8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 03:40 pm
Quote:
It seems to me this directly contradicts her husband's apparent claims that George Bush knew all along there was no WMD


I've highlighted the error in your posting.

You're convinced that nobody did anything wrong, b/c it would be too harmful for you to face the truth, Okie: that, even if they had good intentions, your elected leaders egregariously broke the law in order to punish someone. They showed poor moral and terrible ethical sense in their choices; and it wasn't a one-off event, either. That's how they have governed the entire time.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 04:05 pm
I can see why Fitz decided not to prosecute under IIPA, but don't agree. The main reason is that, I believe, no one has ever been prosecuted under the law. Thus, Fitz probably felt he needed an even stronger case to prosecute. However, what I don't understand, is why he didn't prosecute for leaking classified information. Remember the Pollard case.

I doubt that Plame was probably not intimately involved with all aspects of Iraq's possession of WMD. She may have been much more involved with matters pertaining to Iran, Pakistan, et al. It is silly to cite her words in this matter.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 04:10 pm
okie wrote:
... and I remain totally convinced the administration had every reason to be ticked off.


Of course, they were ticked off. It was being shown just what incredible liars they were and they resented that so much that they were willing to break any laws necessary to stop it. That's not at all different than how common gangsters act.

They lied, they still lie and you make apologies for them. Their lies have caused the deaths of thousands of people. Just what does that make you, Okie, really, truly, what in heavens name does that make you?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 04:16 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me this directly contradicts her husband's apparent claims that George Bush knew all along there was no WMD


I've highlighted the error in your posting.

You're convinced that nobody did anything wrong, b/c it would be too harmful for you to face the truth, Okie: that, even if they had good intentions, your elected leaders egregariously broke the law in order to punish someone. They showed poor moral and terrible ethical sense in their choices; and it wasn't a one-off event, either. That's how they have governed the entire time.

Cycloptichorn
I don't see any error, cyclops, as that was the insinuation of Joseph Wilson's entire operation. The wedge event was yellowcake in Niger, but the bottom line issue was WMD in Iraq, and here we have Valerie Plame Wilson in her own words admitting she thought there possibly was WMD in Iraq and feared for the safety of our troops. Yet we have Joseph Wilson on a mission to insinuate there was none and Bush knew it. Not even his own wife, Valerie knew it, and that was supposedly her specialty at the CIA. They continue to poke holes in their own spin.

And for the umpteenth time, there is no credible evidence that elected leaders broke the law, none cyclops.

I continue to try to point you to the real issue, and that is the incompetence at the CIA.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 04:21 pm
JTT wrote:
They lied, they still lie and you make apologies for them. Their lies have caused the deaths of thousands of people. Just what does that make you, Okie, really, truly, what in heavens name does that make you?

Take a deep breath and actually read what Valerie Plame Wilson herself said about WMD in Iraq, JTT. She is your icon of the anti-Bush crowd, so read what she said. WMD was her specialty, JTT, she was the supposed expert, and she if anyone should have known that Bush was totally all wet, should have known it, and she didn't.

Your revision of history is self serving and sickening. Your hatred for George Bush has blinded you to what actually happened.

This whole chapter of history is akin to the woman that sued McDonalds over hot coffee. Congress voted to authorize war, its part of the record, and the leader of your party voted for it as well. Your party will have to at some point decide to take responsibility for something.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 04:24 pm
Joe Wilson was the perfect person to go to Niger, and he got it right. As a good patriot, he told the world how Bush lied about yellow cake.

There is zero evidence that Plame was any kind of expert on Iraq's WMD, or lack thereof.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 04:55 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
It seems to me this directly contradicts her husband's apparent claims that George Bush knew all along there was no WMD


I've highlighted the error in your posting.

You're convinced that nobody did anything wrong, b/c it would be too harmful for you to face the truth, Okie: that, even if they had good intentions, your elected leaders egregariously broke the law in order to punish someone. They showed poor moral and terrible ethical sense in their choices; and it wasn't a one-off event, either. That's how they have governed the entire time.

Cycloptichorn
I don't see any error, cyclops, as that was the insinuation of Joseph Wilson's entire operation. The wedge event was yellowcake in Niger, but the bottom line issue was WMD in Iraq, and here we have Valerie Plame Wilson in her own words admitting she thought there possibly was WMD in Iraq and feared for the safety of our troops. Yet we have Joseph Wilson on a mission to insinuate there was none and Bush knew it. Not even his own wife, Valerie knew it, and that was supposedly her specialty at the CIA. They continue to poke holes in their own spin.

And for the umpteenth time, there is no credible evidence that elected leaders broke the law, none cyclops.

I continue to try to point you to the real issue, and that is the incompetence at the CIA.


The first paragraph is purely your own invention. There is no evidence that Joe Wilson undertook any sort of effort to discredit the administration prior to their involving him in their affairs, ignoring what he told them when he came back, lying to the American public in the SOTU address, and outing his wife. Afterwards, there is evidence of him undertaking an effort against them, and who could blame him? They had forsaken their oaths and engaged in criminal behavior which threatened he and his wife's life.

The second paragraph is factually incorrect; as just one example, the Bush admin is breaking FISA laws and has been for years.

The third is nothing but your political beliefs that anyone who disagrees with the Republicans in charge, is incompetent. If only history had actually born that out....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 05:23 pm
Advocate wrote:
There is zero evidence that Plame was any kind of expert on Iraq's WMD, or lack thereof.


I take it, then, that you disbelieve what David Corn and Michael Isikoff have to say about that in their book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War?

According to them, Plame was in charge of the operations group of the Joint Task Force on Iraq, charged with interviewing and debriefing Iraqi scientists about the Iraqi weapons program. To hear them tell it -- and one would guess you'd be big fans of theirs -- she was quite the expert on that very subject.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 05:37 pm
I'm afraid, tico, that I must disrespectfully agree.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 05:49 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Advocate wrote:
There is zero evidence that Plame was any kind of expert on Iraq's WMD, or lack thereof.


I take it, then, that you disbelieve what David Corn and Michael Isikoff have to say about that in their book, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War?

According to them, Plame was in charge of the operations group of the Joint Task Force on Iraq, charged with interviewing and debriefing Iraqi scientists about the Iraqi weapons program. To hear them tell it -- and one would guess you'd be big fans of theirs -- she was quite the expert on that very subject.


You surely don't expect that any sane, rational person would accept your take on this without independent corroboration, do you, Tico? Is a snake slimy or slippery?


Quote:
"We knew nothing about what was going on in Iraq," a CIA official recalled. "We were way behind the eight ball. We had to look under every rock." Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming--wrongly--were for a nuclear weapons program. (The analysts rolled over the government's top nuclear experts, who had concluded the tubes were not destined for a nuclear program.)


Quote:


The JTFI found nothing. The few scientists it managed to reach insisted Saddam had no WMD programs. Task force officers sent reports detailing the denials into the CIA bureaucracy. The defectors were duds--fabricators and embellishers.


Quote:


There was no intelligence to find on Saddam's WMDs because the weapons did not exist.


Quote:


As a CIA employee still sworn to secrecy, she wasn't able to explain publicly that she had spent nearly two years searching for evidence to support the Administration's justification for war and had come up empty.


All quotes from:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/corn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 08:12 pm
It seems instructive to post this again.
okie wrote:
To dredge up old history, I ran across this, quoting what Valerie Plame herself said about Saddam Hussein and WMD when we invaded Iraq. This question and answer is in regard to her book.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/10/29/DI2007102901429.html

"Annapolis, Md.: Thanks for participating in the discussion. I have a question concerning the Bush administration's assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. They claim that as far as they knew the intelligence services were all certain that Iraq had them and that they could be a danger to us. What was your opinion before the invasion (and that of your fellow analysts), did you believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

Valerie Plame: We certainly knew that Saddam was an evil tyrant who had used WMD on his own people. We knew that in the shadow of 9/11, it would not have been prudent to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was clearly up to no good. As the invasion of Iraq was launched in March 2003, my greatest fear was the I and my former CIA colleagues had somehow missed a WMD cache, or we just didn't find the right scientist to talk to so as to understand the state of their WMD programs. I was beside myself thinking of the potential WMD threats to US troops that we had not found. "



And I requote one of the sentences:

"We knew that in the shadow of 9/11, it would not have been prudent to give him the benefit of the doubt. He was clearly up to no good."

It appears to me that Valerie Plame Wilson agreed with George W. Bush.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 08:18 pm
Advocate wrote:
Joe Wilson was the perfect person to go to Niger, and he got it right. As a good patriot, he told the world how Bush lied about yellow cake.

There is zero evidence that Plame was any kind of expert on Iraq's WMD, or lack thereof.

The perfect person? Somebody with no intelligence experience? And he did nothing and found out nothing while he was there, that we did not already know.

He told the world that Bush lied, but his own "intelligence" work proved nothing of the sort. So who lied? Joseph Wilson is the answer.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 01:07 am
Delusional
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 09:48 am
I'm glad for you, Roxi, that you have learned one word well.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 12:01 pm
Well, well, well...from Scott McClelland's upcoming book

Quote:
"The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.

"There was one problem. It was not true.

"I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the president himself."
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003675070
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 12:52 pm
There are some things which no serious nation can tolerate; one such is having a dickhead like Saddam Hussein poison its senate office buildings with anthrax.

Other than that, there is no rational way to talk about Burh or anybody else lying about WMDs in Iraq after de-moKKKer-RATS and euro-weenies who were taking oil4food money from Saddam Hussein forced American soldiers to sit there in the sand for half a year while Saddam Hauled every sort of contraband off to Syria in tractor trailers.

What the hell, do you clowns think the whole world is as stupid as YOU are??
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 01:22 pm
gungasnake wrote:


What the hell, do you clowns think the whole world is as stupid as YOU are??


Actually, by all international polls, the whole world is rather worried that all of us here are as stupid as you. That fear isn't justified, of course.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 01:26 pm
Bernie, thanks for the great info. I am now looking forward to reading the book. However, knowing what a sycophant McClelland is, I can't expect too much.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 01:31 pm
advocate

Understood. But that looks a pretty significant nod to the truth rather than to the party line. It's promising.

Of course, if there is much in the book of this revelational sort, McClelland will become a liar, a traitor, un-American, etc.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Nov, 2007 01:41 pm
gungasnake wrote:
There are some things which no serious nation can tolerate; one such is having a dickhead like Saddam Hussein poison its senate office buildings with anthrax.



I didn't realize Saddam Hussein's government even had a Senate. Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 02:25:09