0
   

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

 
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 08:44 pm
Lash wrote:
Psychotic!!!

She sent them the memo just for the hell of it. It was just a wild coincidence that they gave him the assignment the next day. She also adjourned a meeting for the purpose of handing Liar Joe off to the CIA.

What was that about?

Kuv, you're coming off like a graduate from the Tom Cruise School of Psychos. How do you know when I read Roberts' statement?

You're not in a position to judge who is stupid, unless experience is a qualifier.


sadly, yes, i am qualified to judge who is stupid here, i see it in every post you submit. you wear it on your breast like a padge of honor. serious-minded people would be ashamed to post the drivel you post after being presented the facts repeatedly, but not you.

but facts are those terrible little things that get in the way of your insane world of make-believe.

did you read what the roberts addendum/additional view of the SSCI listed as support for their allegation; plame's hand written memo?

did you read what the CIA stated about this?

i will hold your little hand one more time, gash

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/roberts.pdf

page 442

Quote:
On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador'swife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA'SDirectorate of Operations which said,"[mJyhusband 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.''
[/b]


that is the totality of the evidence roberts, et al. cite. there is nothing else cited from Plame by Roberts.

Contrast this with the fact that the SSCI staffer who interviewed the CIA did not actually speak to the people who made the decision to send Wilson to Niger. this is documented by several sources in differnt places.

http://foi.missouri.edu/voicesdissent/columnistnames.html

reported that:

Quote:
"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked 'alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. 'They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. 'There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. 'I can't figure out what it could be.' 'We paid his [Wilson's] airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses."


It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence.

In fact, on July 13 of 2004, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed the account that Plame did not propose Wilson for the trip:
Quote:
"'She did not propose me,' he [Wilson] said -- others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too."


The CIA states unequivocally that a memo written by a State Dept official who said Plame had suggested that Wilson travel to Niger contains not just incorrect but fraudulent information.

and that it is a matter of public record that they felt so:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?
pagename=article&contentId=A30842-2003Dec25&notFound=true

Quote:
"But sources said the CIA believes that people in the administration continue to release classified information to damage the figures at the center of the controversy, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame, who was exposed as a CIA officer by unidentified senior administration officials for a July 14 column by Robert D. Novak.

Wilson, a prominent critic of the administration over Iraq, has said that was done to retaliate against him for continuing to publicize his conclusion, after a 2002 mission for the CIA, that there was little evidence Iraq had sought uranium in Africa to develop nuclear weapons.
Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.




So in the manner of the dielectic, show where in the remark of Plame's she talks in any way about sending Wilson to Niger. State in her remark the verb of action towards sending Wilson to Niger.

Do you find any such verb?

State where the CIA officials who actually made the decision to send wilson to Niger agree with the allegations made by roberts et. al.

Show the facts, not roberts partisan smear attempt nor your own hysterical assumptions that lead you to state unequivocally to your thesis that Plame said to her superiors, "Send Wilson to Niger."

Through thesis, to antithesis, to sythesis, show how you are right and I am wrong.

and if you can't, why don't you just shut up about this and leave the adults alone?
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 08:46 pm
Where did Finn go???

I believe we can put his canard to bed finally:


From the new isue of Time magazine:

Quote:
But while she may no longer have been a clandestine operative, she was still under protected status. A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law. And even if the leak was not illegal, intelligence officials argue, it is not defensible. "I'm beyond disgusted," a CIA official said last week. I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It's not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent."

Whatever the damage to Plame, there remains the cost paid by the CIA generally. In the wake of the disclosure, foreign intelligence services were known to have retraced her steps and contacts to discover more about how the CIA operates in their countries. Outside of a James Bond movie, spies rarely steal secrets themselves; they recruit foreigners to do it for them. That often means bribing a government official to break his country's laws and pass state secrets to the CIA. "It becomes extremely hard if you're working overseas and recruiting [foreign] agents knowing that some sloth up in the Executive Branch for political reasons can reveal your identity," says Jim Marcinkowski, who served four years in the agency and is now the deputy city attorney for Royal Oak, Mich. "Certainly this kind of information travels around the world very quickly. And it raises the level of fear of coming in contact with the United States for any reason."
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:06 pm
Chrissee, That's the reason I wrote earlier "What I'd like to see about now is the "Release From Security" docoments that allowed this administration to blow the cover of a CIA agent."

Just because a CIA agent is no longer undercover doesn't mean it's safe to release their status, because they have now endangered those people who have worked with the undercover agent.

That's the problem with this administration; they can't see ahead to see the consequences of their actions.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:09 pm
Chrissee wrote:
Where did Finn go???

I believe we can put his canard to bed finally:


From the new isue of Time magazine:

Quote:
But while she may no longer have been a clandestine operative, she was still under protected status. A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law. And even if the leak was not illegal, intelligence officials argue, it is not defensible. "I'm beyond disgusted," a CIA official said last week. I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It's not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent."

Whatever the damage to Plame, there remains the cost paid by the CIA generally. In the wake of the disclosure, foreign intelligence services were known to have retraced her steps and contacts to discover more about how the CIA operates in their countries. Outside of a James Bond movie, spies rarely steal secrets themselves; they recruit foreigners to do it for them. That often means bribing a government official to break his country's laws and pass state secrets to the CIA. "It becomes extremely hard if you're working overseas and recruiting [foreign] agents knowing that some sloth up in the Executive Branch for political reasons can reveal your identity," says Jim Marcinkowski, who served four years in the agency and is now the deputy city attorney for Royal Oak, Mich. "Certainly this kind of information travels around the world very quickly. And it raises the level of fear of coming in contact with the United States for any reason."


chrissee, anyone who knows finn knows he was talking out of his sphincter from the second he posted on this thread.

btw, i am just angry you posted that passage before i did. there are a lot more like remarks from CIA personnel in the press on the ramifications of Plame's outing. many of them expect foreign assests to be killed as a result of it. and the CIA is pissed because with the exposure of this, they expect that it will be harder to recruit foreign assets who will certainly question how the CIA can protect their identities.

but maybe finn is right, this could be no worse than a blow-job between two people, but if so, that boy must be giving some hellacious blow-jobs, don't you think?
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:15 pm
Looks like they got Rove and Libby for perjury or at least lying to the FBI. At least that is how (readiong between the lines) it appears to me after reading the new Time article.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:17 pm
Well, what it actually says is that although the Democrats on the committee didn't dispute the fact that Plame suggested her husband for the trip, the Democrats wouldn't allow that conclusion to be included in the report. Note: The Dems didn't dispute the underlying facts.

It also says that

Quote:
Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.


And I really love this part that conclusively proves Wilson lied:

Quote:
During Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.

In an interview with Committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."


In the context of writing about this case, I think we can all agree that "a little literary flair" translates to "lying" LOL.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:27 pm
Wilson's flair, lying or otherwise, is totally irrelevant LOL

One wonders why Rove and Libby needed to violate the law in order to discredit such an obvious liar. LOL
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:37 pm
Wilson's lying will not impact our national security. Clinton's lying did not impact our national security. This administration's lying impacts our national security. They lied about the justification for our preemptive attack on Iraq. Thousands died as a result, and more will die. See or understand the difference? Probably not.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:44 pm
Baloney. The woman had a CIA parking lot sticker on her car. Half of Washington knew she worked there. Wilson named her on his Who's Who bio page.

She had vanity plates that read P. Galore.

LOL...

<ok I used a bit of "literary flair" for that last part...so sue me>

Smile
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:53 pm
Chrissee, that's a great link, at least we know Mrs Wilson was identity-protected. So can we assume there are criminal penalties for revealing her identity-or confirming it, (which is the same thing according to security guidelines)?

The GOP position here looks bad and seems to be getting worse. If Valerie Wilson was in fact identity-protected, as it appears she is, what value is it to try to steal a couple of days of headlines by maintaining that she wasn't? Fairly quickly, it has to emerge that she WAS identity protected, and now the GOP is stuck with their own strategy of trying to pooh-pooh the importance of her identity.

That is a bad position to be in, for it looks like the Bush people consider support for their own agents a minor thing.

I don't think that attitude is going to "play" with the country at all.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 09:53 pm
JustWonders wrote:
Baloney. The woman had a CIA parking lot sticker on her car. Half of Washington knew she worked there. Wilson named her on his Who's Who bio page.

She had vanity plates that read P. Galore.

LOL...

<ok I used a bit of "literary flair" for that last part...so sue me>

Smile


LOL

I wouldn't exactly decribe your prose as having flair. The word drivel comes to mind.

And either misinformed or dishonest, to wit:

Quote:
Half of Washington knew she worked there
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:02 pm
The three quotes that JustWonders posted-are these quotes from the actual report, (endorsed by all 18 Senators), or are they from the addendum, (endorsed by only 3 conservative Senators and nobody else)?
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:31 pm
There's a lot of wild speculation on this thread regarding Plame with no links and therefore no factual proof to support any comment like Plame's license plate, et al. I think we've got a lot of heavy drinkers on the boards this weekend.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:32 pm
JustWonders wrote:
Well, what it actually says is that although the Democrats on the committee didn't dispute the fact that Plame suggested her husband for the trip, the Democrats wouldn't allow that conclusion to be included in the report. Note: The Dems didn't dispute the underlying facts.

It also says that

Quote:
Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.


And I really love this part that conclusively proves Wilson lied:

Quote:
During Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.

In an interview with Committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."


In the context of writing about this case, I think we can all agree that "a little literary flair" translates to "lying" LOL.


you guys are incredible.

what is this thread? a meeting of right wing retards?

the crap you posted was from the roberts addendum to which only 3 of the eighteen senators signed.

if it was denied a place in the main report simply because those big bad democrats would not allow it into the main body of the report, tell us mr brainiac, why 6 republicans did not sign on to it in the additional views addendum?

in fact, there is no mention of wilson allegedly lying in the main report at all, nor in any other additional view. go look for yourself.

if anyone but roberts, bond and hatch had agreed with what you posted, they would have signed on to the additional report (there were 8 other additional view reports). you are saying that since no one countered what they said, then the details you posted must be evidentiary.

you have it completely a$$-backwards. if what the addendum you cite was true, how come only 3 of 18 senators agreed with it? the fact that 15 senators did not sign the roberts additional view indicates clearly that 15 of 18 senators did not agree with what you just posted.

even the majority of Republican senators did not agree with what you posted, so why are you even complaining that the Democrats didn't dispute the crap you posted.

wilson wrote his book after it was public knowledge that ambassador owens-fitzpatrick's, general fulford's and the IEAE reports ALL stated that there was no attempt on the part of the iraqis to buy niger Ur press cakes.

you guys are just plain and out and out being ridiculous on this matter.

you keep referring to things as gospel fact yet each has been discredited.

this is yet another example of the "faith-based" reality in which you rightwing nuts reside.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:51 pm
Cooper says it was TurdBlossom & Scooter.
From the AP comes the news that Matt Cooper in an article in this weeks Time, reinforced by his appearence on Meat The Press, says it was "Karl"TurdBlossom Rove and Dick "Dick" Cheneys chief of staff Scooter Libby who told him about Valerie Plame.
The vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with the president's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims that neither aide was involved in the leak.
Á point of interest, they were not the only ones out there talking to reporters.
Libby and Rove were among the unidentified government officials who provided information for a Time story about Wilson, Cooper told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Cooper also said there may have been other government officials who were sources for his article. Time posted "A War on Wilson?" on its Web site on July 17, 2003.

The reporter refused to elaborate about other sources. He said that he has given all information to the grand jury in Washington where he was questioned for 2 1/2 hours on Wednesday.

In his first-person account, Cooper said Rove ended their telephone conversation with the words, "I've already said too much."
Yes indeedy, way too much for ODL. But not nearly enough for real Americans.

UPDATE:Juan Cole has a telling quote from Meat The Press that was missing from the AP report.
Did Rove say that she worked at the `agency' on `WMD'?"--weapons of mass destruction. "Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know."
As Mr Cole makes clear.
We may also conclude that Karl Rove knew that he was discussing classified information with Mr. Cooper. Why otherwise promise that the information would be declassified?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 10:56 pm
Good catch, c.i.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Jul, 2005 11:19 pm
kuvasz wrote:

you guys are incredible.

what is this thread? a meeting of right wing retards?

the crap you posted was from the roberts addendum to which only 3 of the eighteen senators signed.


Not retarded at all, Kuvasz.

But a deliberate, calculated lie.

Suppose the question of a Supreme Court decision came up. Suppose a poster gave a quote and said it was from a certain decision, and you look it up and find that the quote is from the dissenting opinion to that decision.

That means the poster just lied. Because he represented the dissenting opinion-which of course reaches the opposite conclusion as the real opinion-as the real decision. The dissenting opinion is just the comment of one or more judges why they think the real opinion is wrong. To represent it as the real opinion is a flat out lie.

The addendum to the report is the same thing as the dissenting opinion on a Supreme Court decision. It is NOT the report. Like the dissenting opinion, the addendum is only the comments of one or more Senators as to why they think the real report made a mistake. To try to represent it as the real report is just as much of a lie as to try to represent the dissenting opinion as the real decision of the Supreme Court.

Lash does the same thing Just Wonders did-try to pass off the addendum as the actual report of the committee-or at least try to obfuscate the enormous difference between the addendum and the real report.

Unless the poster makes absolutely clear that the quotes are from the addendum, and that this is NOT the actual report, that poster is lying.

Things are looking bad for the right wing. They think they can just put out a PR blitz of lies to bury this issue. The tactics we have just seen-not clearly labelling the quotes as being from the addendum, not the real report-makes that clear.

I think the GOP miscalculated here, badly. The general public is is not likely to buy the idea that an election advisor can decide whether or not to respect the cover of a CIA operative, even though the law says they must.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 12:10 am
yeap, bold-faced lies.

the right wing has done it for so long that they have become sloppy on this one. i think this plame affair is alerting people to how snookered they have been. but even then, i had to post at josh marshall's site and daily kos a few days ago what i posted here last week, and few knew that the right wing talking points, and those of orin hatch even today were from the addendum, not the main report of the SCI.

i have been appalled at the alleged media jounalists who do not even know these things, after all its their job to find out these things.

these neo-brown shirts are counting on people not having the time or inclination to actually read the primary sources.

and wasn't that luther's primary gripe about catholicism?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:49 am
kelticwizard wrote:
Foxfyre:

As I have mentioned several times in this thread, it does not matter that Novak called Rove. Novak recited the tale of Wilson and Plame, which he had gotten from a senior Administration official, and Rove either said, "I heard that too,", (Rove's version] or "Oh, you know about it", (Novak's version).

If those words are to be interpreted as confirming the story, which was a leak, then Rove is in trouble for confirming a leak. Security regulations say clearly there is no difference between confirming a leak and committing the leak itself.


KW,
I do have a small problem with what you are saying,and here is why...
Saying " I heard that too" is not neccessarily confirming something.
For example,if someone tells you that there is a monster in Loch Ness,and you say "I heard that too",are you confirming that the monster exists?
No,what you are doing is saying that you heard the same story.
That does not,by itself,mean that it is true.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 05:49 am
It is shocking, really, how obtuse they are being.

Finn
Quote:
But you are so sure I am wrong, perhaps you can enlighten us with how the outing of this woman has hurt anyone---and I feel compelled to add that your opinion is not proof or evidence.


Sheesh.

You do know that Brewster, Jennings, and Associates was the name of the cover company that Plame worked for?

You do know that this company didn't exist in real life and had nothing to do with Brewster Jennings, founder of Mobil Oil?

You do know that this was a CIA front company?

You do know that when Plame was outed, so was Brewster Jennings and Associates, who had more than a hundred 'employees' working for them?

You do know that each and every one of those 'employees' had their cover blown when the front company was blown?

You realize that all over the world, intelligence agencies went back to check records, to see who did business with them when, to see who was actually doing business with the CIA?

You realize that former employees of the company, who now work in other 'companies,' are now known to have worked for the CIA?

You realize that this leak has potentially seriously damaged our intelligence community by putting at risk dozens if not hundreds of CIA agents and analysts?

And STILL you insist that there is in no way any harm done to the American people?

Quit being foolish, Finn. Your boys got caught playing a bad game, now they're gonna pay the price.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 10:18:44