For his level-headed professionalism, Lester Holt is on my [admittedly short] list of MSM faves. But while Holt did hit former Ambassador [to Gabon, São Tomé and Príncipe] Joseph Wilson with one tough question on this morning's "Today," he let Valerie Plame's husband hijack the beginning of the interview, lobbed him numerous softballs, and failed to challenge Wilson on his blatant misrepresentation of Plame's role in sending him to Niger.View video here.
In the set-up piece preceding the interview, "Today" aired a clip of Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) asking Plame, during yesterday's congressional hearing, whether she was a Republican or a Democrat. For the record, Plame sardonically acknowledged that she was indeed a Dem.
When the interview began at 7:15 AM EDT, and before Holt could get off a question, Wilson launched into an attack on Westmoreland for having posed that question to Plame, and extolled his own and Plame's record of bi-partisan public service. When Holt eventually gained control, he did hit Wilson with the following question, the only challenging one of the dialogue:
LESTER HOLT: "Ambassador, your wife did say, and made it clear she considers herself a victim of political assassination, or at least being used politically in this case. Would her testimony, and the fact that she has a book coming out soon, the fact that you have been so outspoken, could that also be described as a form of political retaliation?"
JOE WILSON: "You're suggesting that somehow Valerie and I are engaged in political retaliation?"
HOLT: "I'm not suggesting, I'm asking the question."
WILSON: "I would remind you, yeah, I would remind you of course that everything I said in my article has proven true. There was no substance to the assertion that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium from Iraq [sic]. With respect to Valerie's book [NB: for which she has reportedly received a $2.5 million advance], that's still hung up in negotiations with the CIA. And with respect to her testimony, she was invited [NB: by committee chairman and friendly fellow Dem Henry Waxman, D-Calif.] to testify before Congress. It is totally appropriate to respond positively to such an invitation."
Holt didn't challenge Wilson on his assertion that there was "no substance to the assertion" that Saddam had sought yellow-cake from Niger. Others, including Christopher Hitchens, say otherwise, as in this Slate article, Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.
Later, Wilson asserted that in her testimony Plame had debunked the "lie" that "she was responsible for suggesting or sending me to Niger." Holt again failed to challenge Wilson on his very dubious assertion. Consider this WaPo article, which flatly states:
"Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly."
Holt then served this one up on a platter: "Ambassador Wilson, do you expect to get an apology from the White House? Would you like to get an apology from the White House?"
WILSON [managing to take a swipe at both President Bush and his parents]: "You know, I don't, frankly, and I'm disappointed in that because I thought they raised people more correctly than that down in Texas."
Finally, Holt failed to react when Wilson made a controversial claim regarding former presidential press secretary Scott McLellan.
HOLT: "Have you had a conversation with anyone from the White House subsequent to all this?"
WILSON: "No. I did run into Scott McLellan in the green room at a different station, and we commiserated on the fact that we both had been lied to by this White House."
Not Lester's finest journalistic hour. As for Wilson, a combination of anger and preening egotism does not wear well.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Wilson/Plame
March 17, 2007 - 11:33 ET by Gat New YorkThe most critical issue is that Joseph Wilson - a Democratic Party activist - subverted the intent of this sensitive and critical intelligence mission in a time of war for purely political reasons and to create disinformation - either on his own or with the support of whomever in the Democratic Party.
This is an issue that should have been aggressively investigated by the Administration and the GOP when they were in the majority.
Holt raised some substantive and serious questions that require an answer and there are others:
1. Under the legal definition was Valerie Plame a "covert" agent?
2. Exactly why was Joe Wilson of all people sent to Niger on such a sensitive mission? Why not a professional analyst? Why would the Administration allow the selection of such an obvious political opponent?
3. What precise role did Plame and her staff play in getting her husband to be chosen for the Niger mission?
4. Did Wilson/Plame subvert our intelligence regarding the Niger missions for political reasons?
5. Are any statements made by Wilson or Plame subject to perjury charges?
Why has this Administration been stone silent on this and done nothing to investigate this and allow Democrats to subvert our intelligence gathering ability in a time of war?
The French Connection/Wilson
March 17, 2007 - 12:37 ET by bigtimerGAT... Here is a very interesting article about JosephWilson and his French Connections...very interesting indeed.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/11/joseph_wilson_iv_the_french_co.html
I don't know about the othe
March 17, 2007 - 13:12 ET by motherbeltI don't know about the other questions, but on this one:
1. Under the legal definition was Valerie Plame a "covert" agent?
Victoria Toensing, who actually wrote the applicable law, was on Hannity & Colmes last night, and said that Plame was NOT a "covert" agent, according to the law. Colmes kept harping on her saying that Plame had said "under oath" that she was a covert agent. And he kept harping on Toensing: "So was she a covert agent or did she commit perjury?" Was she covert or did she commit perjury? Did she commit perjury? Over and over again. Until I wanted to shoot the TV. Would not allow her to try to explain the difference to him, namely that she may have considered herself a covert agent, but did not meet the legal definition of covert.
But what the hell does she know? She only wrote the law.
mb,I saw that too.They did th
March 17, 2007 - 13:26 ET by bigtimermb,
I saw that too.
They did the same thing to her during the hearings yesterday, Waxman and Watson I think it was...they would interrupt her endlessly when she tried to speak...truth to power!
They do not want to hear the truth...let alone anyone else hear it!
It is maddening...I detest these people.
Hey BT... I'm with you on t
March 18, 2007 - 09:16 ET by liberal_bug_zapperHey BT... I'm with you on this! These people infuriate me. They ask questions, and then when the person tries to answer, they talk over them and repeat their point like a broken record, doing their best to make sure the other person isn't heard.
The thing with Liberals is that they keep repeating lies, over and over.
I personally think that Valerie Plame was not lying... exactly, but rather, she was purposely being vague and consequently, disingenuous.
The problem is, at one point in her life, she WAS covert. So for her to say, I was a covert agent is not a lie. The fact that she never was forced to qualify exactly WHEN she was covert poses a problem for all Liberal arguments.
Now of course, they'll use semantics to try and cover up this obvious omission, but the fact remains that when her name was revealed, she was no longer covert.
This is why when Waxman stated "General Hayden! General Hayden, head of the CIA, told me personally that she was. If I said that she was a covert agent, it wouldn't be an incorrect statement?"
The issue is that he is conveniently leaving out all references to time... as everyone knows that at one time, she was a covert agent. When anyone tries to narrow down the scope of this argument by defining it within time, Waxman and all other democrats say "No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm not giving you -- I'm not yielding my time to you."
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Plame was covert under the legal definition
March 17, 2007 - 13:29 ET by Jules SiegelToensing may have written the law (or helped write it, to be more accurate), but she has no special information on Plame's status. The arguments that she made during the hearing were based on a rather obvious distortion of the legal definitions.
According to the testimony presented, Plame fulfilled all these requirements. In order to get around that Toensing claimed that other provisions of the law required her to be resident abroad, but the language of the law is very clear. It doesn't say "and" with respect to the residency requirements, it says "or."
I may be mistaken, but I sa
March 17, 2007 - 13:35 ET by motherbeltI may be mistaken, but I saw in another report that it HAD been more than five years since Plame served outside the country.
You're not wrong motherbelt, Jules is
March 17, 2007 - 18:50 ET by SportPoliticsYou're not wrong motherbelt, Jules is. Jules also read his own copy and paste incorrectly.
It says overseas, or overseas within the last 5 years. It also says AND as to the overseas or within the last 5 years overseas as part of the REQUIREMENT.
Jules has a READING COMPREHENSION ISSUE.
JULES also LIED about Toensing's argument.
I'm certain Jules didn't watch the END- the last 35 or so minutes - when Toensing testified. In fact they cut off the hearing with her still responding to the LIAR and DECIEVER Waxman, whom she BUSTED in frontof us all very,very effectively. I will RETRIEVE her words that DUMB LIAR JULES failed to pay attention to during the hearing.
Jules, keep on truckin' there and spewing BS.
March 17, 2007 - 13:36 ET by acaiguanaJules, keep on truckin' there and spewing BS.
I dunno why you guys keep trying to lie to make a point. Why not try making the point from a position of strength?
Oh, you ain't got a position of strength with this Bimbo (Plame).
Here's the transcript. Read it and weep. Try reaaaal hard to find the interpretation of the 'law' that Toensign wrote and even Waxman could not argue that point.
You can slink back under your rock now.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Exactly ACA...Waxman did his
March 17, 2007 - 13:49 ET by bigtimerExactly ACA...
Waxman did his best to quite her with that retort, it was a miracle she got that out, but of course that wasn't played as a clip on any of the networks that I know of, which should of been...it was the most important words she got to get out that was audible without much interruption.
Waxman really did get waxed as far as I was concerned.
You have lied Jules.
March 17, 2007 - 18:44 ET by SportPoliticsYou have lied Jules.
" In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. "
Furthermore Toensing said it applies to persons overseas, and THEN, went through a long explanation of how that FURTHER became apllied to persons here in the USA- first the CIA said they needed rollout rollin turnovertime - 3 years - then they said they needed protectionfor thosenot back yet, and as Toensing characterized it , they finally flatout asked the CIA how long they wanted in the statute provsion and their answer was 5 years - which was written in and adopted.
So you CLAIMING Toensing said " Only overseas" is WRONG, and is a LIE.
Now, you have been " OUTED "
I didn't misread anything.
March 17, 2007 - 20:41 ET by Jules SiegelI didn't misread anything. I only quoted the relevant section in order to see if you were familiar with the law. Thanks for falling into the trap.
Toensing was referring to the following sections (which begin with "or"):
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship
to the United States is classified information, and -
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an
agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance
to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an
agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or
foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose
past or present intelligence relationship to the United States
is classified information and who is a present or former agent
of, or a present or former informant or source of operational
assistance to, an intelligence agency.
To serve is not the same as to reside. According to the expert legal advice that I've received, if Plame went outside the United States even for a single day on an official mission, she was covered by the law.
You lied and you misread
March 18, 2007 - 08:07 ET by SportPoliticsYou lied and you misread. The case is already clear, and Plame DOES NOT qualify,and certainly, NOONE will be claiming she does in a court of law.
In other words, your expert legal advice is pure fantasy,and won't even be tested for that very reason.
Furthermore, Toensing EXPLAINED the process of the how and why's concerning the IIPact, and that contained BOTH the outisde the country AND the finally settled uopn 5 years for rotations and retirements...
You are indeed a LIAR, and a fool, and NO advice you recieve can help you, since you "claim" ( another lie of yours) that you "set a trap" ....with your LIES.
Furthermore, you said you didn't find debate here, which can you now withdraw- entirely, since you've been caught - AGAIN.
Let me know when you finally familiarize yourself with Toensing's words in the committee hearing, in order that you are CAPABLEof correcting your falsehood above that claimed Toensing said it ONLY applies to persons overseas.
I HAVE MODERATED your comment so that YOU cannot erase it, LIAR.
Victoria Toensing, who was fl
March 17, 2007 - 20:58 ET by joe conservativeVictoria Toensing, who was floundering desperately. You could literally hear the anxiety in her voice, knowing she was caught in a lie. She provided the comic relief at the hearing.
Toensing completely blurred
March 19, 2007 - 02:18 ET by joe conservativeToensing completely blurred the distinction between witness and lawyer, and looked like an unprofessional hack in doing it. It is important to note that Toensing's interpretation of "her act" is not widely shared except by other Republican partisans.
Joe
March 19, 2007 - 02:32 ET by gfrrmanYour mastery of BDS is unhealthy. The FACT that Toensing WROTE THE LAW concerning covert agents means nothing to factually incomptent people like you. Also Henry Waxman got his ass handed to him when the few times he wasn't interrupting Ms T. If he wanted an answer, then why didn't he let her answer? Because he didn't like the fact that SHE WROTE THE LAW!!!! and knew what she was talking about. Those pesky facts!!!......
The epitomy of the pot callin
March 19, 2007 - 18:29 ET by contraryThe epitomy of the pot calling the kettle black.
LOL You crack me up!
The Hitchens article is conjecture
March 17, 2007 - 12:35 ET by Jules Siegel[1] It doesn't contain a single fact that supports any argument that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Niger. Hitchens only speculates that this might have been the purpose of the visit that he talks about.
[2] The Washington Post article from 2004 that you cite has no basis in fact. In her testimony before Congress, Valerie Plame explained -- under oath -- how her name became part of the trip story. She was a message bearer. She later wrote a memo describing her husband's qualifications for the assignment. She did not really want him to go because she would be left alone with two small children.
As far as the comment above about her covert status, how do you argue with this?
She did not really want hi
March 17, 2007 - 12:47 ET by Jack BauerShe did not really want him to go because she would be left alone with two small children.
At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert.
Hey, was she the only "covert" agent of the the CIA to be working covertly while she was looking after her two small children, and walking into the front gate at Langley very day?
Maybe that explains why the CIA was so spectactularly UNSUCCESSFUL in detecting the 9/11 plot in the works since 1995.
All its "covert" agents were raising kids and working out of Langley as a desk jockey.
You are amusing.
What do you really know abo
March 17, 2007 - 22:46 ET by Jules SiegelWhat do you really know about the CIA?
Many of its agents are married and they have children. It would be the perfect cover, wouldn't it? Who would expect a spy to be a mother with children? And, yes, a considerable portion of the people who work at Langley are undercover. This has been exhaustively discussed.
Please don't ask me to do the research for you. It is all in the public record. I doubt that anything I present will satisfy you, but if you send a personal request to jules_siegel@cafecancun.com I will provide some references tomorrow.
The only way that you can sustain your position is by claiming that either Gen. Hayden was lying or that Rep. Waxman made up the statement that he attributed to the director of the CIA. Do you really want to do that?
Most of the CIA's agents aren
March 18, 2007 - 00:14 ET by NL207Most of the CIA's agents aren't flashy blondes driving around the DC area in an expensive looking convertible sports car like they are some sort of James Bondette. Talk about keeping a low profile, or what?
Who would expect a spy to be a mother? Anybody privy to the information Aldrich Ames passed to the Russians.
"The most damaging breaches have often been committed by insiders, such as former CIA officer Aldrich Ames, who was convicted in the mid-1990s of spying for the Russians and revealing dozens of undercover operations and agents' identities to his handlers. In fact, Plame was among those recalled from their overseas assignments at the time, out of concern - never confirmed, former CIA officials said - that she was among those whom Ames had exposed.
"
Recall that the CIA neither confirnms nor denies anything as a matter of policy.
And the Cubans!
"The press informs the judges that the CIA itself "inadvertently" compromised Plame by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard classified documents that the Agency routed to the Swiss embassy in Havana. In the Washington Times article — you remember, the one the press hypes when it reports to the federal court but not when it reports to consumers of its news coverage — Gertz elaborates that "[t]he documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but [unidentified U.S.] intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them."
One of which was Valerie Plame's identity.
Come now, Mr Journalist, what do YOU really know about the CIA? Have you ever worked for them?
Many of its agents (sic) ar
March 18, 2007 - 08:38 ET by Jack BauerMany of its agents (sic) are married and they have children. It would be the perfect cover, wouldn't it?
Sure, that would be "perfect cover" that no one except you could possibly work out.
What a gagster you are Mr "journalist."
You constantly obsfuscate between covert agents, paid employees and desk-jockeys.
Now I know you are a complete fantasist. who just imposes what he thinks or assumes and calls it "fact.."
As you know so much about the CIA, (and clearly support these brave men like Beruit station chieff William Buckley, tortured to death by the Iranians.)...
please tell me which secret (or even not so secret) ops you like the best?
I personally love their attempts to whack Castro, though I found them comically James Bondish in exe"Q"ution.
I loved the ops against Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas. I adore the way they tracked Guevera and shot his to death like the dog he was.
Please tell us YOUR favorite CIA operations against the commie enemies of the US? As I can tell you are a great supporter of the work the CIA does.
Oh, and I wouldn't believe that quasi-socialist, CIA hating Waxman if he told me the sun would rise in the East tomorrow.
Though he would make a great showtrial judge in Stalin's Soviet Union.
Ok, Jules, keep on repeating Waxman's claims as 'fact'.
March 17, 2007 - 12:51 ET by acaiguanaOk, Jules, keep on repeating Waxman's claims as 'fact'.
"I have been advised by the CIA, that even now after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson’s service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests. But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for these hearings. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information"
Waxman says that Hayden says, but Hayden didn't say. Waxman says...
So, what you need to do is try to believe that what Waxman says is truth?
Good luck.
By the way, when you quote something, it helps to attribute it to the speaker that made the statement, not the speaker you would have liked to make a statement.
Grade for level One BS - A
Grade for distorting the facts and misrepsenting the truth - A
Grade for accuracy in presentation and scholarship - F
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
aca -- you think Waxman's b
March 17, 2007 - 12:57 ET by Jack Baueraca -- you think Waxman's been watching too many episodes of Alias with Agent Sydney Bristow?
Did Agent 0037-24-37 take her kids with her on "covert" ops?
Maybe she was a WalMart Mystery Shopper.
The meanest thing Waxman did was attribute this statement.
March 17, 2007 - 13:22 ET by acaiguanaThe meanest thing Waxman did was attribute this statement.
You can see here the distortions that are coming out of the idiot womb.
I dunno, why do they think they can get away with the gross misrepresentation of it?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Waxman should really get hi
March 17, 2007 - 13:25 ET by Jack BauerWaxman should really get his lies straight.
He can't say anything about the case -- except to "confirm" to so-called status of a so-called "agent.
OK. Plame was covert. Pla
March 17, 2007 - 13:45 ET by motherbeltOK. Plame was covert. Plame was "outed" by Richard Armitage, vial Robert Novak. This breach was so critical that, as Waxman says,
"I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson’s service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.
That's how serious her "outing" was.
So, given all this, if you were Valerie Plame, would you pose for the cover and do an exclusive in-depth interview for Vanity Fair? Or would you want to stay out of the spotlight, so as to limit the damage?
Sorry for the bold. I can't seem to get rid of it.
Something weird is going on with the fonts.
March 17, 2007 - 13:47 ET by acaiguanaSomething weird is going on with the fonts.
It has affected all my IE pages. I think it came from NB too.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Armitrage wasn't the only o
March 17, 2007 - 21:07 ET by Jules SiegelArmitrage wasn't the only one who disclosed her status. See Disclosures of Valerie Plame Wilson's Classified CIA Employment.
Until yesterday, she said nothing about her status or what she did. She said that she regretted the photograph, but since she was no longer undercover I fail to see how it is relevant.
How old are you Jules?
March 17, 2007 - 21:15 ET by exLibNot only are your reading skills poor but your ability to think critically is weak.
Read again what motherbelt said and try to think outside the box you have put yourself in.
I love how you southpaws rev
March 17, 2007 - 12:59 ET by Del DolemonteI love how you southpaws reverently say someone testified "under oath" and then automatically accept what they said as gospel fact. By your "logic", then, all of the Bush Administration officials who testified "under oath" in the run up to the Iraq War were telling the truth as well.
And you folks on the left have hated both the CIA and "Generals" since the Vietnam War days. Why are you suddenly so respectful and supportive of them now?
Simple-because they're against the President you hate. Too funny.
Did Plame torture al-Kayda leader??
March 17, 2007 - 13:08 ET by Jack BauerAnd you folks on the left have hated both the CIA and "Generals" since the Vietnam War days. Why are you suddenly so respectful and supportive of them now?
Del -- keep a look out for this developing story in the WashPoo about the CIA torture of the al-Kayda Sheik... I think the default left/Democrat hatred of the CIA is about to burst forth.
Maybe someone should ask if Valerie Plame tortured the mad Sheik!!
Probe of Al-Qaeda Leader’s Handling Sought
Senators Urge Inquiry After Mohammed Alleges Abuse
By Dafna Linzer and Josh White
Saturday, March 17, 2007; Page A15
Two senators who observed last week’s closed military proceedings against al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed called for an investigation into allegations that the accused planner of the Sept. 11 attacks was physically abused while in CIA custody.
Mohammed told the tribunal last Saturday that he had been mistreated during three years in CIA custody before his transfer to Guantanamo Bay, and he submitted a written description of the alleged abuse. The military panel immediately classified the submission and redacted from transcripts any detail of Mohammed’s treatment in the CIA’s secret prison program.
I've addressed this questio
March 17, 2007 - 13:58 ET by Jules SiegelI've addressed this question before. I can't speak for others, but I try to look at the facts, especially when they conflict with my own personal beliefs. I have never said that the CIA is inherently bad or that the military is inherently bad. I've never implied it either.
Government functionaries are mostly ordinary folk doing useful jobs. Some are heroes; others are villains. It's not one way or the other. When they are wrong, we correct them as best we can. When they are right, we give thanks that they are doing their job and fulfilling their missions and protecting us. And we honor them for their heroism when they are, indeed, heroic.
It seems to me that by your own standards, exposing a secret agenct would be one of the ugliest violations of official conduct and professional ethics. So the only way you can get around that now if by claiming that Valerie Plame wasn't a covert agent. Unfortunately for your argument, the people who have the best information about her status disagree.
The only way you can get around that is by claiming that they are liars. So you are really doing what you accuse "lefties" of doing. You support the CIA only when it suits your interest. When the CIA demands that the Department of Justice investigate the exposure of one of its secret agents, you turn against them and you turn against the agent in question, because it suits your political position, not because of the facts or the principles involved.
Jules, now trying to be reasonable when you've spewed the
March 17, 2007 - 14:07 ET by acaiguanaJules, now trying to be reasonable when you've spewed the Party Line, and been destroyed over it?
Everyone here would deplore the 'outing' of a 'secret' (what a joke) agent. Not one person here would defend such an action.
But, Plame? She got herself mixed up in this political game way over her head and was used like a sick pawn by forces beyond her control. She is an incompetent desk jockey who at one time was overseas and was labeled 'covert' or 'undercover' like ALL CIA officers overseas.
She tried to parley this junk into some sort of glamorous mystic on the Washington cocktail circuit and her husband thought it was cute.
Then she (or someone she 'can't' remember who) recommended Wilson for a job that he was totally unqualified himself to do, since he is neither an expert on uranium nor is he an expert on trade. What are his credentials?
Well, he was in the Diplomatic Corps once.
And he was married to Valarie Plame.
Bit of a weak spot there, huh?
Why did he write the column he wrote? Of course, patriotism.
How could I be so cynical?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
You are an ignorant deceptive con artist who doesn't pay attenti
March 17, 2007 - 14:39 ET by SportPoliticsYou are an ignorant deceptive con artist who doesn't pay attention.
The distinction was made in the hearings over the word "covert", and covert under the identities Protection Act.
It IS NOT against the law to "out" a "covert" Plame under the IPA.
What DID come forth, is another complaint, which is, even WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE of a protected status - WHICH NOONE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAD- AS TESTIFIED TO IN THE LIBBY TRIAL AND REPEATED AND TESTIFIED TO IN THIS HEARING - WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER IPA PROSECUTION ....
a no-no - and that would in layperson's terms "sloppy slip-ups" when it comes to "revealing classified INFORMATION" which includes in this case - agreeing with a reporter that you heard the same thing when they ask....
LOL - The truth is finally EXACTLY APPARENT. DEMOCRAT CONGRESSPERSONS DO THE EQUIVALENT ON A DAILY BASIS.
So,now the retarded left is down to arguing that " Bush people " blew it and revealed "classified information" in a sloppy and "irresponsible manner" which Waxman the whining liar cried " is wrong" - because reporters asked them what everyone asking already knew, and they agreed they heard it too.
I'll tell you,hearing Toensing point out the GIGANTIC LEAKS of the NYT was a breath of fresh air - broke up the dem BS nicely.
Nonetheless, the whole whine is down to - an obscure EO - about SLOPPY USE of classified information - written as an a reminder to try to remember what "might be in your opinion even if you have no idea" possibly considered classified at any low or unknown level.
So - it doesn't matter one WHIT wether or not Plame the leftwing flame was covert, non-covert- coveredup - naked or insane.... but----- if where she worked was SIMPLY AND MERELY CONSIDERED CLASSIFIED INFORMATION....AND SOMEONE LET IT OUT NOT EVEN KNOWING JUST THAT... as she put it - there should have been a red flag....LOL - ask Armitage if HE SAW ANY RED FLAGS
THEN REMIND YOURSELF - THE CIA SPOKESPERSON CAME OVER TO THE VICE PRESIDENTS OFFICE AND TOLD LIBBY AND CHENEY ABOUT PLAME BEING MARRIED TO JOE WILSON AND FAILED TO MENTION THAT WAS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION- AND DELIVERED IT IN A NON CHALANT MANNER- AND NEVER ASKED THAT IT BE PROTECTED - GIVING THE IMPRESSION THAT IF REPORTERS CALLED SAYING THEY HEARD IT AS WELL, ONE COULD EASILY AND LEGALLY CONCUR.
Henry Waxman says everyone should have a fit over it...
I remind you - SANDY THE SLOPPY BURGLAR -takes the cake on "releasing" classified information from it's properly bounded areas - while being observed and after BEING WARNED NOT TO REPEATEDLY.
Now, if you'd like to cry some more - go ahead, but NOONE is going down in this over IPA - EVER= PERIOD.
That means of course YOUR SIDE LIED FROM THE BEGINNING.
You -- apparently can live with yourself and that.
I'd rather stop seeing your pathetically disruptive lies, but then again, shame is nowhere to be found in your desire for absolution from your sins, which you no doubt will continue to pursue.
LOL, nice try!
March 17, 2007 - 20:03 ET by Del DolemonteLOL, nice try!
In her testimony before Con
March 17, 2007 - 17:29 ET by motherbeltedited post for clarity.
In her testimony before Con
March 17, 2007 - 17:30 ET by motherbeltIn her testimony before Congress, Valerie Plame explained -- under oath-- how her name became part of the trip story. She was a message
bearer. She later wrote a memo describing her husband's qualifications
for the assignment. She did not really want him to go because she would
be left alone with two small children.--Jules
So first they picked Joe, and she later wrote the memo describing why he was qualified? Why would that be necessary if they had already chosen him?
I'm not a lawyer, but in what fantasy world does this ring true?
Evidently because they hadn
March 17, 2007 - 21:24 ET by Jules SiegelEvidently because they hadn't picked him yet. They apparently merely asked if would be interested and then when they received an affirmative reply they began the decision-making process. It appears that she was asked to comment on his qualifications because:
[1] She was a high level operative who was an expert in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
[2] She knew him well. (Ok, make a stupid joke about "knew" if you wish.)
The whole issue is irrelevant. What difference does it make, really? He was eminently qualified because he had been posted to Niger and he still had excellent contacts there. Going to Niger is not exactly a "junket" either. Here are the first and last questions on their Tourism FAQ
Wilson was reimbursed for his expenses, but he was not paid for going there or making his report.
From someone who doesn't know
March 17, 2007 - 18:38 ET by contraryFrom someone who doesn't know alot about the specifics of "the case" I am having trouble understanding your point.
You say the Hitchens' article does not contain a single fact... but you do not elaborate. One could only conclude this is your opinion and not fact. Are you arguing that because Hitchens, in your opinion, didn't cover the facts on Iraq's desire to get uranium, that Iraq didn't attempt to get uranium?
Your second point is muttled in unknowns. As the process of choosing who should go down to Niger to resolve this intelligence issue, to my knowledge, has not been concretely established other than (as you sited above) by the words of Plame herself who went on to say she "was a message bearer," and "wrote a memo about her husband's qualifications." Her husband has echoed her lack of participation in this process. However, that in and of itself doesn't establish the process by which Joe Wilson was eventually chosen. If you have a trusted source to link that details exactly how he was chosen, I would like to see it.
Oh, and saying the WaPo article has "no basis in fact" doesn't convince me that it has no basis in fact.
With that all said, I don't know what this line of thought proves. To a casual observer, it is difficult to grasp who said what and to whom, as I do not have a credible, trusted source to rely on to map everything that was said. I need more to go on than your opinion, and if your goal was to come here and prove some point, it is lost on me.
Show me a single fact in th
March 17, 2007 - 20:31 ET by Jules SiegelShow me a single fact in the Hitchens article that supports -- much less proves -- that uranium was discussed in the visit he talks about.
Show that it wasn't.Just abou
March 17, 2007 - 23:05 ET by NL207Show that it wasn't.
Just about the only thing that Niger has that is of sufficient international worth to trade for oil is Uranium.
Sigh... Did you even read wha
March 19, 2007 - 18:32 ET by contrarySigh... Did you even read what I posted? You make claims without links to show those claims as facts, then respond with an obtuse question. What is the point of even posting here?
You're beating an old, dead horse, contrary
March 19, 2007 - 18:42 ET by RJYou're beating an old, dead horse, contrary. Many have tried, but none have succeeded, in getting Jules to respond to specifics. It may have something to do with the fact that he believes that anyone not using their own name on a blog site is, quote, "weak, cowardly and deceitful."
You're not gonna get much of an honest argument from someone who believes that of his opponents. ;^>
I constantly argue with your Hayden quote Jules.
March 17, 2007 - 23:07 ET by acaiguanaI constantly argue with your Hayden quote Jules.
You haven't addressed one of my points about it. Not a single one.
The Hayden quote you keep spouting was never made by Hayden. It was claimed by Waxman that Hayden said this.
There is no proof whatsoever that Hayden said what you are quoting.
You are actually quoting Waxman. Waxman said what you are quoting.
You are putting words in Hayden's mouth. You don't even correctly attribute the quote. Waxman said it Jules. Can you finally get that though your brain?
Waxman said it. Not Hayden. It is not an attributable quote to Hayden. Waxman said it. Jules.
Jules, Waxman said what you are quoting as Hayden saying.
Jules, Hayden did not say what Waxman is saying. Waxman is saying it.
:-)
Hows that for how one argues your BS, Jules?
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
You are all just grasping at wisps -- not even straws
March 17, 2007 - 13:06 ET by Jules SiegelIf Waxman's statement was false, why hasn't Gen. Hayden refuted it?
I want to know if Valerie P
March 17, 2007 - 13:11 ET by Jack BauerI want to know if Valerie Plame was one of the team of CIA torturers who tortured Kahlid Sheik Mohammed?
We have a right to know the names of all the covert CIA agents who committed this heinous crime against a man Rosie O'Donnell assures us is innocent.
Jules, Hayden has a real job, unlike Waxman, Plame and Wilson
March 17, 2007 - 13:48 ET by acaiguanaJules, Hayden has a real job, unlike Waxman, Plame and Wilson.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
If Waxman is Correct?
March 17, 2007 - 14:29 ET by exLibIf Waxman is correct why are Robert Novak and Richard Armitage still free and not in jail?
I am not a lawyer but it seems a slam dunk to me. You out a truly covert agent you go to jail.
exlib
March 17, 2007 - 14:46 ET by SportPoliticsexlib - you know how the libs work nowadays. THEY LIE - LIE LIE LIE LIE.
Now - here's and education for JULES- the retarded left infidel...
In the TESTIMONY - it was pointed out that the STATUTE - the LAW- the IPAct -
says: UNDERCOVER AGENTS
________________________________________________________
THAT IS EXACTLY WHY IT DOESN'T MATTER ONE **************** BIT WETHER OR NOT THE STUPID IGNORANT LEFT CLAIMS PLAME WAS "COVERT" - BECAUSE "COVERT" IS NOT COVERED IN THE LAW.
(Stupid liberals like jane the ignorant **** don't care - they will whine for days on end she was covert - who gives a damn ? I sure don't -
AND NEITHER DOES THE LAW !
End of liberals are LIARS lesson
Hey Sports
March 17, 2007 - 15:04 ET by exLibWhat really cracked me up reading Jules and reading the Waxman commentary was the double-standard.
In two cases Democrats were caught in scandal during an election and both times got out of the race too close to the election. Election law states, as Tom Delay and Mark Foley found out, that if you bag out of an election too close to the election your name stays on the ballot.
In both casees the Democrats were allowed to place their substitutes ON The ballot.
The reason was that the INTENT of the law was the priority. So what do you have in this case is Waxman says that THE INTENT of the law wasn't important and that he DOESN"T CARE about the INTENT.
To a Liberal Laws only matter when it's convenient to them and they don't when it's inconvenient. That's the heart of liberalism.
Of course as has been said Bill Clinton lied under oath and it was no big deal.
In Fact, during the Clinton investigations and trials the bad guys were the Prosecutor and Linda Tripp and any woman who was sexually harrassed by BC.
I watched Wilson lie.
March 17, 2007 - 18:21 ET by SportPoliticsI watched Wilson lie in the interview. I watched him and thought he was the covert CIA minioned idiot who printed false findings of his secret mission under the hiring direction of his lying nepotistic democrat wife all so he could make a political assassination publicly for the French(his many contacts and owners of the Niger mines companies) who also opposed the USofA.
If the Bush Administration locked up Valerie Plame and prosecuted Wilson for whatever charge comes out of his lying about his trips findings(and collusion with a foreign government's interest- and comments on the French bought and paid for forged documents which he hadn't seen at the time) and sent him to prison 3 years ago for a decade or two or life that would be justice in my book. There is very easily a much better case for that than Fitzgerald ever had for an IPAct indictment. Since when is it ok for an opposition party member to go on a secret jaunt, then lie about it publicly in collusion against the USA, and with atleast 2 foreign governments? I guess I missed that justice class.
The testimony also referred to one of the Able-Danger military men that was railroaded because of the exposure his testimony with Curt Weldon's help wrought, and as you know they went after Weldon's daughter, and then he in the election.
I believe what we have is a near libbodem tyranny in the machinations of the bureaucracy (and in posts and lifetime positions) in all the DC departments(Justice,investigations,state department, and clearly and absolutely in the CIA itself). This is what explains republicans reluctance to stand up. If they stand up - they will be taken down, it must be the unspoken truth in DC.
It never was the "CIA" who was "fighting" with the Bush Administration. It was the entrenched democrat lifers, who told Clinton what they told Bush, then decided playing politics could get them a thrill on top of it all. Valerie Plame is one of them, obviously. The "lifer"democrat bureaucrats like Joe Wilson claim they are non-partisan , and offer serving for a Republican as proof of that.
Problem is, when you're a lifer, you may serve under both parties POTUS', but how you and what you do in your job, and whom you cuddle in congress says a lot more than whom you served under.
I don't care wether the POTUS is democrat or a republican, if a President offers ANYONE a cushy diplomat job or some other "position of authority" with a Presidential Seal attached to it, that person is likely to accept, and that likelihood only multiplies when it's one of the DC lifers. They're no different than career politicians, obviously. The revolving Lobby door confirms that evermore. We see by the West Wing TV show, and in the dozens of recent books, assignments by the President and as close to contact there as possible are the "hugely desired positions" that turn everyone else green with envy when they don't get them.
So, this common excuse that a person served under the party opposite the one they personally belong to is absolutely defenseless.
The best STATEMENT in the interview was of course the one about Joe and his wife being political operatives. It took Wilson by surprise, tossed him sideways, and he verbally stumbled before attempting recovery, asking if he was being accused of being a partisan. That showed just how often he had been asked by the msm ( perhaps never before such as that ) - and his answer was a series of lies, obviously as well.
How anyone can "decry" the asking of Val's party afilliation (including her Bush hating -war hating partisan demcorat lying errand boy) is AMAZING on the face of it. Wasn't Wilson's answer EXACTLY what the msm from the democrat and left side ALWAYS claims as well... Yet a republican is immediately dismissed and accused just for being a republican, or just for asking if they are talking to an unidentified demcorat that should be out of the secret party closet, or only allowed to speak and agreed with if they oppose the republican party majority position.
I find it all very amazing, that these supposed adults pretend to honesty when it is obvious they are lying in the very attempt.
It is indeed bizarro world, and the twilight zone all wrapped up in donkey dung. How do any democrats even pretend to believe Wilson after that stunt in the interview ? You'd have to know he was full of it, or you'd be a moron. They can't all be that stupid and that self decieved, it's just not possible.
Novak is not subject to pro
March 17, 2007 - 22:02 ET by Jules SiegelNovak is not subject to prosecution. I'm not sure about Armitage's status. But the main reason is that Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice made it impossible for Fitzgerald to carry out his investigation.
If President Bush is unable or unwilling to grant a pardon, Libby may turn state's evidence in return for a reduced sentence. Then watch out.
Don't kid yourself about this. It is a very serious matter. It's not a slam dunk. It requires exquisite investigative and prosecutorial technique. I don't think it's over yet.
"Libby's perjury and obs
March 17, 2007 - 22:17 ET by NL207"Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice made it impossible for Fitzgerald to carry out his investigation".
This is utter garbage. Fitzgerald knew prior to charging Libby with any offense that Armitage was Novak's original source and therefore was the leaker being sought. I do not recall that Libby was ever stated to have been aware that Armitage revealed this fact to Novak prior to public dislosure by Armitage himself. We know Armitage revealed this to Fitzgerald in his Grand Jury testimony which is supposed to be confidential meaning Libby should not have been privy to it.
Of course this matter isn't over. It is the centerpiece of a carefully orchestrated political attack on both George Bush and the Republican Party. And the most shocking thing about the whole affair is that it smacks of a set-up, a covert operation carried out by a CIA operative using her public trust as a smokescreen to enrich her incompetent husband and at the same time strike a bow against a political leader she opposes.
So if a person doesn't refu
March 17, 2007 - 20:51 ET by Jack BauerSo if a person doesn't refute a false statement, that makes the statement true? That's a very incurious and naive attitude for a "journalist" of forty years standing
I believe that's known as the "when did you stop beating your wife" schtick trick, in the trade. You'll have to do better that that.
Are you kidding? Do you rea
March 17, 2007 - 22:10 ET by Jules SiegelAre you kidding? Do you really believe that Gen. Hayden would allow a lie like that to pass? That Waxman would commit such an obvious perjury in front of his own committee and the entire nation. I'm naïve? How naïve are you?
You people just insist on pulling my leg with the most improbable claims I have yet to read in this case. Wake up and get into the real world. If Waxman said that the statement was cleared by the CIA, it was cleared by the CIA.
And, yes, until it is refuted it stands as true. If you have any evidence that it's not true, show it now. Otherwise just go back to making snide remarks.
Waxman would commit such an
March 17, 2007 - 22:14 ET by Jack BauerWaxman would commit such an obvious perjury in front of his own committee
Waxman wasn't under oath. He was the one asking the questions. So he couldn't commit perjury could he?
Do try to get even the simplest facts correct.
And please stop making sweeping generalized statements comprising your opinions, or your "interpretations" of peoples motives, and pretending they are facts.
Such as the one I have just illustrated.
And if you truly are a "journalist," no wonder the profession is in such a parlous state.
Oh, just quit it. How do yo
March 17, 2007 - 23:20 ET by Jules SiegelOh, just quit it. How do you know that he wasn't sworn? Prove it. And even if he wasn't, so what?
The chairman of a Congressional committee is going to make up out of whole cloth a complete lie and attribute it to the head of the CIA? Do you have a single example of something like that actually happening?
Very plausible. I commend you on your creativity. No wonder you people just lost control of Congress.
Jules, read what Waxman said. Read it. Read it again.
March 17, 2007 - 23:26 ET by acaiguanaJules, read what Waxman said. Read it. Read it again.
Waxman said what you keep posting as a direct quote from Hayden. Read what Waxman said.
I've posted the transcript.
Why do you insist that Hayden said something that only Waxman alludes to in the context of the CIA reviewing his statement?
I think the issue is as important as whether Plame was 'covert' as covered by the statute.
And she wasn't. And Waxman had to agree to that. Read the transcript Jules.
Waxman said it, not Hayden.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Finally. An admission that
March 17, 2007 - 23:30 ET by NL207Finally. An admission that Waxman is the actual author of the words.
"CIA Director Miachael Hayden personally reviewed and okayed Henry Waxman's opening statement for Valerie Plame's testimony today."
If it is true, and is of such import, then why did Michael Hayden not come to Congress himself and testify to this effect under oath? The statement carries with it no legitimacy because it is what is commonly known as heresay.
The Hayden "review"
March 18, 2007 - 09:10 ET by SportPoliticsThe Hayden "review".
Gee sorry for being so speculative, but it is clear to me that Waxman's statement was reviewed by Hayden to make sure it did not contain any "classified" information.
I guess the wordsmiths of the democrat party make no small task in using words to give an absolutely false impression, yet making certain their dual and often multiple meanings don't become specific enough to be pinned down.
So what if Hayden "okayed" the statement. The CIA "okays" things to make sure classified information is not leaked out. I don't think they are in the business of establishing the variacity of congressional opinions.
It's ok, Waxman got caught by Teonsing trying to do the exact thing. Waxman tried to establish that Hayden "agreed" with the statement.
Waxman never said Hayden "agreed" with it. Hayden CLEARED IT.
When something gets CLEARED, that means there's no secrets in it.
I guess the libs think they are "so much smarter" - and it generally means they have a word parsing LIE to spewforth, and expect that "noone catches them".
Well, Toensing CAUGHT HIM.
That's it, the case is CLOSED. ( or rather should be - but with LYING IDIOTS like JULES- who are SNOWBALLED BY WAXMAN - the case won't EVER be closed. )
This Blog post cited does not 'prove' anything. It is speculati
March 18, 2007 - 09:23 ET by acaiguanaThis Blog post cited does not 'prove' anything. It is speculation. Nowhere does it cite any source for its claim that Hayden personally reviewed Waxman's statement.
Nowhere does it cite any source for the claim that Hayden agrees about Plame's status.
It is just crap based on Waxman's representation of Hayden's pos