Many have wondered what was the purpose of the “Who’s Who In America” sitting on the desk in yesterday’s Robert Novak walk-off incident on CNN’s Inside Politics.
Josh Marshall points out this tidbit from an a Chicago Sun-Times piece on the incident explains:
In a column that ran in the Sun-Times on Monday, Novak suggested he learned Plame’s identity partly from reading Who’s Who in America. A CNN source said a producer had placed a copy of Who’s Who on the set Thursday prior to the taping, apparently so it could be consulted while Novak was asked about the issue.
So what would they have found?
Here’s what’s inside the book siting on that desk…
“Copyright (c) 2002 by Reed Elsevier, Inc.”
Melvin Schuetz from Baylor’s Moody Library forwarded Joseph Wilson’s bio from the 2003 edition of Who’s Who in America [Volume 2 (L-Z)]. He notes:
- Wilson’s entry carries over about 5 lines to the next column, which is why it cuts off in mid-sentence at the end. The relevant text is “m. Valerie Elise Plame, Apr. 3, 1998,” which not only appears in the 2003 edition, but ALL editions from 1999-2005!
So, via Who’s Who, the name “Valerie Plame” has been associated publicly with Joe Wilson since the Clinton era – nice secret… ***
Coverage Elsewhere
Mickey Kaus
Tom Maguire
Josh Marshall
Jay Rosen
Update: For the commenters and blogs tracking back saying variation of, “Plame’s identity was never a secret,” (a point I address below at the ***) this post originally related back to what the book was doing on the table [See yesterday’s post on the Novak meltdown]. Was it supposed to scare Novak? Given the content of the book why would it? It says what he said it said…
Update 2: More on Novak and Plame later, but perhaps the raging debate in the comment section can dissect what effect, if any, Novak’s piece would have had if he used Valerie Wilson instead of Valerie Plame? Also do you think Novak, on hearing of the wife’s involvement got her name from Who’s Who and stuck with it OR found the Who’s Who reference to backup his source(s)?
*** Evidently one cannot even make a snarky remark about the Plame affair without having to explain oneself ad nauseum. OK here goes…
I’m over generalizing here, but it seem like there wasn’t an outing of an agent until two non-secret bits of information were combined.Joseph Wilson’s wife’s maiden name, most would now agree, was not a secret. That Wilson worked at the CIA was not widely known, but it was hardly a secret [See Cliff May at NRO and Just One Minute]. That Wilson’s wife was (or had been) a covert operative was only known to (if reports are to be believed) the Cuban government and perhaps those receiving information form Aldrich Ames, but it was still a secret. Novak puts two pieces of non-secret information together and gets this flashpoint.
But how did that combination “out” a covert agent? I turns out the the Valerie Plame name (remember, according to many commenters her name’s no big deal) was her cover. If her cover name was Valerie Jones how exactly would Novak’s column as it was written have “outed” her? It’s wouldn’t have. As former federal prosecutor Joesph DiGenoa contends it sure looks like the CIA didn’t exactly bust a nut to “take every conceivable step to protect this person’s identity.”
King Turdeater? Good god. Grow up. Or at least become clever.
If Valerie Plame was her maiden AND cover name, then the fact that it was published in the Who’s Who is entirely relevant.
So, really, Valerie’s dad outed her by sending out engraved invitations to her wedding.
The plot thickens.
“The Director of Operations as well as a hundred or so others do. Look him up, you won’t find a name.”
So what? If I followed some guy to work (who happened to be the director)and wrote a story that he worked for the CIA (which would be obvious), I wouldn’t be breaking any laws, either.
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me,” he said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”
– From this article in Newsday 07/22/03
“By the same principle, the recent NYT story on the CIA’s use of private contractors for covert air services, specifically naming the companies and some of the employees, also endangers every person working in those companies (whether on the covert side or the legit side of the company).”
Somebody should look into it. If that company’s employees were running agents in addition to transporting to torture centers than the leaks would be comparable.
Hey, I got the name from Bush’s name for Karl the Traitor: TurdBlossom
Rickt asked the following riddle:
Q: If an offense was not committed — during the outing of Plame as covert agent — why would the CIA ask the DoJ to get involved and launch an investigation?
A: ???
Here’s the answer: because at the beginning, you don’t know whether it was an offense or not. Maybe you think it is, but further investigation shows that a) you’re right or b) you’re wrong.
Police and prosecutors investigate alleged crimes all the time. Some pan out and some don’t. But you don’t know until you do the investigation.
None of this matters! She was never in any danger. Why are we even playing the liberal’s little “get rid of Rove” game.
Posted by: rickt at August 5, 2005 05:00 PM
“Riddle me this:
Q: If an offense was not committed — during the outing of Plame as covert agent — why would the CIA ask the DoJ to get involved and launch an investigation?
A: ???”
Good question. It is often assumed there are no democrats or liberals in government (re: that it is naturally conservative). Well, there are. Some in the CIA and many in the state dept.
Some of them are hard core partisans like you folks. They want investigations for the same reason a lot of you do. Score points for their side.
Anyway, I’m close to centrist (leaning conservative but still open minded) and I’m not convinced anyone did anything wrong here. Rove screwed up and confirmed something he was asked but that’s assuming he used his security clearance to find out she was CIA (and covert). That’s a big if. Not to mention, the whole narrative that this was revenge has totally floundered. Its sort of, ‘is that all you got’? The public won’t get on board over this. It’s too underwhelming.
The secret was not her maiden name, it was that she worked for the CIA. Officially, she worked as an energy analyst for the firm of Brewster Jennings and Associates. The fact that this company was a front controlled by the CIA was also highly classified; apparently this firm had other “employees” as well, so Novak’s article exposed them all.
It is apparently true that she used the name “Valerie Wilson” socially and “Valerie Plame” when working with Brewster Jennings, but vast numbers of professional women who established a reputation under their maiden names do the same.
Anyway, I’m close to centrist (leaning conservative but still open minded) and I’m not convinced anyone did anything wrong here. Rove screwed up and confirmed something he was asked but that’s assuming he used his security clearance to find out she was CIA (and covert). That’s a big if. Not to mention, the whole narrative that this was revenge has totally floundered. Its sort of, ‘is that all you got’? The public won’t get on board over this. It’s too underwhelming.
You are probably right, unless someone in the WH is actually charged. I’m just keeping my fingers crossed. If we see Karl the Traitor on the evening news with his hands behind his back, that would be pretty effective.
Even assuming arguendo that Wilson was fabricating everything (which is a ridiculous assertion), why would this justify identifying his wife as a CIA operative?
And, more importantly, why would anyone defend it?
I have a real problem with knee-jerk Republicans, who will defend anything and everything this administration does, even if its inconsistent with their own personal values.
The truth is: I doubt any of these people believe that leaking the fact that Plame was a CIA operative is justifiable. They’re just standing up for their party the way they would stand up for a good friend who may have done something wrong. The problem is: these people really should be standing up to their country right now.
And the ridiculous talking point that she wasn’t covert? It’s either ignorant or disingenuous. It’s not for us (or the administration) to decide whether she is entitled to that status. The fact is that she had that status. Can’t these people comprehend that that status may have been maintained to protect others?
This whole debacle has had a deleterious impact on our ability to gather intelligence, particularly in the areas related to WMD. Why would you consult or reveal information to an operative knowing that someday down the road their status (and hence your cooperation with them) might be revealed?
This whole thing is indefensible and shows a penchant for putting politics above issues of national security, etc.
Posted by: patriotboy at August 5, 2005 05:13 PM
“The Director of Operations as well as a hundred or so others do. Look him up, you won’t find a name.”
Are any of those guys actually going to be sent on covert missions? No.
Every hostile (and most of the friendly) intelligence agencies in the world photograph people working there.
You can’t even be sent on missions against non governmental targets because of the cooperation between some governments with non government groups (such as large narco trafficking groups)…
That’s my point of having a desk job at that building…
How does the name “POed Liberal” differentiate you from any other Liberal?
Someone earlier in the thread stated that Wilson claimed that she was no longer covert. This is actually not true. It’s a complete misquote (much like the assertion that he claimed that Cheney sent him; Wilson never said that: go to the primary source (the way we learned in school) and read the actual transcript instead of relying on second hand reports)).
Wilson said that she was no longer covert, once her identity had been revealed.
What he was saying was: you blew her cover, guys…
Why defend that? Don’t you want to see CIA agents and their sources identities protected? Seriously ask yourself if you’re just sticking up for your party or sticking up for your actual values. I would guess that your a person of integrity and your actual values would actual condemn disclosing such information. If so, please stop defending the destructive actions of this administration. Or at least ask yourself if they truly deserve your trust.
** Truth = Smear **
(Typical donkeyass logic.)
How does the name “POed Liberal” differentiate you from any other Liberal?
I’m more pissed-off. Like many liberals, I have grown tired of listening to morons tell lies, and am no longer going to be sitting around and taking it.
I’m polishing my baseball bat, and swinging for the knee-caps.
Thanks for asking.
Ahhh, the party of compassion and tolerance.
I’m not sure what the truth = smear post is intended to say, but if it is insinuating that the truth can NEVER be a smear, I respectfully disagree.
For example, your buddy ticks you off, you know his credit card # and other related details. You go on this site and you publish it. You’ve just stated something truthful — his credit card # — but you’ve caused significant harm — you published a confidential piece of info.
Second example: same buddy — he ticks you off — he’s single and you know he’s impotent. You publicize this fact or gossip about it with a woman he’s interested in. You’ve just told the truth, but you’ve also smeared him.
Please think critically about these things. A lot of these arguments just don’t hold water and, again, I suspect their being proferred by people who really don’t support the idea of “outing” a CIA agent or otherwise jeopardizing national security.
I keep seeing the idiot claim that revealing that she was an “undercover CIA agent” or that she was “affiliated” or “worked for” the CIA is the real crime – and that Novak and/or somebody in the administration is guilty of it. Typical liberal moonbat paranoia.
First of all – she was first identified as an “undercover CIA agent” by David Corn of The Nation, a leftist rag, a couple of days after Bob Novak’s column ran. His source was none other but Joe Wilson himself. Bob Novak only identified her affiliation with the CIA, in a whistleblowing step to point out Joe Wilson’s lack of integrity in his claims about the administration and Niger. If anything, the scandal is how this third rate partisan lying hack who didn’t even work for the CIA got a gig to investigate a matter of national security via nepotism.
Second of all – Bob Novak is surely guilty of identifying her affiliation with the CIA, if that is a crime. However, it was well known within her circle of friends that she worked at the CIA, and any “investigative” reporter surely could have seen her walking to and from her office in Langley. Besides, she was pushing paper anyway because of the concern that she’d already been outed by traitor Aldrich Ames.
Now, DUers…..breathe nice, slow, deep breaths into your paper bag….
Sip some Hennessy, it’s Friday!
You guys are hilarious. I especially love the especially informed claims that no crime was committed, powered by the diligently researched facts of Powerline, Rush, Freerepublic, et al. Reminds me of the time when you guys were all of a sudden experts on Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda and their development of weapons of mass destruction.
Of course you knew then, better than Ritter et al., that Iraq had WMDs. Just as you know now, better than Patrick Fitzgerald (formerly of fame for bringing down the corrupt Democratic regime in Illinois, so hardly a partisan hack), that no crime was committed. Forget about law school, or reading the U.S. Code, or about talking to an expert on federal criminal law. Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin said there was no crime!
In two months, someone might ask you about your opinions on Plame and Rove, and whether you’ll finally admit you’re wrong. Maybe one or two of you will admit it, but I suspect that most of you will move on to the next Rush Limbaugh inspired outrage.
At some point, maybe you’ll realize that your information is only as good as your sources. And your sources are $hit, frankly. They’ve been wrong time and time again. Rush Limbaugh is NOT an expert on Middle East policy. Sean Hannity is NOT an expert on proliferation issues. Bill O’Reilly is NOT an expert on North Korea. Your fellow douchebags at Freerepublic.com are NOT experts on federal criminal law, nor are they particularly well-versed in the life of Ms. Valerie Wilson, nee Plame.
You are right about what Wilson said, I was incorrect, and you did catch me relying on secondary sources. But he is being slightly cute with his comments; a non-denial if there ever was one. He won’t come out and say she was covert, which leads to the suggestion that perhaps she wasn’t. The whole issue, based on the statute, is whether she had seved outside the country since 1997. I don’t know whether she had or not, and I don’t know why the CIA asked to have it investigated. I don’t know what Rove did, Miller did, or Novak did. Neither does anyone on this board. Wilson could have been Miller’s source, Rove might have been Novak’s. If it turns out Rove acted as alleged by the mainstream press, he should be gone. But if he didn’t, I hope some of the folks with the overheated comments on this board will be forthcoming in admitted they were incorrect. Here is what Wilson said:
What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.
WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.
BLITZER: But she hadn’t been a clandestine officer for some time before that?
WILSON: Thats not anything I can talk about. And, indeed, I’ll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that’s why they referred it to the Justice Department.
Posted by: sirreal2001 at August 5, 2005 05:22 PM
“Even assuming arguendo that Wilson was fabricating everything (which is a ridiculous assertion), why would this justify identifying his wife as a CIA operative?”
It’s not ridiculous; actually it is where the facts point as far as I can see. Reread his NYTs editorial then the Butler report.
Anyway, to answer your question, first off you seem to assume Rove et all knew she was covert. We don’t know that. Second, the reason was it was a defense against another Wilson fabrication. Wilson kept saying the vice president’s office sent him ergo they must have known about his conclusions (which he also misrepresented to the public…). Well, the VPs office did not initiate his trip (which a senate report shows) and there is no evidence they read his report (which actually said that Nigerian officials believed that Iraqi officials had made overtures to buy uranium…). In fact, the CIA imitated his mission internally. The fact that his wife had a hand in his selection helped counter his claim it was Cheney’s office…
Ahhh, the party of compassion and tolerance.
Absolutely, within limits. A vast improvement over the current repuke party, the party of stupidity, religious nutbars and liars like yourself.
HOWARD DEAN JUST RESIGNED HIS CHAIRMANSHIP!!!
“Out to get Karl”? Absolutely! We are indeed out to get Karl, because he’s a devious, amoral hatchet-man who cares more about his own political fortunes than he cares about the security of our nation. Folks like that shouldn’t have the ear of the world’s most powerful man. That you lot are defending a man who is willing to sink to any depth for political victory says volumes–to so vigorously defend a hitman like Karl shows you care more about the integrity of your party’s power than the health of the nation.
For crying out loud, you’re defending a man who orchestrated a smear campaign against a patriotic, triple-amputee war veteran–just because he wasn’t playing for Karl’s team! You’re standing beside a man who started a whispering campaign against a state supreme court judge, alleging that the man was a pedophile! Set aside, just for one heartbeat, whatever various legal technicalities and arguments you have; forget what the definition of “is” is for just a second. Does Karl Rove stand for what you believe in? When you watch what he does, do you think, “He’s doing this for the good of America!”? Would you be proud to do the things Karl Rove does? Would you raise your kids to be like Karl Rove?
But don’t even think of suggesting we’re going over-the-top in going after Karl. I think the gloves kinda came off in this arena when a different special prosecutor released a detailed and public account of how the President of the United States stuck a cigar into an intern’s hoo-hah, pulled it out, tasted it, and proclaimed “It tastes good.” At that point, ladies and gentlemen, all suggestion of decorum and dignity in these kinds of proceedings didn’t fly out the window–it was stabbed in the neck, spat on, and shoved down the garbage chute.
You want to talk about the Dems being “out to get” Karl? Fair enough. Let’s consult the playbook to see just how far we should carry this. Let’s get right down to the nittiest, grittiest, nastiest truths of the matter. Let no stone go unturned, and let no punch be pulled–America deserves the truth, nothing less. With any luck, Mr. Fitzgerald wil have some very, very interesting things to publish in the next few months.
> I’m polishing my baseball bat, and swinging for the knee-caps.
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon
his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
– H.L. Mencken
RE: POed Liberal’s automated language transmogrifier post (August 5, 2005 04:28 PM)
Houston, we have a problem…
semiliterate repukelican moron
bozo
conservadopo
*snap…*
conservamoron
conservaturd
*crackle… pop!*
I think it was here where I heard the creativity switch in the right-wingnut regular expression loop go kablooey… or the nut fall off the right-wing creativity switch. I’m not sure which and I guess it doesn’t really matter. The point is that an endless loop bug has been exposed.
Just thought I’d let you know that you might want to investigate – maybe borrow some of ed’s (see ed at August 5, 2005 04:27 PM) suggestions to reseed your semantics well.
Tranquility Base, out.
[~ post #179 and rapidly climbing. Someone erect a new net – it’s a moonbat swarm!]
Bill,
Even though I believe that we disagree on the overall issue, I respect the integrity of your response.
I know this is crazy day, but…
1. I used to get Who’s who entries all the time. ANYONE can be in Who’s who, for the $60 or whatever per year they charge. You even write your own entries.
2. I would have thought at least the wacky lefties would acknowledge what even the NYT acknowledges – that Wilson lied about his WMD statement. He massaged the words carefully, by saying there was no evidence that Iraq BOUGHT WMD in the 90’s, when his own report verified that they SOUGHT them. Not to mention that Iraq BOUGHT some 500 tonnes of Yellow Cake in the 80’s. I think Iraq had something like 2000 TONNES of Yellow Cake stockpiled and flagged with bright UN seals. Nothing nwe t here.
3. This debate is not about Wilson, a confirmed liar, which is over, but whether any law was broken with Plame, who dunnit, and if any laws were indeed broken, whether there will be a prosecution. None of us were in the GJ room, so all we can do is speculate. The cast of characters include Cooper, Judy gal, Rove, Libby, Novak, and perhaps even David Korn and others. What strikes me, is if Plame was indeed outed twice (inadvertantly) by the CIA, losing her covert status, why is there a prosecutor still on this case? Why is Judy-gal still in jail? What is the Times role in all this? So far, no conservatives have been implicated in any law breaking. (ranting aside), but is there a fishing expedition to catch a conservative? or has someone in Bushes cabinet under the gun, but details have not hit the public waves? Os is there some other focus to this investigation now?
I think my questions are more to the actual point of this. Most of the other crap is just muddying the waters. My suspicion is that there is something stinking in NYTs back yard, but there could just as well be something stinking in the administration, who (should have been at least) were hungry to expose Wilson’s lies.
Lastly, it will be months, maybe another year before we know anything, so chill out dudes!
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon
his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
– H.L. Mencken
Thank you. I am adopting that as my motto.
Posted by: ColBatGuano at August 5, 2005 05:42 PM
“> I’m polishing my baseball bat, and swinging for the knee-caps.
“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon
his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”
– H.L. Mencken”
Well, a good liberal would resist the urge. A fascist would not.
I think this discussion shows that there is a lot of ambiguity over this. A lot of people seem pretty surprised to hear that most of Wilson’s claims have been disproved (by a senate investigation and the British Butler report).
Really want to bash the other side when you may not even be right?
Once again:
It was a crime. It was Rove. Deal with it.
Here’s the Republican logic:
See, if you can prove that Clark Kent is Superman, then it means you’ve proven that Clark Kent is a superhero, because it’s OBVIOUS to everyone that Superman is a superhero.
Therefore,
If you can prove that Valerie Wilson is Valerie Plame, then it means you’ve proven that Valerie Wilson is a spy, because it’s OBVIOUS to everyone that Valerie Plame is a spy.
Therefore, since they didn’t take huge efforts to occlude the Wilson/Plame connection, it means it was no big state secret, therefore, no treason.
I mean, I sure knew that “Valerie Plame” is a spy! It was completely obvious, wasn’t it? I mean, that name SCREEEEAMS James Bond, doesn’t it? I mean, it’s an anagram for “Lie, Reveal, Map”, which are all toootally spy words! (Hmm, it’s also a “Veep Lie Alarm”….)
Actually, Thomas, both the Senate report and the Butler report make clear that the claims of Bush in his January 2003 speech (the 16 words) were wrong, and unsupportable at least as soon as October 2002.
Both reports do attempt to make the claims that Bush was at least somewhat justified in relying on those claims (and not lying). However, given the heavy political pressures we know went into both reports, that conclusion, which is at least somewhat belied by the facts of both reports, seems tenuous.
Maybe you should reconsider bashing the other side before checking to see if you’re right. One place to start might be by reading the actual reports.
Twit.
Just a test. This is only a test.
To all you republicans posting here. Can you give me the top-ten things that Republicans have done wrong in the last ten years? How about the Bush Administration?
Please don’t come back with naming what the Democrats/Clinton has done. I know you guys already can recite those like Muslims do the Koran.
As has been reported, the CIA was so convinced that Valerie Plame’s covert status had been compromised by Aldrich Ames around 1994 that it pulled her back to the United States along with several other agents, fearing that they would be captured, imprisoned, or killed.
To say that the CIA would continue to use people in “covert” roles when it was certain enough that their identities had been compromised to the point that they did something that extreme and counterproductive to intelligence-gathering suggests that the CIA is grossly and completely incompetent. Pulling Valerie Plame back to the United States was not going to make foreign intelligence agencies forget who she was, and any “company” for which she worked was going to immediately fall under suspicion. Furthermore, it is the height of ignorance to think that foreign intelligence agencies wouldn’t suspect an ambassador’s wife of being a CIA agent — especially when you looked at her bio and/or work history with all those mysterious moves.
The only way in which Plame could have possibly been “covert” was as a counterintelligence ruse — that is, we know you know, but we don’t want you to think that we know you know.
Furthermore, if you look at Wilson’s own words in the Times op-ed, he rather proudly states that he made sure everyone he talked to in Niger knew that he was there at the behest of the US government. The people he talked to — current and former government and uranium-cartel officials — had to know that if even a whisper had gotten out about them even talking with Saddam about buying uranium, it could cut off the country’s foreign aid, bring sanctions and severing of diplomatic relations down on them, and destroy one of their country’s best means of raising foreign capital. In short, as long as Joe Wilson was standing there telling them he was there on behalf of the US government, they weren’t going to say anything BUT “no, no, we never did anything like that”.
The fact that the CIA sent someone on a mission where the results were a foregone conclusion, given the person’s methods, raises the issue of why they did it in the first place. Could it be because their only interest was in taking cheap political shots at the Bush administration, which was agitating very strongly for the reform and revamp of the CIA structure to remove the bureaucracy and force the agency to gather information for intelligence and not political purposes?
“Like many liberals, I have grown tired of listening to morons tell lies”
Can’t hear yourself think, hmm?
And no Democrat’s posing as Republicans. At least not until after you wipe the drool off your chin.
Posted by: Doubting Thomas at August 5, 2005 05:53 PM
“Actually, Thomas, both the Senate report and the Butler report make clear that the claims of Bush in his January 2003 speech (the 16 words) were wrong,”
Yes, wrong with hindsight.
“and unsupportable at least as soon as October 2002.”
Ahhh, prove it. I have read them and this is not what I saw.
“Maybe you should reconsider bashing the other side before checking to see if you’re right. One place to start might be by reading the actual reports.
Twit.”
And a big f you back to ya. Quote from the report to prove your point.
We all already know the niger letters were fake and it’s spin to try to only rely on them (as Wilson did). The point is there was other well founded intel to support the claim. This is in the Butler report.
Well, a good liberal would resist the urge. A fascist would not.
Treason in high office is not to be tolerated, even in a turdblossom like Karl Rove. I’m tired of those defeatist attitudes that you describe.
You are gonna see a buncha POed libs over the next 18 months. We awake and we angry.
Read Novak’s column. He didn’t claim that the CIA connection came from Who’s Who. Only the name of Wilson’s wife. I suspect that the reason the book was on the set was to call attention to the fact, pointed out above, that it did not say Ms. Plame worked for the CIA.
That she worked for the CIA, he reports, was common knowledge around Washington. He also faulted himself for using the term “operative” to describe her, which has been used to fan the flames.
Novak’s column is pretty defensive, and his walking off the set indicates that he’s personally unsettled by the way his original piece has transmogrified into a multi-million dollar investigation and a fellow journalist being sent to jail. He takes it personally.
I understand why the Democrats and the media are so desperate for a scandal to hurt Bush, but this one has more in common with Rather’s TANG documents than any real wrongdoing. The scandal, as far as I’m concerned, is that Plame may have used her position of influence to give her hubbly a junket on the government’s dime. It also suggests that the CIA was larded with officers who are hostile to Bush and his foreign policy. The only thing about it that discredits Bush and Rove is that they didn’t find a replacement for Tenet much, much earlier. It’s one thing to disagree with your leaders, but quite another to go out of your way to torpedo them, which is what Wilson was all about.
LOL, above, has the right idea.
You’re all here, parsing the treason statutes (well, one of them, anyway; nobody from Wingnuttia’s informed you yet, that there are LOTS of them, plus myriad regulations), thereby PROVING Joe Wilson’s wife wasn’t “undercover” for the requisite amount of time, Wilson was an unmitigated liar, etc., etc.
Hey, we ain’t got shit to say about the outcome here!
Run, quick like a bunny, go tell Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald! HE’s the guy you’ve got to convince! (Well, him and the federal judges who continue to greenlight his grand jury investigation.)
I’m positive he’ll be enraptured by your legal theories! ROTFLMAO!!
Peon said “Treason in high office is not to be tolerated, even in a turdblossom like Karl Rove.”
As the late Steven Vincent said “Words Matter” – and hysterical foul mouthed lefties like you lower the debate by your shrill use of words like; lie, treason, turdblossom…
What are you……12?
Sweet! We’re on the brink of ‘yo mama’ jokes
Ok Tom 4:28 PM, here’s one of my favorites…
Yo mama so fat, when somebody yells ‘Hey Kool-Aid’, she comes bustin’ through the wall.
Yes, the name of Ambassador Wilson’s may have been public information, but his wife’s name may have been known, but the fact that she was an CIA operative was not, until Mr. Novak announced it publicly.
You ideologues and apologists are missing the point
“As the late Steven Vincent said “Words Matter” – and hysterical foul mouthed lefties like you lower the debate by your shrill use of words like; lie, treason, turdblossom…”
Turdblossom is Bush’s name for ol’ Karl the traitor.
Deal with it.
I know that Turdblossom is a bad word, but after Bob Novak used it in a column, it was fair game.
Those who still claim that WILSON lied when he said Cheney sent him are, well, lying or misinformed.
Wilson has repeatedly said that Cheney or Cheney’s office had a question on the issue, and it was the CIA’s decision to send him.
I know that this point is confusing to you Republican Non-Thinks, but the record is clear. In fact, Wilson has said the opposite: that Cheney probably had NO IDEA of his mission.
Long before you Non-Thinks came up with this lie, Wilson told none other than Jeff Gannon (in his now somewhat infamous interview), the following. All of his statements have been concerning Cheney have been consistent on this point.
http://tinyurl.com/bynaf
Read it and weep (and just try to explain):
“TN: Did the White House have any advance notice that you were going on this mission?
Wilson: I doubt it. The way that this works is that the vice president is acknowledged as asking the CIA briefer if he has anything on this subject. That is taken by the CIA briefer as a tasker. The CIA briefer goes back and tasks it at the operational level. The operators then decide how best to answer the question and in this case they did a number of things that I am aware of. One, they had this meeting at which they tried to fill in all information gaps they had, and two, they asked me if I would clear my schedule to go, and three, after I said that I might be prepared to do that, we gamed out what might be gained by my going out there.”
Posted by: keverama-ding-dong at August 5, 2005 05:56 PM
“To all you republicans posting here. Can you give me the top-ten things that Republicans have done wrong in the last ten years? How about the Bush Administration?”
What? 20 things? Anyway, I’m not a republican but here are some things that come to mind…
1) Encouraging the Iraqi’s to rise up against Saddam when we didn’t follow through and help (as promised). This really digs me as I’m in a group that the US did this too way back when (and we got torn up as a result also).
2) I don’t buy that life begins at conception so some of this stem cell drama is just dumb.
3) Bush lied about the costs of his prescription benefit plan. We can’t afford it.
4) Actually, go to Spinsanity. The Bush admin spins lot of stuff and this bad… this ough to count for several.
5) The half hearted attempt to fix social security. Social Security and Medicare are both untenable in their current form. We don’t need private accounts, we need to dig up FDR’s quotes and remind people what Social Security was for and contrast what it has become (a big regressive tax / middle class entitlement)…
6) Not doing a better PR job with Europe. A lot of anti American clowns would hate us no matter what but Bush has largely failed to articulate / explain / defend his administration’s policies to the Euros… So maybe some moderates are against us who don’t need to be…
7) They misjudged the occupation. I’m not sure we need more troops, but his administration didn’t realize how hard it would be.
8) Basing the Iraq war so much on WMD… This probably came out of his admin’s tendency to spin stuff. He should have made a compete argument listing other reasons..
9) Not dealing with illegal immigration since it helps business. So, business gets to exploit cheap labor (re: people) and we pick up the real costs (schools, medical treatment, social welfare, and the divisiveness that will result from having a group of second class citizens who don’t speak the same language…)…
Gotta go do some work…