Democrats & Liberals Archives

Plame Answers Republican Lies

After many years of silence, Valerie Plame gave sworn testimony to the House Oversight Committee. She said that her career was “over in an instant” when Republicans blew her cover as an undercover CIA agent in the summer of 2003. The Republican pronouncements since then about her and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson, were nothing but lies.

It's a Republican lie that everyone knew what Valerie Plame did. She said:

I could count on one hand the number of people who knew who my true employer was.

It's a Republican lie that Plame had a "desk job" and that she was not really an undercover agent. In her opening statement she said:

I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policy makers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction program.

It's a Republican lie that Plame recommended that her husband go to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Niger to build Iraq’s nuclear arsenal. Wilson found the uranium story to be a fabrication. Plame said [from above article]:

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

Ms. Wilson said she did sound out her husband about the trip after she was asked to do so, but that her husband was picked for the trip because of his background in Africa.

Valerie Plame was a valuable member of the CIA. However, this fact made no impact on the thinking of administration officials. Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and all the other Republicans were smitten with the desire to punish Ambassador Wilson because he contradicted the Bush Administration. Outing a CIA agent was inconsequential in their minds to the punishing of Wilson.

Vengeance drove the Whitehouse. Vengeance made Cheney apoplectic with rage. Vengeance is the standard way the Bush administration handles those who disagree with its policies. A last word from Valerie Plame:

We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies. It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover.

Scooter Libby seems to be the only official to suffer. Too bad Fitzgerald could not also catch his boss, Dick Cheney and the other Whitehouse officials. However, their lies and vengeful actions will lead to their eventual disgrace.

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 16, 2007 5:21 PM
Comments
Comment #212374

If she was a “covert” agent, then Fitzgerald would have investigated that. There were no charges in that leak case for “outing” anyone. It’s all Bullsh*t. It’s the left’s way to fight their enemy (Bush); not the Islamofascist pigs that wage war (and are losing, by the way) against us.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 16, 2007 6:17 PM
Comment #212376

Paul,

I think the best part is yet to come. You need to read Waxman’s letter to Joshua Bolten regarding James Knodell’s testimony today:

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316154127-11403.pdf

Great way to finish a week that started with this demand of Condi:

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070312102249-61034.pdf

Yes sir, there’s a new cop in town and he’s out to kick some butt and take some names. It may take a while, but sooner or later he’s gonna be all done taking names. Then the “frog-marching” can begin.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 16, 2007 6:23 PM
Comment #212379

rahdigly-
I’m sure you misspoke, but Fitzgerald did investigate that, and her identity was classified intelligence. Probably the real reason nobody got prosecuted for the leak was that our laws are geared towards protecting us from those who would sell out agents to those seeking to harm our country, our enemies.

Fitzgerald didn’t think he could prove that sort of intent on the part of the Bush administration, despite all the unintentional plagues they’ve brought on our country.

Did this administration leak classified intelligence? Not only that, they did it on purpose. That can be proved, as a matter of common sense argumentation. Both Scooter Libby and Rove told reporters this information before Plame’s identity was common knowledged. Libby leaked it to reporter Judith Miller even before Wilson wrote the editorial. Only by legal standards are they innocent parties to all this.

As for that fight with the “Islamofascists?”

Typical. The use of the term indicates a mindset that needed to take a logically gymnastic leap in order to connect religious terrorists with secular dictators. The only real qualifications was support of non-democratic governments and some connection to the Arab and Muslim world no matter how tenuous.

We were on target taking care of the terrorists when Bush and Cheney decided to take the fight to an unrelated enemy. Now the war in Afghanistan suffers for the war in Iraq, and in neither have we been able to impose our will.

I say drop Iraq, and catch afghanistan before it falls.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2007 6:34 PM
Comment #212385

Stephen, it’s a BS case; Dick Army was the one that revealed her name and he’s not an ally of the Bush Admin and had no beef with Valerie Plame and her “wife” Joe Wilson. Plame and Wilson concocted this whole fable and the MSM, along with the rest of the lefties, went into all-out “War” mode against Bush.


As for the War on Terror, it’s good to see some people actually making a stink of what the enemy is called. Please! They’re a bunch of fascist pigs that kill in the name of a religion. They are nothing but “Nazis in headscarves”!

And, as far as the Iraq surge is concerned, it’s working. Too bad for those that invested in defeat for our country; all b/c they don’t like the President. Boo. Hoo. :(


Posted by: rahdigly at March 16, 2007 7:05 PM
Comment #212395

If she was covert the NO ONE outside of the CIA should have know. That simple. No one was charge with the outing because no law was broken. If the Congress was interested in the truth then why are the questions being limited?

Posted by: David at March 16, 2007 8:03 PM
Comment #212401

Was she under oath? (real question. I do not know) and will Wilson also be questioned under oath? Did any Republicans ask questions?

If Plame was covert and Fitzgerald knows who outed her (Richard Armitage) how come he doesn’t indict him?

Posted by: Jack at March 16, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #212405

I still cannot find whether she was under oath, but I did find this interesting thing:

“Plame said she wasn’t a lawyer and didn’t know what her legal status was but said it shouldn’t have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
“They all knew that I worked with the CIA,” Plame said. “They might not have known what my status was but that alone - the fact that I worked for the CIA - should have put up a red flag.”

Read carefully. It is not a straight answer. Plame claims she does not know her legal status. Assume she is telling what she thinks to be the truth. If Plame doesn’t know her legal status, what does that say about everybody else?

I am sure by now she has found out that she was not covert.

If Waxman wants the truth, why doesn’t he call someone who can say authoritatively, under oath, if Plame was covert?

Posted by: Jack at March 16, 2007 9:37 PM
Comment #212409

I find it very interesting that no one is asking “why this should have been a subject of conversation”? Why would anyone be discussing that Valerie Plame was in the CIA? Do I start my conversations with other people with “by the way did you know that (name) is not in the CIA! I know someone who is…ha ha na na”. Isn’t this rather childish? Obviously, these so called adult men and women, were gossiping. With the intent to hurt the husband. They were caught doing something that they should have not. Regardless if she was an active covert or had only been covert in the past, there was still an active company that she was associated with, and individuals that never knew her status with the CIA in other countries. Connect the dots. Tell on her (in a transparent act of revenge) and lots of people would be in a life or death situation. Doesn’t anyone ever know what it is like in 3rd world countries? Even our movies give you a small inkling of what it is like out there. These people should have their hands slapped and they should be taken out of office. And the laws should be changed so that this particualr problem can never happen again.

Posted by: Antoniabologna at March 16, 2007 9:50 PM
Comment #212410

Jack, Plame was under oath — as was everyone else that testified today.

Dick Army was the one that revealed her name

rah, you mean Dick Armitage is the one who reveled her name first — but Scooter didn’t know that as he was blabbing to the press.

If Waxman wants the truth, why doesn’t he call someone who can say authoritatively, under oath, if Plame was covert?

I heard bits of this on the radio. Waxman confirmed her covert status with the CIA before the hearing. A CIA representative confirmed it during the hearing, and Plame said point-blank in her opening statement that she was a covert agent.

Posted by: American Pundit at March 16, 2007 9:51 PM
Comment #212413

Jack,

As I stated in the middle column, it is ridiculous that we are still arguing about whether Plame was covert. She says was covert. Several people at the CIA says she was covert. According to the Washington Post,

When Novak’s column unmasking her as a CIA operative was published on July 14, 2003, the CIA general counsel’s office automatically sent a routine report to the Justice Department that there had been an unauthorized disclosure of classified information… One retired former senior CIA officer, who was aware of Plame’s work overseas, described her as “very competent but not great.” Another, who was familiar with her work in a Mediterranean country, said, “It doesn’t matter if she was not a great spy… . She did her job, and it was difficult.”… Novak’s initial column sparked anger inside the CIA, according to one of her superiors at the time. “She was still undercover and there was concern that political people were being very cavalier with a serious issue,” this former senior clandestine officer said.

I know some people will never accept the facts, but there they are. It is like global warming or evolution. Some people will just grasp on to any tiny cause for skepticism they can, but it is a ridiculous exercise.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 16, 2007 10:06 PM
Comment #212414

Yes, Plame testified under oath.

I believe there was an opportunity for Repubicans to question Plame, but I cannot find anything. Maybe a transcript will be up tomorrow.

The law for prosecuting anyone revealing the identity of a CIA agent is written to come down on people like Ames and Grossman. The situation with Armitage would not be prosecutable, and it would not take much effort for anyone else involved to avoid being prosecuted for that.

Perhaps the most interesting testimony from that guy… James Knodell, Director of the Office of Security at the White House… that no internal investigation ever occurred. None. This, despite the promise by Bush to launch an internal probe. It is pretty incredible, if you think about the implications.

Posted by: phx8 at March 16, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #212415

And as I said in the middle column, it is stupid to argue that she must not be covert because no one was charged with the leak. That is rather like saying that if no one was charged with a murder then the victim must still be alive.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 16, 2007 10:09 PM
Comment #212418

What is happening is very, very interesting. Before Clinton, it required a vote for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to issue a subpoena. When the Republicans took control during the Clinton years, they changed the rules; the Chair could issue a subpoena without a vote. As a result, over 1000 subpoenas were issued during the Clinton years. Under Bush, the Republican Congress issued five or six subpoenas.

Now Waxman holds the gavel, and he can issue subpoenas at will. John Conyers chairs the House Judiciary Committee, and we have heard almost nothing from him.

Is this a strategy? Will Waxman stay in the limelight, and keep hammering the Bush administration?

Gonzales is in serious trouble. He flat out lied to Congress about the political motivations behind the dismall of the USAs. No one in Congress will lift a finger for him, neither Rep nor Dem, because Gonzales sought and end-around which usurped their authority. Senators and Representatives DO NOT like their powers and opportunity to disperse patronage undermined.

What makes it even more humiliating for the Legislative Branch is that a staffer inserted language into the Patriot Act allowing this, without their even being aware of how much their power had been undermined.

The subpoenas are going to fall on the Bush people in a hard rain, and they keep making it worse by lying. But it was soooo easy when Republicans held the Branch…

Posted by: phx8 at March 16, 2007 10:23 PM
Comment #212422

Antonia

The question is asked and answered. People were wondering why the CIA chose to send a contractor instead of investigating itself and wondering why someone like Wilson got the job. The fact that his wife worked at the office helps make sense of it. Plame denies she got the guy the job. Maybe she is telling the truth, but it still is certainly a valid question.

Woody

Plame does not say she was covert. She says she is not a lawyer and does not know if she was covert. I found that an interesting choice of words. Like AP & Phx8, I would like to see the actual transcipt.

Your analogy to a murder does not work. Let me correct it. In this case you have your hypothetical murder. The prosecutor KNOWS who pulled the trigger, BUT some people think someone else shot after the guy was shot(maybe from a grassy knoll)so they are not bothering to go after the guy they KNOW did it.

Posted by: Jack at March 16, 2007 10:36 PM
Comment #212440

Rahdigly-
I assume by “Dick Army” you mean Richard Armitage, since Dick Armey is somebody else entirely.

Yes, he’s the guy who leaked to Novak. Rove was the one who confirmed for Novak. And Libby seconded for Matt Cooper, who heard it first from Rover. That is, after he told Judith Miller, who heard about if from him on the 23rd of the month before the editorial was published. Armitage didn’t mean it. What about these others?

BS. Is it BS in terms of nobody leaking? No. If any of the other reporters had published besides Novak and Woodward, It would have been Rove or Libby.

It was established, both by the office that requested the investigation and by Patrick Fitzgerald that the information was classified.

Let me inform you of the proper response when asked about classified information: I can neither confirm nor deny that. It is certainly not, “do you want to know who Wilson’s wife works for?” Or “I heard that too”

That simple. Also simple were Valerie Wilson’s additional covert trips over the last few years. She wasn’t done being an undercover agent, especially where Iraq was concerned. By that definition, she remained covert. Even if she hadn’t though, a great deal of her career and her association with the CIA remained a state secret.

Should future politicians or their staffs out agents when political pressures over their own mistakes and screwups put them at odds with their spouses?

Republicans have been complicating that question with all kinds of partisan rhetoric, ad hominem attacks on the characters of those affected by the leak, and all kinds of legalism and rationalization concerning accountability and legitimacy of these actions, but it’s really much simpler than that. There’s a simple answer to the question of whether it’s right and whether it should be done: No.

Do I expect our officials to take the political hit rather than retaliate? You’re damn right I do. And I would expect it even if it was a Democrat in that office because there are things that are just not right that I don’t want to be associated with.

There are just so many things that this administration has done, so many screwups that they committed that I have believed that your party would rightly look at and raise objections to. Stuff that was just bad from a standpoint of common sense.

Yet you folks rationalized it. It still astonishes me, when I really think about it, what Republicans have been willing to defend from Bush.

My thinking would be that politically savvy Republicans would recognize the liabilities that these mistakes and actions represented, and that they would address the real sources of these problems to avoid having them continue as millstones around the neck for the party. With the Iraq war, it should have been easy.

Armor, more soldiers, a shift in strategy when its obvious to most observers that the old one isn’t working- these things could be made to show an engaged, capable and competent administration, handling things, rather than trying to sweep them under the rug.

The Republican party has been too busy defending the indefensible, to keep from doing the indefensible. It’s tried too hard to create a perfect shield from accountability to recognize that an accountable, responsible government is a comfort to its people.

Jack-
As with Rahdigly, I think her statement has a pretty simple underlying common sense to it. I mean, come on, when you think CIA, you think secret agents. Secrecy is part and parcel of the agency’s reputation. Oh, gee, maybe I should check to see whether this person is covert, or their identity is classified!

Or if they knew, then they had no business saying anything. They should have dropped the political line as unacceptable, but the sad truth is that this administration has a lot of trouble inhibiting its political impulses.

The Republicans support this to a certain degree, because they like not having to censor their poltical impulses. It should cross your mind that some political impulses however otherwise justified, should be set aside for the sake of the country these people serve. Bush’s political welfare is not worth compromising our national security over.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 16, 2007 11:57 PM
Comment #212443

Jack, I think a better analogy to a murder case would be a trial in which people are arguing over who pulled the trigger when it’s not even established if the victim is dead or on vacation in the Bahamas. Then the DA goes to trial insisting that whether anyone has been killed or not is irrelevant to the case.


Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 17, 2007 12:09 AM
Comment #212445

Stephen

The government has very specific rules about levels of clearance and types of secrets. The individual knows his/her status. If Plame does not really know, then how can you reasonably expect others to know? It is not a clear situation.

We still have a bottom line here. Armitage revealed her. I know he is not the man you want to be guilty, but he is the one you are stuck with.

All of our debate about Plame’s covert status is a little off the mark. Armitage revealed her identity. Unless and until Fitzgerald addresses that issue, everything else is just blowing smoke.

We should also go after those SOBs who leaked the information re wiretaps or SWIFT to the NYT and Sandy Berger if we wanted to be consistent.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2007 12:12 AM
Comment #212451

Jack and Stephen: there is also the fact that Novak’s article discussed Plame only as the person who had suggested sending Wilson to Niger.

The first person to publish Plame’s supposedly secret classification was David Corn in The Nation, and that was exactly THREE DAYS after Novak’s article. How did Corn, a buddy of Josepeh Wilson, know so much about Plame? Does anyone believe that the White House told him?

It’s obvious who told him, and it’s obvious that he couldn’t have gleaned that much information about Plame from Novak’s article alone.

If Plame was “classified,” “covert,” or anything else, then even if Novak had deliberatly or accidentaly alluded to her in print, then that classification still held and Corn, Wilson, and Plame herself had no legal standing to run around the country broadcasting the fact.

Well, Wilson, Plame and Corn were never charged with leaking or even accused of it, you say? Why not blame them for it though, if you’re going to blame others who ALSO were never accused?

There’s just as much reason for accusing them for a crime they weren’t charged with as there for accusing Libby, Rove, Cheney, Armitage, and anybody else. None of them were charged with criminal “leaking,” and it’s equally valid (or invalid) at this point to accuse of any of them.

Of course, looking anywhere but at the White House doesn’t fit with left-wing conspiracy theories so rarely gets mentioned. But that says more about the motives and intellectual honesty of the left than it does the facts of this story.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 17, 2007 12:40 AM
Comment #212460

Loyal,
That is completely made up.

Here is what Bob Novak wrote on 7/14:

“Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate”

Here is the link to the David Corn article on 7/16:

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823

Read the article. Corn writes:

“Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson’s wife and had no reluctance about naming her. “I figured if they gave it to me,” he says. “They’d give it to others….I’m a reporter. Somebody gives me information and it’s accurate. I generally use it.” And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials.”

Posted by: phx8 at March 17, 2007 1:55 AM
Comment #212468

Jack said,

Plame denies she got the guy the job. Maybe she is telling the truth, but it still is certainly a valid question.

Actually, Jack, no it isn’t. We know the information the Bush administration was promoting was false. Assuming that Wilson was a Democratic plant still doesn’t make the lie about the yellow cake any less a lie.

Posted by: gergle at March 17, 2007 6:41 AM
Comment #212470

OK, I GIVE UP.

I refuse to waste time commenting on this anymore. The facts are out there now and some people just refuse to see them, or choose different facts they find more interesting. Whatever.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 17, 2007 7:01 AM
Comment #212473

So…was Plame “outed” while she was “under cover” or “covert”? Surely that’s a crime…isn’t it? After all, during her testimony she kept claiming she was “covert” and that’s secret…isn’t it?

According to the Associated Press…

Plame repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.

But the word “covert” also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service by the person and active efforts to keep his or her identity secret. Critics of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and that was why nobody was charged with the leak.

Here’s the
original article

So was she covert or not? If she met the legal definitions of “covert”, then a crime was committed. If she was not “covert” then no crime was committed.

If a crime was committed, where are all the people who committed that crime? Where are all the defendants? Where are all the people who should be in jail? Why didn’t Fitz indict the criminals? Not for obstruction of justice…for treason? Obviously, by the sheer lack of defendants, Fitz didn’t think she was “covert” and therefore “outing” her was not a crime.

If, then, it was not a “crime”, then all this that we’ve been inundated with is either partisan “payback” or a concerted effort to distract the public from the issues that really matter.

Lack of Health Care.
A budget full of pork.
Illegal immigration.
Proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Moving to energy independance.

Oh, and yeah, REAL criminals that stick 90 grand in their freezer.

Posted by: Jim T at March 17, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #212476

“I refuse to waste time commenting on this anymore. The facts are out there now and some people just refuse to see them, or choose different facts they find more interesting. Whatever.”

Woody,

That pretty well sums up my feelings on most political issues of late. How anyone can look at this chart:

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20070316173308-19288.pdf

And not see that this involved a concerted effort by the administration is simply suffering from partisan blindness.

BTW, for anyone interested, the entire hearing is available in video format here:

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205&Issue=Disclosure+of+CIA+Agent+Identity

At one point General Hayden is quoted as verifying that Plame was COVERT. Time to move on to the next lie. Get over it.

Perhaps most importantly you’ll notice that this hearing was not relegated to the confines of a room in the basement as was the hearing looking into the Downing Street memo. Waxman is the new “sheriff in town” and the word “oversight” is once again taking on some meaning.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 17, 2007 10:17 AM
Comment #212477

Gergle

The bipartisan committee found that Wilson lied or more precisely, he misled based on the timeline and claimed to know things back in January-February based on evidence he had not yet seen.

Wilson was not an obvious choice for this job, not because he was partisan, but because you would logically question why the CIA hired a contractor at all to do what its own people could have easily done. There might have been a good answer, but it is a valid question.

Woody

If you are still here, there are some facts about this case. The most important is that a special prosecutor, with a large staff, almost unlimited authority within his scope and millions of dollars could not find sufficient evidence that a crime had been committed re Plame. He found the guy who did it and did not indict him.

Like Plame, I am not a lawyer and so I do not know technically if a crime was committed. Fitzgerald is a lawyer and he does not think he has enough evidence to indict.

The other thing is that you guys are unhappy because the “wrong” person did it. You KNOW who first revealed her name and do not care at all.

Posted by: Jack at March 17, 2007 10:29 AM
Comment #212482

Jack,

I challenge you to find a shred of evidence that I am unhappy about Richard Armitage being exposed as one of Novak’s two sources (the other being Karl Rove, as many suspected all along). I don’t know the guy. He is not one of my buddies. If he goes to jail I will not object in the slightest.

The White House said that anyone involved with the leak would be fired. Karl Rove should be fired. I can’t ask for Armitage to be fired, because he is out of the government.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 17, 2007 11:28 AM
Comment #212484

LO-
It’s a bad analogy, because several facts prevent us from arguing that something problematic didn’t happen.

1) We can’t say the information wasn’t classified. It was.

2) according to General Hayden, we can’t say she wasn’t covert. She was.

3) It doesn’t matter whether she knew her own legal status. According to Fitzgerald, she treated her identity as precisely what it was: classified information. Neither she nor her husband divulged this information while it was secret. She took active measures to protect the secret.

4) We can’t say that Members of the White House were not involved. They were, by even your admission. We know now that the primary leak to Robert Novak was Richard Armitage, then Deputy Secretary of State. His secondary source was Karl Rove, who knowing the information was sensitive (unlike our friend Armitage), nonetheless confirmed it.

5) It is known to those familiar with classified information procedures that if somebody comes up to you and asks about information you know is sensitive, you neither confirm it or deny it, and you tell them as much.

6) We know the administration was going after Wilson even while he was just an anonymous source. The information revealed in the Libby indictment and trial under oath confirms that the matter was discussed long before the NYT published his account of the trip.

7) Scooter Libby was convicted of lying about learning Wilson’s connection to the CIA. He covered it up. Why would he cover it up? Because among other things…

8) He was privy to documents that clearly identified Valerie Wilson’s identity as classified information. If they did any thorough examination of those events, then that information was included. Libby divulged this information to a reporter on June 23, 2003, at least two weeks previous to Mr. Wilson’s op-ed piece and sixteen days before Armitage leaked to Novak.

9)This means that this wasn’t simply Libby and Rove taking advantage of Armitage’s slip of the tongue to leak out information they believed was already known. This was quite intentional on their part. It’s not unlike charging a person with attempted murder despite the fact that somebody else ended up killing the intended victim. Libby and Rove could and did take actions independent of Armitage’s to divulge the information to reporters.

10) The relevant laws were constructed to deal with spies releasing information that was meant to hurt our country. This is probably the major reason for Fitzgerald’s decision not to prosecute- namely, that the legislators who wrote this law, like most people, never thought that administration officials would leak secrets for political advantage, nor that the President would long keep somebody employed who had done so.

In short, it’s not an innocence of misdeeds or culpability which has protected Rove, Libby, and Armitage from prosecution. It’s literally the unthinkable nature of their actions, for an covert agent’s own government to leak her identity
for political gain, for information like that to be handled so carelessly that it would get kicked out to the press as gossip.

Far from exonerating the Bush White House, these circumstances demonstrate how far it has fallen away from common sense definitions of proper behavior as a government.

As for the Novak article?

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. “I will not answer any question about my wife,” Wilson told me.

The point of this disclosure is that it reveals the association between Valerie Wilson and the CIA. That association was what the classified status was meant to protect, because as a NOC agent, she wasn’t supposed to be associated even with our own government.

Once that identity was given up in a national newspaper of record in a nationally syndicated column, the game was up. Millions would read that information, and the security clearance needed to know it would be a moot point.

You have to ask yourself a question at this point: how desperately do you want to defend a breach of national security on your own party’s part? Reject this kind of behavior, so you can reject it on our part. Keep your own party honest so you have the moral high ground to keep us honest from.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2007 11:34 AM
Comment #212485

Paul, you seem to be missing the point. Plame answered nothing because the corrupt democrat party leadership made sure no one could question her on her “under cover” status when she gave her “speach”.

She was afforded similar “protection” in the libby trial. She in no way wants to be forced to answer under oath the question of “where you under cover” at the time of the “leak”.

And we all know why, she wasn’t. So you pretned you don’t get it, and then use her to smear. And we are supposed to pretned we are too dumb to know how you, personally are spinning this?

Put her under oath and allow her to be questioned about her “under cover” status. Even though we all know, that ones been answered which was why no one was accused of committing the crime of outting and undercover agent by the prosecutor.

She and her husband are liars. The administration had an obligation to stand up and denounce these liars who were working to undermine support for the war. The 9-11 commission found that Wilson DID LIE. The information he gave the CIA did indicate that Saddam was most likely fishing around for yellow cake in Africa. The BI-PARTISAN 9-11 commmission came to that conclusion.

If Wilson and Plame had not lauchned a dishonest attack on the office of the presidnet in a time of war this would not have happened. Her “not undercover” status would still only be known to the “in crowd” she and her husband went around acting out in front of.

Posted by: Stephen at March 17, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #212500

Jack,

What a load of crap. By parsing the truth, you actually believe you can sell that load? There was no yellow cake from Niger, Jack. Twist it how you like, there still was no yellow cake. Jeez, you’re further gone than I thought. The sky is blue, no matter how often you want it to be a different color. The damage Cheney and Bush have done the moral pinnings of so many Americans should be a crime.

Posted by: gergle at March 17, 2007 1:31 PM
Comment #212505

Stephen, a key question has to be if anybody actually knew Valerie Plame’s status (whatever that was—a number of involved persons have opined about that aside from the ones you cherry-pick, including those who wrote the statutes and say that she wasn’t covered by them).

Part of being protected by “classifed,” “covert” or any such status of secrecy involves both the CIA and its employees maintaining a level of discretion and secrecy. We know that both Plame and Wilson spoke to Kristoff of the New York Times about Wilson’s Niger trip in May of 03, before Novak’s article appeared, and that at that time Wilson had endorsed John Kerry and was advising his campaign.

Wilson and Plame were shopping Wilson’s “findings” (that were later exposed as false) about Niger to the media long before Novak’s column appeared, and Wilson himself wrote an article that attacked the administration’s justifications for war that appeared in The Nation on the invitation of David Corn all the way back in MARCH. The same David Corn who two days after Novak’s article divulged Plame’s status to a much greater degree than did Novak’s.

If you read Novak’s column, it’s hardly an “attack” or “smear” of Wilson anyway. It’s largely complimentary of Wilson’s past record, and Novak testified that his use of the word “operative” was a figure of speech and that nobody (Armitage) had told him that Plame was in any way secret and was merely a CIA employee. Nobody has even disputed Novak’s use of the word “operative”—Fitgerald and Armitage (his source) certainly never have.

The administration’s “attacks” on Wilson were perfectly justified. Here you had a guy working for the Kerry campaign running around lying about his mission, and who further had not been required by the CIA to sign the routine confidentiality agreement that is standard for intelligence missions, and what’s more, his wife worked at a desk in Washington for the CIA. Asking questions about him was perfectly natural, and we know that journalists themselves were the ones contacting Administration officials to ask how such a thing had happened. It was never that the White House was out there trying to spread this information, and there’s no indication or proof that they were, or that any of them even suspected that Plame might have been anything but a pencil-pusher working for the CIA. After all, she and her husband were hardly trying to keep a low profile.

What really put the information about Plame out there and turned this into a scandal was the article by Wilson’s buddy Corn, a couple days after Novak’s article.

In any case, Wilson, Plame, Armitage, Rove, Libby and everybody else involved could equally be blamed for “leaking” but none of them were. They are all exactly as guilty (meaning innocent, since no charges were brought) of this entire affair.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 17, 2007 1:49 PM
Comment #212506

It’s amazing. I write a simple article presenting facts coming out of the Leak hearing, and Republicans muddy up the waters to confuse the issue.

These are the facts. Plame was under oath and she had been an undercover agent. She swore to it and nobody under oath contradicted her.

She lost her job. Her usefulness to the CIA is shot. Isn’t this further proof?

When will Republicans stop making up stories and face the facts?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at March 17, 2007 2:09 PM
Comment #212510

Paul, you certainly did write a simple article. That much I’ll agree.

She lost her job? Yeah, right. She QUIT her job as anybody might when they’re raking in millions in book and movie deals and hanging out with movie stars.

We should all be lucky enough to be attacked, smeared, and brutalized in the way that this poor Vanity Fair covergirl has endured.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 17, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #212513

Stephen-
Valerie Wilson was under oath, so she may be indicted on perjury if she lied.

While we’re on the subject of perjury, when was Mrs. Wilson around to witness the conversations or behavior of Scooter Libby? She did not testify at that case, because she did not Witness the events that Libby lied about, nor the commission of his crimes. Could you please relate to me just what Mrs. Wilson was supposed to witness to show up at this trial.

Her identity was classified information. She was covert, and you and I and nearly every American did not know what Joe Wilson’s wife really did for a living before the Bush administration told the press.

Previously unknown information released despite the fact that it was supposed to be kept secret. A leak. If you’ve got a better definition, please share it with us.

The reason nobody was charged was that lawmakers did not consider the possibility that people would actually release classified information for political benefit. The law was aimed at those who were selling this country out to foreign powers, not those who were selling it out for their own political benefit. A little oversight I’m sure you’d join us in fixing.

As for you charges that they’re liars? First of all, the 9/11 commission never spoke of this. They were concerned with other things. I think you’re referring to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, or something along those lines.

Funny thing about that report. It’s incomplete, first of all. Second, facts have been released since then, including Mrs. Wilson’s assertion that it was a colleague who suggested the venture based on Mr. Wilson’s past favors for the company, which put into doubt the notion that she just suggested him for the plum assignment to the dry, dusty third-world capital.

Let me speak to the incompleteness. The committee was majority Republican, and steadfastly refused to carry on what was the promised second part of the investigation: the part that investigated the White House to see whether they had politicized intelligence in the lead up to the war. The head of this committee is the same man who went out of his way to attach special comments to a report about the failings of the Administration’s case for war in Iraq to attack a major administration critic, with accusations that somehow the rest of the committee didn’t feel merited ending up in the report.

Concerning Niger, you should step back and consider the following:

1) Regardless of what Wilson did or did not find, the CIA position as of the 2003 SOTU was that the letter was a forgery, and that the 16 words were not based on reliable information. The CIA did in fact remove that reference from the speech, only to have the administration add it back in.

2) What Wilson did find was not consistent with the letter being true. The letter indicated an ongoing relationship where Niger would supply 500 tons of Uranium ore a year. Wilson was told, yes, that an Iraqi official had hinted at talking turkey on Uranium, but that the official steered the talks away. So, in essence, this argued against the Administration line that Saddam was not being successfully contained.

3) Additional information, regarding flooded mines, french ownership, and the stocks being pre-bought indicated that it was a fat chance that Saddam would get a damn thing.

Where did he lie? Lies have to relate information that is untrue. The information he gave was true. Truer, in fact than the White House’s account. The White House said they would lie, and promised consequences for the leaking of classified information. They lied.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2007 2:39 PM
Comment #212514

I’d like to hear more about Novak’s revelation that Valerie Plame tried to contribute $1000 to the Kerry Campaign but couldn’t because her husband already contributed $1000. And her use of the fictious employer to circumvent that fact is what actually got her into the papers.
Also the fact that she is walking in the door of the cia building everyday is an obvious sign that she worked for them and to think otherwise must assume everyone in washington has blinders on. I can’t really believe anyone who qualifies as an undercover or covert employee via. the law in question is going to walk into the building everyday and sit down at a desk.
I’m just a dum hick but even I’m smart enough to know that if I’m trying to keep my job a secret the last thing I would do is go to work and sit down at a desk everyday.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 17, 2007 2:40 PM
Comment #212515

Pardon me: the administration said they would investigate the leak internally and promised consequences for the leaking of classified information.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #212516

This is absolutely incredible !!! Just when it seemed impossible to spin this in any way but the truth, here we are again. It is amazing to read these hate-filled, venom spewing arguments that continue to attack with sheer vindictive efforts to discredit legitimate, and PROVEN situations. There have been dozens of quotes, prepared statements and authenticated articles cited on here and numerous other posts for weeks, yet you still challenge it all and pretend it isn’t so. You’re like a group of schoolyard kids with your fingers in your ears, rocking your heads back and forth and humming loud enough to block the truth out…..so it must not be there……….

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 17, 2007 2:41 PM
Comment #212518

CIP-
She did make a contribution, listing the front company as her employer.

However, it was to Al Gore, and this was only revealed by Novak after she was outed. Additionally, the Wilson’s attended Bush’s inaugural, so, they were not that partisan, if they were willing to let bygones be bygones.

I hardly see how this argues that Valerie Wilson compromised her identity by doing this. If she had put down “CIA”, that would be one thing, but she listed the front company, which would tend to reinforce, rather than erode, the credibility of her cover story.

As for your intelligence, I don’t doubt it.

Anybody can make a mistake. Or two.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2007 2:55 PM
Comment #212519

Sandra, I assume that your remarks are directed toward the Democratic posters here. Of course. They must be.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 17, 2007 2:56 PM
Comment #212520

Sandra,

I just feel sorry for them. It must be hard to accept that they’ve been believing and repeating lies for the past three years. We all know the first stage is Denial…

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 17, 2007 3:02 PM
Comment #212521

LO….so that’s how you guys start your spiraling……..

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 17, 2007 3:26 PM
Comment #212522

You comment on my inteligence and excuse the stupidity of using a cover identity to break laws in something as obvious as a campaign contribution? Who in your mind would be the reciepient of attention as a result of such actions? How can this use of a front, established by the cia as a cover, be condoned?

Let’s let Robert Novak speak out in the media again. Let’s hear his side of the story in a little more detail. He’s said he can’t understand the connection to campaign finance contributions and what this affair has become. He was a witness. Why isn’t this point given the exposure in the media?
You will also have to verify the timeline. I have tried to link to the news article which mentions Valerie Plame as “a cia-employee” but for some reason I get the Page Not Found error.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 17, 2007 3:37 PM
Comment #212528

CIP-
I said I didn’t doubt your intelligence. Meaning I didn’t think you were stupid.

Still you were mistaken, about the candidate, about the nature of the filing.

First, the information hasn’t been deep sixed. It’s still out there.

It wasn’t Kerry. It was Gore. Novak said it was made in 1999, which had her identity not been leaked, would not have revealed the company’s true nature. Plame did not out the company by including its name in an FEC filing. Novak outed both her and subsequently the company by revealing her true employer, the CIA.

When the other governments learned her identity, they probably backtracked through their databases and looked for associations. Given that her cover was employment at Brewster Jennings, how long do you think it would take for those who had that information to put two and two together? The filing only outs the company to the extent that this Administration outed her.

The reason nobody followed that angle up was because the line of causality clearly came from the White House leak and went forward through her associations. It did not start with the filing and go the other way. The filing preserved the cover story, the outing destroyed it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2007 5:03 PM
Comment #212535

The Novak article revealed that Valerie Plame could not legally contribute the 1000$ because her husband had already contributed. And that she had used a cia front company to facilitate her contribution.

Why would she use a front company extablished by the cia to break the law? Her actions in this matter should be under scrutiny.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 17, 2007 6:08 PM
Comment #212537

CIP-
A reporter, running this story down, would find out the following things:

1) FEC filings require the legal name and the name of an employer.

2) She filed, in her own name, the form concerning the donation. She did not hide her married status, including Wilson as her last name. If she had been trying to bamboozle the FEC concerning her status, don’t you think she would have done so under her maiden name?

3) She did not funnel any money through Brewster Jennings, nor did she make a contribution using the company as a front.

4) Those filing these forms must put down their employer. The “facilitation” amounted to her putting the front company’s name under employer. Since that is a requirement, and she was supposed to keep up a cover story up about where she worked, there’s nothing inappropriate about her listing the company as her employer.

The likelihood is that the matter was dropped because the story would have gone nowhere. There’s nothing out of the ordinary to follow for people who aren’t desperate to continue the smear on this unfortunate woman.

I just wonder whether you notice the conflict of interest that Novak has in trying to publish material that trashes Valerie Wilson’s reputation.

It’s undisputed by most that Novak’s leak outed plame, and Novak has undoubtedly taken a lot of grief for that. Could we trust that columnist to remain neutral, and not try to discredit the person who he wronged just to avoid some consequences or convince others that his initial actions were legitimate by trashing her?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2007 6:28 PM
Comment #212538

The front would have been used successfully and no questions would have been asked if the initial contribution had been ligitimate. Her actions resulted in a front business being put under scrutiny.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 17, 2007 6:50 PM
Comment #212542

Stephen,

“Pardon me: the administration said they would investigate the leak internally and promised consequences for the leaking of classified information.”

And the Administration didn’t leak it! It was Richard Armitage and he’s not a Bush ally; nor did he have any reason to “sully” Plame and Wilson. The leaker is Armitage, so if you feel that’s a crime, then go after him. Libby’s crime was a “bad memory” and Rove and Chenney were not indicted. This is a waste of time and “spinning” the (obvious) facts will not make this case anymore meaningful. Move on, folks. By the way Stephen, I noticed you didn’t reply to Iraq War “Surge” source in comment# 212385

AP

“rah, you mean Dick Armitage is the one who reveled her name first”

Correct. My bad. Thanks for clearing that up. I did say Dick Army as the leaker; when I meant Richard Armitage.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 17, 2007 7:00 PM
Comment #212549

CIP-
If the FEC investigated this four years before Valerie Wilson was outed, why did it only kick the bucket afterwards?

If she was trying to act as if she were a single woman, why file under her married name? She was trained as a covert agent. I would think she’d be good enough to make an untraceable donation if she wanted to. Why would she be so lazy?

This seems like a making mountains out of molehills. She was contributing as an individual. Why investigate the company? Get me some actual sources on this. The one I have found paints a different picture than you suggest. I’ve offered evidence, now you offer yours.

Rahdigly-
I think Richard Armitage can safely be considered a part of the Bush adminstration, despite your highly politicized definition of that. He was Deputy Secretary of State. When the president asked Powell to support the war effort, they did. Armitage, despite his misgivings, and those of his boss, was one of the first to give out the case for war to the public.

His reasons for giving out the information, according to reports was that he liked to gossip about politics. He said he was not made aware of the sensitive nature of the information.

Libby’s crime, as I’ve told you before, required the jury to convict him if and only if it could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew that what he was telling people was false. If they had thought that his memory was so bad, they would have acquited him. So, in a manner of speaking, they actually convicted him of having too good of a memory!

Not being indicted does not mean that Rove and Libby did no wrong. They did in fact tell reporters classified information about a covert agent before it was common knowledge. Libby even told a reporter before the identity of the “former ambassador” was even known to the public.

Libby lied about this. Liars lie for a purpose. What was his? We can tell something about that by the shape of his lies.

The essential shape of his lie was to conceal that he had prior knowledge of Valerie Wilson’s identity, and that he told others, including reporters, before it was all common knowledge.

Why would he lie about that in particular? He was either protecting somebody, or protecting himself, or something he found valuable. What could be so politically or legally damaging to somebody else that he was willing to perjure himself and make false statements to the FBI? What could he have done, alternatively, that would pressure this trial lawyer into knowingly breaking the law?

If everything was good and innocent and righteous in the White House, he would have simply told the truth, because the truth would set him and everybody else free! Instead, he lies and covers up.

As for the Surge? You folks have a bad habit of declaring victory before the results are in. The raising of the troop levels in Baghdad would inevitably raise the level of security.

You aren’t thinking fourth dimensionally, though, as Doc Brown from Back to the Future would say. First, the Surge has only begun. It’s kind of early to suggest that it will end the war with victory. You haven’t even finished getting the troops there.

How do you plan on sustaining all this? You’re sending wounded soldiers back to the front, your personnel problems are running so deep. If your plan is to bring about peace, you’ll need to stay there for longer than even Bush has suggested.

Additionally, even with our sorry readiness, experts in the military are saying we don’t have near enough troops. Worse yet, I believe that to get all these troops in Baghdad, we’re taking them from other areas. What does this mean for the security of those places?

In short, I’ve got more questions right now than your side seems to have answers.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 17, 2007 8:43 PM
Comment #212558

I shuttered at the thought of how easy it must have been to use a document and a 1/2 hour news cast to malign a person before the internet had made itself known.

This episode would never have seen the light of day if a true security risk to ongoing operations in the cia were exposed. This Novak news article would be a non-event, front groups would evaporate and a dumb look would replace everything associated with it.

That didn’t happen.

I assume that since this erupted it is not harmfull, important or moot in any way, other than to malign this administration yet again.
And another successful brainwashing of the public is still in progress. Very little fact is being presented.

Define the term “Covert” in this instance. Explain the use of the word in the 1982 law that is in focus.

She had her own responsibilities to adhere to. To be called a Duck you have to act like a Duck.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 17, 2007 10:18 PM
Comment #212560

You also must be a Duck.

Posted by: catastrophyinprogress at March 17, 2007 10:35 PM
Comment #212569

CIP-
She kept her responsibilities. You want her investigated for supposedly breaking some campaign finance law, according to this column you can’t even properly source. You even got the Name of the Democrat campaigning wrong.

If an investigation by the FEC had blown Brewster Jenning’s wide open we’d have really heard about it by now.

I recall during the invasion, I’d tune into news on the invasion, hear about these wonderful finds, only to go looking for them and not find them at all. I thought it very odd.

Later on, I’d find out that many of the supposed finds turned out to be bogus. It’s essentially what lead me to dump FOXNews as a reliable source.

Perhaps the piece got retracted, as the WMD pieces got retracted on FOXNews’ site. Google, see if you find it, and bring it here.

But unless you have hard evidence, I don’t see the reason to believe such a convoluted chain of causality. I mean, does it really take four years for people to investigate simple $1000 donations? Why does it all unravel at just about the time Plame is outed?

If I were writing this as a story, I’d say dump the FEC subplot, people wouldn’t buy it anyways. All other things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. The FEC theory, without additional backup, doesn’t have the clean profile of the Administration-oriented theory.

As for Covert, I’d define it simply the way governments do: What covert activities? I don’t see this government engaged in covert activities.

All joking aside, that’s how you define it: Plausible Deniability. Covert activities are what are not supposed to be acknowledge as our own. If Valerie Wilson was out on assignment, and got caught, The Ameican governmen would not negotiate for her release, nor rush in to take her from the gallows.

The 1982 law basically requires that a person know a number of things or intend them before the law kicks in.

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States,[…]

Now, since Armitage says he didn’t know she was a covert agent, how do you prosecute him under this law? The others could find refuge in all the “knowing” this, and “knowing” that parts of the law, as illustrated above in the excerpt. Did you know this was sensitive, that they were covert, that the CIA was taking affirmative measures. What would you believe wereaffirmative measures?

It’s a poorly written law, in short. The Espionage act, which covers classified secrets, is meant to deal with those who sell us out to our enemies. It’s not set up to handle those who would leak identities for partisan reasons.

That’s likely why nobody got thrown in jail for the leak itself, I’d imagine, some immaculate manner.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2007 1:23 AM
Comment #212573

Stephen, you either have the patience of a saint, or totally get off on seeing your work in print… ;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 18, 2007 1:46 AM
Comment #212580

Stephen,

I have to agree with Sandra. This donation argument is totally bogus. The “nobody was prosecuted for the leak” argument is bogus too. Just because there nobody was prosecuted for murder doesn’t mean there ain’t a stinkin’ corpse lying on the table.

CIP is obviously going to stick to his guns, even if his arguments are crap.

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 18, 2007 8:38 AM
Comment #212582

Sandra-
I see many of these talking points that get put out, and my BS detector immediately goes off.

Some people say the Wilsons outed themselves. But this would be literal career suicide for one of them, just to oppose the president!

Some say they deserved it, for their politics, for perceived dishonesty, for any number of claimed offenses. But how does “deserve” enter into it? First, it’s national security. To violate that is to punish the country along with these people.

Second, it’s the rule of law. If they really wanted to punish these people for misconduct, they had administrative means of doing so. If they hadn’t committed any misconduct covered by that, nobody had any business touching them.

Third, the criteria of “deserves” is too subjective. A very partisan person could justify terrible wrongs in the name of their politics, a paranoid person could easily persecute the innocent, and a corrupt person could retaliate against those who blow the whistle on him or her. When behavior this extreme can be justified on what somebody thinks others deserves, then the rule of law is undermined.

I want there to be limits to what these people can do to gain and keep power. I see all the rhetoric justifying such behavior as a dangerous kind of deference to illegitimately wielded power. I can’t keep people from apologizing for such corruption, but I can, to the extent that the facts will let me, make it difficult for people to gain credibility for such rationalizations.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2007 8:49 AM
Comment #212592

Stephen,
my comment wasn’t meant to condemn, but to commend you.
You are citing and directly linking to information that is totally objective, referring to instances where various people have sworn on the bible to tell the truth, but even that isn’t accepted by some die-hard neocons. Good grief, “their” leader is the greatest violator of truth to come along in a long time!!! How frikkin’ hypocrytical can one get????
Just as an aside……..MSN this morning ran this short segment about a new opponent to Wikipedia. It is called “Conservapedia”, and it’s a hoot. Talk about leaning far enough to fall down ! Check out their definition of Democrat and Liberal……

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 18, 2007 12:42 PM
Comment #212610

Sandra,

Stephen always remains level headed. He’s not given to outbursts like I am. Stephen could, if he wished, pursue a career in politics.

Stephen Daugherty would be an asset to any political party. Hopefully the Democratic party.

OTOH, I tend to use the F-bomb too often when I get angry.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 18, 2007 3:58 PM
Comment #212611

Sandra, are you kidding? It’s “totally objective” information when somebody puts a hand on the bible and swears to tell the truth? Have we learned nothing in this case? The only wrong-doing found so far relates to NOT telling the truth when giving sworn testimony, so if sworn testimony is the “objective truth” it seems that you’re picking and choosing what “objective truth” you wish to believe. And in every case that’s the “objective truth” provided by Democratic testimony and Democratic spin. Talk about hypocricy.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at March 18, 2007 4:00 PM
Comment #212619

LO, what I was actually referring to,as far as objectivity, were all of the sites, articles, statements and etc, that Stephen has referred to.
So, it’s only objective if YOU believe it???
KansasDem….thanks. I have just paid far closer attention to these last 3 or 4 of Stephens posts, and have watched him time and time and time again, repeat information, without appearing to have become frustrated or lost his cool in any way. I envy him….also I’ve only seen you get a little sideways once, and it was amazing you lasted that long.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 18, 2007 6:04 PM
Comment #212644

LO-
If my facts are wrong, please correct me. Eyewitness testimony can be misleading, especially when people deceive with it, but other facts can corroborate or knock down the stories. You have visitor logs, notes made on newspapers, and other facts to back up the accounts of certain witnesses. Also, most people take the threat of perjury charges seriously, so testimony usually yields some truth.

The trick is, we Democrats have gathered together a convincing pattern of evidence, regarding the doings and the dealings of this administration. That’s how we got power back.

The Republicans have gotten too dependent on old shopworn defenses, claims of liberal bias in the media, and political partisanship on the part of any person who dares to contradict their leaders. Y’all don’t rely on facts and logical arguments to make your points. The major movement for Democrats behind the scenes can be traced to sites like Talking Points Memo, and Reporting like that in the Frontline Documentary series. In short, much of the push has come from investigative reporting and analysis.

Republicans are too reliant on ideologicaly friendly sources. Such sources are unwilling to offer serious critiques of the GOP and the right. Democrats are willing to take the bruising and accept that the media will not always break in their favor on stories. It helps you keep way more level-headed than the ideological flattery that passes for news on many conservative sites and stations nowadays.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 18, 2007 10:53 PM
Comment #212656

CIP,

Argue this. I have a friend called Duck. He is neither a duck, nor looks like one. I’m quite sure you are convinced your right, it’s just no one else is convinced by your contorted logic.

The hearings of late made it crystal clear for anyone wanting to see the truth of why Plame was outed.

I certainly hope that many Republicans will spend their time trying to defend the indefensible. It makes me laugh. In Texas, Bush and company are seen as plain and simple liars. Were just simple folk down here. We don’t need to rifle thruogh the back pages trying to find shreds of evidence of his decency. You can’t sell that sack of fertilizer to his cowboy base. Hell, even Delay is is calling him out. If that ain’t a black pot. I mean if the kettle is black… we won’t be lied to anymore.:)

Posted by: gergle at March 19, 2007 1:02 AM
Comment #212672

Stephen,

“If they had thought that his memory was so bad, they would have acquited him. So, in a manner of speaking, they actually convicted him of having too good of a memory!”


No, that’s why this is a “political witchhunt”; they did (indeed) convict this guy for having a bad memory. This trial was a joke; it’s a shame that some are so partisan that they’ll try hard as they can to use this as (yet) another attack at Bush, meanwhile our enemies are out there trying to win wars that they are (inevitably) going to lose.


“As for the Surge? You folks have a bad habit of declaring victory before the results are in. The raising of the troop levels in Baghdad would inevitably raise the level of security.”


Wrong! Read the comment again. The source and myself didn’t say anything about “declaring victory”, we just said the surge is working. Funny how defensive your comments were; you’d think that this source would (at least) bring a little positiveness to the War situation. Especially, since many of you have commented that the MSM is unbias and they are only reporting bad news b/c that’s all there is. Well, here’s good news for a change and you, one, didn’t even acknowledge it when I brought it up and, two, changed the context of my comment and the source’s to “declaring victory” when it really was about Baghdad being safer and the surge is working. Oh well, it’s definitely good news and the “surge” isn’t even in full swing…

Posted by: rahdigly at March 19, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #212691

… meanwhile, in Iraq, still no WMDs found. No nukes. Nothing.
But a civil war.

Sure, what really matters is does she was or not a CIA covert. Let’s focus on this question only, please. Because it matter. A lot. Way more than what his husband was saying about Bush Iraq WMD claims…

Yeah, let’s stay on legal playfield, that’s so fun.


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 19, 2007 12:54 PM
Comment #212695

Rahdigly:

I get it. “It’s working” means absolutely nothing. It’s a platitude. It’s like describing an ugly date as someone with a nice personality.

Thanks for reminding us of the correct interpretation of Republican double-speak.

Posted by: gergle at March 19, 2007 1:09 PM
Post a comment