|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
PJP said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
I do hope PaulWellr comes back & changes his thread to something more appropiate now that Rovegate is back in play. I'm surprised he changed it to "Rovegate no more" without posting anything a couple of months ago.
you do realize that G-man edited the title by going to the first post that Paul made and changing it.
I kind of wondered if that was the case. Not the best use of his Mod powers IMHO. It might even be fair to suggest that it's the actions of somebody who is "angry" & "desperate" 
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
NewsbustersWhen liberal Larry O'Donnell goes on Keith Olbermann's Countdown and calls your lawsuit 'very weak' and even the Olber-meister himself won't ride to your defense, it's time to fold your tent, toss in your hand, throw in the towel and quietly slink away.
"I think this is a very weak case. . . I think they're going to have a lot of trouble keeping this case in court. I think the [defendants have] a very, very strong case in going for dismissal." Yikes!
Tellingly, Olbermann breathed not a word in support of the suit's bona fides.
In a way, it's almost a shame this case will never see the light of trial. Can you imagine the cross-examination on the issue of damages? If anything ever plucked Wilson-Plame from obscurity and made them Vanity Fair stars and rich to boot, it was the very 'outing' of which they now complain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
thankfully g-man has posted another news article instead of scaring us with his twisted words.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232
200+ posts
|
|
OP
200+ posts
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 232 |
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush State of the Union speech Jan 28, 2003
"mission accomplished" - George W. Bush May 2, 2003
It does not require a majority to prevail but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in peoples minds". Samuel Adams said that. Pretty deep for a guy that makes beer for a living - The Boondocks
"A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead" - Leo C. Rosten
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
How long have you decended from your cloud to dwell with us mortals this time?
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Geez, what a coincidence that he just happens to come back again. You'd almost think that, contrary to whomod's claims of not hanging around, that he's here on a regular basis. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15 |
whomod's back? I thought Rob ran him from the site after telling us about his alt's, and then telling whomod to go fuck himself. 
"Are you eating it...or is it eating you?" [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg) [/center] [center] ![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg) [/center]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I can only assume that Ray and MEM have been regularly beseeching their leader to return to provide them with a steady stream of anti-Bush guidance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
I dunno - ray's almost a self-sustaining entity. He needs only the anger generated by his trolling to survive.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Newsbusters
When liberal Larry O'Donnell goes on Keith Olbermann's Countdown and calls your lawsuit 'very weak' and even the Olber-meister himself won't ride to your defense, it's time to fold your tent, toss in your hand, throw in the towel and quietly slink away.
"I think this is a very weak case. . . I think they're going to have a lot of trouble keeping this case in court. I think the [defendants have] a very, very strong case in going for dismissal." Yikes!
Tellingly, Olbermann breathed not a word in support of the suit's bona fides.
In a way, it's almost a shame this case will never see the light of trial. Can you imagine the cross-examination on the issue of damages? If anything ever plucked Wilson-Plame from obscurity and made them Vanity Fair stars and rich to boot, it was the very 'outing' of which they now complain.
This whole smear campaign by the Democrats began with their criticism of a column by Robert Novak that allegedly outed Valerie Plame.
Novak made a 14-minute appearance on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday.
Where Novak was very specific about how he first questioned why the CIA would pick such an anti-Bush partisan as Joe Wilson for the Niger/yellow-cake-uranium mission.
How Novak's anonymous source told Novak it was "Wilson's wife" who worked for the CIA, who recommended Wilson for the job.
How Novak only knew it was Wilson's wife, and got her actual name for the column from Wilson's listing in Who's Who In America.
And how various sources close to Plame, before Novak ran the column, had given no indication that Plame was a covert operative.
And for that matter, Novak remains convinced to this day that Plame was never a secret operative.
You can watch Novak at this link. It begins at 33:45 into the 48:00 minute broadcast.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Not sure how Novak was smeared. The CIA asked him not to out Plame but because they didn't get the big boss to make the request he felt it was OK?!? He deserves smearing.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Not sure how Novak was smeared. [but] He deserves smearing.
I think a colorable argument could be made that its smearing someone to insist they broke the law when every indication is that they didn't.
I also find it telling that you admit that Novak should be smeared.
Smearing is, as you probably know, an act meaning to "charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone"
Therefore, you have stated that you believe that Novak "deserves" being "falsely" charged "with malicious intent." As a result you have admitted that you think that false accusations are perfectly acceptable when they conform to your agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Not sure how Novak was smeared. [but] He deserves smearing.
I think a colorable argument could be made that its smearing someone to insist they broke the law when every indication is that they didn't.
I also find it telling that you admit that Novak should be smeared.
Smearing is, as you probably know, an act meaning to "charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone"
Therefore, you have stated that you believe that Novak "deserves" being "falsely" charged "with malicious intent." As a result you have admitted that you think that false accusations are perfectly acceptable when they conform to your agenda.
you are the biggest fucking cunt here. you edited out his point to make him look foolish and contradictory.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
No. I posted the two parts of his message that I chose to respond to, with brackets to indicate where I had left out or summarized/paraphrased extraneous information. To my knowledge this is in conformance with standard journalist usage and style (see, eg, Strunk and White) when one is only referencing part of a statement.
There is no disputing that MEM said "Not sure how Novak was smeared." There is similarly no dispute he went on, after criticizing Novak, to conclude "He deserves smearing." Unless MEM himself misstated his initial point, no one here has misapplied what he wrote.
Similarly, no one has made MEM look contradictory. There is nothing at all contradictory about expressing doubt that something occurred, but opining that it would be deserved if it had happened. In fact, its the very opposite of contradictory ("[A] hasn't happened, but I wish it had").
This is not the first time you have failed to understand something as simple as this. This leads me to ask, with all seriousness, is perhaps English NOT your first language? I'm not being disrespectful here, but simply asking because it seems as if you have a tendency to not comprehend certain rules of style or usage that are pretty common in the written word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
r3x29yz4a said:
...
you are the biggest fucking cunt here. you edited out his point to make him look foolish and contradictory.
Obviously G-man needed to get away from the whole CIA telling Novak not to use Plame's name and try & put me on the defensive.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
We've rehashed the anti-Novak allegations ad nauseaum for several years now, including the ones you've most recently exhumed and dusted off. During which time, I've told you over and over that there was no evidence a crime was committed vis a vis Plame, and you've repeatedly insisted there was.
The Special Prosecutor apparently agrees with me. However, despite that finding, you continue to repeat the same discredited theories as if they were fact.
Now, we have you saying that Novak deserved to be "smeared."
That statement ties directly with your repeated denial of the facts of the case. If that puts you on the defensive, so be it. You wouldn't be there in the first place if you didn't keep posting falsehoods and opinions as fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
No. I posted the two parts of his message that I chose to respond to, with brackets to indicate where I had left out or summarized/paraphrased extraneous information.
To my knowledge....Strunk and White...is only...part of .......ME...Not.....smeared." There...he went on....smearing."
no, you cut out the sentence that you didn't want to address. by only putting those two parts you could be sarcastic and an ass.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
I wasn't being sarcastic. Nor was I being, at least intentionally, an ass.
MEM expressed doubt that anyone smeared Novak. I explained what I thought constituted a smear against him.
MEM, after describing what he saw as Novak's bad acts, concluded that, in effect, even if Novak hadn't been smeared, he deserved smearing.
I thereafter responded that to "smear" someone means to falsely accuse them and criticized MEM for writing that Novak deserved smearing. This meant, I pointed out, that MEM was saying Novak deserved to be the targe of false allegations.
Say what you will about MEM, but at least he, unlike you, constructs an argument and does so with commonly accepted rules of style and usage. The fact you can't follow his arguments, or mine, is neither of our faults.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648
500+ posts
|
|
500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 648 |
Quote:
are we seeing a problem here, or are you a fucking retard?
i mean that seriously. if you are retarded, we can help you.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
G-man I was talking about Novak ignoring the CIA's request not to disclose Plame's name. You basically changed that to Quote:
I think a colorable argument could be made that its smearing someone to insist they broke the law when every indication is that they didn't.
Novak wasn't being accused of breaking a law, so why were you saying it?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
G-man I was talking about Novak ignoring the CIA's request not to disclose Plame's name. You basically changed that to Quote:
I think a colorable argument could be made that its smearing someone to insist they broke the law when every indication is that they didn't.
Novak wasn't being accused of breaking a law, so why were you saying it?
As Novak made clear in the Meet the Press interview, there are many who say to Novak "you can't print that", to try and save their asses from the facts. But Novak, in his own words runs the story anyway.
In the case of running Plame's name, nothing was said to him at the time that she was a covert field agent. If it had been said (in Novak's own words) he would not have run the story. But no one said she was. Then and now, Novak is convinced she is not, and never was, a field agent. And that even if she was, she was outed a long time ago, before his column named her.
Watch the interview, it explains everything you're denying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
FYI Wonder Boy, the CIA doesn't confirm if an agent is covert or not to reporters. Why would you ever think that was a valid argument?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
FYI Wonder Boy, the CIA doesn't confirm if an agent is covert or not to reporters. Why would you ever think that was a valid argument?
You're splitting semantic hairs. Novak again covered that in the interview, and did a similar dance with Russert on how to phrase things.
But regardless, the truth is clear.
In Novak's consulting sources prior to running his column, there was no indication of any reason for him not to run his story. And Judge Fitzgerald's ruling confirmed that there was no legal wrong by Novak or Rove.
Last edited by the G-man; 2006-07-18 5:53 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
|
|
1 Millionth Customer 10000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 14,203 |
Quote:
Wonder Boy said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
FYI Wonder Boy, the CIA doesn't confirm if an agent is covert or not to reporters. Why would you ever think that was a valid argument?
You're splitting semantic hairs. Novak again covered that in the interview, and did a similar dance with Russert on how to phrase things.
But regardless, the truth is clear.
In Novak's consulting sources prior to running his column, there was no indication of any reason for him not to run his story. And Judge Fitzgerald's ruling confirmed that there was no legal wrong by Novak or Rove.
Edited by the G-man (07/18/06 11:53 AM)
Even his own side isn't safe, I guess.
Bow ties are coool.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
It's hardly splitting hairs Wonder Boy. Novak self rationalized something partisan Republicans would have condemned any other reporter for doing. The CIA don't blow their own agent's cover so couldn't do more than what they did. Novak has always been a partisan player, this time it at the very least clouded his judgement.
Novak doing legal wrong was something G-man threw in, not me. If G-man had a basis for saying it, I'll ask again what was the basis for it?
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
It's hardly splitting hairs Wonder Boy. Novak self rationalized something partisan Republicans would have condemned any other reporter for doing. The CIA don't blow their own agent's cover so couldn't do more than what they did. Novak has always been a partisan player, this time it at the very least clouded his judgement.
Novak doing legal wrong was something G-man threw in, not me. If G-man had a basis for saying it, I'll ask again what was the basis for it?
Again, M E M, my Meet the Press link of Novak. It's his story, and he detailed exactly how it was given to him and confirmed by sources:
Quote:
You can watch Novak at this link. It begins at 33:45 into the 48:00 minute broadcast.
To review:
Ben Bradlee, former Executive Editor for the Washington Post, expressed certainty that Assistant Sec of State Richard Armitage is the source, not Rove. (Novak would not confirm or deny, saying he is waiting for the unnamed source to reveal themself when they're ready)
Bill Harlow, former then-CIA Spokesman admitted to Novak that Valerie Plame in his words "facilitated" Joe Wilson's selection for the CIA/Niger/yellow-cake uranium mission.
But Novak confirmed, through the Senate Intelligence Committee, that Plame did more than "facilitate" Wilson's selection for the mission, she initiated his selection for the mission, which a Senate Intelligence document confirms, said Novak.
Novak says through confirmation with several sources in the CIA, he verified that Plame was an analyst in the Counter-Proliferation Division [of WMD's] in the CIA.
And that in answer to a Washington Post article Russert presented, from July 27, 2005, that said...
Quote:
[Bill Harlow], the former CIA Spokesman... said that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission, and that if he [Novak] did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative.
He said he called Novak back, to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong, and that Plame's name should not be used.
But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover, because that was classified.
... Novak said in response that's what Harlow said to the Washington Post later, but that's not what he said to Novak in their earlier interview.
Again, Novak said he confirmed Plame's status by talking to other sources in the CIA. That Plame was not an undercover operative.
And that through CIA sources, Novak was told that Plame had been outed years ago by traitor/Soviet CIA mole Aldrich Ames. So there was no risk at this point, in running her name.
Novak said that many individuals try to hustle him into not running a story, saying "you can't run that", but he does anyway.
But if he is approached by someone in authority, and if he had been on the Plame story, by Tenet or some other higher up, advised that Plame's life would have been in danger, he would have not run the story, or at least not run the paragraph with her name.
But Novak says he was not approached in such a way, and so he ran the story.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
So everything works as long as you take Novak's word over Harlow's & anyone elses. Harlow's motive to lie would be???
Tenet was the head honcho at the CIA at the time & I don't think it's reasonable that Novak somehow expects the head of the CIA to take his valuable time just to emphasize the seriousness of their request not to use Plame's name. If Novak was a partisan liberal columnist, that rationalizing honestly wouldn't fly with me.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,064 Likes: 31 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
So everything works as long as you take Novak's word over Harlow's & anyone elses.
Novak said he had multiple sources for everything he reported.
Rove came forward and revealed himself as one of Novak's sources. Although not the primary source on Plame. (Who is, again, beleived to be Richard Armitage.)
This gives credibility to what Novak says. Eventually other "Deep Throat" type sources will reveal themselves, and confirm Novak's account.
And again, Novak said the same things in sworn testimony. That doesn't indicate that he lied.
Quote:
M E M said:
Harlow's motive to lie would be???
He might have said the wrong thing by CIA protocol, or alienated himself from Bush-haters in the CIA. He may be part of a conspiracy to cover for Plame and smear Novak. There are many reasons he might lie.
And Novaks' motive to lie would be...?
Novak gave testimony under oath to the truth of events as he reported them. If he were lying, I think he would admit it, rather than commit a crime by lying under oath.
Quote:
M E M said:
Tenet was the head honcho at the CIA at the time & I don't think it's reasonable that Novak somehow expects the head of the CIA to take his valuable time just to emphasize the seriousness of their request not to use Plame's name. If Novak was a partisan liberal columnist, that rationalizing honestly wouldn't fly with me.
Not necessarily expecting Tenet to call him personally. But if Plame were truly an undercover agent and endangered, Novak should have gotten a phone call from someone in a supervisory capacity at the CIA.
That no one felt it important enough to call Novak and halt the story, that just speaks to the bogusness of the allegation her cover was blown.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
And Novaks' motive to lie would be...?
Novak is a partisan Republican columnist. He's devoted his life making money on protecting the Republican party while writing negatively about Dems. I believe there was a prior incident where he worked with Rove on a previous campaign (anyone remember particulars?)
Now what was Wilson & Plame's motive again?
Quote:
Not necessarily expecting Tenet to call him personally. But if Plame were truly an undercover agent and endangered, Novak should have gotten a phone call from someone in a supervisory capacity at the CIA.
That no one felt it important enough to call Novak and halt the story, that just speaks to the bogusness of the allegation her cover was blown.
Why do you say no one when Harlow has said he asked Novak repeatedly not to run the story? And did Novak say he was going to run the story to Harlow unless he was asked by somebody higher up not to?
So far we have multiple sources that directly contradict Novak. Unlike Novak's unamed sources, these actually have names attached to them. It really looks to me that Novak basically discounted anything he didn't want to hear & just did what he wanted anyway.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
More on Woodward's role, and who the leaker might have really been, from Newsweek:
One by one last week, a parade of current and former senior officials, including the CIA's George Tenet and national-security adviser Stephen Hadley, denied being the source.
A conspicuous exception was former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage, whose office would only say, "We're not commenting."
If Armitage was the original leaker, that undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to "out" Plame. Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson. On "Larry King Live" last month, Woodward was dismissive of the special prosecutor's investigation, suggesting that the original leak was not the result of a "smear campaign" but rather a "kind of gossip, as chatter ... I don't see an underlying crime here."
Quote:
the G-man said:
POWELL AIDE SEEN AS NOVAK'S LEAKER
Renewed speculation centered on Colin Powell's top aide Richard Armitage as the original leaker in the Valerie Plame case yesterday after columnist Robert Novak's latest revelations.
Novak was the first journalist to identify Plame as a CIA staffer and in a column yesterday he gave new information but declined to identify his first source, simply repeating it wasn't "a political gunslinger."
That fits Armitage who, like Powell, was skeptical about the Iraq war and knew that Plame played a role in setting up an Iraq-linked trip for her husband, Joe Wilson.
If Armitage was the source of the leak, it is unlikely his goal was discredit Iraq war critics as Wilson has claimed.
The Post has [also] reported Armitage is the likely source
David Corn and Michael Isikoff have a new book which confirms that Richard Armitage was the original Plame leaker. Close observers had already figured this out; Tom Maguire, for one, zeroed in on Armitage months ago. Maguire's most recent post on the topic, noting Armitage's (vague) association with the McCain campaign team, came just this Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
I like how the local lefties are pretending this thread never happened.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
They're waiting until Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson put out another press release, ignoring the above facts and spouting off on the same discredited conspiracy theories. Then, they'll link to those stories as if the whole revelation about Armitage never happened.
Seriously. If you look at the posts on this thread, that's pretty much the entire pattern. They post a conspiracy theory from Wilson and Plame. The theory gets shot down. They wait a few months then post the same theory again as if the rest of the thread, discrediting the theory, never existed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
More on Woodward's role, and who the leaker might have really been, from Newsweek:
One by one last week, a parade of current and former senior officials, including the CIA's George Tenet and national-security adviser Stephen Hadley, denied being the source.
A conspicuous exception was former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage, whose office would only say, "We're not commenting."
If Armitage was the original leaker, that undercuts the argument that outing Plame was a plot by the hard-liners in the veep's office to "out" Plame. Armitage was, if anything, a foe of the neocons who did not want to go to war in Iraq. He had no motive to discredit Wilson. On "Larry King Live" last month, Woodward was dismissive of the special prosecutor's investigation, suggesting that the original leak was not the result of a "smear campaign" but rather a "kind of gossip, as chatter ... I don't see an underlying crime here."
Quote:
the G-man said:
POWELL AIDE SEEN AS NOVAK'S LEAKER
Renewed speculation centered on Colin Powell's top aide Richard Armitage as the original leaker in the Valerie Plame case yesterday after columnist Robert Novak's latest revelations.
Novak was the first journalist to identify Plame as a CIA staffer and in a column yesterday he gave new information but declined to identify his first source, simply repeating it wasn't "a political gunslinger."
That fits Armitage who, like Powell, was skeptical about the Iraq war and knew that Plame played a role in setting up an Iraq-linked trip for her husband, Joe Wilson.
If Armitage was the source of the leak, it is unlikely his goal was discredit Iraq war critics as Wilson has claimed.
The Post has [also] reported Armitage is the likely source
Quote:
the G-man said:
David Corn and Michael Isikoff have a new book which confirms that <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/" target="blank">Richard Armitage was the original Plame leaker</a>. Close observers had already figured this out; Tom Maguire, for one, zeroed in on Armitage months ago. Maguire's <a href="http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/08/richard_armitag.html" target="blank">most recent post on the topic</a>, noting Armitage's (vague) association with the McCain campaign team, came just this Tuesday.
The New York Muthafuckin Times:
Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the C.I.A. leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday.
In the accounts by the lawyer and associates, Mr. Armitage disclosed casually to Mr. Novak that Ms. Wilson worked for the C.I.A. at the end of an interview in his State Department office. Mr. Armitage knew that, the accounts continue, because he had seen a written memorandum by Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman.
According to an account in a coming book, “Hubris, the Inside Story of Spin, Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War’’ by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, excerpts of which appeared in Newsweek this week, Mr. Armitage told a few State Department colleagues that he might have been the leaker whose identity was being sought.
The book says Mr. Armitage realized that when Mr. Novak published a second column in October 2003 that said his source had been an official who was “not a political gunslinger.’’
The Justice Department was quickly informed, and Mr. Armitage disclosed his talks with Mr. Novak in subsequent interviews with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, even before Mr. Fitzgerald’s appointment.
The book quotes Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the intelligence and research bureau at the State Department, as saying that Mr. Armitage had told him, “I may be the guy who caused this whole thing,’’ and that he regretted having told the columnist more than he should have.
He was also the source for another journalist about Ms. Wilson, a reporter who did not write about her. The lawyers and associates said Mr. Armitage also told Bob Woodward, assistant managing editor of The Washington Post and a well-known author, of her identity in June 2003.
Mr. Woodward was a late player in the legal drama when he disclosed last November that he had the received the information and testified to a grand jury about it after learning that his source had disclosed the conversation to prosecutors.
So...let's go over it again.
Rove was not the leaker. Libby was not the leaker. Cheney was not the leaker. Bush was not the leaker.
The leaker was a guy who worked for Colin Powell and leaked the name accidentally. He didn't leak it as "payback" for Joe Wilson's report on yellowcake uranium.
Everything I've been trying to tell you guys on the left for the past two years was absol-fucking-lutely correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Just a couple of corrections/observations in your rant. Rove & Libby did leak info to reporters about Plame. Just because Armitage also leaked doesn't make their leaking somehow unhappen. Libby is still indicted & Fitzgerald still found a... Quote:
"concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.
Washington Post
Your thread title "Armitage IS "leaker"!! HAH! Apologize MEM! BOW BEFORE THE G-MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!" is cute though.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Just a couple of corrections/observations in your rant. Rove & Libby did leak info to reporters about Plame. Just because Armitage also leaked doesn't make their leaking somehow unhappen. Libby is still indicted & Fitzgerald still found a...Quote:
"concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.
Washington Post
Your thread title "Armitage IS "leaker"!! HAH! Apologize MEM! BOW BEFORE THE G-MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!" is cute though.
Wow, MEM, you sure left out ALOT of that article..... Not least among your omissions was the dateline:
Quote:
Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page A01
Not only is the small portion you cited contradicted by what we NOW know 4 and a half months later, but it's also no more than Fitsgerald's opinion. He found no crime. The best he could do was find Libby for a process crime and attemt to do the same with Rove and Cheaney. At best the quote you cited reveals Fitsgerald's bias.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
If you look at the posts on this thread, that's pretty much the entire pattern. They post a conspiracy theory from Wilson and Plame. The theory gets shot down. They wait a few months then post the same theory again as if the rest of the thread, discrediting the theory, never existed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Just a couple of corrections/observations in your rant. Rove & Libby did leak info to reporters about Plame. Just because Armitage also leaked doesn't make their leaking somehow unhappen. Libby is still indicted & Fitzgerald still found a...Quote:
"concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.
Washington Post
Your thread title "Armitage IS "leaker"!! HAH! Apologize MEM! BOW BEFORE THE G-MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!" is cute though.
Wow, MEM, you sure left out ALOT of that article..... Not least among your omissions was the dateline:
Quote:
Sunday, April 9, 2006; Page A01
Not only is the small portion you cited contradicted by what we NOW know 4 and a half months later, but it's also no more than Fitsgerald's opinion. He found no crime. The best he could do was find Libby for a process crime and attemt to do the same with Rove and Cheaney. At best the quote you cited reveals Fitsgerald's bias.
As I understand what Novak has said there isn't a contradiction at all. According to Novak, Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald knew who his sources were so Novak had no reason not to try to protect them. So when Fitzgerald spoke of a "concerted effort" he also knew Armitage was also Novak's source. Rove & Libby still scuttled around like cockroaches talking off the record (leaking). Fitzgerald role kind of makes his opinion a bit more important than a couple of spinmeisters.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
So if a spiniester is prosecuting people that makes it ok? At least yuou've come to the point of putting the word (leak) in parentheses. I guess that's as close as we can expect to the truth from someone who's invested so much of thier credibility in this story panning out thier way.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,820 Likes: 41 |
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
So if a spiniester is prosecuting people that makes it ok?
I don't think Fitzgerald is a spinmeister. That is just my opinion of course. Also he's the special prosecutor, he knew about Armitage before even talking to Novak. His information is obviously better than yours or mine.
Quote:
At least yuou've come to the point of putting the word (leak) in parentheses. I guess that's as close as we can expect to the truth from someone who's invested so much of thier credibility in this story panning out thier way.
I would be curious what your definition of a leak is? For most people it involves somebody like Rove or Libby meeting with reporters & speaking off the record about things they're not supposed to.
Fair play!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
I would be curious what your definition of a leak is? For most people it involves somebody like Rove or Libby meeting with reporters & speaking off the record about things they're not supposed to.
Well, then. Lets see teh indictment.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k
|
|
|
|
|
