“Left-Wing Radical”: Hannity Kicks Off Next Wilson Smear Campaign
“Left-Wing Radical”: Hannity Kicks Off Next Wilson Smear Campaign
Last night on Fox News, Sean Hannity introduced yet another element of the right-wing’s effort to deflect attention from the core issues of the CIA leak scandal. During a discussion about possible indictments this week, Hannity said, “We do know that [Wilson is] a left-wing radical.”
After being smeared by the Bush administration, Wilson has been rightly critical of their tactics. But Wilson’s resume doesn’t support Hannity’s claim.
A career diplomat for 23 years, Wilson worked in the foreign service during the George H.W. Bush administration as chargé d’affaires in Baghdad. The Washington Post reported that Bush senior called Wilson a “‘truly inspiring’ diplomat who exhibited ‘courageous leadership’ by facing down Hussein and helping to gain freedom for the Americans before the 1991 war began.”
Wilson has also donated to members of both political parties, including $1,000 to George W. Bush.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
We know that Wilson is a liar and a blabber mouth. We know he cared so much about his wife’s identity, that he did an expo in Vanity Fair.
Fitz might be clean, but Wilson was a Kerry crony. I love when he flashed 41’s letter – that was when you knew he was fake.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:27 pmSean Hannity other wise know as “BOOTLICKER”….
October 25th, 2005 at 12:28 pmPass it on!!!
Sean Hannity other wise know as “BOOTLICKER”….
October 25th, 2005 at 12:28 pmPass it on!!!
Anyone who disagrees with this theocratic administration is a left wing radical, i’m sure Brent Scowcroft is next.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:31 pmHere’s what the Washington Post is saying today:
Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair. For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymouslyin June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.” The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson “had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.” Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.
That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson’s claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip, as administration officials charged in the conversations with reporters that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is now probing. Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely “a conduit,” telling CNN last year that “her supervisors asked her to contact me.”
But the Senate committee found that “interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip.” The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson “has good relations” with Niger officials who “could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame “had the idea to dispatch him” to Niger.
The CIA has always said, however, that Plame’s superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision.
Wilson also mistakenly assumed that his report would get more widespread notice in the administration than it apparently did. He wrote that he believed “a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president” had probably taken place, perhaps orally.
But this apparently never occurred. Former CIA director George J. Tenet has said that “we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials.” Instead his report, without identifying Wilson as the source, was sent in a routine intelligence paper that had wide circulation in the White House and the rest of the intelligence community but had little impact because it supported other, earlier refutations of the Niger intelligence.
Wilson also had charged that his report on Niger clearly debunked the claim about Iraqi uranium purchases. He told NBC in 2004: “This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations.” But the Senate committee said his findings were ambiguous. Tenet said Wilson’s report “did not resolve” the matter.
Funny how we pick and choose.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:32 pmRe: Hannity…what do you expect from a pig, but a grunt!
October 25th, 2005 at 12:33 pmND:
I appreciate the Powerline-style argument. Just assert that a document is fake. Don’t worry about having any proof.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:33 pmWhat do you expect from Hannity? Fair and balanced news?????? Bwahahahahahah
October 25th, 2005 at 12:33 pmWhy do people pay so much attention to what Gorilla Hannity has to say?
October 25th, 2005 at 12:34 pmNeddy, let’s just say wilson was a kerry crony. does that justify conducting an act of polical payback that violated the laws of the US and jeapordized natinal security (outing an undercover CIA asset, destroying her middle east intel operation and putting everyone working on that operation in mortal danger)?
October 25th, 2005 at 12:35 pmI guess Hannity forgot to look at the fact that Wilson was raised republican, his whole family is republican, his uncle was the former republican governor of California and he donated $1000 to GW’s campaign – and didn’t donate anything to democrats.
When the republicans tell a lie they tell a BIG LIE. How pathetic and immoral this sort of smear is! Right up there with trying to smear a war hero so a draft dodger can become president!
October 25th, 2005 at 12:37 pmThey are getting pretty desperate. Pretty fun when this is all going down with a Republican congress, a Republican prosecutor, a Republican whistleblower, and a complicit press.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:38 pmNED,
YOU LIE AGAIN. Wilson is a REPUBLICAN you retarded little teenage idiot!
October 25th, 2005 at 12:40 pmzmark,
Yeah, and they’re smearing a REPUBLICAN diplomat who disagreed with them. Republicans are FOOLS!
October 25th, 2005 at 12:41 pmWho’s Hannity?
October 25th, 2005 at 12:41 pmAlright, Ryan is here.
Ryan, John Kerry lied about Vietnam, he lied about the nature of his medals, he lied about throwing away the medals, he lied with a camera, he was not respected by 95% of the men that were Swifties at the time, he lied about Cambodia, he lied, he lied, he lied.
Ryan, Kerry is a dishonest person and a phony.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:42 pmOK Ben lets get to the meat of the matter then. According to your post Wilson’s report wasn’t that significant because it supported earlier refutations of the Niger claim by the intelligence agency. So explain again why the claim was then still used by the administration to start the war against Hussein? And supposing all of the mis-statements by Wilson did occur as presented by your post – how does that in any way exonerate the individuals who outed Plame or the individuals who committed perjury before a grand jury? Wilson may have over-stated or slightly mis-stated his case. No laws broken there and his findings were accurate. The administration over-stated, mis-stated and has now committed Federal offences (including possibly perjury and obstruction of justice) all in the pursuit of manipulating the US into war. Yes, it sure seems like Wilson is the problem here.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:42 pmAlex – you don’t know at this point that the Administration did anything illegal with respect to Wilson’s wife. We KNOW that Wilson has not been fully truthful – as Ben’s post points out.
Say that Wilson was a Kerry crony who used his wife’s position to advance Kerry’s claim that we were “mislead” – Wilson had no problem exploiting his wife’s position when it suited him. At a minimum, he is not a very good person?
October 25th, 2005 at 12:43 pmRyan – Wilson may be a RINO, but he donated $$ to Kerry. Most Republicans I know didn’t do that. Wilson is an opportunistic pig. AND you are being dishonest by calling him a Republican when you know he gave Kerry $$.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:44 pmExposure saves your life.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:45 pmif this is a conspiracy to smear anybody and mean anybody then we better start indicting all involved including those in the media who are engaged in the smearing as well as those behind it. Enough of this wink and a nod, go fore and do evil crap. Indict the bastards and convict them. Get them out off the airwaves.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:45 pmRove:
“I’ve already said too much”
“Plame information will be declassified soon”
Tsk Tsk
October 25th, 2005 at 12:48 pmNED would give up his whore mother if he thought he could a good night’s sleep.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:49 pmEural, nothing should exonerate an outing of a CIA agent. And let me be clear I support prosecution of someone guilty of that charge. What I had read though was that apparently many people knew she was CIA. That she had not had covert activities for some time. That media people had approached administration people about another matter and linked Wilson to his wife. Apparently the impression was that it was known she was a CIA employee and someone in the administration acknowledged that they had heard the same thing. If what happened violates the law or if someone lied or intentionally misled the grand jury they should not get a free pass. They should be convicted.
My point of the Post article today is that Wilson says things that are not true and that he has admitted that he has said things that are not true. According to Ryan that makes him a LIAR. Right, Ryan?
October 25th, 2005 at 12:50 pmBrian – that’s pretty low even for you. It’s sad you feel the need to smear my mother to cover up for your lack of a positive vision.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:50 pm“Ryan – Wilson may be a RINO, but he donated $$ to Kerry. Most Republicans I know didn’t do that. Wilson is an opportunistic pig. AND you are being dishonest by calling him a Republican when you know he gave Kerry $$.”
Lets see, Bush started an illegal war, outed his wife, and destroyed her career while smearing him – yeah, do you really believe he would vote for or give him money a second time? Bush turned a LIFELONG republican into a democrat through his ineptitude – and Wilson won’t be the last. YOU’RE AN IDIOT! Only fools like you remain republicans!
October 25th, 2005 at 12:50 pmNeD, nobody in politics is “fully truthful” – in fact I challenge you to find a human being who is!
October 25th, 2005 at 12:50 pmNot a very good person? As compared to say, Cheney? Give us a break. Your talking points are lamer than usual, have you checked your fax settings?
Nice try but the Republicans’ days are numbered!
Say hi to your alter-egos, I-Right-I and Mighty Aphrodite for me, you must be on stronger meds as they haven’t emerged for a few threads…
By the way, when are you going to respond to Ryan? He caught you in a lie and you know it… stupid troll.
Ryan – apologize for lying about Joe Wilson…. or you’re a liar.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:51 pmNED,
We know it’s true. If your mother gave to Kerry, you’d be smearing her right now too. You’re a foolish zealot blinded by hatred and ignorance.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:51 pmRyan – apologize for your lies….
October 25th, 2005 at 12:52 pm“I’ve already said too muchâ€
“Plame information will be declassified soonâ€
-Rove talking to reporters
October 25th, 2005 at 12:52 pmRyan – stop lying….
October 25th, 2005 at 12:52 pmBen,
You’re lying right now. Those are ’smears’ you are posting that have all been debunked. Stop spreading lies, you just look stupid.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:52 pmNED,
Apologize for your lies. The donations are a matter of public, and federal records you retarded gimp!
You apologize for lying about Wilson. He’s an honorable person unlike you.
Apologize for smearing an honorable man you LYING CVNT!
October 25th, 2005 at 12:54 pm“I’ve already said too muchâ€
“Plame information will be declassified soonâ€
-Rove making the world a dangerous place
October 25th, 2005 at 12:54 pmNED,
I proved you wrong. Wilson donated to Bush during his first election AS A REPUBLICAN and therefore was a REPUBLICAN when the Ms. P issue happened. Therefore YOU LIE!
October 25th, 2005 at 12:55 pmThree points:
1. Joe Wilson’s only problem is Joe Wilson. If he had told the truth about his Niger mission – how it came about, what he found, and didn’t find, and the concurrent findings of other intelligence agencies at the time – there would not have been any controversy, and thus no so-called “scandal.”
2. The fact that Joe Wilson tried to curry favor with politicians on both the left and right shows what an unprincipled man Joe Wilson is. And the fact that he openly courted the left in ginning up anti-war sentiment against President Bush, based on a tissue of lies and exaggerations, is even more telling.
3. That Joe Wilson is a proven politically motivated liar is beyond dispute. That the special prosecutor cannot find any violations of the 1982 IIPA or the 1917 Espionage Act also seems beyond dispute. That the same special prosecutor might now be contemplating indictments against politically motivated truth tellers is the real scandal here. The MSM and the Left (same thing?) will both come to regret their support for such indictments.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:57 pmIt seems to me that the Post is being quoted today and I have merely posted the Post’s writings today.
So the Post says good things for our side and those would be correct. The Post says bad things about our side and those are smears.
Your classic, down right classic. Again, I wager there is no way you are older than, let’s say 23, max. You are so immature with your incorporation of insults in every post. Just stick to the facts. The stress of your anger is going to kill you. Lighten up a little. Relax.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:57 pmWell, Ben, we both agree on the definition of liar and, yes, Wilson may be one. But I guess the real point is that according to all legal sources – and we will hear from the ultimate one any day now – Plame’s undercover status was not public knowledge. My issue with going after Wilson is that is the typical Rove tactic. They get caught doing something wrong and use a smear campaign to draw the fire and focus away from their actions. Yes, Wilson may be a liar but that is irrelevant to the actual criminal investigation now underway. Again, Wilson’s behaviour (while not commendable) was actually accurate. The administration’s behavior is neither commendable nor accurate nor – apparently – even legal at times. Keep the focus where it belongs on the real criminals.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:59 pmRyan – you really DO NEED help. Are you Al Franken in drag? Why don’t you get promote violence by hitting a right-wing idiot.
The GOP thanks God for unglued lefties like Ryan Neat. Haters who bring the Dims down.
October 25th, 2005 at 12:59 pmGood dog Hannity,
When all else fails, go after the messenger – worked for Rove, right? Oh ya – that’s not working out so well is it?
October 25th, 2005 at 1:00 pm“Alex – you don’t know at this point that the Administration did anything illegal with respect to Wilson’s wife. We KNOW that Wilson has not been fully truthful – as Ben’s post points out.”
And what is your stance towards Rove and Libby? If truth-telling is your standard, you can’t absolve them of their actions either, right?
“Say that Wilson was a Kerry crony who used his wife’s position to advance Kerry’s claim that we were “mislead†– Wilson had no problem exploiting his wife’s position when it suited him. At a minimum, he is not a very good person? ”
Say he was just an American ambassador who PERSONALLY stood up to Saddam Hussein (unlike Bush 1’s April Glaspie, who told Saddam that we wouldn’t step in if he invaded Kuwait) and trolls like ned pontificate as if THEIR ill-thought comments actually carry weight!
This is going to be a very enlightening (and painful)week for you, ned. Too bad.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:04 pmYou know Eural I saw a former CIA person give his point on these matters and I have to agree. Even when asked you deny as it pertains to an agent. If someone broke the law I will not argue to minimize the crime. I had read in several places that her CIA employment was known by many. For example most of her neighbors knew that was her employment. But I don’t have any other knowledge than what I have read, of course.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:04 pm#37 – Links?
October 25th, 2005 at 1:05 pm“I’ve already said too much” -Rove
October 25th, 2005 at 1:05 pmBSR,
He did tell the truth, and the quotes and records show it. Only fools like you who lie and smear created a ‘problem’ for him – as you always create problems for honest and decent americans. You’re shameful and pitiful!
October 25th, 2005 at 1:10 pmThe wingnuts are creating facts again. They take a comment and spin it into a lie. Wilson said: “The Vice President’s office requested that I go to Niger to investigate the uranium deal”. The fact is that the VP’s office wanted the fact-finding mission to be undertaken, they asked CIA to deploy someone and they chose Wilson. So the rightwing talking point is that Wilson claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger and that’s not true. Bullshi*. He didn’t call him on the phone and personally make the request, but the request came from his office. Ridiculous and dishonest are the Bush admin defenders.
Also, I have to make this point again. If the uranium from Niger story was a cornerstone to the argument for war (it was, since they stuck it in the SOTU address knowing it was a lie), why would a lowly desk-jockey CIA agent (as the liars have painted Plame to be) have the authority, or any influence WHATSOEVER, on the decision to send someone on such a critical mission? Does that make any sense wingnuts? No, of course it doesn’t.
You Bush-defenders are all washed up.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:11 pmI’m sure this is a wasted effort to inform but I’m in such a good mood, what the hell. Wilson and whether or not he lied is peripharally irrelevant to the question at hand. Our moderator asked, and the question was about, the smear campaign about to be launched against Fitzgerald. And you bootlickers respond by smearing Wilson. What the F*CK!!!!! Put down the glue and step away from the bag:-)
Daily News and the NY Times has quoted WH sources that say (grain of salt) all the players are lined up with talking points –
1. Out of control prosecutor
2. No big deal, perjury and obstruction of justice is mothers milk to DC
3. Libbey, Rove, Cheney, et al, just forgot they leaked to each other and the press
Just ask Nixon/Clinton how minor perjury and obstruction charges are.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:12 pmSean is just positioning himself for a position in Bush version 2.2:
New on EWM: White House Sets Job Fair
EWM – (October 25, 2005) Vowing not to be deterred by the staffing implosion within his Administration, President Bush has ordered the Office of Personnel Management conduct a job fair to find candidates to fill the glut of vacancies resulting from indictments and incompetence of top aides.
The action was prompted when Chief of Staff Andy Card informed Bush that his presidency was in free-fall and he needed to “clean house.â€
“Soon after that, we found Dubya vacuuming the Oval Office carpet, but once we explained that ‘clean house’ is a figure of speech meaning it’s time to hire new people, he was all over it and started preparing job descriptions,†said a source.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:17 pm#37
“That the special prosecutor cannot find any violations of the 1982 IIPA or the 1917 Espionage Act also seems beyond dispute.”
How the fvck would you know what he found. He hasn’t said anything to anybody about anything he has or hasn’t found.
Unless you are some type of mind reader, you are just making sh!t up.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:18 pmWow. You mean there are STILL people on this board who believe Wilson lied about his trip to Niger? Amazing.
I guess it’s just way too much effort to read his editorial.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:18 pmNot only is Joe Wilson nota liar, he’s going to go down in history as one of the most important, truth-telling patriots in american history. No doubt about it! He had the balls to sacrifice what he knew would be a vicious, withering assault from the rightnuts and he stood up for the truth and for his country because it was a matter of war and peace. That is the very definition of patriotism.
Also, if I was as much of an insider as Wilson was, knew what he knew, your goddamned right I’d go from voting for Shrubya in 00′ to voting against him in 04′. In fact doing everything possible to try to get rid of him was essential to an honest man.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:18 pm#43 the claim that her neighbors knew she was CIA has already been debunked. So has the claim that she was a desk jockey. Get up to speed, you’re reading old talking points.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:20 pmI just hope I never get rotwang.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:20 pmNo. No. No. “Rotwang” is the scientist from “Metropolis.”
“Wangrot” is what you have to watch out for!
October 25th, 2005 at 1:22 pmDid you guys see O’Scumbag on Jon Stewarts show? It was a revealing interview at the very least. I just wonder why O’Scumbag chose Stewarts show to announce his possible retirement. I also wonder why he chose Stewarts show to admit that Republicans don’t like him either.
Sounds like O’Scumbag is flip flopping, could it be that he has no choice as his ratings continue to decline?
October 25th, 2005 at 1:25 pmSusan,
Do you know where I can find a recent update of O’Loofah’s ratings? All of FOx’s ratings for that matter?
Just curious.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:26 pmIn response to three points:
(1) Joe Wilson’s problem is not the accurracy of his statements but their direct contradiction of the administration’s stated position. Revealing his wife’s employment at the CIA does nothing to detract from the veracity (or lack there of) of his claims. It is pure, unadulterated pay back. Don’t toe the party line, your wife’s career gets ended. I don’t understand how you can pin this on Wilson: are you stating there are perfectly acceptable circumstances under which its ok for administration officials to blow the cover of an agent? Do you know what that means? Even if no ones life was immediately endangered, it makes it much, much harder to recruit foreign nationals to commit crimes against their native nations (crimes usually punishable by an extremely painful death for the perpetrator and sometimes his/her family) by giving us intel.
(2) What lies? To my knowledge, all of Wilson’s claims have been proven true. Further, his “currying” favor shouldnt matter a damn. Or do you believe peoples free speech rights (and by extension, their ability to donate) should be restricted to one party only? If anything it seems consistent with what we know about him: a moderate republican career bureaucrat. Most bureaucrats are apolitical- they do their job out of a love of country not party.
(3) Just because you say something is beyond dispute dont make it so. I dont care if people are politically motivated- if they perjure themselves and obstruct justice, they go to jail. Is that the argument we used against Clinton over his bj lies? Why is Clinton’s “leak” induced perjury worse than Rove/Libby’s leak induced perjury? Further more, theres no reason to expect indictments on any particular statute (I am betting money perjury and obstruction will be amung them, but conspiracy wouldnt suprise me either).
October 25th, 2005 at 1:28 pmRotwang,
The reichwing spin machine keeps repeating the lies about wilson after they’re debunked, and the fools like Ben and NED keep lapping it up like stupid lapdogs. They’re either too lazy or foolish to go review the PUBLIC TESTIMONY that disproves the reichwing spin cycle. The only conclusion possible is that they’re so desperate to believe the lies, they’re happy to lie to themselves. And that my friends is schizophrenia.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:28 pmHey NED, the latest poll indicates that 34% of Americans believe the war in Iraq is a good thing.
I think its safe to say that 17% argree with it because they are profiting from it.
I also think it is safe to say that the other 17% are just sadistic freaks who get off on the pain and suffering of others.
Which category can I put you in? Sadistic freak or war profiteer?
October 25th, 2005 at 1:29 pmHEY!…HeyHeyHey!…listen to rudgrl #48…back to topic…
October 25th, 2005 at 1:29 pmRyan,
It’s not just the knuckle-draggers that post here. Every night some rightwing hack goes on Hardball and claims that Wilson is a liar and every night Matthews just lets it fly, no challenge, no debate. As I said in an earlier post, they spin and lie and it becomes part of the “accepted storyline”. It’s all bull, and Matthews is a hack for letting it happen. Liars!
October 25th, 2005 at 1:33 pmJay,
That’s very true, but remember the media is ‘liberal’ and they’re hard on ‘bush’, isn’t that the crap these slime balls post on here? Republicans as a class are such fvcking liars!
October 25th, 2005 at 1:35 pmdano,
NED’s a RINO anyway, he doesn’t support MIERS. Didn’t you know anyone who disagrees with Bush is a RINO, so NED’s now on our side. Right NED? Come on, you can flip sides now that you’re a loser RINO.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:37 pmJay, I can’t find any accurate ratings. Everything I find says that Fox News creates their own ratings.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:37 pmAh! Gott mein schwanz aufsparen!
October 25th, 2005 at 1:37 pmIn 1991, Wilson was the acting ambassador to Iraq who had protected 800 Americans in the embassy. He was given credit for that by GHW Bush. Wilson was also present during a videotaping of Hussein, surrounding himself with children, after Desert Storm, and Cheney, as Secretary of Defense, was also present.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:39 pmHow could anyone believe that the Sec. of Defense did not know the praiseworthy Ambassador to Iraq, when in addition to the facts, they were both present in the same video?
Good point Marie, especially considering the fact that Uncle Dick has been eyeing Iraq as our 51st state for a decade now.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:41 pmNothing here is off topic- this post is about the smear campaign targeting Wilson. The smear campaign that is ramping up targeting Fitzgerald is equally distasteful. He’s a career prosecutor (read bureaucrat) who, I am guessing, like Wilson understands that somethings are bigger than party. In Wilson’s case it was the truth about intelligence manipulations. In Fitzgeralds, its the law. These two guys are about to take a reaming because they did what they felt was right.
My only regret is that Americans have become so jaded that we will not see the outpouring of disgust that accompanied Watergate. And as far as the basic issue involved, this is much, much more serious than some president sending minions to do a B and E. In the minimalist case, it will become much harder to recruit foreign intel sources desperately needed to protect our country from terrorist threats. When America does get nuked or gassed or bugged, and the right cries about “faulty” or missing intelligence, I am going to remind them of this. We will reap what we have sown, its only a matter of time and degree.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:45 pm#56
O’Rielly sure did show his hate for the French, by going after Steven Colbert. That is a right wing pyscho for you. Hate hate hate hate hate.
I would hate myself if I was a republican.
And they sit around preaching the gospel, when they are so filled with hate.
Jesus would b!tch slap every single one of them.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:49 pmdrtomaso said:
“These two guys are about to take a reaming because they did what they felt was right.”
They’re both tough, patriotic, honest, and they have more than half of the country on their side. They’re gonna be just fine.
So I had heard/read that tomorrow would most likely be the day of the indictments….has anybody heard anything different?
October 25th, 2005 at 1:50 pm“So explain again why the claim was then still used by the administration to start the war against Hussein?”
Eural, remember, the president was getting intelligence not just from the CIA, but from British intelligence and other intelligence agencies all over the world. In his 2003 SOTU address, he cited the British intelligence report about Saddam attempting to obtain uranium from Africa, a report the Brits stand by to this day. Bush either never saw or heard about Wilson’s report (my understanding is that it was oral and made only to CIA officials) or if he did hear about it, he deemed the report not credible.
IMHO what we have here, Eural, is an attempt by Valerie Plame and husband to undermine the president in a time of war. When Rove, Libby and Cheney learned who was behind it, they fought back by disclosing the partisan nature of Wilson and by questioning why he was sent on the trip when no one from the White House asked him to go. Ask yourself this question – why, if Wilson was SO concerned, and SO trouble about Bush using the alleged attempt to purchase uranium by Saddam as a justification for war – WHY did he wait until AFTER the war began to print his op-ed? Wilson went to Africa in 2002. Bush gives SOTU address in January 2003. War in Iraq begins in April 2003.
Wilson Op-ed doesn’t appear until July 2003. Why so late? Think about it.
Sceptimus
October 25th, 2005 at 1:56 pm#57, do a google search for radio ratings for O’Reilly and you will find various sites indicating O’Loofah is losing his audience and A/A is gaining. In fact, considering that O’Lielly is such a big name, affiliated with big media, the fact that A/A is showing respectable numbers is remarkable. Also bear in mind that it usually takes years for radio programs to gain a loyal audience, and A/A seems to be breaking records there.
October 25th, 2005 at 1:57 pm#73
“the president was getting intelligence not just from the CIA, but from British intelligence and other intelligence agencies all over the world. In his 2003 SOTU address, he cited the British intelligence report about Saddam attempting to obtain uranium from Africa, a report the Brits stand by to this day.”
The British report, on Saddam trying to get uranium in (Niger) Africa, that you mention here is what Joseph Wilson was sent to invetigate. He found nothing and came back and told everybody in the NY Times, which in turn led to the outing of his wife Valerie Plame.
You are a couple of years behind. You need to go do some research and then come back once you have caught up with the rest of us.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:01 pm“It’s not just the knuckle-draggers that post here. Every night some rightwing hack goes on Hardball and claims that Wilson is a liar and every night Matthews just lets it fly, no challenge, no debate.”
Jay, aside from the proven fact that Wilson was/is a liar (re: the uranium documents he claims he knew were forgeries in feb 2002, but never saw until sept 2002), what Hardball are YOU watching? The Hardball I watch every night consists of about 99% liberals and democrats piling on Bush for every perceived ill on the face of the earth, real or imagined.
Hissy-fit Mathews himself screamed last week in an on-air tantrum “This is NOT just about Wilson! This is NOT just about Karl Rove! This about a relationship between a president and a vice president that just might be the closest relationship in all of American history!!!!” Um, Chris? Free clue – it’s not a crime for a president to be close to his veep. Sorry.
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 2:02 pmJuly 15th Washington Times:
The July 15 article did, however, quote Fred Rustmann, a former CIA agent who supervised Plame for one year at the beginning of her career. Although there is no indication that Rustmann is one of Plame’s neighbors, the Times quoted him claiming that her neighbors did know about her covert CIA status: “Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his [Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C Wilson IV's] friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren’t minding the store here. … The agency never changed her cover status.” According to the article, Rustmann “also said that she [Plame] worked under extremely light cover.”
October 25th, 2005 at 2:05 pmI’m losing count of all the moderate Republicans who’ve become “leftists”. Their crime? They understand how dangerous the criminals in control of government are to our American way of life. Moderate Republicans and Moderate Democrats have a lot more in common when we are dealing with RW extremist/fascist elements who steal elections to control our government.
I’ll bet Hannity thinks Fitzgerald is a “leftist” too….he’s going to find it a lot easier to keep count of those who still support Bush/Cheney, I think. And we haven’t got to the good stuff, yet. Hannity might be an expert on “Leftists”, but I know a criminal apologist/propagandist in action. So are the posting toadies who support him here. Apparently, Ben, NED, BSR want to be in the club that supports criminals at any cost. Why do they hate America so much?
October 25th, 2005 at 2:05 pm#73, Wilson did spend months in the run up to the war trying to persuade members of Congress that the war was wrong and the frenzy for war was incomparable. He finally got an op-ed printed and got booked on MTP when he was finally heard by millions.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:07 pmThe British intel was challenged by many within the British government, but Blair was as determined for this war as Bush. Mind you, that American intelligence was given high priority, and the Brithsh challengers were shouted down by the warmongers.
Bush only mentioned “Brithsh Intelligence” in the SOTU because the CIA had tried to eliminate the words altogether and would not support it, so Bush used “British.”
Cheney and his neocons wanted to take over Iraq for years (oil, you know); they were desperate to protect their plan.
You should try to get your facts from various sources instead of merely Faux News and Rush Lintball.
“Fitz might be clean, but Wilson was a Kerry crony. “NED the Lying Machine
NED likes to make wild claims, but generally his/her use of language is so inprecise and in fact incorrect as to clearly put him/her in the realm of smear artist. Lets begin with this statement.
From Webster’s
crony: a close friend especially of long standing
Not only was Kerry not a ‘friend’ of Wilson’s, but when he declared his support for Kerry, he did so as an INDEPENDENT. This is after a life long voting record and political life as a republican. I believe his quote is that he had not left the republican party, the republican party had left him.
The truth is the enemy of republican values. Seek the truth, and the republican message is always destroyed.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:08 pmMarie,
The ‘british’ intelligence was formed on the basis of a ‘grad student’s paper apparently. It was amateurish and has proven to subsequently be false as well. Everything about this administration and this war has been a lie.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:09 pmsceptimus said:
“they fought back by disclosing the partisan nature of Wilson and by questioning why he was sent on the trip when no one from the White House asked him to go”
Explain how the “partisan” Wilson contributed $1,000 to the Bush campaign in Y2K, but he suddenly morphed into a Democrat partisan? Doesn’t wash.
So we’re supposed to believe that the administration relied solely on British intelligence? That they didn’t make an effort to fortify with their own intelligence one of the foundations for which they were basing their preemptive invasion of Iraq? Wilson was undoubtedly there to check the veracity of the prospect that Hussein might be trying to obtain uranium. He found the truth and it countered their case for war. Suddenly, he was a non-entity to the WHIg and the OSP.
You can bet your ass that had he found data that supported the Cheney administrations case for war, it would have been heralded from the hilltops..
Another Bush-defender that makes no sense.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:09 pm“The British report, on Saddam trying to get uranium in (Niger) Africa, that you mention here is what Joseph Wilson was sent to invetigate. He found nothing and came back and told everybody in the NY Times, which in turn led to the outing of his wife Valerie Plame.”
Spudge, erm – no, sorry. Wilson did not come back and “tell everybody at the NY Times”….his op-ed didn’t appear until July of 03, MONTHS after the Iraq war started and over a year after his trip. His “report” was never delivered to the White House, and neither Bush or Cheney saw or heard of it – why? Because the trip was a boondoggle from the get go. He was sent to Niger to NOT find evidence of uranium purchases by Saddam.
Wilson’s trip and “findings” are well documented in the 9/11 report, as well as by the SSIC report that stated Wilson’s conclusions were erroneous and not credible. In fact, his own attempt to smear the Bush admistration backfired on him:
“But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well — evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium. [...]In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that ‘for most analysts’ Wilson’s trip to Niger “lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal.”
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
OOPSIE!
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 2:12 pm#77, The Washington Times is the Republican rag owned by the Rev. Moon, so question your source.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:13 pmRegarding Rustman, Plame’s first supervisor in her career — did they tell you how long ago that was? She is a 20 year veteran of the CIA. Surely she started out with “light” cover. She had worked her way up through the agency (she was indeed more than a desk jockey) and her company (Brewster-Jennings) was a CI”A “front” where she was doing research/investigation into the global proliferation of WMD.
When this story broke, Plame/Wilson’s neighbors were shocked to learn that she was an agent.
If Bush lied us into war, then did Clinton lie as well in 1998 when we bombed Iraq for 4 days trying to destroy their WMD capability? Just curious.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:16 pmNeD said…
“We know he cared so much about his wife’s identity, that he did an expo in Vanity Fair.”
Hmmm, That would have been in December 2004… And her identity as a CIA agent was exposed when? This is akin to the suggestion that Wilson had outed his wife because… PEOPLE KNEW SHE WAS MARRIED TO HIM! WTF! The problem is not that people knew she was or was not married to him, but that they now know that she worked for the CIA. I don’t think he introduced her as “This is my wife Valerie, CIA employee #6342341789235424″
BSR said “1. Wilson lied, 2. Wilson is unprincipled, 3. That Joe Wilson is a proven politically motivated liar is beyond dispute. That the special prosecutor cannot find any violations of the 1982 IIPA or the 1917 Espionage Act also seems beyond dispute. That the same special prosecutor might now be contemplating indictments against politically motivated truth tellers is the real scandal here. The MSM and the Left (same thing?) will both come to regret their support for such indictments.”
O.K. I paraphrased the first two…
1) Wilson lied about what he found… Prove it. He pointed out that he didn’t find the deal that the war was sold on… Given that he didn’t find it, and that other evidence corroborated that then why use it as an argument to go to war? Outing his WIFE has nothing to do with the fact that he lied on his golf scores… It would be like me lying to you and then you running my wife over because I lied to you… Except He didn’t lie!
2) People change their minds. When I was younger I thought certain things about politics… Now that I’m older I realise that the idealism of my youth is impractical, and have replaced it with a realism… in 2000, people didn’t have a clue that the Great White Beast that had been declared president would be as corrupt, dishonest, unprincipled, or just plain stupid as he has turned out to be. My thoughts are that Wilson probably thought he would be a good president in the Bush vs Gore campaign. During Bush Vs Kerry, after someone in his administration had already outed his wife he changed his mind. I’m so not surprised. If you were in his situation who would you support. The guy who was in charge of the administration that went to war on a lie and got vindictive when they were told that they were wrong, or the guy who was running against him…
3) That Blue State Red is a proven expert at having sex with farmyard animals is beyond dispute. I disagree with you… You have attacked the man without providing any proof. Just as I did, the difference is that I am admitting that that first sentence is completely invalid without any proof to back it up.
“That the special prosecutor cannot find any violations of the 1982 IIPA or the 1917 Espionage Act also seems beyond dispute.”
I would disagree with that one. There is a CLEAR violation of the 1982 IIPA. Somebody told Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. The prosecutor may not be able to prove who did it because a lot of the witnesses are committing perjury… If five people witness me pull out a knife and plunge it into your back and then all of them testify in court that we have never met and that I didn’t do anything like that, does that make me innocent? No, it means that all six of us committed perjury. I DISPUTE YOUR ALLEGATIONS!
“That the same special prosecutor might now be contemplating indictments against politically motivated truth tellers is the real scandal here.”
It’s a scandal that you think that the Bush administration would ever come close to telling the truth. Perhaps he is contemplating indictments against people that he can prove haveperjured themselves. The only truth telling that they appear to have done is to tell a bunch of Journalists “by the way, Joe Wilson’s wife works undercover for the CIA”…
“The MSM and the Left (same thing?) will both come to regret their support for such indictments.”
The MSM are most decidedly not Left… They may have grown a bit of a spine but they are generally so far from Left wing that they make Nixon look like a communst sympathiser. I only hope that Truth and Justice will prevail. It seems from the evidence that you apparently haven’t seen that this entire administration is corrupt, dishonest, incompetent and useless. I only wish that more people would look at what is going on.
Z.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:16 pm#81, Ryan,
October 25th, 2005 at 2:18 pmI stand corrected — I had forgotten the debunked student’s paper, and you have refreshed my memory.
There are so many facts to support our case, that it’s hard to keep track of the details. Obviously, the trolls who post here, limit their sources, or listen to only one propagandist, so their knowledge is extremely limited and biased. Ignorance is their fault; refusing to learn is their sin.
“So we’re supposed to believe that the administration relied solely on British intelligence? That they didn’t make an effort to fortify with their own intelligence one of the foundations for which they were basing their preemptive invasion of Iraq? Wilson was undoubtedly there to check the veracity of the prospect that Hussein might be trying to obtain uranium. He found the truth and it countered their case for war. Suddenly, he was a non-entity to the WHIg and the OSP.”
Jay, why are you assuming they didn’t do exactly that? It was clear to not just many in the CIA (excluding one Ms. Plame) that Saddam was, in fact, trying to reconstitute his WMD programs, and specifically his Nuclear program. Bush had reports of purchases (or attempts to purchase) uranium from Africa by Saddam – it was corroborated to him by confirming reports from the intelligence agencies of other countries.
What I continue to find amazing is the same Bush haters who demonized him for NOT acting preemptively when given a vague and fact-less PDB entitled “Bin Laden determined to attack America” wanted a post-9/11 Bush to wait for a mushroom cloud before dealing with Saddam.
Un-bull-EEVE-able.
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 2:18 pmsceptimus,
I watch Hardball pretty regularly. The most regular guests/reporters from NBC are: Norah O’Donell, Andrea Mitchell, Michael Isikoff, Tucker Carlson, Kate O’Beirne, Tony Blankley, Jim Van Dehei, David Gergen.
Please enlighten me as to which of these pundits are actually liberal? Even the most left-leaning guests on this show are carefully tiptoeing around the cold, hard truth about the criminale acts that the Bushies have committed. You’re way off base.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:22 pm“There is a CLEAR violation of the 1982 IIPA.”
Enlighten us, then – what was the clear violation?
“Somebody told Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.”
Plame was not covert under the IIPA defintion of “covert.” No violation.
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 2:23 pmI said: “So we’re supposed to believe that the administration relied solely on British intelligence? That they didn’t make an effort to fortify with their own intelligence one of the foundations for which they were basing their preemptive invasion of Iraq?”
sceptimus said: “Jay, why are you assuming they didn’t do exactly that? It was clear to not just many in the CIA (excluding one Ms. Plame) that Saddam was, in fact, trying to reconstitute his WMD programs, and specifically his Nuclear program.”
So why the hell did they have to rely on the British intelligence to make that point in the extremely high profile SOTU speech? You’re making the case that we had the goods, based on our own intelligence and the British intelligence only strengthened it. Why didn’t Bush state: The CIA has discovered that Hussein was attempting to obtain significant quantities…..”?
October 25th, 2005 at 2:32 pm“Plame stuff will be declassified soon.”-Rove to reporters
October 25th, 2005 at 2:33 pm“Plame was not covert under the IIPA defintion of “covert.†No violation.
SWS
Comment by sceptimus smith — October 25, 2005 @ 2:23 pm ”
Quick- call Fitzgerald and set him straight, because he must not realize it! And call the CIA, who made the initial resquest for inquiry, because they must have been mistaken too! And call Bush, who authorized the Federal Prosecutor to begin with and called it a “serious matter”!
Man, are we lucky that we have an informed guy like you to let us know what’s really happening.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:37 pmRegarding Hardball, please read the facts:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510220001
October 25th, 2005 at 2:37 pmJay,
I know Matthews does bring on token counter-weights, but he shouts them down, steps on their words and dismisses them – consider this exchange from last week with journalist Deborah Orin, who crossed Matthews when she dared to urge restraint about all of the rumors and innuendo about the CIA leak case:
DEBORAH ORIN, NEW YORK POST: Well, I think the important thing to remember is how much we don‘t know.
The Washington Post had a really, I thought, interesting editorial— this is, after all, the paper that broke Watergate—saying, Whoa, hold on, everybody.
We do not know any laws were broken. We do know that some hard ball politics was played. But that‘s legal in this town. And the most important thing we don‘t know is the original source for the identity of Joe Wilson‘s wife.
I mean, we don‘t know who Bob Novak‘s first source was. We know Novak has said that it was no partisan gunslinger—that means it was not Rove and presumably not Libby, either, and presumably not the latest name on the rumor mill, John Hannah.
All of them are partisan. So, I think once you—and that‘s the central thing. That is where the original leak to the press came from. We‘re all jumping to an awful lot of conclusions.
MATTHEWS: Well, let‘s go with what we have.
ORIN: Yes, but…
MATTHEWS: We do know now that two years ago, there was no officially recognition or any public recognition by anybody watching this program or anybody on television or reading the papers of any real White House connection to this thing.
There were some moving stories in Newsweek about it, but basically, now we know two things: We know that Judy Miller, the top reporter over at the New York Times, has been covering the WMD story, has testified—we know this—has testified that Scooter Libby talked to her about this agent. We know that. We know that Matt Cooper of “Time†magazine was talked to by Karl Rove about this agent.
We never knew any of this until this investigation got going. In fact, if it hadn‘t been this investigation, we wouldn‘t know the White House was involvement in this matter, would we?
ORIN: Yes, but, I think, Chris …
MATTHEWS: You say like we don‘t know. Obviously, we‘re all sitting waiting every night here to find out if there are going to be indictments. Then we will know there have been indictments, but not to warn the country that there something big here, that the little boat is going down toward Niagara Falls and they‘re either going to make it over the falls or not.
But there is a big danger here, and the danger is the special prosecutor, armed with unlimited scope, not just the charge you talk about, not just the question whether a person was outed from an undercover duty at the CIA, but whether there was perjury, whether there was obstruction of justice, whether there was violation of the Espionage Act or a grander conspiracy, framed in a way we haven‘t seen before against public officials. It may be unusual, but just as powerful if he brings up these indictments.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9767958/
****
I mean, COME ON. Clearly and obviously, Chris Matthews desperately wants indictments, he’s praying for them like most of the rest of the MSM, and he doesn’t like anyone who disagrees with him. I don’t say he doesn’t have a right to be biased liberal pushing an agenda on TV, I just point out the fact that he is.
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 2:41 pmForgot Ben Ginburg, Ken Mehlmann, Victoria Toensig, and Hardball mainstay Pat Buchanan.
Who were the left-leaning guests again sceptimus?
October 25th, 2005 at 2:41 pm““Somebody told Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.â€
Plame was not covert under the IIPA defintion of “covert.†No violation.
SWS ”
Bahaha, what a stupid fool. If that were ‘true’, then fitzgerald wouldn’t have been appointed at the request of the CIA to investigate you retarded moron. Just like if the Niger memo were ‘true’, then fitzgerald wouldn’t be investigating who faked it (hear that NED/Ben the retarded duo?).
Your line of reasoning (or lack thereof) is almost humorous, although it’s so childlike as to make me wonder whether you even are an adult.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:43 pm“So why the hell did they have to rely on the British intelligence to make that point in the extremely high profile SOTU speech? You’re making the case that we had the goods, based on our own intelligence and the British intelligence only strengthened it. Why didn’t Bush state: The CIA has discovered that Hussein was attempting to obtain significant quantities…..?”
Jay, isn’t it obvious? The case looks stronger if he presents evidence from governments other than his own….if all he had was CIA evidence, he’d have been accused of “pressuring” the CIA to manufacture the goods. Bringing up the fact that other countries, not just the US, also believe Saddam was up to no good certainly makes for a stronger argument, don’t you think?
October 25th, 2005 at 2:44 pmCan we at least put Valerie’s status as an undercover CIA agent to rest. According to the CIA itself, she was working for a front company as a CIA agent. While it may be that people knew she worked for the CIA they also knew her as Mrs. Wilson and not Valerie Plame. The name of Valerie Plame was her “cover” name for her employment with the front company. In outing her (however it was done) the entire front comapny was unmasked as an arm of the CIA. Assuming that she wasn’t the only one working for this front company then this act outed even more agents even without giving up their names. Worse still, what about all the intelligence assests (informants) that had been put into place buy this company. They are also now left hanging in the breeze as it becomes readily apparent that if Valerie was working undercover for the CIA then those associated with her must also be working for the CIA as well.
Regardless of who did what to whom and when, isn’t the issue of exposing our country’s spy network and its methods enough to make even the most die-hard Republican want to sit back and say ….what purpose was this done for…why did her name come out…what are the repercussions to our CIA and its intelligence gather capability..???.
To me those are the real issues and not the junior high school stuff that seems to rule the airwaves and most blogs.
In the “war on terror” don’t you think that intelligence should be our first and foremost obilgation to the safety and security of our nation ?
October 25th, 2005 at 2:45 pmChris Matthews considers himself a ‘conservative’ you retarded moron. The press is not ‘liberal’, it’s generally conservative and is owned by 7 major corporate and conservative masters.
You live in a fantasy world mr. SS (somehow I think your name and its initials is no accident).
October 25th, 2005 at 2:46 pm“The case looks stronger if he presents evidence from governments other than his own…”
Bahaha, sceptimus made a funny…
October 25th, 2005 at 2:46 pm“Quick- call Fitzgerald and set him straight, because he must not realize it! And call the CIA, who made the initial resquest for inquiry, because they must have been mistaken too! And call Bush, who authorized the Federal Prosecutor to begin with and called it a ’serious matter’! Man, are we lucky that we have an informed guy like you to let us know what’s really happening.”
Yep, JParker, you are – because otherwise you’d believe what you are being spoon-fed by the MSM about this case – like the FACT that referrals to the DOJ over releases of classified material happen at the rate of about once a week, and are entirely routine. They very, VERY rarely ever find evidence to prosecute. The referral was a routine matter. It was blown up because of who was involved, plain and simple.
If there are any indictments, they won’t be IIPA related. Anyone who can read the statute knows this.
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 2:47 pmMatthews has a sliver of intellectual honesty that manages to rear its unwelcome head every so often. Without fail, he quickly reverts back to the corporate-media, inside the beltway, CYA mentality.
He never shot down the Swift Boat liars.
He never discussed the quite valid Downing St. memo.
He wouldn’t touch the impossible to rationalize discrepancies between the voting results and the exit polling results that cast SERIOUS doubt on who won the election.
Besides, just watch the commercials. Kerr-McGee, BP, Conoco-Phillips. How stupid do we have to be?
October 25th, 2005 at 2:48 pm“You live in a fantasy world mr. SS (somehow I think your name and its initials is no accident).”
Ryan, the fact that you have no clue who Septimus W. Smith is simply confirms what I’ve known all along….most liberals are uneducated, unread, and will believe anything.
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 2:50 pmGiven that Valerie Plame was working for the CIA as a “non-official cover operative” in 1997 when she met Joe Wilson. and that she worked abroad without a diplomatic passport, the only reason that IIPA might not apply is because she had finished working abroad no later than 1998, and that the five year limit had passed. However, that is not information that we have at this time.
Here is the relevant section if the IIPA… Where does Valerie Plame not fit this… Please cite your sources.
4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.
Z.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:50 pmAs Ryan pointed out sceptimus:
” The case looks stronger if he presents evidence from governments other than his own…”
….that’s a howl. Talk about delusion, you people really are brainwashed.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:53 pmBen Ginsburg- Now there’s a man I’d like to see try to run across a busy freeway.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:54 pmAnd Septimus Smith was/is a pathetic, mentally deranged person.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:56 pm“Can we at least put Valerie’s status as an undercover CIA agent to rest. According to the CIA itself, she was working for a front company as a CIA agent. While it may be that people knew she worked for the CIA they also knew her as Mrs. Wilson and not Valerie Plame. The name of Valerie Plame was her “cover†name for her employment with the front company. In outing her (however it was done) the entire front comapny was unmasked as an arm of the CIA. Assuming that she wasn’t the only one working for this front company then this act outed even more agents even without giving up their names. Worse still, what about all the intelligence assests (informants) that had been put into place buy this company. They are also now left hanging in the breeze as it becomes readily apparent that if Valerie was working undercover for the CIA then those associated with her must also be working for the CIA as well.”
Joe P, can we put this “front company” business to bed? The Boston Herald did a thorough vetting of this story last year since the “front company” was supposedly located somewhere in their fair city, and found it to be total bunk. Not true. There was no front company. Never was. I don’t doubt Valerie Plame might have introduced herself as someone working for a ficticious XYZ company – fine. But to suggest that the CIA was somehow actively engaged in hiding her indentity and/or setting her up to work at a “front company” simply doesn’t square with the facts. She was an analyst. Let me repeat – an ANALYST. And whatever you might think about the moral or ethical implications of outing an analyst (as if they can be ‘outed’), I think the greater good is served when an employee of the CIA who is actively engaged in undermining the president in a time of war is exposed.
Maybe the next time a partisan analyst thinks she has the right to overturn a president’s decisions, she’ll remember that presidents are elected – CIA analysts are not.
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 2:57 pm““You live in a fantasy world mr. SS (somehow I think your name and its initials is no accident).â€
Ryan, the fact that you have no clue who Septimus W. Smith is simply confirms what I’ve known all along….most liberals are uneducated, unread, and will believe anything.
SWS”
Or perhaps he just hasn’t read “Mrs Dalloway”
Given that Septimus was “a broken man” I think it’s an interesting choice…
Z.
October 25th, 2005 at 2:57 pm“Given that Valerie Plame was working for the CIA as a ‘non-official cover operative’ in 1997 when she met Joe Wilson. and that she worked abroad without a diplomatic passport, the only reason that IIPA might not apply is because she had finished working abroad no later than 1998, and that the five year limit had passed. However, that is not information that we have at this time. Here is the relevant section if the IIPA… Where does Valerie Plame not fit this… Please cite your sources.”
Z, Joe Wilson’s own book describes his and Valerie’s return to the states from overseas in 1997. The alleged “outing” occurred in 2003. This is well beyond the 5-year limit as defined by the statute. She was not covert as defined by the statute. What other conclusion could you possibly come to? If you honestly think she was covert in 2003 as defined by the IIPA law, please cite your reasoning and sources.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:00 pmZ, clods like Ryan have no clue who Virginia Woolf is, nor do they care. Niether is he aware that the first sign a liberal is losing an argument is when he injects some allusion to nazis, Hitler, or as Ryan did towards me, “the S.S.”. Pretty pathetic.
Septimus Smith, btw, was a troubled veteran, as am I – although for different reasons – hence, the nick.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:03 pmReasoning: The CIA asked for an investigation.
Sources: The CIA.
Maybe now we’ll see who knows more about undercover operations, over-zealous right wing political hacks or the CIA.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:04 pmwhat troubles you son?
October 25th, 2005 at 3:04 pmMarie, I prefer to think of Septimus as “troubled”, much like Virginia Woolf herself was.
And in times like these, who isn’t troubled? You’d have to be nuts to not be.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:05 pmRyan,
When are you going to accept the fact the MSM is liberally driven and has an agenda? Most journalism school professors admit to being more liberal than conservative so it would stand to reason that most of their students would turn more liberal as well. Here is proof: If the nightly news/talk/entertainment shows were fully balanced, then how do you explain the success of Fox News? Surely, they didn’t attract viewers that wanted to hear more of the same old view points. They would have failed miserably after a few months. Secondly, why is talk radio dominated by conservative programs? Simple, it was the only medium not dominated by liberal programming in the first place outside of NPR. You need to get out of the city more often and see the real America.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:06 pmJay, mainly liberals and how they wish to destroy this great nation. It troubles me greatly.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:06 pm#115
“When are you going to accept the fact the MSM is liberally driven and has an agenda?”
Are you fvcking high? The MSM is a right wing corporate driven entity. there is nothing liberal about it.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:07 pm#116
“Jay, mainly liberals and how they wish to destroy this great nation. It troubles me greatly.”
Just wait until you wake up and find out that all this crap is the republicans fault, then you will really be troubled.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:08 pmRandy,
Ryan thinks he’s balanced – first, he checks for news on the DailyKos, then listens to Air America, and finally checks in with Michael Moore’s website for his facts.
Fair and balanced, that’s Ryan.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:09 pmJay, what crap?
October 25th, 2005 at 3:10 pmRyan, the fact that you have no clue who Septimus W. Smith is simply confirms what I’ve known all along….most liberals are uneducated, unread, and will believe anything.
With your broad education, you must realize of course, that you have just committed a well-known logical fallacy (serveral, actually). I will not do the same by extrapolating your illogic to all those who share your political view.
I could, however, cite education statistics among districts that vote liberal and conservative, or refer you to the average NASCAR dad, and how well-traveled Bush and his supporters are known to be.
And by “believe anything” do you mean for example, that anodized aluminum tubes can be used to make gas centrifuges? That Niger yellowcake was bound for Iraq to make nuclear weapons, but the yellowcake already in Iraq was not worth guarding after the U.S. invasion?
I mean, reasonable conservatives who won’t “believe anything” wouldn’t fall for that, right?
October 25th, 2005 at 3:10 pm#119
That is interesting coming from somebody that is spewing already debuinked information from two years ago.
Moron
October 25th, 2005 at 3:10 pmDitto-head eh, hey I understand, it’s hard work having to maintain so many lies, so much hypocrisy all the time. Take heart, soon all of the liberals will be off your back. Cheney and Rove and Libby will be off to jail and Bush will crumble like to fraud that we all know he is. You Republicans won’t have to make all these hard decisions. It’s hard work being a Republican. All those bogus morals and family values to uphold. Poor guy, you must need a vacation. Perhaps you and the Shrub could go somewhere together. An island or Europe (naaahhhh, he wouldn’t like all then funny-speakin furriners). Don’t worry little buckaroo, better times ahead for all the angru wingnuts :)
October 25th, 2005 at 3:13 pmJay, what crap?
Oh, nothing really. Only destroying our reputation in the world in every conceivable way, alienating our allies, making enemies, increasing terrorism throughout the world, accumulating unsustainable debt, and causing irreversable environmental damage.
But at least the economy is good, right? All those tax cuts must be having an effect by now.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:13 pmThose crazy libruls are ruining America!
Except the Democrats haven’t had any power in 5 years. Coincidentally, the country has been falling apart for…..ummmm….about the last 5 years. Wow, must be magic how the liberals are able to impose all of their policies, run the country into the ground WITH NO POWER AT ALL. How did that happen?
October 25th, 2005 at 3:19 pmrepublicans are watching the show but reading the wrong libretto
October 25th, 2005 at 3:28 pm“Randy,
Ryan thinks he’s balanced – first, he checks for news on the DailyKos, then listens to Air America, and finally checks in with Michael Moore’s website for his facts.
Fair and balanced, that’s Ryan.
Comment by sceptimus smith”
Bahaha, actually I check the source material. A liar and a propagandist like you wouldn’t understand what that means though – now would you?
Now where do you get your news? Faux news? PowerLine? FreeRepublic? See I tend to quote the doj, .gov, wapo, nytimes and direct source material. But a liar and smear monger like you wouldn’t understand the importance of being able to actually directly access source material – that’s because YOU’RE AN IDIOT!
But nice try at trying to ’stereotype’ me. Unfortunately republican stereotypes are as wrong as everything else you believe!
October 25th, 2005 at 3:29 pm“And by ‘believe anything’ do you mean for example, that anodized aluminum tubes can be used to make gas centrifuges? That Niger yellowcake was bound for Iraq to make nuclear weapons, but the yellowcake already in Iraq was not worth guarding after the U.S. invasion?”
Hippy, who said anodized aluminum tubes were being used by Iraqis to make gas centrifuges? That’s certainly not what Powell said in his speech to the UN…go back and read it again. And with respect to the 500 tons of yellowcake already in Iraq, why was nearly 2 tons of it already enriched? Please, enlighten us, oh wise nascar-hating, uber-educated one. We await your words of intellect with bated breath.
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 3:55 pm“See I tend to quote the doj, .gov, wapo, nytimes and direct source material.”
The BUSH doj? The BUSH .gov? How do you know these sources are reliable, since they are both run by Smirky McChimpler?
October 25th, 2005 at 3:58 pmRyan,
Just curious, do you actually work anywhere? You seem to spend an excessive amount of time posting here. The rest of us just do it for entertainment while you seem to be on a mission.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:11 pmNotice how sceptimus smith responds to to what pleases him? I have read every single post up to #128 and I can clearly see that the liberals on here have a good edge on the few conservatives who are here trying to make excuses for this administration. Don’t you guys see yourselves as puppets? Your trying to defend every single thing this administration has done wrong. You are married to your political party! Get over it.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:13 pm“Jay, what crap?
Comment by sceptimus smith”
That’s easy.
Who sold WMDs to Iraq: REPUBLICANS
Who sold plutonium reactors to Iran: REPUBLICANS
Who overthrew a Democracy to install Iranian Shah: REPUBLICANS
Who founded, recruited and trained AlQueda: REPUBLICANS
Who overthrew virtually EVERY democracy in Central South America and replaced them with dictators: REPUBLICANS
The list is virtually endless in both domestic and foreign policy decisions. Republicans are the party of irresponsibility and ineptitude!
October 25th, 2005 at 4:15 pm“Ryan,
Just curious, do you actually work anywhere? You seem to spend an excessive amount of time posting here. The rest of us just do it for entertainment while you seem to be on a mission.
Comment by Randy”
I speed read, and type over 100 words a minute. Trust me, I’m sure you ‘waste’ more time than I do. But then again, since all you post is trash – that goes without saying.
As for doing it for ‘entertainment’, clearly I value our democracy, our civil rights, and our american heritage more than you. If political issues of corruption and illegality are points of ‘entertainment’ for you and the other trolls, it explain why you elect such foolish and corrupt politicians!
October 25th, 2005 at 4:16 pmRyan,
Obviously, I must strike a nerve with you or you wouldn’t respond. You really should release all of the anger and hate you are holding back. You’ll live longer.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:20 pm“Z, clods like Ryan have no clue who Virginia Woolf is, nor do they care. Niether is he aware that the first sign a liberal is losing an argument is when he injects some allusion to nazis, Hitler, or as Ryan did towards me, “the S.S.â€. Pretty pathetic.
Septimus Smith, btw, was a troubled veteran, as am I – although for different reasons – hence, the nick.
Comment by sceptimus smith ”
Even in your attempt to pick a ‘title’ that you thought was relevant, appropriate, and clever, you picked a set of initials that are for more close to your political persuasion and your ‘belief’ in what’s right. My assessment stands. As for the ‘name’, in Virginia woolf it is ‘Septimus, not Sceptimus’. If you are like Septimus, then you are shell shocked, and clearly incapable of having a rational attachment to reality – the ‘allusion’ to the character sounds more like a confession of your self failures than a statement of your ability to determine facts from fiction.
As for Woolf, she’s one of the most brilliant writers to have ever written, even a fool like you can sometimes have good tastes, even if you’re too foolish to understand what it is you’re fighting for or against. I applaud your service, it’s a hard job, and you’ll never hear me bemoan anyone who has served honorably for their service. That service however clearly has damaged you in ways you don’t understand – so instead of projecting that damage on liberals, why not place it on the CONservatives who continually put the nation at risk and soldiers in harm’s way unnecessarily. Now THAT would be a national service.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:23 pm“Ryan,
Obviously, I must strike a nerve with you or you wouldn’t respond. You really should release all of the anger and hate you are holding back. You’ll live longer.
Comment by Randy”
You have SUCH a high opinion of yourself. I knock down ALL of the twit responses here, but then again, you’re unobservant so you wouldn’t notice such thing.
And I’m as healthy as a horse, but thanks for your concern. And clearly I hit a nerve, otherwise you wouldn’t have responded and deflected the critique. Sorry to point out your unamerican and despotic tendencies – but they scream across the keyboards when losers like you post.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:24 pm“Z, Joe Wilson’s own book describes his and Valerie’s return to the states from overseas in 1997. The alleged “outing†occurred in 2003. This is well beyond the 5-year limit as defined by the statute. She was not covert as defined by the statute. What other conclusion could you possibly come to? If you honestly think she was covert in 2003 as defined by the IIPA law, please cite your reasoning and sources.”
I don’t know what Valerie Wilson/Plame was doing between 1997 and 2003. I gave you the relevant section of Law and we all agree that she did work for the CIA under cover. The only question in my mind is whether she had been active overseas between 1997 and 2003. I don’t know. The only part that is in doubt is “(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or” So, given the timing of the leak, then 1998 – 2003 is the period in question. I don’t know where she was and what she was doing at that time. She moved back to the US in 1997, but that doesn’t mean that she didn’t serve overseas between 1998 and 2003. The statute does not define serving overseas as residing overseas. In fact it makes the distinction of “residing” a few times, but “serving” is used in this case. Given that she donated to the Gore campaign while still working for the CIA front company, the only question is whether she travelled on company business…
I have stated that I don’t have any proof. The fact that there is an investigation leads me to believe that there is something there. However you are categorical in your denial, which makes me wonder what proof you have that she didn’t leave the country on business after 1997. You seem fairly confident of that…
Z.
October 25th, 2005 at 4:31 pmJeremy,
Many of the trolls that come here do so out of one psychosis or another. Some find it ‘entertaining’, others feel the need to suppress all disent. They’re not well, they’re delusional idiots as a rule. The sort of ’sane’ republican, is one like Wilson that can evaluate reality, and separate partisan hack opinions from true american values. The trolls are just delusional morons.
They come and make personal attacks, because they have nothing of REAL value to offer. As soon as one of us posts the FACTS, they start attacking us personally and ‘exclusively’, because they have nothing left but to do this. We attack them once we’ve shown they’re liars, and our attacks are based on that context. They respond in the opposite direction, where their attacks come after they’ve been defeated. The behavior of the trolls is the mark of a coward and a loser!
October 25th, 2005 at 4:57 pm“I don’t know what Valerie Wilson/Plame was doing between 1997 and 2003. I gave you the relevant section of Law and we all agree that she did work for the CIA under cover. The only question in my mind is whether she had been active overseas between 1997 and 2003. I don’t know. The only part that is in doubt is “(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or†So, given the timing of the leak, then 1998 – 2003 is the period in question. I don’t know where she was and what she was doing at that time. She moved back to the US in 1997, but that doesn’t mean that she didn’t serve overseas between 1998 and 2003. The statute does not define serving overseas as residing overseas. In fact it makes the distinction of “residing†a few times, but “serving†is used in this case. Given that she donated to the Gore campaign while still working for the CIA front company, the only question is whether she travelled on company business…”
Z, the almost religious fervor with which Bush-hating liberals cling to the assumption, and it is an assumption – that Plame was in fact, covert, is telling – because unless Valerie Plame was a covert agent AS DEFINED BY IIPA, the best your side can hope for are Martha Stewart-type perjury indictments. But based on the facts in the public record, i.e., Joe Wilson’s book, statements from the Wilson’s neighbors, etc., it seems pretty clear she never left the US after returning in 1997. You have another problem – the law states a covert agent has to be ASSIGNED overseas. A trip overseas wouldn’t constitute being “covert”. You have even a third problem – the word “intentional” – it’s sprinkled throughout the statute. Rove, Libby, et al would have to be proven to have INTENTIONALLY outed a covert agent, knowing in advance she was covert.
The math just doesn’t work, Z. There’s not a snowball’s chance in hell anyone is going to be indicted for knowingly outing a covert operative under IIPA. If there are any indictments, they will be for lesser charges.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:20 pm#136, Ryan, after having enough time to google up info on Virginia Woolf, regaled us with this gem:
“As for Woolf, she’s one of the most brilliant writers to have ever written, even a fool like you can sometimes have good tastes, even if you’re too foolish to understand what it is you’re fighting for or against. I applaud your service, it’s a hard job, and you’ll never hear me bemoan anyone who has served honorably for their service. That service however clearly has damaged you in ways you don’t understand – so instead of projecting that damage on liberals, why not place it on the CONservatives who continually put the nation at risk and soldiers in harm’s way unnecessarily. Now THAT would be a national service.”
Ryan, your attempt to now portray yourself as literate and aware of who Virginia Woolf was is as lame and pathetic as your own previous fecal thought processes. You’re a subliterate lugubrious buffoon who believes what is fed to you by the MSM. “Republicans are baaaad….m-kay?” Right, Mr. Hand. Here’s a suggestion – put on your spaz helmet and a fresh drool bib, jump on your tricycle with the fourth wheel for extra retard stability, and pedal your fat ass down to the nearest library. Read some books. Start with Ayn Rand. Then Von Mises. Educate yourself.
You’ll be glad you did.
Good luck,
Sceptimus
October 25th, 2005 at 5:30 pmSince you want Ryan to go learn something, I might suggest you go learn a thing or two. You are spewing two year old republican talking points, which have been clearly debunked. You might wanna give the RNC a call to get your updated talking points.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:39 pm“Since you want Ryan to go learn something, I might suggest you go learn a thing or two. You are spewing two year old republican talking points, which have been clearly debunked. You might wanna give the RNC a call to get your updated talking points.”
Spudge, that’s a great suggestion! I promise, I will take it under consideration. Right after you tell me what talking points have been “debunked” and by who.
Begin.
October 25th, 2005 at 5:42 pmSceptimus,
This is curious, indeed:
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)” for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
…The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html
At the very least, her status at the CIA was classified. Knowingly, even unknowingly leaking such information ain’t good for Rove and Libby. This does break the IIPA act of ‘82. That act describes the CIA employment status of an undercover CIA officer as “classified information” And you see, according to what Rove told Cooper at Time:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083899,00.html
Things he told him will be “declassified soon”, directly meaning that things he was telling him was CLASSSIFIED information pertaining to Plame’s CIA status.
That’s not good for your Administration, sir. Furthermore, and I don’t have this offhand, but every Administration official signs a document stating that they cannot give out classified information to anyone not having that given level of clearance, knowingly or UNKNOWINGLY. Again, I forget exactly what that document is, but I’ll dig it up if you wish for it.
You may also want to read this:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/10/the_law_is_on_t.html
And here:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/13/21472/723
Johnson demonstrates that working overseas fits just fine and dandy in the statute of “covert” in question that you bring up. More from CIA folks themselves can be found here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2005/07/19/ciaAgentsLetterToUsSenateAndHouse.html
So let’s put this debunked point to rest, shall we? I know it’s tempting to continue banging your pots and pans, and I must admit a little smile comes across my face thinking about what you’ll have to face come Thursday, but something tells me you probably won’t face it very well.
Time is definitely not on your side…..
October 25th, 2005 at 6:03 pmSceptimus,
Ah, found it – here ya go. It’s called Standard Form 312:
http://mediamatters.org/rd?http://www.dss.mil/files/pdf/new_sf312.pdf
It states it as such in the briefing booklet on SF 312:
Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?
Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/training/standard-form-312.html
It lays out that dissemination of any classified information is considered an “unauthorized disclosure”.
Ol’ Pumpkinhead even asserts as much:
RUSSERT: When one is given classified clearance, they are asked to sign an oath, and they are given a briefing book with form — Standard Form 312, it’s called. And if you read this briefing book, it says this: “Before … confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of [the] SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not … confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.”
So by confirming a story from Robert Novak or sharing information with Matt Cooper, no matter where it came from, if, in fact, it was classified information, without seeking to determine whether it was declassified, it is an unauthorized disclosure.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8565312
October 25th, 2005 at 6:13 pmAyn Rand is an idiot. She spawned an entire generation of Libertarian whackos, and my guess is that you’re one of the devotees of that genre and nonsense. Get a clue you nitwit. Libertarian is as much voodoo politics, as creationism and ‘intelligent design’ is voodoo mythology. You’re an IDIOT.
I suggest you read Leo Strauss and the American Right by Shadia B. Drury. You seem to be under the impression that this administrations values are ‘conservative’, as opposed to the fascism that it actually represents.
As for your already debunked talking points, let me assist you in a followup posting.
October 25th, 2005 at 6:16 pmBoth Condeliesa Rice and Bush talked about the centrifuges you moron. Don’t say nobody.
October 25th, 2005 at 6:17 pm“(4) The term “covert agent” means—
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or”
Sceptimus, The only use of the word assigned here is “Assigned to duty with an intelligence agency” “has served outside the United States” does neither state nor imply any length for that service.
So, given that anyone working for the CIA might be asked to go to country X, meet with some contacts and report back, Mrs Wilson does not need to have left the US for anything more than a relatively short trip. A one week business trip to the middle east would certainly count.
The only objections are 1) Did she leave the country on business between 1998 and 2003? and 2) Did someone knowingly disclose the identity of a Covert agent. Given that whoever it was knew that she worked for the CIA, it seems likely that they would also know whether she openly worked for the CIA or whether she was a covert agent. If they had any question about it they should have checked with the CIA before giving that information to the press. If they had then the CIA would not have asked for this investigation. So, somebody knowing that Valerie Plame/Mrs Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA, told a reporter that fact. Given that she was listed as working for a cover company, the fact that she was covert and that they were “taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States” seems obvious to me.
So, if you know that someone works for the CIA because you are authorised to see classified information and you say “Joe Bloggs who works for the CIA” then unless you checked that they were not a covert employee before doing that I would think you would be in trouble. At no point in the law (it gives an explicit section on acceptable defences) does it state that being irresponsible and then claiming you didn’t know is OK.
Z.
October 25th, 2005 at 6:18 pmThis is curious, indeed:
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)†for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
…The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret†level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as “secret†the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2005/ 07/ 20/ AR2005072002517.html
—————-
Mr. Opus, I’m sorry, but how do you know that an “s” means that Valerie Plame was a covert agent as defined by IIPA?
—————-
At the very least, her status at the CIA was classified.
—————-
Um….proof? Cite? Anything?
—————-
Knowingly, even unknowingly leaking such information ain’t good for Rove and Libby. This does break the IIPA act of ‘82.
—————-
“Breaks” the IIPA act? Sorry, I don’t know what that means. Please explain.
—————-
That act describes the CIA employment status of an undercover CIA officer as “classified information†And you see, according to what Rove told Cooper at Time:
http://www.time.com/ time/ magazine/ article/ 0,9171,1083899,00.html
Things he told him will be “declassified soonâ€, directly meaning that things he was telling him was CLASSSIFIED information pertaining to Plame’s CIA status.
That’s not good for your Administration, sir. Furthermore, and I don’t have this offhand, but every Administration official signs a document stating that they cannot give out classified information to anyone not having that given level of clearance, knowingly or UNKNOWINGLY. Again, I forget exactly what that document is, but I’ll dig it up if you wish for it.
—————-
Sir, I don’t know what you’ve been smoking, but can I have some? NOTHING you’ve posted thus far indicates anyone did anything illegal. SOrry to piss in your cornflakes.
—————-
You may also want to read this:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/ my_weblog/ 2005/ 10/ the_law_is_on_t.html
And here:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/13/21472/723
—————–
Sorry, but I typically don’t refer to partisan blogs to get my facts. But that’s just me – it’s a free country. You can do what you want.
—————–
Johnson demonstrates that working overseas fits just fine and dandy in the statute of “covert†in question that you bring up. More from CIA folks themselves can be found here:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/ stories/ 2005/ 07/ 19/ ciaAgentsLetterToUsSenateAndHouse.html
So let’s put this debunked point to rest, shall we? I know it’s tempting to continue banging your pots and pans, and I must admit a little smile comes across my face thinking about what you’ll have to face come Thursday, but something tells me you probably won’t face it very well.
Time is definitely not on your side…..
—————–
Sir, I must say….I don’t know who “Johnson” is, but I know he didn’t author the IIPA law. Toensing and Sanford did. Both have said that nothing in the public record indicates that anyone in the Bush administration violated IIPA. Not only is time on my side, but law is on my side, as is history…so sorry to disappoint you.
Good luck in your future smears.
SWS
Comment by MisterOpus1 — October 25, 2005 @ 6:03 pm
October 25th, 2005 at 6:23 pm“But based on the facts in the public record, i.e., Joe Wilson’s book, statements from the Wilson’s neighbors, etc., it seems pretty clear she never left the US after returning in 1997.”
Larry Johnson already debunked this myth. She has in fact traveled overseas on missions since that date. You’re a liar and a fool!
And lets not forget the other aspects of this. By outing Valerie, the cover company was compromised and OTHER agents not discussed in the press may have had their identity compromised for international intelligence efforts. While it’s little talked about, it’s a SERIOUS issue – that the treasonous and treacherous morons of the reichwing hateclub didn’t seem to fathom when they decided to compromise national security on a vendetta!
October 25th, 2005 at 6:26 pm“Sir, I must say….I don’t know who “Johnson†is, but I know he didn’t author the IIPA law.”
You claim to be literate on the topic and you don’t know who Larry Johnson is? You’re an IDIOT. He’s a now retired agent from the CIA who worked with Valerie, and who came forward and debunked all of these lies you seem intent on respreading!
YOU’RE A FOOL! For someone who pretends to be literate, you sure don’t seem to know much!
October 25th, 2005 at 6:29 pmHere is but one of the many rebutting letters that have already settled these lies and propaganda smears. Stop spreading lies SceptimusHole, it’s unamerican! But it definitely fits the LeoStrauss school of Nazi Propaganda quite nicely!
By Larry Johnson | bio
From: Politics
Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald understands very well that something beyond a crime was committed when Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and other White House operatives spread the name of undercover CIA officer, Valerie Plame, around Washington as part of a coordinated effort to discredit her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson. Someone needs to alert Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen that he is a nitwit and moron for trying to advance White House supplied talking points that no real crime occurred.
Here are some of the facts that will come out when Fitzgerald ends his investigation:
1. Valerie Plame was still a non-official cover officer in July 2003 when her identity was revealed by colostomy bag Bob Novak.
2. Valerie Plame had traveled overseas on secret missions using that cover as required under the statute in question.
3. Valerie Plame’s exposure also almost compromised the identity of other non-official cover officers.
4. Valerie Plame did not have the authority to send her husband on the Niger mission and in fact did not make the decision.
Other mental midgets like Cohen, such as Victoria Toensing, continue to insist that no crime could have been committed because Valerie Plame, “worked at a desk job”. Newsflash for these so-called Washington insiders who have proven they know nothing about the intelligence community–at least 40% of the people working at CIA Headquarters are working undercover. Just because they may physically go to the CIA building in McLean, Virginia everyday does not mean that their relationship with the CIA is acknowledged.
During my four years of sitting at a desk at CIA I was undercover. My position with the CIA was not even known by my own parents. Only my wife was privy to that secret. Many of the undercover folks still working at CIA are at headquarters on a temporary basis. Some travel overseas on temporary assignments that last less than a month. Others await a semi-permanent posting for a two or three year stint overseas.
The point that Cohen and the other White House hacks have missed is that protecting the identities of intelligence officers, whether they are working under official or non-official cover, is part of national defense. To compromise these identities is to commit an act of treason.
Patrick Fitzgerald understands that he must prosecute within the confines of the law. However, he also understands that what was done to the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson was more than a rough game of inside the beltway hardball. Karl Rove told Chris Matthews that “Wilson’s wife is fair game”. Not only was she an unfair target, but in going after her the White House political crew unwittingly exposed several intelligence assets and caused the loss of intelligence assets overseas.
Richard Cohen is dead wrong to argue that the best thing Patrick Fitzgerald can do is leave town. To the contrary, the best thing Patrick Fitzgerald can do is a send a clear message to politicians in both parties that when it comes to political hardball intelligence assets must be kept out of the game. At the end of the day our nation’s security is no game, it is a matter of life and death.
October 25th, 2005 at 6:30 pmRyan said:
“Ayn Rand is an idiot.”
Nothing more to say.
SWS
October 25th, 2005 at 6:34 pmSS,
That’s true. Woolf reads like cognac, she must be sipped and savored. Rand reads like Koolaid, you must remove all inhibitions to reality to ‘believe’. Clearly you’re of the koolaid variety, as is demonstrated by your republican propagandist tendencies.
October 25th, 2005 at 6:37 pmFor those who haven’t read Ms. Dalloway, Septimus Smith is ‘insane’. Clearly our troll knows his literature and himself better than he thinks. It was gunshots that severed Septimus Smith’s contact with reality – what’s your story old insane one?
October 25th, 2005 at 6:40 pm“You claim to be literate on the topic and you don’t know who Larry Johnson is? You’re an IDIOT. He’s a now retired agent from the CIA who worked with Valerie, and who came forward and debunked all of these lies you seem intent on respreading!”
Yo, dumbass…and I use the word “dumbass” knowing full well I’m communicating with a dumbass….moron, what law is larry johnson citing that defends valerie plame? what has “johnson” written, said, or posted that indicates he knows valerie plame was covert? please, by all means, post.
October 25th, 2005 at 6:40 pmryan, LMAO!!!
nice try, psuedo…you’ve succeeded in demonstrating that you are incapable of an objective assessment of anything…..was that your intent? LOL!
October 25th, 2005 at 6:45 pmThis reminds me of the big brouhaha the RW Bush apologists made of the paper on AWOL’s AWOL. It wasn’t the content they wanted to discuss…no they wanted to discuss typewriters. Now, they don’t want to discuss treason, they want to discuss definitions of ‘noc’. The bottom line of these apologists is: It’s OK to ought people working in a CIA network engaged with tracking WMD in the ME…if it furthers the Republican domestic agenda.
What’ll be the official Republican talking points guys, when we start zeroing in on Hadley, Franklin, and Ledeen and their role in the actual Niger evidence fabrication? Why do you people hate America so much?
October 25th, 2005 at 8:14 pm#156 IB, this is what they do. When they cannot stand up to the facts, they try to knock down the challenger.
October 25th, 2005 at 8:41 pmBush’s AWOL status was hidden in the smoke they blew over the CBS messenger.
Bush’s militry record couldn’t stand up to Kerry’s so they blew smoke with SwiftBoat fabrications.
They can’t defend their lies in the run up to the war, so they blame Wilson.
The remarkable thing is that they are so choreographed, so practiced, so rehearsed, and so in lockstep — they get their messages via Emails and off they go like robots.
#141
“Spudge, that’s a great suggestion! I promise, I will take it under consideration. Right after you tell me what talking points have been “debunked†and by who.”
Read the posts above yours you moron.
Go fvck yourself.
October 25th, 2005 at 8:41 pm“Yo, dumbass…and I use the word “dumbass†knowing full well I’m communicating with a dumbass….moron, what law is larry johnson citing that defends valerie plame? what has “johnson†written, said, or posted that indicates he knows valerie plame was covert? please, by all means, post.”
Why would Plame need to be defended again? I thought it was this administration that was under indictment – I believe the current word is 5 indictments are to be handed down?
As for dumbass, your post is both irrational and illogical. Before you talk to others about being a dumbass, you should stop being one.
Larry Johnson fully debunked all of your mythology, and he wasn’t the only one. The fact that you prefer to believe myths just shows how desperate you are to hold on to your twisted world view.
The cover company has been blown, and what you forget is the ADMINISTRATION (eg. Libby, etc.) ADMITTED she was an agent. So if that’s the case, and her ‘official’ job is working for a ‘cover company’, then not only has she been outed by the government, but so has the company and potentially anyone else working for it. Why are republicans all such stupid jackasses? Good grief, were all of you retards home schooled?
October 25th, 2005 at 10:01 pm“nice try, psuedo…you’ve succeeded in demonstrating that you are incapable of an objective assessment of anything…..was that your intent? LOL!”
And I’m supposed to listen to someone who can’t even construct a coherent comment? This doesn’t even make sense you freeptard!
October 25th, 2005 at 10:01 pmGeorge, how many times have iasked you not to use spudgeboy. you know that’s jeb’s nom de plume. love mom
October 25th, 2005 at 10:50 pmSeptimus,
One last try…
Given that Valerie Plame had previously worked for the CIA as a NOC and was still listed as being employed by a Cover company as late as the Gore Bush campaign…
Where is your proof that the IIPA was not breached? Why does she not fit the definition of covert agent with the possible exception of the timing (As none of us KNOW whether she was sent abroad on assignment after 1997)?
If the timing is all that you have then admit it… and we’ll be one step closerr to consensus. If there is something else then I would like to know.
The timing is not something that many people outside the CIA are likely to know, so we can just assume that that may or may not be an issue.
If you only have the timing then let us know that that is it…
Z.
October 26th, 2005 at 1:33 am“Where is your proof that the IIPA was not breached? Why does she not fit the definition of covert agent with the possible exception of the timing (As none of us KNOW whether she was sent abroad on assignment after 1997)?”
You say “other than timing” like it’s an aside or something….um, HELLO? The IIPA law is very specific in defining what is a covert agent. One MUST have been ASSIGNED overseas by the CIA within the last 5 years. Ergo, thusly and therefore, Plame could NOT be considered “covert”, under the law, because the alleged “outing” occurred in 2003. Joe Wilson’s own book says she returned to the states in 1997. The math doesn’t work fo you, Z, I’m sorry. Unless Joe Wilson lied in his book, Plame could not be considered “covert” under IIPA.
Note that what I said doesn’t preclude Plame from calling herself covert, or thinking she was covert, or Larry Johnson from thinking she was covert. I am pointing out what the LAW says. The law defines covert very specifically, and she wasn’t covert under the law. I honestly don’t know how your side gets around this. Blind faith, I guess. Back to you…..
October 26th, 2005 at 9:12 am“And I’m supposed to listen to someone who can’t even construct a coherent comment? This doesn’t even make sense you freeptard!”
Ryan, off the meds again? How many times have told you, son – unless you want to stay stuck on stupid all of your miserable life, TAKE YOUR EFFING MEDS.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:14 am“This reminds me of the big brouhaha the RW Bush apologists made of the paper on AWOL’s AWOL. It wasn’t the content they wanted to discuss…no they wanted to discuss typewriters. Now, they don’t want to discuss treason, they want to discuss definitions of ‘noc’. The bottom line of these apologists is: It’s OK to ought people working in a CIA network engaged with tracking WMD in the ME…if it furthers the Republican domestic agenda.”
This reminds me of the clear and obvious distinction between lefties and conservatives. To the left, it’s not facts or evidence that are important – it’s the seriousness of the CHARGE. Facts and evidence be damned, if someone levels a charge at you, you MUST be guilty! Conservatives tend to want proof – we’re funny that way. So when a left-wing partisan charges that Bush was AWOL, and as evidence presents forged documents made on a modern-day word processor, I’m sorry – the seriousness of the charge no longer matters, because the evidence is bogus. Not only that, other evidence directly contradicts the original charge, like the testimony of former officers, pay records, and an honorable discharge – which one doesn’t get if one goes AWOL.
I’ll say it again….liberals will believe anything – ANTHING. You fell for the forged document hoax about Bush’s military service – you fell for the hoax about the Downing street memos. You fell for the media-perpetrated hoax(es) about Katrina. The lefty blogs 3 weeks ago were running like their hair was on fire because Raw Story printed that “22 indictments” were imminent – another hoax. Hoax after hoax after hoax….and the libs continue to lap it up.
It’s like there’s this genetic defect – the inability to call BS, even when reason and logic require it. So the moral of the story is, if you have this genetic defect and are unable to use reason or logic in your thought process, you become a liberal. I guess in the end, that explains a lot.
October 26th, 2005 at 9:26 amSceptimus…
Let me spell this one out for you.
I agree that I do not know whether the timing is an issue or not.
I do not know when, or for how long, Valerie Wilson/Plame was sent abroad on assignment.
I do not see anywhere in the law that states that an assignment has to involve living overseas, or that it needs to be any longer than one day. An overseas assignment could be as simple as “go to this country for a week and attend meetings with your contacts”.
Given that this seems like a possibility, the fact that she moved her primary residence in 1997 is IRRELEVANT.
This doesn’t mean that the IIPA was breached, just that the one piece of information that we don’t have is about the timing.
Given that the CIA asked for the investigation it seems likely that the IIPA was breached as they WOULD know the timing details. But I am willing to concede that I don’t know for a fact that the timing works. That is why I specifically said “leaving the timing aside”.
So, do you have anything else, or is the timing your only reason?
Z.
October 26th, 2005 at 12:03 pm“Given that the CIA asked for the investigation it seems likely that the IIPA was breached as they WOULD know the timing details. But I am willing to concede that I don’t know for a fact that the timing works. That is why I specifically said ‘leaving the timing aside’. So, do you have anything else, or is the timing your only reason?”
You have no idea what the CIA “asked for”. You have no idea what was contained in the referal. What you do know or should know, since it is common knowledge, is that referals from the CIA to the FBI to investigate possible leaks of classified information happen about once a week, and are considered routine.
Unless Joe Wilson lied in his own book, Valerie’s status was covert as defined by IIPA, so that leaves Martha Stewart-type perjury charges for Fitz. If Rove or anyone else perjured themselves in front of the Grand Jury they should fry. But it doesn’t change the fact that no one outed a covert agent, as was originally alleged.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:31 am#66
October 27th, 2005 at 4:22 amUhm – my mother-tounge is GERMAN – WHAT the heck does
“Ah! Gott mein schwanz aufsparen!” mean????????????????
As the IIPA does NOT specify what “serving outside the US” means in terms of duration (note that it doesn’t use the word assigned) then primary residence does not tell you whether someone counts as a covert operative.
Go read the IIPA and then come back and apologise
The fact that the CIA and FBI refer frequently doesn’t mean that they refer when there is nothing to investigate. People call the police on a daily basis, but they rarely call them at random, they usually have a reason for calling.
Z.
October 27th, 2005 at 10:19 amMrs. Wilson has only to look across the breakfast table to see the reason her “covert” (uh-huh!) status was breached. Her lying POS husband couldn’t wait to pump himself up and say he was sent to Niger courtesy of the VP. When reporters start asking Cheney’s office about the “assignment” they were told “no, he wasn’t sent by the VP”. Of course, Dems never believe what they’re told, and the rest is, as they say, unfolding…
October 27th, 2005 at 5:08 pmcamilla belle wallpaper
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
March 14th, 2008 at 7:12 amcard credit debt incorporation
March 16th, 2008 at 11:07 pmPayday Advance
March 17th, 2008 at 7:24 amDanica Patrick
Man i just love your blog, keep the cool posts comin..
March 20th, 2008 at 7:05 amjay z retirement
It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools.. Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback
March 22nd, 2008 at 8:39 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 8:52 amlatest news on kate bush
I don\’t understand it.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:12 pmPreteen Preteen Lolitas Innocent Preteens
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 8:17 pmSex Girls Having Sex Rough Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 4:15 amasset life cycle management
Well spoken. I have to research more on this as it is really vital info.
March 30th, 2008 at 6:01 am