McClellan: Bush Outed CIA Agent Valerie Plame

[jAZ]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K3kSMvVRnk0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K3kSMvVRnk0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"(The reporters) were asking if you were the one who authorized Scooter Libby to leak the classifed information. And he looked at me and said, 'yeah I did'."

[Goapics1]

Not surprising.

[orange]

Listen again at about the :55 second mark. The line you quoted refers to Bush authorizing the leak of the "NIE" - not Plame's id.

Bad enough, but not as inflammatory as your thread title.

It's repeated again at 9:02. The clip is looped for some reason - I guess to emphasize that bit at the start, but it doesn't say what you think it does.

[SHTSPRAYER]

Rove to be indicted in two weeks.

[StcChief]

Rove to be indicted in two weeks.ROFL
again. ROFL

[SHTSPRAYER]

Scott McCellan. Pffffffft.

What a punk.

[Mr. Kotter]

Rove to be indicted in two weeks.


Two weeks, damn it....in TWO WEEKS!!! :cuss:

[BucEyedPea]

Listen again at about the :55 second mark. The line you quoted refers to Bush authorizing the leak of the "NIE" - not Plame's id.

Bad enough, but not as inflammatory as your thread title.

It's repeated again at 9:02. The clip is looped for some reason - I guess to emphasize that bit at the start, but it doesn't say what you think it does.

Looks to me like it does that between 9:03 to 9:26 with the bomb at 9:26. That's the line jAZ quoted.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Two weeks, damn it....in TWO WEEKS!!! :cuss:Just to be clear: You're cool with the administration's actions in this case?

[Ultra Peanut]

Rove to be indicted in two weeks.The niggers is gonna riot!!!!!!! OBAMA IS DOOMED!

[patteeu]

Can't watch the video but I'll assume for the sake of argument that jAZ is reporting the contents faithfully without bizarre spin.

Any so-called "leak of classified information" that has been authorized by the POTUS is, by definition, not a leak of classified information. The President has the authority to declassify anything for any reason and Congress can't tie his hands in this respect.

[Laz]

Can't watch the video but I'll assume for the sake of argument that jAZ is reporting the contents faithfully without bizarre spin.

Any so-called "leak of classified information" that has been authorized by the POTUS is, by definition, not a leak of classified information. The President has the authority to declassify anything for any reason and Congress can't tie his hands in this respect.

translation: might makes right



no matter how fucked up it is



and you don't care, as long as it's a republican doing it

[penchief]

Duh.

Who didn't already know this? Gee, thanks Scottie for not speaking up when something could have been done about it.

[Sully]

I wish presidents would out info about aliens and the JFK assassination...instead of just ruining people's careers for political gain.

[patteeu]

translation: might makes right



no matter how ****ed up it is



and you don't care, as long as it's a republican doing it

:stupid:

[banyon]

Can't watch the video but I'll assume for the sake of argument that jAZ is reporting the contents faithfully without bizarre spin.

Any so-called "leak of classified information" that has been authorized by the POTUS is, by definition, not a leak of classified information. The President has the authority to declassify anything for any reason and Congress can't tie his hands in this respect.

Then why was Bush a coward in letting Scooter libby get convicted of a criminal offense for declassifying the info?

[Radar Chief]

Then why was Bush a coward in letting Scooter libby get convicted of a criminal offense for declassifying the info?

He was convicted of obstructing justice. That’s it.

[dirk digler]

Jaz I seriously don't understand why you keep posting Valerie Plame threads all you are doing is reminding people of your Rove is going to be indicted in 2 weeks.

You should let this go.

[patteeu]

Then why was Bush a coward in letting Scooter libby get convicted of a criminal offense for declassifying the info?

As Radar pointed out, he wasn't. And Scott McClellan's credibility is questionable afaic, anyway.

Bush should pardon Libby before the end of his term, IMO.

[BigChiefFan]

McClellan's integrity is questionable? That's laughable.

[Laz]

As Radar pointed out, he wasn't. And Scott McClellan's credibility is questionable afaic, anyway.

Bush should pardon Libby before the end of his term, IMO.
he already has commuted his sentence ..... he will pardon everyone else before he leaves office. Including himself if he could.

[patteeu]

McClellan's integrity is questionable? That's laughable.

The word I used was actually "credibility" although I'd add "competence as WH press spokesperson" and "integrity" as well.

[FishingRod]

he already has commuted his sentence ..... he will pardon everyone else before he leaves office. Including himself if he could.

Question,

Could Bush just say Pardon Me? Is he the only person he can't pardon?

[patteeu]

he already has commuted his sentence ..... he will pardon everyone else before he leaves office. Including himself if he could.

I understand that and he should definitely pardon "everyone else" given the questionable behavior of democrats and their constituents over the course of this administration. It's hard to trust you guys after the past several years and I've heard too many traitorous suggestions that we try to pin war crimes charges on Bush and his subordinates to take it as the inconsequential ramblings of the powerless, lunatic fringe.

[BigChiefFan]

The word I used was actually "credibility" although I'd add "competence as WH press spokesperson" and "integrity" as well.
Wouldn't you think that somebody that quits their job based on morals and values has some integrity?

[Laz]

Question,

Could Bush just say Pardon Me? Is he the only person he can't pardon?

actually technically i think the President can pardon ANYONE even himself.

He can pardon anything but impeachment


A sitting president has to be impeached before he can be charged with a Capital crime or felony. They can't really be charged at all with anything less iirc.


like i said technically they could pardon themselves if they did it before being impeached.

never happened before so :shrug:

[Laz]

I understand that and he should definitely pardon "everyone else" given the questionable behavior of democrats and their constituents over the course of this administration. It's hard to trust you guys after the past several years and I've heard too many traitorous suggestions that we try to pin war crimes charges on Bush and his subordinates to take it as the inconsequential ramblings of the powerless, lunatic fringe.
once again ... hilarious

one of the most corrupt and incompetent administrations in history and you are playing victim card. ROFL

[Laz]

Wouldn't you think that somebody that quits their job based on morals and values has some integrity?
you are asking the wrong person about morals,values and integrity. LMAO

Patteau (the poster) has none whatsoever


lets all hope that Pat(the person) is quite a bit different

[patteeu]

Question,

Could Bush just say Pardon Me? Is he the only person he can't pardon?

There is only one restriction on the Presidential power to pardon listed in the Constitution (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2):

The President... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment

[patteeu]

Wouldn't you think that somebody that quits their job based on morals and values has some integrity?

Sure, but this doesn't describe Scott McClellan at all.

[BigChiefFan]

Sure, but this doesn't describe Scott McClellan at all.Would did he resign then?

[patteeu]

Would did he resign then?

He left because he was asked to go after being one of the less competent WH Press Spokesmen of the modern era. I don't think that's even debatable. The President's inclination toward loyalty left McClellan floundering in that role and doing a disservice to the administration for far too long, AFAIC.

[Mr. Kotter]

Just to be clear: You're cool with the administration's actions in this case?

Nope. But the fishing expedition has become laughable.

[banyon]

As Radar pointed out, he wasn't. And Scott McClellan's credibility is questionable afaic, anyway.

Bush should pardon Libby before the end of his term, IMO.

I guess I'll reform my question, Why did Bush let it go all the way to the point where Libby got indicted on obstruction charges then? Why not just say it was declassified at the outset?

[orange]

I guess I'll reform my question, Why did Bush let it go all the way to the point where Libby got indicted on obstruction charges then? Why not just say it was declassified at the outset?

For the same reason it was done in the first place - politics (specifically the 2004 election).

[patteeu]

I guess I'll reform my question, Why did Bush let it go all the way to the point where Libby got indicted on obstruction charges then? Why not just say it was declassified at the outset?

I don't necessarily believe that McClellan is telling the truth here.

If he is, what could Bush have done to prevent Libby from getting indicted? Publicly announcing that he had authorized Libby to disclose the information wouldn't have changed the facts related to Libby's obstruction. The only thing a public disclosure could have helped Libby with would have been an indictment for leaking the information which was apparently never in the works.

[banyon]

I don't necessarily believe that McClellan is telling the truth here.

If he is, what could Bush have done to prevent Libby from getting indicted? Publicly announcing that he had authorized Libby to disclose the information wouldn't have changed the facts related to Libby's obstruction. The only thing a public disclosure could have helped Libby with would have been an indictment for leaking the information which was apparently never in the works.

Should have been the WH Counsel's job when Libby got his original Grand Jury subpoena.

And looking again, you guys were wrong, he was convicted of 4 out of the 5 charges. He didn't have to lie either to the grand jury or federal investigators.

[jAZ]

Jaz I seriously don't understand why you keep posting Valerie Plame threads all you are doing is reminding people of your Rove is going to be indicted in 2 weeks.

You should let this go.

In all honestly, I don't care at all about people being reminded of that. I have nothing to hide from on that thread.

It's exceptionally dishonest when people try to suggest that I made that prediction, when I was merely posting a news report of a reporter making that prediction.

The reality of this case is much more important than the distoration of that thread, IMO.

[jAZ]

Can't watch the video but I'll assume for the sake of argument that jAZ is reporting the contents faithfully without bizarre spin.

Any so-called "leak of classified information" that has been authorized by the POTUS is, by definition, not a leak of classified information. The President has the authority to declassify anything for any reason and Congress can't tie his hands in this respect.

That was my first reaction too. Although, I think that's an impeachment worthy offense.

[Lex Luthor]

It's too bad McClellan waited so long to announce this. In my mind this is an offense worthy of impeachment. Outing a CIA agent is treason, plain and simple. Being elected President doesn't make you above this law any more than it made Bill Clinton above the law against perjury.

Unfortunately, impeaching Bush this late in his term would be a waste of time.

Before anybody jumps in to say that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent, you might want to take a look at this document (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf). It was provided by the CIA as evidence in Scooter Libby's trial, and it clearly states that Plame was a covert agent until her cover was blown. So, on one hand you've got the Bush apologists who always insist that she wasn't a covert CIA agent. On the other hand you've got the CIA saying that she was.

I'll go with the CIA on this one.

George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever, but his defenders have always said that he's an honorable man.

Apparently he's not even that.

[patteeu]

Should have been the WH Counsel's job when Libby got his original Grand Jury subpoena.

And looking again, you guys were wrong, he was convicted of 4 out of the 5 charges. He didn't have to lie either to the grand jury or federal investigators.

I don't understand what you're saying we were wrong about.

[patteeu]

That was my first reaction too. Although, I think that's an impeachment worthy offense.

It's too bad McClellan waited so long to announce this. In my mind this is an offense worthy of impeachment. Outing a CIA agent is treason, plain and simple. Being elected President doesn't make you above this law any more than it made Bill Clinton above the law against perjury.

Unfortunately, impeaching Bush this late in his term would be a waste of time.

Before anybody jumps in to say that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent, you might want to take a look at this document (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf). It was provided by the CIA as evidence in Scooter Libby's trial, and it clearly states that Plame was a covert agent until her cover was blown. So, on one hand you've got the Bush apologists who always insist that she wasn't a covert CIA agent. On the other hand you've got the CIA saying that she was.

I'll go with the CIA on this one.

George Bush will go down in history as one of the worst Presidents ever, but his defenders have always said that he's an honorable man.

Apparently he's not even that.

What's impeachable about this? If true, the President has the authority to declassify and release information. And if not true, then there's nothing there to impeach him over.

It's a hoot (by which I mean "shameful") how you guys are so outraged over this one so-called leak but couldn't give a damn about the series of serious leaks published in the NYTimes and elsewhere over the past several years (e.g. black prisons, terrorist surveillance, surveillance of terrorist financial transactions, etc.) I think the common denominator in your calculation is pretty evident.

[jAZ]

What's impeachable about this? If true, the President has the authority to declassify and release information. And if not true, then there's nothing there to impeach him over.

It's a hoot (by which I mean "shameful") how you guys are so outraged over this one so-called leak but couldn't give a damn about the series of serious leaks published in the NYTimes and elsewhere over the past several years (e.g. black prisons, terrorist surveillance, surveillance of terrorist financial transactions, etc.) I think the common denominator in your calculation is pretty evident.

It's all about purpose and motivation.

The justification for this declassification and leak was in the interests of a personal agenda, not national interest. While not against the law, it's a disasterous precedent to set for future Presidents to follow or extend.

[mlyonsd]

It's all about purpose and motivation.

The justification for this declassification and leak was in the interests of a personal agenda, not national interest. While not against the law, it's a disasterous precedent to set for future Presidents to follow or extend.

It was in the national interest to have the record set straight since Wilson had gone public with lies. He and his dunce wife deserve being outed for the DA's they really are.

If this would have been a dem administration you would not have a problem with them laying out the truth when someone like Wilson was implicating them in a lie.

F'ing crazy.

Impeachable? You better hurry.

[Mr. Kotter]

.... While not against the law, it's a disasterous precedent to set for future Presidents to follow or extend.

:spock:

Are you talking about Bush, or Clinton? Either way, do you apply the same standard? :hmmm:

[Cosmos]

The word I used was actually "credibility" although I'd add "competence as WH press spokesperson" and "integrity" as well.

While the POTUS has integrity, is credible and competent?

Pot/kettle/blind homer/black

Did you happen to catch the clip of Bush at the G20 photo op?

Where all the leaders were walking to the podium in single file greeting each other with handshakes and conversation.

Nobody, no one, not a single leader offered his hand to Bush. Bush just kept his head down in shame and concentrated only on not stepping on the heel of the leader in front of him.

Even his peers know he is a tool, a fool and to characterize him as idealogue would be to kind because it has the word "idea" in it.

Keep painting Picasso...

[patteeu]

It's all about purpose and motivation.

The justification for this declassification and leak was in the interests of a personal agenda, not national interest. While not against the law, it's a disasterous precedent to set for future Presidents to follow or extend.

Ridiculous. When you pass off high tech secrets and technical support to a rival foreign power in exchange for campaign contributions, that's a personal agenda. When you get the truth out to counter a liar who is undermining policy that you believe is in the best interests of the country, that's faithful service.

[patteeu]

While the POTUS has integrity, is credible and competent?

Pot/kettle/blind homer/black

Did you happen to catch the clip of Bush at the G20 photo op?

Where all the leaders were walking to the podium in single file greeting each other with handshakes and conversation.

Nobody, no one, not a single leader offered his hand to Bush. Bush just kept his head down in shame and concentrated only on not stepping on the heel of the leader in front of him.

Even his peers know he is a tool, a fool and to characterize him as idealogue would be to kind because it has the word "idea" in it.

Keep painting Picasso...

I wasn't talking about Bush and I'm not sure how your analysis is at all relevant to the discussion, but yes I'd call him a man of integrity, credibility and competence. No, I didn't see the photo op that you describe, sorry.

[jAZ]

Ridiculous. When you pass off high tech secrets and technical support to a rival foreign power in exchange for campaign contributions, that's a personal agenda. When you get the truth out to counter a liar who is undermining policy that you believe is in the best interests of the country, that's faithful service.

You live in a fantasy land.

[Chiefnj2]

Ridiculous. When you pass off high tech secrets and technical support to a rival foreign power in exchange for campaign contributions, that's a personal agenda. When you get the truth out to counter a liar who is undermining policy that you believe is in the best interests of the country, that's faithful service.

undermining policy = attempting to find out the truth behind the lies perpetuated by the Bush administration.

[mlyonsd]

Ridiculous. When you pass off high tech secrets and technical support to a rival foreign power in exchange for campaign contributions, that's a personal agenda. When you get the truth out to counter a liar who is undermining policy that you believe is in the best interests of the country, that's faithful service.

QFT. Wilson lied in an attempt to undermine the administration. They had every right to expose that lie. Plame or no Plame.

[BigChiefFan]

Outing a CIA agent is the correct course of action of the POTUS? Hardly.

[Brock]

the whole Plame thing was a joke anyway. Yeah, let's send a 6-foot blonde woman over to some brown country to spy on them. Brilliant!

[mlyonsd]

Outing a CIA agent is the correct course of action of the POTUS? Hardly.

If you're an undercover agent that let their spouse travel on a fact finding mission then lie in an op-ed about it, yes, you haven't got the brains to be a CIA agent.

Somebody should have gotten a medal for outing those two stupid hacks.

[jAZ]

QFT. Wilson lied in an attempt to undermine the administration. They had every right to expose that lie. Plame or no Plame.

Republican Mythology.

[Mr. Kotter]

Republican Mythology.

Right, Wilson didn't lie. :spock:

ONLY Republicans (and Bill Clinton, I guess?) lie.

Gotcha. :rolleyes:

[J Diddy]

Right, Wilson didn't lie. :spock:

ONLY Republicans (and Bill Clinton, I guess?) lie.

Gotcha. :rolleyes:

So your political affiliation is what?

demo-liber-publican?

[penchief]

QFT. Wilson lied in an attempt to undermine the administration. They had every right to expose that lie. Plame or no Plame.

If you want to play the lying game, the Bush Administration lied twice. First about the yellow cake. And then about outing Plame. So if you want to accuse Wilson of intentionally lying, the Bush Administration leads in intentional lies two to one.

The bottom line is that Bush and Cheney never should have been trying to manufacture a bogus case for starting a war. Regardless of what you think Wilson's motives were for exposing that lie, the White House was scamming the American people big time and the country deserved to know.

The Bush Administration only further exposed their treacherous ways by intentionally leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent whose job was to protect America from the proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists. The pathetic thing about that is that the president of the United States was willing to undermine national security in order to protect his house of cards.

[jAZ]

Right, Wilson didn't lie. :spock:

ONLY Republicans (and Bill Clinton, I guess?) lie.

Gotcha. :rolleyes:

I'm sure the guy has lied before in his life. The claims of "lie" wrt to Plame-gate is Repubilcan mythology.

But since no one here is willing to go on record by identifying the exact lie, I am certain that everyone here knows who the real liars are.

[patteeu]

If you want to play the lying game, the Bush Administration lied twice. First about the yellow cake. And then about outing Plame. So if you want to accuse Wilson of intentionally lying, the Bush Administration leads in intentional lies two to one.

The bottom line is that Bush and Cheney never should have been trying to manufacture a bogus case for starting a war. Regardless of what you think Wilson's motives were for exposing that lie, the White House was scamming the American people big time and the country deserved to know.

The Bush Administration only further exposed their treacherous ways by intentionally leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent whose job was to protect America from the proliferation of nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists. The pathetic thing about that is that the president of the United States was willing to undermine national security in order to protect his house of cards.

More "Look at how wrong I can be" from our friend, penchief. He's one of the best at that game.

Link (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5231933&postcount=125)

[penchief]

More "Look at how wrong I can be" from our friend, penchief. He's one of the best at that game.

Link (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=5231933&postcount=125)

Oh look, more rationalizing by our friend, patteeu.

[patteeu]

I'm sure the guy has lied before in his life. The claims of "lie" wrt to Plame-gate is Repubilcan mythology.

But since no one here is willing to go on record by identifying the exact lie, I am certain that everyone here knows who the real liars are.

The important part of my post was that Wilson was attempting to mislead the public and undermine the administration's policy and it would be perfectly reasonable if the POTUS were to choose to declassify sensitive information in order to prevent that deception from succeeding even if Joe Wilson wasn't an outright liar. It's a balance of pros and cons and the POTUS is the man we elected to make those types of judgments.

However, Joe Wilson is still a documented liar. I'll prove it when I get a chance (maybe later tonight). I assume you have a pretty technical defense against the "liar" allegation in mind.

[patteeu]

Oh look, more rationalizing by our friend, patteeu.

If rationalizing is what you call it when I point out your mistakes of fact, then yes.

[jAZ]

The important part of my post was that Wilson was attempting to mislead the public and undermine the administration's policy and it would be perfectly reasonable if the POTUS were to choose to declassify sensitive information in order to prevent that deception from succeeding even if Joe Wilson wasn't an outright liar. It's a balance of pros and cons and the POTUS is the man we elected to make those types of judgments.

However, Joe Wilson is still a documented liar. I'll prove it when I get a chance (maybe later tonight). I assume you have a pretty technical defense against the "liar" allegation in mind.

Heh... is that the same "technical defense" that you've embraced when defending Bush's "lies" about the war?

Technicalities are your friend as long as they help you get your way, I guess.

In any case, I have no idea what lie you have in mind. I know what the bogus mythology is, but I can't know if that's what you are talking about unless you speak even remotely directly. You don't have to get precise yet (do that later), but just put the basic subject out there. Is is the "VP sent me" nonsense?

[jAZ]

It's a balance of pros and cons and the POTUS is the man we elected to make those types of judgments.
This gets to the heart of the reality of the situation. Kudos for this part of your post.

Bush went after this woman personally (and put at risk the work and lives of those associated with her) in order to attack a critic, who you seem to acknowledge... probably didn't actually lie about anything.

That appears consistent with the terribly self involved and generally flawed judgement Bush demonstrated for 8 long years.

[patteeu]

Heh... is that the same "technical defense" that you've embraced when defending Bush's "lies" about the war?

Technicalities are your friend as long as they help you get your way, I guess.

In any case, I have no idea what lie you have in mind. I know what the bogus mythology is, but I can't know if that's what you are talking about unless you speak even remotely directly. You don't have to get precise yet (do that later), but just put the basic subject out there. Is is the "VP sent me" nonsense?

That was essentially the point I was driving at with the "technical defense" comment. I don't remember you being one of the worst offenders when it comes to claiming that Bush lied us into war, but I don't remember you defending him too much either.

This gets to the heart of the reality of the situation. Kudos for this part of your post.

Bush went after this woman personally (and put at risk the work and lives of those associated with her) in order to attack a critic, who you seem to acknowledge... probably didn't actually lie about anything.

That appears consistent with the terribly self involved and generally flawed judgement Bush demonstrated for 8 long years.

It still remains to be seen whether Bush actually had anything to do with this or not and no one went after anyone "personally" in the sense that they were trying to damage the person. Instead, this is all about setting the record straight and providing a factual backdrop for the statements of Joe Wilson.

I do agree that there is nothing in Joe Wilson's OpEd that can be called an outright lie. As I pointed out before though, that doesn't mean that Wilson's misleading version of the story didn't need to be corrected.

The lie that I have in mind is the lie that Wilson told to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post for a June 12, 2003 article. Wilson told Pincus that certain documents related to a possible Iraqi effort to buy yellowcake from Niger were bogus because the names and dates were wrong. The Senate investigation into pre-war intelligence (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm) points out that Wilson had no way of knowing what names and dates were on the documents in question because they were classified and he wasn't authorized to see them. When confronted over this contradiction, Wilson told the investigators that he must have "misspoke".

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself.

Whether you conclude that this is an actual lie or give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and assume he just "misspoke", the fact remains that he caused misleading information (the idea that his fact finding mission had debunked the Niger yellowcake connection) to be reported in an American newspaper.

This was not the only instance of Wilson speaking about things as if he had personal knowledge when he didn't. Senator Pat Roberts points out another example in the "Additional Views" section* of the Senate Committee's report:

For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."

Literary flair, indeed.

------------------
*Note that the Additional Views section is the part of the report that contains viewpoints that did not achieve bipartisan support for inclusion in the main body of the report. That applies to the subjective conclusions drawn in the section, but I don't think it discredits the statement of fact quoted above.

[jAZ]

That was essentially the point I was driving at with the "technical defense" comment. I don't remember you being one of the worst offenders when it comes to claiming that Bush lied us into war, but I don't remember you defending him too much either.



It still remains to be seen whether Bush actually had anything to do with this or not and no one went after anyone "personally" in the sense that they were trying to damage the person. Instead, this is all about setting the record straight and providing a factual backdrop for the statements of Joe Wilson.

I do agree that there is nothing in Joe Wilson's OpEd that can be called an outright lie. As I pointed out before though, that doesn't mean that Wilson's misleading version of the story didn't need to be corrected.

The lie that I have in mind is the lie that Wilson told to Walter Pincus of the Washington Post for a June 12, 2003 article. Wilson told Pincus that certain documents related to a possible Iraqi effort to buy yellowcake from Niger were bogus because the names and dates were wrong. The Senate investigation into pre-war intelligence (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm) points out that Wilson had no way of knowing what names and dates were on the documents in question because they were classified and he wasn't authorized to see them. When confronted over this contradiction, Wilson told the investigators that he must have "misspoke".



Whether you conclude that this is an actual lie or give Wilson the benefit of the doubt and assume he just "misspoke", the fact remains that he caused misleading information (the idea that his fact finding mission had debunked the Niger yellowcake connection) to be reported in an American newspaper.

This was not the only instance of Wilson speaking about things as if he had personal knowledge when he didn't. Senator Pat Roberts points out another example in the "Additional Views" section* of the Senate Committee's report:



Literary flair, indeed.

------------------
*Note that the Additional Views section is the part of the report that contains viewpoints that did not achieve bipartisan support for inclusion in the main body of the report. That applies to the subjective conclusions drawn in the section, but I don't think it discredits the statement of fact quoted above.

The Plame deal was inresponse to his OpEd. The one where he didn't lie. The one where he didn't really mislead, but if you want to hold onto that, then the one where any misleading done didn't require outing a CIA agent to set the record straight.

Plenty to reasonable ways to set the record straight, unless the record itself is a question of her status in the CIA... which it wasn't.

In the end, her status had little if anything to do with the record.

[patteeu]

The Plame deal was inresponse to his OpEd. The one where he didn't lie. The one where he didn't really mislead, but if you want to hold onto that, then the one where any misleading done didn't require outing a CIA agent to set the record straight.

Plenty to reasonable ways to set the record straight, unless the record itself is a question of her status in the CIA... which it wasn't.

In the end, her status had little if anything to do with the record.

1. I didn't say that his status as an outright liar was the motivation for their attempts to set the record straight.

2. His lies started before the op-ed though because the Pincus article came out before the op-ed. People who knew the identity of the ambassador who was sent to Niger would know who the source for the Pincus article was. The fact that the rest of us didn't know is irrelevant.

3. Pointing out that his wife was behind the choice of Ambassador Wilson for the fact finding mission worked toward debunking any misconception that he was sent by the WH or the vice president's office or that he was selected because of his unique qualifications for the job. It's not as if Wilson was selected from a list of experts. In fact, he wasn't an expert at all.

[jAZ]

1. I didn't say that his status as an outright liar was the motivation for their attempts to set the record straight.

2. His lies started before the op-ed though because the Pincus article came out before the op-ed. People who knew the identity of the ambassador who was sent to Niger would know who the source for the Pincus article was. The fact that the rest of us didn't know is irrelevant.

3. Pointing out that his wife was behind the choice of Ambassador Wilson for the fact finding mission worked toward debunking any misconception that he was sent by the WH or the vice president's office or that he was selected because of his unique qualifications for the job. It's not as if Wilson was selected from a list of experts. In fact, he wasn't an expert at all.
ROFL @ "Worked Toward".

As if they couldn't have come out and say directly to the public that "we didn't ask for him to go". And there is nothing about her role that was NECESSARY to refute his claims. There were other ways. They chose this one for a reason. It was personal.

And they didn't start this before the OpEd. They started it after. That fact is evidence that it was an act in response to his statement in the OpEd. Nothing else.

[patteeu]

ROFL @ "Worked Toward".

As if they couldn't have come out and say directly to the public that "we didn't ask for him to go". And there is nothing about her role that was NECESSARY to refute his claims. There were other ways. They chose this one for a reason. It was personal.

What's wrong with telling the truth and letting the public decide for themselves? We still don't even know that this was a decision made by the POTUS. In fact, we already know that the primary source for the Novak column that exposed Plame's identity as a CIA agent was Richard Armitage and there's no good argument you can make for why Armitage would be interested in doing personal damage to Plame.

It's not Plame's status as an employee of the CIA that is of interest here, it's explaining why the CIA would end up sending such a poorly qualified person on a trip to investigate reports that Iraq was attempting to purchase materials for it's nuclear program in Niger. If his wife hadn't volunteered his name, he would have never been selected to go on the trip. Whether it was worth exposing Plame's status as a CIA employee in order to give the public a better understanding of the facts surrounding the Wilson trip is something that neither you nor I are qualified to judge.

And they didn't start this before the OpEd. They started it after. That fact is evidence that it was an act in response to his statement in the OpEd. Nothing else.

I already pointed out that the reaction from the WH wasn't necessarily triggered by an outright lie despite the fact that Wilson has been exposed as a liar. It was triggered by the firestorm created by Wilson's overall effort to mislead the public into thinking that the President's SoTU comments about Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium in Africa were false and were known to be false. The public didn't really respond to the outright lie in the Pincus article, but when Wilson's op-ed was published the story picked up steam. In other words, your "evidence" doesn't really have any relevance to our argument.

Joe Wilson is a liar. And he attempted to undermine the President's policy with both his lies and his misleading technical truths. For that, he earned the exposure he and his wife got, afaic. I do not feel sorry for them in the least. And it's worth noting that this seems to be the only "leak" of classified information during the entire course of the Bush administration that bothers you at all. That's another form of exposure.

[jAZ]

What's wrong with telling the truth and letting the public decide for themselves?
Not a thing. That's what I have said all along. If they felt that Wilson's report was false or misleading, they could have publicly and directly refuted his statements. Instead they subvertly destroyed his wife's career.

If the question they wanted clarified was "did Cheney send Wilson"... the best way to correct that perception would be to have Cheney pubilcly state that they never asked Wilson to go. He could even publicly call upon the CIA to defend him on this point.

They didn't need to destroy Plame's career, her relationships, and all of her work to accomplish what you are claiming that they wanted to accomplish.

I might want to stop terrorism, and nuking mankind to extinction might just stop it. But is that necessary? Nope.

[Hermcock]

I would like to see Playboy make Valerie Plame a big-time offer to pose nude. I would eat her ass and drink her bath water.

It bugs me that she married that shithead Wilson.

[jAZ]

In fact, we already know that the primary source for the Novak column that exposed Plame's identity as a CIA agent was Richard Armitage and there's no good argument you can make for why Armitage would be interested in doing personal damage to Plame.
That's actually an interesting point.

Given that we have a reported confession from Bush that he authorized Libby to leak Plame's identity (via the doc)... it suggests that there is more to the story than Armitage. Is it possible that Novak learned this all directly from someone, then went to Armitage in order to exploit his motormouth as cover for someone else?

[patteeu]

Not a thing. That's what I have said all along. If they felt that Wilson's report was false or misleading, they could have publicly and directly refuted his statements. Instead they subvertly destroyed his wife's career.

If the question they wanted clarified was "did Cheney send Wilson"... the best way to correct that perception would be to have Cheney pubilcly state that they never asked Wilson to go. He could even publicly call upon the CIA to defend him on this point.

They didn't need to destroy Plame's career, her relationships, and all of her work to accomplish what you are claiming that they wanted to accomplish.

I might want to stop terrorism, and nuking mankind to extinction might just stop it. But is that necessary? Nope.

Showing that Cheney didn't send him is only one of the issues that needed to be clarified. You seem fixated on that one.

Necessity isn't a necessary threshold criteria for this decision. Effective seems like a better criteria to me. Plame's career is of small importance compared to the national security policy of the country. A more important consideration is whether or not the exposure of her status caused any setbacks with respect to the things she had worked on and on that score neither of us has any way of knowing.

[patteeu]

Looks to me like it does that between 9:03 to 9:26 with the bomb at 9:26. That's the line jAZ quoted.

That's actually an interesting point.

Given that we have a reported confession from Bush that he authorized Libby to leak Plame's identity (via the doc)... it suggests that there is more to the story than Armitage. Is it possible that Novak learned this all directly from someone, then went to Armitage in order to exploit his motormouth as cover for someone else?

Unbelievable! I finally listened to the OP video and Orange was right all along. This isn't even about Plame, it's about the leak of the NIE. The statements at both the beginning of the video and at the end are the same and they have nothing to do with the Plame controversy (as Orange pointed out in post #3).

Kudos to Orange for noticing this huge flaw in the thread and moving on.

Wow. ROFL

[mlyonsd]

Unbelievable! I finally listened to the OP video and Orange was right all along. This isn't even about Plame, it's about the leak of the NIE. The statements at both the beginning of the video and at the end are the same and they have nothing to do with the Plame controversy (as Orange pointed out in post #3).

Kudos to Orange for noticing this huge flaw in the thread and moving on.

Wow. ROFL

2 weeks, err, 2 months. 2 months tops and Bush is gone.

[SHTSPRAYER]

What's the deal with the Phantom of the Opera:

Sunday, January 2, 2005 | Kristinn

Posted on Sunday, January 02, 2005 9:06:46 PM by kristinn

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman (California) is reported to have given a letter to antiwar activists to facilitate their delivery of aid to the 'other side' in Fallujah, Iraq.

The leftist online publication Peace and Resistance, in an article published January 1, said that Rep. Waxman had written a letter addressed to the American ambassador in Amman, Jordan to help ease transit through Customs of $600,000 worth of medical supplies and cash collected by the anti-American groups Code Pink and Global Exchange. According to the groups' leader, Medea Benjamin, the aid is destined for the "other side" in Fallujah.

The letter was being carried by Fernando Suarez Del Solar, an antiwar activist whose Marine son, 20-year-old Jesus A Suarez del Solar Novaro, was killed in Iraq on March 27, 2003 when he reportedly stepped on an American cluster bomb fragment.

Mr. Suarez is being accompanied on the trip by fellow parents of soldiers killed in Iraq, as well as several family members of those killed in the September 11 terrorist attacks.

One Iraqi, when informed that parents of American soldiers killed while liberating his country were giving aid to the "other side" in Fallujah, asked, "what kind of people would help those killing their own sons and daughters?"

That's a question the House Ethics Committee should be asking Rep. Waxman.

[Gary]

Did you guys know that George W. Bush is a descendent of the 14th president, Franklin Pierce? Pierce was the only elected president who was refused the nomination for a second term in office by his political party.