Taranto repeated stale falsehood that there's "no evidence" Plame was a "covert agent"
On the July 6 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, while discussing President Bush's commutation of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month prison sentence, Wall Street Journal Opinionjournal.com editor James Taranto falsely claimed that "[t]here's still no evidence that [former CIA operative] Valerie Plame [Wilson] was a covert agent." In fact, as Media Matters for America has repeatedly noted, in a May 25 sentencing memorandum, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald wrote that "[a]t the time of the leaks, Ms. Wilson in fact qualified as a 'covert agent' within the meaning of the IIPA" (Intelligence Identities Protection Act). To support this claim, Fitzgerald included an "unclassified summary" of Plame's employment at the CIA -- which had been given to Libby's defense team in June 2006 -- stating that the CIA "declassified and now publicly acknowledges the previously classified fact that Ms. Wilson was a CIA employee from 1 January 2002 forward and the previously classified fact that she was a covert CIA employee during this period." The "unclassified summary" 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.
Furthermore, Taranto claimed that "[t]he person who leaked her name was Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state." However, as Media Matters has documented, while Armitage leaked Plame's identity to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who revealed that information in a July 14, 2003, column, according to evidence and testimony at Libby's trial on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements, Libby was a source of the information about Plame's CIA employment for at least two other journalists -- The New York Times' Judith Miller and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper. As journalist Murray Waas noted in his book The United States v. I. Lewis Libby (Union Square Press, June 2007), Miller testified on January 30 that Libby had disclosed Plame's CIA employment to her at a July 8, 2003, breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., well before Novak publicly revealed it in his July 14, 2003, column. Cooper, in his first-person account of his testimony before the grand jury in the leak investigation, identified White House senior adviser Karl Rove as his original source for Plame's identity and Libby as his corroborating source. As Media Matters has noted, there is no requirement that the identity of a covert agent actually have been published for there to have been an illegal leak under the IIPA.
From the July 6 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, with guest host Kitty Pilgrim and Democratic strategist Robert Zimmerman:
PILGRIM: But much political capital is being made and lost in this debate, right, James?
TARANTO: I don't know how much it's going to end up making a difference in terms of, you know, next year's election. I know Scooter Libby. He's a good man. I'm glad to see he's not going to go to prison for what was a bogus investigation. There's still no evidence that Valerie Plame was a covert agent. The person who leaked her name was Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state. Somehow, you know, nobody is calling for him to be put on trial for this. This whole thing was political, and I don't think a man should go to prison for it.
ZIMMERMAN: There is no question Richard Armitage should be held accountable for leaking Valerie Plame's name, but the issue here is that Scooter Libby, in front of the jury of his peers and in fact with a Republican conservative judge upholding the verdict, was found guilty of committing perjury in front of an FBI agent, in front of a grand jury, obstructing justice, and by all means, this administration gave this man a get out of jail free card, and that is truly is reprehensible.
TARANTO: I'm sorry, Robert. I have a softer heart than you do.
ZIMMERMAN: No. I don't wish that on anyone, but I do believe this administration should be held accountable to their own words.
"This whole thing was political..."
You got that right, Jimmy. And, patsy enablers like yourself, continue the sham... Now you tell me who's playing politics?
The fact that no one puts these liars' feet to the fire and really forces them to explain their comments... it's embarrassing. Words are one thing... this 'administration' should be held accountable for their actions. Something we're never going to see, especially with the so-called 'free press' lying for them.
Right, right... these guys are just 'pundits'! This is all just opinion! BS.
What a jackass Taranto is. Of course Valerie Wilson was covert. Valerie Wilson says she was covert. CIA operatives with whom she worked, including Larry Johnson, say Valerie Wilson was covert. The special counsel who prosecuted Libby says Valerie Wilson was covert. The judge who sentenced Libby says Valerie Wilson was covert. The CIA head says Valerie Wilson was covert. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors and family all thought she worked as an analyst for an energy consulting company, not as an operative for the CIA. Valerie Wilson's career at the CIA effectively ended the day Novak revealed her identity to the public. Any reasonable observer would conclude that if she wasn't covert, Scooter Libby wouldn't have had a motive to lie and obstruct justice to cover up what he'd done.
The idea that Armitage was the "real" leaker is ridiculous. First, it's clear that Libby talked to Judith Miller on the 8th of July, 2003. Robert Novak's column revealing Valerie Wilson's identity ran on 14 July. The Leak isn't when the information was revealed in print -- the leak is when the information is revealed to ANYONE, such as Judith Miller or Matt Cooper, who has no reason to know it.
In addition, who decided there can only be one leaker, Armitage OR Libby? ANYONE who reveals classified information to someone who doesn't have a need to know it is wrong. Suppose you know that John Smith is a CIA operative. Further suppose that you get a phone call from a reporter who says "I heard from 5 people that John Smith is a covert CIA operative. Can you confirm or deny that?" Even though several other people might have revealed that information, YOU are STILL obligated to keep it secret, as was each of the other 5 people who revealed it. They're ALL wrong.
Taranato is simply part of a long line of Bush administration supporters in the media who minimize and explain away every lie, needless war, unconstitutional power grab, weakening of America's national security, coarsening of the national political dialogue, no bid contract to a crony, and bribe or federal appointment to an administration friend or relative. He has to know he's lying, yet he does it anyway, apparently deciding that his partisan political views are more important than the truth. He'd be ashamed of himself if he knew how to feel shame.
Good post, good synopsis of the situation
The judge? Here is what he told the jury:
Whatever Judge Reggie Walton rules, the argument has exposed the underlying dilemma in the case, one that arose on the very first day of the trial, when Walton gave the jury this instruction: “No evidence will be presented to you with regard to Valerie Plame Wilson’s status. That is because what her actual status was, or whether any damage would result from disclosure of her status, are totally irrelevant to your decision of guilt or innocence. You must not consider these matters in your deliberations or speculate or guess about them.”
What he did say when it was over was that it did not appear to him that it was proven that Libby "knowingly" outed a covert agent. Also he said that persons high up in government have a responsibility to check the status of any individual remotely associated with an intelligence agency.
But to claim the judge said she was covert is baloney. Whether she was covert or not was not an issue in this trial let alone decided and until the civil trial we will even not see all the evidence.
you keep talking about all this so-called evidence that will be presented at the civil trial. if there was one iota of evidence that she was not covert, the right wingers would have dug it up already. that is, aside from all the false garbage like "even her neighbors knew". the fact is that no one knew. certainly not one of the reporters libby and rove told knew.
They’ll probably call someone to the stand who’ll say: “Even though it is not present in the law and there is no documentation of it, the intent was blah, blah, blah…so according to that interpretation I just made up, I mean according to that intent that was always there, Ms. Wilson was not covert. But I don’t think they’ll go that route anyway. They’ll either settle the case or say that the president somehow declassified the information [without consulting with the CIA].
There should be closed quotes after covert.
I guess we will have to wait until the civil suit to find out.
No we dont. It is a proven fact she WAS covert. The CIA declassified her job summary. If you cared one whit about the facts instead of the propaganda you wouldnt still be trying this incredibly weak talking point. She was covert, proven fact, get over it. You were flat out wrong all along. You were wrong when you said she didnt travel out of the country in the last five years, you are wrong now. You should stop embarassing yourself
All we've seen so far is more and more proof that Leatherhelmet needs a checkup from the neck up.
She was covert. Get over it. It's a fact that's no longer up for debate.
Now, now - don't confuse these brain-dead righties with facts, now!!!
:-)
Go back and read the decision of the panel of 3 Federal judges - they make it very clear they believe Ms. Plame was a covert agent.
LH,
As much as it pains me I will agree with you as to whether the judge knew VPW was or wasn't covert. I'm glad that you realize that good ole "Scooter" was tried for lying and obstruction and not outing a covert agent. The continuing smoke screen thrown up by the Bushies that since the underlying crime, outing VPW, was never prosecuted then why pick on poor ole “Scooter”. Well I feel sorry for “Scooter” too. However, that does not make his lying a non-crime. With the commutation and his more than likely pardon sometime in the future, good ole “Scooter” has done the crime but will not have to do the time. Just another clear indication of how being a Bush/Cheney loyalist is rewarded. The Bush/Cheney apologists in the media, and there are a hell of a lot of them, are only braying to the Bush/Cheney base who only hear what they want to hear. Trying to convince that 26% of anything else is just a waist of time.
Just curious as to why you'd feel sorry for him. He got away with outing Plame, and now he's gotten away with the crime he was actually convicted of. I don't see why anyone should feel sorry for him.
CC,
When I said that I felt sorry for him I was thinking how he has been used by the Bush/Cheney cabal and how any sin, lie, obstruction, is used to justify how this administration operates. I feel sorry for him in the sense that he must have none, zero, nada self respect to allow himself to be used as their scapegoat. So yes I guess I feel sorry for him that he has no gonads to tell the truth to the american people.
i don't think anyone can be used by these people over such a number of years. they all are birds of a feather. just like bush knows what a cutthroat liar rove is.
When I said that I felt sorry for him I was thinking how he has been used by the Bush/Cheney cabal
I was thinking the same thing. Libby lied and pretended to forget to protect his boss and he didn't have to do it. It wasn't needed. He didn't realize the others were singing. They let him do it. Good ole scooter.
Eh. It's becoming clear given the commutation that he was promised he'd be okay all along if he took the hit. I don't feel sorry for Scooter.
"My take on it," Walton said, is that the trial did not prove Libby knew that Plame worked in an undercover capacity when he disclosed her identity to several reporters. Still, the judge added, "anybody at that high-level position had a unique and special obligation before they said anything about anything associated with a national security agency [to] . . . make every conceivable effort" to verify their status before releasing information about them.
"While there is no evidence that Mr. Libby knew what the situation was, he surely did not take any efforts to find out," Walton said. "I think public officials need to know if they are going to step over the line, there are going to be consequences. . . . [What Libby did] causes people to think our government does not work for them."
Read this quote. Judge Walton said it at Libby's sentencing. The sentence in bold makes clear that Walton knows that Valerie Wilson was covert. By saying the trial didn't prove Libby knew Valerie Wilson was undercover, Walton is agreeing that Wilson was in fact undercover.
and what the judge was saying is exactly and precisely what the security oath that rove and libby took says. there is no guessing. they are to know, for sure, that anything is offficialy declassified before they discuss it with anyone. which is why this whole episode reveals so much about not only them, but bush and all his apologists. bush surely knew right away what had happened, and yet the white house issued denial after denial that rove and libby were "involved". and rove recently had his security clearance renewed.
officially
Valerie Plame Wilson was covert
And the lying about her is overt
She was a CIA noc
But they lied about Iraq
Thus national security was hurt
What no one wants to talk about is how much damage has been done in the outing of Plame.
We know that Valerie was put down as an employee of a fictitious company, but who else has been compromised because they too have put down as employees of this fictitious company? We can never know the answer because such information is still classifed, but not to our enemies.
What the hell was Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Libby thinking when they outed Plame? Did these clownballs have any clue as to how much damage outing an agent would cost this country in terms of money and security?
These clowns are power hungry and will or have done anything to keep that power. Now that the congress is doing some oversight on behalf of the american people you will see more and more hunkering down on their part and more and more smoke screens from their apologists in the media.
The faux outrage expressed by so many of my friends here is simply Bush Derangement Syndrome exemplified. After all, the original leaker is Plame herself is she not? After all, who told Wilson?
The elephant in the room that nobody talks about is the fact that her hubby, if he were at all interested in the country's safety and his wife's undercover status would not have written his obviously biased and mistake laden op-ed, (as pointed out by the 9/11 commission,) that lead to all this.
Noo... Wilson and Plame were too busy being willing lackies of the Kerry team to try to undermine Bush and at the same time, gain notoriety and prop Wilson up to JFK.
As we all know, a dedicated public servant gathering 'classified' evidence for the CIA does not go around making up stuff and writing op-eds for the NYT. Anybody with half a brain understands that publishing something that incindiary, (not to mention error laden,) and important as the pre-war intel, should know that many people inside and out of the Administration would question his knowledge and his contacts. Plame herself should have told him to not to write the op-ed. But does anyone bring this up? No.
All this hoopla about Pame is a farce. The NYT discloses top secret programs on what seems to be a regular basis and there is not a peep from my friends here or MMFA about the national security and/or lives endagered by the treasonous acts. But the Wilson affair will not die.
It is all politically motivated. The outrage here by the left, in my opinion, simply a pretext to attack Bush and undermine the war effort. Certainly it was by the Democratic leadership. They dropped Wilson like a hot potato.
Libby is found guilty over an investigation that should have been dropped well before it got to this point, but it didn't and he's now a felon. He faces a fine and no jail time. Plame and Wilson, on the other hand, true to their patriotic spirit, want to make millions writing a book, no doubt exposing other 'secrets' of her past. Are they concerned about her NOC status? Gimme a break. They never were.
"After all, the original leaker is Plame herself is she not? After all, who told Wilson?"
I have to admit that I quit reading your post after this sentence. If you're going to include such a stupid, assinine statement like this at the very top, then I'm not going to waste my time reading anything else you have to say.
I'm just going to hum a little song to myself instead... Hmmm, hmmm, hmmm, HMMMMM, hmmmmmmm.
There. I feel better now. Have a nice day.
Thanks for taking the time to reply even if you only read part of my post.
The comment was a bit flippant but why is it so assinine? Did she not tell Wilson on their third or fourth date she was with the CIA?
Is that not revealing her own CIA identity? Is it okay for her to disclose her NOC status but nobody else?
I only mentioned it because of the lunacy that has ensued by this whole affair.
It is a diversion by those who hate Bush to try to de-legitimizes the war and the Administration when the left, as evidenced by the NYT, will publish top-secret programs with the intent of damaging national security and do so at the drop of a leak.
If the Bush haters here and the NYT were so adamant about national security they'd be calling for the leakers to the NYT to be prosecuted. They don't. It is all partisan.
Taking legitimacy away from the war is like killing your imaginary friend. It was never there to begin with.
I like how you determine "intent" with regard to the NYT stories. There's no reasonable basis for printing them, such as the legality of the programs?
It is interesting how you are apparently trying to argue that a genuine dislike of President Bush's policies is seen by you as necessarily just an expression of anti-Bush irrationality.
That's funny considering that is how I would describe many of the people who stubbornly defend the seemingly indefensible policies of this administration. Those are the real "Bush Derangement Syndrome" sufferers.
Brab and Open,
You can see in your posts the 'derangement' of which I speak.
Brab, of course there was legitimacy. Unless of course you are saying the UN edict and the vote of our Senate authorizing use of war was illegitimate. It is only illegitimate if you suffer from BDS.
Open, it is funny that you now state that it only Bush's policies that are in question. How on earth you can say that with a straight face after each and every day reading the venom and vitriol expressed here is simply amazing.
It is because of you and your friend's Bush hatred that you would not even see the evidence that is before you everyday and then try to argue it is only "the policies" is further proof of the 'derangement'.
"Open, it is funny that you now state that it only Bush's policies that are in question. How on earth you can say that with a straight face after each and every day reading the venom and vitriol expressed here is simply amazing."--aa
Of course, I can't speak for everyone. I don't know why you would even put it that way. I am not not nearly as good a mindreader as you are. But then again, you should already know that as well.
; )
We had UN support for overthrowing Iraq? Really? Note that Congress didn't issue a declaration of war, that is not the same thing as the AUMF. If I recall correctly, at the time of the AUMF Bush was assuring everyone that he didn't want to go to war. Of course, that fault lies with people who believed him, right?
What rationale makes the war legitimate? Ties to 9/11? No, even the administration pretends it didn't try that one. WMDs? They tried to spin the aluminum tubes and yellowcake into reasons to invade in spite of the intelligence they had. So neither of those is a legitimate basis for war.
Therefore what we have is a war of aggression. Either it's for oil, or to "get" Saddam as revenge for the plot to kill Bush 41, or to create some sort of domino effect in the Middle East, or to use Iraq as bait for terrorists (at the expense of Iraqi lives that we're supposed to be fighting for). None of those are legitimate grounds for war.
Saying "Saddam was a bad man! And then we voted for a war we were told we didn't want!" does not make a war legitimate. Sorry.
WMDs? They tried to spin the aluminum tubes and yellowcake into reasons to invade in spite of the intelligence they had.
Sure would have been nice to have had some intelligence in this regard. Some people working behind the scenes, say, to determine if there were in fact WMDs in that country before launching a war and killing tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands to find out there weren't any at all. Maybe one of our intelligence agencies could have come up with a plan to covertly determine if there was anything fishy going on. Hmm...
I forgot to note that you completely failed to answer my question about the NYT stories. An oversight on your part, or was it your intent to dodge the question?
Sorry I didn't jump on your reply. No offense meant. I didn't think at the time you were serious.
The intent which I speak is a result of careful consideration by the NYT editors to publish after they were asked by our Government not to do so because of the harm to National Security.
So they knew it would harm our National Security, or at least knew the Goverment felt it would, and decided to publish it anyway.
I thought you already knew that.
The vote gave us national legal legitimacy which isnt all there is to legitimacy. We need to add Bush's lies and deceptions to GET that vote but the UN NEVER sanctioned the invasion and only you Bush Idolotry Syndrome sufferers think they did. Even hawk Richard Perle nicknamed in Washington the Prince of Darkness admitted there was no international legal basis for the invasion. Thats ok. We understand that you BIS sufferers will just believe anything you have to in order to appologize for Bush. If he were shown sodomizing a goat on CNN you would be praising him for supporting 4-H
Speaking of Princes, it is nice to hear from the Prince of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Your co-opting of the term and lame attempt at an insulting rebuttal just goes hand in hand with the BSD.
Unfortunately you and a bunch here are so filled with the hate Bush that you dismiss any evidence that does not support your pathological hatred and feel the need to insult and deride anyone who disagrees. It is classic BDS.
You dont know anything about who I hate. I dont even know Bush, why would I hate him. He isnt married to my sister, he isnt coming over for dinner. He exists for me only in a political context. I hate his policies. I have been using the term Bush idolotors and Bush idolotry syndrome for at least three years. I would think you co-opted it from me except I know you NEVER think for yourself and this is something you got from one of your propaganda parrot masters. Another symptom of Bush Idolotry Syndrome.
What you Bush idolotors dont get is that she told her future husband. On my third date with my late wife we were already talking about marriage. What you also dont take into account in your zeal as a Bush idolotor making any weak defense your propaganda parrot masters tell you to make is that Wilson was an Ambassador and had a security clearance, its likely one high enough to BE told. YOU certainly cant show he didnt, which would be classified, so you cannot make the claim her telling him constituted ANY exposure whatsoever no matter how much you WISH this tripe were true. The reporters did NOT have such security clearance. Now that is a pretty obvious and important difference.
Like I said, I know the difference. What you conveniently overlook is that fact that even if they were talking about marriage, it is only their third date. What kind of NOC would fall for a whirlwind romance and give out classified information after three dates? It seems she is as guilty as anyone of divulging her status. Does just saying 'we were talking about marriage' oblivate her obligation to protect her status. Hell no.
And who gives a rip if Wilson was cleared? Who said he was cleared? Oh yeah.. He did. That's reassuring. Wilson also gave up portions of national security in his speaches and op-eds in his attempt at damaging the re-election campaign of Bush. So no, he isn't a journalist, but he still violated his clearance and still published.
There are differences but there are similarities too.
He had security clearance that is a FACT. I cited a NYTimes article saying the same thing. I was talking to my late wife about marriage on our third date and it isnt UP to YOU to judge when a relationship moves to the level that information such as this should be divulged. Being a NOC has consequences for a family. If they were going to move to the level where they would get married WHICH THEY DID, it is something the guy should know. Bottom line he DID have security clearance, the reporters didnt so its just plain stupid to claim giving information to someone cleared to get it is exposing yourself. Ya got nothin.
Actually I think the first leaker was the person who informed Plame that she was hired. He/she/they leaked that information to Plame herself.
I think you are confused on many levels, but the most basic level is that this relates to the public disclosure of Plame's occupational identity. If Wilson had made Plame's occupational identity public or not protected that secret the same as anyone else who knew then you might have a point, but then again you have so much else that you wrote that doesn't make sense either.
Your argument that Wilson should have known his wife would be outed is ridiculous. What makes you think believing the government would betray Plame's identity should be such a given? It is indeed reasonable that the administration would go after Wilson, but I am affraid expecting your government to commit an act of treason and publicly disclose Plame's apparent covert status in that pursuit is simply not reasonable at all and would seem unthinkable if the Bush Administration apparent traitors hadn't done it.
If there were treason, why no charges?
Your accusation is further proof of your BDS.
I was describing a reasonable point of view that Wilson could have had. The idea that this administration likely wouldn't resort to such measures. I can't help that the Bush Administration actually did in defiance of what commonsense might have informed Wilson's apparently unfounded and misplaced faith.
That said, treason is difficult to prove absolutely. It is likely that there was a coordinated vindictive effort to out Plame that is supported by the nearly simultaneous multiple seperate attempts to give her name to reporters. It is merely my personal opinion based on that reasoning.
In other words, my view is informed by reason and not blind irrational hatred as it appears to be your eternal hope in these instances.
Why no treason charges? Oh, maybe if the investigation hadn't been obstructed by someone...
If the St Valentines Day massacre was a murder why no charges? Then again we all know why and this stupid zombie meme needs a stake driven through its heart.
He wrote a biased opinion piece?!?! The NERVE of that man.
Just so people understand AA wasn't good enough to come up with BDS, it seems it was coined by that bastion of reason Charles Krauthammer in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
Not that ANYTHING has changed in the 4 years since the phrase was turned that might be somewhat questionable in Bush's actions... right?
Thanks for citing the original source. I never sought to claim it as my own.
More brainwashed rightwing claptrap. So Valerie outed herself by telling her future husband who had the security clearance to hear it she was working for the CIA? Just how comitted to propaganda do you have to be to even spew such nonsense. Wilsons op ed piece was RIGHT. There is virtually no chance Niger made any deal to sell uranium to Niger nor is there the slightest evidence that Iraq sought such a deal. I love the next rightwing arrogance. So in effect by saying Wilson shouldnt have disclosed Bush's dishonesty in his op ed piece is that he should have KNOWN that this adminstration had such disrespect for the rule of law and national security they would in a fit of political pique expose his wifes identity? WOW. I bet you blame banks for being robbed, why do those places have all that money around to tempt robbers anyway. Your weak propagand is dumb and worthless. A regurgitation that should embarass anyone with any capacity to feel shame. I understand its all you have but its NOTHING. And its sad you would try to pass this bile off as if it had any validity whatsoever
1)The British government's independent investigation into the Iraq/Africa uranium connection confirmed President Bush's claims on Iraq seeking nuclear material.
2) The bi-partisan 9/11 Commission's report pointed out Wilson's dishonesty about the assessment of the information in Niger, but also his lies about how he achieved the post in the first place.
The Washington Post reported that Joseph Wilson, according to the 9/11 Commission report findings WAS recommended for the job by his wife - CIA employee Valerie Plame. Wilson had denied any such connection and asked all to believe that the CIA had simply spontaneously desired Wilson to be assigned the Niger fact finding mission.
According to the Washington Post: "The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger."
After Wilson returned he shopped himself similar to a cheap woman of the night to the network television networks in order to criticize the President's State of the Union Address.
Wilson asserted that in President Bush's address when the President referred to the Iraqi regime attempting to purchase "uranium from Africa", that Bush was referring exclusively to Wilson's fact finding mission. The President did not refer to Wilson or to Niger directly in the text of his speech.
The appearance that was left on the American public was one of dishonesty - but it was dishonesty of Wilson - NOT BUSH.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169424/postsYeah free republic is a sewer and your take is nonsense which has already been debunked several times. The British confirmed NOTHING, they stood by their original claim that the CIA had told them was bunk and it WAS bunk. The CIA ADMITTED the claim never should have been in there. Also explained was the memo which the Senate committee relied on to make their assessment. The CIA says that her boss ASKED her if her husband would be a good choice to go and when she said he would TOLD her to write that memo and she WASNT involved in the DECISION she wasn’t part of the team that MADE the decision. That’s right Bush DIDN’T say Niger he said Africa which is why Wilson didn’t say anything about Niger until six months AFTER the SOTU speech when he heard Powell make the Niger claim. All this has been debunked long ago. Why do you guys keep recycling long ago refuted nonsense?
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
I set out to write an item-by-item rebuttal to your lengthy post, but the particulars are covered by others here, and your post is so off-base on every assertion, one might as soon write a "rebuttal" to a Harry Potter book. It's ALL fiction.
So, I'll just ask a question that's got me curious: What are you going to do now that your life is over, now that the false talking points, spin, and lies no longer work for the rightwing, now that Bush and the GOP are as popular as a case of genital herpes?
It looks like you're going to continue on the same path of spouting nonsense and disproven talking points, but will this continue when Bush is finally out of office? Does it depend on when they stop paying you, or are you a sycophantic gullible ignorant lacky for FREE?
Tex, I'm compiling a list of people who suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Thanks for reminding me to put you on it.
I find it funny that you cannot see that you and many of your cohorts are so deep into your derangement that you cannot see any facts or evidence that runs contrary to your preconceived notions.
This little tet-a-tet regarding Plame and her exposing her covert status on the 'third' date illustrates my point exactly. I get venom and vitriol when any rational person would say, yes, Plame was also guilty of blowing her own status to some guy who was romancing her.
That's all a rational person would say. But no, almost everyone afflicted with BDS comes out of the woodwork to try to disparage me and tell defend Plame and Wilson. Many of you cannot write without the need to write disparaging remarks. It is classic BDS.
Go ahead and keep thinking juvenile vitriol is an acceptable method for rational people to communicate. So have fun in your world filled with BDS sycophants. Take MMFA as gospel if you want. But remember, they are way out on the left. I laugh everytime someone who's as biased and filled with BDS tries to disparage me for being biased. Just don't be surprised when I reply in kind.
I'm compiling a list
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!
By the way, the expression is tete-a-tete (or more precisely tête-à-tête if you happen to know the key codes).
Sounds like the right kind of job for someone with such a severe case of Bush Idolotry Syndrome
After all, the original leaker is Plame herself is she not? After all, who told Wilson?...AA
===================================================
AA, I think i'd have to agree with FlimFlam. That just might be the dumbest thing you've ever posted.
Feel free to spout discredited right-wing talking points all you want ... just don't be offended when called on them.
And by the way, most of us on the left don't hate Bush. That's another one of your little right-wing red herrings.
We hate what he's done to our country. There's a BIG difference.
I only meant it to illustrate that one can find 'leakers' anywhere. It just depends on where you want to draw the line. The crux of my post is that it is all political and the left knows it. It is simply a diversion.
As an aside, just taking the time to type that my post is dumb and then supposedly humming to oneself is also not a very intelligent argument. Unless one is humming "Cherish" by the Association. :-)
Hahaha.. try not doing that!
The line is drawn at public disclosure and/or arguably attempted public disclosure. This isn't really that hard despite your weak attempts to try to make it seem that way.
Oh. Where is stated besides by you that 'public' disclosure' is the tripping point?
Depending upon the 'source' Plame revealed her identity as early as 15 minutes after meeting Wilson, on their second date, or after making out after their third or fourth date.
That sounds like a serious NOC to me.
But go ahead and consider yourself outraged at Libby and Bush. It's all part of the Bush Derangement Syndrome. ;-)
Do you see any difference between revealing secret information regarding your occupation to your future spouse (assuming your unsupported allegation is indeed true) and revealing that information to the press?
And you think we are deranged? Lol.
: )
Can you tell me when Plame turned into Wilson's 'future spouse'?
Was it by the third date after making out?
I'll admit if it is, I left a lot of very nice women at the alter. ;-)
If I had it I would send you a copy of their marriage license to absolutely prove Plame and Wilson were indeed future spouses, but it seems a little gratuitous. I would think you would accept that characterization.
BTW, you still haven't shown us the link you are basing all of this on either -- just a reminder.
And also you haven't answered my question. I will rephrase it to avoid your silly objection. Do you know the difference between revealing sensative information to a reporter and to a boyfriend? Do you have the same expectation that the information will remain a secret in both instances? Why or why not?
Oops. I hate spelling errors. It should be "sensitive". I am afflicted with Spelling Derangement Syndrome (SDS) I guess.
Your zeal to say anything whether or not it makes sense is pathetic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58650-2003Oct7?language=printer
Five years ago Plame married Joseph Wilson -- it was her second marriage, his third. They crossed paths at a reception in Washington. "It was love at first sight," Joseph Wilson reports. When they met, in 1997, Wilson held a security clearance as political adviser to the general in charge of the U.S. Armed Forces European Command.
So you are arguing that since he had 'clearance' it was okay for Plame tot tell him any and all classified information that she was privy?
That seems to me to be your argument.
What ever happened to "need to know". One surely does not give up all secrets in the bedroom. ;-)
YES, its the difference between a violation of your security clearance and NOT violating your security clearance and why in the world would someone who was going to be your future husband NOT have a need to know? Being a NOC is dangerous. It is a factor in whether you might want to start a family with someone but it is at her discresion that is it becomes her judgement IF the guy has the proper security clearance. HE did. The reporters didnt so telling someone with the clearance to know is NOT exposure. Ya got nothin.
Open,
For arguments sake, if I disclose a NOC to one person am I exempt? That seems to me to be your argument.
What if that person is affiliated with another government? After all, I did not disclose 'publicly'.
It would depend on how you define "public". Friends and family are not really considered "public" by any reasonable definition I have seen. It might be a leak of sorts, but there are definitely differences in severity between telling a boyfriend and talking about it to reporters from national publications. I would think that is quite obvious and apparently so did the CIA.
I understand the difference. I also understand the similarity which you are discounting completely.
You are excusing Plame for disclosing her 'secret' just because she had a romantic involvement.
What if she hadn't married Wilson. What if, heaven forbid, he was a foreign agent?
In all this, it is rather a small point which has detracted from the larger one, and that is of the purposeful release of national security secrets by the NYT during a time of war that materially benefits our enemy.
Any negative comment on the legality or harm to the U.S. caused by the leaking of National Security Secrets?
The hypocritical silence on the left has been deafening.
"What if she hadn't married Wilson. What if, heaven forbid, he was a foreign agent?"--aa
If you are trying to argue that context is relevant to the severity, I agree. Fortunately for Plame, Wilson turned out to be a diplomat assuming your claim she told him on a date has any real basis (which I politely remind you again to link to).
Unfortunately for your argument, the context of the actual case is more important than the context of some apparently hypothetical situation.
Unless you can prove that Mr. Wilson didn't protect the secret - allowing the public disclosure to happen before Novak's column was printed and seen by the world, I am afraid the point is quite moot.
Actually he has to do more. He has to prove that Wilson, WHO HAD A SECURITY CLEARANCE. Wasnt cleared to a level to allow him to hear such information. We KNOW the reporters werent. He is desperate and resurrected this meme which the right discarded long ago because HE HAD A SECURITY CLEARANCE.
Judith Miller claims she had a security clearance, but I don't believe anyone told her information with the expectation or request that she keep it a secret. I think a big part of it is the expectation that when you tell someone a secret like Plame supposedly did to Wilson, there is an expectation of confidentiality.
With regards to administration figures talking to reporters it was expected that the reporters share that information with the public.
Yeah I dont believe her. Why would any SANE government official give a REPORTER a security clearance unless they were a foriegn correspondent doubling as a CIA agent? The CIA denies her claim
http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2005/10/judith_millers_.html
Officials from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon say they have no idea what New York Times reporter Judith Miller was talking about in her published claim over the weekend that she was given a "security clearance" when she was embedded with a WMD military team in Iraq.
According to the officials, they know of no instance or circumstance when a reporter has been or would be granted a security clearance for any reason, and don't know that she was given one when she was embedded with the U.S. Army's 75th Exploitation Unit that was tasked with finding Iraqi WMD immediately following the end of major conflict in the spring of 2003.
Normally it takes at least three months of background checks, etc. before anyone is granted a "SECRET" clearance. There are cases where someone is granted a temporary short-term clearance, for a day, for example, but that is usually extended only to military, DOD or civilian contractors who need to be cleared for specific information on a specific project. Miller had indicated she thought her "security clearance" may still have been in effect during a meeting with Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby after she had returned to Washington.
While embedded reporters are often granted access to classified briefings on the grounds that the information can not be reported, Pentagon officials say no military commander or officer has the individual authority to grant a security clearance.
What if he was a CIA agent? Many Ambassadors and a lot of thier staff ARE. HE HAD A SECURITY CLEARANCE. The BS spouted by the rightwing Bush idolotors is DISGUSTING. Then again you dont care. Its all about attacking anyone to protect this adminstration truth and reality mean nothing to you.
It would certainly matter whether that person had a security clearance to HEAR the exposure. Wilson HAD a security clearance and YOU dont know how high so this dumb meme is WORTHLESS.
LOL...lame attempt to change the subject, as usual, AA. Par for the course when you're losing an argument, tho....I understand... your president is sinking like a rock in the polls, the lamest of lame ducks, the war is going badly ... and you have to think about the probability of another Clinton in the White House. Sucks to be you, eh?
When all is crumbling around you, just go to the "WAAHHHH...they do it too" card...
And btw, "Cherish" by the Association is a great song ... definitely worthy of humming along to...
Its all about politics to YOU. In your BIS ANYTHING no matter how stupid will be said to protect those who sabotaged national security because YOU. DONT. CARE. All you care about is saying anything to protect the administration, you dont care if it makes sense you dont care if its a lie YOU. DONT. CARE. Wilson HAD A SECURITY CLEARANCE. Now I dont know what it was but then again NEITHER DO YOU. He was most likely authorized to recieve this information. Not only dont you know. YOU. DONT. CARE. For you if its necessary for your propaganda it becomes true for that reason alone.
You goof. Just because someone has security clearance it is not carte-blanche to tell them everything let alone anything.
Had their relationship been professional and during the course of their work, top-secret items were exchanged that would be different.
All your posturing and all your bloviating does not excuse the fact that NOC's should not blow their cover on their third date. It doesn't matter who they are 'making out' with.
Are YOU a NOC agent? What makes YOU the judge of what they should and shouldnt do? Was she reprimanded by the CIA for telling Wilson? The only judgement YOU have access to was did it follow the law and since he HAD SECURITY CLEARANCE it wasnt a violation to tell him at that point it becomes her judgement not yours. They said it was love at first sight, perhaps they were already talking about marriage and someone talking about making a family has a right to know. I was talking about marriage with my late wife of 11 years on OUR third date. YOU are speculating based on what you WISH was true the only FACTS available was he had a SECURITY CLEARANCE. This made him eligible to know as opposed to the reporters who DIDNT HAVE SECURITY CLEARANCE.
Sportsguy,
If you think my statement was silly, your's is in fairytale land.
You may hold yourself to be above 'hating' but your DNC Chairman apparently is not.
"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for," former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told Democrats gathered at a Manhattan hotel, in quotes picked up by the New York Daily News.
Also, google "I hate Bush" and democrat and tell me how many links you get...
I am an independent, so it really doesn't matter to me. My objection is with policy.
Are you trying to paint all Democrats with a broad brush here? Do all Democrats have to defend Dean's statements in your mind? Do you mind if we hold you accountable for what any or every Republican has once muttered?
No, I do not hold you accountable for what other's say. I only note that the best you offer is that you are independent.
I do not paint all Dems with the same Brush, I am specifically targeting those who illustrate an unbridled hatred of Bush, the administration, and conservatives who post here daily.
I'm only illustrating to you and others that the BDS is rampant and it no better illustrated than by the Plame/Wilson/Libby affair when contrasted with the NYT top secret disclosures.
" I am specifically targeting those who illustrate an unbridled hatred of Bush, the administration, and conservatives who post here daily."--AA
Well then you owe Sportsguydave an apology. He just posted that he doesn't hate Bush. Maybe you are one of those excellent mindreaders I keep hearing about. You know dave better than he knows himself eh?
Ok. I will buy Sportsguy Dave a beer next time we meet.
I am specifically targeting those who illustrate an unbridled hatred of Bush, the administration, and conservatives who post here daily - AA
My hatred is unbridled. It's because my love for this country is just as unbridled.
Take off your blinders and to take a look at the path we are currently headed down.
Fog, I'm sorry to hear that you are full of hate. But you have many here who feel the same.
The name for it is Bush Derangement Syndrome.
We are all sorry you are so full of...delusion. The name for your affliction is Bush Idolotry Syndrome. There is a cure. lay off the Kool-aid and allow some bits of reality into your life on the cramped confines of planet Wingnut. Only a little at first we dont want to induce shock. Then more and more until you can at least recognize factual reality. IF you can accomplish this your brain MIGHT be saved. I hold out some hope, but I wont hold my breath
The only thing you illustrate is YOU suffer from Bush Idolotry Syndrome and you have no idea what you are talking about AGAIN.
AA, exactly why should anyone hate Pres, Bush? Do you honestly believe he makes the decisions? Do you really believe that Cheney listens to Geo. Bush? No reason to hate Pres. Bush, plenty of reasons to direct the hatred(good Con word)to Cheney though. He is the boss in that White House. For example, the President walks into a Conference Room...around the table are Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. The Presidents says, "Are you ready?" Cheney answers, "Yes, I'll have coffee with two creams and get Wolfie a tea." Now that sounds more like the truth.
P.S. How many "YOU HATE BUSH" cards are in the Con deck? Seems like they have all been used.
Prince,
Your response and your ridiculous example qualifies you for another BDS card.
Making up scenarios like the one you offered is a common thread amongst Bush haters.
Oh, unless one wonders, so is calling him by derogatory names.
;-)
As ridiculous as blaming Plame for outing herself....Now that was a great scenario
No needs to get your shorts in a bunch. It was only used as an analogy to show the selective parsing of like situations by many on the left when it suits their purpose.
The only thing you show besides the fact you dont know what you are talking about is YOUR commitment to AVOIDING facts you dont want to hear lest it diminish your propaganda effecitiveness in service of your Bush Idolotry Syndrome. What part of WILSON HAD A SECURITY CLEARANCE DONT YOU UNDERSTAND?
Apparently you feel the need to repeat yourself.
Thanks for the input. We all know he had clearance. That is not the point. Go read my other posts.
Gee why would I be repeating myself? Could it be in response to YOUR repetitive and ludicrous assertions? Have YOU made the same silly repetitive point over and over which REQUIRED the same answer over and over? Of course being basically a parrot of the propaganda species you might not recognize YOUR repitition. Thats ok. When YOU stop repeating the same silly attempt at a point like a demented Mynah bird I will stop repeating the same refutation.
Hi Deputy Fife. I agree completely with you. BDS is a real affliction, and should be recognized by any serious psychiatric organization.
If the 2/3 of this country who have realized that this is a very pathetic president(never mind those of us who have figured out that he;s the worst president in history) aren't completely off their nuts, that would mean that the remaining 1/3 , or dittoheads, are deranged.
And we couldn't have that, could we? ;0)
Bush fans seem to have used all the BDS cards as blinders.
Bitter,
No blinders here. I think Gomer above illustrates for the rest of us BDS perfectly.
As for your comment, it doesn't really make any sense. But that isn't needed when one is afflicted now does it? ;-)
You show your total immersion in Bush Idolotry Syndrome. Try obstaining from the kool-aid for a few days.
Are you kidding, Prince?
The "You hate Bush" card is the only one these guys have left. There's 52 of them in every deck ...
Well, okay maybe there's only 51 ... we all know our righty friends aren't playing with a full deck .. :)
Now that was funny. Thanks for the laugh.
LOL....
That's a compliment coming from a master of right-wing silliness such as yourself, AA.
Are there people who hate Bush? Sure.
And I have a feeling there were just as many who hated the Clintons - like your preidential candidate, Sam Brownback.
Hatred is a useless emotion - instead of harming the person it's directed at, it usually just blows back onto you.
It's better to just count the days until Bush and his gang that can't shoot straight get their eviction notice.
We agree.