Plame's Civil Suit

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]vroom wrote:
You know…

I realize it is a knee-jerk reaction to deflect, distract and discredit whenver possible, but whether or not they are able to make money off of the improper actions of the administration is immaterial.

In fact, if they do, you should respect them, isn’t getting rich the ultimate proof of who is smart or correct or whatever in America?[/quote]

The Wilson/Plame claim is weak. Though I really do hope it makes it to the discovery phase - unlike Rove, Cheney and Libby, I don’t believe Wilson or Plame has made any statements under oath as of yet…

And no, getting rich isn’t the ultimate proof you’re correct – it wouldn’t even be a conceivable measuring stick to many questions.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyway, it is satisfying to know that the lawsuit will be conducted within the rules of the legal system, not the political spin system.[/quote]

Most definitely – especially the part about getting statements under oath from Joe Wilson. Unfortunately, it’s likely it won’t make it that far.

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s also satisfying to know that nobody is now arguing that there is “no proof” that anybody leaked. We all know they leaked, then covered it up, and did all this despite claiming to be a group with high minded ideals.[/quote]

I don’t recall that being the main point of contention, though I could be misremembering. The main arguments that I remember making had to do with whether anyone had broken a law – and no one has been charged with doing so in relation to the “leak” (note that Novak and others still maintain it was a widely known fact that Plame worked for the CIA), and no one will be charged.

[quote]vroom wrote:
We are looking at some petty and mean people in a position of power. It’s sad to watch how they comport themselves.[/quote]

Very true - looking at it, there has been some hardball politics played on both sides on this. Which pretty much makes it politics as usual, unfortunately.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Please proceed to deflect or distract by the actions of others, perhaps Clinton, or suggest that there is no merit to any of this, or any of a myriad of tactics that let you avoid the basic underlying issues of import.[/quote]

Yes, analyzing the merits of the claim is pure distraction all right, particularly when the subject at hand is the claim. How deflective…

42

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Wilson and Plame are partisan media whores. These just reinforces my feelings about them.

That’s a lie. She was trying to stay in the shadows when Novak the traitor ratted on her.

Stay in the shadows by:

Appearing in Vanity Fair.

Appearing in Who’s Who.

Sending her unqualified husband on a mission.

Conspiring with her unqualified husband to write a false OP/ED for the NYT that directly conflicted with the testimony he provided the Senate Intel Committee.

Doesn’t sound like to work of someone that is trying to be covert to me.

Stick your accusation of lying up your ass. I know you have trouble with reading comprehension but I hope you understood that.

Are you saying they appeared in Vanity Fair before your traitor ratted them out?

Yes. Do you pay any attention at all or do you just regurgitate talking points?

Surely you have proof.

[/quote]

From a liberal newspaper no less:

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Is this proof enough Wilson lied?

The Senate and the Washington Post say he did.

43

From the story…

Guys, the fact that Valerie supplied input to the decision making process does not mean that she has any authority to make such a decision.

Haven’t any of you worked for someone before? They ask you for advice and input, but they are the ones responsible for making the decision? If Wilson suggests she didn’t make the decision, then the odds are pretty damned good she didn’t make the decision… though she appears to have been part of the decisionmaking process.

If, for example, she had indentified more than one candidate and discussed their qualifications, it would be cast in an entirely different light.

I find this whole line of thought to be a big red herring. If Wilson was qualified for the job he was sent to do, then there is nothing wrong with him being sent there. If his wife was not authorized to make that decision, then she in fact did not make the decision. This isn’t a significant issue in any real sense, but people focus on it so much.

I wonder why? Was Wilson unqualified? If so, we should be hearing about it as the more important issue…

As to the rest, the story seems pretty convoluted and confusing. I’d like to see the details come out fully, with proper representation of both sides of the story before I made up my mind.

However, I will admit the newspaper article certainly does make things sound pretty suspect. Hearing the other side of the story would certainly help determine if it should be taken at face value or not.

44

Damn that liberally biased MSM!!!

45

[quote]vroom wrote:
From the story…

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame “offered up” Wilson’s name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations saying her husband “has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

Guys, the fact that Valerie supplied input to the decision making process does not mean that she has any authority to make such a decision.

Haven’t any of you worked for someone before? They ask you for advice and input, but they are the ones responsible for making the decision? If Wilson suggests she didn’t make the decision, then the odds are pretty damned good she didn’t make the decision… though she appears to have been part of the decisionmaking process.

If, for example, she had indentified more than one candidate and discussed their qualifications, it would be cast in an entirely different light.

I find this whole line of thought to be a big red herring. If Wilson was qualified for the job he was sent to do, then there is nothing wrong with him being sent there. If his wife was not authorized to make that decision, then she in fact did not make the decision. This isn’t a significant issue in any real sense, but people focus on it so much.

I wonder why? Was Wilson unqualified? If so, we should be hearing about it as the more important issue…

As to the rest, the story seems pretty convoluted and confusing. I’d like to see the details come out fully, with proper representation of both sides of the story before I made up my mind.

However, I will admit the newspaper article certainly does make things sound pretty suspect. Hearing the other side of the story would certainly help determine if it should be taken at face value or not.[/quote]

You just like to pick and chose and ignore the facts.

Fact: Plame sent Wilson.

Fact: Wilson denied the Plame was involved in sending him.

Fact: Wilson said Iraq did not try to buy yellowcake in the NYT OP/ED

Fact: The Senate says Wilson’s report strenghed the case that Iraq DID try to buy yellowcake. They concluded that Iraq did try to buy yellowcake.

46

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Fact: Plame sent Wilson.[/quote]

Not supported by the evidence you’ve shown, do you have other evidence?

Oh, now you reduce the bar to being involved in sending him? Which is it exactly? Did she send him or was she merely involved in the process?

I’m still fuzzy as to what difference that might make in this matter. How would her involvement change the nature of the civil suit or the actions of the administration with respect to leaks?

Unless it does, then it is just a political talking point meant to discredit Wilson. Can you explain why this issue should even be discussed? Is there any import to it at all?

Stop avoiding my questions and provide an answer here. Point me at the evidence and tell me the import of the issue, I’m trying to cut you some slack and assume it’s out there somewhere.

[quote]Fact: Wilson said Iraq did not try to buy yellowcake in the NYT OP/ED

Fact: The Senate says Wilson’s report strenghed the case that Iraq DID try to buy yellowcake. They concluded that Iraq did try to buy yellowcake.[/quote]

It is quite possible for two people, or two groups, to look at something and come back with different conclusions. However, I honestly haven’t gone and read through both statements to see how and why they differ.

As I said, the article above is troubling in this regard, however, the language is not altogether clear, which gives me pause. Generally, unclear language with a paucity of facts makes it easier to characterize or mischaracterize things.

As I said before, there could be substance to what you are saying. However, the fact that you can’t get past the concept of Plames role or explain what difference it makes to this issue gives me reason not to trust your judgment. If you aren’t exercising in part one, why should I assume you are in part two?

Can you parse that… or does the brain meltdown caused require you to state that I’m playing politics and am unwilling to see things?

I am asking you to show me the facts, the evidence, not someone stating conclusions that you agree with. Find it and I’ll read it.

However, I must warn you, even if you prove Wilson is a lying sack of shit, and I believe it too, that may not justify the actions of the administration in this matter. The legality of the issue doesn’t change just because you don’t like Wilson and what he did or said.

Get past all the red herrings and the administration either did or didn’t do something unethical or illegal. None of the evils of Wilson change that…

Funny how that base issue gets lost in all the other bullshit that we hear about on a daily basis. I wonder why that is?

47

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

BostonBarrister wrote:
Another motive for the filing:

Perhaps they just want to set up an excuse to collect money from the legions of netroots folks:

By all means, please contribute.

There’s one born every minute…

Wreckless wrote:
2 the minute you were born.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Was that supposed to be an insult? Are you somehow implying I’m a twin, and a stupid twin?

What exactly goes on in that little head of yours anyway? Nothing higher order, apparently…

Wreckless wrote:
I was implying you’re stupid enough for 2 morons. If you can’t stand the namecalling, you shouldn’t start it.

Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless, you don’t even know the basics of the story.

Your calling BB stupid is laughable.

Perhaps ypu can hire someone to translate the story into Dutch so you can understand it because I know your English comprehension sucks.

Wreckless wrote:
He might be “intelligent” but he’s not smart. He’s a party whore.
He’s supporting the war monger no matter what.

Really Wreckless, you’re too comical.

Per usual, your every word betrays your general ignorance. You’ve ignored or dismissed, in your grand omniscience, the arguments destroying the basis for your legal conclusions (yes, labeling someone a “traitor” is a legal conclusion, not to mention your ridiculous assertions on the more specific laws related to this matter). You argue like a typical petulant 3-year-old – all feelings, convinced of with absolute certainty of the fact you’re correct after the adults have explained to you that you’re wrong, in words that generally go over your head – you don’t even attempt to refute the explanation, because you don’t really understand them, except, within the special confines of your own warped reality, in which you’re convinced they’re wrong. And the sky is plaid and the moon is made of green cheese in that special reality too - or whatever you want it to be. It doesn’t matter to actual reality.

Your avatar of Droopy Dog is actually pretty amusing, but it doesn’t really give you an accurate picture. You should really adopt Foghorn Leghorn as your avatar – your discussions with the informed members of this forum generally resemble those of Foghorn Leghorn with the “Eggheaded Boy” in the old WB cartoons, with the typical result of you standing there looking silly and de-feathered after the lightning strike.[/quote]

Using a lot of difficult words doesn’t really make you smarter you know. Not really.

48

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Marmadogg wrote:

You are a traitor for defending traitors.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting and off-topic logic you have going on there. Would that make you an idiot for defending idiots?

Wreckless wrote:
It would. If he were defending idiots.

But it seems you’re a traitor for defending traitors.
And an idiot for defending idiots.

Wreckless, you don’t even have a clue what logical point I was making, do you?
[/quote]

You made a logical point? Where?

Marmadogg was right but you just called him an idiot. That was your rebuttal: “you’re an idiot”.

You start the namecalling, and when the favour is returned, you get on your high horse, use a lot of difficult words and pretend that makes you smarter.

I’m on to you mr. lawyer.

49

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
That’s a lie. She was trying to stay in the shadows when Novak the traitor ratted on her.

Stay in the shadows by:

Appearing in Vanity Fair.

Appearing in Who’s Who.

Sending her unqualified husband on a mission.

Conspiring with her unqualified husband to write a false OP/ED for the NYT that directly conflicted with the testimony he provided the Senate Intel Committee.

Doesn’t sound like to work of someone that is trying to be covert to me.

Stick your accusation of lying up your ass. I know you have trouble with reading comprehension but I hope you understood that.

Are you saying they appeared in Vanity Fair before your traitor ratted them out?

Yes. Do you pay any attention at all or do you just regurgitate talking points?

Surely you have proof.

From a liberal newspaper no less:

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Is this proof enough Wilson lied?

The Senate and the Washington Post say he did.
[/quote]

This is all a matter of interpretation.
The article says: “Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.”
You read: “he was sent by his wife.”

Actually, I was looking for some hard evidence that would be easier to check.
You claimed Plame showed up in Vanity Fair before she was exposed by Novak the rat.
Do you have proof?

50

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
…
This is all a matter of interpretation.
The article says: “Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.”
You read: “he was sent by his wife.”

Actually, I was looking for some hard evidence that would be easier to check.
You claimed Plame showed up in Vanity Fair before she was exposed by Novak the rat.
Do you have proof?[/quote]

His wife selected him and he went. Why is that so hard to understand?

As to the Vanity Fair business, look it up.

51

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:

You are a traitor for defending traitors.

Interesting and off-topic logic you have going on there. Would that make you an idiot for defending idiots?[/quote]

I find it offensive that you would call the United States of American an idiot.

I defend my country and the CIA represents me…not to mention we use their intelligence every day to make investment decisions.

52

[quote]
Marmadogg wrote:

You are a traitor for defending traitors.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Interesting and off-topic logic you have going on there. Would that make you an idiot for defending idiots?

Wreckless wrote:
It would. If he were defending idiots.

But it seems you’re a traitor for defending traitors.
And an idiot for defending idiots.

BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless, you don’t even have a clue what logical point I was making, do you?

Wreckless wrote:
You made a logical point? Where?

Marmadogg was right but you just called him an idiot. That was your rebuttal: “you’re an idiot”.

You start the namecalling, and when the favour is returned, you get on your high horse, use a lot of difficult words and pretend that makes you smarter.

I’m on to you mr. lawyer.[/quote]

No, let me explain this to you slowly and using little words.

Marmadogg made a conclusory statement: If you support traitors, you are a traitor. Actually, he called me a traitor, and then used that logic to support his conclusion.

Assuming, purely for the sake of arguing the logical point, that a person were supporting a traitor, there may be many non-traitorous reasons to do so. For example, a person may be deemed to be “supporting a traitor” if he insists that the traitor actually be convicted of a crime, if he insists on due process during the trial, etc. Thus, to support a traitor does not necessarily make one a traitor. You would need more.

I chose to make that point by using a similarly flawed analogy. I was not calling Marmadogg an idiot – I was posing the question to him (and calling Plame and Wilson idiots) of whether supporting an idiot made a person an idiot. The answer, again, is not necessarily. Of course, if he were to accept his own illogic, then the answer would be yes – which is why he has subsequently tried to deflect the idea that he is supporting two idiots, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.

Do you get it now?

53

Yeah I get it.

You didn’t insist on due process. You dismissed due process. You supported the actions of treason.
THAT made you a traitor.

You got that?

54

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
…
Actually, I was looking for some hard evidence that would be easier to check.
You claimed Plame showed up in Vanity Fair before she was exposed by Novak the rat.
Do you have proof?

His wife selected him and he went. Why is that so hard to understand?

As to the Vanity Fair business, look it up.[/quote]

You accused them of being attention whores. And you want me to look that up?

Hmmm. My conclusion is you made false accusations and are now unable to back them up.

But back to your other accusations.

The article clearly states: “Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.”

You put emphasis on the part where he was recommended by his wife and turned that into “she sent him”. That’s a stretch.
I put emphasis on “dispatched by the CIA”. That’s not a stretch. That’s actually what the article says.

55

BB,

You habitually lawyer the truth, using reason and argument as a wino uses a lamppost ? for support, not illumination.

Got it traitor?

56

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
BB,

You habitually lawyer the truth, using reason and argument as a wino uses a lamppost ? for support, not illumination.

Got it traitor?[/quote]

Ah Marmadogg – ever the proponent of high level dialogue and reasoning. Thank you for the further illumination of why no one takes you seriously.

BTW, how does a post illuminate anything in and of itself? One would think you might attribute the light to the bulb…

57

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Yeah I get it.

You didn’t insist on due process. You dismissed due process. You supported the actions of treason.
THAT made you a traitor.

You got that?[/quote]

You obviously did not get it. Re-read slowly and mouth the words to yourself until it sinks in.

Or, failing that, try to justify your conclusions with something more than feelings – it must be that time of the month over in Belgium.

58

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Yeah I get it.

You didn’t insist on due process. You dismissed due process. You supported the actions of treason.
THAT made you a traitor.

You got that?

You obviously did not get it. Re-read slowly and mouth the words to yourself until it sinks in.

Or, failing that, try to justify your conclusions with something more than feelings – it must be that time of the month over in Belgium.[/quote]

No need…you are a traitor.

59

[quote]

Wreckless wrote:
Yeah I get it.

You didn’t insist on due process. You dismissed due process. You supported the actions of treason.
THAT made you a traitor.

You got that?

BostonBarrister wrote:
You obviously did not get it. Re-read slowly and mouth the words to yourself until it sinks in.

Or, failing that, try to justify your conclusions with something more than feelings – it must be that time of the month over in Belgium.

Marmadogg wrote:
No need…you are a traitor.[/quote]

Marmadogg,

As you have, as usual, added nothing, please re-read my post above.

60

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Wreckless wrote:
Yeah I get it.

You didn’t insist on due process. You dismissed due process. You supported the actions of treason.
THAT made you a traitor.

You got that?

BostonBarrister wrote:
You obviously did not get it. Re-read slowly and mouth the words to yourself until it sinks in.

Or, failing that, try to justify your conclusions with something more than feelings – it must be that time of the month over in Belgium.

Marmadogg wrote:
No need…you are a traitor.

Marmadogg,

As you have, as usual, added nothing, please re-read my post above.[/quote]

Gee I’m convinced now…traitor.