Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Valerie Plame sues Cheney, Rove and Libby for conspiring to destroy her career   (cnn.com) divider line 783
    More: News  
•       •       •

13012 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jul 2006 at 4:51 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



783 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-07-13 09:47:17 PM  
BiffDangler

ya'll demand links... send me a link saying that the asssertiaon that Plame sent Wilson was issued by one guy and I will gladly retract. And a real link please, not some guy on DU.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA....keep spinnin'...make the party proud!
 
2006-07-13 09:49:17 PM  
 
2006-07-13 09:50:34 PM  
BiffDangler

Here is the report (pops, huge pdf.) The addendum starts on page 441. It was issued by Pat Roberts and was joined by Chris Bond and Orrin Hatch.
 
2006-07-13 09:50:36 PM  
So it's okay to have outed her, because after the fact, she's making some money? Dumb.

Imagine there is a mid-level model who has work, is doing decently but not making millions of dollars. She'll probably never be a supermodel, but she's doing what she wants to do, something that she feels is important.

Now, someone doesn't like her politics, so they burn her face off. There's no market for models with massive burn scars on her face, so she can no longer do what she wants to do. She writes a book about her assault, gets a "Lifetime movie of the week" contract, and starts to become an advocate against violence against women. She actually manages to make some money off the incident, but the scars will never fade. She can never do the thing she wanted to do ever again.

The situations are analogous. Plame was an agent, and she can never be an agent again. Her livelihood was destroyed, knowingly if not maliciously.

Ultimately, Cheney/Rove/Libby may lose simply because what they did is illegal. The industriousness of the Wilsons does not excuse the villainy of the administration.
 
2006-07-13 09:50:40 PM  
Con_Authority

You're arguing over something you have no control over. Leave this to the lawyers.

Baloney.

We very much have control over who we vote for.

And the spin coming hot and heavy out of the GOP is intended to get voters to ignore the fact that their highest members are willing to throw America's security to the wind if it means they can exact a little political revenge for their own personal gain.

I, for one, think that unpatriotic spin should be shown for what it is.
 
2006-07-13 09:52:23 PM  
For those of you too lazy to cut and paste the link- here are the relevant parts of the democrats additional views

-"What cannot be found, however, are two conclusions upon which the Committee's Democrats would not agree. While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues refused to allow the following conclusions to appear in the report:
Conclusion: The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee.
The former ambassador's wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the CIA, also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador'swife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA'SDirectorate of Operations which said, "[mJyhusband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'' This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger.

Conclusion: Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.

At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador's comments to reporters that the Niger-Iraq uranium documents "may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were ~ong,"'
could not have been based on the forrner ambassador's actual experiences because the Intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador's trip. In addition, nothing in the report from the former ambassador'strip said anything about documents having been forged or the names or dates
-443 -
in the reports having been incorrect. The former ambassador told Committee staff that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names and dates in the CIA's reports and said he may have become confbsed about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports."
 
2006-07-13 09:52:39 PM  
Joseph Wilson's boss:

upload.wikimedia.org

doesn't know the world of pain their boy just got them into...

As if Wilson's total exposure as a liar in front of Congress in 2004 wasn't brutual enough, discovery (if it gets that far) will leave him begging to disappear back into the bowels of the Saudi ex-diplomat machine.
 
2006-07-13 09:52:55 PM  
Looks like you are correct. The dems did not agree.
 
cv
2006-07-13 09:54:09 PM  
Go get him, Valerie!
 
2006-07-13 09:55:55 PM  
BiffDangler: Looks like you are correct. The dems did not agree.


Actually, if you read farther down, the dems are pretty brutal on Wilson- basicly calling him a liar.

Again, I'm willing to admit he may not be the most honest person, but I submit that doesn't excuse the actions of this administration concerning his wife.
 
2006-07-13 09:58:10 PM  
essucht

Joseph Wilson's boss

Are you seriously attempting to discredit Wilson by (unfoundedly) claiming that he's taking orders from the guy that Bush holds hands with?

www.turnoffyourtv.com

The guy whose country Bush didn't invade despite the fact that that's where the vast majority of those who attacked us are from and indoctrinated into their state-sponsored system of religious extremist anti-Americanism?

That guy?
 
2006-07-13 09:58:23 PM  
BiffDangler: Your "citations" do not prove much of anything, and they come from a G.O.P. website!

One of the listed Joe Wilson "lies" uses a Cheney quote during an interview as its "proof." That's weak.

A few important points:

(1) The main message of Wilson's NYT op-ed has been borne out. Saddam Hussein was nowhere near developing a nuclear weapon and any efforts he might have once had in doing so had long since stalled. Yet the threat of Saddam nukes was used extensively to justify the war (Condoleezza: "We could face a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud," etc.) Bush's push for war based on WMD was at best an exaggeration, at worst a ploy to fool the American public into a completely unnecessary war that has nothing to do with our own protection.

(2) Whatever Plame's influence in getting Wilson this particular mission, she certainly was not in a position of power to decide that he make the trip. If we allow, for the sake of argument, that she somehow got him the gig, then so what? Does that invalidate his conclusions? Does that make it okay to blow her cover?

(3) Joe Wilson's credibility, which seems to me to barely be tarnished (and only if you read the far-right press such as National Review and the G.O.P. website), is not the issue. The issue is whether the people in the White House knowingly leaked Plame's cover. It is almost certain that they did, in direct retaliation for Wilson's article. There is no defense for this, unless you think it's okay to blow any agent's cover just because you have a partisan gripe with them.
 
2006-07-13 10:04:00 PM  
I commend Plame from suing those rat bastards. They intentionally risked Plame and her families lives when they played this sick and twisted name-game. What do you think would happen if Plame or her family was killed by people she spyed on because of these wesals in the White House?

This is how the Repubs take aim, they put your lives in danger and then calmly walk away as if they did nothing wrong.
 
2006-07-13 10:04:43 PM  
EraserHedge,

BiffDangler: Your "citations" do not prove much of anything, and they come from a G.O.P. website!

One of the listed Joe Wilson "lies" uses a Cheney quote during an interview as its "proof." That's weak.

A few important points:

(1) The main message of Wilson's NYT op-ed has been borne out. Saddam Hussein was nowhere near developing a nuclear weapon and any efforts he might have once had in doing so had long since stalled. Yet the threat of Saddam nukes was used extensively to justify the war (Condoleezza: "We could face a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud," etc.) Bush's push for war based on WMD was at best an exaggeration, at worst a ploy to fool the American public into a completely unnecessary war that has nothing to do with our own protection.

(2) Whatever Plame's influence in getting Wilson this particular mission, she certainly was not in a position of power to decide that he make the trip. If we allow, for the sake of argument, that she somehow got him the gig, then so what? Does that invalidate his conclusions? Does that make it okay to blow her cover?

(3) Joe Wilson's credibility, which seems to me to barely be tarnished (and only if you read the far-right press such as National Review and the G.O.P. website), is not the issue. The issue is whether the people in the White House knowingly leaked Plame's cover. It is almost certain that they did, in direct retaliation for Wilson's article. There is no defense for this, unless you think it's okay to blow any agent's cover just because you have a partisan gripe with them.


You know what your response tells me?

1. The average liberal will ignore blatant fact for political purposes. No amount of pointing it out will convince them otherwise.

2. The Republicans are going to keep winning elections as long as you people keep living in that strange world of yours.
 
2006-07-13 10:05:18 PM  
The First

They intentionally risked Plame and her families lives

And America's security.
 
2006-07-13 10:09:40 PM  
Jesus 2.0, yeah but the people that kept voting thise weasels into office don't seem to wake up.

This administration has done nothing but fark things up. The only thing Bush managed to do in 6 years in office is:
1. wage 2 wars (and might be on verge of waging another 2 wars - NK and Iran)
2. give rich people tax cuts (cause we all know they deserve it)
3. ran up the national debt to 80 trillions (China will own us by 2010 beacuse of the amount we're borrowing from them to pay for the Iraq mess)

Well, I said it be4 and i'll say it again: Bush ran 2 companies into the ground when he ran them, his next "company" is America.
 
2006-07-13 10:11:59 PM  
BiffDangler
Looks like you are correct. The dems did not agree.

Just remember how bad you've been had - it is not plausible to beleive that Bush was 100% wrong about every single facet of the Iraq war by accident. Thinking people would not let that premise stand without demanding answers. Wilson did and got burned along with a classified CIA agent under cover at Brewster Jennings.
 
2006-07-13 10:12:34 PM  
TheGoblinKing,
You know what your response tells me?

1. The average liberal will ignore blatant fact for political purposes. No amount of pointing it out will convince them otherwise.

2. The Republicans are going to keep winning elections as long as you people keep living in that strange world of yours.


If by "blatant fact" you mean "facts" tha the GOP website and right-wing websites pointout then yes, liberals will continue to ignore that horseshiat.

If by "winning elections" you mean play dirty policts and twist inteligence reports to scare the avergae (dumb at times) citizen then yes repubs will contiue to win elections.

but-but-but Clinton...STFU
 
2006-07-13 10:13:33 PM  
It's funny how the right didn't mind parroting off the "it's treason" line.... until Libby and Rove were revealed to be involved, that is.

Before then, the first President Bush and the head of the RNC were quite explicit in calling this an act of treason.

Of course now the new talking points have been issued, and we're supposed to ignore everything that came before.

Some days I think that the creative team for World Wrestling Entertainment is writing the Repub talking points memos, they make about as much sense as an episode of Monday Night Raw.
 
2006-07-13 10:16:34 PM  
Some days I think that the creative team for World Wrestling Entertainment is writing the Repub talking points memos, they make about as much sense as an episode of Monday Night Raw.

Shhh ... guys like TheGoblinKing think wrestling's REAL, too.

One pointless flame war at a time, please.
 
2006-07-13 10:19:58 PM  
JestersTear

It's funny how the right didn't mind parroting off the "it's treason" line.... until Libby and Rove were revealed to be involved, that is.

Before then, the first President Bush and the head of the RNC were quite explicit in calling this an act of treason.

Of course now the new talking points have been issued, and we're supposed to ignore everything that came before.


Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
 
2006-07-13 10:20:48 PM  
drdipwad

The use of information that has already been refuted in akin to lying through deceptive us of facts. It does nothing for your credibility as it creates the impression that you are a dishonest person. In the long run, you will not find being so deceptive is something that will benefit you, as anyone people will be far less likely to take you at your word. I'm sure you knew that already.

-- Abbie Hoffman
 
2006-07-13 10:27:00 PM  
Fer farks sake, can we get with the times and bring in an edit button, please.
 
2006-07-13 10:27:37 PM  
To reiterate my earlier point; I wasn't there, and I'm just trying to get to what the truth is.

Most of what I've seen (actually all of what I've seen apart from Wilson's own protestations) suggests to me that he was sent on his wife's recommendation.

Some of you will say, "It doesn't matter, because..." and that may be true, or not. But it's a different discussion.

Assuming that it does matter, I quoted a Washington Post article earlier, which refers to the Senate Intel. Cmte. report.

Some of you have said, in essence: "The WashPost article is wrong; if you read the report, the Dems didn't actually agree to the conclusions placed in the article."

So I just went and read the article. What I see there, unless I missed something, is this: "While there was no dispute about the underlying facts, [Pat Roberts'] Democrat colleagues refused to allow [the conclusion that Plame recommended Wilson] to appear in the report."

Now, as I understand it, the structure of this investigation and the resulting report is to (a.) ascertain facts and list them, and (b.) highlight certain findings prominently in the report by listing them as "Conclusions", so they can be summarized into an Abstract, or used as "bullet points" by reporters who're so Farkin' lazy that they can't be bothered to read the whole thing.

It seems to me that this report is not saying, "The Democrats don't agree that Plame recommended Wilson." It seems to me that this report is saying, "The Democrats don't contest the fact that Plame recommended Wilson, but refused to allow this to be one of the Conclusions that was listed prominently in the report's list of findings."

This seems to fit the words of the pertinent section of the report. And it jives better with the various articles which, in referring to the report, seem to all have concluded that "the report says she recommended him."

I have no horse in this race other than my previous belief that Plame recommended Wilson, which was based on the information I had up-to-date. And I'm willing to change that belief if new information conclusively demonstrates otherwise.

But I don't see it in this report, unless there's some other vital section I missed, which somehow reverses the meaning of what I did see.

Help me out if I've got it bass-ackward.

-- Dr.Dipwad
 
2006-07-13 10:27:41 PM  
The Bush Detractors seem to be a lot more reasonable, with a healthy dose of skepticism, than the Bush Supporters. Maybe, its just me. I don't know.
 
2006-07-13 10:31:51 PM  
drdipwad

Some of you will say, "It doesn't matter, because..." and that may be true, or not. But it's a different discussion.

Yes, a different discussion. Specifically, a different discussion from the one that matters.

To wit, that an undercover CIA agent has had her cover intentionally blown by highranking members of the US government, endangering both her and America's security, in order for political revenge against a critic of Administration policy.
 
2006-07-13 10:32:54 PM  
That's really getting down into the minutiae, the infinite shades of gray republicans can be as bad as the black and white ones.
 
2006-07-13 10:43:39 PM  
Reality Check:

Let's face it: we choose our Presidents like we choose our football teams. The choice is illogical and has everything to do with where you live and nothing to do with the quality of the team.

So the Bushbots and Dittoheads will keep rooting for the home team. Doesn't matter if the Quarterback can't throw his way out of a wet paper bag, or the defensive line couldn't tackle my oma. Doesn't matter if the guys on the team make a jagillion dollars - as long as they remember to thank God and their mama in interviews, then by golly, they must be one of us. So Bushbots just see the Glittering GOP on the uniform and get all misty-eyed.

They'll support their guy, y'see, because their team is "us" and other team is "them."

And before we progressives get too snooty, a lot of us do the same thing. Maybe not as much, maybe not as stridently, but we do.

The irony here is that we probably have more sources with which to make an informed decision about our political leaders than any other generation in history. Yet because we all have TOO much information - and it all seems relevant and true - we're INCREASINGLY tribal. Increasingly reactionary. Far less discerning and demanding.

Information isn't wisdom, after all. We have too much of one and not near enough of the other.

So everyone take off your team jersey for a sec and step back and try to analyze what's really happening here. And how about, for once, we all remember that we're all fans of this great country ... and ask not for victory for our side, but for the ideals of freedom, truth and justice to be served.

/mode>
//Someone please post some boobies now?
 
2006-07-13 10:47:04 PM  
big4head:...you'll just impugn the poster? Classy.

Yup, pretty much. His post was arrogant and sarcastic. It's fine with me if someone doesn't know how to spell "indict," but they shouldn't act like they're more knowledgeable about the subject than everyone else in the thread.

How long have you been on Fark? It's not the place you come if you're looking for class and enlightened debate. That's why I don't really blame him for his initial comment, and that's why you shouldn't blame me for mine.
 
2006-07-13 10:49:34 PM  
If the assclowns being sued are guilty, and I suspect they are, may the punitive damages ream them a great big one. What the Hell, strike great big one, and make it a ginormous one to infinity plus one.
 
2006-07-13 10:50:33 PM  
towatchoverme: Let's face it: we choose our Presidents like we choose our football teams. The choice is illogical and has everything to do with where you live and nothing to do with the quality of the team.

So the Bushbots and Dittoheads will keep rooting for the home team. Doesn't matter if the Quarterback can't throw his way out of a wet paper bag, or the defensive line couldn't tackle my oma. Doesn't matter if the guys on the team make a jagillion dollars - as long as they remember to thank God and their mama in interviews, then by golly, they must be one of us. So Bushbots just see the Glittering GOP on the uniform and get all misty-eyed.

They'll support their guy, y'see, because their team is "us" and other team is "them."

And before we progressives get too snooty, a lot of us do the same thing. Maybe not as much, maybe not as stridently, but we do.



Same thing as religion. You most likely are what your parents are and it is dictated by geography as much as anything...
 
2006-07-13 10:54:05 PM  
TheFirst,

I commend Plame from suing those rat bastards. They intentionally risked Plame and her families lives when they played this sick and twisted name-game. What do you think would happen if Plame or her family was killed by people she spyed on because of these wesals in the White House?

This is how the Repubs take aim, they put your lives in danger and then calmly walk away as if they did nothing wrong.


God, how many times do you retards have to hear it??

PLAME RODE A DESK, SHE HAD BEEN OUTED LONG BEFOREHAND BY CUBAN/RUSSIAN INTEL. She was NOT a spy anymore, she was a CIA analyst, just like the people who go on CNN and FoxNews to talk about stuff.

The fact that NO ONE WAS CHARGED WITH REVEALING HER NAME in the investigation by the independant prosecutor even though her name got into the news tells you IT DIDN'T MATTER BECAUSE NO HARM WAS DONE, as was the fact that a single phone call to the CIA from Bob Novak along with looking up her info in frickin WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA showed her name RIGHT THERE AS ENTERED BY HER OWN HUSBAND!!

So PLEASE get your facts straight.
 
2006-07-13 10:58:05 PM  
wyckedsmile: I wonder if Ann Couture will suggest Rove and Cheney be shot for treason for endangering the lives of Americans by revealing secrets. Ya think?

If she doesn't, her sister Haute Couture certainly will.
 
2006-07-13 10:58:15 PM  
I don't know, I kinda like being a Liberal that hates America and supports the Terrorists. The chicks think I'm more dangerous and I have been gettin' all kinds of play. In fact, a lot more than I did when I was a bowtie wearing Bushbot.
 
2006-07-13 10:58:52 PM  
TheTrollKing:

God, how many times do you retards have to hear it??

PLAME RODE A DESK, SHE HAD BEEN OUTED LONG BEFOREHAND BY CUBAN/RUSSIAN INTEL. She was NOT a spy anymore, she was a CIA analyst, just like the people who go on CNN and FoxNews to talk about stuff.

The fact that NO ONE WAS CHARGED WITH REVEALING HER NAME in the investigation by the independant prosecutor even though her name got into the news tells you IT DIDN'T MATTER BECAUSE NO HARM WAS DONE, as was the fact that a single phone call to the CIA from Bob Novak along with looking up her info in frickin WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA showed her name RIGHT THERE AS ENTERED BY HER OWN HUSBAND!!

So PLEASE get your facts straight.


The CIA and the administration both agreed it was a leak of a covert agent. Just because you use all caps doesn't make your statement less of a lie.
 
2006-07-13 11:00:14 PM  
TheGoblinKing: The fact that NO ONE WAS CHARGED WITH REVEALING HER NAME in the investigation by the independant prosecutor even though her name got into the news tells you IT DIDN'T MATTER BECAUSE NO HARM WAS DONE, as was the fact that a single phone call to the CIA from Bob Novak along with looking up her info in frickin WHO'S WHO IN AMERICA showed her name RIGHT THERE AS ENTERED BY HER OWN HUSBAND!!

Every once in a while, someone says something so profoundly stupid that there's really nothing to do but point and comment about the stupidity.

So I'm pointing at you, and you're stupid.
 
2006-07-13 11:00:15 PM  
The First,

If by "blatant fact" you mean "facts" tha the GOP website and right-wing websites pointout then yes, liberals will continue to ignore that horseshiat.

No, by 'facts' we mean 'facts', irrelevent to where they are posted. Be they on any site of any leanings or none at all, if they're facts, they're facts.

You imply that if it's on a disagreeable site, it isn't true. But I guess you wouldn't understand that since DailyKos posted and then yanked the original Novak expose from a few days back. Maybe it's back up, I dunno. Does that mean what Novak said didn't happen and/or is a lie because he broke it on FoxNews and DailyKos yanked the link?
 
2006-07-13 11:01:14 PM  
TheGoblinKing:

I'm sure it's in there, could you stick my head in for one more look?

/meh
 
2006-07-13 11:02:38 PM  
This thread MUST be important. Just a few more posts and we pass the "fat guys are the new hawt" thread down below on the main page!

Democracy is in good hands.

/Gonna drink, now
 
2006-07-13 11:04:09 PM  
This has gotten funnier......

the Schlong Ranger

I think maybe I do know you.

big4head

It seems that because you make a point for a side that most will believe that you're on that side.


I live in Asheville, nc the freak capitol of the world according to Rolling Stone ragazine. I have long hair. I drive the only painted VW bus in town. I am extremely liberal and socially conscious.

The Democratic party is so lost and out there that the term moonbats is hardly insulting. They claim to be liberals, but would be quite content to deprive half the country of their right to free speech.

The republican party is doing a great imitation of drunken sailors. Their ability to shoot themselves in the foot is only outweighed by their chutzpah.

The majority of people responding to this post cannot keep their arguments straight but are excellant at name calling and making disparaging remarks. Using yellow rags as references hardly makes your arguments valid. He said/ she said.....

Do you really think a CIVIL suit has Rove worried? Do you think he even cares? He's probably laughing his ass off.

The outrage and anger constantly being shown by the left will be horribly detrimental to this falls elections. The right's arrogance will win them more seats if only because more people have more money in their pockets.

Bottom line is: nobody likes whiners. everybody loves a winner.

/I'm a libertarian
//both sides suck, as does duke
///kill em all...........
 
2006-07-13 11:05:18 PM  
and socially conscious.


What does that mean?

 
2006-07-13 11:08:23 PM  
AgeofReason,

The CIA and the administration both agreed it was a leak of a covert agent. Just because you use all caps doesn't make your statement less of a lie.

They did huh? Funny that Fitzgerald, the lawyer in charge of prosecuting any crime attached to this whole brouhaha didn't think so. Silly government independant prosecutors.

And how do you swallow the fact that Novak found the name of a so called 'covert agent' in Who's frickin Who right where her husband posted it.

I mean, no one goes out and SAYS they work with the CIA, so in that sense everyone who works with them stays out of the limelight, but there's a huuuuge difference between that and being a 'covert agent'. She USED to be a covert agent, but that was in the frickin late 80's if memory serves.

I mean yo guys DID see that whole thing from Novak a few days back right? Because you're acting like you've never heard of it. Is that the case? Because if so, I apologize for flaming on y'all who hadn't seen it.
 
2006-07-13 11:09:15 PM  
It is so cool how Libertarians seem to be above it all. I admire them.
 
2006-07-13 11:11:44 PM  
Jesus 2.0

The only persons who know who blew Plame's cover are Fitzgerald, the Grand Jury, the person themselves, and Novak.

Fitz. and the Grand Jury ain't talkin'. The person ain't, either.

Novak is what I've got to go on, as a result. I hate single-source conclusions, but that's what I've got. (Apart from Wilson saying, loudly, that it looks damn suspicious to him, and he's mad as hell about it: Interesting, but not what I call a source.)

Novak says:

1. The person who originally told him about Wilson's wife did so, in passing, without thinking about it, when Novak asked him, "Why'd you guys send, of all people, a political opponent to go out and do your intelligence-gathering for you? How did that happen?"

2. Novak says the source was not a "political gunslinger" type of person, but rather a "policy person". Novak says that, as a result, he (Novak) believes it was an unintentional slip, not an attempt to smear. (Is Novak wrong? Is he lying? I dunno. He's got a very good reputation as a reporter, even with colleagues who don't like his politics, but that's not really enough to know whether he'd lie, or whether he'd mis-read his source's intentions.)

3. Novak says the source later contacted him through a third party to say, "Whoops, I didn't mean to tell you that."

4. Novak says his confirmation about "Wilson's wife" (though not by name) having a hand in sending Wilson came from Rove, who, when Novak stated, "I heard that Wilson got sent because his wife, who's at CIA in the WMD department, suggested him" and Rove replied, "Oh, you know that too?" (Rove himself says he remembered his response differently, and that it was, "Oh, you heard that, too?") Not sure if that makes a difference?

5. Novak says he got Plame's name by looking at Wilson's entry in "Who's Who", and then called Bill Harlow at CIA to ask, "Does she really work there?" Novak says Harlow confirmed that she worked there, and that, furthermore, she was unlikely to be overseas again. Novak says Harlow asked Novak not to print her name, but that it was a very pro-forma request, such as is commonly ignored by journalists, and that it was not followed up by calls from Tenet or anyone else at CIA to hammer the point home, as is more commonly done when the agency really really wants something kept secret. (In comparison to, say, the New York Times report on U.S. tracing of financial transactions of terrorists, which produced calls from intelligence heads, the White House, intelligence committee chairmen and minority members in the House and Senate, and even John Murtha -- Novak says had he gotten a reaction like that, he wouldn't have even considered running it.) Bill Harlow says he stressed it more than Novak says, but nobody denies there were no follow up calls.

So he printed it. The rest is history.

Conclusions?

I can't find a reason to conclude this was a political revenge thing, unless Novak's unnamed source turns out to be someone of a type unlike Novak describes.

Absent that, it seems to me that (of course!) the Administration was trying to discredit Joe Wilson's opinion piece. Why wouldn't they? He was saying things they believed (and the Senate report found) to be false. Why wouldn't they challenge him?

And, since Wilson claimed to have been sent at the VP's request, why wouldn't they say, "Hey, we didn't pick him. We'd have picked someone else." Which they would've, certainly.

But, barring an earth-shaking revelation about the original source? I see no evidence to show an attempt to hurt Wilson by hurting his wife. Sorry!

-- Dr.Dipwad

P.S. Someone made reference to the Senate Cmte. report having been "discredited" somehow. When? Why? Linky?
 
2006-07-13 11:13:52 PM  
Biff Dangler

It means that I don't say attractive and successful African-American in public.

/btw, my daughter married one and my grandchildren are.
 
2006-07-13 11:18:40 PM  
drdipwad: It seems to me that this report is not saying, "The Democrats don't agree that Plame recommended Wilson." It seems to me that this report is saying, "The Democrats don't contest the fact that Plame recommended Wilson, but refused to allow this to be one of the Conclusions that was listed prominently in the report's list of findings."


Actually I think you're missreading the report- the democrats are basicly saying, we agree to the facts that are in the report. We do not agree with the following, and therefore they are not in the report we signd off on. To wit- the two passages were not part of the report the dmeocrats agreed to.
 
2006-07-13 11:19:56 PM  
It also means that I grow my own...cactus, barley, morning glories, corn and potatos. I'm a tree hugging dirt worshipper and catholic. and I make most of my money healing the sick, hence the moniker. I recycle and pick-up trash when I'm hiking.

want more?
 
2006-07-13 11:20:22 PM  
chaoskids.com

even pee wee can connect these dots
 
2006-07-13 11:24:50 PM  
drdipwad: I can't find a reason to conclude this was a political revenge thing, unless Novak's unnamed source turns out to be someone of a type unlike Novak describes.

Absent that, it seems to me that (of course!) the Administration was trying to discredit Joe Wilson's opinion piece. Why wouldn't they? He was saying things they believed (and the Senate report found) to be false. Why wouldn't they challenge him?

And, since Wilson claimed to have been sent at the VP's request, why wouldn't they say, "Hey, we didn't pick him. We'd have picked someone else." Which they would've, certainly.

But, barring an earth-shaking revelation about the original source? I see no evidence to show an attempt to hurt Wilson by hurting his wife.



You seem to be arguing against yourself, and losing :)

Point 1- the administration was looking for a way to discredit Wilson.

Point 2- one way (in thier wierd little world) to discredit Wilson was to claim his wife sent him.

point 3- the only way to achieve point 2 was to out his wife.

point 4- Novak is a partisan hack, so anything he says is suspect.

point 5- irregardless of the original source, Novak has confirmed that rove was also a confirming source.
 
2006-07-13 11:28:14 PM  
drdipwad: Someone made reference to the Senate Cmte. report having been "discredited" somehow. When? Why? Linky?



people have been claiming that the relevent conclusion in the senate report was signed off on by all parties, and therefore has legitimacy. Since the Democrats specifically refused to sign off on those conclusions, they become exactly what they are- unproven allegations put in the record by partisan republicans. So yeah, the senate report is bunk.
 
Displayed 50 of 783 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report