RE: Fact vs. Fiction

Fact: Richard Armitage was source of the leak. If the left really cared about leaking the identity of super-spies like Plame, why wouldn't they want Armitage prosecuted? Maybe its because Armitage didn't work in the White House.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html

Fact: Karl Rove provided the confirmation of Armitage's statement to Robert Novak. If the right really didn't have their heads up their ass, why wouldn't they want to hold this administration responsible?

I guess the only reason Libby lied was because he liked the risk of getting convicted. What else could it be since no one at the White House did anything wrong?

Fact: The Wilsons has also sued Armitage for his role in the leak, as well as Libby and Cheney.

There's no left wing conspiracy.

Fact: Libby was not convicted of or even charged with leaking the identity of Plame. Why? First, you can't leak something that has already been leaked. Second, she had not been an undercover agent in over 5 years - it was not criminal.

Last time I went down this road with you Syngas, it turns out that you were just bullshitting me. I had to dig out the truth before you finally said touché. I'm not about to fall for any of your games again. I'm shocked that you aren't concerned about how deep in debt our country is right now.

oops.. I meant to post this under the thread where Syngas gives me a link..

Is that your way of saying "I'm not interested in un-editorialized information."?

That's my way of saying that I know that the un-editorialized statistics will show that Bush and his buddies have made a mess of the economy. I know that you'll cherry pick one thing, like you did before, in order to show that your buddy George Bush is doing a heck of a job. Then I will spend hours providing tables to show how you are wrong. Why bother, when what you are up to is disingenuous?

When we played this little game before, every table in census bureau site refuted what you said, but that didn't stop you from lying through your teeth.

I simply don't trust you anymore.

Thats not how I remember it Jo Ann but if it makes you feel better, good for you ;-)

BTW Jo Ann, Where did you get the idea I'm not concerned with the national debt? I thought we were talking about poverty.

Strange, the ideas we get about words. If I were a woman, I'd be more offended by "vagina" than by cunt or pussy. Vagina is the Latin for scabbard--the long leather bag that you keep your sword in when you're not using it to kill. "Cunt" on the other hand, has no such offensive or oppressive etymology behind it: it's simply an old Nordic word for a woman's genitals. Yet we imagine that vagina is very medical and proper, while cunt is somehow offensive. Like I said, strange.

So disappointed to find out that the coins printed without the ludicrous "national motto" were a mistake. Damn. Disturbed, however, to read that the phrase's omission spurred rumors of a "conspiracy". Those crafty atheists... always deviously conspiring to prevent the Second Coming... or something.

Thanks for the etymological info, Daily Rev. I wasn't aware how demeaning "vagina" was, in its roots. Though I must say, I've long though that "cunt" should be reclaimed as a celebratory term. Which I suppose many are doing already. It really seems like the best option as far as terms for female genitalia go, just on an aesthetic level, if you ask me.

Syngas,

Fact: While Valerie Plame also had a desk job, she was still running a clandestine operation in Africa investigating uranium trading. This leak blew the cover on her front company. I've always wondered what happened to the agents on the ground.

Syngas: "…she had not been an undercover agent in over 5 years - it was not criminal."

Theologian & atheist debate at ‘Point-Counterpoint’ forum - (BP) “Truth is objective and real, anyone who is searching for truth, we believe, will ultimately end up at the feet of Jesus Christ”

Well... Uh. 'Nuff said, I guess?

Are we stocked up on crazy yet?

Y,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2305-2005Jan11.html

an undercover cover agent is defined by 50 U.S.C. 426(4) you can find it here: http://foi.missouri.edu/iipa/iipa.pdf

Joseph Wilson's book "The Politics of Truth" states he and Plame both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997 and never again were stationed overseas. Either he is lying about her clandestine activities or you are.

Sorry if this posts twice. I thought I posted it a few hours ago but it didn't show up. I don't think I have done anything to really piss off Norm lately so I'm assuming it just got lost.

Didn't you state in another topic you don't consider the Washington Post to be a credible news source?

Yes Dar, only because of their left leaning tendencies. That should make them all the more credible to you ;-}

If you doubt their article, I'm sure you could find the same info in another publication.

So if the Washington Post says something that supports the Bush Administration, then it's credible. If they say something negative about the Bush Administration, then it's not credible. I get it.

Yes Dar, only because of their left leaning tendencies. That should make them all the more credible to you ;-}

What is that supposed to mean and you're cute little smiley faces mean nothing.

BTW just because I point out your inconsitencies does not automatically label me left or right.

By using sources most of the posters here seem to trust, I am going out of my way to accommodate your natural, skeptical reactions to my contrarian point of view . Would you prefer I use Fox News or World Net Daily to refute your allegations?

I'm flattered you find my smiley faces cute - Thanks ;-}

I apologize if you feel I have somehow labeled you in any way. Having been the punching bag for my right-of-center views here in the past, I may have wrongly assumed you were left-leaning. I'll be more careful in the future.

Incidentally, this article in the Washington Post was not written by any left winger. Victoria Toensing is a well-known right winger who was retained by a number of media organizations and she authored an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Matt Cooper and Judith Miller.

Again the disingenuous nature of Syngas is obvious. He has to go back to 2005 and find an article by a right winger, and then he claims that he's getting his information from the left wing.

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/1015/32/

Sorry to again beat what some of you may believe is a dead horse, but a reporter from a major news organization told me today that they are still arguing in his/her newsroom about whether Valerie Plame was covert. The journalist who told me this is a talented, smart person but is still confused about the terms "covert", "cover", and "non-official cover". So here's my gift to confused journalists. Scooter Libby is not on trial for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. He faces a jury because he lied about his role in giving out Valerie's name and obstructed the investigation into the leak. Can you leak the name of an overt employee? No. Right wing hacks like Victoria Toensing, Cliff May and Byron York not only deny Valerie was covert but also insist that Valerie was not covered by the IIPA because she had not lived overseas in the five years preceding the July 2003 Robert Novak article. But that is not the law. The law states, "serving outside the United States". Although she was based in Washington, DC, Valerie traveled overseas and conducted espionage activities. She served outside the United States during the period 1998-2002 and was a covered person under the IIPA. If Valerie had been an overt employee or a covert employee who had been sitting quietly at a desk, never venturing overseas, the CIA would not have sent the Department of Justice a letter on 30 July 2003 stating:

Thanks Jo Ann,

Kindly tell us why Fitzgerald has closed his investigation without charging anyone with violating IIPA if as you claim, Plame was an undercover spy.

Check

Syngas, you said it yourself: "Fact: Richard Armitage was source of the leak."

So Valerie Plame is an undercover agent when you speak of Richard Armitage and she's not an undercover agent when you speak of Scooter... hmmmm

Scooter Libby, was found guilty of four of five charges related to the investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's name to the media.

Now how could he have been found guilty of these charges if she wasn't a CIA operative?

If she hadn't been an undercover agent, there wouldn't even have been a trial.

Syngas, Answer this. Can you leak the name of an overt employee? Libby played a role in leaking Valerie Plame's identity as a covert agent.

if Libby had learned of Plame's identity from Cheney, he would have learned it through classified channels, and therefore been subject to the IIPA

Thanks Jo Ann,

Kindly tell us why Fitzgerald has closed his investigation without charging anyone with violating IIPA if as you claim, Plame was an undercover spy.

Anonymous,

If you want to get in on discussions with me, please get a type key name. It's pointless for me to debate with anonymous people.

Sorry Syngas, I was anonymous.. Forgot to type in my name.

Fitzgerald said that he was unable to determine whether any laws were violated in the leaking of Plame's identity because his investigation was impeded by Libby.

Read all about it here: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libbypr28102005.pdf

You never answered my question. Can you leak the name of an overt employee?

oops.. that link didn't copy very well..

www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/libbypr28102005.pdf

That link didn't work either Jo Ann.

The answer is no - you cannot leak the name of an overt employee. By asking about Armitage, I was hoping to get you to say he didn't commit any crime by disclosing Plame's occupation to which I would have asked you 'why would there be an investigation of a non-crime?'

Seems kind of a lame excuse to me to blame Libby for not continuing the investigation - Armitage admitted to the 'leak'. It really wouldn't matter what Libby had done, Fitzgerald knew exactly who the 'leaker' was but knows the 'leak' did not constitute a crime.

I think there was a crime, the president obviously thought there was a crime. Fitzgerald didn't appoint himself to investigate. In the course of the investigation Libby lied. The justice system simply doesn't work if people lie under oath. Whether there was an underlying crime is irrelevant. The crime, lying under oath is no less serious, because there is a more important issue at stake here, the integrity of the criminal justice system.

Thanks Norm,

I agree that lying under oath is a crime and clearly Libby is guilty of lying. It just seems silly to me that Libby was convicted of lying about committing a non-crime. Kinda like cheating on your wife at the office is not a crime but lying to investigators about it technically is. Only a prosecutor with political motive would pursue it.

I can't post the link for some reason, but just Google "Fitzgerald's press statement" and you'll find it and you can read it. Obviously you have never read it, and yet you continue to set forth your "opinion" of this situation based upon what you have read from the Drudge report or FOX news or Rush Limbaugh, or some other weird AM radio tin-foil hat weirdo.

Included in the charges is "engaged in obstruction of justice by impeding the grand jury's investigation into the unauthorized disclosure-or "leaking"- of "Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA to various reporters in the spring of 2003".

That is a direct quote from a public document. I'm sure that you should have no difficulty finding it and reading it so you be so inclined to do so.

As you have agreed that it is not possible to leak the identity of an overt agent, then it should not be difficult for you to come to the obvious conclusion.

I'll check it out Jo Ann,

Are you gonna leave us all hanging over at the American Trouble Maker thread? I just made some popcorn to enjoy while I watch the show.

Are you gonna leave us all hanging over at the American Trouble Maker thread?

Yes. :)