Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: xrtoronto on July 13, 2006, 04:31:07 PM
-
A former CIA officer whose identity was leaked to the media is suing US Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Valerie Plame is suing Mr Cheney, his ex-aide Lewis Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove, saying they tried to destroy her career.
Ms Plame's name appeared in the media in 2003 after her husband criticised the Bush government over Iraq.
Her husband, ex-US ambassador Joseph Wilson, who is also suing, had said the US twisted intelligence to go to war.
Mr Libby has been charged with perjury and obstructing justice in connection with the leak. He has resigned pending trial but denies the charges.
It was revealed last month that Mr Rove would not be charged over the leak.
'Punishment'
Ms Plame's name appeared in an article written by columnist Robert Novak about a week after Mr Wilson made his criticisms of the government in the New York Times.
The CIA had sent Mr Wilson to Niger in 2002 to find out whether then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium from the African country.
Mr Wilson reported that there was no truth in the claim but it still appeared in President George W Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.
In the lawsuit, Ms Plame and Mr Wilson accuse the three named officials and 10 others of putting their lives and the lives of their children at risk.
"This lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of [Ms Plame], whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer and who risked her life for her country," it says.
The couple say the officials violated their constitutional and privacy rights in order to "punish" Mr Wilson for his comments.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified compensation and punitive damages as well as legal costs.
c&p (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5178478.stm)
-
:noid :noid :noid
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
one more time...SHE WAS NOT A SECRET AGENT.
-
Originally posted by john9001
one more time...SHE WAS NOT A SECRET AGENT.
Of course she is................ As long as the media says so.;)
-
zOMG!!!!!!11 :O :O :O :O :O :confused: :confused: :O :O
"O" face -------> :O
ROFLMAo1!!!!11
-
Is this even going to get to court?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Is this even going to get to court?
Sure it will. But Osama's personal driver won't get to a military tribunal.
Go figure.
-
Isn't the CIA going to be reluctant to talk about anything to do with top secret info in a civil case like this?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Isn't the CIA going to be reluctant to talk about anything to do with top secret info in a civil case like this?
What top secret info? When she was "outed" she was driving a Jag convertible to Langley (CIA HQ) with the freaking top down! She hadn't been involved in anything remotely covert since it was discovered one of the recently bagged spies might have exposed her to the KGB and other spy agencies during the Clinton administration. Around 1995 I seem to remember.
-
Is this even going to get to court? - GtoRA2
I think it could, but it will depend on what the courts do - not on whether Wilson/Plame settle. They're not in it for the money, and any monetary settlement would have to come with the unchallenged claim of "no wrongdoing" which would clearly be unacceptable to Wilson/Plame.
So it becomes a matter of whether the courts will hear a civil case against a sitting President.
Nixon v.Fitzgerald is an example of such a case. The district courts rejected Nixon's claim of immunity, only to have that decision reversed by the Supreme Court (I don't know how the voting broke down), who said that a President couldn't be held liable for actions done while holding office. Or something like that.
The case against Clinton could proceed because the alleged cause of action occurred before he held office.
Now.... I don't know what that means for Libby and Rove.... or even Bush for that matter (it's brand new).
Two notable things:
The statute of limitation runs out tomorrow or the day after, so Wilson/Plame would be foolish not to do this now if they're even considering it.
Libby will likely get a pardon from Bush in his criminal case, but Bush is unable to pardon for civil cases.
Oh.... and if anyone still wants to claim that Plame was not a covert agent, please provide me with a source. Go ahead and provide it to the CIA while you're at it, because even they seem to be unaware of it.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think it could, but it will depend on what the courts do - not on whether Wilson/Plame settle. They're not in it for the money, and any monetary settlement would have to come with the unchallenged claim of "no wrongdoing" which would clearly be unacceptable to Wilson/Plame.
So it becomes a matter of whether the courts will hear a civil case against a sitting President.
Nixon v.Fitzgerald is an example of such a case. The district courts rejected Nixon's claim of immunity, only to have that decision reversed by the Supreme Court (I don't know how the voting broke down), who said that a President couldn't be held liable for actions done while holding office. Or something like that.
The case against Clinton could proceed because the alleged cause of action occurred before he held office.
Now.... I don't know what that means for Libby and Rove.... or even Bush for that matter (it's brand new).
Two notable things:
The statute of limitation runs out tomorrow or the day after, so Wilson/Plame would be fooling not to do this now if they're even considering it.
Libby will likely get a pardon from Bush in his criminal case, but he is unable to pardon for civil cases.
Oh.... and if anyone still wants to claim that Plame was not a covert agent, please provide me with a source. Go ahead and provide it to the CIA while you're at it, because even they seem to be unaware of it.
Intersting, thanks.
Bush was not mentioned right? So does it have impact other then bad publicity? Since it not a criminal trial, even if they lose Rove won't have to go, but prolly would.
Be interesting to see if it does get to court, it will be a media zoo if it does.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
What top secret info? When she was "outed" she was driving a Jag convertible to Langley (CIA HQ) with the freaking top down! She hadn't been involved in anything remotely covert since it was discovered one of the recently bagged spies might have exposed her to the KGB and other spy agencies during the Clinton administration. Around 1995 I seem to remember.
I don't know, I don't know much about her, but who knows what will come up if it gets to court.
It just seems odd to have a civil case like this with CIA people.
-
Whoops!
Yeah - Bush was not mentioned. Thanks..... My eyes saw Cheney and my mind musta saw Bush.
Well then.... this is interesting......
-
Originally posted by Nash
Whoops!
Yeah - Bush was not mentioned. Thanks..... My eyes saw Cheney and my mind musta saw Bush.
Well then.... this is interesting......
Indeed. It will be all we hear about for months if it does not get thrown out.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
It just seems odd to have a civil case like this with CIA people.
Usually I'd agree.
But this does't involve national security, state secrets, or anything like that. There's pretty much nothing that the CIA will be asked other than "Was she a covert operative."
That's already been done, and it's why the case against Libby is proceeding.
After that, it becomes a "who told who what, with what intent" within the executive branch alone.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh.... and if anyone still wants to claim that Plame was not a covert agent, please provide me with a source. Go ahead and provide it to the CIA while you're at it, because even they seem to be unaware of it.
Yep, the right will do and say anything to try and minimise the negative effect this outing had on our covert efforts to track the movement of nuclear and bio weapons. The fact that a whole network of operatives and informants efforts were neutralised < Bwrester Jennings > doesn't seem to bother the party who says that they can protect America better than the other.
The interesting thing about that lawsuit is not who it names but rather just who are the ten John Does, I guess they don't want to tip thier hand.
-
Simple question, with a simple one word answer, either positive or negative.
At the time Novak published his column, was Plame a covert agent?
Yes or no?
Answer: NO!
She was obviously a CIA employee who drove every working day on a public route to CIA HQ in Langley. Despite what you saw in all the twenty or so James Bond movies, covert agents DO NOT drive to "spy central" in a convertible in broad daylight. PERIOD.
-
Not this again.
I'll refer you to this. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_426.html)
Served overseas? Yup.
Served within the last 5 years? None of us know.
I'll bet I know who does, though......
That's right - the CIA itself!
And, wow, it turns out that it was the CIA itself who turned the outing of Plame's identity over to the Justice Department for investigation!
And yer going to tell me that the CIA felt strong enough to turn the outting of one of their agents over to Justice, have a prosecutor go after the VP's Chief of Staff, charge him, resulting in his resignation and a criminal trial....
.... and the CIA itself doesn't know if there was even a basis for a crime?
Mmmkay.
And I don't know how the driving of a convertable comes into this. Maybe there's some memo that both us and Plame are unaware about, whereby agents cannot drive convertables or something?
-
for nash, flatbar, et all.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/05198/538809.stm
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Simple question, with a simple one word answer, either positive or negative.
At the time Novak published his column, was Plame a covert agent?
Yes or no?
Answer: NO!
She was obviously a CIA employee who drove every working day on a public route to CIA HQ in Langley. Despite what you saw in all the twenty or so James Bond movies, covert agents DO NOT drive to "spy central" in a convertible in broad daylight. PERIOD.
I didn't think covert agents had parking places at the CIA with their name on them, Plame did.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Whoops!
Yeah - Bush was not mentioned. Thanks..... My eyes saw Cheney and my mind musta saw Bush.
Thats normal.
-
Who cares what you or I think regarding convertables or parking spaces?
The CIA says she was covert, the courts agree, and a trial goes on.
I just don't know what more anyone could add to that.
Cars? Spaces?
That might say something to you.... but not to anyone concerned.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I didn't think covert agents had parking places at the CIA with their name on them, Plame did.
Really? I don't recollect names on any of them. There are not even names on the ID badges much less the parking spaces.
Try again.
-
Originally posted by john9001
for nash, flatbar, et all.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/pp/05198/538809.stm
They'll just ignore the fact that she was "assigned to a desk since 1997" and was likely "among those outed by Aldrich Ames". Rove, Cheney, and Libby are evil! They're Bush minions!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Who cares what you or I think regarding convertables or parking spaces?
The CIA says she was covert, the courts agree, and a trial goes on.
I just don't know what more anyone could add to that.
Cars? Spaces?
That might say something to you.... but not to anyone concerned.
Uh, the CIA says she was covert? Says who? She was riding a desk at HQ in plain public view. There was supposedly a leak. I have yet to see where the CIA specifically states that "at the time Novak published his column, Valerie Plame was a covert agent". Regardless of what the CIA says, or someone there says, if she was assigned to a desk at Langley CIA HQ, she was NOT covert, and couldn't be. And if any person wandering around the gates at Langley could have taken her picture as she drove in with the top down, she was hardly covert.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Rove, Cheney, and Libby are evil! They're Bush minions!
Bwahahh.... Okay buddy.
If reality in the form of the CIA's complaint, the prosecution's assertion and the courts acceptance is too much for you....
.... may I recommend a long walk and some fresh air?
Christ.... Even the defence isn't questioning Plame's status. Why the hell are you?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Bwahahh.... Okay buddy.
If reality in the form of the CIA's complaint, the prosecution's assertion and the courts acceptance is too much for you....
.... may I recommend a long walk and some fresh air?
Christ.... Even the defence isn't questioning Plame's status. Why the hell are you?
Could it be because the FACT is that Valerie Plame was a DESK JOCKEY from AT LEAST 1997 on? Yes! I think it is. The truth is she was NOT COVERT. You cannot be covert and be assigned to a desk at CIA HQ, and show up every day in public in broad freaking daylight. How stupid do you have to be to understand that simple fact? If the case is founded on a LIE then there is no case. CIA records plainly state Valerie Plame was a desk jockey from 1997 on because she MAY have been outed by Aldrich Ames as early as 1995.
Do you REALLY think that REAL covert CIA agents wander in and out of CIA HQ Langley in broad daylight on a daily basis? Through the front freaking gate? In full public view? In front of God and everyone? Seriously? Honestly?
Oh, and by the way, Libby is NOT charged with "outing" Valerie Plame. He is charged with "obstruction of justice" because he supposedly lied to the special prosecutor. IF Valerie Plame had actually been covert, then they'd charge Libby with outing her, it's a lot more serious than obstruction of justice. So this is no different than the Martha Stewart case, which was a witch hunt, plane and simple.
With regards to the civil case, Plame and Wilson can CLAIM anything. They don't have to PROVE it to file the case. In a civil action, you don't really even have to prove guilt OR culpability to any reasonable standard. It isn't even CLOSE to "beyond a reasonable doubt".
-
I'd say nice dodge, but...
It really wasn't all that.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Uh, the CIA says she was covert? Says who? She was riding a desk at HQ in plain public view. There was supposedly a leak. I have yet to see where the CIA specifically states that "at the time Novak published his column, Valerie Plame was a covert agent". Regardless of what the CIA says, or someone there says, if she was assigned to a desk at Langley CIA HQ, she was NOT covert, and couldn't be. And if any person wandering around the gates at Langley could have taken her picture as she drove in with the top down, she was hardly covert.
Actually, she could be (have been) covert. I'm not taking sides as there is not enough definitve information yet as regards to the "leak"--but an agent can be classified as a NOC while on assignment overseas and still drive to Langley everyday as just a normal worker bee.
It's all going to come down to the when of it.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Could it be because the FACT is that Valerie Plame was a DESK JOCKEY from AT LEAST 1997 on? Yes! I think it is. The truth is she was NOT COVERT. You cannot be covert and be assigned to a desk at CIA HQ, and show up every day in public in broad freaking daylight. How stupid do you have to be to understand that simple fact? If the case is founded on a LIE then there is no case. CIA records plainly state Valerie Plame was a desk jockey from 1997 on because she MAY have been outed by Aldrich Ames as early as 1995.
Do you REALLY think that REAL covert CIA agents wander in and out of CIA HQ Langley in broad daylight on a daily basis? Through the front freaking gate? In full public view? In front of God and everyone? Seriously? Honestly?
Oh, and by the way, Libby is NOT charged with "outing" Valerie Plame. He is charged with "obstruction of justice" because he supposedly lied to the special prosecutor. IF Valerie Plame had actually been covert, then they'd charge Libby with outing her, it's a lot more serious than obstruction of justice. So this is no different than the Martha Stewart case, which was a witch hunt, plane and simple.
With regards to the civil case, Plame and Wilson can CLAIM anything. They don't have to PROVE it to file the case. In a civil action, you don't really even have to prove guilt OR culpability to any reasonable standard. It isn't even CLOSE to "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I think there can be a serious psychological study of this board - both fascinating and informative - of the hows and whys of some people's absolute detachment from and refusal to face reality... no matter how it's presented to them.
Again, Capt.
The CIA says she was covert. It was they who filed the complaint. It wasn't disputed by the courts. The defence itself isn't disputing it. Nobody is.
Except you.
What's going on in your head?
-
Once more, in plain English. So you can understand it.
NO ONE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH "OUTING" VALERIE PLAME.
Scooter Libby has been charged with lying to the special prosecutor. The "court accepted" that charge.
The CIA may have complained, but they would still have to prove Plame was covert.
The fact remains that by their own admission, the CIA recalled Plame from over seas covert duty around 1997 because they believed she had been compromised. Since Plame was already compromised in 1995, she couldn't be compromised again in 2003.
-
Originally posted by Nash
IThe CIA says she was covert. It was they who filed the complaint.
link please.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think there can be a serious psychological study of this board - both fascinating and informative - of the hows and whys of some people's absolute detachment from and refusal to face reality... no matter how it's presented to them.
Again, Capt.
The CIA says she was covert. It was they who filed the complaint. It wasn't disputed by the courts. The defence itself isn't disputing it. Nobody is.
Except you.
What's going on in your head?
The only thing going on in my head is a clear vision of the truth.
The defense isn't concerned with Plame's status, because the case does not concern her status. It is concerned with whether or not libby lied to the prosecutor.
And no, Nash, it isn't me alone. Look up in the thread. You can ignore all of the rest of them if you wish, but that does not mean they do not exist any more than calling Plame covert makes her covert.
Go ahead and make any sort of remark you wish about my mental state. I'll forego stooping to your level at this point. Remember that.
-
Originally posted by john9001
link please.
I'll link you and Capt. Virgil up when you two tell me what you guys think legally constitutes a covert agent.
Kinda tired of the convertible/parking spaces rebuttle.
No.....
Link to me what actually constitutes a covert agent, and then I'll hook you guys up.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'll link you and Capt. Virgil up when you two tell me what you guys think legally constitutes a covert agent.
Kinda tired of the convertible/parking spaces rebuttle.
No.....
Link to me what actually constitutes a covert agent, and then I'll hook you guys up.
YOU are making the assertion that she was. Prove it if you can. I believe john9001 has already posted a link that states CLEARLY that Plame was recalled in 1997, because the CIA believed she was compromised by Aldrich Ames, and assigned to a desk. Look it up, Ames compromised dozens of agents, maybe more, some of whom were killed, and Plame was likely compromised or they would not have brought her home.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think it could, but it will depend on what the courts do - not on whether Wilson/Plame settle. They're not in it for the money, and any monetary settlement would have to come with the unchallenged claim of "no wrongdoing" which would clearly be unacceptable to Wilson/Plame.
Nash finally got something right, but failed to finish the reason for the suit....I'll give you a hint, Nash. Its an election year for congress....
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
YOU are making the assertion that she was. Prove it if you can. I believe john9001 has already posted a link that states CLEARLY that Plame was recalled in 1997, because the CIA believed she was compromised by Aldrich Ames, and assigned to a desk. Look it up, Ames compromised dozens of agents, maybe more, some of whom were killed, and Plame was likely compromised or they would not have brought her home.
I gave you the exact definition of a covert agent.
I explained to you that neither the CIA itself who made this assertion, the prosecution, the courts, nor the defence now dispute this.
But you do.
I can't help ya, at this point.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think it could, but it will depend on what the courts do - not on whether Wilson/Plame settle. They're not in it for the money, and any monetary settlement would have to come with the unchallenged claim of "no wrongdoing" which would clearly be unacceptable to Wilson/Plame.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
You think this isn't about MONEY? Or POLITICS?
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
No I don't.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I gave you the exact definition of a covert agent.
I explained to you that neither the CIA itself who made this assertion, the prosecution, the courts, nor the defence now dispute this.
But you do.
I can't help ya, at this point.
Gee whiz, you posted a definition from Find Law. That does not make Plame a covert agent. Again, and this matters, because the civil suit accuses the defendants of compromising Plame's covert status, Plame's covert status was evidently compromised as early as 1995, and the CIA ITSELF ACKNOWLEDGED THIS by recalling her and assigning her a desk job in 1997, so she was ALREADY COMPROMISED. It's sort of like not being able to deflower a former virgin who was already deflowered. You can only compromise an agent once.
And once again, Libby's defence is NOT CONCERNED with whether Plame could claim covert status, as Libby is NOT CHARGED with compromising her covert status, but rather is charged with OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Whether Libby's defence acknowledges her status is no more relevant to this than whether they acknowledge Jesus Christ could walk on water.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I believe john9001 has already posted a link that states CLEARLY that Plame was recalled in 1997, because the CIA believed she was compromised by Aldrich Ames, and assigned to a desk. Look it up, Ames compromised dozens of agents, maybe more, some of whom were killed, and Plame was likely compromised or they would not have brought her home.
Yes, this is true; however just because an agent's cover is "blown" does not change the agent's undercover status.
-
Originally posted by Nash
No I don't.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Figures.
-
Originally posted by Horn
Yes, this is true; however just because an agent's cover is "blown" does not change the agent's undercover status.
I suppose one could assign whatever status one desired on someone. However, once the KGB, the Eastern Bloc, and the Chinese know the identity of an agent, that agent is hardly covert anymore.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Figures.
There's gonna come a day - trust me Virgil - when these one word ("see? I told ya so!") responses are going to backfire on you....
..... when they aren't going to cut it anymore..... and folks are going to scratch their heads and wonder just what the **** you're talking about.
-
Hell, there may come a day when I care. But I doubt it.
This is all academic. Verbal jousting. After it is all over nothing will have changed.
I don't place much importance on what most people think, certainly few here or on any board of this nature.
This is, after all, the O'Club. Which, however you look at it, ain't much.
So don't think yourself so important as to have what you think matter to me . I say whatever I think, and whether you agree or disagree just doesn't matter. I'll engage in said verbal joust until I decide I'm through. Whether you or anyone else is convinced, impressed, or otherwise moved makes no difference.
-
Figures.
-
:cool:
There ya go.
But at least TRY to be original. If you didn't like my response, you shouldn't have used it yourself. Since you apparently felt it to be beneath you.
-
lol..... knew it.
Cry me a river.
When you're over that, and these ridiculous "figures" comments, hows about you getting back on topic?
Show me the definition of "covert agent."
And then try to explain why Plame was not one, even though the CIA, prosecution, courts, and defence say differently.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I'll link you and Capt. Virgil up when you two tell me what you guys think legally constitutes a covert agent.
Kinda tired of the convertible/parking spaces rebuttle.
No.....
Link to me what actually constitutes a covert agent, and then I'll hook you guys up.
As her weirdly self-obsessed husband Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a "clandestine officer" and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only "leak" her name in the way one can "leak" the name of the check-out clerk at Home Depot or the busboy at Denny's.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050717-094452-4542r.htm
(Steyn column..love the guy)
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
This thread is teh funnay.
Bronk
-
Nice job, bj.
Posting a commentary....
Hell, we here do that all the time. The only difference is that we don't get paid.
And that's the only difference.
So what is that supposed to actually mean?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
YOU are making the assertion that she was. Prove it if you can. I believe john9001 has already posted a link that states CLEARLY that Plame was recalled in 1997, because the CIA believed she was compromised by Aldrich Ames, and assigned to a desk. Look it up, Ames compromised dozens of agents, maybe more, some of whom were killed, and Plame was likely compromised or they would not have brought her home.
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html)
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.
This is testimony by a CIA employee before a grand jury, confirming the fact that Plame's status was undercover.
-
Originally posted by Nash
lol..... knew it.
Cry me a river.
When you're over that, and these ridiculous "figures" comments, hows about you getting back on topic?
Show me the definition of "covert agent."
And then try to explain why Plame was not one, even though the CIA, prosecution, courts, and defence say differently.
What's it like to be a squeak toy? (copyright DD)
You've given your own legal definition of "covert agent".
And I've shown you that according to the CIA she was compromised in 1995 and recalled in 1997, and as such her status as covert was not actually valid, since the majority of the spy world knew who she was and what she did thanks to the Russian cultivated traitor Aldrich Ames. Sure, they could call her covert. But if everyone knows who you are, then your iedentity ain't no secret, is it?
I do not give a damn how many times you ask the same stupid question, or how you phrase it, the answer remains the same.
And you're STILL a squeak toy.
-
Originally posted by oboe
link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/26/AR2005072602069_pf.html)
This is testimony by a CIA employee before a grand jury, confirming the fact that Plame's status was undercover.
You, or anyone else, can claim whatever status suits you.
This is real simple. The CIA can declare they employ, directly or indirectly, anyone to be covert.
However, for the CIA to recall her, and do so because they know her to be compromised (because another federal agency found out half the freaking CIA had been compromised) and then keep her at a desk for 6-7 years because they knew she was compromised, and still declare her a covert agent, is absurd.
If you want to fall for that silly B.S. notion, then be prepared for it to be used by any agency, for any purpose, against anyone.
Further, it has been shown several times, in numerous publications, that Valerie Plame DID in fact use her desk jockey position at the CIA to get her husband the assignment in question. So therefore, the CIA spokesperson is in fact lying, and perjuring himself saying she didn't. Perjured testimony is pretty much invalid.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
:rofl :rofl :rofl
This thread is teh funnay.
Bronk
Ain't it though?:t
-
No Virgil, I haven't given my own definition covert agent.
I've linked you to the, you know, actual definition of covert agent via the United States Code, Title 50, Section 426.
Why are you in such complete denial?
The law is sitting right there in front of you. Are you afraid to look at it?
I guess so long as it does not mention convertible Jaguars or name plates on parking spaces it may come as some sort of shock to you.
But there's nothing you can do about it.
And there's nothing that the CIA, prosecutor, courts and defendants are doing about it.
Only you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
No Virgil, I haven't given my own definition covert agent.
I've linked you to the, you know, actual definition of covert agent via the United States Code, Title 50, Section 426.
Why are you in such complete denial?
The law is sitting right there in front of you. Are you afraid to look at it?
I guess so long as it does not mention convertible Jaguars or name plates on parking spaces it may come as some sort of shock to you.
But there's nothing you can do about it.
And there's nothing that the CIA, prosecutor, courts and defendants are doing about it.
Only you.
I read your link, 5 minutes after you posted it.
A zebra fits the description of a horse. If I declare a zebra to be a horse does that make a zebra become a horse? No.
She's a former covert agent, compromised over ten years ago. Or, if you go by the fact this started in 2003, then she was compromised 8 years before Novak published his column. She was still a former covert agent assigned to administrative duties at HQ. See the definition of former, the operative word here. Covert is only covert if everyone you're trying to conceal your identity from doesn't know your identity. If she was actually a covert asset in 2003, she wouldn't have been at HQ performing administrative duties and getting her husband a vaction in a foreign country disguised as an "assignment".
-
Exactly WHAT are you trying to tell me that the courts haven't already heard and ruled on as being bs?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Exactly WHAT are you trying to tell me that the courts haven't already heard and ruled on as being bs?
Exactly how many times are you going to ask me the same stupid question and expect a different answer?
There is NO CRIMINAL TRIAL with anyone charged with revealing Plame's "covert" identity. The CRIMINAL trial is about obstruction of justice.
The REASON no one has been charged with revealing her "covert" identity is that the grand jury wouldn't indict, and the prosecutor knew he couldn't make it stick. Why? Because nearly everyone on the planet knows Plame was a desk jocckey at spy central in 2003, and not a covert super spook.
The CIVIL trial has not begun. The suit has been filed. Anyone can file a suit about anything. So what? Hell, the state of California couldn't convict OJ, but the family sued him. Do you have ANY idea how low the threshold for a civil action is? Still the suit has been filed. I have seen nothing about a hearing on whether the case will even hold up to a civil proceeding. It only got filed because they had to beat the statute of limitations. So they filed, if they had this killer air tight case, they'd have gone to trial a year ago. Or at least filed by then. They filed so that just in case they DO eventaully came up with a case, provided it doesn't get thrown out before then, they can go to trial. It's an election year, and they want political hay, and if they can't get that, they want money, and if they can't get that, they want noteriety.
You keep screaming "the courts accepted it, the courts accepted it". Well, look. The prosecutor has not charged anyone with anything but lying to him and the grand jury. The grand jury has not indicted any one for any thing but lying to them. NO ONE has been charged with or indicted for revealing the identity of the former covert agent V Plame. Mostly because she was compromised 8 years before and even the CIA admitted that. That fact and the fact that no one in charged or indicted means the charges won't stick.
See, you asked the same question, and I gave the same answer. And still, despite your constant pronouncement that she was a covert agent and she had her cover blown in 2003, everyone else, including the special prosecutor AND the special grand jury , knows she was so far from actually being a covert agent that the charges would never stick.
And guess what? Those facts won't change. Not if you ask again, not if you ask a thousand more times. And not if you phrase it ten different ways. And you can link to Find Law a dozen more times as well.
One more thing. If revealing their identity put them in so much danger, why did they appear in Vanity Fair? Why do their endangered kids tell people their mommy is a spy? They seem terribly concerned about it don't they? That's why half of D.C.'s social circle knew them as Joe Wilson and his wie Valerie Plame, who used to be a "spy" in the nineties.
-
BLAHHHHH.....
There..... I feel better.
Answer me this....
Why would the CIA refer the outting of one of its covert agents over to the Justice Department for investigation if she was not covert?
Because you said she wasn't covert?
A fact simply overlooked by the CIA?
Or because covert agents don't drive convertibles?
Really, Capt..... Why are you so right when the CIA itself, and the entire legal system is so wrong?
-
does mrs palme have any daughters? rofl
-
Originally posted by Nash
BLAHHHHH.....
There..... I feel better.
Answer me this....
Why would the CIA refer the outting of one of its covert agents over to the Justice Department for investigation if she was not covert?
Because you said she wasn't covert?
A fact simply overlooked by the CIA?
Or because covert agents don't drive convertibles?
Really, Capt..... Why are you so right when the CIA itself, and the entire legal system is so wrong?
See any one of my posts above. You ask the same stupid question again. You have the answer. You cannot even show anyone who was charged or indicted for revealing her former"covert" identity. Because no one was.
-
You're now asking me if anyone was charged with revealing her covert identitity?
Really?
Is that what you're falling back on now?
You said:
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Could it be because the FACT is that Valerie Plame was a DESK JOCKEY from AT LEAST 1997 on? Yes! I think it is. The truth is she was NOT COVERT.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts What top secret info? When she was "outed" she was driving a Jag convertible to Langley (CIA HQ) with the freaking top down! She hadn't been involved in anything remotely covert
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Simple question, with a simple one word answer, either positive or negative.
At the time Novak published his column, was Plame a covert agent?
Yes or no?
Answer: NO!
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
They'll just ignore the fact that she was "assigned to a desk since 1997" and was likely "among those outed by Aldrich Ames". Rove, Cheney, and Libby are evil! They're Bush minions!
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Uh, the CIA says she was covert? Says who?
Says who?....
Says the CIA.
But ah.... I guess you know better, mmm?
-
Just out of curiousity, how long have you worked for the CIA, Virgil? You seem to have the lowdown on who is and who isn't covert and all the rules that apply to them. Or is it simply the fact that senior Bush Admin figures have decided they are above the law and you can't deal with it?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Evidently the special prosecutor and the special grand jury figure she wasn't covert, either that, or they figured no one revealed her identity. I didn't decide that, they did. Why ask me about it? I didn't have a damned thing to do with it. I'm just reading the facts about what they decided. Evidently they felt there was nothing sufficient to merit a charge or indictment. They did feel the need to bring one charge of obstruction of justice to justify they're existence.
I never said I worked for the CIA. I doubt if I know anyone who did or does, I might.
Evidently, even the CIA can't make up their mind if she was covert in 2003. The CIA reports state she was recalled because she was compromised. Other CIA reports say she was at a desk performing administrative tasks, evidently not on any covert assignment. Half of D.C. knew she was a CIA employee.
The fact remains she was recalled at least 8 years before the column was published, and the CIA says she was recalled because she was compromised. And the truth is, some one in the CIA with an ax to grind with any number of people in the current administration could have set the complaint ball rolling.
The whole thing stinks of manufactured scandal. For all the reasons above, and in any number of previous posts.
Once again, same stupid question, and the same answer.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Nice job, bj.
Posting a commentary....
Hell, we here do that all the time. The only difference is that we don't get paid.
And that's the only difference.
So what is that supposed to actually mean?
He's referring to established facts, but it was the best I could do while I was grabbing to A139 in my jug:cool:
-
Originally posted by Nash
Or because covert agents don't drive convertibles?
Sure they do...
Maxwell Smart...
(http://vea.qc.ca/vea/v/sunbtig66.jpg)
James Bond...
(http://users.belgacom.net/bmw_z3/images/007_Goldeneye_sm.jpg)
Patrick McGoohan's #6...
(http://my.voyager.net/~quadrant19/McGoohan-prisoner-tn.jpg)
-
I hope atleast Aldrich Ames was charged with outing her! :D
-
What do you call a CIA agent abroad who isn't covert ?
Don't know?
Me either because I've never heard of one.
If Cheney is found guilty of such a dispciable act as he is accused. I say let him hang.
Hang him high, we're americans.
What have we become if we won't?
A cia agent is someone who has willingly forfiet his/her life for the expansion of our ideals. Is not our executive branch subordinate to even citizens of this mettle?
-
Originally posted by Suave
If Cheney is found guilty of such a dispciable act as he is accused.
One is not found guilty in a civil action.
-
Originally posted by Suave
What do you call a CIA agent abroad who isn't covert ?
If Cheney is found guilty of such a dispciable act as he is accused. I say let him hang.
He hasn't been indited on any criminal charges. The special prosecuter has already said he wont be charged with any crimes. There is a pretty slim chance he will be found guilty of a crime that never happened.
But hey, Plame/Wilson are free to hold a briefing with the democrat congresional leaders the same day they file a "civil" lawsuit against him.
I give that suit an 8 on the BS scale, you milage may vary.
-
Originally posted by Suave
What do you call a CIA agent abroad who isn't covert ?
Don't know?
Me either because I've never heard of one.
If Cheney is found guilty of such a dispciable act as he is accused. I say let him hang.
Hang him high, we're americans.
What have we become if we won't?
A cia agent is someone who has willingly forfiet his/her life for the expansion of our ideals. Is not our executive branch subordinate to even citizens of this mettle?
Suave, read this, and read it thoroughly and carefully.
At the time Robert Novak published his column that revealed the fact that Valerie Plame was involved in getting her husband Joe Wilson assigned to the trip to Nigeria, Valerie Plame was woking at CIA HQ in Langley VA at a desk. She had not been on an assignment of any type outside the United States since being recalled by the CIA in 1997, because her identity had been compromised by Aldrich Ames, and most of the spy world knew exactly who she was. So, in 2003, when this all started, she was neither abroad nor covert. She was a regular CIA employee working at a desk doing administrative duties at CIA HQ in Langley VA in the United States.
-
Feel free to read it Suave but it is mostly wrong.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Suave, read this, and read it thoroughly and carefully.
At the time Robert Novak published his column that revealed the fact that Valerie Plame was involved in getting her husband Joe Wilson assigned to the trip to Nigeria, Valerie Plame was woking at CIA HQ in Langley VA at a desk.
This part is true.
She had not been on an assignment of any type outside the United States since being recalled by the CIA in 1997, because her identity had been compromised by Aldrich Ames, and most of the spy world knew exactly who she was. So, in 2003, when this all started, she was neither abroad nor covert.
This part is not--on a couple of levels. Her "outing" to the KGB (not "most of the spy world") by Ames caused her recall (and many other agents) for their safety. Her position was still classified. That means her position was a secret. There is witness that she even travelled abroad, on classified assignment as late as 2003. Just because she is outed does not mean CIA automatically reclassifies her as a secretary in the typing pool as is implied here.
She was a regular CIA employee working at a desk doing administrative duties at CIA HQ in Langley VA in the United States.
A "regular" CIA employee? What is that?
One can be a NOC and merely serve overseas, not necessarily live there. It is therefore entirely possible that her position at the CIA was illegally revealed by a high government official in retribution for the criticism levelled at the administration by her husband.
Will heads roll? Don't know. Should they? Probably.
-
I'm real sure that once her identity was revealed to the KGB and the Eastern Bloc, those two groups very carefully guarded that secret, and never passed it along to any of their friends and allies, who never passed it along to any of theirs either. Of course they did. And I'm just as sure that the CIA believed that too. After all, if you can't trust an enemy spy, who can you trust?
-
You know, I guess maybe James Bond really is real. It must be. That's the only explanation for the assertion that even if the general "spy" population knows your "secret identity", you're still a secret agent. Seems to me once everyone knows a secret, it ain't much of a secret anymore. But I guess maybe it's still a secret in fantasy land.
-
one of y'all gonna pop an artery.
hap
-
Let me get this straight: the President announced we were at war. We then have Wilson disputing one of the administration's claims as to Iraqi quests for nuclear weapons. The administration neither denies nor confirms Wilson's allegations, but, instead, attempts to score political points by discrediting Wilson by revealing that his wife was a CIA employee. Moreover, the wife's duties involved attempts to track nuclear proliferation and that she was the person who set up the trip to Nigeria. How is this defensible? She "really" wasn't a covert operative? Let's destroy HER career even though it was her husband who spoke up - and whose statement has not been refuted. I'm sure those of you defending the administration on this one would defend Hillary if she publicizes the identity of a CIA agent in a time of war to "get back" at that agent's spouse to score political points.
-
Originally posted by dhaus
......She "really" wasn't a covert operative? Let's destroy HER career even though it was her husband who spoke up - and whose statement has not been refuted. .....
The virtual vigilantes circling Karl Rove have everything lined up for the brand of justice they see fit for “the Architect”: public humiliation, all-out character assassination, firing, near-fatal damage to the White House, and if they get the cherry on top, “frog-marching” the President’s closest advisor from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a federal prison.
There’s just one hitch: their entire political case rests on the quicksand known as Joe Wilson.
As part of the cynical campaign to destroy the man who guided Bush to four straight electoral victories, the Left has hailed Wilson as a hero. At first blush, the idiocy of exalting the man with a well-documented credibility problem would seem to rival the decision to roll the cameras as Dukakis gave the thumbs-up while riding in a tank.
But the Left’s entire rationale for the “Fire Rove” tidal wave is that revealing Valerie Plame’s status as a CIA employee was nothing more than a “shameful,” “despicable,” and “disturbing” act of “retaliation,” “retribution,” or “revenge.” If they admitted that Wilson layered lies upon lies, then logic dictates that Rove did no more than encourage a reporter not to be hoodwinked.
Which helps explain why New Republic editor Peter Beinart, who is neither a peacenik nor blinded by Bush hatred, appeared incredulous when I pointed out in our CNN debate on Wednesday that Joe Wilson was not exactly credible. “Joe Wilson is not the one with a credibility problem here,” he snapped.
Though—as left-wing blogger Josh Marshall has noted ad nauseum—Wilson didn’t directly say that he was sent by the Vice-President’s office, the implication couldn’t have been clearer. “The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer,” Wilson wrote in his now-infamous New York Times op-ed.
Thus, the defense of Wilson’s credibility boils down to skilled parsing: he didn’t say that Cheney’s office sent him, he only implied it. Sounds an awful lot like the semantic acrobatics of which Wilson’s defenders accuse Rove’s supporters being guilty.
Even if you give Wilson the benefit of the doubt on that count, though, the career diplomat still has not been on speaking terms with the truth.
Just over one year ago, the man married to the retired CIA operative formerly known as Valerie Plame was exposed as an opportunist who lied at almost every turn in an audacious bid to grab his 15 minutes—and a seven-figure book deal.
He was outed not by Rove, the White House, or some right-wing outfit, but by the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee.
According to the report, Plame “offered up” the services of her husband. She believed that intelligence surrounding Niger and yellowcake was bogus—she called it a “crazy report”—making it highly likely that her husband went there looking to confirm that conclusion. He did.
Or did he? The bipartisan conclusion of the committee was that Wilson's findings, if anything, served to support the belief that Saddam was actively seeking uranium for a nuclear program.
But Wilson revealed himself as the headline potato he is by grabbing the spotlight when the story first emerged about Niger and forged documents purporting to show illicit sales to Saddam. From the July 10, 2004 Washington Post:
He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”
“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents—purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq—were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Obviously, Wilson’s apologists don’t much like the bipartisan report.
Retired CIA officer Larry Johnson, who entered the agency in the same class as Plame, attacked the bipartisan report as “biased.” Marshall, despite being one the Left’s best bloggers, went one step further in writing that it was filled with “disinformtation.”
Wilson, for his part, pandered to the stupid and/or willingly blind—his base—by denying that his wife’s letter had anything to do with his trip to Niger. “I don’t see it as a recommendation to send me,” he said about his wife’s memo. Never mind that the day after she sent it came the cable to an officer overseas that set the whole thing in motion.
While Wilson’s penchant for prevarication does not put Rove in the clear legally if, as it does not yet appear, he actually knew that Plame was undercover before he talked to Bob Novak and Time’s Matt Cooper.
Each piece of evidence that trickles out, however, suggests just the opposite. Today’s New York Times reports that Novak testified that he called Rove—just as Cooper had—and that Rove did not give any indication that Plame was undercover. The Times further reports that Novak testified Bush’s right-hand man was merely his second source. If true, this explodes the Left’s theory that Rove was shopping the story for any willing taker. It also adds credence to the likelihood that he had no clue Plame’s status at the CIA.
Rove’s warning to Cooper, as Newsweek reported, not to “get too far out” on Wilson’s Niger claims was, with hindsight, absolutely correct. And it helped expose the shaky credibility of the man who was attempting to snooker the American public.
Which brings us back to the fundamental problem faced by the “get Rove” crowd: they need Wilson to be credible. He’s not. That’s all Rove was pointing out to Cooper—and only after the Time reporter asked him about it.
Who again is the one with the credibility problem?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles//Printable.asp?ID=18798
-
Originally posted by dhaus
Let me get this straight: the President announced we were at war. We then have Wilson disputing one of the administration's claims as to Iraqi quests for nuclear weapons. The administration neither denies nor confirms Wilson's allegations, but, instead, attempts to score political points by discrediting Wilson by revealing that his wife was a CIA employee. Moreover, the wife's duties involved attempts to track nuclear proliferation and that she was the person who set up the trip to Nigeria. How is this defensible? She "really" wasn't a covert operative? Let's destroy HER career even though it was her husband who spoke up - and whose statement has not been refuted. I'm sure those of you defending the administration on this one would defend Hillary if she publicizes the identity of a CIA agent in a time of war to "get back" at that agent's spouse to score political points.
I'd say that pretty much sums it up. Good post!:aok
-
Originally posted by rpm
I'd say that pretty much sums it up. Good post!:aok
Well..as long as accuracy doesn't matter;)
-
Yeah, he got one thing wrong.
She wasn't the person who set up Wilson's trip.
Other than that, I'd say that sums it up too.
-
I doubt the case will get that far.
Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have run into a bit of bad luck in their lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and ten random Republicans. CQ reader Denis K took a peek at the complaint and noticed something that I had missed earlier -- the judge assigned to the case. Wilson and Plame drew Judge John D. Bates -- and a quick glance at his rulings will no doubt have the Left fuming.
For instance, Judge Bates ruled in January 2005 that Michael Newdow would suffer no harm if the President said a prayer at his inauguration. Newdow, most known for using his (non-custodial) child as a means to attack the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his bid to enact a prior restraint on the President's speech at his own inauguration simply because Newdow planned to attend.
If that doesn't get the Democratic Underground in a fury, they may instead recall their anger when Judge Bates told Congress that they had no standing to sue for access to the records of Dick Cheney's energy task force. Relying on "the restricted role of the Article III courts in our constitutional system of government," Bates denied the request of the GAO, spurred on by Democrats who disliked the energy plan pushed by the White House. The judge ruled that the separation of powers and executive privilege meant that Cheney could consult with advisors to formulate policy without producing records of the meeting to Congress.
It gets even better, or worse, depending on one's point of view. Judge Bates received an appointment earlier this year to the FISA Court, the secret panel that reviews warrant requests for national-security investigations. He replaced Judge James Robertson, who resigned in protest against the Bush administration's bypass of the FISA Court on the NSA terrorist surveillance program. How sympathetic will Judge Bates be to a lawsuit from someone who leaked misinformation after getting sent on an assignment by his wife?
And, hell, if that doesn't do it for Wilson supporters, his work as one of Kenneth Starr's staff during his independent-counsel investigation of Bill Clinton should force them into despair.
How long will it take before the Left starts screaming "CONSPIRACY"? Faster than the Wilsons can file a disqualification motion with the court.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I doubt the case will get that far.
Heya Gunslinger.
Mind if you provide us with a source?
With such hard hitting journalismo such as:
"How long will it take before the Left starts screaming "CONSPIRACY"? Faster than the Wilsons can file a disqualification motion with the court."
I'd love to read more of this compelling fact-based reporting.
Link me, will ya?
-
Here's the link http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007494.php
The article is written by a blogger I read almost daily. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
It'd be easier for you to go their and see his sourcing than for me to post it here.
-
Ah okay. A blog.
No worries there.....
As far as I'm concerned , they beat the MSM to the punch by at least a few days. Sometimes by months.
And I'm glad to see you getting the show back on topic wrt this lawsuit.... and not rehashing some old, ridiculous argument about Plame's status.
-
It will be interesting to see how far this suit goes. Novak has identified administration officials as being his source for his story. The named persons will no doubt move to dismiss the case on several grounds. One ground could be that the officials will claim official immunity on the basis that the information was revealed as part of their official duties. Hmm, publishing the identity of a CIA agent in time of war to score political points qualifies as an official duty? Another, and one apparently being pushed by some here, would be that Plame suffered no damage in that her employment by the CIA was known, that her covert status, if any, had been blown some time ago, and that further publicity of her employment did not ruin her career. Her burden to establish damages is not helped by the fact that she resigned and was not fired. Of course, if the issue is damages, she should be able to get to trial to see if she can prove them up. Back to the official immunity defense.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yeah, he got one thing wrong.
She wasn't the person who set up Wilson's trip.
Other than that, I'd say that sums it up too.
You're saying that Valerie DIDN'T set up Joe's trip?
But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies.
For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.)
.
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
-
""The law defines a "covert agent" as someone working undercover overseas, or who has done so in the last five years. Plame had operated under non-official cover, but was outed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames, and has been manning a desk at CIA headquarters since 1997.""
she was no james bond, "non-official cover", the CIA had set up a dummy company in africa to gather information, she worked for that dummy company, i don't know what she did there.
not everyone working for the CIA is a covert agent, maybe she was a "miss moneypenny"
-
So we're back to she wasn't "really" a covert agent defense. Oh, was Wilson wrong about the Nigerian documents being forgeries and the Nigerian connection unfounded? I'm reading he got some dates wrong and he couldn't have known about that, etc. Isn't the basic contention the documents themselves were forgeries and known to be so. Didn't the Italian CIA bureau chief report to the administration that the notion of Iraq contacts with Nigeria were without corroboration and extremely suspect? I am not saying this is correct, I merely recall reading it somewhere. So my questions here are: 1) was the basic contention made by Wilson incorrect? And, if so, 2) what did publishing the nature of his wife's employment have to do with correcting his misinformation? These questions will be at the bottom of the lawsuit.
-
I'm of the view that she used her job to inject her liberal politics into the Iraq situation (sending her unqualified husband over there to be in a position to criticise the Bush admin.) and thus caused her own grief
-
I understand your view. What does that have to do with whether the basic contention of Wilson's article was wrong and, if so, how did publishing the nature of Plame's employment correct that wrong?
-
Good grief, the special prosecuter was trying very hard to prove this case and failed. Why would anyone continue to hang their hat on a case that can't be proven?
-
Originally posted by dhaus
I understand your view. What does that have to do with whether the basic contention of Wilson's article was wrong and, if so, how did publishing the nature of Plame's employment correct that wrong?
We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate.
The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.
Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.
But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.
And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.
According to the FT: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."
There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported — back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."
The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"
The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."
Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link — his information actually created additional suspicion.
A former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Wilson that in June 1999, a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations." Mayaki, knowing how few commodities for export are produced by impoverished Niger, interpreted that to mean that Saddam was seeking uranium.
Another former government official told Wilson that Iran had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. That's the same year that Saddam forced the weapons inspectors to leave Iraq. Could the former official have meant Iraq rather than Iran? If someone were to try to connect those dots, what picture might emerge?
Schmidt adds that the Senate panel was alarmed to find that the CIA never "fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin."
I was the first to suggest, here on National Review Online a year ago ("Scandal!" and "No Yellowcake Walk"), that Wilson should not have been given this assignment, that he had no training or demonstrated competence as an investigator, that his inquiry had been obviously superficial and that, far from being a "centrist," he was a partisan with an ax to grind.
But my complaint was really less with Wilson than it was with the CIA for sending him, rather than an experienced spy or investigator, to check out such an important and sensitive matter as whether one of the world's most vicious killers had been trying to buy the stuff that nuclear weapons are made of.
For this, I received a couple of dishonorable mentions in Wilson's memoir. He has a chapter called "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which might be used as a case study for CIA trainees and others who need to understand the fundamental principle of logic that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In other words, Wilson fails to grasp that because he didn't find proof that Saddam was seeking African uranium does not mean that proof was not there to be found.
In reaction to his "fearless candor" and "disarming insight" about the "sixteen-word lie," Wilson writes that "right-wing hatchet men were being wheeled out to attack me. More ominously, plots were being hatched in the White House that would betray America's national security.
He writes: "Clifford May was first off the mark, spewing uninformed vitriol in a piece in National Review Online blindly operating on the principle that facts, those pesky facts, just do not matter."
Well, facts, those pesky facts do matter and a bipartisan Senate investigative committee has now established that Wilson has had very few in his possession. And, for the record, I was never advised anything about Wilson by anyone serving in the White House, the administration, or the Republican party. I never even had a discussion about him with such folks.
There is much more that could be said about the Wilson affair, and certainly many questions that ought to be both asked and answered. But in the interest of time and space, let me leave you with just one: Now that we know that Mrs. Wilson did recommend Mr. Wilson for the Niger assignment, can we not infer that she was working at CIA headquarters in Langley rather than as an undercover operative in some front business or organization somewhere?
As I suggested in another NRO piece (Spy Games), if that is the case — if she was not working undercover and if the CIA was not taking measures to protect her cover — no law was broken by columnist Bob Novak in naming her, or by whoever told Novak that she worked for the CIA.
It is against the law to knowingly name an undercover agent. It is not against the law to name a CIA employee who is not an undercover agent. For example, I know the identity of "Anonymous," the CIA employee who has now written a book trashing the Bush administration for its policies. But since he is not — to the best of my knowledge — a covert operative, I would be committing no crime were I to name him in this piece. Nor, I should add, did he attempt to hide his employment when we sat across a dinner table some months ago.
I don't think Joe Wilson is an evil man. I do think he is an angry partisan and an opportunist. According to my sources, during most of his diplomatic career he specialized in general services and administration, which means he was not the political or economic adviser to the ambassador, rather he was the guy who makes sure the embassy plumbing is working and that the commissary is stocked with Oreos and other products the ambassador prefers.
Just prior to the Gulf War, he did serve in Iraq, a hot spot to be sure, but that was under Ambassador April Glaspie, who failed to make it clear to Saddam that invading Kuwait would elicit a robust response from Washington. I doubt that Wilson advised her to do otherwise. I rather doubt she asked. As he says in his book, she was giving him an "on-the-spot education in Middle Eastern diplomacy. It was a part of the world in which I had no experience."
In 1991, Wilson's book jacket boasts, President George H.W. Bush praised Wilson as "a true American hero," and he was made an ambassador. But for some reason, he was assigned not to Cairo, Paris, or Moscow, places where you put the best and the brightest, nor was he sent to Bermuda or Luxembourg, places you send people you want to reward. Instead, he was sent to Gabon, a diplomatic backwater of the first rank.
After that, he says in his memoir, "I had risen about as high as I could in the Foreign Service and decided it was time to retire." Well, that's not exactly accurate either. He could have been given a more important posting, such as Kenya or South Africa, or he could have been promoted higher in the senior Foreign Service (he made only the first of four grades). Instead, he was evidently (according to my sources) forced into involuntary retirement at 48. (The minimum age for voluntary retirement in the Foreign Service is 50.) After that, he seems to have made quite a bit of money — doing what for whom is unclear and I wish the Senate committee had attempted to find out.
But based on one op-ed declaring 16 words spoken by the president a lie, he transformed himself into an instant celebrity and, for a while, it seemed, a contender for power within the chien-mange-le-chien world of foreign policy. That dream has now probably evaporated. It is hard to see how a President John Kerry would now want Wilson in his inner circle. But if he desired to return to Gabon or Niger I, for one, would not be among those opposing him..
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
-
Originally posted by dhaus
Oh, was Wilson wrong about the Nigerian documents being forgeries
He lied when he wrote in the WP that he told the CIA he knew they were forgeries because the signatures and dates were wrong. The only problem with that is he never saw the documents and would have had to get that information from someone who shouldn't have told him. hmmm his wife maybe.
Page 45 of Pre war intelligence assesment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/senateiraqreport.pdf)
stop the presses!
Joe Wilson and his wife are criminals, they leaked classified information!
I demand an investigation, frog march em !ohh my eeek, eeek squeak, squeak !!!!
-
Originally posted by bj229r
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
You beat me too it :)
-
Thanks for the link to the actual committee investigation report. Will take a look at it when there is time. Might want to check beyond page 45, however.
-
There certainly WERE some forged documents (attributed to French intelligence, is one angle I've heard).. but THOSE documents weren't what the MI6 conclusions were based upon
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Uh, the CIA says she was covert? Says who? She was riding a desk at HQ in plain public view. There was supposedly a leak. I have yet to see where the CIA specifically states that "at the time Novak published his column, Valerie Plame was a covert agent". Regardless of what the CIA says, or someone there says, if she was assigned to a desk at Langley CIA HQ, she was NOT covert, and couldn't be. And if any person wandering around the gates at Langley could have taken her picture as she drove in with the top down, she was hardly covert.
Since you claim to know what a spy would look like since you say she doesn't fit the image could you give us the exact description of what spies drive, wear or where they work?
-
Interesting answers from Novak.
Did the Democrats have a hand in getting both Joe Wilson and Valerie to undermine the Iraq WMD claims since many of them, including President Clinton, John Kerry, and Tom Daschle, made regime change in Iraq the policy of the United States in 1998? (Facts that have been conveniently forgotten). — BRIAN (Springfield, IL):
ROBERT NOVAK: That's hard to say, but Wilson was a foreign policy adviser for Gore in 2000, three years before his wife suggested his mission to Niger.
I watched you on “Hannity & Colmes.” Could you please briefly explain who leaked the info and why? I still to this day do not understand! — KEITH
ROBERT NOVAK: A senior administration official disclosed to me Mrs. Wilson's role. In passing, during a long interview and, he said, "inadvertently."
It seems to me that if your primary source were an honorable man, he would have immediately stepped forward to explain himself and clear the record. His failure to do the right thing has created terrible problems for others, injured his party, and his president. I would be interested in your comments.— THOMAS (Jackson, WY)
ROBERT NOVAK: I think you have a good point.
Do you think that this story has been blown out of proportion? In the great scheme of things, with everything that has been going on in the world, how important is this? — TERRY (Cornelius, NC):
ROBERT NOVAK: I believe the importance of this story has been greatly magnified, for political purposes, by Democratic politicians.
Why, as you claim, did Fitzgerald ask to keep your role in the controversy a secret, while others in the media were seemingly free to discuss their roles? — ROBERT
ROBERT NOVAK: The other journalists were resisting Fitzgerald's efforts, so that he hardly could request their silence.
Are any of the material facts for which I. Lewis Libby is under indictment, at odds with any portions of your testimony to the grand jury? And, do you anticipate testifying at his trial, and if so, as witness for the defense or prosecution?— DENNIS (San Diego, CA)
ROBERT NOVAK: I am not sufficiently familiar with the details of the Libby case to answer your first question. I have no reason to believe I will be a witness in his trial.
If you had known the results of your story, that Valerie Plame would be outed, would you have written the story? And why did you write the story in the first place? What was the original reason for the story? — CARLOS
ROBERT NOVAK: I really don't know the answer to your first question. I thought revelation of Mrs. Wilson explained the otherwise inexplicable selection of her husband for the mission to Niger.
I have read and heard on “Hannity & Colmes” that it was well known that Valerie Plame was with the CIA and was a very low-level employee. Could you comment on that? — TOM (Danville, CA)
ROBERT NOVAK: It was not known to me, but it was well known around Washington.
Do you think there will be a special prosecutor assigned to The New York Times leak? Should Congress pursue the Times with the same enthusiasm and vigor as they did your story? — STEPHEN
ROBERT NOVAK: I don't know whether there will be a special prosecutor named in the Times case. As is obvious, the Democrats who wanted to pursue the leak to me are not interested in pursuing the Times leak.
What do you think of the coverage of this story over the last two and a half years? What are some of the stories that were absolutely wrong that you had to stay quiet about? — DON
ROBERT NOVAK: I think the coverage has been erratic and error-filled. The error was the claim that the White House had peddled the story to many journalists and finally settled for me.
Were you threatened in any way by the authorities if you didn't give the names of your sources? — DAVID (Augusta, GA)
ROBERT NOVAK: No.
Can you explain the incident involving Mr. Wilson’s "friend" that happened to run into you on the street. What did you and him discuss? What is your impression of the situation? I appreciate the way you have handled yourself through this whole ordeal. You are a true journalist! — JUDY
ROBERT NOVAK: I foolishly answered questions about the case by a stranger who stopped me on the streets of Washington. He turned out to be a friend of Wilson who immediately went to Wilson's office to report after our conversation. Some people think this was set up by Wilson, but I have no evidence of this. Thanks for the compliment.
Is it true that you made three phone calls and found out that Valerie's cover company was non-existent? If this is true, couldn't the "bad guys" have done the same thing? To me this is basic investigation work! I recall one of her associates was very upset because he used the same cover company and he said now his cover was blown! No wonder the CIA was so inept. — GEORGE (Long Beach, CA)
ROBERT NOVAK: I found that her cover company was nonexistent, which runs counter to CIA procedure. She listed the phony name on her 2000 Federal Election Commission report on her contribution to Al Gore.
From your comments this evening it seems clear that early on in this process it was recognized that no laws had been violated, i.e., revealing Mrs. Wilson's employment was not in violation of the relevant statutes. Surely the CIA would have understood that her status was unclassified. Why then did it make its referral to the Justice Department? Indeed, who might be responsible for that decision? On the surface, politics would seem to explain what happened here - politics at the CIA. Your thoughts, please. — THOMAS (Jackson, WY)
ROBERT NOVAK: The CIA routinely refers all alleged leaks to the Justice Department; averaging about one a week. The difference in this case was the lobbying by CIA employees for an investigation, indicating the anti-Bush hostility at the Agency.
Did Aldrich Ames, the famous double agent, out Valerie in the early 1990's to the Russians? — BRIAN (Springfield, IL)
ROBERT NOVAK: Yes, that is my information.
Was it ever disclosed whether Valerie Plame's capacity with the CIA was clerical or in covert operations that may endanger her life? — NORM (Cornelia, GA)
ROBERT NOVAK: For some years, she had been a desk-bound analyst, facing no physical threat.
Do you think you may have been used to spread this information? — KEN
ROBERT NOVAK: No.
-
Novak was a shill used by the Government to out a CIA agent and destroy a career.
I'll become interested in what Novak has to say only when it's spoken through the visitor phone behind an inch of plexiglass.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Novak was a shill used by the Government to out a CIA agent and destroy a career.
I'll become interested in what Novak has to say only when it's spoken through the visitor phone behind an inch of plexiglass.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Not surprising you don't want to hear what a key player in the case has to say. Especially when it doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion. Damn, what a surprise. Not.
-
Heh.... spare me your whole "Oh what a surprise" act.
"Key player?"
Novak was the very first person to out the chick. Yeah he was a key player.
"Especially when it doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion. "
LOL.... In otherwords.... "My quoting of Novak must not agree with your "preconceived opinion."
There's nothing "preconceived" about it. I watched the minute it went down, and have carefully followed it while it dipped in and out of the radar over the last coupla years. I could write a book on this thing. Seriously.
Don't quote me Novak and consider it some form of interesting. It's not.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Heh.... spare me your whole "Oh what a surprise" act.
"Key player?"
Novak was the very first person to out the chick. Yeah he was a key player.
"Especially when it doesn't agree with your preconceived opinion. "
LOL.... In otherwords.... "My quoting of Novak must not agree with your "preconceived opinion."
There's nothing "preconceived" about it. I watched the minute it went down, and have carefully followed it while it dipped in and out of the radar over the last coupla years. I could write a book on this thing. Seriously.
Don't quote me Novak and consider it some form of interesting. It's not.
Well, by all means, write your book. I'm sure it'll sell a million, but it'll be in the "fantasy" section.
-
Prolly not...
I suck at writing... my grammar is messed up, and I have a sort of a dyslexia thing when it comes to recognizing misspelled words.
-
poor nash, it must be frustrating to be wrong so many times.
-
Is that so?
"wrong so many times?"
I was wrong about Kerry being elected. Yup... dead wrong.
Other than that, name me a single time that I've been wrong.
I've got, oh, about a gazillion opinions floating around out there. It shouldn't be hard to find an example.
Get to work, son.
-
Nash
Better?
Why do you keep saying things like a trial is ongoing concerning the so called "outting" you may be a left wing nut but I don't believe you are stupid or uninformed.
You know Libby was charged with obstruction of Justice for supposedly lying to investigators. Fitzgerald concluded his investigation and no one was charged with a crime concerning the outing of a CIA agent.
Mr. Novack said he found out from Mr. Wilson who put his wife's name in "Who's Who" what her name was.
He called people in the adminstration fishing for confirmation that she not Cheney sent her husband to Niger as Wilson had claimed in his article.
Wilson, his wife and others at the CIA are left wing nuts like you and were trying to make the adminstration look bad concerning pre-war itelligence with, I might add no concern for the country.
Also this lawsuit alledges some loss on the part of Ms. Plame and seeks monetary damages, what a laugh this thing made these two people. Who ever heard of Joe Wilson or his wife before this?
Now they are all the talk in the Liberal circles of DC, invited to all the best liberal parties and going to get rich on book deals. Oh the harm how will they ever recover from that kind of hardship.
-
Nope sorry.....
Can't do it.
Break your text wall down into bite-sized digestible peices or don't post at all.
My eyes aren't getting any younger.
-
Well, SOMEBODY heard of Wilson - this administration sent him on the trip. And, even if the right wingers are correct that Wilson lied - and I'm still not statisfied he did (still looking at the Comittee Report) would someone please explain how publishing his wife's occupation did anything to correct that lie? This was nothing more nor less than political retribution - in a time of war. Publishing the occupation of a CIA employee. Sorry folks, this continues to be defended on the basis of she wasn't a covert operative and he lied. The administration's actions at the time did not counter the lie, and her occupation has nothing to do with it other than political retribution. This is the adminstration we are left to defend in a time of war. Sad.
-
dhaus
The administration did not even know he went that is the whole point of the story. He insinuated that Cheney sent him. Novack was inquiring of the admistration for comment on why they sent him.
Novack wrote the article on his own he was not prompted to do so by anyone in the adminstration. Once he found out from Cheney that Wilson's wife who worked at the CIA and not Cheney had sent him, he looked in the Who's Who and got her name, that her husband had put there.
If her identity was so secret why would her husband include it in a publicly available information source?
-
Originally posted by Gunston
Nash
Better?
Waaaay better. Yeah.
It's actually readable now. Cool.
I still aint gonna respond.
When your very 1st graf calls me a "left wing nut" it just leaves me so.... uninspired. Know what I mean?
-
Nash
I'm sorry what term do you prefer wacko, extremist, enemy of the state, I'm not sure what you radicals like to go by these days?
-
Enemy of the state, you mean like someone who blows the cover of American intelligence agents?
-
The mainstream will work.
66% of the population works too.
Take your pick.
-
But...
You unwittingly raise a great question....
Seeing that you are part of only the 30% of like-minded Americans, what shall we call you??
wacko?
extremist?
enemy of the state?
radicals?
Whatever you decide...... I'm easy.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Is this even going to get to court?
Well funny thing about civil court is.....
Even O.J. was found guilty there.
-
Nash
Sorry about that last one couldn't help myself. I will say you do have a great talent for writing. You're comments are witty and sharp. I went back and read many of your posts.
I on the other hand am quite new to this manner of communication (using the computer to talk back and forth) and my typing is two finger peck style.
I can’t understand why you would use your talent for evil instead of good. And as I grow older I do sincerly believe that is what the battle between Liberalism and Conservativism represents.
No I’m not a religious type never been to church. But I completely support people’s right to pray and I cannot imagine anyone being offended by the mention of the word God on money, public buildings, etc.
As to you ever being wrong, someone had mentioned in an earlier post about Global warming and a connection to religious extremist you dismissed them without trying to understand what they were talking about. Environmentalism is a religion. I believe the same person mentioned Michael Crichton I recommend you go to his website and read his lecture titled “Environmentalism as Religion” very informative.
I believe that George Bush cares about the country and every action he has taken has been to serve that purpose. Has he always been right? Probably not but he is trying to protect us from an enemy that would kill every small child you know in the most gruesome way possible and take great joy in doing it. I would rather he err on the side of caution than some other course of action.
I keep hearing the left talk about things like taping phone calls from known terrorist to terrorist in this country, or tracking bank records of terrorist as some huge transgression of our rights. Yet the same people if given the chance would take the right of law abiding people to own firearms, a right George Washington said is second only to the Constitution in importance. Where is the outrage when those kinds of laws are passed?
Anyway again I think you far outclass me in flare and writing style but I disagree with most everything you have to say.
-
Also strange how my 30% elected Bush...twice.
-
You seem like an okay guy. Actually, hell.... everyone here is.
But you got it all wrong.
And by wrong I pretty much mean three hundred and sixty degrees of wrong. Wrong in every direction you look. If you spun around in circles your world would become a dizzying blur of wrong.
There's nothing I could tell ya here in a post on the AH BBS to fix that. I wouldn't even know where to start.
I suspect that it's a cultural thing. Maybe it goes back to something yer folks told ya that you can't let go of. And even that is just stabbin' in the dark... I have no idea.
But allow me to be honest with you.....
There is something frightening about a stranger calling you a wacko, an enemy of the state. It's psycho, okay?
And just WTF do you know?
If you wanna have a discussion, I'll be happy to participate.
But don't ever label me and expect me to show you any respect.
You're in the minority now.... got that? I'm not radical.... you are. If you need any advice on how to cope with that, I can help ya out.
I know a thing or two about it.
Seriously... yer prolly an alright guy. But you're getting off to a rocky start with me.
-
Nash
You may disagree with my point of view but the things you say about me are just as disrespectful as my little joke.
I'm not wrong most people think the way I do or Bush would not be President and the Republicans would not control Congress.
You are using poll numbers about the war and Bush's approval ratings as your basis for me being wrong. Nobody likes the war me included and people have different opinions on how or even if we should protect ouselves from threats.
But mainstream America agrees with alot more of the kinds of things I believe than what you believe so how can I be wrong 360 degrees?
-
Originally posted by Gunston
But mainstream America agrees with alot more of the kinds of things I believe than what you believe so how can I be wrong 360 degrees?
Is that right?
................... Really?
I suggest you stick your finger back in your mouth then hold it up to the wind to guage what's actually going on.
GOD do I ever hate Ohio.....
-
Nash ole bud, I'm beginning to think that your credo is "NeverneverneverEVER yield a point...for then the argument is OVER."
For you, the argument itself is the be-all and end-all of bulletin board existence.
In this case, if it goes to court, the facts will out, and rumor and political innuendo will be exposed for what they are. Personally, having read all the crap posted on these boards and in the media, I don't think Plame has a leg to stand on...but that's not for me to decide.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by dhaus
Well, SOMEBODY heard of Wilson - this administration sent him on the trip. And, even if the right wingers are correct that Wilson lied - and I'm still not statisfied he did (still looking at the Comittee Report)
I'm looking at the committee report, but it's in adobe (looks to have been scanned)...and it won't allow text copying/pasting...page 49 begins the story of the 'Former Ambassador'.Does anyone know how to convert a .pdf to rich text or something? It's 598 pages :O
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
-
Originally posted by Nash
But you got it all wrong.
And by wrong I pretty much mean three hundred and sixty degrees of wrong. Wrong in every direction you look. If you spun around in circles your world would become a dizzying blur of wrong.
There's nothing I could tell ya here in a post on the AH BBS to fix that. I wouldn't even know where to start.
I suspect that it's a cultural thing. Maybe it goes back to something yer folks told ya that you can't let go of. And even that is just stabbin' in the dark... I have no idea.
But allow me to be honest with you.....
There is something frightening about a stranger calling you a wacko, an enemy of the state. It's psycho, okay?
And just WTF do you know?
But don't ever label me and expect me to show you any respect.
You're in the minority now.... got that? I'm not radical.... you are. If you need any advice on how to cope with that, I can help ya out.
I know a thing or two about it.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Oh dear God! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Sure Nash. You don't label people or question their mental state. LOOK UP IN THIS VERY FREAKING THREAD!
Give me a break, what you posted has to be the most self righteous Bravo Sierra I've seen in months, maybe years. It's almost over the top for even you.
No, he is not the minority, and he's not radical. He's actually just a vocal portion of the majority. I doubt he needs advice from you on how to cope either.
-
According to Fox/Opinion Dynamics (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) only 36% of those polled approve of Bush. 53% disapprove and 11% are clueless.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
According to Fox/Opinion Dynamics (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm) only 36% of those polled approve of Bush. 53% disapprove and 11% are clueless.
Therefore.......?
-
I'm just wondering what constitutes a majority around here. Evidently 36% is enough.
-
I've met a few people that see the "battle of Liberalism and Conservatism" as a battle between good and evil.
I try not to talk to them and I sincerely hope they don't represent "mainstream" America because IMHO, they are lunatics regardless of what side they choose.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm just wondering what constitutes a majority around here. Evidently 36% is enough.
Ahh cc..the thing is, the numbers mean little unless you compare him to a specific person. (Kerry..Gore?) I see the numbers trotted out quite often, but of what significance are they? The numbers mean ALL the libs hate him, and SOME of the GOP....and the GOP issue is more the border then anythig else, IMO. People complain about gas prices, and try to attribute them to Bush's 'oil buddies'....but 50% of the cost of a gallon of gas IS the price of oil, and I don't see how one can do enough verbal gymnastics to blame what Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Hezbollah do on Bush.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ahh cc..the thing is, the numbers mean little unless you compare him to a specific person. (Kerry..Gore?) I see the numbers trotted out quite often, but of what significance are they? The numbers mean ALL the libs hate him, and SOME of the GOP....and the GOP issue is more the border then anythig else, IMO. People complain about gas prices, and try to attribute them to Bush's 'oil buddies'....but 50% of the cost of a gallon of gas IS the price of oil, and I don't see how one can do enough verbal gymnastics to blame what Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Hezbollah do on Bush.
IMHO, gas prices are high because demand is inelastic. It's economics not politics... but that's another thread.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I've met a few people that see the "battle of Liberalism and Conservatism" as a battle between good and evil.
I try not to talk to them and I sincerely hope they don't represent "mainstream" America because IMHO, they are lunatics regardless of what side they choose.
Let’s think about this Liberalism, Communism, and Socialism all pretty much the same ideology, to make the individual sub servant to the state. Ted Kennedy himself said “we are at war against individualism” they want me, you, and everyone else (except of course the ruling class) to become disposable cogs in one great societal machine. They wish to take the fruits of our labor by force, to use as they see fit, and not for the benefit of ourselves or our families. The list of desire’s the left has to destroy everything this country was founded on is long and terrifying. Yea I agree with Reagan when he said the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire. The Left in America represents the infiltration of those beliefs into our Society.
-
Originally posted by bj229r
I'm looking at the committee report, but it's in adobe (looks to have been scanned)...and it won't allow text copying/pasting...page 49 begins the story of the 'Former Ambassador'.Does anyone know how to convert a .pdf to rich text or something? It's 598 pages :O
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
bj229
Thanks for the link, good stuff I never read the whole report before. Guess the "He Lied" crowd is going to have to adopt a new mantra.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by Gunston
Ted Kennedy himself said “we are at war against individualism”
LOL... I'm going to need a little more than a four-year old quote taken out of context to get my underwear all knotted up. Maybe some kool-aid will do the trick.
:aok
Congressional Record (http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=08653326233+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve)
I wonder what the mainstream wants... (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071400217_pf.html) :rofl
-
Sandman
I didn't take anything out of context I just did my own search on the Kennedy statement. Allow me to paste one of the items I found.
The war on individualism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 1, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
We begin with two quotations. No attribution yet. Just the two quotes. You need to ponder over these while you read on.
Quote 1. "We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."
Quote 2. "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what's best for society."
Any guesses? The surprise comes later. You need to hold on a few more moments while we discuss the war against individuality.
Yes, a war – a war against the individual. A war that has been waged by the American left for decades.
Why, you might ask, would anyone want to fight the concept of individuality? Good question. Simple answer. Individualism must be fought and suppressed because the concept of the individual is completely incompatible with basic liberal doctrine.
Here's the rub. If you recognize the existence of the individual, it then follows that you must also recognize the concept of individual rights. Among those individual rights are such pesky little nuances as – dare we say it – property rights! Among those property rights would be what our founding fathers might call the right to the fruit of your labors, or what we in our less flowery age would call the money you earn by busting your buns 60 hours a week.
If, then, there is any recognition that you, as a real flesh and blood individual human being, have any right to the money you work for, what sort of excuse can the left come up with to seize those earnings for their wonderful vote-buying schemes?
So, you think I'm going a bit overboard here? Well, while you sit down and grip the arms of your chair for stability, let me tell you that a California congresswoman (Democrat, natch!) recently opined that all wages really belong to the federal government. How's that for individual property rights?
Not convinced? You still don't believe that there's a full-blown war on individuality raging around you? Well then, allow me to invoke the name of one of Washington's premier class warlords, none other than the Senate's Prince of Bloviation, Ted Kennedy. The unlikely event that brought forth this Kennedy gem was the New England Patriots' Super Bowl win earlier this year. Naturally, Kennedy wanted a part in the celebration, so he pushed his way to the television cameras to extol the value of teamwork. Amazingly, Kennedy tells the nation that the Patriots set a wonderful example for us all to follow at a time when we, in America, are engaged in a "war against the individual." His words, not mine. Go plow through The Boston Globe on the Monday following that Super Bowl win to find out for yourself. Do it! You need the research practice.
Driving the point home just a bit more, what do you think this whole "diversity" thing is all about? Diversity committees – diversity seminars – diversity directors. What's behind this sudden love of "diversity"? Easy enough. Diversity identity is group identity. Attention paid to diversity is attention paid to someone's group status, not their individual identity. When you are identified according to group status, any claim to individual rights, or worth, for that matter, fade into meaninglessness.
OK, before I run out of my word allotment, let's go back through history to see, other than Teddy Kennedy, just who we have out there blasting the concept of the individual. It's a rough ride. Hold on.
"There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State, which demands, and the individual, who attempts to evade such demands."
That gem is from our friend, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.
"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood."
The National Socialist bit should be your clue. Nazi was the acronym for Germany's national socialist party. That quote is from Adolf Hitler.
Now for the two quotes at the beginning of the column.
"We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." I left out the first word of this quote. That word is "Comrades!" This from the lips of none other than Nikita Khrushchev.
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
Ahh. The best for last. The person who uttered those words is none other than the Democratic Party candidate for president in the year 2008. Our very own champion of socialized medicine, Hillary Clinton.
One more quote. A quickie from Ayn Rand: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."
Can I get an Amen?
-
Can I get a cookie to go with the Koolaid?
-
Or how about this little snippet
Even the late Norman Thomas, who was elated when he saw FDR embrace and even introduce many of the policies he had advocated in his run for President under the Socialist Party banner, was aware of the transformation of the Democrat Party. In fact he has been quoted as saying:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas, former U.S. Socialist Presidential Candidate
-
Make it chocolate chip please.
-
Actually Kool-aid drinkers is the term the right uses about the left you guys should come up with your own.
Edit I did a search I guess both sides use it equally, also found someting else thanks Sandman. I got this little quote in my search and I feel your love err...hate anyway thanks
Quote
You don't really have passionate users until someone starts accusing them of "drinking the koolaid." You might have happy users, even loyal users, but it's the truly passionate that piss off others enough to motivate them to say something. Where there is passion, there is always anti-passion... or rather passion in the hate dimension.
If you create passionate users, you have to expect passionate detractors. You should welcome their appearance in blogs, forums, and user groups. It means you've arrived. Forget the tipping point--if you want to measure passion, look for the koolaid point.
Thanks again looks like I've arrrived.
-
I'm all about your needs. I'm all about your happiness.
Glad I could be here to validate you.