeches and given the undeniable honesty with which the administration dealt with the fact that they hadn't established a solid link between the two, I think it's unfair to jump to the conclusion that they were trying to deceive the country into believing something they never really said.mushroom clouds, baby...

mushroom clouds...

patteeu
06-01-2007, 05:38 AM
Did I mention Fitzgerald was a dumb ass yet?

That's weird, I thought you were a big fan. :D

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 06:53 AM
Duh.....

If you aren't willing to do an inventory you are part of the problem. Anyone with a mind can recognize the pattern that has been established by a "bought and paid for" figurehead government designed to play on our pride while depriving justice in favor of power and greed.

Thank you very much for your participation.

Hey, no problem.
Any time you need another lesson in sarcasm, just let me know.
I’m here to help. :thumb:

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 07:32 AM
Plausibility/reasonableness is the whole game here. Sure you can draw more than one conclusion in the same way you might do so given that the sun has risen in the east on every day of our collective lives. On the one hand you could guess that the sun will rise in the east again tomorrow because the trend is too strong to bet against. But on the other hand, you could conclude that we are way overdue to have the sun rise in the west. Of course, one of these conclusions is far more reasonable than the other.
In the case of the sun rising in the east, you're right. In the case of the interviewer not meaning to imply that Wolfowitz had come to believe there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, you're wrong. In that one, the conclusion that she did mean to imply that is every bit as reasonable as the conclusion that she didn't mean to imply that. You reached your conclusion based on need to believe, not based on a reasoned consideration of all available facts.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 07:37 AM
I wonder why Pat Fitzgerald spent the bulk of his time and money a pursuing relatively small time prosecution instead of going straight after Armitage then. It sounds to me like there's a hole in your treason theory.Because Armitage wasn't the leaker, and the obstruction and subterfuge that went on (see the various convictions against Libby) prevented them finding where the leak had come from. It had already leaked by the time it got to Armitage. He's merely the one who dropped it to Novak, not the one who leaked it to unauthorized sources. Armitage was excused from wrongdoing because the State Department memo from which he obtained her name did not mention her covert status, so he didn't know he was revealing anything that was protected. You know, though, that whoever originally leaked her name did know of her status, and that's who they needed to go after, and that's who all the obstruction and subterfuge kept them from discovering.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 08:29 AM
In the case of the sun rising in the east, you're right. In the case of the interviewer not meaning to imply that Wolfowitz had come to believe there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11, you're wrong. In that one, the conclusion that she did mean to imply that is every bit as reasonable as the conclusion that she didn't mean to imply that. You reached your conclusion based on need to believe, not based on a reasoned consideration of all available facts.

The word "perhaps" clearly indicates that she's asking when he came to see the connection as a possibility, not when he came to "believe" in the connection (as Jason Leopold described it). It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see this.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 08:39 AM
Because Armitage wasn't the leaker, and the obstruction and subterfuge that went on (see the various convictions against Libby) prevented them finding where the leak had come from. It had already leaked by the time it got to Armitage. He's merely the one who dropped it to Novak, not the one who leaked it to unauthorized sources. Armitage was excused from wrongdoing because the State Department memo from which he obtained her name did not mention her covert status, so he didn't know he was revealing anything that was protected. You know, though, that whoever originally leaked her name did know of her status, and that's who they needed to go after, and that's who all the obstruction and subterfuge kept them from discovering.

What makes you say that it had already leaked by the time it got to Armitage?

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 08:45 AM
The word "perhaps" clearly indicates that she's asking when he came to see the connection as a possibility, not when he came to "believe" in the connection (as Jason Leopold described it). It doesn't surprise me at all that you can't see this.
Oh, I can see you pov perfectly. Unlike you, however, I can also see the opposing pov. I don't suffer from the same egocentrism as you. I've seen many journalists use uncharacteristically careful language, such as "perhaps," not so much to project that they aren't certain in their opinions or interpretations, but rather to keep the interviewee comfortable and not feeling as if they were shoved into a corner from the very first question. It's a way to make sure the interview goes on, that the interviewee doesn't just up and walk out and refuse to answer any more questions. One needs only look at the various soundbites and quotes from the administration during that time to see that although they weren't explicitly saying that there was a connection, they also weren't taking a "the jury is still out" approach. Through context and media manipulation, there was no doubt that their purpose was to convince the American people that there was a connection, but to still leave themselves an out if it proved to be untrue. Manipulate, but leave your escape route open, that's the m.o. of the government propaganda machine that you suck so willingly from the faucet of.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 08:46 AM
What makes you say that it had already leaked by the time it got to Armitage?The fact that he got it from an open memo that was circulating through the State Department should clue you in. The memo wasn't penned by the hand of God.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 08:50 AM
Oh, I can see you pov perfectly. Unlike you, however, I can also see the opposing pov. I don't suffer from the same egocentrism as you. I've seen many journalists use uncharacteristically careful language, such as "perhaps," not so much to project that they aren't certain in their opinions or interpretations, but rather to keep the interviewee comfortable and not feeling as if they were shoved into a corner from the very first question. It's a way to make sure the interview goes on, that the interviewee doesn't just up and walk out and refuse to answer any more questions. One needs only look at the various soundbites and quotes from the administration during that time to see that although they weren't explicitly saying that there was a connection, they also weren't taking a "the jury is still out" approach. Through context and media manipulation, there was no doubt that their purpose was to convince the American people that there was a connection, but to still leave themselves an out if it proved to be untrue. Manipulate, but leave your escape route open, that's the m.o. of the government propaganda machine that you suck so willingly from the faucet of.

So let me summarize. To see the other pov, you have to discard the meaning of the words the interviewer used and assume some kind of psychological purpose for them rather than their literal meaning. That's what I call a stretch. I take it you aren't familiar with either Laura Ingraham or Paul Wolfowitz.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 08:54 AM
The fact that he got it from an open memo that was circulating through the State Department should clue you in. The memo wasn't penned by the hand of God.

The memo wasn't an open memo. The paragraph about Plame was marked S/NF (a classification that indicates the contents are secret and that they shouldn't be distributed to foreign nationals). So much for your Armitage wasn't the leaker apology.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 08:55 AM
So let me summarize. To see the other pov, you have to discard the meaning of the words the interviewer used and assume some kind of psychological purpose for them rather than their literal meaning. That's what I call a stretch.
You call it a stretch. I call it context. I call it understanding at least a little bit how the media works. I call recognizing that the manipulation of information and media is almost never the black-and-white issue you would have us believe it is.

I take it you aren't familiar with either Laura Ingraham or Paul Wolfowitz.
You can assume that. And, as with so many of your other assumptions, you'd be incorrect. Shocker!

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 08:57 AM
The memo wasn't an open memo. The paragraph about Plame was marked S/NF (a classification that indicates the contents are secret and that they shouldn't be distributed to foreign nationals). So much for your Armitage wasn't the leaker apology.
The memo wasn't penned by the hand of God. So much for your Armitage originated the leak theory.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 09:04 AM
The memo wasn't penned by the hand of God. So much for your Armitage originated the leak theory.

It was a classified document. Memos don't have to be penned by the hand of God to be classified. Armitage was the leaker.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 09:14 AM
It was a classified document.
Not entirely. It was only restricted from being shared with foreign nationals. It didn't enjoy the restrictions that the identity of a covert agent should properly have. It was accessible to people (secretaries, interns, etc.) who didn't have the clearance to know the identity of a covert agent.

Memos don't have to be penned by the hand of God to be classified. Armitage was the leaker.
Armitage wasn't the original leaker. You can live with it or not, up to you.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 09:21 AM
Not entirely. It was only restricted from being shared with foreign nationals. It didn't enjoy the restrictions that the identity of a covert agent should properly have. It was accessible to people (secretaries, interns, etc.) who didn't have the clearance to know the identity of a covert agent.


Armitage wasn't the original leaker. You can live with it or not, up to you.

Someday, maybe you will know what you're talking about, but today isn't that day. The document was classified (at a minimum at the S/NF level). You had to have a security clearance to view the document. Any secretaries or interns who were authorized to view the document had the appropriate security clearances to view it. The document wasn't a leak.

BTW, S/NF does not mean that it is "only restricted from being shared with foreign nationals." It is BOTH secret AND it can't be shared with foreign nationals. Ask anyone who has ever had a security clearance (e.g. Logical or Radar Chief) and they should be able to confirm that you are wrong.

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 09:36 AM
Someday, maybe you will know what you're talking about, but today isn't that day. The document was classified (at a minimum at the S/NF level). You had to have a security clearance to view the document. Any secretaries or interns who were authorized to view the document had the appropriate security clearances to view it. The document wasn't a leak.

BTW, S/NF does not mean that it is "only restricted from being shared with foreign nationals." It is BOTH secret AND it can't be shared with foreign nationals. Ask anyone who has ever had a security clearance (e.g. Logical or Radar Chief) and they should be able to confirm that you are wrong.

The thing with security clearances is they all work on a “need to know basis” only.
One could have a Top Secret clearance and if a piece of information is only “classified”, the lowest clearance I can think of, and that person doesn't have the “need to know” they still can’t view that information.
Now, if one had a Top Secret clearance, they could probably raise enough of a rucus to view a particular bit of information, but it is still the duty of the person with the information not to go sharing it with anyone that doesn’t have that “need to know”.
I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that Novak did not have a “need to know”.

Slick32
06-01-2007, 09:50 AM
Instead of arguing about security clearances do a little basic research.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/security.htm

Then you have to know a bit more about how those levels are applied and what exactly what the terminology means.

There is a lot of discussion here that is based on remembering, and sometimes not accurately, what was once a daily function for some of us.

Some of the descriptions are close, but that doesn't get you the prize here.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 09:53 AM
Someday, maybe you will know what you're talking about, but today isn't that day. The document was classified (at a minimum at the S/NF level). You had to have a security clearance to view the document. Any secretaries or interns who were authorized to view the document had the appropriate security clearances to view it. The document wasn't a leak.
Again, you are wrong. The memo was accessible by people who did not have proper clearance. That much was established throughout the investigation. The obstruction and subterfuge (see the various Libby convictions) prevented investigators from finding out who had made it accessible to unauthorized personnel. I know you desperately want for it to have begun with Armitage, but you know it didn't. Patteeu, you're just not that stupid.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 09:54 AM
The thing with security clearances is they all work on a “need to know basis” only.
One could have a Top Secret clearance and if a piece of information is only “classified”, the lowest clearance I can think of, and that person doesn't have the “need to know” they still can’t view that information.
Now, if one had a Top Secret clearance, they could probably raise enough of a rucus to view a particular bit of information, but it is still the duty of the person with the information not to go sharing it with anyone that doesn’t have that “need to know”.
I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that Novak did not have a “need to know”.

I agree with all of that, but the issue Nightwish is having trouble with is that he seems to think that the SECRET/NOFORN classification means only that the document can't be shared with foreign nationals. The truth is that the document is SECRET in addition to being NOFORN. In other words, the author of the memo wasn't leaking Plames' identity by including the information in the classified document he created.

I agree that it was a leak for Armitage to share the information with Novak.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 09:54 AM
I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that Novak did not have a “need to know”.
The question is, did Armitage, or any of the others to whom the memo found its way, have a "need to know?" Considering the polically retaliatory nature of the whole thing, did anyone to whom the memo found its way have a "need to know?" I'm thinking probably not.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 09:57 AM
Again, you are wrong. The memo was accessible by people who did not have proper clearance. That much was established throughout the investigation. The obstruction and subterfuge (see the various Libby convictions) prevented investigators from finding out who had made it accessible to unauthorized personnel. I know you desperately want for it to have begun with Armitage, but you know it didn't. Patteeu, you're just not that stupid.

It's possible that the memo was circulated to people who didn't have authority to access it, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the memo was "penned by the hand of God." If you know of someone who diseminated the memo to an unauthorized viewer then link me. If not then Armitage remains the leaker.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 10:00 AM
Instead of arguing about security clearances do a little basic research.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/security.htm

Then you have to know a bit more about how those levels are applied and what exactly what the terminology means.

There is a lot of discussion here that is based on remembering, and sometimes not accurately, what was once a daily function for some of us.

Some of the descriptions are close, but that doesn't get you the prize here.

I'm pretty confident that I haven't misstated anything about security clearances in this thread. I suspect that Nightwish is the only person involved in this discussion for whom this stuff wasn't a daily function.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 10:05 AM
The question is, did Armitage, or any of the others to whom the memo found its way, have a "need to know?" Considering the polically retaliatory nature of the whole thing, did anyone to whom the memo found its way have a "need to know?" I'm thinking probably not.

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide who has a "need to know." Richard Armitage was Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department. The memo was an internal State Department document. It's not a very good guess to guess that Armitage wasn't authorized to view the memo.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 10:09 AM
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide who has a "need to know." Richard Armitage was Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department. The memo was an internal State Department document. It's not a very good guess to guess that Armitage wasn't authorized to view the memo.Nor is it a very good guess that he was. It wasn't, or shouldn't have been, available to all State Department officials. That sort of thing is generally kept only at the highest levels, which excludes people like Armitage and probably half the other people who saw the memo. Face it, if you have half a brain left, you know that it went a lot higher than Armitage. If Armitage was your first leaker, then why all the obstruction, why all the subterfuge, why all the spinning wheels during the investigation to come up with cover stories, why didn't they just hang him out to dry from the get-go? It would have been a whole lot easier. Were they just that dumbfounded, or were they biding time to hide the trail as best they could? I'm betting the latter.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 10:15 AM
Nor is it a very good guess that he was. It wasn't, or shouldn't have been, available to all State Department officials. That sort of thing is generally kept only at the highest levels, which excludes people like Armitage and probably half the other people who saw the memo. Face it, if you have half a brain left, you know that it went a lot higher than Armitage.

Armitage *was* at the highest levels of the State Department. He was only subordinate to the Secretary himself. The memo was drafted by someone in the research bureau of the State Department for the SecState. The SecState was certainly within his authority to share this information with his deputy.

Here's an org chart (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/7926.htm) for the DoS. Armitage is the second box from the top right underneath the Secretary of State.

It's beyond stupid to not only think that it's possible that Armitage wasn't authorized to view the memo, but to go on and rely on that bizarre theory as the basis for denying that Armitage was the leaker.

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 10:26 AM
If Armitage was your first leaker, then why all the obstruction, why all the subterfuge, why all the spinning wheels during the investigation to come up with cover stories, why didn't they just hang him out to dry from the get-go? It would have been a whole lot easier. Were they just that dumbfounded, or were they biding time to hide the trail as best they could? I'm betting the latter.

Or they thought this “investigation” was actually a fishing expedition. :shrug:

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 10:32 AM
Armitage *was* at the highest levels of the State Department. He was only subordinate to the Secretary himself. The memo was drafted by someone in the research bureau of the State Department for the SecState. The SecState was certainly within his authority to share this information with his deputy.

Here's an org chart (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/7926.htm) for the DoS. Armitage is the second box from the top right underneath the Secretary of State.

It's beyond stupid to not only think that it's possible that Armitage wasn't authorized to view the memo, but to go on and rely on that bizarre theory as the basis for denying that Armitage was the leaker.
None of that suggests that Armitage had a "need to know" that Valerie Plame, the wife of one of Bush's most strident critics, was a CIA agent, covert or otherwise. It doesn't suggest that there was any good reason, short of political retaliation for circulating the memo in the first place. It is beyond stupid to think that it all began with Armitage, and that political retaliation played no role. Hence why only you and a handful of the most tunnel-visioned of your fellows actually believe that.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 10:34 AM
Or they thought this “investigation” was actually a fishing expedition. :shrug:
So you're saying that they just monkeyed with the legal process, obstructed a federal investigation, for jollies, because they didn't like being investigated? Real honorable bunch you threw your weight behind, there, RC!

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 10:40 AM
So you're saying that they just monkeyed with the legal process, obstructed a federal investigation, for jollies, because they didn't like being investigated?

Or were they just playing the game? :shrug: Did you honestly think that with Fitz’s comments before, during and even after his investigation that it was a fair representation of justice?

Real honorable bunch you threw your weight behind, there, RC!

I thought we were having a reasonable discussion of the topic. Don’t go all personal on me now.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 10:41 AM
If Armitage was your first leaker, then why all the obstruction, why all the subterfuge, why all the spinning wheels during the investigation to come up with cover stories, why didn't they just hang him out to dry from the get-go? It would have been a whole lot easier. Were they just that dumbfounded, or were they biding time to hide the trail as best they could? I'm betting the latter.

For one thing, Libby and others in the WH didn't know that Armitage was the leaker. That was known only by Armitage, Novak (who kept it confidential for journalistic ethics reasons) and Fitzgerald (who, for unexplained reasons, ordered Armitage to keep that information to himself) and a few others. I believe Colin Powell knew but he didn't pass the information to the WH. I suspect there might have been others within the Justice Department or Fitzgeralds office who knew as well, but no one in the WH did.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 10:42 AM
None of that suggests that Armitage had a "need to know" that Valerie Plame, the wife of one of Bush's most strident critics, was a CIA agent, covert or otherwise. It doesn't suggest that there was any good reason, short of political retaliation for circulating the memo in the first place. It is beyond stupid to think that it all began with Armitage, and that political retaliation played no role. Hence why only you and a handful of the most tunnel-visioned of your fellows actually believe that.

Like I said, beyond stupid. Way beyond.

Radar Chief
06-01-2007, 10:45 AM
None of that suggests that Armitage had a "need to know" that Valerie Plame, the wife of one of Bush's most strident critics, was a CIA agent, covert or otherwise. It doesn't suggest that there was any good reason, short of political retaliation for circulating the memo in the first place.

So you don’t think it’s reasonable that the second in command of the State Department had a “need to know” why a person with little to no knowledge or experience in weapons materials was sent to Niger investigating a reported yellow cake sale to Iraq?

Bowser
06-01-2007, 10:47 AM
Smells like angry sex in here.

dirk digler
06-01-2007, 10:52 AM
This pretty much sums up what happened with Armitage.

Anyway I hope this story goes away it is getting pretty damned old.


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=116511

Whether he had purposefully mentioned this information to Novak or had slipped up, Armitage got the ball rolling--and abetted a White House campaign under way to undermine Wilson. At the time, top White House aides--including Karl Rove and Scooter Libby--were trying to do in Wilson. And they saw his wife's position at the CIA as a piece of ammunition. As John Dickerson wrote in Slate, senior White House aides that week were encouraging him to investigate who had sent Joe Wilson on his trip. They did not tell him they believed Wilson's wife had been involved. But they clearly were trying to push him toward that information.

Shortly after Novak spoke with Armitage, he told Rove that he had heard that Valerie Wilson had been behind her husband's trip to Niger, and Rove said that he knew that, too. So a leak from Armitage (a war skeptic not bent on revenge against Wilson) was confirmed by Rove (a Bush defender trying to take down Wilson). And days later--before the Novak column came out--Rove told Time magazine's Matt Cooper that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee and involved in his trip.

Bush critics have long depicted the Plame leak as a sign of White House thuggery. I happened to be the first journalist to report that the leak in the Novak column might be evidence of a White House crime--a violation of the little-known Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime for a government official to disclose information about an undercover CIA officer (if that government official knew the covert officer was undercover and had obtained information about the officer through official channels). Two days after the leak appeared, I wrote:

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

And I stated,

Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score.

The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.

The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was--as Hubris discloses--based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife.

Fitzgerald, as Hubris notes, investigated Armitage twice--once for the Novak leak; then again for not initially telling investigators about his conversation with Woodward. Each time, Fitzgerald decided not to prosecute Armitage. Abiding by the rules governing grand jury investigations, Fitzgerald said nothing publicly about Armitage's role in the leak.

The outing of Armitage does change the contours of the leak case. The initial leaker was not plotting vengeance. He and Powell had not been gung-ho supporters of the war. Yet Bush backers cannot claim the leak was merely an innocent slip. Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak and then leaked it himself as part of an effort to undermine a White House critic. Afterward, the White House falsely insisted that neither Rove nor Libby had been involved in the leak and vowed that anyone who had participated in it would be bounced from the administration. Yet when Isikoff and Newsweek in July 2005 revealed a Matt Cooper email showing that Rove had leaked to Cooper, the White House refused to acknowledge this damning evidence, declined to comment on the case, and did not dismiss Rove. To date, the president has not addressed Rove's role in the leak. It remains a story of ugly and unethical politics, stonewalling, and lies.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 10:55 AM
So you don’t think it’s reasonable that the second in command of the State Department had a “need to know” why a person with little to no knowledge or experience in weapons materials was sent to Niger investigating a reported yellow cake sale to Iraq?

According to the org chart I linked earlier in the thread, the Intelligence & Research Bureau, the folks who produced the memo, report directly to the Deputy Secretary of State.

patteeu
06-01-2007, 10:59 AM
This pretty much sums up what happened with Armitage.

So in other words, contrary to Nightwish's fantasies, Armitage was a part of the intended audience of the classified memo and despite the fact that he wasn't a part of the pro-war crowd in the administration, he was also the original leaker.

dirk digler
06-01-2007, 11:15 AM
So in other words, contrary to Nightwish's fantasies, Armitage was a part of the intended audience of the classified memo and despite the fact that he wasn't a part of the pro-war crowd in the administration, he was also the original leaker.

I don't know anything about Nightwish's fantasies but maybe you do. :p

1. Armitage was one of the intended audience of the memo which was written by and requested by Scotter Libby.

2. Armitage knowingly or unknowingly divulged Plame's name to Novak but he didn't know she was a covert agent. Don't know if that matters or not.

3. Novak calls Rove and Rove confirms this which he shouldn't have done.

4. Rove then tells Matt Cooper and IIRC Judith Miller. he shouldn't have done this as well

So IMHO all 3 should probably be in jail but that ain't going to happen

patteeu
06-01-2007, 11:54 AM
I don't know anything about Nightwish's fantasies but maybe you do. :p

1. Armitage was one of the intended audience of the memo which was written by and requested by Scotter Libby.

2. Armitage knowingly or unknowingly divulged Plame's name to Novak but he didn't know she was a covert agent. Don't know if that matters or not.

3. Novak calls Rove and Rove confirms this which he shouldn't have done.

4. Rove then tells Matt Cooper and IIRC Judith Miller. he shouldn't have done this as well

So IMHO all 3 should probably be in jail but that ain't going to happen

Well I think you have Rove confused with Scooter Libby who told Judith Miller, but otherwise your itemized list sounds accurate to me. I'd have to know if any of them broke any laws before I'd say they belong in jail though.

go bowe
06-01-2007, 12:54 PM
jail?

that's kinda excessive...

if charged, a plea bargain will get the charge reduced to a misdemeanor with a period of probation...

and they should get their security clearances revoked (if it hasn't already been done)...

and they could lose their jobs...

nahhh, there's no chance that they will convicted, and if convicted, the president could/would pardon them...

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 07:04 PM
So you don’t think it’s reasonable that the second in command of the State Department had a “need to know” why a person with little to no knowledge or experience in weapons materials was sent to Niger investigating a reported yellow cake sale to Iraq?
Knowledge of weapons materials would be secondary in that case. Primary would be knowledge of the nation and its business dealings, and in that regard, Wilson was more qualified than just about anyone. So, no, the second in command would likely not have a "need to know" the identity of a CIA operative who was not involved in the decision to send a man whose qualifications were not in question.

Nightwish
06-01-2007, 07:18 PM
So in other words, contrary to Nightwish's fantasies, Armitage was a part of the intended audience of the classified memo and despite the fact that he wasn't a part of the pro-war crowd in the administration, he was also the original leaker.Is that my fantasy? Where did you get that from? At no point did I say that Armitage was not a part of the intended audience. I said that he shouldn't have been, and that Libby wasn't. It's also odd that they chose to include her full name in the memo, something that is almost never done with covert agents, even in interagency communications. I'll give you this, patteeu. It is possible (though not probable) that nobody higher than Armitage and Rove had any culpability in the matter. But if that's the case, then it should be even more disturbing to you, because it means that Bush has stacked his administration with some of the dumbest f**ks on the planet. I'll let you decide: either Bush has surrounded himself with guys (Armitage, Rove, Libby) who can't figure out something simple like, hey, name of CIA agent on classified document - maybe this isn't something I should be talking to reporters about, or you can add Armitage to the growing list of Bush fall guys, along with Libby and Tenet.

patteeu
06-02-2007, 08:41 AM
When Nightwish starts telling us which government officials have a need to know which specific bits of classified data, I think the thread has jumped the shark. Or at least, Nightwish's argument has.

Nightwish
06-03-2007, 11:14 AM
When Nightwish starts telling us which government officials have a need to know which specific bits of classified data, I think the thread has jumped the shark. Or at least, Nightwish's argument has.So what is your final decision, someone high in the Bush Administration, higher than Armitage has culpability in the matter (and Armitage and Libby are fall guys), or Bush has just surrounded himself with some of the dumbest f**ks on the planet? It's one or the other, which is it?

Radar Chief
06-04-2007, 10:39 AM
Knowledge of weapons materials would be secondary in that case. Primary would be knowledge of the nation and its business dealings, and in that regard, Wilson was more qualified than just about anyone. So, no, the second in command would likely not have a "need to know" the identity of a CIA operative who was not involved in the decision to send a man whose qualifications were not in question.

You think sending in a politician to do a technical job was a good idea?
Then when the report on the investigation into why a politician is sent to do a technical job crosses the second in commands desk, he doesn’t have a “need to know”?

Nightwish
06-04-2007, 12:13 PM
You think sending in a politician to do a technical job was a good idea?
Apparently the CIA thought so, and they would know better than either of us.

Then when the report on the investigation into why a politician is sent to do a technical job crosses the second in commands desk, he doesn’t have a “need to know”?
If she wasn't involved in the decision to send him, then, no. And the CIA has confirmed over and over that she was not involved in the decision to choose him. And you still haven't answered why they would go to the very rare length of including her full name in the memo, something they almost never do, even in interoffice communications. It is almost always limited to first name only, when real names are even given.

Radar Chief
06-04-2007, 12:55 PM
If she wasn't involved in the decision to send him, then, no. And the CIA has confirmed over and over that she was not involved in the decision to choose him.

She’s the one that brought his name up, suggested him too her superiors, even wrote a recommendation for him. Without her input, someone more qualified probably would’ve gone.


And you still haven't answered why they would go to the very rare length of including her full name in the memo, something they almost never do, even in interoffice communications. It is almost always limited to first name only, when real names are even given.

I didn’t realize you’d asked a question.
If they don’t include full names, particularly when asking who’s responsible for something, then they’ve got a strange method of writing memos that I’ve never seen or used before.

patteeu
06-05-2007, 07:07 AM
Apparently the CIA thought so, and they would know better than either of us.


If she wasn't involved in the decision to send him, then, no. And the CIA has confirmed over and over that she was not involved in the decision to choose him. And you still haven't answered why they would go to the very rare length of including her full name in the memo, something they almost never do, even in interoffice communications. It is almost always limited to first name only, when real names are even given.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that you don't have a clue what "they almost never do."