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.
This argument is weak Nick. You're just spinning to avoid answering my question.
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.
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...
Joseph Wilson, a seasoned diplomat in both Republican and Democratic governments, said President Bush's top political aide Karl Rove, while likely not the source of the leak, later "gave legs" to a newspaper column that revealed his wife's identity as a CIA operative.
"I do have a number of people, or a person in whom I have a high degree of confidence, who has told me that Karl Rove told him that my wife is 'fair game', and that was one week after the leak," Wilson told CBS "Face The Nation."
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.
Quote:
Wilson said it now appeared his wife's name was actually leaked by someone outside the White House, as an act of revenge to stop him and others from questioning the intelligence used to go to war with Iraq.
"This administration apparently decided the way to do that was to leak the name of my wife," he told NBC's "Meet The Press."
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.
Quote:
Wilson said he and his wife, a specialist in unconventional weapons who worked overseas, have become increasingly concerned she might be a target because of the disclosure and "as a consequence of that, have begun to rethink our own security posture."
Sounds pretty tame compared to the accusations made around here.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Giant, you should have posted this part in case they do not click since your/joshua's post is directly relevent to the "if she didn't get hurt, you must acquit" mini thread...
It's amazing how quickly people can get thrown off the scent.
Quote:
Look at all the chatter swirling around the Wilson/Plame scandal: the pros and cons of leaks, the difficulty of unearthing and prosecuting leakers, attacks on Joe Wilson, Novak's never-ending-story, back and forth about this, that and the other. Bill Safire has 701 words in Monday's Times all devoted to churning these points and covering for his friends with artful zingers and disinformation.
All of it is beside the point.
For the last ten days we've known that two senior administration officials blew the cover of an undercover CIA employee for some mix of retribution and political gamesmanship.
Faux News (not part of the liberal media) strikes again...
From TPM:
And they were off to such a good start. Unless I'm mistaken Tony Snow led off Fox News Sunday this morning by calling Valerie Plame a CIA "analyst." In other words, rather prejudicing the question by introducing it packaged in a bit of misinformation.
Giant, you should have posted this part in case they do not click since your/joshua's post is directly relevent to the "if she didn't get hurt, you must acquit" mini thread...
It's amazing how quickly people can get thrown off the scent.
All of it is beside the point.
For the last ten days we've known that two senior administration officials blew the cover of an undercover CIA employee for some mix of retribution and political gamesmanship.
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.
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.
6 plus the number of people (unknown but at least 1) that K-A-R-L, one week after the original story was published, "pushed" and kept "pushing" this story to reports to give the story "legs" and where he told a report that "she's fair game".
Oh. Mission accomplish K-A-R-L, this story has legs...
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.
Separately from all that, we know the Justice Department is expanding the investigation. New e-mails sent out to the White House employees today. Have you, Bob Novak been contacted yet?
NOVAK: I'm going to give you an answer I don't think I ever give in my life. On advice of counsel, I am asked not to answer that question.
WOODRUFF: So you cannot say whether you have been contacted by investigators?
NOVAK: On the advice of my counsel.
WOODRUFF: All right. We will leave it there and duly noted.
Looks like bob hired a lawyer. I wonder if its just to handle the justice inquiry basic questions or for something deeper.
Crossfire should be interesting today if he is the host...
The transcripts have not been updated so i can't confirm ....
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by keyboardf12
6 plus the number of people (unknown but at least 1) that K-A-R-L, one week after the original story was published, "pushed" and kept "pushing" this story to reports to give the story "legs" and where he told a report that "she's fair game".
Oh. Mission accomplish K-A-R-L, this story has legs...
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.
Just heard on CNN during interviews with keyan president...
CNN: For the first time Mr. Bush refered to it as a criminal matter...
80 days late...
Interesting. Did they find there scapegoat? Is he going to fish and cut bait? How many people in the world are now left that no NOT think of this as a criminal matter? 4?
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.
Here's a cliff notes version of this whole deal i found at dailykos:
Plame Affair primer
For those who argue it is complicated.
Plame is an undercover CIA agent.
She was outed by senior administration officials in the White House.
Outing a CIA agent is a felony.
Hmm, not so complicated, after all...
What was the motive? Her husband, Ambassador Wilson, criticized the administration for Yellowcake lies.
But wasn't he a partisan Democrat? No. He donated money to Bush's presidential campaign in 2000. But even if he was James Carville, see numbers 1 and 2 above.
Comments
Originally posted by OBJRA10
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.
Originally posted by bunge
This argument is weak Nick. You're just spinning to avoid answering my question.
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.
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
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
Joseph Wilson, a seasoned diplomat in both Republican and Democratic governments, said President Bush's top political aide Karl Rove, while likely not the source of the leak, later "gave legs" to a newspaper column that revealed his wife's identity as a CIA operative.
"I do have a number of people, or a person in whom I have a high degree of confidence, who has told me that Karl Rove told him that my wife is 'fair game', and that was one week after the leak," Wilson told CBS "Face The Nation."
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.
Wilson said it now appeared his wife's name was actually leaked by someone outside the White House, as an act of revenge to stop him and others from questioning the intelligence used to go to war with Iraq.
"This administration apparently decided the way to do that was to leak the name of my wife," he told NBC's "Meet The Press."
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.
Wilson said he and his wife, a specialist in unconventional weapons who worked overseas, have become increasingly concerned she might be a target because of the disclosure and "as a consequence of that, have begun to rethink our own security posture."
Sounds pretty tame compared to the accusations made around here.
Nick
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?
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.
also... it's irrelevant...
Plame... an Operative in the operations section of the CIA was outed. That's why there's an investigation.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#100603141am
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.
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.
It's amazing how quickly people can get thrown off the scent.
Look at all the chatter swirling around the Wilson/Plame scandal: the pros and cons of leaks, the difficulty of unearthing and prosecuting leakers, attacks on Joe Wilson, Novak's never-ending-story, back and forth about this, that and the other. Bill Safire has 701 words in Monday's Times all devoted to churning these points and covering for his friends with artful zingers and disinformation.
All of it is beside the point.
For the last ten days we've known that two senior administration officials blew the cover of an undercover CIA employee for some mix of retribution and political gamesmanship.
From TPM:
And they were off to such a good start. Unless I'm mistaken Tony Snow led off Fox News Sunday this morning by calling Valerie Plame a CIA "analyst." In other words, rather prejudicing the question by introducing it packaged in a bit of misinformation.
-- Josh Marshal
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Giant, you should have posted this part in case they do not click since your/joshua's post is directly relevent to the "if she didn't get hurt, you must acquit" mini thread...
It's amazing how quickly people can get thrown off the scent.
All of it is beside the point.
For the last ten days we've known that two senior administration officials blew the cover of an undercover CIA employee for some mix of retribution and political gamesmanship.
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
Originally posted by trumptman
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.
Oh. Mission accomplish K-A-R-L, this story has legs...
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.
Originally posted by giant
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.
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
?????????????
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/10/04_novak.html
WOODRUFF:All right.
Separately from all that, we know the Justice Department is expanding the investigation. New e-mails sent out to the White House employees today. Have you, Bob Novak been contacted yet?
NOVAK: I'm going to give you an answer I don't think I ever give in my life. On advice of counsel, I am asked not to answer that question.
WOODRUFF: So you cannot say whether you have been contacted by investigators?
NOVAK: On the advice of my counsel.
WOODRUFF: All right. We will leave it there and duly noted.
Looks like bob hired a lawyer. I wonder if its just to handle the justice inquiry basic questions or for something deeper.
Crossfire should be interesting today if he is the host...
The transcripts have not been updated so i can't confirm ....
Originally posted by chu_bakka
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.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
6 plus the number of people (unknown but at least 1) that K-A-R-L, one week after the original story was published, "pushed" and kept "pushing" this story to reports to give the story "legs" and where he told a report that "she's fair game".
Oh. Mission accomplish K-A-R-L, this story has legs...
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
CNN: For the first time Mr. Bush refered to it as a criminal matter...
80 days late...
Interesting. Did they find there scapegoat? Is he going to fish and cut bait? How many people in the world are now left that no NOT think of this as a criminal matter? 4?
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.
Plame Affair primer
For those who argue it is complicated.
Plame is an undercover CIA agent.
She was outed by senior administration officials in the White House.
Outing a CIA agent is a felony.
Hmm, not so complicated, after all...
What was the motive? Her husband, Ambassador Wilson, criticized the administration for Yellowcake lies.
But wasn't he a partisan Democrat? No. He donated money to Bush's presidential campaign in 2000. But even if he was James Carville, see numbers 1 and 2 above.
Period. Everything else is chaff.
Originally posted by trumptman
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
If true?! Man, you have a serious case of denial.
Originally posted by trumptman
Don't you both get the point. Wilson said....
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.