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

1356725

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 494
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOW.



    (Scott, SDW, BR, Trumptman....if you all try to spin this, you WILL NOT WIN.)
  • Reply 42 of 494
    Wow.



    Big picture stuff here folks. We are talking about the endangering the safety of ANY and ALL americans just because some ass in the white house wanted to avenge a politcal embarrassment.



    If Johnny walker was going to be tried for treason. Couldn't this person also be possibly facing this charge.



    Take away:



    The white house blowing the cover of this agent for political reasons may have put all of our lives in danger.



    This is going beyond just more white house buffonery and entering Open hearings and accountability zone for the sake and safety of this country...



    INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOW.





    Update: Novak says its all a plot to bring down Bush.
  • Reply 43 of 494
    Somebody get the transcript of what Novak says as soon as it's available. I wanna read what he said.
  • Reply 44 of 494
    What was more heinous in this episode was republican congressman kingston's response.



    it was sickening, he claimed for all we know she was a gloried secretary, he claimed that since its been 10 weeks and she was not harmed then "no fuss no muss."



    He ended by calling the Democartic Party a party of "Whiners..."



    The current republican angle and the white house stonewalling is exactly the means to their own destruction.



    Oh I forgot, this MUST be the "liberal media's" fault.
  • Reply 45 of 494
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    What was more heinous in this episode was republican congressman kingston's response.



    it was sickening, he claimed for all we know she was a gloried secretary, he claimed that since its been 10 weeks and she was not harmed then "no fuss no muss."



    He ended by calling the Democartic Party a party of "Whiners..."



    The current republican angle and the white house stonewalling is exactly the means to their own destruction.



    Oh I forgot, this MUST be the "liberal media's" fault.








    Yup, there goes that liberal media again.
  • Reply 46 of 494
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Some strange things. I watched Crossfire, and Novak seemed to make two points:

    1. It might not have been someone in the White House that leaked the information, and



    2. she may not be an undercover operative, she might just be a desk analyst.



    But here is Novak's original column that leaked the information.
    Quote:

    Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.



    1. Novak says it was two "senior administration officials," which may not be White House, but it certainly suggests a Bush appointee. How many "senior administration officials" aren't political appointees?



    2. Novak uses the term "operative" which to me doesn't suggest "analyst." Furthermore, it was the CIA that requested the investigation, so they must believe it was wrong for her to be outed.
  • Reply 47 of 494
    So that's going to be the spin...



    If she wasn't an "agent" of the CIA... why has the CIA asked Justice to look into it.



    He's trying to say it wasn't a "white house" staffer... which is irrelevant... Senior Administration means the same thing...



    Is he playing it off as no big deal no harm done?
  • Reply 48 of 494
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    This scandal is now the lead story on all the corporate news networks. Is it conceivably possible, maybe, perhaps, (?) that the US media is going to behave the way one would expect of a media in a democracy...ie rigorously inquiring, skeptical of government intent and honesty, with tough no-compromise reporting? Up until now, the media networks have been reminiscient of the Chinese or old Soviet media, namely echoing the government line without question, and not daring to offer any counterpoint. We saw the investigative side of the media in overdrive mode during the Lewinsky affair, a comparatively trivial incident, blown up out of all proportion mostly due to its sexual innuendo. Now we have a case of a CIA agent's life being placed in danger because the White House got piqued about their lies and propaganda re. Iraqi imporation of African uranium being exposed as such.



    What is more damning? (a)Lying under oath about a sexual dalliance? (find me someone hasn't done that at some point in their lives), or (b) lying to the nation to start an illegal war, and now possible complicity in an act of treason? C'mon US media, get down'n'dirty.
  • Reply 49 of 494
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Some strange things. I watched Crossfire, and Novak seemed to make two points:

    1. It might not have been someone in the White House that leaked the information, and



    2. she may not be an undercover operative, she might just be a desk analyst.



    But here is Novak's original column that leaked the information.

    1. Novak says it was two "senior administration officials," which may not be White House, but it certainly suggests a Bush appointee. How many "senior administration officials" aren't political appointees?



    2. Novak uses the term "operative" which to me doesn't suggest "analyst." Furthermore, it was the CIA that requested the investigation, so they must believe it was wrong for her to be outed.




    Novak is bullshitting.



    This from the washington post on sunday:



    Quote:

    Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Sep27.html



    This goes beyond novak, and it's obvious that the identities of the two individuals are known.
  • Reply 50 of 494
    http://the-hamster.com/



    "In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on amb. Wilson's report when he told the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of an undercover operatives"





    Note he doesn't say, "The White House called me." Novak instead says,

    "I was interviewing a senior administration official."



    David Ensor (national security reporter) on CNN disputes Novak and just said that she was a CIA operative and was in charge of some operations (will post the transcript when it's available).



    The problem with Novak's mighty "confidential source at the CIA" is not everyone in the CIA is on the same page. There are security clearances and Novak's source may not have had access to the credentials of Plame. Novak's source could have been completely wrong. Further, notice that Novak doesn't use the adjective "senior" in describing the CIA source. How much information was Novak's source privy to?
  • Reply 51 of 494
    as a matter of law... it's important to distinguish a couple of things.



    1. It is important to determine whether or not she is in fact a covert classified operative of the CIA. If she is, it's further important to determine if the individuals who released her name knew that she was a covert classified agent.



    2. the only person who has said that Karl Rove is involved here is Wilson, the man who hates the administration. Even the individual who reported the leak has indicated that it most likely did not even come from the White House.



    3. The CIA routinely passes along these sort of inquiries to the Justice Department (as many as 50-60 a year).



    4. If someone had malicious intent in compromising the identity of a covert agent of the CIA, they should be prosecuted.



    5. The Justice Department is in fact the agency responsible for this task, and is adequately equipped to undertake it.
  • Reply 52 of 494
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of an undercover operatives"



    But wait, novak! Look what you said before:



    Quote:

    his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.



    Hmmmmm.....
  • Reply 53 of 494
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10

    Even the individual who reported the leak has indicated that it most likely did not even come from the White House.




    No, no, no. Look at the washington post article:



    Quote:

    Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.



    'Senior admin offical' means cabinet sec. or deputy.



    This is very detailed, and there is a reason this person is putting it out. Our friend Josh points out why it is unlikely this 'Senior admin offical' is anyone other than tenet.
  • Reply 54 of 494
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOW.



    (Scott, SDW, BR, Trumptman....if you all try to spin this, you WILL NOT WIN.)




    Who wants to spin, it's more fun to watch all of you salivate, rant, and scream for blood.





    Nick
  • Reply 55 of 494
    What is also interesting is that Novak was asked NOT to use Plame's name... but he couldn't understand why and used it anyway...



    hello! she works for the CIA... name one reason someone who works for the CIA woudn't want that name revealed... take a wild guess...



    She's a spy! geeeze.



    Suddenly Bob Novak knows the status of every employee at the CIA.



    And nobody seems to care that her name was leaked to Bob Novak because they wanted to hurt WIlson... because he DISAGREED with them (AFTER THE STATE OF THE UNION). He remained quiet until the Bushies started blowing the British INtelligence horn. Also... he wasn't just a Clinton appointee... he was a BUSH 1 appointee too.
  • Reply 56 of 494
    All good points. taken



    Quote:

    1. It is important to determine whether or not she is in fact a covert classified operative of the CIA. If she is, it's further important to determine if the individuals who released her name knew that she was a covert classified agent.





    Does anyone know if the law forbidding disclosure distinguish a CIA "operative" vis a vis a "analyst" Kinda doubt it but i'd love more detail.



    Quote:

    3. The CIA routinely passes along these sort of inquiries to the Justice Department (as many as 50-60 a year).



    Very true. the problem in this case was it looks like there was a clear and present link between the "16 word lie" and political revenge. I highly doubt the other 49-59 inquires involve things of this nature.



    Quote:

    5. The Justice Department is in fact the agency responsible for this task, and is adequately equipped to undertake it.



    True. But but mcclellonds(sp) own words state the justice department, in 10 weeks to date, has not taken any steps toward that end.



    I think point 5 will be what the "right" and the WH is going to use over and over. Its the sort of "define sexual relations" type of non-denial denial of this scandal.



    During the clinton 8 years there were calls from the right for and independant counsel whenever Clinton sneezed incorrectly. They are now saying Justice can do that job but balked at Janet Reno saying she could not be objective. Yet John ashcroft can be? Not.



    Getting back to the waiting for Justice thing. My point would be, Shouldn't any Admin that came into washington stating the restoration of "Honesty and Integrity" be the first to investigate OR at the very least start asking those within the WH point blank. Did you leak this yes or No?



    Doesn't take a Justice Dept. to do that...
  • Reply 57 of 494
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Who wants to spin, it's more fun to watch all of you salivate, rant, and scream for blood.





    Nick




    You imply that people in the Bush Administration who either leaked the information or condoned the leaking of the information or covered up the leaking of the information should not be screamed at for blood? Worse you derive sick pleasure from some of us who are legitimately concerned that Valerie Plame's career is over- that Valerie Plame's contacts' lives are in danger because Wilson had the nerve to criticize the Bush Administration? Tell me you were just kidding and you too are outraged. Tell me you have a sliver of credibility left.
  • Reply 58 of 494
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OBJRA10



    5. The Justice Department is in fact the agency responsible for this task, and is adequately equipped to undertake it.




    I think you should go check out the white house press conference:



    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html#0929031203pm
  • Reply 59 of 494
    ShawnJ, I think another talkingpoint post explains it all too well:







    As the lawyers say, when the facts are on your side, bang the facts. When the law's on your side, bang the law. When you've got neither, bang the table.



    When you don't even got a table, it would seem, you bang yourself.
  • Reply 60 of 494
    Quote:

    Does anyone know if the law forbidding disclosure distinguish a CIA "operative" vis a vis a "analyst" Kinda doubt it but i'd love more detail.



    yes it does.... I'll get you the reference...





    Quote:

    Very true. the problem in this case was it looks like there was a clear and present link between the "16 word lie" and political revenge. I highly doubt the other 49-59 inquires involve things of this nature.



    the key here is that you say it "looks" like.... this is yet to be determined. if in fact you are correct, then my earlier point still stands... there will be a prosecution.





    Quote:

    During the clinton 8 years there were calls from the right for and independant counsel whenever Clinton sneezed incorrectly. They are now saying Justice can do that job but balked at Janet Reno saying she could not be objective. Yet John ashcroft can be? Not.



    Almost a fair point. The important distinction here is that those illegal activities were by the President of the United States... not an as yet anonymous white house staffer....



    there is certainly a potential conflict of interest when the President of the United States is suspect, but the Justice Department is quite capable of invesitgating staff members...
Sign In or Register to comment.