Your preconceptions structure your assessment, Cyc - you're projecting. No actual evidence of any conspiracy, coverup, or even of an actual intentional leak has been released. I don't claim there is no such evidence, I don't claim anything other than merely that none has been produced and made accessible to the public. I note that in the matter at discussion no trial has yet commenced, let alone been concluded, and that as yet there has been released no finding of fact pertaining to any of the allegations.
Quote:Merry Christmas to you and yours, too, bernie, and all the best in the coming year. BTW - have you seen our friend? She popped into A2K under a new nom de 'net here quite recently. If you do cross paths, please extend my warmest regards to her as well.
We had dinner together five or six days ago. I'll pass on your greetings as soon as we see her again.
AGAIN:
Career
Due to the nature of her clandestine work for the CIA, details about Plame's professional career are still classified.
cicerone, this is rarely mentioned, but Valerie Plame herself is the one that outed herself originally to Joseph Wilson before they married. I think that started the ball rolling in terms of her cover starting to become unraveled. I believe Wilson himself outed her identity. This beyond the likelihood of the Cubans and Russians knowing of her identity years ago. Further, if anyone outed Plame more recently, it was Armitage. He has admitted it early on, Fitzgerald had all the information early in this investigation, and if there was a crime, he should make Armitage accountable. Instead, he continues an investigation of other people because he has a template to fulfull and because he does not wish to catch Armitage. Fitzgerald himself said in a press conference years ago that no crime had been committed in the outing as far as he had determined. As Armitage points out, his revelation was not knowingly breaking a law, and for any criminal act to be confirmed, intent is crucial.
As this case drags on, Fitzgerald himself is doing more damage to national security by drawing vultures to a carcass, and studying it, analyzing it, and basically beating a dead horse, a horse that was not involved in a crime. When is the man going to wake up and quit this nonsensical case?
okie, That's a new one! Plame outed herself, and Fitzgerald is doing more damage to our intelligence activity.
Your conclusions; Plame is the one that talked to the news media, and Fitzgerald has no business investigating law breaking at the federal level.
Only Bushites think that way.
You need to do some thinking, cicerone. Lest someone accuse me of getting this from Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Party, or some other right wing blog or something, this is my thought on this fiasco as I ponder it over in my own mind, cicerone, and I think it is legitimate. The outing herself to Wilson is technically correct. It does not need to be to a news reporter. And unless Fitzgerald files charges for the crime his grand jury was intended to investigate, I do think he is doing tremendous damage by simply drawing attention to this. Listen, cicerone, this is not complicated. If he knows the original leaker, and has for a long time, which we all understand now to be Armitage I believe, and he is not going to file charges, then what is the purpose of carrying this on? The man, Fitzgerald, ought to be strung up here soon for continuing this mockery, if he has no intention of doing anything beyond trying to hang Libby for a procedural crime.
THE CLUE: Ponder in your own mind. ha ha ha You're funny!
okie wrote:You need to do some thinking, cicerone. Lest someone accuse me of getting this from Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Party, or some other right wing blog or something, this is my thought on this fiasco as I ponder it over in my own mind, cicerone, and I think it is legitimate. The outing herself to Wilson is technically correct. It does not need to be to a news reporter. And unless Fitzgerald files charges for the crime his grand jury was intended to investigate, I do think he is doing tremendous damage by simply drawing attention to this. Listen, cicerone, this is not complicated. If he knows the original leaker, and has for a long time, which we all understand now to be Armitage I believe, and he is not going to file charges, then what is the purpose of carrying this on? The man, Fitzgerald, ought to be strung up here soon for continuing this mockery, if he has no intention of doing anything beyond trying to hang Libby for a procedural crime.
It is erroneous to believe that Armitage was the only leaker, or that there was no collusion amongst the upper echelons of the admin. to retaliate by outing the name.
According to you, Fitzgerald ought to be 'strung up' for doing his
job. This is the process by which one attacks organized crime : flipping those at the bottom.
You are incredibly biased, to protect people who you know are liars...
Cycloptichorn
Its called common sense, cicerone, if the man cannot even establish a crime was committed, for which the grand jury was formed years ago, I would say the man is an utter absolute failure and an embarrassment. Some things are mind boggling. Such as the Duke rape case. There is another one that is so far out, you could swear it couldn't happen, but it did.
By the way, what happened to this story?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242
I really think Mr. Wilson should be put under oath. In fact, how come he hasn't been?
So according to this article and an interview with the ret. General Wilson was running around shooting of his mouth to just about any one that would listen. He would introduce her as his "CIA wife". I would say that he blew her cover a long time ago. This is starting to smack more and more of politics at its worst.
Walter, Betcha dollars to donuts people like okie will "hang on" to this story as their last thread to argue their point. They wouldn't know a liar if they saw themselves in the mirror.
So you are going to use a group whos sole aim is to dispute conservative media sources? Do they preform the same service for the rest of the main stream liberal media? If they don't, they are bias and really aren't a media matters source but a liberal media matters only source.
cicerone imposter wrote:Walter, Betcha dollars to donuts people like okie will "hang on" to this story as their last thread to argue their point. They wouldn't know a liar if they saw themselves in the mirror.
No, if its totally disproven, fine. How come the general has not been put under oath? How come Wilson hasn't? Thats all. Why isn't Fitzgerald pursuing the truth?
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp
One thing I do know for sure. The Wilsons are media hounds. They are as suspicious as anyone else in this case. We know Wilson lied about how he got the gig going to Niger. If we are interested in lying, how come we aren't suspicious of the Wilsons?
One other reminder, Novak learned Plames name in Whos Who of America.
Baldimo wrote:
So you are going to use a group whos sole aim is to dispute conservative media sources? Do they preform the same service for the rest of the main stream liberal media? If they don't, they are bias and really aren't a media matters source but a liberal media matters only source.
Well, you think, the links they provided are biased as well?
okie, Just because the Wilson's might be media hounds (now), that doesn't prove they outed themselves. As for the "who's who in America," it only identifies Valerie as his wife; nothing more or less.
So what exactly is your point?
Vallely's statements pertaining to "Who knew what about Valerie when and why"- while purportedly at least in part somewhat validated by
statements made by Gen. Tom McInerny - have been sorta all-over-the-place. A ding in the "Conspiracy To Get Wilson" frenzy"? Certainly, but not much more, without further detail and corroboration. On the other hand, Bob Woodward
Ripped The Bottom Out of the "Conspiracy to Get Wilson" frenzy.
cicerone imposter wrote:okie, Just because the Wilson's might be media hounds (now), that doesn't prove they outed themselves. As for the "who's who in America," it only identifies Valerie as his wife; nothing more or less.
So what exactly is your point?
My point is there is ample reason to question the character and motives of the Wilsons, and the identity of her and her job was not a giant leap for anyone curious about it. I think instead of suspecting a conspiracy in the administration against the Wilsons, there is more reason to believe the opposite. How come Armitage is not being sued for the same violations in the civil suit? Is he part of the conspiracy? Are they simply naming him in the suit simply out of duty to try to look unbiased? After all, Novak claims he went out of his way to make sure Novak got all the information on it, instead of a simple casual conversation as Armitage claims. Were they attempting to frame Rove, Bush, Cheney, etc.? Legitimate questions in my opinion. The Wilsons have shown themselves to be highly partisan with an axe to grind, and not unbiased employees simply doing their job at the CIA as they have falsely claimed.
And an innocent man is normally not going to try to avoid testifying under oath, which Wilson is now doing.
New rule: I ignore people who use world net daily or newsmax as sources.
