TPS Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 It's a rhetorical question; I know the answer... Apparently someone high in the administration could be going down for this--the outing of a CIA agent. However, it appears that the investigation also leads to the "selling" of the Iraq war to the American people--that is, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al knew much of their information was dubious, but used it anyway to trump up a case for the war. I'm sure some here will argue this is as trivial as trying to impeach a president for a blow job..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 To me, this should be a non-story. Facts as we know it is that Joe Wilson lied, was caught in that lie, and has been swepped under the rug. The pending charges are unlikely to be about outing a CIA agent, as she wasn't undercover when she was "outed." This could be the Martha Stewart charges - saying one thing to the investigators and someone else saying something else - obstruction of justice. As to your main point, I cannot imagine the administration trying to discredit a source they know is wrong about a topic that they're trying to sell to the people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 It's a rhetorical question; I know the answer... Apparently someone high in the administration could be going down for this--the outing of a CIA agent. However, it appears that the investigation also leads to the "selling" of the Iraq war to the American people--that is, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al knew much of their information was dubious, but used it anyway to trump up a case for the war. I'm sure some here will argue this is as trivial as trying to impeach a president for a blow job..... 480224[/snapback] Maybe Sandy Berger stuffed more classified documents down his pants that we know about? Maybe former Sen Torricelli of NJ could help. You remember him who gave the NYT the name of a CIA informant, causing him and his family to go into hiding since 1995. Ahh, the "Torch", the guy who caused the CIA to recruit only lily-white spies, and who left the Senate before he faced charges. Ron Brown? Naah. Dead; can't help. Vinnie Foster? Uh-uh - remarkable guy though - said to have committed suicide, but somehow tossed the gun 150 feet or so. You wouldn't be talking about the info the Bush adm. got from the Clinton adm? Let's not forget that in '98, Bill sought and got a law from Congress... "SUMMARY: (REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended) Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. " http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm Er...The impeachment wasn't about sex. I believe it was lying under oath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 It's a rhetorical question; I know the answer... 480224[/snapback] Actually the answer is that we covered all this BS months ago and there's nothing new to talk about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 19, 2005 Author Share Posted October 19, 2005 Maybe Sandy Berger stuffed more classified documents down his pants that we know about? Maybe former Sen Torricelli of NJ could help. You remember him who gave the NYT the name of a CIA informant, causing him and his family to go into hiding since 1995. Ahh, the "Torch", the guy who caused the CIA to recruit only lily-white spies, and who left the Senate before he faced charges. Ron Brown? Naah. Dead; can't help. Vinnie Foster? Uh-uh - remarkable guy though - said to have committed suicide, but somehow tossed the gun 150 feet or so. You wouldn't be talking about the info the Bush adm. got from the Clinton adm? Let's not forget that in '98, Bill sought and got a law from Congress... "SUMMARY: (REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended) Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government. " http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm Er...The impeachment wasn't about sex. I believe it was lying under oath. 480256[/snapback] What do you know, the old, "but they were worse" response.... Or is it, "I'm rubber, you are glue..." response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 19, 2005 Author Share Posted October 19, 2005 To me, this should be a non-story. Facts as we know it is that Joe Wilson lied, was caught in that lie, and has been swepped under the rug. The pending charges are unlikely to be about outing a CIA agent, as she wasn't undercover when she was "outed." This could be the Martha Stewart charges - saying one thing to the investigators and someone else saying something else - obstruction of justice. As to your main point, I cannot imagine the administration trying to discredit a source they know is wrong about a topic that they're trying to sell to the people. 480225[/snapback] I think you have your facts wrong. What appears to be coming out of this investigation is that Wilson was correct, and the administration engaged in a dirty tactics campaign to discredit him--probably the articles you refer to as "facts." One of those dirty tactics was the outing of his wife, which is what's being investigated by Fitzgerald. If the facts are that she "wasn't undercover" when she was outed, I don't think there would've been an investigation in the first place. At any rate, we disagree on the facts; but those facts should be made public shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 What do you know, the old, "but they were worse" response....Or is it, "I'm rubber, you are glue..." response? 480277[/snapback] Fancy talk from a bunch that dragged up Thomas Jefferson.. Oh, the rush to judgement.!!! Remember THAT one... P.S.: Care to make a comment on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 P.S.: Care to make a comment on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? 480292[/snapback] I'll bite. My comment is: It's in no way connected to the topic of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 - saying one thing to the investigators and someone else saying something else - obstruction of justice. 480225[/snapback] So far that's all it seems to be, but where there's smoke, there's fire. There's also a reason people attempt to obstruct justice - They have something to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 I think you have your facts wrong. What appears to be coming out of this investigation is that Wilson was correct, and the administration engaged in a dirty tactics campaign to discredit him--probably the articles you refer to as "facts." One of those dirty tactics was the outing of his wife, which is what's being investigated by Fitzgerald. If the facts are that she "wasn't undercover" when she was outed, I don't think there would've been an investigation in the first place. At any rate, we disagree on the facts; but those facts should be made public shortly. 480283[/snapback] I'm too lazy to do the search for you, but it's been covered extensively here. The Brits basically threw cold water on Wilson's big scoop that Saddam had no intention of looking into yellowcake. I think ontherocks had a few good recaps of Lying Joe on these pages. Why do you think Wilson has been sent deeply undercover by the Dems after his sensationalistic stories proved to be wrong, but everyone still clings to them as gospel? it's not the truth that matters, but perception that he blew the cover off this administration. As to Valerie, she wasn't undercover when she was "outed." Why is the investigation going on? My guess is that it was a miscalculation by the White House to approve the special prosecutor, because they knew that the law wasn't broken and this thing would be dead in months. Instead, it looks like Fitzgerald may try to nail someone on a charge that's totally unrelated to "outing" of a CIA agent. Kind of like linking a bj in a hallway to an investigation of a land deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 I'm sure some here will argue this is as trivial as trying to impeach a president for a blow job..... 480224[/snapback] Yes, that is the reason why Bill Clinton got impeached. Hurry up...."Surreal Life" re-runs are on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 As to Valerie, she wasn't undercover when she was "outed." 480313[/snapback] It seems as though she wasn't, but isn't it more complex than that? My understanding is that, by outing Plame, they also outed a business that was a CIA front (Brewster-Jennings and Assoc). Wouldn't that also lead to other covert ops being outed, even if by no other means than by foreign intel agencies who we know are watching this thing closely. In fact, isn't it possible that outing her in this manner could jeopardize the safety of her contacts, who are covert? I know if I'm a foreign gov't, I'm re-creating her activities in my country to determine who she interacted with because I wanna' nail me some spies. That is, IMO, outing covert operatives. Whether it's against the law as the law is written, I dunno'. On a related note, I hear Fitzgerald isn't going to issue a final report on his investigation. I guess that means one of two things, either we'll never know any of the results of his findings, or indictments are on the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 I'll bite. My comment is: It's in no way connected to the topic of the thread. 480301[/snapback] OK Let's talk about my favorite President, Calvin Coolidge. One of his quotes... "Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 The laws about outing a covert spy have these two provisions: 1) the person's status still has to be covert and 2) It has to be within 5 years of the end of their covert activities. Plame stopped being a covert agent in the 90s. I have read that her cover was blown by the Swiss government. They act as our liason to the Cuban giovernment and some docs they had inadvertently gotten named her. It is also believed that Plame's name was on a list spies that I think Aldrich Ames had. It was known around the cocktail party circuit that Plame WAS a spy and now worked openly at Langley. She even told that herself. Therefore there is no violation of this law by Rove, Libbey, people at the White House,Novak or the other journalists. Why Miller stayed in jail is a mystery?- Book deal? There is nothing here, just a partisan witch hunt. In their bid to find anything on Bush, the dems show their desperation and dig a bigger hole for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 There is nothing here, just a partisan witch hunt. In their bid to find anything on Bush, the dems show their desperation and dig a bigger hole for themselves. 480417[/snapback] Actually, there's obstruction of justice, but don't let that get in the way of your DEMS BAD rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pope zimli Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 It's a rhetorical question; I know the answer... Apparently someone high in the administration could be going down for this--the outing of a CIA agent. However, it appears that the investigation also leads to the "selling" of the Iraq war to the American people--that is, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al knew much of their information was dubious, but used it anyway to trump up a case for the war. I'm sure some here will argue this is as trivial as trying to impeach a president for a blow job..... 480224[/snapback] I'm kind of wait and see on it. If they outed her at all, they should go to prison...period. Serious business outing an agent, undercover or not. They jeopardized those who worked with her, other undercover agents involved in operations with her, and the integrity of the intelligence community. Serious, and if true, worthy of prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 19, 2005 Author Share Posted October 19, 2005 The laws about outing a covert spy have these two provisions:1) the person's status still has to be covert and 2) It has to be within 5 years of the end of their covert activities. Plame stopped being a covert agent in the 90s. I have read that her cover was blown by the Swiss government. They act as our liason to the Cuban giovernment and some docs they had inadvertently gotten named her. It is also believed that Plame's name was on a list spies that I think Aldrich Ames had. It was known around the cocktail party circuit that Plame WAS a spy and now worked openly at Langley. She even told that herself. Therefore there is no violation of this law by Rove, Libbey, people at the White House,Novak or the other journalists. Why Miller stayed in jail is a mystery?- Book deal? There is nothing here, just a partisan witch hunt. In their bid to find anything on Bush, the dems show their desperation and dig a bigger hole for themselves. 480417[/snapback] Here's a timeline which appears to try and keep any political judgment out. Wilson-Plame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 The question I think we are all grappling with here is not whether Rove and company are scumbags, we are simply trying to figure out if they are scumbags who should go to jail. For that we will have to wait for what the prosecutor has to say. Maybe an indictment or two, maybe nothing. This is of domestic interest in terms of the politics and all but sadly, with regard to the WMD fiasco, we are likely to remain international laughing stocks whether Das Karl goes to jail or the Heritage Foundation Hall of Fame. We can all argue over the minutiae and bandy the details back and forth but the plain fact is that we went to war screaming about WMD's and we haven't found any. As to what that means and who should be blamed, much can be argued and has been. It doesn't change the history of it, the fact of it, we went to war complaining loudly about WMD's that ended up not being there. This will be an issue for our credibility and respect for a long time to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 19, 2005 Author Share Posted October 19, 2005 The plot thickens.... WHIG "So determined was the ring of top officials to win its argument that it morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims, sources told the Daily News. One of those critics was ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who debunked a key claim in a speech by President Bush that Iraq sought nuclear materials in Africa. His punishment was the media outing of his wife, CIA spy Valerie Plame, an affair that became a "side show" for the White House Iraq Group, the sources said. " Looks like Judy Miller was part of the PR process to get us into war! Gee, I wonder where the so-called "facts" came from that debunked Wilson??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted October 19, 2005 Share Posted October 19, 2005 The plot thickens.... WHIG "So determined was the ring of top officials to win its argument that it morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at critics who questioned its claims, sources told the Daily News. One of those critics was ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who debunked a key claim in a speech by President Bush that Iraq sought nuclear materials in Africa. His punishment was the media outing of his wife, CIA spy Valerie Plame, an affair that became a "side show" for the White House Iraq Group, the sources said. " Looks like Judy Miller was part of the PR process to get us into war! Gee, I wonder where the so-called "facts" came from that debunked Wilson??? 480585[/snapback] BOOOOOOOORING! Enter "Wilson Plame" at the little search box at the bottom of the page and you can read what everyone said about this stupid, overblown POS story months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts