“No. Just known to reporters and WH officials complaining about how many reporters were being told about her being CIA.

“We discussed this somewhere earlier. Oh right… it was on this page”

So which reporters? Which WH officials? If the USA has Woodward saying under oath that Armitage said this, wouldn’t they try to find out who Joe Wilson talked to? There was this little tidbit I just read at this website ( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Swiftboating_Joseph_Wilson ):

“U.S. Army (Ret.) Major General Paul E. Vallely shared “Revelations that former ambassador Joe Wilson was cavalier about referencing his wife’s position prior to the Iraq war” on the November 3, 2005, John Batchelor’s ABC Radio show.”

But down further, I read this:
“In a WorldNetDaily article November 8, 2005, Vallely corrected his statement: “After recalling further over the weekend his contacts with Wilson, Vallely says now it was on just one occasion – the first of several conversations – that the ambassador revealed his wife’s employment with the CIA and that it likely occurred some time in the late summer or early fall of 2002. … He is certain, he says, the conversation took place in 2002.”

So did the investigators pay this retired general a visit to ask him about his story? Did Joe Wilson, who kept his wife’s status at CIA secret from even his friends and neighbors, really just blabber to this retired general that he had recently met “oh yeah, and my wife works for CIA, but keep it on the down low, okay?”

“Wilson: Saddam will use his WMDs or give them to terrorists…”

IF the US invaded Iraq, the article states. I found Joe Wilson’s comments, while supporting military action in conjunction with diplomatic pressure, opposing the invasion of Iraq with US forces:

“We should do everything possible to avoid the understandable temptation to send American troops to fight a war of ‘liberation’ that can be waged only by the Iraqis themselves. The projection of power need not equate with the projection of force”

“Wilson: Yes Bush was correct in his SOTU address, yes Saddam and his weapons are a threat to the US and yes he must be confronted militarily….”

But not through invasion, as he states in that article.

“Wilson: The Niger forgeries are an embarrassment and the US should just dismiss them because there’s more than enough other evidence of Saddam’s WMD threat….”

You’ll have to help point out where this quote can found in the CNN transcripts you posted. I can’t find it.

“No, it doesn’t seem that way. You could say it seems he is lying, but not that.
The guy who actually got sent to Africa to investigate claims of uranium sales heard the President refer to these claims and didn’t connect the dots for 5 months ? Who’s buying that ? Nobody.”

I didn’t say he was lying, I said it was his view point. As to who’s “buying that”, it seems only those who are against Joe Wilson.

“Why, is that some necessary qualification, to put it on paper ?
Don’t be so transparently evasive.
Novak’s interview with Armitage had no notes taken. Like Armitage’s interview with Woodward it was verbal. Just like Wilson’s conversations with various reporters.
Karl Rove didn’t publish any articles either. Nor Scooter Libby. You really wanna go with that as the necessary measure to get you across the line as having leaked her ID ?”

None of these “various reporters” publicly stated, as Robert Novak did, that Valerie Plame-Wilson worked at CIA. If Joe Wilson did talk to any reporters before the Novak article, those reporters were pretty tight lipped about it.

“The question was why was Armitage complaining that Joe Wilson was shopping his wife’s CIA ID to everyone a month before his article came out, and while others were being published by other reporters.”

So who did Joe Wilson talk to? If Armitage says “he was IDing his wife to everyone”, then who were these people?

Any wonder most of that 24% also believe some guy who has been dead for 2008 years is going to come back and save there pitiful a$$e$.

“Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,” Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

“Earlier today I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces,” Clinton said.

“Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,” said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

http://www.cnn.com/ US/ 9812/ 16/ clinton.iraq.speech/

BTW, Bill looks really good in that photo, I wonder if Hillary was standing just off camera?

Comment by Gin — January 27, 2008 @ 12:11 pm

And how many American soldiers were killed because of this action?

Fitzgerald determined that Armitage did not know Valerie Plame’s status at CIA. Should they have shut down the case after that? I don’t know, I wasn’t privy to what information the USA’s office was getting. I would think that they found more evidence to justify continuation of the leak. But that could be me.

“I do however have reservations about Valerie Plame continuing to complain that reporters got her name in relation to her role in the Niger uranium story….

Well, if someone helped end my career at CIA, I would be a bit miffed at them, too.

“…..which was published by her husband after both of them were meeting with reporters trying to get it published.”

Which what was published? Her role in the Niger trip? So this little piece of evidence was publicly known before Novak’s story in July of 2003?

“I also have reservations about everyone here treating Joe Wilson as though he was a whistleblower. The man was publishing pro-war you-will-find-WMDs articles after his trip, after the SOTU, all the way up to the invasion of Iraq.”

I’m having a difficult time locating those pre-invasion pro-war articles. Which publication did he write these said articles for?

“He said nothing about the Jan/Feb SOTU address until after all of you knew that no WMDs had been found, weeks after the invasion. Yet somehow you treat him as though he was different than every other pro-war pundit out there.”

Why didn’t he, indeed. He does state this in his 2003 article:

“President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

“The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn’t know that in December, a month before the president’s address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.”

Granted, this is his word, but it seems that the reason he did not question the SOTU is because he felt Bush wasn’t referring to Niger.
But like I said, his view. Take it with a grain of salt.

“And as we’ve seen here, you are even willing to manufacture defenses of him and re-write history to absolve him of his own role in outing his wife, something which nobody with a familiarity with a calendar can dispute.”

When exactly did he “out” his wife? When did he publish information that stated “Valerie Wilson, my wife, works for the Central Intelligence Agency under the name Valerie Plame”?
What publication can one find this evidence, that Valerie Plame’s status at CIA was made public knowledge before Bob Novak’s July 2003 article?

Exactly what are your reservations about the Plame case, that it was aimed at the wrong people, or that no crime was committed?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

“If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. “If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

Apparently, someone didn’t inform George that whole investigation was uncalled for.

ha!! – huck has lost the lot completely!! – maybe they went to syria…or jordan…or maybe,huck,they’re in lappland or new zealand or maybe the eskimos have them – leave no stone unturned and no turns unstoned huck!!!

And we now know this was false at the time it was uttered. So, other than Armitage’s (false and self-serving) statements, can Kilo provide any corroboration?

Comment by jdogg333

And the easter egg hunt is usually scheduled for before the cakewalk…

“The publication date of the book isn’t relevant. The publication of Joe’s newspaper article is. Why are reporters discussing Joe Wilson, WMDs and his CIA wife a month before his article is published if her ID was supposedly leaked in retaliation for it ?”

1. You posted Woodward’s quote of Armitage, as proof that Joe Wilson outed his own wife.

2. Woodward’s book preceded Armitage’s public revelations about his role in outing Plame – by years.

3. Your “proof” is shown to be false by Armitage’s later revelation that he himself outed Plame to reporters.

What he was previously claiming as fact to Woodward was a fantasy, to cover his own ass.

So, to review: Kilo posted a quote from Woodward’s book that depicts Armitage claiming Wilson was the person who first outed his own wife as a covert CIA agent. We know that Armitage was himself the first to out her, by his own, significantly-later revelations. What Kilo’s post really shows is Armitage, lying to cover his own actions, since we know he was first.

Huckabee has gone on the record that he doesn’t believe in evolution — something for which there actually is some documented evidence — but does believe that Hussein was recently in possession of WMD, something for which there is no direct evidence.

Well, here’s what I believe as a result of Huckabee’s latest comments — I believe that if Americans truly want to see a change in the leadership with the upcoming Presidential election (and the polls overwhelmingly suggest that they do), then Mike Huckabee is the very last person whom they should consider sending to the White House If appearances are anything to go on, this man is simply George W. Bush redux and then some — someone who doesn’t let a bothersome little thing like the facts or reason or even the Constitution stand in his way.

It is intentionally fallacious. I was only having a little fun with Huckabee’s line of thinking and logic -or lack thereof ;-)

In other words, I accept your argument as intentionally fallacious, but a repub won’t notice any problems with it.