For those of you who think that the investigation is over...

[Stinger]

So, what's you pet theory as to why the CIA initiated this investigation?

Already discussed that awhile ago. Any time there is evidence that classified information may have been leaked it is quite the norm that it is referred to the DOJ. And as far as I know Plame's name was not mentioned in the referral. The CIA does not, is not allowed to investigate such domestic issues. They can't supena witnesses, and they are extremely limited in investigating within our boders,

Were they malicious? Or were they merely incompetent?

Who? The CIA? What are you trying to say?

Is the CIA a part of The Liberal Conspiracy© to overthrow the Bush Administration?

There certainly are some in the CIA who do not support this administration. Why would you find that unusual?

What gives? If Mrs. Wilson's relationship to the CIA was not classified,

Big difference between classified and covert.

why'd did these numerous agencies (CIA, DoJ, FBI etc) all get together and deiced to defraud the US government by holding such an investigation when there was no grounds for it?

See above. But I do find it interesting that you take the course that IF there is an investigation then THAT is PROOF there was a crime. Do you apply this to all investigations?

Or, does the CIA lack the ability to determine if Mrs. Wilson's employment w/ the CIA was classified or not?

Are you having trouble distinguishing between covert and classified? And let's not forget that Wilson's mission was classified. So the leaking of information about it could also trigger an investigation.

What would you find an acceptable level of proof?

How about an official statement from Fitzgerald?

But where is YOUR proof that Plame was a covert agent or had been within the last 5 years, that the CIA was actively trying to protect her identity and that it had not been disclosed preveiously?

I've shown thirsty horse, Stinger, a CIA letter on CIA letterhead describing the investigation as

"... an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating undercover."​

Well that's wrong, that is NOT how the CIA described it. That's how partisian Sen. John Conyers described it. So it seems you are offering sand instead of water. I suggest you familiarize yourself with your cites before you post them as evidence of your contentions.

And describing a

"... a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. "​

Yes "classified information", not covert agent.

I also Showed Stinger where someone who was a spokesman for the CIA "confirmed that she was an undercover operative."

And nowhere in that entire letter is the word covert used.

Yet, Stinger's still thirsty.

Yep, and you are pretending to be offering water when you have nothing but sand.

So, again, I ask:

What would quality and quantity of evidence would it take to convince you?​

How about the Special Prosecutor ruling that she was covert and her status as covert was violated according to governing law.

 

[Stinger]

The original evidense was flimsy in both of those investigations. It wasn't the so called crime that led to indictment, it was the so called cover up. They are all cases that waste time and money IMO.

Actually not true. It was the crime that Bill Clinton copped a plea to and was held in contempt of court for. He was only being sued civily by a private citizen. His crime, what the OIC investigated, was the perjury and obstruction of justice he engaged in, the OIC had nothing to do with the civil case. IOW the OIC investigation did not trigger the crime. And as far as the other 'gates', they took so long because of all the objections, the hiding of evidence and claims of executive privlage and the witnesses who refused to testify. But all of them were very valid investigations.

 

[Stinger]

>>Personally, at bottom, this whole thing looks more and more like Dems seizing an opportunity for a little Clinton impeachment payback.<<

Bingo!

Has there been an investigation of Kerry disclosing the name of a covert agent? Calls for his staff to resign?

Has there been an investigation of Schummer for his staff violating the privacy rights of Steele, why hasn't he fired his staff as he demands of Bush?

But notice how the Republicans are not screaming in public about these cases but letting the justice system work. While OTOH the Democrats are making fools out of themselves desperately trying to "level the playing field" as far as scandals go.

 

[aps]

>>Personally, at bottom, this whole thing looks more and more like Dems seizing an opportunity for a little Clinton impeachment payback.<<

Bingo!

Has there been an investigation of Kerry disclosing the name of a covert agent? Calls for his staff to resign?

Has there been an investigation of Schummer for his staff violating the privacy rights of Steele, why hasn't he fired his staff as he demands of Bush?

But notice how the Republicans are not screaming in public about these cases but letting the justice system work. While OTOH the Democrats are making fools out of themselves desperately trying to "level the playing field" as far as scandals go.

LOL Sorry, Stinger, but you're trying way too hard to argue that the democrats are to blame for this. But if it makes you feel better and/or superior, just keep it up.

 

[Stinger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
>>Personally, at bottom, this whole thing looks more and more like Dems seizing an opportunity for a little Clinton impeachment payback.<<

Bingo!

Has there been an investigation of Kerry disclosing the name of a covert agent? Calls for his staff to resign?

Has there been an investigation of Schummer for his staff violating the privacy rights of Steele, why hasn't he fired his staff as he demands of Bush?

But notice how the Republicans are not screaming in public about these cases but letting the justice system work. While OTOH the Democrats are making fools out of themselves desperately trying to "level the playing field" as far as scandals go.

LOL Sorry, Stinger, but you're trying way too hard to argue that the democrats are to blame for this.

:rofl where did I say Democrats were to blame? They are certainly trying to capitalize on it and the media is certainly helping them do so by giving a forum to their hysterics. And I have doubt that they are engaged in a little Clinton payback, a "leveling of the field" as far as scandals.

But if it makes you feel better and/or superior, just keep it up.

I'm sorry but you make no sense, how on earth did you come up with this line?

 

[aps]

:rofl where did I say Democrats were to blame? They are certainly trying to capitalize on it and the media is certainly helping them do so by giving a forum to their hysterics. And I have doubt that they are engaged in a little Clinton payback, a "leveling of the field" as far as scandals.

From this statement that you made, "What is so transparent is that for the left this has nothing to do with Plame or Wilson, it is just an opportunity to try and damage the current administration. And the people see that and will vote accordingly in the next election."

Payback's a b i t c h sometimes, ain't it?

I'm sorry but you make no sense, how on earth did you come up with this line?

What's not to understand? If you do/say something because it makes you feel better about yourself, I was recommending that you continue to do it.

 

[scottyz]

The original evidense was flimsy in both of those investigations. It wasn't the so called crime that led to indictment, it was the so called cover up. They are all cases that waste time and money IMO.

So if it only took Fitzgerald 2 years, his case must be a lot less flimsy by your logic.

 

[aps]

The original evidense was flimsy in both of those investigations. It wasn't the so called crime that led to indictment, it was the so called cover up. They are all cases that waste time and money IMO.

If Libby didn't do anything wrong, why did he lie about how he found out about Valerie Plame? Really--would someone who was truly innocent make up a story about how they found out about information? He had something to hide. While the statute may not have been violated, his changing of his story is fishy. Unfortunately for Libby, he is known for being meticulous about details and his claiming a lack of memory won't be credible. Also, he was first interviewed within months of July 2003.

 

[scottyz]

If Libby didn't do anything wrong, why did he lie about how he found out about Valerie Plame? Really--would someone who was truly innocent make up a story about how they found out about information? He had something to hide. While the statute may not have been violated, his changing of his story is fishy. Unfortunately for Libby, he is known for being meticulous about details and his claiming a lack of memory won't be credible. Also, he was first interviewed within months of July 2003.

Because all the libs got together to fabricate testimonies that would makes Libbys testimonies appear to be perjury and obstruction of justice of course! it's a big conspiracy!

 

[aps]

Because all the libs got together to fabricate testimonies that would makes Libbys testimonies appear to be perjury and obstruction of justice of course! it's a big conspiracy!

Oh my gosh! You have figured it out, scotty! It's the democrats' fault that Libby is in deep doo doo. :doh

 

[Simon W. Moon]

In the case of Plame, though she was not within the definition of 'covert' and hadn't been for quite some time, she was 'classified', because she was working on classified material, hence the need to refer the matter to the DoJ.

I suspect that you missed something here. Obviously, not everyone who handles classified material for the CIA has their relationship w/ the CIA classified.
So, where'd you get this idea? I'd like to examine your source for myself and see if, in deed, you did miss something..

The other questions in your post concerning "what would it take to convince me?"...convince me of what?

"that 'leaked' is an appropriate description"

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Already discussed that awhile ago. Any time there is evidence that classified information may have been leaked it is quite the norm that it is referred to the DOJ.

And the classified info was that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA.

"In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community."
​

Who? The CIA? What are you trying to say?

I"m asking old reliable why he thinks the CIA would have missed the very relevant facts of whether or not Mrs. Wilson's identity as a CIA officer was classified.

There certainly are some in the CIA who do not support this administration. Why would you find that unusual?

Lovely litle straw man there. Sure would be a shame if something happenned to it. Perhaps you should take it home and put it somehwere safe. In the mean time, let's re-examine the question that it purports to address. I asked old reliable, " Is the CIA a part of The Liberal Conspiracy© to overthrow the Bush Administration?"

Big difference between classified and covert.

And classified information can be leaked. Therefore, in answer to old reliable's post as to whether "'leaked' is an appropriate description," the answer is, "Yes."

But I do find it interesting that you take the course that IF there is an investigation then THAT is PROOF there was a crime. Do you apply this to all investigations?

I'm not clear as to why you would think this. Your confusion is especially puzzling because not that long ago I specifically told you:

"What I'm saying is that there must be the possibility of a crime for there to have been a DoJ investigation. The CIA looked into it and found that there was indeed the possibility of a crime. If her identity as an operative was not classified, then there could be no possibility of a crime. Since the CIA found that there was a possibility of a crime, they referred it to the DoJ. If there had not been a possibility of a crime, then the CIA would not have referred it to the DoJ."
​

Perhaps, it was just another one of your quickly-crafted strawmen.

And let's not forget that Wilson's mission was classified. So the leaking of information about it could also trigger an investigation.

Is there any evidence to suggest that this is the case?

How about an official statement from Fitzgerald?

So, to prove "that 'leaked' is an appropriate description," re Mrs. Wilson's relationship w/ the CIA all it would take is Mr. Fitzgerald's statement? Here, try this one:

"... I'd like to put the investigation into a little context.
Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.
Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.
The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.
Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."
​

But where is YOUR proof that Plame was a covert agent or had been within the last 5 years, that the CIA was actively trying to protect her identity and that it had not been disclosed preveiously?

I seem to have forgotten ever asserting these things. Would you be so kind as to direct me to where I did say these things? If not, then hush about it.

Well that's wrong, that is NOT how the CIA described it. That's how partisian Sen. John Conyers described it. So it seems you are offering sand instead of water. I suggest you familiarize yourself with your cites before you post them as evidence of your contentions.

AFAICT, it was Stanley M. Moskowitz who wrote the letter, not John Conyers. I just double checked again and it still says Stanley M. Moskowitz, not John Conyers. I can triple check if it will make you feel any better.

Yes "classified information", not covert agent. And nowhere in that entire letter is the word covert used.

And the question is, "So?"

How about the Special Prosecutor ruling that she was covert and her status as covert was violated according to governing law.

What's you big hang-up w/ "covert"?
What is under discussion was whether or not 'leaked' is an appropriate description. Please try and keep up.

If you want to discuss the covert thing, please respond to one of my posts where I discuss it.
Responding to a post that's about one thing with discussion of another isn't very constructive or fun to debate. Of course, you're free to do as you wish. I'm not telling you that you have to reply to posts w/ responses that are related to the post you're replying to. Obviously, you're free to drag in whatever you'd like as a response to whatever you like. I'm merely asking for brevity's sake.

 

[alienken]

That is wishful thinking. Full pants Berger only got a fine for stealing classified material. I think Libby walks with a slap on the wrist.

No Libby gets nailed to the wall,IF he is proven guilty, because he is a Rep..and either the media and the process is slanted or people just hold Reps. to higher standards.

 

[Stinger]

I don't care to get into an argument as to whether or not Rove is being investigated. You'll continue to dismiss what I say.

Only assertions stated as fact. There was a factual mis-statement made and that was that Fitzgerald said he was still investigating Rove. He did not, facts are facts. Such statements will be dismissed,

While in South America, someone asked Bush about whether he would keep Rove. He said that the investigation was still going on, so he could not comment.

So what. Yes the investigation is still going on, not much left as Fitzgerald DID say, and Bush answered as he should, but his answer adds no weight to what you said.

As for why someone who has not been accused of a crime should resign--Bush promised during his 2000 campaign that he was going to restore honesty and integrity to the White House.

And I'm sure retain due process and he has.

He also said he would not hide behind legalisms. McClellan said that neither Rove nor Libby had anything to do with leaking information, but yet, they did. This means that in all likelihood, Rove lied to McClellan.

Yes and so far both claim the information was already known, thus it wasn't a "leak" she was listed in Who's Who as Wilson's wife and when Novak called the CIA they quickly confirmed she was an employee there.

I would think that someone who says he will restore honesty and integrity would ask Rove to resign.

And I think you think wrong on lots of things.

Rove has demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity, or, at a minimum, has given the appearance of lacking honesty and integrity.

So far he has done nothing of the sort. He and Libby did show the proper course in making sure the press knew Plame got Wilson the assignment.

I believe that the highest office of the United States should have a higher standard.

Well after 8 years of Clinton I don't believe your side has much ground to claim in that matter.

Additonally, Bush said he would not hide behind legalisms, yet he changed his decision to firing anyone involved to firing someone who committed a crime.

Since you can't site where he said he would fire anyone involved your claim is specious.

Rove has every right every other citizen has, why do you deny him those rights? If you are going to hold such a standard then first you should demanding of Schummer and Clinton to fire their staffs who are also involved in criminal indictments. After you have done so then you might have a better position here.

Stinger, it's no wonder why so many Americans are questioning Bush's integrity.

What is a wonder is why you think that is true. Granted there are some, mostly Democrats who question EVERYTHING about Bush and with a media that has gone so overboard on this matter............

But hey, the longer he keeps Rove on the job, the worse it makes him look. So let's keep Rove in the White House. :lol:

Too whom? People who have a insatiable need to hate him. Big deal.

As for how people will vote in 2006, I have only this to say:

"Pure speculation you have no idea [how people will vote in 2006]."

This is true.

 

[aps]

Quote:
I believe that the highest office of the United States should have a higher standard.


Well after 8 years of Clinton I don't believe your side has much ground to claim in that matter.


Quote:
Additonally, Bush said he would not hide behind legalisms, yet he changed his decision to firing anyone involved to firing someone who committed a crime.


Since you can't site where he said he would fire anyone involved your claim is specious.

Rove has every right every other citizen has, why do you deny him those rights? If you are going to hold such a standard then first you should demanding of Schummer and Clinton to fire their staffs who are also involved in criminal indictments. After you have done so then you might have a better position here.



Quote:
Stinger, it's no wonder why so many Americans are questioning Bush's integrity.


What is a wonder is why you think that is true. Granted there are some, mostly Democrats who question EVERYTHING about Bush and with a media that has gone so overboard on this matter............

You have an argument for everything, don't you, Stinger. I'm bored reading your giving the president and his administration excuses. And yes, I can ask Bush to be held to a higher standard since he promised us we would hold himself to a higher standard. I was disappointed with Clinton. At least I can admit my party makes mistakes. You however, are incapable of such, which gives you absolutely NO credibility in my eyes. Bye bye

:2wave:

 

[Stinger]

You have an argument for everything, don't you, Stinger.

You mean I can rebut your points with ease? Yep.

I'm bored reading your giving the president and his administration excuses.

I think it is more of a "I can't maintain my position so I will exit stage right.

And yes, I can ask Bush to be held to a higher standard since he promised us we would hold himself to a higher standard. I was disappointed with Clinton. At least I can admit my party makes mistakes. You however, are incapable of such, which gives you absolutely NO credibility in my eyes.

And you illustrate the point that this is more about getting even, trying to find something, anything that can level the playing field with the Clinton scandals. The fact is Bush has held his administration to a higher standard. But he is not going to fire people just because the Democrats demand it, especially when they don't practice the same with there own. There have been no attacks on the prosecutor as we saw in the Clinton administration. There have been no baseless claims of privilege. There has been cooperation. But you just can't stand it and are desperate to get something on Bush and his cabinet officials. And that is what turns off the American people. Instead of dealing with policies and trying to convince others to support your ideas you think you can just scandalize Bush and then people will support your political views. It don't work that way.

 

[Stinger]

If it wasn't "a very important aspect to begin with," I suspect that Mr. Libby's memory would have been more up to par than it was.

Why if it wasn't important? As has been pointed out Andrea Mitchell over a year ago admitted that everyone, meaning the Washington reporters, knew who Plame was and where she worked. It was not a secret and her boss was Russert, he was in charge of NBC's Washington Bureau. Russert said under oath he did not know. It maybe Russert who has a problem with memory and even a problem with the law. But it gets down to who cares. If Libby or anyone purposely lied to the FBI or Grand Jury in order to obstruct justice then they should face the musice. But as far as the underlying case, who cares anymore other than I'd like to see Wilson and his wife on the stand explaining exactly what they had in mind and whether they violated the law or national security regulations.

 

[Stinger]

Again all you have is an unnamed attorney and a reporter trying to create a story. You do NOT have as you claimed Fitzgerald saying the Rove was still under investigation. If all the rumours of two weeks ago had come true, rumours sourced to attorneys there would have been 22 indictments and Rove would have been before a firing squad. Better to deal with known facts and one of those is Fitzgeral saying his investigation is for the most part over. Rove may in the end be indicted, but until that happens.................

 

[aps]

You mean I can rebut your points with ease? Yep.

LOL

I think it is more of a "I can't maintain my position so I will exit stage right.

Hey, if you want to believe that, go right ahead.

And you illustrate the point that this is more about getting even, trying to find something, anything that can level the playing field with the Clinton scandals. The fact is Bush has held his administration to a higher standard. But he is not going to fire people just because the Democrats demand it, especially when they don't practice the same with there own.

I agree that it's not the democrats's place to demand that Bush fire him. I don't know why you feel I am illustrating that this is about getting even. Bush said in 2000 that he would restore honesty and integrity to the White House. Tell me how Bush has held his adminstration to a higher standard. Give me some examples.

Huh? So are you saying that if the democrats fired their employees that then Bush would fire Rove? So the president will do something only if others do it? Wow. That's the sign of a great leader.

There have been no attacks on the prosecutor as we saw in the Clinton administration.

So what? Fitzgerald held himself to a much higher standard than Starr did. Sure that's a matter of opinion, but let's talk about how many leaks occurred when Starr was doing his investigation versus the current investigation. What could they have criticized?

There have been no baseless claims of privilege. There has been cooperation. But you just can't stand it and are desperate to get something on Bush and his cabinet officials.

Oh, cooperation? You mean Libby telling one story but then telling another one? Someone is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice and that's called "cooperation." LOL

I am desperate? Okaaaaay. Stinger, if nothing comes of this, sure I will be disappointed, but this won't break me at all. Life goes on. In my heart, though, I believe that something will come of this, just like it did in the Nixon administration. What goes around, comes around.

And that is what turns off the American people. Instead of dealing with policies and trying to convince others to support your ideas you think you can just scandalize Bush and then people will support your political views. It don't work that way.

We shall see about that. I am sure you are incapable of seeing this, but there is evidence out there which would cause a reasonable person to question whether the Bush adminstration lied to us and the United Nations about the intelligence leading up to the war. There have been no weapons of mass destruction found. Sorry, but it is Congress's obligation to investigate how this could happen. It's called checks and balances. Hey, if nothing turns up, then nothing turns up. I think you're so bothered because in the back of your mind, there may be something to this.

 

[Stinger]

LOL

Still waiting for you to rebut my points.

Me>> I think it is more of a "I can't maintain my position so I will exit stage right.

Hey, if you want to believe that, go right ahead.

When you completely side-step them and post what you did.............

I agree that it's not the democrats's place to demand that Bush fire him. I don't know why you feel I am illustrating that this is about getting even. Bush said in 2000 that he would restore honesty and integrity to the White House. Tell me how Bush has held his adminstration to a higher standard. Give me some examples.

I did.

Huh? So are you saying that if the democrats fired their employees that then Bush would fire Rove? So the president will do something only if others do it? Wow. That's the sign of a great leader.

I'm saying that if Sen. Schummer is going to demand Rove resign when he has not even been indicted and there be a total shake out of the WH staff then he should clean out his own house first.

So what? Fitzgerald held himself to a much higher standard than Starr did.

No more no less. Starr was and remains a very honorable member of the legal profession. That the Clinton WH engaged in a specific strategy to demean and degrage him and the DOJ attorney's who worked there speaks more about their lack of integrity than to Starr's.

Sure that's a matter of opinion, but let's talk about how many leaks occurred when Starr was doing his investigation versus the current investigation. What could they have criticized?

Really, what specific leaks that were deamed by a court to be illegal or unethical? Do you mean the article from the now defunct Brill's Content magazine that claimed leaks that were latter proven not to be? Did Starr and his deputy speak to reporters. Yes, when they came to him with information which was false, they set the record straight which a prosecutor can do.

Oh, cooperation? You mean Libby telling one story but then telling another one? Someone is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice and that's called "cooperation."

No I'm talking about Bush and the Bush WH, how many claims of executive privilge did they invoke? Did Fitzgerald say they were not cooperating? Did they withhold evidence. How many times did they attack Ftizgerald personally, call him names, use invectives to describe him? And as far as Libby we'll have to wait and see what a jury says.

What goes around, comes around.

Like I said, this is all about payback.

We shall see about that. I am sure you are incapable of seeing this, but there is evidence out there which would cause a reasonable person to question whether the Bush adminstration lied to us and the United Nations about the intelligence leading up to the war.

No there isn't. It's the same information the Clinton administration used to make it the offical policy of the United States that Saddam and his government be removed. That some of it was wrong does not make it a lie.

There have been no weapons of mass destruction found.

No stockpiles, but we found plenty enough. And that we didn't find stockpiles does not make a liar of Bush when his intelligence agency and all the the intelligence agency's in the world were saying the same thing.

So answer two questions.

What happen to the WMD that we knew he had, where are they are what happened to them and give me the conclusive proof.

Then what happened between the time Clinton left office and Bush took office that changed everything that the Clinton adminsitration and the Democrats were saying as to how Saddam could not be trusted and would have to be removed because he pocessed such weapons and would use them. Give me the specific evidence that disproved everything the previous administration had said about Saddam.

Sorry, but it is Congress's obligation to investigate how this could happen. It's called checks and balances. Hey, if nothing turns up, then nothing turns up. I think you're so bothered because in the back of your mind, there may be something to this.

How what happened. How the WMD disappeared? How the CIA was so lacking in their intelligence accessments. OK but we know the latter and don't know the former and Congress isn't going to find out in a committee room. As far as how Bush and his cabinet went through the process, how they came to their conclusions, nope. Congress has no business in that matter, they do NOT oversee the President in policy matters. If we are going to start doing that then the President should be granted the authority to call any Senator into the oval office and put them under oath and question them as to how they come up with thier policies. But of course that would violate the seperation of powers which you seem to not care about.