This is REAL treason Ann Coulter: Someone is going to Jail or worse! - Page 10

She will no longer be safe when traveling overseas. That's been demonstrated.

As for Rove, he has been pegged by people (reporters) other than Mr. Wilson or Mr. Novak.

I wouldn't take it as far as you have. Her intellect, and expertise will still be used for analysis here at home. It is obvious she had initiated this change before the leak.

So to fit your metaphor it would be more like working for the local hospital instead of being a medic for the military. You would still use your knowlege and expertise. However you just would choose to no longer travel and place yourself in harms way.

There are lots of men and women that make this decision because of life changes. The fact that she made her's shouldn't be attributed exclusively to the leak.

Nick

When traveling? I think it is that she would no longer be convincing when using her fronted business overseas. I have heard nor read any reports of there being danger involved. You are welcome to post some links to something I may not have read though. I will give it a read.

Nick

A charge made by Mr. Wilson based off the Washington Post piece. His information is from the papers which makes it as convincing as you or I going on a talk show and alleging it.


Also alleged by Mr. "Frogmarching" Wilson. He said he knows this information because it was told to him by a reporter. Is there any possibility the reporter would be playing him for a fool in hopes of getting an angry Wilson to spill some more information?


Wrong again. It is a felony if the person who named her had clearance to obtain such information and then named her. If the person who named her had no clearance but happened to guess or name her anyway just because she worked for the CIA, then it isn't a felony.


Those are possibilities if every allegation is true which it could be.

However consider the flip side for a moment. We are talking about unnamed sources and freedom of the press. Could it not put a damper on that as well? Bob Novak has been chastized for not naming his sources. However the Washington Post produced pieces naming two operatives without naming sources. By attacking the press, you could also put a damper on it and the information it passes on.


Novak appeared to give full disclosure of all information short of naming the actual officials. He said it was mentioned off hand and no one handed him the information nor was it leaked to him. He asked who's idea it was to send Wilson and they said his wife. He called the CIA to confirm and they never mentioned the wife was any sort of national security risk. They mentioned they didn't want the story run. (Might be portrayed as cronyism to send a husband with no intelligence training to look for Uranium purchases)

Bob Novak and David Broder went into depth on this during Meet the Press this morning. They basically said the press needs to have a compelling reason to withhold the information. (you know that whole free speech thing) A particular agency or person not wanting a story run isn't a reason to withhold information. National Security is a compelling reason (when not abused) but was not named to Novak.

Nick

Nick, the quote doesn't in any way imply what you're saying. It doesn't say 'it's not safe for the CIA to use her because she'd be recognized,' it says that it's no longer safe for her to travel outside the U.S. I can't believe this spin you're putting on the quote. It's not referring to how the CIA could use her effectively, it's referring to her safety and nothing else.

Now, there's no way to prove this guy's opinion is correct, but he's certainly more knowledgable than either you or I. Since this is the opinion we have to base our discussion on, assuming he's correct, how would that effect your opinion of the situation?

Your quote isn't from the CIA. Your quote is from a classmate who is formerly with the CIA. Once you leave an organization or even when you are in an organization as long as you claim your views are yours alone, your opinion is yours.

The CIA has not even provided protection for her. Don't you think they would do so if she were in danger?

One quote does not a department response make. Most stories find one disagreeable member of the opposite party to chastize whatever is occuring. Does that mean the whole party agrees to or is taking the actions of that one member?

The classmate was simply listed as a former member of the CIA. We don't know his expertise, experience or if he would even know the nature of her job.

So if I found one member or even one former member of the Democratic Party that thought Clinton should have been impeached, then by your spin the whole party agreed to that impeachment. That just isn't so in either of these cases.

It would be sort of like how Wilson used his CIA terms "inconclusive" report to declare Bush lied.

Nick

This argument is weak Nick. You're just spinning to avoid answering my question.

Here's what I said:
You're ignoring this on purpose. That's weak.

Your Clinton analogy isn't good. There were hundreds of competing opinions on the subject. In this case we have one.

So I'll ask again, even though I imagine you'll spin and avoid again. But since we don't have any other prevailing opinions on the subject, if we assume this guy's opinion is correct, how would this effect your opinion of the situation? If he's right, and she's no longer safe to travel outside of the United States, what penalty would be strong enough for those that are responsible for the apparent leak?

We only have hypotheticals to work with at this point in time so don't hide from the issue. I can't believe you completely side stepped the issue the first time.

The problem is, that's not how we do it here. If someone violated the law, they should be prosecuted according to the law. But if they didn't, should they still be penalized even if she's unable to travel oversees?

If no one broke the law, then no one broke the law. With all the evidence we have here to work with, it appears someone broke the law. I'm just trying to get someone to admit that the act was reckless and irresponsible and it should go punished. Admit it now, and if someone is ever found guilty we all know where we stand.

If it was Bill Clinton, I still say throw him in the slammer. Apparently some people around here are more worried about who might get caught rather than what the right thing to do to whomever is (potentially) caught.

My Clinton analogy is perfect. If there were more than this former classmates opinion supporting the contention, I'm sure the Times would have tossed it in as support. Even most newspaper articles toss in several quotes that support a position. Time found one. I don't know if they didn't seek opinion on the opposite perspective but if they didn't they didn't post an opposing quote. Hardly fair and balanced in my book.

If she is unable to travel outside the United States without safety concerns, I don't know what the punishment would be. How would you even prosecute that? In that line of work it is always an inevitability you would think and thus you must mentally be prepared for it. Even if her position weren't leaked as claimed by a White House Official, her cover could still have been blown at some time and that would mean no more travelling abroad.

So I guess you would need to determine to what degree the danger was unleashed early in a job in which that outcome was already a possibility and attempt to prosecute that. I don't know if that is the answer you wanted but it is sort of convoluted question. You are basically saying she is less safe and how do you prosecute someone being less safe?

Likewise if you were truly in deep cover cover, why would you send your husband with no expertise to research in the field in which you are both an expert and deeply undercover? It sounds like Plume is at least partially responsible for her own demise with her cronyism. If you are an expert on weapons of mass destruction and posing as an energy consultant, do you really send your husband who has no cover to Africa to ask about Uranium used for power being possibly used for weapons of mass destruction?

Now the Washington Post has some quotes from the shows I mentioned yesterday so I will move on to those...

Washington Post


So now Rove isn't the leaker, but a pusher. How do we know? Well a number of people... well one person I trust told me she is fair game.

The guy is all over the place.


Nice language there Post. He didn't question the intelligence he wrote a column condemning the Bush position. Likewise I like how he can no longer claim the leak is within the White House but yet still claim it is the administration after him. This guy and his claims get weaker by the day.


Sounds pretty tame compared to the accusations made around here.

Nick

How is this the central issue?

Really, someone should get fired at the very least if the Bush admin had any integrity whatsoever, so all of this BS where the only options are felony charges or nothing is just a way for trumptman and blatantly lying OBJRA10 the [pretend] law professor to create an argument just to argue.

I've been watching Wilson in various interviews and he's very consistent... he's not "all over the place"...

also... it's irrelevant...

Plame... an Operative in the operations section of the CIA was outed. That's why there's an investigation.

OUr friend Josh has put it perfectly:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#100603141am

I agree with this statement completely. It appears that someone did. Whoever that someone is, should be prosecuted if in fact it turns out that a law was broken.

You have your own disinformation campaign. The allegations of two operatives and six reporters is from the same type of "anonymous sources" and a newspaper story. There has been no names named nor anything else corroborating that information.

For all you know that is nonsense and hearsay. No other reporters besides Novak have stepped forward and claimed to have been told the name of Wilson's wife. No reporter has stepped forward and said, yes I was called with a leak.

Nick

I saw an anchor on CNN yesterday reporting on the story. He mentioned that 6 reporters were told about Plame, including one that works for CNN.

Go back and read the Washington Post's article that came out last weekend.

Wlison has said that after her name was put out there by Novak... a reporter called him and said I just talked to Karl Rove and he said she was ''fair game". And Wilson said he would tell any investigator that asked who that reporter was. Sure doesn't sound like KARL was opposed to her name being leaked... he was trying to pump the story. Very patriotic don't you think? Better to hurt a dissenter than to protect a CIA operative. Why wasn't KARL pissed that the name was leaked? Someone was pissed... and it wasn't Karl... it was the person who gave info to the Post.

If true then just tell him to come forward. Wouldn't it be beneficial to just name the leaker?

In news that would be a major league win the rating for the week, justifiable scoop. I can't imagine they would sit on such info.

Nick

Don't you both get the point. Wilson said....

Wilson said is not independent confirmation. Wilson declared Karl the leaker but now has backed down to saying the leaker wasn't Rove at all. Likewise Wilson's claim isn't even based off first hand information. It is based off what he claims a reporter said to him about what that reporter claims Rove said to him.

Convoluted enough for ya?

In otherwords hearsay...

Nick

As much hearsay as what Novak is saying...

Wilson says he believes that Rove must have known about the leak... and yes he did back off saying Rove was responsible... everyone knows Rove is in control of what info comes in and out of the white house... so it wasn't exactly a stretch for Wilson to think Rove had something to do with the leak... and after the leak... he did get a call from a reporter saying "ROVE SAYS YOUR WIFE IS FAIR GAME"... so while he may believe the Rove had alot to do with the leak and the spin after... he was right to back off of saying it was actually Rove that leaked the info to Novak.

So quit pretending that Wilson is somehow making sh!t up... or is a loose canon.

If true?! Man, you have a serious case of denial.

Don't you get the point? Every other person it could be is more senior than Rove. What part of cabinet deputy or higher don't you understand?

So it looks like Rove and/or Libby. Go down the list of possible leakers and point out which ones you think it is and why.

Denial? Right if CNN had known who Deep Throat was during the Nixon era they would have sat on the story.

That is the nature of what you are claiming. The information CLAIMED could blow a legal leak wide open and be a ratings bonanza that would make Fox News look like your local news affiliate in terms of ratings.

And they would sit on it...

Pure bull...

Nick

But Novak IS sitting on it... and he works for CNN.

Are you claiming that Novak is the only one that knows who the leak came from?

ooohhh. I see where you are coming from.



Does anyone else out there want to explain to him why this would be a rediculously stupid idea?

Speaking of Deep Throat....does anyone know why Novak talks like that?

Doesn't Novak always sound a little bit liquored up? He can be kinda slurry.

Reuters

Now the president is saying that the leaker may never be found. \

Though apparently he still wants to " come to the bottom of this" !?
Plus his spokesman has already cleared Rove et al, so that's OK.