NationStates Jolt Archive

Like who Valerie Plame's boss was, or who objected to "intimidation".

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5264

Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, visited the C.I.A. several times at Langley and told the staff to make more of an effort to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and to uncover Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear capabilities. One of the people who objected most fervently to what he saw as “intimidation,” according to one former C.I.A. case officer, was Alan Foley, then the head of the Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center. He was Valerie Plame’s boss. (Foley could not be reached for comment.)


And this, from the purported "boss".

I didn’t know that Valerie Plame or Joseph Wilson existed until after the Novak article. I have never met nor communicated with either of them. Nor did I have any responsibility or authority relating to them, the reported trip to Niger, or the subsequent leak investigation. As for Ray McGovern, I don’t believe that I have either seen or talked to him since before his retirement from the Agency. That was many years ago; probably sometime in the late 1990’s. Please do not contact me again.

Thought you were talking about Owen Wilson.

Who's Wilson, and why should I care?

Who are we talking about exactly?

Perish Forbid - Wilson Lied About Major Details
That makes no sense you realise. You've mixed up two phrases and so you've got too many imperatives and no nouns.

Like who Valerie Plame's boss was, or who objected to "intimidation".

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=5264




And this, from the purported "boss".
Okay, the blog you're quoting and linking doesn't actually take us back to the Vanity Fair article itself, so there's no way of knowing from what you provided whether that quotation from the article was actually sourced from Wilson. It might be an accurate portrayal, but if you want to actually convince someone, you probably need to address the source document instead of just trusting someone else's judgment on it.

But of course you know this. You just don't give a shit.

As to the source you're quoting itself, and their questions supposedly asked of Foley, why should I give them any more credibility than you give Wilson? The site's list of recommended sites is full of liars--Lucianne Goldberg, The National Review Online, The Corner, DEBKAFile, and the blogroll is even worse. Powerline? Little Green Footballs? Come on.

I don't use Kos as a source. I use primary documents. You want to have a real discussion, do the same.

Riveting.

And this means, what to the average forumite?

Riveting.

And this means, what to the average forumite?

Obviously nothing

i was just hoping that someone would tell me who wilson lied to and what difference it could possibly make if he did.

I miss your facts for implication of guilt.

Riveting.

And this means, what to the average forumite?
Not much, I'd wager. It's aimed at the forumites who specialize in documenting the various lies of the Bush administration. This is supposed to be some sort of "aha!" moment, or at least Deep Kimchi believes it is. But as usual with Bush apologists, it's poorly sourced assumption and hearsay.

Not much, I'd wager. It's aimed at the forumites who specialize in documenting the various lies of the Bush administration. This is supposed to be some sort of "aha!" moment, or at least Deep Kimchi believes it is. But as usual with Bush apologists, it's poorly sourced assumption and hearsay.
Not to mention the fact it just doesn't make sense. What did Wilson lie about? Why couldn't it have been Foley lieing? What the fuck is the implication?

It's also fair to point out that there may be reasons that the boss purposefully misled reporters (I'm not going to accuse the administration, although that's a possibility too i suspect) because he needed to not be Valerie Plame's boss for a peice of work he was doing.

It could also be completely falsified (by the "source"), or the script that the CIA gives to employees to protect confidentiality.

Not to mention the fact it just doesn't make sense. What did Wilson lie about? Why couldn't it have been Foley lieing? What the fuck is the implication?
The implication DK wants you to draw is that if Wilson lied about this, then he probably lied about the Niger stuff as well. Only problem is that Wilson turned out to be right on the Niger stuff (as well as a host of other stuff), so even if he did lie, it didn't change the outcome, which is the point DK and other Bush apologists neglect to mention.

Who's Wilson, and why should I care?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/dressed/bek227.gif

What? Foley didn't head WINPAC?

Shouldn't someone tell the Senate Intelligence Commitee that? Because they sure as hell were under that impression when he testified...

From the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/AR2005042801874.html)


In an interview yesterday with Republican and Democratic staff members, Wolf elaborated on that incident in 2003 and told the committee for the first time that Bolton demanded disciplinary actions against other career officials who offered views that differed from his own. To protect the officials' privacy, Wolf did not name them to the committee staff or describe the nature of the views they offered.

State Department spokesman J. Adam Ereli said yesterday that the issue of Bolton's management style had already been raised and dealt with by the committee.

Foley, who until September 2003 ran the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center, known as Winpac, spoke to the committee by phone yesterday for an hour.

Committee sources said he confirmed testimony provided by Stuart Cohen, the former acting director of the National Intelligence Council, that Bolton had tried to fire the national intelligence officer for Latin America who disagreed with Bolton's assertions about an alleged bioweapons programs in Cuba.

"Foley told us that Bolton's chief of staff, Fred Fleitz, called him up and said that Bolton wanted the analyst fired," one committee investigator said. Bolton has denied that he sought to fire the officer.


Gosh, Foley as head of WINPAC until September 2003.

Apply some basic history and recall that Wilson's trip occurred in EARLY 2003, before the invasion.

Conclusion?

Your blogger is a lying asswipe, and senior CIA people such as Foley wouldn't give him the time of day let alone a letter.

Conclusion 2:
Kimchi accepts anything anyone prints in a blog rather than take the time to perform a little basic due diligence.

Oh look! And here's a government source! (http://hsgac.senate.gov/100201ispfswitness.htm)


This hearing will discuss the Central Intelligence Agency's newly submitted
"Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 July 2000 through 31 December 2000." The report, mandated by Congress, discusses the (1) the acquisition by foreign countries during the preceding 6-months of dual-use
and other technology useful for the development or production of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological
weapons) and advanced conventional munitions; and (2) trends in the acquisition
of such technology by such countries.

The scope of the hearing has been expanded beyond country acquisition activity to include
weapons of mass destruction proliferation attempts and trends by terrorist
organizations.

The witness will be Alan Foley, Director for Weapons, Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC), CIA. He may be accompanied by other CIA experts.


The score?

Real sources: 2
Kimchi: 0

Yo Deep! Always remember this: Google is your friend!

Or, if you get lazy in your due diligence, your enemy.

Riveting.

And this means, what to the average forumite?
Nothing much, except as a curiosity piece to see how far DeepKimchi goes in order to evade reality.

And not a single reply from one of NS General's favorite Bushevik Cheerleaders.

The crickets are really deafening. :D

Please do not contact me again.
That made me a happy panda :D

Not much, I'd wager. It's aimed at the forumites who specialize in documenting the various lies of the Bush administration. This is supposed to be some sort of "aha!" moment, or at least Deep Kimchi believes it is. But as usual with Bush apologists, it's poorly sourced assumption and hearsay.
Wilson lied when he said that Valerie's boss was Foley, and that Foley considered the leaks intimidation.

A letter directly from Foley IS primary source material.

Of course, you would rather assume that people like Judith Miller who work for "real" newspapers are "real" sources with credibility. Oh, and Jayson Blair, et al.

Wilson lied when he said that Valerie's boss was Foley, and that Foley considered the leaks intimidation.

A letter directly from Foley IS primary source material.

Of course, you would rather assume that people like Judith Miller who work for "real" newspapers are "real" sources with credibility. Oh, and Jayson Blair, et al.

How do we know the letter is from Foley? Wingnut bloggers have a bad history going for them (The Red State Plagerist, anyone?). Journalists, at least, will get sued for libel if they lie. Blogs are too small to have that happen. In that regard, "real" newspapers are more reliable than your source because they neither have incentive to lie, or the ability to lie and get away with it.

A letter directly from Foley IS primary source material.

What letter? I didn't see a letter. I didn't see anything that showed it was anything more than wishful thinking.

Text on a screen does not a primary document make... At least not without references. Hell, they didn't even bother to say WHEN said letter was written.

Of course, you would rather assume that people like Judith Miller who work for "real" newspapers are "real" sources with credibility. Oh, and Jayson Blair, et al.
Of course, and blogs with obvious agendas are far more trustworthy and credable.

Haven't you learned not to believe everything you read on the Internet yet?

Riveting.

And this means, what to the average forumite?


It means Deep Kimchi is either too stupid or too lazy to look up sources to see if his favorite right winger blogger was even remotely close to accurate.

By just a quick glance, I'd say they weren't. Can't say as that shocks me.

Haven't you learned not to believe everything you read on the Internet yet?

Only when it serves his purpose.