T1B

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:19 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Uh, as Fitz indicated this week...he is merely tying up some loose ends. If he was sure of an indictment for "outting" a covert agent, just unsure who to indict, why disband the grand jury that has heard all of the testimony?

These people are getting paid 40.00 a day. You think they can just sit there forever while Bush cronies lie to them? It's not like Fitz can order a stop loss on the grand jury. He'll get another grand jury empaneled and the investigation will go on.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:24 pm**

DrDetroit wrote: [
If he was sure of an indictment for "outting" a covert agent, just unsure who to indict, why disband the grand jury that has heard all of the testimony?

Because it's the law you moron.....

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:11 pm**

Great take, Felix...no really. Plame was not outted...that's the bottomline. After two years of investigation, Fitzmas blew up in your face.

Now, can anyone provide some insight into how Wilson allegedly "smeared?"

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:14 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Great take, Felix...no really. Plame was not outted...that's the bottomline.

Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said,

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:46 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:Great take, Felix...no really.

Thanks...really. Apparently unlike you, I know there is a limitation as to how long a grand jury can be empaneled.

Plame was not outted...that's the bottomline. After two years of investigation, Fitzmas blew up in your face.

If you say so.......

Now, can anyone provide some insight into how Wilson allegedly "smeared?"

You're the one that started the thread, I never said he was smeared......

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:57 pm**

Apparently it is not sinking in.

Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said,

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:21 pm**

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Great take, Felix...no really. Plame was not outted...that's the bottomline.
Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said,

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

So what?

If this was the case, where are the indictments? Two years, remember, he's had to determine this and then issue indictments. he has not.

That, right there, was simply smearing Libby. He should have kept his mouth shut...instead, he chose to smear Libby and Libby is without recourse because those allegations are not in the form of an indictment.

What is your problem? How do yuo not understand that no matter what he said in smearing Libby, and by association, Rove, that the absence of indictment makes those statements completely empty rhetoric?

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:24 pm**

Felix:

Thanks...really. Apparently unlike you, I know there is a limitation as to how long a grand jury can be empaneled.

No, I know that grand jury expired last Friday. He had two years to present to that grand jury evidence implicating anyone in the exposure of a protected agents identity. And he chose not to.

And now acknowledging that he is tying up loose ends...

The writing is on the fucking wall...you people simply refuse to acknowledge that Fitzmas never came.

If you say so.......

No, I know so. That's why you people are trying so hard to indict the administration for outting a protected agent's identity despite no evidence whatsoever of that.

The difference between you guys and Mvscal and I is the difference between the NYT editorial on this and the editorials from the WSJ and WaPo. One gets it, the other does not.

You're the one that started the thread, I never said he was smeared......

That's fine. I was trying to get back to that, however, since PSU took this off course and you carried his jock for him.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:25 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:What is your problem?

That you don't understand these words in not my problem.

Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said,

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:29 pm**

mvscal wrote:

Got it.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:31 pm**

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:What is your problem?
That you don't understand these words in not my problem.

Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said,

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

You keep repeating as though that means something.

It does not. It means that he is smearing Libby by leveling charges that he cannot indict anyone for. Call it an attempt to curry favor among the liberal elites that otherwise would have demonized him if he didn't throw them at least a rhetorical bone like this.

Color me underwhelmed.

I remember that before the indictment came down for Libby you guys were already celebrating. Bush's right-hand man and Cheney were going down for exposing a covert agent. And BOOM went the dynamite in your faces. No indictments for that, simply an indictment over a he said/she said incident.

LMAO!!!

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 9:39 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:What is your problem?
That you don't understand these words in not my problem.

Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said,

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."
You keep repeating as though that means something.

It does not. It means that he is smearing Libby by leveling charges that he cannot indict anyone for.

Where in Fitzpatrick's statement is he saying that Libby did the outing?

Libby doesn't look like he would hold up well in prison. Expect to see some negotiations.

Posted: **Thu Nov 03, 2005 10:31 pm**

He's the only one being indicted. And during the conference Fitz explicitly noted that he wouldn't discuss possible charges about others not included in the indictment.

So why did ignore the rest of the press conference, B?

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:53 am**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Libby doesn't look like he would hold up well in prison. Expect to see some negotiations.
Guess again. What does Fitzgerald have to offer that can stack up against a Presidential pardon?

So you admit that Libby is guilty and that he is serving as cover for Rove, Cheney, Bush or all 3.

Well that wasn't so hard.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:14 am**

This isn't anywhere close to being over.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:16 am**

No I suppose it's not any way close to being over, but I wonder if CNN, New York Times, etc.. etc... are going to be reporting about Wilson dropping his wife's name as a CIA Desk Officer all over D.C.'s social circuit.

Then of course, there will be the book. I guess Wilson needs some more retirement cash.

In the end, if the facts are outlined, this will conclude quietly and out of the headlines as a failed coup.

The funniest thing I've heard in all of this was how the intel was misused to market a war to the American public and that nobody was willing to listen to alternatives ideas.

That's the biggest lie throughout all of this.

1. There were no NEW alternative ideas being discussed at the time except those enabling further obfuscation and shell games from Saddam and the U.N.

2. Inspections, resolutions, aerial bombardments because Saddam was making WMD, and all other avenues of diplomatic resolution FAILED MISERABLY

This isn't about the truth behind the justification of the war. Any suggestion otherwise is a blatant lie. This is about 2006 and 2008.

So RACK PSUFAN'S ASTUTE OBSERVATION

Squeaky wheels get the grease ...... but sometimes they get replaced.

For this American, this gamble by the Dems, won't soon be forgotten.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:37 pm**

From Mark Steyn...

THE LIAR

Well, Joseph C Wilson IV's 15 minutes is now in its third year, and judging from the pass given to him by the major newspapers and TV networks there's no end in sight. Why would the media collude in this fraudulent buffoon's self-aggrandization? After all, the first folks he lied to were them. But they seem to have decided their investment in him is now so deep, they're stuck with him. This is what I wrote a year and a half ago, in the fond belief that the chapter-and-verse exposure of his falsehoods would finally drive Wilson from public life. If only.

Well, the week went pretty much as I predicted seven days ago:

BUSH LIED!! Not.

BLAIR LIED!!! Not.

But it turns out JOE WILSON LIED! PEOPLE DIED. Of embarrassment mostly. At least I'm assuming that's why The New York Times, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, PBS drone Bill Moyers and all the other media bigwigs Joseph C. Wilson IV suckered have fallen silent on the subject of the white knight of integrity they've previously given the hold-the-front-page treatment, too.

And what about John F. Kerry? Joe Wilson campaigned with Kerry in at least six states, and claims to have helped with the candidate's speeches. He was said to be a senior foreign policy adviser to the senator. As of Friday, Wilson's Web site, restorehonesty.com, was still wholly paid for by Kerry's presidential campaign.

Heigh-ho. It would be nice to hear his media boosters howling en masse, "Say it ain't so, Joe!" But Joe Wilson's already slipping down the old media memory hole. He served his purpose -- he damaged Bush, he tainted the liberation of Iraq -- and yes, by the time you read this the Kerry campaign may well have pulled the plug on his Web site, and Salon magazine's luxury cruise will probably have to find another headline speaker, and he won't be doing Tim Russert again any time soon. But what matters to the media and to Senator Kerry is that he helped the cause of (to quote his book title) The Politics Of Truth, and if it takes a serial liar to do that, so be it.

But before he gets lowered in his yellowcake overcoat into the Niger River, let's pause to consider: What do Joe Wilson's lies mean? And what does it say about the Democrats and the media that so many high-ranking figures took him at his word?

First, contrary to what Wilson wrote in The New York Times, Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In support of that proposition are a Senate report in Washington, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6, French intelligence, other European agencies -- and, as we now know, the CIA report, based on Joe Wilson's original briefing to them. Against that proposition is Joe Wilson's revised version of events for the Times.

This isn't difficult. In 1999, a senior Iraqi "trade" delegation went to Niger. Uranium accounts for 75 percent of Niger's exports. The rest is goats, cowpeas and onions. So who sends senior trade missions to Niger? Maybe Saddam dispatched his Baathist big shots all the way to the dusty capital of Niamy because he had a sudden yen for goat and onion stew with a side order of black-eyed peas, and Major Wanke, the then-president, had offered him a great three-for-one deal.

But that's not what Joe Wilson found. Major Wanke's prime minister, among others, told Ambassador Wilson that he believed Iraq wanted yellowcake. And Ambassador Wilson told the CIA. And the CIA's report agreed with the British and the Europeans that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa."

In his ludicrously vain memoir The Politics Of Truth, Wilson plays up his knowledge of the country. He makes much of his intimacy with Wanke and gives himself the credit for ridding Niger of the Wanke regime. The question then is why a man who knew so much about what was going on chose deliberately to misrepresent it to all his media/ Democrat buddies, not to mention to the American people. For a book called The Politics Of Truth, it's remarkably short of it. On page 2, Wilson says of his trip to Niger: "I had found nothing to substantiate the rumors." But he had.

That's what lying is, by the way: intentional deceit, not unreliable intelligence. And I'm not usually the sort to bandy the liar-liar-pants-on-fire charge beloved by so many in our politics today, but I'll make an exception in the case of Wilson, who's never been shy about the term. He called Bush a "liar" and he called Cheney a "lying sonofabitch," on stage at a John Kerry rally in Iowa.

Saddam wanted yellowcake for one reason: to strike at his neighbors in the region, and beyond that at Britain, America and his other enemies. In other words, he wanted the uranium in order to kill you.

The obvious explanation for Wilson's deceit about what he found in Africa is that his hatred of Bush outweighed everything else. Or as the novelist and Internet maestro Roger L. Simon put it, "He is a deeply evil human being willing to lie and obfuscate for temporary political gain about a homicidal dictator's search for weapons-grade uranium."

Technically, it's weaponizable uranium, not "weapons grade." But that's the point. Simon isn't the expert, and, as Ambassador Wilson trumpets loudly and often, he is. This isn't a case of another Michael Moore, court buffoon to the Senate Democrats, or Whoopi Goldberg, has-been potty-mouth to John Kerry. They're in show biz; what do they know?

But Wilson does know; he went there, he talked to officials, and he lied about America's national security in order to be the anti-Bush crowd's Playmate of the Month. Either he's profoundly wicked or he's as deranged as that woman on the Paris Metro last week who falsely claimed to have been the victim of an anti-Semitic attack. The Paris crazy was unmasked within a few days, but the Niger crazy was lionized for a full year.

Some of us are on record as dismissing Wilson in the first bloom of his unmerited celebrity. But John Kerry was taken in -- to the point where he signed him up as an adviser and underwrote his Web site. What does that reveal about Mister Nuance and his superb judgment? He claims to be able to rebuild America's relationships with France, and to have excellent buddy-to-buddy relations with French political leaders. Yet anyone who's spent 10 minutes in Europe this last year knows that virtually every government there believes Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa. Is Kerry so uncurious about America's national security he can't pick up the phone to his Paris pals and get the scoop firsthand? For all his claims to be Monsieur Sophisticate, there's something hicky and parochial in his embrace of an obvious nutcake for passing partisan advantage.

Any Democrats and media types who are in the early stages of yellowcake fever and can still think clearly enough not to want dirty nukes going off in Seattle or Houston -- or even Vancouver or Rotterdam or Amman -- need to consider seriously the wild ride Yellowcake Joe took them on. An ambassador, in Sir Henry Wootton's famous dictum, is a good man sent abroad to lie for his country. This ambassador came home to lie to his. And the Dems and the media helped him do it.
The Chicago Sun-Times, July 18th 2004

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:No I suppose it's not any way close to being over, but I wonder if CNN, New York Times, etc.. etc... are going to be reporting about Wilson dropping his wife's name as a CIA Desk Officer all over D.C.'s social circuit.

Fitzgerald has already concluded that that did not happen.

What is it about this statement that you find hard to comprehend?

Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said,

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 1:31 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:This isn't anywhere close to being over.

Keep dreamin...

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:03 pm**

BSmack wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:No I suppose it's not any way close to being over, but I wonder if CNN, New York Times, etc.. etc... are going to be reporting about Wilson dropping his wife's name as a CIA Desk Officer all over D.C.'s social circuit.
Fitzgerald has already concluded that that did not happen.

What is it about this statement that you find hard to comprehend?

Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said,

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

Sounds like he drew the wrong conclusion.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:17 pm**

No, Tom, that was Fitz smearing Libby, plain and simple-like. he coudln't actually indict anyone for allegedly outting a protected covert agent, so he did the next best thing...he simply asserted that, in fact, Plame was a covert agent, that her status was not widely known, and she was illegally exposed. Yet, Libby, of course, cannot defend himself against such charges because they were not formally brought in an indictment.

I still haven't seen anyone take a guess at why Fitz did this. By all accounts this guy was a tough, intelligent, successful prosecutor. Yet, he seemed in the end to cave to the lefty elites, to curry their favor by smearing Libby because he didn't indict anyone for the actual outing.

Don't mind B repeating those comments over and over and over again. Their meaningless. Libby nor anyone else was indicted for illegally revealing the identity of a protected agent.

Hence, no matter Fitz smearing Libby, Plame was not illegally exposed.

It's strange...if Fitz is so sure about Plame being covert and her covert status being illegally exposed...where are the indictments? Answer -- she wasn't covert and she was not illegally exposed.

Bottomline. End of story.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 2:37 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:No, Tom, that was Fitz smearing Libby, plain and simple-like. he coudln't actually indict anyone for allegedly outting a protected covert agent, so he did the next best thing...he simply asserted that, in fact, Plame was a covert agent, that her status was not widely known, and she was illegally exposed.

Your statement would make sense if Libby's name was in the quote.

Let's go back yet again to the statement.

Speaking in a press conference on October 28, 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said,

"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life."

Now where in that statement is Firzgerald saying that LIBBY was the one who leaked?

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:57 pm**

In court in Washington, Libby waived his right to a speedy trial. It will take his legal team three months to get security clearances and to examine classified information that the prosecution must produce to the defense.

Jeffress said there may be disputes over the use of classified information and that there may be First Amendment issues. He was referring to the fact that journalists are among the case's central witnesses.

Legal experts say there could be demands for reporters' notes and Libby's lawyers could demand the government turn over an extensive amount of classified information from the CIA about Plame's covert status.

The indictment says Libby got information about Plame's identity in June 2003 from Cheney, the State Department and the CIA, then spread it to New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. Libby told FBI agents and a federal grand jury that his information had come from NBC reporter Tim Russert.

Russert says he and Libby never discussed Wilson or his wife.

The exposure of Plame's CIA identity by conservative columnist Robert Novak triggered the probe that resulted in Libby's indictment.

The next court date for Libby is Feb. 3.

Sure, it's over.

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:11 pm**

BSmack wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:No, Tom, that was Fitz smearing Libby, plain and simple-like. he coudln't actually indict anyone for allegedly outting a protected covert agent, so he did the next best thing...he simply asserted that, in fact, Plame was a covert agent, that her status was not widely known, and she was illegally exposed.
Your statement would make sense if Libby's name was in the quote.

I already explained this to you, B.

It's funny how you glom on to only a certain section of his remarks while ignoring all others.

Fitz was very clear that his comments Fruday were oly related to Libby and that he was not talking about the war in Iraq or of others that came before the grand jury.

Why do you ingnore this?

Let's go back yet again to the statement.

Now where in that statement is Firzgerald saying that LIBBY was the one who leaked?

Dumbfuck...read his whole fuckign statement and his responses to the questions he was asked. He explicitly stated that he was not discussing the status of anyone else, only Libby.

What are you having a problem with?

Posted: **Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:13 pm**

PSUFAN wrote:Sure, it's over.

Uh, you weren't talking about Libby, but this whole affair over whether Plame was outted.

It is over because Fitz has said it is over. Both the prosecutor and the defense have already stipulated that this trial ain't about the war and it ain;t about outting Plame, but about perjury and obstruction.

You wanna keep lying, I just don't understand why you insist.

Posted: **Sat Nov 05, 2005 1:09 am**

DrDetroit wrote:No, Tom, that was Fitz smearing Libby, plain and simple-like. he coudln't actually indict anyone for allegedly outting a protected covert agent, so he did the next best thing...he simply asserted that, in fact, Plame was a covert agent, that her status was not widely known, and she was illegally exposed.

Hence, no matter Fitz smearing Libby, Plame was not illegally exposed.

It's strange...if Fitz is so sure about Plame being covert and her covert status being illegally exposed...where are the indictments? Answer -- she wasn't covert and she was not illegally exposed.

Bottomline. End of story.

Except you got the story wrong.

He didn't say that she was covert or that her exposure was illegal.

Just that her identity was classified and limited to the intelligence community.

You notice he didn't limit it to the US intelligence community or our allies, the fact that she was previously exposed to the entire intelligence community was why she was chained to a desk.

T1B

Smearing Wilson