Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Clifra Jones on September 01, 2006, 12:45:12 PM
-
hyjnm tgbv ujn tgb http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey
Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
-
The press, the dems, the wacko lefties and some crazy wannabe american canucks all jumped on this band wagon. And now the truth is out, Joe wilson lied. The Senate hearings already proved this 2 years ago but the Kos kiddies and the moron.org types ignored the facts.
-
Political implossion in T-minus how many minutes.... LOL
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Political implossion in T-minus how many minutes.... LOL
I had to look that refrence up
hehehe good point (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154428&highlight=outted)
-
ca-Caw! ca-Caw!
Suppertime boys!
The silence from the left is deafening.
-
Hmmm... it's an editorial.
So what.
FWIW, the attorney for Wilson/Plame has not dropped the lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, and Libby and in an interview with Keith Olbermann, stated that Armitage may be added to the suit as well.
As Media Matters for America has noted, the revelation that Armitage was Novak's original source is not inconsistent with Rove's and Libby's involvements in the leak, as both were reportedly the original sources of the information for at least two reporters during the summer of 2003. source (http://mediamatters.org/items/200609010001)
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Hmmm... it's an editorial.
So what.
FWIW, the attorney for Wilson/Plame has not dropped the lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, and Libby and in an interview with Keith Olbermann, stated that Armitage may be added to the suit as well.
What does a lawsuit started by this attention potato Wilson have to do with the truth?:huh
-
Do liberals really believe they can gain power by whining? Any power they might gain this way will be snatched away by the first non-fool to come along.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
What does a lawsuit started by this attention potato Wilson have to do with the truth?:huh
Not a thing, the lawsuit is nonsense.
Here is what we know as the truth.
Fitz knew the name of the so called leaker from day one.
There was no Whitehouse conspiracy
Wilsons NYT op-ed was BS
Wilsons charges were a lie
There was no violation of Secrets Act, because there was never any "leak"
Short of picking a Jury from a pool of the Kos kids, there is no way a reasonable jury could find any fire when there isn't even smoke.
-
Oh this is too funny.
Ruin her career? Tare a lot of other things she could have done for the Organization. Being a "Case Officer" is just the beginning of a career there. She could easily move into the management field, do analysis work or serve as a trainer/consultant all at much HIGHER pay grades than she was making working in a field office.
What "ruined" her career was herself. If she was truly "Covert" her hubby shouldn’t have ever known where she worked and he should not have been able to point his finger at her. The publicity of it all made it such a political football that she became a liability rather than an asset to the Company.
Never involve family in business...that rule works at all levels.
Later
Softail ;-)
-
This whole thing was much ado about NOTHING from the start.
So a MINOR CIA agent was "outed" after her "covert" career was already at an end.
Where's the crime?
Why all the fuss all this time.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
What does a lawsuit started by this attention potato Wilson have to do with the truth?:huh
I don't believe we know the truth yet.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
carefull liberals.....don't count your chickens before they hatch. Most of you have a big history of doing that with this administration. If it is true....what toad said.
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154428&highlight=outted
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
:rofl :aok :rofl :lol
-
The silence is deafening!
-
HARHARHARHARHAAAAAAARRRRRRRR DAM LIBRUARERELUES MORANS!!!!!!1
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
HARHARHARHARHAAAAAAARRRRRRRR DAM LIBRUARERELUES MORANS!!!!!!1
We....expected...more
-
Nash picked a good time to take a vacation, didn't he?
-
(http://www.mikewaltz.net/stuff/Morans.jpg)
-
Did you know that moveon.org secretly funds PNAC?
It's true.
-
OMG ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRGHHH
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OO
SOROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOS
-
this is kinda funny, the liberal denial. its like trying to pry a dead gold miner's cold, claw-like fingers off of his empty shovel. the only nuggets to show for all his hard work are the rock hard turds in his raggety shorts...
its hard to give up something that dreams made into a metaphor for the evil Bush crime family. So... maybe they will have a chance in civil court where the burden of proof is much less. I bet jury selection will be parisan straight down the line.
-
(http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m248/bj229r/cricket.gif)
-
Hey I'm doing my best here. The librules didn't show up, and I love bashing Neocons, so somebody has to break up the circle jerk.
-
Funky pants, just tell me, were you "Glunz" in warbirds? If you were, I will forgive a lot of your politics...
-
No he is just an MG clone.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
I had to look that refrence up
hehehe good point (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154428&highlight=outted)
I wondered if anyone had remembered that thread.... I have been waiting for it to be Bumped up to the top so we can have some good clean fun...
-
Originally posted by Nash Here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=154428)
This is worse than Watergate.
This is coming back like a boomerang.
Priceless.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Funky pants, just tell me, were you "Glunz" in warbirds? If you were, I will forgive a lot of your politics...
At one point I ran out of money and had to quit for a while, came back, couldn't get "funked", so I was "-glunz" or "glunz-" (I forget which). Addi Glunz never got shot down, which was my style back then.
-
latest "breaking" news.
armitage says it was he that mentioned to novak that wilsons wife worked for the CIA, armitage said he told fitzgerald this 3 years ago and fitz said not to say anything about it, fitz then spent 3 years and 20 million dollars to try to pin the so called "leak" on boosh.
-
Originally posted by john9001
latest "breaking" news.
armitage says it was he that mentioned to novak that wilsons wife worked for the CIA, armitage said he told fitzgerald this 3 years ago and fitz said not to say anything about it, fitz then spent 3 years and 20 million dollars to try to pin the so called "leak" on boosh.
The thing is, Fitz could ASK him not to say anything, but there is NO law against revealing your OWN grand jury testimony---Armitage could have told everyone way back then. It's not hard to see why Powell didn't want to be around for Bush's second term now. He was privy to all this as well.
Media reaction about this funnier than anything I've seen in a while:
http://newsbusters.org/stories/matthews_says_plame_story_too_complicated.html
One of the biggest media figures boycotting the Plame story has been MSNBC host Chris Matthews who has yet to mention the scandal at all since the Armitage report broke, a dramatic contrast to the 27 times he mentioned the "scandal" in the five months leading up to it.
Q: So I've noticed you haven't done anything on the whole Valerie Plame story since the Armitage story broke. Why not invite Joe Wilson on the show to defend himself?
A: Because he'd say basically the same thing he always says. 'My wife had no involvement in getting me the mission.' He'd just repeat it over and over.
Q: Maybe, but isn't it at least worth showing your viewers that this guy has no credibility considering how much you talked about the story before? Shouldn't he be held accountable for wasting all our time? Why not invite one of his representatives or defenders on the show?
A: Well, the story's just gotten so complicated. I mean, it's just such a mess. Because what if it's true that Armitage was the source, but those other guys [presumably Rove and Scooter Libby], also were leakers, what then?
Q: Isn't that a question worth exploring on your show?
A: It could be but the problem is that Dick Cheney has so many apologists it's ridiculous. So many journalists like Bob Woodward will say or do anything just to get access to him. And then all the people in the administration too.
Q: I don't see why this is stopping you from mentioning the story at all. The viewers at least need some sort of closure don't they?
A: Hey listen I need to get out of here. I have to get back home.
After that remark, Matthews left the conversation. He stuck around for about 15 minutes before leaving.
-
I see you all have read Fitz's statement announcing the end of his investigation and his conclusions.
Would y'all please provide a link to it?
-
fitz can't end the investigation, he hasn't found the NEO-CON link yet.
:noid
-
Well, isn't this a big surprise. Much ado about nothing. Figures.
The same people who screamed about Martha Stewart being charged and convicted of trumped up obstruction of justice B.S. will remain deafeningly silent on "Scooter" Libby being railroaded in the same manner.
That too will be a big surprise.
-
So is Armitage going to pay for the investigation?
I mean "chatty cathy" could have stopped it at it's start by owning up to his stupid gossipy ways.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
So is Armitage going to pay for the investigation?
I mean "chatty cathy" could have stopped it at it's start by owning up to his stupid gossipy ways.
Supposedly Armitage told the "special prosecutor" 3 years ago that he (Armitage) was the source of the leak, under oath. So, if the "special prosecutor" continued the "investigation", then the "special prosecutor" made that decision on his own. So maybe the "special prosecutor" should pay for the fishing expedition.
-
I read a different version of that, where Armitage actually told the FBI and Justice Dept investigators that he had met with Novak and had passed along the info at that meeting.
Again, all he had to do was take it public and it would have effectively taken the wind out of the sails on most of the tail chasing. Some of the investigation would have continued as it should have.
The ironic thing about all of this, is that Armitage had huge misgivings about the Admin's tunnelled vision rush to war.
And speaking about fishing expeditions...I guess Bush, et al, should foot the 300+ billion for Iraq since the assertions for going to war have been shown to be baseless and worthless.
-
Your opinion is that it is "baseless and worthless", that doesn't make it fact.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Do liberals really believe they can gain power by whining? Any power they might gain this way will be snatched away by the first non-fool to come along.
Well ... the conservatives did. Which explains the soon-to-be snatchin'. :D
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Your opinion is that it is "baseless and worthless", that doesn't make it fact.
Not opinion....it is fact.
The assertions that Saddam was an immediate threat with WMD's was baseless and worthless.
The assertion that he had AQ links was baseless and worthless.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Not opinion....it is fact.
The assertions that Saddam was an immediate threat with WMD's was baseless and worthless.
The assertion that he had AQ links was baseless and worthless.
Those were not the reasons Iraq was invaded. Just because you want them to be doesn't mean they were. Iraq was a very active supporter of terrorism. Just because Al Queada wasn't based there doesn't mean Saddam was not an active supporter of terrorism (Iraq publicly paying the families of homicide bombers means Iraq WAS a supporter of terrorsim, and offering to pay families of "martyrs" who attack the U.S. means he was a direct and immediate threat). Just because they had an entire year to move whatever weapons existed while the UN postured does not mean nothing was there. Evidence of their existence has been found. Keep reaching and stretching though, it is good excercise. You're still claiming opinion as fact.
-
I suggest you reread a certain State of the Union address, among other documents.
It is fact, and you wishing it was opinion won't change the facts.
Oh, and talk about opinion with regards to moving WMD's for a year before the invasion.....that's actually more fantasy dreaming than opinion.
Head meet sand......
-
the assertions that Saddam was an immediate threat with WMD's was baseless and worthless.
Bush NEVER said that, although DEMocrat Senator Jay Rockefeller did:
WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, the President says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the President ever did. Let's watch.
SEN. ROCKEFELLER (October 10, 2002): "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th, that question is increasingly outdated."
WALLACE: Now, the President never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/012249.php