PDA

View Full Version : Bradlee: Armitage as "likely source" outing Plame



Fran Crimi
03-13-2006, 06:08 PM
Bradlee Speaks Out
Monday, March 13, 2006
By Brit Hume
PHOTOS
ARCHIVE SHOW INFO

Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:

Former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee is quoted in the April issue of Vanity Fair implying that it was former State Department Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage, who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Bradlee says, "That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption. I had heard about an e-mail that was sent that had a lot of unprintable language in it." Armitage was a known dissenter from the Bush Iraq policy and if he turned out to the first to disclose Plame's identity, it would be a blow to the conspiracy theorists who have long claimed that the White House leaked her name to intimidate her husband, also an Iraq policy dissenter.

eg8r
03-14-2006, 05:12 AM
Oh Fran, you are just trying to argue. You know that it was Cheney that outed a desk jockey CIA agent who was not even undercover. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

pooltchr
03-14-2006, 07:04 AM
Fran,
I don't care who says what...it was still GW's fault!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Steve

DickLeonard
03-14-2006, 09:29 AM
Pooltchr. That was the first smart thing you have writtten..####

Gayle in MD
03-14-2006, 03:11 PM
Regardless of which source may have revealed her name to Bob Woodward, when the Vice President of the United States contacts the C.I.A. to delve into such information, and then directs his aid to spread the name of a covert agent to the press, the intent remains the same. Although, the right wing press has tried to spread information that she was not under cover, she definately was, and my understanding is that only the C.I.A. determines when an operative no longer remains classifed, or under cover. In her case, others were at risk, who had worked with her, and were still over seas, due to the information being spread around. I hardly think the C.I.A. would have requested this investigation, and an Independent Council, had she not been classified, secret.

I heard a gentleman who worked in her same classifed position at one time, and had trained with her. His description of her position was definately classified. He said that when they were in training, they didn't even know one another's names. She was of the most difficult to establish type, since a company had been established, and others, in that "Cover" Company, were still in place. The kind of operative that she was is at the most risk, and with the least amount of protection during their assignment. Also, the information which was recieved by the administration had the classified, secret, (S) before her name. Cheney claims that he had the authority to reveal classified information. What we DO know is that Scooter Libby did in fact leak the information to several reporters, in an effort to discredit Joe Wilsons story about not finding any infromation that Saddam had gotten Yellow Cake from Niger, contrary to what the administration had told everyone. Also, the White House had the M.O. of going after anyone who did not support their claims, and the building of their case to go to war with Iraq. This has been written about in literally dozens of books. We also know that the very week that the President, Cheney, and Powell, all returned from a trip to Washington, after havinge received the information from the C.I.A. memo, with the classified designation (S) before Valarie Plames name, was the very same week that Libby began spreading the information to reporters.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
03-14-2006, 03:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of which source may have revealed her name to Bob Woodward <hr /></blockquote>


HUH? Now it's 'regardless' of who the source is...??

Before it was precisely all about who the source is. What changed?

Fran

nAz
03-14-2006, 03:26 PM
Hey Fran latest news on the "plame Gate"

Bradlee denies leaking name of leaker

WASHINGTON, March 14 (UPI) -- Ben Bradlee, a former editor at The Washington Post, says he knows which government official leaked a CIA operative's name, but he's not telling who it is.

Bradlee, now a Post vice president-at-large, is quoted by Vanity Fair as saying the "likely source" who revealed Valerie Plame's identity to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodwards is former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

However, Bradlee told the Post he didn't "think I said it," when talking to Vanity Fair. "I know who the source is and I don't want to get into it. ... I have not told a soul who it is," Bradlee told the Post.

Vanity Fair said Marie Brenner, who wrote about the Plame affair for the magazine, was not available for comment. Armitage also did not comment to the Post on the report.

White House detractors claim Plame's name was leaked in retaliation for a report by her husband discounting Bush administration claims that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain nuclear materials.

An independent prosecutor has looked into the leak and indicted Lewis Libby, a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, for perjury and other charges.



hmm well he didn't deny that it was Armitage, and the saga continues...
personaly i think it was Saddam that leaked it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif Who ever did should be punished for this fu@k up.

Fran Crimi
03-14-2006, 03:31 PM
Wow. I can't believe Bradlee actually said he knew who the source was. This should get interesting.

Let the games continue.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Good call on Sadaam H. You might be right. /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Fran

Gayle in MD
03-15-2006, 08:19 AM
Fran,
Woodward did not give the information out publically. That's what I meant to say. It was Libby and Rove who gave out all the info to the press. The Vice President was the one who contacted the C.I.A., I think I read atleast a dozen times, inquiring about the claims that S.H. had gotten yellowcake, or tried to get it, from Niger, and again, about Wilson, after Wilson's article came out refuting the info the President gave out in his Address to the nation.

We know the White House was mad that they had to go back on the fourteen, or sixteen words in the President's State Of The Union Address, regarding Saddam's supposed purchase of Niger Yellow Cake from Niger.

We also know that the info on Valarie Plame was spread around to the press, by Rove and Libby, the very week Cheney returned armed with the C.I.A. documentation on Valarie Plame. Unless one wants to believe that a Vice President, having made all those calls to the C.I.A. regarding Wilson's trip, and then revealing that information to his top aid, had no ulterrior motive, and that his aid would then make a project of spreading that info to the press on his own, with no direction from the Vice President, most people would be inclined to think that it was an orchestrated effort on Cheney's part to discredit Wilson, even at the risk of outing a covert C.I.A. operative.

Rove, BTW, was fired by Bush Senior during his tenure for leaking information to Bob Knovak on another pay-back type deal to discredit someone.

As far as I know, Bob Kovak has long had close ties to Bush Jr., and Sr. Rove and Cheney. Libby testified that he got his info from people in the press, a proven lie. Why would he lie unless he is covering up something that stinks? He's basically taking the fall for Cheney, and perhaps Bush also.

I don't think Patrick Fritzgerald would spend over two years on this, if Valarie Plame was not considered a secret covert operative, nor would the C.I.A. request an investigation into the matter.

The only reason why Bob Woodward's knowledge of Plame is even noticed is because Fitzgerald made the statement that Libby was the first to leak the information. Turned out to be a poor choice of words, but that does not erase the illegal actions of Cheney and Libby, since Woodward did not publically reveal the information, and their actions were independent of Woodward's.

Gayle...

Fran Crimi
03-15-2006, 10:02 AM
Interesting. Nothing to say about Bradlee or Armitage?

I think what else is intersting is that Bradlee didn't deny saying what was printed by the WP. He just said, "I don't think I said that." Doesn't sound to me like he's demanding a retraction. Why?

I must have missed the news item that announced that Libby and Rove spread information on Plame to the press. Is that new news? Were they arrested and charged for that?

Fran

eg8r
03-15-2006, 10:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. Nothing to say about Bradlee or Armitage? <font color="blue"> Smoke and mirrors Fran, that is all her post was. </font color>

I think what else is intersting is that Bradlee didn't deny saying what was printed by the WP. He just said, "I don't think I said that." Doesn't sound to me like he's demanding a retraction. Why? <font color="blue"> he is not demanding a retraction because he knows Vanity Fair recorded everything he said and they have the proof he said it. </font color>

I must have missed the news item that announced that Libby and Rove spread information on Plame to the press. Is that new news? Were they arrested and charged for that? <font color="blue"> My sentiments exactly. Neither have been charged with spreading the info. I believe Libby is charged with lying. </font color> <hr /></blockquote> Basically this is a witch hunt for Cheney, Rove and company.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-15-2006, 12:18 PM
Fran,
That is according to the testimony given by reporters, in Federal Court, under oath. None of this is new. Here's a timeline...

Jan. 28th 2003 President Bush warns in State of the Union address that"Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uraniun from Africa."

July 6 2003 Wilson pens a New York Times op-ed denying that Niger sold yellowcake uranium to Iraq, based on his findings from a CIA sponsored trip there.

July 9, 2003 Rove discusses with Novak the role of Wilson's wife in arranging the Niger trip, according to the Times. Two days later, Rove talks about the Wilsons with Matt Cooper of Time.

July 14 2003 Novak writes a column identifying Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."" citing two senior administration officials as sources.

Sept 6 2003 The Justice Department begins probing the source of the leak. U.S attorney Patrick Fitzgerald is later named special counsel in the investigation.

May 21 2004 The grand jury subpoenas Time, Inc. and Cooper's e-mails and computer notes. Their lawyers pledge to fight the subpoenas.

June 10 2004 President Bush pledges to fire anyone involved in divulging the identity of Plame.

August-October 2004 The grand Jury subpoenas Time reporter Miller, who researched but never wrote a story on the leak. Refusing to comply, she's held in contempt.

August 9, 2004 Judge Hogan finds Cooper and Time, Inc. in comtempt of court. Later he again finds them in contempt when they defy a second set of subpoenas.

February 15 2005 Appeals court rules against Cooper and Miller, upholding Hogan's decision. The Times and Time Inc. appeal to the Supreme Court.

June 27 2005 The Supreme Court refuses, without comment to hear the case.

July 1, 2005 Time Inc. complies with court order to turn over Cooper's notes and e-mails to the grand Jury.

July 6 2005 Miller sentenced to jail. Cooper, freed from his confidentiality pledge by his source, agrees to testify before the grand Jury.

July 13, 2005 Cooper confirms in testimony to the grand jury that Rove was his source in his story about Plame's role in the Niger trip.

We now know that Novak's source was Rove, and Miller's source was Libby.

From a Newsweek article... July 25th 2005

It was Monday, July 7, 2003, the day after Joe Wilson, a vetern diplomat, had launched a damaging public assault on a central admainistration rationale for the war in Iraq: that Saddam Hussein had been trying to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. In a NY Times op-ed piece and a companion appearance on "Meet the Press," Wilson said he had been dispatched to the African country in 2002 by the CIA, at the behest of Cheney, to check out the yellowcake claim-and had found it flimsy at best.

When Wilson went public, some prominent administration officials scurried for cover. Traveling in Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell, who had long harbored doubts, disowned the "sixteen words" (In the state of the union adress, that is) about Niger that had ended up in Bush's prewar state of the Union address. So did CIA Director George Tenet, who said they shouldn't have been in the text. But Cheney-who tended never to give an inch on any topic-held firm. And so, therefore, did Rove, who sometimes referred to the vice president as "Leadership" Rove took foreign-policy cues from the pro-war coterie that surrounded the vice president and was personally and operationally close to Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis (Scooter) Libby."

"Soon enough, Rove had drawn a bead on Wilson."

Fran, the story is still unfolding, but the fact is that after Wilson went public with his claim that the administration had made false claims about the yellowcake, both Libby and Rove began their outing of Valarie Plame using the story that Cheney never sent Wilson, that his wife had sent him. The way it really went down was that Cheney had gone to the CIA atleast a dozen times, pressing them about a (false) claim that Saddam had tried to purchase the yellowcake. The trip by Wilson was prompted by those questions, and while Cheney did not request Wilson in particular to take the trip to look into it, the CIA sent Wilson. Then after Wilson discredited Bush's yellowcake claims in the SOTU address... On July 6, of 2003, the administration is on a trip together discussing Wilson....July 14, Novak's column identifying Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," citing two senior administration officials as sources, and discrediting Wilson by painting his a some nobody whose wife sent hin on a litle trip.

If you look into Wilson's history, you will be impressed by his past, and it includes some glowing compliments from George Bush Senior....regarding Wilson's findings, and the article he wrote.

Back to this article....


"The white House Staff had assembled a briefing book, which they faxed to the Bush entourage in Africa. The book was primarily prepared by Rice's National security Council staff. It contained classifed information-perhaps including all or part of the memo from State. The entire binder was labeled TOP SECRET. Powell had the binder on the long African trip taken by Bush, Rove, Cheney, etc. (The returning dates were the week of the outing of Plame) On that trip, Fleischer and Barlett prompted clusters of reporters to look into the bureaucratic origins of the Wilson trip. How did the spin doctors know to cast that lure? One possible explanation...some aides may have read the State Department intel memo, which Powell had brought with him aboard Air Force One.


You can find this story in the archives of Newsweek magazine, July 25th 2005. Rove's Picture is on the cover...THE WORLD According to Karl Rove...

Later kiddo,

Gayle

Gayle in MD
03-15-2006, 12:42 PM
Bradley said he hadn't told anyone. Also, Libby has already been indicted, but Fitzpatrick had empaneled another grand jury, so the investigation into Rove and possibly Cheney, continues to the day. Fitzpatrick, BTW, was a republican appointee, seems to be he was appointed by Bush himself. Also, he is known to be an Elliot Ness type, doesn't give up when the law is broken.

As far as Woodward goes, that part of the story isn't even pertinent to the White House involvment in outing Plame. They are two separate issues.

Gayle

Gayle in MD
03-15-2006, 01:58 PM
Dick...after reading Ed's post, you can certainly see the power of myth, lol...

Here is what the Special Prosecutor said when he announced Libby's indictment. I swear, some of these righties do not see or read anything but fox news, aka faux news...

"Valarie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valarie Plame was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classfied, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valarie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no notion she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well known, for her protection, or for the benefit of all of us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security."


The special prosecutors office interviewed her neighbors and friends, and no one knew about her true identity until the White House, Libby, Rove, Cheney and perhaps even Bush, decided to try to discredit her husband, even at the risk of national security. The entire binder that they took on Air Force One, was Secret Classfied information.
Valarie Plame was a NOC...the most difficult kind of false ID to create, and also, because a NOC works overseas, without the protection of a diplomatic passport, if caught, they are executed. Usually, they also work with other NOCS. In her case, she was involved in work that involved the creation of a phoney Company, and those with whom she worked, were still overseas, and were put at great risk. None of us knows, yet, the full extent of all of this, but to buy into the right wing spin that Valarie Plame was not secret, is pure insanity, or partisan bias, or just plain denial. Special Prosecutors are not put on cases over false charges, and grand juries are not empaneled just for the fun of it. The investigation continues. Hopefully, whomever broke the law, putting all of us, and our national security at risk, not to mention Valarie, and those she worked with, will be punished severely. Certainly, the false claims of right wing republican pundits, who have tried to promote the idea that everybody in Washington knew about her identity, couldn't possibly hold the weight that the words of a Special Prosecutor, known as an Elliot Ness type of prosecutor, would hold in the minds of straight thinking individuals. Grand Juries are not formed for pure folly.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
03-15-2006, 09:03 PM
I'm wondering why these journalists who claim to know the source, haven't been subpeoned to reveal the name under the threat of incarceration for harboring a criminal. Strangely enough, none of that has happened.

You would think with all the Bush Admin haters out there, that someone would be screaming for a subpeona by now, right?

The only reason I can think of is that it has been determined that the source did not commit a crime, thus, as you stated, Ed, Plame was not outed by that incident.


Fran

Qtec
03-15-2006, 09:45 PM
"Libby, 55, who resigned as Cheney’s chief of staff after he was indicted, is charged with lying about how he learned Plame’s identity and when he subsequently told reporters. He faces five counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice."


"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said during his news conference Friday (October 28, 2005) that the charges against Libby are a "very, very serious matter" and should not be dismissed simply because they do not deal with the underlying alleged crime of outing a CIA agent which started the process two years ago.

"That talking point won't fly," Fitzgerald said flatly.

Libby's series of lies to the FBI and the grand jury amounted to throwing sand in the umpire's eyes and prevented investigators from finding out the truth about how and why the name of Valerie Plame was leaked, he said. Obstruction of justice is a "very, very serious crime" and should not be regarded as less serious than the leak itself, he said, because "The truth is the engine of our judicial system."



Writing in the current issue of Time after testifying in court last week, Cooper said: "So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes."



Get it now? Libby is charged with lying about how he learned Plame’s identity and when he subsequently told reporters. He faces five counts of perjury, false statements and obstruction of justice."

Both rove and Libby told reporters that Wilson's wife was CIA. If they thought that this was not a crime, why did they lie about it to investigators?

How can a Govt who uses the Nat Sec/patriot/ "we cant talk about it because Al Q might be listening" card ,justify outing one of their own CIA [WMD specialist] agents?

This is not a witch hunt. Clinton was a witch hunt.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-16-2006, 03:36 AM
Thanks Q., it is hard to believe that anyone could have been following this story, and the lead up to the outing of Valarie Plame, and still refuse to think that the WH's intention was to discredit Joe Wilson, even if they had to our Valarie to do it. Throughout this entire story, many prosecutors have stated that the true crime, outing an agent, revealing classfied information, etc., is very hard to prove, as it is so subject to the often used "I don't remember" BS, (Before you jump on this Ed, I know democrats have used this also) hence, prosecutors often settle for indictments over the lies that are invariably told by the criminals in their efforts to cover up thier law breaking. However, when one has read of all the other claims of Rove, Bush and Cheney's reactions to those who have written about their outrageous attemmpts to discredit those who have exposed their pre-determined intentions of occupying Iraq, and falsely connecting bin Laden to Saddam, and their intentional lies about WMD's, in that context, and given their history...it isn't a stretch to figure out what went down...

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-16-2006, 04:05 AM
Although we are talking about apples and oranges, Woodward source and Libby being a source, Woodward didn't have to be subpeoned, because he didn't out anyone. Woodward went without a subpeona to the special prosecutor to tell him of when he was told about Valarie, and by whom, however, Woodward did not print or write about that. Whatever Bradley knows, the special prosecutors already knows, having heard it from the horse's mouth, namely Woodward. The person who told him about Valarie is probably being investigated, as are those in the White House, who were involved in their own scenario regarding the outing of Plame. Regardless, Ed's contention that Valarie Plame was not a secret agent, is totally false.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-16-2006, 08:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Both rove and Libby told reporters that Wilson's wife was CIA. If they thought that this was not a crime, why did they lie about it to investigators? <hr /></blockquote> If Rove and Libby told the reporters, then why aren't they being tried for it. There is no proof. We have a legal right in the US called Presumption of Innocence, "Innocent until proven guilty". You are burdened with providing proof and this is simply something you and the prosecutor are not able to do. So, your questions prove you don't agree with the presumption of innocence. That is just something you need to work on. I am not going to answer a question of yours that assumes something that has not been proven.

[ QUOTE ]
How can a Govt who uses the Nat Sec/patriot/ "we cant talk about it because Al Q might be listening" card ,justify outing one of their own CIA [WMD specialist] agents?
<hr /></blockquote> Here is another question that will not be answered. You have no proof that the government outed a CIA agent. IF THERE WAS PROOF THIS HAPPENED THEN SOMEONE WOULD BE CHARGED BY NOW.

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a witch hunt. Clinton was a witch hunt. <hr /></blockquote> Your questions alone show it is a witch hunt. Innocent until proven guilty has been thrown out the window and you have made claims in which you cannot back up. This is exactly a witch hunt. You don't care about the truth or who is actually responsible, you just want to run around and pin this on anyone and hope it sticks somewhere. That is a witch hunt plain and simple.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
03-16-2006, 08:33 AM
Okay, so who wrote the original article that supposedly outed Plame? Was it Novak? Did he reveal his source to the special prosecutor? If he did, then why haven't any charges been filed? What's holding everyone back if the source is revealed? It should be cut and dry, right? Someone leaks about Plame to a journalist, the journalist puts it in print and a crime has been committed. Right? So what's the problem here?


Fran

eg8r
03-16-2006, 08:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Throughout this entire story, many prosecutors have stated that the true crime, outing an agent, revealing classfied information, etc., is very hard to prove, as it is so subject to the often used "I don't remember" BS, (Before you jump on this Ed, I know democrats have used this also) hence, prosecutors often settle for indictments over the lies that are invariably told by the criminals in their efforts to cover up thier law breaking. <hr /></blockquote> The criminals part you add on is just fluff. They will settle for a lie by anyone, whether they are a criminal or not. Oh yeah, thanks for admitting that the Dems do the same thing. That is a big step. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
However, when one has read of all the other claims of Rove, Bush and Cheney's reactions to those who have written about their outrageous attemmpts to discredit those who have exposed their pre-determined intentions of occupying Iraq, and falsely connecting bin Laden to Saddam, and their intentional lies about WMD's, in that context, and given their history...it isn't a stretch to figure out what went down...
<hr /></blockquote> This is the beauty of our legal system. It does not care about your perceived intent of another individual no matter how much of a stretch you attribute. What matters is the proof. You can make all the statements you want but for now but it does not matter until they are proven guilty in a court of law, not by the press or those on internet chat forums.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-16-2006, 10:00 AM
Fran,
I think that I have answered your questions in my previous posts. Did you read tham? In the timeline, the dates are there. There is much more information about this affair available, but basically, you have a case where Rove, and Libby each were giving out classifed information to reporters in their efforts to discredit Joe Wilson's revelations of the untruths in the presidents and the administration's statements regarding S.H. and WMD's.

The journalists have testified that Rove and Libby's testimony is false. Judith Miller, was told by Libby, ...Robert Novak and Matt Cooper have testified that they were told by Rove. Naturally, there are denials a foot, and claims of not remembering, and disagreements over who said what to whom, but the investigation is on-going. Tim Russert, was also given the information, and his testimony also is being denied by Rove, or Libby, can't recall at the moment which of them had called him. The White House, as usual, refusing to provide the documentation of phone records and e-mails, blocking the investigation, important since Rove and Libby have tried to state that they were called, instead of the other way around. Bottom line...a CIA agent was outed. Libby and Rove are still being investigated by the Special Prosecutor, and the grand jury, Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Russart, Miller, Novak, Cooper, Woodward, have all been in court over the matter, and it is still under investigation. The only charges so far is Libby's Obstruction of Justice, lying to federal prosecutors, and another charge, but none of them, including Cheney, are off the hook. The Libby trial has not yet begun, and the investigation continues. We aren't hearing much about it because Fitzgerald runs a tight ship, no leaks to the press, and is known for that. People in Wahsington are in awe of his absolutely strict control over those who work with him regarding leaks about the investigation. This has been going on for into three years, and I expect we'll be hearing something pretty soon. Libby's attorney is not pushing for a court date, and the style of this prosecutor is to ask and ask and call back in, and call back in, he will dig and dig until the lawbreakers get caught in their own web of deceit. That's his style, but he doesn't give up.

There are two laws, involved, under a 1982 law, it's a felony to intentionally disclose the name of a "covered agent" with the intent to harm national security. Under another, older statute, it could also be a felony to willfully disclose information from a classified document-which the State Department memo, and apparently the Condi briefing book, were.

No one knows if the prosecutor will be able to get them for what they did, or not, but given their (the administration)obvious motive, and the length of time he has put into the matter, coming up on three years, he must think he will.

Gayle

Fran Crimi
03-16-2006, 10:47 AM
Did you read my posts, Gayle? I just asked a couple of simple questions.

You want facts? Here are some facts and I don't need to post a timeline to state them.

1.) If the source of the journalistic piece that supposedly outed Plame has been revealed and confirmed, then it has already been determined that it wasn't that particular incident that outed Plame, otherwise charges would have already been filed.

That's all I was asking. Was it the journalistic piece that outed Plame? The answer is obviously no. I didn't really need a timeline of investigative events to answer that question. Just a straight-forward no would have been sufficient.

Fran

DickLeonard
03-16-2006, 11:12 AM
eg8r Where there is smoke there is fire. Wait till Scooter is tried he is not going take the fall for following orders.####

Gayle in MD
03-17-2006, 12:03 AM
Sorry Fran, judging by the questions you were asking, you didn't sound familiar with the case. Again, the answer to your question, was there, in the post.

The answer is not no . The matter is still under investigation by the grand jury. The prosecutor will be calling them all back in, with the intention of dismantling an obvious cover up. The language in the first law (If you read it) requires intent to hurt the country. Hard to prove. However the second law, does not require that. The fact that there is not yet an indictment for outing Plame, does not meant that there wil not be one in the future.

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
03-17-2006, 03:29 AM
Hi Fran, I understand your point and I totally agree that there are some things in this whole affair that dont add up or even make sense.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Okay, so who wrote the original article that supposedly outed Plame? Was it Novak? <font color="blue">Yes. </font color> Did he reveal his source to the special prosecutor? <font color="blue"> I believe he did. He had two sources. </font color> If he did, then why haven't any charges been filed? What's holding everyone back if the source is revealed? It should be cut and dry, right? Someone leaks about Plame to a journalist, the journalist puts it in print and a crime has been committed. Right? So what's the problem here?


Fran <hr /></blockquote>

The problem is they would have to prove that they knew she was covert and that could be very difficult to prove.
When Wilson started blabbing, the Govt threw up a smokescreen- Palme, and its still working. The real questions havent yet been asked. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

Qtec
03-17-2006, 03:54 AM
September 16, 2003: Scott McClellan says "it's totally ridiculous" to say Karl Rove was the Plame leaker

29 September 2003: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Karl Rove: "He wasn't involved,... The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true." "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. <font color="blue"> LOL </font color> He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

29 September 2003 ABC reporter asks "Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?" Rove answers "No." <font color="blue">Notice- 'leak the NAME! </font color>

1 October 2003: Wilson told Ted Koppel on Nightline that "Washington reporters told him that senior White House adviser Karl Rove said his wife was 'fair game'."

10 October 2003. White House press secretary Scott McClellan was asked directly if Rove and two other White House aides had ever discussed Valerie Plame with any reporters. McClellan said he had spoken with all three, and "those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

8 March 2004: The American Prospect says Rove insisted he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rove said he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. This is contrary to what Rove's lawyer will later admit. <font color="blue"> Outright lie! </font color>

31 July 2004 Rove says on CNN "Well, I’ll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke some number of months ago. I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name." <font color="blue"> 'name'. Sneaky b@$^@&amp;d! </font color> On ABC, he had actually denied having any knowledge of the Plame leak.

July 2005: Michael Isikoff reports in Newsweek that Karl Rove spoke with Matt Cooper days before the Novak story, and that it was Cooper who initiated the call and brought up Wilson and his wife. Cooper later tells GJ that the call had nothing to do with Welfare.

1 July 2005: Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst on the McLaughlin Group, stated: "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury." (Editor &amp; Publisher) (Time Magazine)

Wikinews has news related to:
Karl Rove named as a source of Plame leak4 July 2005: Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, admits to Newsweek that Rove DID talk to reporters about Wilson's wife before Novak's story, but without knowing her name, in line with his assertion that he only spoke to reporters about her name after Plame's identity was revealed

10 July 2005: Newsweek quotes Rove lawyer Robert Luskin as confirming that Rove was the source who gave information to Time reporter Matt Cooper under a pledge of confidentiality, and that he subsequently released him to testify about that conversation to a grand jury.

11 July 2005: Rove's lawyer says, "Rove did not mention her name to Cooper." <font color="blue"> her name! </font color>

No, he only said 'his WIFE'.!!!! Lets put our heads together and think- who could Wilson's wife be? I know its not much to go on. If only we had access to a super computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

The Govt keeps telling everyone that this is war. Do you think that under these circumstances the Govt should be telling Al Q who their CIA WMD specialists are?

Libby will take the fall, Rove has made sure it wont be him.

Q

Qtec
03-17-2006, 04:06 AM
Here is Bush's description of the Iraqi nuclear threat:

"The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. " <font color="blue"> What more evidence do we need? Saddam is clearly building a bomb![ or actively trying to. </font color>

If you're a parent watching at home with your kids, and you just happen to lack expertise on Iraq and nuclear-weapons technology, like 99.99 percent of your fellow citizens (including me), that's a very frightening picture.

Not only did Bush put the fear of Saddam into viewers, he did so by citing sources that fence-sitters and skeptics would likely consider credible: the British government and the IAEA. For citizens who didn't know the IAEA from Adam or what to think of it, Bush wisely included this comment earlier in the address: "We're strongly supporting the [IAEA] in its mission to track and control nuclear materials around the world."

What Bush didn't include was the IAEA's assessment - issued the day before the SOTU - of the current Iraqi nuclear "threat." So far, the agency had found "No evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities" nor:

signs of new nuclear facilities or direct support to any nuclear activity... The IAEA expects to be able, within the next few months, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.

When asked by the IAEA for info on these claims so that they could investigate, the Brits could only come up with the forged documents! They had no proof at all.


???????????????????????????

Q.the whole article- its worth a read. web page (http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/07/24_16words.html)

eg8r
03-17-2006, 07:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No, he only said 'his WIFE'.!!!! Lets put our heads together and think- who could Wilson's wife be? I know its not much to go on. If only we had access to a super computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <hr /></blockquote> You have not given any facts. Which is exactly why no one has been charged. You can get hung up on the use of the word "name" all you want and assume whatever you think he is "really" saying but that does not hold up in court. This is probably why they are the lawyers and you are not.

eg8r

eg8r
03-17-2006, 07:16 AM
Wow, how did you go from outing Plame to talking about Bush and his tactics for alarming the citizens of the US?

Why change the subject?

eg8r

eg8r
03-17-2006, 07:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is they would have to prove that they knew she was covert and that could be very difficult to prove.
<hr /></blockquote> You bring up a good point and I would like to note, this is a witch hunt. Simply because if the participants were not the evil hated Reps but rather common citizens there would be no investigation at all. The only reason this is newsworthy is because there might be a chance to pin this on W directly or indirectly. They are looking into something they will never know the truth on and their best hopes are that they might get someone who has their information a little mixed up. Then people latch on to this and automatically claim guilt. Presumption of Innocence thrown out window.

eg8r

eg8r
03-17-2006, 07:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We aren't hearing much about it because Fitzgerald runs a tight ship, no leaks to the press, and is known for that. <hr /></blockquote> Either that or he has nothing to report and weeks ago he ran into a dead end.

LOL, I notice your clever use of wording here. If there is someone doing their job in which the outcome cannot be good for the current administration they are referred to as "running a tight ship". However if you are referring to the Current administration you word it like, "The White House...refusing to provide the documentation...blocking the investigation...". Q would call this clever, really in the end it is just biased no more no less.

eg8r

eg8r
03-17-2006, 07:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Fran, judging by the questions you were asking, you didn't sound familiar with the case. <hr /></blockquote> Only Gayle knows it all. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Again, the answer to your question, was there, in the post.
<hr /></blockquote> Most people don't have the stomach to weed through all your garbage to find one nugget of info. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that there is not yet an indictment for outing Plame, does not meant that there wil not be one in the future.
<hr /></blockquote> Yeah right. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif If they had a case they would have brought it. No prosecutor takes on something like this if they don't think they had a case to begin with. The longer this goes on the greater a chance no one will ever be indicted. I will note however, this is the first time you have shown optimism. At the same time, it is impossible to ignore the only time you are optimistic is if it will hurt the current admin.

eg8r

Qtec
03-17-2006, 08:01 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
No, he only said 'his WIFE'.!!!! Lets put our heads together and think- who could Wilson's wife be? I know its not much to go on. If only we had access to a super computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <hr /></blockquote> You have not given any facts. <font color="blue"> I have given you ONLY facts. You have given me opinion and unfounded conjecture. </font color> Which is exactly why no one has been charged. <font color="blue"> You sound like Rove! LOl
You mean no-one has been charged with outing a covert CIA specialist? Not yet! The investigation isnt over. The charges against Libby are easy to prove and will send a clear warning to anyone else who tries to obstruct an official investigation.</font color> You can get hung up on the use of the word "name" all you want and assume whatever you think he is "really" saying but that does not hold up in court. This is probably why they are the lawyers and you are not. <font color="blue"> Unless Wilson has more wives, calling his wife a CIA agent pretty much narrows it down to ONE. Dont you think? </font color>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Lets not forget that GW put himself out there for this by telling us all that HIS Admin would bring back integrity to the WH. LMAO.
Even if its not a crime, its criminal. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif You didnt answer the Q, is it right?


Q

Qtec
03-17-2006, 08:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
No, he only said 'his WIFE'.!!!! Lets put our heads together and think- who could Wilson's wife be? I know its not much to go on. If only we had access to a super computer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <hr /></blockquote> You have not given any facts. <font color="blue"> I have given you ONLY facts. You have given me opinion and unfounded conjecture. </font color> Which is exactly why no one has been charged. <font color="blue"> You sound like Rove! LOl
You mean no-one has been charged with outing a covert CIA specialist? Not yet! The investigation isnt over. The charges against Libby are easy to prove and will send a clear warning to anyone else who tries to obstruct an official investigation.</font color> You can get hung up on the use of the word "name" all you want and assume whatever you think he is "really" saying but that does not hold up in court. This is probably why they are the lawyers and you are not. <font color="blue"> Unless Wilson has more wives, calling his wife a CIA agent pretty much narrows it down to ONE. Dont you think? </font color>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Lets not forget that GW put himself out there for this by telling us all that HIS Admin would bring back integrity to the WH. LMAO.
Even if its not a crime, its criminal. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif You didnt answer the Q, is it right or acceptable for your own Govt to out its OWN spies?


Q

Qtec
03-17-2006, 09:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Wow, how did you go from outing Plame to talking about Bush and his tactics for alarming the citizens of the US?

Why change the subject?

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Why was Palme outed?
Wilson had already done the damage so was it just for spite? Seems strange that Libby and Rove would get involved in something so insignificant as this!

Why did GW quote from an 12 YEAR OLD IAEA report in his SOtU when just the day before, the IAEA published an up to date assessment of Iraq which said basically the opposite of what GW was claiming?
Was he giving a true representation of the facts?

The Yellowcake? The US was forced to concede that they had NO PROOF that Saddam was trying to aquire uranium altho they claimed this as a fact.
Again, was GW giving a true representaion of the facts?

The Alu tubes. I,ve already commented on this, many times! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Look here. Notice how condi uses the same double-talk as Rove. alu tubes (http://ttp://www.billiardsdigest.com/ccboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=npr&amp;Number=176806&amp;Forum=np r&amp;Words=aluminium%20tubes&amp;Match=Entire%20Phrase&amp;Se archpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Old=allposts&amp;Main=176783&amp;Searc h=true)
[Notice how you completely ignored my post. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif]


The SOTU quote I posted was extremely important in getting the country to support the war. It also paints a picture that was not real but based on speculation- in spite of the evidence!

Was Saddam trying to 'reconstitute nuclear weapons? According to the IAEA- NO.
Was Saddam trying to aquire Uranium [ even tho he had no nuclear program or any way to refine it- NO.]
Were the Alu Tubes intended for uranium enrichment- not according to the experts! Yet still these assumptions were continually presented as facts!


If it can be proved that the Pres deliberately misled the country, that would be a big thing, dont you think? It would immediately invite real investigation into what really was happening inside the Govt in the run up to war.
I think its obvious that what the Govt made claims that were not backed up by the facts. The crime is, they knew that at the time.
Its all tied in. The outing of Palme was a smokescreen. They panicked.

Q

Qtec
03-17-2006, 10:14 AM
What GW should have said.

[ QUOTE ]
"The International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. <font color="blue"> Thanks to my Dad, HeHe /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif, we bombed the s%$t out of that country in 91 and destroyed 90% of the infrastructure. You will be glad to know that Saddam is no longer a nuclear threat. Due to the no-fly zone and the sanctions, we control everything that goes in and out of Iraq, so sleep easy.</font color> The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. <font color="blue"> Dont worry, even if Saddam was to try import 500 or a 1 million tonnes of yellowcake [and by a million to one chance we miss a huge radio-active ship[ glowing without the moonlight /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif] docking in an Iraqi port /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif] the the fact is, he has no way of processing it. LOL How dumb is that? </font color> Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. <font color="blue">Turns out it was a false alarm. Nothing to worry about folks. </font color> Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. " <font color="blue"> Who doesnt? G,night folks. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>
Its difficult to prove that you got rid of weapons you never had!

Q..........why do I bother /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

wolfdancer
03-17-2006, 10:28 AM
so who is to blame for "flaming" Plame?
From this thread I gather that this Armitage guy, a Bush dissenter (probably unpatriotic and a closet lib Dem)
outed Valerie.
At first, it seemed like this would lesson the impact, the believability of Joe Wilson, thus supporting President Bush's reasons for invading Iraq.....but no, the Hitchcockian twist to this devious deception, was that it was a left wing plot,designed to cast suspicion on our illustrious leaders.
And then it all seems a harmless prank to begin with....Val turns out to be a not so secret, secret agant....a desk jockey, who probably isn't even allowed to use the copy machine, or use the executive rest room....maybe just has enough "clearance" to get coffee and doughnuts for the real secret agents.
This is just another democratic tactic to make people forget about the terrible lies that Clinton told to congress, re his relations with Monica, and a sex act that goes against the moral fibre of the Religious right
Of course we unintelligent, easily decepted, liberal left, godless Dems, have sided with BC about the BJ...agreeing that while she was having sex with him, he was just an innocent bystander.....and isn't it all semen-tics anyway?
I'd rather they spent those several million investigative dollars on this lying creep and his Bush league cabinet....but whatta I know?

eg8r
03-17-2006, 11:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Unless Wilson has more wives, calling his wife a CIA agent pretty much narrows it down to ONE. Dont you think? <hr /></blockquote> That was only quote in one of the quotes you posted. NOT ALL OF THEM. The first instance of your quotes which references is from Wilson. Flat out you can throw that out the window. He is passing on something he heard from someone else and is ABSOLUTELY NOT CONSIDERED FACT IN ANY COURT.

The next instance of the word "wife" is when Cooper intiated a call and brought up Wilson's wife. Not exactly fact as we are hearing this from Isikoff, however even if it proved to be true, this is not an example of Rove mentioning the wife.

The next instance is Wikinews and it states Roves lawyer saying Rove did mention Wilson's wife.

The next instance is basically the same and Roves lawyer allows Cooper to testify. So what happened after he testified? No one is indicted.

However, Cooper knew all along who Wilson's wife was and what she did, otherwise there would be no reason to call Rove about it. This is probably why Rove is not indicted, you cannot leak anything to someone who already has the information.

So there you have it. Once again you are not stating anything factual as to who the leak is. Isn't that the real subject. If everything was as air tight as you would like to have us believe this case would be over. Basically you have nothing and neither does anyone else. The longer this drags on the more chance no one will be convicted.

So, if you have any more news articles you would like to quote have at it, but understand it means NOTHING because if there was any substance to any of them relating to actual factual information to indict someone it would have already happened. Believe me, you are not the first person to try and put all this together to paint a picture. The problem is your assumptions are not provable in a court of law and Rove and company are innocent as far as our judicial system is concerned.

[ QUOTE ]
1 July 2005: Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst on the McLaughlin Group, stated: "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury." (Editor &amp; Publisher) (Time Magazine) <hr /></blockquote> Well what happened? Source of what? Where is this document dump and did it pin Rove as the leak? Why isn't Rove indicted and headed to jail?

eg8r

eg8r
03-17-2006, 11:15 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Even if its not a crime, its criminal. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif<hr /></blockquote> It is only criminal because you are unable to pin something on the administration. Keep trying sooner or later a dart will hit.

[ QUOTE ]
You didnt answer the Q, is it right or acceptable for your own Govt to out its OWN spies?
<hr /></blockquote> Go back and read what I posted. I said I would never answer it because you are speculating on something you cannot prove and neither can the pros.

eg8r

eg8r
03-17-2006, 11:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why was Palme outed? <hr /></blockquote> Who cares it is not part of this subject. Just to help you along, the subject is WHO, not why. Any more from you would be clear speculation again as you would be unable to prove the "why" simply because you don't know who did it and you have no idea of their intention.

Stick to the subject.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-17-2006, 12:28 PM
Right...it's just witch hunt, that's why the CIA wanted a special prosecutor to get right on it. This is too much. I posted in one of my first posts, the Date of Novak's story, the reason why there has not yet been an indictment, the difficulty in proving the case, the fact that Rove, Libby, and the rest of the administration on Ari Force one had the binder from the CIA, with Valarie Plame's name, with a big red S. in front of it. They cannot say they did not know that she was secret. It does not matter if they said Wilson's wife or not, because Wilson only has one wife, and she is Valarie Plame.

It is on-going, lawyers just this week sent out more subpeonas to reporters in the news media.

One would think that once you say .... the investigation is on-going, and the charges are hard to prove, give the date and the author of the journalist who wrote the story which outed her, and the name of the person who gave the author the information which was printed in the story, and the law's involved, what more is there to know about it. It is still being investigated. IMO, the prosecutor knows damn well that they all lied, Rove, Libby, and Cheney. This case is far from over.

It is interesting how some people can maintain that Bill and Hilary murdered people, never proven, and most people think it's rediculous, that Bill committed rape, never proven, and then turn right around and give lectures about guilty till proven innocent, LMAO!

One thing about a lie, it usually comes out in the end. That's why the American people don't believe George Bush, they know damn well he lied about everything about Saddam, and he lies everytime he gets up there and says we are fighting terrorism in Iraq. The people we are fighting in Iraq, are Iraqis, not terrorists.

He lied about the advice he got about the levees in New Orleans, it's on tape, He lied about the investigations into Dubai, he lied about the wire taps, and he stood before this country, and lied about Iraq, sending thousands of our young people to war for nothing. That's why straight thinking Americans don't believe anything he says.

He paid journalists to write lies about the war, and even planted a phoney journalist right into the press room. Then they stand up there and say, Oh, we didn't know she was classified, DUH, The designation was right there in front of her name. Oh, we didn't know the levees might break, DUH, the espert told you, and it's on film, no one can predict one way or the other, but he sure as hell knew that New Orleans only had levees strong enough for a category three, and there was a category five on the way, and N.O is under sea level, DUH.

"And let's make this clear, whenever we talk about wire taps, you have to go to court for to get those."

DUH, he lied again, they weren't going to court, he lied, period.

No wonder only 33% of the people in this country approve of George Bush. Everything he says is a lie. If not for republican majorities in the Congress and the Senate, he would have been impeached long ago.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
03-17-2006, 12:48 PM
Jesus Q, I can't believe that you are still trying to reason with "go back and reread my posts"..."stick to the subject (his ever changing subject)"
It reminds me of the O. J. jury panel...they had everything but a video of the killings, and a taped confession.....and even with those, probably would still have voted not guilty. Some folks just don't want to believe their idols can do any wrong
It's a lost cause trying to have a meaningful discussion with a ..........
I read something the other day where the author was comparing Bush to Nero, who played the fiddle while Rome burned....referring to his inaction during 9/11, and Katrina.
My own take is while Clinton played a mean sax, Bush is just second fiddle as a President....actually he is worse, a real danger to this country.
Now the race is on to find a new fall guy, another Michael Brown, or Ollie North, to take the heat off, and clean up the party image
http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/assets/images/teapot01.gif
For the billions we have spent on Iraq, the American lives &amp; innocent Iraqi lives lost, the Katrina devastation multiplied that we have inflicted on Irag....out net result is one evil ruler locked up....(one out of several on the planet)and some aluminum tubes we can sell for scrap...but we have empowered Iran,an even worse threat to out country, created the basis for an ensuing power struggle in Iraq, a civil war, enriched companies with ties to the White house, saddled the country with mounting debt,insurmountable debt, and ruined the image of trust in America among our allies, etc, etc....in the midst of it, the real author of 9/11 is still free to plan more terrorists attacks....while the "War President" keeps claiming victory with every new civilian casualty, every wedding reception bombed......
Do yourself a favor Q......don't even read the crapola that that egotist puts out....if you want to discuss politics with the other side....try Deeman, who's both intelligent and fair in his arguments...even though he works for a foreign government.....(he's on our list to interrogate, when we take back the country from these fanatics)

wolfdancer
03-17-2006, 01:41 PM
And you have to wonder about the mentality of the 33% lol
I know there are people that are functional, that don't have to be institutionalized, but don't have the reasoning power to doubt....and others, who are blinded by both the fear of losing their money to the other side, and their gratitude for a tax "cut" that their beloved leader gave them, while racking up the biggest deficit ever.
Last nite, while driving home from a league match, I heard a Walgreen commercial....that mentioned one of their charitable interests...feeding the children.............
In this rich country, it seems that one out of ten children face hunger....and while the food stamp program has been badly abused....many who could use that socialist, anti Republican program to help feed their kids, have had their allotments cut, or cancelled.

eg8r
03-17-2006, 02:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
One would think that once you say .... the investigation is on-going, and the charges are hard to prove, give the date and the author of the journalist who wrote the story which outed her, and the name of the person who gave the author the information which was printed in the story, and the law's involved, what more is there to know about it. <hr /></blockquote> Well, if that is all that is involved why no indictments. You gave the author, date and story (which included the source), but surprise there is no indictment. So either you are wrong, the source is incorrectly stated, or there is really no case. The longer this goes on, the less likely anyone will be indicted.

[ QUOTE ]
It is interesting how some people can maintain that Bill and Hilary murdered people, never proven <hr /></blockquote> Shouldn't the deaths of innocent people in Yugoslavia be put on his head? You seem to think all the deaths in Iraq should be placed on W's head. Would that not make Clinton a murderer in your own words? Oh yeah, it was not UN sanctioned when we began bombing.

[ QUOTE ]
that Bill committed rape, never proven <hr /></blockquote> Avoidance goes a long way to admittance. Just review Juanita Broaderick and Bill Clinton.

[ QUOTE ]
The people we are fighting in Iraq, are Iraqis, not terrorists.
<hr /></blockquote> This is not completely true, and you know it. It was you who stated many months ago that W has created a bigger problem and there were plenty of non-Iraqis going to Iraq to fight the US. You were right, when you said a lie will always come out. So now that you are caught in one, you probably feel like Libby. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
No wonder only 33% of the people in this country approve of George Bush. Everything he says is a lie. If not for republican majorities in the Congress and the Senate, he would have been impeached long ago. <hr /></blockquote> Or could it be that the weak-kneed Dems don't have enough to go on?

eg8r

eg8r
03-17-2006, 02:11 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I can't believe that you are still trying to reason with "go back and reread my posts"..."stick to the subject (his ever changing subject)"
<hr /></blockquote> He is not a quitter, you must be jealous. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
03-18-2006, 05:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Much of my grand jury session revolved around my notes and my e-mails. (Those e-mails and notes were given to the special counsel when Time Inc., over my objections, complied with a court order.) Owing to my typing, some words were a jumble. For instance, I wrote "don't get too war out on Wilson," when I clearly meant "far out." There were some words in my notes that I could not account for--at one point they read, "...notable..." I didn't know if that was Rove's word or mine, and one grand juror asked if it might mean "not able," as in "Wilson was not an able person." I said that was possible, but I just didn't recall that. The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings.

As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.

<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r,

"The next instance of the word "wife" is when Cooper intiated a call and brought up Wilson's wife. <font color="blue"> No he didnt! </font color> Not exactly fact as we are hearing this from Isikoff, however even if it proved to be true, this is not an example of Rove mentioning the wife.

The next instance is Wikinews and it states Roves lawyer saying Rove did mention Wilson's wife.

The next instance is basically the same and Roves lawyer allows Cooper to testify. So what happened after he testified? No one is indicted.

However, Cooper knew all along who Wilson's wife was and what she did, otherwise there would be no reason to call Rove about it. This is probably why Rove is not indicted, you cannot leak anything to someone who already has the information. <font color="blue"> Wrong again. </font color>

Q

Gayle in MD
03-18-2006, 07:16 AM
Very true, it seems the whole rest of the world sees through George Bush, except for the dim witted 33% in this country who have undying support for him as long as he prevents any poor children in this country from getting any of their money for food, and as long as he continues to suck up to the Corporate thieves who have helped him to turn this country into a fascist dictatorship.

When Supreme Court Justices retire from the bench and rush to warn the country of signs of dictatorship, when there is filmed documentation of presidential lie after lie, when the constitutional rights of the people are abused, laws are broken, war is waged without planning, or reasonable competence, and presidents create budgets, and borrow money to the tune of $30,000 of owed debt per person in this country, rising by the second, and the blind followers are as arrogant as the leader who is destroying a nation, arrogant enough to attack reasonable people who stand for American principles, is there any wonder we are where we are now? Those who line up beside such a tyrant deserve as much blame as George Bush and his neo-con greedy evil thieves.

As I said long long ago, this president will go down as the worst president in history, and unfortunately, our country may go down with him if people don't wake up and pull themselves out of their partisan blind devotion to the greedy, unprincipled, unamerican handfull of evil people who are presently running and ruining our country.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
03-18-2006, 07:48 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Very true, it seems the whole rest of the world sees through George Bush, except for the dim witted 33% in this country who have undying support for him as long as he prevents any poor children in this country from getting any of their money for food, and as long as he continues to suck up to the Corporate thieves who have helped him to turn this country into a fascist dictatorship.

When Supreme Court Justices retire from the bench and rush to warn the country of signs of dictatorship, when there is filmed documentation of presidential lie after lie, when the constitutional rights of the people are abused, laws are broken, war is waged without planning, or reasonable competence, and presidents create budgets, and borrow money to the tune of $30,000 of owed debt per person in this country, rising by the second, and the blind followers are as arrogant as the leader who is destroying a nation, arrogant enough to attack reasonable people who stand for American principles, is there any wonder we are where we are now? Those who line up beside such a tyrant deserve as much blame as George Bush and his neo-con greedy evil thieves.

As I said long long ago, this president will go down as the worst president in history, and unfortunately, our country may go down with him if people don't wake up and pull themselves out of their partisan blind devotion to the greedy, unprincipled, unamerican handfull of evil people who are presently running and ruining our country.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">OOOOH, Gayle, you make me so hot when you talk like that!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

Deeman

Gayle in MD
03-18-2006, 07:56 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Gee, that's the same thing the guys who call on my 900 number keep saying!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

wolfdancer
03-18-2006, 08:38 AM
Q, if it was a Bush dissenter that leaked the news,
he unwittingly helped the President, at that time...
just a big mistake, that in no way should cast aspersions
on the alleged integrity of the Bush admin
If it was someone in the Bush camp that did it....no big
deal, as Val had less security clearance then the cleaning
crew, according to the latest spin, er official reports.
Either way,I'm not sure why the Dems are making such a
big deal out of this....
I mean it ain't like she was giving the Pres a bj
So there is no smoking cigar, er ..gun
We should drop it and move on to more important stuff
like.......did Bush know in advance, that N.O. sits below
sea level?, and did he see on the weather channel,
the report about a hurricane in the vicinity?

Qtec
03-18-2006, 11:14 PM
Have patientce Wolf, we're almost there. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

Qtec
03-19-2006, 12:10 AM
The Big Lie.

[ QUOTE ]
MCCAIN (7/21/05): We all know why Karl Rove spoke to the reporters, because—at least we know this, that he believed Wilson was putting out false information concerning whether Dick Cheney sent him to Africa, which he didn’t; whether there was actually contacts between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Niger on yellowcake, which the British still maintain that there was; and several other subjects that were just simply, according to a study by our Intelligence Committee, were false, statements that Ambassador Wilson made. And so it’s understandable why Rove would say to a reporter, “Hey, look, the Vice President did not send Wilson to Niger, it was done at the request of his wife, etcetera etcetera.” <hr /></blockquote>

Sounds reasonable right? The only problem is tho, Wilson NEVER said this or implied it! His wife NEVER sent him to Niger nor was the mission done 'at her request'. And McCain is accusing Wilson of making false statements!

Wilson's op-ed that started it all.

"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 — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. "

He states very clearly that the AGENCY sent him. People who believe this 'big lie' will say, "no, I saw a quote where he does say this" . They will often point to this quote.
Wilson on cnn,
"What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself... "

But when we look at this half sentence in context, we get a very differnt picture.

Wilson on cnn,

"BLITZER: Who sent him?

RICE: Well, it was certainly not at a level that had anything to do with the White House.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: Is that true?

WILSON: Well, look, it's absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger.
What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the vice president himself....


BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president.

WILSON: Scooter Libby.

They asked essentially that we follow up on this report -- that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. <font color="red"> The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination</font color> that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed.".


Where did this myth that- Wilson is claiming the Cheney himself sent W to Niger- come from?
Even McCain has got his facts wrong! Could it be from............RNC talking points?
rnc talking points (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discr e_0712.html)

Another source does the same thing.

" "It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks." -RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman

Cooper's Own Email Claims Rove Warned Of Potential Inaccuracies In Wilson Information:

"[Time Reporter Matt] Cooper Wrote That Rove Offered Him A 'Big Warning' Not To 'Get Too Far Out On Wilson.' Rove Told Cooper That Wilson's Trip Had Not Been Authorized By 'DCIA' - CIA Director George Tenet - Or Vice President Dick Cheney." (Michael Isikoff, "Matt Cooper's Source," Newsweek, 7/18/05)

Wilson Falsely Claimed That It Was Vice President Cheney Who Sent Him To Niger, But The Vice President Has Said He Never Met Him And Didn't Know Who Sent Him:

Wilson Says He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President's Office. "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. ... The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." (Joseph C. Wilson, The New York Times, 7/6/03)

<font color="blue"> Remember this one. </font color>
Joe Wilson: "What They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby's Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/3/03)

Karl Rove is the strategist. He's Bush's Brain, the campaign/election wonder kid who manipulates the media and is the damage control expert. When the WH is in such a flap about Wilson, its reasonable to assume that Rove was in charge of or involved in the dis-info campaign.


In short,
Rove told Cooper about W's wife being CIA.
Wilson never said Cheney sent him.
Wilsons wife did not 'send' him.
The lie that was spead throughout the media [that W said Cheney sent him] originated from a RNC talking points memo.

When Rove told C about W's wife, he knew he was contesting a lie that was not being spread by W, but by his own party. [There is a very good chance that Rove was the one who made this lie up.]

Rove told Cooper about W,s wife BEFORE the Novak article without any reason to do so except to give the media another red-herring to stop them asking the REAL questions.ie Is the Govt fixing the evidence?
Cooper NEVER knew about W,s wife when he called Rove.


They fabricated a lie and used it to out W,s wife.

Thats a leak.

Q...

Gayle in MD
03-19-2006, 06:28 AM
Bingo...and, isn't this exactly how they have operated right from the start. This kind of stuff has been Rove's, Cheney's and Bush's M.O. throughout their political lives.

Now, we're seeing the same kind of press and news manipulation going on in last week's SWARMER event, in Iraq. No one killed, no one captured, only the pictures of the Army allowed, no American Journalists allowed, what was it really all about....Bush's low numbers, Rumsfeld's continual complaints about the press's pictures of bombs going off. Just more smoke and mirrors to manipulate the American Public...WMD's, Yellow Cake, Mushroom Clouds, Saddam &amp; bL., How supid do they think Americans are?

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
03-19-2006, 07:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Have patientce Wolf, we're almost there. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>

WE'RE almost there, Q?

Listen, no matter how hard you push, you are never going to be able to come to NY, sit in Starbucks with your morning coffee, read the paper and light up a joint. Give it up. It ain't never gonna happen here. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

Qtec
03-19-2006, 10:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bingo...and, isn't this exactly how they have operated right from the start. This kind of stuff has been Rove's, Cheney's and Bush's M.O. throughout their political lives. <font color="blue">The Palme outing is so sneaky its got Rove written all-over it. </font color>

Now, we're seeing the same kind of press and news manipulation going on in last week's SWARMER event, in Iraq <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> They need all the good press they can get. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color>

Q

Qtec
03-19-2006, 06:48 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Have patientce Wolf, we're almost there. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>

WE'RE almost there, Q? <font color="blue"> I,m sure Wolf is with me on this one. </font color>

Listen, no matter how hard you push, you are never going to be able to come to NY, sit in Starbucks with your morning coffee, read the paper and light up a joint. Give it up. It ain't never gonna happen here. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <font color="blue"> I think it will! It might take a while but its got to happen. the unwinnable war (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-legalize16oct16%2C0%2C3428942.story?track=hpmostem ailedlink) </font color>

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

My only wish is that I could get eg8r to admit that a fact is a fact. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Probably got more chance of smoking that bud in Starbucks! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec

eg8r
03-20-2006, 05:35 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote q's quote:</font><hr> July 2005: Michael Isikoff reports in Newsweek that Karl Rove spoke with Matt Cooper days before the Novak story, and that it was Cooper who initiated the call and brought up Wilson and his wife. Cooper later tells GJ that the call had nothing to do with Welfare. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r summarizing q's quote:</font><hr> The next instance of the word "wife" is when Cooper intiated a call and brought up Wilson's wife.[ QUOTE ]
No he didnt! <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Well Q, maybe you will read your own quotes next time. Your quote from Isikoff plainly states it was Cooper who initiated the call and mentioned Wilson and his wife.

Here you are arguing with your own "facts". HILARIOUS!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
However, Cooper knew all along who Wilson's wife was and what she did, otherwise there would be no reason to call Rove about it. This is probably why Rove is not indicted, you cannot leak anything to someone who already has the information. [ QUOTE ]
Wrong again. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Go back and read your own quote. Why would Cooper mention Wilson and his wife if he did not already know something? You have already shown you did not read your own information. Also, how do you know if I am wrong? You don't know what was in his head at the time and I am correct that Rove has not been indicted. If all your "facts" were true and relevant then someone would have been indicted.

Listen, we have all read yours and Gayles "facts" about what happened. The press has read all of it and wrote most of it. The prosector and everyone else has read the articles also, but no one is indicted. You people would love for us to believe your facts create an air-tight case against Rove and company but the REAL fact is that you simply don't have a case.

Put in simpler words, they are on a wild goose chase.

eg8r

eg8r
03-20-2006, 05:37 AM
Whew after all those quotes, I hope you read them this time.

I wonder though, did you send them off to the prosecutor? I am sure you have uncovered something new that could help the case? I bet with this "new" information from you we will have an indictment by the end of the day. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
03-20-2006, 05:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
How supid do they think Americans are?
<hr /></blockquote> LOL, "supid" enough to not take a second and proofread. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I only mentioned it in fun. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
03-20-2006, 05:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
My only wish is that I could get eg8r to admit that a fact is a fact. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif<hr /></blockquote> The fact is you have nothing. No indictments no matter how air-tight you think your "facts" are. Why would you even bother wishing someone to believe a fact of yours, especially when the fact you provide is second hand information from a party not even involved in the action being reported on. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-20-2006, 07:36 AM
Yeah...Ya mean all the good press they can buy, lol...We've never gotten the total this administration has spent paying the media to write false propaganda for them, and I find it very revealing that the righties on here miss the important point, which certainly isn't an issue of indictments, anyway. The importance of the investigation is that it is just another exposure of how these religious THUGS,.... BUSH CHENEY, ROVE, LIBBY do business, and how much they distort the truth, and outright lie, RICE included. AND, that is the reason why 33% of the people in this country don't believe anything they say. Sunday morning, Cheney is on Face the Nation, stating that there is no civil war, within hours of Iraq's Alloui's, (sp) statement, "IRAQ IS IN A CIVIL WAR," Bush's General says on Meet the Press, 75% of Iraq is under Iraqi control, LMAO....Murtha is right behind him, and says' "75% of Iraq is desert!! Give me a break!!""

John Murtha should be the Democratic nomination for President, Feingold, should be his running mate...

The right media puts out lies faster than people can keep up with them. That's why people like Ed, who think they know what they're talking about, don't have a F-ing clue what is going on. One example....the majority of the Democrats voted against this war, yet Melman is still out there every few weeks, lying about that, too, right along with Bush and Cheney.

We are in the mess we are in because George Bush did not do his homework before he invaded Iraq, nor did Rumsfeld, or Cheney. Rumsfeld called the shots, and he was wrong, people tried to warn them, they wouldn't listen, now there is Civil War, because they didn't listen to career generals, and experts, who told them they did not have enough troops for the follow up, hence...CIVIL WAR.
JUST LIKE THEY WERE TOLD THERE WOULD BE!
JUST LIKE THEY WERE TOLD ABOUT THE LEVEES!
JUST LIKE THEY WERE TOLD NO WMD'S!
JUST LIKE THEY WERE TOLD bIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK INSIDE THE UNITED STATES!!!!

They have fallen in love with their own unworkable plans, and refuse to reconsider changing their strategy....which is ill conceived, and unrealistic in the first place! They are financing this war from both sides...OIL....and Bush has been TALKING about oil independence since before he took office, and what has he DONE about it ... NOTHING!

So, regardless of how many indictments go out, or whether or not Bush is ever impeached for his many many lies and crimes, the people aren't dumb, and they are awakening. They don't beleive Bush, and they are seeing through the whole republican smear machine, and propaganda...


MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

EAT your heart out eg8r AH HA HA HA HA

wolfdancer
03-20-2006, 07:48 AM
What a way to start the week......!!!

Qtec
03-20-2006, 07:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote q's quote:</font><hr> July 2005: Michael Isikoff reports in Newsweek that Karl Rove spoke with Matt Cooper days before the Novak story, and that it was Cooper who initiated the call and brought up Wilson and his wife. <font color="blue"> Cooper never brought up Wilsons wife. </font color>Cooper later tells GJ that the call had nothing to do with Welfare. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r summarizing q's quote:</font><hr> The next instance of the word "wife" is when Cooper intiated a call and brought up Wilson's wife.&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
No he didnt! <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Well Q, maybe you will read your own quotes next time. Your quote from Isikoff plainly states it was Cooper who initiated the call <font color="blue">Agreed. </font color> and mentioned Wilson and his wife. <font color="blue"> Wrong! </font color>

Here you are arguing with your own "facts". HILARIOUS!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
However, Cooper knew all along who Wilson's wife was and what she did, otherwise there would be no reason to call Rove about it. This is probably why Rove is not indicted, you cannot leak anything to someone who already has the information. &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Wrong again. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Go back and read your own quote. Why would Cooper mention Wilson and his wife if he did not already know something? <font color="blue"> GASP!!!!!!!!!! </font color> You have already shown you did not read your own information. Also, how do you know if I am wrong? You don't know what was in his head at the time and I am correct that Rove has not been indicted. If all your "facts" were true and relevant then someone would have been indicted.

Listen, we have all read yours and Gayles "facts" about what happened. The press has read all of it and wrote most of it. The prosector and everyone else has read the articles also, but no one is indicted. You people would love for us to believe your facts create an air-tight case against Rove and company but the REAL fact is that you simply don't have a case.

Put in simpler words, they are on a wild goose chase.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

OMG!!!!!

1. Cooper called Rove.[ I never disputed this.]
2. Cooper didnt ask about Wilson's wife because as he himself has testified-
"As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."

Maybe you should read my post again because you obviously are under certain misconceptions or rather, GOP DEceptions.

BTW, the investigation into Rove's involvment is still continuing.

Q

Qtec
03-20-2006, 08:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
My only wish is that I could get eg8r to admit that a fact is a fact. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif<hr /></blockquote> The fact is you have nothing. No indictments no matter how air-tight you think your "facts" are. Why would you even bother wishing someone to believe a fact of yours, especially when the fact you provide is second hand information from a party not even involved in the action being reported on. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Did Wilson claim that Cheney sent him to Niger?
Did Cooper know about Wilson's wife BEFORE he talked to Rove?
Is the investigation closed?
If you really want to know the truth, you could check out www.mediamatters.com. (http://www.mediamatters.com.) Check out the CIA investigation for a record of the dis-info in the media.
Here's a taster.

"On the November 3 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, New York Post Washington bureau chief Deborah Orin falsely claimed that because "[t]here was no charge in the indictment [of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby] involving outing a covert agent ... no covert agent was outed." In fact, special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald has given no indication of whether Valerie Plame, the CIA operative whose identity was revealed in the leak case, was a covert agent, and he has explicitly stated that the reason no one was charged with the leak itself is that Libby's actions obstructed the investigation and prevented investigators from determining whether the leak itself constituted a crime."


You are the one who hasnt presented one single fact. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Funny how you can call Clinton a rapist based on very dubious evidence but you are quick to use the 'pressumed innocence'card when it comes to Rove.
Flip-flopper. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Q

Gayle in MD
03-20-2006, 08:31 AM
Man oh man...if you didn't see the sunday morning show's this week, you really missed it friend. It was an undeniable loss for the tired, old, no longer effective, Bush tactics of putting his Vice President, and one of his Generals out there to spread a rhetorical rosey picture of what is happening, and degrade the factual reports of reality. Cheney used his usual politi-speak, and the General was absolutely hilarious, it was like watching The Daily show, only with real people doing the skits, LMAO!!!

If we don't get our people the hell out of Iraq, right now, they're going to be slaughtered, sacrificial lambs of the massive Bush/Cheney EGO!!!

John Murtha and Russ Feingold are their only hope. I predict that we will soon see Powell, front and center, and he will break with his long silence.

This last Army-Photographed-Engineered- IRAQI Lead...SWARMER...with American planning, American vehicles, American Hellicopters, American munitions, American supplies...but so far, no one can figure out what the hell it was for, except propaganda for this weeks coming serial showing of Bush'S GRIMM'S FAIRY TALES, and I do mean GRIM!

I was at my little neighborhood bar friday night, a new's show was showing clips of Bush's statements from the recent Town Hall Meetings of the last six weeks, and people were laughing like they were at a comedy review! Sunday morning was even funnier. Problem is, the stark reality of the State Of The Nation, and the peril to our troops, are so terribly sad.

Gayle

Gayle in MD
03-20-2006, 08:58 AM
HA HA HA...you noticed that too, huh? thinking people know....Cheney, Bush, Rove and Libby hatched this whole plan, probably right on Air Force One, to strike back at Joe Wilson by outing his wife so they circulate to the press that Wilson was sent on a little trip by his wife, and ont by his government...but the CIA request for the investigation itself, proves that She was covert, and the administration outed her.

MPO...Fitsgerald knows he could get Cheney on all this, and it may end up that Libby and Rove BOTH end up being the scape goats for Cheney and Bush....but we'll all know who really had to give the OK to go ahead with it, regardless, and unless you're a straw grabbing republican, everybody know's that right now....

What do you call Texas water....crook juice!

What do you call republican soda....Kool Aid!

What do you call republican hunters....drunk!

What do you call George Bush's advisors....blind, deaf and dumb....

What do you call the Congress and the Senate....The out of towners.

What do you call the Bush White House...LA LA LAND!

Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
03-20-2006, 10:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
OMG!!!!! <hr /></blockquote> Your quote states it, I am only putting it in bold. If you want argue then give Isikoff a call. My bet is that he will laugh you off the phone also.

You can moan and groan all you want, but remember it was you who posted the "fact", as you called it, and now you want to refute it. If you can't get your own ducks in order quit worrying about others.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the investigation into Rove's involvment is still continuing. <hr /></blockquote> BTW, another day past and even less chance of indicting anyone.

eg8r

eg8r
03-20-2006, 10:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
John Murtha should be the Democratic nomination for President, Feingold, should be his running mate... <hr /></blockquote> I thought you were running? Oh yeah, Feingold should definitely run for VP. His own party basically told him to shut up and sit quiet when he mentioned censure. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

C'mon keep picking the winners will ya. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
03-20-2006, 10:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You are the one who hasnt presented one single fact. <hr /></blockquote> I sure as heck did, you just too biased and set in your ways to see it. THE FACT IS, THERE ARE NO INDICTMENTS EVEN KNOWING EVERYTHING YOU POSTED HERE UNDER THE ALIAS OF "FACT".

Everything you have posted is old news and has been looked at by many many people, and I am only going to guess here but they are probably a bit more intelligent on the legal process. Neither you nor Gayle have any idea what is going on, much like the rest of us. The difference is that I am looking at the data with an open mind, I do believe if the woman was actually covert and she was outed then that person has to pay the price. You and Gayle don't care about anything, you just want Bush to be at fault and you don't care that the "facts" mean nothing and get you nowhere, you just want negative publicity for the current admin.

When this all blew up, you guys did not mention on the board that you wanted the person to be caught and tossed in jail. No, what you guys did was come to the board and blame W and the rest of the admin. Your posts mean nothing because you have refused to put our legal system in front of your bias. Presumption of Innocence goes a lot farther than your huffing and puffing on crap that does not matter.

eg8r

Qtec
03-21-2006, 07:12 AM
Your STRAWMAN BS arguments wont wash. If you actually read my post, you would have seen I also posted this!

" September 16, 2003: Scott McClellan says "it's totally ridiculous" to say Karl Rove was the Plame leaker

29 September 2003: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Karl Rove: "He wasn't involved,... The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true." "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. LOL He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Does that sound like my standpoint? Do you think I believe them?
If you actually want to debate , at least agrue with what I said. Dont cherry-pick out of context quotes and put words in MY mouth.
[ I used those quotes to illustrate the timeline of a constantly changing story from Rove.]

Again. Why was Palme outed? Here's a clue.


Listen to this with an open mind if you can!

"The sun came up over Washington DC on Sunday and shined on copies of the Washington Post which were waiting patiently to be read. The lead headline for the Sunday edition read, "CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in October." The meat of the article states:

"CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a presidential speech last October, three months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared in the State of the Union address, according to senior administration officials.

"Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official. Another senior official with knowledge of the intelligence said the CIA had doubts about the accuracy of the documents underlying the allegation, which months later turned out to be forged."

What do we have here?

<font color="blue"> Here is CIA Director Tenet arguing in October of 2002 against the use of the Niger evidence, stating bluntly that it was useless. He made this pitch directly to the White House. These concerns were brushed aside by Bush officials, and the forged evidence was used despite the warnings in the State of the Union address. Now, the administration is trying to claim they were never told the evidence was bad. Yet between Tenet's personal appeals in 2002, and Ambassador Wilson's assurances that everyone who needed to know was in the know regarding Niger, it appears the Bush White House has been caught red-handed in a series of incredible falsehoods.</font color>

There are two more layers on this onion to be peeled. The first concerns Secretary of State Powell. One week after the Niger evidence was used by Bush in the State of the Union address, Powell presented to the United Nations the administration's case for war. The Niger evidence was notably absent from Powell's presentation. According to CBS News, Powell said, "I didn't use the uranium at that point because I didn't think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world."

What a difference a week makes. <font color="blue"> The White House would have us believe they were blissfully unaware of the forged nature of their war evidence when Bush gave his State of the Union address, and yet somehow the Secretary of State knew well enough to avoid using it just seven days later.</font color> The moral of the story appears to be that rotten war evidence is not fit for international consumption, but is perfectly suitable for delivery to the American people.

The second layer to be peeled deals with the administration's newest excuse for using the forged Niger evidence to justify a war. They are claiming now that they used it because the British government told them it was solid. Yet there was the story published by the Washington Post on July 11 with the headline, "CIA Asked Britain to Drop Iraq Claim." The article states:

"The CIA tried unsuccessfully in early September 2002 to persuade the British government to drop from an official intelligence paper a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa that President Bush included in his State of the Union address four months later, senior Bush administration officials said yesterday. 'We consulted about the paper and recommended against using that material,' a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence program said."

We are supposed to believe that the Bush administration was completely unaware that their Niger evidence was fake. We are supposed to believe George Tenet dropped the ball. Yet the CIA actively intervened with the British government in September of 2002, telling them the evidence was worthless. The CIA Director personally got the evidence stricken from a Bush speech in October of 2002. Intelligence insiders like Joseph Wilson and Greg Thielmann have stated repeatedly that everyone who needed to know the evidence was bad had been fully and completely informed almost a year before the data was used in the State of the Union address."





It wasnt a mistake! There was no evidence to support the claim that Saddam was trying to aquire Uranium. In fact, the evidence that they DID have showed that there was NO TRUTH to the RUMOURS and the Govt knew this!!
Can you prove ANY claim that GW made in his SOTU speech because the Govt cant!

If this is a fact, was the whole Iraq war an intelligence failure [ like Niger LOL] or was the intelligence 'fixed' to suit a purpose?
What does this evidence tell you?

Q

eg8r
03-21-2006, 07:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Does that sound like my standpoint? Do you think I believe them?
<hr /></blockquote> Q, I frankly don't care what you believe. I mean come on, you are going to try your best to tell us how to run a country, but your past shows you are not the right man for the job. Basically you are avoiding the real fact that they have nothing and are grabbing for anything they can grip onto. Right now that is a lie in which they cannot prove intent. All they have are two statements that conflict and they don't know what is right or wrong. You are like a flapping fish on land right now trying to make a point and you just don't have enough time left.

eg8r

Qtec
03-21-2006, 08:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Does that sound like my standpoint? Do you think I believe them?
<hr /></blockquote> Q, I frankly don't care what you believe. <font color="blue"> I dont care that you dont care. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif </font color> I mean come on, you are going to try your best to tell us how to run a country, <font color="blue"> Not me. From day 1 ,all I,ve ever done is point out inconsistencies and the blatant lies being told by this Govt. </font color> but your past shows you are not the right man for the job. <font color="blue"> That makes two of us. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif </font color> Basically you are avoiding the real fact <font color="blue"> Thats cute. LMAO. </font color> that they have nothing and are grabbing for anything they can grip onto. <font color="blue"> Palme was not public knowledge before this Admin told everyone. </font color> Right now that is a lie in which they cannot prove intent. <font color="blue"> Oh! Now its about 'intent'! LOL </font color> All they have are two statements that conflict and they don't know what is right or wrong. <font color="blue">Thats why Libby is in trouble. He blocked the investigation. </font color> You are like a flapping fish on land right now trying to make a point and you just don't have enough time left.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

I think I,ve made my point 10 times over. All I have heard from you is conjecture based on RNC talking points.

You have avoided ALL of the questions I have asked. Just answer one.

If Cooper didnt know about Wilson's wife being CIA, why would he ask about her?

Q

eg8r
03-21-2006, 01:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I dont care that you dont care. <hr /></blockquote> Sure you do, that is why you keep coming back. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Oh! Now its about 'intent'! LOL <hr /></blockquote> The intent I am referring to is the lie (i figured you would bungle that). People like you and Gayle immeadiately assume the lie was a cover up? You are telling us what you think the intent of the lie was, so why would you question it when I bring it up and call a spade a spade? You know just as well as we all do, they are never going to catch the leak. So, they have to do everything they can to pin something to the lie. They are going to spend their time trying to figure out why he lied (which is exactly what you have been doing) because they have nothing else.

Why is it, we have to leave a bread crumb trail for you on every subject. It is like you get distracted and just lose all train of thought.

[ QUOTE ]
Thats why Libby is in trouble. He blocked the investigation. <hr /></blockquote> Well there you go. You make the dumb comment on "intent" and then what is the very next thing you do, you try an give your version of intent for Libby's actions. It is like your brain has no idea what your fingers are typing.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-21-2006, 01:54 PM
Your point, my friend, is crystal clear to all who do not practice selective reading. Everyone in the world knows what they were up to, including the special prosecutor.

Remember how Judith Miller wouldn't agree to testify unless the presecutor agreed that he would only be asking questions along a narrow path, and regarding only Libby, and now other conversations. Just wait till he gets her back on the stand, and makes her tell all about her conversations with Dick Cheney. This guy is smart, and he's not going to spend three years barking in the dark. You are right on the money.....

As for ED, children should be seen and not heard, lol. There are just a few die hard Bushyites on here who don't have a clue about what is really happening in the world...don't forget the post about Fox news, lol, ....it's documented now, the conservative right is the most uninformed in the country, LMAO!!! WOW, WE knew that fsix years ago....

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
03-21-2006, 07:42 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats why Libby is in trouble. He blocked the investigation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well there you go. You make the dumb comment on "intent" and then what is the very next thing you do, you try an give your version of intent for Libby's actions. It is like your brain has no idea what your fingers are typing.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

You dont know ANYTHING about this case, do you? Its not MY version!!!!!!!!!
[ QUOTE ]
In an October 28 press release summarizing the indictment, Fitzgerald explained that the grand jury's efforts to get to the bottom of the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity had been impeded by Libby's testimony:
quote.
"Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government. In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer's identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson."

<font color="blue">Get it now? </font color>

"And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell [New York Times reporter] Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. [Matthew] Cooper [Time magazine correspondent]? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused? Or did they intend to do something else, and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened, and somebody blocked their view. As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it. So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.
<hr /></blockquote>

I told you before that the 'why'was important but you didnt believe me.
Q.....[ BTW, I only asked you one question and you still havent answered.]

eg8r
03-22-2006, 11:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
As for ED, children should be seen and not heard, lol. <hr /></blockquote> Yes and even though you want to be my grandma, it just won't happen. What is that catchy little saying about getting wiser as you get older? Why don't you follow that?

eg8r

eg8r
03-22-2006, 11:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You dont know ANYTHING about this case, do you? Its not MY version!!!!!!!!! <hr /></blockquote> Even after you quoted my post you still skipped the entire meaning. I was not referring to your VERSION of anything. I was talking about the dumb comment you made about INTENT. After you made the dumb comment you began talking about INTENT.

[ QUOTE ]
Get it now? <hr /></blockquote> What I get is the fact that you cannot follow the English language. I said all the prosecutor can do now is build his case on the INTENT of the lie. You made fun of it (now we see you making a fool of yourself). Then right after making fun of that you did the very same thing by stating your perception of INTENT. Quit playing your games. You are now trying to divert attention because I pointed out your hypocrisy. Get it.

[ QUOTE ]
I told you before that the 'why'was important but you didnt believe me.
<hr /></blockquote> Q, no one cares what you "told" them. It means nothing. Now you are telling me you think the "why" is important, but when I mentioned it you made fun. What a hypocrite. You don't even know what you are talking about anymore.

eg8r

Qtec
03-23-2006, 09:06 AM
Ed, you're babbling. Sometimes I think that it would be easier to have a discussion with the BORG than someone like yourself, who cant stick to the topic and refuses to accept FACTS. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

What was the intent of the leak? ie WHY did the Govt out one of its own agents?
Was it revenge? Was it a warning to others? Was Wilson bringing attention to a subject that the Govt would rather not have talked about in the media?
If it was a mistake, why has Libby been charged and why has Rove changed his story. If it was a mistake, why lie about it?

Q

The deck has already been stacked. They have got the judge they want and the WH e-mails for that period have conveniently vanished. Guilt by omission?



Q

Gayle in MD
03-23-2006, 06:01 PM
You know, I was just remembering that Novak has never revealed his second source, but he did say during some kind of forum which he attended, when asked who his other source was....

"Don't ask me, and don't ask Bod Woorward, ask the President, I'm sure he knows!"

He later admitted that he thought he was speaking off the record, and that it wouldn't reach the news. So if George Bush has no involvment in any of this, why would Novak make such a comment?

Just wondering what you might make of it. To me, it's obvious, Libby is taking the rap for bush and Cheney, and I still think this prosecutor will come up with something to prove that. He knows damn well Libby is lying to cover up for one of them, Rove, Cheney, or Bush, IMO.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
03-24-2006, 04:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed, you're babbling. Sometimes I think that it would be easier to have a discussion with the BORG than someone like yourself, who cant stick to the topic and refuses to accept FACTS. <hr /></blockquote> Q, you can call them whatever you would like to call them. Basically the prosecutor does not believe you or finds them irrelevant.

You are struggling to follow along because you keep switching your stance. First you wanna talk about intent of the leak, then I mention, then you make fun of it, then you start talking about it again. You make Kerry proud.

[ QUOTE ]
What was the intent of the leak? ie WHY did the Govt out one of its own agents?
<hr /></blockquote> The two are not the same if we were talking to someone that was unbiased and really had a desire to find out the real truth and facts before they let their partisanship get in the way. You sir, are obviously never going to be that person.

[ QUOTE ]
If it was a mistake, why has Libby been charged and why has Rove changed his story. <hr /></blockquote> Well now, the first question (if the sentence was divided) is not really an intelligent question (it is one of those, I am sorry for asking a dumb question /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). HE LIED THAT IS WHY HE WAS CHARGED. C'mon you cannot be losing it that much. Maybe one day we will find out if Rove has changed his story for reasons you so desperately desire.

[ QUOTE ]
The deck has already been stacked. They have got the judge they want and the WH e-mails for that period have conveniently vanished. Guilt by omission?
<hr /></blockquote> Remember the longer this goes on the better chance no one will be indicted for the actual leak. Throwing in the towel? Making excuses already?

eg8r

eg8r
03-24-2006, 04:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You know, I was just remembering that Novak has never revealed his second source, but he did say during some kind of forum which he attended, when asked who his other source was....

"Don't ask me, and don't ask Bod Woorward, ask the President, I'm sure he knows!"

He later admitted that he thought he was speaking off the record, and that it wouldn't reach the news. So if George Bush has no involvment in any of this, why would Novak make such a comment?
<hr /></blockquote> Conspiracy theorists wanna know. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r