Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Tico, why would I lie about your occupation? It is of no consequence (except to you). I may have been mistaken in thinking you made the statement, but I didn't lie.

It doesn't appear that you have much, if any, credibility in this forum.

It is not bad enough that the right has destroyed the careers of the Wilsons, who served the country superbly, it continues to denigrate them on a daily basis. But, after all, they had the temerity to expose some of the lies of the Bush administration.

I think this is sort of a ridiculous question.

Why would they name a 'gay running mate?' Why would you think such a thing is important?

Jeez

Cycloptichorn

Because you're a compulsive liar? Just a guess.

Tico, I think I share the view of many, which is that you are an obnoxious jerk. And I ain't lying.

Excuse me, but why are the 2 statements incompatible? There are many managers at all levels who were trained in the law.

I gather that Tico is a legend in his own mind. He writes as though his stuff is notable. Most of it is superficial nonsense.

You are digging yourself a hole, Advocate.

Total nonsense. Have you listened to Hannity's video, and can you prove that anything in it is inaccurate, such as both of the Wilsons have been caught in blatant lies, and Joseph Wilson has been documented as leaking classified information to the press? I don't know about you, but I am not happy about paying taxes to support political operatives in the CIA, that is not the mission or the job of the CIA, I'm sorry, but I don't blame Cheney, Bush, and the administration for being more than a little ticked off. I have no use for the Wilsons, from the very beginning, and I fail to see why anyone would.

Well.. Hannity has been caught in blatant lies..

What classified information did Wilson leak to the press? Neither you nor Hannity can provide any proof that anything Wilson said to the press was classified... Does this count as a "blatant lie" on your part okie?

"political operative"? oh, another "blatant lie" on your part there okie. Prove that Wilson was a "political operative" at the time he went to Niger.

As for Hannity's video.. Your link doesn't work. I have tried it on 2 different computers and it brings up a blank page. Is this another of your blatant lies when you said you posted Hannity's video?

So in recap.. Okie has been caught in "blatant lies" We should have no use for okie and shouldn't see why anyone would have use for him. Or does the standard only apply to those you disagree with okie?

Well, try it again, Parados. I just did and it worked fine. Here is the link again. The answers to your confusion about what I said are there.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?081307/081307_ha_wilson&Hannitys_America&New%20Insight&acc&Politics&-1&News&353&&&new

No, still doesn't work..

Is your computer or internet too slow? When I first tried the video when it first became available, it did not work the first 4 or 5 times, and I attributed it to too many people trying to view it, but I doubt if that is the problem now. Anyway, I've played it 4 or 5 times in the last few minutes. I assume you have high speed internet service? I also assume you realize you have to wait for the advertisement to run before the Hannity report? Anyway, I don't know the problem, but I can fill you in on the main points if you are interested in finding out.

Flash 9, IE 7, MedaPlayer 11.. High speed access. More than enough to run it.

I get a webpage that doesn't do much of anything. It sets the background and then stops working.

When I examine the source it looks like the source code for the page is trying to reset 4 separate cookies for Fox. Because I didn't direct there from a FOX page is probably why it isn't working for me but does for you.

Link didn't work for me either. Found it on the Fox News website via search. Worked. Seems to set some cookies. Once you've opened it via the Fox website, it seems as if you can reopen it via the link.

While that is true, HoT, I am not one of them. :wink:

Didn't work for me either, but like OE I found via search. Sometimes long links work when they are shortened. Here is the same link snipped. See if this one works for you:

http://tinyurl.com/yphbwx

Ticomaya, thanks for the assistance. My apologies to everyone for the link that didn't work very well.

To summarize Hannity's main points:

1. Valerie Plame Wilson's testimony that she did not recommend or suggest her husband to the CIA to go to Niger to investigate the uranium link to Iraq is apparently a lie because at least one email in particular appears to directly contradict this claim. This first point is a key point in terms of how this whole thing started, because if the Wilsons are not truthful about this key point, this is hugely significant in terms of what they did and what they said later about this whole sequence of events. The email establishes in black and white that Valerie Plame lied to Congress about this when she testified.

2. Joseph Wilson's claims that his trip proved there was no attempt by Iraq to procure uranium from Niger is not backed up by the details of his debriefing after the trip, and in fact according to some CIA analysts, what he found out added evidence that Iraq was interested in procuring uranium from Niger, or at the very least did not debunk the link between Iraq and Niger.

3. Joseph Wilson admitted to giving classified information to Walter Pincus, in other words he leaked information in regard to his trip to the press before it was de-classified.

4. The Wilson's claims that they were centrists and that none of what they did was politically driven is contradicted by the fact that Joseph Wilson is a Democrat that worked on the Kerry campaign and also currently backs Hillary Clinton.

So my comment about this is why then did Fitzgerald go down the road of investigating the leak of Plame's identity if the premise or motivations about the leak were totally flawed assumptions from the very start? It has been my argument as well as the argument of many many people that Fitzgerald took a wrong assumption, investigated the wrong people for the wrong reasons, and ended up indicting a man for supposedly lying about something that was never a crime. The people that should have been put under oath are the Wilsons themselves for causing this whole mess, and they and the CIA are in fact the main players behind the outing of Valerie Plame.

And the real story here is the ineptness and utter failure of the CIA to do any credible intelligence. Why would the CIA sanction a useless trip by Wilson in the name of doing intelligence? Was the CIA really that bankrupt in terms of intel on Niger? If this intel was part of Plame's job, how could such a sham trip be considered to be useful, and how come she and the CIA were so vacant of information that such a trip would find anything new or important? Sending Wilson to Niger to determine the Iraq - Niger yellowcake story is akin to believing we can send a diplomat to Iran and sit around with a few officials and find out the final word and total intelligence on their nuclear program. Such is preposterous on its face and would be laughed out of town. That Wilson is given any credibility at all for actually doing any intelligence work is utterly laughable.

It defies logic for people to believe Joseph Wilson when he claims to know everything about the CIA's intelligence concerning Iraq buying yellowcake in Niger. If in fact he knows everything, what does it say about the quality of the CIA's intelligence, and secondly, what does it say about the leaking of classified information from the CIA to Joseph Wilson? And what does it say about the politics being practiced in the CIA, instead of just providing good intelligence? These are the real stories here that the press should be interested in if they had a shred of interest in things important.

We've been over this rotting road before. Try to buy and bought are two different activities. DUH! If one doesn't buy something, they don't go home with it. Some people can't see the simplest of logic. If I go to a store and "don't" buy a gun, I simply don't own a gun. Shopping is not buying. I'm not considered a "animal killer" with a gun.

Not much fact there. A lot of opinion on the part of Hannity. Hannity is not privy to the time frame of who asked what when about sending Wilson to Niger. While the email could be seen the way Hannity suggests there is no way of knowing what conversations Plame had with her superiors before that email. Plame says her superior suggested it. There is no contradicting evidence.


Gee. the statement starts with a flat out lie.. When did Wilson claim his trip proved there was "no attempt". His op ed says he was sent to ask about the actual purchase. Hannity lies and you swallow it.
Really? What evidence do you have the the trip was "classified". This is made up crap by the RW. Wilson says this about the trip..
"I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret." Hmm.. what does "classified" mean in RW world? If we follow this reading of "classified" then why isn't Rove being tried for treason? You can't use different standards of "classified" based on politics. Find me one instance of any US official claiming Wilson's trip was classified. I will bet you can't and Hannity can't.
Now you want to claim that giving money or working on a campaign PROVES someone is political in ALL aspects? Gee. What the hell does that standard say about the people working in this WH?


Hannity doesn't prove a damn thing. Hannity spouts a bunch of crap that he and you won't possible apply equally to everyone.

1. Hannity claims Plame lied about "suggesting" her husband. There is no hard evidence to support Hannity's claim since Hannity can't provide any evidence about conversations that occurred before the email.
2. Hannity claims Wilson said he proved there was no attempt to purchase. In reality what Wilson says in his op ed and what he reported to the CIA was that there was no purchase. I can find NO statement by Wilson anywhere where Wilson claims he "proved" anything related to attempts to purchase. Please point those claims out to us if Hannity is correct. Without support I can only use Hannity's standard and call him a "blatant liar".
3. There is no evidence of any statement by Wilson to Pincus containing "classified" information. Wilson made the trip in the open. He saw no classified documents. What exactly was "classified"? Again. Hannity is a "blatant liar" since you can provide me no substantial evidence to support Hannity's claim. If Wilson's trip was classified then provide when and where the WH declassified his trip. If you can't provide any evidence of that then anyone in the WH with security clearance that has discussed Wilson's trip has violated their oath to not discuss classified material.

4.I see time is a non entity for Hannity. Rove worked for the Bush campaign BEFORE he did what he did. Wilson didn't work for Kerry until AFTER he did what he is accused of. Not only a double standard but a complete disregard for when things occurred.

Hannity is and continues to be a "blatant liar". He fabricates "facts" and you believe him without any support.