I've heard you make this claim several times now Shawn and I haven't read it anywhere else so please back it up.
I have not read anywhere that this one lost her job, lost her salary or lost her life for the more hysterical here.
The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name.
Nick
You speak in the empty language of debate.
claims,
facts,
support,
refutation,
back-up.
What is my claim? You must show what my claim is-- not rattle off the technical terms for things you don't show.
It's clear that exposed CIA operatives will never work in the field again.
It's clear that exposing CIA operatives jeopardizes many things- including every project that operative worked on- every contact that operative worked with.
Jeopardizes is the key word. Not condemn- which is more certain- but jeopardize- which is more open to debate. You must certainly admit that revealing Valerie Plame as a CIA Operative jeopardizes the things I listed.
Remember, all breaches of "National Security" don't condemn the safety of Americans, but they certainly jeopardize their safety.
Oct. 1? The former ambassador who accused the White House of leaking the identity of his CIA officer wife to the press says Washington reporters told him that senior White House adviser Karl Rove said his wife was "fair game."
And i do not have a link (anyone) but this:
Hardball (MSNBC - 9/30/03):
CHRIS MATTHEWS:_ Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?
RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE:_ I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:_ It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?
GILLESPIE:_ It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it._ It's not just politics.
RNC leader to American: It would be worse then watergate. Its not just about politics.
Well because attempting to ruin ones name is not the same as causing them to be fired, lose income, die.... I can see the difference even if you can't.
Even then I only even read the claim of the name being ruined by Wilson himself. I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman. If I am to be outraged about a crime, I have to know who it hurt and how. I don't get outraged at jaywalking, prostitution or other such crimes because no one was hurt. If the hurt was, well everyone is slinging mud and I got dirty, well no outrage from me.
I have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed. There is tons of conjecture but no hard evidence of anything.
Nick
BTW, I think I have read that you claim to be a Republican, can you tell me on what issues you are conservative? I'm not suggesting lockstep thought or any such nonsense. I just haven't seen anything in your thinking or posting on any issue that would make me associate you with that label.
Well because attempting to ruin ones name is not the same as causing them to be fired, lose income, die.... I can see the difference even if you can't.
Even then I only even read the claim of the name being ruined by Wilson himself. I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman. If I am to be outraged about a crime, I have to know who it hurt and how. I don't get outraged at jaywalking, prostitution or other such crimes because no one was hurt. If the hurt was, well everyone is slinging mud and I got dirty, well no outrage from me.
I have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed. There is tons of conjecture but no hard evidence of anything.
Nick
BTW, I think I have read that you claim to be a Republican, can you tell me on what issues you are conservative? I'm not suggesting lockstep thought or any such nonsense. I just haven't seen anything in your thinking or posting on any issue that would make me associate you with that label.
Well that's fine and dandy that "you have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed." Because none of us here feel like repeating things just for you. We could even list things for you and you would suggest that you haven't "seen anything."
"Oh what? That's nothing! Nope! What did you say? Didn't see it."
[Joseph] Wilson's purported influence has been inflated to the point where otherwise sensible people (and some not-so) are alleging that the inner circles of the White House had to resort to felonious leaking to discredit him.
Calpundit
That's exactly right. And isn't the fact that this whole sordid episode was launched "purely and simply for revenge" against a minor political nuisance pretty revealing about the fundamental ruthlessness of the Bush White House political operation?
James S. Robbins
The flap about the putative outing of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee is not the important story in this affair as far as I am concerned. The only reason this incident has any legs is the eagerness of the press to set themselves on scandal autopilot. "It seems like the good old days, doesn't it?" CNN's Aaron Brown said, hoping perhaps to bring back the good old ratings.
Calpundit
Look! It's the media's fault!
Although oddly enough, as we'll see, Robbins doesn't seem to actually follow the media very closely.
James S. Robbins
But the props have been knocked out from under this manufactured conspiracy. Robert Novak clarified that the information about Ms. Plame was not exactly leaked but arose in the natural course of his interview process.
Calpundit
The best way to leak is to make it look natural, isn't it?
James S. Robbins
In any case, this is old news. Novak admits that a top White House official did volunteer the information about Plame, whether "naturally" or not, and the Washington Post and others have already reported that several other journalists were also contacted. I guess Robbins doesn't read the Post.
It also appears that she was not an "operative" (a term that Novak innocently misused, implying she was a clandestine service officer), but an analyst, which there is no crime in revealing. So we are left with a leak that wasn't a leak, about a secret agent who was evidently neither secret nor an agent.
Calpundit
Not true: see here and here. Apparently Robbins doesn't read MSNBC or CNN or watch PBS either.
James S. Robbins
As for the explosive charge that Karl Rove was the mischievous mastermind behind the whole affair, the Honorable Mr. Wilson simply flat out lied about that one.
Calpundit
Wilson definitely went too far, but he had reason. As he's mentioned before, and repeated to Ted Koppel last night, a reporter told him back in July, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He tells me your wife is fair game." And the Guardian's Julian Borger says several reporters have already privately named Rove. We can add Nightline and the Guardian to the growing list of media representatives Robbins seems unaware of.
Well because attempting to ruin ones name is not the same as causing them to be fired, lose income, die.... I can see the difference even if you can't.
You didn't call it an attempt earlier. You said :"The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name." You agreed the damage had been made at LEAST to her name. Nice backtracking there.
Quote:
Even then I only even read the claim of the name being ruined by Wilson himself. I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman. If I am to be outraged about a crime, I have to know who it hurt and how. I don't get outraged at jaywalking, prostitution or other such crimes because no one was hurt. If the hurt was, well everyone is slinging mud and I got dirty, well no outrage from me.
Since you seem to claim, no harm no foul, the onus is on YOU to prove there hasn't been any harm, at any level from revealing the identity of a covert operative..which Mrs. Wilson appears to be. Otherwise why would the CIA ask for an investigation? Can't you see how -potentially- damaging this could be?
Quote:
I have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed. There is tons of conjecture but no hard evidence of anything.
You aren't providing hard evidence to the contrary either. By the way, I'm a registered Republican too. 8)
Are you purposefully being dense? We're talking about a hypothetical situation where he's guilty of the accusation. If you're going to be dense, don't bother to subtract anything from the conversation.
BTW, I think I have read that you claim to be a Republican, can you tell me on what issues you are conservative? I'm not suggesting lockstep thought or any such nonsense. I just haven't seen anything in your thinking or posting on any issue that would make me associate you with that label.
I grew up in a Republican household and originally registered as a Republican (the Reagan years). When I started disagreeiing with certain policies, I started using the excuse that perhaps I was more of a "moderate" Republican. That morphed into, "well I'm a fiscal Republican and a social Democrat."
Right around that time, about five years ago, I believe it was both Limbaugh and Hannity that started making statements that they really couldn't stand moderates in the Republican party because they couldn't be trusted to vote party-line (they drove this point home on numerous occassions). That coupled with a party hell-bent on overturning Clinton's presidency, which I felt was unconstitutional regardless if I believed Clinton had f*cked up (which he did), really turned me away fully. Plus, it took a dozen years or so away from the homestead to truly discover who I was, what I stood for and what I "honestly" supported.
No longer fearing my father's wagging finger, I am glad to report that I'm fully recovered and a registered Democrat. So, don't worry. You can easily label me a "liberal" and write me off now.
Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that Bush administration officials illegally leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to journalists, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll is based on telephone interviews with 505 randomly selected adults nationwide and was conducted Tuesday evening, Sept. 30.
I am amazed that the number got that high so soon* This is serious news for the folks in the white house.
*and by soon i mean since the story re-broke last week instead of 10 weeks ago when it should have...
Update:
From Calpundit
THE NOOSE TIGHTENS?....Via email:
Larry Johnson told Buchanan and Press that the person who leaked to Novak has an office in the EOB and that he is associated with the Vice President?s office. He also said that when the name is released, people will recognize the name and that the individual is linked with past scandals.
Did anyone see this? Did it sound credible?
I can't find transcripts on msnbc to save my life. Its probably too soon.
He worked his way into better postings around Africa. In 1988 he was posted to Baghdad, and was running the embassy after Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
He recalled saying at the time, "The good news is we've been training for this all of our careers. The bad news is: Oh, [expletive], we're in charge -- what do we do now?"
Wilson may laugh now, but in the eyes of hostages, he was a hero. "He stuck his neck out in our behalf . . . He worked so hard to keep us from falling apart," recalled Roland O. Bergheer, 75, a Bechtel Corp. manager who was trapped in Baghdad.
A conservative who lives in Las Vegas, Bergheer added: "I love Joe Wilson. . . . I don't give a damn what his politics are."
Even though the White House has said Rove wasn't involved, Wilson made clear yesterday that he has no intention of backing off from his assertion that Rove at least condoned someone's making telephone calls to reporters about his wife. He said he took a call from a reporter who quoted Rove as saying: "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game."
Wilson said he and his wife have attended the same Episcopal church as Rove. Wilson quoted Valerie as saying, "Perhaps the next time we are taking communion I should introduce myself so he can see that I have a face and a name other than 'fair game.' "
It looks like the VP's office is involved, possibly. if you believe this jonhnson guy.
A poster:
Quote:
I watched (and TIVO'd it the whole interview when I saw what was happening). Johnson said he had a friend "who would know" and that it was multiple people at the Old Executive Office Building. When asked for the name he said he wasn't comfortable saying it. When asked by Buchannan if it was Libby he said no comment. When Press noted Rove worked in the West Wing not the OEOB Johnson confirmed that it wasn't him. After the commercial break Buchannan gave a theory that Libby was upset Wilson claimed Cheney sent him to Niger and so told Novak that in fact it was his wife who sent him. Johnson said it was a good theory. Before he left Johnson said he had not spoken with the FBI, but Press told him he would be soon.
Elliot Abrahms?
Scooter Libby?
3 leakers?
Or are they taking the bullet for people in the WH?
Wilson's OP-ED in the New York Times blew the whistle on Bush's "yellowcake uranium" claim. Wilson went to Niger before the State of the Union address, found out that no sale occurred...
The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.
Quote:
... reported back to the CIA and Bush STILL USED THE CLAIM in his State of the Union Address (this time attributing it to British intelligence- our intelligence obviously contradicting his claims).
No, our intel COULDN'T SUPPORT the claim. It didn't contradict it.
For all the so-called outrage I keep hearing about, it seems to me people are less interested in finding the leaker than they are in making sure this one gets pinned on Rove.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
I've heard you make this claim several times now Shawn and I haven't read it anywhere else so please back it up.
I have not read anywhere that this one lost her job, lost her salary or lost her life for the more hysterical here.
The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name.
Nick
You speak in the empty language of debate.
claims,
facts,
support,
refutation,
back-up.
What is my claim? You must show what my claim is-- not rattle off the technical terms for things you don't show.
It's clear that exposed CIA operatives will never work in the field again.
It's clear that exposing CIA operatives jeopardizes many things- including every project that operative worked on- every contact that operative worked with.
Jeopardizes is the key word. Not condemn- which is more certain- but jeopardize- which is more open to debate. You must certainly admit that revealing Valerie Plame as a CIA Operative jeopardizes the things I listed.
Remember, all breaches of "National Security" don't condemn the safety of Americans, but they certainly jeopardize their safety.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/night...eak031001.html
Oct. 1? The former ambassador who accused the White House of leaking the identity of his CIA officer wife to the press says Washington reporters told him that senior White House adviser Karl Rove said his wife was "fair game."
And i do not have a link (anyone) but this:
Hardball (MSNBC - 9/30/03):
CHRIS MATTHEWS:_ Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?
RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE:_ I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.
CHRIS MATTHEWS:_ It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?
GILLESPIE:_ It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it._ It's not just politics.
RNC leader to American: It would be worse then watergate. Its not just about politics.
Originally posted by trumptman
I've heard you make this claim several times now Shawn and I haven't read it anywhere else so please back it up.
I have not read anywhere that this one lost her job, lost her salary or lost her life for the more hysterical here.
The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name.
Nick
And that is somehow acceptable? How so?
But what they fail to answer is, If he' was a macgovernite would that have made it somehow OK?
What they did was felonious.
Originally posted by Northgate
And that is somehow acceptable? How so?
Well because attempting to ruin ones name is not the same as causing them to be fired, lose income, die.... I can see the difference even if you can't.
Even then I only even read the claim of the name being ruined by Wilson himself. I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman. If I am to be outraged about a crime, I have to know who it hurt and how. I don't get outraged at jaywalking, prostitution or other such crimes because no one was hurt. If the hurt was, well everyone is slinging mud and I got dirty, well no outrage from me.
I have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed. There is tons of conjecture but no hard evidence of anything.
Nick
BTW, I think I have read that you claim to be a Republican, can you tell me on what issues you are conservative? I'm not suggesting lockstep thought or any such nonsense. I just haven't seen anything in your thinking or posting on any issue that would make me associate you with that label.
Originally posted by trumptman
Well because attempting to ruin ones name is not the same as causing them to be fired, lose income, die.... I can see the difference even if you can't.
Even then I only even read the claim of the name being ruined by Wilson himself. I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman. If I am to be outraged about a crime, I have to know who it hurt and how. I don't get outraged at jaywalking, prostitution or other such crimes because no one was hurt. If the hurt was, well everyone is slinging mud and I got dirty, well no outrage from me.
I have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed. There is tons of conjecture but no hard evidence of anything.
Nick
BTW, I think I have read that you claim to be a Republican, can you tell me on what issues you are conservative? I'm not suggesting lockstep thought or any such nonsense. I just haven't seen anything in your thinking or posting on any issue that would make me associate you with that label.
Well that's fine and dandy that "you have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed." Because none of us here feel like repeating things just for you. We could even list things for you and you would suggest that you haven't "seen anything."
"Oh what? That's nothing! Nope! What did you say? Didn't see it."
James S. Robbins
[Joseph] Wilson's purported influence has been inflated to the point where otherwise sensible people (and some not-so) are alleging that the inner circles of the White House had to resort to felonious leaking to discredit him.
Calpundit
That's exactly right. And isn't the fact that this whole sordid episode was launched "purely and simply for revenge" against a minor political nuisance pretty revealing about the fundamental ruthlessness of the Bush White House political operation?
James S. Robbins
The flap about the putative outing of Wilson's wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee is not the important story in this affair as far as I am concerned. The only reason this incident has any legs is the eagerness of the press to set themselves on scandal autopilot. "It seems like the good old days, doesn't it?" CNN's Aaron Brown said, hoping perhaps to bring back the good old ratings.
Calpundit
Look! It's the media's fault!
Although oddly enough, as we'll see, Robbins doesn't seem to actually follow the media very closely.
James S. Robbins
But the props have been knocked out from under this manufactured conspiracy. Robert Novak clarified that the information about Ms. Plame was not exactly leaked but arose in the natural course of his interview process.
Calpundit
The best way to leak is to make it look natural, isn't it?
James S. Robbins
In any case, this is old news. Novak admits that a top White House official did volunteer the information about Plame, whether "naturally" or not, and the Washington Post and others have already reported that several other journalists were also contacted. I guess Robbins doesn't read the Post.
It also appears that she was not an "operative" (a term that Novak innocently misused, implying she was a clandestine service officer), but an analyst, which there is no crime in revealing. So we are left with a leak that wasn't a leak, about a secret agent who was evidently neither secret nor an agent.
Calpundit
Not true: see here and here. Apparently Robbins doesn't read MSNBC or CNN or watch PBS either.
James S. Robbins
As for the explosive charge that Karl Rove was the mischievous mastermind behind the whole affair, the Honorable Mr. Wilson simply flat out lied about that one.
Calpundit
Wilson definitely went too far, but he had reason. As he's mentioned before, and repeated to Ted Koppel last night, a reporter told him back in July, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He tells me your wife is fair game." And the Guardian's Julian Borger says several reporters have already privately named Rove. We can add Nightline and the Guardian to the growing list of media representatives Robbins seems unaware of.
Calpundit is right! its the media's fault
Sorry Katie...
Everybody go read today's partial transcript!
Great question:
When did the President know it, and what did he do about it?
Originally posted by trumptman
Well because attempting to ruin ones name is not the same as causing them to be fired, lose income, die.... I can see the difference even if you can't.
You didn't call it an attempt earlier. You said :"The only thing damaged from what I have read is her name." You agreed the damage had been made at LEAST to her name. Nice backtracking there.
Even then I only even read the claim of the name being ruined by Wilson himself. I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman. If I am to be outraged about a crime, I have to know who it hurt and how. I don't get outraged at jaywalking, prostitution or other such crimes because no one was hurt. If the hurt was, well everyone is slinging mud and I got dirty, well no outrage from me.
Since you seem to claim, no harm no foul, the onus is on YOU to prove there hasn't been any harm, at any level from revealing the identity of a covert operative..which Mrs. Wilson appears to be. Otherwise why would the CIA ask for an investigation? Can't you see how -potentially- damaging this could be?
I have yet to see from anyone how this woman has been harmed. There is tons of conjecture but no hard evidence of anything.
You aren't providing hard evidence to the contrary either. By the way, I'm a registered Republican too. 8)
Originally posted by OBJRA10
hmmm... has he been convicted of something?
Are you purposefully being dense? We're talking about a hypothetical situation where he's guilty of the accusation. If you're going to be dense, don't bother to subtract anything from the conversation.
Originally posted by trumptman
I haven't seen any sources for the harm caused to this woman.
Are you really not aware of the reason that this information is not being released?
Originally posted by trumptman
BTW, I think I have read that you claim to be a Republican, can you tell me on what issues you are conservative? I'm not suggesting lockstep thought or any such nonsense. I just haven't seen anything in your thinking or posting on any issue that would make me associate you with that label.
I grew up in a Republican household and originally registered as a Republican (the Reagan years). When I started disagreeiing with certain policies, I started using the excuse that perhaps I was more of a "moderate" Republican. That morphed into, "well I'm a fiscal Republican and a social Democrat."
Right around that time, about five years ago, I believe it was both Limbaugh and Hannity that started making statements that they really couldn't stand moderates in the Republican party because they couldn't be trusted to vote party-line (they drove this point home on numerous occassions). That coupled with a party hell-bent on overturning Clinton's presidency, which I felt was unconstitutional regardless if I believed Clinton had f*cked up (which he did), really turned me away fully. Plus, it took a dozen years or so away from the homestead to truly discover who I was, what I stood for and what I "honestly" supported.
No longer fearing my father's wagging finger, I am glad to report that I'm fully recovered and a registered Democrat. So, don't worry. You can easily label me a "liberal" and write me off now.
Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that Bush administration officials illegally leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to journalists, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Oct1.html
The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll is based on telephone interviews with 505 randomly selected adults nationwide and was conducted Tuesday evening, Sept. 30.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...ata100103.html
How long will the buffaloes rove?
I am amazed that the number got that high so soon* This is serious news for the folks in the white house.
*and by soon i mean since the story re-broke last week instead of 10 weeks ago when it should have...
Update:
From Calpundit
THE NOOSE TIGHTENS?....Via email:
Larry Johnson told Buchanan and Press that the person who leaked to Novak has an office in the EOB and that he is associated with the Vice President?s office. He also said that when the name is released, people will recognize the name and that the individual is linked with past scandals.
Did anyone see this? Did it sound credible?
I can't find transcripts on msnbc to save my life. Its probably too soon.
Karl/Cheney->VP chief of staff->leak ?
Mr. Frogs wild ride?
Bush said he welcomes the probe, calling leaks of classified information "bad things."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
He worked his way into better postings around Africa. In 1988 he was posted to Baghdad, and was running the embassy after Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
He recalled saying at the time, "The good news is we've been training for this all of our careers. The bad news is: Oh, [expletive], we're in charge -- what do we do now?"
Wilson may laugh now, but in the eyes of hostages, he was a hero. "He stuck his neck out in our behalf . . . He worked so hard to keep us from falling apart," recalled Roland O. Bergheer, 75, a Bechtel Corp. manager who was trapped in Baghdad.
A conservative who lives in Las Vegas, Bergheer added: "I love Joe Wilson. . . . I don't give a damn what his politics are."
Even though the White House has said Rove wasn't involved, Wilson made clear yesterday that he has no intention of backing off from his assertion that Rove at least condoned someone's making telephone calls to reporters about his wife. He said he took a call from a reporter who quoted Rove as saying: "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game."
Wilson said he and his wife have attended the same Episcopal church as Rove. Wilson quoted Valerie as saying, "Perhaps the next time we are taking communion I should introduce myself so he can see that I have a face and a name other than 'fair game.' "
http://www.calpundit.com/mt/mt-comme...?entry_id=2312
It looks like the VP's office is involved, possibly. if you believe this jonhnson guy.
A poster:
I watched (and TIVO'd it the whole interview when I saw what was happening). Johnson said he had a friend "who would know" and that it was multiple people at the Old Executive Office Building. When asked for the name he said he wasn't comfortable saying it. When asked by Buchannan if it was Libby he said no comment. When Press noted Rove worked in the West Wing not the OEOB Johnson confirmed that it wasn't him. After the commercial break Buchannan gave a theory that Libby was upset Wilson claimed Cheney sent him to Niger and so told Novak that in fact it was his wife who sent him. Johnson said it was a good theory. Before he left Johnson said he had not spoken with the FBI, but Press told him he would be soon.
Elliot Abrahms?
Scooter Libby?
3 leakers?
Or are they taking the bullet for people in the WH?
Conspiracy?
The transcripts will appaer here soon:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/MSNBCTRANS...MAIN_Front.asp
Advice to Bush JUNIOR. Do NOT hire plumbers...
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Wilson's OP-ED in the New York Times blew the whistle on Bush's "yellowcake uranium" claim. Wilson went to Niger before the State of the Union address, found out that no sale occurred...
The verdict on Wilson's Niger trip was that it wasn't very thorough.
... reported back to the CIA and Bush STILL USED THE CLAIM in his State of the Union Address (this time attributing it to British intelligence- our intelligence obviously contradicting his claims).
No, our intel COULDN'T SUPPORT the claim. It didn't contradict it.
For all the so-called outrage I keep hearing about, it seems to me people are less interested in finding the leaker than they are in making sure this one gets pinned on Rove.