Wednesday, October 19, 2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q74JDfjI_3w
Let's see here. Who was the reporter who broke the Valerie Plame case? Was it wd, or was it Robert Novak? I seem to recall that it was Novak. And since I'm pretty damn sure of it, what do you say that we go exclusively here by what HE said?............a) He has claimed repeatedly that Armitage never said anything about Plame EVER being covert.............b) He has said that his interaction with Karl Rove (on this subject anyway) consisted of a single sentence confirmation; "You know that, too?", and that it was he who initiated the interaction and not the other way around (as has so slanderously been alleged by wd).............c) He ultimately confided that his third administration source was a C.I.A. spokesperson by the name of Bill Harlow and that, while, yes, Mr. Harlow requested that the name not be used, nowhere did Harlow ever say that she was currently a covert operative (only that she probably wouldn't ever be able to be stationed overseas again and that, if she ever went overseas on her own, there could in fact be some embarrassment).............d) He claims that George Tenent never told him not to run the story (all media interactions go up to the top and, if Mr. Tenent thought that this disclosure had even a scintilla of danger to it, he would have requested that it not be reported).............e) He points out (quite correctly, in my estimation) that had in fact Richard Armitage broken the law, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald wouldn't have hesitated for a second to indict him (such was the level of Mr. Fitzgerald's zeal).............f) He alleges that Mrs. Wilson AND the cover company (no longer at that time at all involved in operations) each made political contributions to the Gore campaign and that they did so utilizing the name, VALERIE PLAME WILSON.............g) He also points out that Mr. Wilson's mission to Niger was supposedly confidential and that it was Wilson himself who got this whole thing started in the first place with his newspaper piece.............It appears, folks, that, at least from Robert Novak's perspective, Bush's brain, Karl Rover, didn't play much of a role at all in this allegedly "treasonous" action.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I never claimed I broke the story. I simply examined the facts and reached the logical conclusion.
Will: ...what do you say that we go exclusively here by what HE said?
I say no. I say we should go by the person who is in the best position to know if Valerie Plame was covert at the time she was outed... which was Valerie Plame.
If it is so obvious that Plame lied why wasn't she charged with perjury?
If it was so obvious she wasn't covert why were her claims otherwise not laughed at? I don't recall anyone asking, "what are you trying to pull lady?"
CIA Chief Hayden said she was covert. He didn't mean in the past. He meant at the time she was outed. Why the hell would he confirm that she was covert in the past? That wasn't pertinent at all!
And where do you get off saying Valerie Plame is a liar? I suppose her book was a lie as well? Even though it was vetted by the CIA? The CIA redacted a lot of stuff (for national security reasons), but the LIES were OK with them?
Also, according to what I heard, Cheney wasn't happy with bush that he prevented Libby from going to jail but let the conviction stand. But WHY wasn't Cheney instead perplexed as to why Libby chose to cover up for him... when (according to you) there was NOTHING to cover up for!
He thought it might be fun to find out was prison was like? If he were so eager to go to jail why hasn't he committed another crime since bush put a stop to his fun times before they began?
According to Richard Armitage, in his 43 years in public service, he has NEVER seen a covered operative's name mentioned in a memo, NEVER! The lady was frigging publicly chairing a God damned meeting, for Christ.......She WAS questioned at the time. Victoria Toensing (one of the individuals who actually framed the IIA) said that she didn't fit the criteria for being covert. And more would have likely said the same thing but that miserable bastard Waxman allowed only one rebuttal witness. And even the media itself, when they were trying to spring Miller and Cooper, said (I refer you AGAIN to that Washington Post piece) that there was NO CRIME COMMITTED in the Plame leak case. Covert Shmovert.
She wasn't charged with perjury because perjury is hard to prove (she could always blame memory, semantics, etc.). The far more important questions are why wasn't Richard Armitage indicted and why didn't George Tenent ask Mr. Novak not to run the story.......I would also remind you that neither Valerie Plame nor you was privy to the Novak-Rove conversation. According to Novak, it was a one sentence confirmation, "You know that, too (Rove's recollection was "I've heard that, too.")?"
Will: I would also remind you that neither Valerie Plame nor you was privy to the Novak-Rove conversation.
Nor were you.
And you haven't answered the question of why Libby refused to tell the truth. My guess (regarding why you haven't answered) is because that is where your theory falls apart. If things were as you say there are... then there would have been no reason for him not to testify to the whole truth.
Also, regarding Michael Hayden saying Plame was "covert", by which you think he meant she was covert in the past (but not covert when her name was revealed by Novak)....
...a 5/27/2009 MSNBC story says, "Plame was covert agent at time of name leak" (as confirmed by the CIA with documents provided to special prosecutor Fitzgerald).
Case closed... at least as far as I'm concerned. You can keep arguing this if you like, but it's quite obvious that Novak got it wrong.
Oh, so, because I wasn't privy to the Novak-Rove conversation, either, that gives the right to call Robert Novak a liar? Did you even watch the Novak tape that I linked you to? Probably not, huh, because it would force you to reassess your preconceived notions.......Your question about Libby, I have no idea what Libby said or why he lied. All I know is that the cover-up is always worse than the crime - especially in this case because there was in fact NO CRIME. If there had been a crime, Armitage would have been arrested and prosecuted AND HE WASN'T (I notice that you didn't answer MY question on THIS)......And I ask you yet again, if releasing Valerie Plame's identity had been such a colossal breach in national security, then why didn't George Tenent contact Novak and ask him not to run the story? He didn't, wd. He didn't because she wasn't covert (you might want to read that Washington Post piece again which stated that NO CRIME HAD BEEN COMMITTED).
And where your story falls apart is not being able to give a nonlaughable answer to the question of why the Vice President's office would send a staunch OPPONENT (as, too, was Novak, btw) of intervention in Iraq on such a delicate mission as this. The very concept is ludicrous/patently absurd. Mr. Wilson went because his wife from the CIA recommended him (yeah, maybe she was asked but she still recommended him). And, yes, I gave you the pdf sourcing for that, too.
What I find laughable is you calling my totally reasonable and completely logical explanation as to how Dick Cheney's office came to send Joe Wilson to Niger "laughable".
Infinitely more laughable is you continuing to insist that Libby covered something up, when, according to you, there was nothing to cover up!
FYI, he was covering up the VP and Rove's involvement in outing a covert CIA agent in revenge for Joe Wilson debunking the Yellowcake claim.
And yes, I watched the video you linked to... It was just more Novak's version of events as "proof". The guy was duped! I think he may have known it but didn't want to admit it.
Again, per the Washington Post, March 24, 2005............"The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is 'ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed' in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003. Plame's name was published first by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak and later by other publications." No crime, a-hole......And, AGAIN, you're calling Novak a liar (not to mention, a dupe - a man who had more intellect in his pinky than you have in your entire deluded body). He said that he had only a one sentence confirmation from Mr. Rover, "You know that, too?" You can't just make shit up, dude.
While Dick Cheney may be a bad man, HE ISN'T STUPID. He would have never, ever, EVER, sent an opponent of his policy on a delicate mission that could have potentially torpedoed that policy. It's absurd.......And I ask you AGAIN, if a crime had been committed in leaking Mrs. Plame's identity, why wasn't Richard Armitage indicted? Why, wd? Tell me.......And I also ask you AGAIN, if the leaking of Mrs. Plame's identity had been such a major breach of national security, why was it that George Tenent never asked Novak not to run the story?......And what about Richard Armitage saying that in 43 years of military and diplomatic service, he had NEVER seen a covert agent's name written on a memo OR a covert agent publicly chairing a meeting. Is Mr. Armitage lying also, wd?
And it isn't me saying that there wasn't anything to cover up. It was the media that said that! I refer you AGAIN to the Washington Post piece from 2005.
Byron York is a conservative. And, yes, for that alone, you probably hate him. But he's also considered by most fair-minded people to be a respected journalist. One of his contributions was to put forth the 2004 Senate report on the Plame case and specifically this memo from Plame herself, entitled "Iraq-related Nuclear Report Makes a Splash". Read it and tell me if you still think that Valerie Plame didn't lie............
"So where do I fit in? As you may recall, [redacted] of CP/[office 2] recently approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate [a separate Niger matter]. After many fits and starts, [redacted] finally advised that the station wished to pursue this with liaison. My husband is willing to help, if it makes sense, but no problem if not. End of story.
Now, with this report, it is clear that the IC is still wondering what is going on… my husband has good relations with both the PM 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. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency’s sloppy work last go-round, and I am hesitant to suggest anything again. However, [my husband] may be in a position to assist. Therefore, request your thoughts on what, if anything, to pursue here. Thank you for your time on this.
This, from the Huffington Post's Jason Linkins.............http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/02/byron-york-leaves-ination_n_163179.html
And if you don't like the Washington Post, how 'bout Wikipedia?......As evidence that it is likely that no crime had been committed, the news agencies voluntarily filed a friend of the court brief in which they state on page 5:
B. There is Ample Evidence On The Public Record To Cast Considerable Doubt That a Crime Has Been Committed. [Supporting facts and rationale are offered in subsequent pages.]
According to the news agencies, there was no need to compel these reporters to divulge their sources because it was unlikely that a crime had been committed.......The "supporting facts and rationale" include evidence of how Mrs. Plame had already been outed twice previously; once in Russia and the second time in Cuba....That's why she was sitting behind a desk at Langley for over 5 years.
Will, the "friend of the court brief" is totally irrelevant at this point. The trial proceeded, Libby refused to cooperate, and he was found guilty of obstruction.
Would any of that have happened if the court had examined the brief and determined that it was accurate... that there was no crime? The charges against Libby would have been dismissed.
They were not.
Also, the CIA filed it's own brief. CIA Chief Michael Hayden said Plame was covert at the time of the outing.
Obviously the court determined Hayden was right and those that filed the brief were wrong.
I don't see how determining the truth could be any simpler.
Obstruction of what (and I'm glad to see that you've finally conceded that such a brief exists - though, now you say that it's unimportant)? Again, if a crime had been permitted in Armitage telling the truth that it was Plame's wife who had recommended him for the assignment, and not the Vice President's office, then why wasn't HE, Armitage, indicted? He's the one who committed this alleged offense.......And I also want to know why David Corn and Joe Wilson weren't indicted. They were the ones who initially used the name, Valerie Plame, in an article. Armitage said nothing about her being covert and Novak reported nothing about her being covert. This was a dormant issue until the left started pissing and moaning about it (the highly corrupted and two-faced media obviously playing along).
Post a Comment