lumpy, reckless, and BB:
Isn’t this fun!!! Another non-scandal scandal.
I love watching the dems squirm.
Oh, reckless. Remember when you wanted treason charges levied.
Wonder if you’ll call for treason charges for a guy who agrees with your nonsensical point of view (armitage).
That is why I call you reckless. You malignant, little pus-pimple.
Next.
JeffR
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
rainjack wrote:
It just seems a little bit self-serving - if not downright dishonest- for the same reporters that were creaming their pants at the thought of busting the Bush Admin to be so deathly quiet now that they have a real person to go after.
Armitage is your man - where is the same dogged determination to get at the truth now?
100meters wrote:
uhmm…
Armitage(1 of how many?)–Novak
Rove—Cooper
Libby—Miller
more of a group effort wouldn’t ya say?
For your benefit, here’s the same link again:
With the relevant excerpt:
KEEPIN’ HOPE ALIVE: The chorus from the left will harmonize in response to this from the Wapo:
[i] Unaware that Ms. Plame’s identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak “in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip,” according to a story this week by the Post’s R. Jeffrey
...It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.[/i]
Not necesarily! Although it takes a fantasist to imagine that the White House orchestrated the leak to Novak by way of Armitage (I bet I could find one!), what about the leaks to Matt Cooper and Judy Miller?
With Cooper, it is clear (to some) that after Karl Rove learned from Novak that a column about Wilson and Plame was imminent, Rove ruthlessly sat by the phone and waited for Matt Cooper to call him and ask about Niger.
Then when Cooper interviewed Libby the next day, Libby was so brutal and crafty that he never raised the subject of Ms. Plame, but offered something like “I heard that, too” when Cooper asked him about her.
And the Judy Miller leak? Libby was so intent on besmirching Wilson with the nepotism charge that he forgot to tell Judy that Ms. Plame had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Niger.
And Special Counsel Fitzgerald still can’t prove that Libby was aware of Ms. Plame’s classified status back when he was conspiring to punish Joe by outing hs wife ( http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/shorter_trounci.html ). (Too bad Libby didn’t use his psychic powers to get the truth about Saddam’s WMDs…). Oh well - Fitzgerald only had two years to look into this. The truth will emerge any day now, or at least, within the next 24 business hours ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1186820 ).[/quote]
Uhh…you keep posting a link to information that doesn’t debunk anything. He links to Hiatt’s op-eds, that as you can see lie. The rest is him pretending to not understand the basic fact of a group effort to undermine Wilson in an effort to lie to us, about information they knew to be false, thanks to a national intelligence officer from africa debriefing the white house that the niger claims were false, just as Wilson pointed out. Libby did order a memo saying plame sent wilson to africa (false). That information was revealed to at least 6 reporters via 2 sources (accordingt to Hiatt’s own paper).
It really doesn’t matter what Priest and Pincus “think”.(hilarious that he added this to back up two op-eds!)
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Let’s enjoy today’s Washington Post editorial:
EXCERPT:
[i]it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming ? falsely, as it turned out ? that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
Obviously you’ll need to read the whole thing for yourself, but if I’m not going to paste it all you’re going to have to click for yourself to get it…[/quote]
Jeebus! again with this! Is Hiatt retarded or malicious? Both?
How does posting these lies make your case BB?
I mean obviously you have google and could debunk Hiatt yourself, but why do you keep posting this stuff?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy, reckless, and BB:
Isn’t this fun!!! Another non-scandal scandal.
I love watching the dems squirm.
Oh, reckless. Remember when you wanted treason charges levied.
Wonder if you’ll call for treason charges for a guy who agrees with your nonsensical point of view (armitage).
That is why I call you reckless. You malignant, little pus-pimple.
Next.
JeffR[/quote]
The “scandal” remains, and yet you post this, hmmm… weird the wingnut mind.
Wilson didn’t have an intelligence background, whether he was an ambassador or not. This was an intelligence mission. I realize we’re short of human intelligence resources, but do you think they could have scrounged up someone who actually had some experience in intel for this? Military, CIA, someone?
As for Wilson’s own story, this post by Austin Bay ( http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=665 ) amply sets forth what the Senate Intelligence report had to say about his credibility – with a handy link to the report itself for anyone interested: REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ
Goodness, what a nut…
[quote]
rainjack wrote:
It just seems a little bit self-serving - if not downright dishonest- for the same reporters that were creaming their pants at the thought of busting the Bush Admin to be so deathly quiet now that they have a real person to go after.
Armitage is your man - where is the same dogged determination to get at the truth now?
100meters wrote:
uhmm…
Armitage(1 of how many?)–Novak
Rove—Cooper
Libby—Miller
more of a group effort wouldn’t ya say?
BostonBarrister wrote:
For your benefit, here’s the same link again:
With the relevant excerpt:
KEEPIN’ HOPE ALIVE: The chorus from the left will harmonize in response to this from the Wapo:
[i] Unaware that Ms. Plame’s identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak “in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip,” according to a story this week by the Post’s R. Jeffrey
...It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.[/i]
Not necesarily! Although it takes a fantasist to imagine that the White House orchestrated the leak to Novak by way of Armitage (I bet I could find one!), what about the leaks to Matt Cooper and Judy Miller?
With Cooper, it is clear (to some) that after Karl Rove learned from Novak that a column about Wilson and Plame was imminent, Rove ruthlessly sat by the phone and waited for Matt Cooper to call him and ask about Niger.
Then when Cooper interviewed Libby the next day, Libby was so brutal and crafty that he never raised the subject of Ms. Plame, but offered something like “I heard that, too” when Cooper asked him about her.
And the Judy Miller leak? Libby was so intent on besmirching Wilson with the nepotism charge that he forgot to tell Judy that Ms. Plame had a role in arranging her husband’s trip to Niger.
And Special Counsel Fitzgerald still can’t prove that Libby was aware of Ms. Plame’s classified status back when he was conspiring to punish Joe by outing hs wife ( http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/05/shorter_trounci.html ). (Too bad Libby didn’t use his psychic powers to get the truth about Saddam’s WMDs…). Oh well - Fitzgerald only had two years to look into this. The truth will emerge any day now, or at least, within the next 24 business hours ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1186820 ).
100meters wrote:
Uhh…you keep posting a link to information that doesn’t debunk anything. He links to Hiatt’s op-eds, that as you can see lie. [/quote]
Methinks your attempt to show the op-ed “lies” fell just a tad short of the level that would be necessary to be so cavalierly dismissive…
[quote]100meters wrote:
The rest is him pretending to not understand the basic fact of a group effort to undermine Wilson in an effort to lie to us, about information they knew to be false, thanks to a national intelligence officer from africa debriefing the white house that the niger claims were false, just as Wilson pointed out. [/quote]
See my post immediately above - and please refer to the Austin Bay link. If you’d like, we can get back in to a debate on whether Wilson’s little investigation debunked the claims of MI-6 regarding Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Niger – which, by the way, the British have never recanted.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Libby did order a memo saying plame sent wilson to africa (false). That information was revealed to at least 6 reporters via 2 sources (accordingt to Hiatt’s own paper).[/quote]
Care to source that? I think you’re playing games with the word “sent.” I believe I know about the memo in which Plame is mentioned, but I don’t recall having read “Libby ordered a memo saying Plame sent Wilson to Africa.” She recommended him for the mission to Africa, and he was sent by the CIA. Wilson claimed he was sent by the VP’s office, or at the least by the CIA at the VP’s instigation. That claim was what they were intending to undermine.
[quote]100meters wrote:
It really doesn’t matter what Priest and Pincus “think”.(hilarious that he added this to back up two op-eds!)[/quote]
It really doesn’t matter what anyone thinks, I guess – what really matters is that no charges have been filed, nor will they be, save for the lone charge against Libby for perjury.
[quote]100meters wrote:
Libby did order a memo saying plame sent wilson to africa (false).
[/quote]
BTW, were you refering to the infamous INR memo? Here’s some good stuff on that:
[quote]100meters wrote:
Libby did order a memo saying plame sent wilson to africa (false). [/quote]
Or perhaps you’re sourcing David Corn’s fantasies?
EXCERPT:
I NEED SOME HELP HERE: David Corn tries to rationalize the notion that the Armitage leak reflects White House machinations. OK, it is a stretch, but I think he also advances his case by making stuff up:
[i] The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House’s fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson’s trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president’s chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.
The memo included information on Valerie Wilson's role in a meeting at the CIA that led to her husband's trip. This critical memo was--as Hubris discloses--based on notes that were not accurate. (You're going to have to read the book for more on this.) But because of Libby's request, a memo did circulate among State Department officials, including Armitage, that briefly mentioned Wilson's wife.[/i]
Is Corn trying to tell us that there are two memos, the one requested by Libby and the famous INR memo ( http://www.nysun.com/article/31062 ) (.pdf: http://www.nysun.com/pics/31062_1.php ) that circulated within State?
And what does Corn mean by “this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby”? What is the source for that? Per the indictment ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801086.html ), Libby was advised orally about the memo, but apparently did not get a copy:
6. On or about June 11 or 12, 2003, the Under Secretary of State orally advised LIBBY in the White House that, in sum and substance, Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that Wilson’s wife was involved in the planning of his trip.
And although that was in the indictment, Libby disputed (p. 5 of 29: http://talkleft.com/libbyresp412.pdf ) that the conversation ocurred:
During his grand jury appearances, Mr. Libby testified that he did not recall any conversations with Mr. Grossman about Mr. Wilson?s wife. The defense is absolutely entitled to investigate whether the conversation alleged by Mr. Grossman actually occurred and to test Mr. Grossman?s memory and credibility about what he did or did not say to Mr. Libby at trial. Like every fact alleged in the indictment, the facts surrounding Mr. Grossman?s alleged conversation with Mr. Libby have not yet been established ? they are in dispute.
Surely if the prosecution had a memo addressed to Libby on this topic, the defense would not be going down this road. What am I missing here, or what is Corn going on about? [TS9 opines ( JustOneMinute: The 'Hubris' Of Richard Armitage ) that Corn is telling us that Marc Grossman of State asked for a memo because he needed answers for Libby; that is ‘almost’ like Libby asking for a memo, then, right? Uh huh.
Let’s sumarize - Libby asked a lot of questions, thereby triggering a leak from Armitage. Hmm, why not blame the inquiring press, or Joe Wilson himself for chatting with Pincus and Kristof? Seems like there were lots of folks other than Libby that set Armitage in motion.]
KEEP HOPE ALIVE! Corn is pretty funny here:
The outing of Armitage does change the contours of the leak case. The initial leaker was not plotting vengeance. He and Powell had not been gung-ho supporters of the war. Yet Bush backers cannot claim the leak was merely an innocent slip. Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak and then leaked it himself as part of an effort to undermine a White House critic.
“Rove confirmed the classified information to Novak”! Well, yes, but did he know it was classified? If so, how did he learn that? C’mon, it’s over - of Corn or Fitzgerald had any evidence that Rove knew of Ms. Plame’s classified status, we would have heard it by now.
100meters you are embarrassing yourself.
Isn’t partisan politics just a regular hoot?
Oh - by the way, where are all the cmplaints about how much this special prosecutor is spending to yield one indictment? At least the last one netted an impeachment.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Again the Dems are overplaying their hand.
What’s that burning smell?
Oh, it’s just the last shred of George Bush’s credibility, going up in flames.
Eight different public denials to the press, where Bush pretended that the leak was a big mystery.
It is very Clintonesque. He should be ashamed of himself.[/quote]
Hey now Zap,The Clinton B.J. scandal was also a matter of national security,do you think any enemy to our country should have known they could send in any seductress and suck the info. they needed right out of him!!
Opinion piece by Author Roger Simon.
This is a momentous morning. The Washington Post has written a remarkably honest editorial about the Valerie Plame Affair:
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House – that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson – is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage’s identity been known three years ago.
No kidding. After giving 'Scooter" et al a perfunctory slap on the wrist, the editorial goes on to say what was obvious to many of us from the get-go:
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming – falsely, as it turned out – that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
Of course Mr. Wilson’s narcissistic drivel was bought hook, line and sinker by that bastion of reactionary liberalism the New York Times and parroted by its myriad followers. Wouldn’t it be interesting to be a fly on the wall of their editorial offices at this moment? In a loose-lipped moment, Bill Keller once called blogs a ‘circle jerk,’ one of the most classic uses of projection since Freud. What will they do now? Their onetime employee Judith Miller went to jail over this farce (and speaking of hooks and lines - we at the burgeoning PJ Media bought into the whole charade, inviting Ms. Miller to our debut).
But what interests me is how the Plame Affair fits into the whole framework. It may be opera bouffe, but it is far from unrelated to the way the press has conducted itself in recent years. Is it so different from Pallywood and the Mohammed Al Doura case, the Reuters photographs, the Jenin “massacre” and so forth - all lies swallowed whole by a gullible Western media? At first glance they would seem far apart, but in this small world one concept draws them all together - narrative. The truth is less important than the weltanschauung of the publication. But we knew that, didn’t we?
So next step - why this phenomenon? Why the acceptance of this narrative whose result is so negative to world history and seems in continuous aid of the destruction of the Enlightenment itself? Is it just Bush Derangement Syndrome? Well, I think that’s a large part of it. But the term (BDS) is too narrow to encompass the phenomenon. A variety of psychological forces are in the mix, but most notable to me is a sense of deprivation. 9/11 stripped the left of its self-perceived idealism that was the mainstay of its “personality.” Forces (like Bush) that lefties once dismissed as reactionary were taking the lead in the preservation of the West instead of supporting dictators as they once did. Furthermore, in the old days the left could take concilation that the enemy (communism) had at least a theoretical rationale - economic fairness to all. The new enemy was more troublesome - on the one hand poor (only seemingly, of course, considering the oil rich) and on the other hand medieval, anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-modern… essentially anti-liberal. What to do… what to do?
In the beginning the left went along with Bush, but the minute things began to lag in Iraq, they deserted him in a flash. At first glance the reason was political but on a deeper (and I believe more important) level the reason was psychological. The left was in a rush to reclaim its lost idealism (the “it’s about oil” nonsense was but an obvious example of this), to preserve its disintegrating sense of self. Of course the big loser in all this is the truth. Sure Bush made a bunch of mistakes (who wouldn’t?) but it should be obvious to anyone that we are at the earliest stages of a very long war. Nevertheless, a culture of media corruption set in almost instantly that ended up creating absurdities like the Plame Affair. We are lucky this one got unmasked. We will also be lucky if the conclusions drawn in the WaPo editorial stick for that publication at least. We shall see.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Perhaps this excerpt from the Wilson piece would have been more appropriate:
"Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn’t know that in December, a month before the president’s address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case."
The implication of that passage is obviously that he, the courageous tea-drinking ambassador, had “debunked” the idea that anyone from Iraq had tried to purchase uranium in Niger, British claims to the contrary be damned.
[/quote]
Uhh…gee your passage takes place after my passage and others where he fully exlplains the context of reaching his conclusions. He never “debunks” uranium from africa, only offers contradictory information on uranium niger, but he would have been right to assume that he had debunked those claims as the INR agreed with him, and the CIA rated his report “good”. Not to mention being absolutely right helps too.
British claims to the contrary:
The Butler report is hogwash (obviously) justified in the report only by the claim the CIA agreed with them. The SSCI report debunks that:
CIA responses to SOTU drafts:
We’ve looked at those reports and we don’t think they are very credible…"
“they put more emphasis on the uranium acquisition in Africa that we would.”
“there is some information on attempts and, as we said, maybe not to this committee, but in the last couple of weeks, there’s a question about some of those attempts because of the control of the material in those countries. In one case the mine is completely flooded and how would they get the material…”
Basically the CIA kept telling the president they had no evidence of those claims, and didn’t agree with the Brits.
“remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory.”
The INR said:
“the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR’s assessment, highly dubious.”
and of course the admin admitted they were wrong to put that line in the SOTU\
Not to mention Hiatt is lying as I said:
claiming – falsely, as it turned out – that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
The OBVIOUS RELEVANT passages is:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).
What Wilson said was totally true.
Hiatt is a liar.
[quote]
100meters wrote:
Hiatt is faking badly here:
“He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.”
as Larry Johnson (former cia) says:
“Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last U.S. official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson was uniquely qualified to do the job.”
goodness Hiatt is a nut.
Wilson didn’t have an intelligence background, whether he was an ambassador or not. This was an intelligence mission. I realize we’re short of human intelligence resources, but do you think they could have scrounged up someone who actually had some experience in intel for this? Military, CIA, someone?
As for Wilson’s own story, this post by Austin Bay ( http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=665 ) amply sets forth what the Senate Intelligence report had to say about his credibility – with a handy link to the report itself for anyone interested: REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ
Goodness, what a nut…[/quote]
Uhh the CIA sent him, and send people like this all the time…as Johnson says:
“Moreover, this is (or at least was) a common acitivity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department, Ambassador Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times when the CIA wants information and does not want to expose its own assets.”
and again he was perfectly qualified to go to Niger and the CIA agreed with his findings, and rated his report good…
as Hiatt knows.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Opinion piece by Author Roger Simon.
This is a momentous morning. The Washington Post has written a remarkably honest editorial about the Valerie Plame Affair:
[/quote]
the editorial is not honest, the opposite.
The editorial says:
claiming – falsely, as it turned out – that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
Wilson’s op-ed said:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).
What Wilson said was totally true.
Hiatt is a complete liar.
and therefore Simon is an idiot or a liar.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Opinion piece by Author Roger Simon.
This is a momentous morning. The Washington Post has written a remarkably honest editorial about the Valerie Plame Affair:
the editorial is not honest, the opposite.
The editorial says:
claiming – falsely, as it turned out – that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
Wilson’s op-ed said:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).
What Wilson said was totally true.
Hiatt is a complete liar.
and therefore Simon is an idiot or a liar.
[/quote]
Or you are?
If you were actually an independent you would occassionally find fault with your own idealogy. You don’t so therefore the above is most likely true.
As to Simon…how many books have you published again?
[quote]hedo wrote:
What Wilson said was totally true.
Hiatt is a complete liar.
and therefore Simon is an idiot or a liar.
Or you are?
If you were actually an independent you would occassionally find fault with your own idealogy. You don’t so therefore the above is most likely true.
As to Simon…how many books have you published again?
[/quote]
Simon says:a remarkably honest editorial about the Valerie Plame Affair:
This is not true. He either can’t read (idiot) or he knows he’s lying (liar)
It’s not true because the editorial says lies like:
claiming – falsely, as it turned out – that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
Which is a lie because Wilson actually said:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).
These are objective facts Hedo, not opinion/ nor “idealogy”.
If you’d like to debate the public record go ahead, unfortunately for Hiatt anybody with google could just check what Wilson wrote—it’s not that hard.
while you’re at it google “recent”.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Let’s enjoy today’s Washington Post editorial:
EXCERPT:
[i]it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming ? falsely, as it turned out ? that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
Obviously you’ll need to read the whole thing for yourself, but if I’m not going to paste it all you’re going to have to click for yourself to get it…[/quote]
So mr. BB, is it your position that:
a. Armitage told Novak
b. Wilson told everybody.
Well, it seems to me that you have to pick one. And only one.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
lumpy, reckless, and BB:
Isn’t this fun!!! Another non-scandal scandal.
I love watching the dems squirm.
Oh, reckless. Remember when you wanted treason charges levied.
Wonder if you’ll call for treason charges for a guy who agrees with your nonsensical point of view (armitage).
That is why I call you reckless. You malignant, little pus-pimple.
Next.
JeffR[/quote]
effr,
you’re a rat.
You would have done well in Saddam secret police.
Bush needs people like you.
The facts are that Valerie Plame was outed by Novak the rat, your hero.
The facts are that here name was mentioned to him, and others by senior white house officials.
But, all of that doesn’t matter because Armitage could very well have gossiped about her also?
You’re a fool effr.
When are you enlisting? These Iraqi are waiting to be liberated by you.
[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
What Wilson said was totally true.
Hiatt is a complete liar.
and therefore Simon is an idiot or a liar.
Or you are?
If you were actually an independent you would occassionally find fault with your own idealogy. You don’t so therefore the above is most likely true.
As to Simon…how many books have you published again?
Simon says:a remarkably honest editorial about the Valerie Plame Affair:
This is not true. He either can’t read (idiot) or he knows he’s lying (liar)
It’s not true because the editorial says lies like:
claiming – falsely, as it turned out – that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.
Which is a lie because Wilson actually said:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador’s report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally).
These are objective facts Hedo, not opinion/ nor “idealogy”.
If you’d like to debate the public record go ahead, unfortunately for Hiatt anybody with google could just check what Wilson wrote—it’s not that hard.
while you’re at it google “recent”.
[/quote]
Debate would require you to admit when your wrong. Since you never do that would be impossible…it’s a futile effort as has already been pointed out.
You made up your mind a long time ago, regardless of the evidence…that’s really the point isn’t it.
[quote]hedo wrote:
…
Debate would require you to admit when your wrong. Since you never do that would be impossible…it’s a futile effort as has already been pointed out.
You made up your mind a long time ago, regardless of the evidence…that’s really the point isn’t it.
[/quote]
Naah, you have him confused with the leaker in chief himself.