The three broadcast network evening newscasts were similar Friday night in featuring full stories on Valerie Plame's testimony before the House Government Reform Committee, including video of Plame with a woman behind her wearing a pink “Impeach Bush” T-shirt -- ABC even caught a moment when the woman was making the “shame” sign with her fingers (see screen shot to right) -- and not mentioning Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State who was the source for columnist Robert Novak's reporting of her name. CBS's Gloria Borger, remarkably, concluded her report by listing every big name involved but Armitage's: “When asked whether she'd gotten an apology from the President, the Vice President, Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, she said no.”
But there were differences. Only NBC Nightly News led with Plame as fill-in anchor Campbell Brown announced: “The CIA operative at the heart of a scandal tells Congress the Bush administration blew her cover and wrecked her career.” NBC's Chip Reid uniquely highlighted how Plame contributed to Al Gore's 2000 campaign and that she conceded “I am a Democrat.” While CBS's Borger concluded with a missing apology to her, ABC's David Kerley ended his piece by noting how Plame is taking advantage of her situation: “While Plame may have lost the undercover job she loved, the blown cover is allowing her to find a new career. She signed a book deal for more than $1 million. And oh, about all those ingredients for a Hollywood movie, there will be one of those, as well.”
ABC's World News opened with the impact of the storm in theNortheast followed by how more troops are being added to the “surge” in Iraq, then arrived at Plame.
Katie Couric led the March 16 CBS Evening News with how Alberto Gonzales is “on his way out. Sources tell CBS News it's just a matter of time now before the Attorney General gets fired.” She then ran an interview with ousted U.S. attorney of New Mexico, David Iglesias, before going to Borger's report on Plame. Couric teased the Plame story:
“Also tonight, former CIA operative Valerie Plame goes public. She says the Bush administration blew her cover and ruined her career.”
Couric set up Borger's subsequent report:
“Meanwhile, we've been hearing about her for years, today we heard from her. Valerie Plame, the former CIA operative, testified on Capitol Hill. She accused the Bush administration of ruining her CIA career by leaking her name for political reasons.”
Campbell Brown led the NBC Nightly News:
“Good evening. She has been the object of fascination, the woman in the middle of a Washington scandal and Valerie Plame Wilson, the outed CIA officer, has never before spoken so extensively about what has happened to her until today. She arrived on Capitol Hill surrounded by photographers to tell Members of Congress that her career as a CIA undercover officer was brought to an end when Bush administration officials revealed her true identity.”
Reporter Chip Reid uniquely highlighted this exchange:
Valerie Plame: “My exposure arose from purely political motives.”Chip Reid: “But some Republicans today questioned her motives. Some have noted her husband campaigned for John Kerry and that she contributed to Al Gore.”
Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, R-Georgia: “Would you say you're a Democrat or a Republican?”
Plame: “Yes, Congressman, I am a Democrat.”
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Comments Policy
Plame never was an undercover
March 16, 2007 - 21:10 ET by stanleygoodspeedPlame never was an undercover "operative" ... and her stint at the CIA ended MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO.
This is just another attempt to lynch George Bush.
Demo-RATS and the MSM have repeated this pattern WEEK AFTER WEEK for almost 7 years now.
You should watch the testim
March 16, 2007 - 21:38 ET by IntenzityYou should watch the testimony first.
When the General that runs the CIA says "she was covert", (which he did today during the on the record under oath testimony) then she was covert.
When you say "she was not covert" it makes it very difficult to see why you think that unless you ran the CIA for some period of time.
If it is a contest between believing you and Toensing, or the General that runs the CIA as far as her covert status, I am going to go with the General that runs the CIA.
I know, I must be some air head liberal, call me silly for listening to the head of the agency that Plame used to work with.
Oh, I know he is a Democrat liberal too probably huh.
I know it is hard to fathom that Bush/Cheney/Armitage et all do not really love this country for you guys, but there it is - they will put an agents status at risk if it prevents them doing what they want to do. They do not care about America or Americans.
Hi Intenz.....I watched the t
March 16, 2007 - 21:46 ET by bigtimerHi Intenz.....
I watched the testimony...Waxman couldn't of said covert enough.
If you watched the testimony you surely listened to Victoria Toensing who helped write the law on what covert covers...that is if she wasn't rudely interrupted numerous times because Watson and Waxman, the pair of whiz-bangs that they are... didn't want to hear her answers or let her message get out in the leftist media with any kind of a sound-bite for the news.
I suggest you listen again.
I am done with this subject for the night...
I think...lol!
The head of the CIA is above the law?
March 16, 2007 - 21:48 ET by nkviking75So in other words, it doesn't matter what the law is? It just matters what the head of the CIA says?
If she had been covert, isn't all the current publicity the last thing she needs? Would that not mean she's in danger?
It doesn't make any sense.
"General" that runs
March 16, 2007 - 21:51 ET by gxa99"General" that runs the CIA, Are you as ignorant as you sound. Listen up Air head, the CIA is run by CIVILIANS! OMG, talk about the galactically stupid!!!!
gxa99 - When did General Ha
March 17, 2007 - 09:15 ET by ding7777gxa99 - When did General Hayden resign from active service?
So, dingy, why is that important?
March 17, 2007 - 09:38 ET by acaiguanaSo, dingy, why is that important?
It isn't so therefore you must be practicing the old, cloud issue game with BS.
That's getting a little tired, don't you think?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
acaiguana - had you read the
March 17, 2007 - 10:07 ET by ding7777acaiguana - had you read the post I was replying to:
you would have known, since gxa99 states "the CIA is run by CIVILIANS!", I was asking gxa99 if General Hayden is now a civilian.
I really can't see how you might think that clouds the issue.
dingy, we've established every point you highlight clouds the is
March 17, 2007 - 10:16 ET by acaiguanadingy, we've established every point you highlight clouds the issue.
That's all.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
The CIA is civilian, unless I
March 17, 2007 - 09:40 ET by Roger the ShrubberThe CIA is civilian, unless I am mistaken, but at times the president has appointed active military people to run the show. IIRC, Jimmy Carter appointed one, and back in the beginning I think officer were chosen to run the show.
Roger, it is a total non-issue. Dingy is obfuscating again.
March 17, 2007 - 09:47 ET by acaiguanaRoger, it is a total non-issue. Dingy is obfuscating again.
Duh...
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Hey Gax,If you have a cou
March 17, 2007 - 19:32 ET by IntenzityHey Gax,
If you have a counter-argument to a statement I have made, could you make one that doesn't take about 12 seconds to refute? It isn't as much fun, at least for me, if all I have to do is paste a link and a statement that shows you are just wrong in less than 10 seconds.
From https://www.cia.gov/cia/information/info.html
So, as I said, the General, of the Air Force, that runs the CIA said...Doesn't say "USAF Retired", perhaps he is, but usually that is part of the title if they are.
I guess that makes you kinda universally stupid, if I got painted as galactically stupid.
LOL! What time do the triple
March 16, 2007 - 21:55 ET by Del DolemonteLOL! What time do the triple suns rise on your world?
The fact that an "air head liberal" like yourself would defend a military "General who runs the CIA" is too funny.
In fact, it's hallucinatory that a liberal would defend the CIA at all. After all, they have been the "enemy" to people of your ilk since the Vietnam War. The fact that you are defending a CIA agent proves that you're simply suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Remember, the CIA also said Iraq had WMDs, etc.
The other problem with your "logic" is that Ms. Toensing actually was one of the writers of the legal definition of what a "covert" CIA agent is. Not the "General" you so adoringly cite.
How was anybody put at risk b
March 17, 2007 - 00:33 ET by NL207How was anybody put at risk by the Plame business besides the people Patrick Fitzgerald was investigating?
Plame had not been in the field for many years. She was withdrawn from the field in part bcause her status was compromised long ago:
"Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.
The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said. "
The Russina spy mentioned above was Aldrich Ames.
Given the above, how can you possibly believe that clown from the CIA who says Plame was covert? Covert from who? The Girl Scouts of America? Hey, wasn't it the head of the CIA that told Bush Iraq had WMD? You don't believe that silly tale, now do you? Why should you believe the same source abot Plame?
You have it. It was 1994. Ger
March 17, 2007 - 17:06 ET by JDWYou have it. It was 1994. Gertz reported what you have listed above. The entire issue is just another in a long line of dem cover-ups. Makes one wonder what the hell is going on in the heads of our conservative 'leaders'. Good find.
JDW
Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Wow ! finally some commo
March 17, 2007 - 09:51 ET by rainlillieWow ! finally some commonsense on this blog!
Plame, came across as very credible, very capable and very forthcoming, unlike
Toensing. I was amused at the way Ms. Toensing wouldn't answer the questions
directly. Plame did an awesome job! Now the world can see what an asset she was
to the CIA, and more importantly to the security of America.
Intenzity, You'd think after the
head of CIA said that Plame was "Covert," that would end the argument. It just
shows you how detached from reality these people are. It was never made clear by
anyone defending Roves and Libby's actions, why her name came up at all. As
soon as they saw CIA next to her name, you'd think they would have been cautious
about passing her name along. Being that they weren't that shows you that
leaking her name was done for
no other reason than to get revenge against her husband, because he had the
audacity to disagree with this corrupt
administration.
"The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert"
"Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put
holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter)
Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House
allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic
Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July
2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done
"covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years,
and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to
newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is
quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.)
Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning
the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of
her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times
reporter Judith Miller. Fitzgerald did consider charging Libby with violating
the so-called Espionage Act, which prohibits the disclosure of "national defense
information," the papers show; he ended up indicting Libby for lying about when
and from whom he learned about Plame."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/
Ah, rainlillie - now I know the bats are out.
March 17, 2007 - 10:01 ET by acaiguanaAh, rainlillie - now I know the bats are out.
How's the medication coming? It must get sort of boring in the padded cell.
I heard they recovered the cell with a soft pastel coloring for ya.
Good to see you are making some progress in your battle with disorientation fatigue of single brain cell activity.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
No, I don't think it's an att
March 16, 2007 - 21:47 ET by Del DolemonteNo, I don't think it's an attempt to lynch Bush. It's the run up to the 2008 election. The Democrats don't have the resources to impeach him, and he's going to be an ex-President in 22 months.
Two recent public opinion polls, both done by non-right wing news organizations, have shown that the Dems' approval numbers have actually gone DOWN by 5 points since last fall (see www.pollingreport.com for details).
They're desperately flailing around for anything they can find. Just take a look at how their various "Iraq resolutions" have failed. They're in chaos.
keep on looking for success
March 16, 2007 - 22:48 ET by citizen xmaybe it's in the yellow cake.
You mean this yellow cake?
March 17, 2007 - 00:11 ET by mastersofdeceitYou mean this yellow cake?
Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
March 16, 2007 - 21:16 ET by kathleenirishLiar! Liar! Pants on fire! or, should I say, 'Plame's a flame'.
The media proves once again, a lie repeated enough time becomes the truth.
Dirty, rotten scoundrels. What a sad joke.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
She's under oath, Stanley and
March 16, 2007 - 21:22 ET by BillAdkinsShe's under oath, Stanley and she says today in the hearing, "I know I am here under oath and I am here to say I was covert." Why the Hell do you think the CIA made a complaint about the outing? Now, can you get Rove, under oath, to appear before the committee? As I understand it, Rove and thugs are trying to pull an end around and appear but not under oath. Rove is as gutless as Bush.
I used to think Jimmy Carter was the worst president in history - then along came George W. Bush.
Richard Armitage admitted, an
March 16, 2007 - 21:27 ET by dervishRichard Armitage admitted, and Novak confirmed, that Armitage blew Plame's cover. Now why would someone who likes Bush about as much as you do want to take revenge on Poor Joe Wilson?
BA
March 16, 2007 - 21:29 ET by gfrrmanSo what if she's under oath. It is the leftist way to lie whenever it suits the need. Bill Clinton was under oath too!!!
There is a significant differ
March 16, 2007 - 21:29 ET by Gat New YorkThere is a significant difference between a loose covert description used around the hallways in the CIA and the actual legal definition. According to the legal definition she was not covert. If you listened carefully at how the Dems were parsing their words they deliberatly circumvented the legal definition to leave a certain impression with the public. I suspect that there was no small amount of perjury in Plame's testimony as well, but Dems are running the show.
Exactly Gat
March 17, 2007 - 05:26 ET by SportPoliticsExactly Gat. Liberal jerks love idiotic word arguments, or in plain down home Texan speech, lying.
The problem with them lying i
March 17, 2007 - 09:05 ET by liberal_bug_zapperThe problem with them lying is that they all believe that the ends justify the means... for their causes. Their primary goal isn't to win elections; it's to destroy their opponents so that no one dare question their authority again. They mean to cower the conservative movement and criminalize conservative politics.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, we're at war. We need to destroy our opponent politically. This means we need a President with a Cabinet full of people willing to slog it out and take down anyone who lies, cheats and steals, no matter which side they're on. Considering there are way more Dems who are corrupt, this will be a good thing for our side, even if we lose a few. We need a President who isn't a G-damned pussy like the one we have now.
W should have marginalized all Dems, ignored them and not let them take part in ANYTHING!!! Shut the door, stop any cooperation and stop all talks with them. No negotiation, no meeting any of them halfway, because they only see that as a sign of weakness and go for the jugular.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
LOL! So you originally though
March 16, 2007 - 21:37 ET by Del DolemonteLOL! So you originally thought Jimmy Carter was worse than Richard Nixon, or worse than Gerald Ford? Jimmy is in fact responsible for the mess that is today's Middle East, so I would put him below Bush.
As for the "under oath" bull, remember that you folks on the left defended Clinton for lying under oath (which in his case was a felony offense), simply because he was lying about sex. But that's not important.
By your "logic", since Ms. Plame testified "under oath", then everything she said is true. Unfortunately, a lot of Bush's people also testified "under oath" to Congress about the war in Iraq, al Qaeda, etc. Are you saying they were all telling the truth as well?
Just like Plame's testimony
March 16, 2007 - 21:22 ET by dervishJust like Plame's testimony, too, the Pink Pimpernel back there is a bit -- um -- suspicious. If you look between the fake blond wig and the flaming pink stuffed shirt, that's a notably male jawline. Transgendered, perhaps, or just cross-dressed for the occasion, but there's testosterone in that there mandible.
Nice. Classy. Really. I
March 16, 2007 - 21:31 ET by waka wakaNice.
Classy.
Really. I mean it.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Wasn't intended to be polit
March 16, 2007 - 21:34 ET by dervishWasn't intended to be political, or phobic -- strictly anthropological, son. That's what I do. And I'll come back here for your apology after this person appears on Letterman or Stewart or whoever gets him/her first.
Hmm. Thought I could post
March 16, 2007 - 21:45 ET by dervishHmm. Thought I could post a picture. Well, here's another view on Drudge.
ROFLMAO!That guy is a laugh!T
March 16, 2007 - 21:52 ET by bigtimerROFLMAO!
That guy is a laugh!
Thanks dervish...I missed that today...nothing like a good laugh to end the day with!
Most leftists are not that good-looking and they dress funny too!
I suspected the same thing, h
March 16, 2007 - 21:37 ET by TexasOptimistI suspected the same thing, hmmm.
George W. Bush is not a conservative, but I still support his presidency. I'd rather have him as president than ANY of the Democrats.
Merry Christmas 2007.
Anyone want to check the oi
March 17, 2007 - 01:12 ET by Right2thePointAnyone want to check the oil in that trannie?
Armitage's name seems to be c
March 16, 2007 - 21:29 ET by bigtimerArmitage's name seems to be conveniently absent....has been since it was made public he was the leaker out of the State Dept. under Collin Powell.
If we the leftist media do not report it...it isn't a huge fact in this case...in fact it isn't a fact at all..it means zilch...just ask Fitzgerald.
Btw...there were also critters behind the people testifying that held little signs saying...'Got Impeachment'...real whiz-bangs there.
Get a chance watch the hearings being repeated on C-Span again.
She claims some junior officer just happened to go by her office and heard the need for someone to go to Niger to look into the yellow-cake situation blah blah blah...but just happened to not remember who the person was that suggested that she recommend her husband who was an Ambassador who had experience in this area.... blah blah blah...
This is a covert agent who deals in WMD's proliferation to protect us from the bad guys...this is what the CIA is?
Good Golly Miss Molly no wonder we have been in this mess for years if this is what we have had for protection to this country...no wonder we were hit.
Oh puhleeeze!
Btw...as an aside she said her husband came from a deeply rooted republican family in Ca. but he was a democrat...(Lynn Westmoreland said, I am sorry your husband lost his way...which was funny... before he asked the next question to her)
Duh ...Val...we know that...he was working for the Kerry campaign, they let him go if memory serves me correctly...only because of the media attention at the time, it isn't like they got scruples all of the sudden.
LOL!
I expected nothing less from the leftist media than the manner it is being reported, or better yet, non-reported when it comes to the original leaker, which she knows well, but she went after Rove and Cheney...wouldn't have anything to do with the Wilsons civil suit now would it.....it never ends.
So the bottom line here is th
March 16, 2007 - 22:14 ET by balboaSo the bottom line here is that Plame was lying?
Depends on the definition of
March 16, 2007 - 22:19 ET by bigtimerDepends on the definition of lie boa.
Kind of like the definition of covert.
Depends how ya want to spin it to CYA...which the leftists have down to perfection!
...and the soap opera continues....
LOL!
Yes, and conservatives never
March 16, 2007 - 22:26 ET by balboaYes, and conservatives never lie...
I'm just trying to figure out who to believe in this whole thing. Very hard to tell.
Who was the most recent Presi
March 16, 2007 - 22:31 ET by Del DolemonteWho was the most recent President to admit that he gave false testimony under oath as part of a plea bargain? Hint, it wasn't a "conservative" one.
As I mentioned to someone else here, who said that since Ms. Plame was under oath so her testimony should be considered to be "the truth", some of Bush's people also testified under oath about al Qaeda, Iraq, etc. That must mean they were telling the truth too, right?
In an ideal world, yes. But p
March 16, 2007 - 22:38 ET by balboaIn an ideal world, yes. But politics is about lying to some degree. Both sides assume the other is lying most of the time.
I prefer to think that Bush's people stretched the truth about Iraq under oath, exaggerated if you will. I don't think they did this to be malicious; they wanted to present a very strong case because they thought Iraq was a problem. So did they lie? I don't think so.
As for Plame, I don't know yet. I'll wait and see.
balboa
March 17, 2007 - 05:34 ET by SportPoliticsSince you don't know yet, face the fact that you will never know.
In the end, the very thing you say, that you don't know, should prove the case for you - against Plame, if you had any sense other than a self inflicted liberal idiocy, you'd have figured that out already.
Let me give you a tip. As a liberal piece of crap, never express doubt for your own liars.
boa,Hearings are just now sta
March 16, 2007 - 22:35 ET by bigtimerboa,
Hearings are just now starting to replay on C-Span from the beginning...I suggest you listen to all of it.
Dollar to a doughnut what you will say.
balboa
March 17, 2007 - 06:11 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI'm just trying to figure out who to believe in this whole thing. Very hard to tell.
Not hard to tell at all. Armitage said he was to blame. He admitted he was the one who leaked Plames name to Novak. Anyone who says different or blames someone else is lying and has an agenda. That includes Plame, her husband, and various politicians and 'news' people. Simple. Get Bush is the game.
D
A day without NewsBusters is like a day without sunshine.
I agree about Armitage. Wha
March 17, 2007 - 06:43 ET by sarcasmoI agree about Armitage. What puzzles me a bit is conservatives seem to have no issue with Novak. I think he's a weasel. He basically said something like: "Yeah, the CIA asked me not to use her name, but they didn't ask me hard-enough," which seems to put Novak into EXACTLY the same category as conservatives put the NYT. Aside from the fact that Novak's an inside the beltway big-government conservative and the NYT is a lefty New York City big-government paper, what's the difference??? When, as a journalist, you're asked by an intelligence agency of the United States not to publish something, that's that. IMO this guy is right, the leakers are mainly the ones at fault for the leak, but Novak's trying to weasel-out of his own role, too. In view of how conservatives here have painted very-similar weaseling by the NYT when they choose to publish things an intelligence agency of the United States has asked them -- however "hard" -- not to publish, I'm curious if one of you can manage to draw a nonpolitical distinction and enlighten me on just how Robert Novak's not a totally-NYT-like weasel. Is there 1 standard, or more?
JMR
Novak should be in jail
March 17, 2007 - 13:50 ET by exLibIf Plame was truly covert and it was a crime to reveal her name he should be in jail next to Armitage. End of Story.
PS - I don't think much of Novak anyway and when I saw him on Crossfire I hated his comebacks and arguemnts.
You might actually like him since he is NOT a Social Conservative, which Is what I am and I prefer to get my news and commentary from that angle. Novak is more like Pat Buchanan in my view.
No, not at all. I find Nova
March 17, 2007 - 14:02 ET by sarcasmoNo, not at all. I find Novak (and Buchanan) repulsive politically. They both (and you) want way-too-large a big government for my taste. Sorry, I want the less-than-a-tithe kind of small government, not the Republi-crook-BS "only during election season" variety. And at this point, all I can say is THANK GOD for the "beltway Madam" and her 45 POUND "little black book!" :) As a humorist, I'm havin a hell of a good time today, even aside from the beers! Fish in a barrel...
JMR
You got me all wrong
March 17, 2007 - 14:21 ET by exLibIf I was in charge you defintely would not like it for awhile, maybe not ever but in the end you'd have a very small government.
My only thing is this ANY TIME the government gives money to someone for ANYTHING I don't want it to violate my Consience.
I happen to be a Christian and have a pretty clear moral code so any time somone gets government money to do anything that goes against that code I want it regulated.
So if money is going to education I want Christian Private schools to get some of it. If money is going to fund Radio and TV stations I don't want pornography on it where kids have easy access to it. If money is going to help the poor and needy, i want churches to get some.
Having said that, I would eilminate MOST government programs PERIOD.
No TV or Art should be funded by the Government. I would abolish the NEA, whatever the Governement agency is for schools, Social Security, etc..
I have no use for any of that.
If an idea is good and useful individuals and non-governemnt organizations can handle it.
I don't believe you.
March 17, 2007 - 14:35 ET by sarcasmoNo, I think I got you exactly right, but you don't like it when I do that any more than the lefties here do when I do it to them. And maybe not you, but your SIDE has been in-charge for quite a while, as big government has gotten ever-bigger. I doubt you can name nearly as many government programs you'd end as I can, off the top of my head , and everyone here knows it! For one thing, a tithe-sized big government means no more tax and spend drugwar for your side to worship. There should also, for a start, be no FCC along with no PBS (and that's the first "easy for you" one I've mentioned) no public schools like the Bush family loves, etc.. And I DON'T GIVE A CRAP about your conscience (it's an important word, let's at least spell it right...) I give a crap instead about MY WASTED TAXES (see link above) under the guy YOU no doubt voted-for. IOW, I don't believe you.
JMR
DontFeedTheTrolls says:- Ar
March 17, 2007 - 09:27 ET by ding7777DontFeedTheTrolls says:- Armitage said he was to blame. He admitted he was the one who leaked Plames name to Novak
Libby leaked to Miller and Cooper. Fitz was investigating all leakers. Too bad Libby lied about being a leaker, huh?
So, dingy, Libby should go to jail over a non-crime?
March 17, 2007 - 09:45 ET by acaiguanaSo, dingy, Libby should go to jail over a non-crime?
What ever happened to the Karl Rove perp walk? By the way, what is with you Liberals and 'perp walk'?
Why don't you want to see Plame and Wilson, 'perp walked'?
I can give you a number of crimes I'd like to see Plame and Wilson charged with.
For example, malfeasance of office and violation of the Public Trust in that their BS has wasted nearly $25 million of my tax dollars for nothing.
Not to mention purjury, obstruction of justice, covertly running a disinformation campaign against the Bush Administration from their official employment duties or contracted roles and just being general nusances.
There has been a Senate/House investigation of their crap. There has been a Special Prosecutor who could only charge a guy for a 'process crime' for their crap. There have been untold number of government hours wasted on this crap from the CIA through the FBI to the White House.
So, dingy, what about all of that? Since this whole story has zero to do with the fact that we are currently in Iraq and need to win the war.
Oh, yeah, you want us to lose in Iraq. I forgot.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
BalboaLet me guess, in kind
March 17, 2007 - 06:11 ET by Right2thePointBalboa
Let me guess, in kindergarten you flunked leggo bricks right.
HAHA! THAT'S HILARIOUS! "LEGG
March 17, 2007 - 10:13 ET by balboaHAHA! THAT'S HILARIOUS! "LEGGO" BRICKS! YOU'RE A RIOT!!!
You doesn't has to shout, bal...
March 17, 2007 - 10:38 ET by RJoooh. When they get hysterical and begin shouting, it's a pretty good sign you've touched a nerve. Bet he thought those leggo records were sealed.
I'm very sensitive about my "
March 17, 2007 - 13:05 ET by balboaI'm very sensitive about my "leggo" past.
Its OK Bal, we all flunk something in our lives.
March 17, 2007 - 13:21 ET by acaiguanaIts OK Bal, we all flunk something in our lives.
I'm sorry you were 'outed' here.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
I appreciate that, ACA. (snif
March 17, 2007 - 13:59 ET by balboaI appreciate that, ACA. (sniffle) I mean, Lincoln Logs, erector sets, that I get. But legos...I just can't make them work.
Ask Dan Rather.
March 16, 2007 - 22:26 ET by Del DolemonteAsk Dan Rather.
Plame
March 16, 2007 - 22:52 ET by JNaughtOn his radio show Friday afternoon, Sean Hannity said Valerie Plame's testimony was "a despicable lie." That being the case why was Ms. Plame not arrested since she was under oath? Or is it Hannity that is lying? This kind of doublespeak from the far right leaves moderate Republicans shaking their heads.
JN...So called Moderate Repub
March 16, 2007 - 22:55 ET by bigtimerJN...
So called Moderate Republicans are RINO's...they can shake their heads all they want.
LOL!
BT - First, those RINOs hav
March 17, 2007 - 00:07 ET by Free StinkerBT - First, those RINOs have to get there heads out of . . . the sand.
Yeah, that's what I meant.
Actually Hannity's input does
March 16, 2007 - 23:00 ET by balboaActually Hannity's input doesn't mean anything to the issue at hand. Nor Olbermann's. These guys just muddy up the arguments.
artifacts
March 16, 2007 - 23:24 ET by Pragmatic-ManOne man's mud is another man's prized archaeological artifact. Study the mud, and know thy enemy (Baldy Olby), as well as the motives of your peers (The Great American).
she is lying
March 16, 2007 - 23:22 ET by Pragmatic-ManShe is lying. It was her husband who revealed her identity years ago. Follow the scent all the way back to the den. Don't take the bait at the trap. We should all find it interesting that no fuss is made over a non-CIA member being sent, on behalf of a CIA "covert" operative, into a foreign country on an investigative mission. If I were media, I would ask, why was HE sent? Such was Novak's line of questioning to Armitage. And it was then revealed, as suspected, that he was sent by his wife. But she was, as has been circulated numerous times, alerady known in beltway circles as a CIA operative. Why? Because her ego-hungry husband touted it, just as he gobbled up the opportunity to go to Niger. He is an albatross she would be better off without.
Pragmatic-Man
March 17, 2007 - 05:46 ET by SportPoliticsThat's not the half of it. Why would the same be sent, a former KNOWN ambassador - who lollies around and asks government and former government officials to incriminate themselves with the world UN body by saying there were covert purchase attempts,while openly admitting to be a representative of the US government ? Only a moron would tell dumb*** Joe Wilson the former US ambassador and open investigator that they broke the law and never notified the UN of the issue at the time pertinent, and let it skid while sanctions laws were in full force.
I guess we have such stupid people in the USA anymore, the very basic node of the story is lost upon the masses.
If Joe Wilson said "pretty please give me a confession about yellowcake, because France owns the mines, and they are opposing us on the war", what level of idiocy would it take for one of the officlals to appease Joey and blab their covered up crime to him ?
I guess Joey weasled the truth out of them with his tea sipping sessions.
HOW STUPID has the entire nation become ?
The whole issue is a gigantic disaster from day 1.
I guess that's how police interrogate.
Then they come out of the interrogation room and say " The suspect won't admit a thing, they didn't do it. "
LOL
Man I'm telling you, this world has gone insane.
Our CIA kindly sends an openly opposed to the war liberal democrat loon to ask the parties involved if they broke the sanction laws, and all he wants them to say is they did not. Call Joe the yellowcake traffickers defense lawyer.
Dude, this crap is insane, nothing less. I have never seen so much BS over a thing where the basic truths are entirely ignored. It's the twilight zone.
Saddam had 500 tons of yell
March 17, 2007 - 06:18 ET by Right2thePointSaddam had 500 tons of yellow cake that was under seal by the IAEA but when Lybia revealed their program the had a bit over 2600 tons.
Tell me they got it on a Blue Light special from Kmart on aisle 5.
did he lie under oath?
March 17, 2007 - 13:18 ET by tumbler_2007Agents are trained to lie convincingly, Naughty. They're professional double-dealers.
Plane has a lot riding on this brouhaha. She & her meathead lying hubby.
You think she's squawked, belabored, and gone to every extreme over this only to inevitably tell the truth to the cameras? Get real.
proof through diligence
March 16, 2007 - 23:12 ET by Pragmatic-ManThe REAL reason we know she is lying UNDER OATH is because nobody was ever charged with the crime of outing an agent. Does anybody really believe for ONE INSTANT that the democraps would let heads remain on Republican shoulders if there was actually a crime to pin? Look at Delay and Lott, and realize that they will take a paper cut and open it into a gaping infested wound. If there were real crimes here, Putzgerald would have nailed the administration to crosses.
Resultant conclusion: Plame is lying and should be prosecuted for perjury. As well, the CIA "General" is also lying and should be relieved of his (?military?) command (NOT) and also prosecuted for perjury. Oh, but I forget that right now we are at the mercy of RINO's and appeasers. Suppose I will just sit back and mark another day off to whacked-out socialist politics.
Pragmatism always prevails... even Winston was once a lib.
Is Armitage now covert? Fo
March 16, 2007 - 23:41 ET by owlpelletsIs Armitage now covert? For some reason he is scarce in this farce. Waxman looks like an undertaker I know.
I always wanted to get into politics, but I was never light enough to
make the team.
Armitage - security clearance taken away ?
March 17, 2007 - 06:48 ET by SportPoliticsArmitage - security clearance taken away ? Nope.
That's the initial leaker.
So, the pinheaded donkeys of the left whined that shouldn't leaker of classified information lose their security clearance... LOL... and whined of course concerning the White House,setspecifically toward the VP, Rove,and Libby,and implied President Bush.
That's what we have here, idiot donkeys braying in the wind. Their favorite "criminal" leaker Armitage,they won't mention, and have publicly decided they mean to take the law in a giant hop over the real leaker, to focus on those who heard it - from the CIA spokesperson - WHO TESTIFIED UNDER OATH IN THE LIBBY TRIAL THAT HE NEVER TOLD LIBBY OR CHENEY THAT VALERIE PLAME WAS UNDERCOVER OR COVERT OR THAT HER NAME OR ASSOCIATION WAS CLASSIFIED...
Get that under your cap... LOL... the CIA itself sent a spokesperson to Libby and Cheney, and cavalierly mentioned Plame,and NEVER informed them that she was classified, covert,undercover, or any of the above....
That was testified to in the Libby trial.....
Now that's either the usual CIA lackluster sloppiness, or one heckuva sting operation on the White House.
I guess the idiot press and the demcorats are now even a hundred notches lower on the totem pole, and nothing but a big fat lying sack of crap comes to mind when I think of their contributions in this whole circus.
David Korn, the retard faced intelligentsia reporter of the left is the moron who let the wife works at the CIA out of the bag....Joe Wilson told him - before Novak printed his column....Korn had already printed the disclosure apparently celebrating the left wing sting against the POTUS.
Toensing slapped everystupid democrat in the waxman fools hearing upside the noggin with the facts...Waxman got very angry and animated several times, but got slapped down byToensing quite easily, and repeatedly... it was great.
Not covert under the law. Awww, too bad lying democrats... now you can play poopey pissy for years over one word- the meaning of is - or the meaning of covert...
What a bunchof lying simpletons - who have to pretend to be stupid and not understand the useage of the word covert - toclaim their falsely accusing BS partisan gasbag lies.
That's why balboa acts so doggone ignorant most of the time. It's a way for idiot liberals to pretend something is amiss.
The democrats should be required to wear a forehead sign:
beware !
" STUPID DONKEY "
Is Armitage now covert? Fo
March 16, 2007 - 23:41 ET by owlpelletsIs Armitage now covert? For some reason he is scarce in this farce. Waxman looks like an undertaker I know.
I always wanted to get into politics, but I was never light enough to
make the team.
Actually I do not believe s
March 17, 2007 - 06:40 ET by Right2thePointActually I do not believe she is lying but moreso parsing words.
The covert meme was thrown around so loosely today that it was rediculous.
Undercover with a CIA developed story is one thing but even Val told of how she had to ask players in this "big game" if they were covered or not. The only bit of a little problem with this is that she was one of the top dogs in the CPD unit.
Some have even suggested she ran that doghole.
So if she couldn't tell the players without a scorecard, I mean like in Langley which is "Homebase" and the place covert agents would never be caught unless the had a true wish to be dead.
So we are to believe she has run this fly by wire community of perps and jerks that could be endangered by her outing , but sitting down in front of a congressional committee after the fact doesn't make the guys who did the first purge of her sources say to themselves that they gotta do a little expansion on their first actions to really make their bosses happy.
Yah know sorta kill them all and let the big guy sort them out sorta meme.
How many people died today when this blond took the stand?
I only heard a bit of today's
March 16, 2007 - 23:59 ET by GalvanicI only heard a bit of today's testimony before the Committee on C-Span radio, but amidst all of the political posturing, the highlight for me was when a female Committee member proposed to Chairman Henry Waxman that the Committee subpoena Bob Novak, put him under oath, and ask him who leaked the named to him. (WHAT?) Waxman, possibly disturbed that the Congresswoman had inadvertently diverted the inquisition away from its quest to Mt. Rove, reminded the Congresswoman that there was no need to ask Novak under oath whom the 'leak' was because we already know.
Duh! Of course we know. Just like Fitzgerald before he began his ruthless two year investigation to discover the identity of the man who had already admitted to it: RICHARD ARMITAGE.
This House investigation is indeed surreal. The Fitzgerald investigation ended with one indictment and conviction on a crime --- perjury and obstruction of justice --- which occurred after Fitzgerald already knew who his guilty party was. And now this House committee picks up where the exhaustive Fitzgerald inquisition ended with a fizzle, and carries on as if they don't know Armitage's confession.
It's transcended Orwell and is rushing headlong into Kafka.
Galvanic
March 17, 2007 - 06:51 ET by SportPoliticsGalvanic,
It's the Lying Donkey Zone, Bizarro World.
Plame isn't the brightest star
March 17, 2007 - 00:40 ET by DrKJMy reaction to hearing Plame's testimony was that it's no wonder the CIA couldn't connect any pre-9/11 dots; she sounds like a dolt. Are we to trust anything a "covert" agent says?
These kinds of congressional "dog and pony" shows are pathetic grandstanding and certainly don't help the democrats.
I believe I heard that she
March 17, 2007 - 01:23 ET by ApacheIPI believe I heard that she testified today that, "this is the first time I have testified under oath". Can that possibly be true? Did anyone else hear that? Is there a transcript of her testimony available anywhere?
Although I shouldn't be shocked at the level of Democratic partisan politics and the Democratic use of the justice system as a political tool, I find it incredulous that Scooter Libby had an investigation (read witch hunt) and trial, and the associated hours of testimony under oath, and the alleged "victim" has never before testified under oath!! This makes no sense at all! Can this possibly be true? How on earth is that possible? What kind of alternative universe have I landed in?
The Plame Game
March 17, 2007 - 05:40 ET by Sua Sponte 75Good lord, this is the real life Seinfeld show about nothing. Can you say Asshattery?
HT:FA