[quote]hedo wrote:
I have attached a picture of Plame and Wilson that appeared in Vanity Fair. She is also listed in his bio as a CIA employee.
Her career may have ended because they are publicity hounds. Not good for a “secret agent”.[/quote]
Too funny. Of course 100meters would need the Whitehouse to tell him that CIA employee is code word for agent.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Plame’s memo was the sole reason Wilson was able to go on the trip. Cheyney certainly did not want an idealogue on a fact finding mission. Do you think he would have went if she didn’t write the memo? Do you think Rove would have talked to the reporter if he didn’t call and ask the question? Do you think Rove is dumb enough to be trapped by a reporter? Finally do you think a reporters notes, for an article, that was titled “The administrations attack on Wilson” might be a little tinged with bias and certainly not the basis for an accusation if the left was as tolerant as they preach to be.
You actually did introduce a fact into your response. Congratulations. Of course you weak attempt at sarcasm regarding falsehoods detract from your statement. I didn’t take it as an attack but a less inflamatory response may be that you disagree rather then I am spreading falsehoods.
Here’s another Marcuse reference:
“The issue is not the issue”. Meaning it’s not about the issue at all it’s about the person. You guys already got him convicted whether I wrote anything about his defense or not. you really should study Marcuse. He laid out the entire Liberal Democratic strategy 40 years ago.
[/quote]
Plame’s memo was not the sole reason. You are assuming that. Logic might suggest his uhhh… credentials made him a good candidate. Plame had little to nothing to do with it. That IS a fact.
The CIA says so:
CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame’s alleged role in arranging Wilson’s trip could not have attended the meeting.
Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July, 2003 for newsday say:
"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked `alongside’ the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger
Ensor at CNN says:
“‘She did not propose me’, he [Wilson] said–others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too.'”
So again you are FACTUALLY incorrect on the first point, and of course cheney would have nothing to do with who the agency picked
And there is more than one reporter, and we know that people inside the whitehouse were leaking a covert agents idenity so I don’t get your point there… Trapped by a reporter…again Rove is guiding a reporter’s story to discredit Wilson, by leaking an agent’s idenity, and the admin was attacking Wilson…that’s not bias it’s just a uhhh fact.
again cia says:
But sources said the CIA believes that people in the administration continue to release classified information to damage the figures at the center of the controversy, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame, who was exposed as a CIA officer by unidentified senior administration officials for a July 14 column by Robert D. Novak.
Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.
And yes you were spreading falsehoods (ok, maybe you don’t know they are falsehoods, but you could easily check the public record right?)
And Rove IS already guilty of lying. And that’s a fact too.
Reporter: Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?
Rove: No. [ABC, 9/29/03]
Rove: Well, I?ll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke some number of months ago. I didn?t know her name and didn?t leak her name. [CNN, 8/31/04]
should have parsed a little better.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:
I have attached a picture of Plame and Wilson that appeared in Vanity Fair. She is also listed in his bio as a CIA employee.
Her career may have ended because they are publicity hounds. Not good for a “secret agent”.
Too funny. Of course 100meters would need the Whitehouse to tell him that CIA employee is code word for agent.
[/quote]
That photo is hilarious–wait what good is secret agent after your cover has been blown by people inside the whitehouse? Again, her career was blown by Rove, not by a vanity fair photo taken after her career was killed. Ha! and yep of course I’d need the whitehouse to reveal a cia employee was a covert agent in the wmd dept., just like Novak and others— but , gee, why would Rove be privy to that?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
vroom wrote:
Zap, it’s kind of amusing if you put it that way. Fortunately, or unfortunately, simply being stupid or incompetent is not necessarily criminal.
Not that being stupid means that you aren’t inadvertantly doing something criminal without knowing it. It would be hard to imagine someone in Rove’s position wouldn’t realize what he was doing.
Like I said before, I suspect the political guns were fired before the realization that there were issues that transcended politics took place. Or, in English, someone spoke without thinking.
It is hard to imagine Rove being so stupid, yet apparantly he was.
We will find out if he is a criminal too.
It seems if this was done for political benefit, they really didn’t get it. If it was to punish and intimidate it was a bad way to do it.
[/quote]
Well, its not that hard, he’s been stupid before, and fired for leakin before. We will find out if it’s criminal, but at the least, we know for sure he’s a liar!
Souirces ? Sources? Sources? How about a name.
Even you should know that the CIA does not confirm employee names or titles.
You have been duped again. But this is kind of fun.
Did you see the picture. Posing for a picture, and the picture is posed, is not exactly good tradecraft is it? Even for a Democratic operative! As someone who has appeared in a few society pages I’ll let you in on a little secret. It costs money. You have to pay if you want to be in those. Imagine someone paying to have their photo’s in a magazine who is a spy? Geez wonder why they let her go? Perhaps she is a little dim? Did you look up the 5 year rule yet? Might want to…it’s going to matter.
I’m starting to get a little bored. Going to give it a break until something concrete comes out of the investigation. If you get something that actually means something by all means post it. You know something besides a “sources said”.
Have a great night…know I will.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wrong again. They all look bad. So do you.[/quote]
Uhh…no factually you are wrong, and only one side looks bad…
"A senior administration official said two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and revealed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. That was shortly after Wilson revealed in July that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account eventually touched off a controversy over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.
"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.
See people inside calling unknowing reporters and revealing secret agent’s identiy for revenge. That’s bad. Only one reported said info. Novak. He’s bad. 2 people were hurt by this Plame (career over) and Wilson (slandered). And your fallacy also makes you look uh, bad— but like hedo, maybe you believe what you’re typing?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Souirces ? Sources? Sources? How about a name.
Even you should know that the CIA does not confirm employee names or titles.
You have been duped again. But this is kind of fun.
Did you see the picture. Posing for a picture, and the picture is posed, is not exactly good tradecraft is it? Even for a Democratic operative! As someone who has appeared in a few society pages I’ll let you in on a little secret. It costs money. You have to pay if you want to be in those. Imagine someone paying to have their photo’s in a magazine who is a spy? Geez wonder why they let her go? Perhaps she is a little dim? Did you look up the 5 year rule yet? Might want to…it’s going to matter.
I’m starting to get a little bored. Going to give it a break until something concrete comes out of the investigation. If you get something that actually means something by all means post it. You know something besides a “sources said”.
Have a great night…know I will.[/quote]
Wow, you are a stubborn one eh? You are telling a falsehood- plame authorized wilson’s trip. There is no evidence of this. In fact the opposite. In fact we know Wilson was not authorized by Plame, as she had no authority to do so. What name is needed to debunk something you just made up? The agency disagrees with you. The public record disagrees with you. The facts disagree with you.
And again, so what about the photo? I mean it’s funny that you posted it in order to confuse readers, but regardless, after your career is ruined by Rove and Novak are you not allowed to be in photos?
The best kneeslapper here:
why did they let her go…?
Rove blew her cover? Uh, do you read the papers?
100meters, I’m very disapointed in you. Hedo and Zap have gone to great lengths to expose this obviously liberal bred scandal to smear Bush’s people.
Do you really expect us to believe that Rove, Bush, or Cheney, would be behind something like that? Shame on you!
Elk,
You forgot that they are very unbiased and have managed to see past the bias in the biased material they posted… better than most of us could.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
100meters, I’m very disapointed in you. Hedo and Zap have gone to great lengths to expose this obviously liberal bred scandal to smear Bush’s people.
Do you really expect us to believe that Rove, Bush, or Cheney, would be behind something like that? Shame on you![/quote]
What was I thinking?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Cooper today, announced that he does not believe that Rove broke any law. He further stated that the bigger issue is threatening to jail rpeorters for not disclosing sources. The orginal topic of this thread.[/quote]
Well, actually he said he had no idea if a crime was committed…not quite the same thing. Funny that he also said the Rove did out Plame. Of course that is against the law, the whole revealing the idenity of a covert agent.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Elk,
You forgot that they are very unbiased and have managed to see past the bias in the biased material they posted… better than most of us could.[/quote]
Yeah, how could I forget!
That’s like Bill Phillips saying that Biotest products suck and it was confirmed by John Basedow (sp?) or Joe Weider so it must be true. (LOL)
[quote]vroom wrote:
Elk,
You forgot that they are very unbiased and have managed to see past the bias in the biased material they posted… better than most of us could.[/quote]
Unlike you I don’t try and pretend
I am not partisan.
I was also so tricky I noted each source and identified them as bias. Yes falsehood and trickery.
Nothing concrete like “A senior official” and “sources said”.
But wait Republicans don’t understand.
Now back to real life. Have a nice day.
Hedo,
I’ve trully enjoyed your posts on this topic.
Keep referencing your sources. Keep updating this as we go. Headlines be damned, keep up the flow of information. Truth triumphs over hot air.
I’ve been watching very closely. I’ve read the 1970’s law that the dems are trying to invoke. First, the person must devulge the name of the covert agent. Second, the person must know that they are a covert agent. Third, the person must be a covert agent.
Hard to say she was a covert agent sitting at her desk in the U.S. Rove passed along what he heard “apparently” from a reporter. He never named any names.
I fault him for talking to a time reporter in the first place. Don’t get in the habit of trying to tell these weasels what to write. Let them make their own conclusions.
I’m having fun watching the democrats spin and twist. They are whipped up into quite a froth. It amuses me to think about the current incarnation of the democratic party being so particular about law and order. I guess law is to be followed only when they think it’s politically expedient. God, it was hilarious to watch kerry and hillary in their righteous indignation. I want more hillary/kerry photo-ops. Keep them coming!!!
Anyway, you watch. This pseudo-scandal will die when all the hot air has been expelled. The democrats will skulk and complain about the “devious” Bush Administration. They will move on to slandering Fitzgerald when he concludes no law has been broken. W. will make one or two statements, and that will be it.
The dems will continue to lose elections like nothing ever happened.
There is a certain logic to it!!!
JeffR
[quote]hedo wrote:
Cooper today, announced that he does not believe that Rove broke any law. He further stated that the bigger issue is threatening to jail rpeorters for not disclosing sources. The orginal topic of this thread.[/quote]
I respect Cooper’s opinion but that is for the grand jury to decide.
At the end of the day Rove may not be indicted on anything but he will be Bush’s and the GOP’s achilles heal for any future elections as long as he is a visible figure.
Why give the opposition the ammunition?
hedo-
It is settled then. Rove did not nothing wrong. Cooper said so.
love it!
[quote]100meters wrote:
… We will find out if it’s criminal, but at the least, we know for sure he’s a liar![/quote]
Of course he is a liar. He works in politics!
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
100meters, I’m very disapointed in you. Hedo and Zap have gone to great lengths to expose this obviously liberal bred scandal to smear Bush’s people.
Do you really expect us to believe that Rove, Bush, or Cheney, would be behind something like that? Shame on you![/quote]
Dude, How can you say I am biased here? I recognize Rove may be lying. He may even be a criminal. He definitely looks like an idiot here. Let the special prosecutor do his job.
I also recognize the obvious, that Plame looks incompetent if she is trying to play secret agent. Unfortunately our entire CIA is looking incompetent.
I also think it is a dirty game when reporters sit around and try to figure out who our spys are and then go on and report them.
I think 100meters use of “inside sources” is good for a laugh. Inside sources often don’t exist!
We will find the truth out when Fitzgerald does his job. The rest is silly speculation.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
hedo wrote:
Cooper today, announced that he does not believe that Rove broke any law. He further stated that the bigger issue is threatening to jail rpeorters for not disclosing sources. The orginal topic of this thread.
I respect Cooper’s opinion but that is for the grand jury to decide.
At the end of the day Rove may not be indicted on anything but he will be Bush’s and the GOP’s achilles heal for any future elections as long as he is a visible figure.
Why give the opposition the ammunition?
hedo-
It is settled then. Rove did not nothing wrong. Cooper said so.
love it!
[/quote]
Marmadog
It’s opinion. I don’t think he did anything wrong and made an argument in support of it. 100 actually made the only rational defense of pursuing Rove but even then it is going to be for a partisan reason and public pressure, not a legal reason. And of course he added a few snide comments.
We used to get good debates going on meaty issues like that. I hope it happens again.
Unfortunately when people don’t have an argument anymore they resort to childish antics. As the participants change the tone changes. I used to have a lot of PM debates with folks, real discussions. Many others did too. Now just 1 or 2 at most. The typical PM’s now are basically “you f-in right wing but”. Not really the basis to go forward and
discuss politics I hope you would agree.
As I stated earlier and over again if he is convicted ,by a court ,he should get no special treatment. Based on the facts I don’t see that as likely. The arguments I have heard mainly center on, “but’s it’s Karl Rove, he’s a Republican strategist we have to skewer him.”
For having that opinion I have been called names, had my intelligence questioned and have been accused of all manner of mischevious deeds. If you don’t see that then maybe we are reading different threads. FYI-When you quote someone and/or reference the source or author, it’s not plagarism, it’s accurate writing. Since you have accused me of such I think I feel justified in saying you are wrong.
But I digress. As I have said before and quoted, with proper notation, in a previous post: “The issue is not the issue”.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Marmadog
It’s opinion. I don’t think he did anything wrong and made an argument in support of it. 100 actually made the only rational defense of pursuing Rove but even then it is going to be for a partisan reason and public pressure, not a legal reason. And of course he added a few snide comments.
We used to get good debates going on meaty issues like that. I hope it happens again.
Unfortunately when people don’t have an argument anymore they resort to childish antics. As the participants change the tone changes. I used to have a lot of PM debates with folks, real discussions. Many others did too. Now just 1 or 2 at most. The typical PM’s now are basically “you f-in right wing but”. Not really the basis to go forward and
discuss politics I hope you would agree.
As I stated earlier and over again if he is convicted ,by a court ,he should get no special treatment. Based on the facts I don’t see that as likely. The arguments I have heard mainly center on, “but’s it’s Karl Rove, he’s a Republican strategist we have to skewer him.”
For having that opinion I have been called names, had my intelligence questioned and have been accused of all manner of mischevious deeds. If you don’t see that then maybe we are reading different threads. FYI-When you quote someone and/or reference the source or author, it’s not plagarism, it’s accurate writing. Since you have accused me of such I think I feel justified in saying you are wrong.
But I digress. As I have said before and quoted, with proper notation, in a previous post: “The issue is not the issue”.[/quote]
The deflection is blaming the media or the Democrats when in fact the CIA requested this investigation.
Do you honestly believe that this investigation would have taken place as a result of the Dems crying?
The CIA asked and were granted their request.
The Dems are making a big stink out of this as they should. I would expect nothing less of an opposition party in the current political climate we live in.
To fault an opposition party for kicking someone when they are down is a joke. The Dems did it to Nixon, Clarence Thomas and the GOP did it to Clinton, Kerry, etc.
Everything is fair game unfortunately.
At the end of the day Rove did not need to discredit Wilson by talking about his wife. The CIA had already stated the documents were false before Wilson went on the record with that information.
The only people sticking up for Rove are GOP appologists. The CIA sure as hell did not think it was a non issue otherwise this investigation would not exist.
Just so the facts are clear:
The CIA asked for this investigation and their request was granted.
The Democrats are a bunch of whining babies.
Good points.
Of course, I agree with your last comment about the Dems.
I am sure the conclusion of the case will be interesting for both sides. The process is fascinating to me.