« Gunning for the honest citizens | Main | Extremists Getting Licenses to Drive School Buses »

Either Plame Didn't Tell the Truth or the Documents are Lying

Valerie Plame says she had nothing to do with her husband being sent on his famous tea-sipping tour of Africa and you can bet that will be good enough for the MSM. Case closed. Nothing to see here (except for the movie, of course.) Move along.

To paraphrase Hillary, if someone in the media really wanted to get a story they would dig a little deeper. They could start with the information provided by Gabriel Schoenfeld

Was Valerie Plame under oath today when she testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and declared that she played no role in sending her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, on a fact-finding trip to Niger? "I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.

Does this contradict an exhaustive Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence about Iraq, which looked closely at the genesis of the Wilson visit?

The report, issued in 2004, notes that some officials at the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) of the CIA "could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador [Wilson]." But it states unequivocally that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip." In particular, the CPD reports-officer told the Senate committee "that the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name.'"

What's more, the Senate committee obtained a memorandum addressed to the deputy chief of the CPD from Plame herself, in which she wrote: "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light" on Iraqi uranium purchases. The Senate report goes on to say that Plame also approached her husband "on behalf of the CIA and told him 'there's this crazy report' on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq."

An additional sidelight: the Senate committee also notes that Wilson had previously traveled to Niger on a CIA mission in 1999. He had been selected for that trip "after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future."

Did Plame lie to the House committee today, or does that question hinge on the meaning of the word "recommend," or the meaning of the word "suggest," or the meaning of the words "did not"?

.

Kim adds: Curt at Flopping Aces also has a great post up about Ms. Plame's interesting testimony.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Either Plame Didn't Tell the Truth or the Documents are Lying:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with CIA officer at center of career-ending leak to tell Congress her story

Comments (187)

Well, aside from all the BS... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Well, aside from all the BS that is this whole Plame case, now that I've seen pictures of her I know what covers I'd like her under!

Well Lorie you certainly kn... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well Lorie you certainly know what it is to write a document full of lies but you have to remember not everyone is like you.

An obvious lie. Also obvio... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

An obvious lie. Also obvious was her use of the word "covert" while avoiding the context of the law. "I am not a lawyer" stuff.

Does she think we're that stupid?

Lame. No wonder the CIA is so screwed up.

"I did not recommend him... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she(Plame) said.

Perhaps still thinks she's undercover. Shhhhhhh....

She's playing the "how do you define "is" nuance game with the word "recommended".

Nice try, Val. See you on the next Vanity Fair cover. Or, who knows, maybe Hugh Hefner will come calling instead.

Gee Lori, I glade that prov... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Gee Lori, I glade that provided the whole text of her statement (not)!

She also said that there is documentation and the source of the document that backs-up her story and Waxman requested a copy of the document.

I do not think that she would offer-up a fake document that does not exist.

Boy, keep serving up the sa... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

Boy, keep serving up the same lies. The Senate committee may have conducted an exhaustive investigation, but the entire committee did not find that Plame was responsible for sending Wilson. Lori, be honest. Have you really never heard that the Democrats on the committee refused to sign off on that part of the report? With all of the times that's been mentioned, is your retention really that bad? Since just about half of the committee refused to endorse the finding, how can you possibly support the use of term "unequivocally," which is the exact opposite of what happened?

As for the memo from Plame, she has said that she was asked for a memo listing her husband's qualifications. Disbelieve her, as I'm sure you will, but it's certainly a reasonable enough explanation that it makes the memo something less than a smoking gun.

And nice try attempting to recall "what the meaning of is is." Unfortunately, it just looks moronic. Of course the meaning of words matter, especially in a legal sense. Words like "recommend" and "suggest" can have different meanings in a legal context. What kind of question is that?

And Robert the original, the head of the CIA testified today that Plame was covert. I suppose that made you sick, too? Funny how the only people insisting she wasn't covert are the people with absolutely no actual knowledge of the whole thing.

Gee Barney, when Plame prod... (Below threshold)
kat:

Gee Barney, when Plame produces that document and it says what she says, then you can gloat. Of course she could offer up a fake document, nobody is going to make her get it.

Did hugh leave the house... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Did hugh leave the house without his helmet, and fall off his tricycle and bumb his head?

Lorie, Kim quibbled with my... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Lorie, Kim quibbled with my use of "legal" vs. "recieved" definition of Plame's status, but the fact has been revealed that the DCI (Hayden) declared her status "Covert". Let's call it De Facto Covert, because Toensing insists the term Covert is only applicable re: the law she formulated back in the day as a civil service(?) category. Unfortunately for the Bushies, the Agency assigned her as a specialist in the ostensible employ of Brewster-Jennings which is itself a Covert (shell) company and by Agency definition, the CIA officers employed there are COVERT, hence Hayden's statement read today. But put that aside. The crux of the matter has ALWAYS been INTENT! The INTENT of those who chose to punish (secretly, NOT administratively!) an EMPLOYEE (of the CIA), period! (Where's the civil service union on this anyway?) Bush feigned outrage, but NO INVESTIGATION WAS EVER UNDERTAKEN! THAT is the bombshell, Lorie. Bush lied AGAIN! I would have been pleased for Plame just to get her story told today, but then the White House security mutt, Knolly upstaged her with PROOF POSITIVE that this admin will step on anyone, and were SO sure they would get away with it. How could they imagine the Dems would piss in their Wheaties!

Words like "recommend" a... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Words like "recommend" and "suggest" can have different meanings in a legal context. What kind of question is that?

True, then again, passing along someone's name and qualifications to a superior is not a legal matter. Even if, as she claims, someone else asked her to submit an e-mail summarizing her husband's qualifications, then what exactly was she doing? A peer review? Qaulifactions analysis? If there was any potential for conflict of interest (i.e. nepotism, and obviously there was...this WAS/IS her husband for crying out loud) then she should have declined the request.

Call it "recommended", "reviewing" or whatever, it's close enough for jazz and, apparently, government work.

Rob, lol.Poor Joe ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Rob, lol.

Poor Joe & Valerie. They must really be desperate for that Hollywood movie. The truth would not make for a good screenplay however. Hence, the lies, lies, lies.

In other words, your post i... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

In other words, your post is effectively, already obsolete. Plame has been vouched for by Hayden. Prepare ye the way for All the President's Men ,version 2.0.

Plame clearly lied under oa... (Below threshold)
Dennis:

Plame clearly lied under oath . She can be my cellmate anytime. Under the Covers.

it sounds really silly and ... (Below threshold)
Rob:

it sounds really silly and really desperate to claim thet Plame perjured herself today in the manner that Lorie (and virtually every other right wing blog) suggests.

why on earth would the woman lie in front of congress if there were such explicit documents in existence and so readily available to refute her testimony?

Of course your answer will be that she has no fear of prosecution because the massive congressional/governmental/media consipracy against this administration is sympatheic toward her and only persecutes republicans for perjury (like Bill Clinton)

I think there's an epidemic of PDS going around the right wing blogosphere today.

Lorie and some of the other... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Lorie and some of the others of the Whizbang variety are true believers. They couldn't see the truth if it hit them square in the face. Not only are you dishonest Lorie; you're lazy as well. Rarely do we see any of your own research. Rather you find some drivel written by another true believer, paste it up and draw erroneous, disingenuous and outright false conclusions. You should be ashamed of yourself for this kind of dishonest crap.

I did not recommend him. I ... (Below threshold)
Dennis:

I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.


Joe just followed her into a CIA Meeting and was chosen for the Niger trip . He had no idea why he was there? Who is she kidding. Liar

The Droolers now believe Ha... (Below threshold)
Dennis:

The Droolers now believe Hayden? A Bush Appointee?

First off, back when this S... (Below threshold)
Herman:

First off, back when this Senate Investigative Committee was issuing its report the Senate was controlled by Republicans. Consequently, the veracity of any report such a committee would issue is definitely in doubt.

In addition, "offering up someone's name" is NOT the same thing as recommending him. I guess an analogous situation would be if one were to have a high-ranking vacancy at one's worksite and one were to say something like, "Sally Smith is a person who merits consideration for this promotion." Note, you are not recommending Sally over anyone else, you are not even saying she would succeed if promoted; instead, you are merely saying she deserves consideration by those who will make the decision.

Herman:Your point ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Herman:

Your point is taken. However, I'll repeat what I said:

If there was any potential for conflict of interest (i.e. nepotism, and obviously there was...this WAS/IS her husband for crying out loud) then she should have declined the request.

That would happen in almost ANY business, especially if someone was a family memeber. Example: If my wife wanted to come work or contract for my company, I would decline ANY and ALL requests for her qualifications and background for fear of it being perceived as nepotism.

I notice that Herr Tony "Th... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I notice that Herr Tony "The Fox" Snow of the Bush Propaganda Ministry has come up with a new and improved explanation for the latest of the ongoing lying scandals of this corrupt presidency. it's a really good one: it's the "hazy memory" defense for AG Gate. It's Nixonian in its audacity. Actually, these guys make Nixon and his gang look like amateurs.

You want to talk about lies? Try getting a modicum of intellectual honesty and call out this corrupt administration for its latest round of lying and perjury.

Am I wrong..or does Hugh sp... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Am I wrong..or does Hugh spew alot of meangingless gobblely goop?

Stand by for the "we're not... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Stand by for the "we're not liars - we're just incompetent" defense next...

lies, lies, lies.... that's all they know how to do is lie.

And, as you can see from the pattern here at Wizbang when the bloggers get something wrong -- - it takes an act of Congress (literally - or in this case Congressional subpoenas) to get a conservative to admit their mistake and issue a correction or retraction -- further evidence of the total lack of integrity on the part of not only Washington DC conservatives, but every-day conservatives as well.

A true believer such as yo... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

A true believer such as you might think the truth was meaningless, so i suppose you might be correct in that context.

Hugh, you make all kind of ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Hugh, you make all kind of accuations but offer nothing to back up your big mouth. How may times has someone stuffed a fist in it lately.

The congressional investigation are available (other than those still classified) go read them as Lorie evidently has. You (hugh) should hurry and get another series of mental health treatments. BDS has a good hold on you and soon will become total insanity. Ooop's too late.


Hugh didn't fall of his Tricycle and hit his head. His momma won't let him play (especially on hard surfaces), so as you can see by all evidence he doesn't play well with others.

I do so love the comedy of the left wing. They know they are a lost cause but won't admit it. If I hated this country and everyone in it as bad as they claim to, I damn sure wouldn't live here. Either move or take a long jump off a tall building. I recommend the suicide angle as it will prevent your problems from spreading.

Tough words and a belch fr... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Tough words and a belch from an over the hill old man Scraps. Have uou looked under your bed lately? There might be a leftie or even a commie under there. Better lock and load.

To BryanD and the trolls:</... (Below threshold)
Mnemosyne:

To BryanD and the trolls:

I guess since Plame was covert we can expect an indictment of Armitage any day now. Right?

All politics aside, Hugh st... (Below threshold)
Insomniac:

All politics aside, Hugh strikes me as a frothing, hateful, histrionic jerk. Ad hominem attacks and generalized poo-flinging do not count as reasoned debate. Why he hasn't been banned is beyond me.

but NO INVESTIGATION WAS... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

but NO INVESTIGATION WAS EVER UNDERTAKEN! THAT is the bombshell, Lorie.

There wasn't? So Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has just been a figment of our imaginations since his appointment by the DOJ to ""prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice."

Am I missing something here?

Funny Insomnia, that's how ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Funny Insomnia, that's how i see posts like the drivel written by Lorie today and yesterday - hateful, histionic, poo-flinging and utterly dishonest. Ergo my "comment." See, that's what the thingee above where you type in your name says, "comment." Not "debate."

Poor Hugh, Lee, Barney and ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Poor Hugh, Lee, Barney and the rest.

The non scandal is over and they again have nothing. Reach for your lithium guys, and wait until the next non scandal. Even Fitzgerald last week said she was classified. Never mentioned covert. Oops, you lose again.

Next time don't put so much faith in proven liars. It's not wise. You wind up humiliated.

I did not recommend him.<br... (Below threshold)
Greg:

I did not recommend him.
I did not suggest him.
There was no nepotism involved.
I did not have the authority
I do not like them in a box.
I do not like them with a fox.
I do not like them in a house.
I do not like them with a mouse.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

Speaking of pathetic, John ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Speaking of pathetic, John Dean is now saying the fired attorneys non scandal is "Bush's watergate."

Yeah, and Iraq is Vietnam, and so on and so on. Can you guys ever get out of the past and into the future? And you whine when we bring up the last administration which wasn't long ago, and whose wife is now running for POTUS. Yet we shouldn't bring that up - lol.

It's now official. Liberals are a laughingstock.

Greg, ROFLMAO!!!</... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Greg,

ROFLMAO!!!

It's just too easy, isn't it!?

While watching the hearing,... (Below threshold)
Allen:

While watching the hearing, Rep. Davis brought up a good point. How or why should people know she was covert? Well duh, figure a Republican Congress critter would ask that. What in the Fuck is a covert agent? Nobody is suppose to know, except the CIA.

It is a proven fact she was covert, and someone outed her to the famous Novak. Big deal, right? Just like giving secrets about a new weapon to a foreign country.

This matter, no what side of the aisle you live and breath about, concerns all Americans. Until the hearings are over, all evidence is gathered, quit your lies, counter lies, etc. Lets wait for the facts.

Aw hell, blame Clinton.

She wasn't covert. Covert ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

She wasn't covert. Covert agents don't walk freely in and out of Langley in the open for anyone to see.

And where is the prosecution of the leaker who outted her if she was covert? Oh that's right, cuz she wasn't.

Nice try Allen, but you lose. Seriously, guys, just sit back and maybe something else will come up.

Meanwhile, the global warming scam is coming apart too. And this is too funny:

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/this_is_getting_too_easy/

Allen, no, we're more conce... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Allen, no, we're more concerned with leaks in the NYT that jeopardize our national security. But we won't hold our breath waiting for the liberals to care about that.

Had to check, but yes she w... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Had to check, but yes she was under oath and she lied like a worthless dog to congress. Now we'll see if anyone in congress has the balls to charge her. They have the written documents that prove without a doubt she was involved and they witnessed her lie. Anyone want to be the dhimmi's don't have the balls to do anything about it. I'll make a 99% sure bet, they won't do one thing except try to project her guilt to someone else.

Note to Democrats:... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Note to Democrats:

Please stop turning over every rock -- the slime you're finding is really, really, really, horrifyingly embarrassing.

Either Plame Didn't Tell th... (Below threshold)
eman:

Either Plame Didn't Tell the Truth or the Documents are Lying

OOOOOOSSSSS NOOOOOOS, I go with option 1,


Here's a closeup of the document...

via Gatewaypundit.blogspot.com:

Notes: Niger/Iraq uranium meeting CIA 2/19/02

Meeting apparently convened by Valerie Wilson, a CIA WMD managerial type and the wife of Amb. Joe Wilson, with the idea that the agency and the larger USG could dispatch Joe to Niger to use his contacts there to sort out the Niger/Iraq uranium sale question. Joe went to Niger in late 1999 in regard to Niger's uranium program, apparently with CIA support.

Snicker Snort Snort, you frothing leftys CRACK ME UP

Scrappy, no one has the gut... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Scrappy, no one has the guts to do anything, they're too busy wondering who will portray them in the movie.

"the meaning of the words "... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"the meaning of the words "did not"?"

Remember that did is (I believe) a conjugation of the verb "is" and we are talking about democrats here.

I am sure that Ms Plame will say that "Did not and never did is just not the same as did not".

Obviously we are just are not smart enough to see through the nuance there.


No response as to why Armit... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

No response as to why Armitage isn't up on charges?

I guess the Democrat's (double)talking points think tank doesn't have a handy bullet response formulated for that yet.

AllenIf she was co... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Allen

If she was covert why did her husband in an interview a few years ago state that she wasnt?

Also for a violation of the law to occur one has to read the law in question to see if a violation occurred. If someone does that than they will note that no such violation of the law occurred as the definition of covert is spelled out along with what it takes to violate the law in question.

Oh wait, we are dealing with democrats here. What the law says doesnt matter at all.

Herman blathered:<blo... (Below threshold)

Herman blathered:

First off, back when this Senate Investigative Committee was issuing its report the Senate was controlled by Republicans. Consequently, the veracity of any report such a committee would issue is definitely in doubt.

The implication is that now that the Democrats are now in charge, it will all be better and more honest.

I think not.

Nice try, Herman, trying to make "Republican" synonymous with "liars" and "Democrats" with "honest." Could you be any more of a partisan hack?

Again, I think not.

J.

"the head of the CIA testif... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

"the head of the CIA testified today that Plame was covert. I suppose that made you sick, too? Funny how the only people insisting she wasn't covert are the people with absolutely no actual knowledge of the whole thing."

posted by ChrisO.

ChrisO:

How well you disprove your point by showing how little you know about this. And oh, by the way, you missed my point or are too ignorant to get it.

Anyone can call themselves "covert" but this is a far different thing from being covered by the law. This whole hearing is using "covert" to imply "covered by the act" which she was not, and the CIA head made no such claim. (This was testified to by the lawyer who wrote the law and Plame herself said that she didn't know if she was covered by the law).

So you put on a show for TV, and you make rules that nobody can ask certain questions. Thus you want people to assume she was covered by the act when she went in the front door at Langley every day. Even a first year law student could figure that one out.

But of course they don't care about the fine points, their objective is eyewash for the stupid.

And you fell for it, stupid.

I seem to remember that Bus... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I seem to remember that Bush was going to get to the bottom of this:

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
"I want to know the truth," the president continued. "Leaks of classified information are bad things." George Bush February 11, 2004

Well did he? Not according to the sworn testimony of the Director of Security at the WH:

Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, told a congressional committee today that he was aware of no internal investigation or report into the leak of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The White House had first opposed Knodell testifying but after a threat of a subpoena from the committee yesterday he was allowed to appear today.

Knodell has testified that those who had participated in the leaking of classified information were required to attest to this and he was aware that no one, including Karl Rove, had done that.

He said that he had started at the White House in August 2004, a year after the leak, but his records show no evidence of a probe or report there: "I have no knowledge of any investigation in my office," he said.

Rep. Waxman recalled that President Bush had promised a full internal probe. Knodell repeated that no probe took place, as far as he knew, and was not happening today.

Of course not, another Bush lie, but don't trip all over yourselves trying to defend the Bush administration.

"Anyone can call themselves... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Anyone can call themselves "covert" but this is a far different thing from being covered by the law. This whole hearing is using "covert" to imply "covered by the act" which she was not, and the CIA head made no such claim." by rto

Rod, the CIA Director Gen. Hayden certified her status as covert. Valerie testified that she did go overseas on missions.

If you know something we don't know, please share with us.

Hugh, if you want to read d... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Hugh, if you want to read drivel, look inward. It literally falls from the lips of you, Lee, BG2000, S. Cricksomething, Mantis and a few others. You must be an idiot to watch what transpired on TV today on cspan and think that was either investigative or honest. But then what would one expect from Pavelovs dogs of the left.

Unfucken believable. Neve... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Unfucken believable. Never have I seen such a grotesque display of boldfaced lying. Worse than the horseface himself, Fraud Kerry. What a complete sham. Democrats think they can just hold new hearing now that they are in the majority and trump any previous hearings and facts with their own. To top off that pathetic performance as they were leaving in the shameless democrat tradition of stealing air time to spew their propaganda came the chant of "impeach Now!".

These idiots are sick in the head. Ever word out of these criminal frauds gives aid and comfort to our enemies. Look at what the leftists are doing in Equador and Hugo Chavez as they join in the democrats disgracing our Country. What do the democrats do , laugh , giggle and continue with their charade. They think they are so smart and cute, deluded wankers.

Hugh:Not o... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Hugh:

Not only are you dishonest Lorie; you're lazy as well.

Hugh:
I'm making a New Years resolution. I will only engage in debate from now on. I will not call any one name(s), nor will I be sarcastic or caustic.

Hugh is a lying sack of worthless shit who continually demonstrates that he's incapable of rational discourse.

BryanDbut NO I... (Below threshold)
marc:

BryanD

but NO INVESTIGATION WAS EVER UNDERTAKEN! THAT is the bombshell, Lorie. Bush lied AGAIN!

"Bombshell?? Possible, however if you lift the fog of BDS for just a second it's also possible, in fact likely, with the fitzgerald investigation ongoing it was felt there was no need to double the effort.

You remember fitz and his witch hunt don't you? He was the head of the investigation that Bush never wanted but for political seasons acceded to and ultimately found nothing.

underscoreMIKEunderscore al... (Below threshold)
Lee:

underscoreMIKEunderscore always resorts to ad hominem attacks whenever his side loses an argument.

Well done, Hugh!

LA Rob, do you want to give... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

LA Rob, do you want to give us a clue? What the hell are you talking about, or are you off your Meds.?

And BTW, while I'm here. So... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW, while I'm here. Someone should ask Waxman why he isn't enforcing the strict decorum normally associated with these type of hearings.

He should be asked why the loonbat-in-pink *(gee wonder what group she was from?) with the "impeach Bush" t-shirt was allowed to stand in line with the cameras throughout the proceeding.

A not so subtle political statement by the dems on the panel I say.

"Speaking of pathetic, John... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Speaking of pathetic, John Dean is now saying the fired attorneys non scandal is "Bush's watergate."

Democrats desparation to Clintonize President Bush and his administration.

It's the Democrats who continue to bring up this white trash loser they elected who exposed just what they are about. A bunch criminal incompetants who are now so desparate to shake the shit of their shoes that they keep stepping. That turd is called BJ Clinton and it's everywhere.

Thank you BJ C , with out you we would not be exposing your party's perpetual fraud and shameless covering up of your incompetance. BJ away!

I see Lee still hasn't been... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

I see Lee still hasn't been able to the underscore key.

And actually Lee, I was responding to personal attack that Hugh initiated. I knew we could count on you to be myopic and misrepresent !

Basically folks, the White ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Basically folks, the White House didn't think it should investigate itself while Fitz's investigation was ongoing. And this is your bombshell?

No, the bombshell is Val's various lies under oath to Congress. That's ballsier than her husband ever got.
=============================

NEWS FLASH Excl... (Below threshold)
Rovin:

NEWS FLASH

Exclusive!

Karl Rove has admitted to firing attorneys, starting the civil war in Iraq, outing Joe Wilson's concubine, and claims he's the sole source of global warming.......claims also to have found inoculation for BDS, but refuses to release it's formula.......liberals, poor women and children hardest hit.

"LA Rob, do you want to giv... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"LA Rob, do you want to give us a clue? What the hell are you talking about,"

Why would I want to inform you of anything? I want you to stay just the way you are , ignorant and stupid capable of only being able to salivate when your masters bell rings. Keep up the good job parroting democrat talking points aka lies.

"allowed to stand in line w... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"allowed to stand in line with the cameras throughout the proceeding." marc

Thanks for a new lie from the right.

Still, why was a junior off... (Below threshold)
kim:

Still, why was a junior officer upset about getting questions about Yellow Cake from Cheney? What provoked the mad interaction of Junior Officer, Val Plame, fellow worker, and Val's supervisor that produced Joe's name in some untraceable fashion? Were they sending an insider to get the scoop or to hide it? There is some reason for the 'panic', and I'd like to know what it is.

Also, tell me she was mute at the May '03 Democratic Senate Policy Committee meeting. That's what she has sworn to, at least about her work.
=====================================

This is TOO funny. Should W... (Below threshold)
marc:

This is TOO funny. Should Waxman be brought up on charges of perjury

Pretty sad when your opening statement contains something less than the truth.

Pssssst.... hey Rovin , w... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Pssssst.... hey Rovin , why didn't ya mention he's the Father of you know who, that dead momma's baby?

Thanks for a new lie from t... (Below threshold)
marc:

Thanks for a new lie from the right.
Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 16, 2007 07:38 PM


If you didn't see her it would explain a lot.

You're frickin' blind!

Rob, I know it has been a t... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Rob, I know it has been a tough couple of years for Bush supporters. From Libby to Katrina to WMD to 3,200 died soldiers to Dubai to the boarder to the lost election to the fired attorneys to the Walter Reed shame, to ....

Well you get the picture, but you do not have to take it out on me.

He probably didn't see the... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

He probably didn't see the two head bobbing bozos over her shoulders. Head bobs yes yes no no no yes. They'll let anyone in there these days. Brings back memories.

"allowed to stand in line w... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"allowed to stand in line with the cameras throughout the proceeding." marc

marc, please provide the exact length of time the she-male was standing in view of the camera. If you can't prove that he/she was there "throughout the proceedings" then please shut up, or correct your statement.

I wait to review your proof.

On Hardball tonight Cooper ... (Below threshold)
kim:

On Hardball tonight Cooper asked Gregory if he'd received a leak about Val Plame. Gregory ignored the question. Are NBC and the Democrats turning on each other? Or is Cooper off the plantation.

h/t to tina
=====================================

Katrina? You mean where d... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Katrina? You mean where democrats Nagin and Blanco caused the death of well over 1000 of their citizens to die?

Fired attorneys? sorry Clinton owns that one.

Clinton - at least 93 Bush - 8

Clinton wins the scumbag award hands down.

Walter Reed? What about it? taken care of. Competant leadership fixed that in record time. quicker than a Clinton hand job.

WMD and why would you mention our soldiers?

More direct results of 8 years of corrupt Clinton Incompetance.We don't need to be reminded but by all means mention away.

LOL, Libby? Libby is an example of the shameless Democrats failure to get Carl Rove and VP Cheney. He is a victim of democrats criminal fraud.

Why do embarrass yourself like this? I get it , your into negative attention. Fettish freak.

Problem is that neither sid... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Problem is that neither side wants to admit that they all don't know what the fuck happened. Let's see if this oversight hearing will clear the air,

One of the first oversight hearings in how many years? Well, somebody lied, somebody told the truth, big deal, right?

Poor Scooter was not charged with outing a possible convert agent, he was charged with lying to the FBI, who is controlled by the present administration, as they all have been for every President, no matter what political party is in the White House.

So quit bitching about shit you have no fucking clue about, and let the truth come out. No matter what the truth is, one side will believe, the other side won't.

God I love listening to all you "so called know it alls." At least I admit I don't know, and yes, I would like to know the truth. Doesn't any of you want to know the real truth, not the party line Bullshit you all spout?

Hey Barney , lay of the ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Hey Barney , lay of the porno channels and you might learn something . I saw it for myself , the she-male , thought it was you , if not ? oh well you lose anyway , move on.

Allen , quit being strupi... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Allen , quit being strupid. Three years and they failed to get Carl Rove which denied them of their wet dream of getting Cheney.

Democrats failed miserably , ate crow and are pretending they haven't got their ass kicked ehat 3 or 4 times already on the same sham.

This is like democrat voting fraud , one recount after another praying they can steal yet another election. They didn't get their Fitzmas, better luck next year. You better not pout you better not cry......

That is it Rob, stay with t... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

That is it Rob, stay with the mantra: "Clinton's Fault, Clinton's Fault.." and you will get through this for now. I don't know what you are going to do when the Democrats win the WH, and increase the majority in the House and Senate in '08?

Ha Ha

"If you know something we d... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

"If you know something we don't know, please share with us." - Barney

Barney,

Here's one: I know how to read. You can have the Pope call you covert and it does not make you covered by the act. You can go to Moscow every weekend and it does not make you covered by the act.

No prosecutions by Fitzgerald - no crime. The lawyer WHO WROTE THE LAW agrees, SAYS PLAME WAS NOT COVERED.

Go to the stupid line.

Here's one: I know how to r... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Here's one: I know how to read. You can have the Pope call you covert and it does not make you covered by the act. rto

The pope is infallible, so yes I would be covert. Stop smearing the Pope, are you anti Catholic?

I love the Vicky argument. ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I love the Vicky argument. By her logic you are not covert unless your are outed, and the outer is convicted? Her words, not mine

So by her standards, nobody working for the CIA is covert.

If you serve overseas, if the Director of the CIA says so, it does not matter, because (as Vicky claims) you are not covert because you were not illegally outed.

You shit-heads keep running with that one, it will play real well with the independents come '08.

I vote lie. It's consisten... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I vote lie. It's consistent with the rest of the Joe Wilson story line.

There is a lot of misunders... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

There is a lot of misunderstanding here over the law, mostly on the leftie side of the argument.

It doesn't matter what the CIA called her--Covert, Convert, Condor.

The statute is all that matters, and she doesn't fit the definition of the statute.

Apparently the CIA has been so sloppy over the years with its classification system that there are scores of people it has on a list of "covert" employees, who in fact are not.

Don't let the real world intrude on your little tea party, Barney, Lee, et ick.

"The statute is all that ma... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"The statute is all that matters, and she doesn't fit the definition of the statute." mitch

How can you make such a statement? Point to one aspect of the statute does not apply to Valerie?

Was she overseas on a mission? Yes, according to her testimony, and as reported in Hubris (Jordan).

Was her identity protected by the CIA? Yes, according to everything testified today including cleared statements from the Director of the CIA.

So, what am I missing here?

Let me ask this question an... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Let me ask this question and see if any plausible answer is offered.

If Plame were covert as defined by the law, and required by her job, why would she think it a good idea that CIA send her husband on a CIA mission, and then write a New York Times op-ed?

Either she didn't think she was truly covert or that her being covert was necessary, or she didn't take it seriously, no?

Not only did she put hersel... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Not only did she put herself in play, or ran that risk, she ran the further risk that this type of publicity for husband could throw some on wife. There were some on the cocktail circuit who apparently knew her status, per Plame today.

If I'm a serious, professional covert agent, I don't take these types of silly chances.

BarneyGoogle, we've rehashe... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

BarneyGoogle, we've rehashed the Hayden thing over and over; see my previous post on other Plame thread.

She can be in Jordan not in a covert capacity. We'd have to know a hell of a lot more about this, especially since Plame admitted she has no clue whether she was covert within the meaning of the statute.

If she were not told about the statute, didn't get a brief on that at all to go along with her status, might that tell us something?

BarneyGoogle, is your posit... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

BarneyGoogle, is your position here today that if you find that a CIA covert person and her spouse have unfairly gamed you, on policy grounds by writing about a "covert" mission to Niger which they now make public, you cannot meet their case with a full accounting of what they did, because the wife is "covert?"

Seems to me we have a fairness issue here; we woldn't have had that issue if nepotism were involved.

We who actually manage people in the real world (not sure that's you, BG) know this is a cardinal sin--pairing spouses in a work-related matter.

Plus, it really is ham-handed if you are the CIA for the obvious problems I note above.

Does no one on the Left get it???

And last, the Special Couns... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

And last, the Special Counsel found no violation of the covert agent disclosure statute.

Therefore, there was no violation of the "Covert" status.

Case closed. Going to be with virus.

Did all the people involved... (Below threshold)
Rich:

Did all the people involved in this know that Plame was covert at all? Is is just policy that no one can name anyone working for the CIA? How are the officials to know that someone is covert? Do they have a list they are supposed to memorize?

Rob, Me being stupid... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Rob,
Me being stupid? All I asked for is the truth to come out, nothing more, nothing less. You are the stupid one, because you must not want to hear the whole story.

I gather you have a real problem understanding fair play. Why are you against the truth coming out, because your post sure show that? Is it because someone is questioning the present administration, and maybe or maybe not some of the things they may or may not have done? It sounds to me that you, and several others are unable to handle the truth.

Well Rob, I am waiting to hear the truth, so call me names, etc. But guess what, you really are what you called me, a complete ASSHOLE. Can you give the truth a chance?

it all depends on what the ... (Below threshold)
Mikey:

it all depends on what the meaning of is, is..

Mitch, the Director of the ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mitch, the Director of the CIA has certified her status as covert. All the diarrhea from the right wont change that. Was she overseas? Yes! Was here identity classified? Yes?

I will sleep good tonight knowing that I was right. You will toss and turn trying to come up with lies.

Good night!

"If Plame were covert as... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

"If Plame were covert as defined by the law, and required by her job, why would she think it a good idea that CIA send her husband on a CIA mission, and then write a New York Times op-ed?"

She didn't send her husband.

See?

Plame states this under oath, in public, unlike others, when they are faced with questions.

Thanks for playing. Please try again.

BarneyG2000,You are ... (Below threshold)
Allen:

BarneyG2000,
You are correct on her status, and about the diarrhea but it won't change their thinking. I asked to wait for the truth to come out, and the asshole (he called me that first) Rob, doesn't want to think of what the truth may be, it's his opinion or else.

It goes to show they don't understand that this problem involves all Americans, not just the Repugs, or Demo's. Yes, there is times when the truth hurts, as we all know.

Are you willing to wait for the truth to come out? I realize Rob can't or won't wait for the truth, he still has not realized that, possibly someone screwed up, and someone is lying. I just want to know the truth of the matter. Can anyone show positive proof that Plame has lied, or the CIA lied, or the Bush Administration lied. Don't use the party line on this, show positive proof that someone lied.

If the person lied when they were under oath, should they be charged with perjury?

Seeing Rob in LA likes to call people names, I just wonder if he has sniffed too much smog?

Mitch, the Director of t... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Mitch, the Director of the CIA has certified her status as covert. All the diarrhea from the right wont change that. Was she overseas? Yes! Was here identity classified? Yes?

She was not covert UNDER THE LAW, which is the only classification that matters. I can call MYSELF covert and it will be of as much use.

She didn't send her husband.

Yes. Some unnamed individual suggested they send him to answer a request for info from Cheney that hadn't actually been made at that time.

Sounds PERFECTLY logical.
-=Mike

I say we stick an apple in ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

I say we stick an apple in Waxman's mouth and have a pig roast. (picture him with an apple in his mouth and on a platter)

I say we stick an apple in ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

I say we stick an apple in Waxman's mouth and have a pig roast. (picture him with an apple in his mouth and on a platter)

opps!... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

opps!

OK, try to get this straigh... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

OK, try to get this straight. Victoria Toensing is a dyed in the wool Republican operative. She was one of the attorneys who helped draft the law. She is now interpreting it to fit the Republican talking points. She's not THE LAWYER WHO WROTE THE LAW. She was Republican counsel. She continues to appear on news shows and repeat untruths. She may have had a hand in writing the law, but what special knowledge does she have about Plame that enables her to determine if Plame was covert? All she knows is what she reads in the papers. She has no more idea what Plame has done in the last five years than you or I do. And since when do we leave interpretation of the law up to a committee counsel who helped draft it? What makes her the final arbiter?

But someone who does have an idea is General Hayden, Bush's appointed head of the CIA, who has said she was covert, and that she traveled overseas. And the reason we bring up Hayden is that the right has ignored everyone else who said she was covert, so maybe they'l believe one of their own.

Take an honest look at the arguments you guys on the right are making, and seriously ask yourselves how much of it is based on first hand knowledge. Everyone likes to rely on Toensing's declarations about Plame's status, but Toensing has no first hand knowledge. "She went in and out of the front gate at Langley every day." This one gets bandied about a lot. Who with first hand knowledge has said that?

How about "Wilson should have known that his wife's status would be revealed when he wrote his op-ed." Says who? Again, this entire argument is built on the contention that once reporters started looking into Plame, her status would immediately be revealed. Why? What kind of covert status can't withstand any scrutiny? How would we keep any of our agents covert? Don't you think that foreign intelligence services can do it if reporters can? Why is the op-ed the only thing that can bring attention to her? How about if she travels to the Middle East to a petroleum conference? Do you think it's impossible that someone might want to know more about her? Just ask a few questions and booom, her cover is blown. Have you noticed what that whole scenario is missing? Facts. The whole notion that Wilson caused his wife's outing is based on 100 percent conjecture.

And Plame sending a memo detailing her husband's credentials is nepotism? Bullshit. If she was asked to provide his credentials, as she has said, in what way is that nepotism? And don't give me that BS that corporations are so rigid about it. If somebody says "Hey, your husband does real estate law, right? Think he can meet with us?" it's hardly nepotism to say "I'll have him give you a call." Do you really think people all over the country are recusing themselves from those conversations? Please. If you want nepotism, how about this wikipedia entry on Liz Cheney: "In 2002 she was appointed to the newly created position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs." Wow, nice gig. You think she knew somebody?

Toensing was on Hannity and... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Toensing was on Hannity and explained it very well how she was not covert under the law.

And that is why no one is being prosecuted for it.

Thanks, and good night.

Next.

Oh yes, and supposedly they... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Oh yes, and supposedly they claim that Cheney wanted someone to go check on the situation on February 12. Oops, Cheney's memo was written on the 13th.

Ooops, oops, ooops.

Liberals are soooo stupid. That's why they're easy to catch. They don't even lie very well.

Live it, love it, learn it.

"I say we stick an apple in... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"I say we stick an apple in Waxman's mouth and have a pig roast."

Excellent Idea , snort snort mmmmmm pork n smog.

At least I thanked for your service before I called you an asshole. Got priorities.

So just how many times does the truth have to come out for you fools? And since when do you Hypocrites ever "willing to wait for the truth to come out?" I call bullshit. You guys have no concept of what truth is. Democrats are lying frauds and you are just waiting for them to conclude their clown routine so their Media can't parrot their lies.

I can understand you wanting to wait and all however we already know the truth , you are waiting for your talking points. Homey don't play that.

Ok, try to get this straig... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Ok, try to get this straight , Henry Waxman is ugly lying pigfaced democrat political hack. Their Party is a complete fraud. They are a joke and a disgrace to this Country.

How many times must they be proven liars ? nevermind you'll tell a lie that they never lied and so on and so on. Waste of time

You think holding this hear... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

You think holding this hearing four years after the event is a search for truth?

This was a show event - eyewash for those too stupid to realize it. Waxman always does this crap, unless you are too far gone you should know this.

You really think some unknown dude - who we can't find - walked by Plame and suggested Wilson? You think this is truth?


Some people worry that ther... (Below threshold)
Fran:

Some people worry that there'll be a 'scandal void', now that this (non)issue has almost been put to bed. This has certainly highlighted the battle lines.

Luckily for all there will be plenty of 'you did it, no, you did it' discussion regarding the inability of the left to stop trying to tar the Bush Admin with labels like: too political, incompetent, or forgetful; regarding the DOJ/Gonzales and the fired US Attorneys.

Has anyone heard Rush Limbaugh complain about carrying water for the GOP lately? My guess is that all my side never does anything wrong republicans better get ready to do some serious lifting. Water weighs in at 1 Gallons [US] = 8.3452641 Pounds. I expect this to be a gusher.

Repeat after me:
1. Clinton fired all 93 US Attorneys.
2. Clinton got a blow job.
3. Harriet Miers planned the whole fiasco to get back at being withdrawn for SCOTUS consideration.
4. To the best of my recollection....
5. Incompetence sucks.

And Plame sending a memo... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

And Plame sending a memo detailing her husband's credentials is nepotism? Bullshit.

Exactly. It's bullshit that she responded. Why? It's called "conflict of interest", ChrisO; it's SOP for ANY business. And your example fails in its simplicity compared to being asked to "detail" his credentials as you just pointed out. Your pre-conceived notion that businesses somehow practice this regularly is exactly that, a pre-conceived, unfounded and improvable notion.

And the Wiki is great for some working and basic knowledge, but quoting from it? Come on....

sweetness-light.com has the... (Below threshold)
kim:

sweetness-light.com has the links and documents showing what a treasonous coward Joe Wilson is. Before the war he thought Saddam had WMD. They also nicely document his love affair with the Kerry campaign.
=============================

ChrisO, I have first hand k... (Below threshold)
kim:

ChrisO, I have first hand knowledge that Val Plame teleported herself from her home to Langley every day and back, too. Now are you happy? I'm glad we found a broom to sweep up that little misunderstanding.
============================

It is compelling watching W... (Below threshold)
kim:

It is compelling watching Waxman's Dog and Pony Show. Do these people really not know the truth? Is it all just smoke and mirrors? Do they even care?

One thought I've had is that some of this degeneration in the creation of public policy is that huge aggregating news organizations are so key to the process that they have become the focus. They are big enough to generate and sustain a narrative, which must make sense to be sustained, but small details which make nonsensical the narrative have to be ignored or suppressed. The narrative necessarily becomes fabulous, by that I mean it becomes a fable. The trouble is that now, thanks to the internet, anyone can fact check the fable.

How much longer can the spielmasters control public discourse and public policy? Waxman and friends were chilling. Plame thinks she can lie with impunity.
====================================

By the way, her book publis... (Below threshold)
kim:

By the way, her book publisher cancelled an appearance by Val in NYC at a 'People for the American Way' event, hosted by some jackass leftist TV commentator. Are they suspicious of pre-release publicity not controlled by them, or are they nervous about Plame as spokesman? The also claim careful negotiations with the CIA about what can be in the book. I expect CIA intransigence will be the excuse for not publishing her book. This is not her father's CIA any longer.
======================================

Valerie Plame said she hear... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Valerie Plame said she heard around the office that the vice president wanted to know about the Niger thing. So Valerie Recommended her husband on Feb. 12. The V.P.'s email was dated the 13th. Wow! She sees into the future. Of course it was a coincidence that Wilson happened to go on the trip coordinated by the office his wife works for. It was coincidence that Wilson wrote and OpEd for the NYT's that was the opposite of what he reported to the Senate. It was coincidence that Armitage, an anti iraq war state official leaked her name but he is never charged. The lefties started their support for deceit and lies with Clinton and it has blossomed into full fledged denial. Self destruct. I am enjoying watching the demo's self destruct. For all the alleged scandals of this administration, where are the convictions? Libby? That will be overturned or pardoned. What else ya got? ww

It stinks, doesn't it, ww? ... (Below threshold)
kim:

It stinks, doesn't it, ww? Now why isn't MSM running with this. Well, for one thing, NBC has put the kibosh on it because Russert perjured himself in the Libby trial. But something interesting happened last night on Hardball. Gregory was host, and remember he probably told Russert about Plame. Cooper, yes, the Matt Cooper, husband of a Democratic operative, asked Gregory if he had received a Plame leak. Gregory totally dodged the question. But it still hangs out there.

And Russert has testified that if Gregory knew, he would have known, and this was before his conversation with Libby. Gregory, and Mitchell hold the key to revealing Russert's perjury.

Last night's interchange is my best clue that the stone wall is developing cracks. DNC and NBC in a struggle? I can but hope.
=====================================

You see, the DNC is eventua... (Below threshold)
kim:

You see, the DNC is eventually going to have to throw Joe Wilson under the bus. They will claim that he fooled them, too. Right now, NBC intransigence, and the desire to protect L'il Tim's franchise has overwhelmed their desire to tell the truth. Val Plame on the stand, lying wholeheartedly but ineffectively, is going to get someone to see that the charade can't be continued. Perhaps already has done so. Her scheduled appearance today in NYC is cancelled.
======================================

Once under the bus, we'll s... (Below threshold)
kim:

Once under the bus, we'll see how much truth Joe Wilson speaks to power. He just might.
============================

One last little key piece o... (Below threshold)
kim:

One last little key piece of data. It is in sworn testimony at the Libby trial that Gregory received a Plame leak. I think it was in Fleischer's testimony.

So there you have it. Fleischer told Gregory who told Russert before the talk with Libby. And Russert lied about it with Fitz's connivance.
===============

You see, Joe's been pitched... (Below threshold)
kim:

You see, Joe's been pitched under the bus once already, by Kerry, immediately after his lies were revealed by the SSCI. It is amazing that they'll have to do it again, but his lying meme, that Bush Lied: People Died, has so much attraction that the Joe and Val Show has arisen, like a Firebird, from the ashes of their credibility. Well, yesterday, Val just set herself on fire again. All that mishigas about comforting a junior officer and the suggestion of Joe by a passing co-worker, and the sessions with Kristoff and the Democratic Senate Policy Committee meeting are just fuel to the fire.
===============================

Possibly one of the best fr... (Below threshold)
kim:

Possibly one of the best from yesterday, at least for it's comic potential on the silver screen was Val declaiming that she didn't know if she was covert because she isn't a lawyer.
========================

Which leads to an idea. Ho... (Below threshold)
kim:

Which leads to an idea. How about a film of the truth released at the same time as Val's film. The trouble with that thought is that no one will actually produce the Wilsons' packet of lies, precisely because a better done film, with the lies exposed, would do better.

Supposedly, Simon and Schuster gave Val a million dollar advance on her book, and now they are backpedaling? Wussup wid dat?
==================================

For those too dense to get ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

For those too dense to get it--that would be PetGoat and company, let's take this to its ultimate logical conclusion.

You are a "covert" cia operative and work in the to whom it is suggested your husband may be a suitable investigator of a claim the VP's office wants checked out in the WMD venue, you are always vigilant to protect your covert status, for yourself and the others who may be implicated if you are outed.

However, you demure, and offer a memo regarding your husband's suitability for the discreet mission. At the behest of another.

However, you retain free will, supposedly, and make no analysis of how this might affect your covert status, nor do you suggest to the decision-makers that it might be unwise, and counter to your covert status, to send your spouse on this mission.

And then, later, you acquiesce in your husband's disclosure of material elements of the mission in the New York Times, and obviously, his work with the CIA.

Hmmmm, anybody got a problem with that? It sounds like the Keystone Cops, instead of the CIA, to me. Perhaps it is best Ms. Plame was outed, if only to remove an incompetent from the office she held.

I should have prefaced all ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I should have prefaced all the above by saying that "accepting the Wilson/Plame story as true."

You'd have to be pretty gullible to go along with much of their self-serving story.

Man I slept good last night... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Man I slept good last night. What a beautiful morning.

I see the right stayed up all last spinning diarrhea.

I have the over/under on the Gonzo resignation at four days.

So you got nuthin', Barney.... (Below threshold)
k:

So you got nuthin', Barney. Couldn't you dream up something?
=====================================

Watch him check back in onc... (Below threshold)
kim:

Watch him check back in once he's got the talking points. Here's a clue: the White House not investigating itself is a non-starter. Fitz was combing through them with a fine tooth and even he could only find a pretense upon which to prosecute.

Watch him not understand the database well enough to defend it.
=====================================

Mitch, there is a strong th... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mitch, there is a strong thread of belief that this whole mess was Valerie trying to cover her own incompetence. Why was the junior officer in need of comfort because she'd just been asked about yellow cake intelligence. Did they not know the answers to the questions being asked, or were they frightened at the import of the questions? Inquiring minds want to know.
=============================

I think you are on to somet... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I think you are on to something, Kim. The fact that we had such problems, we now all agree--Left and Right--in our WMD intelligence, and this woman headed those efforts, leads to the obvious conclusion she is trying to deflect attention from her dept's. shortcomings.

It's trying to have your ca... (Below threshold)
kim:

It's trying to have your cake and eat it too. Did Val know shit from shinola about WMD? It's in lurker's note(sweetness and light) how much Joe believed that Saddam had WMD. Surely she thought so too. This is part of the real outrage here; Joe and Val contributed to the intelligence in the run-up to the war and once finding out they were wrong, they lied about it. To the Democrats. Which is why they'll get thrown under the bus.
=====================================

And the fact that they have... (Below threshold)
kim:

And the fact that they have tried so hard to deny that there was a black market in Yellow Cake in Africa, when there obviously was, makes me think that either Joe, or the CIA black-ops, was involved in the trade somehow, if only to look the other way for money. I've little proof, but I'm not the only one with these suspicions.
==============================

Remember when liberals abho... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Remember when liberals abhored all things CIA, as if it were a reincarnation of the Gestapo?

But if it serves their anti-Bush purposes, a liberal will whore himself into becoming a bedfellow to anyone.

Here's something funny. Yo... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here's something funny. You know Larry Johnson, Val's most vociferous defender. Get him started on Iran Contra. See, he was in the CIA way back then. I can hear the teeth gnashing, and the cognits dissonating all the way over here.

He's called me an ignorant soul, and I responded that it was only his ignorance that is saving his soul.
====================================

Larry's blog is called NoQu... (Below threshold)
kim:

Larry's blog is called NoQuarter.com, but they begged for mercy before banning me.
==========================

"I have the over/under o... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"I have the over/under on the Gonzo resignation at four days."

I'm guessing Wednesday.

Lee, don't you like the sep... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lee, don't you like the separation of powers that give the President complete authority to enforce the law, including directing prosecutors?
============================

Take your meds, kim. You'r... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Take your meds, kim. You're out of control.

It is an illiberal idea tha... (Below threshold)
kim:

It is an illiberal idea that the executive branch not have policy control over prosecution. How else is the executive to carry out his sworn duty to enforce the laws?
==============================

Apparently, you got nothing... (Below threshold)
kim:

Apparently, you got nothing, Lee, anymore than Barney or cb does. Quick, go find some talking points.
==============================

The president of the United... (Below threshold)
Allen:

The president of the United States made statements when this hit the press that he was outraged and he was going to be conduct an investigation, and heads would roll. He said if anybody in the White House disclosed this information about a covert agent, that person would be fired. Then later he modified it and said, well, they have to be convicted of a crime. But it turns out that the president didn't even ask anybody to do an investigation. If he wanted to get the truth, all he had to do was call Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer and Scooter Libby and all these people that work for him into his office and say, hey, how'd this information get out? Who did it? And if he thought it was a problem, he could have said you're not going to get access to other security information. Isn't that why the White House can do it contemporaneously with any criminal investigation?

Surely our President wouldn't lie to the American people, would he. I mean he made the above statement, and then the head of White House Security said no investigation was done.

Sounds like the head of security is a liar. Cause we all know the President won't lie to the American people. And he also mention a covert agent, but guess he was also misinformed on that little item of intelligence. Bad CIA, giving the President wrong information.

So assigning a Special Pros... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

So assigning a Special Prosecutor is not an investigation?

You think that Bush should have interviewed thousands of Executive Branch employees in his own investigation? You think you would believe the results? Pa-lease.

You have the facts of Michael Moore and the brains of Cindy Sheehan.

R'T'O' that would make Alle... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

R'T'O' that would make Allen brainless them would it not? LOL

Allen, why didn't the Presi... (Below threshold)
kim:

Allen, why didn't the President call Armitage into his office and ask him? Why didn't Armitage tell the President without asking? Why didn't Armitage tell Fitz all the other people he talked to? Why didn't Fitz ask him?

You are barking up the wrong tree with the White House investigation non-starter. It is pretty clear that Bush didn't dare run an investigation parallel with Fitz's. Had he done so, you would be screaming bloody murder. Furthermore, Fitz went over the White House with a fine tooth comb, and only found a pretence upon which to charge anyone.

Let the adults run the show. You don't have any idea what you want, Allen, except to be rid of Bush. It's blinded you to sense and reason. And what a lot of phony outrage about this you and the rest of the useful idiots have been pumped up to.
================

Allen now you sound lik... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Allen now you sound like a fucken cry baby. So un-Veteran of you. Where is your pride man?

Why didn't the President as... (Below threshold)
kim:

Why didn't the President ask Armitage? Because he didn't know Armitage leaked.

Why didn't Armitage tell the President? Good question, the treacherous bastard, I mean knight. In his defense, Armitage thought Joe Wilson was the leaker, but Armitage had made a point of arranging an interview with Novak during which he disclosed Val.

Why didn't Armitage tell Fitz all the other people he'd talked to? Why doesn't Fitz ask him this question?

Why didn't Fitz ask Armitage who else he talked to? Why doesn't Gonzales ask him that question, or the Office of Professional Responsibility, or you, Taxpayer.
=========================

See, it's also pretty sure ... (Below threshold)
kim:

See, it's also pretty sure that Armitage told Powell who also didn't clue in Bush. They didn't like him, but no one trusts them anymore. Would you?

Furthermore, if Powell's silence was because of his resentment about appearing the fool at the UN, then the blood of all the unnecessary dead be upon his gutless soul.
=============================

Robert the original,... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Robert the original,
The only reason an investigation was started was because of the CIA requesting the Justice Dept look into the matter. No, Bush should have asked 4 or 5 of his top aides about it, but then he probably already know of the answer, or then maybe he didn't, I doubt if anyone will ever learn the truth, not the Repug's truth, or the Demo's truth, but the real truth.

And therein lies the problem, some people are scared of the real truth coming out.

See, the poor sod Powell on... (Below threshold)
kim:

See, the poor sod Powell only thought he'd been set up to look the fool; in fact Saddam needed taking out for all the reasons he mentioned.

Powell, just very slightly missing, sadly lacking, that one thing that could really make him special. He's not honest.
==================================

The real truth, Allen, is t... (Below threshold)
kim:

The real truth, Allen, is that the White House was the last to know about Plame. Granted, Cheney told Libby about her on June 12, when she was identified as a low-level CIA person who'd picked the Ambassador for the trip to Africa. Then they forgot about her until after Joe's op-ed when they began hearing from the press that she was the wife of the lying critic. This is the insight, as if for the first time, that Libby had. Personally I think it is plausible that the information went from Armitage to Novak to Hohlte to Rove to Novak for the circularity that make Fitz so suspicious about White House involvement, but there are so many people who heard Joe's loose lips that it would be impossible to trace the information trail reliably. Furthermore, Fitz knew early on that Val wasn't covert, legally, so he just followed the directions that Joe Wilson, Comey, and the shadowy Eckenrode gave him and went after the White House. It's been a tremendous charade, but it is unravelling. Or ravelling if you care to knit your thoughts.
==================================

You see, there are two pers... (Below threshold)
kim:

You see, there are two personae there for Val Plame. In June Cheney and Libby knew her as the low-level CIA person who'd picked an Ambassador to go to Africa. I believe Tenet told them that. In July, they heard about her as being the wife of the lying critic. Confusing these two personae into one, and believing that it was impossible for Cheney and Libby to forget about her is the source of faithlike belief that there was a White House plot to out her. But it is a fantasy. Look at what Fitz came up with, and even then it depended upon Russert's perjury.
===============================

Sorry Allen there is no ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Sorry Allen there is no such thing as Dem. truth or Repub. truth, there is only "TRUTH". Why is it that I always hear Democrats use the word "REAL" as in "Real Truth" or "Real Facts". Facts are NOT REAL , TRUTH is NOT REAL , LIFE IS REAL. That is why I see the Democrats as the party of perpetual fraud.

When you can be honest with yourself you'll have figured that out and you will no longer be waiting for someone to give you "THEIR REAL TRUTH", you will "KNOW" the truth when you hear it. "TRUE TRUTH" not false or erroneous but that which is Consistent with fact or reality.

Ooops! Sorry Kim.... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Ooops! Sorry Kim.

Kim,"The real trut... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Kim,

"The real truth, Allen, is that...."

This is a good examlpe of why the Democrats must use speach so much . It's nothing but a form of Manipulation and parsing or words and getting people to unwittingly repeat what they say and when possible , use it against you.

The fake truth is as Allen ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

The fake truth is as Allen and Barneyboy tell it.

It's a fevered mind that finds all these false cabals.

KimYou are so full... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

Kim

You are so full of shit it's unbelievable. Do you think whoever posts the most wins? Once again, I point out that the known facts all favor Plame, and the wild ass scenarios are the purview of the right.

Just in this thread, you have said:
"One thought I've had,"

"Are they suspicious of pre-release publicity not controlled by them, or are they nervous about Plame as spokesman?"

"Were they sending an insider to get the scoop or to hide it?"

"NBC has put the kibosh on it because Russert perjured himself in the Libby trial."

"Joe's been pitched under the bus once already, by Kerry, immediately after his lies were revealed by the SSCI."

"Val Plame on the stand, lying wholeheartedly but ineffectively, is going to get someone to see that the charade can't be continued. Perhaps already has done so."

"there is a strong thread of belief"

"Joe believed that Saddam had WMD. Surely she thought so too."

"makes me think that either Joe, or the CIA black-ops, was involved in the trade somehow,"

"Armitage thought Joe Wilson was the leaker"

and there's plenty more. What do all of these have in common? Facts arer nowhere in sight. Statements like "there is a strong thread of belief" is code for "I'm about to pull another idiotic conspiracy theory out of my ass."

You spend so much time insulting other posters to deflect from the fact that you have absolutely nothing to back up your wild suppositions. I notice you never go back to any of your previous statements, no matter if you've been challenged to back them up. You just plow on ahead. You make statements like "Plame was lying to Congress" as if your word is enough. I know it's tough when none of the facts are on your side, but perhaps that's a time to lay low a little, rather than endlessly posting so the whole world can see you've actually got nothing to say.

The level of your understanding is revealed by your mocking Plame for saying she didn't know if she was covert because she's not a lawyer. If you had any idea what you were talking about you'd know she was referring to the definition of covert as defined by statute, rather than by the CIA. According to the CIA she was covert, but not being a lawyer she can't speak to legal definitions. That's not so hard for you to understand is it? Or maybe it is.

Maybe you should take a lesson from Rob LA Ca, who doesn't even try to post arguments, but just spewsd mindless invective. At least he's aware that he doesn't have a clue.

And Peter F. I continue to contend that saying every company has the strict kinds of conflict regulations you're talking about is just not true. Most companies have anti-nepotism regulations, but recommending your spouse for a job isn't nepotism. If you're not the decision maker, then you're not giving your spouse a job. People recommend friends and relatives all of the time. It's the hiring decision maker who can't give a job to a relative. Simply telling your manager that he should hire your relative is not the same thing. I would also question whether sending your spouse on an unpaid one-time assigment counts as nepotism under any definition.

As for wikipedia, what does it matter if I was quoting from them? It wasn't opinion, it was fact. If I took away the quotes and didn't mention wikipedia, would it have changed my point at all? Are you saying my post about Liz Cheney was factually wrong? And if not, why did you bring it up? I'll tell you why. Because as the facts are slowly but surely showing you guys to be in the wrong, the amount of misdirection you're engaging in increases. You call me on wikipedia as if it's score one for you guys. I guess it's better than actually responding factually.

And Jo, really, "Liberals are soooo stupid." Is that all you got? What are you, in the 9th grade? Next I suppose you won't let us sit at your lunch table. You're another one adding to the noise here without advancing the conversation at all. You posted that Toensing was on Hannity and explained very well why Plame wasn't undercover, followed by your snarky "Next." You notice what that post had in common with all of your other posts? It's not based on a single original thought. You're basically saying, "yeah, Victoira Toensing, what she said" and then gloating as if you've somehow scored a point. If you were actually intellectually engaged, you would notice that Toensing is only in a position to talk about what the statute says. She is in no position to pass judgement on Plame's status, because she has no knowledge of Plame's activiies for the last five years. Perhaps they'll cover that when you get to 10th grade.

And finally, Robert the Original asks "You think holding this hearing four years after the event is a search for truth?" Robert realy, did you think before you posted this? Let's see, what's different now from four years ago? Oh I know, the Democrats control Congress. There weren't hearings four years ago because the Republicans would have to have called them. I know it's been a while since we've actually seen it in action, so you may have forgotten that oversight is one of the responsibilities of Congress. What the Democrats are doing now is the job the Republicans should have done four years ago. If that bothers you, ask the Republicans why they abdicated their responsibilities.

Well said, ChrisO. Don't le... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Well said, ChrisO. Don't let the morons wear you down. Your comments are appreciated.

June 2003: According to the... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

June 2003: According to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired about a month before Robert Novak's column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn't it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn't that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know 'cause Joe Wilson's been calling everybody. He's pissed off 'cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he's all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife's an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It's still weird.

ChrisO, sure I speculate a ... (Below threshold)
kim:

ChrisO, sure I speculate a lot, and generally label it well. I don't link to facts because links deteriorate and the facts are there for those with the will to find them. I notice you don't fact check me at all. No, not one whit? Why is that?

Oh, yes, except for your point about Plame not knowing the meaning of the word 'covert'. Point well taken, but I'm not quite touche. My point was that that statement has huge comedic potential, and I am right. Thanks for the belly laugh.
==========================

That wonderful dialogue was... (Below threshold)
kim:

That wonderful dialogue was actually entered into evidence, M, and they still bought Fitz's crock of bull. Incidentally, you have the redacted version. Armitage actually said "'cause fuckin' Joe Wilson has been calling everybody,...".
=======================

Oh, and thanks for the fact... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh, and thanks for the fact checking. I'm impressed. Actually, CO's right; this is all in my head.
================================

I love it when kim argues w... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I love it when kim argues with herself, and loses....

Wow, you guys are still try... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Wow, you guys are still trying to argue a fact? I see that none of the loony righties have yet articulated how Val is not covert based on Vicky's law.

Isn't it a great day! And some kick-ass B-ball games!!

All of you get back to work... (Below threshold)
Sejanus:

All of you get back to work.

"What the Democrats are d... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"What the Democrats are doing now is the job the Republicans should have done four years ago."

Actually , if the Republicans would have done what they should have done four years ago you would not be in a position to make that statement. I'm left scratching my head why Republicans are reluctant to prosecute the Democrat Criminals. That is one thing that pisses me off , they just turn the other cheek. It could also be that republicans were busy running the Country fixing an inherited recession , dealing with the previous Administrations incompetance that led to 9/11 and the butchering of our Military. Then the remarkable and speedy recovery after the worst terror attack in our history bring us a booming economy. Not two mention two historic battles of two Countries shattering all previous conflicts in casualties and statistics. That's the point that Democrats just couldn't take anymore and the democrats business of treason was kicked into overdrive.

That being said , democrats were completely in the Minority and Presidnet Bush being busy actually doing his Job as President and Commander in Chief protecting our Country by Going after those that declared war on us. You recall President Bush reached accross as a uniter and therefore I can see why he was reluctant to prosecute the many Criminal and corrupt Democrat frauds , wasn't a priority nor were an imminent threat. Boy was he wrong. The Rats being what they are , arrogant pompous egotistical cry babies just smacked his hand away and went into fits of rage and tantrum throwing. Democrats with their incompetance , lies , obstruction and supporting and spreading the enemies propaganda as well as their own sick and immoral agenda have done irrefutable and irreparable harm. Democrats sought support from other Countries and created a bash all things American and President Bush and with that support were able to deceive , frustrate and wear thin the resolve to the point they could no longer tollerate the incessant whining and crying of the Democrats.

That is how democrats gain suppport. Not buy anything they have acttually done or accomplished. That's unless the damage to our Country, the anger they inflamed around the world emboldening the enemy and the dividing of this Country is considered a Democrat accomplishment?

From the Democrats continued behavior , it leaves no doubt they do. When your done wiping the tears from your eyes , I challenge any of ya'll to refute it. I got my popcorn ready.

either Iraq tried to buy ye... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

either Iraq tried to buy yellowcake "from Africa"
or Bush lied.....
or how about this
We had to invade Iraq with the military we had not what we wanted because the Danger to the United States would only have increased if we waited for ah..ah..
proper equipment..or say more troops..or the completion of say the weapons inspection that would have shown..
of course..if ya can't trust our President and Vice President..who can you trust?

And Peter F. I continue ... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

And Peter F. I continue to contend that saying every company has the strict kinds of conflict regulations you're talking about is just not true. Most companies have anti-nepotism regulations, but recommending your spouse for a job isn't nepotism.

You're full of shit. Whoever said EVERY company? MOST companies frown upon it, severely.

You're deluded. How is recommending your spouse for a job not a form or the very beginnings of nepotism. Ridiculous.

One undisputable fact remai... (Below threshold)
Uh-oh:

One undisputable fact remains: Valerie & Joe Wilson are BUSTED.

And whoever said Gonzalez would be gone by Wednesday probably told us Karl Rove would be indicted 4 months ago

LOL.

Valerie says she doesn't kn... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Valerie says she doesn't know if she is covert under the law because she's not a lawyer??

We are three years into this. Couldn't she have at least asked that question to a lawyer by now?

What a bunch of liars. And the libbies lap it up like dogs. Oh I am so embarrassed for them.

nogo, the actual 16 words:<... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

nogo, the actual 16 words:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Notice the first 3 words in that sentence. The British government had their own intelligence, investigated that intelligence in the Lord Butler report and continues to stand by that assessment.

So either you are ignorant or you lied.

See also:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445574/posts

In the Wilson transcript, note this sentence especially:
"They have been sold. We have been sold a war on disarmament or terrorism or the nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction or liberation. Any one of the four. And now with the President's speeches, you clearly have the idea that we're going to go in and take this preemptive action to overthrow a regime, occupy its country for the purposes, the explicit purposes of fostering the blossoming of democracy in a part of the world where we really have very little ground, truth or experience."

This is Wilson complaining about the war. He disagreed with it because he wanted to stick with the failed air strikes of the Clinton administration. But even while complaining about it, he noted that the war had been sold on 4 different grounds: disarmament, terrorism, terrorism and WMD's and liberation. He can hardly be called an administration hack, but even he got it and admitted it freely on public radio. Blows a pretty sizable hole in your "WMD's only" argument.

As for your assertion that the WMD's were fabricated solely by the President, note:
"MOYERS: President Bush's recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. I...

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He's coming to kill me. He doesn't care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm. "


Money quote broken out of the above:
"'....The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat.' You agree with that?'

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure."

Well, Barney, your answer i... (Below threshold)
brainy435:

Well, Barney, your answer is here:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011038.php

The head of the CIA could personally proclaim YOU as covert, but it doesn't mean anything if you don't meet the legal definition.

Of course you could have gotten your answer by realizing that after a 4 year investigation no one was even ACCUSED of, let alone tried for, Plame's "outing....

Her job as a behind the des... (Below threshold)
hubel458:

Her job as a behind the desk WMD analyst,
that she said she was, would be considered
a 'huge failure' for her and the CIA, in that they didn't find the Saddam/Libya nuke program that was getting yellowcake from Cogema/Niger(Thank God after Saddam fell
Libya came to us and UN and gave it up).
BUT JOE'S COMPANY CONSULTING TO COGEMA
AND NIGER...MIGHT...EXPLAIN...THE FAILURE!!!
Keywords- Coverup- Traitors. Ed

Yeah, hubel. That I strong... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yeah, hubel. That I strongly suspect, but don't have proof.
====================================

What's really cool, though,... (Below threshold)
kim:

What's really cool, though, hubel, is that someone knows. Khaddafi gave up a lot of stuff and where and how he got his yellowcake might be in it. I keep hoping that Bush is rope a doping the Democrats into really getting even more invested in the Val and Joe Fable before he declassifies some killer bit of info out of Libya.

Or should I hush my mouth, hubel?
=================

You know, brainy, you ought... (Below threshold)
kim:

You know, brainy, you ought to go over to Noquarter.com and ask Larry Johnson if Val was 'clandestine'. Until his most recent post he stuck with 'classified' though he kept mentioning Jordan in 2002, where Val traveled about the time a USAID fella named Foley was killed. Now, however, on the basis of Waxman's Dog and Pony show, he's declaring her 'covert', 'undercover', and 'classified', and equating the three conditions. I'd do it, but I'm banned there.
=================================

Pathetic how you "losers in... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Pathetic how you "losers in a bubble" here can't - and won't - admit you're wrong. You had a woman and her direct superior confirm under oath her covert status and you STILL can't digest it. IT MUST BE A LIE! Why? Because if it wasn't a lie it would mean your beloved President and VP are the liars.

Well, welcome to the real world if you can handle it. My guess is you can't - and you'll still be spinning this muck to try to convince yourselves your right and the truth is wrong. Pathetic - and it always will be.

Lets see how long it takes for Rob LA to start in with his tired "Clinton this, Clinton that" and, of course, his millionth-time repeated "the party of perpetual fraud" jibberjabber.

We also heard her say she d... (Below threshold)
kim:

We also heard her say she didn't know the definition of 'covert'.

What direct supervisor?
=========

I mean what 'direct superio... (Below threshold)
kim:

I mean what 'direct superior confirmed under oath her covert status? Are you exaggerating or making things up?
==================================

If you mean Hayden, I don't... (Below threshold)
kim:

If you mean Hayden, I don't believe he was ever her supervisor or superior, not in any chain of command. He was not under oath. Waxman very carefully parsed a statement of Hayden's but didn't find the need for a CIA legal opinion about whether or not Val was covert.

Let's see the referral letter from the CIA to the DoJ. Fitz, the Whole Truth, is sitting on it like his case depends upon it.
================================

Her husband told his lies t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Her husband told his lies to the Democratic Senate Policy Committee meeting on May 2, 2003, and to Nick Kristof at breakfast the next morning. Val Plame has testified that she was in attendance at both those meetings. She has sworn that she didn't talk about her work, but not that Joe didn't. How was he supposed to be allowed to talk about it.

The Dems will throw them under the bus, just after the NYTimes decides their franchise is worth more than a couple of poseurs and retracts the lies Nick Kristof retailed in his May, '03 article.
=======================================

And just why was the 'junio... (Below threshold)
kim:

And just why was the 'junior officer' upset about an inquiry about Yellow Cake?
==============================

Ah ha. Maguire's onto the ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Ah ha. Maguire's onto the Cooper/Gregory business, but he didn't H/T Tina who mentioned it in comments.

This might mean war if it is a schism in the stonewall.
================================

Yep, it's Eckenrode. Read ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yep, it's Eckenrode. Read Waas's 6/8/06 article. The FBI misled Fitz, at least partly because they didn't understand how Libby could forget about Plame from June to July. But they've covered Russert's perjury and that explains why Eckenrode was not in the trial. He'll be in the next one, though, after NBC and the Dems cave.
=================================

Ah, Harlow claimed that the... (Below threshold)
kim:

Ah, Harlow claimed that the forgeries only came to the CIA in early 2003 after the SOTU and Powell's UN speech, but I've seen elsewhere that the CIA received them in Oct. '02, and the one taking receipt noted 'funky seals' on them. There is a discrepancy in those two dates that needs explaining.
============================

C'mon along, or stay behind... (Below threshold)
kim:

C'mon along, or stay behind; we're off to free our Figaro.
===================================

What sort of consulting wor... (Below threshold)
kim:

What sort of consulting work does Harlow do for NBC, now?

You know he's the former CIA spokesperson who confirmed Val Plame to Novak, and now also the one who claims the CIA only received the forgeries after the two critical January speeches.
===========================

Well, the A-team is chewing... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, the A-team is chewing it over. Where's Carol to remind them that this may be the Dems firing a shot over NBC's bows.
==============================

Watch the Cooper thread on ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Watch the Cooper thread on JustOneMinute.
===========================

Alright Carol, get over the... (Below threshold)
kim:

Alright Carol, get over there and post. Azaghal is on fire.
================================

Kim-They have the stuff sto... (Below threshold)
hubel458:

Kim-They have the stuff stored here in TN.
They already have determined that the
yellow cake came from Niger mines just over the
border from Libya.Every type of processing
operations are traceable.Cogema owned the mines,
Joe business was a consultant on paper to them
and Niger. Either way you look at it CIA is
the problem. They have screwed the fight to
keep nukes out of the hands of our enemies.Ed

Researchers on other forum ... (Below threshold)
hubel458:

Researchers on other forum found this-
In connection with Waxman's statement--
"I found this statement to be unique in that it wouldn't be appropriate for Hayden (who wasn't on the helm at the time) to comment or even confirm her status - especially since she's been on the outs for a while now. So I picked up the phone
First, if they called General Hayden on Wednesday,
etc, there is no record on the log of such a call (and all such calls are logged). Secondly the spokesperson told me that it would be highly unlikely that it would be a 'verbal' confirmation would be given, rather coming in the written form that would have been introduced into record, and subsequently (as is their habit) waved it in front of the cameras."
So, whatever Waxman or Cummings said is simply hearsay""........ or madeup.........

BINGO...Ed

Khan it be true?====... (Below threshold)
kim:

Khan it be true?
============

I'm not surprised at Waxman... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'm not surprised at Waxman's chicanery. Now, did he swear in Val legitimately?
===================================

Anybody, ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Anybody,

What would best describe the democrat Party's behavior for the past six years.

A. 100% Dedicated to honesty and integrity?

OR

B. A complete Obstructionist party of Lies , Smears and venom spewing?

So was she covert before sh... (Below threshold)
epador:

So was she covert before she wasn't covert, or was it the other way around? Or when they say she was is it a feint because she wasn't to confuse the enemy, or was it a lie to say she wasn't when she was, or are they saying now she was after they said she wasn't when she was in order to obfuscate things further?

Just remember to take off your tin foil hats before you start thinking about this one too much or you'll cook all your remaining gray cells.

Geez, Rob. Do you have ANYT... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Geez, Rob. Do you have ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY except that same tired crap?

The more you go on this tirade, the more laughable you get. Try toning it down a few notches - make a few sober points - and people will stop considering you a mental reject.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy