[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, if you have something to say that is on topic, please do… the world is waiting…[/quote]
Do you read, vroom? Do you read the posts in a thread? If so, why are you asking me to do this?
Read, son. Read. It won’t kill you , and if done properly will prevent you from looking like the total dumbass that you are presenting yourself as.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Rainjack, if you have something to say that is on topic, please do… the world is waiting…
It’s gonna be a long wait. rainman much like the original rainman is slow, but unfortunately he possesses no special skills, unlike the original rainman did. [/quote]
Bullshit - I can run real fast. That’s a skill.
Have you two now compared notes and decised on a common strategy? I have posted numerous times - on point, and on topic. It is not my fault that you can’t read. As much as you want to blame me for it - reading and comprehending is something you have to do on your own.
I will guarantee you that if you two bozos would at least make an attempt and posting about the topic, this thread would be much more informative.
An interesting theory regarding the ultimate source for Novak:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_17_corner-archive.asp#070345
STATE DEPARTMENT MEMO [Rich Lowry ]
Reading the Washington Post Plame story today focusing on this State Department memo, doesn’t it seem as obvious as ever that someone at State was Novak’s first source? He has described the source as a “senior administration official” who was “no partisan gunslinger.” That doesn’t sound like Ari Fleischer or Dan Bartlett. It sounds awfully like Powell or someone close to him. Powell got the memo seven days before Novak went into print with Plame’s name. For what it’s worth, Luskin says Rove hadn’t seen or heard about the memo until investigators mentioned it to him.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
i.e. It is the MSM’s fault.
Yeah, Rove opened his turd blossom pie hole because the MSM had a gun to his head.
ROTFLMFAO!
He admits to talking to the reporter about the CIA agent. He signed a blanket waiver of confidentiality for all conversations pertaining to this issue.
There were 36 journalists that filed a Friend of the Court brief that excused all the reporters - and Rove from any breach of security. Now the MSM is gunning for Rove for the exact same ‘offense’ that they filed a brief protesting.
How is that a Chewie defense? When the facts are brought to light - as they have been in most places except the MSM - Rove will be found to have done nothing wrong.
I think you fall into the class of folks that wish so badly for him to have done something that truth means nothing. He HAD to have done something wrong.
All you have to do is prove it. But you can’t. That must frustrate the hell out of you. You just know that that mean old Rove is guilty of something, yet he slips through your fingers because you can’t even come up with a valid charge against him.
I’m sure you and the rest of the ABB crowd will work very diligently - ignoring facts and truth until you can invent something that can stick.
Before pinning the Bush supporters with the Chewie Defense label - maybe the ABB side should come up with a crime., eh?
[/quote]
Yeah, none of my points are valid because I hate Bush and belong to the ABB club.
I never claimed Rove outed Plame.
I am positive he has committed perjury and/or obstructed in this case.
The fact is several federal judges believe that a crime was committed as Plames identity was marked secret in the state department memo Powell had on the flight to Africa.
There will be indictments. Whether they stick or not is irrelevant.
Ignorance kills.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
100meters wrote:
You said:
that had some designation that didn’t indicate info was government classified information.
They said: (From the WP today)
A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked “(S)” for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
Plame – who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo – is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.
The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the “secret” level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as “secret” the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.
Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret
again…leaking classified info is bad. This was classified info. Rove DID confirm said info. Libby too. Perhaps others.
on a side note:
What’s also funny is the differences in state dept. and whitehouse “perceptions”…
“Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson’s wife.”
and
"It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson’s trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking “uranium from Niger.”
Wow. Slandering a guy for finding the same thing intel had already found. Nothing. But Bushies weren’t manipulating the intel right Ken Mehlman?
Thank you for providing the link to the story 100meters.
It allowed me to go back and pull a few paragraphs that apparently didn’t make it through your snip-fest:
[i]Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame’s name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.
Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame’s identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.
The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame’s CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?
Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson’s wife.[/i]
And there’s this – if Rove is lying here, he’s lying under oath, which apparently didn’t trouble people about Clinton but would certainly trouble me:
Karl Rove, President Bush’s deputy chief of staff, has testified that he learned Plame’s name from Novak a few days before telling another reporter she worked at the CIA and played a role in her husband’s mission, according to a lawyer familiar with Rove’s account. Rove has also testified that the first time he saw the State Department memo was when “people in the special prosecutor’s office” showed it to him, said Robert Luskin, his attorney.
And here are a few more sentences the writers for the WaPo felt should be delegated to the end of the story:
[i]The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that the memo made it clear that information about Wilson’s wife was sensitive and should not be shared. Yesterday, sources provided greater detail on the memo to The Post.
The material in the memo about Wilson’s wife was based on notes taken by an INR analyst who attended a Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA where Wilson’s intelligence-gathering trip to Niger was discussed.
The memo was drafted June 10, 2003, for Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who asked to be brought up to date on INR’s opposition to the White House view that Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
The description of Wilson’s wife and her role in the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was considered “a footnote” in a background paragraph in the memo, according to an official who was aware of the process.
It records that the INR analyst at the meeting opposed Wilson’s trip to Niger because the State Department, through other inquiries, already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Attached to the INR memo were the notes taken by the senior INR analyst who attended the 2002 meeting at the CIA.
On July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson went public on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and in The Post and the New York Times discussing his trip to Niger, the INR director at the time, Carl W. Ford Jr., was asked to explain Wilson’s statements for Powell, according to sources familiar with the events. He went back and reprinted the June 10 memo but changed the addressee from Grossman to Powell.
Ford last year appeared before the federal grand jury investigating the leak and described the details surrounding the INR memo, the sources said. Yesterday he was on vacation in Arkansas, according to his office.[/i]
So, please allow me to repeat my conclusion from above:
Hardly damning proof. Not any proof, actually – but definitely something a good investigator would investigate more thoroughly. A memo that no one knows if Rove read, that had some designation that didn’t indicate info was government classified information. If there is any sort of knowledge standard, this certain won’t satisfy it.
– with the following clarification and additions –
Rove has apparently testified he hadn’t seen the memo, so any designation on the memo is irrelevant in his case. The designation on the memo was unclear, but perhaps the shorthand was known within the circles of those who were the intended audience, and it also wasn’t specific about the information to which it applied.
In other words, no proven illegality. I’m not arguing the investigation should be dropped, but I am definitely arguing that what is thus far in the public knowledge is not a strong case, and you, the MSM and the other scalp-hunters after Rove are doing a whole lot of gun-jumping.
[/quote]
He (Rove) did leak(and/or confirmed) classified info. Fitzgerald will have to prove I guess whether he knew it was classified.
Anyway B.B. could you explain in a non-partisan way why and who inside the investigation would/could be leaking such info to the major media over and over again? How would it help the prosecuter/Fitzgerald? Reporters seem to be getting a steady trickle of info no?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Yeah, none of my points are valid because I hate Bush and belong to the ABB club.[/quote]
No - they are only opinions that you and the ABB crowd are working overtime to pass off as fact.
[quote]I am positive he has committed perjury and/or obstructed in this case.
The fact is several federal judges believe that a crime was committed as Plames identity was marked secret in the state department memo Powell had on the flight to Africa.[/quote]
Funny thing - the judge can’t pass down an indictment. It has to be from the Grand Jury. So regardless of the opinions of a couple of judges, proof of a crime has to be presented such that the GJ can indict.
If BB holds any water with you - there is some thought that Powell might be the guilty dog.
[quote]There will be indictments. Whether they stick or not is irrelevant.
Ignorance kills. [/quote]
Irrelevant to who? The ABB crowd? The ones that were indicted?
I’d like to know your definition of ignorance. Seems like you are really fond of tossing out irrelevant titles when void of an honest answer. But I could be wrong.
Does anybody really think it was Powell? I mean seriously?
He’s a military man and really wasn’t the type to go after Wilson.
Just because some right wing nut puts it in a blog and then Boston cuts and pastes it here, doesn’t make it any more a reputable opinion than yours or mine.
Is it possible, sure. Just like it is possible that Rove did it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Does anybody really think it was Powell? I mean seriously?
He’s a military man and really wasn’t the type to go after Wilson.
Just because some right wing nut puts it in a blog and then Boston cuts and pastes it here, doesn’t make it any more a reputable opinion than your or mine.
Is it possible, sure. Just like it is possible that Rove did it.[/quote]
I didn’t realize you had some personal insight into Powell’s character. Who knew–huh.
I like how you so easily and autoomatically disregard any info that doesn’t fit into your master plan.
by the way, I don’t believe it was Powell either. I just wanted to bring to your attention how easily you dismiss any info that doesn’t conform to your ‘opinion’
You cut and pasted alot of ‘left-wing nut jobs’ articles and quotes to try and give credence to the famous Downing Street memo, and look what came of that.
ok Elk–your turn!
[quote]vroom wrote:
Does anybody really think it was Powell? I mean seriously?
He’s a military man and really wasn’t the type to go after Wilson.
Just because some right wing nut puts it in a blog and then Boston cuts and pastes it here, doesn’t make it any more a reputable opinion than your or mine.
Is it possible, sure. Just like it is possible that Rove did it.[/quote]
SO you have intimate knowledge of the inner-workings of Powell’s thought processes? Wow. You are truly an amazing individual, vroom. I’m going to go sit under a tree and think about just how smart you are.
Please, tell me you aren’t going to drop to this level of debate. Do you think anyone here has any more insight into the character of anyone in government? We all simply watch and read the news. Are you a personal friend of Powell perhaps? Where does your own great insight come from?
I guess I was mistaken to think that a person who was honorably in the military might actually respect the concept of secrecy. I guess I was mistaken to think that since even the administration said he was an honorable man that he could probably be trusted with this information and not simply be an attack dog for the administration.
Maybe, if he was an attack dog for the administration they wouldn’t have displaced him as they did. Wake up. I mean really, it is so important that you attack my viewpoint that you have to go to such silly extremes.
[quote]I like how you so easily and autoomatically disregard any info that doesn’t fit into your master plan.
by the way, I don’t believe it was Powell either. I just wanted to bring to your attention how easily you dismiss any info that doesn’t conform to your ‘opinion’[/quote]
Okay, you agree with me, but you still feel it necessary to criticize me for having the opinion I do. Please, try to make at least a little sense.
I didn’t disregard it, I simply pointed out that while it might be true, because I am willing to admit I certainly don’t know, I believe otherwise. Do you mind if I voice my opinion on the matter being discussed?
You have insight into how easily I “dismissed” something? Do you know how long or how closely I have followed Powell and his career, before and during the Bush administration? I think you might be making assumptions again.
[quote]
You cut and pasted alot of ‘left-wing nut jobs’ articles and quotes to try and give credence to the famous Downing Street memo, and look what came of that.[/quote]
Did I? Perhaps you recall when I posted it I said I simply did a search and pulled some stuff that came up in an effort to get back onto topic?
Oh, how short your memory is.
You talk of my bias, but yours is showing through loud and clear, as usual. I guess if that is what you live for, finding opportunities to attack me for no real reason, then fire away.
However, I’m afraid it only makes you look foolish…
Rainjack, if you would like to say it is Powell, what in your great insight into the man would make you think he is the type to do such a thing.
Is there any part of his history of service for the US, or for the Bush administration, that would make it likely that he would be the one to go out and do this?
Perhaps you, with all the great insight and wisdom you think you have, can explain to me how this previously well respected and widely followed (in the media) military man who had a rough time in the Bush administration suddenly decides to take large risks on behalf of the administration, violating his military background and his understanding of the need for secrecy that at his level he must surely understand very well?
You have the same problem Sasquatch does. You are so anxious to find something to disagree with me over that you are ending up looking foolish in the process.
Nice try vroom
I bet in your own mind you convinced people that you didn’t do exactly what I posted. You try hard to spin everything away from you, but alas, it is you who look foolish.
In case you didn’t notice, others saw it as well.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, if you would like to say it is Powell, what in your great insight into the man would make you think he is the type to do such a thing.
[/quote]
Do you even know how to read, vroom? Can you - just once - display even an iota reading comprehension skills? I said there are some who think it might be Powell. Did you ever read where I said I agreed?
Yet you are so quick to tell me how wrong I am for suspecting him. I’ve said it already about a million times - when you don’t read, and understand, you prove your ignorance.
Now go practice reading AND understanding what all those words strung together mean.
Sasquatch, it might be hard for you to believe, but compared to many in the Bush administration Powell is seen as a moderate and a man of character. Also, as you may recall, he has a military background.
Now, I’m not saying he didn’t do it, but I think I have very good reasons for thinking he didn’t do it.
Are you suggesting there is something else concerning Powell that I need to consider? What on earth is it that you think I have “dismissed” other than your silly prattle?
Should I have taken longer to decide my opinion on the Powell theory? Should I have changed my mind, though you didn’t, and suddenly believed it was Powell for some reason that hasn’t been explained to me yet?
Seriously man, I think you are losing your mind. What exactly would you have me do in this case. Aren’t you the same person that accused me of never taking a stand or stating an opinion before? I’ve stated one… now you fault me for doing so – even though you agree.
Keep it up, this is actually quite humorous!
Rainjack,
What on earth are you prattling about? Did I suggest that you said it was Powell? No. I asked you to back up your statement concerning the fact that I had no insight into the man.
Surely, if you are going to complain that I have no insight, it is because you have more insight?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack, if you would like to say it is Powell, what in your great insight into the man would make you think he is the type to do such a thing.
[/quote]
Geez vroom - you can’t even comprehend what you write. This is what you said. This is what I responded to. I never said that it was Powell. I only referred to folks in BB’s post that say it might be him.
Honestly how hard is it to understand what you read?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Does anybody really think it was Powell? I mean seriously?
He’s a military man and really wasn’t the type to go after Wilson.
Just because some right wing nut puts it in a blog and then Boston cuts and pastes it here, doesn’t make it any more a reputable opinion than yours or mine.
Is it possible, sure. Just like it is possible that Rove did it.[/quote]
No, not Powell vroom.
Someone at the State Department. WHile I suppose that could include Powell, there was nothing specifically suggesting Powell.
Sometimes it does pay to read more closely…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Sasquatch, it might be hard for you to believe, but compared to many in the Bush administration Powell is seen as a moderate and a man of character. Also, as you may recall, he has a military background.
Now, I’m not saying he didn’t do it, but I think I have very good reasons for thinking he didn’t do it.
Are you suggesting there is something else concerning Powell that I need to consider? What on earth is it that you think I have “dismissed” other than your silly prattle?
Should I have taken longer to decide my opinion on the Powell theory? Should I have changed my mind, though you didn’t, and suddenly believed it was Powell for some reason that hasn’t been explained to me yet?
Seriously man, I think you are losing your mind. What exactly would you have me do in this case. Aren’t you the same person that accused me of never taking a stand or stating an opinion before? I’ve stated one… now you fault me for doing so – even though you agree.
Keep it up, this is actually quite humorous![/quote]
Keep twisting and turning vroom, you’ll maybe convince yourself of–whatever.
I simply pointed to your quick dismissal of info that didn’t fit your current beliefs wrt the administration. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I happen to agree with you. that doesn’t make my observation…what is the word, oh yes…prattle.
But it does once again show your maturity in handling those who don’t stand with you. You try to belittle. You really can’t help it, it’s your only means of communication. Maybe some day I’ll give a flying … what you think. Until then—whatever
[quote]vroom wrote:
Rainjack,
What on earth are you prattling about? Did I suggest that you said it was Powell? No. I asked you to back up your statement concerning the fact that I had no insight into the man.
Surely, if you are going to complain that I have no insight, it is because you have more insight? [/quote]
Was prattle the word of the day today on your calendar.
The only insight you have into the man is his disfavor with the administration. To you, this makes him a demigod.
[quote]100meters wrote:
…
Anyway B.B. could you explain in a non-partisan way why and who inside the investigation would/could be leaking such info to the major media over and over again? How would it help the prosecuter/Fitzgerald? Reporters seem to be getting a steady trickle of info no?[/quote]
Aside from your repetitive contention, which I cut, this is an interesting question.
There are a great many people who could be leaking – anyone from Rove to his lawyer to the reporters to some bailiff who’s getting a little extra pocket money.
It’s interesting, because the info that is getting leaked neither indicts nor exonerates Rove, and it’s not getting leaked to admininstration-friendly sources. But neither is it getting leaked to administration-haters either – not even Dana Milbank at the WaPo (I’m assuming he wasn’t the one to whom it was leaked, as I don’t recall him as the author of today’s story).
It’s almost as if it’s getting leaked in a way to keep the story in the headlines the longest possible time. As to whom that would help, one could come up with innumerable theories, depending on the other issues on which you focus.