Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Karl Rove: Traitor?
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 271 (223438)
07-12-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Monk
07-12-2005 12:55 PM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
I never said this nor did I imply it as you well know.
No. You said it is not the same because watergate started with investigating a crime and this one is of a potential crime. Unless the investigation was simply that of the break ins, then you are wrong. And you are wrong as the serious investigation was of potential crimes... the break ins were known, and old/nothing news.
Where did Bush admit this? Source please?
Here is a source reporting that he acknowledged a covert agents identity had been blown.
In June 2004, President Bush pledged that any administration official who broke the law by leaking a covert officer's identity would be prosecuted and fired.
And as an added bonus here is the newspaper confirming the fact that she was covert...
Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert officer at the CIA.
So I hope we are clear now. She was a covert CIA agent, even if she also may have worked as an analyst, and everyone gets that her cover was in fact blown. The only question is who did it, and in doing it were they knowingly doing that and so commiting a crime.
The only defense is whether a crime was commited doing the act, not whether it was done. Otherwise there wouldn't be an investigation.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 12:55 PM Monk has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 62 of 271 (223443)
07-12-2005 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Silent H
07-12-2005 2:35 PM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
It is pure lawyer-speak. I'm sure a defense lawyer would love to pretend that there is the possibility that a covert agent is not supposed to be covert, and so someone has an extra dodge.
No, Holmes, Lanny was not using lawyer speak and it’s not ridiculous. Lanny was correctly noting the requirements under law which would be necessary to obtain a conviction.
You said in Message 53
There is no question that a covert agent had her identity blown. Even Bush has admitted this
Where is the source that Bush admitted this? or were you just blowing smoke?
In Message 52 you said:
That Rove would say to the press that they didn't authorize an investigation into the accuracy of that data and people who were interested in doing so should be considered suspect.
I asked you where Rove said this, where was your source? Your response was:
‘If Rove was saying that they did not authorize that investigation then by necessity of reality they didn't authorize any..
Is there anything here that you are quoting Rove as saying or is it all just made up?
And again I laugh. Rove and Bush were bitter partisan guys who hated Wilson. Shouldn't that have factored into their credibility? Turns out to be yes, as they were wrong.
So credibility factors in with Rove and Bush because they hate Wilson, but it doesn’t factor in with Wilson who hates Rove and Bush. I’m confused?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 2:35 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 6:26 PM Monk has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 63 of 271 (223461)
07-12-2005 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Monk
07-12-2005 10:52 AM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
He said Monday that to violate the law, Rove would have had to know Plame was a covert officer; intentionally disclose that fact; and know that the CIA wanted her covert status kept secret.
Well, if the CIA had not wanted her to remain secret, then they would have outed her themselves.
I mean, what does the CIA have to do to demonstrate that they want a certain operative to be secret besides not reveal the secret?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 10:52 AM Monk has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 64 of 271 (223465)
07-12-2005 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Monk
07-12-2005 3:15 PM


Re: ...but the legs seem a little stubby
Where is the source that Bush admitted this? or were you just blowing smoke?
I just gave you and article which dated when he discussed the blowing of a secret agent's cover. Unless you are going to argue that he was discussing some other case, that should have been good enough.
If you want I'll track down some more quotes where he talks about how serious this investigation is into whether a crime was commited in leaking this information. About the one thing that isn't debatable here is that someone who was covert, got their identity blown. The question is only who, and did they commite a crime in doing it.
I asked you where Rove said this, where was your source? Your response was:
It was in articles reviewing the emails released by Cooper. Do you have a hard time Yahooing or Googling for very recent info? Do you really need me to post recent articles on the subject?
So credibility factors in with Rove and Bush because they hate Wilson, but it doesn’t factor in with Wilson who hates Rove and Bush. I’m confused?
Ah, I get it. Full spin cycle of deny deny deny, and question question question. How funny that you apologists spend so much time being superskeptics on intel which might hurt you, and super gullible when it might husrt everyone else.
Let's try this again. You claimed that Wilson was biased against B&R. We'll forget for sake of argument that your "evidence" is personal comments by Wilson after he got screwed by B&R. Okay so this guy who might be biased delivers a review of certain intel which differs from that supplied by B&R.
On the flipside is B&R, and their review of the same intel, and they are potentially equally biased against Wilson. In order to sink Wilson they resort not to dealing with evidence, but only ad hominem and guilt by association arguments so as to pressure people to avoid looking at what Wilson says.
Now what can a neutral person make of this? Well we should decide to trust neither one implicitly and just go with the data. A neutral observer would note that Wilson certainly had more facts on his side at the time, than B&R. In fact before the war started he was totally backed by all world intel sources.
More interestingly is that he has been supported by all evidence after the invasion, while everything B&R said has fallen apart.
So what are we to make now (as neutral observers) of B&R having tried to quash good intel, to support bad intel? Your continued apologetics on this is really self-defeating. The facts are in and it is only accepting reality which seems to be taking some time.
Though I guess in this bizarro world you guys are operating you can claim Wilson was "rewarded" with a stab in the back, since you have already claimed Tenet was "punished" by getting full benefits and the nation's highest medal.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 3:15 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 11:43 PM Silent H has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 271 (223491)
07-12-2005 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Tal
07-12-2005 8:25 AM


Re: This story is growing legs
you didn't answer the question.
which do you think is more heroic:
expose a criminal?
protect a criminal?
I said nothing about the legality of the persons actions.
But I'll also add to your scenario: protecting a criminal legally is still a crime, which in some cases can be just as bad as the crime itself. Accessory after the fact.
Now answer the question.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Tal, posted 07-12-2005 8:25 AM Tal has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3923 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 66 of 271 (223531)
07-12-2005 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Silent H
07-12-2005 6:26 PM


Wilson's lies
Holmes writes:
I just gave you and article which dated when he discussed the blowing of a secret agent's cover. Unless you are going to argue that he was discussing some other case, that should have been good enough.
Actually, you said Bush admitted that an agent had her identity blown, a declarative statement. Now you change it to say that Bush was discussing the blowing of an agents cover.
Bush said IF an administration official broke the law by leaking a covert officer's identity, THEN they would be prosecuted and fired. There is a big difference between admitting that an event occurred verses stating appropriate punishments IF that event occurred.
If you want I'll track down some more quotes where he talks about how serious this investigation is into whether a crime was commited in leaking this information.
Now you’re on the right track. Bush has discussed the seriousness of the investigation, that’s different than declaring a secret agent had her identity blown.
About the one thing that isn't debatable here is that someone who was covert, got their identity blown. The question is only who, and did they commite a crime in doing it.
No, it’s still debatable whether Plame was covert. If she wasn’t covert, then she couldn’t have gotten her identity blown.
It was in articles reviewing the emails released by Cooper. Do you have a hard time Yahooing or Googling for very recent info? Do you really need me to post recent articles on the subject?
Actually, I do because you are in the habit of posting long, posts filled with numerous points without source links that often conflict with previous statements made by you and are in many cases either off topic or just plain wrong. When questioned, you tend to rephrase the context of the point as you did above in the Bush discussion.
Let's try this again. You claimed that Wilson was biased against B&R. We'll forget for sake of argument that your "evidence" is personal comments by Wilson after he got screwed by B&R. Okay so this guy who might be biased delivers a review of certain intel which differs from that supplied by B&R.
No. Let’s get the facts straight before we begin. Wilson was biased against Bush and Rove not because he was screwed as you put it. But because Wilson is a long time Democratic partisan who worked in the Clinton administration long before Bush and Rove entered the national scene.
He contributed to and actively supported Kerry’s campaign. It was Wilson who launched the media blitz criticizing Bush in the run up to the election campaign by writing several articles critical of the Bush administration. This was long before Rove was involved in anything. Further, Wilson didn’t deliver a review of certain intel different from that supplied by B&R as you suggest.
Let’s look at the intel information supplied by the former ambassador. Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were proven false in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report dated (July 10, 2004).
The Senate panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, actually bolstered the case. Contrary to Wilson's assertions, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
The Senate report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post in June 2003. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
Senate Committee staffers asked how Wilson could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said.
Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Another bald faced lie on the part of Wilson.
Holmes writes:
In order to sink Wilson they resort not to dealing with evidence, but only ad hominem and guilt by association arguments so as to pressure people to avoid looking at what Wilson says.
Well, is it any wonder that nobody wants to look at what Wilson says? He lies so much! I just listed two examples, but there’s more:
Wilson said his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.
quote:
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published in 2004. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
The bipartisan Senate intelligience 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 repeated the lie again in the Washington Post article dated July 17, 2004 when he again denied his wife was involved in his Niger trip:
quote:
For the second time in a year, your paper has published an article [news story, July 10] falsely suggesting that my wife, Valerie Plame, was responsible for the trip I took to Niger on behalf of the U.S. government said Wilson
It just keeps going, another lie published in his New York Times article , Wilson writes:
quote:
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report.
Of course it wasn’t Cheney’s office that had questions. The only CIA official he was contacted by was his wife, Plame.
Wilson actually corroborated the intel that Iraq wanted to buy uranium in Niger. Not that Iraq succeded, just that they wanted to.
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was approached in June 1999 by a businessman that insisted he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.
Let me repeat that. Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.
Wilson said this to his CIA contacts. Did any of this make its way into the numerous articles written by Wilson in the New York Times and other media outlets? Of course not.
Now what can a neutral person make of this? Well we should decide to trust neither one implicitly and just go with the data. A neutral observer would note that Wilson certainly had more facts on his side at the time, than B&R. In fact before the war started he was totally backed by all world intel sources.
Wrong again Holmes. A neutral person would conclude that Wilson is a Democratic partisan idealogue who eagerly wanted to get Kerry elected and saw trashing Bush by lying as the easiest way to do it. Then there's the money and fame. Wilson did NOT have more facts on his side and he was NOT backed by all world intel sources.
And I make you laugh?
Aside from the flat out lying, I find Wilson’s motives additionally clouded by his eager pursuit of the money angle in all of this. Wilson claims that the White House leaked his wife's identity for political reasons. Yet he's using the incident to greedily line his pockets. There was talk of a movie deal from Wilson himself, who revealed to the Washington Post in August 2003 that the couple had discussed who would play her should a suitable screenplay materialize.
Then there was the book deal inked in October 2003 for an undisclosed sum. "We made an offer, and he was happy with that," said Karen Auerbach, spokeswoman for Carroll & Graf Publishers.
Wilson and Plume are simply cashing in using lies as the vehicle to generate a sensational story. And they'll laugh all the way to the bank.
I find it ironic that Wilson criticizes the administration for inappropriately revealing intelligence operatives when he himself fails to treat the matter with discretion.
In a Washington Post article in December 2003, Wilson seemed very concerned about his wife’s identity saying:
quote:
"My wife has made it very clear that -- she has authorized me to say this -- she would rather chop off her right arm than say anything to the press and she will not allow herself to be photographed," he declared in October 2003 on "Meet the Press."
Yet in January 2004, less than four months after his concerned plea in Meet the Press, Wilson and Plame pose for Vanity Fair:
It would have been understandable for photo’s to be taken while the couple was out on the town and a photographer happened to take a snap shot, but it is quite another to do a photo op in a national magazine. Even though Plame is disguised . It smacks of sleaze. Source
Why should we believe anything these two say? Why should we believe she was involved in covert operations? Because she says so? Becasue that's what all the media is saying? The word gets repeated, "covert agent", or "CIA spy" and its taken for granted that's what she was instead of one of thousands of analyst employed as a civilian by the CIA. It's taken for granted that Valerie Plume was a covert CIA operative whose outing would cause loss of life. But it's not true.
They're simply cashing in and making the story more interesting. And it has worked.
Abe: formatting
This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 07-13-2005 12:03 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Silent H, posted 07-12-2005 6:26 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by berberry, posted 07-13-2005 4:51 AM Monk has not replied
 Message 68 by Silent H, posted 07-13-2005 5:53 AM Monk has replied
 Message 74 by Silent H, posted 07-13-2005 11:53 AM Monk has replied
 Message 77 by Silent H, posted 07-13-2005 4:28 PM Monk has replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 271 (223550)
07-13-2005 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Monk
07-12-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Wilson's lies
My time has been severely limited lately so I can't get too deeply involved in this thread even though I started it. I'll let holmes continue to deal with most of what you've posted (he's doing an excellent job), but I wanted to respond to this one sentence:
quote:
No, it’s still debatable whether Plame was covert.
If she wasn't covert, someone should have told Patrick Fitzgerald. Someone should also let Judith Miller's lawyer know since I'm sure he'd be interested. Why don't you write him a letter, Monk? Think of all the grief you'd be saving that poor woman.

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 11:43 PM Monk has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Silent H, posted 07-13-2005 5:55 AM berberry has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 68 of 271 (223559)
07-13-2005 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Monk
07-12-2005 11:43 PM


Re: Wilson's lies
Actually, you said Bush admitted that an agent had her identity blown, a declarative statement. Now you change it to say that Bush was discussing the blowing of an agents cover.
Is that what you are getting so worked up over? That I used "admission"? I was simply saying that even Bush has made public commentary which exhibits that he knows classified information had been leaked, and that it was a secret agent's identity (aka a covert agent's identity had been blown).
Bush said IF an administration official broke the law by leaking a covert officer's identity, THEN they would be prosecuted and fired.
You are putting emphasis in the wrong place. He is stating if an administration official "broke the law" by leaking a covert officer's identity, then they would be prosecuted and fired. The question he is leaving open is whether laws were broken, not if info was leaked.
Not even Rove's lawyer is arguing that she wasn't a covert agent who has now had her cover blown. It is about whether he intended to do that, whether he gave enough specifics to do that, and whether he even knew she was a covert agent at the time.
Bush has discussed the seriousness of the investigation
Check it out Monk, the investigation is who blew the agent's cover and if it was done in a way that it was a crime. Everyone understands that a covert agent's cover was blown.
No, it’s still debatable whether Plame was covert. If she wasn’t covert, then she couldn’t have gotten her identity blown.
Hey genius, I gave you a quote from the same article where it was explicitly stated that she was a covert agent. So put the clues together. She WAS a covert agent. Her identity was revealed through a leak of classified info. An investigation begins on that leak, which would only happen if a leak occured (if it wasn't the investigation would not have been going on for two years, more like two seconds), and Bush is discussing possible punishments if a crime were connected to the leaking of the info.
Only extreme linguistic gymnastics and almost delusional apologetics, can get you to a point where you can question IF a covert agent's cover was blown.
Actually, I do because you are in the habit of posting long, posts filled with numerous points without source links that often conflict with previous statements made by you and are in many cases either off topic or just plain wrong
I do not post sources for easily obtainable info. It is a waste of my time to cut and paste links to info, you can just as easily tap a few words into Yahoo or Google to find. My posts do not conflict with previous posts. Only through linguistic twisting and turning are you capable of pretense that I have changed what I was stating in any of my posts. Unlike you I have solid positions I don't need to wriggle out of.
In this latest case you are simply trying to be a stickler for what "admission" must mean, rather than look at the context of what I was discussing.
No. Let’s get the facts straight before we begin. Wilson was biased against Bush and Rove not because he was screwed as you put it. But because Wilson is a long time Democratic partisan who worked in the Clinton administration long before Bush and Rove entered the national scene.
Genius, I was accepting your position to move on with the argument. The only thing I said is that it takes me forgetting that your only "evidence" was stuff coming after he got screwed by Rove and Co. Tenet worked in the Clinton administration... so that kind of thing means nothing. Kerry's campaign and the election campaign came after he got screwed. But let me get very accurate for you...
DID PLAME HAVE HER COVER BLOWN?
You may go to this CNN page on the Rove story There is a "related" popup link further down the page (whose address I can't seem to cut and paste) which provides a timeline of the case. It is titled "Plame Case". So if you don't trust the wording within the article itself to note that she did, go to that link. There you will find:
A grand jury investigation into who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame has targeted two reporters, threatening to jail them for refusing to name the source of the leak.
At the CIA's request, the Justice Department launches a criminal probe into the leak of Plame's identity. A 1982 law makes knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert agent a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
Novak says he won't reveal his sources. He said the CIA asked him not to identify Plame, "but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else" if he did.
So, let's add this up. The grand jury investigation is part of the criminal probe initiated at the request of the CIA, into the leaking of a covert agent's identity. Novak is trying to stand behind the fact that the CIA didn't blow her cover when telling him not to publish her identity, as an excuse for why he didn't do anything wrong. Thus even he is not denying that her cover was blown, only that he couldn't know he was doing it.
Oh by the way you cited this source earlier to try and blackwash Wilson. In it you will find that your own source said:
Novak hasn't particularly supported the Iraq war, and his column essentially took Wilson's side. But the fact that Novak blew Plame's cover (in the course of relating that Wilson was sent at Plame's suggestion) gave The Nation's David Corn the opportunity to accuse the Bush administration of compromising national security, in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
Your article was very old and at that time was trying to question if Wilson's wife was truly a CIA agent, but understood that if she was then her cover had been blown. It is quite evident from above is it not? At the bottom of the article is an update/correction stating that the CIA has instructed the DOJ to start and investigation... end of story, a covert officer had her cover blown and even your source recognizes that the CIA recognizes that this is true.
What leg are you left to stand on?
WAS WILSON A BITTER PUBLIC PARTISAN HACK ABOUT ROVE BEFORE GETTING SCREWED?
Now I have no clue if in private this guy doesn't like Bush and Co, and maybe he is. But you tried to tie his public activity against them as indication he was obviously biased against them. I have noted that your evidence is all after he got screwed.
In both your source and the CNN timeline you will see that Wilson's mission was in 2002, and that his article in NYTimes was on July 6 2003. This led to Tenet's having to bite the bullet on July 11 2003. Novak writes his article on July 14, 2003, outing Wilson's wife and as we see now Rove had been contacting reporters during this time period with her identity. Intentional or not, Wilson just got a knife in the back for doing good service.
Would that make you a bit bitter? Not only did he have his credit shot for good service (we can agree on that, right?), but his wife's career was destroyed. It is AFTER THAT, on Aug 21 that he publically skewers Rove, and Rove in particular. It is after that that he works for the Kerry campaign. You need me to draw you a diagram or something?
If anything this totally make me respect Wilson. Not only did he get the Niger thing right, but he appears to have correctly identified who tried to backstab him and his wife. Someone give this man a job.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were proven false in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report dated (July 10, 2004). The Senate panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, actually bolstered the case.
Oh, I'll go look for it. What's funny is that it could be proven false, when the accuracy of the info has been proven since then.
He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
Senate Committee staffers asked how Wilson could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said.
Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
A bald face lie? Why is it a lie instead of a misstatement? Tell me something... did they turn out to be forgeries, and based on what indicators? Hint: everything Wilson said. He was likely misstating what he had personally found.
The bipartisan Senate intelligience 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
You are trying to run the other way now with language. What was the nature of rejecting Wilson's statements within the media. It was that no one but his wife had sanctioned the trip. That only his wife was responsible for sending him. The above clearly shows that THEY were lying. He was likely responding to the accusations that she was the only one who made up and signed off on the trip, when he was saying she was not responsible for the trip, or had nothing to do with it.
Clearly they had waited for confirmation from others higher up before going on the mission.
What I really don't get is where this attack is coming from. He was right, he was proven right. They were proven wrong. You are trying to use ad hominem and guilt by association, rather than look directly at who was right.
Did any of this make its way into the numerous articles written by Wilson in the New York Times and other media outlets? Of course not.
Why would it have to, when the object under discussion was whether the sale went through, as the administration was claiming it had?
Wrong again Holmes. A neutral person would conclude that Wilson is a Democratic partisan idealogue who eagerly wanted to get Kerry elected and saw trashing Bush by lying as the easiest way to do it. Then there's the money and fame. Wilson did NOT have more facts on his side and he was NOT backed by all world intel sources.
Oh watson, look at your poor logical ability. How could a neutral person conclude that at all? The question is was his report accurate regarding the subject under discussion which was the sale of material. His info was accurate about that. Whether Iraq was interested is not the same as saying it was going through.
What's ridiculous is that you can't even use hindsight to build the case. We have the facts and they are in. Wilson was right about the Niger claim and they were wrong. His article is what forced the admission by Tenet that the administration was wrong. A few days later someone attempts to discredit Wilson from within the administration.
The idea that Bush and Rove might be the political idealogues seems to have slipped your mind completely.
Why should we believe anything these two say? Why should we believe she was involved in covert operations? Because she says so?
Whether they decided to cash in on their misfortune AFTER the backstabbing is irrelevant to what happened from 2002 to 2003. Certainly one could not have used it to make judgements about his claims in 2003.
If you think Rove and Bush have not been cashing in on all of this, then you are simply denying reality. They were up for a loss and obviously attempted to punish someone raining on their bad intel. They went on to decorate the guy who had the bad intel... ever going to back up your assertion he got punished?
I never said Wilson was a perfect individual, and neither did I say Plame was. The questions are:
1) Was he right on Niger? He was, confirmed before his own article by UN officials on proliferation, and the White House iced him for it. If he wasn't then Tenet would never have had to come clean. That is motive for revenge. The timing couldn't be sweeter for any investigation.
2) Was he right on Rove? Apparently he was. And this makes things even more strained for you. If you are saying the White House should have dismissed Wilson because they knew about Wilson and his wife and what type of people they were, then how did they not know she was a covert agent when they leaked it?
3) Was she a covert agent? As I have shown above, your own sources admit it, and so does the CIA... which is why an investigation was started.
You are spinning spinning spinning, on this one, and getting nowhere.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 11:43 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Monk, posted 07-13-2005 1:21 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 69 of 271 (223560)
07-13-2005 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by berberry
07-13-2005 4:51 AM


Re: Wilson's lies
If she wasn't covert, someone should have told Patrick Fitzgerald. Someone should also let Judith Miller's lawyer know since I'm sure he'd be interested.
Yeah, this is one of the things that is really blowing my mind regarding Monk's position. How could this be in question at all?
You must be feeling pretty pleased these days.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by berberry, posted 07-13-2005 4:51 AM berberry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by berberry, posted 07-13-2005 9:10 AM Silent H has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 271 (223569)
07-13-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Silent H
07-13-2005 5:55 AM


Re: Wilson's lies
holmes writes me:
quote:
You must be feeling pretty pleased these days.
Yep, matter of fact! It's especially gratifying since this matter makes it easier than ever to point out the bias of Fox News Channel to my conservative friends and family members. They simply can't refute it this time. What are supposed to be straight newscasts are bringing up the same sorts of slanted, ridiculous issues that Monk brings up, like the nonsense question of whether or not Valerie Plame was a covert agent. Hello people! We have a special prosecutor! If there was no crime, we wouldn't even know his name.
Another thing that the republicrats are overlooking is that the Fitzgerald's investigation is not quite finished. We still don't know what other evidence he has, but we do know that he's a relentless bulldog who isn't known for fucking things up. We know he has something, else he wouldn't be so confident in his case that he would send two popular reporters to jail.

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Silent H, posted 07-13-2005 5:55 AM Silent H has not replied

  
berberry
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 271 (223573)
07-13-2005 9:33 AM


Why do republicans hate CIA agents?
Read what a former CIA agent says about the republicans' lies.

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Tal, posted 07-13-2005 9:36 AM berberry has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5676 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 72 of 271 (223574)
07-13-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by berberry
07-13-2005 9:33 AM


Since when do Democrats love CIA Agents?
More to follow.

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong
Do you know what your DNC stands for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by berberry, posted 07-13-2005 9:33 AM berberry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Chiroptera, posted 07-13-2005 10:41 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 07-13-2005 12:15 PM Tal has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 271 (223582)
07-13-2005 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Tal
07-13-2005 9:36 AM


Re: Since when do Democrats love CIA Agents?
Did you post this just for the subtitle?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Tal, posted 07-13-2005 9:36 AM Tal has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 271 (223589)
07-13-2005 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Monk
07-12-2005 11:43 PM


This space reserved... Monk's lies?
Now I'm not saying you are lying, but you appear to have not been factual in your statements. I believe you may simply be mistaken or having trusted someone you shouldn't have for facts. However, you would not allow this for Wilson at all, and used statement after statement that you said had been refuted as evidence of lies.
What happens then if statement after statement of yours is disproven?
This message is just to let you (and others) know I got a hold of this...
Senate intelligence committee report dated (July 10, 2004).
... and am paging my way through it. At over 400 pages it takes a bit. However I have already discovered rather drastic inconsistencies between what you claimed it said and what it actually said.
I wanted to put this in now before someone scoops me with a full blown rebuttal of your statements. I don't want it to appear like I'm just following up what someone else did. I am on this and it is quite interesting.
Indeed I am also reading supplemental material and my guess is you took your position from a biased source regarding the contents.
Why oh why, would you blast in to me for failing to cite sources, then pretend to cite findings from a source? Not a very good idea.
I'll be back with something later tonight or tomorrow (exhausted from real life work at this point).

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Monk, posted 07-12-2005 11:43 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Monk, posted 07-14-2005 1:32 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 271 (223590)
07-13-2005 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Tal
07-13-2005 9:36 AM


Re: Since when do Democrats love CIA Agents?
Okay, I'm not a democrat and I have nothing against intelligence agencies. Even if I have a bit of problems with certain CIA programs and recent failures, that is a procedural or practical set of issues and not an ideological one.
I read Berb's cited article and it seemed on the money. What factual issues do you have with it? What values issues would you have with an article that defends the idea that it is tragic and dangerous for a covert agent of the US govt to be outed by a politician?
My guess is if it was a Dem who had done this to an agent who had provided good intel against a Dem's bad intel, you'd be howling for blood.
But I'd like to add something as well, which is something not in the article but mentioned in the follow up responses. You and Monk seem pretty down on Saddam, so what do you make of this about Wilson...
In 1990, while sheltering more than a hundred Americans at the U.S. Embassy and diplomatic residences, he (Wilson) briefed reporters while wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie -- a symbol of defiance after Hussein threatened to execute anyone who didn't turn over foreigners.
The message, Wilson said: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."
This toughness impressed President George H.W. Bush, who called Wilson a "truly inspiring" diplomat who exhibited "courageous leadership" by facing down Hussein and helping to gain freedom for the Americans before the 1991 war began.
If this is true about Wilson, why are we to think he's some politically biased hack who we should not care about, rather than a courageous individual who should be trusted?
As much as I was neither one way or the other about Wilson before all of this (he had only mentioned data already known at the UN before the war), he's looking more like a real hero to me all the time.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Tal, posted 07-13-2005 9:36 AM Tal has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024