The Grand Jury CIA Leak Investigation

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/31/2005 12:34:11 PM · #51

First of all, RonB, please explain the relevance (to the leak investigation) of the fact that Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the trip to Niger. You right-wingers have been implying something sinister about this from the beginning, the meaning of which I have failed to grasp. You have also implied that this fact (of the recommendation) somehow justifies the outing of a CIA agent, a justification I fail to grasp.

Second, Plame may now be reporting to CIA headquarters, but we don't know that she was doing that before her cover was blown. Seems to me you're assuming quite a bit there.

Third, you may have neighbors whose lives you know very little about, but I daresay you probably know what your sister or brother or mother or father do for a living. Valerie Plame's own immediate family members, as well as Joe Wilson's immediate family members, and their closest friends, didn't know the truth about her identity.

Third, regardless of whether a crime can be proved based on the letter of the law, isn't this, as GeneralE said, "morally reprehensible behavior and a violation of the public trust to which these people swore an oath"? What did Mr. Bush say the other day after the indictment press conference? Something like "I've got a job to do, and that job is to protect the American people." Right? Well, it seems to me that's exactly the kind of work Valerie Plame was doing in her capacity as an agent for the CIA working on weapons of mass destruction issues. From the 60 Minutes interview: "Valerie was working on important national security issues, like keeping tabs on nuclear material and the worldâ��s top nuclear scientists. She is an expert on weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush cared one iota about protecting the American people, or at the very least keeping his word when he said he'd fire anyone involved in this affair, he'd examine all the evidence the prosecutor has gathered and at the very least get rid of Rove and anyone else connected to the outing of Valerie Plame, regardless of whether they can be convicted of a crime. Instead he, like you, relies on legalisms and technicalities to absolve the guilty parties and avoid responsibility.

The stench of hypocrisy is beyond belief.

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 12:40:42.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/31/2005 12:40:14 PM · #52

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Valerie Plame was working as an undercover CIA agent in nonofficial cover, as opposed to official cover. That means that she was not connected with a specific official department or agency of the government and did not have protection of a diplomatic passport. The role taken on by a NOC agent is with an organization that does not have governmental ties, and this seems to be the case with Valerie Plame.

She was working as an employee for a front company named Brewster Jennings and Associates, which the CIA has admitted to be a front company for their operations. This appears to be the definition of uncover agent that Patrick Fitzgerald used when he said on Friday:
"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

And exactly what, in Fitzgerald's statement would any intelligent person infer to mean that Plame was "undercover"? I don't think that I, or anyone else, has atttempted to deny that she worked for the CIA - only that she was "undercover". And the fact that it was "classified" information does not carry with it the imprimature that she was "undercover". He says that her identity was not "widely" known outside the intelligence community. If not "widely" known, then to what extent WAS it known - since his disclaimer implies that it WAS known outside the intelligence community, at least to some extent? And what is this "other life" she had? Anyone with a car could have followed her from her home to CIA headquarters any day of the week. Is is common for "undercover" agents to commute to CIA headquarters every day? How long could someone expect to keep their "cover" if they did that? If she commuted to CIA headquarters openly, doesn't that action indicate a failure to meet the requirement that the agency take "affirmative actions" to protect her identity as required by the 1982 law?
And your claim that it "appears to be the definition" of an undercover agent that Fitzgerald used is insufficient to discount the data that I posted - which is not just conjecture. Those are facts, contained in official government documents.

******
I'm not sure why you would discount Fitzgerald's use of the word classified as meaning Plame's undercover status. According to your post above, the definition of classified is:
"(1) The term â��classified informationâ�� means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security."

Fitzgerald must have found from his own investigation, that her employment in the late 90's for Brewster Jennings & Associates (front company for the CIA) was as an undercover agent, and that this fell under the required employment timeline of within 5 years.

All the facts of the case have yet to be revealed, but I would venture to say that those outside the intelligence community who knew Plame's identity were high ranking government officials, such as Cheney and Libby. The other life that Fitzgerald refers to must be her life as undercover agent working for Brewster Jennings, probably outside the US. What else could he be referring to? Was Plame driving to CIA headquarters when she was working for Brewster Jennings?

Why, if Plame's identity was NOT classified as an undercover agent, did Libby feel the need to lie about how he obtained this information? He stated it came from Tim Russert, when, in fact, his notes show that it came from Vice President Cheney? Did Libby inform the investigators and grand jury that he was under the impression that Plame's identity was not undercover and classified?

10/31/2005 01:03:28 PM · #53

Originally posted by GeneralE:

RonB, do you care that one of our high-placed officials disclosed the identity of a CIA agent for partisan political purposes, clearly undermining our democratic principles?

Yes, I do. In fact, it is my OPINION that Libby DID, in fact, pass on ( disclose if you will ) the identity of a CIA agent for partisan political purposes. Whether in so doing he violated the law is a different story entirely.
On the other hand, it is also my OPINION ( since he has not yet been tried and found guilty ) that he DID provide false statements and obstructed justice ( I'm not sure about the perjury charges ).

But, then, I have never argued otherwise.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Do actually approve of this behavior, or just enjoy arguing definitions to see whether or not it rises to the level of a Federal crime?

No, I do NOT approve of this behaviour. No, I do NOT enjoy arguing definitions - but find that if I do NOT, then those who hate Bush and his administration will only be encouraged to post MORE false accusations against him and his administration.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Do you care that people in this Administration lie to the Congress and the American people?

Yes, I do. See above.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

10/31/2005 01:12:21 PM · #54

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Do actually approve of this behavior, or just enjoy arguing definitions to see whether or not it rises to the level of a Federal crime?

Originally posted by RonB:

Oh, I see. So you go out of your way to defend the indefensible, and in the process call into question your own integrity, so that IN THE EVENT THAT someone makes a false accusation you can defend against it?

Come on, man, get real!

10/31/2005 01:26:12 PM · #55

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

You right-wingers have been implying something sinister about this from the beginning, the meaning of which I have failed to grasp. You have also implied that this fact (of the recommendation) somehow justifies the outing of a CIA agent, a justification I fail to grasp.

The right wing used to say she sent him, which would mean he lied about who sent him. But the truth is too far out and they can't say it anymore. So they continue to say "recommended", but it has no meaning in this case other than to attempt to confuse people or to discredit Wilson.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Second, Plame may now be reporting to CIA headquarters, but we don't know that she was doing that before her cover was blown. Seems to me you're assuming quite a bit there.

In the video interview with ex CIA Larry Johnson (people never click on my links.. I am sick of repeating myself), he explains that he also drove into their for work and he was undercover till the day he quit.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Third, regardless of whether a crime can be proved based on the letter of the law, isn't this, as GeneralE said, "morally reprehensible behavior and a violation of the public trust to which these people swore an oath"? What did Mr. Bush say the other day after the indictment press conference? Something like "I've got a job to do, and that job is to protect the American people." Right? Well, it seems to me that's exactly the kind of work Valerie Plame was doing in her capacity as an agent for the CIA working on weapons of mass destruction issues. From the 60 Minutes interview: "Valerie was working on important national security issues, like keeping tabs on nuclear material and the worldâ��s top nuclear scientists. She is an expert on weapons of mass destruction." If Mr. Bush cared one iota about protecting the American people, or at the very least keeping his word when he said he'd fire anyone involved in this affair, he'd examine all the evidence the prosecutor has gathered and at the very least get rid of Rove and anyone else connected to the outing of Valerie Plame, regardless of whether they can be convicted of a crime. Instead he, like you, relies on legalisms and technicalities to absolve the guilty parties and avoid responsibility.

Yes and here is a link to a clip of that 60 minutes analysis: Here.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

The stench of hypocrisy is beyond belief.

It's not beyond the beief of what this administration will do. But it is indeed some wonderful hypocrisy. Especially coming from the group who ran in 2000 on the restoring honor and dignity to the Whitehouse line.

George W. Bush, 10/15/01:
"Let me say a few words about important values we must demonstrate while all of us serve in government. First, we must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right."

Well he had the right idea...

And his dad obviously doesnâ��t approve, Bush Sr's take on leaking
"I have nothing but contempt and anger by those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are in my view the most insidious of traders."

I wonder if the real Christians around the country who voted for Bush because they thought he would uphold moral standards are regretting it now.

...that is, if they have access to or learn real news. Fox News bundits and show hosts have been calling callers who say something against bush names; like Sean Hannity telling a caller "You sound like a nut case". Or when Britt Hume told a black man on his show after he made negative comments about bush "someone needs to hose you down".

And one of my favorite talking head pieces of shit on TV, Tucker Carlson;
"I think politically [the Bush administration] did very much the wrong thing by saying nice things about Patrick Fitzgerald some months ago -- "he's a man of integrity," "he's a good guy," "we have complete confidence he's going do the right thing," etc., etc. -- making it now almost impossible for the White House, even on background, to attack the guy."

They are so so sickening.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/31/2005 01:28:27 PM · #56

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Do actually approve of this behavior, or just enjoy arguing definitions to see whether or not it rises to the level of a Federal crime?

Originally posted by RonB:
No, I do NOT approve of this behaviour. No, I do NOT enjoy arguing definitions - but find that if I do NOT, then those who hate Bush and his administration will only be encouraged to post MORE false accusations against him and his administration.

Oh, I see. So you go out of your way to defend the indefensible, and in the process call into question your own integrity, so that IN THE EVENT THAT someone makes a false accusation you can defend against it?

Come on, man, get real!

LOL thats rich. RonB, stop posting here to defend those who don't deserve it for free; go work at Fox News and make a killing!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

10/31/2005 01:28:51 PM · #57

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
RonB, do you care that one of our high-placed officials disclosed the identity of a CIA agent for partisan political purposes, clearly undermining our democratic principles?

Yes, I do. In fact, it is my OPINION that Libby DID, in fact, pass on ( disclose if you will ) the identity of a CIA agent for partisan political purposes. Whether in so doing he violated the law is a different story entirely.
On the other hand, it is also my OPINION ( since he has not yet been tried and found guilty ) that he DID provide false statements and obstructed justice ( I'm not sure about the perjury charges ).

But, then, I have never argued otherwise.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Do actually approve of this behavior, or just enjoy arguing definitions to see whether or not it rises to the level of a Federal crime?

No, I do NOT approve of this behaviour. No, I do NOT enjoy arguing definitions - but find that if I do NOT, then those who hate Bush and his administration will only be encouraged to post MORE false accusations against him and his administration.

If, in your opinion, Libby DID disclose the identity, and if, in your opinion, Libby DID obstruct justice, then how can you consider complaints about this "by those who hate Bush and his administration" to be "FALSE accusations"?

R.

bcoble

Olympus E-300 EVOLT

Olympus 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 Zuiko Digital ED

10/31/2005 01:34:08 PM · #58

All I can say about the wasted monies on this matter is that it is President Bush! not Mr Bush or just Bush. At least have respect to the title.

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 13:35:58.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/31/2005 01:41:27 PM · #59

I don't see what the Republicans are so uptight about anyway. Even if Libby gets convicted and sentenced to the max, big deal, what's the worst that could happen??? He gets sent to Abu Ghraib, gets to meet with all those neat secret agent types, gets womens' underwear thrown over his head, pyramid orgies, doin it doggie style, titilating sexual positions, electrovibratory penile stimulation, etc. Sure sounds like a great time to me, so loosen up you neocons, it can't get better than that.

Who knows, maybe Libby will be rooming with that Texas light-switch and all around holy man, Tom the (corporate) Lay. Think of all the celebrity that will come their way when those travel photos hit the tabloids!!! Club Fed, baby, here we come!

Have fun, Scooter, and don't forget to write.

10/31/2005 01:55:46 PM · #60

As if there wasnt enough evidence posted here already, I'll post more; More conversations with ex CIA Larry Johnson

Also to note on the 1st time a sitting White House official has been indicted in 130 years, one has to ask themselves why?

Was it just because Libby was that bad and the administration had no idea just how bad so as to fire him before he was indicted? If that is the case, then why did Bush after the indictment talk about his service to America instead of talking about what a piece of shit he is to lie to not only HIM but to the grand jury on this very serious matter?

Or, did Bush not even ask? Or did Bush already know?

In the past when an official is in trouble, they would get fired before indictment. Bush was either clueless, or in on it.

This case is far from over.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/31/2005 01:57:40 PM · #61

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
RonB, do you care that one of our high-placed officials disclosed the identity of a CIA agent for partisan political purposes, clearly undermining our democratic principles?

Yes, I do. In fact, it is my OPINION that Libby DID, in fact, pass on ( disclose if you will ) the identity of a CIA agent for partisan political purposes. Whether in so doing he violated the law is a different story entirely.
On the other hand, it is also my OPINION ( since he has not yet been tried and found guilty ) that he DID provide false statements and obstructed justice ( I'm not sure about the perjury charges ).

But, then, I have never argued otherwise.

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Do actually approve of this behavior, or just enjoy arguing definitions to see whether or not it rises to the level of a Federal crime?

No, I do NOT approve of this behaviour. No, I do NOT enjoy arguing definitions - but find that if I do NOT, then those who hate Bush and his administration will only be encouraged to post MORE false accusations against him and his administration.

If, in your opinion, Libby DID disclose the identity, and if, in your opinion, Libby DID obstruct justice, then how can you consider complaints about this "by those who hate Bush and his administration" to be "FALSE accusations"?

R.

If I am correct in assuming that the "this" in the portion of your question that says "complaints about THIS" refers to a) Libby disclosing Plame's identity, and b) Libby obstructing justice, then your charge that I "consider complaints about "this" to be false accusations, is a question containing a non-factual predicate. I have NEVER complained about the accusations mentioned, namely a) Libby's disclosure of Plame's identity, and b) Libby's obstruction of justice. If you can find a post in which I complained about those accusations, or referred to them as "false", please provide the thread name, and the date/time when I did so.

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/31/2005 02:11:34 PM · #62

Originally posted by bear_music:

This thread was started on the premise that "false and unbacked statements were made" in another thread.

Ron has responded in this thread four times. Three times were specifically to made to defend his statements made in that other thread, and to refute that they were either false or unbacked. (Which, IMO, he has done beyond a doubt.)

The fourth, the one you responded to, was the only one in which he actually stated any opinion or possition on the issue of Libby's guilt or innocence. But, he specifically address the charges which have been filed against him.

Ironically, at least as far as the actual charges against Libby, he actually agreed with those who have repeatedly belittled, slandered and besmirched him throughout this thread. (I'm not saying or implying that you've done so.) But to make any arguement that remotely supports the Bush administration by any stretch is a sin to most who have posted here.

The "false accusations", I believe, are outside anything that Ron has taken the time to respond to in this particular thread.

10/31/2005 02:12:41 PM · #63

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Valerie Plame was working as an undercover CIA agent in nonofficial cover, as opposed to official cover. That means that she was not connected with a specific official department or agency of the government and did not have protection of a diplomatic passport. The role taken on by a NOC agent is with an organization that does not have governmental ties, and this seems to be the case with Valerie Plame.

She was working as an employee for a front company named Brewster Jennings and Associates, which the CIA has admitted to be a front company for their operations. This appears to be the definition of uncover agent that Patrick Fitzgerald used when he said on Friday:
"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

And exactly what, in Fitzgerald's statement would any intelligent person infer to mean that Plame was "undercover"? I don't think that I, or anyone else, has atttempted to deny that she worked for the CIA - only that she was "undercover". And the fact that it was "classified" information does not carry with it the imprimature that she was "undercover". He says that her identity was not "widely" known outside the intelligence community. If not "widely" known, then to what extent WAS it known - since his disclaimer implies that it WAS known outside the intelligence community, at least to some extent? And what is this "other life" she had? Anyone with a car could have followed her from her home to CIA headquarters any day of the week. Is is common for "undercover" agents to commute to CIA headquarters every day? How long could someone expect to keep their "cover" if they did that? If she commuted to CIA headquarters openly, doesn't that action indicate a failure to meet the requirement that the agency take "affirmative actions" to protect her identity as required by the 1982 law?
And your claim that it "appears to be the definition" of an undercover agent that Fitzgerald used is insufficient to discount the data that I posted - which is not just conjecture. Those are facts, contained in official government documents.

******
I'm not sure why you would discount Fitzgerald's use of the word classified as meaning Plame's undercover status. According to your post above, the definition of classified is:
"(1) The term â��classified informationâ�� means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security."

You pulled that definition out of context. The introductory phrase immediately preceeding that definition says:

For the purposes of this subchapter:

Meaning that it is not THE definition of "classified" for ALL government refrences, only for references in THIS subchapter. Note further, that when the word "classified" is used in the subchapter, it is in one qualification and is connected to other qualifications by the word AND, not by the word OR. Hence, unless ALL qualifications are true, no violation is evident.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Fitzgerald must have found from his own investigation, that her employment in the late 90's for Brewster Jennings & Associates (front company for the CIA) was as an undercover agent, and that this fell under the required employment timeline of within 5 years.

Again with the conjecture. Can't you quote facts to support your argument?

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

All the facts of the case have yet to be revealed, but I would venture to say that those outside the intelligence community who knew Plame's identity were high ranking government officials, such as Cheney and Libby. The other life that Fitzgerald refers to must be her life as undercover agent working for Brewster Jennings, probably outside the US. What else could he be referring to?

More conjecture.

Originally posted by Oluzi:

Was Plame driving to CIA headquarters when she was working for Brewster Jennings?

Why, if Plame's identity was NOT classified as an undercover agent, did Libby feel the need to lie about how he obtained this information? He stated it came from Tim Russert, when, in fact, his notes show that it came from Vice President Cheney? Did Libby inform the investigators and grand jury that he was under the impression that Plame's identity was not undercover and classified?

I couldn't state the answers to any of those questions without it being mere conjecture.

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 14:31:45.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/31/2005 02:12:49 PM · #64

Originally posted by bcoble:

All I can say about the wasted monies on this matter is that it is President Bush! not Mr Bush or just Bush. At least have respect to the title.

Why, he doesn't.

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 14:32:26.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

10/31/2005 02:19:38 PM · #65

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

I assumed the statement was intended in some way to discredit Wilson, but I'd like to hear the explanation, from one of the people who keeps repeating it, what relevance it has to anything in this case.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Second, Plame may now be reporting to CIA headquarters, but we don't know that she was doing that before her cover was blown. Seems to me you're assuming quite a bit there.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Thanks, Mad, for posting that link and the others. It was the only link you posted that I failed to open yesterday... just so you know someone IS reading your stuff! :)

Nikon D200

10/31/2005 02:31:16 PM · #66

Originally posted by bcoble:

All I can say about the wasted monies on this matter is that it is President Bush! not Mr Bush or just Bush. At least have respect to the title.

According to "Miss Manners Rescues Civilization," page 70, it is perfectly acceptable and correct to address the President of the United States as "Mr." just as you address his wife as "Mrs." There is no official established protocol regarding the Presidential honorific. Former presidents are addressed as "Mr." or by the title (ie. Governor) that they held previous to their presidency.

Addressing the President in written salutation and in person as "Mr. President" is also considered respectful.

On a side note, it is also not considered impolite to address the Queen of England as "Madam" or "ma'am."

Edit: typo

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 14:32:15.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/31/2005 02:33:46 PM · #67

Originally posted by A1275:

Originally posted by bcoble:
All I can say about the wasted monies on this matter is that it is President Bush! not Mr Bush or just Bush. At least have respect to the title.

According to "Miss Manners Rescues Civilization," page 70, it is perfectly acceptable and correct to address the President of the United States as "Mr." just as you address his wife as "Mrs." There is no official established protocol regarding the Presidential honorific. Former presidents are addressed as "Mr." or by the title (ie. Governor) that they held previous to their presidency.

He's a citizen, not royalty. He's lucky right now if "Mister" is the worst they call him.

Just to clarify, I don't really think any President since Eisenhower and Kennedy have "respected the title" -- standing up before the Congress and the American people and lying does not equate with respect for the position, however much it might uphold recent traditional practice.

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 14:34:13.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/31/2005 02:46:54 PM · #68

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Eisenhower

What a great quote. Man what happened to the state of our presidency.. :(

ScottK

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

10/31/2005 02:57:46 PM · #69

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The right wing used to say she sent him, which would mean he lied about who sent him. But the truth is too far out and they can't say it anymore. So they continue to say "recommended", but it has no meaning in this case other than to attempt to confuse people or to discredit Wilson.

I assumed the statement was intended in some way to discredit Wilson, but I'd like to hear the explanation, from one of the people who keeps repeating it, what relevance it has to anything in this case.

How about the fact that Wilson's claim that his wife was not involved in his selection for the assignment is therefore false, and a lie, and therefore casts doubt on the truth of other statements and of his report.

And MM, that's the first I've ever seen that accusation, either from the right or against it. Can you show some evidence that this claim was made by the right?

10/31/2005 02:58:29 PM · #70

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
You right-wingers have been implying something sinister about this from the beginning, the meaning of which I have failed to grasp. You have also implied that this fact (of the recommendation) somehow justifies the outing of a CIA agent, a justification I fail to grasp.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
The right wing used to say she sent him, which would mean he lied about who sent him. But the truth is too far out and they can't say it anymore. So they continue to say "recommended", but it has no meaning in this case other than to attempt to confuse people or to discredit Wilson.

I assumed the statement was intended in some way to discredit Wilson, but I'd like to hear the explanation, from one of the people who keeps repeating it, what relevance it has to anything in this case.

Wilson did not have the credentials that would have made him qualified to be sent on such a mission, hence his "findings" should not have been given the degree of credibility that would normally have been given to someone charged with intelligence gathering. After he published his Op-Ed in the NY Times, many believe that the administration attempted to discredit his findings by disclosure of the fact that he was recommended by his wife, a CIA employee. Novak himself, wondered why Wilson was given the task, and, as he stated, "I used it ( Plame's name and identity ) in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission." ( ref: here
It is relevant to this case because if Novak hadn't revealed her name ( since neither Cooper nor Miller did ), there wouldn't BE a case.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

10/31/2005 03:07:40 PM · #71

Originally posted by RonB:

Wilson did not have the credentials that would have made him qualified to be sent on such a mission ...

Sez who? Please document and substantiate this statement.

Mr. Wilson was a former Ambassador to Africa and had prior familiarity with the people, places and things involved, which always made it seem to me that he was especially suited to this mission. Apparently the intelligence professionals in the CIA who actually decided to send him on this mission thought so too.

Oh, and how about referring to him as Ambasador Wilson, or at least Mr. Wilson?

Message edited by author 2005-10-31 15:09:16.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/31/2005 03:17:54 PM · #72

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by bear_music:

If, in your opinion, Libby DID disclose the identity, and if, in your opinion, Libby DID obstruct justice, then how can you consider complaints about this "by those who hate Bush and his administration" to be "FALSE accusations"?

R.

If I am correct in assuming that the "this" in the portion of your question that says "complaints about THIS" refers to a) Libby disclosing Plame's identity, and b) Libby obstructing justice, then your charge that I "consider complaints about "this" to be false accusations, is a question containing a non-factual predicate. I have NEVER complained about the accusations mentioned, namely a) Libby's disclosure of Plame's identity, and b) Libby's obstruction of justice. If you can find a post in which I complained about those accusations, or referred to them as "false", please provide the thread name, and the date/time when I did so.

You've got me completely confused now, Ron. I'm just going on the basis of the quoted statements of yours. A, B, and C. They seem inconsistent, at least outside the overall cojtext of these very long threads. If I've misrepresented you I'm sorry, but I just posted a quote from you and said the 3 components didn't add up for me.

R.