Plame Testifies Before Congress:Confirms She Was Covert

If the WH was merely trying to set the record straight about Wilson's lies then why didn't they simply release the CIA report from Wilson's trip?
This would be a simple thing to do. If Wilson lied then release the report since that would show he lied. But there is no report that showed he lied. He was accurate about what he found out there.

You are arguing that he lied okie at the same time you are arguing that what he found out didn't mean anything. Your argument makes no logical sense. This is an obvious case of if you can't attack the facts then attack the person that presented those facts.

0 Replies

His lies have to do with logical conclusions. He claims to have proven his conclusions from what he found out in Niger, yet when you examine what he found out, different analysts have differing opinions. Some say what he found out actually disagree with his conclusions. He has also been accused of lying about how he was chosen for the trip. Some say he did, some say he did not. I have looked at the evidence, and I think to be kind, he has misrepresented and grossly mis-characterized both how he was chosen for the trip and what conclusions can be drawn from what he found in Niger. I believe he had a pre-conceived conclusion before he even took the trip, for political and other reasons. That is the reason the trip was viewed as a sham, and we can argue until the cows come home whether he lied or did not lie, depending on which side you take in this affair.

Parados, I have a question.

Did Wilson know all of the intelligence information concerning Niger and Iraq, that makes him the final authority that he claims to have?

If the answer is no, then how come he is the so-called authority, last word, on this issue, as perceived by the press, the Democratic Party, and so forth?

If the answer is yes, then where did he get the information? Was he qualified to receive the information? And if the answer is yes, was the CIA that bad in terms of knowing anything?

As I look at this situation again, was Wilson an actual representative of the CIA, or was it a case of him volunteering for the trip and the CIA merely asked for him to brief them when he got back? Or was it a situation somewhere in between? If so, what was the arrangement, really?

Some of you are objecting to me calling Wilson a political operative. This has not been discussed in detail lately, but remember he became an advisor to Kerry's campaign, only to be dropped like a hot potato because even Kerry recognized the guy had become very controversial and had been accused of mis-representing the facts about this affair in his congressional briefing of his trip. Wilson also attended Democratic party strategy meetings. Whatever his career was as a diplomat, he is now a political operative in my opinion. And not just mine. I think he has well earned that title of late.

To touch again on the testimony of Valerie Wilson before Waxman's pointless hearing, I think she misrepresented, I hate to use the word, lie, but she now claims she had nothing to do with recommending her husband for the trip. Yet, "on February 12, 2002, the former ambassador's wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA's Directorate of Operations which said, "[m]y husband 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.""

0 Replies

At the end of this article, I would love to hear Valerie answer the questions posed. It might shed some real light on this. Maybe Waxman could learn something?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/serious_questions_for_henry_wa.html

0 Replies

They Were Talking about Wilson's Wife before Wilson's Article Came Out
by MARGIE BURNS
Why were there all these administration colloquies about Wilson's wife circulated before Wilson's article came out? Retaliation is too simple an answer.Every major news outlet reporting on the CIA leak and the Libby trial has taken the line that CIA analyst Valerie Plame was outed in retaliation for a column by her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, published on July 6, 2003. But unrefuted testimony and documents in the trial of I. Lewis Libby, formerly Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, reveal that administration discussion of Mrs. Wilson, her CIA status and Wilson's trip began several weeks before Wilson's column appeared. http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/031207BURNS.shtml

0 Replies

okie wrote:

His lies have to do with logical conclusions. He claims to have proven his conclusions from what he found out in Niger, yet when you examine what he found out, different analysts have differing opinions. Some say what he found out actually disagree with his conclusions. He has also been accused of lying about how he was chosen for the trip. Some say he did, some say he did not. I have looked at the evidence, and I think to be kind, he has misrepresented and grossly mis-characterized both how he was chosen for the trip and what conclusions can be drawn from what he found in Niger. I believe he had a pre-conceived conclusion before he even took the trip, for political and other reasons. That is the reason the trip was viewed as a sham, and we can argue until the cows come home whether he lied or did not lie, depending on which side you take in this affair.

Lovely misrepresentations of your own there okie. They have nothing to do with "logical conclusions." It seems to have everything to do with your partisan BS. "He claims to have proven his conclusions". Where did he claim to have proven anything? You are just making up stuff here okie. In his oped, Wilson states. "If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand " That doesn't sound like someone claiming they proved anything.

Quote:

Parados, I have a question.

Did Wilson know all of the intelligence information concerning Niger and Iraq, that makes him the final authority that he claims to have?

Wilson didn't claim to be the final authority. His oped is entitled "What I found", not "I am the final authority."

Quote:

If the answer is no, then how come he is the so-called authority, last word, on this issue, as perceived by the press, the Democratic Party, and so forth?

Your false logic is built on sand that blows away quickly okie. Did you stop beating your wife?

Quote:

If the answer is yes, then where did he get the information? Was he qualified to receive the information? And if the answer is yes, was the CIA that bad in terms of knowing anything?

Oh, now we see the other answer for "did you stop beating your wife?"

Quote:

As I look at this situation again, was Wilson an actual representative of the CIA, or was it a case of him volunteering for the trip and the CIA merely asked for him to brief them when he got back? Or was it a situation somewhere in between? If so, what was the arrangement, really?

I don't think you really want the answer to that okie. Most of that answer is already in the public record. You seem to want to ignore the facts that don't support your theory.
The VP asked the CIA for information on the Iraq/Niger contacts.
The CIA, not Plame personally, suggested Wilson and asked that Plame contact her husband.
Wilson met with CIA officials, not his wife, and had a meeting to discuss what he would do in Niger.
Wilson went to Niger, returned, and did a debrief to CIA.

Quote:

Some of you are objecting to me calling Wilson a political operative. This has not been discussed in detail lately, but remember he became an advisor to Kerry's campaign, only to be dropped like a hot potato because even Kerry recognized the guy had become very controversial and had been accused of mis-representing the facts about this affair in his congressional briefing of his trip. Wilson also attended Democratic party strategy meetings. Whatever his career was as a diplomat, he is now a political operative in my opinion. And not just mine. I think he has well earned that title of late.

Gee. I guess you would know all about political operatives as you blithely ignore facts for your own political purposes.

Quote:

To touch again on the testimony of Valerie Wilson before Waxman's pointless hearing, I think she misrepresented, I hate to use the word, lie, but she now claims she had nothing to do with recommending her husband for the trip. Yet, "on February 12, 2002, the former ambassador's wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA's Directorate of Operations which said, "[m]y husband 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.""

You are reading a lot into that quote. I see nothing suggesting that is the first time the trip is brought up in the CIA. Nothing saying she recommends him. It could well be in answer to a question of "Several high level people at the CIA have recommended your husband. Tell us who he knows in Niger that could shed light on this activity." An answer to that question is NOT a recommendation. You have no context for the quote and your reading into it doesn't help your case at all. The quote is pretty ambiguous if not innocuous.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
To touch again on the testimony of Valerie Wilson before Waxman's pointless hearing, I think she misrepresented, I hate to use the word, lie, but she now claims she had nothing to do with recommending her husband for the trip. Yet, "on February 12, 2002, the former ambassador's wife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA's Directorate of Operations which said, "[m]y husband 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.""
You are reading a lot into that quote. I see nothing suggesting that is the first time the trip is brought up in the CIA. Nothing saying she recommends him. It could well be in answer to a question of "Several high level people at the CIA have recommended your husband. Tell us who he knows in Niger that could shed light on this activity." An answer to that question is NOT a recommendation. You have no context for the quote and your reading into it doesn't help your case at all. The quote is pretty ambiguous if not innocuous.

We have had our debates about logic, haven't we, Parados. I hope you can agree on that? Remember the Clinton / Sudan / OBL offer? That was an exercise in fairly simple logic, which you apparently never admitted the obvious because it did not fit the template you favor. I think this Wilson / Plame case is the same problem, Parados. I will compliment you in terms of doing a nice job of spinning and parsing the words, and perhaps you might even sympathize with Clinton's statement about what the meaning of the word, "is" is.

We find ourselves going back to the very root of this whole scandal. To start from Square One, CIA agents have a responsibility to conceal their own idlentities, and would you agree that Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson helped out themselves?

0 Replies

Yeah, right back to the heart of the matter.

You make up things that don't exist and claim they do.

How did Wilson or Plame reveal that she worked for the CIA prior to Novak's column? I see nothing in the public record that says they did.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

They Were Talking about Wilson's Wife before Wilson's Article Came Out
by MARGIE BURNS
Why were there all these administration colloquies about Wilson's wife circulated before Wilson's article came out? Retaliation is too simple an answer.Every major news outlet reporting on the CIA leak and the Libby trial has taken the line that CIA analyst Valerie Plame was outed in retaliation for a column by her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, published on July 6, 2003. But unrefuted testimony and documents in the trial of I. Lewis Libby, formerly Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, reveal that administration discussion of Mrs. Wilson, her CIA status and Wilson's trip began several weeks before Wilson's column appeared. http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/031207BURNS.shtml

So it wasn't revenge for the article after all, as claimed by Democrats? I thought even Fitzgerald made strong hints at this?.....

Trivial perhaps to have to remind everybody again, but Richard Armitage was the first to out Plame, and even if the administration had done nothing, she was already outed. Where are the demands for his head on a platter?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Yeah, right back to the heart of the matter.

You make up things that don't exist and claim they do.

How did Wilson or Plame reveal that she worked for the CIA prior to Novak's column? I see nothing in the public record that says they did.

Maybe you need to start reading the public record, Parados?

You can start with Joseph Wilson's Whos Who entry, which Novak said he used to help confirm her identity.

"Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America.""

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15988

I know what your argument is going to be, Parados, but go ahead.

0 Replies

okie, right it was much more sinister. An attack on the CIA itself by those who had twisted intelligence to lie us into war. One thing the trial proved was a vast White House conspiracy to out Plame by the White House Iraq Group. Some people say Plame had put a monkey wrench in the Bushie's attempt to run WMD into Iraq for our troops to find. Wilson's article only pointed out the obvious. My feeling has always been it was Plame and the CIA that the Bushies were after. After all they had much more proof of the twisting of intel by the Feith led OSP than Wilson disclosed. And that's why Fitzgerald said, "There is a cloud over the vice president . . . And that cloud remains because this defendant obstructed justice. There is a cloud over the White House. Don't you think the FBI and the grand jury and the American people are entitled to straight answers?"

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
Yeah, right back to the heart of the matter.

You make up things that don't exist and claim they do.

How did Wilson or Plame reveal that she worked for the CIA prior to Novak's column? I see nothing in the public record that says they did.

Maybe you need to start reading the public record, Parados?

You can start with Joseph Wilson's Whos Who entry, which Novak said he used to help confirm her identity.

Please point to where it states that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA in his entry. A lot of CIA agents are married. Just because their spouse states they are married to someone doesnt' reveal anyone as working for the CIA. Just because CIA agents have kids and go to school functions and talk to their neighbors doesn't mean they told their neighbors they worked for the CIA. Part of being covert is you should look to the world like you live an ordinary life.

Quote:

"Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America.""

Plame's name is hardly secret or classified. If Wilson hid the fact that he had a wife that would raise huge alarm bells, don't you think? If you live next door to someone and the husband is in Who's Who but the entry never mentions his wife, wouldn't you wonder why that is? Wouldn't you ask that person or his wife why she isn't mentioned?

I would be willing to bet that there might even be a covert CIA operative or 2 who personally have entries in Who's Who because it helps their cover.

Quote:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15988

I know what your argument is going to be, Parados, but go ahead.

Then you already know how stupid your argument was. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Nice try, Parados, but if you have classified information derived from x + y, it doesn't seem too bright to go around publishing what x is, does it? If Novak used it, then it makes sense that anyone else more sinister could also use it, and might have a long time ago for all we know. In fact, there is evidence the Russians and Cuba knew of Valerie Plame long before this incident.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Nice try, Parados, but if you have classified information derived from x + y, it doesn't seem too bright to go around publishing what x is, does it? If Novak used it, then it makes sense that anyone else more sinister could also use it, and might have a long time ago for all we know. In fact, there is evidence the Russians and Cuba knew of Valerie Plame long before this incident.

It's unbelievable, the lengths to which you are going these days, in a desperate attempt to make black seem white.

When are you going to accept that the people you voted for are bad people who have been doing bad things? Or are you going to deny right up until the very end?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Well, hello, cyclops, I wondered what happened to you.

Yes, I am getting tired of this scandal, but you guys are just as dogged in your opinions as well.

And surely you aren't going to start bragging on the people you have voted for?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Well, hello, cyclops, I wondered what happened to you.

Yes, I am getting tired of this scandal, but you guys are just as dogged in your opinions as well.

With the major differnce being, it is your elected leaders who have comitted the perfidious acts, not mine.

The stories and theories that those on the right have thrown up don't make a lick of sense, at all... they all revolve around a heroic white house trying to do the right thing, while the evil Democrat Plame and her husband Joe cook up a way to make them look bad - because the failure to find WMD in Iraq wasn't doing the job well enough at the time.

I mean, don't you see how ridiculous this is?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops, I have never claimed Bush was the perfect guy. I voted for the best of the lot as I saw it, and now I defend Bush in matters wherein I think the opposition is unfairly attacking him, and this is one of those matters.

The WMD issue has probably been the biggest issue in which the Democrats have attempted to demonize Bush, with some success in the press, but there are some of us that followed this issue from the very beginning, and frankly do not buy the Democratic spin machine, of which Wilson is now a full member. Its politics, plain and simple, cyclops, including Waxman's kangaroo court. I fail to see why you guys cannot see this for what it really is.

0 Replies

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457846/posts

Melvin Schuetz from Baylor's Moody Library forwarded Joseph Wilson's bio from the 2003 edition of Who's Who in America [Volume 2 (L-Z)]. He notes:

Wilson's entry carries over about 5 lines to the next column, which is why it cuts off in mid-sentence at the end. The relevant text is "m. Valerie Elise Plame, Apr. 3, 1998," which not only appears in the 2003 edition, but ALL editions from 1999-2005!

So, via Who's Who, the name "Valerie Plame" has been associated publicly with Joe Wilson since the Clinton era - nice secret...

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cyclops, I have never claimed Bush was the perfect guy. I voted for the best of the lot as I saw it, and now I defend Bush in matters wherein I think the opposition is unfairly attacking him, and this is one of those matters.

The WMD issue has probably been the biggest issue in which the Democrats have attempted to demonize Bush, with some success in the press, but there are some of us that followed this issue from the very beginning, and frankly do not buy the Democratic spin machine, of which Wilson is now a full member. Its politics, plain and simple, cyclops, including Waxman's kangaroo court. I fail to see why you guys cannot see this for what it really is.

It's politics to out a spy for political retaliation against her husband, who is making statements which are damaging your credibility? You know as well as I do that this is exaclty what happened. And you're cool with it?

As for your second, post, what can I say? How many times do you need the exact same thing explained to you - that Plame's name wasn't the secret, it was her employment? Do you honestly and truly not understand the relevance of this fact, or are you just playing dumb?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

. I voted for the best of the lot as I saw it

Oh, btw: you saw it completely wrong. Bush wasn't, couldn't be, the best of any lot.

And you weren't just voting for him, but for his team and what they stood for. You were dead wrong on that one too.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Nice try, Parados, but if you have classified information derived from x + y, it doesn't seem too bright to go around publishing what x is, does it?

Preposterous argument since there is no x+ y creating classified information. there is X and there is Y.
X=Plame works under cover for the CIA. That is classified.
Y = Wilson is married to Plame. That is not classified. You can't derive X from Y nor do you need both X and Y to know the classified information.

If you know that Wilson's wife works for the CIA then you already have X. You can't derive his wife from his wife since they are the same thing whether you know her maiden name or not.

Quote:

If Novak used it, then it makes sense that anyone else more sinister could also use it, and might have a long time ago for all we know.

Only if they first knew that Plame worked for the CIA. Your argument is they might know something if they know it. Yeah, if they know it then they know it. They don't know it if all they know is Wilson is married.

Quote:

In fact, there is evidence the Russians and Cuba knew of Valerie Plame long before this incident.

Are you saying they found out about her from Who's Who? If they knew that Valerie Plame was a covert agent then it didn't matter if they knew she was married to Wilson or not. It kind of destroys the logic of your first statement. Or is this just a red herring because your argument is STILL silly?

0 Replies

Plame Testifies Before Congress:Confirms She Was Covert

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know