Plame Nailed In Lie To Congress

[Dakota435]

Hmmm do you suppose Fitzgerald will be investigating and charging Plame with perjury?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzUyMzgyZmVjZDUzYWRjYTU2YmM1MWEwZDYzNTI3OGQ=

Fact-Checking Valerie Plame Wilson, Pt. 1 [Byron York]

The Senate Intelligence Committee has just released a new report as part of its continuing investigation into prewar intelligence. In the report, the committee's vice chairman, Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, has included a set of "additional views" in which he provides new evidence contradicting some of the public testimony Valerie Plame Wilson gave before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in March.

In that testimony, Mrs. Wilson flatly denied playing a role in choosing her husband, Joseph Wilson, for a fact-finding trip to Niger. "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him," she testified. She said that an earlier Senate Intelligence Committee report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong. In particular, what she called a "quick e-mail" describing her husband's qualifications for the trip was "taken out of context" by the committee to "make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him."

Now, Senator Bond has released the entire text of Mrs. Wilson's February 12, 2002 memo. In the memo, which was headlined "Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash," she referenced a February 5, 2002 CIA intelligence report about Niger, Iraq, and uranium that had been circulating in the previous week:
=========================================================
The report forwarded below has prompted me to send this on to you and request your comments and opinion. Briefly, it seems that Niger has signed a contract with Iraq to sell them uranium. The IC [Intelligence Community] is getting spun up about this for obvious reasons. The embassy in Niamey has taken the position that this report can't be true — they have such cozy relations with the GON [Government of Niger] that they would know if something like this transpired.

So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.

Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM 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. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency's sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.
=======================================================
The memo seems to show that Mrs. Wilson did indeed suggest her husband for the Niger mission. And it sheds new light on why Mrs. Wilson was involved in the Niger uranium matter to begin with. The conventional wisdom has always been that she suggested her husband's name in response to an inquiry from Vice President **** Cheney about the Iraq Niger uranium story. But her memo, written on February 12, seems to show that she suggested her husband's name before the vice president asked his question on February 13. In addition, committee investigators found a cable in which Mrs. Wilson wrote that "both State and DOD have requested additional clarification" on the Niger matter. She added that "indeed, the vice president's office just asked for background information on the Niger report." The cable was dated February 13 at 3:42 p.m. — the day after she suggested her husband for the Niger mission.

[Dasein]

It does not appear that she explicitly recommended her husband for the Niger mission, merely indicated that he might be of assistance in dealing with the situation. Arguing that she is specifically recommending him for the mission is reading into one line a huge amount of intent that simply isn't there in the text. Sorry, but you're reaching with this one. Nice try, though. Let's see that same standard applied to Gonzales.

[Miles.]

I'm all for this bitch going down, but ^^that dog won't hunt.

Nice try, National Review.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Of course this 'alleged' lie outweighs all of those told by the propaganda machine of the current incompetent fascistic regime? :roll:

[Dakota435]

Of course this 'alleged' lie outweighs all of those told by the propaganda machine of the current incompetent fascistic regime? :roll:

Fascistic. Oh brother.

By the way: It's Britain that's installing surveillance cameras everywhere to watch over the population, and you call the US gov't fascistic. rofl

[Dakota435]

I'm all for this bitch going down, but ^^that dog won't hunt.

Nice try, National Review.

She denied playing a role. Clearly she did.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Fascistic. Oh brother.

By the way: It's Britain that's installing surveillance cameras everywhere to watch over the population, and you call the US gov't fascistic. rofl

And guess what they're using as the excuse - your ridiculously named Global War on Terror. :roll:

[Dakota435]

And guess what they're using as the excuse - your ridiculously named Global War on Terror. :roll:

I'd prefer to call it Global War on Radical Islam myself, which Britain seems to have a particular problem with. In any case that's not the reason at all, it's the general crime problem in Britain that is the reason.

So you'd have to agree that New Labour is a fascistic government?

[BugHunt]

Id say New Labour are more fantastically incompotent.....


But considering there unquestioning obedience to Bushs admin they might have fascist leanings..... ;)


Hey if its a global war on radical Islam - why did we invade secular Irak again?

[JJC]

Fascistic. Oh brother.

By the way: It's Britain that's installing surveillance cameras everywhere to watch over the population, and you call the US gov't fascistic. rofl
roflroflrofl Tell me about it, you can't walk a foot in London picking your nose without big brother watching and he has the audacity to call U.S. "fascistic". Also MI5 has more "fascistic" legal carte blanche than the FBI does when it comes to spying on its own citizens. :)

[Scrim]

Wow, too bad she didnt have the same "email deleting" program/virus that Rove, Gonzales and co all seem to have.

[Merfeller]

Of course this 'alleged' lie outweighs all of those told by the propaganda machine of the current incompetent fascistic regime? :roll:

You'd be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't toss about the word "fascist" quite as liberally. Btw, you can still make a move in the US without being monitored by a damn camera. How many closed circuit monitors do you appear on daily?

[Merfeller]

And guess what they're using as the excuse - your ridiculously named Global War on Terror. :roll:

That's a ridiculous statement. It's still your own government putting up the cameras. Try not to use the US as a catch-all excuse, will you? It's getting old. You were in deep **** before 9-11 ever happened, you just didn't realize it...or you were in denial.

[Dakota435]

Id say New Labour are more fantastically incompotent.....


But considering there unquestioning obedience to Bushs admin they might have fascist leanings..... ;)


Hey if its a global war on radical Islam - why did we invade secular Irak again?


That was a separate but closely related war, the one to finish off Desert Storm, and which was still in effect since Iraq had violated just about all of the armistice terms.

In any case, AQ is there in a big way now, and you guys want to run away. Your policy position and AQ's are perfectly aligned.

[Hellfish]

I wanna know what happened in Dakota's life that made him so pissed off. Seriously, are you happy about anything? You're always bitching and moaning, sometimes rightly so, but still... and this is coming from me, the most pessimistic and negative person in Florida.

[Dakota435]

I wanna know what happened in Dakota's life that made him so pissed off. Seriously, are you happy about anything? You're always bitching and moaning, sometimes rightly so, but still... and this is coming from me, the most pessimistic and negative person in Florida.

rofl

Ironically I'm the optimist, the one who is confident that Iraq is going to turn out all right, who admires America, who thinks it will all work out in the end. I dunno where you get that from. It's all the lefty and libertarian defeatists who are bitter and angry, predicting disaster at every turn, calling Bush a fascist every day.

Don't infer so much from the tone I use arguing with the abandonment crowd. It's the only tone that's appropriate when dealing with defeatists.

[BugHunt]

So let me get this right - Plame is a traitorous bitch because of somantics she used..... (despite serving the country in the CIA).

And Bush and co. are worthy of admiration despite releasing her name, for the petty reason her husband showed up the holes in there "intell" they were cooking up for the war?

Releasing her name at least ended her career, and at most put her life and the life of those around her in danger. All to get back at her husband.....


Youve got a warped worldview my friend....

[Dakota435]

So let me get this right - Plame is a traitorous bitch because of somantics she used..... (despite serving the country in the CIA).

And Bush and co. are worthy of admiration despite releasing her name, for the petty reason her husband showed up the holes in there "intell" they were cooking up for the war?

Releasing her name at least ended her career, and at most put her life and the life of those around her in danger. All to get back at her husband.....


Youve got a warped worldview my friend....

You seem to have a problem with basic facts. Plame recommended her husband, and testified under oath in Congress she didn't. The proof is right there.

Her husband made claims in the NY times about what his findings of the trip were, which were completely the opposite of what he actually reported as the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation found. Wilson was exposed as a serious liar and is why Wilson was dumped by Kerry's campaign committee.


Plame was revealed to the media not by the White House but by Richard Armitage, an enemy of the administration. And she never was covert because Fitzgerald never prosecuted for that.


The two of them, whose stories are a good part of the "Bush Lied" mantra, are both certified, proven liars and you take them seriously because they fit your world view template.

At least try to get a few basic facts right. You haven't the faintest clue what you are talking about.

[Dasein]

Plame recommended her husband, and testified under oath in Congress she didn't. The proof is right there.

No, she did not recommend her husband. There is a single statement where she indicates her husband might be of assistance, but nothing in that memo constitutes recommending him for a particular mission. There is a difference between indicating possible candidates for an assignment and actually recommending one of them.

[JKD]

And she never was covert because Fitzgerald never prosecuted for that.

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has said she was.

[Dakota435]

No, she did not recommend her husband. There is a single statement where she indicates her husband might be of assistance, but nothing in that memo constitutes recommending him for a particular mission. There is a difference between indicating possible candidates for an assignment and actually recommending one of them.

"Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM 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."

Sounds like a recommendation to me. Regardless, she claimed she had no involvement at all and this is clearly a lie under oath.

[Bia]

So she told a lie eh?

GW has told about 27,000 lies.

She has some catching up to do it seems.

[Dakota435]

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency has said she was.

If she was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities act, Fitzgerald would have had to prosecute Richard Armitage, who as we all know if we followed the Libby trial, was the actual leaker.

So:

A: She wasn't legally covert, regardless of what the CIA chief says.

B: It is all irrelevant, because she wasn't exposed by the White House in the first place, but by an administration enemy in the State Department. And in fact, Joe Wilson was the original leaker himself!! Armitage testified that Wilson was going around blabbing her name to everybody who would listen.

[Dakota435]

So she told a lie eh?

GW has told about 27,000 lies.

She has some catching up to do it seems.

Blah blah blah. Why don't you actually make an argument.

[Bia]

Blah blah blah. Why don't you actually make an argument.
I did.


Sucks to see things your way.

LOLz

[Dasein]

Sounds like a recommendation to me. Regardless, she claimed she had no involvement at all and this is clearly a lie under oath.

Or merely a statement of fact.

As for what she said under oath, could you provide the exact quotes, and their context? I highly suspect there is a difference between what she actually said and what you are hearing (or reading) into her statements.

[Seriously]

I did.


Sucks to see things your way.

LOLz

By what line of reasoning is "GW has told about 27,000 lies" an argument?

And no, you can't excuse her lying by saying "the president did it too."

[Dakota435]

By what line of reasoning is "GW has told about 27,000 lies" an argument?

And no, you can't excuse her lying by saying "the president did it too."

Bia is a Kos Kid from the looks of it. Reason is irrelevant.

[JKD]

If she was covert under the terms of the Intelligence Identities act, Fitzgerald would have had to prosecute Richard Armitage, who as we all know if we followed the Libby trial, was the actual leaker.

So:

A: She wasn't legally covert, regardless of what the CIA chief says.

B: It is all irrelevant, because she wasn't exposed by the White House in the first place, but by an administration enemy in the State Department. And in fact, Joe Wilson was the original leaker himself!! Armitage testified that Wilson was going around blabbing her name to everybody who would listen.

To be prosecuted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act you have to knowingly out an undercover agent. Either they didn't know or it can't be proven.

[ElHombre]

I wanna know what happened in Dakota's life that made him so pissed off. Seriously, are you happy about anything? You're always bitching and moaning, sometimes rightly so, but still... and this is coming from me, the most pessimistic and negative person in Florida.

He just can't admit to himself that the dirty f***ing hippies were right again. ;-)

[buttchowder]

The whole issue is stupid. Fitzgerald - who was charged with finding who leaked Plame to the press - knew that Armitage leaked because he told him. Nevertheless, Fitzgerald continued to drag Libby through the mud, and essentially wreaked his career, just because he couldn't remember a phone conversation from a year ago. That's the real outrage.

Secondly, The whole Gonzales stink is another democrat-media created "problem". The executive branch (the president, his attorney general) has the right to fire anybody for any reason whatsoever. Plus, Clinton fired around 90 attorneys from the past administration. The spoils system still exists, and is perfectly legal. So I get a little tired when 8 lawyers complain.

[Dakota435]

He just can't admit to himself that the dirty f***ing hippies were right again. ;-)

I knew you'd weigh in eventually bud. But I have not seen any evidence that they, or you, were right. What do you mean?

[Dakota435]

The whole issue is stupid. Fitzgerald - who was charged with finding who leaked Plame to the press - knew that Armitage leaked because he told him. Nevertheless, Fitzgerald continued to drag Libby through the mud, and essentially wreaked his career, just because he couldn't remember a phone conversation from a year ago. That's the real outrage.

Secondly, The whole Gonzales stink is another democrat-media created "problem". The executive branch (the president, his attorney general) has the right to fire anybody for any reason whatsoever. Plus, Clinton fired around 90 attorneys from the past administration. The spoils system still exists, and is perfectly legal. So I get a little tired when 8 lawyers complain.

Finally someone who knows actual facts...

[ElHombre]

I knew you'd weigh in eventually bud. But I have not seen any evidence that they, or you, were right. What do you mean?

Let's see. A ton of experts saying before the war begins that invading Iraq is a bad idea to begin with. Lots more noting that invading Iraq with too few troops is almost as bad an idea. All warn of things like AQ getting a foothold in Iraq, Iran gaining large aounts of influence, various sects in Iraq settling old scores and starting new ones, Iraq coming apart at the seams. The list went on and on and is largely coming true. The only way anyone can miss the evidence is by tightly shutting their eyes and screaming, 'It's the liberals fault!!!' over and over again.

Dakota, you're not being an optimist. You're just a junkie in the denial phase.

[Bia]

Bia is a Kos Kid from the looks of it. Reason is irrelevant.
No friend...lolZ

I'm just fing around with semantics.


heh

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I'd prefer to call it Global War on Radical Islam myself, which Britain seems to have a particular problem with. In any case that's not the reason at all, it's the general crime problem in Britain that is the reason.

So you'd have to agree that New Labour is a fascistic government?


I would say neo Stalinist :)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

That's a ridiculous statement. It's still your own government putting up the cameras. Try not to use the US as a catch-all excuse, will you?

And which foreign government do you think Tony Bliar's government is in thrall to? You can't deny that in the UK **** is being excused as an excuse for the gradual erosion of civil liberties:roll:



It's getting old. You were in deep **** before 9-11 ever happened, you just didn't realize it...or you were in denial.

Actually it is the USA that was in deep denial prior to 911. Over here (and in Europe) we all grew up with a terrorist threat.

[Dakota435]

Actually it is the USA that was in deep denial prior to 911. Over here (and in Europe) we all grew up with a terrorist threat.

It's more accurate to say, Europe and the US tolerated it until 9-11. When you tolerate something, you get more of it generally. After 9-11 the US has stopped tolerating it. Dunno that Europe has got there yet.

[Dasein]

It's more accurate to say, Europe and the US tolerated it until 9-11. When you tolerate something, you get more of it generally. After 9-11 the US has stopped tolerating it. Dunno that Europe has got there yet.

No, Europe as a whole has had more experience with terrorism, from various domestic movements like the IRA or ETA to foreign, usually Islamist terrorism. They have never tolerated terrorism, but neither are they so greatly alarmed by the occasional attack that it forces them into a flurry of irrational and chaotic action.

[Dakota435]

No, Europe as a whole has had more experience with terrorism, from various domestic movements like the IRA or ETA to foreign, usually Islamist terrorism. They have never tolerated terrorism, but neither are they so greatly alarmed by the occasional attack that it forces them into a flurry of irrational and chaotic action.

Afghanistan is irrational?

[Mastermind]

So she told a lie eh?

GW has told about 27,000 lies.

She has some catching up to do it seems.
Okay Bia, name them...just the first ten...Aw, hell, I'll let you slide with only five. Go ahead...name them.

[Dasein]

Afghanistan is irrational?

If that were the extent of our response, but we've seen the War on Terror expand into a huge, unorganized mass of foreign and domestic policy initiatives, from the creation of the DHS to the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan is about the only rational part of our strategy, and it seems to be getting the least attention these days.

[Dakota435]

If that were the extent of our response, but we've seen the War on Terror expand into a huge, unorganized mass of foreign and domestic policy initiatives, from the creation of the DHS to the invasion of Iraq. The invasion of Afghanistan is about the only rational part of our strategy, and it seems to be getting the least attention these days.

Actually Afghanistan is getting plenty of attention and the Taliban are having a bad time of it lately. Their latest "spring offensive" has been stopped cold.

Limiting the response to Afghanistan would've been insane. This is a worldwide battle going on. You can try to hide from the reality but that doesn't change anything.

Anyway, blame it all on Bin Laden for waking up the sleeping giant with that sucker punch 6 years ago.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It's more accurate to say, Europe and the US tolerated it until 9-11. When you tolerate something, you get more of it generally. After 9-11 the US has stopped tolerating it. Dunno that Europe has got there yet.

Oh really? France was deeply involved in countering islamist terror in the 90s for example. As for the UK we had the American funded Irish terror problem to deal with. At the time they were trying to wreck the British economy so our security services had their hands full.

[Jobu]

Plame clearly lied to congress.
Wilson clearly lied in his NYT editorial.

I'm glad Armitage outed her.

[Merfeller]

Oh really? France was deeply involved in countering islamist terror in the 90s for example. As for the UK we had the American funded Irish terror problem to deal with. At the time they were trying to wreck the British economy so our security services had their hands full.

Oh for ****'s sake, is there anything you don't blame on the States? The IRA bombings were an American plot to wreck the British economy now? There's a radio show here in the US you'd probably like - Coast to coast AM. Try and find it on the web. It's right up your alley.

[JKD]

Plame clearly lied to congress.
Wilson clearly lied in his NYT editorial.

I'm glad Armitage outed her.

All of her contacts lives are put at risk, we lose those sources, every other CIA officer who "worked" for Brewster Jennings & Associates has their cover blown. And this makes you glad.

[Dasein]

All of her contacts lives are put at risk, we lose those sources, every other CIA officer who "worked" for Brewster Jennings & Associates has their cover blown. And this makes you glad.

So long as it advances the goals of the party. The party is the state.

[Jobu]

All of her contacts lives are put at risk, we lose those sources, every other CIA officer who "worked" for Brewster Jennings & Associates has their cover blown. And this makes you glad.

Better than having a CIA which is full of people who lie to undermine a sitting administration. What she did is borderline treason is my opinion.

[JKD]

So long as it advances the goals of the party. The party is the state.

So it would seem:

Originally Posted by Jobu
Better than having a CIA which is full of people who lie to undermine a sitting administration. What she did is borderline treason is my opinion.

[ElHombre]

Boy is Dakota and Jobu going to be pissed about this. One of the central wingnut claims about Plame was that she wasn't covert. Guess what? They've been proved wrong again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/).


An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

And what was her job? Keeping nukes out of the hands of people who might use them.


Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

'Facts have a liberal bias'- Stephen Colbert

[Dakota435]

Boy is Dakota and Jobu going to be pissed about this. One of the central wingnut claims about Plame was that she wasn't covert. Guess what? They've been proved wrong again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/).



And what was her job? Keeping nukes out of the hands of people who might use them.



'Facts have a liberal bias'- Stephen Colbert

Ahhh Hombre Hombre Hombre.... you're just not paying attention.

Soooo... Ummm does this mean that Fitzgerald is going to prosecute the real leaker under the Intelligence Identities act, who was revealed during the Libby trial to be a certain liberal state department official and administration enemy, Richard Armitage? rofl

[JKD]

Ahhh Hombre Hombre Hombre.... you're just not paying attention.

Soooo... Ummm does this mean that Fitzgerald is going to prosecute the real leaker under the Intelligence Identities act, who was revealed during the Libby trial to be a certain liberal state department official and administration enemy, Richard Armitage? rofl

Armitage is a "liberal" now, huh?

Well, the investigation remains open. If someone knowingly and intentionally leaked Plame worked for the CIA heads should roll.

But hopefully this'll reduce the amount of "she wasn't even covert" talking points from the administration's acolytes on message boards. ;)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Oh for ****'s sake, is there anything you don't blame on the States? The IRA bombings were an American plot to wreck the British economy now? There's a radio show here in the US you'd probably like - Coast to coast AM. Try and find it on the web. It's right up your alley.

I didn't say the IRA was American Government funded you d1ckhead but it was (and probably still is) bankrolled by ignorant American citizens.

How can you deny the IRA was trying to destroy the British economy? Why do you think the British Government was so keen to negotiate with them in the end. I guess you missed the bombings of major financial institutions in the City of London. :roll:

[Mastermind]

Rading our posts...I think we would be in deep trouble if there were any real conspiracies out there. That's probably what everyone needs...for the gvt to uncover just one vast right wing conspiracy.

The VP affair is such a non-affair. It is hyped to generate political heat under the Cheney-Bush admin. It is the "smoking gun" the libs would just love to have to prove a single Bush "Lie". What bugs everyone about Bush is, he's not the brightest lamp on the Xmas tree and he has beaten every beloved liberal they could throw at him. It all sums up very nicely with Kerry's self depreciating quote on the last Election night...."I just can't belive I'm losing to that idiot!"

Now, don't get me wrong...I'm (now) no Bush lover....I just find the entire last 14 years (yes...I'm including Clinton in that time frame) to be a quite hysterical poltical tragic comedy.

[ElHombre]

does this mean that Fitzgerald is going to prosecute the real leaker under the Intelligence Identities act, who was revealed during the Libby trial to be a certain liberal state department official and administration enemy, Richard Armitage?

Armitage is 'liberal'? Since when? Since he became an 'administration enemy'? :lol:

Anyway, Fitz already answered your question. Fitz couldn't get enough evidence to bring Armitage (or any one else) to trial due to the fact that Libby repeatedly lied during the investigation.

Incidentally, you need to acknowledge that you were wrong to claim that Plame wasn't covert. Acknowledging this small error will hekp you prepare for even greater admissions of error in the years to come. :-D

[Dakota435]

Boy is Dakota and Jobu going to be pissed about this. One of the central wingnut claims about Plame was that she wasn't covert. Guess what? They've been proved wrong again (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/).



And what was her job? Keeping nukes out of the hands of people who might use them.



'Facts have a liberal bias'- Stephen Colbert

Oh yeah... while I realize that moonbat lefties will believe anything if it suits their prejudices, if you actually read the PDF file of what Joel Seidman makes sound like an official CIA report (talk about media bias), you discover... it's simply a statement by Fitzgerald in a court filing! We have to take his word for it I guess. He's spinning like a top trying to maximize the sentence against Libby for a crime he didn't commit because Fitz never charged him! Are we supposed to believe he DIDN'T know if she was covered by the IIPA a year ago? Yeah the BS is two feet deep here.

Bottom line is, there has been no official statement by the CIA on her status, and no crime was committed in the first place, at least by Libby, or Fitz would have nailed him on the more serious charge.

And it still doesn't change the fact that both she and her clown husband are both proven, officially revealed lairs and phonies, which makes it puzzling why you seem to admire them so.

More like bullsh*t has a liberal bias. rofl

[Smashed!]

That's a ridiculous statement. It's still your own government putting up the cameras. Try not to use the US as a catch-all excuse, will you? It's getting old. You were in deep **** before 9-11 ever happened, you just didn't realize it...or you were in denial.

Well Ex has 2 points. Number of CCTV in the US outweighs by a margin the system in Britannia. However, in Brittania the territory is so small so that you put 200 cams you cover any half assed city center. Now as Stab just told it the rapid growth of CCTV in brittania was due to that great Dear Iron Lady (Stalinitsa Thaetcher) in complete accordance with the great war against the Evil Empire (namely the British Unions). However I find it very disturbing the Axis name calling from people, that include human ADN checking in their application procedures. And as just said to another britton Sabre, great lord actions have consequences...To MECCA.

But by the same standart the chinese gov't should be called libertarian. The Irony.

Stab, IRA is not part of the deal...Social Control happened to be the major issue behind Big Sister. And you know it...that much for Conservatism.

[Mastermind]

Good post Dakota....right on the money.

[JKD]

Oh yeah... while I realize that moonbat lefties will believe anything if it suits their prejudices, if you actually read the PDF file of what Joel Seidman makes sound like an official CIA report (talk about media bias), you discover... it's simply a statement by Fitzgerald in a court filing! We have to take his word for it I guess. He's spinning like a top trying to maximize the sentence against Libby for a crime he didn't commit because Fitz never charged him! Are we supposed to believe he DIDN'T know if she was covered by the IIPA a year ago? Yeah the BS is two feet deep here.

Bottom line is, there has been no official statement by the CIA on her status, and no crime was committed in the first place, at least by Libby, or Fitz would have nailed him on the more serious charge.
Well, if she wasn't covert, they've got her under oath saying in no uncertain terms that she was....why hasn't she been charged with purgery?


And it still doesn't change the fact that both she and her clown husband are both proven, officially revealed lairs and phonies, which makes it puzzling why you seem to admire them so.
What's really puzzling is why the die hard conservatives seem to be so pleased with the situation. Her husband wrote an op-ed. Get over it. If she wasn't performing her job well as a CIA officer then she should have been fired. Discretely and in such a way that wasn't a scrorched earth policy destroying entire intelligence networks and weakening national security.

If Armitage(and again, how the hell do you come to the conclusion that he's "liberal"?) just had a brain fart and thought it'd be a good idea to discuss who's in the CIA with a reporter without knowing she was covert then fine. Steps need to be taken to try and prevent that sort of thing in the future.

[James]

"Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM 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."

Sounds like a recommendation to me. Regardless, she claimed she had no involvement at all and this is clearly a lie under oath.

I think you're grasping at straws.

[Jobu]

They both lied, Plame and Wilson. And they did so to undermine the administration in the White House.

To me that is unacceptable. We can't have people working for the CIA plotting against our own government.

[Baboonass]

Well, if she wasn't covert, they've got her under oath saying in no uncertain terms that she was....why hasn't she been charged with purgery?


.

Because it's not worth persuing.

She wasn't covert, and was never part of the clandestine services.

Only clandestine agents are afforded the protection of their identities under law.

Although it was bad form to out an employee of an intellignece agency, it's not illegal.

Now, her GS or SES status makes any "suggestion" she makes liable for scrutinization. What she "suggests" is going to carry a lot of weight when decisions are made and orders are cut.

What she did is actually a violation of protocal and possibly illegal. You cannot show bias when it comes to the utilization of of an employee for a job or mission because of your marital status.

Bigger fish to fry, this won't be persued either.



Just some points to consider and to clear up some issues, carry on.

[ElHombre]

And now to clear up some points for the umpteenth time...


Because it's not worth persuing.

If she wasn't covert, the CIA wouldn't have demanded an investigation.


She wasn't covert, and was never part of the clandestine services.

Go back and read the story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/) again. Here's the relevant part. Read it slowly...


An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.


Although it was bad form to out an employee of an intellignece agency, it's not illegal.

Errr... Yes, it is. Under a law signed by then-President 'Hippy Liberal' Reagan with the support of once-CIA Director and then-Vice President 'Why didn't I slap my eldest sone more' Bush, knowingly revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent was made a felony.


Now, her GS or SES status makes any "suggestion" she makes liable for scrutinization. What she "suggests" is going to carry a lot of weight when decisions are made and orders are cut.

Wow. The opinion of someone who knows what they're talking about is going to carry a lot of weight. Whod've thunk it?


What she did is actually a violation of protocal and possibly illegal. You cannot show bias when it comes to the utilization of of an employee for a job or mission because of your marital status.

She made a recommendation about who a good person was to perform a task. Her boss agreed. It's that simple, folks. Bitch about her boss if you want. Given that Wilson did a good job of identifying the truth, you're not going to have a leg to stand on. Not that it isn't fun watching y'all in your latest attempt to deny reality.

[Dakota435]

She made a recommendation about who a good person was to perform a task. Her boss agreed. It's that simple, folks. Bitch about her boss if you want. Given that Wilson did a good job of identifying the truth, you're not going to have a leg to stand on. Not that it isn't fun watching y'all in your latest attempt to deny reality.

Man oh man... you really are on some other planet.

She claimed under oath she had nothing to do with helping get her hubby sent. She did. It's right there in her own words. She lied under oath.

Wilson did not identify the truth. He is an officially identified liar. He wrote an op ed in the NY Times that he reported he found no evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigation interviewed the CIA officers who debriefed Wilson and discovered that Wilson's report indicated just the OPPOSITE, that the Niger official he talked with assumed the Iraqi overtures were for uranium, which is all they had of value to sell.

Wilson was caught hanging way out there, in a brazen, bald faced lie. It was serious enough at the time that even liberals were running for cover from Wilson and Kerry DUMPED him as a campaign adviser.

Only guys in alternate leftist states of existence like you take such a phony assh*le seriously.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

They both lied, Plame and Wilson. And they did so to undermine the administration in the White House.

To me that is unacceptable. We can't have people working for the CIA plotting against our own government.


They don't need to. The White House has been doing an excellent job of undermining the USA for the last 7 years all on it's own.rofl

[JKD]

Only guys in alternate leftist states of existence like you take such a phony assh*le seriously.

Now let's try and establish what exactly you consider "leftist". How exactly is it you consider Armitage to be a "liberal"? And I think it's the 3rd time I've asked that question without a response.

I don't know what anyone on either side of the ideological isle is getting excited about here. There's nothing to be gained but a pyrrhic victory.

Those who are hoping the administraion has it's fingers in this, if proven right, will still only find an exposed intelligence network. What a great victory.

Those who are supporting the administration will find the same results. Armitage had "loose lips" and Novak did some further digging and put it in print for the world, friend and foe alike, to see. What a great victory.

I don't care what side of the isle anyone falls on there should be only one reaction; being pissed off.

[Smashed!]

Man oh man... you really are on some other planet.

She claimed under oath she had nothing to do with helping get her hubby sent. She did. It's right there in her own words. She lied under oath.

Wilson did not identify the truth. He is an officially identified liar. He wrote an op ed in the NY Times that he reported he found no evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. The Senate Intelligence Committee investigation interviewed the CIA officers who debriefed Wilson and discovered that Wilson's report indicated just the OPPOSITE, that the Niger official he talked with assumed the Iraqi overtures were for uranium, which is all they had of value to sell.

Wilson was caught hanging way out there, in a brazen, bald faced lie. It was serious enough at the time that even liberals were running for cover from Wilson and Kerry DUMPED him as a campaign adviser.

Only guys in alternate leftist states of existence like you take such a phony assh*le seriously.


Bottom line: Where are the WMD's? Answer and then we'll agree. Just thought so.

[Baboonass]

Simmer down there Frances, let's deal with this without getting all emotional.





If she wasn't covert, the CIA wouldn't have demanded an investigation.


Investigation into what exactly? Would an investigation be more benifical or destructive in light of revealing sources or garnereing unwanted attention to the agency, not to mention wasting valuable resources and finacial capitol. Is the outcome worth the cost?

Someone decided somewere it wasn't, they are probably right.






Go back and read the story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/) again. Here's the relevant part. Read it slowly...


I read it, it means very little. The auther is making the story more dramitic by adding quotes around the word "covert". He may as well put an astrik by it and had a disclaimer on the bottom of the page stating the "covert" isn't really.


Some of you don't seem to grasp the definition of some of the words here. "Covert" and "Clandestine" are two seperate things, Valerie was neither. Her personal information was sensitive, but not privliged to legal stipulation. Only covert agents (field agents) from the clandestine services have this privilage. She did not work in this section.


The statement of her being "covert" is simply BS.







Errr... Yes, it is. Under a law signed by then-President 'Hippy Liberal' Reagan with the support of once-CIA Director and then-Vice President 'Why didn't I slap my eldest sone more' Bush, knowingly revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent was made a felony.




Once again, she wasn't a covert agent.






Wow. The opinion of someone who knows what they're talking about is going to carry a lot of weight. Whod've thunk it?


Did I ever say she knew what she was talking about? I said her GS or SES rank and status means that a "suggestion" is going to carry a lot of weight.

Like when your boss "suggests" that you get a hair cut, or clean up you appearance. It's not an order, but you are probably going to do as he says to avoid the issue becoming official.





She made a recommendation about who a good person was to perform a task. Her boss agreed. It's that simple, folks.


My guess is you have never worked for the governement.

Showing favoritism to a familiy member, girlfriend/boyfriend, husband/wife, for offical government buisness is not only unethical, it's illegal. Especially in matters of national security on a sensitive matter. Had anyone else known about this action, it is a very clear case of favortism and there would have been an internal investigation with a very high probability of her termination.

It is very obvious to me that she and her husband had very simular mindsets and political beliefs. It is also very obvious that she would set her husband out to talk publically about information he could only have garnered from his assignments on her order (suggestion). This action is very inaproprate and highly unethical, not sure how it reads into any violations of her job description or classified information protocal at the CIA, but I can tell you with all certainty that in other government entities, this action would land you in jail in short time. Perhaps her supervisor had the same mindset, I don't know, but his/her actions should be investigated (internally) as well.


Unless you understand the civilian government system and protocals, or the implications of inappropriate favoratism or improprioty, then this is going to mean very little to you. The civilian government works on a different set of rules than a civilain job, or a military job.

[Dakota435]

Now let's try and establish what exactly you consider "leftist". How exactly is it you consider Armitage to be a "liberal"? And I think it's the 3rd time I've asked that question without a response.

I don't know what anyone on either side of the ideological isle is getting excited about here. There's nothing to be gained but a pyrrhic victory.

Those who are hoping the administraion has it's fingers in this, if proven right, will still only find an exposed intelligence network. What a great victory.

Those who are supporting the administration will find the same results. Armitage had "loose lips" and Novak did some further digging and put it in print for the world, friend and foe alike, to see. What a great victory.

I don't care what side of the isle anyone falls on there should be only one reaction; being pissed off.


Sorry dude been away a couple of days and haven't gone back through the posts. I should clarify. Lets put aside the label of "liberal" for now and just say that he was a Powell crony and a well known opponent of the administration (as Powell himself was by this time), and as we all know is the "leaker" who let the sorta maybe covert cat out of the bag, not Rove, or Libby, or anybody else.

Both Armitage and Powell kept their mouths shut all that time as Fitzgerald conducted an investigation into a leaker who's identity he knew from the beginning, and who hadn't committed a prosecutable crime in the first place, allowed the media and the Dems to paint a tapestry of bullsh*t.

This is probably the most bizzare and pointless special counsel investigation ever. Starr may have been a bit of a zealot but he was driven by his shock at Clinton's deeply irresponsible personal behavior, and actual real live perjury. Plame is all over nothing at all.

[Dakota435]

Bottom line: Where are the WMD's? Answer and then we'll agree. Just thought so.

Bottom line: Nobody knows one way or the other. We know they were there. We know they were never accounted for. What happened? It'll be a mystery for a while yet. But that is not what's important. What matters is what people thought at the time since we are discussing decisions made then and I don't know of anybody with the ability to make decisions by jumping 4 years into the future in a time machine and then coming back to decide based on what he saw.

And if you go and look up Bill Moyer's interview of Wilson himself back in early 2003, you discover that while Wilson opposed the invasion, one of his primary reasons for that opposition was: drum roll.... BECAUSE SADDAM WOULD USE HIS WMD! In 2003 Wilson was just as certain as everybody else that WMD stocks were there. This is what matters when judging decisions made in context of the period.

[Smashed!]

Bottom line: Nobody knows one way or the other. We know they were there. We know they were never accounted for. What happened? It'll be a mystery for a while yet. But that is not what's important. What matters is what people thought at the time since we are discussing decisions made then and I don't know of anybody with the ability to make decisions by jumping 4 years into the future in a time machine and then coming back to decide based on what he saw.

And if you go and look up Bill Moyer's interview of Wilson himself back in early 2003, you discover that while Wilson opposed the invasion, one of his primary reasons for that opposition was: drum roll.... BECAUSE SADDAM WOULD USE HIS WMD! In 2003 Wilson was just as certain as everybody else that WMD stocks were there. This is what matters when judging decisions made in context of the period.

Bottom line there weren't any and some very sane persons knew it, other wanted to be sure...they sent inspectors. Some others instead knew there weren't any and wanted Saddam's head for strategical reasons. Redrawing the whole of middle east...I'm not against honesty and frankly I think it would have worked out better or at least not worse than right now.

Ah and as for Wilson: Dude is called communication, how would you do to make a point when your government has been saying from the past year WMD's were there, especially after 9/11. Puh-lease just look at the background.

[Smashed!]

Simmer down there Frances, let's deal with this without getting all emotional.




Investigation into what exactly? Would an investigation be more benifical or destructive in light of revealing sources or garnereing unwanted attention to the agency, not to mention wasting valuable resources and finacial capitol. Is the outcome worth the cost?

Someone decided somewere it wasn't, they are probably right.





I read it, it means very little. The auther is making the story more dramitic by adding quotes around the word "covert". He may as well put an astrik by it and had a disclaimer on the bottom of the page stating the "covert" isn't really.


Some of you don't seem to grasp the definition of some of the words here. "Covert" and "Clandestine" are two seperate things, Valerie was neither. Her personal information was sensitive, but not privliged to legal stipulation. Only covert agents (field agents) from the clandestine services have this privilage. She did not work in this section.


The statement of her being "covert" is simply BS.







Once again, she wasn't a covert agent.





Did I ever say she knew what she was talking about? I said her GS or SES rank and status means that a "suggestion" is going to carry a lot of weight.

Like when your boss "suggests" that you get a hair cut, or clean up you appearance. It's not an order, but you are probably going to do as he says to avoid the issue becoming official.





My guess is you have never worked for the governement.

Showing favoritism to a familiy member, girlfriend/boyfriend, husband/wife, for offical government buisness is not only unethical, it's illegal. Especially in matters of national security on a sensitive matter. Had anyone else known about this action, it is a very clear case of favortism and there would have been an internal investigation with a very high probability of her termination.

It is very obvious to me that she and her husband had very simular mindsets and political beliefs. It is also very obvious that she would set her husband out to talk publically about information he could only have garnered from his assignments on her order (suggestion). This action is very inaproprate and highly unethical, not sure how it reads into any violations of her job description or classified information protocal at the CIA, but I can tell you with all certainty that in other government entities, this action would land you in jail in short time. Perhaps her supervisor had the same mindset, I don't know, but his/her actions should be investigated (internally) as well.


Unless you understand the civilian government system and protocals, or the implications of inappropriate favoratism or improprioty, then this is going to mean very little to you. The civilian government works on a different set of rules than a civilain job, or a military job.

Slightly off-topic: Poland1111.