Bush Reported to Authorize Leak

[Simon W. Moon]

If Fitzgerald was confident in the fact that Plame was covert why has Novak not been charged?

Now you're moving the goal posts. Previously we were having a discussion about whether or not the folks around her knew that she worked for the CIA. Now you're wanting to discuss something else.
Fwiw, Fitzgerald specifically does not address whether or not Plame enjoyed covert status. So, your question is moot.

It really is a simple question and one which you obviously can't answer.

Actually, as I noted more than once, I can answer it, but don't understand how it could possibly matter how I answered it.

If Plame was covert then Novak is obviously guilty but since she's not he's not.

This only works if it took place in a vacuum - which it doesn't.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Now you're moving the goal posts. Previously we were having a discussion about whether or not the folks around her knew that she worked for the CIA. Now you're wanting to discuss something else.

No I'm not shifting goal posts, my contention has always been that Plame was not covert and that her identity as a CIA agent was common knowledge.

Fwiw, Fitzgerald specifically does not address whether or not Plame enjoyed covert status. So, your question is moot.
Actually, as I noted more than once, I can answer it, but don't understand how it could possibly matter how I answered it.
This only works if it took place in a vacuum - which it doesn't.

HUH? Nice way to dodge there, it's really as simple as this, if Plame was covert then Novak would have been charged! End of story.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

No I'm not shifting goal posts, my contention has always been that Plame was not covert and that her identity as a CIA agent was common knowledge.

Sure, but all that I was discussing was whether or not "her identity as a CIA agent was common knowledge." You say it was and Fitzgerald says wasn't. Who should we believe and why?

HUH? Nice way to dodge there, it's really as simple as this, if Plame was covert then Novak would have been charged! End of story.

Since your question was premised on Fitzgerald having said something he made a specific effort not to say, I'll take the compliment.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sure, but all that I was discussing was whether or not "her identity as a CIA agent was common knowledge." You say it was and Fitzgerald says wasn't. Who should we believe and why?

To clarify; do you believe that Plame was a covert agent or not?

Since your question was premised on Fitzgerald having said something he made a specific effort not to say, I'll take the compliment.

HUH???

 

[Simon W. Moon]

To clarify; do you believe that Plame was a covert agent or not?
HUH???

You said

"If Fitzgerald was confident in the fact that Plame was covert why has Novak not been charged?"
​

Yet There's no indication that "Fitzgerald was confident in the fact that Plame was covert." Fitzgerald went out of his way to avoid addressing the issue.

Given that there's no evidence to support the first part of your question - If Fitzgerald was confident in the fact that Plame was covert - the second part is moot.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You said

"If Fitzgerald was confident in the fact that Plame was covert why has Novak not been charged?"

​

Yet There's no indication that "Fitzgerald was confident in the fact that Plame was covert." Fitzgerald went out of his way to avoid addressing the issue.

Given that there's no evidence to support the first part of your question - If Fitzgerald was confident in the fact that Plame was covert - the second part is moot.

The fact that Novak hasn't been charged is the proof that Fitzgerald doesn't think she was covert.

 

[Binary_Digit]

A) 500 tons of yellow cake uranium were found during the initial push into Iraq that is undisputed fact.

It wasn't exactly "found," because IAEA and the whole rest of the world already knew it was there. "Finding" something implies that you previously didn't know it was there. Only a little bit of rhetoric, like a minispin, but I just had to point it out.

B) An Iraqi general has claimed that he oversaw the transfer of WMD to Syria, that is not fact but a claim made by a reputable source which I am inclined to agree with.

I seem to recall a certain "reputable" Iraqi informer telling us about mobile weapons platforms and terrorist training camps in Iraq that teach the arts of poison and bomb making to al'Qaeda agents. Both claims kinda turned out to be untrue. Disregarding the fact that this guy didn't actually see any WMDs and didn't actually watch the convoy drive to Syria, I'm inclined to consider what motives an Iraqi ex-general might have to lie about such a thing.

What would constitute as proof in your book?

Corroboration. If someone else from the Iraqi military, who actually served as a weapons specialist or other valid position to properly identify what was in the barrels (e.g. not a pilot), came forward and said he actually watched the convoy drive what he knows to be WMDs across the Syrian border, then I would consider that very strong evidence. Just one testimony could go either way, but when you have two or more individual testimonies that corroborate the same story, then that's significant.

Geez you're a spin machine! The only indictment has been Libby's perjury charges, but make no mistake, the crime being investigated is the outing of Valerie Plame. For someone who claims to be "all about it skippy" concerning the Plame affair, you sure are forgetting some key facts about that case.

I'm not spinning anything, you're spinning everything, you claim that the crime being investigated is the outting of Valerie Plame though Fitzerald has made abundantly clear that that is not the crime being investigated at all.

"The Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation in September 2003 into whether government officials who allegedly identified Valerie Plame to the press violated Federal law that prohibits identifying covert agents."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr225&dbname=109&

Hmm...who should I believe Simon? :2razz:

Or maybe because Plame was never covert and nobody in an authorative position has made the claim that she was.

If it was really as easy as figuring out whether or not Plame was covert, why couldn't they just ask George Tenet to look in her file? Instead of sending Fitzgerald on a three-year (and counting) criminal investigation to figure out who didn't commit a crime?

If Plame was covert as you claim then why has nobody been charged with that crime even though we know who published the information? It doesn't make any sense.

The one point I almost agree with you on is that Novak hasn't been charged with a crime, so yea, something seems off there. But remember Geraldo reported classified information and he was never charged with a crime either. Maybe they're afraid of a first Amendment battle over freedom of the press or something. I can see the difference between naievely reporting something that seems innocent, and reporting about something really sensitive that you were specifically told not to report, but we can only speculate for now. I think there are several legitimate possibilities besides the idea that no crime was even committed by outing Plame, so I'm not yet inclined to believe Novak's "innocence" proves everyone else's too.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It wasn't exactly "found," because IAEA and the whole rest of the world already knew it was there. "Finding" something implies that you previously didn't know it was there. Only a little bit of rhetoric, like a minispin, but I just had to point it out.

What's the difference if we knew they were there or not? They were still there.

I seem to recall a certain "reputable" Iraqi informer telling us about mobile weapons platforms and terrorist training camps in Iraq that teach the arts of poison and bomb making to al'Qaeda agents. Both claims kinda turned out to be untrue. Disregarding the fact that this guy didn't actually see any WMDs and didn't actually watch the convoy drive to Syria, I'm inclined to consider what motives an Iraqi ex-general might have to lie about such a thing.

Well it doesn't bode well for your argument that there were mobile weapons labs and terrorist training camps.

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777

Corroboration. If someone else from the Iraqi military, who actually served as a weapons specialist or other valid position to properly identify what was in the barrels (e.g. not a pilot), came forward and said he actually watched the convoy drive what he knows to be WMDs across the Syrian border, then I would consider that very strong evidence. Just one testimony could go either way, but when you have two or more individual testimonies that corroborate the same story, then that's significant.

Corroboration you say?

Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says
By IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 15, 2005
Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started, Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom says.

http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites

06 January, 2004
AFP
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:

http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php

"The Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation in September 2003 into whether government officials who allegedly identified Valerie Plame to the press violated Federal law that prohibits identifying covert agents."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr225&dbname=109&

Hmm...who should I believe Simon? :2razz:

Then why has nobody been charged???

If it was really as easy as figuring out whether or not Plame was covert, why couldn't they just ask George Tenet to look in her file? Instead of sending Fitzgerald on a three-year (and counting) criminal investigation to figure out who didn't commit a crime?


The one point I almost agree with you on is that Novak hasn't been charged with a crime, so yea, something seems off there. But remember Geraldo reported classified information and he was never charged with a crime either. Maybe they're afraid of a first Amendment battle over freedom of the press or something. I can see the difference between naievely reporting something that seems innocent, and reporting about something really sensitive that you were specifically told not to report, but we can only speculate for now. I think there are several legitimate possibilities besides the idea that no crime was even committed by outing Plame, so I'm not yet inclined to believe Novak's "innocence" proves everyone else's too.

It's not a first amendment issue, there is legislation on the books that makes it illegal to publish classified information, if Plame was covert then Novak is guilty and would be charged. The case of an embedded reporter saying something about what the troops were doing is not even remotely the same as outting a CIA agent.

 

[Binary_Digit]

What's the difference if we knew they were there or not? They were still there.

Only a little bit of rhetoric, like a minispin, but I just had to point it out.

Well it doesn't bode well for your argument that there were mobile weapons labs and terrorist training camps.

1. There were no mobile weapons labs.
2. That's not my argument, you missed the point.
3. Curveball's information about terrorist training camps was bogus. That was my point, you can't trust everything these people say.

Corroboration you say?

There have been lots of accusations about weapons being moved to Syria, but that's not corroboration. Did Israel's top general actually see weapons being moved to Syria six months before the war? Did the senior Syrian journalist actually see Iraqi weapons being moved to Syria? Heck, the journalist pointed out three specific places where the weapons were supposedly being stored, and even provided maps. And the administration considered these reports so credible that they responded how exactly?

Then why has nobody been charged???

Maybe because some people have been less than truthful during the investigation. You can't charge someone with a crime unless you're pretty sure they did it, and you can't find out who did it if people keep lying to the grand jury. The investigation isn't even over yet, so the fact that nobody has been charged means nothing.

It's not a first amendment issue, there is legislation on the books that makes it illegal to publish classified information, if Plame was covert then Novak is guilty and would be charged.

So then why wasn't Geraldo charged with a crime?

The case of an embedded reporter saying something about what the troops were doing is not even remotely the same as outting a CIA agent.

How do you figure that? It's still information that, in the wrong hands, could cost people their lives. But I don't believe Novak intentionally outed Plame's identity. The point of his infamous article was to discredit Wilson and his findings in N iger, not to publish her name.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Libby has stated that neither Bush nor Cheney authorized him or suggested he should 'out' Valerie Plame. What they authorized him to talk about--it wasn't a 'leak' at all--was information that the President had declassified. As a precaution, he did prudently check to verify the declassified status of the information before he talked about it.

The "I hate Bush" crowd playing the 'gotcha' game, and that includes a significant chunk of the mainstream media, probably won't give that much coverage and they certainly won't give it the same amount of coverage that the more sordid suggestive headlines have provided.

Honorable people will recognize this situation for exactly what it is however. A non story.

 

[Deegan]

Libby has stated that neither Bush nor Cheney authorized him or suggested he should 'out' Valerie Plame. What they authorized him to talk about--it wasn't a 'leak' at all--was information that the President had declassified. As a precaution, he did prudently check to verify the declassified status of the information before he talked about it.

The "I hate Bush" crowd playing the 'gotcha' game, and that includes a significant chunk of the mainstream media, probably won't give that much coverage and they certainly won't give it the same amount of coverage that the more sordid suggestive headlines have provided.

Honorable people will recognize this situation for exactly what it is however. A non story.

Exactly, I am no longer a big fan of Bush, but this really just strikes me as trying to invent news, where there is none. They are pretty much suggesting that Bush can not do anything that may help him in any way. When he declassifies something, it must be to protect him from his crimes, not to inform the public of why he did what he did. They have been going on and on in the MSM, especially MSNBC, it's become laughable, but frightening at the same time. It's almost a battle over, "Who's more powerful, the president, or us, the MSM"

 

[Captain America]

Whoa Dee!! I'm sooooooo confused. Truly, we only know what the media tells us and even then we have to wade through the spin. But here are a few statements that were presented as fact rather than speculation.

Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff to the vice-president, he testified to federal authorities that he was authorized by his boss, the vice-president, in July of 2003, and told by his boss, the vice-president, that the president authorized him specifically to leak national intelligence information that made the case for the war in Iraq. What do you make of that?

Scooter Libby says that he was operating under the authority of the president when he leaked information in July of 2003, which was incomplete information and he knew it was incomplete and the president knew it was incomplete. Does that constitute false testimony to the American people? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12193430/

My question is, if Libby is on record for saying this, and the media reports it as such.......... who's the bad guy?

 

[Gill]

Whoa Dee!! I'm sooooooo confused. Truly, we only know what the media tells us and even then we have to wade through the spin. But here are a few statements that were presented as fact rather than speculation.

Scooter Libby, the former chief of staff to the vice-president, he testified to federal authorities that he was authorized by his boss, the vice-president, in July of 2003, and told by his boss, the vice-president, that the president authorized him specifically to leak national intelligence information that made the case for the war in Iraq. What do you make of that?

Scooter Libby says that he was operating under the authority of the president when he leaked information in July of 2003, which was incomplete information and he knew it was incomplete and the president knew it was incomplete. Does that constitute false testimony to the American people? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12193430/

My question is, if Libby is on record for saying this, and the media reports it as such.......... who's the bad guy?

Well, you have to remember who these quotes are from... Mr. Spinmeister himself, John Kerry.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well, you have to remember who these quotes are from... Mr. Spinmeister himself, John Kerry.

Exactly. What somebody actually says and how what they say can be characterized by their non-fans much differently than the literal truth.

Hillary Clinton, interviewed on a New York radio station not long ago, said, "I am opposed to illegal immigrants." Now that looks bad for a 'compassionate Democrat' and she probably didn't intend it the way it sounded, but she definitely did say it. It was cleaned up by the pro-Clinton media however who quoted her as saying "I am opposed to illegal immigration." This is probably more close to her intent, but it is a distortion of what she actually said.

The media and political opponents do this quite efficiently in reverse also if they want to make somebody look bad. An omitted word, a restructured phrase, or insertion of an 'explanatory' adjective or characterization and they can make it look like somebody said something they in no way said. And when called on it, they can also say that it isn't their fault that people misinterpret what they say.

(And thanks Deegan. One does not have to like or appreciate a poltician or anybody else in order to have moral integrity to insist that the person not be misrepresented or unfairly criticized.)

 

[Captain America]

Well, you have to remember who these quotes are from... Mr. Spinmeister himself, John Kerry.

Good try, but no cigar. Those quotes are a matter of public record, presented to Kerry for his response. But at least you didn't try to blame Clinton. :mrgreen: I see progress on the horizon.

 

[Captain America]

Exactly. What somebody actually says and how what they say can be characterized by their non-fans much differently than the literal truth.

Hillary Clinton, interviewed on a New York radio station not long ago, said, "I am opposed to illegal immigrants." Now that looks bad for a 'compassionate Democrat' and she probably didn't intend it the way it sounded, but she definitely did say it. It was cleaned up by the pro-Clinton media however who quoted her as saying "I am opposed to illegal immigration." This is probably more close to her intent, but it is a distortion of what she actually said.

The media and political opponents do this quite efficiently in reverse also if they want to make somebody look bad. An omitted word, a restructured phrase, or insertion of an 'explanatory' adjective or characterization and they can make it look like somebody said something they in no way said. And when called on it, they can also say that it isn't their fault that people misinterpret what they say.

(And thanks Deegan. One does not have to like or appreciate a poltician or anybody else in order to have moral integrity to insist that the person not be misrepresented or unfairly criticized.)

Ahhhhhhhh!!! I knew the blame Clinton crowd would chime in. You guys are too easy! :rofl

Exactly? Dude, read the article. That was Matthews quoting Libby. :roll: Why do I bother? <sigh>

 

[Gill]

Good try, but no cigar. Those quotes are a matter of public record, presented to Kerry for his response. But at least you didn't try to blame Clinton. :mrgreen: I see progress on the horizon.

Ok, those are Chris Matthews quotes, but he's as bad as Kerry. I could post Kerry's answers and they would be indistinguishable from your's.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Ok, those are Chris Matthews quotes, but he's as bad as Kerry. I could post Kerry's answers and they would be indistinguishable from your's.

Well there is a huge difference between phrasing a statement: "Libby said Bush gave him permission to leak . . ." and phrasing a statement: "Libby said bush gave him permission to report. . ." And if no clear distinction is made between classified information and declassified information, one draws a different image again. And then just casually throw in Valerie Plame's name in there somewhere--doesn't matter where--and the gullible of the world immdiately conclude: "Bush gave Libby permission to leak classified material that outed Valerie Plame....yadda yadda."

And anybody who thinks Chris Matthews is above using that kind of tactic simply hasn't listened to his program enough.

Again: 1) There was no 'leak' 2) The information that was reported had been legally declassified, and 3) The issue with Scooter Libby has never involved him improperly using Valerie Plame's name.