Libby Indicted, Resigns

Teejay32 said:
After two years of this kind of scrutiny we should have a definitive answer: was she a covert operative, was protecting her identity a matter of national security? We don't even have that. Why not?

Is there any question that she was a covert CIA operative? She has been defined as a "NOC" (non official cover).


National security might not even be an issue with protecting her identity - it might mean the security of a contact or her coworkers who use the same cover (Brewster and Jennings, I think). It might mean losing alot of sources and contacts which might have taken a decade to obtain, but what the heck.
 
yeartolate said:
Is there any question that she was a covert CIA operative? She has been defined as a "NOC" (non official cover).


National security might not even be an issue with protecting her identity - it might mean the security of a contact or her coworkers who use the same cover (Brewster and Jennings, I think). It might mean losing alot of sources and contacts which might have taken a decade to obtain, but what the heck.

Yes, there's a question. The indictment only states that her employment status was "classified".

As for your second paragraph, the CIA is going to wait until AFTER the investigation and legal proceedings are completely finished, before doing a formal damage assessment. But as you say, what the heck. :rolleyes:
 
Teejay32 said:
When someone wants to investigate CIA leakage I'll know people have begun to take this seriously.
You admit more than you intended.

No doubt the "leak war' from the CIA was the key context for all. What is interesting is how much that conmpletely undermines the convenient fiction adopted by many - that Bush was a victim of bad intelligence. Instead, it reveals the depths of deception employed to sell the war, and how fraudulent the Roberts report was so promiscously relied upon to avoid looking at the actual facts.

Yes, the CIA was leaking to unedrmine Pseidential policy. I agree that's generally bad, but let's not forget the elephant in the room - the CIA was right. The Adminsitration was knowingly misstating the state of intelligence (hence, the counterleaks), and Tenet decides to align with the President over the objection of the rest of the Agency by removing the caeveats from the NIE, which caused Sen. Graham to howl (in real time), because he had seen the caveats.

The Administration was not a victim of bad intel - it created the bad intel, and suppressed dissent. The leaks are eveidence of resistance. No avoiding that honestly
 
Teejay32 said:
It's always best to make federal prosecutors prove their case before accepting accolades MizBlu, and he might yet. But he hasn't yet. Wilson ever screwed over your own candidate for President with his www.restorehonesty.com thing, and still you refuse to see anything wrong with the guy and what he's wrought here. That's too bad, but it's not my problem. The CIA-Wilson project needs investigating.

I think its time for Joe Wilson to join Cindy Sheehan and chain himself to something! ;)
 

bsnyder said:
and the SOTU speech was in January. If he was so concerned, why didn't he start talking to reporters then?
Still revealing your ignorance -he was. Read up
 
bsnyder said:
Only because he was an Administration critic. If the situation had been the reverse, you'd have supported her outting so fast it would make our heads spin and you'd have been outraged by the nepotism and more importantly, THE COVER UP of that fact.
There was no nepotism - that's really ignorant.
 
sodaseller said:
You admit more than you intended.

No doubt the "leak war' from the CIA was the key context for all. What is interesting is how much that conmpletely undermines the convenient fiction adopted by many - that Bush was a victim of bad intelligence. Instead, it reveals the depths of deception employed to sell the war, and how fraudulent the Roberts report was so promiscously relied upon to avoid looking at the actual facts.

Yes, the CIA was leaking to unedrmine Pseidential policy. I agree that's generally bad, but let's not forget the elephant in the room - the CIA was right. The Adminsitration was knowingly misstating the state of intelligence (hence, the counterleaks), and Tenet decides to align with the President over the objection of the rest of the Agency by removing the caeveats from the NIE, which caused Sen. Graham to howl (in real time), because he had seen the caveats.

The Administration was not a victim of bad intel - it created the bad intel, and suppressed dissent. The leaks are eveidence of resistance. No avoiding that honestly


Generally bad, but in this case, it weakens the GOP and helps the Democrats, so we'll overlook it. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So it was Tenet (and the Bush Administration) on one side, the entire agency, down to a man (or woman, in the case of Valerie Plame) on the other, stating unequivocably that Saddam was no threat?

:rotfl2: :rotfl2: :rotfl2:

When ya'll do revisionist history, I gotta admit, you do it in a BIG way!
 
yeartolate said:
National security might not even be an issue with protecting her identity - it might mean the security of a contact or her coworkers who use the same cover (Brewster and Jennings, I think). It might mean losing alot of sources and contacts which might have taken a decade to obtain, but what the heck.

I think it was Brewster Jennings too, of Boston...2 years ago when the story first broke there was an article about this in a Boston paper. Brewster Jennings of Boston doesn't even have an office in Boston. Nice cover. When such a thing appears in that liberal paradise you know disgust with the CIA is running high, so again - was protecting her identity a matter of national security? An official "yes" or "no" would be nice.

sodaseller said:
The Administration was not a victim of bad intel - it created the bad intel, and suppressed dissent. The leaks are eveidence of resistance. No avoiding that honestly

WTH is "bad intel?" There's just bits & pieces of information, true or false. Democrats chose to make one bit of it out to be a lie, the 16 words, which we've always remarked on as being kind of screwy from the word Go, because the British stand by it, but anyway....when you extrapolate your whole case for the war being "based on lies" from that piece, you have to prove the "lie" first, and to prove this lie you need Joe Wilson. This is, again, not my problem. It's yours.
 
Teejay32 said:
WTH is "bad intel?" There's just bits & pieces of information, true or false.

Actually, most of those bits and pieces have caveats and disclaimers and the like a mile long, for arguing both sides. And no one has ever logically explained the "Bush Lied" theory in a way that accounts for the obvious - that they'd be "caught" in the lie in short order, once the invasion was complete. But hey, no one in the media ever asks to explain that obvious flaw, and the "Bush Lied" theme has been very effective, so I can understand why they'd stick with it. They've got to have something to run on....
 
Hey guys...don't look now, but W just nominated Samuel Alito as his new choice for the SCOTUS. Put on your armor, it looks like there's going to be a battle in Congress...
 
bsnyder said:
Actually, most of those bits and pieces have caveats and disclaimers and the like a mile long, for arguing both sides. And no one has ever logically explained the "Bush Lied" theory in a way that accounts for the obvious - that they'd be "caught" in the lie in short order, once the invasion was complete. But hey, no one in the media ever asks to explain that obvious flaw, and the "Bush Lied" theme has been very effective, so I can understand why they'd stick with it. They've got to have something to run on....
Easy explanation - they truly believed Sadaam had WMDs. For that matter, they truly believed loads of looney stuff about him - that he was truly behind all terrorism and ran AQ. They believed that the rest of the establishment" i.e., CIA, was ignoring the very credible evidence originating from defectors. Remember, Chalabi, a persona non grata during the prior Adminsitration and someone teh CIA had discredited as charlatan, was given a seat directly behind the First Lady at the SOTU speech. Had they made the case for war in terms of their view of the evidence, it would have been truthful. Demented, but truthful.

But that is not what they did - they phrased in terms of the judgments of our intelligence professionals, and that was lie. As for the caveats, Sen. Graham howled about the fact that the October 2002 NIE omitted all the caveats he had seen a month earlier and that the caveats would not be declassified when the NIE was. The fact that there was no NIE till October, on the ever of the authorization vote, is itself telling, as that shows how much the decision making process was being deliberately run around the estimation of the intelligence communities.

There's no avoiding this, try as you might. There is no honest way to maintain your position. Logic and facts are all on our side
 
Teejay32 said:
I think it was Brewster Jennings too, of Boston...2 years ago when the story first broke there was an article about this in a Boston paper. Brewster Jennings of Boston doesn't even have an office in Boston. Nice cover. When such a thing appears in that liberal paradise you know disgust with the CIA is running high, so again - was protecting her identity a matter of national security? An official "yes" or "no" would be nice.



WTH is "bad intel?" There's just bits & pieces of information, true or false. Democrats chose to make one bit of it out to be a lie, the 16 words, which we've always remarked on as being kind of screwy from the word Go, because the British stand by it, but anyway....when you extrapolate your whole case for the war being "based on lies" from that piece, you have to prove the "lie" first, and to prove this lie you need Joe Wilson. This is, again, not my problem. It's yours.

You're still putting out the same crap, It was a lie, a deliberate attempt to deceive. Your arguments to the contrary were weak before, and frivolous now. In relying on Pat Roberts and lord Butler, you are being a fool. Read the facts for yourself.

And the whole point of bits of information rather makes the point. You are proving my point without meaning to. As Jim Hoagland's real-time columns show, there was a lot of BS info out there all along, largely disinformation from INC types. The CIA termed it bogus; the OVP claimed it was credible. When the facts showed the former to be correct, the Admin blamed the CIA. That's what's absurd, and that's what you're still peddling
 
Laugh O. Grams said:
Hey guys...don't look now, but W just nominated Samuel Alito as his new choice for the SCOTUS. Put on your armor, it looks like there's going to be a battle in Congress...


I wondered if W would take the high road or the low road. Guess we found out!
 
sodaseller said:
Easy explanation - they truly believed Sadaam had WMDs. For that matter, they truly believed loads of looney stuff about him - that he was truly behind all terrorism and ran AQ. They believed that the rest of the establishment" i.e., CIA, was ignoring the very credible evidence originating from defectors. Remember, Chalabi, a persona non grata during the prior Adminsitration and someone teh CIA had discredited as charlatan, was given a seat directly behind the First Lady at the SOTU speech. Had they made the case for war in terms of their view of the evidence, it would have been truthful. Demented, but truthful.

But that is not what they did - they phrased in terms of the judgments of our intelligence professionals, and that was lie. As for the caveats, Sen. Graham howled about the fact that the October 2002 NIE omitted all the caveats he had seen a month earlier and that the caveats would not be declassified when the NIE was. The fact that there was no NIE till October, on the ever of the authorization vote, is itself telling, as that shows how much the decision making process was being deliberately run around the estimation of the intelligence communities.

There's no avoiding this, try as you might. There is no honest way to maintain your position. Logic and facts are all on our side

Follow the bouncing ball:

Honest..........logic...........facts.........Bush apologists.............:rotfl2:

What the hell are you thinking?
 
John Dickerson in Slate has a very plauisble analysis of the evidence that exonerates the rest of the WH, at least legally (though not the OVP), but which sinks Libby

Link
Karl Rove talked to only two reporters back in July 2003. That doesn't mean Patrick Fitzgerald can't still indict him for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or obstructing his investigation. But it does mean that whatever Rove was up to, he was being careful with that information. Rove could have reached scores of influential journalists with whom he has close relations. Yet he talked to only two reporters. And those reporters called him; he didn't dial around looking for a receptive stenographer.

More astonishingly, we learn from the Fitzgerald indictment that Ari Fleischer knew about Plame and didn't tell anyone at all. He walked reporters, including me, up to the fact, suggesting they look into who sent Wilson, but never used her name or talked about her position. Why not? It certainly would have been helpful for him at the time. His colleagues were savaging him at the time for bungling the response to Wilson's July 6 New York Times opinion piece. They blamed him for not sufficiently refuting the article. By leaking the Plame information, Fleischer could have discredited Wilson, muddied the story, and won back the affection of his complaining colleagues.
Fleischer and Rove each discussed Plame with Scooter. A tantalizing fact still hidden in Fitzgerald's briefcase is whether Libby in those conversations with Fleischer and Rove discussed disclosing Plame's identity.

Even Libby seems to have been using potholders when he talked about Plame in 2003. He didn't mention her to some of the reporters to whom he talked about Wilson and even in the cases where he did, he was vague. According to Judy Miller's account of her testimony, Libby said he thought Wilson's wife might work at the CIA. He offhandedly half-confirmed it to my former Time colleague Matthew Cooper only when Cooper brought it up. "Yeah, I've heard that too." he said.

IOW, all other WH types were hoping reporters would run it down and publish it (they should know reporters are too lazy - they must be spoonfed) , but they were careful not to walk over the line that Libby is alleged to have
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom