Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

parados wrote:

okie wrote:
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.
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.

The email is clear contradicting evidence. She said she never "suggested" or "recommended." She made no distinction whether she was the first to suggest or recommend, but even if she was not first to recommend, she did recommend. She lied, plain and simple.

Quote:

Quote:

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.
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.

Again, Hannity did not lie. Wilson's trip was not about simply determining a deal between Niger and Iraq, it was about attempting to set up a deal as well, in fact the administration never claimed there had been a deal, only attempts to set up a deal. You are blatantly wrong again. Hannity tells the truth. You lie again. And Wilson lied.

Quote:

Quote:
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.
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.

Again, watch the video. The details of the debriefing information was classified as CIA information until later de-classified, as I understand it the events, but Wilson released the information before it was declassified. Watch the video. I believe that part of it to be accurate along with all the rest of it.

Quote:

Quote:

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.[/b]

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?

He is free to be political, however he claimed he was not, and that is a lie.

Quote:

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

Hannity has it pretty well pegged. The Wilsons are phony political operatives from the gitgo, and that is what this has been about from the very beginning. Hannity tells it like it is and you have not refuted anything he said in the video with any evidence whatsoever. Its in black and white, in documents and testimony that Valerie and Joseph have both said.

0 Replies

Quote:

Again, Hannity did not lie. Wilson's trip was not about simply determining a deal between Niger and Iraq, it was about attempting to set up a deal as well, in fact the administration never claimed there had been a deal, only attempts to set up a deal. You are blatantly wrong again. Hannity tells the truth. You lie again. And Wilson lied.

Quote:

2. Joseph Wilson's claims that his trip proved there was no attempt by Iraq to procure uranium

There is no evidence of Wilson ever saying this that I can find. Your statement doesn't provide any evidence of Wilson saying it.

Hannity has built a strawman. It is a lie.

So. you have no evidence of the classification of Wilson's trip either. Gee. what a surprise. I bet you won't ever provide any evidence.

No, I think I have pretty clearly shown that there is no real evidence to support these statements. You won't provide any. Hannity won't provide any. But we should just take your word for it.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
Again, Hannity did not lie. Wilson's trip was not about simply determining a deal between Niger and Iraq, it was about attempting to set up a deal as well, in fact the administration never claimed there had been a deal, only attempts to set up a deal. You are blatantly wrong again. Hannity tells the truth. You lie again. And Wilson lied.

Quote:
2. Joseph Wilson's claims that his trip proved there was no attempt by Iraq to procure uranium

There is no evidence of Wilson ever saying this that I can find. Your statement doesn't provide any evidence of Wilson saying it.

Hannity has built a strawman. It is a lie.

Again, what you suggest is ridiculous. That is exactly what Wilson claimed and that is what this whole controversy has been about. Where have you been? No wonder you don't understand this issue, or even have the first clue. Hannity did not lie and you have no evidence whatsoever that he did. And you won't because he did not.

Quote:

So. you have no evidence of the classification of Wilson's trip either. Gee. what a surprise. I bet you won't ever provide any evidence.

No, I think I have pretty clearly shown that there is no real evidence to support these statements. You won't provide any. Hannity won't provide any. But we should just take your word for it.

I believe the information that he reported was classified, which he leaked before it was de-classified. If you can prove Hannity wrong, I would like to hear it, but you won't because I don't think you can.
Your arguments and disputations are totally groundless. No wonder you are clueless. Hannity has it pegged. Four major points that I summarized from his video and all are valid. Its a good thing you are not a reporter because nothing would ever be reported correctly. Thanks to the Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of the world, we get some useful information.

0 Replies

Hannity has a long history of lying about everything associated with our attack on Iraq. So what is new?

Plame testified that there was a discussion at the CIA on who to send to Niger, and she suggested that the deciders consider her husband, because he had the perfect background for the mission. Thus, she did not suggest or recommend him, only saying that he might be considered.

Assume for the sake of argument that she did suggest or recommend Wilson. What is the relevance? There is none.

BTW, Wilson was an honored State employee, who was never political until the Plame affair came out. He was the acting ambassador during the first Gulf War, and was honored for his work negotiating the release of Western hostages before hostilities commenced. Okie, please tell us how he and Valerie were political before the Plame affair was investigated. You imply they were political operatives all along.

0 Replies

That Plame recommended her husband for the trip to Niger is neither here nor there; she wasn't the final decision maker. People trying to make a big deal out of her recommendation just doesn't understand anything about chain of command.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Again, what you suggest is ridiculous. That is exactly what Wilson claimed and that is what this whole controversy has been about. Where have you been? No wonder you don't understand this issue, or even have the first clue. Hannity did not lie and you have no evidence whatsoever that he did. And you won't because he did not.

Then it should be very easy for you to find Wilson's words. Please do so.. Where have you been? In the REAL world I can find nothing from Wilson that states this.

Quote:

Quote:
So. you have no evidence of the classification of Wilson's trip either. Gee. what a surprise. I bet you won't ever provide any evidence.

No, I think I have pretty clearly shown that there is no real evidence to support these statements. You won't provide any. Hannity won't provide any. But we should just take your word for it.

I believe the information that he reported was classified, which he leaked before it was de-classified. If you can prove Hannity wrong, I would like to hear it, but you won't because I don't think you can.

You believe? Oh.. That's some sound basis. So it was classified that Wilson had public meetings and drank tea with diplomats? I have found RW blogs saying they wrote to the CIA wanting to know why Wilson wasn't required to sign a nondisclosure agreement for his trip. We know Wilson wasn't a CIA employee. So on what basis was Wilson prevented from discussing his trip? Who classified it? Who told Wilson his trip was classified? Just because you "believe" it doesn't make it so. Just because something is included in a classified document doesn't mean that information is "classified". Saddam was discussed as being the leader of Iraq in that same classified document. Was it "classified" that Saddam was the leader of Iraq? Can we convict Bush now that we know every item in a "classified" document is "classified"? No evidence from you. Just a claim that on its face is ludicrous.

Quote:

Your arguments and disputations are totally groundless. No wonder you are clueless.

Of course. I must be clueless because I ask for some evidence which you can't provide.

Quote:

Hannity has it pegged. Four major points that I summarized from his video and all are valid. Its a good thing you are not a reporter because nothing would ever be reported correctly. Thanks to the Hannitys and Rush Limbaughs of the world, we get some useful information.

Hannity has you pegged. You are the one that is willing to believe without any evidence.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Hannity has a long history of lying about everything associated with our attack on Iraq. So what is new?

Plame testified that there was a discussion at the CIA on who to send to Niger, and she suggested that the deciders consider her husband, because he had the perfect background for the mission. Thus, she did not suggest or recommend him, only saying that he might be considered.

Assume for the sake of argument that she did suggest or recommend Wilson. What is the relevance? There is none.

BTW, Wilson was an honored State employee, who was never political until the Plame affair came out. He was the acting ambassador during the first Gulf War, and was honored for his work negotiating the release of Western hostages before hostilities commenced. Okie, please tell us how he and Valerie were political before the Plame affair was investigated. You imply they were political operatives all along.

Painting Hannity as a liar is nothing more than liberal propaganda. You won't provide examples. Same with other conservatives, you label but you don't have the evidence. I provided 4 clear examples that Hannity also laid out about the Wilson's lies.

And Parados, I am tired of your lawyerly parsing of words to suit your preconceived notions. You would not admit 2 + 2 = 4 if it does not fit your template.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That Plame recommended her husband for the trip to Niger is neither here nor there; she wasn't the final decision maker. People trying to make a big deal out of her recommendation just doesn't understand anything about chain of command.

She never made a decision. She recommended. She lied. Period.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Painting Hannity as a liar is nothing more than liberal propaganda. You won't provide examples. Same with other conservatives, you label but you don't have the evidence. I provided 4 clear examples that Hannity also laid out about the Wilson's lies.

You provided examples that when examined can't be supported.. I have tried to find info to support the claims. I have been unable to do so.. I have asked you to provide evidence. You seem to be unable to.

What do you think that means?

Perhaps the examples aren't clear. Perhaps they are stronger examples of Hannity's dishonesty than Wilson's.

Proof is always on the positive side. You claim these are "facts". So provide some evidence that they are.

I find it quite humorous that you are willing to call Wilson a liar without being able to provide any facts while at the same time you complain that others can't call Hannity a liar until they prove it.

0 Replies

If you can't understand the first one about Plame, there is no hope for you. Hannity showed you the email document and the words in the document. That was an issue during her testimony to congressmen, and its in black and white in the memo - she did what she denied doing. Can't get much plainer than that, Parados.

0 Replies

okie: She never made a decision. She recommended. She lied. Period.

Please show proof where she "lied?"

0 Replies

okie wrote:

And Parados, I am tired of your lawyerly parsing of words to suit your preconceived notions. You would not admit 2 + 2 = 4 if it does not fit your template.

Who is parsing words? I asked for evidence of the words used.

You are the one parsing if you are not using the correct words but rather demand we use your interpretation of them. You may want to check your own math okie before you slander others. You accept Hannity without checking the facts. If someone says they are quoting someone, how is it "parsing" to ask for where they said it? If you say they MEANT something that wasn't actually said then it is YOU that is parsing.

0 Replies

Thats a great example, advocate. Howard Dean never said he believed the theory, nor did Hannity say so, he merely said Dean advanced the theory. I understood it perfectly that Howard Dean mentioned the theory as an interesting theory, so I took it that he believed it was worth considering. Thats all. But he did stoop to the level of mentioning the theory as interesting and one he apparently thought worth mentioning, thus I took it to mean he thought it was worth considering. Hannity never mis-represented it. I remember hearing Howard Dean's quotes, and frankly it does demonstrate that Howard Dean is pretty far out in left field. I actually did not ever think he believed it personally but he brought up the subject as a way to demonize Bush through the power of suggestion. Yes, he advanced the theory.

Advocate, if I told all the reporters in your town that there is an interesting theory out there that you robbed the local convenience store. I can't imagine you doing it, but it is a theory that is "interesting."

I think you would accuse me of advancing a theory, otherwise why should I tell reporters?

Not a lie by Hannity. Hannity is 100% correct. I listen to Hannity quite a bit and understood exactly what he meant when I heard him talk about this. He never said Dean believed the theory, but he did advance it, most definitely. You need to quit reading the liberal spin websites and listen to Hannity and you might learn something.

0 Replies

That explains the brain-wash and all the misinformation coming out from this poster.

0 Replies

You need to listen to Hannity instead of reading the opposition's cookie cutter manufactured spin. I heard Dean and I heard Hannity and I formed my own opinion. I agree with Hannity. If you simply read the leftist spin on the internet about Hannity, that does indeed explain your confusion.

I do not always agree with Hannity, but I don't believe he is a liar, no way.

You guys do indeed have weird ideas of lies. You can make a lie into a non-lie and a non-lie into a lie to suit your pathetic brand of politics. Need I remind you of your buddy, Bill Clinton, "it depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.

And the grandest claim of all, Parados claimed Clinton did not have an opportunity to get OBL when he said he turned down the Sudanese "because he had no reason to hold him." or similar words. I would have to look it up, but I will never forget that debate with Mr. Parados. That was also alleged to be a lie by Hannity, and no way, as Hannity told the 100% truth again on that one.

0 Replies

The blowhard next door
The boyish Sean Hannity seems poised to inherit Rush Limbaugh's mantle. And he isn't letting little things like facts get in his way to the top.
By Ben Fritz ([email protected]) and Bryan Keefer ([email protected])
August 26, 2002
[First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]

But in Let Freedom Ring, Hannity seems to be following another regrettable trend in modern punditry: Never let facts stand in the way of a good partisan screed. That was the dirty truth behind "Slander" and "Stupid White Men," and Hannity continues it with his book, a poorly researched effort full of blatant falsehoods and highly distorted versions of the truth..

Early in the book, Hannity grants that the "vast majority of liberals are good, sincere, well-meaning people. They love their kids. They love their neighbors. I am sure most love their country." The rest of Let Freedom Ring, however, is devoted to attacking liberals as a threat against America. Indeed, Hannity frames a war against liberals as part and parcel of the war against terrorism: "The Left may be sincere, but they're sincerely wrong. And they must be challenged and defeated if we are to win this war on terror and preserve our way of life for this and future generations."

0 Replies

You Tube

0 Replies

You know when you catch a conservative in a lie -- they try to drag Clinton into the discussion. See Okie doing this above.

Hannity didn't divulge, and altered the information, that Dean told him that a president wouldn't be involved in such a scheme. This is similar to Bush's statement on yellowcake, when he knew that Iraq was not buying it.

0 Replies

Wed, Aug 15, 2007 7:38pm ET

Hannity repeatedly mischaracterized Obama remarks, accused him of "political missteps"
Summary: On Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity repeatedly mischaracterized Barack Obama's recent statements about the war in Afghanistan, the use of force against terrorists in Pakistan, and the use of nuclear weapons.
On the August 14 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity repeatedly mischaracterized remarks by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), first during an interview with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and later during an interview with Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, author of the new book Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, August 2007).

While interviewing Romney, Hannity played a video clip of Obama's August 13 campaign appearance in Nashua, New Hampshire, during which Obama said, "We've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." During the interview with Mendell, Hannity referred to Obama's purported "political missteps" and characterized Obama as "accusing" U.S. forces of "air-raiding villages and killing civilians." However, U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. The Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama that "Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents."
Hannity claimed that Obama has stated his "willingness to invade an ally against their will," referring to Pakistan. However, as Media Matters for America repeatedly noted, Obama never said he would "invade Pakistan." Rather, Obama stated in an August 1 speech: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets [in Pakistan] and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will."
Hannity also claimed that Obama has said "he would take away the nuclear deterrent that we've had in this country" and later claimed that Obama said he would use nuclear weapons "under no conditions." However, Obama actually said he would not use nuclear weapons "in any circumstance" to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, specifically.

********

--Mediamatters.com

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know