Liddy, Armitage Implicated In Plame Treason Scandal. Crack Monkey Cons Claim Victory?
Ed Farley
Treason scandal. So how does the right react? By claiming that Bush,
Rove et al have somehow been exonerated.
Let's get this straight, two Bush administration functionaries have
been implicated in the Plame outing, yet the lunatics on the right say
that this means that the Bush administration had nothing to do with it?
They must pump the Kool Aid down the throats of these idiots with a
firehose.
BCattivabrutto
Ed Farley wrote:
> 2 Bush administration figures have now been implicated in the Plame/CIA
> Treason scandal. So how does the right react? By claiming that Bush,
> Rove et al have somehow been exonerated.
>
> Let's get this straight, two Bush administration functionaries have
> been implicated in the Plame outing, yet the lunatics on the right say
> that this means that the Bush administration had nothing to do with it?
>
Time magazine White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, in his
first-person account of his testimony before the grand jury in the CIA
leak investigation, identified Rove as his original source for Plame's
identity and Libby as his confirming source. Former New York Times
reporter Judith Miller identified Libby as her primary source for
Plame's identity. Armitage's source for the info was Libby.
Canes in 10 weeks @atlantic.earth 2006 Hurricane Season A Bust
"Ed Farley" <eldorad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1157210737.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>2 Bush administration figures have now been implicated in the Plame/CIA
> Treason scandal.
Sorry. There is no one by the name of Liddy in the Bush administartion.
Damn, no wonder you monkeys are too stupid to figure out how to poke holes
in paper ballots properly.You cant get your shit straight on anything.
Canes in 10 weeks @atlantic.earth 2006 Hurricane Season A Bust
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out
to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie
Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and
debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband,
former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all
those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the
not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column
in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was
former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the
invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White
House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson
accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy
him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr.
Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an
offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the
Post's R. Jeffrey
Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush
White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin
her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that
followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003
led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged
investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff,
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been
avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are
blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson
charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for
war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in
recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he
investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby
then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a
grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those
reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr.
Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about
handling information that was classified.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of
Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an
explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had
debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had
circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected
that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a
retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the
answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and
his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had
engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took
him seriously.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
gpa...@bayou.com
Ed Farley wrote:
> 2 Bush administration figures have now been implicated in the Plame/CIA
> Treason scandal. So how does the right react? By claiming that Bush,
> Rove et al have somehow been exonerated.
I hope you will believe this!
Well, you see, this is how it is. People who work in the White House
and others high up in the administration, are told to "do your thing,
even if the president does not like it". So they are not concerned
with doing what the president wants or whether the president approves
of what they do or not. They think that if the president disagrees
with them, he can fire them and they can get a better job some where
else.
That is what happened during the Nixon administration, Nixon did not
know of the break ins nor the cover-ups. It was just those who worked
for him who were guilty.
On the other hand, you may not be a complete fool, and know I the stuff
I have written above is a lot of horse hockey.
monkeyhawk
The "leftist, left-wing, liberal, commie, pinko, traitorous, liberal,
leftist" Washington Post?!
Guess that puts the lie of the "leftist, left-wing, liberal, commie, pinko,
traitorous, liberal, leftist" media conspiracy trope, huh?
How low can they go? I refer of course to the latest vitriol directed at
Valerie and Joe Wilson by the likes of Christopher Hitchens and Fred Hiatt
of the Washington Post, who claim that Joe Wilson, not Bush administration
officials, is responsible for destroying his wife's cover and exposing her
as a CIA operative. Hitchens's battle with the bottle may account for his
addled thinking, but what is Hiatt's excuse? Both men perform like Cirque du
Soleil contortionists in dreaming up excuses for the nutty and destructive
policies and actions of the Bush administration. In watching their behavior,
we see a parallel with the devotees of Jim Jones, who gathered in Guyana
almost 30 years ago to drink poisoned kool aid.
Let's focus on the Post's Fred Hiatt. In yesterday's Post editorial
page, Hiatt writes:
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end
of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with
an explosive charge, claiming - falsely, as it turned out - that he had
debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had
circulated to senior administration officials.
The claim that Joe Wilson's op-ed from July of 2003 was a pack of lies
and misrepresented the truth is an old right-wing, White House canard. Here
is what Joe Wilson said in the July 2003 op-ed:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four
documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The
documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey,
a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my
trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice
president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any
of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this
is standard operating procedure.
The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political
leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I
would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was
ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a
legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.
False claim? False claim my ass! There were at least four reports. We
now know that the National Intelligence officer for Africa in January 2003
briefed the White House that the Iraq/Niger claim was bunk. Even a partisan
Senate Intelligence Committee report cites repeated efforts by the
intelligence community to warn the president's advisors that reports
claiming Iraq was trying to buy uranium, including British reports, were not
credible.
What is so bizarre is that the White House did admit that it was wrong
to put the infamous 16 words into the State of the Union Address (of course,
they blamed the CIA), just days after Wilson's op-ed appeared. If, as Hiatt
claims, Wilson's op-ed was false, then why did the White House correct the
record by confirming the substance of his claim?
Hiatt also portrays an astonishing ignorance of national security
affairs. He offers up this goofiness referring to Joe Wilson's "culpability"
for exposing his wife's job:
He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such
as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such
a mission and that the answer would point to his wife.
Yes, why would the CIA send the former Director of Africa at the
National Security Council, a former Ambassador to Gabon, and the last US
official to face down Saddam Hussein to Africa? Because Joe Wilson was
uniquely qualified to do the job. Moreover, this is (or at least was) a
common activity by the CIA. My former boss at State Department, Ambassador
Morris D. Busby, made at least two trips I know of at the behest of the CIA
after leaving government because of his experience in dealing with
terrorism, narcotics, and Latin America. There are times when the CIA wants
information and does not want to expose its own assets.
There was nothing on the public record or in any public document
identifying Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative. That information was
classified. Sending Joe on a mission to Africa does not point the finger at
her. Moreover, she did not make the decision to send him. That is another of
Hiatt's lies and is routinely echoed by right-wing hacks. As Walter Pincus
reported in the Washington Post in July 2005:
They [the White House] said that his 2002 trip to Niger was a boondoggle
arranged by his wife, but CIA officials say that is incorrect. One reason
for the confusion about Plame's role is that she had arranged a trip for him
to Niger three years earlier on an unrelated matter, CIA officials told the
Washington Post. (Washington Post, 27 July 2005)
Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he
testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with
Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned
Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing
classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission
and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.
(Washington Post, 27 July 2005)
We are forced to revisit this nonsense because we have now learned that
in addition to Libby and Rove, Richard Armitage also was shooting off his
mouth about classified information. Regardless of Armitage's role as an
initial source for Novak, we are still left with the fact that Dick Cheney,
Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby abused their power and were actively engaged in
a coordinated effort to discredit Joe Wilson for his behind-the-scene
efforts to alert the public to the falsehoods in the president's State of
the Union address.
While Richard Armitage may have had no malicious intent, the same cannot
be said for Cheney, Libby and Rove. They knew exactly what they were doing.
According to the Washington Post, during the week of July 6, 2003, "two top
White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to at least six Washington
journalists." Sometime after Novak's column appeared, Rove called Chris
Matthews, host of MSNBC's "Hardball" and told him that Mr. Wilson's wife was
"fair game."
And we have the document released by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald
in United States v. Libby that provides a copy of notes Cheney had written
in the margins of Mr. Wilson's July 6 op-ed. In a court filing, Fitzgerald
stated that the notes demonstrated that Cheney and Libby were "acutely
focused" on the Wilson column and on rebutting his criticisms of the White
House's handling of the Niger intelligence. Those notes became the basis for
Republican National Committee talking points circulated and repeated by Ken
Mehlman and others.
Why is this relevant? Today the Bush administration is once again trying
to manufacture a case for war. They are calling critics of its policies on
Iran and Iraq "appeasers" and decrying the lack of intelligence on Iran. It
is déja vu all over again, to quote Yogi Berra. They whine about a lack of
intelligence on Iran but refuse to accept responsibility for their own role
in destroying Valerie Plame's undercover work, which was focused on
monitoring the flow of nuclear technology to Iran. They may not have fully
understood what Val was doing because of her cover status. But that's the
point. They don't think these things through. Their only goal is political
survival.
Perhaps the new attention on the Plame affair will fuel public support
for accountability in government. The gang of political thugs currently in
the White House refuse to be held accountable for anything. With the help of
enablers like Fred Hiatt and Christopher Hitchens and others in the
mainstream media, it is no wonder that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld skate from
disaster to disaster, oblivious to the field of debris left in their wake.
We must also remember that the government-sanctioned attack on the
Wilsons is not an isolated event. Just ask former Treasury Secretary Paul
O'Neill or National Security Advisor Richard Clarke. Add to this list the
names of the two CIA Baghdad chiefs of station who were savaged for their
prescient early warnings that Iraq was moving into a civil war. The
Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his
minions prefer destroying those who call them to account for failed policies
rather than admitting error and taking corrective measures that will serve
the longterm interests of the United States. As we move toward a new war
with Iran, we should not be surprised that people who know the truth are
reluctant to come forward. If you choose to blow the whistle, you are
choosing career suicide and a full frontal assault on your character. In
smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also are sliming America.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090206Y.shtml
Larry C. Johnson is CEO and co-founder of BERG Associates, LLC, an
international business-consulting firm that helps corporations and
governments manage threats posed by terrorism and money laundering. Mr.
Johnson, who worked previously with the Central Intelligence Agency and US
State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism (as a Deputy Director), is a
recognized expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, crisis and
risk management. Mr. Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for a variety
of media including the Jim Lehrer News Hour, National Public Radio, ABC's
Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News and the BBC.
Mr. Johnson has authored several articles for publications including
Security Management Magazine, the New York Times and The Los Angeles Times.
He has lectured on terrorism and aviation security around the world.
Amanda Williams
news:1157210737.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Hilarious isn't it?
But come on now... let's be fair, there is an election coming and they have
to shreok about something, I mean they can't shreik about little georgie or
the GOP's "accomplishments" because ... well... there aren't any..
They have to fill all the drooling rightard web sites with something.. and
FUX might be reduced to reporting REAL news, if you can imagine such a
thing...
It's kinda "scraping the bottom of the barrel" but then these ARE rightards
we are talking about. so the "bottom of the barrel" is pretty much SOP...
--
AW
<small but dangerous>
Amanda Williams
news:44f9af34$0$15203$a82e...@reader.athenanews.com:
> End of an Affair
> It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was
> not out to punish her husband.
>
> Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
>
[... made up drool zapped ...]
>
> Š 2006 The Washington Post Company
The "Washington Post Company" ????
WTF is that... some rightard blog ???
rotfl...
Yet MORE repug desperation...
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<no Canes in 10 weeks @ atlantic.earth> wrote:
>End of an Affair
>It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out
>to punish her husband.
>
>Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
>
>WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie
>Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and
>debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband,
>former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all
>those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the
>not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column
>in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was
>former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
and the secondary source was Rove. And the story was told by the WH to
at least six reporters, who had the decency not to publish it, before
Rove hit paydirt with Novak.
Armitage may not have had bad motives. He may not have known Plame's
sensitive job running our spy ring on Iran's nukes, which the leak
shut down. But the WH doubtless knew. And spiked her anyway.
George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr.
<BCattiv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
So what? Plame was running spies on whether Iran was getting nukes.
And the leak shut that down.
But that did not harm us. We will attack Iran whether they have nukes,
want nukes, or not. Her information network was pointless. So the WH
had every right to blind us, since we're flying blind into Iran
anyway.
BC
Fred Hiatt has his facts as twisted up as a right wing
blogger, and the Washington Post has always had
this odd attitude about Joe Wilson, as if Wilson had
one time pissed the owner bigtime.
In terms of factual content, Hiatt's editorial is idiotic.
While I hate bloggers being seen as any sort new
media replacement for the old, since it's often news
presented by highly confused mobs, the corporate
media has been increasingly sloppy and eratic.
In this case, unlike Hiatt, a blogger got his butt in
gear to dig up background info, like Wilson's actual
words and such, to show that Hiatt essentially just
went, "Blah, blah blah" without a single fact check:
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/smearing_the_wi.html
-BC
kirtland
<tyre...@mooresciencehigh.edu> wrote:
>On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 12:20:39 -0400, "2006 Hurricane Season A Bust"
><no Canes in 10 weeks @ atlantic.earth> wrote:
>
>>End of an Affair
>>It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out
>>to punish her husband.
>>
>>Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
>>
>>WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie
>>Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and
>>debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband,
>>former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all
>>those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the
>>not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column
>>in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was
>>former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
>
>and the secondary source was Rove. And the story was told by the WH to
>at least six reporters, who had the decency not to publish it, before
>Rove hit paydirt with Novak.
>
>Armitage may not have had bad motives. He may not have known Plame's
>sensitive job running our spy ring on Iran's nukes, which the leak
>shut down. But the WH doubtless knew. And spiked her anyway.
Bingo!
Plame probably had lots of information on the invalidity of all the
phony "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" lies. The WH had
to terminate her.