Wash. Times' Pruden again claimed Plame "was not really a covert agent"
In a July 3 column praising President Bush's decision to commute the prison sentence for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Washington Times editor-in-chief Wesley Pruden claimed that former CIA operative Valerie Plame "was not really a covert agent, anyway, and even if she had been the law protecting covert agents did not actually apply to her." In a May 25 court filing, however, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald explicitly stated that Plame "qualified" as covert under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Moreover, Fitzgerald attached to a separate filing a summary of Plame's CIA employment, which stated that, at the time her identity was disclosed in the media, Plame was chief of a component in the agency's Counterproliferation Division "with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq." The summary further described Plame as having traveled overseas in an undercover capacity "at least seven times to more than ten times" since January 2002.
As Media Matters for America noted, Pruden has repeatedly claimed that Plame "was not really a covert agent," and, as recently as June 19, repeated his nickname for Plame -- the "princess of the pastepot" -- in an effort to discredit her.
Pruden's claim that Plame "was not really a covert agent" exemplifies what Newsweek reporters Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball described in a May 29 article as a "major theme" of Libby's defenders: "that, at the time of her outing, Valerie Wilson was little more than a desk analyst who was not covered by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act -- the 1982 law making it a crime to disclose the identity of a covert officer." However, Isikoff and Hosenball wrote that in a sentencing memorandum filed on May 25, Fitzgerald "finally resolved one of the most disputed issues at the core of the long-running CIA leak controversy." From the memo:
First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.
Moreover, in a May 29 filing also regarding Libby's sentencing, Fitzgerald included an "unclassified summary" of Plame's CIA employment, which established that she had headed a counterproliferation operation focused on Iraq and had traveled overseas in an undercover capacity in the five years prior to the disclosure of her identity.
From the document:
On 1 January 2002, Valerie Wilson was working for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations (DO). She was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) at CIA Headquarters, where she served as the Chief of a CPD component with responsibility for weapons proliferation issues related to Iraq.
While assigned to CPD, Ms. Wilson engaged in temporary duty (TDY) travel overseas on official business. She traveled at least seven times to more than ten countries. When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity -- sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official cover (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.
At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.
From Pruden's July 3 column:
The baying of the Democratic critics began at once. Barack Obama, decrying, as is his wont, partisanship and divisive politics, rushed out (as is another wont) to practice his talent for divisive partisanship. "This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division."
This will be the Democratic mantra. Hillary won't be far behind, and as soon as he can mooch a quarter from the shampoo girl John Edwards will call from the beauty shop, eager to add a tinny voice to the chorus.
Mr. Obama has been having a little trouble lately keeping his stories straight, and unless he is deliberately trying to mislead he got this one wrong, too. If anyone compromised "national security" by "outing" Valerie Plame as Mata Hari, it was not Scooter Libby. The special prosecutor knew all along that it was Richard L. Armitage, another government functionary, who had "outed" Valerie at the CIA, except that she was not really a covert agent, anyway, and even if she had been the law protecting covert agents did not actually apply to her. (Nobody's perfect.)
Is anyone else sort of counting down until the next "convenient"bit of news. Like the administration killing the head of some Terroist sect or them foiling some new terror plot. They need a distraction fast.
For the last friggin' time. CIA says she was covert, it means she was covert.
Hmmm, Monk, you seem to be a troublemaker. Nothing 2 or 300 hours with a tape loop of "she was not covert" won't fix.
I have been checking in on the media take on the Free-Libby joke. Apparently, Bush is "courageous" for letting his patsy off the hook.
I think I saw what looked like shame on Bill Kristol's face as he said the word "courage", and that's something you don't see everyday.
Bill Kristol has no shame.
To be "COVERT", an employee of an intelligence agency needs only have a "cover" ... an identity OTHER than "I'm a spy" which he or she uses when conducting this nation's business.
FURTHER, if that "cover" has been used when dealing with other agents or other "front" operations overseas, then every other agent or front operation who did deal with this person under his or her "cover" is subject to being outed as ALSO intelligence operatives.
Plame's "cover" was that of oil and gas consultant. With that "cover", she contacted, met with, and collected information FROM many contacts overseas. If she then goes home to evaluate and analyze that data, this does NOT mean her "covert" status is then gone away. Quite the contrary, if outed ANYTIME IN THE NEXT YEARS she is publicized as an agent, then all those who made contact with her ARE BURNED. Any "front" operations are outed as CIA outposts, because Plame was exposed as an agent.
SO, all those who argue she wasn't REALLY covert, she wasn't covert AT THE TIME because she was at a desk, that she had no contacts to protect, or any other such nonsense ... those people are aiding and abetting out enemies, and are nothing short of TRAITORS to this nation.
We HAVE the facts: She was COVERT, and her CIA employment status was CLASSIFIED.
Rightwingers making up stories and excuses and rationalizations to try to downplay their UnAmerican activities is simply more reason to hold them in contempt and disgust. Dispicable.
Too bad Fitzgerald didn't charge anyone with the leak then he could have proven his claim in court instead of presenting a one-sided claim. Since we never got to hear witnesses and evidence against Plame, it is impossible to render a verdict. Until then MMFA has absolutely nothing to stand on and Pruden's opinion is just as good as Fitzgeralds.
What do you mean 'against plame?!?!' SHE WAS COVERT!! LIBBY LIED AND OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE!! Case closed...
Yep. Case is closed alright. Too bad your assertion was proven in court. In fact, it wasn't even taken to court.
Case closed.
there was nothing to prove. the judge accepted that she was covert because the cia said so. as i wrote on another thread, the judge even allowed testimony about the damage done by outing an agent. since that testimony was undoubtedly damaging to libby, the judge had to have a solid legal basis to allow it. you lose again. try and move beyond your "yeah but" arguments.
The fact remains that no one was ever charged with leaking the identity of a covert agent and this despite the fact that at least one individual confessed to doing so.
Why do you suppose this is so?
One of the answers is: Fitzgerald knew it was unlikely he could obtain a conviction, implying that there was no clear evidence the Intelligence Identities Act was ever violated.
the fact remains that the judge accepted that the cia said she was covert. he allowed testimony that she was covert, and the damage done by her outing. the appeals court upheld that by refusing to stop libby's jail sentence. are you disagreeing with that?
There was a good prima fascie case. However since Libby died certain elements of the crime could not be proven. That certainly doesnt mean there was no crime.
You're correct on one point: that's *one* of the answers...
...but that doesn't make it likely. E.g., a lack of an indictment for a homicide doesn't necessarily mean that no murder was comitted.
"Why do you suppose this is so?"
Because some people on the stand were lying to prevent guilty parties from being tried in court, hence Fitzie's follow-up with Libby for obstruction of justice.
See how easy that was? How hard do you have to try to not see that?
Leather, we'll send monk into your bunker for a few days. Just keep repeating that same BS until he comes around .We'll make a Great American out of him yet.
Please don't. I have rare form of neocon onset tourettes. It wouldn't be to pleasnt for leatherhelmet.
I'll volunteer to take your place. I'm having trouble grasping the concept that even though nobody was ever convicted of their murders, Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman are really deceased...
I thought you guys were against torture.
I did decline the offer.
..and what is Plame accussed of...?
If Fitzgerald would have charged Rove or Libby or Armitage or any breathing human body for leaking, then he would have had to prove in court that Plame was covert. Plame testified that in her opinion she was covert. Fitzgerald would whip out his CIA memo. Then the defendants attorney would line up witnesses for his side that would try to destroy the notion that she was covert. It would have been wonderful Court TV. But alas, Fitzgerald charged no one so we will never get to see all the cards placed on the table.
But don't give up all hope, there is still the civil trial.
and the fact that the cia said she was covert is just another opinion to you? the people who gave her that designation?
Again, the CIA does not make the decision under the law. They may have considered her cover under their rules, but she would have to be covert under the law for anyone to be found guilty of outing her. Novak claimed she was outed previously, others have claimed she was outed by Cuban operatives, others like Toensing claim Plame didn't meet the qualifications under the law Toensing wrote. Libby's lawyer claimed it was known to others that she an agent -- he would have to call witnesses. I don't know that traveling overseas without being stationed overseas meets the criteria of the law. I would have loved for this to go to court so we could see it all. Maybe the civil suit will bring it all out. I could be convinced she was covert if all the evidence was on the table, but it is not.
then exactly who does make the decision "under the law"? her identity was classified information. that was stamped on every page of the documents that were distributed all over air force one on a trip to africa. it's very simple. the cia decides. they say this is classifed. the security clearances signed by libby and rove said they were not to release any info unless they knew positively that it was not classified. repeat, not classified. as in officially declassified by the agency. and if novak is such an expert on who is and is not covert, then why did he have to be told it from someone else. your position seems to be it's ok to out an agent and then we'll go to court and fight about whether they were. do i have that right?
oh, and the big legal expert toensing? she seems to be unaware that perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes in themselves. you don't just wish them away by saying there were no other charges.
This "depends on what the meaning of covert is," would be as funny as "the meaning of is, were it not for the fact that lives and national security were put at risk, at least potentially. I can remember when, not so long ago, conservatives used to rail against criminals "going free on technicalities." It seems to me that having Victoria Toensing, a rightwing pettifogger, define for the CIA how a covert agent is to be designated is the ultimate "technicality."
The law in question specifies what covert means in context of that law. The CIA job summary given to congress PROVES she met all such qualifications. Its over she was covert only the most braindamaged, brainwashed wingnuts are still trying to claim otherwise. She was exposed in 03 in 02 she travelled at least 7 times under NOC cover. She was flat out covert and no amount of you denying reality can change that FACT.
Her covert status is a fact of the case, not something to be debated. The organization that determines covert status has said she was covert. Get over it.
That is the whole point of charging Libby. If Libby did tell the truth, if Libby did not obstruct the investigation then maybe someone would have been charged with leaking a covert agent's identity.
Why would Libby's obstruction matter since the leakers were already known...including Libby!
And yet we come back to the same thing...no one has or will be charged for outing Plame.
Why noy?
How often do you have to have this explained to you? There are other elements that must be proven before it can be shown to be a crime under the statute including intent and knowlege of her covert status.
and if libby didn't lie we wouldn't be having this converstion.
He has a good point though if she was "covert" why wasn't anyone convicted of leaking her name?
Because Libby was obstructing justice and covered for the people responsible for it. If Libby wouldn't have lied and still no one was charged the neo-cons could gloat all they wanted. As it stands all of the major players lied or weren't under oath.
Also because the law stipulates "willingly" outing. That is very hard to prove, and it becomes impossible when you have someone like Libby lying and obstructing the investigation into proving the "willingly" aspect.
It's pretty clear at this point that Libby knew he'd never spend a day in jail. He took the fall, and got his reward.
On top of that, by not pardoning Libby, he's still got the right to appeal. He'll probably follow the appeals process through to the end -- which means if he's called to testify before Congress he can plead the Fifth.
It's beautiful really. The Bush Administration got their fall guy, obstructed a serious investigation, got the guy off the hook, and keep him from testifying. And he'll get a great Christmas present come Christmas 2008.
Because, Evil, the IIPA requires a person to knowingly reveal the identity, which in turn requires a prosecutor to prove "knowingly" First of all, in the rush to execute the messenger I doubt that Mr. Libby or Mr. Rove knew she was covert,nor did they care. Secondly, it's rather to prove what they knew, unless Mr. Libby would lie about leaking and then tell the truth about knowing.
Crimes, as you learn your first day in law school, require elements. In this one, malicious intent...check; revealing covert operative's identity....check; "knowingly" revealed....oops. Thus, no indictment for that.
Tim:
The thing you're missing is contained in one of the main questions during Iran/Contra. It's the situation of what someone KNEW, or SHOULD HAVE known.
High ranking officials in the White House have security clearances. When they get these clearances, they are told the RULES, such as, you do not discuss CLASSIFIED information with people who do not have clearance for that classified information. Such as, say, REPORTERS.
When you get your clearance, you are warned that some information is ALMOST CERTAINLY classified, like any information about intelligence agency reports or personnel. It's a no-brainer; intelligence is our SECRET AGENT stuff.
While it's true that SOME members of intelligence agencies are known (such as the director), it's a case of CHECK before proceeding to discuss such intelligence info. If you DO NOT KNOW an agent's (or a document's) STATUS, you CHECK ... because our national security depends on it.
If Libby or Cheney had checked any documents pertaining to Valerie Plame/Wilson, they would have instantly noticed that all were stamped "CLASSIFIED".
If they did NOT check, they are guilty of negligence, and SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. It's their responsibility to make sure information they share is OK to share. It's a no-brainer.
It would be up to a jury to decide INTENT, and whether these Administration people were incompetent, malicious, and stupid (and SHOULD HAVE KNOWN), or if they KNEW about the Classified Status, and chose to ignore their responsibility to keep it secret.
Either way, they are DANGEROUS to America's security, and should have ANY access to classified information eliminated immediately, their clearance status revoked. Because they do not know what is RED FLAG information, they don't care enough to check, and they will ignorantly blab away information that could get people KILLED.
Are you being serious? I know you've been around here long enough to know the answer to that ridiculous question, so I'm going to assume you're feigning reich wing ignorance.
Against Plame. That's perfect. What a great illustration of what little fascists the Bushies are. I'm not exaggerating either. I know you're supposedly flying off the handle if you say someone is behaving as a fascist but it's a real thing. They have their guys in power so they can't grasp that the crime here was commited by their guys. It's a matter of perceiving power to be personified by these individuals they follow and not a matter of the Rule of Law. Therefore Plame, by being a political threat to their guys becomes the defendent against what they see as the State. She's breaking the law because she's a problem for these individuals. Just look at the way fundamental facets of Western Law like Habeus Corpus are being attacked. There is no respect for the law either in the right-wing leaders or their followers. It's simply a tool for the Powerful to use when it suits them and ignore when it doesn't. If that aint a fascist tendency, I don't know what is.
I think you are correct in your assessment. Bush and his Junta have all the classic earmarks of fascism, including their elaborate propaganda organ and the theofascists who slavishly support their war-for-profit.
We so often say that we should learn from history in order to avoid repeating mistakes. But we also seem to have this unwritten rule that comparing anyone to certain villians of the past is simply hysterical. We've created a culture in which the closer a political movement is to being fascist, the harder it is to describe them. If you try to point out the extremists, you are labeled an extremist. The recent movement of the country to the right has had many of the earmarks of other movements in the past century. We shy away from these comparisons at our own peril. Fascism didn't arise in a vacume and it wasn't something in the water. It's a real danger in society because there are millions who are easily seduced by the Siren song of Power. Many of the Bush supporters I've seen in the media and in my own life just stink of it.
Absolutely. One recent Supreme Court decision that got little attention essentially stated that money spent by Executive Order on Faith Based initiatives cannot be challenged in court. Their reasoning was that only an act of Congress can be challenged on First Amendment grounds. It's what the Troglodytes have longed for...a strictly literal interpretation of the First Amendment's Religion clause. They may think it a victory, but if the Executive Branch is exempt from the Religion clause, it is also exempt from the Free Press clause and Free Speech clause. This will be Bush's legacy...a fascist troglodyte Supreme Court.
I hope everyone who voted for Bush lives to regret it.
I've found that being right in arguments with the righties never really pays off. It's not really satisfying to look at the Iraq war and say, "I told you so," even though I did. I argued with my neighbor at the begining of the thing that we'd get stuck in a deadly quagmire that would make terrorism worse. He said I must really not love America. He still watches Fox and can't seem to remember ever being wrong about anything. It's the same with our rights. When we're sitting in a jail cell for thought crimes with some right-winger who voted for the creeps who put us there, it's not really going to be a joyous occasion.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around it still makes a sound. Same logic applies here. She was covert, deal with it.
sigh...
Again....Here is a frickin video clip of Valerie Plame TESTIFING ABOUT HER COVERT STAUS UNDER OATH in front of the Committee on Oversight and Governmet Reform.
[link to movies.crooksandliars.com]
She says in the first three minutes of the video: "I served the United States loyally, and to the best of my ability as a COVERT operations officer of the Central Intelligence Agency."
Did I mention that she said this UNDER OATH? So if she "was not really a covert agent, anyway" then Mr. Pruden MUST say she lied UNDER OATH and he must write an editorial calling for her immediate arrest! If he does not do this, HE is the one who is casually lying about her status! Right?
It is ON THE RECORD that she was covert. Why is this STILL an issue with the right wing?
sorry
here is the link
www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/29/plame-was-a-covert-agent/
So if I play a tape of Scooter Libby testifying you would believe everything he said? Why have a trial then if Scooter gets to be the judge and jury?
fitzgerald said she was covert, the cia said she was covert, the judge accepted that she was covert. what backs your contention she was not?
How about the fact that no one's been charged with what this fiasco was supposedly all about?
Because Libby perjured himself and obstructed justice so greatly that Fitzgerald, because of Libby's interference was not able to bring charges.
I think that when people hear facts they do not want to hear, their brains bobble out of orbit (like a bobblehead doll) to dodge the inconvenient fact) then resurface to say the same thing over & over.
Treason is no joke and should not be a gotcha contest for anyone.
You know, Leather you really need to take Troll Lessons. Mindlessly repeating nonsense without even attempting to come up with any kind of response (even a bad argument is better than nothing) is not really working.
Sigh...
Oh for the days when Trolls new how to do their jobs....
I'll say this r-e-a-l slowly. I would not believe Scooter under oath, because he's a proven PERJURER!!
Leather, you must have missed this:"So if she "was not really a covert agent, anyway" then Mr. Pruden MUST say she lied UNDER OATH and he must write an editorial calling for her immediate arrest!" See, the problem is that nobody is charging her with perjury. If there was any sort of legal argument that she wasn't covert, surely someone in the rabidly politicized justice department would be all over her as we speak. Yet, they don't seem to be, do they? Considering that all other indications point to her being covert, there is no logical reason in the world not to believe she was telling the truth there.
I'm sure you will start talking about the definition of covert in the courts. Stop right there. Let me try to explain the problem with your set of arguments very carefully. There is a law which defines "covert" for the purpose of that law. The CIA designates who is covert and who isn't under their employment.
These...are...two...separate..things.
One...has...nothing...to do..with...the other.
See, the CIA knows who they have designated as a covert operative and who they haven't. They know what is classified and what is not. The law is written by people outside of the CIA for purposes of prosecution of that very law. It doesn't have to reflect any reality as to whether a person was actually covert or not. It's not as if the CIA sends someone on secret missions all around the world, and the court can determine he or she wasn't covert for the purposes of prosecution and suddenly all those secret missions never took place. It's not as if at that point people in the CIA are going to think "oops, we had their status as covert and classified. We must have been wrong!"
Is that clear? If not, I'll save this for any future posts because I'm sick to death of your nonsensical BS on this topic.
video or not. who was convicted of lying under oath?: Valerie Plame Wilson or Libby? Is there an investigation of Valerie Plame Wilson "lying" about her covert status under oath (shown in this video clip)? Should there be?
It is still an issue because it makes the "patriotic" crowd look bad to out a covert CIA agent after all of their bluster about national security, terrorists, WMDs, and being partiotic.
"makes them look bad"?
How about it makes them look like outright traitors and criminals.
Ceinnedeah,
That leather is way too soft and you've taken way too many blows to the topknot. Valerie Plame is not accused of anything. Why should we hear any witnesses against her?
You are SO full of it. The CIA declassified her job summary. She WAS covert. She travelled as a NOC agent. This was shown in congressional testimony. Since when is NOTHING proven until its proven in COURT? How weak will your posts get before you realize how badly you are embarassing yourself. I get you are a propaganda parrot who cares NOTHING about truth, facts or reality but its now LUDICROUS. THIS IS OVER. SHE WAS COVERT. IT HAS BEEN PROVEN. Give it up.
Her name is Valerie Wilson not Plame. That is what Joe Wilson said night on CNNs Situation Room, he was offened that she is called Plame. I wish the media and even MMFA would call her by her correct and legal name.
Plame, Wilson whatever she is a liar . She also worked for the CIA an immoral organization that as we discovered tried to kill among others Castro. Dosgraceful She got what she deserved. Joe Wilson remained quiet in 1991 when these horrible sanctions were imposed on Iraqi Children that starved hundreds of thousands, now we are supposed to find him credible? Please
Drop the righteous indignation. It rings hollow and false.
So it's OK to expose someone working for national security because they work for the CIA? Bear in mind that often, we hear a lot of what goes wrong with what the CIA does, but I would hazard to guess that for a lot of the things they do wrong, there are plenty of things that they do right that you'll never ever hear about.
"She got what she deserved" What did she get? Do all the people who put themselves at risk in the service of this country need to "get" what they deserve? It's the political leadership that is responsible for the most part what the CIA does, we expect the agents, officers, soldiers etc to follow orders, not have thousands of unelected individuals deciding national policy. By the way, it a covert agents job to lie, that is why it is called covert.
"Plame, Wilson whatever she is a liar . She also worked for the CIA an immoral organization that as we discovered tried to kill among others Castro. Dosgraceful She got what she deserved. Joe Wilson remained quiet in 1991 when these horrible sanctions were imposed on Iraqi Children that starved hundreds of thousands, now we are supposed to find him credible? Please"
=
Hey don't pay any attention to the fact the Libby is a convicted felon and Plame was serving her country and Bush is ...... a moron. THe CIA is evil and she worked there (what does the CIA have to do with this?) and Valerie is a bad women despite the fact the the administration in all likelihood has done far worse and is more damaging to the country.
=
Hey! Look over here, nothing to see over there.
Sue, don't let a little thing like the "facts" get in your way.
Mr. Libby's story that he was at the tail end of a chain of phone calls, passing on from one reporter what he heard from another, was not true," Fitzgerald said.
"He was at the beginning of the chain of phone calls -- the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter -- and then he lied about it afterwards, under oath and repeatedly," he said.
So because the CIA plotted to kill Castro, then it's perfectly fine for any employee of the CIA to get outed and smeared at any time for any reason, even years afterwards, even if they're working on matters of national security. And to hell with Wilson, because of UN sanctions against Iraq.
That has to be the lamest spin I have ever seen. AutoPsychic, AnotherAmerican and Tommy must face your direction and pray five times every day. You truly are the grandmaster of utter BS.
What did she lie about, Su-eeeeee?
so what right wing think tank do you intern for?
Bush: Come home Judas all is forgiven.
Pssst the name is Libby
Bush: Oh. Catch me before I kill more I cannot control myself.
Psst you're not governor of Texas anymore you're the President now.
Bush: That's not what Dick told me.
The CIA says she was covert .. end of story. Pruden and the rest of the Bush crotch-sniffers really need to give it up.
Anyone care to venture a guess what would have happened to an official in the Clinton Administration who deliberately outed a covert agent for political gain?
The same thing that happened to to Clinton's crony to stole classified docs from the archives and lied about it.
Nothing.
Hey Lolo:
I have a homework assignment for you.
Come up with a thoughtful, intelligent post that doesn't mention either Bill or Hillary Clinton.
The "But Clinton did it too" defense is really getting old.
The same thing that happened to to Clinton's crony to stole classified docs from the archives and lied about it.
Your knowledge of the Sandy Berger case is surpassed only by your knowledge of the Constitution.
I'm speaking in golf terms, of course. A lower score wins. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Berger "stole" nothing. He took copies of documents from the Archives while he was doing research. The originals were never out of the Archives, thus were not "stolen."
I know you have to spout the Reich-Wing talking points or you get drummed out of the Troll's Union, but you need to try harder. You'll never make Journeyman Troll if you are as incompetent as your posts make you look. You'll be an Apprentice forever.
SPORTSGUY:
The Bush supporters in the media will never "give it up", because that is not their job. Most already KNOW how corrupt and criminal the Bush Administration is, but it is their job to try to fool YOU. So they will continue to distort reality, make up "FACTS", and heap their "opinions" that everything is OK, hoping that the American People will be placated, and Bush can continue on his reign of error and terror.
In truth, the Rightwing Media would HAVE to know the real facts, in order to put together their distortions. They need to know what it is they are hiding in order to craft a proper smoke screen. They KNOW that they are complicit in obstruction of justice, but these media folk are well paid to be propagandists for the administration. So they lie, distort, and continue to misinform their audience.
Hopefully, enough will be fooled, or at least put in enough uncertainty to refrain from calling for immediate impeachments. As long as GW Bush and Dick Cheney continue to hold the reins of POWER, then the Rightwing Media is doing its job of protecting that POWER.
Keep in mind, this NeoCon crowd in the White House is full of contempt for the American People, and couldn't care less about "approval ratings" or "popularity". All they care about is having the authority to keep getting American Soldiers killed in order to control oil supplies for their pals. As long as THAT remains in effect, this White House has no worries.
George W. Bush has now proved he is nothing but a liar. Twice he swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. His commutation of good ole "Scooter" is just another example of his lack of character. The “decider” is a crook and articles of impeachment need to be brought against him, Oh, and let’s not forget the VP also. My money is on him has the one who leaked Valier Wilson’s name and he got away with it by Libby being the scapegoat. This whole administration are nothing but LIARS AND CROOKS.
Unfortunately, in this case, Bush has the power granted to him by the Constitution in this case, to grant commutations of sentences. He actually DID uphold the Constitution in this case. Which is funny, as much as he likes to run it over when it suits his needs and all.
I wouldn't go so far as to say he "upheld" the Constitution in this case. But yes, he was within his rights as President to commute his fellow traitor's sentence.
He didn't "uphold" the constitution as much as "mis-used" the constitution.
The whole lot of them are corrupt to the core.
The NeoClowns have learned that repeating a lie often enough is all they need to fool their knuckledragging base. How many people still believe that Iraq was behind 9/11, or that we actually did find WMD in Iraq? I haven't seen the latest polls, but I'll wager that it roughly coincides with President Numbnuts' approval rating.
Repeat the Lie... Repeat the Lie... Repeat the Lie... Repeat the Lie... Repeat the Lie...
Actually, I think the last polling numbers I saw about the whole Iraq/9-11 connection still had it well in the high 40th percentile as far as people who said Iraq had something to do with 9-11. And about the same percentage said we did indeed find WMDs in Iraq. It still amazes me. Utterly.
when you consider that 20% of the adult listening population listens to rush at least once in awhile, and you can go into a lot of bars, hotel lobbies, and other public places and fox news is on........
Actually, I think it's higher. Tweety said last night that some 40% of Americans still think Iraq was involved in 9/11.
this has been bandied back and forth for too long... she was covert; end of story...
"If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said
What will it take to answer this question once and for all?
What'cha mean? Asked and answered.
More obstruction, this time by the Prez -
On an earlier thread, someone wrote that since there was no pardon, Libby can appeal his conviction and avoid testifying before congress.
His appeal will take a year of more to creep through the courts - and then Bush will wield his pardon pen.
Much as had been assumed on the simple office hen principle of grousing up phony endorsements, qualifications and recommendations to essentially, make coffee, play the receptionist, refill the snack bar and be shown off in the whole hen-house complex of egotistically overcompetitive Stepford wives with platinum cards.
The news says the Dems are enraged at the commuting of Scooter Libby...sort of an assumed judgeship's vernacular tried on for size by the Munky Whubbuh...who probably always wanted to be a robed autocrat handing down the ultimatums fron on high with a gavel. What will he attempt next, brain surgery? The news will portray anyone chasing after one its own fictions just to make it have seemed more real than it wasn't. 'Spanish assumed-name prisoner' I think that's what they call it in the spy world's big mass-mind-game manual.
As plain a Plame Game as can be seen, nothing other than preferential justice floral arranging and bullwarks overwarked as usual by the single greatest imposters---almost as Dumbzilla as Ann Coulter.
The only reason the sentence was commuted was to remind Scooter where that extra money they perked was to be spent, by way of paying his fine. For his services in helping to craft more nuissance filler, bilge material for the whole impeachment blockade, the 'Little Rascals' sounding character probably makes out with a golden parachute. See, nobody's dying in Iraq.
More like WRITINGINCOHERENCE.
If we can get back to the point of the article:
I assume Pruden was writing an editorial and not a "factually accurate" news story (I don't believe even the Washington Times has fallen to the level of printing outright lies, but I could be wrong).
When an editorial is presented as an opinion piece the intent would, I assume, be to convince the readers to accept a position. There are several possible ways this could be done:
1. Argument from authority "Believe what I say because I said it"
2. Argument based on fear "The other side is evil and everything they say is wrong"
3. Argument based on reasoning "Here are the facts and here are the conclusions that can be drawn"
Pruden seems to attempt to use all three of these methods and fails at each. His authority as a News Editor seems suspect, his attempt to cast the "other side" as evil and wrong only works to convince the very simple-minded (Hello Leather?), and his arguments are based on knowingly printing lies (she was not covert).
All in all, a crude attempt at propaganda by the Washington Times.
I just came back to see how Sueeeeeeeld responded to the question about Plames "lies".
Nuthin, in fact, nuthin from most of the ususal GOP faithful.Did we finally locate their BS threshold?
Hm.. I doubt it, they're probably distracted with fireworks.
Nothing more from Sueeeeld, but some right-wing talking point regurgitator named LoLo is going back over all the threads this morning dropping debunked lies all over the place.
the thing I never have understood is -- lets assume she was not "covert" within the statuatory definition-- how did revealing her employment and the identity of the CIA front company in some way help the effort in the war on terror. What was the expected benefit to the US war on terror in revealing any information about specific employees and front companies? In every other context the administration has insisted that less specific information must be guarded at all cost even if the basic constitutional rights need be curtailed. therfore even if she was not covert what was the purpose in letting this information be publiished?
And the Washington Times is not really a reliable source of information.