Plame Testifies Before Congress:Confirms She Was Covert

okie wrote:

kelticwizard wrote:
okie wrote:
To do its intelligence work or her job, it [the CIA] sent a diplomat with no intelligence experience to Niger for a few days, to come back and claim to be the ultimate expert on WMD. A case of ineptness growing into stupidity.

It sent a seasoned diplomat with a lot of experience in Africa, including experience in Niger specifically, to check out ONE report. Wilson makes no claim to be the ultimate expert on WMD-that is the usual baseless bashing we have come to expect from you.

Again, here is Wilson's experience.

Quote:
Wilson also is a career diplomat who served both Democratic and Republican presidents and is said to be well liked and trusted by the first President Bush. Wilson was among the last Western diplomats to leave Baghdad after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait more than a decade ago, during a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to execute Americans. The first President Bush subsequently appointed him to ambassadorships in Gabon and São Tomé and Principe. Wilson has since disclosed that he also twice voted for the first President Bush. During the Clinton administration, Wilson was senior director of African affairs on the National Security Council.

Since when is a diplomat experienced in collecting intelligence?

You guys that doubt Wilson is not a political operative, here is one quote of his:

"Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both."

Sure, did he say that before or after the Admin tried their hardest to destroy his wife's career? Not that he's even wrong at all; that's an accurate assesment of the situation.

Wilson wasn't collecting intelligence. He wasn't doing anything secret. He went and asked questions that weren't secrets. You are so hung up on trying to prove that Wilson and Plame plotted to attack the WH that you can't even see how ridiculous your argument is.

Let me ask you again, as you failed to answer last time: Do you honestly believe that the WH didn't intend to out Plame as retaliation for Wilson's speaking out against them? Do you think it is okay that they did so?

Do you think it's okay that the WH didn't undertake any sort of review to see how the information got out?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

okie wrote:
To do its intelligence work or her job, it [the CIA] sent a diplomat with no intelligence experience to Niger for a few days, to come back and claim to be the ultimate expert on WMD. A case of ineptness growing into stupidity.

It sent a seasoned diplomat with a lot of experience in Africa, including experience in Niger specifically, to check out ONE report. Wilson makes no claim to be the ultimate expert on WMD-that is the usual baseless bashing we have come to expect from you.

Again, here is Wilson's experience.

Quote:
Wilson also is a career diplomat who served both Democratic and Republican presidents and is said to be well liked and trusted by the first President Bush. Wilson was among the last Western diplomats to leave Baghdad after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait more than a decade ago, during a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to execute Americans. The first President Bush subsequently appointed him to ambassadorships in Gabon and São Tomé and Principe. Wilson has since disclosed that he also twice voted for the first President Bush. During the Clinton administration, Wilson was senior director of African affairs on the National Security Council.

Since when is a diplomat experienced in collecting intelligence?

You guys that doubt Wilson is not a political operative, here is one quote of his:

"Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both."

0 Replies

Cyclop:

Wanna bet that Okie won't pay attention to you and will just keep piling on quote after quote that Wilson made AFTER he got back from Niger?

Okie thinks it is wrong to fight back after Bush targets you and your wife.

0 Replies

Sorry about the double post. I don't know how that happened, as the quote made bold was the last edit I thought, which shows up in the first post with the quote of Wilson.

Obvously I believe Wilson started the fight. With time, I will try to find the date for that quote. Haven't had much time today.

0 Replies

Cyclptichorn wrote:

Sure, did he say that before or after the Admin tried their hardest to destroy his wife's career? Not that he's even wrong at all; that's an accurate assesment of the situation.

From the best I can determine, the following was what Wilson was quoted as saying around the fall of 2003, , which would have been after her identity was known, but before Wilson would have any way of knowing exactly how it became known. In fact, if he knew, why didn't he express the same vindictiveness toward Richard Armitage?

"Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both."

Quote:

Wilson wasn't collecting intelligence. He wasn't doing anything secret. He went and asked questions that weren't secrets. You are so hung up on trying to prove that Wilson and Plame plotted to attack the WH that you can't even see how ridiculous your argument is.

You are only supporting my argument, cyclops. What he found out proved nothing, and found out nothing that was not already known. In fact, wasn't there already an ambassador in Niger with the same information that Wilson obtained down there, which amounted to diddly squat. If the CIA truly needed more good intelligence, Wilson was not the man to do it, he had no experience or training, and sending him was not only a waste of time, but also put his wife's identity at risk. Obviously a hunch, but I believe this may have been what they were after, and I read somewhere that Plames job might have been about to change or be reassigned anyway. This was speculation, but it was based on something, I don't remember.

Quote:

Let me ask you again, as you failed to answer last time: Do you honestly believe that the WH didn't intend to out Plame as retaliation for Wilson's speaking out against them? Do you think it is okay that they did so?

It was an attempt to get to the bottom of the minutia going on at the CIA, and get to the bottom of a political campaign being carried out, of which Wilson and his trip became an integral part of, but there was no intention to harm anyone personally. Let me remind you that Wilson started this campaign, and as is common, every administration must manage politics and counter the politics thrown at it. To imply that the Bush administration is different in this respect is pure nonsense.

Quote:

Do you think it's okay that the WH didn't undertake any sort of review to see how the information got out?

Cycloptichorn

Just because a particular person was not involved does not indicate one was not done. A review can be done in many ways, very detailed, and not so detailed. Big deal.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Apparently she may have lied under oath as well. Brit Hume picked up on it.

Hume was referring to the senate intelligence committee report addendum signed only by three (of the nine republican senators on the committee in total) which reported that a CIA reports manager said that Plame was involved in sending Wilson to Niger, however the manager was not only absent from the initial discussion to send Wilson to Niger, the man was so distraught that his remarks were distorted in the addendum that he wrote a reply to the Senate committee stating his words were taken out of context and that was he did not believe Valerie Plame either recommended or directed her husband to Niger.

Plame actually spoke to that in within the first ten minutes of her testimony on Thursday and any legitimate reporter would have reported it.

Brit Hume was doing the lying, and you believed him.

Now does that indicate that you are merely ignorant of the facts or simply a person who is so ideologically poisoned that reality takes a vacation when it bangs around in your head?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Just because a particular person was not involved does not indicate one was not done. A review can be done in many ways, very detailed, and not so detailed. Big deal.

Really? In sworn testimony given before the house oversight committee, James Knodell, Director of the Office of Security at the White House, revealed that the administration had never launched an internal probe to determine the source for the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame in 2003.

In addition to revealing a deep reluctance on the part of the administration in determining the party responsible for the leak, Knodell's testimony directly contradicted a prior statement from President Bush promising a full internal probe.

Now, if James Knodell was lying when he said under oath that "NO ONE" investatigated the actions of White House officials, you could remotely consider that your "opinion" should carry more weight in this debate than sworn testimony by the official in charge of the office with responsibility to investigate such things and that his remark that there was no such review taken nor was there any report for it in the department's files, but nobody is accusing him of perjury, are they? Except you. So kindly present your evidence.

Asked about an obligation of federal officials to report on any knowledge of a leak to a security officer, Knodell confirmed the requirement and admitted that not a single member of the administration had come to speak to him.

Knodell's admitted that there had "been absolutely no investigation into the leaking of Plame's identity by employees of the White House.

So you are as wrong as a human could possibly be.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

From the best I can determine, the following was what Wilson was quoted as saying around the fall of 2003, , which would have been after her identity was known....

I was wondering how you were going to spin this one, Okie. What a riot.

The quote in question:

Quote:

Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration....

I looked up the quote myself. All I found were a bunch of right wing blogs dated late September or October 2003 all saying that Wilson had been heard to make that statement in the weeks preceding. None of them say where they got the quote except other blogs, if they even bother mentioning the source at all.

The blog always says that Wilson was making this statement, but none of the blogs ever says where he said it, who heard it and who reported it.

This is a typical right wing trick. The circulating story where each blog reports it from another right wing blog, which reports that it got the story from a different right wing blog, and on and on forever.

Personally, considering the Administration had just exposed his wife's identity and destroyed her career, I wouldn't have blamed Wilson a bit for saying this. But so far, nobody has given a single report when and where Wilson actually did.

Okie keeps giving us anti-administration quotes from Wilson from AFTER his wife's identity was blown, claiming that this indicates Wilson was out to get the Administration. If Okie wants to make that case, he has to produce anti-Administrtion comments from BEFORE Wilson left for Niger, not after he got back. So far, the only thing Okie has given us are remarks Wilson made after the Administration came after him-of course Wilson opposed the Administration at that point. Anybody would.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

In addition to revealing a deep reluctance on the part of the administration in determining the party responsible for the leak, Knodell's testimony directly contradicted a prior statement from President Bush promising a full internal probe.

kuvasz, if he tells the truth, you have a point, but as ridiculous as this whole case is, perhaps Bush went Clinton-like and did his own "full internal probe." I was already aware of his testimony, kuvasz.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
In addition to revealing a deep reluctance on the part of the administration in determining the party responsible for the leak, Knodell's testimony directly contradicted a prior statement from President Bush promising a full internal probe.

kuvasz, if he tells the truth, you have a point, but as ridiculous as this whole case is, perhaps Bush went Clinton-like and did his own "full internal probe." I was already aware of his testimony, kuvasz.

Hmm? You were?

Then how could you have possibly written -

Quote:

Just because a particular person was not involved does not indicate one was not done. A review can be done in many ways, very detailed, and not so detailed. Big deal.

Given that Knodell said

Quote:

Knodell's admitted that there had "been absolutely no investigation into the leaking of Plame's identity by employees of the White House.

A fact which you claim to have been aware? You were either straight-up lying when you answered me, or just deceiving yourself.

I think that you have tried to hold on to your theories as hard as you can, Okie, in large part by ignoring evidence that speaks against them. Do you deny this?

In addition, I'd like to know if you have a source for your Wilson quote, or if you are just playing the right-wing blog parrot game, as usual for your side.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cyclops, I had skimmed the news and had seen where Knodell claimed no investigation was done, thats all. Meaning to me that he was not aware of one. I had not gotten any further into it. That is the reason I said just because a particular person is not aware of one, does not mean an investigation was not done, for all I knew, or know now. Maybe Bush asked Cheney and others what they knew, who knows? That is an investigation. Does every so-called "internal investigation" have to go through a lawyer? That is why I said, maybe Bush went Clinton-like, the appropriate word would be "Clintonesque," and did his own investigation and did not go through Knodell. This is only a side issue.

I conceded this point to kuvasz already.

The Wilson quote came from a blog of some kind. I would need to research it more, but given the character of Wilson, I admit no proof yet but it is pretty likely he said it in my opinion. I am virtually certain that was and is his intention.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cyclops, I had skimmed the news and had seen where Knodell claimed no investigation was done, thats all. Meaning to me that he was not aware of one. I had not gotten any further into it. That is the reason I said just because a particular person is not aware of one, does not mean an investigation was not done, for all I knew, or know now. Maybe Bush asked Cheney and others what they knew, who knows? That is an investigation. Does every so-called "internal investigation" have to go through a lawyer? That is why I said, maybe Bush went Clinton-like, the appropriate word would be "Clintonesque," and did his own investigation and did not go through Knodell.

I conceded this point to kuvasz already.

You seem to forget a critical point, Okie - the members of the WH are public employees whose salaries you and I pay.

The WH has and had at the time procedures on the books for investigating such leaks; no such investigation was done. They had a responsibility to do so; after all, we aren't just talking about Plame here, look at all the other leaks: the NSA scandal, NSL letters from the FBI, foreign detention centers, spying on finances and the internet. All these leaks came from high up within government, these are pernicious leaks that harm our nation (according to, say, you) and yet NO review was done of the security procedures to find the leaker. None.

They owe it to you and I to be doing their goddamned jobs according to the way they should be done. And they didn't. You should be angry, not defending them. When are you going to stop defending them?

BTW, to address another point: I voted for Bush in 2000. I supported him when my hippy friends didn't like him. I supported him on 9/11 and during the war in Afghanistan. I voted Republican in 2002. It wasn't until Iraq that I started to question what I'd been told, and the more I looked, the worse it got. So do me a favor, and save that 'Dems have been out to get bush from the start' line. It doesn't describe me and it doesn't describe the majority of Democrats. Hell, you can look at Bush approval numbers and Iraq War approval numbers, it's not hard to see that around the time he started the Iraq war is when his numbers dropped off. It's a false argument on your part and nothing more than an attempt to minimize valid complaints.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

If you say so, cyclops.

Please apply the same standards to your own guys, including Wilson and Plame, and Congress.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If you say so, cyclops.

Please apply the same standards to your own guys, including Wilson and Plame, and Congress.

Sorry, but you can't just brush me off that easily. I'd like for you to explain to me exactly why you don't think it is necessary for public servants to do the job which you and I are paying them for.

You and other Republicans talk about waste in government; one would think you'd be incensed that there were folks on the payroll who weren't doing their jobs. Why not? You really don't care about leaks or finding leakers?

I haven't seen any evidence, at all, that either of the Wilsons did anything wrong, at all. I don't consider being a Democrat as being 'wrong' though apparently you do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I'm waiting for the spread in Playboy.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sorry, but you can't just brush me off that easily. I'd like for you to explain to me exactly why you don't think it is necessary for public servants to do the job which you and I are paying them for.

You and other Republicans talk about waste in government; one would think you'd be incensed that there were folks on the payroll who weren't doing their jobs. Why not? You really don't care about leaks or finding leakers?

I haven't seen any evidence, at all, that either of the Wilsons did anything wrong, at all. I don't consider being a Democrat as being 'wrong' though apparently you do.

Cycloptichorn

How about starting with the CIA, cyclops? What bureaucracy is any more important, especially of late in the war on terror. Good intelligence is not only important, but crucial, and the CIA has utterly failed us. What is their budget? And what intelligence work did we rely on as a part of going to war with Iraq? According to Wilson, it was his trip that he did as a favor, with hardly any money spent. Please do not turn this into a government accountability question, as there is ample evidence that the entire government is a rathole of waste and little accountability, not simply the Whitehouse.

Get serious, cyclops. For government accountability, the CIA would be near the top of my list.

Here we have the entire Democratic Party attacking Bush concerning WMD, for what, for relying on the CIA. Maybe to be more productive, they should take a look at that bureaucracy, don't you think?

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

I'm waiting for the spread in Playboy.

You've gotten them figured out, haven't you, cjhsa? It isn't difficult.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Sorry, but you can't just brush me off that easily. I'd like for you to explain to me exactly why you don't think it is necessary for public servants to do the job which you and I are paying them for.

You and other Republicans talk about waste in government; one would think you'd be incensed that there were folks on the payroll who weren't doing their jobs. Why not? You really don't care about leaks or finding leakers?

I haven't seen any evidence, at all, that either of the Wilsons did anything wrong, at all. I don't consider being a Democrat as being 'wrong' though apparently you do.

Cycloptichorn

How about starting with the CIA, cyclops? What bureaucracy is any more important, especially of late in the war on terror. Good intelligence is not only important, but crucial, and the CIA has utterly failed us. What is their budget? And what intelligence work did we rely on as a part of going to war with Iraq? According to Wilson, it was his trip that he did as a favor, with hardly any money spent. Please do not turn this into a government accountability question, as there is ample evidence that the entire government is a rathole of waste and little accountability, not simply the Whitehouse.

Get serious, cyclops. For government accountability, the CIA would be near the top of my list.

Here we have the entire Democratic Party attacking Bush concerning WMD, for what, for relying on the CIA. Maybe to be more productive, they should take a look at that bureaucracy, don't you think?

Yes. I agree with you 100%. 1000%. The CIA should undergo scrutiny. It's never been my intention to protect them over the WH or give them any special favoritism.

Now, why don't you feel that the WH has the same responsibility? Do you or do you not believe that the employees of the WH are public servants who have a responsibility to do their jobs?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Congress has been intensely scrutinizing the Whitehouse for years, cyclops. If they stole a pencil, we would know about it. Meanwhile, your buddies fly scot free. Even William Jefferson who oddly had significant sums of cash in his freezer, Pelosi is still recently trying to appoint him to homeland security. Not a word in the press, is there? Meanwhile, what are the headlines? It has been Bush playing defense for years. As I said, people are not stupid, and many see through this hypocrisy.

0 Replies

Quote:

Congress has been intensely scrutinizing the Whitehouse for years, cyclops

Are you completely and totally insane?!?!?!?!

The Republican ran Congress, the one we've had for years, has done zero scrutiny of the WH. None. No oversight. No repercussions for anything. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The DOJ has not scrutinized the WH. Congress has not done so. The SC has not done so. Noone has done so.

You are unable to provide a single piece of evidence to back up this position. It's laughable that you would say such a thing.

What you are seeing now is oversight and scrutiny. It's scary and confusing, I understand, but you'd better get used to it because there's a lot more coming.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Plame Testifies Before Congress:Confirms She Was Covert

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know