How many of us have actually read the piece that Wilson wrote which brought the wrath of the White House down on him?  Why didn't they attack him with facts that refuted his arguments instead of trying to smear him?  What did he say in this article that has been clearly proven false?  Decide for yourself instead of letting some talking head decide for you...

-- Modified on 11/3/2005 8:01:21 PM

and your missing the main issue - which is not Wilson's oped. The fiasco with Wilson began with two NYT articles by Nick Kristoff using Wilson as an unnamed source. Those articles got alot of facts wrong. Add to that the many contradictions and lies that Wilson perpetuated while acting as a hack for the Kerry Campaign and you have arrived at the events that precipitated "Plamegate".


-- Modified on 11/4/2005 8:14:33 AM

let's assume you're a lying Democratic POS.  Your wife is a covert CIA agent.

What could you possibly do that would justify a 3rd party govt officer revealing your wife's identity?

Get a BJ in the oval office?  What?

let's assume a lying Republican POS outed the covert wife of a lying Democratic POS. Hang the bastard. Never said it shouldn't happen.

But if we stick to the facts - not the DNC talking points - we don't know that's the case. Read the indictments, the Senate Intel Report, etc. and bring some evidence to the table that proves me wrong - other than BS about BJ's. I don't give 2 shits about BJ's, unless I'm getting one. Then it's all good.

nobody in the Bush administration revealed Plame's position?

do you have proof that Plame's status was covert, and not known within circles of the press and Washington? Becuase that has everything to do with the context of the Wildson issue. And if you do have proof, you need to drop what you doing right now and call this guy:

"FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.

"Let's not presume that Mr. Libby is guilty. But let's assume, for the moment, that the allegations in the indictment are true. If that is true, you cannot figure out the right judgment to make, whether or not you should charge someone with a serious national security crime or walk away from it or recommend any other course of action, if you don't know the truth.

So I understand your question which is: Well, what if he had told the truth, what would you have done? If he had told the truth, we would have made the judgment based upon those facts. We would have assessed what the accurate information and made a decision.

We have not charged him with a crime. I'm not making an allegation that he violated that statute. What I'm simply saying is one of the harms in obstruction is that you don't have a clear view of what should be done. And that's why people ought to walk in, got into the grand jury, you're going to take an oath, tell us the who, what, when, where and why -- straight""

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair

and the administration policy.  Obviously, neither of us can know the facts any better than Fitzgerald.

What my hardon is about, is the policy.  If my staff was accused of that, I would have the answers long before the prosecutor was even appointed, because I take the possibility of a deliberate security leak very seriously - it's the possibility of treachery at the highest, most senstive level.  

Obviously, Dubya does not take it that seriously.  And that's what pisses me off.

No, I'm not surprised.  His loyalty is to his close circle, not to an abstract ideal like his nation, or a concept of law.   What the HELL were we thinking when we elected him President?

Apart from that, your response is a smokescreen.

-- Modified on 11/4/2005 10:44:12 AM

... if Nick Kristoff got it wrong, why are u mad at Wilson?  If the NYT (or any other newspaper) misreported the facts, why are u mad at Wilson?  

BTW, he is a private citizen and allowed to say what he wants and to act as a hack for any political candidate.  Don't u agree?  

And still we come back to the question --- why discuss with anyone what his wife did?  The only reason I can figure out is administration "inside baseball"  --- she was part of the evil CIA and they were not bending over for the administration line on Iraq.  

The Intel Agencies are supposed to provide intelligence -- not act as a cheerleading squad for the administration.  Do you remember the people in the admin who thought they knew it all?  Well, they got it wrong.  

Give me back boring leaders who don't have grand ideas about how the world should work!

Harry

in the very fine print, it says, "the spirit of this law is that nobody should say anything that might reflect poorly on Dubya's White House, because that poor lush needs all the help he can get; and anybody who gets in his way is fair game for any sort of sleaze, treachery or defamation the RNC frat boys can come up with..."

because he publicly made false statements on several occasions about what he had found during a hugely important national debate on the war.

"why are u mad at Wilson?" Where did I say that I was personally mad at him?, and he can hack all he wants. But at least tell the truth and don't put your "covert" wife's mug on the cover of a national magazine while your pimping yourself as a national hero.

I'm with you on the boring leader thingy.

an ambassador's wife equates to outing her as a CIA operative?

Or is this just more desperate smoke??

Look, you have to learn to cut your losses.   Nobody believes it was just Scooter Libby, if for no other reason than the fact they sat on it for so long - it's crystal clear that Bush 2 is the other side of Nixon.   Nixon thought everybody was out to get him, while Bush 2 is out to get them.

So the Republicans will twist in the wind for the rest of his term, lose seats in 2006, lose even more seats and the WH in 2008, and they'll be so crippled that the Dems will be able to nominate  Al Sharpton and get him elected.

This careening back and forth from one craziness to the other is worse than being married.

Why do they do anything?  Because that's the way they are, that's their program, that's their market niche.   They were off partying down while McCain and Kerry alike were getting their asses shot off, so they established the inside track and good sense to know that enough voters buy swill like "Jesus Day" - so 30 years later, when McCain and Kerry alike ask them what the hell they think they're doing with the country, their response is a smear campaign.   Good answer, too, because there's really nothing else they can say.

Because they're treacherous slimeballs, that's why.

if after reading my post you believe that I'm "alleging that a magazine photo of an ambassador's wife equates to outing her as a CIA operative", then I've over-estimated your intellect and capacity for reason and we really are wasting each others time.

even Bill Buckley has given up on this one.

too bad you're not working for Dubya, because there's nothing that would undermine him more than more sandbagging.

You know there's no excuse here, you're just grasping for something, and can't get hold of anything.

Find a story and stick to it.  Like this one:  "Valeria Plame doesn't exist.  Never did.  She's a vast left-wing conspiracy."

will ultimately tell whose dishing out the BS.

The question is, will you be man enough to admit it.

I don't see anybody denying that it happened, and I don't see Bush trying to figure out what happened.

Americans don't need any other facts.   Whose side are you on?

-- Modified on 11/4/2005 3:15:59 PM

where is your proof. What facts do you have to bring to the debate.

I know, I know - let me say for you:
smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert, smoke screen, she was covert...

I don't care if he joined the Manson family, busted them out of jail, and led them assaulting the White House.

You still don't blow an American operative's cover, if you are in any way loyal to America.

If WILSON had been the agent, you STILL don't blow his cover.

Do you realize what this does to anybody cooperating with the CIA?   If you were a US agent, or connected to one, you know that the White House will turn on you for political advantage against other Americans, and you will not be able to predict it.

That would sure make me think twice about working for a Republican administration.

It's really simple:  the White House is loyal to their buddies, not America.  They're just a bunch of pasty-faced cutthroats.

-- Modified on 11/4/2005 1:55:14 PM

Remember how quickly he backpedalled on firing anyone responsible for leaking to firing anyone breaking the law by leaking?

That was sort of my original question which I don't think you quite answered.  Assuming she was not covert and outing her was not a crime, was the behavior of Libby and Rove on this something you're proud of?

Nobody denies it.  Christ, look at Wikipedia.

No, I don't care about indictments or convictions.  I want to know, how do you defend it as policy?

Of course, an honest person can't.  A smart person would cut their losses and move on.  But not being either one of those, you claim it's a smoke screen.  For what?  You're the one blowing smoke, just like your leaden heroes in the White House.

and maybe you'll figure it out.

wanna make bets?

Watch this site:  http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/

The site is only a couple weeks old.  Do you think he'd open a website if he was gonna shut the investigation down?

why don't you post some facts?

Or put your money where your mouth is:  Bet me that Fitzgerald won't bring any more indictments.  That he opened his website because he likes to see his name on the www, ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your boys are dead meat.  The only thing we don't know is how long they're gonna hang around stinking up the capitol.

Hey, Dubya will have a record to match his brother Neil's S&L scam, and not just a few petty-assed DUIs & AWOLs.

-- Modified on 11/4/2005 4:03:47 PM

my first post didn't answer your original question. I was stirring the pot for reactions. But I think my other posts were pretty clear - Assuming she was not covert and outing her was not a crime, then how can one be ashamed or outraged without first knowing the facts and context of the converstations between the reporters and the WH? If it turns out that she indeed had covert status, then I'll be outraged. For now I'm gonna wait for the facts.

You make the same mistake that a few others do here, which is assuming that anyone who argues against the DNC / DailyKOS talking points is a "proud" Bush supporter. I really had to hold my nose when I voted last year. If a Leiberman or some other moderate Dem or Rep had made it out of the Primaries I would have voted for them in a heartbeat. I dislike the hard liners on both sides.

-- Modified on 11/4/2005 7:34:37 PM

there's never been any contest as to her status:  she was a non-official cover agent, ie, an agent which used their own identity and documents, but created an entirely bogus front and story for their activities.  When she or her contacts operated outside the US (as she did, and of course they did) there was no US protection.

We're not talking about risking Plame, but the entire program she worked on, and all of her contacts.  All that's down the tube; and you have to wonder how other CIA agents feel about this.

This fact is not in issue.  It's a given.  Check it out.  Forget the partisan sites, try wikipedia.

I for one don't care about partisan affiliation.  The Republicans are in my sights today because they are the biggest jackasses on the skyline, and a lot of that stupidity is their insistence on labelling people, instead of dealing with issues.

ie, she didn't lie about her identity, only about what she was doing.  The CIA created an entire front organization to cover what she was doing, and she used that to contact people for the CIA.

Outing her compromised (ie, trashed) the entire program and anybody that contacted her.

As far as I'm concerned, the legalities are something that has to be determined in a legal investigation.  What baffles me is why the investigation had to come from outside the WH:  we know the information came from there, the only real question is who is involved, and how.  The very fact that the investigation DID have to come from outside the WH casts doubts on exactly where Dubya's loyalties are.

are you serious? the internet encyclopedia that any tight-assed geek with an ISP connection can edit?
Yeah, that's the ticket!

And stop kidding around. You're a Democrat - Big "D". Be proud of it. Remember, like you've posted before - Democrats lazy, unorganized and good, Republicans evil, greedy and bad. Repeat.

MonkeyAss - bet me that Fitzgerald doesn't run thru the White House like crap thru a goose.  D'ya really think he fired up that website just to say goodbye?

By 2008, the Democrats will be able to elect anything with a 35 year old US birth certificate, yer momma included:

http://www.crochet.org/2003conf/photos/slip02g.jpg

he has a website ?!?!?!
well damn! that changes everything!

So, you wanna make a bet with someone on an anonymous discussion board?? Well OK skippy!

One million bucks! send it to me and I'll hold it for you. I promise.

send me a cashier's check for $2M, and I'll make change.

Wikipedia, because they exclude anything open to interpretation.  As in, RTFM.

Don't be afraid.  Facts are good for you.  Well, they might freak *you*, but that's just tough.

You say the 2 Kristoff articles got a lot of facts wrong.  OK, they say the envoy (Wilson) reported back to the CIA the the documents were forgeries and he had never seen the documents.  However, it apparently is true that the documents were poor forgeries, so this inaccuracy seems to me to be unimportant.  
The articles also (because of sloppy writing) implied that Cheney's office sent Wilson to Niger.  Actually the VP's office asked the CIA to investigate and the CIA then sent Wilson.

I have also heard the RNC claim Wilson said on CNN that Cheney's office sent him.  In fact, if you actually see that interview he said the exact opposite.

So help me out, what other lies can be attributed to Wilson?  

-- Modified on 11/5/2005 7:54:02 AM

Monkey Assassin® is correct.

I really am curious to see what conservative, mostly Republican people would say to this.  So much of what I heard from the conservative flacks was this was no biggie because it wasn't a crime.  My read on it (and I'm open to further information) is not as dire as the lefty-Dems have made it out, but I still think it was shameful behavior of Rove, Libby and maybe others.