Not being a target doesn't mean he's not a subject in the investigation.Originally posted by: Queasy
It goes on to saying that the Senate Intelligence Committee scolded the CIA for it's mishandling of the Nigeria investigation.
PDF of Wilson's report
And the NY Times protecting Karl Rove as a source? heh. hehe. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That's pure comedic genius right there.
Hate to break it to you but Rove has already testified before a grand jury and the special prosecutor does not consider him a target of the investigation. He can still be your bogeyman though.
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: outriding
Originally posted by: Genx87
Black passports?
That is interesting stuff right there. Get caught spying on another country and all you need to do is produce this black passport and they let you go? You dont have no stinkin black passport it is off with your head.
Who knew!
Wow nice reading and thinking skills you have there.
Maybe you can offer us a different explanation for these lines?
If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
If that was the case then why would not every spy just carry one ?
If you are caught doing spy work and just whip out a black passport do you not think that will cause alot of tension between the two countries.
Why don't you do a google and look up captured spies. And see how many of them carry those black passports. I will give you a hint it is less than one.
I don't know...perhaps not everyone in the CIA is allowed a diplomatic passport? What are the requirements for obtaining one?Originally posted by: outriding
If that was the case then why would not every spy just carry one ?Originally posted by: Genx87
Maybe you can offer us a different explanation for these lines?Originally posted by: outriding
Wow nice reading and thinking skills you have there.Originally posted by: Genx87
Black passports?
That is interesting stuff right there. Get caught spying on another country and all you need to do is produce this black passport and they let you go? You dont have no stinkin black passport it is off with your head.
Who knew!
If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.
You're calling Larry Johnson of the CIA "absurd"?Originally posted by: Genx87
That was my point was it not? Conjurs article sounds absurd. Nobody has a get out of jail free card when caught spying in another country.
Originally posted by: conjur
You're calling Larry Johnson of the CIA "absurd"?[/b]Originally posted by: Genx87
That was my point was it not? Conjurs article sounds absurd. Nobody has a get out of jail free card when caught spying in another country.
The 'Frogwalk Rove!' crew wants to ignore Wilson's lying in his NY Times op-ed. They seemingly don't want to recognize that his statements were the motivation that kicked this all off in the very first place. Wilson decided he wanted to his mission in a partisan manner and play dirty politics. But when the dirty politics rebound right back at him they hoot, holler, and cry foul.Originally posted by: Queasy
Archive of Joseph Wilson's bio from Feb 8 2003:
He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.
WaPo article about the findings that Wilson lied about his findings in Nigeria
It goes on to saying that the Senate Intelligence Committee scolded the CIA for it's mishandling of the Nigeria investigation.Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
PDF of Wilson's report
And the NY Times protecting Karl Rove as a source? heh. hehe. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That's pure comedic genius right there.
Hate to break it to you but Rove has already testified before a grand jury and the special prosecutor does not consider him a target of the investigation. He can still be your bogeyman though.
Originally posted by: conjur
Not being a target doesn't mean he's not a subject in the investigation.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yes, absolutely. It's not hard to understand at all if one recognizes there are still a few principled people in the world.Originally posted by: Queasy
Does anyone here truly believe that NY Times reporter Judith Miller is sitting in jail right now and the NY Times is stonewalling the special prosecutor to protect Karl Rove when Karl Rove signed papers back in Dec2003/Jan2004 allowing anybody who spoke with him about the Plame kerfuffle to talk with the special investigator? Anyone?
Miller's rationale was discussed in one of the articles about this case. She considers the waivers to have been signed under duress, i.e., the White House subjects were all required to sign them. Therefore, they are invalid, and do NOT relieve her of her obligation to protect her sources.
While posing as a private charter outfit - "aircraft rental with pilot" is the listing in Dun and Bradstreet - Aero Contractors is in fact a major domestic hub of the Central Intelligence Agency's secret air service. The company was founded in 1979 by a legendary C.I.A. officer and chief pilot for Air America, the agency's Vietnam-era air company, and it appears to be controlled by the agency, according to former employees.
An analysis of thousands of flight records, aircraft registrations and corporate documents, as well as interviews with former C.I.A. officers and pilots, show that the agency owns at least 26 planes, 10 of them purchased since 2001. The agency has concealed its ownership behind a web of seven shell corporations that appear to have no employees and no function apart from owning the aircraft.
The planes, regularly supplemented by private charters, are operated by real companies controlled by or tied to the agency, including Aero Contractors and two Florida companies, Pegasus Technologies and Tepper Aviation.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The 'Frogwalk Rove!' crew wants to ignore Wilson's lying in his NY Times op-ed. They seemingly don't want to recognize that his statements were the motivation that kicked this all off in the very first place. Wilson decided he wanted to his mission in a partisan manner and play dirty politics. But when the dirty politics rebound right back at him they hoot, holler, and cry foul.Originally posted by: Queasy
Archive of Joseph Wilson's bio from Feb 8 2003:
He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.
WaPo article about the findings that Wilson lied about his findings in Nigeria
It goes on to saying that the Senate Intelligence Committee scolded the CIA for it's mishandling of the Nigeria investigation.Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
PDF of Wilson's report
And the NY Times protecting Karl Rove as a source? heh. hehe. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That's pure comedic genius right there.
Hate to break it to you but Rove has already testified before a grand jury and the special prosecutor does not consider him a target of the investigation. He can still be your bogeyman though.
Wilson got the ball rolling on this. He has nobody to plame (heh) but himself.
I'll repost it since you seemed to have missed it, even though it's already contained in this reply previously:Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The 'Frogwalk Rove!' crew wants to ignore Wilson's lying in his NY Times op-ed. They seemingly don't want to recognize that his statements were the motivation that kicked this all off in the very first place. Wilson decided he wanted to his mission in a partisan manner and play dirty politics. But when the dirty politics rebound right back at him they hoot, holler, and cry foul.Originally posted by: Queasy
Archive of Joseph Wilson's bio from Feb 8 2003:
He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.
WaPo article about the findings that Wilson lied about his findings in Nigeria
It goes on to saying that the Senate Intelligence Committee scolded the CIA for it's mishandling of the Nigeria investigation.Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
PDF of Wilson's report
And the NY Times protecting Karl Rove as a source? heh. hehe. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That's pure comedic genius right there.
Hate to break it to you but Rove has already testified before a grand jury and the special prosecutor does not consider him a target of the investigation. He can still be your bogeyman though.
Wilson got the ball rolling on this. He has nobody to plame (heh) but himself.
All you {insert explicitive}s want to say that he lied and he/she deserved what he got. So tell me, what did he lie about. Be specific.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Xenoterranos
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/07/13/2003263355
New article from the Taipei Times.
I thought Bush said he would fire anyone who comitted a crime? Why are Dems so quick to have somebody fired when no one has been convicted of anything?
bETTER CHECK AGAIN ON WHAT bUSH SAID.
thanks, I did. see below:
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: Aegeon
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120004
And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.
looks like Bush DID say something about committing a crime. thanks for the link, Aegeon!
note in all the other resources, the reports ask if he stands by his original pledge. The original pledge being the one I just quoted. So of course he is still standing by his original pledge as no one has been convicted of anything.
Nice try, boys. I love it when libs prove themselves wrong.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'll repost it since you seemed to have missed it, even though it's already contained in this reply previously:Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The 'Frogwalk Rove!' crew wants to ignore Wilson's lying in his NY Times op-ed. They seemingly don't want to recognize that his statements were the motivation that kicked this all off in the very first place. Wilson decided he wanted to his mission in a partisan manner and play dirty politics. But when the dirty politics rebound right back at him they hoot, holler, and cry foul.Originally posted by: Queasy
Archive of Joseph Wilson's bio from Feb 8 2003:
He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.
WaPo article about the findings that Wilson lied about his findings in Nigeria
It goes on to saying that the Senate Intelligence Committee scolded the CIA for it's mishandling of the Nigeria investigation.Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
PDF of Wilson's report
And the NY Times protecting Karl Rove as a source? heh. hehe. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That's pure comedic genius right there.
Hate to break it to you but Rove has already testified before a grand jury and the special prosecutor does not consider him a target of the investigation. He can still be your bogeyman though.
Wilson got the ball rolling on this. He has nobody to plame (heh) but himself.
All you {insert explicitive}s want to say that he lied and he/she deserved what he got. So tell me, what did he lie about. Be specific.
"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'll repost it since you seemed to have missed it, even though it's already contained in this reply previously:Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The 'Frogwalk Rove!' crew wants to ignore Wilson's lying in his NY Times op-ed. They seemingly don't want to recognize that his statements were the motivation that kicked this all off in the very first place. Wilson decided he wanted to his mission in a partisan manner and play dirty politics. But when the dirty politics rebound right back at him they hoot, holler, and cry foul.Originally posted by: Queasy
Archive of Joseph Wilson's bio from Feb 8 2003:
He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters.
WaPo article about the findings that Wilson lied about his findings in Nigeria
It goes on to saying that the Senate Intelligence Committee scolded the CIA for it's mishandling of the Nigeria investigation.Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
PDF of Wilson's report
And the NY Times protecting Karl Rove as a source? heh. hehe. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! That's pure comedic genius right there.
Hate to break it to you but Rove has already testified before a grand jury and the special prosecutor does not consider him a target of the investigation. He can still be your bogeyman though.
Wilson got the ball rolling on this. He has nobody to plame (heh) but himself.
All you {insert explicitive}s want to say that he lied and he/she deserved what he got. So tell me, what did he lie about. Be specific.
"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
Although, I'm not sure about the context of the quote. I'm going to play devil's advocate to myself and take the assumption that Wilson lied (although I don't think so). The question remains....
To what purpose would outing his wife serve? Why would it be necessary to do so? Wouldn't it have been easier to character assassinate (Bush Co. seems so good at this) Wilson and avoid the ugliness of outing Plame?
The context of the quote is the SCI report. That's where it comes from.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although, I'm not sure about the context of the quote. I'm going to play devil's advocate to myself and take the assumption that Wilson lied (although I don't think so). The question remains....
That's the entire point. The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway. Her outing was seemingly not even an issue as far as they were concerned.To what purpose would outing his wife serve? Why would it be necessary to do so? Wouldn't it have been easier to character assassinate (Bush Co. seems so good at this) Wilson and avoid the ugliness of outing Plame?
And subjects can turn into targets.Originally posted by: Queasy
Subject and target are two different things. Subjects in investigation are witnesses or subject matter experts. Targets are who the investigation is actually going after.Originally posted by: conjur
Not being a target doesn't mean he's not a subject in the investigation.
No. How in the hell did you ever derive that?Originally posted by: Genx87
You believe diplomatic immunity extends to spying?Originally posted by: conjur
You're calling Larry Johnson of the CIA "absurd"?[/b]Originally posted by: Genx87
That was my point was it not? Conjurs article sounds absurd. Nobody has a get out of jail free card when caught spying in another country.
So you are saying that it really didn't matter to them if what they did was illegal as long as it served their purpose?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The context of the quote is the SCI report. That's where it comes from.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although, I'm not sure about the context of the quote. I'm going to play devil's advocate to myself and take the assumption that Wilson lied (although I don't think so). The question remains....
That's the entire point. The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway. Her outing was seemingly not even an issue as far as they were concerned.To what purpose would outing his wife serve? Why would it be necessary to do so? Wouldn't it have been easier to character assassinate (Bush Co. seems so good at this) Wilson and avoid the ugliness of outing Plame?
Oh?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'll repost it since you seemed to have missed it, even though it's already contained in this reply previously:Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
All you {insert explicitive}s want to say that he lied and he/she deserved what he got. So tell me, what did he lie about. Be specific.
"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.
I'm saying I don't think they thought what they were doing was illegal. Apparently Fitzgerald agrees that what they did was not illegal or he would've handed down indictments by now for breaking the associated law.Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you are saying that it really didn't matter to them if what they did was illegal as long as it served their purpose?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The context of the quote is the SCI report. That's where it comes from.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although, I'm not sure about the context of the quote. I'm going to play devil's advocate to myself and take the assumption that Wilson lied (although I don't think so). The question remains....
That's the entire point. The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway. Her outing was seemingly not even an issue as far as they were concerned.To what purpose would outing his wife serve? Why would it be necessary to do so? Wouldn't it have been easier to character assassinate (Bush Co. seems so good at this) Wilson and avoid the ugliness of outing Plame?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm saying I don't think they thought what they were doing was illegal. Apparently Fitzgerald agrees that what they did was not illegal or he would've handed down indictments by now for breaking the associated law.Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you are saying that it really didn't matter to them if what they did was illegal as long as it served their purpose?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The context of the quote is the SCI report. That's where it comes from.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although, I'm not sure about the context of the quote. I'm going to play devil's advocate to myself and take the assumption that Wilson lied (although I don't think so). The question remains....
That's the entire point. The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway. Her outing was seemingly not even an issue as far as they were concerned.To what purpose would outing his wife serve? Why would it be necessary to do so? Wouldn't it have been easier to character assassinate (Bush Co. seems so good at this) Wilson and avoid the ugliness of outing Plame?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The context of the quote is the SCI report. That's where it comes from.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although, I'm not sure about the context of the quote. I'm going to play devil's advocate to myself and take the assumption that Wilson lied (although I don't think so). The question remains....
That's the entire point. The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway. Her outing was seemingly not even an issue as far as they were concerned.To what purpose would outing his wife serve? Why would it be necessary to do so? Wouldn't it have been easier to character assassinate (Bush Co. seems so good at this) Wilson and avoid the ugliness of outing Plame?
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I'm saying I don't think they thought what they were doing was illegal. Apparently Fitzgerald agrees that what they did was not illegal or he would've handed down indictments by now for breaking the associated law.Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So you are saying that it really didn't matter to them if what they did was illegal as long as it served their purpose?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The context of the quote is the SCI report. That's where it comes from.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although, I'm not sure about the context of the quote. I'm going to play devil's advocate to myself and take the assumption that Wilson lied (although I don't think so). The question remains....
That's the entire point. The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway. Her outing was seemingly not even an issue as far as they were concerned.To what purpose would outing his wife serve? Why would it be necessary to do so? Wouldn't it have been easier to character assassinate (Bush Co. seems so good at this) Wilson and avoid the ugliness of outing Plame?
He not handing indictments... yet. He has to see how far up this goes first.
Do you go after the crank peddler on the street corner if you had a feeling that he could lead you to the kingpin?
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The context of the quote is the SCI report. That's where it comes from.Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Although, I'm not sure about the context of the quote. I'm going to play devil's advocate to myself and take the assumption that Wilson lied (although I don't think so). The question remains....
That's the entire point. The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway. Her outing was seemingly not even an issue as far as they were concerned.To what purpose would outing his wife serve? Why would it be necessary to do so? Wouldn't it have been easier to character assassinate (Bush Co. seems so good at this) Wilson and avoid the ugliness of outing Plame?
Also, the purpose was because Wilson said in his NY Times op-ed that Cheney's office sent him. When in fact, it wasn't Cheney's office but his own wife who put him on the job. Per the context of Time reporter Cooper's emails, he asked Rove why Wilson was sent on the job and Rove pointed out that it was his own wife that recommended him for it.
Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
either way Rove released to a reporter the identity of a CIA operative (or at the very least employee).