PDA

View Full Version : LIBBY-CHENEY-BUSH-PLAME/WILSON



mike60
07-13-2008, 01:04 PM
Knowing Nothing
As the probe got underway In September 2003, Bush professed to know nothing about the controversy and publicly called on anyone with information to step forward. At the time, however, he was withholding the fact that he had authorized declassification of some secrets about the Niger uranium issue and had ordered Cheney to arrange for those secrets to be given to reporters to undermine Wilson’s criticism.

In other words, though Bush knew a great deal about how the anti-Wilson scheme got started – since he was involved in starting it – he uttered misleading public statements to conceal the White House role. That was followed by denials of involvement from Rove and Libby – issued through then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan.
Fitzgerald indicted Libby in October 2005 on five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. In October 2005, I first reported that Fitzgerald also was investigating whether Cheney played a role in the leak. I reported, too, that Bush and Cheney discussed Plame prior to the leak, undercutting Bush's claims some three months later that he was unaware of nuances of the case.
In February 2007, during closing arguments at Libby's trial, defense attorney Theodore Wells told jurors that the prosecutors had been attempting to build a case of conspiracy against the Vice President and Libby, and that the prosecutors believed Libby may have lied to federal investigators and to a grand jury to protect Cheney.
In his rebuttal, Fitzgerald told jurors:
"You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the Vice President. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the Vice President. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting - the two-hour meeting - the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

The jury convicted Libby of four counts, leading to a sentence of 30 months in jail. However, Bush commuted the sentence to eliminate jail time and left open the possibility that Libby might get a full pardon before Bush leaves office.
The way Bush handled Libby’s commutation removed the chief incentive for Libby to cooperate further with prosecutors (to avoid or reduce his jail time) and dangled a possible reward down the road if Libby remains in the administration’s good graces (a full pardon).
Now, according to the transcript cited by Rep. Waxman, it appears that Libby did tell prosecutors in an earlier interview that it was “possible” that Cheney did order him to leak Plame’s identity. Waxman is now pressing to learn what Cheney and Bush said in response to Fitzgerald's questions about exactly what they did or did not order their subordinates to do.
Jason Leopold has launched a new Web site, The Public Record, at http://www.pubrecord.org

LWW
07-13-2008, 04:49 PM
http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/11-02-05.jpg

LWW

Gayle in MD
07-14-2008, 10:46 AM
Lying, murdering, greedy thugs in the White House, dressed up like Christians.

If Bush's lips are moving, he's lying, and if Laura's head is nodding, she's swearing to all of it, and if Cheney is scowling, he's up to no good, and he's always got a scowl on his evil face.

They're toast, anyway. the only thing they have to look forward to is more repulsion from the American People.

I can't wait for the next Inauguration. There will be so many groups celebrating their exit with insulting banners and signs, it's going to make Saturday Night Live look like sunday mass...

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Gayle in Md.
Got my own rooftop building banner all ready! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

LWW
07-14-2008, 11:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lying, murdering, greedy thugs in the White House, dressed up like Christians.

Gayle in Md.
Got my own rooftop building banner all ready! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>
I know. I was so glad to see the scoundrels leave in January of 2001.

LWW

mike60
07-17-2008, 09:52 PM
Toggled in for some reference material for the L DUB DUCKY Abuse Thread, a modern-instant classic, and caught this:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lying, murdering, greedy thugs in the White House, dressed up like Christians.

Gayle in Md.
Got my own rooftop building banner all ready! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif </div></div>
I know. I was so glad to see the scoundrels leave in January of 2001.

LWW </div></div>

Oh wow, no more US Budget SURPLUS or Leading Position in the World, blow jobs in the Oval Office closet, no more whoa what was that? Blow jobs in the Oval Office closet?
Quick! Impeach that dick er Bill whatever. Yeah i can see the advantages of the Cheney-Bush regime no more Blow Jobs in the Oval Office Closet. That'll do it.
However THE WAR PROFITEERING DOUCHEBAGS IN THE WHITEHOUSE AND THE BLAIR HOUSE (look it up) just get THOUSANDS OF US TROOPS KILLED (don't mention a few 100,000
Iraqis) but NO BLOW JOBS IN THE OVAL OFFICE CLOSET. Someone needs to get Cheney-Bush a blow job it might help.

mike666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch

LWW
07-18-2008, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh wow, no more US Budget SURPLUS</div></div>
The rest of your post is delusional as well, but this was first and commonly believed as an article of blind as a moonbat faith by the far left.

Here's the question none of his adoring moonbats have ever answered ... if we in fact ran a surplus under Billy Jeff, then why did the national debt rise every year?

You are a smart guy Mikey. You can figure this out ... if you want to.

LWW

eg8r
07-18-2008, 09:54 AM
You guys are still stuck on the secretary issue?

eg8r

LWW
07-18-2008, 11:39 AM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/MY%20CARS/tombstone.jpg

LWW

wolfdancer
07-18-2008, 07:46 PM
As were (are) you for the past 6 years on the Clinton/Lewinski affair.

eg8r
07-21-2008, 08:48 AM
LOL, what a laugh. It is only the blowhard left that bring it up. We usually bring up Clintons other shortcomings, you guys are the ones that cannot get past the bj.

eg8r

mike60
07-21-2008, 02:32 PM
eg8r, It wasn't the blow job. Bill lied and squirmed away. Lawyers can do that. What is or was the secretary reference?

mike60

eg8r
07-21-2008, 03:20 PM
I know Bill lied and that is why he was impeached and so do all the lefties. The issue is when they bring it up they only care about the bj not the fact that he lied. He gets a free ride on that lie but they crucify W for every perceived lie.

The secretary reference is Plame. It is salt to the wound on this forum because all the lefties thought they had irrefutable proof and in the end they had nothing.

eg8r

mike60
07-21-2008, 03:39 PM
eg8r, I want what you've been smoking. You think that disclosing a CIA operative and their network to scrutiny by our enemies is a joke? You are nothing. Get your
head out of your ass and comprehend this, The proof of Cheney-Libby-Novak, and all the other traitorous bitches has been put into the Record of the US Federal Court
by Fitzgerald:

Knowing Nothing
As the probe got underway In September 2003, Bush professed to know nothing about the controversy and publicly called on anyone with information to step forward. At the time, however, he was withholding the fact that he had authorized declassification of some secrets about the Niger uranium issue and had ordered Cheney to arrange for those secrets to be given to reporters to undermine Wilson’s criticism.

In other words, though Bush knew a great deal about how the anti-Wilson scheme got started – since he was involved in starting it – he uttered misleading public statements to conceal the White House role. That was followed by denials of involvement from Rove and Libby – issued through then-White House press secretary Scott McClellan.
Fitzgerald indicted Libby in October 2005 on five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. In October 2005, I first reported that Fitzgerald also was investigating whether Cheney played a role in the leak. I reported, too, that Bush and Cheney discussed Plame prior to the leak, undercutting Bush's claims some three months later that he was unaware of nuances of the case.
In February 2007, during closing arguments at Libby's trial, defense attorney Theodore Wells told jurors that the prosecutors had been attempting to build a case of conspiracy against the Vice President and Libby, and that the prosecutors believed Libby may have lied to federal investigators and to a grand jury to protect Cheney.
In his rebuttal, Fitzgerald told jurors:

"You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the Vice President. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the Vice President. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting - the two-hour meeting - the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

The jury convicted Libby of four counts, leading to a sentence of 30 months in jail. However, Bush commuted the sentence to eliminate jail time and left open the possibility that Libby might get a full pardon before Bush leaves office.

The way Bush handled Libby’s commutation removed the chief incentive for Libby to cooperate further with prosecutors (to avoid or reduce his jail time) and dangled a possible reward down the road if Libby remains in the administration’s good graces (a full pardon).
Now, according to the transcript cited by Rep. Waxman, it appears that Libby did tell prosecutors in an earlier interview that it was “possible” that Cheney did order him to leak Plame’s identity. Waxman is now pressing to learn what Cheney and Bush said in response to Fitzgerald's questions about exactly what they did or did not order their subordinates to do.

eg8r, Old sod. Find another lie to flog youself with.


miguel666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch

LWW
07-21-2008, 04:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eg8r, I want what you've been smoking. You think that disclosing a CIA operative and their network to scrutiny by our enemies is a joke?</div></div>
Who did that?

The only instance I can think of are Joe Wilson and the NYT.

LWW

mike60
07-21-2008, 05:59 PM
(toggle) L DUB DUCKY, Do you even know how to read? Put one of the dogs on the keyboard so we'll have some idea of what the fuck you mean. Moronic parrot that you are you still have some redeeming abilities. The hidden camera in your lair shows the syrup supply from the zombie insects is ok and the lime green jello is holding up in the wading pool. So you must be comfortable. So how come you can't even cut and paste Fitzgeralds comments about the Cheney-Libby lie fest.
We expect better. Ask one of the dogs to help with the downloads.


miguel666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch

eg8r
07-22-2008, 08:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">eg8r, I want what you've been smoking. You think that disclosing a CIA operative and their network to scrutiny by our enemies is a joke? You are nothing. </div></div>You can call me what you want, but the fact remains the left did not have the "facts" they thought they had and it all turned out to be a big to do about nothing.

The lie is every time the left says she was outed and there are "facts" to prove it.

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-22-2008, 10:09 AM
it might not be provable in a court of law, but it's pretty obvious to anybody with an open mind, that the charges are true.
You , and some others here seem to have changed your tactics re the matter.
At first you claimed that she was an inconsequential secretary, and outing her was trivial, a schoolboy prank, maybe.
Problem is she was exposed as an agent, and it was timed to make her husband look bad....
Most people can connect the dots......
What's more important though, to myself and again, anyone with an open mind....is why Joe's testimony needed to be impugned.
It might have prevented the War President from doing the Lord's bidding.

LWW
07-22-2008, 10:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">(toggle) L DUB DUCKY, Do you even know how to read? Put one of the dogs on the keyboard so we'll have some idea of what the fuck you mean. Moronic parrot that you are you still have some redeeming abilities. The hidden camera in your lair shows the syrup supply from the zombie insects is ok and the lime green jello is holding up in the wading pool. So you must be comfortable. So how come you can't even cut and paste Fitzgeralds comments about the Cheney-Libby lie fest.
We expect better. Ask one of the dogs to help with the downloads.


miguel666 james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch </div></div>
Why don't you answer the question trollboy?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the question none of his adoring moonbats have ever answered ... if we in fact ran a surplus under Billy Jeff, then why did the national debt rise every year?

LWW </div></div>
Too complicated being that your handlers haven't put an answer on the spoon for you?

If you actually think these things out ... and we all know that you don't ... you would have had an immediate answer.

Now, there it is again. Ask people. Open book. Google it. Go to the library. Do what you want, just answer the question ... or accept your status as lowly moonbat.

I await your next feeble line of excuses.

LWW

LWW
07-22-2008, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it might not be provable in a court of law, but it's pretty obvious to anybody with an open mind, that the charges are true.</div></div>
Then you should have no problems making a case ... but, you do?

LWW

eg8r
07-22-2008, 02:57 PM
I still state every single time that she was nothing more than a secretary. As far as you connecting the dots, the problem here is that you have added your own dots. Those dots you are intent on connecting are not there in real life.

eg8r

LWW
07-22-2008, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I still state every single time that she was nothing more than a secretary. As far as you connecting the dots, the problem here is that you have added your own dots. Those dots you are intent on connecting are not there in real life.

eg8r </div></div>
And let me add, they can't connect the dots of their own creation. When one ridiculous hypothesis is smacked down they come up with an equally ridiculous one which counters there first foolish claim.

LWW

mike60
07-22-2008, 06:34 PM
ALL OF YOU CHICKENSHIT WINGBATS ARE UP TO YOUR FAT ASSES IN A RIVER IN EGYPT. Cheney sent Libby to sell out a CIA Field Officer in order to discredit her husband
a long term Ambassador, having served the country by serving under Republican and Democratic administrations including being actually heroic in the face of death or worse at the hands of Saddam in 1991 representing Bush41 by getting all USA citizens out of Iraq in a time of war. He went to Niger and had the oats to tell the world the
world Bush43 lied in the State of the Union Speech. ( Wingbats explode here) The quote below explains it quite clearly. Libby lied to hide a larger crime, actually treason
during war time. Conspiracy to expose a CIA Office working to detect actual weapons of mass destruction and exposing their network to compromise and putting the
partisan political ambitions of Cheney-Bush ahead of the interests of the Nation as a whole. So stuff that secretary bullshit back down your traitorous throat assholes.
I am in favor of traitors leaving the country so go ahead before you poison the rest of us. By the way we, that is cogent and educated enough to think for ourselves constitute a vast majority of the population. Get used to a BLACK PRESIDENT. I'm going to a secret location in the Deep South for Obama's january 20, 2009 investure
to observe the exploding wingbats. Video at eleven o'clock.


"You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the Vice President. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the Vice President. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting - the two-hour meeting - the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

The jury convicted Libby of four counts, leading to a sentence of 30 months in jail. However, Bush commuted the sentence to eliminate jail time and left open the possibility that Libby might get a full pardon before Bush leaves office.

miguel de velo james kopp murdering scum doing forever as some guy's bitch

eg8r
07-23-2008, 08:01 AM
I find it hilarious to see you continuing to post crap that does not mean anything. It does not prove anything to anyone except you twits with your heads in the sand. You are Gayle's favorite sheep right now.

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 09:02 AM
I think you need a reality check. you are so wrapped up in this God fearing right V Godless left, that you think you have to try and discredit anything said here by the other side....just today you proved that you have the wrong take on smoking regs, the Clinton affair, and now the Plame outing.

"The lie is every time the left says she was outed and there are "facts" to prove it."
So why don't you enlighten us, the ones that believe she was outed under orders by Chesney....and give us a rational explanation of
what happened...just a coincidence, maybe

eg8r
07-23-2008, 10:52 AM
Once again, wolfie brings religion into the discussion. You must have a pole shoved up your rear and are the strawman spokesman today.

The real explanation was that there was nothing there. Turns out she is no more than a secretary. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 11:04 AM
Turns out you ain't nothing more then an lww wannabe agitator.
And the only reason that i bring religion into the discussion is that you do believe that your party is the party of Christian conservatives, and therefore can do no wrong....and the war is just Bush following the Lord's directive....
the strawman label is so pathetically weak, that you really should go over to my space and get some new "zingers" to throw out...you might even run into your new comrade in arms, lww there, trying to impress the kids with his vast knowledge.

Bobbyrx
07-23-2008, 11:31 AM
Hey Eg, have you seen Armitage's name pop up anywhere in all this blather yet? He's always the forgotten man.

eg8r
07-23-2008, 12:34 PM
You don't know what I believe and your perception is way off.

I don't care if you think something is weak. If it is plainly describing your actions then I will use it.

eg8r

eg8r
07-23-2008, 12:35 PM
They have nothing and keep posting the same information that got them NO WHERE in the first place. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 12:55 PM
perhaps then, you could borrow a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word....and then try to PROVE your use of the word.
so far you haven't proved anything except that you are hopelessly biased (read: bigoted) and will mentally rewrite both the constitution and the Bible to fit your own needs and personal agenda ( that's just my opinion, of course, but it's an honest one. Before lww came over here with his line of insipid bs....you were the most intolerant, and while hate has been overused here lately...if the shoe fits...hateful man on the board )
Your real problem is that you never attack the message, just the messenger....from a real debating standard...it's the sign of a losing argument...."but you knew that"

eg8r
07-23-2008, 02:46 PM
I am not interested in proving anything to you. You just keep your head in the sand and I will continue to call it like I see it.

eg8r

mike60
07-23-2008, 05:35 PM
The truth of open Federal Court transcripts is beyond the grasp of people that have been denied their birthright and are lost. They will age, let them.
They will die, let them. Good riddance.

michaelsixty

wolfdancer
07-23-2008, 05:52 PM
as Monty Python would say "brilliant".
You don't have to prove sh*t to me...but when you call people names and what's that word that you people use...strawman....you owe it to your loyal readership to at least offer an explanation...
You're now getting as ....I can't come up with a word for it...but as **** as your good friend and fellow wingnut spokesman, lww. You have no point to make , just argue for the sake of arguing, and deny reality by trying to discredit any media report that is cited here by the left...and yet you have the nerve to... what's that new expression of yours...say other people have their head in the sand. Do you and lww co-author this crap?
Next time try backing your accusations up with some facts....
Say you know you could get a cell phone with a fab five, free calling, even free text messages....you lww,and I'll let you pick out the other 3 .....

eg8r
07-24-2008, 08:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Next time try backing your accusations up with some facts....</div></div>Is this an option in addition to what you do which is just quote some reporter and never have any facts yourself? Or is your suggestion more a "do as I say not as I do?"

eg8r

LWW
07-24-2008, 08:10 AM
Wolfie wouldn't recognize a fact if you tied it to an anvil and dropped it on his toe.

LWW

Deeman3
07-24-2008, 08:14 AM
O.K., O.K. , O.K.....I outted Mrs. Plame. There, are we happy? I knew the 007 cover was a serious attempt to hide her in plain sight.

Geesh, does this stuff live on forever? Prosecute the people or let it go. The congress and Senate is well in hand and can do this if they please. At least they will be doing something for their 9 hour work week.

wolfdancer
07-24-2008, 10:43 AM
why don't you show us some facts...???
You run your mouth , claim to have all the answers....and all we get are sub teen insults.
If it weren't for e-rectal dysfunction....you'd be a perfect ******

mike60
07-25-2008, 02:09 PM
Deeman, Really? Then it's you!!!! Actually there is a movement to bring the truth to the public. The traitorous actions of a few will be prosecuted after Bush leaves office. Fitzgerald: In February 2007, during closing arguments at Libby's trial, defense attorney Theodore Wells told jurors that the prosecutors had been attempting to build a case of conspiracy against the Vice President and Libby, and that the prosecutors believed Libby may have lied to federal investigators and to a grand jury to protect Cheney.
In his rebuttal, Fitzgerald told jurors:

"You know what? [Wells] said something here that we're trying to put a cloud on the Vice President. We'll talk straight. There is a cloud over the Vice President. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting - the two-hour meeting - the defendant talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened."

The jury convicted Libby of four counts, leading to a sentence of 30 months in jail. However, Bush commuted the sentence to eliminate jail time and left open the possibility that Libby might get a full pardon before Bush leaves office.

Key words here "Bush leaves office". The notion of what constitutes being a traitor has been with us for centuries. Remember the US Civil War? Traitors tried to
destroy the USA. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Libby was convicted of Obstruction of justice. That is he obstructed the truth from us in Federal Court.
There may well be another path to clarity and conviction of the traitors. All the screaming hair pulling deniers that wish for proof will get it. The war crimes trials
will be a cleansing experience for America.

michaelsixty

Deeman3
07-25-2008, 02:33 PM
I'll wait to discuss this in more detail as the war crimes trials get underway. You see, I agree that anyone who outs a CIA agent or other covery government agent should be harshly punished. My bar of conviction actually includes a court of law, not just what we may believe happens. So, when they are tried, I will right there, so to speack, listening to the witnesses testify and make my own judgement as support the decision of the court.

mike60
07-26-2008, 12:37 AM
Deeman, Come on dude. The lead post and the post just above your last entry contain open Federal Court testimony. Is clearly states the Prosecutor and the DOJ staff
believe Cheney to be responsible for outing Plame. The conviction is for obstruction of justice. obstruction of justice. Libby lied to protect others.......
That is in court. FEDERAL COURT. We don't need to discuss this. Cheney and Fitzgerald need to discuss this. Its not rocket science.


michaelsixty

wolfdancer
07-26-2008, 01:52 AM
That's really, really weak Mr. Ed.
I'm not sure any of us here are privy to first hand knowledge,'cept
you and lww,(maybe). Most of us rely on media coverage...
SO, YES, I do quote a news source, and believe that the libel laws, or just plain journalistic integrity, will insure the story to be factual.
At least I back up my objections here, by quoting a news source,
and don't write trite crap like "strawman....burying your head in the sand, etc"
Obviously, I have a little more integrity then you and what's his name

wolfdancer
07-26-2008, 02:11 AM
in reality you didn't add sh*t to the discussion.
No body here has changed their take on what happened....but let me run it by you one last time......
Plame was outed by someone, in an attempt to discredit her husband, Joe Wilson.....
Joe believes that to be true:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/cnna.wilson.zahn/
And I'll take his word over yours any f**king day.
Here's a tip for you....cheap shots, H.S. insults work well over on myspace....no nothing to discredit the other guys post... add nothing of value to an adult discussion...perhaps you are out of your league here????
You may think you are some kind of know it all...but we both know you are just a *****

wolfdancer
07-26-2008, 02:13 AM
Thanks Mike for posting that.

wolfdancer
07-26-2008, 02:21 AM
Man, you have hit rock bottom with your posts...
head in the sand, strawman, sheep, sheeple....
oh, and hilarious.
Here's a tip for you, just gave one to lww (he'll probably thank me)...if you don't have anything intelligent to add....anything that you then write just makes you look like, well, like lww

LWW
07-26-2008, 03:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why don't you show us some facts...???
You run your mouth , claim to have all the answers....and all we get are sub teen insults.
If it weren't for e-rectal dysfunction....you'd be a perfect ****** </div></div>
I have shown you many facts on this before and you have ignored them because they don't fit the agenda.

In the meantime you have offered nothing but accusations.

Read carefully wolfie if YOU make the accusation then YOU have to proof the accusation.

It is not my responsibility to disprove it.

LWW

LWW
07-26-2008, 04:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in reality you didn't add sh*t to the discussion.
No body here has changed their take on what happened....but let me run it by you one last time......
Plame was outed by someone, in an attempt to discredit her husband, Joe Wilson.....
Joe believes that to be true:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/cnna.wilson.zahn/
And I'll take his word over yours any f**king day.</div></div>
Just for you wolfie ... Joe Wilson is a liar and that is well known. Here's some different data on the spoon for you:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Libby's plight began with Joe Wilson's lies</span>
The Mobile Register ^ | Oct 29, 2005
Posted on October 29, 2005 6:05:09 AM EDT by Hadean

THERE CAN be no doubt that the criminal charges leveled against former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr. are serious. Whether or not Mr. Libby is found guilty, the shame of it all is that the alleged crimes grew from such a petty political dispute.

One fact relevant to the dispute was that Valerie Plame, the wife of a former ambassador named Joseph Wilson, worked at the CIA. Mr. Libby and others in the administration apparently considered Mr. Wilson to be a two-bit political hack. Mr. Libby was correct about that. But, apparently in a bid to score a political point against Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby discussed with some reporters the fact of Ms. Plame's employment by the CIA.

The fact of her CIA employment was classified. The Justice Department began an investigation to see if Mr. Libby or others had violated any law governing such classified information. The laws at issue are complicated and confusing.

Mr. Libby may have been trying to protect himself against those potential criminal charges. Or he may not have wanted the public to know the vice president's office played such hardball political games. For whatever reason he might have done it, however, the grand jury alleges that Mr. Libby lied about the timing and nature of his discussions with the reporters.

But the grand jury did not charge him or anybody else with a crime for the disclosures themselves. As has been the case with so many other political scandals, the cover-up itself seems to be the crime -- even if what was covered up was not itself illegal.

Perjury is a serious crime. If he is found guilty of the charges, Mr. Libby deserves to face the legal punishments that will ensue.

We shall see.

What we likely also will see, but what prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald himself said is not at issue in this case, is a tale spun by Bush administration opponents to the effect that Mr. Libby's alleged crime is part and parcel of the supposed dishonesty of the whole administration policy toward Iraq.

Whatever one thinks about administration policy in Iraq, the biggest dishonesties in the original episode involving Mr. Wilson and Ms. Plame came not from the White House, but from Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Wilson's mission, arranged by his wife, was to investigate stories that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Mr. Wilson is a liberal activist, and Ms. Plame was a CIA employee whose division scoffed at the stories. Naturally, Mr. Wilson concluded that the stories weren't true.

But his conclusions weren't necessarily those of the CIA officials who debriefed him. They found that some of the facts he reported -- ones he apparently thought unimportant -- actually bolstered the likelihood that Iraq had indeed tried to buy uranium.

More than a year later, a big brouhaha erupted about the yellowcake stories. Mr. Wilson began talking to reporters, making speeches and writing a New York Times column, all saying the administration had known the story about Niger was a "flat-out lie."

The problem was that the administration's story was that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (Note: The British said it was from Africa in general, not necessarily Nigeria. To this very day, the British government stands by those stories.)

The administration's 16-word statement was true. And other CIA analysts, using the information from Mr. Wilson himself and from other sources, considered the British intelligence reliable. That's why the CIA again and again approved those 16 words.

Mr. Wilson did not stop there, though. He had learned that eight months after his trip, some documents about the alleged yellowcake transactions had shown up -- but that they had proved to be forgeries. He told three different reporters that he personally had checked out the documents and found them to be forgeries. He said these forged documents were part of the basis of his conclusion, upon returning from his mission, that the yellowcake story was false. He said the administration deliberately ignored his report.

Mr. Wilson lied. The documents did not even appear until eight months after his mission ended. (He later admitted as much.) They formed no basis for his own report. And the documents had nothing to do with the claim made by the British government and repeated by President Bush.

Later, after Ms. Plame's identity was disclosed by columnist Robert Novak, Mr. Wilson told reporters that his wife had nothing to do with getting him assigned to the trip -- that he was sent at the instigation of the vice president. This was also false: Ms. Plame personally suggested her husband's name and pushed it within the CIA.

Mr. Libby was incensed. He began telling reporters that Mr. Wilson had lied about the forgeries, lied about the vice president's supposed involvement, and (later) lied about Ms. Plame's involvement.

In the course of those discussions, Mr. Libby discussed Ms. Plame's identity. Now he is accused of lying under oath about whether he discussed it.

Mr. Wilson was clever. He lied only to the press and public, not under oath. If Mr. Libby lied under oath, he will pay the price. What is often true in sports is also true in politics: In a brawl, the only infraction penalized is the last punch thrown, because it's the only one seen by the official.</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://www.al.com/opinion/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/opinion/1130579167274020.xml&coll=3)

LWW

LWW
07-26-2008, 04:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Plame was outed by someone</div></div>
Yep. By Joe Wilson.

And, FWIW, I'll take the word of a retired General over a left wing political activist with a history of being a proven liar and an agenda to push anyday.

Just for you wolfie:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Analyst says Wilson 'outed' wife in 2002
Disclosed in casual conversations a year before Novak column</span>
Posted: November 05, 2005
1:00 am Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Valerie Plame appeared in Vanity Fair magazine with her husband Joseph Wilson in January 2004 A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.

Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.

Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 – more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.

Vallely made his claim in an interview Thursday night on the ABC radio network's John Batchelor show.

Vallely told WND that, in his opinion, it became clear over the course of several conversations that Wilson had his own agenda, as the ambassador's analysis of the war and its surrounding politics strayed from reality.

"He was a total self promoter," Vallely said. "I don't know if it was out of insecurity, to make him feel important, but he's created so much turmoil, he needs to be investigated and put under oath."

The only indictment in Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year investigation came one week ago when Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury in the case. He could face up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines if convicted on all five counts.

Vallely said, citing CIA colleagues, that in addition to his conversations with Wilson, the ambassador was proud to introduce Plame at cocktail parties and other social events around Washington as his CIA wife.

"That was pretty common knowledge," he said. "She's been out there on the Washington scene many years."

If Plame were a covert agent at the time, Vallely said, "he would not have paraded her around as he did."

"This whole thing has become the biggest non-story I know," he concluded, "and all created by Joe Wilson."

Fitzgerald has been investigating whether Plame's identity was leaked by the White House as retaliation against Wilson for his assertion that the Bush administration made false claims about Iraq's attempt to buy nuclear material in Africa.

Wilson traveled to Niger in February 2002 on a CIA-sponsored trip to check out the allegations about Iraq and wrote up his findings in a July 6, 2003, New York Times opinion piece titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa."

White House defenders insist the aides simply were setting the record straight about Wilson, seeking to put his credibility in context by pointing out it was Plame who helped him get the CIA consulting job. Wilson denied his wife's role initially, but a bipartisan report by the Senate panel documented it.

Wilson declared in the column that his trip revealed the Iraq-Niger connection was dubious, but his oral report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence actually corroborated the controversial "16 words" in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Libby's charges pertained only to the investigation itself, not the 1982 act that made it illegal to blow a covert U.S. agent's cover.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame in July 2005 issue of Vanity Fair magazine
The Washington attorney who spearheaded the drafting of that law told WND earlier this year that Plame's circumstances don't meet the statute's criteria.

Victoria Toensing – who worked on the legislation in her role as chief counsel for the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – said Plame most likely was not a covert agent when White House aides mentioned her to reporters.

The federal code says the agent must have operated outside the United States within the previous five years. But Plame gave up her role as a covert agent nine years before the Rove interview, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Kristof said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.

Wilson's own book, "The Politics of Truth," states he and Plame both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997 and never again were stationed overseas – placing them in Washington at least six years before the 2003 "outing."

Moreover, asserted Toensing, for the law to be violated, White House aides would have had to intentionally reveal Plame's identity with the knowledge that they were disclosing a covert agent.</div></div>

OH MY! (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242)

LWW

Qtec
07-26-2008, 07:35 AM
What happened was that the POTUS made a claim in a State the Union Address that the CIA had prevously [ twice] rejected as weak.
Wilson in his op-ed said the same thing and the Govt was in a flap. In their panic, they outed his wife- a CIA agent- in an attempt to cloud the issue and discredit Wilson.

It might be a small crime, maybe not a crime at all but the facts are clear. There was a conspiracy and both Libby and Rove LIED to McClellan.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McClellan implicates Bush, Cheney in Plame lie

On Oct. 10, 2003, White House press secretary Scott McClellan stood before the cameras and proclaimed Karl Rove and Scooter Libby innocent of any involvement in the outing of Valerie Plame. "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands."

And that's where it stood, until -- well after George W. Bush was reelected --- it became clear that both Libby and Rove were very much involved in outing Plame. McClellan has since acknowledged, albeit implicitly, that Libby and Rove had lied to him. </div></div>

When GW made the 16 word speech, his intention was to scare the American public into supporting an attack on Iraq[ which had nothing to do with 9/11 or the WOT] , not inform them.

Q

Lets believe the report that GW sited and there was an attempt to buy uranium from Niger by Iraq. [ which would have been pretty pointless because they had no way of enriching it!]

What they say happened in 1999[ 4 years before GW's speech] was,

Iraqi guy, 'Can we buy some yellowcake?'.
Niger guy, ' Eh...NO!'.

That was it! Are you scared?

LOL

LWW
07-26-2008, 10:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What happened was that the POTUS made a claim in a State the Union Address that the CIA had prevously [ twice] rejected as weak.
Wilson in his op-ed said the same thing and the Govt was in a flap.</div></div>
Evidenced by what ... other than Joe Wilson. As evidenced in the provided links ... which you choose to ignore because:

1 - It doesn't lend itself to howls of B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!

2 - It doesn't come from a moonbat blog.

3 - You are a moonbat.

LWW

LWW
07-26-2008, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It might be a small crime, maybe not a crime at all but the facts are clear. There was a conspiracy and both Libby and Rove LIED to McClellan.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McClellan implicates Bush, Cheney in Plame lie

On Oct. 10, 2003, White House press secretary Scott McClellan stood before the cameras and proclaimed Karl Rove and Scooter Libby innocent of any involvement in the outing of Valerie Plame. "Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands."

And that's where it stood, until -- well after George W. Bush was reelected --- it became clear that both Libby and Rove were very much involved in outing Plame. McClellan has since acknowledged, albeit implicitly, that Libby and Rove had lied to him. </div></div></div></div>
Meaning someone is reading something into it.

McClellan has since on the record stated this is not the case.

LWW

LWW
07-26-2008, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">IWhen GW made the 16 word speech, his intention was to scare the American public into supporting an attack on Iraq[ which had nothing to do with 9/11 or the WOT] , not inform them.

Q</div></div>
And?

LWW

Qtec
07-26-2008, 10:37 AM
this guy makes the point better than I can.

iminent threat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7abu9a0xtNI&feature=related)

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDAFozFn4kU)

Q

Qtec
07-26-2008, 10:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McClellan has since on the record stated this is not the case.

LWW</div></div>

Show me.

Q

Qtec
07-26-2008, 10:41 AM
WND is your ONLY source?


LMAO

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif

LWW
07-26-2008, 10:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Lets believe the report that GW sited and there was an attempt to buy uranium from Niger by Iraq. [ which would have been pretty pointless because they had no way of enriching it!]</div></div>
Incorrect.

LWW

LWW
07-26-2008, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Iraqi guy, 'Can we buy some yellowcake?'.
Niger guy, ' Eh...NO!'.

That was it! Are you scared?

LOL </div></div>
Not at all. Saddam's dead.

LWW

LWW
07-26-2008, 10:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WND is your ONLY source?


LMAO

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif </div></div>
Which is why you are a moonbat.

Any source which doesn't agree with your agenda may as well not exist.

LWW

wolfdancer
07-27-2008, 01:25 AM
That, my friend, is another example of your double-talk. You are the one making accusations, claim you present facts...and that's it, no facts, just claims....
It's sort of like your hate charges here....there never was any hate here until you and bama arrived to start all the bad feelings.(we tended to overlook Ed though)
On another topic....save myself a post....Wright-Patterson, eh.
My memories of the area...my one and only flying lesson.. a Cessna
and my introduction to what I called Ohio Chile...Chile served over pasta.....(gourmet food in that area?) ...but I have to confess,
I liked it....

wolfdancer
07-27-2008, 07:12 PM
So just a coincidence then as to when the newspaper article was printed....and while I had already read your "breaking news"...I notice that the investigation nevertheless, proceeded justly.
But we are arguing over spilt milk...
if it looks and sounds like a horse in the darkness....one could argue it might be a zebra...but they are rare here in the states.
About as rare as Cheney telling the truth....
(mixed metaphors is my specialty)

Qtec
07-27-2008, 08:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Vallely said, citing CIA colleagues, that in addition to his conversations with Wilson, the ambassador was proud to introduce Plame at cocktail parties and other social events around Washington as his CIA wife.

"That was pretty common knowledge," he said. "She's been out there on the Washington scene many years." </div></div>

How many people work for the CIA?
Did he ever reveal she was a WMD covert specialist?


Show me the proof or STFU with your inane bablings..

Q,,,,,,,,, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif

Deeman3
07-28-2008, 07:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mike60</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deeman, Come on dude. The lead post and the post just above your last entry contain open Federal Court testimony. Is clearly states the Prosecutor and the DOJ staff
believe Cheney to be responsible for outing Plame. <span style="color: #FF0000"> Since when do the DOJ and lead prosecutor believing a charge make it true?</span> The conviction is for obstruction of justice. obstruction of justice. Libby lied to protect others....... <span style="color: #FF0000"> Again, Libby was convicted, not Cheney, not Bush, not Rove. However, not of outting a CIA agent. </span>
That is in court. FEDERAL COURT. We don't need to discuss this. Cheney and Fitzgerald need to discuss this. Its not rocket science.


michaelsixty </div></div>

mike60
07-28-2008, 05:30 PM
Deeman, Notice the thread "CIA DIRECTOR HAYDEN:VALERIE PLAME WAS COVERT" . There will be more Federal Indictments.

mike

Qtec
07-30-2008, 12:20 AM
oh dear (http://mediamatters.org/items/200511090011)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nearly two years after the start of special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation into the alleged leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, ret. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely has recently claimed publicly that Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, disclosed her CIA employment in 2002 -- long before syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak outed Plame in his July 14, 2003, column. But Vallely, a Fox News military analyst and chairman of the Military Committee at the Center for Security Policy, has made contradictory statements regarding when and how many times Wilson supposedly mentioned Plame's employment. Vallely initially claimed that Wilson revealed his wife's CIA employment over the course of at least three conversations beginning in spring 2002, but Vallely changed this story days later, saying that Wilson told him about Plame's work only once in the summer or fall of that year.

A timeline of Vallely's evolving claims: </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A November 8 WorldNetDaily article confirmed that Vallely had "clarified" his story: "After recalling further over the weekend his contacts with Wilson, Vallely says now it was on just one occasion -- the first of several conversations -- that the ambassador revealed his wife's employment with the CIA and that it likely occurred some time in the late summer or early fall of 2002."</div></div>

So after sitting on this info for 2 years he comes forward, tells his story and gets his facts wrong?? Then after 2 days thinking, he suddenly remembers.........?

Q

Qtec
07-30-2008, 12:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The outing of Armitage does change the contours of the leak case. The initial leaker was not plotting vengeance. He and Powell had not been gung-ho supporters of the war. Yet Bush backers cannot claim the leak was merely an innocent slip. Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak and then leaked it himself as part of an effort to undermine a White House critic. Afterward, the White House falsely insisted that neither Rove nor Libby had been involved in the leak and vowed that anyone who had participated in it would be bounced from the administration. Yet when Isikoff and Newsweek in July 2005 revealed a Matt Cooper email showing that Rove had leaked to Cooper, the White House refused to acknowledge this damning evidence, declined to comment on the case, and did not dismiss Rove. To date, the president has not addressed Rove's role in the leak. It remains a story of ugly and unethical politics, stonewalling, and lies. </div></div>

Who told Armitage about Plame?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.

The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was -- as Hubris discloses -- based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife. </div></div>

link (http://www.alternet.org/story/40929/?page=1)

Q

eg8r
07-30-2008, 08:12 AM
You are posting old information that the courts already have of which nothing came from it. No one was found guilty. Quit posting old news and show us some real proof that will throw someone in jail.

eg8r

mike60
07-30-2008, 12:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are posting old information that the courts already have of which nothing came from it. No one was found guilty. Quit posting old news and show us some real proof that will throw someone in jail.

eg8r </div></div>

eg8r, You sir or madam, are a fool.

mike

Qtec
07-30-2008, 12:51 PM
I know, someone once said that nothing can penetrate eg8r's 'granite-like skull'.


He was right.

Q

eg8r
07-30-2008, 01:54 PM
Likewise.

eg8r

Qtec
07-30-2008, 02:09 PM
Just because no-one has been prosecuted for outing Plame ,doesn't mean to say that no crime has been committed. This is false/ass-backwards logic.
If Libby , Rove etc had co-operated with the investigation then someone would be in the dock, facing charges.
Libby lied.
Rove lied.
These are FACTS.

The litmus test.

Say I did a search on you and done some hacking and was convinced you were a CIA WMD specialist.
I phone the CIA and ask about your status.
What would be their answer?
You know as well as I do that the STANDARD answer for such inquiries is 'NO COMMENT'.
So I phone the WH and ask the same Qs and guess what, the answer is still the same, 'NO COMMENT'.

Novak calls Rove and says, 'I heard that Wilson's wife is a WMD specialist with the CIA and she had a hand in sending him to Niger'.

Rove, "I HEARD THAT TO".

Meanwhile, 2 weeks BEFORE Novak's article Libby is having a cosy chat with Judith Miller and tells her all about Plame!

Read the link. Its all set out so even a moron can follow it.

Q

Qtec
07-30-2008, 02:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are posting old information that the courts already have of which nothing came from it. No one was found guilty. Quit posting old news and show us some real proof that will throw someone in jail.

eg8r </div></div>

So lets just recap. Your WHOLE argument is based on the fact that no-one was prosecuted for outing Plame- therefore no crime was committed.
TRY and follow.
Libby was prosecuted for LYING about the Plame leaking. [ why did he lie if they/he were innocent?]
Through his lying, the investigation was effectively sabotaged. The SP HAD NO CHOICE but to prosecute Libby because how can you conduct an investigation if you allow senior officials to LIE and get away with it?

eg8r
07-31-2008, 07:11 AM
Q, stop the stupid act, people are beginning to believe you.

The witch hunt turned up NOTHING. The "facts" turned out to be NOTHING. You have NOTHING. Valerie Plame is still a secretary.

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-31-2008, 09:23 AM
Ed's reply to your post would be laughable if it wasn't so damn tragic...
Ed's so blinded by his hatred that despite the Bush appointed CIA Director stating that she was a covert Agent, he still has to insist that she was just a secretary to make his version work....which makes anything else he tries to pass off re the matter, useless....
Scooter's not in jail therefore he must also be innocent.??
In our criminal justice system, unless your lawyer is Perry Mason, you need only to be not proven guilty to beat the rap, which doesn't mean you are innocent.unless you are a Republican, I guess

eg8r
07-31-2008, 09:42 AM
My "version" does not have to work, no one is sitting in jail for outing a covert agent. It is plain and simple, your "facts" are not facts and that is why we are where we are. If something changes in the future and we actually have someone go to jail for this then I would be surprised and happy at the same time. If someone actually broke the law the put them in jail but prove it with facts not the garbage you guys still dream about.

This has nothing to do with hatred whatsoever. Simply put, put up or shut up. At this point you guys have not been able to put up.

eg8r

wolfdancer
07-31-2008, 10:24 AM
I'm not the one prosecuting...I can only make a best guess based on what I see or read in the media.....
I don't have to put up or shut up, Mr. big shot....you don't have any f***g facts yourself so why don't you stuff it????
When they put your bigoted ass in charge of the board, then you can tell me what to do...but in the meantime GFY

wolfdancer
07-31-2008, 10:38 AM
Ed, I'll be off this board for awhile...not because either you lww ran me off, but because I need to help out a family undergoing a difficult time. You wouldn't understand that, but I could care less.It's going to be hard enough emotionally dealing with this situation, and I'm not sure I'm up to that task, and I don't need to be reading your questionable posts and adding anger to the situation.

eg8r
07-31-2008, 01:48 PM
LOL, put up or shut up. Rehashing old crap will never change anything.


eg8r

eg8r
07-31-2008, 01:50 PM
Why do you feel the need to explain yourself? You will never read a post of mine that says "Hey where is wolfie?" Do what you have to do and if you come back fine, if not, fine.

I hope your family gets through whatever issues they are going through.

eg8r

Qtec
07-31-2008, 02:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> no one is sitting in jail for outing a covert agent.</div></div>

You keep repeating this nonsense so whats your point? Nobody is in jail for outing Plame, so what?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is plain and simple, your "facts" are not facts </div></div>

Is that ALL you have? here are some facts for you- try and follow.
involved officials (http://thinkprogress.org/leak-scandal/)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Karl Rove

Senior Advisor to President Bush (2001-2005); Deputy White House Chief of Staff (2005-Present)

ADMINISTRATION, ROVE ORIGINALLY DENIED ANY INVOLVMENT IN THE LEAK: Asked on 9/29/03 whether he had “any knowledge” of the leak or whether he leaked the name of the CIA agent, Rove answered “no.” That same day, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, after having “spoken to Karl,” asserted that “it is a ridiculous suggestion” to say Rove was involved in the leak. In August 2004, Rove maintained, “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.” [ABC News, 9/29/03; White House Press Briefing, 9/29/03; RawStory; Newsweek, 7/11/05]

ROVE SPOKE WITH TIME REPORTER MATT COOPER: In a conversation with Time reporter Matt Cooper — a conversation that Rove insisted be kept on “deep background” — Rove instructed Cooper, “Don’t get too far out on Wilson.” Rove then identified Valerie Plame as “Wilson’s wife” who “works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction].” According to Cooper, his conversation with Karl Rove was the first time he had heard anything about Wilson’s wife. Additionally, Rove told Cooper that further information discrediting Wilson and his findings would soon be declassified and ended the phone conversation by saying “I’ve already said too much.” [Time, 7/25/05]

ROVE SPOKE WITH COLUMNIST ROBERT NOVAK: A week prior to publishing his column which outed undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, Robert Novak spoke with Karl Rove. In the 7/8/03 conversation with Rove, Novak brought up Plame’s role at the CIA, and Rove confirmed for the reporter that Plame worked at the CIA: “I heard that too,” said Rove. [NYT, 7/15/05] </div></div>

Rove lied.
Armitage mentioned Plame by accident but the WH outed one of their own. They threw a CIA WMD specialist to the wolves by actively outing her identity to the press purely in order to cover up the fact that they purposely mislead the nation.
They FALSELY implied that his wife sent him on the mission for some Liberal secret agenda, etc.........ie-confuse the issue.

The Govt outed Plame.
Rove Lied.
Libby lied.
Facts.

Its that simple.



What do you have besides your usual parroting of the same phrase?

Q

Qtec
07-31-2008, 02:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ed's reply to your post would be laughable if it wasn't so damn tragic...
Ed's so blinded by his hatred that despite the Bush appointed CIA Director stating that she was a covert Agent, he still has to insist that she was just a secretary to make his version work....which makes anything else he tries to pass off re the matter, useless....
Scooter's not in jail therefore he must also be innocent.??
In our criminal justice system, unless your lawyer is Perry Mason, you need only to be not proven guilty to beat the rap, which doesn't mean you are innocent.unless you are a Republican, I guess </div></div>


Wolf, after Wilsons op-ed, the Govt went into attack mode ansd damage limitation. What they normally do is attack the person but Wilson was a respected 30 civil servant, an Ambassador, the Hero of Baghdad.
So someone said "what does his wife do" and it was bingo.
The fact is, the only way they could use his wife against him was to put her on the news. Blow her cover and everyone can talk about her. Accuse her of all sorts of things that are totally unfounded.

This isn't complicated. Any normal human being can see this for what it is- treason.
Intent.
Intent must be considered here. I mean , if you hit a pedestrian with your car, its an accident. If you do it on purpose, its attempted murder.

Qtec

Bobbyrx
07-31-2008, 02:51 PM
by accident??

"Armitage's Leak

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, September 14, 2006; Page A21

When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week that he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column.

An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.

A peculiar convergence had joined Armitage and me on the same historic path. During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview. I tried to see him in the first 2 1/2 years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me -- summarily and with disdain, I thought.

Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage's office said the deputy secretary would see me. This was two weeks before Joe Wilson outed himself as author of a 2002 report for the CIA debunking Iraqi interest in buying uranium in Africa.

I sat down with Armitage in his State Department office the afternoon of July 8 with tacit rather than explicit ground rules: deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even to an anonymous State Department official. Consequently, I refused to identify Armitage as my leaker until his admission was forced by "Hubris," a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn that absolutely identified him.

Late in my hour-long interview with Armitage, I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson -- who lacked intelligence experience, nuclear policy expertise or recent contact with Niger -- on the African mission. He told The Post last week that his answer was: "I don't know, but I think his wife worked out there."

Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission. As for his current implication that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column -- implying to me that it continued reporting Washington inside information.

Valerie Plame Wilson's name appeared in my column July 14, 2003, but it was not until Oct. 1 that I was contacted about it by Armitage, indirectly. Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's close friend and political adviser, called me to say that the deputy secretary feared he had "inadvertently" (the word Armitage used in last week's interviews) disclosed Mrs. Wilson's identity to me in July and was considering resignation. (Duberstein's phone call was disclosed in the Isikoff-Corn book, which used Duberstein as a source. They reported that Duberstein was responsible for arranging my unexpected interview with Armitage.)

Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage's current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was "no partisan gunslinger."

Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."

Qtec
07-31-2008, 03:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission.</div></div>

Armitage claims it was by accident but I am actually more inclined to believe Novak because of the bolded text.

The attack on Wilson was that it was just a junket organized by his wife!

Q

Bobbyrx
07-31-2008, 03:07 PM
Robert Novak: McClellan's Plame account downplays Armitage leaks
By ROBERT D. NOVAK

Tuesday, Jun. 3, 2008

IN SCOTT McClellan's purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President George W. Bush's press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role leaking to me Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee. That fits the partisan Democratic version of the Plame affair, in keeping with the overall tenor of "What Happened."

Although the media response dwelled on McClellan's criticism of Bush's road to war, the CIA leak case is the heart of this book. On July 14, 2003, one day before McClellan took the press secretary's job for which many colleagues felt he was unqualified, my column was published asserting that Plame at the CIA suggested her Democratic partisan husband, retired diplomat Joseph Wilson, for a sensitive intelligence mission. That story made McClellan's three years at the briefing room podium a misery, leading to his dismissal and now his bitter retort.

In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Armitage only twice. Armitage being the leaker undermines the Democratic theory, now accepted by McClellan, that Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove aimed to delegitimize Wilson as a war critic. McClellan's handling of the leak by itself leads former colleagues to suggest he could not have written this book by himself.

On page 173, McClellan first mentions my Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until page 306 of the 323-page book -- then only in passing. Armitage, anti-war and anti-Cheney, cannot fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When Armitage after two years publicly admitted he was my source, the life went out of Wilson's campaign. In "What Happened," McClellan dwells on Rove's alleged deceptions as if the real leaker were still unknown.

McClellan at the White House podium never knew the facts about the CIA leak, and his memoir reads as though he has tried to maintain his ignorance. He omits Armitage's slipping Mrs. Wilson's identity to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to me. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.

McClellan writes that Rove told him this about his conversation with me after I called him to check Armitage's leak: "He (Novak) said he'd heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. I told him I couldn't confirm it because I didn't know." Rove told me last week he never said that to McClellan. Under oath, Rove had testified he told me, "I heard that, too." Under oath, I testified that Rove said, "Oh, you know that, too."

McClellan writes, "I don't know" whether the leaker -- he does not specify Armitage -- committed a felony. He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.

Qtec
07-31-2008, 03:25 PM
Do you have a point?

Q

Bobbyrx
07-31-2008, 03:27 PM
The Libby trial was a political witch hunt carried on after the acknowledged leaker was known to the prosecutor BEFORE the trial started.

LWW
07-31-2008, 04:52 PM
I think hios point was that you never did have one.

LWW

mike60
07-31-2008, 05:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Libby trial was a political witch hunt carried on after the acknowledged leaker was known to the prosecutor BEFORE the trial started. </div></div>


Pretty cool huh? Next time maybe it'll be Cheney.


Have fun and play pool,

mike

eg8r
08-01-2008, 10:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You keep repeating this nonsense so whats your point? Nobody is in jail for outing Plame, so what?
</div></div>If you are too dumb to figure it out then you are worth the time to explain it.

I am not interested in your "facts". They meant nothing already once, and again, no one is sitting in jail after the big witch hunt.

eg8r

eg8r
08-01-2008, 10:56 AM
You guys are rehashing old crap that has already been read with intense scrutiny. Once something new comes out then maybe we will see someone actually CONVICTED.

eg8r

wolfdancer
08-01-2008, 12:17 PM
the explanation was really for lww, who likes to boast how he skeer'd people off message boards with his hard hitting commentary...
It's not my family though....but thanks for the good wishes...they need some kind thoughts, positive energy, and prayer.

mike60
08-01-2008, 01:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys are rehashing old crap that has already been read with intense scrutiny. Once something new comes out then maybe we will see someone actually CONVICTED.

eg8r </div></div>

Nine pages of stupidity and denial for the benefit of WAR PROFITEERS AND THE ATTEMPTED DESTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. Wow, STUCK ON STUPID.

FROM NOW ON IT'S CALL'EM LIKE I SEE 'EM. YOU VOTED FOR THE CRIMINALS THEN YOU'RE ONE OF THEM. THESE IGNORANT FOOLS BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING
REPRESENTED BY THE THUG ADMINISTRATION WHEN THEY WILL NEVER EVER RECEIVE A DAMN THING FROM THESE THIEVES AND THEN THEY BE STILL BE STUPID AND THE MISADMINISTRATION WILL BE LONG GONE WITH THE TREASURY UNLESS THE ACTUAL PATRIOTS HUNT THEM DOWN AND JAIL THEM .

FILM AT ELEVEN. I PROPOSE TO POST AS THOUGH THE WINGBATS ARE NONEXISTENT-TRANSPARENT-INSUBSTANTIAL AND PERMANENTLY DUMB (the quiet kind).


mike

Qtec
08-01-2008, 09:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You keep repeating this nonsense so whats your point? Nobody is in jail for outing Plame, so what?
</div></div>If you are too dumb to figure it out then you are worth the time to explain it.

I am not interested in your "facts". They meant nothing already once, and again, no one is sitting in jail after the big witch hunt.

eg8r </div></div>


Classic eg8r, <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am not interested in your "facts". </div></div> ie, I know what I know and no Liberal Commie tree-hugger can tell me otherwise."

OMG. You have repeated the same phrase over and over again but you can't tell me why its important!

OK, lets try this. Some logic.

If Armitage outed Plame then Plame must have been covert! ie, If everyone knew what she was doing and what her function/status was then he couldn't have 'outed' her could she?!

Now, intentionally outing a covert CIA agent is a crime. It all comes down to intent. There is a big difference between saying something one shouldn't in a one to one conversation and outing a CIA agent to the press for political expediency.
[ BTW- We know Plame was covert because the CIA said so. They should know, don't you think?]

I think the SP knew A was the initial leaker.
Novak <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission. </div></div>

This is totally false. Plame never suggested his mission.

Don't you think its strange that the original leaker [ Armitage ] claims that he leaked Plame by mistake/by accident but that he also told a lie that was to become the Admins main attack on Wilson- ie Plame arranged a junket for her husband!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Cheney Penned Note About Plame, Filing Shows

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 14, 2006; A06

After former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV publicly criticized a key rationale for the war in Iraq, Vice President Cheney wrote a note on a newspaper clipping raising the possibility that the critique resulted from a CIA-sponsored "junket" arranged by Wilson's wife, covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, according to court documents filed late Friday.

The filing by special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is the second that names Cheney as a key White House official who questioned the legitimacy of Wilson's examination of Iraqi nuclear ambitions. It further suggests that Cheney helped originate the idea in his office that Wilson's credibility was undermined by his link to Plame.

Fitzgerald's filing states that Cheney passed the annotated article by Wilson to his chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who Fitzgerald says subsequently discussed Wilson's marriage to Plame in conversations with two reporters, despite the fact that Plame was a covert CIA officer and her name was not supposed to be revealed. The filing was first reported by Newsweek on its Web site.

Fitzgerald does not allege in his filing that Cheney ordered Libby to disclose Plame's identity. But he states that Cheney's note to Libby helps "explain the context of, and provide a motive for" many of the later statements and actions by Libby. Libby was indicted last year for making false statements to FBI agents, obstruction of justice and perjury, mostly based on Libby's testimony that he did not confirm Plame's involvement in conversations with the two journalists.

Wilson's credibility became a key issue for the White House because the results of his probe into Iraq's nuclear program surfaced when the administration had already been hit by charges it had distorted intelligence before invading Iraq. Wilson had concluded after taking a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger two years earlier that evidence of Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear weapons materials there was dubious.

A court filing last month by Fitzgerald -- who has been gradually spelling out what he plans to say during Libby's trial next year -- stated that Cheney had expressed concern about whether Wilson's trip was a junket set up by his wife. The new filing includes the precise annotations that Cheney wrote on a copy of Wilson's July 2003 article in the New York Times, titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa."

"Have they done this sort of thing before?" Cheney wrote. "Send an amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?" </div></div> .

Armitage said Wilson was sent by his wife.
Cheney said the same thing.
Coincidence?

Q................I know its a waste of time.

mike60
08-02-2008, 01:10 AM
My stock answer..............
Since you asked.....
Somewhere there is a world where this is illegal and it should be............

George Bush was appointed Resident by the Supreme Court Conservative majority when the fixed electronic voting machines couldn't seal the deal even with the 90,000 voters thrown off the registered to vote list in Florida and the staff of several Republican congress critters rioted in the offices of the Dade county election commission to stop a legal recount to ensure Bush an unearned term as Resident. The wonder of it all.
How a few well placed felons may disrupt an election and then use the justices to strip the state of the right to determine their own count when
it is obvious the chosen resident is losing. That numbers of citizens are so stupid that they defend the very group that disenfranchise their votes. You crackers and other fellow travelers are just being spun for the profit of a group so beyond your ability to comprehend that they've
got you volunteering your rights away to catch boogymen that are smarter than you and get away with crime and theft while you fools hold the door for them. You rant about the two important secret investigations that were actually well known by the bad guys that did so well when in fact both programs were already useless. Your little band of complainers, and you are few in number. Should just join up and go fight. Or drive a truck for the contractors until you get your ass handed to you by an EID or vote for McCain for a lot more WAR PROFITEERING by your
corporate money vacuum. You really are beneath contempt for just believing what is laughably called conservative. as if........


miguel
____

Qtec
08-03-2008, 05:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just because no-one has been prosecuted for outing Plame ,doesn't mean to say that no crime has been committed. This is false/ass-backwards logic.
If Libby , Rove etc had co-operated with the investigation then someone would be in the dock, facing charges.
Libby lied.
Rove lied.
These are FACTS.

The litmus test.

Say I did a search on you and done some hacking and was convinced you were a CIA WMD specialist.
I phone the CIA and ask about your status.
What would be their answer?
You know as well as I do that the STANDARD answer for such inquiries is 'NO COMMENT'.
So I phone the WH and ask the same Qs and guess what, the answer is still the same, 'NO COMMENT'.

Novak calls Rove and says, 'I heard that Wilson's wife is a WMD specialist with the CIA and she had a hand in sending him to Niger'.

Rove, "I HEARD THAT TO".

Meanwhile, 2 weeks BEFORE Novak's article Libby is having a cosy chat with Judith Miller and tells her all about Plame!

Read the link. Its all set out so even a moron can follow it.

Q
</div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army refused Saturday to say whether it had been reviewing the security clearance of the chief suspect in the anthrax attacks who had mental problems and killed himself as federal prosecutors were planning to indict him.

Bruce E. Ivins was removed from his lab in Maryland by police on July 10 and temporarily hospitalized, according to court records, because it was feared that he was a danger to himself and others. But it was unclear whether he was still employed by the lab at the time of his death Tuesday.

That raises the question of whether Ivins still had his security clearance and, if so, how he kept it, given that his social worker said Ivins had been viewed as homicidal and sociopathic by his psychiatrist.

Army spokesman Paul Boyce declined to comment on Ivins' case.

"The U.S. government never discusses the specific security clearance of an individual employee or military member," he said.</div></div>

Rove "I heard that to".

I rest my case.

Q

Bobbyrx
08-03-2008, 08:44 AM
Why was there a trial? ..................I rest my case

Qtec
08-03-2008, 08:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "The U.S. government never discusses the specific security clearance of an individual employee or military member," he said.</div></div>

Do you know what NEVER means?

When Rove was asked about Plame, what did he say? No comment?
Libby.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Oct. 11, 2005

In two appearances before the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a covert CIA operative's name, Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, did not disclose a crucial conversation that he had with New York Times reporter Judith Miller in June 2003 about the operative, Valerie Plame, according to sources with firsthand knowledge of his sworn testimony.


The new revelations regarding Libby come as Fitzgerald has indicated that he is wrapping up his investigation and making final decisions as to whether criminal charges will be brought in the case.




Libby also did not disclose the June 23 conversation when he was twice interviewed by FBI agents working on the Plame leak investigation, the sources said.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald apparently learned about the June 23 conversation for the first time just days ago, after attorneys for Miller and The New York Times informed prosecutors that Miller had discovered a set of notes on the conversation.

Miller had spent 85 days in jail for contempt of court for refusing to testify before the grand jury about her conversations with Libby and other Bush administration officials regarding Plame. She was released from jail after she agreed to cooperate with Fitzgerald's investigation. Miller testified before the grand jury on September 30, and attorneys familiar with the matter said that she agreed to be questioned further by Fitzgerald today.

Meanwhile, in recent days Fitzgerald has also expressed significant interest in whether Libby may have sought to discourage Miller-either directly or indirectly through her attorney-from testifying before the grand jury, or cooperating in other ways with the criminal probe, according to attorneys familiar with Miller's discussions with prosecutors.

During two interviews with FBI agents and in two subsequent grand jury appearances, Libby discussed at length a July 8, 2003, conversation about Plame that he and Miller had at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., as well as a July 12 telephone conversation with Miller on the same subject four days later.

Although Miller would never herself write about Plame, it was two days after her last conversation with Libby that conservative columnist Robert Novak would reveal Plame as a CIA "operative" in his now-famous column of July 14, 2003</div></div>

TWO DAYS! Libby and others were busy spresading her name and status about town as part of an orchestrated backstabbing of the lowest form. They brought his wife into the picture to throw salt and confuse the issue.
Some seem to forget that GW was FORCED to take back those 16 words, proving Wilson to be right.

Q

Bobbyrx
08-04-2008, 12:54 AM
Her name had already been leaked......and not by Libby or Rove and Fitzgerald already knew that. So why was there a trial?

eg8r
08-04-2008, 08:30 AM
You are right, when you post it is usually a waste of everyone's time.

eg8r

eg8r
08-04-2008, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FROM NOW ON IT'S CALL'EM LIKE I SEE 'EM. YOU VOTED FOR THE CRIMINALS THEN YOU'RE ONE OF THEM. </div></div> LOL, this coming from gayle's newest sheep. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif No sense reading any more of your post.

eg8r

Deeman3
08-04-2008, 09:10 AM
[quote=mike60
FROM NOW ON IT'S CALL'EM LIKE I SEE 'EM. YOU VOTED FOR THE CRIMINALS THEN YOU'RE ONE OF THEM.
mike [/quote]

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Then are you going to prosecute us, Heir Fruher?</span>

wolfdancer
08-04-2008, 12:59 PM
Ed keeps insisting that Plame was just a secretary
There's only two conclusions one can derive from Ed's theory:
Libby is dumber then sh*t, for obstructing the investigation of outing a nondescript CIA employee, and being convicted for said offense.
OR
Ed has let his personal prejudices cloud any realistic interpretation of the event.
There's a third conclusion though....Ed knows more then the current head of HS.....which is believable when you think about the incompetents, and the fawning sycophants that Bush likes to surround himself with
Personally, i think they are all guilty, Libby, Liddy, and Mort Luby...it's a conspiracy....

Deeman3
08-04-2008, 02:55 PM
I was going to say, but thought better of it, that as sorry a job as the CIA has done in both pre and post 9/11 intellegence maybe a little outing was not a bad thing. Of course, if it was done by the VP or Rove and that is provable in a court of law, I'll hiss and boo just like the rest of you.

I am ready to end all the gotcha on both sides of the debate and have a normal government who will steal us blind and everyone pretent it is not happening like in the good old days. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I clearly think we, again, just need more Cowbell.

Qtec
08-04-2008, 05:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are right, when you post it is usually a waste of everyone's time.

eg8r </div></div>

Have you ever debated?
Obviously not.


I may be wrong but AT LEAST I give facts and evidence to show why I think the way I do.

What do you have?
Thats right- NOTHING............. except your own twisted opinion.
[ Q gives links ,reports, articles to illuminate his thoughts.......... while eg8r can only give his irrational thoughts and present them as if they were facts !!!!..without one iota of data to back them up!]

Why should anyone with 2 brain cells [ still operating ] listen to you? [ A sound bite or a parrot could replace you ].
Maybe you missed this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Although Miller would never herself write about Plame, it was two days after her last conversation with Libby that conservative columnist Robert Novak would reveal Plame as a CIA "operative" in his now-famous column of July 14, 2003 </div></div>

Please tell me how,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "The U.S. government never discusses the specific security clearance of an individual employee or military member,". </div></div>
................. but Libby was informing Miller 2 days before Novak's article came out and the "I heard that too" comment came from Rove. ????
Q..................

mike60
08-04-2008, 06:23 PM
ATTENTION: Wingbats and other denial freaks should not read this as it contains truthful statements by actual CIA Officers and not biased and
false wishful thinking by supporters of WAR PROFITEERING TRAITORS.

This article has quotes from the CIA directly not reporters notes or hearsay, DIRECT QUOTES.

Agents See Dangerous Precedent in Plame's Outing
by Mary Louise Kelly
Listen Now [4 min 9 sec] add to playlist
Morning Edition, March 7, 2007 ? The verdict in the trial of Lewis "Scooter" Libby is attracting attention among Valerie Plame's former colleagues at the CIA.
Among intelligence insiders, there's concern that nearly four years after the CIA called for an investigation into the leak of Plame's name to reporters, no one has been charged for what they see as an unpardonable crime: outing an undercover operative.
Valerie Plame belonged to that secretive circle of spies who spend most of their careers ? in some cases, their whole lives ? operating undercover. Within that circle, there appears to be mostly relief at the verdict. Larry Johnson, who was in Plame's CIA class and has remained a close friend, calls it "wonderful news."
Johnson adds, "I think there was a general perception that this government could get away with anything. With this verdict, the answer is, 'No it can't.'" Johnson sees the decision as a moment of vindication for his friend. But he says it shouldn't be the end of the Plame story ? that more officials should be charged.
That's a view shared by Robert Richer, former No. 2 in the CIA's clandestine service.
"Someone made a conscious decision to disclose the identity of an operative working undercover," Richer says. "And I think that they should be held accountable. It is a criminal offense."
It's not looking likely, though, that anyone will be held accountable. Lead prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald says no additional charges will be filed. That means Libby, who was convicted on charges of lying and obstructing justice, will be the only person to stand trial in the matter ? and no one will charged with the actual leak.
Richer finds this troublesome. Valerie Plame's outing, he argues, had consequences not just for her personal safety, but for everyone she had contact with in the field. But Richer says the Libby trial, though flawed, was still worthwhile.
"I do think it got a message across. How do you value a compromised national security operation, or an agent's life? So if this cost us a number of millions of dollars to prosecute this case, and it took up a lot of time... When someone gets ready to disclose this type of information again and they think, 'You know what, I could be held accountable,' then it's probably well worth whatever we paid for it."
But another former CIA officer, Bob Baer, takes away a very different message from the Libby trial. Baer spent 21 years as a covert operative in the Middle East. He worries that the lack of indictments for administration officials beyond Libby leaves the door open for more leaks in future.
"You know, we used to talk in the CIA ? 'Can we protect our sources, can we protect our identities?' And the answer is no," Baer says. "Because exposing Valerie Plame was so widespread across the administration, and no one's been charged for exposing her identity."
Baer says he thinks that the takeaway message of what's come to be known as "Plamegate" is this: "If you're sitting in Baghdad or Kabul or anywhere else, you can be exposed by someone else in the government. And there's no consequences."
This view is not universal, though. A CIA spokesman declined to comment. But former senior official Rob Richer remains convinced that the vast majority of government officials understand and respect clandestine operations.
"This in many ways is an anomaly," Richer says. "This has not happened often. You had a weakening here. You had a disclosure for political need. That's a problem. I don't think it'll be repeated."


Have a nice day...
__________________

eg8r
08-04-2008, 07:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I may be wrong but AT LEAST I give facts and evidence to show why I think the way I do.</div></div>LOL, it is never hard to find opinions that suit your agenda. Just because you present these opinions means nothing. I don't need to give any evidence...lack of convictions is enough. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty, unless you are a Republican or someone who currently disagrees with the far left.

eg8r

mike60
08-05-2008, 02:30 PM
eg8r, You are correct about one thing for sure. It is impossible to prove a negative result, it just is what it is, that is to say always wrong.


mike

Gayle in MD
08-05-2008, 04:38 PM
Wolf,
Eg8r is doing what all Republican a-holes do, denying the truth. It's the only way they can survive, deny reality!

Valarie Plame was a covert NOC CIA Agent. So says the former CIA Director, and the current CIA director. So says four Federal Judges, and a Special Prosecutor. Eg8r, and a few others around her, simply cannot admit to their own complete ignorance, hence, they lie and deny! It's the Repiglican way of life!

Eg8r has lost all credibility, just as Bush and Cheney and McCain, Rove, Libby, Woflowitz, Andrew Card, Gonzo, and all the rest of the corporate fascist pigs!

Gayle in Md.

mike60
08-05-2008, 04:41 PM
Thanks Gayle, i feel better now. The list could fill pages.

mike

Bobbyrx
08-05-2008, 08:12 PM
and Novak's source was????????

eg8r
08-06-2008, 07:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Eg8r, and a few others around her</div></div>Who is the "her" you are referring to?

eg8r

eg8r
08-06-2008, 07:23 AM
You should feel better. Your Queen sheep has come in to pat your back and show you a little support.

eg8r

Qtec
08-06-2008, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I may be wrong but AT LEAST I give facts and evidence to show why I think the way I do.</div></div>LOL, it is never hard to find opinions that suit your agenda. Just because you present these opinions means nothing. I don't need to give any evidence...lack of convictions is enough. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty, unless you are a Republican or someone who currently disagrees with the far left.

eg8r </div></div>

LOl Same old eg8r. ALL you have is an opinion with NOTHING to back it up.

Facts, not opinions.
Libby lied to the FBI on more than one occasion.
Libby met with J Miller [ who went to jail because she would not reveal her source] and leaked Plame's status to her, 2 days before Novak's article came out.
Rove was also speaking to reporters but later claimed he had never heard of Plame.
Both Libby and Rove lied to S McClellan.


Before you say there have been no convictions for outing Plame, that is true. Again so what?

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/02/21/BL2007022101033_pf.html) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The Cloud Over Cheney

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, February 21, 2007; 2:12 PM

"What is this case about?" special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald asked in his rebuttal to the defense's closing arguments yesterday in the Scooter Libby perjury trial.

"Is it about something bigger?"

And while Fitzgerald never directly answered that second question, he at long last made it quite clear that the depth of Vice President Cheney's role in the leaking of the identity of a CIA operative is one of the central mysteries that Libby's alleged lies prevented investigators from resolving.

"There is a cloud over the vice president . . . And that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice," Fitzgerald said.

"There is a cloud over the White House. Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury and the American people are entitled to straight answers?" Fitzgerald asked the jury.

Libby, Fitzgerald continued, "stole the truth from the justice system."

After literally years of keeping his public pronouncements about the case to an absolute minimum, Fitzgerald yesterday finally let slip a bit of the speculation that many of us have long suspected has lurked just beneath the surface of his investigation.

Suddenly it wasn't just the defendant alone, it was "they" who decided to tell reporters about Wilson's wife working for the CIA. "To them," Fitzgerald said, "she wasn't a person, she was an argument."

And it was pretty clear who "they" was: Libby and his boss, Cheney.

Back in the summer of 2003, after former ambassador Joseph Wilson had dared suggest that the administration manipulated intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq, "they" were obsessed with denying that Wilson had been sent on his mission to Niger as a result of a request for information from the vice president's office, Fitzgerald said.

"They" saw his wife Valerie Plame's role in suggesting him for the trip as a way to cast suspicion on his mission and his claim.

In Fitzgerald's last words to the jury, what had been a somewhat innocuous-sounding memo suddenly became something close to a smoking gun documenting Cheney's encouragement to his minions out to spread the word about Wilson's wife.

As Fitzgerald explained it: Right after Cheney first read Wilson's op-ed -- and wrote the question, "[D]id his wife send him on a junket?" in the margins of his own carefully clipped copy-- Cheney dictated "talking points" for his staff to use with the press about Wilson's mission.

As a result, the lead talking point morphed from "The Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger" in a version drafted the day before by Cheney press aide Cathie Martin to "It is not clear who authorized Joe Wilson's trip to Niger" in the vice president's version</div></div>

Sunday- Wilson's op-ed.
Monday- D Cheney's handwritten notes about the false "junket "story.
Tuesday- Armitage meets Novak and pushes the false "junket story.


Q

Gayle in MD
08-06-2008, 09:23 AM
Novak's source was the White House, Karl Rove, directly, and Armitage, who was informed and led by the White House which was behind the entire operation to discredit Joe Wilson (who had the knowledge, and experience to expose their lies propagated for their false illegal reasons for invading Iraq, and launching their illegal war, and to ruin Wilson's wife's career, spreading the fact around that she worked for the CIA, and suggesting that she sent Joe Wilson on a junket. Armitage was well known by the Whtie House to be the kind of gossip that enjoyed looking like he had the inside story on everything. Novak was surely led to Armitage by Rove, who has been in bed with Novak for over twenty years. It is well known that Karl Rove and Novak, are and have been fast friends for decades, and they are seen all over Washington D.C. together, lunching together, and Novak only too happy to be Rove's choice for the spreading of propaganda, just as Judith Miller, was Libby's choice.

It really doesn't matter what you and Ed must believe to try and save face for having voted twice for the most incompetent, dishonest, damaging, and corrupt President in the history of the country, twice~! Most intelligent people know that Bush and Cheney used their aides to out a covert CIA, NOC, Agent. Just like most people know that they lied us into an illegal war, which has drained our country for six years, and killed 4,133 American troops, strengthed Iran, the Talliban, Al Qaeda, and ran up trillions in debt, much of it owed to a communist country, China, which cheats us daily, unchecked by this incompetent administration, on the global market. A country which is involved in inhumane activities against its own citizens, in the genocide in Africa, and now also killing the Buddhists, the most peacful people on the planet. Bush will be shaking hands with all the Chinese killers tomorrow. He had to go to the Olympics, shake hands with the communist killers, and support the communist Regime of china, since we owe them bundles of money. he had to sanction the communist killers as the hosts of the Olympics, since he has NO INTEGRITY. Also, he had to go, you know, he loves sports, and Laura just loves to dine out, and travel, her only duties, oh forgot, and to stand by Bush and NOD- SMILE- NOD-SMILE, and SWEAR TO HIS LIES. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif when it comes to killers, it takes one to know one, so Little Bushy, Laura, and the cominist dictator, all killers, should get along quite nicely! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
08-06-2008, 11:04 AM
web site (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hear-armitage-tell-woodward-about-valerie-plame)

Armitage: Wilson Told Everyone About Plame
You can download the audio file for yourself (mp3 file) or listen to it via CNN.

Here is transcription of the exchange:

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He — he’s perfect. She — she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?



According to Woodward, this exchange took place "nearly a month" before Bob Novak wrote his column referencing Ms. Plame.

I didn’t transcribe the beginning of the exchange. But in it Richard Armitage brags that "we" (at the State Department) are "clean as a whistle" regarding the yellowcake claims.

When Woodward asks him why the reference had been included in the State Of The Union address, Armitage notes it had been removed from an earlier speech. He then blames the White House. He adds that "Condi" "doesn’t like to be on the hot seat."

So it is abundantly clear Mr. Armitage was on Joe Wilson’s side in this argument. He was certainly not out to "punish" Joe Wilson by leaking the name of his wife or her job at the CIA.

In fact, Armitage claims "everybody knows" about Valerie Plame’s work at the CIA thanks to Mr. Wilson’s phone calls.

This substantiates what I have posited all along. That Wilson told every reporter he spoke to at the time about his wife’s job, to try to enhance his credibility.

And remember, Wilson pitched his story to numerous reporters before he got so frustrated by their soft-pedaling of his amazing scoop that he had to come out from behind the curtain and write his history-changing editorial for the New York Times.

A thousand lies later we learn that a compatriot of Wilson’s was the first government official on record for "leaking" this deep dark secret that "everybody" knew.

And we now know that Mr. Fitzgerald knew all of this even before he began his multi-year, multi-million dollar witch hunt."

eg8r
08-06-2008, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It really doesn't matter what you and Ed must believe to try and save face for having voted twice for the most incompetent, dishonest, damaging, and corrupt President in the history of the country, twice~!</div></div>Back to your old ways momma sheep? This has nothing to do with the post, you just want to attack.

eg8r

eg8r
08-06-2008, 11:55 AM
Why on earth are you still debating about this secretary? The witch hunt failed because Fitzgerald knew he had nothing. The looney left does not care about facts on this board. They are spoon fed their lies and they perpetuate the lies here.

eg8r

eg8r
08-06-2008, 11:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOl Same old eg8r. ALL you have is an opinion with NOTHING to back it up.</div></div>Again, I don't need to back anything up other than take a look in the jail and see if anyone is sitting there because they outed the secretary.

Why do you continue to think your copied opinions are worth anything? Obviously the judge never did. Just because you keep repeating your opinions does not make them fact.

eg8r

Deeman3
08-06-2008, 12:25 PM
Bobbyrx,

Thanks, but you are wasting your time. The actualy transcript can't be argued with until a left wing spin is applied. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Qtec
08-06-2008, 12:40 PM
This is crap. Please provide the CNN link or some other credible info. It could be anybody on that tape. Got a link to a full transcript?
Personally I don't believe a word Armitage says.

Q

Qtec
08-06-2008, 12:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why on earth are you still debating about this secretary?

eg8r </div></div>

Now you really sound like a troll. How many times do you have to be told?

Q

wolfdancer
08-06-2008, 01:03 PM
I think you are "losing it", Ed.
Everybody here, both sides, care about facts....but we do seem to often interpret what we believe to be facts, differently.
It makes no difference to me who actually leaked the info re Valerie....there's so much more wrong doing related to this war.(IMO) Last nite there was a report about the WH asking the CIA to forge a document to justify the invasion. Is that true?....I have no way of knowing.
How do you explain away Libby's conviction though, if there was "nothing there"????
The transcript mentioned here doesn't seem to support your "just a secretary" scenario.....and your insistence that she was just that....weakens any further theories that you have on the matter.
You can't honestly claim lies by the other side, unless you can offer some proof, and not just the trite slurs that have become so prominent here with the arrival of lww.
No one is ever going to "win" an argument here, because no one here...'cept maybe you and lww has all the facts

Bobbyrx
08-06-2008, 01:15 PM
He's too smart for us Deeman........was it your voice or mine he recognized???? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

mike60
08-06-2008, 02:31 PM
Ed, Bobby, The complete refusal on your part for the last time to see the words of the Directors of the CIA, other CIA officers and the DOJ as the truth in this matter
now must preclude me from taking anything you post seriously. You are in the Egyptian river over your pointed little heads. Post anything you like, so what. It only reinforces the obvious, you are nuts.

mike

Bobbyrx
08-06-2008, 06:26 PM
Taking a very short break here from ignoring you................I never said she wasn't covert if thats what you are talking about. It doesn't matter. I don't care if she is 007. She was outed by Armitage and the DOJ knew this because HE ADMITTED IT. So what do they do.......go after Libby. So please oh wise one explain that to me..............no help please, let him do this on his own

Qtec
08-06-2008, 09:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird. </div></div>

Of course its weird, its not true.

'Everyone knows'?

Can you find one single source, an article or so from before Wilson's op-ed that mentions Plame as a CIA WMD specialist?

Anybody?

Q

Gayle in MD
08-07-2008, 09:20 AM
Armitage didn't out Valarie Plame. The administration outed Valarie Plame. Nothing you have posted proves otherwise, however, there are atleast a dozen books by respected authors that address this issue, and although neither you, or Ed, or apparently Deeman, sorry to say, have read any of them, nor have you thoroughly read the statements by the Special Prosecutor.

George Bush declassified the information, and George Bush leaked it to the press, through his Vice President, and Karl Rove. Karl Rove was the administration source that Novak relied on, not Armitage. It's amazing the effort you righties put into denying the truth.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
08-07-2008, 02:38 PM
I am not denying anything. I have simply asked that you people actually prove something for once. If you could prove it they would be in jail (or pardoned) but you can't so it is just more conspiracy from the left.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
08-08-2008, 12:17 AM
"Armitage didn't out Valarie Plame. Nothing you have posted proves otherwise"

Au contraire, conspiracy breath.........
Bob Woodward says Armitage link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501857.html?nav=rss_politics/administration) , Robert Novak says Armitage link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301572.html) , Richard Armitage says ...Armitage link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html)

mike60
08-08-2008, 12:44 AM
ERWS



miguel

Gayle in MD
08-08-2008, 09:55 AM
Novak couldn't have printed anything without confirmation. Karl Rove was his confirming source. George Bush outed a covert CIA Agent. Goerge Bush declassified her job description. George Bush used his aid, Karl Rove, to spread the information around. Dick Cheney used his top aid, Scooter Libby, to contact Judith Miller and spread Plame's name around. Plame, under sworn testimony, provided all the details of her hidden identity. Her own family and oldest friends, didn't know about her. The Special Prosecutor proved that in court. The CIA requested the the investigation BECAUSE a Covert NOC CIA Agent had been outed. You can deny all you want, but just using Bod Woodward, a REPUBLICAN as your "Proof" is a joke.

Bush suspended Libby's jail time. Libby was convicted for taking the fall for Cheney and Bush. If you can't grasp what they did it's because you don't want to. I'd bet anything you never even watched Plame's live testimony. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Deeman3
08-08-2008, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'd bet anything you never even watched Plame's live testimony. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Nope, 'cause if I did and she was a secret agent, she might have had to kill me. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </span>

Bobbyrx
08-08-2008, 11:32 AM
that's what I thought

Bobbyrx
08-08-2008, 12:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Novak couldn't have printed anything without confirmation. <span style="color: #FF0000">Well he could have but he's a good journalist </span> Karl Rove was his confirming source. <span style="color: #FF0000"> If you call "Yea I've heard that too" a confirmation. Sounds more like a confirmation that it wasn't much of a secret</span> George Bush outed a covert CIA Agent. <span style="color: #FF0000">proof? </span> Goerge Bush declassified her job description. George Bush used his aid, Karl Rove, to spread the information around. <span style="color: #FF0000"> proof?</span> Dick Cheney used his top aid, Scooter Libby, to contact Judith Miller and spread Plame's name around. <span style="color: #FF0000">Actually Judith Miller contacted Libby about a WMD article she was working on, not the other way around </span> Plame, under sworn testimony, provided all the details of her hidden identity. Her own family and oldest friends, didn't know about her. The Special Prosecutor proved that in court. The CIA requested the the investigation BECAUSE a Covert NOC CIA Agent had been outed. <span style="color: #FF0000">I never said she wasn't covert, just that the DOJ already knew who leaked it and they did </span> You can deny all you want, but just using Bod Woodward, a REPUBLICAN as your "Proof" is a joke. <span style="color: #FF0000">So you are denying that Armitage told Woodward, Novak and the DOJ that he leaked the name? </span> <span style="color: #3366FF">How about this from one of your favorite authors David Corn : It was Richard Armitage, when he was deputy secretary of state in July 2003, who first disclosed to conservative columnist Robert Novak that the wife of former ambassador Joseph Wilson was a CIA employee.

A Newsweek article--based on the new book I cowrote with Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War--discloses that Armitage passed this classified information to Novak during a July 8, 2003 interview. Though Armitage's role as Novak's primary source has been a subject of speculation, the case is now closed. Our sources for this are three government officials <span style="color: #FF0000">(So there are at least 3 more people who knew about it. Looks like everyone knew) </span> who spoke to us confidentially and who had direct knowledge of Armitage's conversation with Novak. Carl Ford Jr., who was head of the State Department's intelligence branch at the time, told us--on the record--that after Armitage testified before the grand jury investigating the leak case, he told Ford, "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused the whole thing."

</span>

Bush suspended Libby's jail time. <span style="color: #FF0000">yes he did </span> Libby was convicted for taking the fall for Cheney and Bush. <span style="color: #FF0000">I don't recall seeing that anywhere </span> If you can't grasp what they did it's because you don't want to. <span style="color: #FF6666">IYHO </span> I'd bet anything you never even watched Plame's live testimony. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif <span style="color: #FF0000">Was watching it live different from watching the tape??? If so , you won,t enjoy the Olympics very much </span>

</div></div> <span style="color: #FF0000"> </span>

mike60
08-08-2008, 01:55 PM
Bobby, Does ERWS mean anything to you? It should as you are a charter member.

Have a nice day and try to get the remedial logic classes you missed the first time.

miguel

Bobbyrx
08-08-2008, 04:14 PM
per Wikipedia: ERWS - abbrev for, Mikey has no logical answer and/or relevent, significant, related or appropriate information for said discussion. <span style="color: #FF0000"> </span>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> What's new?</span>

mike60
08-08-2008, 06:18 PM
NOW BOBBY, We all know ERWS stands for EGYPTIAN RIVER WADING SOCIETY.

Oh tonight's meeting has been canceled idiots can't remember which bridge to meet under.

miguel

Gayle in MD
08-09-2008, 09:15 AM
When there is a conspiracy, more than one person is involved. In the case of the broad conspiracy to leak the identity of Valarie Plame, the Administration used more than one person. Armitage was among them, as was Novak, Judith Miller, Libby, Rove, Russart, Cooper, all were used, some with awareness, some unwittingly.

Trying to take the position that Armitage leaked her identity doesn't fly because he didn't know she was covert, only that she worked at the CIA. Leaking the identity require intent to leak it. More than one person was involved in this crime. The ones with full knowledge and intent were Bush, cheney, Rove and Libby.

Libby took the fall, and hence, a president who stated that if anyone in his administration leaked the identity of a cover agents they would be fired, instead didn't fire Rove, and didn't allow Libby to go to jail. He did that because he knew that they were doing his bidding. He is the one who declassified the information. George Bush. He can do that, legally, but having done so certainly is proof in his own intent.

People like you and Ed don't come out of what is best for our country. You're completely partisan. The very idea that someone like Ed calls others, sheep, is a joke. You go about cherry picking information in the same way the administration does.

There are dozens of books on this subject. I'd wager you you haven't read a single one cover to cover. I'd also wager you you never even watched the testimony of anyone who testified to the Senate.

You're just another Republican living in denial. OJ killed his wife, but he isn't in jail.

The prosecutor pointed to the Vice President. Had Libby not taken the fall, the prosecutor could have proven the intent required for the correct indictment. That doesn't mean that the vast majority of reasonable people in this country don't know that this administration committed treason, and this case is not their only treasonist act.

Gayle in Md.



Novak never told the whole truth.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
08-10-2008, 06:41 PM
"Novak never told the whole truth"
Gayle in Md.

<span style="color: #FF0000">And you know this how??? Because what he says about Armitage blows the entire conspiracy, so he can't be telling the truth, right? OK, look, I know I'm not going to convince you and vice versa. The reasons I don't think there was a conspiracy are 1. There are so many better ways to discredit Wilson than by saying his wife sent him on a trip because she worked for the agency. 2. Armitage seems to have been treated like what he said just doesn't matter. If he knew Plame was in the agency then it seems a lot of people did. It was just not that big of a secret. 3. Wilson and Plame both have tried to milk this whole thing for as much money as they could get. 4. If there was a conspiracy and it started from the top then Libby is not the only person who Fitzgerald could have gone after. A lot of people would know and Armitage is just one person who he didn't go after who knew about Plame. OK, I'm done. I respect your opinion and give you the last word...</span>

mike60
08-11-2008, 12:06 AM
This is pointless nonsense. The opinions of a very few rightwingbats is nothing.

miguel

Gayle in MD
08-11-2008, 07:14 AM
Armitage didn't know she was covert. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby all knew her designation. There are many people who work for the CIA but not all of them are covert.

The law requires knowledge of, and intention to release classified information regarding the covert status of a spy or covert operative.

Bush, declassified her status. The president has that authority, and Bush extended that authority to Cheney. You can continue to split hairs till dooms day, and you can continue to be part of the nutty 28% in this country who care more about your party, than you do about our Constitution, and the laws of our land. Republicans, historically, have been ham handed about spending millions to cripple our government by rushing to impeach for political purposes over non governmental affected, non national security affected, private, personal issues, aka, Clinton, but you Republicans will look the other way over the illicit, illegal actions of your own Republicans Preaidents, while you dig for dirt throughout every Democratic presidency.

Nixon, (the bombing of Cambodia) Reagan, (Iran/Contra) , AND Bush, (lies about Saddam) were all investigated for lies and mistatements about their military interventions. The Constitution clearly states that doing so is treason. Democratics have traditionally avoided impeachment proceedings, favoring what is best for the country. They do so now because Bush has created such a mess to deal with, the Democratic desire is to not do anything that will take their atention away from working on the mess that George Bush has created.

Bush is a piece of ****, along with Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Libby, and all the other Republican crooks. Republican supporters are narrow minded, and ill-informed. Just read the posts right here. Bush has done more damage to this country than bin Laden, and all they seem to care about is their guns, and their tax cuts. The entire Plame debockle was about Bush and Cheney's lies about Saddam being exposed. Lies that have caused death and destruction to over four thousand AMericans, burried the country in debt, lost us allies, and strengthened our enemies (see NSE from 16 NS agencies) and people like you are still out there splitting hairs to defend obvious corruption by the most illegal, immoral, financially extravagant, dishonest, and most incompetent administration this country has ever seen.

Shame on you.

Gayle in Md.