Devastating

Plamegate's real liar
Max Boot
LA Times

'SCOOTER" LIBBY'S indictment was not exactly good news for the White House, but it could have been a lot worse. Feverish speculation had been building that Karl Rove would soon be "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs," as Valerie Plame's bombastic hubby, Joe Wilson, had hoped. Or even that Dick Cheney would have to resign.

But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the names of undercover CIA operatives. Among other problems, Plame doesn't seem to fit the act's definition of a "covert agent" — someone who "has within the last five years served outside the United States." By 2003, Plame had apparently been working in Langley, Va., for at least six years, which means that, mystery of mysteries, the vice president's chief of staff was indicted for covering up something that wasn't a crime.

Making the best of a weak hand, Democrats argued that the case was not about petty-ante perjury but, as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, "about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president." The problem here is that the one undisputed liar in this whole sordid affair doesn't work for the administration. In his attempts to turn his wife into an antiwar martyr, Joseph C. Wilson IV has retailed more whoppers than Burger King.


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-boot2nov02,0,495618.column?coll=la-nav-sectionfronts

But with his investigation all but over,
says?

Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act,
straw man

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who "had suggested his name for the trip." By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight
Note that this "setting the record straight" didn't involve disputing in any way Wilson's report that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium from Niger.

That was always the biggest issue and also why Harry Reid was dead-on:

as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put it, "about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president."

RNC smear campaign #347,045,223 ::yawns::

The rest of the article......



The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who "had suggested his name for the trip." By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight — not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife.

Show me the lie. To me, this sounds like a matter of opinion. "Did your wife get you sent to Niger?" "No, she did not. She suggested my name for it, though."


Much more egregious were the ways in which Wilson misrepresented his findings. In his famous New York Times Op-Ed article (July 6, 2003), Wilson gave the impression that his eight-day jaunt proved that Iraq was not trying to acquire uranium in Africa. Therefore, when administration officials nevertheless cited concerns about Hussein's nuclear ambitions, Wilson claimed that they had "twisted" evidence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The Senate Intelligence Committee was not kind to this claim either.

I agree with this point.

The panel's report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger's prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information. According to the panel, intelligence analysts "did not think" that his findings "clarified the story on the reported Iraq-Niger uranium deal." In other words, Wilson had hardly exposed as fraudulent the "16 words" included in the 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, the British government, in its own post-invasion review of intelligence, found that this claim was "well founded."

Wait, wait, wait, wait. I hear so many people downplaying his role in Niger as very insignificant. So which is it? And part of his job was not to collect new information, but to check the quality of the information that we had already and the analyze all the information. And as for the British claims, there's some questions about their intelligence, too.


This is not an isolated example. Pretty much all of the claims that the administration doctored evidence about Iraq have been euthanized, not only by the Senate committee but also by the equally bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission. The latest proof that intelligence was not "politicized" comes from an unlikely source — Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's former chief of staff, who has been denouncing the hawkish "cabal" supposedly leading us toward "disaster." Yet, in between bouts of trashing the administration, Wilkerson said on Oct. 19 that "the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming" that Hussein was building illicit weapons. This view was endorsed by "the French, the Germans, the Brits." The French, of all people, even offered "proof positive" that Hussein was buying aluminum tubes "for centrifuges." Wilkerson also recalled seeing satellite photos "that would lead me to believe that Saddam Hussein, at least on occasion, was … giving us disinformation."

Some of us are questioning more than just the Bush Administration's role in the faulty information. And the people you have checking up on all of this are the people who are going to look bad if it is revealed that the intelligence was politicized. Everyone backed up Bush's initial claims, including just about every Democrat. So what does the fact that there are bi-partisan committees looking into it? Both the dems and the GOP have nothing to gain from a senate committee confirming that evidence was doctored.

And even without evidence being doctored, there seems to be a trend of only evidence that fit the administration's view of the situation were being used. You're going to deny the many, many sources and intelligence reports that said otherwise? So everyone was wrong, that doesn't excuse them from being wrong, not when the costs of that mistake were so high.

OK, Saddam was giving us disinformation. He was buying centrifuge tubes. He was talking to nations about uranium purchases. What is failed to be revealed here is how many nations engage in activities like that. Yet we're not storming their countries and sending 160,000 troops into their nations on the strength of that information.

The strength of the information we had, the quality of it, did not justify the actions taken. Once again, Clinton had nearly the exact same information about Saddam Hussein, and took a much different course of action. Bush opened himself up to this whirlwind of criticism by starting a landwar based on the intel.

So much for the lies that led to war. What we're left with is the lies that led to the antiwar movement. Good thing for Wilson and his pals that deceiving the press and the public isn't a crime.

Ummm, real unbiased reporting there. But good thing for us that lying to a grand jury is a crime, and that Libby knew it was a crime before he acted. Yet he still lied, so he's screwed, sorry.

Guess what? You can't deny that we were lied to about the war. There were no WMDs, and we were told there were. That's a lie. You can say it was because of bad intel or this and that, but we were told that WMDs were going to be found in Iraq, and none were. That's a lie.





Oh yeah, and good job pointing out that this is an OPINION piece. I was wondering about that last paragraph...... and then realized that this isn't a news article, this is an op-ed.

All the Bush apologists have to do to "win" on this issue is to confuse what the actual dispute is over. Response unit dispatched.

RNC smear campaign #347,045,223 ::yawns::

rofl, yes the LA Times is part of the RNC. :nonono:

rofl, yes the LA Times is part of the RNC. :nonono:

the LA times (and most other so-called liberal newspapers) publish conservative / republican commentators that echo the party-line ... no surprise for anyone with a double-digit political IQ or higher

straw man

No, its not.


Note that this "setting the record straight" didn't involve disputing in any way Wilson's report that Iraq wasn't seeking uranium from Niger.

Did you not read the article? The article not only points out that Wilson's investigation did not reveal any evidence suggesting the claim to be unsound let alone dispute the claim but that post war investigations have in fact shown the claim to be "well founded."

from the article:
Much more egregious were the ways in which Wilson misrepresented his findings. In his famous New York Times Op-Ed article (July 6, 2003), Wilson gave the impression that his eight-day jaunt proved that Iraq was not trying to acquire uranium in Africa. Therefore, when administration officials nevertheless cited concerns about Hussein's nuclear ambitions, Wilson claimed that they had "twisted" evidence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." The Senate Intelligence Committee was not kind to this claim either.

The panel's report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger's prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information. According to the panel, intelligence analysts "did not think" that his findings "clarified the story on the reported Iraq-Niger uranium deal." In other words, Wilson had hardly exposed as fraudulent the "16 words" included in the 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, the British government, in its own post-invasion review of intelligence, found that this claim was "well founded."

Too bad there is 0 evidence to back up Reid's absurd claims. Not that you lefties ever wait for any kind of evidence before making wild claims.

the LA times (and most other so-called liberal newspapers) publish conservative / republican commentators that echo the party-line ... no surprise for anyone with a double-digit political IQ or higher

So how is this an "RNC smear campaign" when its published by a left-leaning paper? Or do you just think any article that doesn't toe the Democratic line is an "RNC smear campaign?" Thats what I thought. :nonono:

rofl, yes the LA Times is part of the RNC. :nonono:
He's a conservative editorialist, and... lol, you make this so easy...

He was a signatory on PNAC's January 28, 2005 Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

PNAC being the leading neocon military nutjob organization, of course.

All the Bush apologists have to do to "win" on this issue is to confuse what the actual dispute is over. Response unit dispatched.

And the response unit goes down in flames.

He's a conservative editorialist, and... lol, you make this so easy...

He was a signatory on PNAC's January 28, 2005 Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm


Ohhhhh so he wanted to increase U.S. Ground forces...ohhh that makes him AND EVIL RIGHT WING IMPERIALST NEOCON RNC MENBER OF THE VAST RIGHT WING EVIL CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!

:nonono:

Both irrelevant.

I think what H2 is trying to say here is that unless you're a Maureen Dowd clone and dare to support any of the Republican party's agenda you are automatically disqualified from the public debate and anything you say is automatically a lie. It doesn't matter that this argument is an obvious fallacy, its all hes got and hes sticking to it!



PNAC being the leading neocon military nutjob organization, of course.

I think believing that a secret group of jewish "neocons" directed by Ariel Sharon to invade Iraq at Israel's command makes you a nutjob, not demanding a hardline against terrorism and oppression like PNAC.

The point, of course, is - ignoring your argument that the LA Times is a liberal rag, for that's irrelevant here - this guy is no liberal.

"left leaning" newspapers publish "right leaning" editorials every day ... if you don't realise that there is no hope for you

and here is evidence that supports Wilson (and is contrary to the BA and their band of WHIG merry men)


http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...hap4.html#sect1

Regarding specific allegations of uranium pursuits from Niger, Ja’far (the head of Iraq pre-1991 nuclear weapons program) claims that after 1998 Iraq had only two contacts with (Niger) —neither of which involved uranium. Ja’far acknowledged that Iraq’s Ambassador to the Holy See traveled to (Niger) to invite the President of Niger to visit Iraq. He indicated that Baghdad hoped that the Nigerian President would agree to the visit as he had visited Libya despite sanctions being levied on Tripoli. Former Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See Wissam Zahawie has publicly provided a similar account.

Ja’far claims a second contact between Iraq and Niger occurred when a Nigerian minister visited Baghdad around 2001 to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger’s economic problems. During the negotiations for this contract, the Nigerians did not offer any kind of payment or other quid pro quo, including offering to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum.

ISG (Cia Iraq Survey Group) recovered a copy of a crude oil contract dated 26 June 2001 that, although unsigned, appears to support this arrangement.

So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down. In mid-May 2003, an ISG team found an Iraqi Embassy document in the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) headquarters related to an offer to sell yellowcake to Iraq. The document reveals that a Ugandan businessman approached the Iraqis with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo. The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi—in reporting this matter back to Baghdad on 20 May 2001—indicated it told the Ugandan that Iraq does not deal with these materials, explained the circumstances of sanctions, and said that Baghdad was not concerned about these matters right now.

Later I will post the crude forged "receipt" for the yellowcake that was rejected by an Italian tabloid rag ... but was "authentic" enough for bush to use as the infamous 16 words in the state of the union address.

In the mean time ... you better tighten up the duct-tape and check your stock of anti-anthrax pills

The point, of course, is - ignoring your argument that the LA Times is a liberal rage, for that's irrelevant here - this guy is no liberal.

What's a liberal rage? :confused:

Straw Man. I never said the man was a liberal. I said this isn't RNC propaganda. Its a VERY credible but opinionated editorial that is being published in a liberal paper boosting its credibility. RNC propaganda doesn't get published in leftist papers. :rolleyes:

"left leaning" newspapers publish "right leaning" editorials every day ... if you don't realise that there is no hope for you


Well good for you. That is also totally irrelevant.


and here is evidence that supports Wilson (and is contrary to the BA and their band of WHIG merry men)


That is not evidence of anything. Lol. That is a classic logical fallacy arguing that a lack of evidence is evidence a claim is false. You're going to have to do better than that bud.


In the mean time ... you better tighten up the duct-tape and check your stock of anti-anthrax pills

9-11 did not happen. The anthrax attacks on US Senators did not happen. The left is always right. Trust the left. Or else.

Thanks for catching the typo, I meant "liberal rag."

The anthrax attacks on US Senators did not happen.
Since the anthrax attacks only went to Sen Daschle and Sen Leahy in the Senate, does that mean the terrorists hate Democrats?

....



I think believing that a secret group of jewish "neocons" directed by Ariel Sharon to invade Iraq at Israel's command makes you a nutjob, not demanding a hardline against terrorism and oppression like PNAC.

Dude, really, who believes that?

Dude, really, who believes that?

Cindy Sheehan. :| That is what a "neocon" is according to the left-wing. A jewish conspirator who planned the Iraq war for Israel. Sounds like BS to me.

Cindy Sheehan.

And she now speaks for the entire left? Why didn't I get the memo?

I think you can do better than that.


fyi? editing after the fact doesn't change anything.

And she now speaks for the entire left? Why didn't I get the memo?

I think you can do better than that.


fyi? editing after the fact doesn't change anything.

I edited it before your post. :rolleyes:

The left has basically declared Sheehan to be a saint. She does speak for the left.

Really? Sheehan speaks for the left, or she embodies certain negative aspects of the left that you want to generalize on all of us?

Well good for you. That is also totally irrelevant.

totally relevant ... your the one that used the editorial as "proof" .. if your memory is short I can repost it

That is not evidence of anything. Lol. That is a classic logical fallacy arguing that a lack of evidence is evidence a claim is false. You're going to have to do better than that bud.

LOL :rofl: :rofl: what fallacy is that ???

your whole argument is one big fallacy ... a "liberal" newspaper published a critical opinion of Wilson as a liar ... (written by one of the PNAC originals) ... therefore in your mind this is "proof" .... vs a CIA report that I posted ... dude ... how long have you been doing this ??? 3 years ??? You debate like you just got your first AOL account a month ago

9-11 did not happen. The anthrax attacks on US Senators did not happen. The left is always right. Trust the left. Or else.

:blahblah: :blahblah:

RNC smear campaign #347,045,223 ::yawns::
deflection
All the Bush apologists have to do to "win" on this issue is to confuse what the actual dispute is over. Response unit dispatched.deflection

the LA times (and most other so-called liberal newspapers) publish conservative / republican commentators that echo the party-line ... no surprise for anyone with a double-digit political IQ or higheroff topic

He's a conservative editorialist, and... lol, you make this so easy...

He was a signatory on PNAC's January 28, 2005 Letter to Congress on Increasing U.S. Ground Forces http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm

PNAC being the leading neocon military nutjob organization, of course.ad hominem attack

7 or 8 posts between the 2 of you and you never addressed the specifics in the article. java, you addressed one of the subjects the article brought up, but not with respect to what Wilson said.

The panel's report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger's prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information. According to the panel, intelligence analysts "did not think" that his findings "clarified the story on the reported Iraq-Niger uranium deal." In other words, Wilson had hardly exposed as fraudulent the "16 words" included in the 2003 State of the Union address: (isn't that what it is REALLY about h2?) "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, the British government, in its own post-invasion review of intelligence, found that this claim was "well founded."

RNC propaganda doesn't get published in leftist papers

all of the "wilson lies" in the OP are posted on the RNC homepage

The con-publicans are cranking up the noise machine to distract attention
away from the Libby indictment ( a true certified liar)

ad hominem attack

I just want to say, I found it hysterical that you consider it an ad hominem to mention that someone is a member of PNAC.

The panel's report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger's prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information. According to the panel, intelligence analysts "did not think" that his findings "clarified the story on the reported Iraq-Niger uranium deal." In other words, Wilson had hardly exposed as fraudulent the "16 words" included in the 2003 State of the Union address: (isn't that what it is REALLY about h2?) "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, the British government, in its own post-invasion review of intelligence, found that this claim was "well founded."

I can barely believe you posted this long-debunked hoax as some sort of "evidence" ... you and rube are soooo pwned


Fake Iraq documents 'embarrassing' for U.S.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

LOL :rofl: :rofl: what fallacy is that ???


Argument from ignorance: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm A lack of evidence is not proof for the converse. The two are entirely different things.

You still laughing? Didn't think so. :rolleyes:


your whole argument is one big fallacy ...


What kind of fallacy? The fallacy of arguing while being a rightist? LOL give us a break. :nonono:


a "liberal" newspaper published a critical opinion of Wilson as a liar ... (written by one of the PNAC originals) ... therefore in your mind this is "proof" .... vs a CIA report that I posted ... dude ... how long have you been doing this ??? 3 years ??? You debate like you just got your first AOL account a month ago


I never said anything I presented was proof. Your post from the CIA is meaningless as it is backing up an arugment based on a logical fallacy. Your argument has been deconstructed as a fraud. Accept it. The article I posted is based on facts. You lose.

Really? Sheehan speaks for the left, or she embodies certain negative aspects of the left that you want to generalize on all of us?

She speaks for the left. She is a leader, a figurehead of the leftist movement in America.

Hey Contra, time will tell about Rove. The courts and jurry's agree, no matter what propaganda you find, that Libby broke the law, and he will be tried to decide a punishment.

Im looking forward to what might be discovered as the probe begins into the BA's involvement in resource manipulation for Iraq. We already know they ****ed it up royally: now we can learn how intentional their incompetence was.

I can barely believe you posted this long-debunked hoax as some sort of "evidence" ... you and rube are soooo pwned



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

Actually the post invasion review took place well after this article was written. What exactly are you debunking, the air? :jester:

She speaks for the left. She is a leader, a figurehead of the leftist movement in America.

Really? Who made that decision? At what point did 'the left' decide to follow this woman? I dont, hell. I dont know **** about her. The story was all yellow journalism that proved nothing except, wow, there are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum.

Argument from ignorance: A lack of evidence is not proof for the converse. The two are entirely different things.
You still laughing? Didn't think so. :rolleyes:What kind of fallacy? The fallacy of arguing while being a rightist? LOL give us a break. I never said anything I presented was proof. Your post from the CIA is meaningless as it is backing up an arugment based on a logical fallacy. Your argument has been deconstructed as a fraud. Accept it. The article I posted is based on facts. You lose.

ROFLMAO :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

yours is the most certifiably insane post EVER :nice:

umm lets see ... partisan opinion piece vs official CIA report wow ... thats a toughie

Actually the post invasion review took place well after this article was written. What exactly are you debunking, the air? :jester:

and that matters why ???

Hey Contra,


Who is Contra?


time will tell about Rove. The courts and jurry's agree, no matter what propaganda you find, that Libby broke the law, and he will be tried to decide a punishment.


Libby hasn't been convicted yet there bud. Just because the left says so, it doesn't make it true. :rolleyes: To me and to most americans it looks like a politically motivated left-wing attack campaign.

and that matters why ???

ROFL! Because you are basing your arugment on really old evidence which has been challenged by new evidence. You need to base your argument on evidence that has been uncovered AFTER the claim in my article was found, not long before it- there is new evidence, you must attack that, you have not.

ROFLMAO :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

yours is the most certifiably insane post EVER :nice:

umm lets see ... partisan opinion piece vs official CIA report wow ... thats a toughie

How mature.

My opinion article contains facts you have not addressed. Your CIA report does not address the facts in the article. Its doesn't matter if they are the words of God himself if they have nothing to do with the evidence presented in the article I posted.

Originally Posted by SwiftSloth
Hey Contra,

Who is Contra?

this 'debate' is like playing cards with a 46 card deck

lemme know when you find some evidence .. then we can play ... K ?

Libby hasn't been convicted yet there bud. Just because the left says so, it doesn't make it true. :rolleyes: To me and to most americans it looks like a politically motivated left-wing attack campaign.

Wait wait wait.... Trying to find out if people are dishonest is a left wing smear campaign? Yea... Trying to find out if people outted a CIA agent (even if RNC swear that there man woudlnt do that, and Oh, I know we should trust them as they'v certainly earned it *cough*thousands of pounds of chemical weapons we know where they are right now*cough*) tends to be in my eyes a good cause.

Unfortenetly your so partisan, so openly partisan that you dont care how your team gets the job done, no matter how dishonest the methods. Thats your bottom line.

ROFL! Because you are basing your arugment on really old evidence which has been challenged by new evidence. You need to base your argument on evidence that has been uncovered AFTER the claim in my article was found, not long before it- there is new evidence, you must attack that, you have not.

new evidence ? so far you have posted ZERO evidence ... so what is this "new" evidence ? ... did they magically un-forge the document ? ... enquiring minds want to know

Wait wait wait.... Trying to find out if people are dishonest is a left wing smear campaign? Yea... Trying to find out if people outted a CIA agent (even if RNC swear that there man woudlnt do that, and Oh, I know we should trust them as they'v certainly earned it *cough*thousands of pounds of chemical weapons we know where they are right now*cough*) tends to be in my eyes a good cause.

Unfortenetly your so partisan, so openly partisan that you dont care how your team gets the job done, no matter how dishonest the methods. Thats your bottom line.

You are kind of a partyline person yourself, so what?

I don't think you and yours is all that interested in picking off people who out CIA agents. If that were true you might not have reelected and supported through his other corruption Toricelli.

You are kind of a partyline person yourself, so what?

Indeed. In ideal. However, this has no effect on the fact that i loath the levels of corruption our govt. has in it, its loyalty to big business and not the people it represents, the lies and mistruths they spew to us. By both sides, and in the game of corruption I lack partisan ideals. I think that if your corrupt, you go.


I don't think you and yours is all that interested in picking off people who out CIA agents. If that were true you might not have reelected and supported through his other corruption Toricelli.

The notion of the Govt. selling out names to smear them in the name of there political game is pathetic enough. In my opinion that should be full out illegal in the first place (name the names of whoever has contrayry information so that the right wing noise machine can blast them regardless of how good there points were, and oh dear god were his points good).

But the fact that indeed Libby commited a crime certainly makes me happy to see him gone. Ill be happy when more of the BA is gone as well, as things are only getting worse and worse for them.

I don't think you and yours is all that interested in picking off people who out CIA agents. If that were true you might not have reelected and supported through his other corruption Toricelli.

my decoder ring seems to be broken ... wtf does this mean :confused:

And it looks like rube has bailed out ... hint hint ... pull the cord before you hit the ground ;)

You know, if the right wingers on this board get any dumber, we're going to have to hire nurses to care for them.

The notion of the Govt. selling out names to smear them in the name of there political game is pathetic enough.

I posted this in the other thread but even Hitler and Stalin never sank so low as to "out" a working covert agent ... it is treasonous actually

from the Libby Indictment ...

Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

whoever outed her ... at a minimum ... could be prosecuted under Title 18, USC Section 793, and Executive Order 12958 / 13292 because her employment identity was on a page marked "Secret" on a state department document

So naturally Libby will lie like a rug to protect his boss ... part of the reason the investigation took so long was his lies were so thick and numerous the prosecuter had to go to great lengths to double and triple check the testimony and re-interview to make sure

If there was a democratically controlled congress ... this investigation would have progressed much farther ... the BA whitehouse has stonewalled wherever they could with the assistance of congress

You know, if the right wingers on this board get any dumber, we're going to have to hire nurses to care for them.

Meh. They'r just that partisan. The only tactic of the republicans these last 5 years have been massive smear campaigns against whoever. Notice how every person who's opposed them has been degraded in someway. Its just that now that they are blatently caught in a lie, no less then by an honest prosecuter, they'r only hope is to smear the crap out of joe wilson, which no longer even matters because official documents agree with what wilsons saying. He's not lieing. He may have lied about other things, but this is one thing that proved to be very true. Regardless of if you could find some reason to try Wilson for what he's said, Cheney ****ed up, and Libby's taking the hard fall for it.

Meh. They'r just that partisan. The only tactic of the republicans these last 5 years have been massive smear campaigns against whoever. Notice how every person who's opposed them has been degraded in someway. Its just that now that they are blatently caught in a lie, no less then by an honest prosecuter, they'r only hope is to smear the crap out of joe wilson, which no longer even matters because official documents agree with what wilsons saying. He's not lieing. He may have lied about other things, but this is one thing that proved to be very true. Regardless of if you could find some reason to try Wilson for what he's said, Cheney ****ed up, and Libby's taking the hard fall for it.


What right wingers have smeared Fitzgerald?

Does it rise to any comparable level to how the left wingers smeared Ken Starr?

To complain the ther right smears when all we have to do is look at the track record of the left....well, it's just hilarious!!!!


Wilson doesn't need to be smeared. It's a fact he's a liar. I thought you hated liars. Of course, lying liars like yourself have a double standard for guys on your team.

Regarding your claims that Cheney did it...baseless speculation.
Thats what the left does though, they make wild accusations no matter how baseless, repeat them often and get it to circulate in hopes that they can attract more ignorant people to their lies.

To complain the ther right smears when all we have to do is look at the track record of the left....well, it's just hilarious!!!!

Oh is it?

Max Cleland, Dick Clarke, Al Gore, Dick Durbin, John McCain, The Plames, The UN including Hans Blix and his Weapons Inspection Team (Who were, face it: RIGHT), Paul O'Neill, Kerry and his wife, Cindy Sheehan, Mike Schiavo, are but a few off the top of my head who'v recieved heavy smear campaigns from the BA. The most pathetic thing is, several of the smear campaigns were bull**** and made up. Especially in cases such as Schiavo (False facts everywhere), McCain (He adopted the child for christs sakes), Blix, Kerry (Questioning his millitary record when he has one at least), etc etc. The list goes on for days and there are hundreds of small people lesser known who are quickly gotten to sit down and shut up or have there lives made a living hell by Rove.


Wilson doesn't need to be smeared. It's a fact he's a liar. I thought you hated liars. Of course, lying liars like yourself have a double standard for guys on your team.

Please. He was absolutly correct in his statements regarding Bush's information on the yellow cake incident, and the BA made him pay for it.


Regarding your claims that Cheney did it...baseless speculation.
Thats what the left does though, they make wild accusations no matter how baseless, repeat them often and get it to circulate in hopes that they can attract more ignorant people to their lies.

Please. The left isnt 1/2 has as bad as the hate mongering right, who loath and claim acusations about everything they dislike that might for a second oppose them. You are a complete liar, and have proven it on these boards again and again. You are also excellent at derailing threads with your pointlessly long winded posts.

The Clinton Administration set the records in corruption. 47 people were indicted, sent to jail, and otherwise humiliated. First president accused of rape. First president impeached since Johnson in the 1860's. The most corrupt criminal organization since the Gilded Age and/or the Grant Administration.

More robber barons. Global Crossings and Terry McAuliffe make anything that Libby did pale in comparison.

But Dem corruption good.

Lenin was right about you types, that is for sure.

Oh is it?

Yes it is.

Max Cleland, Dick Clarke, Al Gore, Dick Durbin, John McCain, The Plames, The UN including Hans Blix and his Weapons Inspection Team (Who were, face it: RIGHT), Paul O'Neill, Kerry and his wife, Cindy Sheehan, Mike Schiavo, are but a few off the top of my head who'v recieved heavy smear campaigns from the BA. The most pathetic thing is, several of the smear campaigns were bull**** and made up. Especially in cases such as Schiavo (False facts everywhere), McCain (He adopted the child for christs sakes), Blix, Kerry (Questioning his millitary record when he has one at least), etc etc. The list goes on for days and there are hundreds of small people lesser known who are quickly gotten to sit down and shut up or have there lives made a living hell by Rove.

First, Cleland was not smeared. The guy put labor unions ahead of national security. Gore is just a dip. Durbins words speak for themself. McCain...possibly. Blix was a living contradiction. O'Neil was looking for more fame. Kerry and his wife speak for themselves, Kerry lied about his military record.. Sheehan speaks for herself as well.

Maybe a couple smears out of the list you provided.

And how is this any different from the Clinton operation?


Please. He was absolutly correct in his statements regarding Bush's information on the yellow cake incident, and the BA made him pay for it.


No he wasn't. The report issued from the Senate Intelligenc Committee shows that Wilsons report added to the argument that Iraq was seeking uranium.

Even the British report stands by this and called it "well founded".

That was just one of his many lies.

Please. The left isnt 1/2 has as bad as the hate mongering right,

They're worse.

who loath and claim acusations about everything they dislike that might for a second oppose them.

Did you miss the 1990's? The Clinton administration perfected the art of smearing people, gathering their FBI files, then sicking the IRS on them.

You are a complete liar, and have proven it on these boards again and again.

It's up to you to prove I am a liar. Prove that I have lied.

I've proven you are a liar. Just go to the O'Reilly thread, it's all there

You are also excellent at derailing threads with your pointlessly long winded posts.

And you are excellent at not addressing anything of any substance and in fact go out of your way to avoid debating real issues. You've proven this time and time again. Instead you just demonize and demagouge anyone who isn't playing on your team, the Democrats.
Pathetic.

Now, why don't you be a man for a change and continue the debate in the O'Reilly thread?

Clinton was accused of rape? Or were you just throwing that one in there for the heck of it?

First president accused of rape.

Wow..... no smear campaigns ever, huh.

Yes it is.


[QUOTE]
First, Cleland was not smeared.

Yes, he was. They blatently lied about his voting record. Much as O'Reilly lied about Boxers.


Gore is just a dip.

K... So its alright to smear dips with false quotes and taking sentances completly out of context?

McCain...possibly.

Possibly? How could he possibly not have been? Rove--'Oh, woops. We didnt realize the kid was adopted'.

No he wasn't. The report issued from the Senate Intelligenc Committee shows that Wilsons report added to the argument that Iraq was seeking uranium.

Really? his final assessment was that: "In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired."

Along with his statement that: "was nothing to the story" of the uranium yellowcake. Weird.

"was nothing to the story"

Clinton was accused of rape? Or were you just throwing that one in there for the heck of it?



Wow..... no smear campaigns ever, huh.


Nobody has stated that the right has never engaged in a smear campaign.


Yes, he was. They blatently lied about his voting record.

Hardly.

Much as O'Reilly lied about Boxers.


Man. It is unhealthy to be so obsessed over one person. Seek help.

K... So its alright to smear dips with false quotes and taking sentances completly out of context?


You apparently believe it's OK. See the O'Reilly thread and your statements regarding Bill Bennett.


Really? his final assessment was that: "In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired."

Along with his statement that: "was nothing to the story" of the uranium yellowcake. Weird.

"was nothing to the story"


Have you read the conclusions from the Senate Intelligence Committee report?

Wilson is a liar, everyone knows it. Hey, but he's on your team so it's OK.

Clinton was accused of rape? Or were you just throwing that one in there for the heck of it?



Wow..... no smear campaigns ever, huh.

Juanita Broderick.

Of course in most cases just an accusation of a pubic hair comment brings out an investigation that makes the Catholic Church blush in shame for their measly Inquistion but this was not accusation against a Republican so you can conveniently forget it.

As far as I know Broderick has never recanted. But whatever.

Alleged conserv pubic hair on coke jokes bad

Alleged rapes by dems ignore.

Hardly.

Yea, they did. They ran an ad claiming that he was opposed to homeland security. In reality: He had co-sponsored the original legislation and pushed for it hard. Then when the incident of 9/11 happend, he wanted a stronger draft and so voted against the one he had helped make, in hopes of having a better homeland security.

The TV ad morphed Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's for gods sake.



Man. It is unhealthy to be so obsessed over one person. Seek help.

Your telling me this? Youv written about 30 pages on the Bennett incident and one mans reply. Its pathetic, which is why im not bothering with it anymore. Your to obsessed to see clearly even if I explaiend to you that after I considered it further, i changed my position. You dont seem to be willing to grasp that.

Who? Do you care to elaborate?

Who? Do you care to elaborate?

Max Cleland. Democratic Senator from Georgia for a good while. Won some medals while in the army. Lost his legs and part of one arm trying to pick up and toss a grenade that a fellow soldier accidently dropped.

^ hahaha!

I was talking to jimmyjude and juanita broderick, since I'm amazingly averse to googling things. I'm thinking that she's a relative no-name associated with the entire girl-with-a-big-nose, I forget her name, during the Clinton campaign. And as far as I recall, none of them ever accused Bill of rape, just sexual harassment. And while sexual harassment is a seirous thing to be accused of, its a whole different ballgame from rape. But, I admit my ignorance on it, and asked him to provide some info.

Oh well. I kinda wanted an excuse to explain how awesome Max Cleland is/was.

preach on, mah brother, preach on....

Max Cleland, Dick Clarke, Al Gore, Dick Durbin, John McCain, The Plames, The UN including Hans Blix and his Weapons Inspection Team (Who were, face it: RIGHT), Paul O'Neill, Kerry and his wife, Cindy Sheehan, Mike Schiavo, are but a few off the top of my head who'v recieved heavy smear campaigns from the BA. The most pathetic thing is, several of the smear campaigns were bull**** and made up. Especially in cases such as Schiavo (False facts everywhere), McCain (He adopted the child for christs sakes), Blix, Kerry (Questioning his millitary record when he has one at least), etc etc. The list goes on for days and there are hundreds of small people lesser known who are quickly gotten to sit down and shut up or have there lives made a living hell by Rove.


Please name one BA official who smeared either Sheehan or Schiavo, off the top of your head. Hey, didn't Kerry out a CIA agent himself?

I can barely believe you posted this long-debunked hoax as some sort of "evidence" ... you and rube are soooo pwned



http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/
The veracity of the claims are not the issue. What is important is that Wilson himself did NOT debunk anything as he claims in his op-ed piece

If Plame was "outted" then why wasn't that one of the charges agains Libby?

If you send someone to verify a report would it be prudent to let him know what it is he is verifying?


Did Wilson ever read the report he was supposed to go "verify" in niger?

Did Plame reccommend her husband for the job? (I did not ask if she was the official that made the decision to send him)



just askin'

I really love Wilson's reaction to Libby's indictment; he demanded that Rove resign.

This pretty much sums up his Real Agenda.

If Plame was "outted" then why wasn't that one of the charges agains Libby?

Do you think Libby is the only person in the BA?

If you send someone to verify a report would it be prudent to let him know what it is he is verifying?

What makes you think he did not have a directive from the CIA?

Did Wilson ever read the report he was supposed to go "verify" in niger?

see above

Did Plame reccommend her husband for the job? (I did not ask if she was the official that made the decision to send him)

Does it matter ? Why ?

The veracity of the claims are not the issue. What is important is that Wilson himself did NOT debunk anything as he claims in his op-ed piece

Evidence ?

just askin'

Anyone that does not realise this is a classic smear campaign in-order to deflect attention from the current and futute indictments is a republican tool

Hey, didn't Kerry out a CIA agent himself?

No ... the person you are talking about was well known and published OVERT agent prior to he being named at the senate .. he was also named by a republican too ... I see you overlooked that

Juanita Broderick.

Of course in most cases just an accusation of a pubic hair comment brings out an investigation that makes the Catholic Church blush in shame for their measly Inquistion but this was not accusation against a Republican so you can conveniently forget it.

As far as I know Broderick has never recanted. But whatever.

Alleged conserv pubic hair on coke jokes bad

Alleged rapes by dems ignore.

Actually she swore under oath in the early 90s that she was never sexually assaulted or had a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton. She didnt' start claming she was raped until a few years later.

No ... the person you are talking about was well known and published OVERT agent prior to he being named at the senate .. he was also named by a republican too ... I see you overlooked that

Well, let's see. Plame was NOT covert, and apparently no one is going to be indicted for outing her, and she had been identified to many prior to this whole flap, so could we say it's all been much ado about nothing?

Well, let's see. Plame was NOT covert, and apparently no one is going to be indicted for outing her, and she had been identified to many prior to this whole flap, so could we say it's all been much ado about nothing?

From earlier in this thread, yet again:


Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Bold mine.

Yea, they did. They ran an ad claiming that he was opposed to homeland security. In reality: He had co-sponsored the original legislation and pushed for it hard. Then when the incident of 9/11 happend, he wanted a stronger draft and so voted against the one he had helped make, in hopes of having a better homeland security.

That isn't true. He wanted to UNIONIZE the employees. It's a well known fact. He put unions above passing the bill.

The TV ad morphed Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's for gods sake.

No. YOu are wrong again. Sheesh. Correcting you is getting old.
The add did not state that Cleland was a buddy of Bin Ladens, it simply was connecting the fact that Cleland opposed passing an important bill just for his corrupt friends in the labor unions. That is and was the issue.


Your telling me this? Youv written about 30 pages on the Bennett incident and one mans reply

Lets compare the number of times you've mentioned Bill O'Reilly to the number of times I've mentioned Bill Bennett.


Its pathetic, which is why im not bothering with it anymore.


Chicken. You've shown yourself to be a coward. You are making excuses. You spend an enormous amount of time here and post continually.

Suddenly you can't be bothered? We understand. You've painted yourself into a corner and you can't find a way out so you attack me and create a reason how it's my fault that you won't respond. Typical liberal.

Your to obsessed to see clearly even if I explaiend to you that after I considered it further, i changed my position. You dont seem to be willing to grasp that.

First, I make an attempt to spell correctly. I understand the occaisional mis-spelled word but your spelling and grammar are horrible. "Your". No friend, it's "You're" as in "You are". Got it? "explaiend" is spelled Explained.
Please try to pay more attention to detail as your poor spelling and grammar is a reflection upon your intelligence. I can understand an occaisional mishap but your's has gone well beyond that. Perhaps a few hours away from your computer and this website and more time practicing spelling and grammar would benefit you.

Now, I've addressed your position in that thread. I've pointed out that you pulled a John Kerry on us all. Actually, using your benchmark, you lied. You are a liar, just like the guys on the other team that you hate for lying. I've shown how liberals like to lie. I've shown Ed Schultz to be a liar. I've shown that you have a very difficult time being honest when it comes to addressing people on your team. I've pointed many things out in that thread and now it's your turn to respond.



Max Cleland. Democratic Senator from Georgia for a good while. Won some medals while in the army. Lost his legs and part of one arm trying to pick up and toss a grenade that a fellow soldier accidently dropped.

If I remember correctly they were on their way to go drinking or something.
Still, an unfortunate accident and done in service to the nation.
Anyways, it has no bearing on how he chose Labor Unions over an important piece of legislation. That choice cost him his Senate seat.

From earlier in this thread, yet again:



Bold mine.

No one's been indicted for outing a covert agent, a crime. No one is likely to be indicted for doing so. Classified is not covert, a crucial difference. Plame was at a desk job, and was not covert at the time. Wishing a crime was committed just to get Rove isn't going to make it happen.

Actually she swore under oath in the early 90s that she was never sexually assaulted or had a sexual relationship with Bill Clinton. She didnt' start claming she was raped until a few years later.

She was Jane Doe #5 in the Paula Jones affair.

She signed an affidavit under duress. It was thrown out.

The Clintoons were very good at intimidating people. They WERE the power brokers in Arkansas.

She probably asked for it anyways. I wonder what she was wearing?

She must have been a slag is she made that allegation right?

Well, let's see. Plame was NOT covert, and apparently no one is going to be indicted for outing her, and she had been identified to many prior to this whole flap, so could we say it's all been much ado about nothing?


From the indictment of the accused serial-liar Libby ....

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.
Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson
e. Joseph Wilson (“Wilson”) was a former career State Department official who had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

What were you saying again Hadit ????

If Wilson is such a liar, lets see some of his whoppers eh ?

with evidence of course

That isn't true. He wanted to UNIONIZE the employees. It's a well known fact. He put unions above passing the bill.

Incorrect.



No. YOu are wrong again. Sheesh. Correcting you is getting old.
The add did not state that Cleland was a buddy of Bin Ladens, it simply was connecting the fact that Cleland opposed passing an important bill just for his corrupt friends in the labor unions. That is and was the issue.

And in your opinion if a politican dissents in the least, he is comparable to Saddam and Bin Laden, even if he was a co-author of the very homeland security that is in place today? That is hysterical. I loath Bush, but im not enough of a ****ing retard to compare him in person to Saddam or Bin Laden. Yet you will actually argue that this didnt happen? Pathetic.




Lets compare the number of times you've mentioned Bill O'Reilly to the number of times I've mentioned Bill Bennett.

Hey. You do that. And have fun with it too.


Chicken. You've shown yourself to be a coward. You are making excuses. You spend an enormous amount of time here and post continually.

You derailed a thread horribly and make nothing but personal attacks. You for some reason think that my shifting of position on an issue, little ol me, equates to justice for someone with millions of viewers to make false claims about a senators voting record. The only thing you did was turn the debate against me instead of the issues. Im not going to ****ing defend myself on this board, as I have no reason to. The topic was O'Reilly. You turned it to Ed Schultz and Bennett, and then you turned it to me when I changed my position, and now you will not ****ing drop it for the life of you. This obession of yours with me and my opinion on O'Reilly makes me think you need some serious ****ing counseling.


Suddenly you can't be bothered? We understand. You've painted yourself into a corner and you can't find a way out so you attack me and create a reason how it's my fault that you won't respond. Typical liberal.

Wow. You are absolutly ****ing obsessed with me. This is getting really ****ing creepy, and I really want you to stop now, as Im going to stop replying to you. The fact that you absolutly obsess over me is creepy as hell, and you need to realize that.

Wow. You are absolutly ****ing obsessed with me. This is getting really ****ing creepy, and I really want you to stop now, as Im going to stop replying to you. The fact that you absolutly obsess over me is creepy as hell, and you need to realize that.

no kidden .. isn't there something in the TOS about stalking ? :|

Do you think Libby is the only person in the BA? I see no charges. No one has been charged YET and you haven’t provided proof she was covert




What makes you think he did not have a directive from the CIA? from the Liar's Op-Ed:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake

and also

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors— they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)


gee…he admits he never saw the CIA report nor the memorandum that generated the entire question. Hell….wouldn’t it be nice to know what you are investigating?

And as for the officials that supposedly signed them…did he interview these people? (probably forged???)Does he even know who they are?? I would think it would be the first step in his investigation “hey, joe blow signed these documents…go see what he has to say about it”




see above you answered the “above” with a question…you failed to answer either question.

Does it occur to you that Wilson wasn’t sent to seriously answer the question the VP posed but rather to politicize events?



Does it matter ? Why ?

see above




Evidence ? cited in the original article

just askin' Try answerin’…. Very few here have addressed the thread topic

Anyone that does not realise this is a classic smear campaign in-order to deflect attention from the current …THREAD TOPIC is a tool
(caps are my editing)

I recognized in my first post that you and others have failed to do much beyond deflect and smear

Incorrect.


No it's not incorrect.

My statement is completely accurate.

Of course, nothing remotely like this ran. The case for foul play rests on a tough anti-Cleland ad that Chambliss broadcast featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad didn't morph Cleland into either of these figures or say that he supported them. It noted at its beginning that the United States faced threats to its security as the screen was briefly divided into four squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled with images of the American military.

It went on to explain that Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland-security bill that would have given President Bush the freedom from union strictures that he wanted in order to set up the new department. The bill was co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague Sen. Zell Miller, a fellow Democrat. Bush discussed details of the bill personally with Cleland, and Chambliss wrote him a letter prior to running his ad urging him to support the Bush version. Cleland still opposed it, setting himself up for the charge that he was voting with liberals and the public-employees unions against Bush and Georgia common sense.



Feel free to debunk any of this.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/richlowry/2004/02/19/10815.html


And in your opinion if a politican dissents in the least, he is comparable to Saddam and Bin Laden, even if he was a co-author of the very homeland security that is in place today? That is hysterical. I loath Bush, but im not enough of a ****ing retard to compare him in person to Saddam or Bin Laden. Yet you will actually argue that this didnt happen? Pathetic.

Nobody compared him to Bin Laden or Saddam. The above article explains what happened in the commercial.

Better yet, Im sure some liberal blog has a copy of the commercial. Why don't you find it and air it and see which of our positions is closer to the truth?


Hey. You do that. And have fun with it too.

No thanks. Just stop making silly accusations. If I am obsessed with Bennett you are super-duper-duper-duper-duper-duper obsessed with O'Reilly.


You derailed a thread horribly and make nothing but personal attacks.

You mean like how you call me a racist?


You for some reason think that my shifting of position on an issue, little ol me, equates to justice for someone with millions of viewers to make false claims about a senators voting record. The only thing you did was turn the debate against me instead of the issues. Im not going to ****ing defend myself on this board, as I have no reason to. The topic was O'Reilly. You turned it to Ed Schultz and Bennett, and then you turned it to me when I changed my position, and now you will not ****ing drop it for the life of you. This obession of yours with me and my opinion on O'Reilly makes me think you need some serious ****ing counseling.

There you go with the curse words. Please learn to control yourself.

Look, you've been shown to be a liar, that is your fault. Do not attack me for pointing out your lies.


Wow. You are absolutly ****ing obsessed with me.

Says the guy who cannot stop talking about Bill O'Reilly.

This is getting really ****ing creepy, and I really want you to stop now, as Im going to stop replying to you.

Nice exit strategy from having to cope with facts that you no longer want to address.

The fact that you absolutly obsess over me is creepy as hell, and you need to realize that.

Says the guy who cannot stop talking about Bill O'Reilly.
Pot, meet Kettle.

I see no charges. No one has been charged YET and you haven’t provided proof she was covert

Then you need glasses ... 2nd post enlarged just for you

d. The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.
Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson
e. Joseph Wilson (“Wilson”) was a former career State Department official who had held a variety of posts, including United States Ambassador. In 2002, after an inquiry to the CIA by the Vice President concerning certain intelligence reporting, the CIA decided on its own initiative to send Wilson to the country of Niger to investigate allegations involving Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium yellowcake, a processed form of uranium ore. Wilson orally reported his findings to the CIA upon his return.

f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.




In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake

and also

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors— they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)


gee…he admits he never saw the CIA report nor the memorandum that generated the entire question. Hell….wouldn’t it be nice to know what you are investigating?

He is consistant ... and no evidence he lied .. period


And as for the officials that supposedly signed them…did he interview these people? (probably forged???)Does he even know who they are?? I would think it would be the first step in his investigation “hey, joe blow signed these documents…go see what he has to say about it”

He reported orally back to the CIA ... again ... no evidence of any lie here

Does it occur to you that Wilson wasn’t sent to seriously answer the question the VP posed but rather to politicize events?

So according to you ... the CIA sent him to "politicize events"

I recognized in my first post that you and others have failed to do much beyond deflect and smear

The OP was an editorial from a PNAC signatory that claims Wilson lied ... which in itself lends zero crediblity... and so far ... not one iota of objective evidence has been posted that he has lied.

As far as deflect and smear you must have blinked as you passed by all the clinton posts ;)

Ohmigod... can we just all agree on the fact that Plame was a covert CIA agent?

I don't care whether or not you think Libby did such and such, how is it still up for argument that she was a CIA agent who's identity as such had not been revealed before the leak scandal? If you think that simply because she worked at a desk at Langley she doesn't qualify for covert status, instead of running around with button-cameras and exploding sticks of gum, you've watched Mission: Impossible and read Clancy way too much.

No. She was not a covert agent. She had an HQ desk job and had not been on a field assignment in, quite literally, years.

For an insightful read, I recommend the linked piece by Zell Miller.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1105/02edmiller.html

It's like a spy thriller. Institutional rivalries and political loyalties have fostered an intelligence officer's resentment against the government. Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national leadership. A vital question of intelligence forms the core justification for controversial military actions by the current leaders. If this agent can get in the middle of that question, distort that information and make it public, the agent might foster regime change in the upcoming election.

But the rules on agents are clear. They can't purposely distort gathered intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking their job or jail.
But their spouse can!

The agent realizes her spouse can go out on behalf of the spy agency, can distort information, go public with classified information and use all this spy-agency-sponsored material and credentials to try to pull down the current government, and it is all perfectly legal.

Suppose the spouse adds just one more brilliant, well-aimed lie: claim your foremost political opponent put the spouse up to the trip. As your spouse uses your agency's name to mount attacks, your enemy may fall into your trap. Will your enemy suffer your spouse's lies or take the bait and try to clarify his non-role? If he tells the press he didn't hire your spouse, the press will demand to know, "Then who did?"

Instead of you violating secrecy laws, it is your victim who is guilty because he tried to set the record straight. Heads, you win; tails, he loses.

It sounds unbelievable, a fiction, perhaps to be called "To Sting a King." But it is no fiction. This is the story behind Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and the Bush administration. And it appears that Plame and Wilson will get away with the biggest sting operation ever....

Ohmigod... can we just all agree on the fact that Plame was a covert CIA agent?


No. She was a CIA employee doing analysis at a desk job. She drove to and from work from her home containing her children every Mon-Fri, hardly something a "covert CIA agent" would do.

No. She was a CIA employee doing analysis at a desk job. She drove to and from work from her home containing her children every Mon-Fri, hardly something a "covert CIA agent" would do.

The CIA begs to differ with you.

No. She was not a covert agent. She had an HQ desk job and had not been on a field assignment in, quite literally, years.




A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.....

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html

Once again, you guys have watched too many Bond movies.

There are a good number of covert agents of the CIA who live in Virginia and drive to Langley HQ every day without their involvement with the CIA being public knowledge.

No it's not incorrect.

My statement is completely accurate.

Of course, nothing remotely like this ran. The case for foul play rests on a tough anti-Cleland ad that Chambliss broadcast featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad didn't morph Cleland into either of these figures or say that he supported them. It noted at its beginning that the United States faced threats to its security as the screen was briefly divided into four squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled with images of the American military.

It went on to explain that Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland-security bill that would have given President Bush the freedom from union strictures that he wanted in order to set up the new department. The bill was co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague Sen. Zell Miller, a fellow Democrat. Bush discussed details of the bill personally with Cleland, and Chambliss wrote him a letter prior to running his ad urging him to support the Bush version. Cleland still opposed it, setting himself up for the charge that he was voting with liberals and the public-employees unions against Bush and Georgia common sense.



Feel free to debunk any of this.
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/richlowry/2004/02/19/10815.html

Accurate, but this doesnt change the fact that they ran a ****ing ad claiming that Cleland sucked while running images of Bin Laden and Saddam. I dont care what you say, to the common person just watching t.v. that draws a pretty strong comparison.




Nobody compared him to Bin Laden or Saddam. The above article explains what happened in the commercial.

Let me ask you something: Do you know anything about psychology? The most simple premise is fear: Showing images of Bin Laden and Saddam while talking about how pathetic Max Cleland is, is very distatesful and ruthless. No matter how pretty you try to dress it up. You seem to attribute to 90% of the general public what in fact only so many people really understadn about the situation. If you honestly dont think they were trying to give the impression to the people watching the ad that there was a correlation between Cleland, Laden and Saddam then you need to go take psych 101.


No thanks. Just stop making silly accusations. If I am obsessed with Bennett you are super-duper-duper-duper-duper-duper obsessed with O'Reilly.

..... I was debating about O'Reilly, in an O'Reilly Thread.

You came in, and began debating about Ed Schultz for some reason. You then turned it into a debate about whether or not I was lieing when I changed my position on the issue. Hence, your awkward obsession. Let me put it this way:

Going to a feature film to watcha feature film: Normal

Going to a feature film and shouting again and again that it should be a baseball game: Obsessed with baseball.


You mean like how you call me a racist?

I think you are. Thats just my interpretation of your nature. I could be wrong, but you really havent proven me otherwise.


There you go with the curse words. Please learn to control yourself.

Why? You dislike original English? I appologize, but it's kind of a way of paying tribute to my ancestory.


Look, you've been shown to be a liar, that is your fault. Do not attack me for pointing out your lies.

Haha... Yes, my lie being that i said 'well... maybe' and then i said 'you know, nah, i dont agree with that'... Sorry, thats at best a lame excuse to call someone a liar.



Says the guy who cannot stop talking about Bill O'Reilly.

In a thread created by someone else to have people come discuss Bill O'Reilly.


Says the guy who cannot stop talking about Bill O'Reilly.
Pot, meet Kettle.

Yea. Im very upset about a political figure who I oppose in idealogy lieing about Democrat voting records amongst other things, and that there was a thread created to discuss him. You on the other hand have posted pages and pages about me out of nowhere. Me, a random 18 year old guy on a message board, someone not exactly of notice. Now, im fine with debating my ideals, and even a little about myself if youll do so in a polite matter, but your rampant personal attacks out of nowhere in a thread about Bill O'Reilly regarding Ed Schultz, are just a bit much Toejam. Now, if you want to start over and be civilized without the non-stop personal accusations, Im cool with that.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/03/sitroom.01.html

I highlighted the relevant parts, but felt that I should leave this transcript intact to show that I'm not busting a cut-and-paste of favorable arguments, seeing as there are very good points about the relevancy of this matter addressed herein.

Joining us now to discuss that situation, here in THE SITUATION ROOM, the former CIA director, Stansfield Turner; and CNN security analyst Richard Falkenrath, former deputy White House homeland security adviser. Thanks, gentlemen, for joining us.

Admiral Turner, I'll start with you. You worked at CIA, you ran the CIA. Realistically, what kind of problems are they facing as a result of the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson?

ADM. STANSFIELD TURNER (RET.), FMR. CIA DIRECTOR: They've lost Valerie Plame as a possible operative. They may lose people she worked with who now associate those people with the CIA. And they have a more difficult time in recruiting new people to work for the CIA, for fear that they, too, will be exposed.

BLITZER: Is this a serious problem, Richard Falkenrath, for the CIA, or not so serious, based on what you're hearing?

RICHARD FALKENRATH, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: Well, Wolf, we really don't know. I think Admiral Turner got it right in the three basic risks that are run whenever someone is exposed like this. She may have had agents in the field who are now compromised and she certainly is not useful to them in future. And certainly, our future efforts to recruit agents are called into question by this in disclosure.

But we haven't -- we don't actually have a whole lot of facts. We don't know how active she was in the field and we don't know if they ever intended to put her back out there. So, yes, it's a problem; yes, there's damage. How bad? We don't know.

BLITZER: And we don't have results of the formal damage assessment, a post-mortem, if one was done by the CIA, which I assume one was done. We do know this, that Victoria Toensing, a former deputy assistant attorney general who was involved in writing that 1982 legislation, that law that makes it illegal to release the name of a CIA operative, says this in "The Wall Street Journal:

"Two decades later, the CIA either purposely or with gross negligence, made a series of decisions that led to Ms. Plame becoming a household name. The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft." In other words, she's blaming the CIA for all of this, not those who leaked her name.

TURNER: I don't understand where she casts that blame or how she casts that blame. It seems to me the blame lies with those people who exposed her.

BLITZER: Well, she's saying that in getting her husband to make this trip to Niger, Ambassador -- former Ambassador Joe Wilson, the CIA was looking for a critic, in effect, of the White House, someone who could embarrass the White House, given potentially some of the tensions that existed between the CIA bureaucracy on the one hand and the vice president's staff, shall we say, on the other.

TURNER: Well, I have a lot of respect for Victoria Toensing, but this sounds like a bit of a stretch to me.

BLITZER: What about to you, Richard Falkenrath?

FALKENRATH: Sounds like a stretch to me, too. The CIA can play hardball and has played hardball with the White House. But her theory there is a little contrived.

BLITZER: Here is a quote, I want to read it to you, from Mark Lowenthal, the former CIA counterproliferation division officer, quoted in "The Washington Post" a few days ago.

"You can only speculate that if she had foreign contacts, those contacts might be nervous and their relationships with her put at risk. It also makes it harder for other CIA officers to recruit sources." I think that goes without saying. What do you think, Richard?

FALKENRATH: I agree. I think both are true. If she had sources in the field recruited when she was an operative there, they're in jeopardy if they're still in places of position.

BLITZER: One of the arguments that has been made, Admiral Turner, is that, you know what, she may have been a covert clandestine officer at one point, but in recent years, she had a desk job as an analyst at the counterproliferation division at the CIA. She would drive in the main gates of the CIA in Langley, Virginia, every day, drive out. It wasn't as if she was hiding, necessarily, what she was doing.

TURNER: Well, you can't not drive into the CIA if you work there. But they do take precautions to make sure that other people aren't standing around watching who comes in and such forth. It's one of those risks that you have you to take. But I think they do it in a manner that's acceptable.

BLITZER: Is that standard, Richard Falkenrath, for clandestine officers working undercover, the so-called NOCs who go out around the world under what's called non-official cover -- is that standard when they come to Washington? They go for briefings, debriefings, over at CIA headquarters?

FALKENRATH: Yes, it is standard. And there are a lot of operatives at the CIA who will periodically cycle through desk jobs at Langley or even analytic jobs like she had at the proliferation analytic center there. So that does go on. Some of them, I assume, never come in from their undercover operations, but I think that's the exception.

BLITZER: What's your bottom line assessment on this whole CIA leak investigation, this story right now? What do you come away with, Admiral Turner, and conclude?

TURNER: I conclude there was moderate damage done to the CIA. I conclude it was done for purposes of revenge against her husband, and I think that is entirely reprehensible. I conclude that it was done deliberately by the Bush administration.

BLITZER: We'll leave it there. Thanks very much, Admiral Turner, for joining us. Richard Falkenrath, as usual -- he's at the Brookings Institution right now.

No. She was not a covert agent. She had an HQ desk job and had not been on a field assignment in, quite literally, years.

For an insightful read, I recommend the linked piece by Zell Miller.



Wrong again ... no suprise ... and what does an opinion piece from Zell Miller prove ? answer ... nothing

Accurate, but this doesnt change the fact that they ran a ****ing ad claiming that Cleland sucked while running images of Bin Laden and Saddam. I dont care what you say, to the common person just watching t.v. that draws a pretty strong comparison.

And the moveon ads comparing Bush to Hitler was what, exactly?
The ones when the naacp stated that Bush not signing hate crimes laws into effect was like killing James Byrd all over again was what, exactly?

You are a typical liberal. Voters are too stupid to understand what is being presented to them. Actually they understood completely. There was NO comparison, you only alledge there was because you believe that any legitimate criticism of someone who is beholden to big labor or any other Democrat special interest is immoral. It's you that has the comprehension issue, not the voters.




Let me ask you something: Do you know anything about psychology?

Yes, I took a number of psych classes.

The most simple premise is fear: Showing images of Bin Laden and Saddam while talking about how pathetic Max Cleland is, is very distatesful and ruthless. No matter how pretty you try to dress it up. You seem to attribute to 90% of the general public what in fact only so many people really understadn about the situation. If you honestly dont think they were trying to give the impression to the people watching the ad that there was a correlation between Cleland, Laden and Saddam then you need to go take psych 101.

The images also showed the troops. Does that suggest that the troops were being compared to Bin Laden and Saddam?
Using your stupid logic, yes.

You just don't grasp how stupid, absolutely stupid, your logic is.





..... I was debating about O'Reilly, in an O'Reilly Thread.

You came in, and began debating about Ed Schultz for some reason. You then turned it into a debate about whether or not I was lieing when I changed my position on the issue. Hence, your awkward obsession. Let me put it this way:

Going to a feature film to watcha feature film: Normal

Going to a feature film and shouting again and again that it should be a baseball game: Obsessed with baseball.

You've mentioned O'Reilly in plenty of threads that have nothing to do with him. That was the point. Perhaps it flew right by you.


I think you are. Thats just my interpretation of your nature. I could be wrong, but you really havent proven me otherwise.

I don't have to prove Im not. You made the charge therefore the burden lies on you to prove that I am.
For heavens sake, what do they teach in school now a days?



Why? You dislike original English? I appologize, but it's kind of a way of paying tribute to my ancestory.

Yeah. Right.


Haha... Yes, my lie being that i said 'well... maybe' and then i said 'you know, nah, i dont agree with that'... Sorry, thats at best a lame excuse to call someone a liar.

Your assertion that I am a racist is another one of your lies.


In a thread created by someone else to have people come discuss Bill O'Reilly.

No. In various other threads that have nothing to do with Bill O'Reilly.


Yea. Im very upset about a political figure who I oppose in idealogy lieing about Democrat voting records amongst other things, and that there was a thread created to discuss him. You on the other hand have posted pages and pages about me out of nowhere. Me, a random 18 year old guy on a message board, someone not exactly of notice. Now, im fine with debating my ideals, and even a little about myself if youll do so in a polite matter, but your rampant personal attacks out of nowhere in a thread about Bill O'Reilly regarding Ed Schultz, are just a bit much Toejam. Now, if you want to start over and be civilized without the non-stop personal accusations, Im cool with that.

You are the uncivilized one here with all your cursing and namecalling (calling me a racist). Perhaps you should either prove your case or take back your pathetic charge. You seem to lack the courage to do either.

Ohmigod... can we just all agree on the fact that Plame was a covert CIA agent?



Official Score:

She was covert:

State Department
The CIA
Special Prosecuter Patrick Fitzgerald

She was not:

The RNC
Zell Miller (a thinly disguised republican)

jeee ... another tough one :rolleyes:

And the moveon ads comparing Bush to Hitler was what, exactly?

Also radical bull****, but it was moveon. An insanely liberal organization that you might expect such activity from.


The ones when the naacp stated that Bush not signing hate crimes laws into effect was like killing James Byrd all over again was what, exactly?

Its the NAACP. =\


You are a typical liberal. Voters are too stupid to understand what is being presented to them.

Wow... Well crafted propaganda can easily be construed to look a variety of ways, that the general public (who's concern of politics is limited to whats presented on T.V. and in newspapers, as well as internet forwards) will percieve things a certain way. You said yourself that rise in the correlation between 9/11 and Iraq (Despite all sources saying that there was no proof of this and it was a highly implausable argument) came from somewhere. Possibly the excessive speeches filled with 'terrorist, 9/11, Iraq'? Its easy to see how anyone not hearing the contrary from the govt. would creat a connection betwee the three. Hell, by mid 2003 Bush wasnt even saying Bin Laden in his speeches anymore.


Actually they understood completely. There was NO comparison, you only alledge there was because you believe that any legitimate criticism of someone who is beholden to big labor or any other Democrat special interest is immoral. It's you that has the comprehension issue, not the voters.

Really? Then why do I understand that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, as accounted by all sources, even the BA, and a majority of Fox Viewers think there was?

The fact that you have the guts to argue that the way things are presented cant be construed to support an agenda through un-honest means absolutely amazes me, as you clearly know how psychology and advertising works, but deny that the govt. would ever think of doing such a thing (unless its the evil democrats, out to do destroy the nation with there propaganda and false and misleading facts).



Yes, I took a number of psych classes.

Ahhh, so passing was a problem for you and you had to take the class multiple times?



The images also showed the troops. Does that suggest that the troops were being compared to Bin Laden and Saddam?


Yes. Because once something is mentioned, everything thereafter mentioned is connected to it. You clearly know absolutly nothing about sound editing and mis-en-scene, in combination with basic psychology.


You've mentioned O'Reilly in plenty of threads that have nothing to do with him. That was the point. Perhaps it flew right by you.

Was he relevent to the issue? Bring forth all the times Iv mentioned him and see if I brought him up, and how relevent he was the context of the argument he was.




I don't have to prove Im not. You made the charge therefore the burden lies on you to prove that I am.

I feel you do it by appologizing for an obvious racist, and arguing his argument.


For heavens sake, what do they teach in school now a days?

Far more then they did while you were in it obviously.



Your assertion that I am a racist is another one of your lies.

No. Its not a lie, its my interpretation.


No. In various other threads that have nothing to do with Bill O'Reilly.

By all means, start showing me these examples.




You are the uncivilized one here with all your cursing and namecalling (calling me a racist). Perhaps you should either prove your case or take back your pathetic charge. You seem to lack the courage to do either.

I dont realize that calling someone a racist is name calling. Its a valid view of the world, similar to calling someone a liberal or conservative or capitalist.

A very clear-headed Washington Post overview (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102901478_pf.html) of the history of the Plame affair ... this is especially intresting

Burglary, Forgery, Delivery

The chain of events that led to Friday's indictment can be traced as far back as 1991, when an unremarkable burglary took place at the embassy of Niger in Rome. All that turned up missing was a quantity of official letterhead with "Republique du Niger" at its top.

More than 10 years later, according to a retired high-ranking U.S. intelligence official, a businessman named Rocco Martino approached the CIA station chief in Rome. An occasional informant for U.S., British, French and Italian intelligence services, Martino brought documents on Niger government letterhead describing secret plans for the sale of uranium to Iraq.

The station chief "saw they were fakes and threw [Martino] out," the former CIA official said. But Italy shared a similar report with the Americans in October 2001, he said, and the CIA gave it circulation because it did not know the Italians relied on the same source.

On Feb. 12, 2002, Cheney received an expanded version of the unconfirmed Italian report. It said Iraq's then-ambassador to the Vatican had led a mission to Niger in 1999 and sealed a deal for the purchase of 500 tons of uranium in July 2000. Cheney asked for more information.

The same day, Plame wrote to her superior in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division that "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." Wilson -- who had undertaken a similar mission three years before -- soon departed for Niamey, the Niger capital. He said he found no support for the uranium report and said so when he returned.

Martino continued to peddle his documents, with an asking price of more than 10,000 euros -- this time to Panorama, an Italian magazine owned by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Panorama editor Carlo Rossella said his staff concluded the letters were bogus but in the interim sent copies to the U.S. Embassy in Rome in October 2002. "I believed the Americans were the best source for verifying authenticity," he said. When the documents reached the State Department, according to a commission that investigated prewar intelligence this year, analysts there said they had "serious doubts about the authenticity" of the "transparently forged" documents.

By summer 2002, the White House Iraq Group (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group) assigned Communications Director James R. Wilkinson to prepare a white paper for public release, describing the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq's allegedly "reconstituted" nuclear weapons program. Wilkinson gave prominent place to the claim that Iraq "sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." That claim, along with repeated use of the "mushroom cloud" image by top officials beginning in September, became the emotional heart of the case against Iraq.

President Bush invoked the mushroom cloud in an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Cincinnati. References to African uranium remained in his speech until its fifth draft, but a last-minute intervention by Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet excised them.

Tenet's success was short-lived. The uranium returned repeatedly to Bush administration rhetoric in December and January. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice cited the report in a Jan. 23 newspaper column, and three days later, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell demanded, "Why is Iraq still trying to procure uranium and the special equipment needed to transform it into material for a nuclear weapon?"

Like I have repeated several times in the two wilson/libby threads ... a forged document that was rejected not only by the US embassy, the CIA and even an Italian tabloid rag became the crown jewel of the BA case to sell the war to the public ... deeply embarassed by Wilsons expose' ... they thought the answer was to punish him through 'outing' his wife (who recommended Wilson to her superiors)

So Libby is now exposed as a serial-liar in the coverup ... the RNC , the BA and the rightwing press will sully and smear whoever it can to distract from that ... and Wilson is the prime target.

Ohmigod... can we just all agree on the fact that Plame was a covert CIA agent?

I don't care whether or not you think Libby did such and such, how is it still up for argument that she was a CIA agent who's identity as such had not been revealed before the leak scandal? If you think that simply because she worked at a desk at Langley she doesn't qualify for covert status, instead of running around with button-cameras and exploding sticks of gum, you've watched Mission: Impossible and read Clancy way too much.

Why would there be agreement on that?

If Libby did what he was accused of, gets convicted then fry his buns however you want.

But whether Plame was undercover or not is the key issue .

Once again, you guys have watched too many Bond movies.

There are a good number of covert agents of the CIA who live in Virginia and drive to Langley HQ every day without their involvement with the CIA being public knowledge.

No they don't. Even according to some of the things related to this case covert agents ALWAYS have cover jobs with fake companies.

That is part of the problem here aside from whether or not she was covert. That the cover of the fake company was blown and that costs alot of money.

If you note above that is an argument for you hysterical Repub haters.

Well, I'd bet to differ about what the "key issue" is. I'd say that there are many issues at play, and to act like one, and only one, of those issues is the "key" is shortsighted.

And are you going to claim taht she was not a covert agent? Please, please say yes so I can tear into it, cuz I'm really bored and would love to prove you wrong.

Well, I'd bet to differ about what the "key issue" is. I'd say that there are many issues at play, and to act like one, and only one, of those issues is the "key" is shortsighted.

And are you going to claim taht she was not a covert agent? Please, please say yes so I can tear into it, cuz I'm really bored and would love to prove you wrong.

I didn't say whether or not I think that she is a covert agent. I have heard good arguments on both sides.

But I haven't been called for the jury and I am saving myself just in case they decide to have the trial here in the beautiful Napa Valley.

Libby is innocent until convicted. If convicted he should get whatever it is that is given for the crime. The maximum.

This isn't something anyone should be playing political games with. Fitzgerald seems like a fair dealer and much less open to the charges of political motivation that Starr was.

For the engineer.

Scores:

Bush Admin: 1 indictment.

Clintoon Admin: at least 47 investigations, convictions, and jail sentences handed out.

Bush has a long way to go to be as corrupt as Clintoon.

Oh yay! Let's bring up Clinton's name for the upteenth-million time in a thread about Libby and the Bush Admin. Hey, we're not deflecting the argument or anything, just pointing out something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. One indictment here, another there, they're all the same.

As for "key issue" of the Libby thing....

He is charged with obstruction of justice, two counts of lying to the FBI and two counts of committing perjury before a federal grand jury. So, Plame's covert status has what exactly to do with that? There are NO CHARGES concerning her status, or the leaking of information. Its a case about Libby lying.

Oh yay! Let's bring up Clinton's name for the upteenth-million time in a thread about Libby and the Bush Admin. Hey, we're not deflecting the argument or anything, just pointing out something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. One indictment here, another there, they're all the same.

As for "key issue" of the Libby thing....

He is charged with obstruction of justice, two counts of lying to the FBI and two counts of committing perjury before a federal grand jury. So, Plame's covert status has what exactly to do with that? There are NO CHARGES concerning her status, or the leaking of information. Its a case about Libby lying.


Clinton. Clintoon. Clintong. Clinton. Clinton. Clinton. Clintoon.

upteenth-million seven times.

It is relevant. It is the most recent example of how to deal with an incredible corrput government. Can't ignore all those precedents that that president set.

Bush Admin: 1 indictment.

Clintoon Admin: at least 47 investigations, convictions, and jail sentences handed out.

Bush has a long way to go to be as corrupt as Clintoon.

You can attribute that for the most part to congressional power, in all honesty jimmy. Its far easier to get investigations blocked when you control executive, legislative, and (now) judicial (as the BA does). A luxury Clinton lacked at the end of his term. I have a feeling, with all thats going on, come 2006 Bush may end with one hell of a track record in corruption and scandel, if the Dems get the chance to control congress and investigate the WMD claims before Bush is out.

BTW--Isnt the BA at 2 now?

In theory the judicial has been controlled by the right for a very long time. But your point is well taken.

And you might be right. But those decisions will be made in a court of law with due process and the presumption of innocence.

And, to me Wilson isn't all that of a sympathetic character. I think that he did lie about things, that he had a political axe to grind, and those fake tans are always lame.

It is not unlike Richard Clarke, the only man in the world who knew the right course before 9/11 but just couldn't seem to get the kind of recognition he wanted. He lied too. At least twice he put the kabash on operations against OBL because it wasn't his plan and/or it wasn't the way he wanted it to go down.

And, to me Wilson isn't all that of a sympathetic character. I think that he did lie about things, that he had a political axe to grind, and those fake tans are always lame.

I agree on all accounts. Wilson had an agenda, and may have lied in the past, and if his lies are as such that he can be tried for them, he should be. However, if as all elements point that cheney, rove and libby were implicit in outing a covert/undercover/doing anything they shouldnt have been doing, his record means nothing to me in regards to the wrong they did.

Oh yay! Let's bring up Clinton's name for the upteenth-million time in a thread about Libby and the Bush Admin. Hey, we're not deflecting the argument or anything, just pointing out something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. One indictment here, another there, they're all the same.

As for "key issue" of the Libby thing....

He is charged with obstruction of justice, two counts of lying to the FBI and two counts of committing perjury before a federal grand jury. So, Plame's covert status has what exactly to do with that? There are NO CHARGES concerning her status, or the leaking of information. Its a case about Libby lying.

It is now, but it started as an investigation into the possible leaking of a covert CIA agent's identity. The fact that the investigation has failed to indict anyone on that charge leads me to conclude that there is not enough evidence that the crime was actually committed. Libby will be tried on the obstruction and perjury charges. He pleads innocent, so it should be a good battle. Now for everyone to continue complaining about the "outing" is fruitless. The investigation didn't nail Rove. Get over it already.

It is now, but it started as an investigation into the possible leaking of a covert CIA agent's identity. The fact that the investigation has failed to indict anyone on that charge leads me to conclude that there is not enough evidence that the crime was actually committed. Libby will be