Washington Post on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame

[gjohnson5]

I'm not sure where 99% of that mess came from , I was asking a question...

There should be one inquiry where the feds asked the CIA if she (Mrs Wilson / Plame) was "covert"
There are several definitons of covert so this is still up for debate in my mind

There should be another "report" from the Senate.


I wasn't sure what you were talking about


You can stop the partisan rabling now...

LOL @ assuming. You guys believe every rumor or shread of nonsense you read on these blogs, but quetion this lol.

It references the CIA referral of the matter to the Justice Department and FBI to investigate if any illegal activity occured.

The CIA is not a law enforcement arm of the government. They don't investigate domestic crimes. They are in fact barred from doing so. They can conduct internal investigations of their personnel, but those must then be referred to the Justice Dept as well.

They can't interview or investigate other agency personnel domestically.

 

[gjohnson5]

The real one I'd like to read is this "report" Mr ZWilson had that he states the names and the dates were forged. But there's is another "report" from the CIA which he never had posession of that the Senate is saying well "How did you know names and dates were forged if you never had the report?"

So there's 2 more "reports" I'm curious about

 

[Mavafanculo]

Lets put a qucik end to this

k to anyone who can find the original CIA recommendation to the Justice Dept. I cant find it anywhere, but know its a standard questionaire

Let's make this even clearer.

Instead of result, let's take it back to the time of rove/libby/cheneys decision to out her and her company (remember 2 separate tracks so dont say they werent the first)

1) was there a reasonable, if not even likely POSSIBILITY that harm would come to our Intelligence efforts, or to our Intel human assets, Plame etc.

Could her outing have in any way BENEFITTED our Intel efforts, her safety, the safety of those she worked with in the front company etc.

Are you seeing the ridiculousness of the Rights position which you're trying to defend?

2) Assuming you agree there was a reasonable (or even remote) possibility of damage, was it an acceptable RISK to take to "correct" a political "lie".

Politics vs Intel and lives.

Fuck.

-

 

[Phenom78]

Let's make this even clearer.

Instead of result, let's take it back to the time of rove/libby/cheneys decision to out her and her company (remember 2 separate tracks so dont say they werent the first)

1) was there a reasonable, if not even likely POSSIBILITY that harm would come to our Intelligence efforts, or to our Intel human assets, Plame etc.

Could her outing have in any way BENEFITTED our Intel efforts, her safety, the safety of those she worked with in the front company etc.

Are you seeing the ridiculousness of the Rights position which you're trying to defend?

2) Assuming you agree there was a reasonable (or even remote) possibility of damage, was it an acceptable RISK to take to "correct" a political "lie".

Politics vs Intel and lives.

Fuck.

-

LOL

1) You propose as fact that there was a concerted effort to "out Plame" by Cheney/Rove/and Libby. Where is your proof? Is it the same sources who insisted they had inside information that Rove would be indicted within days?

2) You dismiss as irrelevant the reality that the Executive has the authority to disclose whatever it wishes when it falls under the executive branch. It is their perogative, and one reason among many as to why elections matter.

3) It wasn't a "political " lie. The least important part about Wilson's lies was that they were intended to falsely smear the administration.

Far more important were that they were being used to

a) Discredit the US worldwide by our enemies and those opposed to our war. They asserted that Bush intentionally lied to get us into war, and used Wilson's lies to justify that stance.

b) They hampered our war efforts in a time of war. One by giving aid to our enemies to use against us, and secondly by attempting to weaken public opinion on the effort by asserting that they were lied to in order to get us into war. That was Wilson's assertion.

4) You have no idea what she did in the CIA, or what if anything she was working on with any definitive certainty. You have speculation. For all you know she interacted with no one outside the CIA in Washington in an intelligence manner, and no damage whatsoever was done to any intelligence gathering efforts or assets.

How can you possibly debate the pure speculation you hope exists to justify your position, against the demonstrable damage we can assert she and her husband committed by scheming and then actualizing to spread lies about such critical matters.


The entire premise of your argument is absurd.

 

[Mavafanculo]

LOL

1) You propose as fact that there was a concerted effort to "out Plame" by Cheney/Rove/and Libby. Where is your proof?

sigh.

LOL Do you not know this, or are you just hoping I don't know this:

1) Matt Cooper, the journalist who avoided jail, testified that Rove told him Joe Wilson's Wife (thats how Rove ID'ed Plame, not by name), and he only had one wife, worked for the CIA on WMD programs. That Rove was trying to discredit Wilson by implying his mission was really a junket authorized by his wife (Plame)

He had this conversation BEFORE Novaks column containing Armitages leak, and BEFORE it was declassified.

- Time Magazine, July 18 -
"......... Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
-
2) From Fitzgerald's Press Conference on the Indictment:
But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.
....
.
.
And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003 (date of Novaks column): on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.


There's my proof. There's more, but this will do, so I can limit your distraction/diversion openings

Now what lol.

2) You dismiss as irrelevant the reality that the Executive has the authority to disclose whatever it wishes when it falls under the executive branch.

the disclosure was before declassification, but the declassification is another distration. The question, as before, WAS THE OUTING/DISCLOSURE/ declassed or not, an acceptable risk in your opinion?

3) It wasn't a "political " lie. The least important part about Wilson's lies was that they were intended to falsely smear the administration.

The "bi-partisen" Congressional report pointed out that on the CENTRAL ISSUES, he was proven accurate and truthful.. No WMD, No Niger Yellowcake bullshit. Everything else is a diversion.

Look it up.

The angle your talking points are trying to spin is on ancillary distrations and diversions like who sent him on the trip etc. Who cares.

Irrelevant.

No Yellowcake - Truth.
No WMD - Truth.

Now what?

-

The entire premise of your argument is absurd.

ummm... see above.

 

[redguru]

My main concern here is not anything but another Special Prosecutor overstepping his authority and wasting money. Iran Contra, Whitewater and now this have all cost way too much money due to overzealous special prosecutors.

This prosecutor may wind up being charged for continuing the investigation after he found out it was Armitage who leaked Plame's name first. He knew that very early in the investigation and still imprisoned a NYTimes reporter. Everything else in this thread is a non-sequitor to me. Politics as usual. The prosecutor though is guilty of gross misconduct and at the very least should be disbarred.

 

[gjohnson5]

Read comments below. There is a reason this is called National Security

LOL

1) You propose as fact that there was a concerted effort to "out Plame" by Cheney/Rove/and Libby. Where is your proof? Is it the same sources who insisted they had inside information that Rove would be indicted within days?

I believe if anyone really knew the answer to that question , then folks would be in jail. The truth of that matter is that under the table politics will not be nice and neatly spelled out in a memo, LOL
This is you being nieve...

2) You dismiss as irrelevant the reality that the Executive has the authority to disclose whatever it wishes when it falls under the executive branch. It is their perogative, and one reason among many as to why elections matter.

We agree on something here. I believe the administration did intend "out Plame" which damaged its own intelligence efforts. I personally don't think they thought about or worse even cared about the damage to our Intel. Maybe because they wanted to attack Iraq. Maybe there was something in it that we don't know... Once again , this is not something that will be clearly laid out on paper for all to see. Even Bush isn't that stupid to put his motives lcearly on a piece of paper for it to be leaked to the press...

3) It wasn't a "political " lie. The least important part about Wilson's lies was that they were intended to falsely smear the administration.

Wilson and Plame were put in place by the Clinton Aministration. They were anti Iraq war personalities. Opinions aside... If they had professional evidence to conclude that this war is a waste of life then maybe they were simply overruled for a larger political agenda. Stating that Wilson's statements are lies because a republican Senate did not agree with his statements is also nieve and partisan

Far more important were that they were being used to

a) Discredit the US worldwide by our enemies and those opposed to our war. They asserted that Bush intentionally lied to get us into war, and used Wilson's lies to justify that stance.

b) They hampered our war efforts in a time of war. One by giving aid to our enemies to use against us, and secondly by attempting to weaken public opinion on the effort by asserting that they were lied to in order to get us into war. That was Wilson's assertion.

4) You have no idea what she did in the CIA, or what if anything she was working on with any definitive certainty. You have speculation. For all you know she interacted with no one outside the CIA in Washington in an intelligence manner, and no damage whatsoever was done to any intelligence gathering efforts or assets.

How can you possibly debate the pure speculation you hope exists to justify your position, against the demonstrable damage we can assert she and her husband committed by scheming and then actualizing to spread lies about such critical matters.


The entire premise of your argument is absurd.

We do know that the deputy director of the CIA did run an aggressive damage assessment and that the findings were that significant damage was done to the CIA's ability to gather information about Iran's plans to build nuclear weapons. That's what Valerie Plame was doing. In leaking her name the administration not only put her in danger but her contacts in danger as well. I hope her law suit pans out infomation.

I bet this is why Iran wanted a debate with Bush on this subject....

 

[gjohnson5]

If you're referring to this special prosecutor, I think Karl Rove's statements should be scrutinized to the fullest.
If he also leaked information to the press , then this should be investigeted fully , not swept under a rug

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/17/AR2005071700755.html

My main concern here is not anything but another Special Prosecutor overstepping his authority and wasting money. Iran Contra, Whitewater and now this have all cost way too much money due to overzealous special prosecutors.

This prosecutor may wind up being charged for continuing the investigation after he found out it was Armitage who leaked Plame's name first. He knew that very early in the investigation and still imprisoned a NYTimes reporter. Everything else in this thread is a non-sequitor to me. Politics as usual. The prosecutor though is guilty of gross misconduct and at the very least should be disbarred.

 

[Phenom78]

sigh.

LOL Do you not know this, or are you just hoping I don't know this:

1) Matt Cooper, the journalist who avoided jail, testified that Rove told him Joe Wilson's Wife (thats how Rove ID'ed Plame, not by name), and he only had one wife, worked for the CIA on WMD programs. That Rove was trying to discredit Wilson by implying his mission was really a junket authorized by his wife (Plame)

He had this conversation BEFORE Novaks column containing Armitages leak, and BEFORE it was declassified.

- Time Magazine, July 18 -
"......... Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him?"--to Niger. "Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
-
2) From Fitzgerald's Press Conference on the Indictment:
But Mr. Novak was not the first reporter to be told that Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, Ambassador Wilson's wife Valerie, worked at the CIA. Several other reporters were told.

In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.
....
.
.
And, in fact, we now know that Mr. Libby discussed this information about Valerie Wilson at least four times prior to July 14th, 2003 (date of Novaks column): on three occasions with Judith Miller of the New York Times and on one occasion with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.


There's my proof. There's more, but this will do, so I can limit your distraction/diversion openings

Now what lol.


the disclosure was before declassification, but the declassification is another distration. The question, as before, WAS THE OUTING/DISCLOSURE/ declassed or not, an acceptable risk in your opinion?


The "bi-partisen" Congressional report pointed out that on the CENTRAL ISSUES, he was proven accurate and truthful.. No WMD, No Niger Yellowcake bullshit. Everything else is a diversion.

Look it up.

The angle your talking points are trying to spin is on ancillary distrations and diversions like who sent him on the trip etc. Who cares.

Irrelevant.

No Yellowcake - Truth.
No WMD - Truth.

Now what?

-

ummm... see above.

Now what is the truth lol. All the parts you left out because you thought they would be inconvenient to your conspiracy theory.

I didn';t ask you for proof that either Rove or Libby ever spoke to reporters about the Wilson matter. I did ask for proof that there was some conspiracy involved between Rove/Cheney/ and Libby to do so.

Here is what actually happened, according to Cooper, with respect to Rove.

COOPER CALLED ROVE with respect to a story he was working on involving welfare reform. Cooper then changed the subject to ask about WOMD. And according to Coopers own email to his boss, Rove insisted that what he said was on "double secret" status and not to be published. Quite a conspiracy to get out her name there Hucklebrry, when accordsing to Wilsons own email he was supposed to stay silent with all Rove had said.

What did Rove actually say?

Cooper asked Rove about a WOMD story based in large part on Wilson's lies. Rove preceeded to tell Cooper that Time shouldn't go too far out on a limb (with their credibility) based on that information. That neither Cheney or the NSC had sent Wilson (as Wilson had claimed). That the CIA had information (released a few hours later by Tenet) which undermined many of the public assertions of Wilson. And that it appeared Wilson's wife (who he never mentioned by name) authorized the trip.

All of which was true by the way


So yeah, try again

 

[Phenom78]

The ironic part of this story is that it shows if anything how entrenched civil servants in government operate as if they run the country, and the actual elected representatives are just window dressing who come and go and can be dismissed as irrelevant.

Time for a house cleaning.