HUBRIS: The Armitage Leak and What It Means (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Point 1 - Turns out to be Richard Armitage who outed Plame.

Point 2 - Looks like no crime was actually committed. Armitage may have had a big mouth, but is known in circles as a gossip. It appears that he passed this info on to Novak as gossip, but did not intend to cause harm to Plame.

Point 3 - Why point 2? Armitage was not one of those keen on war with Iraq, and had no political axe to grind.

Put all 3 points together, and we now learn why Rove is off the hook. As for Scooter Libby, the irony here is that he did not have to perjure himself, but he did anyways.

The Plame case will go down as a strange one, but again, turns out no law was broken, since Armitage did not have the intent, as defined under the law.

Article is here.

 

[aps]

When Tim Russert asked Novak if Armitage was his source on yesterday's Meet the Press, Novak looked away for a moment, which indicated to me that he was uncomfortable and that Armitage was his source.

While no law was broken, there was a concerted effort to discredit Joe Wilson. No doubt about that.

 

[Deegan]

Quite a few people really hurt their reputations with this fiasco, I certainly hope it was worth it.:doh

 

[ashurbanipal]

I have a hard time believing that Richard Armitage is against any war that's ever been waged, especially by us...

 

[Stinger]

While no law was broken,

So much for the factual statements that were made otherwise, so do you still give a lot of credence to David Schuster and Hardball?

there was a concerted effort to discredit Joe Wilson. No doubt about that.

What he said, and properly so.

 

[aps]

So much for the factual statements that were made otherwise, so do you still give a lot of credence to David Schuster and Hardball?

Absolutely. We all make mistakes. Shuster said that he was convinced that Rove would be indicted and he provided a rationale for such opinion. It's not like he pulled that conclusion out of his butt. There was a possibility that Rove would be indicted.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

While no law was broken, there was a concerted effort to discredit Joe Wilson. No doubt about that.

How the **** do you figure that??? This had nothing what so ever to do with discrediting Wilson, you people are the ones who tryed to destroy Libby, Cheney, and Rove over something they had nothing to do with. This didn't have to do with Iraq or discrediting Wilson this had to do with a witch hunt against the Bush administration by lying Dems and their willing accomplices in the Drive by media. Armitage is a gossip nothing more nothing less.

 

[aps]

How the **** do you figure that??? This had nothing what so ever to do with discrediting Wilson, you people are the ones who tryed to destroy Libby, Cheney, and Rove over something they had nothing to do with. This didn't have to do with Iraq or discrediting Wilson this had to do with a witch hunt against the Bush administration by lying Dems and their willing accomplices in the Drive by media. Armitage is a gossip nothing more nothing less.

Trajan, your blinders take away any credibility you might have. Let's not forget the Wilson article that was marked up by Cheney. Yeah, Cheney didn't give that article any importance. :roll:

 

[danarhea]

Trajan, your blinders take away any credibility you might have. Let's not forget the Wilson article that was marked up by Cheney. Yeah, Cheney didn't give that article any importance. :roll:

Of course, there was a concerted effort to discredit Joe Wilson, but outing Plame was not in their plans. Armitage's big mouth running during the attempt to discredit Wilson, however, did give an appearance that this was part of the plan.

1) If Armitage had just come out and say what he did, and that he intended no harm, the investigation would have ended right there. By not doing so, Armitage caused harm to his own party.

2) Libby's perjury did not help either. Of course, if he knew there was nothing to cover up, he would not have lied to the Grand Jury. Again, that goes back to Armitage.

This is Keystone Kops at its finest.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Trajan, your blinders take away any credibility you might have. Let's not forget the Wilson article that was marked up by Cheney. Yeah, Cheney didn't give that article any importance. :roll:

A) The story was factual so what are you pissed about? That Wilson got called out for the lier that he was?

B) Cheney had nothing to do with the story being written so sorry.

 

[aps]

A) The story was factual so what are you pissed about? That Wilson got called out for the lier that he was?

Wilson's a liar? Can you provide me with what he said that hasn't proved to be true? LOL

B) Cheney had nothing to do with the story being written so sorry.

I never said he had anything to do with the story being written. I'm talking about the Wilson article that he marked up with questions. Clearly the article bothered him enough to provide written comments on it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Wilson's a liar? Can you provide me with what he said that hasn't proved to be true? LOL

Well for starters that Cheney rather than Plame sent him to Niger and that the leaking of Plame was done by the Bush administration in retribution for the article that he wrote.

Joseph Wilson, Liar

One of the most stunning revelations contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA is that virtually everything Joseph Wilson has said about his trip to Niger, and the report that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, is a lie.

Wilson has been lying about the contents of his own report to the CIA!:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.​

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php

I never said he had anything to do with the story being written. I'm talking about the Wilson article that he marked up with questions. Clearly the article bothered him enough to provide written comments on it.

And your point? The article was true.

 

[Stinger]

Absolutely. We all make mistakes.

:rofl Mistakes. They were patently wrong and had nothing to back up their assertions which they reported as fact and your repeated.

Shuster said that he was convinced that Rove would be indicted and he provided a rationale for such opinion.

He reported it as a fact, and he had nothing but basely conjecture to support it. Afterwards when cornered and asked who was the basis, his "sources close to the investigation: that were telling him what was going on WITHIN the prosecutors office, he could only name some low level DEFENSE attorneys.

It's not like he pulled that conclusion out of his butt.

It's exactly like he did. With his bogus reasoning behind it.

And you still trust him and his reporting?

There was a possibility that Rove would be indicted.

He was reporting it as fact and you were citing it.

And you still trust him and his reporting.

And now we know there was NEVER a case here. That Fitzgerald knew from the get-go that it was Armitage and that there was no crime committed.

You to Trajan

Wilson's a liar? Can you provide me with what he said that hasn't proved to be true? LOL

It's been shown to you over and over why do you ask again?

I even posted from the Washington Post stating that it was the adminsitration which conveyed the truth and it was Wilson who did not.

 

[aps]

Well for starters that Cheney rather than Plame sent him to Niger and that the leaking of Plame was done by the Bush administration in retribution for the article that he wrote.

He was sent in response to a question that the Vice President has posed to the CIA. In his article, this is what he said:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

I think people either misconstrued his statements when he said that the VP sent him or he may have stated his mission in a way that sounded like the VP sent him directly. Wilson was fully aware he was going to N iger because the VP had asked questions.

There are varying reports about whether Wilson's wife had anything to do with his going to N iger. If she recommended his going, I have no problems with that.

I'd have to read the Senate report before making any conclusions about whether Wilson "lied." Regardless, all I care about is that he pointed out that the Bush administration exaggerated the intelligence to get us into Iraq. Now that is absolutely true.

And your point? The article was true.

LOL I don't think you mean what you're saying above. The article I am referring to is "What I didn't find in Africa" by Joe Wilson. Somehow I doubt you mean to say that that article is "true." I certainly think it's true.

 

[Gill]

When Tim Russert asked Novak if Armitage was his source on yesterday's Meet the Press, Novak looked away for a moment, which indicated to me that he was uncomfortable and that Armitage was his source.

While no law was broken, there was a concerted effort to discredit Joe Wilson. No doubt about that.

There was also a concerted effort to discredit Rove and you were gleeful about the prospect of Rove being "frog marched" out of the White House. I believe you posted a thread when the Truthout.org, Jason Leopold article came out claiming that Rove was indicted back in May. We know how that turned out don't we. It's funny that Truthout has claimed that Joe Wilson was the source, at least partially, for this huge blunder.

 

[aps]

:rofl Mistakes. They were patently wrong and had nothing to back up their assertions which they reported as fact and your repeated.

He reported it as a fact, and he had nothing but basely conjecture to support it. Afterwards when cornered and asked who was the basis, his "sources close to the investigation: that were telling him what was going on WITHIN the prosecutors office, he could only name some low level DEFENSE attorneys.

It's exactly like he did. With his bogus reasoning behind it.

And you still trust him and his reporting?

He was reporting it as fact and you were citing it.

And you still trust him and his reporting.

Yes, I still trust him. Stinger, he based his opinion facts he had gathered. In every case where Fitzgerald had called someone "official A" (I think that is the terminology), Fitzgerald had indicted that person who was labeled as "subject A." Rove had changed his story, which is why he went before the grand jury one more time. He remembered a fact he hadn't reported. That is something that a grand jury should weigh--was he intentionally lying when he spoke before them or did he genuinely see an e-mail that refreshed his mind? Those are questions that a jury would normally review to make a determination. Again, how is that pulling an indictment out of his butt. Sure, Stinger, you can read those facts and say that Rove didn't lie. But I can read those facts and say he may have lied. Shuster said he was "convinced" that Rove would be indicted. He actually said this:

Shuster: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why.

First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges.

Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now.

And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1631884/posts

Don't tell me that what he stated isn't his providing a rational for why he is convinced that Rove will be indicted. I have emphasized "he" because he never said, "Rove will be indicted." He made HIS opinion known that he was convinced Rove would be indicted. That is not stating fact, my friend.

And now we know there was NEVER a case here. That Fitzgerald knew from the get-go that it was Armitage and that there was no crime committed.

I could say the same about Whitewater.

It's been shown to you over and over why do you ask again?

I even posted from the Washington Post stating that it was the adminsitration which conveyed the truth and it was Wilson who did not.

Because I don't believe that the facts provided by Wilson have been proven to be wrong. That's why.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Well for starters that Cheney rather than Plame sent him to Niger...

This is a durable carnard. Surprisingly so since no one's ever been able to produce any evidence that Mr. Wilson ever actually made such a claim. Somehow, some folks "just know" that he said this even though they themselves have never actually heard or seen comments where Mr. Wilson makes this claim. Simply amazing. There's a lesson here about the powers of propaganda and the willingness of the "pre-fooled" to believe what fits the currrently operative storyline w/o too much regard for actual evidence.

 

[aps]

There was also a concerted effort to discredit Rove and you were gleeful about the prospect of Rove being "frog marched" out of the White House. I believe you posted a thread when the Truthout.org, Jason Leopold article came out claiming that Rove was indicted back in May. We know how that turned out don't we. It's funny that Truthout has claimed that Joe Wilson was the source, at least partially, for this huge blunder.

I freely admit that I was gleeful in the thought of Rove being indicted. I think he is a despicable human being. Your point is....??

 

[Gill]

I freely admit that I was gleeful in the thought of Rove being indicted. I think he is a despicable human being. Your point is....??

My point is that the left's efforts to villainize and discredit Rove far exceeded any attempts by the right to make Wilson look bad. Wilson did more to himself, by his lies, than the right ever could.

Wilson was the originator of the vision of Rove being "frog marched". What do you think about his vindictiveness in being one of the truthout.org sources??

 

[aps]

My point is that the left's efforts to villainize and discredit Rove far exceeded any attempts by the right to make Wilson look bad. Wilson did more to himself, by his lies, than the right ever could.

Wilson was the originator of the vision of Rove being "frog marched". What do you think about his vindictiveness in being one of the truthout.org sources??

Wilson has not made it a life mission to trash people of another political party. Rove has spent much of his life doing that, which speaks volumes as to his lack of character. Sorry, but Wilson's behavior can in no way compare to Rove's behavior for the decades that he has attacked democrats.

If I thought someone had intentionally leaked the name of my covert spy spouse, I would be vindictive against that person as well. Just because Rove wasn't indicted doesn't make him innocent.

 

[Stinger]

Wilson has not made it a life mission to trash people of another political party.

:rofl oh yes he has. They have just filed a phoney suit in court to try and trash the Bush administration.

Rove has spent much of his life doing that, which speaks volumes as to his lack of character. Sorry, but Wilson's behavior can in no way compare to Rove's behavior for the decades that he has attacked democrats.

How about for perpetrating a lie on the American People?

If I thought someone had intentionally leaked the name of my covert spy spouse, I would be vindictive against that person as well. Just because Rove wasn't indicted doesn't make him innocent.

Hmmm just because there is no evidence does not make him not guilty eh?

Please state the specific crime he is guilty of. There is not a shred of evidence he committed a crime but as you have previously stated that doesn't matter. You still won't those who oppose you politically to be put in jail. Sort of reminds me of some dictatorships I have read about.

Face the facts. There was never a story here, there was never an issue, no one leaked a covert agents name, no laws were broken.

Now if you support Wilson and his wife committing this fraud on the public then say so, why not if you want your political opponents thrown in jail why not support false propagande to bring them down. That's what happened and the WH including Rove and Libby did the right thing. Made the truth public. But then you must oppose the truth coming out when it hurts your cause.

 

[Deegan]

This is a durable carnard. Surprisingly so since no one's ever been able to produce any evidence that Mr. Wilson ever actually made such a claim. Somehow, some folks "just know" that he said this even though they themselves have never actually heard or seen comments where Mr. Wilson makes this claim. Simply amazing. There's a lesson here about the powers of propaganda and the willingness of the "pre-fooled" to believe what fits the currrently operative storyline w/o too much regard for actual evidence.

Hardly, there is more then enough evidence that this was exactly what Wilson wanted everyone to think. He claimed he was not sent by the CIA, but by the government, then recants that later, he is hardly a truthful individual, well just read and listen to his own words.............

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2006/05/get_cheney.html

 

[Stinger]

He was sent in response to a question that the Vice President has posed to the CIA. In his article, this is what he said:

And I have posted over and over to you Tenents testimony that the VP nor his office had anything to do with sending Wilson to Niger, that those anylist did it on their own. Wilson saying doesn't make it true and he wouldn't have known that anyway.

I think people either misconstrued his statements when he said that the VP sent him or he may have stated his mission in a way that sounded like the VP sent him directly. Wilson was fully aware he was going to N iger because the VP had asked questions.

He made straight forward FALSE statements including that he reported back to the VP or that "his" report was given to the VP and they ignored it. All lies.

There are varying reports about whether Wilson's wife had anything to do with his going to N iger. If she recommended his going, I have no problems with that.

There are varying made up reports by people who are making baseless assertions. The record is clear, she was instrumental.

I'd have to read the Senate report before making any conclusions about whether Wilson "lied."

You mean you are coming and arguing the facts without knowing them? It's all been throughly and specifically cited to you over and over.

Regardless, all I care about is that he pointed out that the Bush administration exaggerated the intelligence to get us into Iraq. Now that is absolutely true.

He did nothing of the sort and that has been proven here over and over. What he did tell the CIA when he got back supported their belief that Saddam was snooping around in Africa for yellow-cake. NOT the opposite as you claim.




LOL I don't think you mean what you're saying above. The article I am referring to is "What I didn't find in Africa" by Joe Wilson. Somehow I doubt you mean to say that that article is "true." I certainly think it's true.[/quote]

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Hardly, there is more then enough evidence that this was exactly what Wilson wanted everyone to think. He claimed he was not sent by the CIA, but by the government, then recants that later, he is hardly a truthful individual, well just read and listen to his own words.............

http://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2006/05/get_cheney.html

So even though he didn't say that Cheney sent him but said something different, it's the same as if he said something that he didn't actually say.

What a fascinating line of argument you have adopted.

 

[danarhea]

So even though he didn't say that Cheney sent him but said something different, it's the same as if he said something that he didn't actually say.

What a fascinating line of argument you have adopted.

But it's the line the Bush supporters have been taking en masse.

On one side, you have those who wanted Rove indicted so badly, they talk about frog marching Rove out even before the Grand Jury considers the evidence. On the other, you have those who want to defend Rove at all costs, which include telling what they consider to be "noble lies" about Wilson. In the middle, you have Fitzgerald, whose only interest was to get to the truth.

Sure, Rove is one piece of crap in his ethics, but now the facts are out. In the Plame case, Fitzgerald grilled the hell out of him, then after putting all the pieces together, his ethics dictated that Rove not be indicted. I can agree with that.

This story is over, as far as Rove is concerned. However, it is not over for Libby, who committed perjury and attempted to obstruct justice. The irony here is that, if Libby had not lied and tried to cover this up, he would not have been in any trouble whatsoever. In essence, Libby attempted to cover up a situation which did not even exist in the first place. That is hilarious.