View Full Version : Pardon Scooter Libby
Exsubmariner
10-31-2005, 11:12 PM
I think this is a foregone conclusion, provided the Prosecuter can get a conviction.
Definately looking forward to the Executive Privlege battle getting Cheney to testify.
I say he should be pardoned so he can out more Democrat CIA political operatives. Much the same way as Mack Rich was pardoned by Clinton so he could be free to make more illegal oil deals with embargoed countries /images/graemlins/shocked.gif.
Very pleased with the timing the Bush Administration had with picking Alito to overshadow the indictment. Nice. Bet they had him fingered before Miers withdrew.
X
Colonel Kataffy
11-01-2005, 01:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Nice. Bet they had him fingered before Miers withdrew.
[/ QUOTE ]
It would have been nicer still if they had just nomintated him in the first place.
Its a shame posner can't get on the court though. He's fascinating.
Bush should pardon him for writing this book. Scooter is not only an accused liar he is also a sicko.
*******************************
It took Libby more than twenty years to write “The Apprentice,” which is set in a remote Japanese province in the winter of 1903.
Libby does not shy from the scatological. The narrative makes generous mention of lice, snot, drunkenness, bad breath, torture, urine, “turds,” armpits, arm hair, neck hair, pubic hair, pus, boils, and blood (regular and menstrual). One passage goes, “At length he walked around to the deer’s head and, reaching into his pants, struggled for a moment and then pulled out his penis. He began to piss in the snow just in front of the deer’s nostrils.”
When it comes to depicting scenes of romance, however, Libby can evoke a sort of musty sweetness; while one critic deemed “The Apprentice” “reminiscent of Rembrandt,” certain passages can better be described as reminiscent of Penthouse Forum. There is, for example, Yukiko’s seduction of the inexperienced apprentice:
He could feel her heart beneath his hands. He moved his hands slowly lower still and she arched her back to help him and her lower leg came against his. He held her breasts in his hands. Oddly, he thought, the lower one might be larger. . . . One of her breasts now hung loosely in his hand near his face and he knew not how best to touch her.
At age ten the madam put the child in a cage with a bear trained to couple with young girls so the girls would be frigid and not fall in love with their patrons. They fed her through the bars and aroused the bear with a stick when it seemed to lose interest.
Book Review of the Apprentice by Scooter Libby (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/051107ta_talk_collins)
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/images/photos4.8/6905_512.jpg
"Did somebody say 'Apprentice'?"
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/images/photos4.8/6905_512.jpg
"Did somebody say 'Apprentice'?"
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess he could sue Trump.
Lewis Libby the Apprentice on Amazon for $1.99 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312284535/ref=dp_return_1/104-5100731-5294352?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155&s=books)
Jedster
11-01-2005, 04:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Much the same way as Mack Rich was pardoned by Clinton so he could be free to make more illegal oil deals with embargoed countries /images/graemlins/shocked.gif.
[/ QUOTE ]
Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer so he knows something about the pardon process!
Personally, I hope he rooms with a big dude named Bubba who hasn't seen a woman in twenty years. Now that will give Libby something to write about...
BCPVP
11-01-2005, 04:22 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hope he rooms with a big dude named Bubba who hasn't seen a woman in twenty years.
[/ QUOTE ]
What? You mean people who lie under oath should actually face jail time? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Cyrus
11-01-2005, 10:42 AM
This Libby episode shows (as if this needed to be shown again) that the neo-con ideology is a mushy contraption that easily reduces to Us-versus-Them, with the two sides being at any time whatever the chief wants them to be!
Witness the outing of a CIA operative. What was once considered by the Right as high treason if performed by the likes of Philip Agee or Daniel Ellsberg (look 'em up, kids), is now accepted as a completely legitimate tactic if performed by guys like Karl Rove.
Or witness how the whole economy game is played by the current administration: Runaway spending is no longer "a bad thing"! Why, it all depends on who does the spending. If it's by a Republican, it must be good -- and damn the Friedmans.
Recall the Iran-contra scandal. You had a whole portion of the American executive administration working to supply with guns a regime that had been officially characterized as "renegade" and "terrorist-helping". In exchange for supplying the Iranians (illegally) with arms which were destined originally (and illegally) for the Nicaraguan Contras, the neo-con administration of Reagan "hoped" to have some American hostages in Lebanon released through the ...goodwill and assistance of Tehran. If a liberal would've proposed such a scheme, he would've been arrested.
Felix_Nietsche
11-01-2005, 11:30 AM
Bush43 does NOT pardon Libby. End-of-Story. I doubt Libby even gets convicted.
If convicted (which is VERY doubtful), Libby gets 24 months max. End-of-story. The 30 year prison sentence buzz in the press is 100% nonsense that the press (and prosecutor) use to sex up the story.
[ QUOTE ]
This <u>(pick any Washington political)</u> episode shows (as if this needed to be shown again) that the <u>(name the opposition)</u> ideology is a mushy contraption that easily reduces to Us-versus-Them, with the two sides being at any time whatever the chief wants them to be!
[/ QUOTE ]
FYP
Exsubmariner
11-01-2005, 01:37 PM
There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.
Jedster
11-01-2005, 05:31 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I hope he rooms with a big dude named Bubba who hasn't seen a woman in twenty years.
[/ QUOTE ]
What? You mean people who lie under oath should actually face jail time? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah. He's going to go all Gitmo on Libby's ass. I bet that sissy Libby doesn't even want a pardon. He wants Bubba-meat.
[ QUOTE ]
I bet that sissy Libby doesn't even want a pardon. He wants Bubba-meat.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now that's juth thilly. On thow menny lev-ulls.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif
benkahuna
11-01-2005, 11:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.
[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming you're correct, what's his self interest? Why's a guy with as long a career as his interested in getting into partisan nonsense when he's avoided it for so long?
Jedster
11-02-2005, 01:43 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you joking? I guess there is some tiny possibility that the indictment is filled with falsehood, but quoting from the indictment (emphasis added):
"14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, <font color="red">LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.</font>"
"17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” rather than to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, <font color="red">LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.</font>"
What scares me is that you probably believe the crap you spew.
SheetWise
11-02-2005, 01:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you joking? I guess there is some tiny possibility that the indictment is filled with falsehood, but quoting from the indictment (emphasis added):
"14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, <font color="red">LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.</font>"
"17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” rather than to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, <font color="red">LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.</font>"
What scares me is that you probably believe the crap you spew.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you are quoting from the indictment is not related to a charge of outing a CIA operative, it's background for charges of perjury. The prosecutor has clearly shown that he believes these statements from the indictment, and that the actions cited are not a crime -- if they are true they conflict with his testimony, that's the charge.
It's pretty weak.
Jedster
11-02-2005, 02:07 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There was NO outing of any CIA operative here. This is yet another myth promoted by the self interested author of all this, Joe Wilson. Truth be known, he was probably the source, or at least the one who confirmed what the source said.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you joking? I guess there is some tiny possibility that the indictment is filled with falsehood, but quoting from the indictment (emphasis added):
"14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed “selective leaking” by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA’s handling of Wilson’s trip to Niger, <font color="red">LIBBY informed her that Wilson’s wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.</font>"
"17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a “former Hill staffer” rather than to a “senior administration official,” as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson’s trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson’s trip. During this discussion, <font color="red">LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.</font>"
What scares me is that you probably believe the crap you spew.
[/ QUOTE ]
What you are quoting from the indictment is not related to a charge of outing a CIA operative, it's background for charges of perjury. The prosecutor has clearly shown that he believes these statements from the indictment, and that the actions cited are not a crime -- if they are true they conflict with his testimony, that's the charge.
It's pretty weak.
[/ QUOTE ]
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Fitzgerald said Libby committed perjury because far from hearing of Plame's ID from reporters, he in fact was the first person to leak the classified information that Plame worked for the CIA outside of the government. The crime was of course lying about this.
It's like Alger Hiss, who like Libby was charged with perjury, not espionage. He was convicted and served 44 months.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss
slamdunkpro
11-02-2005, 02:23 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Fitzgerald said Libby committed perjury because far from hearing of Plame's ID from reporters, he in fact was the first person to leak the classified information that Plame worked for the CIA outside of the government. The crime was of course lying about this.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was no outing of a covert agent – the statute didn’t apply to Plame. Libby is being charged with covering up a non-existent “crime”.
This will be interesting to see unfold if it ever gets to trial. Perjury is extremely hard to prove, and the obstruction of justice charge only applies if there is an underlying crime, which even Fitzgerald admitted did not occure.
elwoodblues
11-02-2005, 02:29 AM
[ QUOTE ]
There was no outing of a covert agent – the statute didn’t apply to Plame
[/ QUOTE ]
You can have one without the other. Assume it wasn't illegal, that doesn't mean that Libby didn't out her.
Jedster
11-02-2005, 02:30 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fitzgerald said Libby committed perjury because far from hearing of Plame's ID from reporters, he in fact was the first person to leak the classified information that Plame worked for the CIA outside of the government. The crime was of course lying about this.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was no outing of a covert agent – the statute didn’t apply to Plame. Libby is being charged with covering up a non-existent “crime”.
This will be interesting to see unfold if it ever gets to trial. Perjury is extremely hard to prove, and the obstruction of justice charge only applies if there is an underlying crime, which even Fitzgerald admitted did not occure.
[/ QUOTE ]
What in the world are you talking about? There clearly was an outing of a covert agent. The question is whether or not Libby did it intentionally, with malice, et cetera.
The reason Fitzgerald did not charge Libby with violating the espionage act is not because there was "no outing of a covert agent" as you stated, it was because it wasn't clear that Libby's leaking of that information (in other words, the outing of the agent) was a violation of the espionage act, in part because of Libby's perjury and obstruction.
A secondary reason Fitzgerald didn't use the act is that he did not want to use this case to set a precedent that would turn the espionage act into something like UK's official secrets act which the espionage act was not designed to do.
slamdunkpro
11-02-2005, 02:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You can have one without the other. Assume it wasn't illegal, that doesn't mean that Libby didn't out her.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um, OK so it wasn't illegal, so there was a big investigation to look into .....what?
Voltron87
11-02-2005, 02:40 AM
everyone realizes that what libby did damaged the CIA and national security, right? its not a joke here.
Jedster
11-02-2005, 02:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
everyone realizes that what libby did damaged the CIA and national security, right? its not a joke here.
[/ QUOTE ]
It's really amazing. I think these guys are so devoted to their party and conservative movement they don't see it.
It seems so obvious, yet they are so wound up in their little worlds they can't see the truth when it slaps them in the face.
I wish people cared more about America than their political interests.
slamdunkpro
11-02-2005, 02:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What in the world are you talking about? There clearly was an outing of a covert agent
[/ QUOTE ]
Only in the minds of the gullible. In order for the Espionage act to apply Plame would have had to: Been in a covert position of risk AND be currently posted overseas or have been posted overseas in the last 5 years. She worked and commuted to CIA headquarters in Langley in a management position. She belonged to the CIA credit union for Christ’s sake. She was featured in a cover story in Vanity Fair.
Once again - the Espionage Act did not apply to Plame. She was not a covert operative.
Jedster
11-02-2005, 02:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What in the world are you talking about? There clearly was an outing of a covert agent
[/ QUOTE ]
Only in the minds of the gullible. In order for the Espionage act to apply Plame would have had to: Been in a covert position of risk AND be currently posted overseas or have been posted overseas in the last 5 years. She worked and commuted to CIA headquarters in Langley in a management position. She belonged to the CIA credit union for Christ’s sake. She was featured in a cover story in Vanity Fair.
Once again - the Espionage Act did not apply to Plame. She was not a covert operative.
[/ QUOTE ]
Did you even read what I wrote? Reread it. If you can't figure out why you are missing the point I'm not going to bother trying to explain it again. But the big hint is that whether or not she was a covert agent has nothing to do with the espionage act. I pray that you are being wilfully difficult as opposed to actually not understanding.
slamdunkpro
11-02-2005, 02:54 AM
Do you want ice in your Kool-Aid?
elwoodblues
11-02-2005, 03:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Um, OK so it wasn't illegal, so there was a big investigation to look into .....what?
[/ QUOTE ]
To determine whether or not it was illegal.
I really don't know why you're being so thick about this. It is a BIG deal to reveal a covert agent's identity. Assume for a minute that there are other covert agent's who are the spouse's of ambassadors. How successful do you think they will be in the future? Assume that there are other covert agents who use (or have used in the past) the same dumby company as their employer. How safe are they right now? Assume that the CIA may have had a plan for this particular agent in the future. How succesful will that plan be? Whether or not it was illegal is irrelevant to whether it was repugnant and dangerous. It is irrelevant to whether the people who outed her (if they are employees of the government) should be terminated.
Cyrus
11-02-2005, 03:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This <u>(pick any Washington political)</u> episode shows (as if this needed to be shown again) that the <u>(name the opposition)</u> ideology is a mushy contraption that easily reduces to Us-versus-Them, with the two sides being at any time whatever the chief wants them to be!
[/ QUOTE ]
FYP
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a fair fix, guv.
But, seriously, there is no comparison between the practices of the two "camps" in this respect: I have not seen such blatant disregard for elementary ideological positions by the liberals as I have seen by the conservatives, in the U.S.
I mean, ideological opportunism runs rampant in both "camps" but come on! In recent decades, the conservatives have elevated this into an art.
Cyrus
11-03-2005, 12:56 PM
[ QUOTE ]
In order for the Espionage act to apply Plame would have had to: Been in a covert position of risk AND be currently posted overseas or have been posted overseas in the last 5 years.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, but you're right about the legal aspects of the affair.
Of course, Dubya was very specific about the moral aspect of it! But I'm not holding my breath for him to deliver.
link (http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21636.pdf)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can have one without the other. Assume it wasn't illegal, that doesn't mean that Libby didn't out her.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um, OK so it wasn't illegal, so there was a big investigation to look into .....what?
[/ QUOTE ]
Wow. Wow. Did you actually write that? Turn off fox news and come sit at a poker table with me.
BCPVP
11-03-2005, 02:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
But the big hint is that whether or not she was a covert agent has nothing to do with the espionage act.
[/ QUOTE ]
If he's referring to the act I'm thinking of (the Intelligence Identities Act, I believe) then it has everything to do with it. In the U.S. intentionally outing a covert agent is a crime. What started this whole mess was the accusation that someone "outed" Plame and that that someone broke the law (IIA) doing so. If no law was broken (Plame!= covert) then the only thing left was perjury. Which is what we have. Obviously if Plame was a covert agent, the charge against Libby would be outing her, not lying in his testimony.
Kinda like if someone carjacked someone and then killed them, the DA isn't going to skim over murder to go with grand theft auto.
slamdunkpro
11-03-2005, 03:17 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's called the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes that is the statute they were looking at this with.
slamdunkpro
11-03-2005, 03:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Kinda like if someone carjacked someone and then killed them, the DA isn't going to skim over murder to go with grand theft auto.
[/ QUOTE ]
It’s more like you borrow three brown Volvo’s from three friends 3 months ago at 3 different times. In the course of an investigation you are suspected of stealing the brown Volvo. You are hauled before a grand jury and repeatedly asked “what date and time did you take the brown Volvo?…did you tell the owner?” You answer “I think it was the 15th and yes I told Joe” They then haul in Joe and he say, no, it was the 16th and yes he asked Now they know you didn’t steal the car - there was no crime, but your answer is different so POOF! perjury charges.
Jedster
11-03-2005, 03:28 PM
Oh dear. There you go again. Claiming that Lewis Libby never told any reporters that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA (which is, of course, classified information). Do you realize how it brightens my day to see you make this claim?
BCPVP
11-03-2005, 03:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Claiming that Lewis Libby never told any reporters that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA (which is, of course, classified information).
[/ QUOTE ]
Working for the CIA is not classified information. I will not get hauled off to jail for mentioning that Porter Goss does indeed work for the CIA.
[ QUOTE ]
Do you realize how it brightens my day to see you make this claim?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't. If leaking Plame's name was classified information then Libby would not be facing only perjury charges.
Jedster
11-03-2005, 03:45 PM
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.
Jedster
11-03-2005, 03:56 PM
At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.
Jedster
11-03-2005, 03:57 PM
The responsibilities of certain CIA employees required that their association with the CIA be kept secret; as a result, the fact that these individuals were employed by the CIA was classified. Disclosure of the fact that such individuals were employed by the CIA had the potential to damage the national security in ways that ranged from preventing the future use of those individuals in a covert capacity, to compromising intelligence-gathering methods and operations, and endangering the safety of CIA employees and those who dealt with them.
mosta
11-03-2005, 04:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kinda like if someone carjacked someone and then killed them, the DA isn't going to skim over murder to go with grand theft auto.
[/ QUOTE ]
It’s more like you borrow three brown Volvo’s from three friends 3 months ago at 3 different times. In the course of an investigation you are suspected of stealing the brown Volvo. You are hauled before a grand jury and repeatedly asked “what date and time did you take the brown Volvo?…did you tell the owner?” You answer “I think it was the 15th and yes I told Joe” They then haul in Joe and he say, no, it was the 16th and yes he asked Now they know you didn’t steal the car - there was no crime, but your answer is different so POOF! perjury charges.
[/ QUOTE ]
so forgetting which brown volvo you got on tuesday and which on wednesday is comparable to forgetting whether you overheard something from other sources, or you originated the story, learned in advance, with information gleaned from your cohorts and superiors. WOW!!!! (I considered several different ways to mock the analogy, but I think it's better just left there in its own stupendous stupidity.)
and I like the other theory too--that it's nothing because he lied about something perfectly non-criminal. so he systematically, repeatedly perjured himself over nothing at all? interesting. then he must be the stupidest guy in DC, even stupider than President monkey boy if that were somehow possible. that--or maybe there's a lot more going on here than the supposed non-crime. hmmm. could it be? nah, couldn't be--how could cheney et al conceivably have been up to no good?! the bush administration is a gleaming bastion of honor, honesty, integrity, and above all, competence--we all know that.
[ QUOTE ]
It's a fair fix, guv.
[/ QUOTE ]
nh
[ QUOTE ]
But, seriously, there is no comparison between the practices of the two "camps" in this respect: I have not seen such blatant disregard for elementary ideological positions by the liberals as I have seen by the conservatives, in the U.S.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is the stuff disagreements are made of. Each of us can cite examples and probably neither of us changes our minds. Ideologies, when chiseled in stone, will always cause problems. I'm not suggesting you should give up your beliefs. The Constitution was a result of compromise. In our democratic republic, and in pursuit of our common goals, compromises have to be made. You give to get.
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, <font color="red">ideological opportunism runs rampant in both "camps"</font> but come on! In recent decades, the conservatives have elevated this into an art.
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe the Liberals are gunna just hafta try harder? /images/graemlins/grin.gif
SheetWise
11-03-2005, 05:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
There you go again. Claiming that Lewis Libby never told any reporters that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA (which is, of course, classified information). Do you realize how it brightens my day to see you make this claim?
[/ QUOTE ]
Enjoy it while you can. There will be many dark days in your future to contemplate the truth.
SheetWise
11-03-2005, 06:05 PM
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Google "Andrea Mitchell" and "Valerie Plame" -- and put down the Kool-Aid.
Jedster
11-03-2005, 06:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Google "Andrea Mitchell" and "Valerie Plame" -- and put down the Kool-Aid.
[/ QUOTE ]
Google Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference. The quote above is from his lips, not mine.
If you're too lazy, here is a link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html).
As for Andrea Mitchell, she was told of Wilson's identity AFTER Novak's article ran. Here's a link (http://www.usatoday.com/life/columnist/mediamix/2003-10-01-media-mix_x.htm) to that.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Google "Andrea Mitchell" and "Valerie Plame" -- and put down the Kool-Aid.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOLOLOLOL You obviously didn't google it, otherwise you would've seen a bunch of sites (including the first 4 sites listed) talking about how Mitchell gave out misinformation. There was one site 'demanding a correction' from her. Yes, I agree with SheetWise. Google the two names and get the truth.
Sheet, put down your glass of vodka, cuz you must be wasted to send us on a google search that hurts your point.
Jedster
11-03-2005, 08:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Google "Andrea Mitchell" and "Valerie Plame" -- and put down the Kool-Aid.
[/ QUOTE ]
LOLOLOLOL You obviously didn't google it, otherwise you would've seen a bunch of sites (including the first 4 sites listed) talking about how Mitchell gave out misinformation. There was one site 'demanding a correction' from her. Yes, I agree with SheetWise. Google the two names and get the truth.
Sheet, put down your glass of vodka, cuz you must be wasted to send us on a google search that hurts your point.
[/ QUOTE ]
The point he is trying to make is that Andrea Mitchell knew Plame's identity before the leak. If true, it would lend support to the argument that Plame's identity was widely known prior to Libby's leak to Miller. However, it's not true. In my post above I linked to an article in the USA Today stating that Mitchell learned Plame's identity well after Libby leaked to Miller.
And yes, all of that info is easily available to those who actually Google instead of just recommending it.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.