View Full Version : The lies of Valerie Plame
Stoner
03-20-2007, 03:57 AM
Came across this article. Very interesting.
It’s a good thing Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald never had to prove that former CIA agent Valerie Plame was “covert” or not before she outed herself with a full-page photo spread in Vanity Fair. Judging from her testimony on Capitol Hill last week she would bring Fitzgerald’s batting average down considerably.
The hearing, a media extravaganza produced and directed by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) featured Plame in a well-guarded role. Citing security concerns, Waxman didn’t permit Republicans to ask or answer the questions Plame’s political adventures demand.
Now, almost four years after the Bush administration allegedly leaked her identity to news reporters to undermine her husband Ambassador Joe Wilson Plame still can’t give a straight answer when asked if she was a covert agent under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act when this happened.
Wilson had taken a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger and found evidence that he said refuted President Bush’s information on Iraq’s nuclear weapons programs. Consequently, he hawked this story at a forum sponsored by the Democratic Senatorial Policy Committee in May 2003, which Plame attended. The next day he had a breakfast meeting with reporters from the New York Times and Washington Post about his speech that Plame said she was at as well. He later wrote a nationally-published piece for the Times that said intelligence on weapons of mass destruction had been manipulated to go to war with Iraq. A week a later, on July 14, 2003 conservative journalist Bob Novak wrote a column about Wilson’s “findings” that mentioned his wife Valerie Plame was an “agency [CIA] operative on weapons of mass destruction.”
These events triggered a series of investigations that resulted in the pending imprisonment of Scooter Libby. Libby was eventually found guilty of obstructing justice and lying about how he learned of Valerie Plame’s identity.
Fitzgerald was unable to prove that Libby knew Plame was a “covert”, either in court or when he discussed her with reporters. Valerie Plame can’t prove it either.
In 1982, Congress passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This law makes it a federal crime to knowingly reveal the identity of a CIA agent who has conducted covert roles overseas within five years of the disclosure. To violate this law, the person who disclosed the agent’s identity must have been aware that the agent was “covert” at the time of the disclosure.
Additionally, in order to prosecute anyone who discloses the identity of a covert agent it is imperative that the government prove she was indeed “covert.”
At this point, no one, least of all Fitzgerald, has done this.
When she testified to the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform Ranking Member of the committee Rep. Tom Davis (R.-Va.) asked Plame, “The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent, which has a specific definition under the act. Did anyone ever tell you that you were so designated?”
Wilson didn’t give a straight answer. She told Davis, “I’m not a lawyer.”
To clarify, Davis asked, “What I'm asking is, for purposes of the act -- and maybe this just never occurred to you or anybody else at the time -- but did anybody say that you were so designated under the act or was this just after it came to pass?”
“No, no one told me that,” Plame replied.
Rep. John Yarmuth (D.-Ky.) asked her, “Without destroying or disclosing classified information, what does ‘covert’ mean?”
Wilson said, “I’m not lawyer, but my understanding is that the CIA is taking affirmative steps to ensure that there’s not links between the operations officer and the Central Intelligence Agency. It’s that simple.”
Washington lawyer Victoria Toensing, former chief counsel or the Senate Intelligence Committee and former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration testified to the committee shortly after Plame. Toensing said the definition of “covert” wasn’t as simple as Plame said it was.
Toensing helped write the 1982 Identities Protection Act legislation and insisted “She [Plame] was not a covert agent under the Act.”
“Nobody was ever charged with knowing that she was covert” Toensing explained. “Therefore she wasn’t covered by the statute.”
The act defines a “covert” agent as one whose undercover status is classified, has been assigned to foreign duties within the past five years, and which the government has made a concerted effort to conceal the identity. As Toensing explained in a January 2005 column, “This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as ‘covert.’”
Plame testified that she believed her covert status was more fluid. She said, “Just like a general is a general whether he is in the field in Iraq or Afghanistan; when he comes back to the Pentagon, he's still a general,” she told the committee. “In the same way, covert operations officers who are serving in the field, when they rotate back for temporary assignment in Washington, they too are still covert.”
Chairman Henry Waxman told Toensing he was “stunned” with her assessment that Plame was not covert at the time of Novak’s disclosure. Waxman told Toensing, “General Hayden, the head of the CIA, told me personally that she was -- that if I said that she was a covert agent, it wouldn't be an incorrect statement.”
Toensing asked him, “Does he want to swear that she was a covert agent under the Act?”
“I'm trying to say this as carefully as I can,” Waxman said. “He reviewed my statement. And my statement was that she was a covert agent.”
“So he didn't say it was under the Act,” Toensing clarified.
“Well, OK, so you're trying to define it exactly under the Act,” Waxman said.
“That's important,” she said. Waxman didn’t permit Toensing to explain further the definition of a covert agent under the Act.
He cut her off abruptly. “No, no, no. No, no, no” Waxman said. “I’m not giving you—I’m not yielding my time to you. So that’s your interpretation.” Then, Waxman changed the subject.
So far, neither Plame, nor Waxman, nor Hayden or anyone else has been able to show that by law Plame was a covert agent on July 14, 2003.
Valerie Plame isn’t a lawyer, but Patrick Fitzgerald and Victoria Toensing both are. And bottom line of this case is that Fitzgerald hasn’t been able to prosecute anyone under the law Toensing helped write and Plame and her Democrat allies continue to exploit.
Plame isn’t through, by any means. There will be more hearings and much more media coverage. Perhaps -- in a closed session in which she testifies under oath – Republicans can start getting to the bottom of the Plame Game.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19860
wonder cow
03-20-2007, 06:27 AM
Libby was busted for lying under oath and obstruction of justice, not outing a covert agent of the CIA.
In fact I saw a clip tonight in which Tom Davis asked her if she was covert and she said yes. One of the first questions he asked her was "are you a democrat". A must question for all political hack wads.
It seems the discussion in this article is about whether or not she was covert as defined by a law that could have been used to prosecute the people who outed her identity.
If we review this whole situation:
(1) The president makes what is known to be a false allegation about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa.
Jan 2003 State of the Union: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Wilson's trip to Nigeria and the accompanying report took place in 2002, and in it Mr. Wilson states that a deal for uranium was very unlikely.
(2) Wilson was angry about Mr. Bush still using the uranium lie and made it known to the public that it was a lie.
(3) In retaliation, the Bush administration leaked Palme’s name.
(4) Libby gets sent to the clink for obstruction of justice and lying under oath about the Plame leak.
(5) Now right wing hack wads must distort facts, spread lies, slander, and all around FUD the whole affair in order to save a little face.
Had the Republicans won in the mid terms, this investigation would not be taking place.
So as of right now, it is good to have a dissenting Congress, if for no other reason to make Bush’s life miserable. The very thought of which brings warmth to my cold, evil, liberal heart.
*Uhmwahahahahahahaha*
Had the Republicans won in the mid terms, this investigation would not be taking place.
Correction: had the Republicans won the mid-term election, NO investigations would be taking place. Think about it: Building 18 would still be a mystery, the prosucutor scandal would be swept under the carpet and future wrongdoing would be swept under the carpet the same way that past wrongdoings have been.
“Nobody was ever charged with knowing that she was covert” Toensing explained. “Therefore she wasn’t covered by the statute.”
That's like saying "No one said the sun came up today, therefore the sun must not be up." Assinine. Fitzgerald chickened out when it came to charging one of the president's men with outing Plame. That doesn't mean she wasn't covert. She fits the bill perfectly: classified job and overseas service within the last five years= covert. Now we're just waiting for a prosecutor with balls to come and charge some Republicans with the crime.
I'm not holding my breath.
BoogyMan
03-20-2007, 12:27 PM
Fitzgerald chickened out when it came to charging one of the president's men with outing Plame.
ECW this is an interesting comment. I have, previously, read articles posted by you and others left of center, who have lauded Fitzgerald as a principled man who will get the job done. Fitzgerald gets the job done and finds nothing upon which to prosecute and you now trash him as if you had some kind of inside knowledge that the man was too scared to do his job?
How about supporting this comment? Flesh it out a bit with some kind of proof.
CheesyMuslim
03-20-2007, 12:39 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. Novak.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Buck Laser
03-20-2007, 02:45 PM
Let's see here. Stoner posts an article from Human Events under the topic "the lies of Valerie Plame," and the Usual Suspects start gabbling about Fitzgerald and Novak. Brilliant. Just. F'ing. Brilliant.:P
What makes it funnier to me is the article in today's WaPo that reports that Fitzgerald was on the DOJ's (S)Hit List, too. Only I guess they couldn't bring that one up. Oh, it's fun to watch a corrupt administration unravel like this. If 9/11 hadn't happened, we might have been watching this happen in 2002 or 2003. So a national tragedy buys the Bush Maladministration five more years.
piratemonkey
03-20-2007, 02:50 PM
If Plame is lying...
Why is she willing to give testimony to Congress under oath, when Cheney and Rove won't?
All they would have to do is give sworn testimony, prove her wrong and she'd go to jail for giving false testimony to Congress under oath.
Hmmmm.... I wonder why they won't do that?
:rolleyes:
Fitzgerald chickened out when it came to charging one of the president's men with outing Plame.
ECW this is an interesting comment. I have, previously, read articles posted by you and others left of center, who have lauded Fitzgerald as a principled man who will get the job done. Fitzgerald gets the job done and finds nothing upon which to prosecute and you now trash him as if you had some kind of inside knowledge that the man was too scared to do his job?
How about supporting this comment? Flesh it out a bit with some kind of proof.
Once he made Libby the fall guy for Rove and got him convicted, he said he was going back to his "day job" which, in case you forgot, was a USA. He closed the investigation when numerous questions were left unanswered. No further charges were filed when it was clear that other crimes had been committed. Why? Why didn't Fitzgerald do more? He wants to keep his job. He sees that 8 of his fellow prosecutors, all loyal Republicans, are getting the sack because they went after Republicans that they weren't ASKED to go after. He see the writing on the wall.
He's acting just like an attorney tells his client to act. An attorney tells his client not to answer more of a question than you are asked. He's following the same advice and calling it quits while he's ahead.
If Plame is lying...
Why is she willing to give testimony to Congress under oath, when Cheney and Rove won't?
All they would have to do is give sworn testimony, prove her wrong and she'd go to jail for giving false testimony to Congress under oath.
Hmmmm.... I wonder why they won't do that?
:rolleyes:
Because, piratemonkey, EVERYONE knows Cheney and Rove are liars. Plame is not. It's that simple.
BoogyMan
03-20-2007, 04:14 PM
Once he made Libby the fall guy for Rove and got him convicted, he said he was going back to his "day job" which, in case you forgot, was a USA. He closed the investigation when numerous questions were left unanswered. No further charges were filed when it was clear that other crimes had been committed. Why? Why didn't Fitzgerald do more? He wants to keep his job. He sees that 8 of his fellow prosecutors, all loyal Republicans, are getting the sack because they went after Republicans that they weren't ASKED to go after. He see the writing on the wall.
Clear to whom ECW? You? I don't know that you know what Fitzgerald does nor are you capable, based on that lack of information, of making a clear judgmental call for the conspiracy that you are propagating.
I find your newfound theory to be quite entertainingly timed though.
Once he made Libby the fall guy for Rove and got him convicted, he said he was going back to his "day job" which, in case you forgot, was a USA. He closed the investigation when numerous questions were left unanswered. No further charges were filed when it was clear that other crimes had been committed. Why? Why didn't Fitzgerald do more? He wants to keep his job. He sees that 8 of his fellow prosecutors, all loyal Republicans, are getting the sack because they went after Republicans that they weren't ASKED to go after. He see the writing on the wall.
Clear to whom ECW? You? I don't know that you know what Fitzgerald does nor are you capable, based on that lack of information, of making a clear judgmental call for the conspiracy that you are propagating.
I find your newfound theory to be quite entertainingly timed though.
...and accurate, too. Thanks for playing. (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3985&pid=45061#pid45061)
BoogyMan
03-20-2007, 04:24 PM
...and accurate, too. Thanks for playing. (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3985&pid=45061#pid45061)
Desire to see someone fail does not accuracy make, nor does the cheerleading of the left for a hypocritical and sorry left-generated "scandal."
:D
...and accurate, too. Thanks for playing. (http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=3985&pid=45061#pid45061)
Desire to see someone fail does not accuracy make, nor does the cheerleading of the left for a hypocritical and sorry left-generated "scandal."
:D
Sorry, but I have no desire to see anyone fail. My only wish is that Fitz still had the testicles that God gave him. It appears he handed them over when he took the USA job to begin with. I presume he wants them back sometime in the future so he is "playing well with others" until that time comes.
Calling it a "hypocritical and sorry left-generated 'scandal' " and actually making it so are two different things. In fact, the law was broken when the 8 were sacked because some were in the middle of probes and USAs cannot be fired during said probes. Is it a neocon mantra to blatently ignore every law that does not suit their purpose? It seems to be what you are advocating.
If Plame is lying...
Why is she willing to give testimony to Congress under oath, when Cheney and Rove won't?
All they would have to do is give sworn testimony, prove her wrong and she'd go to jail for giving false testimony to Congress under oath.
Hmmmm.... I wonder why they won't do that?
:rolleyes:
Because they learned thier lesson when Clinton did it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In 1982, Congress passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. This law makes it a federal crime to knowingly reveal the identity of a CIA agent who has conducted covert roles overseas within five years of the disclosure. To violate this law, the person who disclosed the agent’s identity must have been aware that the agent was “covert” at the time of the disclosure.
Here is their out, If I understand the testimony as I heard it, not as this article is spinning it. All the "players" are stating that they did not know that she was covert. Knowing it the key word.
Thus bringing us back to testifying under oath.
piratemonkey
03-20-2007, 06:17 PM
If Plame is lying...
Why is she willing to give testimony to Congress under oath, when Cheney and Rove won't?
All they would have to do is give sworn testimony, prove her wrong and she'd go to jail for giving false testimony to Congress under oath.
Hmmmm.... I wonder why they won't do that?
:rolleyes:
Because, piratemonkey, EVERYONE knows Cheney and Rove are liars. Plame is not. It's that simple.
Seriously, though.
One side is willing to testify under oath with jail as a consequence of lying.
The other side isn't.
Just based upon those facts, who should we believe?
Buck Laser
03-21-2007, 01:57 AM
If Plame is lying...
Why is she willing to give testimony to Congress under oath, when Cheney and Rove won't?
All they would have to do is give sworn testimony, prove her wrong and she'd go to jail for giving false testimony to Congress under oath.
Hmmmm.... I wonder why they won't do that?
:rolleyes:
Well, despite Stoner's horse shit article from "Human Events," in Waxman's opening statement he read a letter from the CIA stating explicitly that Plame WAS a covert agent at the time of the disclosure, no? Why the hell would this not put the matter to rest? If anyone would know, would it not be CIA ?
BIrdzeye
03-21-2007, 12:52 PM
My oldest brother is a Navy vet who now works for a Navy contractor. He has some kind of high-level security clearance for his job, and he's generally pretty conservative.
So it was a big surprise in '04 when he informed me that he was voting for Kerry. Why, I asked? Well, it seems he was pretty upset about the outing of Plame, and the seemingly casual attitude by the Bush administration over that security breach. My brother said that if he had leaked classified information like that, not only would he be fired in a heartbeat, but he'd probably be brought up on criminal charges.
He believed a crime was committed, and that someone should be charged with it.
CheesyMuslim
03-21-2007, 02:22 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. Second hand blatherings.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
If Plame is lying...
Why is she willing to give testimony to Congress under oath, when Cheney and Rove won't?
All they would have to do is give sworn testimony, prove her wrong and she'd go to jail for giving false testimony to Congress under oath.
Hmmmm.... I wonder why they won't do that?
:rolleyes:
Well, despite Stoner's horse shit article from "Human Events," in Waxman's opening statement he read a letter from the CIA stating explicitly that Plame WAS a covert agent at the time of the disclosure, no? Why the hell would this not put the matter to rest? If anyone would know, would it not be CIA ?
C'mon, Buck! Don't you know that the CIA doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground? Political operatives like Karl Rove and neocon brainiacs like Richard Armatage have more intuitive knowledge in their pinky than the entire CIA put together. The CIA don't know squat compared to those two. And hey, just to be on the correct side, they'll get the Vice President to declassify Plame's job after she was revealed so no crime was committed because-LOOK- it's not classifed anymore. Don't worry your pretty little head about the nukes they are building over in Iran, you know, the area of intelligence that Ms Plame was working on because those Muslim wingnuts don't have the testicles to fire a missle at us even if they did manage to make a bomb. We won't know that for sure anymore because the agent we had working on that ain't there anymore but don't worry about it. Hey, did you see the grand slam Jason Giambi hit in spring training yesterday? The Yankees are gonna be killer this year...
1. Second hand blatherings.
As opposed to the Lack Of Proof blatherings you frequently offer up for us? Hmmm.
Elrathin
03-21-2007, 06:09 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. Second hand blatherings.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Damn that is a harsh thing to say about the comments you make here Chess. :D
Churchel
03-23-2007, 12:01 AM
Rove has been known as a leaker for the past 27 years, look his name up with the first bush run in 1980. I am not citing sources because I really believe with me here it is a waste of time. I do not say things that are not backed up, and if I make a mistake, I cite a few sources showing my mistake.
You guys have to take me at my word. Mastermind nothing. If it takes a mastermind to get someone elected I suggest someone else. I used to sell windows, but they "sold themselves". They were good products so we will let that go by the wayside like we would a good candidate for president.
We need to find a way to discount the "60 million" BFFJ folks. They cannot be helped, they need to help themselves.
BoogyMan
03-23-2007, 12:06 AM
Rove has been known as a leaker for the past 27 years, look his name up with the first bush run in 1980. I am not citing sources because I really believe with me here it is a waste of time. I do not say things that are not backed up, and if I make a mistake, I cite a few sources showing my mistake.
You guys have to take me at my word. Mastermind nothing. If it takes a mastermind to get someone elected I suggest someone else. I used to sell windows, but they "sold themselves". They were good products so we will let that go by the wayside like we would a good candidate for president.
We need to find a way to discount the "60 million" BFFJ folks. They cannot be helped, they need to help themselves.
You have GOT to be kidding me?!?! You don't have to cite your sources because we should trust you?
[attachment=144]
Labrocca
03-23-2007, 01:23 AM
If Plame is lying...
Why is she willing to give testimony to Congress under oath, when Cheney and Rove won't?
All they would have to do is give sworn testimony, prove her wrong and she'd go to jail for giving false testimony to Congress under oath.
Hmmmm.... I wonder why they won't do that?
:rolleyes:
Really easy answer here. Plame gets book and appearance deals out of this...Rove and Cheney get attacked by blogs for it. Seems like a good enough reason not to appear to me. I watched some of the questioning and the question was diverted when asked if Plame was actually a covert agent. It's the smoking gun in this whole thing and if she was a covert agent I guarantee you that question would be allowed and answered repeatedly. Instead Plame was NOT a covert agent as defined by the 1982 act and exposing her was NOT a crime. As for Libby...well it's a mess and I won't defend him. However I won't believe that Plame isn't more interested in her own notoriety or being the latest pawn in the liberal attack game one this administration. I wouldn't be suprised if George Soros himself is financing her.
Pookie
03-23-2007, 01:37 AM
Then if she was not a covert agent and if this was not a problem, why is this in the news? Why is this being looked into?
Plame testified under oath, which is a tad bit more than others have done. It seems to me there is quite a lot of bitterness and resentment since the Republicans lost power. Interesting.
Hugs,
Pookie
I watched some of the questioning and the question was diverted when asked if Plame was actually a covert agent. It's the smoking gun in this whole thing and if she was a covert agent I guarantee you that question would be allowed and answered repeatedly.
Well I guess the head of the CIA doesn't know what he's talking about....oh and that book......it's being held up because the CIA says the information in it states that she is covert. How's that for a Catch 22?
Labrocca
03-23-2007, 01:50 AM
Then if she was not a covert agent and if this was not a problem, why is this in the news? Why is this being looked into?
Plame testified under oath, which is a tad bit more than others have done. It seems to me there is quite a lot of bitterness and resentment since the Republicans lost power. Interesting.
Hugs,
Pookie
Bitter? Nope..it's perfect. The dems are gonna waste this small 2 year opportunity attacking Bush and a new GOP President will get elected in 2008. The Dems are given a chance to help govern...and govern they are not doing. Instead they are still continuing to attack Bush.
BoogyMan
03-23-2007, 01:58 AM
Then if she was not a covert agent and if this was not a problem, why is this in the news? Why is this being looked into?
Plame testified under oath, which is a tad bit more than others have done. It seems to me there is quite a lot of bitterness and resentment since the Republicans lost power. Interesting.
Hugs,
Pookie
Hi Pookie, your question assumes an honorable intent on the part of the liberals in Washington. No such intent exists and thus the desire to drag this whole issue out for as long as possible.
If there was a crime committed, Fitzgerald would have charged someone for the crime, no charge=no crime.
Pookie
03-23-2007, 02:04 AM
Hi, Boogy! No, honestly, outing a CIA anybody is not a good thing. Did he lie? Was he found guilty? Yes. Did she testify under oath? Yes. Honey, I just think that something here was wrong and it's not any type of "intent." Even Arlen Spector has had it with this administration's coverups and hedging (see today's news).
It was time for a change when the reps took over years ago, now there are things to be looked into this time. We will see what happens.
Hugs,
Pookie
BoogyMan
03-23-2007, 02:24 AM
Hi, Boogy! No, honestly, outing a CIA anybody is not a good thing. Did he lie? Was he found guilty? Yes. Did she testify under oath? Yes. Honey, I just think that something here was wrong and it's not any type of "intent." Even Arlen Spector has had it with this administration's coverups and hedging (see today's news).
It was time for a change when the reps took over years ago, now there are things to be looked into this time. We will see what happens.
Hugs,
Pookie
I also will watch with interest. Keep in mind that Fitzgerald has said that his investigation has been inactive since before the trial and that his intent was to go back to his day job. Also keep in mind that no charges were filed that dealt with the core of the case, the outing of a covert agent.
If Fitzgerald had found anything he would have definately filed charges and went after the accused with fervor.
I have found it quite telling, though, that there are quite a few left leaning folk out there who are now trashing Fitzgerald for not having given them what has been referred to as Fitzmas.
I also wonder in light of the Richard Armitage admission of guilt why Fitzgerald didn't charge him with the crime if there actually was one.
It just doesn't add up.
Pookie
03-23-2007, 02:35 AM
Lots of things on both sides of the fence just don't add up, and until we truly get a bipartisan bunch in there who look at everything fairly and evenly, there will be these things.
I think my hubby had a great idea. Do away with all the politicians, put in a bunch of honest, hard-working folks in there. No party lines, no one owing favors or granting favors. Now THAT might get real results.
Hugs,
Pookie
piratemonkey
03-23-2007, 03:01 AM
Bitter? Nope..it's perfect. The dems are gonna waste this small 2 year opportunity attacking Bush and a new GOP President will get elected in 2008. The Dems are given a chance to help govern...and govern they are not doing. Instead they are still continuing to attack Bush.
Love it.
And what would you call what the Republican Congress did during the Clinton Presidency? not attacking?
What's more important?
a) Judicial Independence
b) a blowjob
Churchel
03-23-2007, 03:57 AM
Rove has been known as a leaker for the past 27 years, look his name up with the first bush run in 1980. I am not citing sources because I really believe with me here it is a waste of time. I do not say things that are not backed up, and if I make a mistake, I cite a few sources showing my mistake.
You guys have to take me at my word. Mastermind nothing. If it takes a mastermind to get someone elected I suggest someone else. I used to sell windows, but they "sold themselves". They were good products so we will let that go by the wayside like we would a good candidate for president.
We need to find a way to discount the "60 million" BFFJ folks. They cannot be helped, they need to help themselves.
You have GOT to be kidding me?!?! You don't have to cite your sources because we should trust you?
Alright, the source is my dad. A 50 year republican. If he says rove is an asshole, then rove is an asshole. In my classical constant mannerisms, don't knock my dad on his word or I will be forced to buy a cross continental plane ticket for the sole reasons of kicking you in the ding-ding.
Churchel
03-23-2007, 04:15 AM
If my dad calls him an asshole, he is an asshole.
1992 George H. W. Bush presidential campaign
"Sources close to the former president George H.W. Bush say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted" (Esquire Magazine, January 2003). Novak provided some evidence of motive in his column describing the firing of Mosbacher by former Senator Phil Gramm: "Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher." Novak and Rove deny that Rove was the leaker, but Mosbacher maintains, "Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this. We let him go. I still believe he did it."[22] During testimony before the CIA leak grand jury, Rove apparently confirmed his prior involvement with Novak in the 1992 campaign leak, according to National Journal reporter Murray Waas.[23]
Rove and Novak........a match made in heaven, made to last too.
Labrocca
03-23-2007, 05:13 AM
In my classical constant mannerisms, don't knock my dad on his word or I will be forced to buy a cross continental plane ticket for the sole reasons of kicking you in the ding-ding.
If that's what it will take to finally get you to come visit..then your Dad's a real asshole too. And btw can we still get a beer after you kick me ass around? :P
Love it.
And what would you call what the Republican Congress did during the Clinton Presidency? not attacking?
Oh I agree that it was a waste of time, money, and energy. You must admit though that at LEAST it had focus. The investigations into the Bush administration are all over the map. Two wrongs don't make a right. Tit for Tat isn't serving the people imho. Our government is already a POS bought and paid for by big business. Now it's turning into a tabloid tale. Tabloids and the press also fueled the Clinton investigation just as much as anything. Once Lewinsky came out with admission to giving the Pres a BJ it was on. If you have anyone to blame...blame her for not being able to keep her mouth shut (oh you gotta love the play on words).
It was Linda Tripp that recorded Lewinsky talking about her relationship with Clinton to her. Evidence...clear and precise.
Drocket
03-23-2007, 05:36 AM
You must admit though that at LEAST it had focus.
You've GOT to be kidding. Clinton was investigated for everything under the sun. You name it, Republicans accused him of doing it. They spent a couple of months investigating who he sent *Christmas cards* to.
Churchel
03-23-2007, 05:40 AM
it was a waste of time, money, and energy. You must admit though that at LEAST it had focus. The investigations into the Bush administration are all over the map.
Que? It started with a land deal and ended with a blowjob. I need to see a picture of that text on a t shirt, then I will work the courage up to ask the buxom blonde at work to accompany me to Vegas.
What am I supposed to tell her about you? Interviewing everyone from dave attel to ron jeremy? At least you walk the walk.
Elrathin
03-23-2007, 06:06 AM
Oh I agree that it was a waste of time, money, and energy. You must admit though that at LEAST it had focus.
It had no focus whatsoever, it went from investigating whitewater into investigating a blow job. You believing it had focus only shows that you wanted to get Clinton NO MATTER WHAT. And you standing up against investigations against the Bush administration SHOWS how partisan your ass is Labrocca.
Focus my ass. Clinton's investigation was a witch hunt, but because it was a democrat, you were all for it.
You must admit though that at LEAST it had focus.
You've GOT to be kidding. Clinton was investigated for everything under the sun. You name it, Republicans accused him of doing it. They spent a couple of months investigating who he sent *Christmas cards* to.
it was a waste of time, money, and energy. You must admit though that at LEAST it had focus. The investigations into the Bush administration are all over the map.
Que? It started with a land deal and ended with a blowjob. I need to see a picture of that text on a t shirt, then I will work the courage up to ask the buxom blonde at work to accompany me to Vegas.
What am I supposed to tell her about you? Interviewing everyone from dave attel to ron jeremy? At least you walk the walk.
Oh I agree that it was a waste of time, money, and energy. You must admit though that at LEAST it had focus.
It had no focus whatsoever, it went from investigating whitewater into investigating a blow job. You believing it had focus only shows that you wanted to get Clinton NO MATTER WHAT. And you standing up against investigations against the Bush administration SHOWS how partisan your ass is Labrocca.
Focus my ass. Clinton's investigation was a witch hunt, but because it was a democrat, you were all for it.
I was going to kick your ass for this but it seems like half the board has beaten me to the punch. No sense piling on. When you're wrong, you're wrong.
BoogyMan
03-23-2007, 12:13 PM
Alright, the source is my dad. A 50 year republican. If he says rove is an asshole, then rove is an asshole. In my classical constant mannerisms, don't knock my dad on his word or I will be forced to buy a cross continental plane ticket for the sole reasons of kicking you in the ding-ding.
Ahh, I see. You seem to think you have an unquestionable source because he is your Dad, then you threaten us physically if we DO question him?
Consider this a knock. :D
Stoner
03-23-2007, 12:22 PM
Alright, the source is my dad. A 50 year republican. If he says rove is an asshole, then rove is an asshole.
AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
That is an excellent source. Why didn't you just say so in the first place!
Churchel
03-24-2007, 04:31 AM
Great time for me to be posting under the influence and talking politics.
But I have dug up enough on rove around here previously that I am not feeling like going through my older posts everywhere to repost them. Mabye if I work up some steam later.
Jaaaman
03-24-2007, 01:33 PM
Ahh, I see. You seem to think you have an unquestionable source because he is your Dad, then you threaten us physically if we DO question him?
Consider this a knock. :D
LOL! Imagine what his response would be if I started posting some 'Yo Momma' jokes! :P
Churchel
03-25-2007, 05:31 AM
Ahh, I see. You seem to think you have an unquestionable source because he is your Dad, then you threaten us physically if we DO question him?
Consider this a knock. :D
LOL! Imagine what his response would be if I started posting some 'Yo Momma' jokes! :P
See what happens boogey, post some highbrow and it is followed by someone who does not understand funny.
Thats ok, I can drop down a few notches and laugh.
piratemonkey
05-30-2007, 03:53 AM
If Plame is lying...
Why is she willing to give testimony to Congress under oath, when Cheney and Rove won't?
All they would have to do is give sworn testimony, prove her wrong and she'd go to jail for giving false testimony to Congress under oath.
Hmmmm.... I wonder why they won't do that?
:rolleyes:
Really easy answer here. Plame gets book and appearance deals out of this...Rove and Cheney get attacked by blogs for it. Seems like a good enough reason not to appear to me. I watched some of the questioning and the question was diverted when asked if Plame was actually a covert agent. It's the smoking gun in this whole thing and if she was a covert agent I guarantee you that question would be allowed and answered repeatedly. Instead Plame was NOT a covert agent as defined by the 1982 act and exposing her was NOT a crime. As for Libby...well it's a mess and I won't defend him. However I won't believe that Plame isn't more interested in her own notoriety or being the latest pawn in the liberal attack game one this administration. I wouldn't be suprised if George Soros himself is financing her.
Not to dredge up old threads, but...
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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
I told ya so... ;)
Thank you pirate! This will now settle a long standing "fued".
ViolaLee
05-30-2007, 05:06 AM
I can't believe there are some still questioning the fact that Plame was covert.
Here's an easy way to believe it. There's no way the investigation would have gone as far as it did if she were not covert. The only reason no one has been charged with treason is that the law states he/they have to be proven to have purposefully outted a covert agent. It's nearly impossible to prove and I think the law should be adjusted so knuckleheads can't out CIA agents without concequences. But she definitely was covert. That's a given.
Labrocca
05-30-2007, 07:51 AM
Expect Libby to recieve a Presidential Pardon before Bush leaves office.
suedanim
05-30-2007, 01:29 PM
piratemonkeys post proves she was covert. Just because we all were not privy to the classified details that Fitzgerald has access to, doesn't mean she wasn't covert. NOW...those details have been published for all to see.
But, I never doubted she was in the first place. There would have been no need to even bring on a special prosecutor to investigate, had she not been covert. Novak would have had nothing to... LEAK. And GEORGE who condemned the OUTTING...would never have ordered an investigation within the WH as to who OUTTED her. In fact...the word... OUT would never have been used in the first place.
Just how obtuse do you willfully have to be to continue to deny the obvious?
imo..this just shows how PROGRAMMED ...some... GOPers can be.
ViolaLee
05-30-2007, 04:01 PM
Expect Libby to recieve a Presidential Pardon before Bush leaves office.
I expect nothing less from the worst President in US history.
BIrdzeye
05-30-2007, 06:27 PM
Expect Libby to recieve a Presidential Pardon before Bush leaves office.
I expect nothing less from the worst President in US history.
I'll be surprised if he doesn't.
Labrocca
05-30-2007, 06:35 PM
imo..this just shows how PROGRAMMED ...some... GOPers can be.
Yeah how dare GOPers wait until this information is released with independent verification. We should always just listen to the left.
:rolleyes:
I expect nothing less from the worst President in US history.
Does it ever get tiresome repeating the same old statements year after year? It certainly does get old to read.
And scholars that study presidents historically do not agree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
piratemonkey
05-30-2007, 06:56 PM
Yeah how dare GOPers wait until this information is released with independent verification. We should always just listen to the left.
:rolleyes:
Read back throught this thread, Labrocca.
You were saying that she was definitely NOT covert, not that the jury was out.
BIrdzeye
05-30-2007, 06:58 PM
imo..this just shows how PROGRAMMED ...some... GOPers can be.
Yeah how dare GOPers wait until this information is released with independent verification. We should always just listen to the left.
:rolleyes:
I expect nothing less from the worst President in US history.
Does it ever get tiresome repeating the same old statements year after year? It certainly does get old to read.
And scholars that study presidents historically do not agree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
So, are we supposed to be impressed and change our tune? :rolleyes:
ViolaLee
05-30-2007, 08:09 PM
imo..this just shows how PROGRAMMED ...some... GOPers can be.
Yeah how dare GOPers wait until this information is released with independent verification. We should always just listen to the left.
:rolleyes:
I expect nothing less from the worst President in US history.
Does it ever get tiresome repeating the same old statements year after year? It certainly does get old to read.
And scholars that study presidents historically do not agree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents
wikipedia is the worst source on the internet. I can go to that page and change it right now to anything I want it to say.
You are obviously in denial and have your head stuck in the sand. Bush has been named the worst president in history by historians. (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history) There are plenty of valid links to news stories (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html) that show us how he is the worst president in our history. PHDs in American History (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north477.html) have declared he is the worst. US Nobel Laureates (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0729-06.htm)say Bush is the worst president in history.
And last but not least, the American people (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/01/politics/main1673345.shtml) think Bush is the worst president since the end of WWII.
Yeah how dare GOPers wait until this information is released with independent verification. We should always just listen to the left.
:rolleyes:
Read back throught this thread, Labrocca.
You were saying that she was definitely NOT covert, not that the jury was out.
Of course, republicans who have been repeating the GOP talking points and believing the Bush admins lies will be unwilling to admit they were wrong. Maybe Labrocca will come to his senses and start learning the truth about the neocons and all of their lies.
Yeah how dare GOPers wait until this information is released with independent verification. We should always just listen to the left.
:rolleyes:
Yep......because as you can see, we are very rarely wrong!
Does it ever get tiresome repeating the same old statements year after year? It certainly does get old to read.
I can sympathize with this.........I get tired of hearing about a blow job.
Labrocca
05-30-2007, 11:39 PM
You are obviously in denial and have your head stuck in the sand. Bush has been named the worst president in history by historians.
Uhh..that article quotes ONE historian.
And you do realize that at one point....Bush had the HIGHEST presidential approval rating EVER.
Most historians were viewing Reagan the exact same way.
Oddly you accuse the GOP of never tiring of beating up Sheehan...yet you feel it's ok to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Bush. Fine you don't like him. He is President...elected TWICE..and he is gone soon enough. Such a waste of energy trying to convince people how Bush is so terrible. What's your point?
To get back on topic about Plame....hmm..tough call. I was able to use the argument she wasn't covert but obviously that's out the window. So...I can't defend much more really. OK..she was covert...now what?
To get back on topic about Plame....hmm..tough call. I was able to use the argument she wasn't covert but obviously that's out the window. So...I can't defend much more really. OK..she was covert...now what?
Arrest Richard Armatage, Karl Rove and Robert Novak for outing a CIA agent.
ViolaLee
05-31-2007, 06:55 AM
To get back on topic about Plame....hmm..tough call. I was able to use the argument she wasn't covert but obviously that's out the window. So...I can't defend much more really. OK..she was covert...now what?
Treason has been committed. The law needs to be changed so that traitors like the large group that outted Plame, beginning with Cheney, cannot get away with it.
Arrest Richard Armatage, Karl Rove and Robert Novak for outing a CIA agent.
Unless the law is changed to say anyone who outs a CIA agent is committing treason against the USA, those crooks and creeps will be free to commit more crimes against our country.
As it is, the law says you have to prove they knew she was covert AND you have to prove they did it on purpose. These things are impossible to prove. The law is crap.
And Labrocca, you asked me "Such a waste of energy trying to convince people how Bush is so terrible. What's your point?"
Bush IS so terrible. That is my point. Just look around at what is going on. If you open your mind, as you did here, finally to admit Plame was covert, perhaps you will see the rest of the constitutional violations and evil doings that Bush has his hands in. How much convincing do people need?
I mean we are the people who care, and are paying attention. It's the ones who refuse to hear about politics that believe Bush is a good President. I know people like that.
I'm always shocked that people who take part in political discussions still keep denying the truth while it's slapping them in the face every day!
Truth_and_Power
05-31-2007, 01:35 PM
What's the big deal.. I mean bush & co are playing hardball with people who tried to get the truth out about lies that lead us to war. Who cares about legal lines? I mean they lied to get us into war and this is clear evidence of the conspiracy in that regard. Now we care about covert vs non covert? WE GOT LIED INTO A WAR PEOPLE STOP ARGUING ABOUT TRIVIAL SHIT. The american vp and president deserve to hang.. this is a sad state of affairs when people are still talking and not hanging a noose from a tree.
CheesyMuslim
05-31-2007, 01:48 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. But this Plame chick wasn't covert.
2. If she was she outed herself.
3. And she should be thrown in prison for outing herself.
4. What happened, was she sent her husband to Niger, said, Niejeair.
5. To start a rumor, that, *The President*, ignored a story from Niger, that he poo pooed.
6. It was *Politics*, plain and simple.
7. Novak got wind of the story and wrote a piece about it, and blew the lid off it, for more*Political Reasons*.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
piratemonkey
05-31-2007, 02:07 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. But this Plame chick wasn't covert.
hee hee.
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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
Black=white, Chess?
The point of all of this to me is:
Conservatives have been wrong much more often than not on almost every issue of merit during the past 6 years.
Conservatives have been proven wrong time and time again.
Yet conservatives still make preposterous claims, never considering that they may be wrong yet again.
Being wrong so much should merit at least some measure of humility.
BIrdzeye
05-31-2007, 03:40 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. But this Plame chick wasn't covert.
hee hee.
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.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
Black=white, Chess?
The point of all of this to me is:
Conservatives have been wrong much more often than not on almost every issue of merit during the past 6 years.
Conservatives have been proven wrong time and time again.
Yet conservatives still make preposterous claims, never considering that they may be wrong yet again.
Being wrong so much should merit at least some measure of humility.
Yeah, they keep getting proven wrong, but they keep trying to revise the history of this deplorable matter. I must say, it's challenging to keep resetting the record straight after all their desperate efforts to deflect and misstate what really happened.
ViolaLee
05-31-2007, 03:44 PM
OK..she was covert...now what?
But this Plame chick wasn't covert.
Looks like Republicans are split over the subject. Some still don't believe the facts when they are laid out right in front of them. Some would rather keep believing the GOP lies.
You do realize the lie about Plame not being covert was a GOP talking point meant to mislead Americans, don't you?
Chessy, why are you a liar lover?
Labrocca
05-31-2007, 06:04 PM
You do realize the lie about Plame not being covert was a GOP talking point meant to mislead Americans, don't you?
I will give you the point that she is now officially listed as "covert" because that's the findings. However one still has to wonder why it took so many YEARS to answer that question. Also if she really was covert then will someone be prosecuted for the action?
Looks like Republicans are split over the subject.
btw...don't assume the few Republicans here represent all Republicans. I am a person first with my own reasoning and logic. I vote Democrat and Independent when I feel like it.
ViolaLee
05-31-2007, 07:58 PM
You do realize the lie about Plame not being covert was a GOP talking point meant to mislead Americans, don't you?
I will give you the point that she is now officially listed as "covert" because that's the findings. However one still has to wonder why it took so many YEARS to answer that question. Also if she really was covert then will someone be prosecuted for the action?
Looks like Republicans are split over the subject.
btw...don't assume the few Republicans here represent all Republicans. I am a person first with my own reasoning and logic. I vote Democrat and Independent when I feel like it.
Believe me, I've debated with many Republicans. It's the same discussion over and over. One thing you do just like the rest of them, is refuse to acknowledge my answer and just keep asking the same question again and again. I answered your question about why no one has been charged. Please go back and read it.
Some, like you, can finally admit to being mislead when the proof is presented many, many times. Kudos for that, but it's frustrating that it takes so long. Patrick Fitzgerald said Plame was covert when he made his announcement during the weekend that Katrina hit New Orleans. That's how long we've known she was covert, officially. Before that, Joe Wilson (a very well respected Ambassador under Papa Bush, who the rabid right has smeared in such a disgusting and disgraceful way) told us she was covert. So we've known for a very long time.
Welcome to the truth. It's nice that you could join us here ;) Better late than never.
Labrocca
05-31-2007, 08:13 PM
Don't confuse being mislead with wanting answers to questions. The question has been out there since day one and it was a VERY important question. Was she covert. Now it seems we have that answer...
I've debated with many Republicans. It's the same discussion over and over. One thing you do just like the rest of them...
You just love to categorize me and others don't you. I don't pretend to represent anyone but myself.
Patrick Fitzgerald said Plame was covert when he made his announcement during the weekend that Katrina hit New Orleans.
Any links from that?
I found this really quickly:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/29/122517.shtml
.. refuse to acknowledge my answer and just keep asking the same question again and again.
That's a debate tactic EVERYONE uses...don't try play it off like you're any different. There is nothing about being a liberal or democrat that makes you special and above others. Just remember that.
ViolaLee
05-31-2007, 09:29 PM
Don't confuse being mislead with wanting answers to questions. The question has been out there since day one and it was a VERY important question. Was she covert. Now it seems we have that answer... We had the answer from the beginning. It was the right wing gop spin machine with Hannity, Limbaugh, newsmax, O'Reilly, etc that told you the lies about her cia status not being covert. It's common sense. Why would the CIA ask the Justice Dept to investigate the leak if it were not against the law to leak her name? I followed the story very closely all the way through it. She was covert and anyone who read about it knew that. But if you only read newsmax and only listen to the right wing partisan hacks, you would be lied to about her covert status. After Novak outted her in his column, in another column he told the lie that she was just an analyst. It was the party line spin. Just as the Wilson smear campaign was orchestrated by the right wing dishonest moral majority war mongers.
Any links from that?
I found this really quickly:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/29/122517.shtml
You should find reading material that is based on truth, not right wing spin and smear and lies.
Here's a story (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn) from last year about Plame and her job at the CIA, if you are serious about learning the truth.
Here's another one: (http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/cheney-authorized-libby-to-disclose.html) with pictures. A timeline of sorts.
And here's Valerie Plame (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/plame-covert-testimony/) on video confirming her status under oath in front of the Senate. I can't imagine why that wasn't enough for the liar believers!
Labrocca
05-31-2007, 09:51 PM
I am still perplexed how a person working in the CIA offices with an Ambassador for a husband is considered covert. They say she is..fine. I just don't see how. Let them prosecute then...that's what I say. Bring it all out. If wrong was done...then bring justice to the situation. If she was wrongly outed...then someone should pay.
Here is what appears to be a non-partisan page outlining the timeline.
http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
If you think I am going to disagree with you that justice shouldn't be sought out then you are wrong.
CheesyMuslim
06-01-2007, 01:02 PM
Sorry bout that,
What's the big deal.. I mean bush & co are playing hardball with people who tried to get the truth out about lies that lead us to war. Who cares about legal lines? I mean they lied to get us into war and this is clear evidence of the conspiracy in that regard. Now we care about covert vs non covert? WE GOT LIED INTO A WAR PEOPLE STOP ARGUING ABOUT TRIVIAL SHIT. The american vp and president deserve to hang.. this is a sad state of affairs when people are still talking and not hanging a noose from a tree.
1. Sounding like a threat to me.
2. Perhaps the FBI, might need to speak with you.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
ViolaLee
06-02-2007, 05:48 AM
I am still perplexed how a person working in the CIA offices with an Ambassador for a husband is considered covert. They say she is..fine. I just don't see how. Let them prosecute then...that's what I say. Bring it all out. If wrong was done...then bring justice to the situation. If she was wrongly outed...then someone should pay.
Here is what appears to be a non-partisan page outlining the timeline.
http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
If you think I am going to disagree with you that justice shouldn't be sought out then you are wrong.
The issue about justice being done is moot. The laws of today don't allow it. It is nearly impossible to prove Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby and Richard Armistad were in a conspiracy to out a covert agent. It has to be proven that they knew she was covert and that they outed her on purpose. It's very hard to prove what someone was thinking. Especially when the United States Justice Department run by Alberto Gonzales has no intention of trying to prove it. Patrick Fitzgerald knew that his hands were tied. He said Libby's lies were like sand being thrown in the batter's face. And what he didn't say was, he had no bat, no ball, no pitcher and no bases with the law written as it is and with the DOJ run by who it's run.
Now the laws need to be changed. If leaders with clearance to know our country's secrets, tell some of those secrets, they shouldn't be able to hide behind a law that prevents them from being prosecuted for treason.
ViolaLee
06-02-2007, 06:02 AM
Thanks for the link Labrocca. There's some interesting stuff in there.
June 10, 2004 – Bush is asked by a reporter, “[D]o you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have [who leaked the agent's name]?†Bush replies, “Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.†(President Bush Press Conference Following G-8 Summit, Savannah, GA, June 10, 2004).
Maybe he didn't even know about it. I bet Cheney does a lot of shit behind his back. But once Bush found out it was Cheney, Rove, Libby and Armitage, he changed his mind about firing them. Bad character.
Libby flies with the Vice President and others to Norfolk , Virginia and back. The Vice President allegedly advises Libby that Wilson ’s wife works for the CIA, information Libby understands the Vice President received from the CIA. Libby speaks by telephone with Matthew Cooper about Wilson ’s wife and confirms for Cooper that he was aware of her involvement in sending Wilson to Niger . Later that day Libby discusses Wilson ’s wife and her work for the CIA with Judith Miller of the New York Times. (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005).
If Cheney didn't have anything to do with it, he would have immediately fired Libby for telling the journalists what Cheney told him. But Cheney told Libby and Libby told the journalists, along with Rove and Armitage. And Bush and Cheney were fine with it. They are complicit.
Papa Bush was CIA himself. He must be ashamed.
BoogyMan
06-02-2007, 07:00 AM
The issue about justice being done is moot. The laws of today don't allow it. It is nearly impossible to prove Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby and Richard Armistad were in a conspiracy to out a covert agent.
You post this and in the same breath are trying to prove a conspiracy. Amazing. :D
It has to be proven that they knew she was covert and that they outed her on purpose.
It has been proven that Armitage has a big mouth and that Scooter Libby lied when the truth would have served him better. The rest is little more than the desire of the left for it so to be.
It's very hard to prove what someone was thinking. Especially when the United States Justice Department run by Alberto Gonzales has no intention of trying to prove it. Patrick Fitzgerald knew that his hands were tied. He said Libby's lies were like sand being thrown in the batter's face. And what he didn't say was, he had no bat, no ball, no pitcher and no bases with the law written as it is and with the DOJ run by who it's run.
This one is my favorite, the effort to explain away why no charges relating to the core of his investigation were filed by Mr. Fitzgerald, and the left didn't get its Fitzmas so now they must rail away at Mr. Fitzgerald as a weekling afraid for his job. Egads.
CockySOB
06-03-2007, 01:34 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. But this Plame chick wasn't covert.
2. If she was she outed herself.
3. And she should be thrown in prison for outing herself.
4. What happened, was she sent her husband to Niger, said, Niejeair.
5. To start a rumor, that, *The President*, ignored a story from Niger, that he poo pooed.
6. It was *Politics*, plain and simple.
7. Novak got wind of the story and wrote a piece about it, and blew the lid off it, for more*Political Reasons*.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
50 USC 422 makes it clear that a covert intelligence agent is permitted to reveal their status without penalty. So your third point is moot.
However, I agree with your opinion that Plame was not a covert intelligence agent per the US Codes. I think that neither the CIA nor Plame maintained the "affirmative measures to conceal" requirement. I mean, Novak called the CIA and asked if she worked for them prior to publishing his column and they said, "yes." And of course there's the extremely flimsy cover she had with even the Boston Globe was able to penetrate in a matter of what? Five minutes?
But until we have an evidentiary hearing covering Plame's alleged status as a covert intelligence agent, all anyone will have is an opinion. Of course, lacking such a hearing, the presumption must be that she was NOT covert per the statutes.
preservanation
06-03-2007, 01:46 PM
CockySOB wrote:However, I agree with your opinion that Plame was not a covert intelligence agent per the US Codes. I think that neither the CIA nor Plame maintained the "affirmative measures to conceal" requirement. I mean, Novak called the CIA and asked if she worked for them prior to publishing his column and they said, "yes." And of course there's the extremely flimsy cover she had with even the Boston Globe was able to penetrate in a matter of what? Five minutes?
However, this did not stop the press nor the left from going absolutly bat sh*t trying to indite every high official of the Bush admin. Their credibility is wearing very thin.
ViolaLee
06-03-2007, 02:51 PM
The issue about justice being done is moot. The laws of today don't allow it. It is nearly impossible to prove Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby and Richard Armistad were in a conspiracy to out a covert agent.
You post this and in the same breath are trying to prove a conspiracy. Amazing. :DProve according to the law that's written, genius. It's a fact after the Libby trial that Cheney told Libby about Plame's CIA status. It's a fact that Rove and Armistad and Libby told the reporters Plame worked for the CIA.
It has to be proven that they knew she was covert and that they outed her on purpose.
It has been proven that Armitage has a big mouth and that Scooter Libby lied when the truth would have served him better. The rest is little more than the desire of the left for it so to be.It all came out in the Libby trial. Sorry you missed it.
It's very hard to prove what someone was thinking. Especially when the United States Justice Department run by Alberto Gonzales has no intention of trying to prove it. Patrick Fitzgerald knew that his hands were tied. He said Libby's lies were like sand being thrown in the batter's face. And what he didn't say was, he had no bat, no ball, no pitcher and no bases with the law written as it is and with the DOJ run by who it's run.
This one is my favorite, the effort to explain away why no charges relating to the core of his investigation were filed by Mr. Fitzgerald, and the left didn't get its Fitzmas so now they must rail away at Mr. Fitzgerald as a weekling afraid for his job. Egads.
No one says Fitzgerald is a weekling. Some of us understand the law as it's written now. Some of us want to see the law strengthened so it can't happen again.
Some of you apparently put party over country and don't mind traitors outing a covert CIA agent because your party outed her.
preservanation
06-03-2007, 03:00 PM
VoilaLee:Some of you apparently put party over country and don't mind traitors outing a covert CIA agent because your party outed her.
Nobody, I mean nobody, maintains she was in any way covert, not even Fitz the "prosecutor's prosecutor". Hell, she was in "Who's Who" as a CIA agent for cry-eye!
This was a with-hunt pure and simple.
Fitz and the media knew Armitage was the leaker for months, but maliciously covered it up to go after Bush and his admin. What's new.:P
CockySOB
06-03-2007, 06:41 PM
VoilaLee:Some of you apparently put party over country and don't mind traitors outing a covert CIA agent because your party outed her.
Nobody, I mean nobody, maintains she was in any way covert, not even Fitz the "prosecutor's prosecutor". Hell, she was in "Who's Who" as a CIA agent for cry-eye!
This was a with-hunt pure and simple.
Fitz and the media knew Armitage was the leaker for months, but maliciously covered it up to go after Bush and his admin. What's new.:P
I wouldn't go that far unless you have some legal proof to back it up. Fitzgerald was most likely proceeding on good faith that the question of Plame's status would be resolved in due course. Of course he later chose not to indict anyone on those charges which could easily lead a person to conclude that perhaps Plame's identity was not covert according to statute.
BoogyMan
06-03-2007, 07:15 PM
[quote=BoogyMan]Prove according to the law that's written, genius. It's a fact after the Libby trial that Cheney told Libby about Plame's CIA status. It's a fact that Rove and Armistad and Libby told the reporters Plame worked for the CIA.
After the Libby trial? Are you kidding me? Who is Armistad? Do you mean Armitage? I am no Rove fan, but the slobbering left claiming that Rove answering "you know about that" to a direct question from the media is a planned "outing" is completely dishonest.
It all came out in the Libby trial. Sorry you missed it.
I will be waiting for such definitive proof from a non-partisan source that isn't putting a left wing spin on what was said Viola.
No one says Fitzgerald is a weekling. Some of us understand the law as it's written now. Some of us want to see the law strengthened so it can't happen again.
Some of you apparently put party over country and don't mind traitors outing a covert CIA agent because your party outed her.
Do you always go into personal attack mode when your line of argumentation is shown to be hypocritical? Egads.
I have read AND heard commentary from those left of center all over the place who when denied their "Fitzmas" have begun to talk about how Fitzgerald was afraid for his job and therefore didn't file charges because of that fear. This is being said after months of left-wing chest thumping about the integrity of Mr. Fitzgerald and comments about his thorough work ethic and strong belief in doing that which was right.
The left turned on Fitzgerald faster than a female Praying Mantis kills its most recent lover.
ViolaLee
06-03-2007, 07:45 PM
I didn't see anyone turn on Fitzgerald. Yes I meant Armitage. Thanks.
.....Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal her identity"....
Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/)
Why do you need more proof than this? I understand you've been brainwashed by the GOP, but they are lying when they say Plame was not covert. They are just trying to save themselves from the embarressment of treason.
What do you love more, your party or your country?
CheesyMuslim
06-03-2007, 08:56 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. But Novak gave this whole Plame story , Legs.
2. Novak in a word made this whole stupid thing up.
3. Novak is the liar lover, Hehehehehehe,..........
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
BoogyMan
06-03-2007, 09:15 PM
I didn't see anyone turn on Fitzgerald. Yes I meant Armitage. Thanks.
.....Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal her identity"....
Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/)
Why do you need more proof than this? I understand you've been brainwashed by the GOP, but they are lying when they say Plame was not covert. They are just trying to save themselves from the embarressment of treason.
What do you love more, your party or your country?
Why do you continue to obfuscate the argument I have made that there has been proof of a conspiracy? You have continually insisted the argument is about her being covert when anyone who actually reads my commentary would know that is not where my argument is centered. My argument has been centered on the continuous claims of a huge conspiracy surrounding the woman and that Rove and Libby somehow were plotting to destroy a known CIA operative. All claims that have no merit in the absence of charges against ANYONE for the base allegations behind the Fitzgerald investigations.
You made the claim that the VP told Libby about her status after the Libby trial, this one made me laugh for about an hour and still gives me a good giggle.
Were I to be so badly failing in my attempts to debate the question at hand as are you, I would probably turn to obfuscation and try to change the debate as you have done here as well.
I should ask you the same question as you have asked me. Which do you love more, country or party. The reason I ask is that the left has no greater hold on such love for this country than the right does.
I asked for a non-biased source and you post a Newsweek article? That is pretty comical as well. :D
preservanation
06-03-2007, 09:24 PM
The only proved liar in this whole mess was Wilson, Plames husband, who lied in a NYT editorial (or op-ed) about his report on Sadam seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger. It has been established that Iraq was seeking yellow cake. Wilson lied and that's it.
All else was just a fishing expo, trying to indite Bush officials with some sort of process crime. That's all they got. They had nothing more, EVER.
Buck Laser
06-03-2007, 11:49 PM
The only proved liar in this whole mess was Wilson, Plames husband, who lied in a NYT editorial (or op-ed) about his report on Sadam seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger. It has been established that Iraq was seeking yellow cake. Wilson lied and that's it.
All else was just a fishing expo, trying to indite Bush officials with some sort of process crime. That's all they got. They had nothing more, EVER.
I'm calling you on this one. Have you got ANY evidence to back up your claim that Wilson was lying? I thought not.
preservanation
06-04-2007, 01:18 AM
None, except he admitted it and the NYT published a correction (two weeks later)
None, except he admitted it and the NYT published a correction (two weeks later)
The only proved liar in this whole mess was Wilson, Plames husband, who lied in a NYT editorial (or op-ed) about his report on Sadam seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger. It has been established that Iraq was seeking yellow cake. Wilson lied and that's it.
All else was just a fishing expo, trying to indite Bush officials with some sort of process crime. That's all they got. They had nothing more, EVER.
Then it shouldn't be too hard to bring some links here for discussion.
I have read AND heard commentary from those left of center all over the place who when denied their "Fitzmas" have begun to talk about how Fitzgerald was afraid for his job and therefore didn't file charges because of that fear. This is being said after months of left-wing chest thumping about the integrity of Mr. Fitzgerald and comments about his thorough work ethic and strong belief in doing that which was right.
The left turned on Fitzgerald faster than a female Praying Mantis kills its most recent lover.
I'd also like some proof of this Boogy. I won't even ask you to go too far, just right here at DF would do fine.......what I think you are doing is mixing up an article that stated that Fitzgerald was going to be put on the dismissed prosecutors list, with him being afraid of losing his job......I haven't seen one Liberal say an unkind word about him.
Why do you continue to obfuscate the argument I have made that there has been proof of a conspiracy? You have continually insisted the argument is about her being covert when anyone who actually reads my commentary would know that is not where my argument is centered. My argument has been centered on the continuous claims of a huge conspiracy surrounding the woman and that Rove and Libby somehow were plotting to destroy a known CIA operative. All claims that have no merit in the absence of charges against ANYONE for the base allegations behind the Fitzgerald investigations.
Oh boy.....have I seen this argument before! You claim something, in this case conspiracy and then want the poster to prove your claim. Talk about obfuscation.:rolleyes:
However, I agree with your opinion that Plame was not a covert intelligence agent per the US Codes. I think that neither the CIA nor Plame maintained the "affirmative measures to conceal" requirement. I mean, Novak called the CIA and asked if she worked for them prior to publishing his column and they said, "yes." And of course there's the extremely flimsy cover she had with even the Boston Globe was able to penetrate in a matter of what? Five minutes?
I've not read an article that states that Novak made a call and if he did, then he also needs to be charged.
But until we have an evidentiary hearing covering Plame's alleged status as a covert intelligence agent, all anyone will have is an opinion. Of course, lacking such a hearing, the presumption must be that she was NOT covert per the statutes.
Ok, so now we have the prosecuter of the case saying she was covert, we have the head of the CIA saying she was covert and we have the now un-classified paper saying she was covert......now you want an evidentiary hearing? Who's going to conduct it, Gonzales?
CockySOB
06-04-2007, 02:45 AM
However, I agree with your opinion that Plame was not a covert intelligence agent per the US Codes. I think that neither the CIA nor Plame maintained the "affirmative measures to conceal" requirement. I mean, Novak called the CIA and asked if she worked for them prior to publishing his column and they said, "yes." And of course there's the extremely flimsy cover she had with even the Boston Globe was able to penetrate in a matter of what? Five minutes?
I've not read an article that states that Novak made a call and if he did, then he also needs to be charged.
It was in one of Novak's immediate follow-up columns to his "Mission to Niger" article which started this all. Here's a link to a Salon article (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/10/02/novak/index.html) for partial verification, but I don't have time tonight to dig and find the exact quote from the exact column. Sorry to leave the leg work for you, but I have to get up early for the next two weeks and teach a boot camp.
BTW, Novak identified Armitage as his primary source, which would mean that Armitage would be the person who should be charged with the alleged dissemination of classified information. Novak would still be able to defend his publication of the story as a member of the press and First Amendment rights... I think. The issue could definitely go before a judge for a finding of fact.
Ok, so now we have the prosecuter of the case saying she was covert, we have the head of the CIA saying she was covert and we have the now un-classified paper saying she was covert......now you want an evidentiary hearing? Who's going to conduct it, Gonzales?
No, I want it done in a Federal court where it belongs. Gonzales (aside from being inept) is a member of the Executive Branch and it would be inappropriate for the Executive Branch to hold such a hearing. Have you never heard of evidentiary hearings, Lily? It's a basic judicial function whereby various differing legal arguments are heard and ruled upon by a judge, specifically on the admissibility of evidence or establishing facts of law.
It was in one of Novak's immediate follow-up columns to his "Mission to Niger" article which started this all. Here's a link to a Salon article (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/10/02/novak/index.html) for partial verification, but I don't have time tonight to dig and find the exact quote from the exact column. Sorry to leave the leg work for you, but I have to get up early for the next two weeks and teach a boot camp.
Cocky, that article is sufficent. It just makes Novak look dumber than he already did. If one thing good came out of this, is the man has lost all credibility and I called it right on the other forum, when this all came up......his career is over. I've known you for years, no other article is necessary. Your word is good......this article did help my memory though......so thanks.
BTW, Novak identified Armitage as his primary source, which would mean that Armitage would be the person who should be charged with the alleged dissemination of classified information. Novak would still be able to defend his publication of the story as a member of the press and First Amendment rights... I think. The issue could definitely go before a judge for a finding of fact.
No, I want it done in a Federal court where it belongs. Gonzales (aside from being inept) is a member of the Executive Branch and it would be inappropriate for the Executive Branch to hold such a hearing. Have you never heard of evidentiary hearings, Lily? It's a basic judicial function whereby various differing legal arguments are heard and ruled upon by a judge, specifically on the admissibility of evidence or establishing facts of law.
........and I say good luck to that! They are dodging supeonas left and right on the attorney firings. You think any one of those clowns will respect a supeona?
........but then you know that's not what we're arguing.......don't you?;)
BoogyMan
06-04-2007, 03:08 AM
I'd also like some proof of this Boogy. I won't even ask you to go too far, just right here at DF would do fine.......what I think you are doing is mixing up an article that stated that Fitzgerald was going to be put on the dismissed prosecutors list, with him being afraid of losing his job......I haven't seen one Liberal say an unkind word about him.
The left has painted Fitzgerald as a pitiful figure ever since they didn't get their "fitzmas" Lily. For months they talked about how great a guy he was and how spotless his character was and now they claim he feared for his job.
Why do you continue to obfuscate the argument I have made that there has been proof of a conspiracy? You have continually insisted the argument is about her being covert when anyone who actually reads my commentary would know that is not where my argument is centered. My argument has been centered on the continuous claims of a huge conspiracy surrounding the woman and that Rove and Libby somehow were plotting to destroy a known CIA operative. All claims that have no merit in the absence of charges against ANYONE for the base allegations behind the Fitzgerald investigations.
Oh boy.....have I seen this argument before! You claim something, in this case conspiracy and then want the poster to prove your claim. Talk about obfuscation.:rolleyes:
Apparently, once again, you didn't read my commentary. It was not about covert status, it was about Viola's insistance that there was a huge conspiracy that cannot be proven by the facts. You are simply making things up now Lily. :rolleyes:
The left has painted Fitzgerald as a pitiful figure ever since they didn't get their "fitzmas" Lily. For months they talked about how great a guy he was and how spotless his character was and now they claim he feared for his job.
Fine, I was trying to help you out, so ........show me an article where anyone said he feared for his job.
Apparently, once again, you didn't read my commentary. It was not about covert status, it was about Viola's insistance that there was a huge conspiracy that cannot be proven by the facts. You are simply making things up now Lily. :rolleyes:
Boogy, I read your commentary just fine. When someone points something out to you, or you are shown wrong, it's the same old thing. "Read my commentary".
Pfffffftttt........
BoogyMan
06-04-2007, 03:18 AM
None, except he admitted it and the NYT published a correction (two weeks later)
The only proved liar in this whole mess was Wilson, Plames husband, who lied in a NYT editorial (or op-ed) about his report on Sadam seeking yellow cake uranium from Niger. It has been established that Iraq was seeking yellow cake. Wilson lied and that's it.
All else was just a fishing expo, trying to indite Bush officials with some sort of process crime. That's all they got. They had nothing more, EVER.
Then it shouldn't be too hard to bring some links here for discussion.
For one thing, Mr. Wilson claimed his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger and that is a highly disputed point.
He said his report debunked the claims the intelligence analysts case that Iraq sought to purchase Yellow Cake and that was not true.
Just a couple of thoughts from one article by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
BoogyMan
06-04-2007, 03:20 AM
The left has painted Fitzgerald as a pitiful figure ever since they didn't get their "fitzmas" Lily. For months they talked about how great a guy he was and how spotless his character was and now they claim he feared for his job.
Fine, I was trying to help you out, so ........show me an article where anyone said he feared for his job.
If I thought you were serious and wanted to debate I would.
Apparently, once again, you didn't read my commentary. It was not about covert status, it was about Viola's insistance that there was a huge conspiracy that cannot be proven by the facts. You are simply making things up now Lily. :rolleyes:
Boogy, I read your commentary just fine. When someone points something out to you, or you are shown wrong, it's the same old thing. "Read my commentary".
Pfffffftttt........
You didn't show me where I was wrong, you took a cheap shot based on a false premise.
Pfffffftttt........ right back atcha.
If I thought you were serious and wanted to debate I would.
I kinda thought so..
You didn't show me where I was wrong, you took a cheap shot based on a false premise.
Read my commentary.
Just a couple of thoughts from one article by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
A couple of thoughts from 2004, is right!
BoogyMan
06-04-2007, 03:39 AM
Just a couple of thoughts from one article by the Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
A couple of thoughts from 2004, is right!
ROFL! I was waiting for that. :D
Glad I didn't disappoint.....:rolleyes:
ViolaLee
06-04-2007, 06:53 AM
For one thing, Mr. Wilson claimed his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger and that is a highly disputed point.
The right lied and said Wilson's wife sent him to Niger. He corrected them and stated that she did not send him. It came out in her testimony that she was talking about her husband in the hall with a co-worker and another co-worker came by and said yes, let's send Wilson, let's go suggest it, together. And so the three of them went to the boss and one suggested it and Plame agreed to it. There's nothing disputed, except the right claiming that Plame sent Wilson to Niger, which she had no authority to do.
He said his report debunked the claims the intelligence analysts case that Iraq sought to purchase Yellow Cake and that was not true.
He said his report showed that Iraq did not buy uranium from Niger. He said that Bush should not have used that in his speech to mislead us into thinking Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger.
Bush/Cheney got mad at him and started the smear campaign on Wilson which ended up outing a covert CIA agent in their blundering and idiocy.
The law says you have to prove they did it on purpose and knew that she was covert.
We know they outed her, that's a fact. What we don't know is whether they knew she was covert and outed her on purpose to put our country in jeopardy. That's the part that can't be easily proven, that's why there's no criminal case.
And no where have I see the left bash Fitzgerald. I'd also like to see a link to support that claim.
BoogyMan
06-04-2007, 11:02 AM
For one thing, Mr. Wilson claimed his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger and that is a highly disputed point.
The right lied and said Wilson's wife sent him to Niger. He corrected them and stated that she did not send him. It came out in her testimony that she was talking about her husband in the hall with a co-worker and another co-worker came by and said yes, let's send Wilson, let's go suggest it, together. And so the three of them went to the boss and one suggested it and Plame agreed to it. There's nothing disputed, except the right claiming that Plame sent Wilson to Niger, which she had no authority to do.
He said his report debunked the claims the intelligence analysts case that Iraq sought to purchase Yellow Cake and that was not true.
He said his report showed that Iraq did not buy uranium from Niger. He said that Bush should not have used that in his speech to mislead us into thinking Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger.
Bush/Cheney got mad at him and started the smear campaign on Wilson which ended up outing a covert CIA agent in their blundering and idiocy.
The law says you have to prove they did it on purpose and knew that she was covert.
We know they outed her, that's a fact. What we don't know is whether they knew she was covert and outed her on purpose to put our country in jeopardy. That's the part that can't be easily proven, that's why there's no criminal case.
And no where have I see the left bash Fitzgerald. I'd also like to see a link to support that claim.
The article I posted from the Washington Post pointed out that Mr. Wilson's claims with regard to both of those points I posted were lies as proven by a Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2004. The left doesn't want to hear it though.
You already made the vacuous claim that there was some great conspiracy to out her on purpose Viola and now you are backing off of that allegation. Interesting.
preservanation
06-04-2007, 12:21 PM
Under oath Plame claimed an aid suggested Wilson go on the trip. BS!
CockySOB
06-05-2007, 11:22 AM
For one thing, Mr. Wilson claimed his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger and that is a highly disputed point.
The right lied and said Wilson's wife sent him to Niger. He corrected them and stated that she did not send him. It came out in her testimony that she was talking about her husband in the hall with a co-worker and another co-worker came by and said yes, let's send Wilson, let's go suggest it, together. And so the three of them went to the boss and one suggested it and Plame agreed to it. There's nothing disputed, except the right claiming that Plame sent Wilson to Niger, which she had no authority to do.
He said his report debunked the claims the intelligence analysts case that Iraq sought to purchase Yellow Cake and that was not true.
He said his report showed that Iraq did not buy uranium from Niger. He said that Bush should not have used that in his speech to mislead us into thinking Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger.
Bush/Cheney got mad at him and started the smear campaign on Wilson which ended up outing a covert CIA agent in their blundering and idiocy.
The law says you have to prove they did it on purpose and knew that she was covert.
We know they outed her, that's a fact. What we don't know is whether they knew she was covert and outed her on purpose to put our country in jeopardy. That's the part that can't be easily proven, that's why there's no criminal case.
And no where have I see the left bash Fitzgerald. I'd also like to see a link to support that claim.
The article I posted from the Washington Post pointed out that Mr. Wilson's claims with regard to both of those points I posted were lies as proven by a Senate Intelligence Committee report in 2004. The left doesn't want to hear it though.
You already made the vacuous claim that there was some great conspiracy to out her on purpose Viola and now you are backing off of that allegation. Interesting.
Yeah, saw that too. Ought to be interesting how the left will try to spin that. I can't wait for someone to claim she couldn't tell Congress the truth because she was covert and her work classified.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.