Despite contrary evidence, CNN's Townsend insisted "facts" show neither Rove nor Libby outed Plame as CIA operative
SUMMARY: On CNN Newsroom, CNN national security contributor Fran Townsend twice made the false claim that neither Karl Rove nor I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had "outed Valerie Plame" as a CIA agent and that the leaker was Richard Armitage. In fact, both Rove and Libby were sources of the information about Plame's CIA employment for at least two journalists.
On the May 28 edition of CNN Newsroom, national security contributor Fran Townsend twice made the false claim that neither former deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove nor former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby had "outed Valerie Plame" as a CIA agent and that the leaker was former deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. In fact, Rove was a source of the information about Plame's CIA employment for at least two journalists -- columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine's Matthew Cooper -- while Libby was a source of the information for both Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller.
Townsend was discussing former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's claim in his new book that Rove misled him regarding Rove's involvement in the leak. During the discussion, anchor Brianna Keilar noted that contrary to what McClellan had told the press in October 2003, "Karl Rove did talk to the media about Valerie Plame" and that "Libby was convicted for lying about his role, or about what he said to authorities." In response, Townsend asserted that "we know from the outcome of the [Special Counsel Patrick] Fitzgerald investigation" into the leak that "it wasn't Karl Rove nor Scooter Libby who outed Valerie Plame. That was a senior official in the State Department." After Keilar stated that McClellan had "said they [Rove and Libby] were not involved, and the facts now show that indeed they were involved," Townsend asserted that "what the facts have showed is they weren't the ones who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. That's -- that was done by somebody else." She later said that "[t]hey weren't the ones who outed him [sic: Plame]." Keilar then said that it was "Dick Armitage, of course, the original source there for the outing of her name."
In fact, Novak has identified both Rove and Armitage as the sources for his July 14, 2003, column, and Cooper named Rove as his source who identified Plame as an employee of the CIA during a telephone conversation on July 11, 2003. In Cooper's first-person account of his testimony before the grand jury in the leak investigation, he identified Libby as his confirming source. Miller testified on January 30, 2007, that Libby disclosed Plame's CIA employment to her at a breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, D.C., on July 8, 2003, the same day as the meeting in which Armitage disclosed Plame's employment to Novak -- and six days before Novak's July 14 column was published. A Justice Department investigation into the leaks resulted in Libby's indictment and conviction on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators that he had learned Plame's identity from NBC's Tim Russert, rather than other Bush administration insiders. Libby's 30-month prison sentence was commuted by President Bush on July 2, 2007.
Townsend is a former homeland security and counterterrorism adviser to President Bush.
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the May 28 edition of CNN Newsroom:
KEILAR: I want to discuss the timing with you in just a moment. But first, let's address a certain subject that obviously has really bothered Scott McClellan. This has to do with the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
McClellan clearly feels like the fall guy on this one. Of course, just to refresh our viewers' memories, Valerie Plame, her identity as a CIA operative was leaked to the media. Her ambassador husband at the time very critical of the Bush administration's justification for going to war in Iraq.
Let's listen to McClellan. This is October 2003, and he's talking to the White House press corps about Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, about accusations they were involved in this.
McCLELLAN [video clip]: There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made, and that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals. They're important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved.
KEILAR: Now, that sound bite was played over and over, Fran, because obviously it turned out not to be he true. Karl Rove did talk to the media about Valerie Plame. Libby was convicted for lying about his role, or about what he said to authorities.
Doesn't McClellan have a leg to stand on here, to say that he feels hung out to dry?
TOWNSEND: Well, there's no question. I mean, Scott -- that's the one issue on which it was clear when Scott was leaving that he always had recriminations, regrets about, concerns about.
But what do we know from the outcome of the Fitzgerald investigation? Well, it wasn't Karl Rove nor Scooter Libby who outed Valerie Plame. That was a senior official in the State Department. And so -- I wasn't privy to the conversation between Scott and Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, but it may in fact be that he asked --
KEILAR: Wait. But, Fran, he said they were not involved, and the facts now show that indeed they were involved.
TOWNSEND: Well, what the facts have showed is they weren't the ones who outed Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. That's -- that was done by somebody else. And I don't know, I don't think any of us know precisely what the questions were that Scott asked, and why Scott put it in the way that he did that they weren't involved. They weren't the ones who outed him, and if that was the question he asked, there may have been a misunderstanding between what he asked and what he was told.
KEILAR: Dick Armitage, of course, the original source there for the outing of her name.
But finally, I just want to ask you, Fran -- you mentioned the timing of this. Why is he talking now? It sounds like you're saying that he's late to the game, but it sounds also like McClellan is saying, "If I had spoken out then, it wouldn't have mattered."
Yet more lies covering up for the Bush regime -- I mean administration -- and the press falling down on the job again. How encouraging.
"Yet more lies covering up for the Bush regime -- I mean administration -- and the press falling down on the job again. How encouraging."
More like it's the corporate conservative Republican Party controlled news media covering up for THE BUSH CABAL, and/or acting on collusion with THE BUSH CABAL to tell lies to justify a lie-based war with Iran. As I said before on another thread, we should think about impeaching the corporate conservative news media for working in collusion with Bush.
Time to move on. This story has been put to rest a long time ago. How many of you know that U.S. District Judge John Bates dismissed the lawsuit last year, saying there was no basis to bring a case. Only by selectively picking people and times for it's quotes does MMFA try to keep this alive.
Robert Novak writes about the leak in a recent column regarding McClellan's book. Speaking of McClellan, Novack writes:
.. He omits Armitage's slipping Mrs. Wilson's identity to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to me. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.
McClellan writes that Rove told him this about his conversation with me after I called him to check Armitage's leak: "He (Novak) said he'd heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. I told him I couldn't confirm it because I didn't know." Rove told me last week he never said that to McClellan. Under oath, Rove had testified he told me, "I heard that, too." Under oath, I testified that Rove said, "Oh, you know that, too."
McClellan writes, "I don't know" whether the leaker -- he does not specify Armitage -- committed a felony. He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.
http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/06/02/mcclellan_on_plame
ROVE: Well, as we now know, the identity of Valerie Plame was leaked to Robert Novak by Richard Armitage. What I told Scott was I didn't know her name, didn't reveal her name, didn't reveal — didn't know what she did at the CIA, and that I wasn't the source for the leak. And we now know Richard Armitage was the source.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,360982,00.htmlImagine what would have happened if Richard Armitage has come forward and said, you know what? I did it. I talked to Robert Novak and gave her the background and gave her the name. And this would have all gone away. You'll notice when it came out that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak, the media rapidly lost attention.
O'REILLY: Just explain to the audience who Richard Armitage is.
ROVE: He was the No. 2 guy at the State Department. And he, in a conversation with Robert Novak told, talked about Wilson.
O'REILLY: OK. Isn't it true though that the White House and yourself were furious with Ambassador Wilson, Valerie Plame's husband, and you guys were angry and that Scooter Libby did eventually mislead the grand jury, which he was convicted of doing?
ROVE: Yes. Look, the White House had a right to go out and correct the record with regard to what Ambassador Wilson said. I would remind you what he said. He said that he implied that he was sent to Africa as a result of a request from the vice president, which is not true. He said that he came back with a report that was seen by the White House, which on July 11 of 2003, the CIA showed a statement saying his report was never forwarded to the White House because of concerns about the quality of the work. He also said that he came back with definitive proof that the Iranians — excuse me, the Iraqis had never attempted to acquire yellowcake from Niger. We now know that that is absolutely incorrect. We know that not only did he not disprove it, he came back with additional information about a previously unknown attempt by the Iraqis to send a trade delegation to Niger. The Niger government said, you know, all we've got is uranium cake. That's the only thing we sell is uranium. So we better not accept a delegation from Iraq because it would be in violation of the international sanctions.
O'REILLY: But why drag Valerie Plame into it?
ROVE: Well, look, it was, again, I repeat, it was Richard Armitage who talked with Robert Novak about it. I can't say much about this because there's a civil lawsuit ongoing. But the public record is that my contribution to this was to say to Robert Novak...
O'REILLY: So you never — you yourself never talked about Valerie Plame to anybody?
ROVE: When Robert Novak tells me about a conversation about what he knows about Valerie Plame, I say to him, from my recollection, I say I've heard that, too. From his recollection, it was, so you've heard that, too. And that was the extent of the conversation.
McClellan writes, "I don't know" whether the leaker -- he does not specify Armitage -- committed a felony. He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered.
That's ridiculous. Fitzgerald did not say that he found no violations. He said that he could not determine if a violation had occurred.
It'd be like saying that O J Simpson was found to be innocent. He wasn't. He was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no determination that he was innocent. There was no determination that Fitzgerald found no violation. None.
And Plame was covered. Fitzgerald's own evidence proves that. For Novak or anyone else to say that Plame was not outed is ridiculous.
BB,
Okay. If there is no evidence that Fitzgeral found violations, what violations did Fitzgerald find?
ps. Nobody said Plame's identity was not revealed.
More ridiculousness.
Okay. If there is no evidence that Fitzgeral found violations, what violations did Fitzgerald find?
ps. Nobody said Plame's identity was not revealed.
I was responding to what you copied and pasted.
"He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act."
Fitzgerald made no determination that there were no violations. He did not charge anyone. That's totally different than saying that he found no violations. I already explained this to you once. Sorry that you apparently are too dense to understand the difference between not guilty and innocent or determining that there's no violations and not making any comment about violations of law because the stonewalling of those involved made it impossible to make that determination!
ps. Nobody said Plame's identity was not revealed.
Oh, really? No one said that Plame's identity was not revealed? Did I claim that? Of course not. What I said was that Plame was outed. What you copied and pasted said "Plame was not covered" because she is not covered by the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" because she wasn't covert. She was covert. Fitzgerald said she was covert, so she was covered by the Act. Your copy and paste said she wasn't covered. I said she was. I was right, and you were wrong.
BB,
A better analogy would be that since OJ wasn't found guilty, there were no murders. That is the Right-wing argument (i.e. no one was found guilty, therefore no crime occurred).
How many times do we have to go over this?
The "leaker" is not the first one whose leak gets published.
The "leaker" is not even the first one to tell a secret to someone who's not authorized to know it.
The "leaker" is everyone who reveals a secret that he or she is not authorized to tell, and to someone who has no reason to know it.
Karl Rove talked to (at least) Matt Cooper of Time and Robert Novak.
Scooter Libby talked to (at least) Matt Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller.
Richard Armitage talked to (at least) Robert Novak and Robert Woodward.
Every single one of them is guilty of revealing something they had no business revealing to people who had no business knowing it. It doesn't matter who did it first. It doesn't matter whose tip to a reporter got published first. ALL of them are "leakers."
And the ISSUE is NOT whether Rove was the first leaker, it's whether he told McClellan he had NOTHING TO DO with Plame, talking about her to anyone. That's what McClellan assures us Rove told him, and he passed that info on to the American People.
And it was FALSE, a LIE.
Bates stressed in his ruling that the couple's allegations "pose important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," but that he had to dismiss the claims for jurisdictional reasons and so would not express an opinion on their merits.
Treason schmreason, huh AA?
Outing a CIA officer doesn't bother you? That there was a concerted cover-up (conspiracy) of the exposure doesn't bother you
Why do you hate America so much?
1. Looking at the overall picture, I can see how it all happened. Wilson deserves part of the blame for writing an Op-Ed when his wife worked for the CIA.
2. Wilson lied and exaggerated to make himself look more important and to make the story a conspiracy.
3. Plame suggested Wilson to her superiors for the trip.
4. Fitzgerald never handed out any indictments regarding Plame's covert status. That tells me she wasn't.
The "hate" question is laughable.
1) Lie. Wilson told the truth. No one knew his wife was covert CIA. Everyone knew who Wilson was before he wrote the op-ed story. He was ambassador to Iraq for chrissake!
2. Wilson lied and exaggerated to make himself look more important and to make the story a conspiracy.
3. Plame suggested Wilson to her superiors for the trip.
4. Fitzgerald never handed out any indictments regarding Plame's covert status. That tells me she wasn't.
The "hate" question is laughable
Lets try this again -
1) Lie. Wilson told the truth. No one knew his wife was covert CIA. Everyone knew who Wilson was before he wrote the op-ed story. He was ambassador to Iraq for chrissake!
2. Lie.
3. You got that one partially right. They were looking for someone with Middle East experience - why not her husband?
4. That's because everyone LIED.
And the hate question is relevant - when you casually dismiss the outing of a CIA agent who was working in counter-proliferation in IRAN by repeating proven lies, you certainly do support treason and therefore, hate America.
Wilson told the truth? I don't think so.
Wilson lied about what he found (or didn’t find) in Niger.
He lied about discussing with his CIA debriefers certain documentation and signatures he never saw,
He lied about the CIA telling him of certain classified documents and sources.
He lied about the role his wife had in sending him to Niger.
AA,
Please present proof of your accusations regarding Joe Wilson lying from unbiased sources.
AA,
Let me get this straight, you can hurl any accusation at anyone and they have to prove it wrong?
Regardless, is Newsday credible enough for you?
"Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity - at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak."
"A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.
But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."
"We paid his [Wilson's] air fare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there," the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses."
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-phelps0722,0,2044545.story
Your serve.
Fried,
Contrary to many of my friends here assertion that I don't support my posts, I have pointed out my sources countless times in these discussions. My original post in this thread included two sections in which I provided links to my sources
I did not understand why you wrote and said to me to provide my sources when I had already done so. I guess had I erred when I thought you and the others would follow my original post down through the thread.
I apologized for my snarky reply. I should have explained that I felt I had already provided my sources and if you, (or others,) disagreed, they should hold themselves to the same standard and provide their sources too.
At this point, I am not arguing that Plame was outed. We all know she was.
Was there a lawbreaking? Apparently not. All Fitzgerald could do was show that Libby's recollection of the events were different than Russerts. Libby was not convicted of outing Plame. Nobody was. Fitzgerald never even tried to make the case.
Wilson's Op-Ed was full of misinformation and outright falsehoods. He betrayed the trust placed in him to gather intelligence for the U.S. The administration only tried to correct the misinformation and put Wilson's purposeful misrepresentations in context, including the fact that he was recommended by his wife at the CIA for the job.
The Democrats used Wilson's lies to make the case that the Administration was lying. It was their bread and butter issue to separate them from the responsibility that they too authorized and supported the war.
The Democrats placed politics ahead of National security at a time of war in my estimation. I find that reprehensible. They continue to do so in ignoring the gains made in Iraq. The liberal press has abandoned the story since the news started to improve. In my view the Democrats have done just about everything in their power, (except remove funding,) to lose the war, even declaring it lost when it wasn't.
Okay. I'm off my soap box. Have at it.
mefirst,
How would it have been different if Libby's sentence had not been commuted?
Why is it ridiculous to state that it boils down to differing memories?
i would think number one is rather obvious, maybe it's just me. someone facing a three year sentence is more likely to cut a deal and testify against others.
as for number two, why don't you explain it to me. libby was facing possible charges for outing plame. the reporters were facing nothing, except for maybe novak. why would the reporters lie? their best interest is to tell the truth, because they did absolutely nothing to spread plame's identity. the only one to gain by lying is libby, who was trying to hide his role.
and i've asked you to explain what it was the wilsons "got" out of his trip. you conservatives always make it sound like that trip was some big plus for them.
I guess at this point, you are just speculating, which is fine. Maybe you are right. However it is a moot point.
I do believe that Plame and Wilson got a lot of publicity and made millions in their book deals.
However at the time, Wilson was unemployed. Plame might have been angling to get some resume' enhancers for her hubby. (It is all speculation on my part.) Wilson also joined Kerry's campaign. He probably thought he'd get some patronage job when Kerry won.
I can't get into Wilson's head to know why he actually wrote his Op-ed. It is apparent that he wanted to harm the Administration. My guess is Plame did too. Maybe their motives were honorable. Had Wilson stuck to the facts as he knew them, he wouldn't have been able to write the Op-ed. He compromised his reputation and his wife's career by lying in the Op-ed.
In the end it looks like he'll make out like a bandit.
Simply unbelievable, AA. Do you have any responses to my article from a news site?
Fried,
Whoever the CIA officials quoted in that article have been proven wrong.
D]ocuments provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 from the former ambassador's wife says, "my 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 former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.
-Senate Intelligence Committee's report.Oops. Let me try again.
Fried,Whoever the CIA officials quoted in that article have been proven wrong.
D]ocuments provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 from the former ambassador's wife says, "my 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 former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.
-Senate Intelligence Committee's report.
Sorry. I cut and pasted into notepad but it didn't work. My quotes were from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report stating that Plame recommended Wilson.
It has been shown that Plame wrote a memo recommending her husband to go to Niger before Cheney asked for more information.
Hahaha.. you are simply engaging in "what if" scenarios and so was I. It is all speculation. Believe what you want.
Plame and Wilson did more to out Plame than anyone else in my estimation. Plame may have had some sort of offical designation, (which I haven't yet seen proven,) that she was covert, but the reality is she drove to the CIA HQ everday through the front gate. This secret agent thing is overblown hype. She was no more a secret agent at the time than you. Wilson didn't even think enough of it to keep from betraying his work as an intelligence gatherer and writing an Op-ed to the NYT full of lies about the administration.
Of course Plame also divulged her covert status on her third date with Wilson. Yeah, that is someone who takes her cover seriously. I wonder what else she told him that was confidential? Hmmmm... that double page spread in Vanity Fair while Plame was still working for the CIA must have also been the work of the Administration eh? Oh yeah. She talked to the reporters too although was 'careful' to make sure she was not attributed. Great secret agent right?
This Plame thing was purely political by the Democrats to discredit the Administration. They could have cared less about Plame and Wilson. In my opinion, they were simply useful idiots.
AA,
The Dems never said the war was lost just that we would end up losing the war if we continued down the same path. I don't know how you can say that the Dems did all in their power to lose the war when the war strategy was run by the Commander in Chief of the United States. Period. The Democrats did not have a voting majority in either house of Congress until 2006. By that time, Bush himself had declared major combat operations in the region over.
In fact, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq from 2003-04 said this yesterday:
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded ground troops in Iraq from 2003 to 2004, has since been speaking out about the conduct of the Iraq war — especially about what he calls the Bush administration's "catastrophically flawed, unrealistically optimistic war plan."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90229404
Shinseki wanted 300,000 troops to secure the country. Bush didn't. Bush, not the Democrats, fired him.
What strategic war decision did the Democrats make that has hurt the war effort? Did they not fire Rumsfeld early enough?
And the gains in Iraq, are they to their pre-war level of security? Are things safer and better in their country? Who, again, from Iraq is or was a threat to our national security?
As for the outing of Plame, just because there are no convictions does not mean there were no crimes. Do you believe the CIA Director was lying when he called Plame covert?
The administration only tried to correct the misinformation and put Wilson's purposeful misrepresentations in context
Oh my - that could be the most outrageous thing you've ever posted - the administration was SPINNING its way out of the 13 WORDS in the SOTU. In other words, your belief that Wilson lied is based on what the Bush Administration told you to believe. Nuff said.
AA:
I think you're an alien secretly sent here to steal all the frogs from planet earth.
Prove me wrong.
Niceguy,
Apparently you are getting your timeline mixed up. Wilson's Op-Ed was written after we already had invaded Iraq and defeated Saddam's forces. Wilson prevented nothing.
But hey, thanks for the term of endearment.
Actually Joe Wilson went to Niger in 2002. His findings there were largely ignored by the Bush admin. Had W. NOT lied, NOT manipulated the intel, NOT sent Colin Powell to the UN to LIE, NOT exagertaed the threat of Iraq (as Joe Wilson had discovered he'd done) Then:
1) We wouldn't be at war. 2) We'd be more secure due to better military readiness and fewer resources being bogged down. 3) OBL would be in custody (as we'd ave finished the job in Afganistna as we shuld have done) and (most importantly for YOUR lot) 4) the Republican's would still control both houses of Congress and be way out ahead in the race for the WH.
Instead, W's cronies outed a covert CIAgent during a time of war. Just ask yourself: If a Democrat had done that to a conservative/republican figure than had written a crtical op-ed how would you respond? If you'd be out for blood (as I would be) then you shouldn't be too quick to defend these guys just because they're "your guys."
A crime WAS committed. PERIOD. It was done for purely political reasons. You're a kool-adi drinkin' fool if you believe otherwise. So far no one has been punnished for it. That's a travesty of justice, and if it had been one perpetrated by the Democrats, you be howling for blood from now until your deathbed. So why don't you just TRY to have some principals for a change, and admit that someone's head should roll for this (figuratively) even if that guy happens to be one of yours?
As far as the hate question, Both Wilson and Plame were Democrat contributors. It can be argued, especially in lieu of Wilson's lies, that they had a political agenda to damage the President and the war effort.
So?
You can look up their contributions anywhere. Obviously Joe tried to parlay his 15 minutes of fame to Kerry's campaign. Did you notice how unceremoniously Wilson was dumped by the Kerry campaign when his lies were revealed?
they had a political agenda to damage the President and the war effort.
You can't be serious? A former ambassador and a CIA agent conspiring to damage the POTUS? What could they hope to gain by such a course of action? That they were so anti-war that they came up with this plan to deceive the state dept. on Wilson's trip, write a bogus op-ed in the NYT, and conspire to get Plame outed?
Evidence has repeatedly shown that Wilson/Plame have been truthful and the Bush cabal have been liars. You are delusional.
Fog,
Wilson has been shown time and again to have lied in his Op-Ed.
I did not say that Wilson and Plame conspired to eventually have Plame outed. I am saying that had Wilson not lied and simply stuck to the facts, there would not have been any pushback by the administration.
People don't realize that Wilson's Op-ed was unethical to begin with. The fact that he lied in it, made it even worse. By entering into the political arena, he should have known, especially since he wrote false and accusatory statements, that he would be challenged.
The only reason he could have written that op-ed is because he went to Niger in the first place. And the only reason he was sent was because of the recommendation of his wife. I do believe, (and correct me if I am wrong,) that Wilson was unemployed at the time.
The fact that Wilson raised his profile so much proves that he wasn't worried about his wife's status at the CIA.
The fact that he lied in it, made it even worse
Prove it. We're waiting.
The fact that he lied in it, made it even worse
Prove it. We're waiting.
Fog,
I did in one of the later requests by you to "prove it". Rather than repost here, search further down for your post. I quote from powerline listing Joe Wilson's lies.
The "hate" question is laughable.
The only thing I see that's laughable is your response, AA. And it isn't even laughable when you think about it - it's pathertic that you've OD'd on so much right-wing Kool Aid that you can no longer distinguish good from bad...
wz,
Lets talk issues.
1. I blame the Bush administration/war criminals in totality for lying about about uranium. If they hadn't lie, Wilson wouldn't have wrote the op-ed.
2. Again, I blame the Bush administration/war criminals in totality for lying about about uranium. If they hadn't lie, Wilson wouldn't have wrote the op-ed.
3. Let's pretend for a minute this is true. What does her suggesting him for the trip have to do with the Bush administration/war criminals lying about uranium?
4. Go read the law. Fitzgerald had to prove intent by the leakers to damage national security. That's a pretty high bar and he couldn't do it.
Loonz,
I disagree completely with your characterization of the Administration and that Bush lied about the uranium, (he didn't.)
But I am grateful that you concur with me that no law was broken by outing Plame.
mefirst,
That should be easy enough to prove. Can you?
the fact that bush said that? come on, you don't know that?
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/041306.html
AA,
The suit was dismissed for jurisdiction, not its merits, as Pearlene mentioned. What do you make of this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/11/cia.leak/index.html
As to your point that Plame wasn't covert, are you saying that Director Hayden is a liar?
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/03/16/cia-director-hayden-valerie-plame-was-covert-agent/
Did Plame lie under oath?
Fried,
Please make your assertions, provide your references in your reply, and then cite your sources to back them up. As I have mentioned in other threads, I am not going to go chasing your links unless you give me some reason. Asking "off the wall" questions does not qualify. If you think your references prove your point, post the relevant documentation. Thanks!
AA,
No problem, the CNN link is headlined: Rove Confirmed Plame Identity.
"Novak said Rove confirmed information from another source, whose identity Novak is still keeping under wraps."
From the AOL news article:
"CIA Director Michael Hayden personally reviewed and okayed Henry Waxman's opening statement for Valerie Plame's testimony today. Furthermore, Hayden took pains to set the record straight: Plame was indeed a covert agent up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public."
"In fact, Plame's testimony proved illuminating on a number of fronts. Under oath, articulate, and forceful, she laid to waste a veritable forest of myths that the right has erected against her. No, she wasn't a mere pencil pusher, she'd undertaken undercover missions to foreign countries over the past five years. No, she hadn't been the one to select her husband to go to on his fact-finding mission to Niger. No, she didn't talk to Nicholas Kristof (or others in the media) about her job at the CIA. But most importantly, in the words of the man who now heads the CIA, she was very much a covert agent."
In other words, Novak said that Rove confirmed Plame's identity. Hayden confirmed that Plame was covert and Plame testified to as much.
I don't think my questions were off the wall as to whether you thought Plame and Hayden were liars. In fact, I think it can be inferred that you think Plame lied to Congress, am I right?
A civil suit found O.J. guilty. That kind of goes against your point doesn't it?
Another difference is that the O.J. trial was indeed a trial. The prosecutor brought forth the evidence and charges against O.J. Fitzgerald didn't bother to bring any charges against Rove, Armitage, or Libby for outing Plame.
Nice try but I don't think your analogy works.
AA,
Is that your best analogy? Two years ago, a Denver Broncos football player (Darrent Williams) was murdered and no one has been indicted or even arrested. The witnesses in the limo with the victim, heard gunshot wounds and saw Williams die in front of them, but, like I said, no one has been charged. Does that mean no crime was committed?
Fried,
The difference is that the Plame case is not like your example where the suspects are not known. We all know who outed Plame. Everyone has testified to their involvement. The prosecutor had all the facts. He determined there was not enough evidence of any law breaking to make a case in court.
AA,
If a prosecutor doesn't bring charges against someone that does not mean that a crime was not committed. Fitz said he did not bring charges against anyone other than Libby because of the constant hiding of the truth and the tangled web woven.
AA,
If the suspects in a case are known and no convictions are granted, it does not mean there was no crime committed.
Exactly, AA. What we know here is that a covert agent had her cover blown. We know that the only ones with access to that information were Bush administration officials. We know that someone leaked that information from the Bush administration to the press. We also know that Scooter Libby lied, and lied repeatedly about this process.
Where else would the information about Plame's status come from?
the cia said she was covert. they decide, not you, not me, not karl rove. the security oath that both rove and libby signed said they were not to even confirm information unless they knew it was officially not classified. libby also told judith miller of the new york times about plame, trying to get her to leak the story, and asked her to describe him as a "hill staffer", something he had not been for years.
and a.a., i have asked this question repeatedly, what did plame and wilson "get" out of this trip to niger? unpaid, a long plane ride to some dusty central african capital to sit around some hotel for a couple days and have meetings. you conservatives act like it was some plum assignment, two weeks in tahiti. tell me what the wilsons gained?
AA,
What part of
"CIA Director Michael Hayden personally reviewed and okayed Henry Waxman's opening statement for Valerie Plame's testimony today. Furthermore, Hayden took pains to set the record straight: Plame was indeed a covert agent up until the day Robert Novak revealed as much to the public."
DONT YOU UNDERSTAND?
If the director of the CIA says she was covert, then dammit she was covert. It is painful to watch you drown in this argument. The press secretary of the President of the United States of America has told us about the back room cowering and misleading crap that came from this administration concerning this. Let it go. Your side was wrong on this. As an American you should be angry and ashamed of Bush, Libby, Rove, and Cheney. As a Republican you refuse to. Which is more important your party or your country?
The most important question asked of either party, and what is the response?
If you love your country, you know what the answer should be.
Fried,
I never said they were liars. I said Wilson was.
I never said Plame sent Wilson to Niger. I only stated that she recommended him.
I couldn't link to your AOL article. Sorry so I do not know what you think I am accusing Plame of lying about?
I finally got the link. Your AOL article is a blog written by David Knowles. Isn't he some sort of Democratic advisor?
His comments not withstanding, a quick glance shows me the link does not address the topics of this discussion.
I never said they were liars. I said Wilson was.
More drivel pulled directly out of your a** unless you provide DOCUMENTATION that he lied.
We're waiting.
The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's [Wilson's] trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002 ... The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki...said that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011068.phpSo what Joe Wilson reported orally to the CIA was exactly what President Bush said in his State of the Union address, and the opposite of what Wilson wrote in the New York Times. Iraq did indeed try to buy uranium from Niger, as Niger's former Prime Minister told Wilson. It is hard to imagine how the Senate report could discredit Wilson any more thoroughly.
It did, though. The Senate committee found that Wilson was an unreliable witness in several respects. When Wilson talked to the Committee's staff, he related a version of events that was different from the official CIA report that summarized his oral debriefing, and it also contradicted the recollections of the relevant CIA employees. The committee wrote, at p. 9 of its report:
When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and specifically, as refuting the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report...did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.
See also p. 38 of the report, where the Committee notes that most analysts understood Wilson's report from Niger as supporting the original CIA concerns about a possible uranium deal between Niger and Iraq.
And that's not all. The Senate committee also found that Wilson falsely leaked to the Washington Post the claim that certain documents purporting to show uranium sales between Niger and Iraq were forgeries because "the names were wrong and the dates were wrong," when in fact, he had never seen the documents and was not familiar with their contents. See p. 10 of the Committee's report:
Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He said he may have become confused about his own recollection....
The Senate Intelligence Committee also found that Wilson lied about the role played by his wife, Valerie Plame, in his trip to Niger. Wilson wrote in his book, ironically titled The Politics of Truth, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." In fact, however, the Committee reported at p. 4:
[D]ocuments provided to the committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002 from the former ambassador's wife says, "my 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 former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.
So, to sum up: the Senate Intelligence Committee's report shows that: 1) Wilson lied in the New York Times about what he told the CIA after he returned from Niger. In fact, far from debunking the concern that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium from Niger, Wilson reported that Niger's former Prime Minister told him that Iraq had made just such an overture in 1999. 2) Wilson lied when he leaked a report to the Washington Post about documents he had not even seen. 3) Wilson lied when he said that his wife Valerie "had nothing to do with" his being chosen to go to Niger.
Fried,
"When you have the facts on your side,
argue the facts. When you have the
law on your side, argue the law.
When you have neither, holler."
-Al Gore
I guess AA is over this one.
I would love his answers to how the Dems hurt the war effort because they had no power. I would also like to hear how CIA director Hayden and Plame perjured themselves as well as how Plame's status was not revealed by the Bush administration, but I guess we will never know.
AA,
Waxman read a statement to Congress which was approved by Hayden saying that Plame was covert. Plame then testified that she was covert. Were Hayden and Plame lying in your opinion?
...The correct term for Plame, if she were she a true covert agent, would be 'unknown.' She would not be recognized as undercover even by her own intelligence community at large, with the exception of a very select few supervisors and perhaps a very few of her peers.
Fitzgerald's characterization of her being not 'widely known' as a CIA officer outside of Langley is irrelevant.
The janitor, the gate guard, and her co—workers knew she was a CIA officer, and therefore she in all likelihood was not an "unknown" covert operative. Unknown operatives don't generally drive through the front gate every day to go to HQ, and the person's status is not common knowledge in the building. And most of all, covert operatives don't normally attend Senate Democratic Policy strategy meetings with their husbands. Or, I guess they could, but wouldn't that be domestic spying?
Fitzgerald is now reluctant to address Plame's status at the time of her outing. Libby's defense team asked Fitzgerald to produce evidence that Plame was actually a covert agent at the CIA. They also asked the prosecutor to provide an estimate of the damage caused to national security by the revelation of her identity. Fitzgerald refused both requests.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/05/fitzgerald_and_plames_covert_s.html
AA,
Please, if you can, answer my question. Hayden ok'd Waxman's statement in which he said that Plame was covert. Plame testified that she was covert. Did they both lie to Congress?
Fried,
I have explained that the legal term is "classified". If you can give me the legal definition of "covert" as it applies to CIA agents, we can decide what they mean and if they are lying or not.
Basically all this is an aside to deflect from the main points I made that Wilson lied in his Op-ed.
I'm done and going to get some lunch. You can have the last word.
Basically all this is an aside to deflect from the main points I made that Wilson lied in his Op-ed.
And your evidence is a right-wing blog. Not good enough. He told the truth. The "reasons" you give for him lying are preposterous.
exhibit a from the libby trial, in which she is called a "covert" employee, and when she traveled overseas, it was always under "cover".
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/070529_Unclassified_Plame_employement.pdf
AA
You seem to a full bubble to the right of common sense
sorry I don't have a link to back that up
You're citing a Rove -O'Reilly interview? How about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_leak_scandal_timeline
Armitage didn't give the name. Novak looked it up and printed it after being told not to by the CIA. With some nice confirmation help from Rove.
Well said!
The bottom line is that a person can only be "outed" once. And it was, in fact, Armitage who leaked the name.
But more importantly, as the record demonstrates clearly, no crime was committed.
ANOTHERAMERICAN
DROP IT.. You and the rest of your die-hard righties are not going to
succeed in protecting this wicked administration by swiftboating
McClellan
"Wow. Rove lies on Faux news to another documented liar and that means the case is settled, huh?"
It's the lying right wing's latest definition of the truth, two liars telling lies to each other makes their disrespective lies true.
That may be true by parsing the words but both Rove and Libby's office made it possible for Novak to print the name. That is spying to comfort the enemy, in my book. Fran townsend must have forgotten her beloved leader is seeking greatness by being a war president, albeit not a very efficient one ( going to be at it for 7 years now )
I can't believe they're still working the BS that there could have been only one leaker. No-facts own words in this video make it clear that a confirming source is a confirming source, regardless of which talked first.
They don't give up a talking point easily, I'll give them that.
CNN national security contributor Fran Townsend...
I swear I heard she and Tony Snow are going to have get their own show.
But seriously, why is this professional liar allowed ON THE AIR!
"CNN national security contributor Fran Townsend...
I swear I heard she and Tony Snow are going to have get their own show.
But seriously, why is this professional liar allowed ON THE AIR?!"
Answer #2: because GOP-CNN is a right wing corporate conservative Republican Party controlled news network, and GOP-CNN's Executive Johnathan Klein is a right wing corporate conservative Republican himself.
Why must I re-educate the world every time this issue comes up. This took about five minutes using the Google on the internets to do a basic timeline.
Libby tells Miller about Plame on June 23.
Rove tells Cooper about Plame "about 3 or 4 days before" July 2.
Armitage mentions Plame to Novak on July 8.
I've come to the conclusion that Keilar and Townsend and the rest of their ilk aren't merely stupid, uninformed, uninquisitive imbeciles. They are liars purposely trying to mislead people about what actually happened.
A host of White House aides were actively trying to reveal an undercover agent's identity (one who was working on Iranian nuclear weapons programs, how convenient that, huh?) long before the turd from Chicago wrote a column about it.
What a bunch of effin' liars.
Why must I re-educate the world every time this issue comes up.
Because of people like Another Un-American.
Unhip,
Why did you leave out Armitage leaking Plame's name to Woodward earlier in the month?
Try a simple search. :-)
ps. Here's a hint. Go look at Wikopedia.
Typical right-wing tractic, Bottle. AA has learned it well.
Standards for truth and accuracy apply to us, not the right wing.
Karl Rove no charges.
Scooter Libby, weak charges unrelated to any leak of Plame.
Wilson, discredited by congressional report.
Richard Armitage----hardly mentioned but identified as the one who gave up dear Valarie. The first agent of any sort that democrats cared a wit about secrecy, and she was no longer covert.
Scott McClellan--looking at his last few seconds of 15 minutes of fame.
Certainly after NOT finding WMD's there was a concerted effort on the US's part to PROVE there was at least some justification for attacking Iraq. When that was not found by Wilson to be true there was an effort to discredit him AND his wife.
"The State Department told a congressional committee that seven days after President George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address, in which he charged that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium in Africa, US diplomats warned the International Atomic Energy Agency that the US could not confirm the reports."
There is [was] a general feeling among CIA analysts that intelligence was politicized and that the CIA and (Defense Intelligence Agency) was not given full consideration because the Pentagon, the policymakers, including the vice-president's office, did not want to hear that message. They wanted to hear a hardline message supporting a policy they already adopted.
and so.....Plame was outed, Joe was discredited so badly he probably will never be able to work in that area again, not to mention other countries will think of him as a "spy" if he ever goes to one again.
Plame will never work again as a covert CIA agent.
Other CIA agents will now have to worry that if thier findings do not match up with "political" agenda's that they too will be outed.
You un-american one's trying to say this is all ok, just remember, people get murdered for stuff like this.
Agents get killed for stuff like this...people die. Our nation suffers. Agents cannot trust the higher ups and the CIA suffers for good agents.
Well, at least we know how some conservatives feel about Obstruction of Justice. We already knew they considered Perjury part of their skill set.
Richard Armitage----hardly mentioned but identified as the one who gave up dear Valarie.
There was not "one" who gave up Valerie Plame Wilson. There were many, including Rove. There was not one and only one leaker.
PC,
Are you saying that Director Hayden is a liar or are you just proud that Bush and Company got away with outing a covert agent?
It is sad that every time this subject comes up, the same disproved, often plain illogical, points are made.
#1 She wasn't covert: As has been pointed out, the CIA said she was covert. It was put into the congressional record that she was covert. Guess what? SHE WAS A COVERT AGENT!
#2 Everyone knew she worked for the CIA: Not true. I mean we could simply point back to #1, but some would not be satisfied. There is also Fitzgerald's first public statement where he said that an extensive canvasing was done and no evidence was found that any of her friends or neighbors knew she was CIA. And of course there is the Libby trial. If the name had been out there, all his defender had to do was find some of these people and put them on the stand,but he didn't. Because they did not exist.
#3 Armitge was the leaker: Yes he was A leaker, but not THE leaker. There was a concerted effort by several in the Whitehouse to get her name out there. Her name was given to at least 4 different reporters before the Novak article came out. some have said they got it from Libby (like Judith Miller, who went to jail to hide it) and others Karl Rove, and Novak and Woodward say Armitage. Armitage stepped forward (I believe to take the bullet, but I could be wrong), but Fitzgerald already knew there was more than one source (Novak had said so in his story) so he kept investigating and found multiple leakers.
#4 There was no underlying Crime This is the dumbest one I think. I advise all those who believe this to go back and look over ALL of the trials involving this case. Every single judge..let me type that again.. EVERY SINGLE JUDGE who heard any part of the cases said a crime was committed. Judith Miller's lawyers argued that and every judge who heard her appeals said a crime was committed. Libby's lawyers tried this tactic and also failed. Again EVERY judge said there was indeed a crime. When every judge who heard the case says it, it should be clear. And again go back and read Fitzgerald's statement. He makes it clear what the crime was and why he could not indict. Because Libby (and others) helped cover up the facts surrounding that crime.
And I am not even going into the tinfoil "Plame and Wilson were out to take out the administration" stuff. If you believe that, you need more than just a list of facts, you need professiona help.
So come on people (I am looking at you PC and AA!) do a little fact checking. All ofthis is out there and pretty darn easy to find. The only wy you don;t know these things is becuase you don't want to know, plain and simple.
because you don't want to know
Exactly, M.H. I recently looked at some MMFA items on this topic from just about one year ago, and the con-fusion has not made one inch of progress. They just dig in their heels, and hit the repeat button.
Certainly after NOT finding WMD's there was a concerted effort on the US's part to PROVE there was at least some justification for attacking Iraq. When that was not found by Wilson to be true there was an effort to discredit him AND his wife.
"The State Department told a congressional committee that seven days after President George W. Bush gave his State of the Union address, in which he charged that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium in Africa, US diplomats warned the International Atomic Energy Agency that the US could not confirm the reports."
There is [was] a general feeling among CIA analysts that intelligence was politicized and that the CIA and (Defense Intelligence Agency) was not given full consideration because the Pentagon, the policymakers, including the vice-president's office, did not want to hear that message. They wanted to hear a hardline message supporting a policy they already adopted.
and so.....Plame was outed, Joe was discredited so badly he probably will never be able to work in that area again, not to mention other countries will think of him as a "spy" if he ever goes to one again.
Plame will never work again as a covert CIA agent.
Other CIA agents will now have to worry that if thier findings do not match up with "political" agenda's that they too will be outed.
You un-american one's trying to say this is all ok, just remember, people get murdered for stuff like this.
Agents get killed for stuff like this...people die. Our nation suffers. Agents cannot trust the higher ups and the CIA suffers for good agents.
Trust in our government is non-existent, we all suffer because of it. All you righties think this is a good thing...idiots! You can't see how outing an agent is bad? Can be criminal without anyone getting charged with a crime? Again, idiots.
The administration in power was working in "conjunction" to out Plame and destroy the findings of Joe Plame.
How is that hard to understand......"in conjunction" !
All were leakers, and all have hurt this nation by destroying the trust of the very people that work to protect the country.