Where's the Joe Wilson apologizes thread??

Armitage source of leak

Sorry, Joe, but evidently there was no conspiracy to smear you.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.

Friday, September 1, 2006; A20



WE’RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame’s cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame’s identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak “in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip,” according to a story this week by the Post’s R. Jeffrey

Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.

It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House – that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame’s identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson – is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage’s identity been known three years ago.

That’s not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame’s role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame’s identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald’s account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame’s CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming –falsely,as it turned out – that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush’s closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

This is just an opinion piece & it’s wrong. The logic in the red quotes is so flawed that it’s not worth commenting on.

Wilson has explained numerous times why he went public with his Niger article. Wilson is an American hero & patriot.

Old news - we’ve known for some time that Armitage was the original leaker.

This is one of the most important sentence in the article. I’m sure it was just an error that you didn’t highlight it:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
That’s not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless.


The blame for outing Plame falls solely on Novak. Regardless of whether it was a crime or not, he should not have mentioned that Plame was a CIA operative. Novak should have aired on the side of caution when mentioning a CIA operative’s name.

Also, it didn’t add anything in his story, which was solely to belittle Wilson’s mission. Novak set the stage for that in his 1st sentence:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The CIA’s decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet’s knowledge.


Each time I re-read Novak’s article, I reaffirm what a crafty little bstrd he is.

And as soon as ksdb et al. finally admit that you were lied to about Iraq, then you’ll start praising Wilson for the hero that he is.

And as soon as ksdb et al. finally admit that you were lied to about Iraq, then you’ll start praising Wilson for the hero that he is.

Don’t hold your breath…

You guys are to be commended for your tunnel vision and commitment to a meme. This story confirms everything I’ve said. This is the Washington Post admitting that Wilson is a creep and a liar. They’re specifically talking about people like Mike Cressey when they said this:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
It’s unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Indeed.

But it’s also sort of comforting to me that people like Soul Toker still fall on their sword with such emotion. Facts be damned.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Authors Bio:
Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit. Left goverment in 1990 for marketing and public affairs business including major corporate entertainment and talent management. He can be reached at brentbbi@webtv.net.


<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote

With the latest “news” on this case, several points should be clearly understood at the outset. First, Dick Armitage’s role was widely and publicly discussed as early as March, and second, Dick Armitage clearly screwed up but was NOT the original source of the leak. While he does share moral culpability, the driving force behind the leak came from the

neocon and partisan wings of the White House.

It is their spin, and nothing more, to try to defend themselves by shifting blame to the anti-Iraq war Armitage, and to the anti-Iraq war State Department, who they believe “needs an American desk.” If Armitage never existed the leaks would have happened exactly the same way. If the White House-neocon axis never existed the leaks would never have happened. Whatever the shortcomings of Armitage and State, the real culpability for the identity disclosures reside elsewhere and progressives should be very careful to avoid unknowingly pushing the neocon line.

This whole episode of a political vendetta that involved distorting the debate about WMD in Iraq and naming intelligence identities is the single most shameful, unpatriotic, and totally dishonorable business that I have seen from the moment I first set foot in Washington.

And let me disclose my one and only bias: to protect the men and women who serve our country courageously and covertly, and the men and women of foreign nations who help our country courageously and covertly.

I was in the core group of writers of the CIA Identities Bill from the beginning, working for its original sponsor, Senator Bentsen. I was sufficiently involved to have been commended at the level of Director of Central Intelligence. There were many others involved in this law, from both parties. I only state my history to make it clear that my views on this are not stated casually, offered politically or arrived at recently.

I know a lot about the covert business on both the policy and operational sides and this whole business of “naming names” is sickening, nauseating and the ultimate symbol of how far Washington under George Bush has come from what used to be the nonpartisan treatment of intelligence and the traditional standards of honor.

I have always refused to comment, even in off the record conversations with journalists, on the legal guilt or innocence of any party in this case. That is a decision by the legal system, without trial by media, and without trial by partisans. But this matter affects the core of our national security, the heart of our decision- making process about going to war, and the soul of our spirit of patriotism and honor that should rule out public disclosure of intelligence identities by any person, for any reason, ever.

The same people most responsible for peddling Plames name were the same people peddling WMD stories to Judy Miller and others.

Sadly, shamefully, the issue lives. We now have the House Intelligence Committee issuing a public report attacking Iran-related intel that is clearly designed to bang the war drums for an attack on Iran, and to politicize intelligence for ideology and partisanship yet again. We almost certainly do have shortcomings about intelligence from Iran, in part caused by the very people who try to manipulate the issue, in part caused by events and mistakes, but this should be used and abused to push yet another rush, to another unwise war.

One point that the neoconservatives and the partisan right has never understood is this: when they say don’t negotiate with this country or that country, don’t do business with this country or that country, the result is that major intelligence dries up. That’s how it works. On a country by country basis, sometimes it is best to negotiate, or not; to trade, or not. But the way intelligence works, much intelligence comes directly or indirectly from the processes and people of diplomacy and world trade.

It is disingenuous or dishonest for some to say we should go to war with everyone, negotiate with no one, have sanctions against everyone, and then attack the intelligence loss from their very obsessive policies. And I would repeat my point that those who are universally hostile to diplomacy and universally favorable to war should be asked: where will you get the troops, and do you favor a return to the draft?

All of the pressures, distortions, politicization of intelligence cannot hide or mask this matter, as we witness today in Iraq, while the drums of war are being banged again by those who know little about how to fight wars, how to win wars, or how to exit the wars they rush into.

They never learn. They should be respecting, not demeaning, the advice of our military commanders. They should be improving and analyzing the product of intelligence, not twisting or distorting it, to push a predetermined policy for yet another war.

This business about leaking identities is not only about partisan and political vendettas. It is about how and when we go to war, how and when we should not go to war, and why it is so fundamentally important that intelligence should be based on facts and truth, and not twisted and distorted for the ideology of going to war, or the partisanship of exploiting war.

What went wrong in Iraq, is that the democratic process of making the decision to wage war was corrupted and warped from the beginning.

There is plenty to blame to be apportioned, on all sides, for that. It is not partisan. The issue for us, today, is that we not repeat these corruptions again. Intelligence must be returned to its pre-Bush nonpartisanship. Intelligence must be used objectively, to help us achieve the most acceptable outcome in Iraq, and to avoid repeating the fiasco elsewhere.

In my view, whatever the legalities, there is a special place in #### on this issue for Bob Novak, who named the name, and for the Washington Post Editorial Page, which then published the name, and for Bob Woodward, who attacked the prosecutor without disclosing to his readers or the nation his private interest in the case. Though I will give Woodward credit for this: he never published the Plame story, and neither did Judy Miller, by the way.

This whole episode demonstrates how far from traditional moral and patriotic bearing Washington has come, during what historians will call, not fondly, the Bush years. In this environment anything goes, and insiders, surrounded by courtiers, substitute politics and spin for honesty and truth even on the matter of going to war.

Whatever the legal outcome, on fundamental issues of patriotism, morality and honor there is a higher standard for those of us who know how the real world works, on these matters.

Bob Novak is a smart guy who has been around this town for decades. The Washington Post is the paper of record for the national security establishment in Washington and knows exactly how real world intelligence works. These are people who chortled when Bill Clinton defined what is, is, and now they chortle playing word games with what “covert” is.

Without getting into details, right now, today, as you read these words there are brave and courageous Americans working under cover, risking their lives, often giving their lives, to defend our security. Right now, today, as you read these words there are brave and equally courageous foreigners working with our people, some for ulterior motives, others are authentic freedom and democracy fighters in their native lands.

Intelligence can help us avoid wars; intelligence can help us minimize casualties of wars; and intelligence can help us avoid obsessive and disastrously planned wars. Had this been applied before Iraq, we would not be in the mess. If this is applied going forward, we can avoid a future mess at a time when some seem to want war, everywhere.

When any identity is published, by any party, for any reason, at any time, every single one of them is disserved. The message goes out, we cannot be trusted with secrets. Some new information goes out, which can be traced back to our people, or our friends. Our communities are endangered and the terrorists and hostile governments are helped.

The same people who bang the drums of war the loudest, are helping our enemies, by disclosing names. They are hurting our troops, by distorting our intelligence that is so essential to knowing when to wage war and how to wage it, when we must, and why to avoid it, when we can.

Let the courts decide the law, but those who do these dirty deeds deserve a special place in ####, and those who never risked their lives for our country themselves, and endanger the lives of covert people who risk their lives every day, and endanger the lives of troops who go to war with politically distorted intelligence, deserve the hottest place of all.

Let the courts decide the law, but I guarantee that when the sun has set on the Administration now in power, those who did these dirty deeds will be indicted by the court of history, while others will have to clean up the mess they leave.


KF

Read it and weep:

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Armitage Claims to Be CIA Name-Dropper
United Press International


Former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage has reportedly come forward as the person who disclosed a CIA agent’s identity to a newspaper columnist.

The New York Times said a lawyer involved in the case said Armitage confirmed he disclosed casually to Robert Novak that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA at the end of an interview in his State Department office in 2003.

The Times was unable to reach Armitage for comment.

The leak became hot news, mostly in Washington, and launched a politically laden criminal investigation that went as high as Vice President Dick Cheney’s office.

There were allegations the leak was retaliation against Plame for remarks made by her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who said the Bush administration had used weak evidence for going to war with Iraq.

Despite the disclosure Armitage was the source, no explanation was given as to why he would mention a covert agent’s name to a journalist, or why the journalist would publish it.

Every King has someone to do the dirty work for them - Nixon - Reagan - Bush. Every King has a whipping boy food tester fall guy. Why should we expect less in this case? Long Live The King! Job Well Done!

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
You guys are to be commended for your tunnel vision and commitment to a meme.

Same to you.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
This story confirms everything I’ve said. This is the Washington Post admitting that Wilson is a creep and a liar.

Bullsh*t. This is an editorial in the WP that doesn’t even have an author.

And yes - we know that there are probably other peole who share your wierd ideas.

Once again - we’ve known it was Armitage for quite sometime. This doesn’t change anything.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,14:28)
Bullsh*t. This is an editorial in the WP that doesn’t even have an author.

You’re being thick Mike. It’s a collective editorial — most likely the official position of the paper, hence the word “We” at the beginning of the column. Keep in mind this is the same paper that brought down the Nixon presidency, so they aren’t going to readily admit being wrong if they have a legitimate opportunity to do it again.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,14:28)
And yes - we know that there are probably other peole who share your wierd ideas.

You’re clinging to an extremely distorted and puzzlingly narrow world view. My ideas weren’t weird at all. This story confirms what common sense should have told you three years ago.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,14:28)
Once again - we’ve known it was Armitage for quite sometime. This doesn’t change anything.

No, they may have suspected Armitage was A source, but no one admitted he was THE source. It changes everything, because he wasn’t part of an organized conspiracy, as has been recklessly charged. It shows that at worst, Libby (or Rove) did nothing more than confirm information that already been revealed WITHOUT an agenda to smear or mislead anyone.

This part in particular echoes something I’ve posted here SEVERAL times:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
It’s a collective editorial — most likely the official position of the paper…

So the WP is your official source for the truth now? Who cares - it’s still an editorial (opinion). The WP has been critical of Wilson all along haven’t they? I take what they say as an opinion.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
You’re clinging to an extremely distorted and puzzlingly narrow world view. My ideas weren’t weird at all. This story confirms what common sense should have told you three years ago.

Am I now? Of the dozens of articles that I read on Wilson/Plame, you were the first to profess this idea that it was Wilson’s fault. And now apparently, you have a collaborator.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
No, they may have suspected Armitage was A source, but no one admitted he was THE source.

An MSNBC reporter said it was Armitage a year ago.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
It changes everything, because he wasn’t part of an organized conspiracy, as has been recklessly charged.

There were no formal charges of any kind in this regard, only speculation. The charges that Fitzgerald has been looking at are outing a CIA agent. The Wilson’s are the one who claimed that it was the admin going after them, and they have a right to claim that. They are suing over this matter, so they’ll have their day in court.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
It shows that at worst, Libby (or Rove) did nothing more than confirm information that already been revealed WITHOUT an agenda to smear or mislead anyone.

Now it’s you being niave. It was the WH’s agenda to counter (smear) Wilson regardless of whether they started it. Rove & Libby should NOT have said anything to Novak about a CIA operative. They knew her status was classified.

Even your own WP article says they are partially to blame:
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
That’s not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless.


<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.

Hogwash. Once again you’re buying into the false claim that it was Plame who solely got Wilson the gig. The CIA got Wilson to do the mission because he was qualified to do it, unlike you or I for example.

And secondly, if I knew my wife was a classified CIA agent, there’s no way I would have suspected that her name would be leaked to the press, even if I printed such an article.

Novak made a big leap in assuming that Plame got Wilson the gig. Novak was told by the CIA, not to print the information about Plame, yet he went ahead & did it. Novak’s main goal was to discredit Wilson’s Niger fact-finding by suggesting a whole range of things, like his wife got him the job. If you had read the Senate report & the CIA statements, you would know that Plame did not get Wilson the job.

Also, why did Rove & Libby know so much about Plame?

To conclude, the WP is also wrong - Wilson did not lie about anything:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming – falsely, as it turned out – that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.


There was nothing in Wilson’s article that was a lie.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)

So the WP is your official source for the truth now?

No, it’s an established news source that can’t be discredited as part of the “right-wing conspiracy.” They have done what you can’t, which is admit what common sense dictates.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)
Who cares - it’s still an editorial (opinion). The WP has been critical of Wilson all along haven’t they?

Have they?? Sounds like a deflection to me.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)
I take what they say as an opinion.

The crux of the opinion is factual. Armitage was the leaker and did not do so as part of a conspiracy, else he would have been indicted by Fitzgerald.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)

Am I now? Of the dozens of articles that I read on Wilson/Plame, you were the first to profess this idea that it was Wilson’s fault. And now apparently, you have a collaborator.

A very credible collaborator, if you want to call them a collaborator. I just see it as a source that has decided not to keep living in denial.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)

An MSNBC reporter said it was Armitage a year ago.

Feel free to share a link.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)

There were no formal charges of any kind in this regard, only speculation. The charges that Fitzgerald has been looking at are outing a CIA agent. The Wilson’s are the one who claimed that it was the admin going after them, and they have a right to claim that. They are suing over this matter, so they’ll have their day in court.

The President would have a right to sue Wilson for defamation of character, now that it turns out the accusation of a smear campaign is blatantly false.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)

Now it’s you being niave. It was the WH’s agenda to counter (smear) Wilson regardless of whether they started it. Rove & Libby should NOT have said anything to Novak about a CIA operative. They knew her status was classified.

Nonsense. You don’t know that at all. They didn’t know who the #### she was. Their agenda was to correct the misinformation that her creepy husband was passing off, all the while exploiting his wife by appearing on the cover of Vanity Fair.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)

Hogwash. Once again you’re buying into the false claim that it was Plame who solely got Wilson the gig. The CIA got Wilson to do the mission because he was qualified to do it, unlike you or I for example.

Hogwash yourself. Nobody has claimed Plame solely got her husband the gig. But if she was truly covert, she had no business involving her family in her job nor letting that family member go public about the job.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)
And secondly, if I knew my wife was a classified CIA agent, there’s no way I would have suspected that her name would be leaked to the press, even if I printed such an article.

You don’t keep secrets by making yourself publicly visible. The man had no reasonable connection to the CIA and he was not hired by the vice president. Imagine that one of Wilson’s contacts in Niger showed up at a DC dinner party and recognized Wilson’s wife as someone who had represented herself under a different name. Then you read that Wilson did a job for the CIA. It wouldn’t take somebody very long to put two and two together.


Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)
Novak made a big leap in assuming that Plame got Wilson the gig.

He didn’t make a leap. Armitage told him about it.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)
Novak was told by the CIA, not to print the information about Plame, yet he went ahead & did it.

The CIA didn’t have to visit with Novak at all. They shouldn’t have been in a position to ask him not to publish, but freedom of the press prevails in this case.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)
Novak’s main goal was to discredit Wilson’s Niger fact-finding by suggesting a whole range of things, like his wife got him the job.

Nonsense. There’s nothing in Novak’s article that smears or discredit’s Wilson. In fact it does the opposite.


Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)
If you had read the Senate report & the CIA statements, you would know that Plame did not get Wilson the job.

I read it and they said she had a hand in it. She was his primary connection to getting the opportunity.

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)
Also, why did Rove & Libby know so much about Plame?

Know what about Plame??

Quote (Mr Soul @ Sep. 01 2006,15:22)
To conclude, the WP is also wrong - Wilson did not lie about anything:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming – falsely, as it turned out – that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.


There was nothing in Wilson’s article that was a lie.

We’ve been over this before and you’re wrong. The Washington Post agrees.

Stupid question - how do you do the exact quoting of people? I haven’t taken the time to figure that out.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
No, it’s an established news source that can’t be discredited as part of the "right-wing conspiracy."

I’ll quote you on this again someday.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
They have done what you can’t, which is admit what common sense dictates.

Bull - if it were common sense then I would agree with you.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The crux of the opinion is factual. Armitage was the leaker and did not do so as part of a conspiracy, else he would have been indicted by Fitzgerald.

No - he would have been indicted only he broke the specifics of the law. Conpiracy doesn’t enter into it at all, so I don’t even know why you mention it?

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
A very credible collaborator, if you want to call them a collaborator.

I’ll give you that.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
An MSNBC reporter said it was Armitage a year ago.

It was Lawrence O’Donnell. I don’t have a link but I’m sure you can find one. I saw him speak live on MSNBC. He was the first “liberal” to suggest that there was no WH conspiracy.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The President would have a right to sue Wilson for defamation of character, now that it turns out the accusation of a smear campaign is blatantly false.

I don’t recall ever hearing Wilson blame Bush personally, so I think you are wrong? When Wilson made the claim about Bush, no-one knew who the leaker was, so Wilson had every right to make the claims he did, given Novak’s article which mentions Bush administration people.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Nonsense. You don’t know that at all. They didn’t know who the #### she was. Their agenda was to correct the misinformation…

Sure I do. It’s well documented that they knew about Plame & were trying to discredit Wilson. Rove has a long history of doing that. The WP piece cites Rove & Libby having some of the blame.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
…all the while exploiting his wife by appearing on the cover of Vanity Fair.

Don’t you think it’s Plame’s business about whether her husband has exploited her or not?

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Hogwash yourself. Nobody has claimed Plame solely got her husband the gig. But if she was truly covert, she had no business involving her family in her job nor letting that family member go public about the job.

You really are a piece of cake aren’t you? That’s exactly why Plame’s name got brought up & you bloody know it.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
You don’t keep secrets by making yourself publicly visible. The man had no reasonable connection to the CIA and he was not hired by the vice president.

That’s shere speculation. You have no idea what his other connections to the CIA. No-one ever said that Wilson was hired by Cheney so stop the diversion.

No-one was supposed to know that Plame worked for the CIA and it was a lie that everyone in Washington knew it. Fitzgerald proved that wasn’t the case. But even if she did, who cares?

In hindsight, there are a lot of things that we might do differently. Wilson felt it was his duty to inform people about Niger. I’m glad he did - I learned that Bush lied to us & presented trumpted up information. Without that kind of information, a democracy wont’ work.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
He didn’t make a leap. Armitage told him about it.

Are you saying that Armitage told Novak that Plame got Wilson the gig? I hadn’t heard that.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
The CIA didn’t have to visit with Novak at all. They shouldn’t have been in a position to ask him not to publish, but freedom of the press prevails in this case.

So it was OK for the NY Times to print the information about Bush spy program then?

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Nonsense. There’s nothing in Novak’s article that smears or discredit’s Wilson. In fact it does the opposite.

And this is the most idiotic thing you’ve said. It clearly shows your bias & lack of criticial thinking. We’ve been over this before & you are completely wrong. Novak’s article was nothing but a means to belittle & smear Wilson. Any reasonable person would agree with me on this.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
I read it and they said she had a hand in it. She was his primary connection to getting the opportunity.

Then you would also know that other’s in the CIA couldn’t recall that. Apparently only one made that claim.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Know what about Plame??

They knew that she was a CIA operative. They found out from a classified document that was distributed around the admin.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
We’ve been over this before and you’re wrong. The Washington Post agrees.

You’re right. The WP is wrong - Wilson did not lie about anything. And if there was something unfactual in his words, it was unimportant to the issue of yellow cake in Niger. Wilson answered all of his attackers in the Salon article.

The issue at hand is: Bush trumpted up information about Saddam trying to build a bomb. Wilson & many others discovered this & exposed Bush’s lies.

We’re paying the price for Bush’s lies today. Bush continues to lie about the war on terror. He continues to squirm around his decision to go to Iraq & his insistence of having it both ways, i.e., Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9/11, yet the war on terror is about Iraq.

The whole thing is wrong because it makes NO sense.

Not a year ago, but 6 months the speculation is was Armitage became rather overwhelming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Journalist Bob Woodward of the Washington Post revealed on November 15, 2005 that “a government official with no ax to grind” leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview “That Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption,” though Bradlee later told the Post that he “[did] not recall making that precise statement” in the interview.

On March 2, 2006, bloggers discovered that “Richard Armitage” fit the spacing on a redacted court document, suggesting he was a source for the Plame leak.


NONE of that addressed the posibility that it was or wasn’t due to some White House Funky Monkey Business.

I think it was originally an honest mistake, but the administration used it their advantage. Because Armitage leaked out a name the could milk it for all it’s worth. They had a scapegoat.

I’m not going to readdress each point, we’ve hashed over a lot of this plenty of times already. Suffice it to say that it’s very telling for a major newspaper to come out with an editorial using such strong language. They’re basically saying they were duped by Wilson and it almost sounds like they’re mad at him or themselves.

BTW, I copy and paste the first quote tag each time to include the name and time stamp. You might have to hit preview a couple of times to see the tag I’m referring too.

It looks like [quote=ksdb, Sept. 01, 2006, 13:13]

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
I’m not going to readdress each point, we’ve hashed over a lot of this plenty of times already.

There was some new stuff today, but you’re right. I’m glad you concede.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Suffice it to say that it’s very telling for a major newspaper to come out with an editorial using such strong language.

No - I believe there have been other WP articles critical of Wilson.

But you’re right, the WP clearly places blame on Rove & Libby:
<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
That’s not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame’s role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame’s identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald’s account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.

So Joe - I’m glad that you finally agree with this & admit that Rove & Libby were at fault. Thanks.

FOX News is lying about this story TODAY:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
the Robb-Silberman commission on prewar intelligence, and the British Butler commission all concluded it was Wilson who was not telling the truth. Saddam had indeed tried to buy uranium in Africa, as even Wilson himself had acknowledged to the CIA officers who debriefed him after his Niger trip.

This isn’t true. There’s no real evidence that Saddam tried to buy yellow-cake.

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
One of the false claims Wilson made was that he had been sent to Niger at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney.

This is a complete lie! Wilson never, ever said Cheney sent him to Niger.

Joe - it could be fun discussing this with you if we could agree the meaning of Novak’s original “Mission to Niger” article. But we can’t even get past that, so it’s not worth it to me.

This story is not over. We may learn more about Armitage in the coming days & his role may not be so innocent. Why was he blabbing about Plame to Novak in the 1st place. He knew that the State Dept. memo mentioning Plame’s name was classified even if it didn’t say was convert. Common sense might have told him she might be & that he should keep his mouth shut.

Mike, if it’s not worth discussing, why do you keep posting lengthy replies over and over?? You make no sense. Second I conceded nothing other than that you’re wrong. The WP put in a backhanded jab at Rove and Libby, but the focus of the editorial was purely on Mr. Big Mouth Joe Wilson.

Huh - I just said it wasn’t worth discussing in my last reply?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
The WP put in a backhanded jab at Rove and Libby, but the focus of the editorial was purely on Mr. Big Mouth Joe Wilson.

Sorry Joe but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t pick & choose what you believe from an article. The WP made a clear point that Rove & Libby are at fault. So by citing this article, you are also accepting that conclusion. Thanks for being so big & admitting that your buddies Rove & Libby were wrong.

Once you become more reasonable & we can agree on the correct meaning of Novak’s original article, then we can have intelligent discussions. From the LA Times today:

<!–QuoteBegin>
Quote
Novak suggested Wilson’s trip was the product of nepotism, citing his wife’s connection to the CIA.

It seems like some reporter there can read plain English & do critical analysis & thinking.

Wilson had a right & a duty to speak up on Niger. He also has to pay for the consequences.

I love how you refer to the WP’s comment about Rove & Libby.

It was not unreasonable for many of us to think that Rove wasn’t behind all this. Now it appears that he wasn’t the leaker but he was involved.

As the result of Novak’s wreckless behavior, anyone related to Plame & her front was/is in danger. People may have died & we’ll never know. And America has lost a good agent.
Quote (phoo @ Sep. 01 2006,00:57)
Every King has someone to do the dirty work for them - Nixon - Reagan - Bush. Every King has a whipping boy food tester fall guy. Why should we expect less in this case? Long Live The King! Job Well Done!

Phoo,

That was an excellent article. Thanks for posting it.

KF