Has Novak The Rat Been Arrested ?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

The reason no one has been charged is because that would force Fitz’s hand and the stuff Fitz can keep private while he continues to investigate would have to be revealed in a court of law.

Fitz is trying to make the rats turn on each other.

It is working…

Stay tuned.[/quote]

We’ll see. Nothing like rumors and innuendos to stoke the hopes of those who were so disappointed last “Fitzmas.”

And the rumors are definitely amusing:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODExMzllMjViM2M3NmI1NmJhYmJhY2FkM2QxMjE5NTE=

22

[quote]doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Let’s cut through all the legal crap.

This is how I see it.

Cut through all the “legal crap”? Like whether a crime was actually committed? Let’s just punish people who Wreckless doesn’t like, laws be damned?

A guy is sent to Africa to find proof. When he gets there, he doesn’t find anything. He comes back, and reports about it.

A guy is recommended by his CIA employee wife to investigate what she refers to as a “crazy report” that Saddam is trying to buy yellowcake. That’s in Wilson’s own book. He says Plame called him and asked if he’d go check out this “crazy report.” Of course this “crazy report” had been confirmed by several European intelligence agencies, including those of Great Britain, Israel and France.

In his NY times article he says:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake–a form of lightly processed ore–by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.

The “officials” were his wife.

She had no objectivity. Neither did he. She knew he opposed to regime change on Saddam, had opposed it in '91, and was very unlikely to be unbiased at all.

He goes to Africa trying to prove a report about which he wrote, “As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it.”
He asks some people if Saddam is trying to buy yellowcake and they say, “No way. Not here. Not from us. We wouldn’t sell yellowcake to an enemy of the U.S.” He came back and gave a report.

A few years later, Plame signs a $2.5 million book deal.

He’s surprised when his reports are apparantly ignored and is not silent about it.

Not “reports”. Briefing. Singular. Not even written, actually. Just an oral briefing. From his home. He didn’t even have to go to CIA headquarters or anything.

He’s surprised that Bush doesn’t give much weight to an oral report from a guy who had opposed the 1st Gulf War. An oral briefing on the validity of a report Wilson admits he never actually read. An oral report that just says, “I couldn’t prove the report (which I haven’t read) is true.”

Do you really think he was surprised it wasn’t given much weight?

Some one up there decideds to punish him and leaks the fact that his wife works for the CIA to some “friendly” reporters.
Novak, the usefull idiot and spineless ratt that he is, blows her cover and gets a free pass in return. The others don’t and go to jail for “contempt of court”.

Someone calls Novack and says, “Wilson was chosen by his wife.” Novack contacted the CIA, who confirmed Ms. Plame’s status as a CIA employee, and requested that the information not be published. Requested. Not ordered. Not warned. Requested.

In the ensuing investigation, it is found that neither of the statutes that Mr. Fitzgerald was supposed to have been investigating, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the 1982 Intelligence Identities Act, have been violated. The more relevant of the two statues, the 1982 Act, requires that the government be taking “affirmative measures”? to conceal the identity of the agent in question, and it appears that the CIA was not doing so in the case of Ms. Plame (not to mention the fact that it has been suggested that her identity was sold by Aldrich Ames as early as 1994). The 1917 Act relates to the disclosure of classified information, though it has rarely been enforced. Indeed, whoever leaked the fact that the CIA had referred the case of Ms. Plame’s “outing” to the Justice Department for investigation, a routine action taken by the CIA several times a year, violated this very law.

WTF. This court DESERVES contempt. This whole system DESERVES contempt.

Your lack of understanding of the facts DESERVES contempt, ridicule, and scorn.

And about " The special prosecutor was appointed for political reasons."

Gee, that would be a first. Wouldn’t it?

Republicans smell.

Strong, strong arguement there at the end.
[/quote]

Legal crap.
You know it’s legal crap.
We all know it’s legal crap.

But if you don’t want to get into that.
Was he right?
The question is: “was he right?”
About the that yellow stuff, you know, the yellowcake.

When the retards get their shorts in a knot, that usually doesn’t mean much. But I’m not letting you off the hook with all your legal crap.

Was he right about the yellowcake. If he wasn’t, where is it?

Don’t try to diffuse this with your opinion on his or her “objectivity”.

You claim I don’t understand the facts.

Explain to me one single fact. Was he right or wrong about Iraq not buying the yellowcake?

A simple answer will suffice.

23

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
…
Bush tells his people to get the story out but rather than fling mud at Wilson they try to leak the story to the media and let them do it.

Bush’s admin miscalculates and does not realize that the story the media presents is the “outing” of Plame and not the whole story.

The admin then tries to cover up because they don’t want to give a partisan media the ability to tie them to a CIA “leak” during an election year.

Politics suck. The media sucks. Special prosecutors suck because even if there is no original crime they will never stop until the get some sort of indictment, even if it is only perjury.

[/quote]

Zap,

You’re supposed to defend the Bush croonies no matter what.
You’re not supposed to reveal that mud slinging is one of their favorite tactics. You’re not supposed to admit that the story was deliberately leaked to the media.
And you’re not supposed to admit that they tried to cover it up.

Crying about a partisan media doesn’t recover from these 3 mistakes.

You’re loosing it Zap

24

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

Explain to me one single fact. Was he right or wrong about Iraq not buying the yellowcake?
[/quote]

His report was correct, yes.
His newspaper article was not.

I know you aren’t open minded enough to read these, but here’s the truth:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

[quote]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."

He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”

“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents – purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq – were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson’s reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq – which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. "
[/quote]
Is that just more “legal crap”?

25

Did you not like that answer, Wreckless?

26

AG Gonzales wants to prosecute Novak.

27

[quote]doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

Explain to me one single fact. Was he right or wrong about Iraq not buying the yellowcake?

His report was correct, yes.
His newspaper article was not.

I know you aren’t open minded enough to read these, but here’s the truth:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

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."

He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”

“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have “misspoken” to reporters. The documents – purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq – were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson’s reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq – which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. "

Is that just more “legal crap”?

[/quote]

So what you’re saying is that it’s ok to expose his wife as a CIA agent, because you don’t agree with his report.

That IS what you’re saying, isn’t it?

If they had questions about his report, why not get those sorted out?

28

The fact that Valerie Plame and/or Brewster Jennings & Associates (one in the same) were tracking the proliferation of nuclear material and weapon production capacity is a very inconvenient coincidence for us…don’t you think?

Wilson is an attention whore but he ultimately proved correct.

…and the right wingnuttery says ‘So what?’

Go figure…

29

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

So what you’re saying is that it’s ok to expose his wife as a CIA agent, because you don’t agree with his report.

That IS what you’re saying, isn’t it?

If they had questions about his report, why not get those sorted out?[/quote]

You’ve got to learn a different arguing style – this whole “repeat and ignore” thing you’ve got going on isn’t working.

Your position can be summed up quite neatly thusly: “I don’t care what the law says – that’s just legal crap – I just want to punish those with whom I disagree. Facts are annoying too, and bothersome in that they distract from my opinion, so everyone should just agree with my conjectures.”

  1. No one has even been charged with revealing Plame’s identity - for one or both of these reasons: 1) She may not have been undercover (if she were, the CIA didn’t exactly work overtime to protect her identity in green-lighting Wilson’s op-ed in the NYT); 2) If she was, whoever disclosed her identity may not have done so knowingly.

  2. Given no one has been charged with revealing Plame’s identity, and that we don’t know the sources (it looks as if they’re multiple), how do you figure you’ve discovered the motive? Filled in those pesky gaps in the story all by yourself?

BTW, given that there were likely sources within both the administration and the state department, there may have been various motives for discussion as well: the state dept., to make fun of the CIA as incompetent; from the VP’s office, to discredit Wilson’s claim that Cheney had sent him to Niger, which was in fact false. In neither case would it seem to be some sort of plan to get even with Wilson, which is the favorite unsubstantiated and overhyped charge tossed about.

30

Outed by Novak:

31

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

So what you’re saying is that it’s ok to expose his wife as a CIA agent, because you don’t agree with his report.

That IS what you’re saying, isn’t it?

If they had questions about his report, why not get those sorted out?

You’ve got to learn a different arguing style – this whole “repeat and ignore” thing you’ve got going on isn’t working.

Your position can be summed up quite neatly thusly: “I don’t care what the law says – that’s just legal crap – I just want to punish those with whom I disagree. Facts are annoying too, and bothersome in that they distract from my opinion, so everyone should just agree with my conjectures.”

  1. No one has even been charged with revealing Plame’s identity - for one or both of these reasons: 1) She may not have been undercover (if she were, the CIA didn’t exactly work overtime to protect her identity in green-lighting Wilson’s op-ed in the NYT); 2) If she was, whoever disclosed her identity may not have done so knowingly.

  2. Given no one has been charged with revealing Plame’s identity, and that we don’t know the sources (it looks as if they’re multiple), how do you figure you’ve discovered the motive? Filled in those pesky gaps in the story all by yourself?

BTW, given that there were likely sources within both the administration and the state department, there may have been various motives for discussion as well: the state dept., to make fun of the CIA as incompetent; from the VP’s office, to discredit Wilson’s claim that Cheney had sent him to Niger, which was in fact false. In neither case would it seem to be some sort of plan to get even with Wilson, which is the favorite unsubstantiated and overhyped charge tossed about.[/quote]

ROTHFLMFAO!!!

You are on the wrong side of history as usual.

32

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:

ROTHFLMFAO!!!

You are on the wrong side of history as usual.[/quote]

I don’t really know that your hopeful predictions and popcorn popping count as “history.”

33

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Outed by Novak:

[/quote]

BTW, the fact that Novak “outed” Brewster-Jennings would buttress the point that establishing a “knowing” disclosure would be incredibly difficult. Particularly with regard to anyone who told Novak Plame’s name.

And then, if one credits Novak’s testimony on his calls to the CIA prior to publication of his stories, it highly undercuts any notion of the CIA taking active measures to protect her identity at that time.

34

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

So what you’re saying is that it’s ok to expose his wife as a CIA agent, because you don’t agree with his report.

That IS what you’re saying, isn’t it?

If they had questions about his report, why not get those sorted out?

You’ve got to learn a different arguing style – this whole “repeat and ignore” thing you’ve got going on isn’t working.

Your position can be summed up quite neatly thusly: “I don’t care what the law says – that’s just legal crap – I just want to punish those with whom I disagree. Facts are annoying too, and bothersome in that they distract from my opinion, so everyone should just agree with my conjectures.”[/quote]

You want to talk facts. Fine, let’s talk facts. Where is the uranium Saddam bought? What? That’s not the fact you want to discuss. Well, who’s ignoring facts now?

No one has been charged doesn’t mean there wasn’t a crime. Crimes happen all the time without someone getting charged.
And if the CIA went through the trouble to set up a shadow company, that means she was under-cover. Why else would they bother setting up this company. Who’s ignoring facts here?

“May not have done so knowingly”
That’s an interesting point. Bill was right. He never had sex with that woman. At least not knowingly. He didn’t think it was sex.

[quote]
2) Given no one has been charged with revealing Plame’s identity, and that we don’t know the sources (it looks as if they’re multiple), how do you figure you’ve discovered the motive? Filled in those pesky gaps in the story all by yourself?[/quote]

Hey, Novak got the story out. There’s no denying that (unless you want to ignore facts of course). Why not shine a strong light in his eyes and he’ll start singing like a canary.

[quote]
BTW, given that there were likely sources within both the administration and the state department, there may have been various motives for discussion as well: the state dept., to make fun of the CIA as incompetent; from the VP’s office, to discredit Wilson’s claim that Cheney had sent him to Niger, which was in fact false. In neither case would it seem to be some sort of plan to get even with Wilson, which is the favorite unsubstantiated and overhyped charge tossed about. [/quote]

That’s all fine and dandy. Because the whole bureaucracy is filled with incompetent rats, we should give them all a free pass? Is that what you’re saying?

35

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Outed by Novak:

BTW, the fact that Novak “outed” Brewster-Jennings would buttress the point that establishing a “knowing” disclosure would be incredibly difficult. Particularly with regard to anyone who told Novak Plame’s name.

And then, if one credits Novak’s testimony on his calls to the CIA prior to publication of his stories, it highly undercuts any notion of the CIA taking active measures to protect her identity at that time.[/quote]

Naah, they just like to set-up front companies to have them exposed.

BTW, was she the only agent linked to that company? Or were others exposed also?

36

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

You want to talk facts. Fine, let’s talk facts. Where is the uranium Saddam bought? What? That’s not the fact you want to discuss. Well, who’s ignoring facts now?

[/quote]

Wilson’s report said Saddam was TRYING to buy yellowcake, not that he bought it. Why do you have such poor comprehension?

37

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

You want to talk facts. Fine, let’s talk facts. Where is the uranium Saddam bought? What? That’s not the fact you want to discuss. Well, who’s ignoring facts now?[/quote]

First, this is irrelevant to the inquiry concerning any violation of any laws relating to the publicizing of Valerie Plame’s identiy.

Second, the contention wasn’t that Saddam bought uranium, but that the British had given us information that Saddam had attempted to buy uranium.

So in either case, I’m confused as to which “facts” you are implying are going ignored?

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

No one has been charged doesn’t mean there wasn’t a crime. Crimes happen all the time without someone getting charged.[/quote]

Yes, but people aren’t punished for crimes that aren’t proved, at least not over here in the U.S. Perhaps you have a different system over in Belgium…

Seeing as your question revolved around why Novak – or anyone else for that matter – hadn’t been punished for the “leak,” that would seem central to the question.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
And if the CIA went through the trouble to set up a shadow company, that means she was under-cover. Why else would they bother setting up this company. Who’s ignoring facts here? [/quote]

They had to have been taking active measures to conceal her particular identity, and during the previous 5 years. Setting up a false front corporation wasn’t specific to Ms. Plame. And, if one is to believe Novak, the CIA didn’t object strongly to his publication of her name when he called them, nor inform him she was an undercover operative.

That’s aside from their greenlighting of Joe Wilson’s op-ed in the NYT - not an especially good move if they wanted to keep his spouse out of the limelight…

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
“May not have done so knowingly”
That’s an interesting point. Bill was right. He never had sex with that woman. At least not knowingly. He didn’t think it was sex.[/quote]

“Knowingly” implies full knowledge of her status as undercover, assuming arguendo that she was, in fact, undercover.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Hey, Novak got the story out. There’s no denying that (unless you want to ignore facts of course). Why not shine a strong light in his eyes and he’ll start singing like a canary. [/quote]

It’s a safe bet Fitzgerald already knows Novak’s sources. Also, there appear to have been multiple sources, from different departments, who spoke to multiple journalists. But feel free to try to make it simple to fit your simple explanation – just don’t expect anyone else to buy into it.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:

That’s all fine and dandy. Because the whole bureaucracy is filled with incompetent rats, we should give them all a free pass? Is that what you’re saying?[/quote]

No – I’m saying you’ll need to prove your contentions, and actually parse out the differences among different actors. Those laws sure are pesky.

38

I should give you the benefit of the doubt, as English isn’t your first language.

Let me lay forth the implication: The point was that it would be difficult to prove a “knowing” mindset for anyone who gave Plame’s name to Novak if Novak looked up Brewster-Jennings by himself, and publicized it by himself - while claiming, incorrectly, that it proved Plame wasn’t undercover.

The point as to Novak’s story regarding his call to the CIA is that they didn’t tell him not to publish her name, and only said they would prefer he not because it would make it more difficult for her to travel abroad.

39

[quote]doogie wrote:
Wreckless wrote:

You want to talk facts. Fine, let’s talk facts. Where is the uranium Saddam bought? What? That’s not the fact you want to discuss. Well, who’s ignoring facts now?

Wilson’s report said Saddam was TRYING to buy yellowcake, not that he bought it. Why do you have such poor comprehension?

[/quote]

Because he is a troll. No one is that dumb.

40

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
…
Yes, but people aren’t punished for crimes that aren’t proved, at least not over here in the U.S. Perhaps you have a different system over in Belgium…
[/quote]

It seems you have a different system over there in Cuba.