Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

Page 52 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Aside from their petty partisan nonsense protecting a traitor like Rove, there is the larger story that is being given short shrift. Jonathan Alter brings it all into focus as he explains...

Why the Leak Probe Matters

For all the complexities of the Valerie Plame case, this story is about how easy it was to get into Iraq, and how hard it will be to get out.

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek

July 25 issue - Like a lot of President Bush's critics, I supported the Iraq war at first. Because of the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction laid out by Colin Powell, I agreed that we needed to disarm Saddam Hussein. I even think it's possible that 25 years from now, historians will conclude that the Iraq war helped accelerate the modernizing of the Middle East, even if it doesn't fully democratize it.

But if that happens, Bush might not get as much credit as he hopes, and not just because most historians, as Richard Nixon liked to say, are liberals. Bush may look bad because his leadership on Iraq has been a fiasco. He didn't plan for it: the early decisions that allowed the insurgency to get going were breathtakingly incompetent. He didn't pay for it: Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes during a war, this one now costing nearly $1 billion a week. And most important of all, he didn't tell the American people the truth about it: taking a nation to war is the most solemn duty of a president, and he'd better make certain there's no alternative and no doubt about the evidence.

Why do I mention this now? Because for all of the complexities of the Valerie Plame case, for all the questions raised about the future of investigative journalism and the fate of the most influential aide to an American president since Louis Howe served Franklin D. Roosevelt 70 years ago, this story is fundamentally about how easy it was to get into Iraq and how hard it will be to get out.

We got in because we "cooked" the intelligence, then hyped it. That's why the "Downing Street Memo" is not a smoking gun but a big "duh." For two years we've known that senior White House officials were determined to, in the words of the British intelligence memo, "fix" the intelligence to suit their policy decisions. When someone crossed them, they would "fix" him, too, as career ambassador Joseph Wilson found when he came back from Africa with a report that threw cold water on the story that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium from Niger.

Was Plame "fair game," as Karl Rove told Chris Matthews? George H.W. Bush didn't think so. Even after Wilson embarrassed the president publicly, Bush Sr. wrote Wilson?whom he had appointed to various ambassadorial posts?to congratulate him for his service and sympathize with him over the outing of his wife. The old man was head of the CIA in the 1970s and knows the consequences of blowing the identities of covert operatives.

But does his son? A real leader wouldn't hide behind Clintonian legalisms like "I don't want to prejudge." Even if the disclosure was unintentional and no law was broken, Rove's confirmed conduct?talking casually to two reporters without security clearances about a CIA operative?was dangerous and wrong. As GOP congressman turned talk-show host Joe Scarborough puts it, if someone in his old congressional office did what Rove unquestionably did, that someone would have been promptly fired, just as the president promised in this case. Scarborough, no longer obligated to toe the pathetic Republican Party line, says it's totally irrelevant if Joe Wilson is a preening partisan who misled investigators about the role his wife played in recommending his Niger trip. The frantic efforts of the GOP attack machine to change the subject to Wilson shows how scared Republicans are that the master of their universe will be held accountable for Rove's destructive carelessness.

To get an idea of how destructive, I talked to Melissa Mahle, a former CIA covert operative turned author whose career parallels Plame's. She explained what happens when someone's cover is blown. It isn't pretty, especially when, like Plame, you have been under "nonofficial cover" (working for a phony front company or nonprofit), which is more sensitive than "official cover" (pretending to work for another government agency). The GOP's spinners are making it seem that because Plame had a desk job in Langley at the time she was outed, she wasn't truly undercover. As Mahle says, that reflects a total ignorance about the way the CIA works. Being outed doesn't just waste millions of taxpayer dollars; it compromises hundreds of other people in the field you may have worked with in the past.

If Bush isn't a hypocrite on national security, he needs, at a minimum, to yank Rove's security clearance. "Whether you do it [discuss the identity of CIA operatives] intentionally or unintentionally, you have not met the requirements of that security clearance," Mahle told me.

The bigger question is what this scandal does to the CIA's ability to develop essential "humint" (human intelligence). Here's where the Iraq war comes in again. The sooner we beef up our intelligence, the sooner we crack the insurgency and get to bring our troops home. What does it say to the people doing the painstaking work of building those spy networks when the identity of one of their own becomes just another weapon in the partisan wars of Washington? For a smart guy, Karl Rove was awfully stupid.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I think this piece from the Christian Science Monitor hits the nail on the heaad:
Rove leak is just part of larger scandal
By Daniel Schorr

WASHINGTON - Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.

In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."

Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.

No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.

One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a supersecret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.

The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
In short, the Rove/Wilson scandal is largely a distraction. The real issue is our attack on Iraq. BushCo forged ahead using bogus claims to justify invading a country posing no significant threat to the United States.
In the same vein as BBond's article above, here's a similar piece I posted earlier in this thread.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Here is an insightful Op-Ed from the New York Times:
Follow the Uranium

By FRANK RICH

"I am saying that if anyone was involved in that type of activity which I referred to, they would not be working here."
- Ron Ziegler, press secretary to Richard Nixon, defending the presidential aide Dwight Chapin on Oct. 18, 1972. Chapin was convicted in April 1974 of perjury in connection with his relationship to the political saboteur Donald Segretti.

"Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence."
- Scott McClellan, press secretary to George W. Bush, defending Karl Rove on Tuesday.

WELL, of course, Karl Rove did it. He may not have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, with its high threshold of criminality for outing a covert agent, but there's no doubt he trashed Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. We know this not only because of Matt Cooper's e-mail, but also because of Mr. Rove's own history. Trashing is in his nature, and bad things happen, usually through under-the-radar whispers, to decent people (and their wives) who get in his way. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain's wife, Cindy, was rumored to be a drug addict (and Senator McCain was rumored to be mentally unstable). In the 1994 Texas governor's race, Ann Richards found herself rumored to be a lesbian. The implication that Mr. Wilson was a John Kerry-ish girlie man beholden to his wife for his meal ticket is of a thematic piece with previous mud splattered on Rove political adversaries. The difference is that this time Mr. Rove got caught.

Even so, we shouldn't get hung up on him - or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.

To see the main plot, you must sweep away the subplots, starting with the Cooper e-mail. It has been brandished as a smoking gun by Bush bashers and as exculpatory evidence by Bush backers (Mr. Rove, you see, was just trying to ensure that Time had its facts straight). But no one knows what this e-mail means unless it's set against the avalanche of other evidence, most of it secret, including what Mr. Rove said in three appearances before the grand jury. Therein lies the rub, or at least whatever case might be made for perjury.

Another bogus subplot, long popular on the left, has it that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, gave Mr. Novak a free pass out of ideological comradeship. But Mr. Fitzgerald, both young (44) and ambitious, has no record of Starr- or Ashcroft-style partisanship (his contempt for the press notwithstanding) or known proclivity for committing career suicide. What's most likely is that Mr. Novak, more of a common coward than the prince of darkness he fashions himself to be, found a way to spill some beans and avoid Judy Miller's fate. That the investigation has dragged on so long anyway is another indication of the expanded reach of the prosecutorial web.

Apparently this is finally beginning to dawn on Mr. Bush's fiercest defenders and on Mr. Bush himself. Hence, last week's erection of the stonewall manned by the almost poignantly clownish Mr. McClellan, who abruptly rendered inoperative his previous statements that any suspicions about Mr. Rove are "totally ridiculous." The morning after Mr. McClellan went mano a mano with his tormentors in the White House press room - "We've secretly replaced the White House press corps with actual reporters," observed Jon Stewart - the ardently pro-Bush New York Post ran only five paragraphs of a wire-service story on Page 12. That conspicuous burial of what was front-page news beyond Murdochland speaks loudly about the rising anxiety on the right. Since then, White House surrogates have been desperately babbling talking points attacking Joseph Wilson as a partisan and a liar.

These attacks, too, are red herrings. Let me reiterate: This case is not about Joseph Wilson. He is, in Alfred Hitchcock's parlance, a MacGuffin, which, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, is "a particular event, object, factor, etc., initially presented as being of great significance to the story, but often having little actual importance for the plot as it develops." Mr. Wilson, his mission to Niger to check out Saddam's supposed attempts to secure uranium that might be used in nuclear weapons and even his wife's outing have as much to do with the real story here as Janet Leigh's theft of office cash has to do with the mayhem that ensues at the Bates Motel in "Psycho."

This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit - the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes - is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That's why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.

So put aside Mr. Wilson's February 2002 trip to Africa. The plot that matters starts a month later, in March, and its omniscient author is Dick Cheney. It was Mr. Cheney (on CNN) who planted the idea that Saddam was "actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time." The vice president went on to repeat this charge in May on "Meet the Press," in three speeches in August and on "Meet the Press" yet again in September. Along the way the frightening word "uranium" was thrown into the mix.

By September the president was bandying about the u-word too at the United Nations and elsewhere, speaking of how Saddam needed only a softball-size helping of uranium to wreak Armageddon on America. But hardly had Mr. Bush done so than, offstage, out of view of us civilian spectators, the whole premise of this propaganda campaign was being challenged by forces with more official weight than Joseph Wilson. In October, the National Intelligence Estimate, distributed to Congress as it deliberated authorizing war, included the State Department's caveat that "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa," made public in a British dossier, were "highly dubious." A C.I.A. assessment, sent to the White House that month, determined that "the evidence is weak" and "the Africa story is overblown."

AS if this weren't enough, a State Department intelligence analyst questioned the legitimacy of some mysterious documents that had surfaced in Italy that fall and were supposed proof of the Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. In fact, they were blatant forgeries. When Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said as much publicly in the days just before "shock and awe," his announcement made none of the three evening newscasts. The administration's apocalyptic uranium rhetoric, sprinkled with mushroom clouds, had been hammered incessantly for more than five months by then - not merely in the State of the Union address - and could not be dislodged. As scenarios go, this one was about as subtle as "Independence Day" and just as unstoppable a crowd-pleaser.

Once we were locked into the war, and no W.M.D.'s could be found, the original plot line was dropped with an alacrity that recalled the "Never mind!" with which Gilda Radner's Emily Litella used to end her misinformed Weekend Update commentaries on "Saturday Night Live." The administration began its dog-ate-my-homework cover-up, asserting that the various warning signs about the uranium claims were lost "in the bowels" of the bureaucracy or that it was all the C.I.A.'s fault or that it didn't matter anyway, because there were new, retroactive rationales to justify the war. But the administration knows how guilty it is. That's why it has so quickly trashed any insider who contradicts its story line about how we got to Iraq, starting with the former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke.

Next to White House courtiers of their rank, Mr. Wilson is at most a Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. The brief against the administration's drumbeat for war would be just as damning if he'd never gone to Africa. But by overreacting in panic to his single Op-Ed piece of two years ago, the White House has opened a Pandora's box it can't slam shut. Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that there's only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight takes the fall at exactly that moment when it's essential to protect the king.
One point I disagree with is the "certainty" of Rove's resignation. I think neither he nor Bush have the integrity to do the right thing here. If Rove resigns at all, it will because Bush is forced into it.
Another.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Frank Rich has evolved from Chief Theater Critic at the Times to one of the best Op-Ed contributors anywhere. He is fearless when speaking the truth.

Bravo! Frank Rich
 

arsbanned

Banned
Dec 12, 2003
4,853
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeppers- Federal prosecutors and the FBI get kinda touchy when you don't tell them the truth- ask Martha Stewart...

Probably a difficult concept to grasp for folks who are accustomed to casting deception, then believing their own lies, too...

I expect Fitzgerald will hold out until the last possible date to announce his findings- he really wants Miller's testimony, and the only way he has to get it is to keep her in jail as long as possible... With sufficient evidence, the judge might just extend the grand jury's mandate past the october deadline...

Yeah, but they're arrogant and the FBI is in their pocket. The press will keep up the pressure though. Otherwise, Scooter roll: and Rove would get away with their treachery. Another big pack of lies Republican administration. Big surprise there.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I really think Fitzgerald is playing it straight, for all of you doubters. *Some* Republicans still have integrity. If he'd intended to whitewash it, there would be several thick and impenetrable coats of it by now- case closed...
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: conjur
The L.A. Times linkThe special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation has shifted his focus is up, right now (Saturday, 11:26 AM, PDT), but it may require a subscription, later. Here's the story:
July 23, 2005

THE NATION
CIA Leak Investigation Turns to Possible Perjury, Obstruction
By Douglas Frantz, Sonni Efron and Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON ? The special prosecutor in the CIA leak investigation has shifted his focus from determining whether White House officials violated a law against exposing undercover agents to determining whether evidence exists to bring perjury or obstruction of justice charges, according to people briefed in recent days on the inquiry's status.

Differences have arisen in witnesses' statements to federal agents and a grand jury about how the name of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, was leaked to the press two years ago.

According to lawyers familiar with the case, investigators are comparing statements by two top White House aides, Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, with testimony from reporters who have acknowledged talking to the officials.

Although no one has suggested that the investigation into who leaked Plame's name has been shelved, the intensity of the inquiry into possible perjury charges has increased, according to one lawyer familiar with events who spoke on condition that he not be identified.

Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, and his team have made no decision on whether to seek indictments.

The investigation focused initially on whether administration officials illegally leaked the identity of Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, in a campaign to discredit Wilson after he wrote an op-ed article in the New York Times criticizing the Bush administration's grounds for going to war in Iraq.

The sources said prosecutors were comparing the various statements to the FBI and the grand jury by Rove, who is a White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush's chief political strategist. In Rove's first interview with the FBI, he did not mention a telephone conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, according to lawyers involved in the case. Cooper has since said that he called Rove specifically to discuss the matter.

Rove has been interviewed twice by the FBI and has made three appearances before the grand jury, according to lawyers familiar with the case.

Rove was told by prosecutors in October that he was not a target of the inquiry, said his lawyer, Robert Luskin. Rove, through his lawyer, has denied being the source of Plame's name.

"I am quite sure that if his status has changed, I would be informed about it," Luskin said Friday. "I am not aware of anything that has come to light that would change the facts in front of the prosecutor that would change that assurance."

Rove "has, from the beginning, been candid, forthcoming and accurate," Luskin said. "There has never been any moment when the government, prosecutors or investigators have suggested that they thought he was being anything but truthful or cooperative."

The investigation's change in emphasis comes amid indications that Fitzgerald's inquiry has gone beyond the White House and scrutiny of officials such as Rove and Libby, who is Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.

A former senior State Department official has acknowledged that he testified before the grand jury in Washington, and a congressional source confirmed that Robert Joseph ? who worked on the White House National Security Council ? told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he had been questioned by the special prosecutor. Karen P. Hughes, a former top aide to Bush, also told the committee that she had been questioned, the source said.

In addition, a senior U.S. official said that several State Department officials ? including then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell ? were questioned months ago about the creation and distribution of a classified memo that mentioned Plame. Prosecutors are interested in the memo because it may have been a vehicle for spreading Plame's name among administration staff members.

Disclosing the identity of a CIA undercover agent is a crime under some circumstances, but legal experts have said that elements of the law make it difficult to prove a violation. Prosecutors could have an easier time winning a conviction under another law that makes it a crime for officials with security clearances to disseminate certain information. According to that statute, it could be a crime to have confirmed that Plame was a CIA agent if she was operating undercover.

Plame was first identified as a CIA operative by syndicated columnist Robert Novak in an article that appeared July 14, 2003 ? eight days after Wilson's op-ed piece challenged administration claims that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium for its nuclear program from the African nation of Niger.

An official close to the investigation said Fitzgerald was concentrating on what happened in the White House and other parts of the administration in those eight days.

The Los Angeles Times reported Monday that Rove and Libby were intensely focused on discrediting Wilson during that period. Prosecutors have been told that although lower-level aides routinely handled media inquiries, Rove and Libby began communicating directly with reporters about Wilson, the Times report said.

The CIA requested the inquiry into Plame's unmasking. Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed a special prosecutor in December 2003 and was given wide latitude to conduct his investigation. He is working with FBI agents, a team of attorneys from the Justice Department in Washington and four prosecutors from his Chicago office.

The investigation has led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times, found in civil contempt for refusing to reveal her sources in inquiring about the Plame case; she did not publish any stories on the matter. Other reporters have testified before the grand jury about conversations with sources after receiving waivers of confidentiality from their sources.

Fitzgerald has asked witnesses not to discuss their grand jury testimony, but the law does not prohibit them from speaking publicly.

Rove and Libby spoke with reporters during the crucial eight-day period when the administration was working to undermine Wilson's credibility, in part by suggesting that his wife had put his name forward for the fact-finding mission to Niger in early 2002. His assignment was to determine the authenticity of claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from that country for its nuclear program.

Wilson later wrote in the op-ed piece that the claims were likely false and that intelligence cited by the Bush administration to support the invasion of Iraq "was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

According to Luskin, Rove has said that he learned Plame's name from Novak. Novak has refused to discuss his testimony, but investigators are believed to be focusing on possible variations with Novak's account.

Writing in Time magazine, Cooper said that he had telephoned Rove to ask about Wilson's column. But Rove, according to lawyers involved in the case, told the grand jury that Cooper had telephoned him about a welfare issue and that Wilson came up later.

Cooper wrote that Rove had disclosed to him that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though Rove did not use her name. Cooper said that he did not learn Plame's name until he read it in the Novak column several days later, or that he might have learned it from a computer search.

Libby, according to a person familiar with events, told investigators that he learned Plame's name from a reporter, apparently Tim Russert of NBC-TV.

But Russert, who spoke with Fitzgerald last summer after Libby released him from a pledge of confidentiality, said he did not give Plame's name to Libby, according to a statement issued by NBC at the time.

Cooper wrote in Time that he had also talked to Libby. He said he asked Libby whether he had heard anything about Wilson's wife dispatching Wilson to Niger, and that Libby replied, " 'Yeah, I've heard that, too,' or words to that effect."

Fitzgerald's term as special prosecutor expires in October, but it could be renewed if the investigation is not finished.

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... It's already been established that Plame herself pimped her husband to go on the trip, crafted a memo to recommend him, and attended the kickoff meeting. Yet Wilson insisted his wife was not involved. ...
:roll:

You'd have a lot more credibility if you stuck to a reasonably objective recitation of fact instead of continuing to parrot the distorted BushCo propaganda. It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes). Did she have a greater or more active role? Anything's possible, but it's empty speculation at this point.

I agree Wilson's statement his wife wasn't involved is technically inaccurate. In common conversation, however, his comment was consistent with someone trying to explain his wife played no material role in selecting Wilson for the Niger trip. This is consistent with what we know with certainty about Plame's involvement as described above. If it is ultimately shown Plame played a larger role, then Wilson's comment can be legitimately criticized as dishonest. For now, I think one can only objectively criticize it as imprecise.
She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."
That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.
On the contrary, there is significant doubt. As far as your "There's this crazy report" quote, it suggests nothing beyond what I originally said above: "Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request)."
She serves as more than a conduit. She campiagned for him. Stop trying to minimalize her involvement.
Interesting opinion. However, the known facts do not support your blatantly partisan spin.
Such as? Please provide these "facts" you speak of.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yawn. More misdirection and speculation. As you yourself mention, Wilson was not given a formal security clearance, he was given an "operational" one. No matter what you think you know from your one, anecdotal experience, you do not know what, if anything Wilson had to sign. That is a real fact. Re. "ridiculous", I find it ridiculous that you attack everyone in sight for ignoring reals facts and asserting their personal speculation as fact when you are consistently the worst offender.
An "operational" clearance is no different from a formal clearance. It's merely a temporary or provisional clearance provided for a specific operation when such a clearance is deemed necessary by the appropriate sanctioning authorities. It doesn't have any different provisions to it than any formal clearance. There are only 3 specific, basic levels of clearance and they are the same for everyone. Wilson doesn't get a pass to disseminate information from a classified document because his clearance was deemed "operational."

But if you know differently, since you obviously so well versed on security clearances and the CIA :roll: why don't you actually prove something for once instead of just being blustery?

I'll even give you a head start:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/

Yes dear. That's why I started the sentence with "perhaps". Unlike some, I try to differentiate between speculation and fact.
Yes. Dear. That's why I said it's speculation. You whine about speculation constantly and yet indulge in it yourself.

More misdirection, not to mention denial of the blatantly obvious. Not everything in a classified document is, in and of itself, classified. To continue to suggest otherwise is patently dishonest. If a classified report mentions the name of a city, for example, does the name of the city become classified? Obviously not. If a classified report mentions the sun rising in the east, does that simple scientific fact become classified? No. The simple, obvious point is that much of the material in classified reports is not, in and of itself, classified. Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple.

Once we dispense with that fallacy, we are left with your speculation about how much Wilson was allowed to discuss his trip. You have not yet offered any valid evidence Wilson divulged any classified information. Perhaps he did, but your continued assertions as fact are unsupported by any evidence you're provided. That no one else is is making the same claim, especially the Bush administration given their other strident attacks on Wilson, reinforces the belief you're just crying wolf.
Foreign government information of the type Wilson collected on a clandestine mission is, once classified, considered classified until it's declassified, as defined by a governing Executive Order. I'm not going to tell you which one, because you need to do some homework since you obviously just don't know and I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Look it up. I already provided a link above.

Perhaps, though they were willing to open it for the White House leak. In any case, I'm asking a question, not making an assertion. Do you have any links or not?
I'm sure the CIA would be very eager and excited to open up an investigation on its own practices and procedures and why they allowed Wilson to leak classified information to the press.

If you want links, use google. I'm tired of providing links for somone who doens't respond in kind.

I think you addressed this quite well: "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic."
iow, you just don't know of what you speak.

According to the SSCI report, Wilson was not asked to sign an NDA. You've offered nothing factual to refute that.
Actually, I've addressed that. Your refusal to acknowledge the context of the statement and that it refers solely to his 'relationship with the CIA' is telling. It's there in black and white. That's my proof. So prove me wrong. You likely won't though. You'll probably just return with more unsubstantiated bluster.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
LOL. Perjury?

If true, what does this imply? It implies Fitzgerald couldn't pin anything else illegal against Rove or Libby. If the LA Times or Washington Post are correct it means:

1) Neither got Plame's name from the AF1 memo.

2) Neither can be prosecuted for outing Plame and she was likely not a covert agent.

3) It can't be proven that Rove knew of Plame's status, whatever it was.

So in order to get anything whatsoever to stick, Fitzgerald has to rely on prosecuting someone for potentially false testimony.

It seems you guys better hope it's not true because it tosses all the screams of "traitor," "Rove outed Plame," and "Plame was a covert agent" right down the tubes and this is little more than a replay of the Clinton bumrush.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... It's already been established that Plame herself pimped her husband to go on the trip, crafted a memo to recommend him, and attended the kickoff meeting. Yet Wilson insisted his wife was not involved. ...
:roll:

You'd have a lot more credibility if you stuck to a reasonably objective recitation of fact instead of continuing to parrot the distorted BushCo propaganda. It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes). Did she have a greater or more active role? Anything's possible, but it's empty speculation at this point.

I agree Wilson's statement his wife wasn't involved is technically inaccurate. In common conversation, however, his comment was consistent with someone trying to explain his wife played no material role in selecting Wilson for the Niger trip. This is consistent with what we know with certainty about Plame's involvement as described above. If it is ultimately shown Plame played a larger role, then Wilson's comment can be legitimately criticized as dishonest. For now, I think one can only objectively criticize it as imprecise.
She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."
That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.
On the contrary, there is significant doubt. As far as your "There's this crazy report" quote, it suggests nothing beyond what I originally said above: "Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request)."
She serves as more than a conduit. She campiagned for him. Stop trying to minimalize her involvement.
Interesting opinion. However, the known facts do not support your blatantly partisan spin.
Such as? Please provide these "facts" you speak of.
"It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes)." This is based on sworn testimony released to the public. Everything beyond that, including the personal attacks in the Republican SSCI report addendum, is speculation and spin.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... It's already been established that Plame herself pimped her husband to go on the trip, crafted a memo to recommend him, and attended the kickoff meeting. Yet Wilson insisted his wife was not involved. ...
:roll:

You'd have a lot more credibility if you stuck to a reasonably objective recitation of fact instead of continuing to parrot the distorted BushCo propaganda. It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes). Did she have a greater or more active role? Anything's possible, but it's empty speculation at this point.

I agree Wilson's statement his wife wasn't involved is technically inaccurate. In common conversation, however, his comment was consistent with someone trying to explain his wife played no material role in selecting Wilson for the Niger trip. This is consistent with what we know with certainty about Plame's involvement as described above. If it is ultimately shown Plame played a larger role, then Wilson's comment can be legitimately criticized as dishonest. For now, I think one can only objectively criticize it as imprecise.
She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."
That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.
On the contrary, there is significant doubt. As far as your "There's this crazy report" quote, it suggests nothing beyond what I originally said above: "Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request)."
She serves as more than a conduit. She campiagned for him. Stop trying to minimalize her involvement.
Interesting opinion. However, the known facts do not support your blatantly partisan spin.
Such as? Please provide these "facts" you speak of.
"It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes)." This is based on sworn testimony released to the public. Everything beyond that, including the personal attacks in the Republican SSCI report addendum, is speculation and spin.
How about some links to validate your version of the "facts"?
 

Proletariat

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2004
5,614
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... It's already been established that Plame herself pimped her husband to go on the trip, crafted a memo to recommend him, and attended the kickoff meeting. Yet Wilson insisted his wife was not involved. ...
:roll:

You'd have a lot more credibility if you stuck to a reasonably objective recitation of fact instead of continuing to parrot the distorted BushCo propaganda. It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes). Did she have a greater or more active role? Anything's possible, but it's empty speculation at this point.

I agree Wilson's statement his wife wasn't involved is technically inaccurate. In common conversation, however, his comment was consistent with someone trying to explain his wife played no material role in selecting Wilson for the Niger trip. This is consistent with what we know with certainty about Plame's involvement as described above. If it is ultimately shown Plame played a larger role, then Wilson's comment can be legitimately criticized as dishonest. For now, I think one can only objectively criticize it as imprecise.
She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."
That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.
On the contrary, there is significant doubt. As far as your "There's this crazy report" quote, it suggests nothing beyond what I originally said above: "Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request)."
She serves as more than a conduit. She campiagned for him. Stop trying to minimalize her involvement.
Interesting opinion. However, the known facts do not support your blatantly partisan spin.
Such as? Please provide these "facts" you speak of.
"It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes)." This is based on sworn testimony released to the public. Everything beyond that, including the personal attacks in the Republican SSCI report addendum, is speculation and spin.
How about some links to validate your version of the "facts"?
Damn I'm really pissed now I don't even care.

Do you ever shutup you annoying twat?

You're such a damn liar. At least admit you're a Republican. Instead you pull this WHINEY ANNOYING OH-I'M-A-CONVERTED-LIBERAL SH!T. Thats just what it is dude. SH!T. The amount of bile you spread against the left is a clear reminder that you are just as right wing as any of the other extremist Talibanis here.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Damn I'm really pissed now I don't even care.

Do you ever shutup you annoying twat?
Awww. One of the pontificators of freedom of speech, expression, opposing viewpoints, and dissidence speaks up yet again.

You're such a damn liar. At least admit you're a Republican. Instead you pull this WHINEY ANNOYING OH-I'M-A-CONVERTED-LIBERAL SH!T. Thats just what it is dude. SH!T. The amount of bile you spread against the left is a clear reminder that you are just as right wing as any of the other extremist Talibanis here.
Can't stand have one of your own - and one who you can't slime as some right-wing religious nutjob and take your collective hatchets to, like you successfully did against Riprorin and various other right-wingers whose opinions you just can't tolerate in this forum - demonstrate the lunacy of the looper left, eh?

Well thanks for your complete and utter demonstration of peace, love, and understanding, dude. It's what the left is all about, ain't it? It was really sweet of you. :lips:
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yawn. More misdirection and speculation. As you yourself mention, Wilson was not given a formal security clearance, he was given an "operational" one. No matter what you think you know from your one, anecdotal experience, you do not know what, if anything Wilson had to sign. That is a real fact. Re. "ridiculous", I find it ridiculous that you attack everyone in sight for ignoring reals facts and asserting their personal speculation as fact when you are consistently the worst offender.
An "operational" clearance is no different from a formal clearance. It's merely a temporary or provisional clearance provided for a specific operation when such a clearance is deemed necessary by the appropriate sanctioning authorities. It doesn't have any different provisions to it than any formal clearance. There are only 3 specific, basic levels of clearance and they are the same for everyone. Wilson doesn't get a pass to disseminate information from a classified document because his clearance was deemed "operational."

But if you know differently, since you obviously so well versed on security clearances and the CIA :roll: why don't you actually prove something for once instead of just being blustery?

I'll even give you a head start:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/
Huff and puff all you want. It doesn't change the FACT that you are merely "ASSuming" Wilson signed an NDA. As I said in the first place, even though an NDA may be a normal requirement for even an "operational" security clearance, there is simply no evidence Wilson actually signed one, for whatever reason. Maybe he did, maybe someone screwed up, or maybe you aren't as infallible as you think and there are realities outside your own limited personal experience. We do know the Senate SCI report says Wilson did NOT sign an NDA, and while it is possible that statement was meant to narrowly address a specific issue, the actual wording does not impose such qualifications. Those are the facts; your angry bluster is speculation, period.


Yes dear. That's why I started the sentence with "perhaps". Unlike some, I try to differentiate between speculation and fact.
Yes. Dear. That's why I said it's speculation. You whine about speculation constantly and yet indulge in it yourself.
The difference is you assert your speculation as fact, while I label mine with words like "perhaps".


More misdirection, not to mention denial of the blatantly obvious. Not everything in a classified document is, in and of itself, classified. To continue to suggest otherwise is patently dishonest. If a classified report mentions the name of a city, for example, does the name of the city become classified? Obviously not. If a classified report mentions the sun rising in the east, does that simple scientific fact become classified? No. The simple, obvious point is that much of the material in classified reports is not, in and of itself, classified. Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple.

Once we dispense with that fallacy, we are left with your speculation about how much Wilson was allowed to discuss his trip. You have not yet offered any valid evidence Wilson divulged any classified information. Perhaps he did, but your continued assertions as fact are unsupported by any evidence you're provided. That no one else is is making the same claim, especially the Bush administration given their other strident attacks on Wilson, reinforces the belief you're just crying wolf.
Foreign government information of the type Wilson collected on a clandestine mission is, once classified, considered classified until it's declassified, as defined by a governing Executive Order. I'm not going to tell you which one, because you need to do some homework since you obviously just don't know and I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Look it up. I already provided a link above.
First, you've again asserted speculation as fact: "clandestime" mission, "once classified". All we know as fact is that the CIA wrote a classified report which included information from Wilson's trip and may have included any amount of other, unpublicized information, analysis, etc. You've provided no evidence that any of Wilson's findings, let alone all of them, are classified in and of themselves. Second, "Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple."

Bottom line, this is your Bigfoot story. Until you produce real, factual evidence supporting it, I'm going to continue to assume it's as meaningless as me claiming George is Karl's love slave. Your conjecture and speculation is an inadequate substitute for fact, especially since you seem to be the only one who believes it.


Perhaps, though they were willing to open it for the White House leak. In any case, I'm asking a question, not making an assertion. Do you have any links or not?
I'm sure the CIA would be very eager and excited to open up an investigation on its own practices and procedures and why they allowed Wilson to leak classified information to the press.

If you want links, use google. I'm tired of providing links for somone who doens't respond in kind.
Again, it's your claim. You bear the burden of proof. If you have nothing to support your claims, withdraw them.


Let's put your quote back in, the part you conveniently deleted before attacking my comment below:
[Chicken:] As far as the NDA, can you show me where it permitted Wilson to speak of anything else besides his relationship with the CIA?
I think you addressed this quite well: "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic."
iow, you just don't know of what you speak.
Nice try. It is "highly dishonest" for you to ask me to produce evidence from a document no one has released, and no one but you even claims exists.

Can you show me where the bondage pledge George wrote to Karl permits George to speak of anything besides their relationship? No? Ah ha! That proves George is Karl's love slave ... using Chicken illogic. "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic." What's good for the goose is good for the Chicken.


According to the SSCI report, Wilson was not asked to sign an NDA. You've offered nothing factual to refute that.
Actually, I've addressed that. Your refusal to acknowledge the context of the statement and that it refers solely to his 'relationship with the CIA' is telling. It's there in black and white. That's my proof. So prove me wrong. You likely won't though. You'll probably just return with more unsubstantiated bluster.
Yawn. The Senate SCI report does not indicate Wilson signed any NDAs. It does explicitly state he did not sign one. It's there in black and white. That you try to infer a qualification that the document does not provide is telling; to insist that your inference is fact is absurd. Once again, here is the quote from the report:
  • "DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with the CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.
Flap and squawk all you want. It does not suggest what you want it to suggest. Do you have any factual evidence Wilson did, in fact, contrary to the plain words of the SSCI report, sign an NDA or not? If not, you're just speculating. Acknowledge your speculation and move on.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yawn. More misdirection and speculation. As you yourself mention, Wilson was not given a formal security clearance, he was given an "operational" one. No matter what you think you know from your one, anecdotal experience, you do not know what, if anything Wilson had to sign. That is a real fact. Re. "ridiculous", I find it ridiculous that you attack everyone in sight for ignoring reals facts and asserting their personal speculation as fact when you are consistently the worst offender.
An "operational" clearance is no different from a formal clearance. It's merely a temporary or provisional clearance provided for a specific operation when such a clearance is deemed necessary by the appropriate sanctioning authorities. It doesn't have any different provisions to it than any formal clearance. There are only 3 specific, basic levels of clearance and they are the same for everyone. Wilson doesn't get a pass to disseminate information from a classified document because his clearance was deemed "operational."

But if you know differently, since you obviously so well versed on security clearances and the CIA :roll: why don't you actually prove something for once instead of just being blustery?

I'll even give you a head start:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/
Huff and puff all you want. It doesn't change the FACT that you are merely "ASSuming" Wilson signed an NDA. As I said in the first place, even though an NDA may be a normal requirement for even an "operational" security clearance, there is simply no evidence Wilson actually signed one, for whatever reason. Maybe he did, maybe someone screwed up, or maybe you aren't as infallible as you think and there are realities outside your own limited personal experience. We do know the Senate SCI report says Wilson did NOT sign an NDA, and while it is possible that statement was meant to narrowly address a specific issue, the actual wording does not impose such qualifications. Those are the facts; your angry bluster is speculation, period.


Yes dear. That's why I started the sentence with "perhaps". Unlike some, I try to differentiate between speculation and fact.
Yes. Dear. That's why I said it's speculation. You whine about speculation constantly and yet indulge in it yourself.
The difference is you assert your speculation as fact, while I label mine with words like "perhaps".


More misdirection, not to mention denial of the blatantly obvious. Not everything in a classified document is, in and of itself, classified. To continue to suggest otherwise is patently dishonest. If a classified report mentions the name of a city, for example, does the name of the city become classified? Obviously not. If a classified report mentions the sun rising in the east, does that simple scientific fact become classified? No. The simple, obvious point is that much of the material in classified reports is not, in and of itself, classified. Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple.

Once we dispense with that fallacy, we are left with your speculation about how much Wilson was allowed to discuss his trip. You have not yet offered any valid evidence Wilson divulged any classified information. Perhaps he did, but your continued assertions as fact are unsupported by any evidence you're provided. That no one else is is making the same claim, especially the Bush administration given their other strident attacks on Wilson, reinforces the belief you're just crying wolf.
Foreign government information of the type Wilson collected on a clandestine mission is, once classified, considered classified until it's declassified, as defined by a governing Executive Order. I'm not going to tell you which one, because you need to do some homework since you obviously just don't know and I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Look it up. I already provided a link above.
First, you've again asserted speculation as fact: "clandestime" mission, "once classified". All we know as fact is that the CIA wrote a classified report which included information from Wilson's trip and may have included any amount of other, unpublicized information, analysis, etc. You've provided no evidence that any of Wilson's findings, let alone all of them, are classified in and of themselves. Second, "Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple."

Bottom line, this is your Bigfoot story. Until you produce real, factual evidence supporting it, I'm going to continue to assume it's as meaningless as me claiming George is Karl's love slave. Your conjecture and speculation is an inadequate substitute for fact, especially since you seem to be the only one who believes it.


Perhaps, though they were willing to open it for the White House leak. In any case, I'm asking a question, not making an assertion. Do you have any links or not?
I'm sure the CIA would be very eager and excited to open up an investigation on its own practices and procedures and why they allowed Wilson to leak classified information to the press.

If you want links, use google. I'm tired of providing links for somone who doens't respond in kind.
Again, it's your claim. You bear the burden of proof. If you have nothing to support your claims, withdraw them.


Let's put your quote back in, the part you conveniently deleted before attacking my comment below:
[Chicken:] As far as the NDA, can you show me where it permitted Wilson to speak of anything else besides his relationship with the CIA?
I think you addressed this quite well: "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic."
iow, you just don't know of what you speak.
Nice try. It is "highly dishonest" for you to ask me to produce evidence from a document no one has released, and no one but you even claims exists.

Can you show me where the bondage pledge George wrote to Karl permits George to speak of anything besides their relationship? No? Ah ha! That proves George is Karl's love slave ... using Chicken illogic. "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic." What's good for the goose is good for the Chicken.


According to the SSCI report, Wilson was not asked to sign an NDA. You've offered nothing factual to refute that.
Actually, I've addressed that. Your refusal to acknowledge the context of the statement and that it refers solely to his 'relationship with the CIA' is telling. It's there in black and white. That's my proof. So prove me wrong. You likely won't though. You'll probably just return with more unsubstantiated bluster.
Yawn. The Senate SCI report does not indicate Wilson signed any NDAs. It does explicitly state he did not sign one. It's there in black and white. That you try to infer a qualification that the document does not provide is telling; to insist that your inference is fact is absurd. Once again, here is the quote from the report:
  • "DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with the CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.
Flap and squawk all you want. It does not suggest what you want it to suggest. Do you have any factual evidence Wilson did, in fact, contrary to the plain words of the SSCI report, sign an NDA or not? If not, you're just speculating. Acknowledge your speculation and move on.
Well you seem to be implying that lack of an NDA permits someone to release classified, secret information after being provided a security clearance to garner that information.

Got any proof that's permissible?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... It's already been established that Plame herself pimped her husband to go on the trip, crafted a memo to recommend him, and attended the kickoff meeting. Yet Wilson insisted his wife was not involved. ...
:roll:

You'd have a lot more credibility if you stuck to a reasonably objective recitation of fact instead of continuing to parrot the distorted BushCo propaganda. It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes). Did she have a greater or more active role? Anything's possible, but it's empty speculation at this point.

I agree Wilson's statement his wife wasn't involved is technically inaccurate. In common conversation, however, his comment was consistent with someone trying to explain his wife played no material role in selecting Wilson for the Niger trip. This is consistent with what we know with certainty about Plame's involvement as described above. If it is ultimately shown Plame played a larger role, then Wilson's comment can be legitimately criticized as dishonest. For now, I think one can only objectively criticize it as imprecise.
She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."
That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.
On the contrary, there is significant doubt. As far as your "There's this crazy report" quote, it suggests nothing beyond what I originally said above: "Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request)."
She serves as more than a conduit. She campiagned for him. Stop trying to minimalize her involvement.
Interesting opinion. However, the known facts do not support your blatantly partisan spin.
Such as? Please provide these "facts" you speak of.
"It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes)." This is based on sworn testimony released to the public. Everything beyond that, including the personal attacks in the Republican SSCI report addendum, is speculation and spin.
How about some links to validate your version of the "facts"?
Report on the Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

"The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him 'there's this crazy report' on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq."

"On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA ans INR, and several individual's from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former anbassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contact to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes."

"CPD concluded that with no other options, sending the former ambassador to Niger was worth a try."

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Yawn. More misdirection and speculation. As you yourself mention, Wilson was not given a formal security clearance, he was given an "operational" one. No matter what you think you know from your one, anecdotal experience, you do not know what, if anything Wilson had to sign. That is a real fact. Re. "ridiculous", I find it ridiculous that you attack everyone in sight for ignoring reals facts and asserting their personal speculation as fact when you are consistently the worst offender.
An "operational" clearance is no different from a formal clearance. It's merely a temporary or provisional clearance provided for a specific operation when such a clearance is deemed necessary by the appropriate sanctioning authorities. It doesn't have any different provisions to it than any formal clearance. There are only 3 specific, basic levels of clearance and they are the same for everyone. Wilson doesn't get a pass to disseminate information from a classified document because his clearance was deemed "operational."

But if you know differently, since you obviously so well versed on security clearances and the CIA :roll: why don't you actually prove something for once instead of just being blustery?

I'll even give you a head start:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/
Huff and puff all you want. It doesn't change the FACT that you are merely "ASSuming" Wilson signed an NDA. As I said in the first place, even though an NDA may be a normal requirement for even an "operational" security clearance, there is simply no evidence Wilson actually signed one, for whatever reason. Maybe he did, maybe someone screwed up, or maybe you aren't as infallible as you think and there are realities outside your own limited personal experience. We do know the Senate SCI report says Wilson did NOT sign an NDA, and while it is possible that statement was meant to narrowly address a specific issue, the actual wording does not impose such qualifications. Those are the facts; your angry bluster is speculation, period.


Yes dear. That's why I started the sentence with "perhaps". Unlike some, I try to differentiate between speculation and fact.
Yes. Dear. That's why I said it's speculation. You whine about speculation constantly and yet indulge in it yourself.
The difference is you assert your speculation as fact, while I label mine with words like "perhaps".


More misdirection, not to mention denial of the blatantly obvious. Not everything in a classified document is, in and of itself, classified. To continue to suggest otherwise is patently dishonest. If a classified report mentions the name of a city, for example, does the name of the city become classified? Obviously not. If a classified report mentions the sun rising in the east, does that simple scientific fact become classified? No. The simple, obvious point is that much of the material in classified reports is not, in and of itself, classified. Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple.

Once we dispense with that fallacy, we are left with your speculation about how much Wilson was allowed to discuss his trip. You have not yet offered any valid evidence Wilson divulged any classified information. Perhaps he did, but your continued assertions as fact are unsupported by any evidence you're provided. That no one else is is making the same claim, especially the Bush administration given their other strident attacks on Wilson, reinforces the belief you're just crying wolf.
Foreign government information of the type Wilson collected on a clandestine mission is, once classified, considered classified until it's declassified, as defined by a governing Executive Order. I'm not going to tell you which one, because you need to do some homework since you obviously just don't know and I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Look it up. I already provided a link above.
First, you've again asserted speculation as fact: "clandestime" mission, "once classified". All we know as fact is that the CIA wrote a classified report which included information from Wilson's trip and may have included any amount of other, unpublicized information, analysis, etc. You've provided no evidence that any of Wilson's findings, let alone all of them, are classified in and of themselves. Second, "Your insistence that Wilson divulged classified information because some of the things he said were also in a classified report is a non sequitur, plain and simple."

Bottom line, this is your Bigfoot story. Until you produce real, factual evidence supporting it, I'm going to continue to assume it's as meaningless as me claiming George is Karl's love slave. Your conjecture and speculation is an inadequate substitute for fact, especially since you seem to be the only one who believes it.


Perhaps, though they were willing to open it for the White House leak. In any case, I'm asking a question, not making an assertion. Do you have any links or not?
I'm sure the CIA would be very eager and excited to open up an investigation on its own practices and procedures and why they allowed Wilson to leak classified information to the press.

If you want links, use google. I'm tired of providing links for somone who doens't respond in kind.
Again, it's your claim. You bear the burden of proof. If you have nothing to support your claims, withdraw them.


Let's put your quote back in, the part you conveniently deleted before attacking my comment below:
[Chicken:] As far as the NDA, can you show me where it permitted Wilson to speak of anything else besides his relationship with the CIA?
I think you addressed this quite well: "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic."
iow, you just don't know of what you speak.
Nice try. It is "highly dishonest" for you to ask me to produce evidence from a document no one has released, and no one but you even claims exists.

Can you show me where the bondage pledge George wrote to Karl permits George to speak of anything besides their relationship? No? Ah ha! That proves George is Karl's love slave ... using Chicken illogic. "Asking for the unattainable as proof, when you know damn well it's unattainable, is a highly dishonest tactic." What's good for the goose is good for the Chicken.


According to the SSCI report, Wilson was not asked to sign an NDA. You've offered nothing factual to refute that.
Actually, I've addressed that. Your refusal to acknowledge the context of the statement and that it refers solely to his 'relationship with the CIA' is telling. It's there in black and white. That's my proof. So prove me wrong. You likely won't though. You'll probably just return with more unsubstantiated bluster.
Yawn. The Senate SCI report does not indicate Wilson signed any NDAs. It does explicitly state he did not sign one. It's there in black and white. That you try to infer a qualification that the document does not provide is telling; to insist that your inference is fact is absurd. Once again, here is the quote from the report:
  • "DO officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with the CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement.
Flap and squawk all you want. It does not suggest what you want it to suggest. Do you have any factual evidence Wilson did, in fact, contrary to the plain words of the SSCI report, sign an NDA or not? If not, you're just speculating. Acknowledge your speculation and move on.
Well you seem to be implying that lack of an NDA permits someone to release classified, secret information after being provided a security clearance to garner that information.

Got any proof that's permissible?
More misdirection and speculation asserted as fact. You have yet to show that the facts Wilson revealed about his trip were classified. As I've already shown multiple times, the mere fact that a specific fact appears in a classified report does not mean the fact is considered classified. Your continuing cries that Wilson divulged classified information remain a Bigfoot story ... only there's actually some evidence (albeit faked) for Bigfoot. You have nothing except your unsupported claims.

Get back to us when you have something new, something factual.
 

Proletariat

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2004
5,614
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Damn I'm really pissed now I don't even care.

Do you ever shutup you annoying twat?
Awww. One of the pontificators of freedom of speech, expression, opposing viewpoints, and dissidence speaks up yet again.

You're such a damn liar. At least admit you're a Republican. Instead you pull this WHINEY ANNOYING OH-I'M-A-CONVERTED-LIBERAL SH!T. Thats just what it is dude. SH!T. The amount of bile you spread against the left is a clear reminder that you are just as right wing as any of the other extremist Talibanis here.
Can't stand have one of your own - and one who you can't slime as some right-wing religious nutjob and take your collective hatchets to, like you successfully did against Riprorin and various other right-wingers whose opinions you just can't tolerate in this forum - demonstrate the lunacy of the looper left, eh?

Well thanks for your complete and utter demonstration of peace, love, and understanding, dude. It's what the left is all about, ain't it? It was really sweet of you. :lips:
Oh please. Give me a break. I never attacked Riprorin, CAD or Crimson. In fact I supported their reinstatement.

All I'm telling you is be a man. Be real. Stop lying.

You don't even know who you are.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
... It's already been established that Plame herself pimped her husband to go on the trip, crafted a memo to recommend him, and attended the kickoff meeting. Yet Wilson insisted his wife was not involved. ...
:roll:

You'd have a lot more credibility if you stuck to a reasonably objective recitation of fact instead of continuing to parrot the distorted BushCo propaganda. It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes). Did she have a greater or more active role? Anything's possible, but it's empty speculation at this point.

I agree Wilson's statement his wife wasn't involved is technically inaccurate. In common conversation, however, his comment was consistent with someone trying to explain his wife played no material role in selecting Wilson for the Niger trip. This is consistent with what we know with certainty about Plame's involvement as described above. If it is ultimately shown Plame played a larger role, then Wilson's comment can be legitimately criticized as dishonest. For now, I think one can only objectively criticize it as imprecise.
She also asked Wilson directly to go on the trip. "There's this crazy report..."
That implies pretty direct involvement and there's little doubt that she was the impetus for his selection.
On the contrary, there is significant doubt. As far as your "There's this crazy report" quote, it suggests nothing beyond what I originally said above: "Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request)."
She serves as more than a conduit. She campiagned for him. Stop trying to minimalize her involvement.
Interesting opinion. However, the known facts do not support your blatantly partisan spin.
Such as? Please provide these "facts" you speak of.
"It has been established that Plame served as the conduit to her husband (reportedly at the CIA's request), penned a short note about his qualifications (reportedly at her director's request), and introduced him at a CIA meeting (that she reportedly left after the first two or three minutes)." This is based on sworn testimony released to the public. Everything beyond that, including the personal attacks in the Republican SSCI report addendum, is speculation and spin.
How about some links to validate your version of the "facts"?
Report on the Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

"The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him 'there's this crazy report' on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq."

"On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA ans INR, and several individual's from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former anbassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contact to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes."

"CPD concluded that with no other options, sending the former ambassador to Niger was worth a try."
Seems you forgot to include a section:

"Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, 'my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.' This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region ...
It sure sounds like she was deliberately campaigning for her husband to go on that trip.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Damn I'm really pissed now I don't even care.

Do you ever shutup you annoying twat?
Awww. One of the pontificators of freedom of speech, expression, opposing viewpoints, and dissidence speaks up yet again.

You're such a damn liar. At least admit you're a Republican. Instead you pull this WHINEY ANNOYING OH-I'M-A-CONVERTED-LIBERAL SH!T. Thats just what it is dude. SH!T. The amount of bile you spread against the left is a clear reminder that you are just as right wing as any of the other extremist Talibanis here.
Can't stand have one of your own - and one who you can't slime as some right-wing religious nutjob and take your collective hatchets to, like you successfully did against Riprorin and various other right-wingers whose opinions you just can't tolerate in this forum - demonstrate the lunacy of the looper left, eh?

Well thanks for your complete and utter demonstration of peace, love, and understanding, dude. It's what the left is all about, ain't it? It was really sweet of you. :lips:
Oh please. Give me a break. I never attacked Riprorin, CAD or Crimson. In fact I supported their reinstatement.

All I'm telling you is be a man. Be real. Stop lying.

You don't even know who you are.
So what would qualify me as a Republican?

Would it be the fact that I'm pro-Choice? Or maybe it would be my support for gay marriage? Or possibly my agnostic religious beliefs? Could it be my pro-legalization of pot stance?

I know exactly who I am. You don't.

 

Proletariat

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2004
5,614
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Damn I'm really pissed now I don't even care.

Do you ever shutup you annoying twat?
Awww. One of the pontificators of freedom of speech, expression, opposing viewpoints, and dissidence speaks up yet again.

You're such a damn liar. At least admit you're a Republican. Instead you pull this WHINEY ANNOYING OH-I'M-A-CONVERTED-LIBERAL SH!T. Thats just what it is dude. SH!T. The amount of bile you spread against the left is a clear reminder that you are just as right wing as any of the other extremist Talibanis here.
Can't stand have one of your own - and one who you can't slime as some right-wing religious nutjob and take your collective hatchets to, like you successfully did against Riprorin and various other right-wingers whose opinions you just can't tolerate in this forum - demonstrate the lunacy of the looper left, eh?

Well thanks for your complete and utter demonstration of peace, love, and understanding, dude. It's what the left is all about, ain't it? It was really sweet of you. :lips:
Oh please. Give me a break. I never attacked Riprorin, CAD or Crimson. In fact I supported their reinstatement.

All I'm telling you is be a man. Be real. Stop lying.

You don't even know who you are.
So what would qualify me as a Republican?

Would it be the fact that I'm pro-Choice? Or maybe it would be my support for gay marriage? Or possibly my agnostic religious beliefs? Could it be my pro-legalization of pot stance?

I know exactly who I am. You don't.
You're a neo-con which is a Republican in my book. You're supporting Rove when hes obviously done something very suspicious. Just be glad the Supreme Court nomination and the violence that is playing out across the world has taken the focus off of your buddy.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Report on the Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq

"The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him 'there's this crazy report' on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq."

"On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA ans INR, and several individual's from the DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former anbassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contact to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes."

"CPD concluded that with no other options, sending the former ambassador to Niger was worth a try."
Seems you forgot to include a section:

"Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, 'my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.' This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region ...
It sure sounds like she was deliberately campaigning for her husband to go on that trip.
I'm sure it does ... to you. You have a partisan need to believe she "campaigned" for him, in a deluded hope it somehow justifies your boys in the White House exposing her. It doesn't, no matter what she did or did not do.

As I read it, Plame was aware of a need the CIA had for more information from Niger, she was aware of her husband's excellent qualifications to address that need, and as a loyal American and dedicated professional, she came forward with her idea. From that point forward, it is obvious from the information in the SSCI report that she played a minor role in the subsequent discussions and decisions about the merits of her idea.

More to the point, no matter how much you may try to smear the Wilson's, it doesn't change the fact that BushCo recklessly exposed a CIA operative, was wrong about Iraq's WMDs, willfully deceived America on the extent of and certainty about Iraq's WMD capabilities, and used those lies to sell his invasion of a country that posed no significant threat to the United States. In the process, they squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and created the circumstances resulting in the deaths of about 1,800 Americans and tens of thousands of innocent human beings whose only "crime" was having the misfortune to live in Iraq.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |