Bush administration officials out CIA operative

[Doomstone]

It's surprising to me how little attention this story is getting from our "liberal media." It would appear that there is a clear and unquestionable violation of the law...but by whom?


Story from The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823)

The Novak column in question (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml)

Reuters via Yahoo (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030805/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc_3)

Time Magazine via International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/103675.html)

New York Times via International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&ArticleId=105562)

Findlaw - The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html)

A pretty good editorial (http://www.jeffcoop.com/blog/archives/002084.html)

Transcript of interview with Joseph Wilson on CNN. (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/11/ltm.13.html)

Another longer, more detailed editorial. (http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/07/21.html)

This should be fun...

[Heavy]

Theres about 2 people on this board that will actually read any of that, and I'm not one of them.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=JohneeWadd">
<marquee>A proportionate amount of props are equally distributed to my nigga's Fluff, Alexxis, CanOfSoup15, WWFallon and Katylina</marquee>

[Yerdaddy]

Theres about 2 people on this board that will actually read any of that, and I'm not one of them.
I am one. Thanks alot Doomstone! Now I got more crap I gotta read!

Actually I read this in the corporate/liberal media, (Washington Post), last week. It's just one more thing from the admin.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[TheMojoPin]

I like to read.

I liked reading those links.

Thanks, Doomstone.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[DarkHippie]

i heard about this on NPR a couple of weeks ago. Its really fucked up. Bush wants to strengthen our Intelligence, yet he's willing to sell out our operatives? He ruined a career to get a little vengence on said operative's husband, putting his own political needs over the needs of the country. truly disgusting.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discression, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

[Furtherman]

Great links Doomstone. This is shocking, yet not surprising from the Bush administration.

I recently came across this "Quote Of The Day":

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged..."but, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

- Conversation between psychologist Gustave Gilbert and Nazi Hermann Goering in "Nuremberg Diary".

[Bergalad]

Its really fucked up. Bush wants to strengthen our Intelligence, yet he's willing to sell out our operatives? He ruined a career to get a little vengence on said operative's husband, putting his own political needs over the needs of the country. truly disgusting.
Where in the article by Novak does it say Bush did any of this? It says:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials $elected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.
Nowhere is Bush named, and in fact no one is named. This is the continuation of the "unnamed sources" parade that happens in every administration. For all you know, the idiots who "leaked" the wife's name could be Democrats, and there are just as many plausable reasons why they would do it as would Republicans. So quick to blame Bush but you have no idea who or what was really behind this.

[high fly]

Hey gang!
I like to read too.
Way to go, DOOMSTONE. It's nice having the facts.

Another article that those of us who read and all, might find interesting on this topic is: "Retired Envoy: Nuclear Report Ignored" by Richard Leiby and Walter Pincus, on page A13 of the July 6 issue of the Washington Post.

Here's a few highlights:

'"It really comes down to the administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war," Wilson said yesterday. "It begs the question, what else are they lying about?"'

"Wilson's account of his eight day mission to Niger, including a statement he was told Vice President Cheney's staff was interested in the truth of the allegations, has not been contradicted by administration officials..."

" In Wilson's view, key questions in any inquiry would include who in the White House knew of the details of his mission and who was told of his conclusions."When you task a seriousorganizationlike the CIA [to answer a question], it doesn't go into a black hole," he said."

"Having been told the vice president's office was interested, he said"If youare senior enough to ask this question, you are well above the bowels of the bureaucracy. You are in that circle.""

BERGALAD is right, no one has accused Bush.
What is apparent is that at the very least the administration has been served terribly by some high ranking officials who have broken national security laws, probably misled the President on vital intelligence matters in a time of war, and have caused much embarassment.
They have given Bush's opponents ammunition to use against him.
We do not know whether Bush is behind this or whether there are some loose cannons at the upper level of the administration.
Is Bush embarrassed?
Is he pissed off?
Or is he in the background applauding?
Someone needs to be fired, if Bush doesn't, the scandal will grow as it will appear he indeed has a directrole in it .

" and they ask me why I drink"

[DarkHippie]

So Bush need not take responsiblility for actions inside his own administration? the buck stops with the president, unless of course, he really has no idea what's going on, and then we should be even more afraid. take your pick of scenarios.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discression, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

[high fly]

He needs to take action.
He swore to uphold the law.
He needs to do so.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

HF, you are showing signs of hope. You agree that blanket blame on Bush for everything that happens anymore is wrong, and that's great.

Does Bush know about what happened? Does he not know? Is he mad? I do not believe that Bush is vindictive enough to pass over his "target" and hit the guy's wife instead. That's not his style and I would think that is obvious to anyone remotely involved in politics. I didn't read through all of these links, but is she still an operative? Is she active at all?

DarkHippie, your only view of this is that Bush is wrong either way. That's a bit narrowminded. Do you blame every President for the actions of every person in the government? I am sure you don't, unless he is a Republican. Being blinded by ideology is a sad way to view the world.

[high fly]

I don't think Bush would go after the guy's wife, but the whole thing does have a Nixon-esque odor to it.
Bush needs to see the "cancer on the presidency" and cut it out.
It has been a mistake for him to let it drag out like this.
My best guess is that one of the "high administration officials" is Stephen Hadley, Bush's deputy national security advisor who insisted the phony claims be put into the president's speech.
I rush to emphasize that's only a guess.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[DarkHippie]

DarkHippie, your only view of this is that Bush is wrong either way. That's a bit narrowminded. Do you blame every President for the actions of every person in the government?
Only the EXECUTIVE BRANCH!!! Is it too much to ask that as leader he take responsibility for the people beneath him? Where does the buck stop?

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<marquee>"Last night I went running through the screen door of discression, for I woke up from a nightmare that I could not stand to see. You were a-wandering out on the hills of Iowa and you were not thinking of me." Dar Williams "Traveling III (Iowa)"</marquee>

[Yerdaddy]

I'm going to just second what Hippie has said so far. This is top tier stuff. The kitchen staff doesn't have the capacity to find out who is and who isn't connected to a CIA operative, and mid-levels don't just leak that shit to the press without authorization. Someone heard what Wilson had to say and had him checked out, then they leaked what his wife was to a prominent conservative columnist and publisher. This is something that gets cleared by Karl Rove at least. Can I prove that? Of course not. But to say that this is some rogue White House staffer is naive. It's Bush's responsibility. Not that he'll take it.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[CruelCircus]

Admittedly, I only read the first 2 links (the original Novak article, and the Nation piece) plus a follow-up to the Nation article.
It seems like Corn is making a huge leap of assumption in asserting that the wife is a "deep-cover" official, was "outed," and such knowledge compromises national security. The entire piece seems to be just a great amount of speculation based on one sentence in the Novak article. It staes that she works for the CIA, nothing more. To jump to "deep-cover" with national security risks seems simply Corn's personal deduction.

Jim


<br>
<img src="http://pw2.netcom.com/~jjmace/gifs/datrfsig.JPG"><br><br>
3 parts gin
1 part extra dry vermouth (or less...)
shake quickly over ice
pour and add 3 olives

[Bergalad]

The kitchen staff doesn't have the capacity to find out who is and who isn't connected to a CIA operative, and mid-levels don't just leak that shit to the press without authorization.
Untrue and you know it. Mid-levels are the ones who leak these things almost every time. Please.
You fancy yourself as some insider, so don't back out on it now.
Someone heard what Wilson had to say and had him checked out, then they leaked what his wife was to a prominent conservative columnist and publisher.
I ask again, is she still active for the CIA? What's her status?
This is something that gets cleared by Karl Rove at least.
Once more not true. You have no clue, so do not speculate and demonize without any sort of proof.
Can I prove that? Of course not.
Exactly, so why even say it? You are naming names of who to blame but admit you have no clue. More like slander than analysis.
But to say that this is some rogue White House staffer is naive.
I didn't say it was. I said it could be anyone, including a Democrat. The source was more easily attributed to the CIA anyway, so point your blame detector that way for a while.
It's Bush's responsibility.
Why? Because you dislike him? He cannot control every person in the Federal Government, so to say he is on the block for this is idiotic. If he told them to leak it, yes he is accountable and should be held so. Otherwise, if he didn't know anything about it, then get off his back. You probably don't even know what you are doing half the time, so how is he supposed to be keeping track of what thousands do each day? Be realistic for a moment.
Not that he'll take it.
Bush has shown he is straightforward and says what he means. I don't think he is false purposely at all. Your boy Wilson is the one flying off the handle on national TV here, and for all you know HE is the one who leaked the info to the press in an attempt to embarrass the President. You don't know either way, and it is just as plausable as anything else. I operate on facts, and if proof is presented Bush was responsible, I will shout louder than most about it. You seem to operate totally out of the need to further an ideology, no matter how tenuous and fragile the position you take up. You're incredibly quick to believe any "unnamed sources" over the current President, and that shows a dangerous intolerance to alternate viewpoints.

[Yerdaddy]

I said what I think about this. The rest of this crap is too petty. We'll see how it plays out.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[FMJeff]

in other news, i bought new toilet paper today. two ply.

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[high fly]

YERDADDY, you are, of course, correct.
The list of suspects cannot be a lengthy one if we look at this logically.
Wilson's report went to very high levels.
Folks up there were pissed off about the report getting out.
So they retaliated.
Why would some low level clerk be pissed off at Wilson?
Have Liddy, Haldeman and Erlichman been accounted for?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

Why would some low level clerk be pissed off at Wilson?
Maybe Wilson didn't give a reach-around?

Seriously, there is no proof in any way that Bush was responsible for this. It just as easily could have been a left-leaning person or even Wilson himself. This guy has been fairly active in trying to denounce Bush, so nothing is out of the question.

Still no one can tell me if his wife was still active or when she was last active? Anyone?

[Yerdaddy]

You're grasping. Read the original Novak piece. "Two senior administration officials told me..." Wilson is not two senior administration officials; he's not even one. And your theory of a democrat with a grudge pulling some reverse subterfuge would pretty much narrow the suspects to the one, maybe two senior democrats in the administration. Either way, the fact that the leak came from senior administration officials puts it in the President's realm of responsibility.

And show me where Wilson has denounced Bush. He told what he did and nobody has claimed that he hasn't told the truth. As for whether she's active or not, Novak said "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." That's present tense. So if you want to make a claim that she's not currently an operative then find out for yourself. In the meantime you're just doing what the administration appears to be doing: trying to discredit the messenger because you don't like the message.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[Bergalad]

So if you want to make a claim that she's not currently an operative then find out for yourself.

Not making any claim, I was only asking Mr. Defensive.
And show me where Wilson has denounced Bush.
Caveat that then if you prefer to Bush's policies. Wasn't Wilson at your little shindig anti-war rally? He's not pro-Bush or you wouldn't be defending him. I have seen him on the media circuit and he is not too positive about the current administration, now (understandibly) more so than ever.
In the meantime you're just doing what the administration appears to be doing: trying to discredit the messenger because you don't like the message.
Good, you said appears. Progress is being made towards open-mindedness.

Who said I don't like the message? What I am saying however is the "Bush ratted her out" crap right off the bat in this thread was both unfounded and premature. I don't believe in character assasinations without proof, and there seems to be an unequal standard applied by some of you in here which I reject. I guess I shouldn't expect Idealogues to be anything other than pessimistic and accusatory.

[TheMojoPin]

So only people that "like" Bush are allowed to criticize him?

Uhm...'K...

People are usually CAUGHT for doing things they shouldn't by people LOOKING to actively catch them in something.

And I'm NOT saying Bush did anything here. But of COURSE someone who probably isn't his biggest fan is going to try and pin something on him or catch him in the act of doing something wrong. Why the fuck would someone who is a fan or supporter of Bush actively be trying to catch him with his fingers in the cookie jar?

I don't get why conservatives talk like they've "caught" someone when they openly criticize Bush. "Ah-HAH!!! They're Democrats!!! Ah-HAH!!! That guy has been to anti-war rallies and has spoken again Bush!!! And NOW they're trying to pin federal wrongdoings on him!!! AH-HAH!!!"

Wait...what?

Way to go, Sherlocks. How is declaring, "oh, he's anti-Bush. His point is moot. NEXT!" an answer?

Again, I have NO idea if Bush did anything wrong here. I'm just trying to understand how not being on Bush's side autmotically makes your findings and opinions on him null and void? NATURALLY someone who is anti-Bush is going to find something like this. That's how the world works. LOOK AT CLINTON. You honestly think he was "outed" all those times by people who WANTED him to succeed? NOBODY can be THAT naive.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-21-03 @ 1:37 PM

[high fly]

What has Bush's reaction been?
Has he ordered an investigation?
Has he denounced the leakers?
Has he issued a statement of support for Wilson?
Has he quietly given an "atta boy" to whoever did it?
Has he threatened to fire or even reprimand whoever broke the law and leaked the info?
If Bush wasn't involved, does he support the action anyway?

What about the Attorney General?
Any action there on a public flaunting of the law?

If I switch to GEICO, will I save 15% on my car insurance?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

I'm just trying to understand how not being on Bush's side autmotically makes your findings and opinions on him null and void?
I know I didn't say that, so who are you talking to here? I'm saying let's keep the torches and pitchforks in the barn for a moment until we see if Bush was actually to blame for this. In the meantime, drink some water and relax there Mojo. You're getting a wee-bit worked up on this.

[high fly]

In what, 6 weeks or so, Bush has done lots to get to the bottom of this.
Like, uhhhh, errrrr, ahhhhhhh.
And then there's ummmm, I uh......
ahem.
I'm sure there's something!
Well, he's cut a lot of brush on his ranch, does that count?

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 8-21-03 @ 3:50 PM

[FMJeff]

http://www.bonusround.com/book2-9/images/75-ripflaga.jpg

one of the CIA operatives outted by President Bush...this agent is so out its not even funny...

<center><img src="http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/fmjeff.gif">
<br>
It made my heart sing.

[Yerdaddy]

Idealogues

If I can only take credit for one thing on this board it's for teaching you this word. Now if only I could have tought you how to apply it.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[TheMojoPin]

I know I didn't say that, so who are you talking to here?

It just as easily could have been a left-leaning person or even Wilson himself. This guy has been fairly active in trying to denounce Bush, so nothing is out of the question.

Wasn't Wilson at your little shindig anti-war rally? He's not pro-Bush or you wouldn't be defending him. I have seen him on the media circuit and he is not too positive about the current administration, now (understandibly) more so than ever.

And these quotes AREN'T basically saying that Wilson is automatically suspect because he simply has an opinion OPPOSED to Bush and his administration? Like I said I said in my post, it's often that which is IMPLIED which speaks the loudest.

Your automatic default to people who support these notions on the board is to accusing them of not liking Bush or being "anti-Bush". Perhaps I'm wrong in what I'm assuming (And my last post was more of a general question as to the actions of many defensive conservatives these days), but that's a sentiment you throw out VERY often.

And dude, don't tell me to calm down. My post was hardly "angry" and was obviously a general statement. Yes, your posts here instigated it, but this is the second time today you've just blown me off with sarcastic comments and there's no reason for it.

I'm saying let's keep the torches and pitchforks in the barn for a moment until we see if Bush was actually to blame for this.

Check my post again. I went out of my way to say that I was NOT blaming Bush for ANYTHING at this point. I was simply wondering why the traditional conservative rebuttal these day to criticisms of Bush is to point out how much the person doing the criticizing is "anti-Bush", like it's some kind of surprise or dirty trick. It IS something you do here often, though it doesn't negate what you've said in addition to that. You've made very valid points, and you ARE right...we should wait for more info before making a final judgement. But at the same time, you are throwing out declarations that people are "anti-Bush" like it somehow disproves their point or what's being said. Maybe you're not trying to do that, but it is pretty regular and that's how it can't help but come across. It's spin whether you're trying to do it on purpose or not, and it's moot.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-22-03 @ 2:31 AM

[Bergalad]

Mojo. In light of your comments, I have reviewed my posts in this thread. I don't see anywhere where I was calling anyone anti-Bush with the possible exception of Wilson, and that is iffy. I didn't say you were, that's for sure.

I said calm down a little because I think you are railing against something that wasn't even said in here. Your post prior to that one of mine was not very clear, and although it was directed at me I don't think it addressed anything I actually said.

I am not blaming anyone here. I said that Wilson leaking the info was just as plausable as Bush doing it, and that before Bush is pilloried yet again, let's hold on for a moment. I know you are not blaming Bush yet, and that's great. I am not calling anyone anti-Bush in here, so I don't think that is valid to use against me.

[TheMojoPin]

Look, I'm not railing. I'm not even seriously bothered by it.

Just confused.

Here...

DarkHippie, your only view of this is that Bush is wrong either way. That's a bit narrowminded. Do you blame every President for the actions of every person in the government? I am sure you don't, unless he is a Republican. Being blinded by ideology is a sad way to view the world.

You assume this. And even if you're right...so what? The very clear statement here is that HIS assumption is wrong because he's opposed to Bush and his party. What does that prove?

You haven't done this to me.

It's not an "epidemic". And I don't know how you're taking "anti-Bush", but that's what I call the description of someone who has their disliking of a president pointed out every time they criticize him. You don't do it with all posters. But you do it pretty consistently with guys like HBox and yerdaddy (And his sources) and Hippie. Maybe you don't mean to do it. That's certainly very likely.

I like to sit back and observe how people argue in these threads, and to me (I could be wrong), it just seems to me that you are very quick to point out someone's disliking or opposition to Bush in what SEEMS like an attempt to discredit or downplay whatever they may be accusing/blaming/attacking Bush at the moment.

I might be totally off, and that's fine. It's just something that seems to pop up a lot, and it's consistent with what I see pretty much all of the conservative pundits in the media do these days, and I could be TOTALLY missing the point, but I simply don't get it.

You clearly and quickly point out that Wilson has been very active in his opposition and attempts to discredit Bush's actions or non-actions. So? Aren't we SUPPOSED to have watchers watching the watchers? Checks and balances? If the man is wrong, he'll be caught on it. Those kind of accusations can't hold up for too long if they aren't true. I just don't get why pointing out that the man doesn't agree with the president he's attacking and is looking for things against the president is presented like it's a mark against him. It's what the opposition does.

And despite what you think, the initial post was NOT directed at you. It WAS definitely instigated by what you had said in this thread, but it really just lead me to wonder aloud. If I wanted to call YOU out, I would have done it. I'm not attacking your actual points...just questionwhat you choose to point out sometimes.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 8-22-03 @ 4:34 AM

[Bergalad]

My comment to DH was in response to him saying
the buck stops with the president, unless of course, he really has no idea what's going on, and then we should be even more afraid. take your pick of scenarios.
The either/or of this is negative. There is nothing about "maybe he didn't do it", only that either way Bush is wrong. That is why I said
your only view of this is that Bush is wrong either way. That's a bit narrowminded.
because he gave no other alternative than Bush was wrong. I say that Bush might be to blame, or anyone else for that matter. Why can I accept alternate scenarios and it is so hard for others to do the same? That is being blinded by ideology, where you cannot comprehend any other way of doing things. I didn't say anti-Bush anywhere, only anti-Republican which I don't think is a stretch to say is true for DH...

But you do it pretty consistently with guys like HBox and yerdaddy (And his sources) and Hippie. Maybe you don't mean to do it. That's certainly very likely.
I do say these things, and often I mean it. Like I said above, I don't see many open minds on here, and thankfully you are one that usually is. The constant unceasing attacks against Bush bothers me when no thought seems to be given to alternatives. I say bad things about this administration, so why can't they say anything good about it ever? The continued attacks are irritating because I want to think people are not programmed to only think one way.

I just don't get why pointing out that the man doesn't agree with the president he's attacking and is looking for things against the president is presented like it's a mark against him.

He is just as much suspect in this as Bush is. I feel for the guy if his wife was in danger, and that's one of the reasons I was wondering if she was still active. The possibility remains though that he is the leak, just as it could be anyone else. I only stated it more than once because some think the only possible suspect is Bush, and that is incorrect. I am not accusing Wilson, not in the slightest. Is he suspect? Certainly. Do I think he did this? No. Showing alternatives is all.

[TheMojoPin]

Fair enough.

I said my bit, he said his.

Thanks.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

Soooooooo that's it?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Yerdaddy]

The possibility remains though that he is the leak, just as it could be anyone else.
[Re-word and repeat this quote about five times.]

What is so hard to understand about "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report."? Wilson is not a senior administration official, so he can't be a suspect in the leak, now can he? Likewise the entire federal government cannot be suspects unless Novak lied. Unless Novak decides to take a bullet for the administration, then only senior administration officials are suspects. You're simply trying to create red herrings to dilute the issue you don't like. You keep throwin out these vague accusations about Wilson, that you can't substantiate, because you don't like the fact that he didn't shut his trap about his investigation to protect the administration. That is the same, and most plausible, motive for senior administration officials to to leak the identity of his wife in the first place. This is where that "ideologue" term fits nicely. Honestly, this thread has the worst arguments you've made since FiveB mysteriously disappeared.

If the president is not responsible for senior administration officials then who is? These are not elected officials, so if the president doesn't take responsibility and conduct an investigation into whether the law was violated and who did it, then the congress needs to do it. If it doesn't, then the pitchforks and torches will come out. I know where the republicans stashed theirs after the Clinton impeachment.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE ASS!

[Doomstone]

Maybe it was space aliens who talked to Novak? Makes about as much sense as Wilson outing his own wife. Or maybe Novak, a known conservative, is secretly an undercover liberal trying to sabotage the Bush administration? I love a good conspiracy theory.

Seriously, is Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,465270,00.html) lying when they say:



some <b>government officials</b> have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.


So far, as far as I know, this situation has been mostly ignored by the White House. But I don't think they can ignore it forever.

Letter from Charles Schumer to FBI director Robert Mueller requesting an investigation into Valerie-gate (http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01888.html)

[Bergalad]

You keep throwin out these vague accusations about Wilson, that you can't substantiate, because you don't like the fact that he didn't shut his trap about his investigation to protect the administration.
I didn't say it was Wilson, and if fact I said it WASN'T Wilson, so get off it. I don't care about Wilson, I don't care about what he said. His information wasn't that big of a deal anyway, so who cares? I said, a hundred times it seems, that just because Novak says "senior administration officials" doesn't mean that it was. All of a sudden you want to take the word of "conservative" writers as golden YD?

Here's what the White House Press Sec has said in response to this issue:
there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.
Well, is he lying then? The Press Sec says nothing came from the White House, so is he right or is a newspaper columnist right?

Is it right that she was named as an operative? No. Is this revenge against her husband? Most likely. Should the President be blamed? No.

If this was the work of some rogue guys in the government trying to damage Wilson, then they need to be punished. If they were working under instructions from the President then they are- and here come the flames- absolved of wrongdoing. Here's why: the President can declassify whatever he wants. Jimmy Carter declassified the fact that the US had spy satellite capabilities, and at the time that information was about the most highly classified thing we had. That's a true fact btw. So, unless there is something out there I haven't seen to the contrary, the President can classify and declassify pretty much whatever he wants.

[high fly]

His information wasn't that big of a deal anyway

Sure it was, when viewed as a piece of a larger issue.
It buttresses the argument that the administration intentionally misled Congress and the American people.
It shows the warped logic of this administration that has led to grievous consequences (need I list them again?).

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Yerdaddy]

and if fact I said it WASN'T Wilson
I must have missed that one. Show me that one again.

Press Secretary: there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step.
Shocking as it is that a press secretary would deny any wrongdoing on the part of the administration, notice that he uses "no information that" and "would have given authority." Those are called weasel words, and there presence in the statement indicates to me that he's leaving open the possibility that his defense may fall apart on this subject. I'm actually going to say that Novak demonstrated more confidence in his statements, so he's probably right. Apparently ou'll defend the president regardless of what the administration says or does, so you don't need to point out what side you take on this one.
the President can classify and declassify pretty much whatever he wants.
I don't know if this is true or not, but if it is and legally he couldn't be held criminally liable, that wouldn't change the fact that outing of this operative was done as a politically motivated retaliation against a man's wife for telling the truth. So, on the off chance that the public outing can be traced back to the president I'll expect you not to complain when democrats bring it up during the election.

<IMG SRC="http://czm.racknine.net/images/yersig.gif">
CZM productions

FREE MY SIGPIC!

[TheMojoPin]

Shocking as it is that a press secretary would deny any wrongdoing on the part of the administration, notice that he uses "no information that" and "would have given authority." Those are called weasel words, and there presence in the statement indicates to me that he's leaving open the possibility that his defense may fall apart on this subject.

That's actually a decent point.

Come on! After 8 years of Clinton and 8 Years of Reagan you'd think we'd all be pros at this!!!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bergalad]

I must have missed that one. Show me that one again.
I am not accusing Wilson, not in the slightest. Is he suspect? Certainly. Do I think he did this? No.
Satisfied?
I'm actually going to say that Novak demonstrated more confidence in his statements, so he's probably right.
Of COURSE you would. Novak is able to hide behind "anonymous sources" while the Press Secretary is out there in person. What politician doesn't use careful wording? You think the Press Sec lied right there? You think this is a big enough deal for him to just throw his career away? I thought his statement was strong, but naturally you say it's not. He could stand up there and yell "no one from this administration did this, and we condemn that it was done, and the President promises to find out who is responsible for this terrible act" and you would say that wasn't enough, wouldn't you?
I don't know if this is true or not
I just told you how it was, but if you like, 2 senior administration officials have also confirmed to me that this statement is accurate. Now you can't help but believe me!
So, on the off chance that the public outing can be traced back to the president I'll expect you not to complain when democrats bring it up during the election.
It's not from the President. Please, he isn't stupid. Why haven't you even brought up the point that this "outing" was a silly thing to do anyway? Why would the administration leak her name, knowing that it would be attributed to them, and also knowing that it potentially could trigger investigations? Why???? It doesn't even make any sense, and in this case they would have been purposely pointing the finger at themselves. If the Bush Administration leaked the info, then once again I say that was wrong and I am against it, for whatever reason it was done.

And yet again I say that I remain unconvinced that the administration actually leaked the information in the first place, and excuse me if I don't take what a reporter says as absolute fact (hello Jayson Blair?). I would accept a low-level congressional investigation by the Intelligence Committee, but not some blown-out affair like the Clarence Thomas hearings. Can I be done defending open-mindedness and impartiality now? Someone else want to give it a try (other than Mojo on a good day)?

Speaking of you Mojo, what's the concensus with your parent's Bridge group?

This message was edited by Bergalad on 8-24-03 @ 11:50 AM

[TheMojoPin]

That if this was leaked, it was a mistake and hardly as malicious or devious as some want to think. Makes sense to me. It's unfortunate, but not necessarily on purpose.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

It's surprising to me how little attention this story is getting from our "liberal media."


That's odd, since I heard about this story WEEKS ago. It's old news by now.

And the reason it isn't getting so much attention from the "liberal" media is not, of course, due to the reasons which I'm sure you're implying - that the media's silence on this issue MUST prove that they're not, in fact, liberal and / or biased against conservative ideology - but rather for the simple fact that has been hammered around enoung here already that no one can specifically pin this on Bush.

And thus, in a sense, no one cares.

It's like FileGate or any of the other myriad of mini-scandals that littered Clinton's presidency. If no one can specifically point a finger directly at the chief, the story suddently becomes nowhere near as sensational as some may want it to be.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">
<br>
<br>
Is the Captain a member of the proud <b>2%</b>?

[high fly]

Whether it can be pinned on Bush isn't that important. It may not have been him.
It certainly was someone high up in the administration.
Though no one appears headed to the pokey just yet, it does fit into a pattern of deception, denial, secrecy and stifling of dissent in this administration, where "staying on message" reigns supreme.
This is an administration that reaches conclusions and then finds facts to fit the conclusion, and anyone who gets in the way with inconvenient information that would indicate a different conclusion is retaliated against.

Very Nixonian.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

That if this was leaked, it was a mistake and hardly as malicious or devious as some want to think. Makes sense to me. It's unfortunate, but not necessarily on purpose.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is your final answer on this. Thanks Mojo. Close the thread out.

[high fly]

Text...not necessarily on purpose

It was all an accident. Whoopseydaisy!

" and they ask me why I drink"

[TheMojoPin]

That's NOT to say certain people shouldn't have to answer for it. But given all that's been presented, the "internal" consensus seems to be this was a really stupid mistake, and NOT done intentionally.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

Wilson's statement was very significant in that it is at the heart of the uranium claims flap, and this leak will probably amount to naught, unfortunately. So Berg is portratying things the opposite of how they are. As to Novak's claim being false, it was corroborated by Time. As for why the administration would do it - Daniel Ellsburg and the "plumbers" is an example of the precident. To discourage others from coming forward. This is at the point where it's a waste of time so I'm punching out.

<IMG SRC="http://www.mrbill.com/spbill7.jpg">

[high fly]

I'm kinda with YERDADDY, for now. It's like trying to push a car uphill or something.
Then again, back in the day, there was quite a lull in the Watergate scandal. Part of the problem here is we don't have the national exposure on this board that we so richly deserve.
Sadly, none of us has the chance to reach across the console and snatch Hannity's ass up by the lapels or to sneakily reach around and cut O'Reilly's tie off with scissors.
More proof there just ain't no justice....

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

So Berg is portratying things the opposite of how they are.
In that case...HF, did I read your post right? Did you say you wanted to snatch Hannity's ass and give him a reach around?

[high fly]

Grrrrrrr.

I have these dreams.
Last night I dreamed I was on some panel discussion between Hannity and Stephanopolis and finally had enough of both of their shit.
I stood up and grabbed both by head, palming each skull nicely, ala Pete Maravitch back in the day.
I proceeded to pound the two heads together untill both were the consistency of a baggy full of gravy.
I awoke startled, yet strangely satisfied...

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Bergalad]

Damn HF, there is way too much there for me to even begin.

[Doomstone]

The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate. Will we see Karl Rove "frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs?"

MSNBC article (http://msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CA00)
Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,490646,00.html?cnn=yes)
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11208-2003Sep27.html)


Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said of the alleged leak.




It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were "wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing to diminish Wilson's credibility."

[Recyclerz]

Good work on this Doomstone. It looks like this story is finally getting some traction in the mainstream press.


Gee, would any of the GOPers on the board happen to have Ken Starr's phone number? It looks like we might have a new job for him.




There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon, he never lived 'round here.

[Se7en]

Will we see Karl Rove "frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs?"


That's probably unlikely.

Very little to nothing will become of this.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[Doomstone]

Will we see Karl Rove "frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs?"


That's probably unlikely.

Very little to nothing will become of this.



Aah, blind loyalty. An admirable trait for a puppy, much less so for a man.

But hey, what's a little breach of national security amongst friends? Forget the fact that intelligence was undermined and lives put at risk, the Bush administration can do no wrong! And besides, Clinton got a BJ!

Saying "very little to nothing will become of this" is like a 17 year old, after crashing daddy's new Porche, saying "maybe he won't notice." Or at least, it should be in a free society in which government officials are held accountable for their actions.

[El Mudo]

Or at least, it should be in a free society in which government officials are held accountable for their actions.


Yeah.....Especially the ones who don't hold your political beliefs...

BuSh aRE StUUpiD.....

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

[TheMojoPin]

"Finally...SOMEone who understands! HOLD me!!!"

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/special/yearend/99/photos/bill.jpg

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

Will we see Karl Rove "frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs?"


That's probably unlikely.

Very little to nothing will become of this.



Aah, blind loyalty. An admirable trait for a puppy, much less so for a man.

But hey, what's a little breach of national security amongst friends? Forget the fact that intelligence was undermined and lives put at risk, the Bush administration can do no wrong! And besides, Clinton got a BJ!

Saying "very little to nothing will become of this" is like a 17 year old, after crashing daddy's new Porche, saying "maybe he won't notice." Or at least, it should be in a free society in which government officials are held accountable for their actions.

I will say this but once, because it needs saying only once: you are a subhuman moron and I am quite frankly surprised that you have lived to your current age, much less master the complicated hand/eye coordinations necessary to type and submit a post.

When I say "nothing will come of this" - which somehow you have interpreted into blind Bush love, somehow - I am saying that it is UNLIKELY that this will turn into some sort of Watergate scandal.

What is LIKELY to happen is that this will be investigated, and the administration will either be exonerated, or someone will be brought up on charges - but nothing much will probably come of the case. This much I'm sure of - there won't be a smoking gun that shows that Bush ordered this, or Powell, or Rice, etc.

If you want this to be BIPARTISAN, consider this - how many fucking scandals did Clinton go through before the Republicans finally nailed his ass for lying about a blowjob? If Bill could slide through Whitewater, FileGate, etc., without so much as his farts bring a foulness to the air, than I doubt this will be the end of this administration.

No matter how many tiems you've seen "All the President's Men", it's just not that easy to find a good scandal with bite. And as with most political scandals, this one is wrapped in so much confusion that it's unlikely anything of substance will come of it.

There, I've explained things for the slow people in the room.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[Yerdaddy]

Aah, blind loyalty.

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/siggywo4.jpg">

[TheMojoPin]

Couldn't resist that setup, could you, daddy?

And Se7en's right. His assertion mostly comes from practicality and common sense. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize this won't amount to much, whether it should or not.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

This investigation doesn't have to amount to anything for it to be damaging to Bush. An independent council or, at worst, a criminal investigation surrounding Karl Rove during the re-election campaign could severely hamper Bush's chances/

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[CaptClown]

Someone will step up and take that bullet for Bush if it looks like something may come of it anyway.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

http://www.nudeafrica.com/discus/messages/45722/3068438.gif

[Se7en]

I'm glad Mojo took the time to actually think a moment about my words and realize there is some sense to them instead of blurting out the usual partisan bullshit of "OMG BUSH LACKEY!" like some people.

Let's look at this situation once more, shall we?

1.) ZERO proof exists that even remotely ties the Bush administration to "leaking" this. Even Novak --- who is NOT a Bush fan -- said it didn't come from the White House. This is what you call a fishing expedition.

Here's what Novak himself had to say, from CNN:

"Newspaper columnist Robert Novak said Monday that no one in the administration called him to identify the wife of Bush critic Joe Wilson as a CIA operative...
'They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators,' Novak said."

The link. (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia/index.html)

2. Wilson's wife being a CIA operative wasn't exactly a widely-held secret in Washington. It's arguable anyone leaked anything that wasn't already common knowledge in political circles.

3) The MAIN reason why Wilson was even in charge of investigations (of whether Iraq bought weapons from Niger) was BECAUSE of his wife, seeing as how he had NO experience with the work and was already proven to not exactly being impartial. Nobody requested Wilson to be the man to do it. The CIA using a former diplomat with no investigative experience and a history of Bush-bashing is somewhat puzzling, no? According to Novak, his wife helped get him the job and the CIA SHOULD have known that his profile COULD have lead to compromising his wife's position.

But it's almost irrelevant, because Wilson's claims about the Niger uranium were unimportant and unverified. There was no reason for anyone in the administration to attempt to discredit him or his claims.

As I have said before, NOTHING will become of this as there's not much to come of it. My personal belief is that it's probably unlikely that anyone will be indicted at all. Trying to make this into a Watergate style scandal is utterly ridiculous.

Hbox has the most likely answer - this is a TRIVIAL matter at best but it is designed to maximize damage to Bush - even though there's NOTHING that can link him to the scandal.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[curtoid]

This one has teeth - nothing may directly happen because of it (Iran Contra, anyone?), but I really think this will cast a huge shadow.

Former U.S. president, and former CIA director, George H.W. Bush, said in 1999 at the dedication of the C.I.A.'s new headquarters that those who expose the names of intelligence sources are "the most insidious of traitors."

[Doomstone]

1.) ZERO proof exists that even remotely ties the Bush administration to "leaking" this. Even Novak --- who is NOT a Bush fan -- said it didn't come from the White House. This is what you call a fishing expedition.


The proof hasn't come out yet. That's not to say that it won't. One administration official said that 6 reporters were contacted by two different people within the administration, for the specific purpose of disclosing Plame's job as a covert operative. Andrea Mitchell is one of the ones who has said she's been contacted. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence out there, more solid information will undoubtedly come out.

2. Wilson's wife being a CIA operative wasn't exactly a widely-held secret in Washington. It's arguable anyone leaked anything that wasn't already common knowledge in political circles.

Then why would the CIA call for an investigation? She was a covert operative, that much is obvious. Leaking her name was a crime, that much is obvious. The question is, WHO committed the crime?



3) The MAIN reason why Wilson was even in charge of investigations (of whether Iraq bought weapons from Niger) was BECAUSE of his wife, seeing as how he had NO experience with the work and was already proven to not exactly being impartial. Nobody requested Wilson to be the man to do it. The CIA using a former diplomat with no investigative experience and a history of Bush-bashing is somewhat puzzling, no? According to Novak, his wife helped get him the job and the CIA SHOULD have known that his profile COULD have lead to compromising his wife's position.


You said it yourself, this is irrelevant. So why bring it up.



As I have said before, NOTHING will become of this as there's not much to come of it. My personal belief is that it's probably unlikely that anyone will be indicted at all. Trying to make this into a Watergate style scandal is utterly ridiculous.


Trying to say that a felony bordering on treason is not a big deal is utterly ridiculous, no matter what team the criminal plays for. I guess we'll see how this plays out, and when heads start to roll, I'll come back and serve you up a nice, hot, spicy dish of crow. But for now, I'll leave you with a little present:

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0903/snoopy114025/6643a72f.jpg

;)

[El Mudo]

An independent council or, at worst, a criminal investigation surrounding Karl Rove during the re-election campaign could severely hamper Bush's chances/


Limbaugh made a great point today about the Independent Counsel.

Wasn't the Left a few years ago trying to get rid of all Independent Counsel's after the Starr episode? Weren't they trying to make sure they never came around again? But now, because they are completely blinded by their HATRED of Bush(Schumer, Ted Kennedy, etc), Now all of a sudden, they want them back?

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

[HBox]

Wasn't the Left a few years ago trying to get rid of all Independent Counsel's after the Starr episode?

No.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Doomstone]

Wasn't the Left a few years ago trying to get rid of all Independent Counsel's after the Starr episode? Weren't they trying to make sure they never came around again? But now, because they are completely blinded by their HATRED of Bush(Schumer, Ted Kennedy, etc), Now all of a sudden, they want them back?

No, but even if this were true, then I could say that if an Independent Counsel was good enough to investigate Clinton's wee wee, shouldn't it be good enough to investigate potential felonious treason in the White House?

PS: Ha ha, you listen to Limbaugh.

[TheMojoPin]

Wasn't the Left a few years ago trying to get rid of all Independent Counsel's after the Starr episode?

Nope.

I'm sure some wanted them gone...but then again, they're not a herd.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 9-30-03 @ 11:55 PM

[El Mudo]

No.

No, but even if this were true, then I could say that if an Independent Counsel was good enough to investigate Clinton's wee wee, shouldn't it be good enough to investigate potential felonious treason in the White House?

Nope.


*sigh*

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/106-34.htm

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63846.000/hju63846_0.HTM

http://www.princeton.edu/~spectatr/vol3/10feb98/starr.html

http://www.inalienable-rights.org/indep_counsel.htm

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg022699.asp



PS: Ha ha, you listen to Limbaugh


And damn proud to, if it makes you upset, i'll listen six hours a day instead of three...

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

[TheMojoPin]

SHIT.

I HATE it when my opinion has been decided for me.

STUPID BRAIN!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Doomstone]

Good, so you see the hypocrisy of both parties then?

Oh wait


And damn proud to, if it makes you upset, i'll listen six hours a day instead of three...


It's your mind to lose.

[Yerdaddy]

*sigh*

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/106-34.htm

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju63846.000/hju63846_0.HTM

http://www.princeton.edu/~spectatr/vol3/10feb98/starr.html

http://www.inalienable-rights.org/indep_counsel.htm

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/greenberg022699.asp

Your first link is to the text of a bill, H.R. 794, that got exactly 0 cosponsors. That means it had the support of one Representative before it died.

The second is to a transcript of a congressional hearing about the independent council in which the author of the previous bill mentions his bill. Other than that I'm not sure what we're supposed to glean from it.

The rest are obscure opinion pieces, and I can't figure out what they're even supposed to show. Certainly not that Democrats en-masse were trying to get rid of the independent council.



<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/siggywo4.jpg">

[El Mudo]

Your first link is to the text of a bill, H.R. 794, that got exactly 0 cosponsors. That means it had the support of one Representative before it died.

The second is to a transcript of a congressional hearing about the independent council in which the author of the previous bill mentions his bill. Other than that I'm not sure what we're supposed to glean from it.

The rest are obscure opinion pieces, and I can't figure out what they're even supposed to show. Certainly not that Democrats en-masse were trying to get rid of the independent council.



I put them there to show that there was a concerted movement to repeal the independent counsel statute after the whole Starr episode. It was also put there to counter the three different "No" responses I got in about ten minutes in response to my query about repealing the statute then.


And anyway, this should all be put to bed right now

Today's Novak Column (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20031001.shtml)

If you're that desparate to pin something on President Bush and get him out of office, then vote him out...

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

This message was edited by El Mudo on 10-1-03 @ 12:58 PM

[HBox]

If you're that desparate to pin something on President Bush and get him out of office, then vote him out.

We did in 2000.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[CaptClown]

They'll never get Lex Luthor, the greatest criminal mastermind the world has ever seen, out of office!!!! http://www.angelfire.com/celeb2/genehackman/images/RD54878.jpg

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

http://www.nudeafrica.com/discus/messages/45722/3068438.gif

[TheMojoPin]

"Concerted movement"?

It was six guys!

I already said "some" no doubt wanted the office gone. But for the most part, on a WHOLE, no.

Jinkies.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[El Mudo]

We did in 2000.


No we didn't. How many times did they count the vote there and find in favor of Bush? It was at least three wasn't it?

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

[CaptClown]

We did in 2000.


No we didn't. How many times did they count the vote there and find in favor of Bush? It was at least three wasn't it?


Are we going to rehash the 2K election? Gore lost under the rules that have benefited both parties for over 100 years. It is over and done with nothing is going to change that. I don't foresee 30 states just giving up that kind of power just because a few people feel cheated. That is the situation at hand deal with it.

Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army

http://www.nudeafrica.com/discus/messages/45722/3068438.gif

[HBox]

No we didn't. How many times did they count the vote there and find in favor of Bush? It was at least three wasn't it?

We, as in the majority of voters, did. Forget about all the stupid crap about what Gore did and didn't do, and what happened in Florida. More people voted for Gore than any other candidate.

And that, unfortunately, didn't matter.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Yerdaddy]

I put them there to show that there was a concerted movement to repeal the independent counsel statute after the whole Starr episode. It was also put there to counter the three different "No" responses I got in about ten minutes in response to my query about repealing the statute then.

But if it only shows one, maybe a couple more burried in the other links, how does it show a concerted movement?


Today's Novak column amounts to a Billy Staples apology, complete with blaming everyone but himself, and downplaying the whole thing. It's not surprising, but it doesn't change things much.

From Novak's column:
To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.
1) Even if he didn't recieve a "planned leak," which conflicts with the administration official who told the Washington Post this weekend that there had been a concerted effort to leak her name, it still constitutes a felony committed by the leaker. But this claim directly contradicts his statement in an interview with <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usspy0722,0,197775.story?coll=ny-nationworld-headlines" target="_blank">Newsday published July 22</a>:
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
But Novak can stick to that story because the phone conversations were likely not recorded, and publishing leaked classified information is not a crime, although it is in this case highly unethical.

2) If the CIA didn't warn him specifically that the leak would endanger her or anybody else, it should be implied when they asked him not to publish her name, which he refused. He admits that a CIA official asked him not to use her name. It should have occured to a responsible journalist that the CIA may be telling you only what you need to know because telling him that it could endanger her past contacts, prevent her from being used in the field again, or endangering her life if she travels overseas, they would be adding to the leak that had already been made by narrowing down her job history.

3) The fact that two people in Washington knew her name does not constitute declassification. This is just a Billy Statples copout. Her name and occupation were classified, and for reasons that the CIA has not specifically stated because that would also further compound the leak, and they're already in damage-control over this. "A current intelligence official said that blowing the cover of an undercover officer could affect the officer's future assignments and put them and everyone they dealt with overseas in the past at risk." (Newsday article) The CIA does not call for investigations of the White House over leaks of the names of their janitorial staff. Novak is trying to weasel out of the damage to his credibility and protect the administration.

This won't be put to rest any time soon.

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/bonedaddy5/images/siggywo4.jpg">

This message was edited by Yerdaddy on 10-1-03 @ 5:21 PM

[Se7en]

The proof hasn't come out yet. That's not to say that it won't. One administration official said that 6 reporters were contacted by two different people within the administration, for the specific purpose of disclosing Plame's job as a covert operative. Andrea Mitchell is one of the ones who has said she's been contacted. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence out there, more solid information will undoubtedly come out.

And I say again: if you're looking for this to turn into Watergate, if you somehow expect that your fondest wishes will come true and there will be something directly linking Bush to this, please prepare to be quite thoroughly disappointed.

Then why would the CIA call for an investigation? She was a covert operative, that much is obvious. Leaking her name was a crime, that much is obvious. The question is, WHO committed the crime?

Political pressure, obviously - Democrats are chomping at the bit for anything to use against Bush, as attacking him on the War on Terror will slaughter them and the economy likely won't be quite the albatross they want it to be.

When allegations of this nature are made, they SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED.

I don't think I've EVER said in this thread that they shouldn't be.

I've merely argued that in the end nothing will likely come of this. If anyone is indicted at all, which is FAR from certain, it's highly unlikely that it will be anyone very high up in the administration - i.e. Bush, Powell, Rice, etc.

[/quote]

3) The MAIN reason why Wilson was even in charge of investigations (of whether Iraq bought weapons from Niger) was BECAUSE of his wife, seeing as how he had NO experience with the work and was already proven to not exactly being impartial. Nobody requested Wilson to be the man to do it. The CIA using a former diplomat with no investigative experience and a history of Bush-bashing is somewhat puzzling, no? According to Novak, his wife helped get him the job and the CIA SHOULD have known that his profile COULD have lead to compromising his wife's position.


You said it yourself, this is irrelevant. So why bring it up.[/quote]

Because it's important to bring up the fact that Wilson was anti-Bush BEFORE all of this mess and inexperienced in the investigative work he was doing; his inexperience and high profile drew more attention to himself than under normal experiences. When you couple that with the fact that it was his wife that got him the job, it's no huge leap to make the logical deduction as to who his wife was and what she exactly did for the CIA.

Trying to say that a felony bordering on treason is not a big deal is utterly ridiculous, no matter what team the criminal plays for. I guess we'll see how this plays out, and when heads start to roll, I'll come back and serve you up a nice, hot, spicy dish of crow.

I really don't know how many ways in which to keep repeating the fact that there is NO evidence now - and will almost certainly not be in the future - linking Bush to any of this. NONE. I keep saying this, but apparently it doesn't sink through to you.

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0903/snoopy114025/6643a72f.jpg


My breasts look kind of hot in that dress.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[Recyclerz]

This won't be put to rest any time soon.


Amen, brother, amen.

Newsweek has a nice summary of the internal war in W's regime between the Axis of Evil (aka Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove) and the Good Guys (Powell and, um, that's about it).
Republican Pissing Match (hee-hee) (http://www.msnbc.com/news/972362.asp?0dm=C25LN)
The only reason this story got traction is that the CIA apparently got tired of being blamed by Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz and crew for the mistakes in judgement that resulted from the NeoCons getting played like a hooker by the Chalabi posse and decided to fight back. I doubt Ms. Plame is in real physical danger (but her sources may be) but as our Republican friends will tell us, a crime is a crime and no one is above the law not even the President's crew. Right guys?

To my commie symp brethern I counsel against getting dragged off-topic in this thread; the facts are looking too good at the moment to get lost in the mud. Although I doubt Bush had his hand in this mess directly, it does show what happens when you delgate too much authority to people like Cheney and Rumsfeld without understanding what the hell they're doing with it. It will be interesting to see who takes the fall for this.

:)



There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon, he never lived 'round here.

[HBox]

Because it's important to bring up the fact that Wilson was anti-Bush BEFORE all of this mess and inexperienced in the investigative work he was doing; his inexperience and high profile drew more attention to himself than under normal experiences.

The White House will try to play that up all they can, but tthe truth is a little less clear cut than they would like:

Records also show that Wilson has donated to Republicans, including the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign.

Lookie here! (http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0cv=CA01)

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Mike Teacher]

Even though this may well be Not As Much As We Think; All I want is for there not to be another Aldrich Ames.

Do a websearch if it doesnt ring a bell. It should. It was HUGE.

[EDIT: Who keeps fucking up the width of these thread windows????]

<IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/miketeachr/teach">

This message was edited by Mike Teacher on 10-1-03 @ 6:44 PM

[high fly]

I want to see Rove busted just so tv reporters can stand in front of the White House and quote Wilson's "frog March" line.

I don't see much coming out of this in the end, and it is sad that some right-wing ideologues will consider that as some sort of vindication.

The fact of the matter is that a serious crime occurred, and if the responsible party is not arrested and punished, it will encourage others to use people like Novak to settle political scores.

And that's just what this is: someone abusing the priveledge to recieve classified information, and using that information in a blatantly political manner.

Will Bush just sit back and do nothing and let investigators find the guilty party, or will he call in his staff and grill them and then fire the ricky who did this?
I doubt that only Novak and the leaker know who the leaker is.



In asking about this, will Bush use the phrase "cancer on the Presidency"?



" and they ask me why I drink"

[Se7en]

I don't see much coming out of this in the end, and it is sad that some right-wing ideologues will consider that as some sort of vindication.

The fact of the matter is that a serious crime occurred, and if the responsible party is not arrested and punished, it will encourage others to use people like Novak to settle political scores.

Is it as sad as some left-wing idealogues who have already - in their minds at least - ferreted out the guilty parties and convicted them before God and man, all before an investigation has even truly begun or any case set forth within any court of law in the entire nation?

It's ALL speculation at this point. There will be an investigation, and if it finds nothing, than you will have to DEAL with the fact that maybe there just weren't any guilty parties to be found.

If someone is indicted, all fine and good - string the bastards up.

But don't piss and moan about "right-wing idealogues" when you're being just as ridiculously close-minded as they are.


<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[high fly]

What's NOT speculation is that a serious crime was committed.

As for the speculation, I'd sure like to see some alternative explanations, SE7.

What's your opinion, there, big boy, on why it was done and when it was done?

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Se7en]

If it was anyone, I think it was someone minor. Certainly NOT Bush - although that's what some people really, really want, so badly they can taste it - and not likely any of the other heavies, i.e. Karl Rove.

Why was it done? Perhaps for revenge. But I do not believe that this was ordered by or approved of - or even truly known about - by anyone high up in the administration, and I believe the facts, when they come out, will support that. I believe it to be very unlikely that you'll find any "smoking gun", and if you don't, as I pointed out in my previous post, you may have to deal with the fact that it is not there NOT because it was covered up but because individuals such as Bush or Rove really didn't have a damn thing to do with this.

It's funny - it was Democrats 4 years ago who were calling to give the President the benefit of the doubt and weren't fond of the independent counsel, and now look how the tide has turned.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[TheMojoPin]

I think Se7en is mostly right, except a little quick to dismiss any "higher up" involvement. Not that the president and co. ordered it, but that someone above the leak knows exactly who leaked it at this point and isn't saying all that they know.

And remember, Se7en, those Democrats who wanted to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt? They were wrong. Think about it.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

I don't know what it means that you're usually the one that can at least see what I'm trying to say if not my point of view, but I thank you, Mojo.

As for the Democrats being wrong then - yes, I know what you're saying to me.

I merely brought that up because I wondering something, as the roles really have been reversed - are the Democrats (including the ones here on this board) willing to except the possibility that perhaps they have become as vindictive and blinded by hatred towards Bush as the Republicans were towards Clinton?

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[TheMojoPin]

Quite possibly.

But at the same time, this shouldn't be dismissed for those reasons (And you've not said that it should be). Personally, I appreciate the lengths the Agency has to go to to keep their agents shrouded under varying levels of secrecy. I had no idea my own father worked for the CIA for almost a decade. If someone did indeed purposefully and spitefully revealed her intelligence status, the person needs to be dealt with, and I honestly think and hope Bush and co. WOULD deal with such a person if and once they found out their identity. At this time, our country's intelligence resources often ends up being our first and last line defense, and anything that threatens that protection needs to be dealt with.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[El Mudo]

We, as in the majority of voters, did. Forget about all the stupid crap about what Gore did and didn't do, and what happened in Florida. More people voted for Gore than any other candidate.

And that, unfortunately, didn't matter.



What's wrong about the electoral college? if we just had a straight majority vote, then your vote truly wouldn't matter, as candidates would just campaign in areas with high populations and not give a damn about anywhere else...

And if your boy Gore hadn't been so incompetent and stupid as to lose HIS OWN HOME STATE, we wouldn't even be having this argument today...and we SHOULDN'T be...

http://home.t-online.de/home/a.peichl/shield.gif
Representin' for the Maryland District of RAIDER NATION

This message was edited by El Mudo on 10-2-03 @ 11:35 PM

[Se7en]

If someone did indeed purposefully and spitefully revealed her intelligence status, the person needs to be dealt with, and I honestly think and hope Bush and co. WOULD deal with such a person if and once they found out their identity.

I would have to agree, but I sense that belief may put us in the minority here.

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[HBox]

What's wrong about the electoral college? if we just had a straight majority vote, then your vote truly wouldn't matter, as candidates would just campaign in areas with high populations and not give a damn about anywhere else...

A vote for Bush was worth more than a vote for Gore. What about equality? Most people in this country do not live in urban centers. We live in a huge country, everybody's voice would mean something.

Forget about Florida for a second. If Gore won the election and Bush won the popular vote, I KNOW that we would have suffered 4 years of every right wing media pundit blasting the electoral college system.

And if your boy Gore hadn't been so incompetent and stupid as to lose HIS OWN HOME STATE, we wouldn't even be having this argument today...and we SHOULDN'T be...

Again, an irrelevant issue in the face of the fact that more American voters voted for Gore than Bush. Distract from that issue all you want, its the truth.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Recyclerz]

A very objective recounting of our story so far

MSNBC - Q&A on CIA Leak Story (http://www.msnbc.com/news/975385.asp?0cv=CB20)

OK, I've done my good deed for the day.



There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon, he never lived 'round here.

[Recyclerz]

If someone did indeed purposefully and spitefully revealed her intelligence status, the person needs to be dealt with, and I honestly think and hope Bush and co. WOULD deal with such a person if and once they found out their identity.


I would hope so too. But what happens if the leak came from one of Cheney's higher-up boys as some informed speculation is suggesting? Does Bush have the cojones to take out one of his pillars, if wrong-doing is evident? This will make for very interesting political theater.

Slate - Why Leakers Leak (http://slate.msn.com/id/2089198/)

Slate - Novak trying to cover his ass (and who else's) (http://slate.msn.com/id/2089196/)

My dollar bet is that if the investigation gets too close to the inner circle (Rove, Rice, Cheney, et al.) Bush doesn't pull the trigger. If they can pin it on somebody at the Defense Dept. (up to and including Rumsfeld) they're gone because I'm sure Bush is feeling aggrieved that things didn't work out as promised. Does somebody want to run the pool?



There ain't no asylum here.
King Solomon, he never lived 'round here.

[TheMojoPin]

Does Bush have the cojones to take out one of his pillars, if wrong-doing is evident?

I'm almost convinced that if it was that high up, it would most certainly have been a mistake. A mistake that WOULD probably cost them their job, but hardly as "sinister" as it's been implied. Someone at the level is most likely a career politician...would they really risk the rest of their career over something like this?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HBox]

If there is evidence that someone did leak this, they're gone, no matter who it is. Whether or not Bush wants to or is willing to, he would have to fire whoever is responsible, up to and including Rove. Remember, he is running for re-election. It would be political suicide to support a person who would blow a CIA agent's identity, especially when he wants to position himself as the defense candidate, double especially if he has to run against a retired general.

If there is clear evidence, he'd have no choice, plain and simple.

http://members.aol.com/joepersico/myhomepage/sig1.jpg?mtbrand=AOL_US

[Se7en]

A vote for Bush was worth more than a vote for Gore. What about equality? Most people in this country do not live in urban centers. We live in a huge country, everybody's voice would mean something.

No, it wouldn't, and your argument is flawed.

Taken from 1999 Census:

The top ten most populous states are, from highest to lowest:

1. California - 33 million.
2. Texas - 20 million.
3. New York - 18 million.
4. Florida - 15 million.
5. Illinois - 12 million.
6. Pennsylvania - 12 million
7. Ohio - 11 million.
8. Michigan - 9 million
9. New Jersey - 8 million.
10. Georgia - 8 million.

Each of those states contains at least one major urban area. Combined, they represent a whopping 54 percent of our nation's population - about 148 million (probably closer to 150 or more, as I've rounded down a bit) out of a total of 273 million people.

Face it - most people DO live in urban areas. The numbers prove this.

And this goes to show that if we went by the populace vote, there WOULD be inequality, as all any candidate would need to do is "win big" in those top ten states in order to get a virtual lock on victory.

States such as Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming - all massive in size, but low in population, less than a million each - would be absolutely fucked. If everyone in those three states voted unanimously for one candidate, their votes COMBINED would still be insufficient to cancel out all of the potential voters in California alone. Their voices would most definitely not be heard.

That's why we have the whole electoral college system in place.

Forget about Florida for a second. If Gore won the election and Bush won the popular vote, I KNOW that we would have suffered 4 years of every right wing media pundit blasting the electoral college system.

Let's assume this is true for the sake of the argument.

Do you not then see the absurdity of attacking the system when no Democrat would have had a problem with it had its favor swung their way?

<center><img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/KyoSe7en.jpg" width="300" height="125">
<br>
<br>
Resistance is <b>FLAMMABLE.</b></center>

[high fly]

Gents, can we please stay on topic?

Anybody heard anything that would indicate that the administration is trying hard to find the leaker who has made them look so bad?

Or are they just sitting tight, waiting for all this to blow over?

If indeed it was some low level minion, it would be logical for Bush to keep his promise at his inauguration and fire the leaker.

But suppose that Wilson is right and Rove is involved, if not the very one who did it; or say it was Condoleeza Rice, or Rumsey. would Bush fire their ass, or sit back and hope the whole thing just went away?

" and they ask me why I drink"