T1B

In arguments with you guys and others I keep hearing the same argument: Why would the White House go to such lengths to smear Wilson if what he was saying wasn't true?

I just don't get it. At all. First of all, What lengths? Was I out of the country when the White House mounted a full bore assault on Wilson? When I ask for examples from people peddling this the answer invariably is "They outed Valerie Plame!"

Well, that's actually the subject of considerable debate, no? Novak's source wasn't charged with anything. Novak himself was an opponent of the war, so why would he be the go-to guy for a smear campaign? The conversations Libby allegedly had were brief. The evidence that the motive of her outing was punishment as opposed to a desire to rebut Wilson has never been presented. The fact that a smear is usually associated with saying something untrue as opposed to true -- as was the case here -- is often overlooked as well.

But, whatever, we will be debating that for a long time. But where is the rest of the smear campaign? Is the entire list taken up by the Valerie Plame outing? Is that all there is?

Moreover, let's assume I just missed this smear campaign and it really took place. Why does it follow that the White House would only come down on Wilson like a ton of bricks if he was telling the truth? Doesn't it make exactly as much sense to come down like a ton of bricks on a guy if you think he's lying? Especially when those lies are undermining the war? Indeed, there's vastly more evidence that Wilson launched -- with the aid of a still pliant media and the Kerry campaign -- a smear campaign against the White House. Is it really so outrageous that the White House would respond? Particularly given the larger political climate? I just don't get it.

got life?

I guess I need to remind you that Scoots wasn't charged with outting Plame.

he was indicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.

Who are you reminding??

Perhaps you should be reminding PSU as he's the one still believing that Plame was outted.

DrDetroit wrote:I just don't get it. At all. First of all, What lengths? Was I out of the country when the White House mounted a full bore assault on Wilson? When I ask for examples from people peddling this the answer invariably is "They outed Valerie Plame!"

Well, that's actually the subject of considerable debate, no? Novak's source wasn't charged with anything.

No it isn't. We all know Valerie Plame was outed. That I know who she is and what she did was all the evidence we need. The question is WHO in the Bush Administration outed her.

DrDetroit wrote:Who are you reminding??

You. You keep insisting he didn't out Plame and I'm just reminding you that he wasn't charged with that.

Perhaps you should be reminding PSU as he's the one still believing that Plame was outted.

That's between you and PSU. Again, he was indicted for lying to a grand jury (among other things).

Sound familiar?

WTF are you talking about, Felix? An indictment is notification of what you're being charged with.

Yes, I know what Scoots was indicted for. However, I wasn;t talking about that.

So whats your point?

BSmack wrote:No it isn't. We all know Valerie Plame was outed.

See, here is the problem. WTF do you mean by "outted?" That her covert status was exposed by the White House? That her relationship with Wilson was revealed? That she had a role in sending Wilson to Niger?

That I know who she is and what she did was all the evidence we need. The question is WHO in the Bush Administration outed her.

Sorry, but the thresshold for determining whether a covert agent has been exposed is not determined by whether you know who she is, dickhead.

Secondly, the questions were:

Was she a protected agent?
If so, was she illegally exposed?

That after two years Fitz did not indict anyone for exposing a protected agent...well, that kinda clears things up, B.

DrDetroit wrote:WTF are you talking about, Felix? An indictment is notification of what you're being charged with.

Yes, I know what Scoots was indicted for. However, I wasn;t talking about that.

So whats your point?

The point is you keep squeeling like Ned Beatty that Plame wasn't outed. Address the real question of whether he lied to a grand jury.

Come on, put on that sanctimonious robe and tell us why there's nothing to see here. Tell me why you fully supported the impeachment of Clinton for the same exact thing, but now want to divert by saying "He didn't out her". That's equivalent to Demos saying "it was only a blow job" isn't it?

Felix:

The point is you keep squeeling like Ned Beatty that Plame wasn't outed. Address the real question of whether he lied to a grand jury.

That's not the subject of the thread. Even if it were what is there to address? He's been charged with perjury and obstruction and it appears that is related to him lying about his conversations regarding Plame. So we'll see what happens.

Come on, put on that sanctimonious robe and tell us why there's nothing to see here.

I don't believe that I have argued that. There's plenty to see here...principally, the criminalization of politics.

Tell me why you fully supported the impeachment of Clinton for the same exact thing, but now want to divert by saying "He didn't out her". That's equivalent to Demos saying "it was only a blow job" isn't it?

Uh, where am I suggesting that the charges don't count because Plame was not "outted."

Make shit up, much, Felix?

Talk about diverting...that's exactly what you are doing here.

DrDetroit wrote:

BSmack wrote:No it isn't. We all know Valerie Plame was outed.

See, here is the problem. WTF do you mean by "outted?" That her covert status was exposed by the White House? That her relationship with Wilson was revealed? That she had a role in sending Wilson to Niger?

That I know who she is and what she did was all the evidence we need. The question is WHO in the Bush Administration outed her.

Sorry, but the thresshold for determining whether a covert agent has been exposed is not determined by whether you know who she is, dickhead.

Secondly, the questions were:

Was she a protected agent?
If so, was she illegally exposed?

That after two years Fitz did not indict anyone for exposing a protected agent...well, that kinda clears things up, B.

They never indicted anyone for killing Albert Anastasia either. That don't mean he wasn't wacked.

B, the CIA requested that the FBI investigate whether the identity of a CIA agent was illegally exposed. The FBI appointed a Special Prosecutor to investigate that allegation. The Special Prosecutor investigated for two years and could not indict anyone for illegally exposing a covert agent.

Common sense tells you that is because the Special Prosecutor failed to find evidence of that crime.

The absence of such evidence tells you then that the crime didn't take place.

DrDetroit wrote: There's plenty to see here...principally, the criminalization of politics.

So when the Reps do it (e.g. Clinton) it's all good, but when the Dems do it, it's suddenly the "criminalization of politics"? No, no double standards here.

Uh, where am I suggesting that the charges don't count because Plame was not "outted."

Make shit up, much, Felix?

Talk about diverting...that's exactly what you are doing here.

No, I'm just trying to discern where your self-righteous indignation begins and ends.

DrDetroit wrote:Who are you reminding??

Perhaps you should be reminding PSU as he's the one still believing that Plame was outted.

She WAS outed.

She's a dyke.

And that makes her husband a fag.

Felix wrote:So when the Reps do it (e.g. Clinton) it's all good, but when the Dems do it, it's suddenly the "criminalization of politics"? No, no double standards here.

Um, dumbshit, Republicans didn't do anything. Janet Reno, on the advice of her DoJ staff initiated the investigation and every subsequent expansion of it. Why the fuck do you not know what you are talking about?

What we have in this instance is politics being criminalized. Rove and Libby and the rest of the administration were hitting back at Wilson for lying. If you'd like I'll review his outright lies for you...

Early on, when he was shopping his story anonymously to reporters, he led Walter Pincus of the Washington Post to believe that he'd seen the forged documents that prompted the intelligence in the first place. He hadn't seen them — and couldn't have at the time of his investigation, since they came to light later. He admitted later that he'd "misspoken."

Then there's Wilson's claim in the Times broadside that he'd closed the case on the Africa connection but that Cheney and the White House knowingly used the "16 words" about Iraq seeking uranium anyway. In fact, Wilson's own report was hardly definitive. Moreover, Cheney had never even seen it. And, by the way, most European intelligence agencies, including the Brits stand by their findings that Iraq sought African uranium. Then there is the Senate Select Intelligence report that says Wilson did, in fact, confirm an attempted sale.

Rebutting someone else's false charges is not "smearing" and it is not a criminal conspiracy.

So...no, there is not a double standard at work.

So...no, there is not a double standard at work.

Bullshit.


If a Republican is stupid enough to lie to the FBI about something that isn't even a crime, he (rightfully) gets the book thrown at him.


If a Dem commits perjury, subornation and obstruction of justice to cover up his history as a serial sexual predetaor in a harrasment case, it's just a lifestyle choice.

And if he swaps missile technology with hostile governments for illegal campaign contributions, the ag squashes the investigation.


Packwood shoul;d have switched parties when the Dems took over the Senate, he'd still bein office.

DrDetroit wrote:Um, dumbshit, Republicans didn't do anything. Janet Reno, on the advice of her DoJ staff initiated the investigation and every subsequent expansion of it.

Yea, and the GOP just sat idle while the whole process was going on.

Diogenes wrote:

So...no, there is not a double standard at work.

Bullshit.


If a Republican is stupid enough to lie to the FBI about something that isn't even a crime, he (rightfully) gets the book thrown at him.


If a Dem commits perjury, subornation and obstruction of justice to cover up his history as a serial sexual predetaor in a harrasment case, it's just a lifestyle choice.

And if he swaps missile technology with hostile governments for illegal campaign contributions, the ag squashes the investigation.


Packwood shoul;d have switched parties when the Dems took over the Senate, he'd still bein office.

And if Bigfoot shows his large cock to a large group of children he should be prosecuted as well. Fucking Democrats!!

The earth is flat - Guess Who?

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Um, dumbshit, Republicans didn't do anything. Janet Reno, on the advice of her DoJ staff initiated the investigation and every subsequent expansion of it.

Yea, and the GOP just sat idle while the whole process was going on.

And, ultimately, that's what you're left with...nothing.

Blame your own AG.

tough love wrote:The earth is flat - Guess Who?

Burton Cummings?

Thomas Friedman...in yet another empty book of his.

DrDetroit wrote:
Um, dumbshit, Republicans didn't do anything.

After this idiocy, I quit reading.

Yeah, I'm sure it was the Democrats that initiated investigations into the leader of their party.

You've got to be the biggest fucking tool I've ever had the misfortune of reading........

Felix wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:
Um, dumbshit, Republicans didn't do anything.

After this idiocy, I quit reading.

Yeah, I'm sure it was the Democrats that initiated investigations into the leader of their party.

You've got to be the biggest fucking tool I've ever had the misfortune of reading........

Again, why the fuck do you not know what you are talking about?

Before an Independent Counsel could be appointed, the DoJ first had to investigate allegations and then, upon review of that and the advice of DoJ lawyers, the Attorney General then determines whether the evidence warrants to appointment of an IC.

Uh, that's what Janet Reno did you fucking intellectual twerp.

Why are you discussing this when you have no idea what you are talking about?

Well?

Look in the mirror, bitch.

^^^^^^^^^ Was typing that one handed.

Like I have said before...you people have nothing. The DoJ investigated and the DoJ lawyers then advised Reno to appoint an IC which she did and then subsequently approved every expansion of the IC's investigation.

Dumbshits, you should know this by now.

DrDetroit wrote:Like I have said before...you people have nothing. The DoJ investigated and the DoJ lawyers then advised Reno to appoint an IC which she did and then subsequently approved every expansion of the IC's investigation.

Dumbshits, you should know this by now.

We know how it ended mook.

The question is how did it initially begin, and I'm talking before the DoJ began the investigation? What were the circumstances leading up to the beginning of the Dept. of Justice investigation....

There's only ONE person in this land who still pretends that Plame wasn't outed - our friend DrDetroit.

PSUFAN wrote:There's only ONE person in this land who still pretends that Plame wasn't outed - our friend DrDetroit.

It's the Rush Limbaugh theory--say something enough times and you'll eventually start to believe it.......

Felix wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:Like I have said before...you people have nothing. The DoJ investigated and the DoJ lawyers then advised Reno to appoint an IC which she did and then subsequently approved every expansion of the IC's investigation.

Dumbshits, you should know this by now.

We know how it ended mook.

The question is how did it initially begin, and I'm talking before the DoJ began the investigation? What were the circumstances leading up to the beginning of the Dept. of Justice investigation....

What does it matter? If there was no merit to the allegations then the DoJ lawyers would not have recommended the appointment of an IC to the AG now would they.

The result confirmed that who ever rendered the allegations was ultimately correct seeing that there were how many indictments and how many convictions?

PSUFAN wrote:There's only ONE person in this land who still pretends that Plame wasn't outed - our friend DrDetroit.

Why do you refuse to define what you mean by outted? Everyone else who believes that outted refers to her covert status, dumbass. And it ain't only me that believes that she was not outted in that way, PSU.

If she was not a covert agent, what is there to "out?"

Nothing.

End of story.

And if she was "outted" in that fashion (which was what was being investigated in the first place) then the Special prosecutor would have determined that, but, alas, he did not.

Bye-bye...you lose.

Felix wrote:

PSUFAN wrote:There's only ONE person in this land who still pretends that Plame wasn't outed - our friend DrDetroit.

It's the Rush Limbaugh theory--say something enough times and you'll eventually start to believe it.......

I only needed to listen to Fitz on this one.

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

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."

More fun and games:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affa ... age_caused

A possibility has been raised by several sources that a death may have occurred as a result of this leak. Under the Espionage Act, this could lead to a death penalty case. The CIA Wall of Honor has stars representing agents killed on duty. Named stars are used where information is not classified, and anonymous stars are used when the agent's name cannot be released. Below the stars is a chronological Book of Honor. An anonymous star was added to the wall between named stars that can be dated to deaths on February 5, 2003 and October 25, 2003. The anonymous star thus fits the timing of the Plame leak. Wayne Madsen, a reporter and former NSA employee, has claimed, "CIA sources report that at least one anonymous star placed on the CIA's Wall of Honor at its Langley, Virginia headquarters is a clandestine agent who was executed in a hostile foreign nation as a direct result of the White House leak." However there is no direct proof that the anonymous star has anything to do with the Plame scandal.

I know what Fitz said when he announced the indictments and it was inexcusable and totally irresponsible.

If all of that was true re: Plame...then why didn't he indict someone for "outting" Plame?

Well?

He can exercise the rhetoric all he wants, but the bottomline is that he didn't indict anyone for allegedly outting Plame. I can just can't believe that given his reputation he would sully himself by alleging that Libby had done something which he failed to indict him for.

This doesn't concern you at all? You expect that prosecutors will allege additional criminal activity after an exhaustive grand jury process despite not actually indicting that person for that?

Okay, if that's how you roll...

Oh, btw, Larry Johnson is also running the nonsense that an agent was killed as a result of this...bullshit. It makes for great theatre though...and until someone actually steps forward with a name, it is still just theatre.

DrDetroit wrote:I know what Fitz said when he announced the indictments and I am going to ignore it while still trying to claim that Fitz cleared the Administration.

Got it.

Fitz did clear the administration...of "outting" Valerie Plame as a covert agent.

Why are you people having such a difficult time understanding this?

How is an indictment of perjury and obstruction related to a he said/she said issue somehow an indictment of the administration for "outting" a covert agent?

Project much, tards?

If all of that was true re: Plame...then why didn't he indict someone for "outting" Plame?

Well?

He doesn't know where to place the indictment yet. Don't worry, though. Rove's lawyers are still getting calls.

Dumbshit...that's why you continue to bastardize the Special Prosecutor's indictment and comments?

:roll:

BTW - the grand jury empaneled for this investigation was disbanded last week. Not an encouraging sign for you people still demanding that Plame was "outted."

Bwaaahahahaaaa!!

DrDetroit wrote:
BTW - the grand jury empaneled for this investigation was disbanded last week. Not an encouraging sign for you people still demanding that Plame was "outted."

What does the fact a grand jury was released from their duty have to do with Plame being outted?

But not to worry, they can cobble together a grand jury faster than you can say

"See ya Scoots"

Felix wrote:What does the fact a grand jury was released from their duty have to do with Plame being outted?

But not to worry, they can cobble together a grand jury faster than you can say

"See ya Scoots"

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?

You're right...it doesn't make sense...but I know you'll try.