Robert Novak going to be indicted??

[10Bears]

Here's a reality check - She could not have been 'blown' or 'outed' by anyone because She's an analyst and was not working under any type of cover

Incorrect. The CIA has asked DOJ to investigate. They wouldn’t do that if she was only an analyst.

I get the impression Bush is angry about this and wants some heads to roll, too.

He’s only angry because this is turning into a scandal. Had he been sincere he would've questioned his staff on July 15th, the day after the article was published. That was 76 days ago.

NO. First ammendment rights will protect him.

Incorrect. Not on national security matters. Supremes say so.

[Udie]

Originally posted by AKIron
I don't know that it has yet been established that a crime has been committed. Guess we should leave that up to the DOJ?

 no no no you don't understand.  Bush must be impeached NOW, then we can worry about the facts

[Rude]

Originally posted by 10Bears
Incorrect. The CIA has asked DOJ to investigate. They wouldn’t do that if she was only an analyst.


He’s only angry because this is turning into a scandal. Had he been sincere he would've questioned his staff on July 15th, the day after the article was published. That was 76 days ago.


Incorrect. Not on national security matters. Supremes say so.

So is it your take that Bush had full knowledge of this act and condoned it? If so, please tell me how you know this to be true...it could be, however I have seen no evidence to prove it yet...have you?

[Yeager]

wilson backtracked today on his assertion that rove was responsible for the supposed leak.  wilson even went as far as to say he was simply "carried away" when suggesting as much and apologized.  This story, in all its facets becomes weaker and weaker with each passing factoid.

[strk]

interesting interview

strk

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.



LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

[Udie]

Originally posted by strk
interesting interview

strk

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec03/leaks_09-30.html

LARRY JOHNSON: Let's be very clear about what happened. This is not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been undercover for three decades, she is not as Bob Novak suggested a CIA analyst. But given that, I was a CIA analyst for four years. I was undercover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the Central Intelligence Agency until I left the agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it.

So the fact that she's been undercover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous because she was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst fine, let them go undercover. Let's put them overseas and let's out them and then see how they like it. They won't be able to stand the heat.



LARRY JOHNSON: I say this as a registered Republican. I'm on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear of an individual with no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it. His entire intent was correctly as Ambassador Wilson noted: to intimidate, to suggest that there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy and frankly, what was a false policy of suggesting that there were nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend that it's something else and to get into this parsing of words, I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

 This is the same article posted by somebody else earlier in this thread.  I'll ask the same unanswered question.  How could she have worked for the CIA for 3 decades if she's only 40 years old?  did she start in her teens?

 I'm with yeager on this one,  the longer this 'story' goes on the weaker it gets.

[Erlkonig]

Udie and Yeager want to change "the story" from leakers in the White House committing a crime to oh that Wilson guy is a hysterial leftist commie babie eater Bush-hater.  Too bad the latter has no bearing on the former.  You lose.

[strk]

she's only 40 years old?

you got proof of this?

strk

[Udie]

Originally posted by strk
you got proof of this?

strk

 sure....


though this is from the press so......



snippet

As the world now knows, Wilson is married to Valerie Wilson, nee Plame. She is his third wife. She is 40, slim, blonde and the mother of their 3-year-old twins. In the photos in his office, she has the looks of a film star.

[/i]

[wulfie]

Originally posted by k2cok
Here's what I mean AKiron:



Even Bush has commited himself to finding out who "outed" Valerie Plame, then along comes wulfie defending dear leader by regurgitating Republican spin about her "just" being an analyst.

He can't even admit a crime has happened, that is close minded wouldn't you sa?

Who exactly has asserted that she was a person involved in covert activities - as opposed to being an employee of the CIA?

And I'm still waiting for a link, etc. pointing to where you read your grim news regarding '70 liquidations'. I haven't heard of any '70 liquidations' myself.

Mike/wulfie

[mietla]

Originally posted by Manedew
  He really didn't have sex with her .... a BJ isn't sex... logicaly he wasn't lieing.  

ask your wife doofus (if you have one) and tell us how it flew.

"Really honey all I had is a blowjob."

[strk]

sure....

why thank you!  Maybe Johnson was mistaken about her length of service, because I cannot find any other references to it other than his statements.  

even so, such a small discrepancy does not unravel the whole thing.  That is just wishful thinking by people who are uncomfortable when confronted with the fact that their political party might not be the bastion of honesty and decency they pretend to be.

strk

[Udie]

Originally posted by strk
why thank you!  Maybe Johnson was mistaken about her length of service, because I cannot find any other references to it other than his statements.  

even so, such a small discrepancy does not unravel the whole thing.  That is just wishful thinking by people who are uncomfortable when confronted with the fact that their political party might not be the bastion of honesty and decency they pretend to be.

strk

 Well since it's day 2 or 3 of this new controvercy I think I'll hold my judgement until more concrete facts come in from the cough "press" cough.  This small discrepancy does sort of make me question the rest of what Mr. Johnson has to say and couple that with Mr. Wilson changing his story and potentially slandering Carl Rove,  well it IS starting to look like yet another partison witch hunt.

 We shall see.....

[Udie]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
Udie and Yeager want to change "the story" from leakers in the White House committing a crime to oh that Wilson guy is a hysterial leftist commie babie eater Bush-hater.  Too bad the latter has no bearing on the former.  You lose.

 huh?  I'm just pointing out the otherside of the story that is in the media out there, you know the part you ignore.  You see,  I believe in the constitution.  I believe in inocent until proven guilty.  I believe somebody in this whole mess is telling some lies.  I see people like mr. wilson changing his story and then leaving little gems like this Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both." "Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both." and I think hmm this guy just might have an agenda to bring down the president.  I look at the fact that the left has gone for Bush's juggular each and every time they've felt it was politicly safe to do so and I can not honestly say to myself that the democrats are above setting this whole thing up.

 At the same time I'm willing to admit to myself that my feelings could be leaning towards believing the president because that's "my team".  I will say that if it is proven beyond  a resonable doubt that Bush knew about this supposed leak before it happened I will fully 100% support his impeachment.  If it turns out that he knew about it afterwards and did nothing, I will have a hard time pulling the lever for him again in '04.  Might have to switch to libertarian at that point, God I hope not.  I know very very very few democrats who did that with slick willy.   Then again I know few democrats who have much honor or integrity, though I do know a few and even some on this board banana.

 The left, and I mean the far crazy whaco left, are ready to convict Bush on anything possible in a moments notice.  Your party is the one that doesn't know what the definition of "is" is.  And you're going try to take some moral high ground   Ya see you have to remember that there is zero evidence that any leak came from the whitehouse.  You guys should be carefull. You're letting your hate give you target fixation and you're going to get bounced, yet a gain, from behind by of all people Bush  Rope-a-dope  It's not healthy either.  And believe me I'm talking from experience here.  Hatred for clinton ruled my life for 7 years, it's not really a good way to live.  

Please do me a favor.  I seriously want you to think about this and give me an honest answer,  I'll do the same for any question you want me to.  I want you to think and be honest with yourself and ask yourself if you really truely want to try and unseat a president when we are in the middle of a 2 front war.  Do you really think that's a wise thing to do right now?

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by Udie
huh?  I'm just pointing out the otherside of the story that is in the media out there, you know the part you ignore.  

What other side?  All you have been doing is posting articles about Wilson's partisanship and pro-Democrat sympathies.  You'd have to be willfully ignorant to claim that the scandal was born in and rests on anything he says happened.  Enough with the hand-waving already, let's deal with the serious issue here.

Now that we've disposed of that distraction, I think it's unlikely that Bush himself had any knowledge that the leak would occur.  However, we do know that he and his administration basically avoided the whole issue until it became absolutely politically necessary to take some sort of position.  In this case, they basically said that they were so strongly committed to national security and the integrity of intelligence services that they would do nothing - but hey, good ole Ashcroft's boys might be able to figure it out.  Hardly the actions of a leader who we never cease hearing is supposed to be the antithesis of Clinton: doing what's right instead of what's politically expedient.