NationStates Jolt Archive

I hope this shadow looms large over the Republicans in the upcoming elections, though scheduled to begin in January.

Plame sues Cheney, Rove in leak case
Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:05 PM ET



By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband sued Vice President Dick Cheney, top White House aide Karl Rove and others on Thursday for their role in the disclosure of her classified CIA status.

The lawsuit alleged "a conspiracy among current and former high-level officials in the White House" to "discredit, punish and seek revenge" against Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for publicly disputing statements made by Bush justifying the war in Iraq.

The suit was the latest twist in a long-running saga over the public exposure of Plame that put President Bush on the defensive over his campaign to justify the war and reached into the highest levels of the White House.

Plame and Wilson's suit said the couple suffered violations of their constitutional and legal rights, including an invasion of their privacy, and that the disclosure of her name destroyed her CIA career.

The CIA-leak case flared after Wilson accused the administration of leaking his wife's name to punish him for writing in the New York Times that the Bush administration twisted intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the war launched by Washington in 2003.

An investigation led to the indictment of a top Cheney aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, last year on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury. He is the only person charged in the case.

The 23-page lawsuit said the defendants "embarked on an anonymous 'whispering campaign' designed to discredit and injure the plaintiffs and to deter other critics from publicly speaking out."

"This lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of one such human source at the CIA, Valerie Plame Wilson, whose job it was to gather intelligence to make the nation safer and who risked her life for her country," the suit said.

The suit also named Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, and 10 unnamed senior government officials or political operatives.

While no specific dollar amount is requested, the lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride had no comment on the lawsuit. "This relates to a matter already before the courts, so our policy is not to comment on a matter in litigation," she said in an e-mail.

Plame's name was disclosed in the news media by conservative columnist Robert Novak in July 2003.

The lawsuit came a day after Novak said Rove -- Bush's top political advisor -- and former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed what one other unnamed administration official told him about Plame.

Rove is a leader of the Bush administration's effort to keep Congress in Republican hands in November elections.

The long-anticipated lawsuit was assigned to U.S. District Judge John Bates, who was appointed by Bush. It seeks a jury trial. Libby's criminal trial is scheduled to begin in January.

(additional reporting by Deborah Charles)

Meh. Most people (yes, even voters) know a stunt when they see one. It shouldn't affect the midterms, which are actually looking fairly promising lately. *Knock on wood* :)

Hopefully, justice will be served.

Meh. Most people (yes, even voters) know a stunt when they see one. It shouldn't affect the midterms, which are actually looking fairly promising lately. *Knock on wood* :)
I just hope there aren't more stunts like these played by the Bush administration in its last years.

I just hope there aren't more stunts like these played by the Bush administration in its last years.

Naw, we'll see all the classics trotted out again like a broken-down mule being led around a track... but that's election season. :p Both parties have their well-beaten mule.

Naw, we'll see all the classics trotted out again like a broken-down mule being led around a track... but that's election season. :p Both parties have their well-beaten mule.

So, what's the spread for Karl Rove's smear campaign?

Dude, 3 quarters of the US has never even heard of Valerie Plame. What the public doesn't know can't hurt parties.

Let's see. The ambassador lied about his report and Plame would never be given an assignment that was directly connected to field agents ever again after having her embassy post. Unless her neighbors hate CIA agents, I fail to see what damages were incurred.

Let's see. The ambassador lied about his report and Plame would never be given an assignment that was directly connected to field agents ever again after having her embassy post. Unless her neighbors hate CIA agents, I fail to see what damages were incurred.

Trying hard to not call you a Bushevik, but that's a pretty myopic perspective. Aside from being exposed to possible danger between the time her cover was blown and she returned to the continental United States, there's also the CIA cover company that took years to establish which was destroyed in moments out of partisan spite not to mention the contacts and associates of the CIA who worked through that company who aren't as fortunate in having a way to escape retribution from those who were being spied on. And if you think a country that would execute spies would let the whole world know that he or she was caught because of the Plame Leak, then you have got to be smoking crack or huffing paint thinner.

Let's see. The ambassador lied about his report and Plame would never be given an assignment that was directly connected to field agents ever again after having her embassy post. Unless her neighbors hate CIA agents, I fail to see what damages were incurred.
The ambassador lied about his report?

The ambassador lied about his report?

Yeah, the GOP does a cut-and-paste hatchet job on Wilson (once proclaimed a hero by George H. W. Bush,) to make it seem like he fudged some facts.

Of course, the Republican line is exposed as hogwash once one reads the full context.

Yeah, the GOP does a cut-and-paste hatchet job on Wilson (once proclaimed a hero by George H. W. Bush,) to make it seem like he fudged some facts.

Of course, the Republican line is exposed as hogwash once one reads the full context.
Ahh. I thought it was bullshit as I've never heard about him lying. Must be on the far Right blogs.

Let's see. The ambassador lied about his report and Plame would never be given an assignment that was directly connected to field agents ever again after having her embassy post. Unless her neighbors hate CIA agents, I fail to see what damages were incurred.
She was also outed in the Aldrich Ames incident in the early nineties.

you do know that WILSON the democrap is in who's who and STATED his wife worked for the CIA??????

you do know that the reporter stated he looked in who's who for info?????

sorta SELF INFLICTED WOUND unless plame sues wilson

just more idiot democrap stuff probably in aid of a book/signing/$ deal

however shrub and co aren't blameless for a lot of stuff either

ymmv

you do know that WILSON the democrap is in who's who and STATED his wife worked for the CIA??????

you do know that the reporter stated he looked in who's who for info?????

sorta SELF INFLICTED WOUND unless plame sues wilson

just more idiot democrap stuff probably in aid of a book/signing/$ deal

however shrub and co aren't blameless for a lot of stuff either

ymmv
What?

What?
Besides a bunch of dazed rambling, he does make a good point. Ambassador Wilson had listed his wife in his personal Who's Who entry. Which is mildly comical. A silly oversight that I'd probably be prone to make if I were in his position.

Besides a bunch of dazed rambling, he does make a good point. Ambassador Wilson had listed his wife in his personal Who's Who entry. Which is mildly comical. A silly oversight that I'd probably be prone to make if I were in his position.
Well, yeah. She was still his wife. But what does that matter? It didn't say Valerie Plame, CIA. Basically Novak found out that Wilson's wife was CIA. A simple marriage record would have revealed the exact same information.

Naw, we'll see all the classics trotted out again like a broken-down mule being led around a track... but that's election season. :p Both parties have their well-beaten mule.

I don't know. The Republicans have been beating "flag burning" every other year for the last 20 years (probably longer, but I've only lived here for 20 years). As far as I know, the Dems don't have anything nearly that long lasting. I guess that's what you get for actually accomplishing what you set out to do. Once you accomplish it, you can't run on it anymore. The Repubs sure know how to polish a dog turd.

I don't know. The Republicans have been beating "flag burning" every other year for the last 20 years (probably longer, but I've only lived here for 20 years). As far as I know, the Dems don't have anything nearly that long lasting. I guess that's what you get for actually accomplishing what you set out to do. Once you accomplish it, you can't run on it anymore. The Repubs sure know how to polish a dog turd.

You polish a dog turd enough, it'll turn into a diamond. A rather good analogy in todays politics, no?

Hopefully, justice will be served.

Doubtful for in reality, this is an illegal lawsuit against the federal government..

Let's see. The ambassador lied about his report and Plame would never be given an assignment that was directly connected to field agents ever again after having her embassy post. Unless her neighbors hate CIA agents, I fail to see what damages were incurred.

Not to mention Novak stated that there was no attempt to smear Wilson or his wife. This is going to go by the wayside as it should.

She was also outed in the Aldrich Ames incident in the early nineties.

And its in Whose Who in America and rumor has it that Rove told Wilson not to put it in there.

you do know that WILSON the democrap is in who's who and STATED his wife worked for the CIA??????

you do know that the reporter stated he looked in who's who for info?????

sorta SELF INFLICTED WOUND unless plame sues wilson

just more idiot democrap stuff probably in aid of a book/signing/$ deal

however shrub and co aren't blameless for a lot of stuff either

ymmv

BINGO!!!!

And its in Whose Who in America and rumor has it that Rove told Wilson not to put it in there.
How would her name connect her to the CIA? This is a very simple question.

And its in Whose Who in America and rumor has it that Rove told Wilson not to put it in there.


really? show me where it outs Plame as a CIA agent in Whose Who In AMerica.

really? show me where it outs Plame as a CIA agent in Whos who.

Sorry but I do not have a whose who handy. Besides, I honestly do not care if she is in Who's who in America.

Also, I can't seem to find a free web version of it.

Sorry but I do not have a whose who handy. Besides, I honestly do not care if she is in Who's who in America.

Also, I can't seem to find a free web version of it.
Then what are you talking about it for?

Sorry but I do not have a whose who handy. Besides, I honestly do not care if she is in Who's who in America.

Also, I can't seem to find a free web version of it.

Who told you that her cover is blown in Whose Who in AMerica then?

Who told you that her cover is blown in Whose Who in AMerica then?

Cover? She wasn't even an under cover agent to begin with. She worked at a desk.

Doubtful for in reality, this is an illegal lawsuit against the federal government..
It is illegal to sue the US federal government? Please explain.

Cover? She wasn't even an under cover agent to begin with. She worked at a desk.


so you aren't goign to answer the question and instead are turning to this sillyness?

........however shrub and co aren't blameless for a lot of stuff either

ymmv

BINGO!!!!
Didn't read the whole post huh? :p

Cover? She wasn't even an under cover agent to begin with. She worked at a desk.
Source? Because this has been shown to be false repeatedly. She served overseas in 2003, 2002 and 2001.

It is illegal to sue the US federal government? Please explain.

Cant sue the Federal Government and that is what they are inessence doing. This will not go anywhere for there is nothing to sue on.

It is illegal to sue the US federal government? Please explain.

I believe there are laws against suing the government. But if they are suing Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, not the US Government as an entity, then its perfectly legal.

Didn't read the whole post huh? :p

Yea I did. I just said Bingo to all of it because I didn't want to go line by line.

Source? Because this has been shown to be false repeatedly. She served overseas in 2003, 2002 and 2001.

Serving overseas does not make one an undercover agent.

Source? Because this has been shown to be false repeatedly. She served overseas in 2003, 2002 and 2001.

Just out of curiosity, can you post a source as well?

(Sorry, haven't been keeping current on this issue)

I believe there are laws against suing the government. But if they are suing Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, not the US Government as an entity, then its perfectly legal.
Then Corny doesn't know what he is talking about?

I believe there are laws against suing the government. But if they are suing Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, not the US Government as an entity, then its perfectly legal.


on NPR this morning, I believe they were sayign that you could sue the govt under certain circumstances. there are certain lawsuits they are protected from like negligence suits for example.

Then Corny doesn't know what he is talking about?

From what I understand:

Dick Cheney + Karl Rove =/= The federal govt.

Cheney and Rove are both US citizens. Just because they have a high ranking office and a stupid motorcade that holds up traffic for half an hour every morning does not (in theory) grant them any special immunities.

Cant sue the Federal Government and that is what they are inessence doing. This will not go anywhere for there is nothing to sue on.
You have a point with this although, it's not the Federal Government being sued, as far as I can make out. At least, I haven't seen one mention in any of the articles that state that she cannot file the suit which she has filed.

"Such suits, known as Bivens actions, are difficult to win. The law affords federal officials immunity from suits where they are acting within the scope of their duties.

The law also requires that the officials know that their conduct affects the exercise of particular constitutional rights. Some legal scholars said it would be hard for Wilson to show that his right to speak out was affected by the decision of Rove and Libby to reveal the CIA affiliation of his wife.

"If you are going to be out there criticizing the government, then the government, just like anybody else, will often try to explain why you are in the wrong. That is part of the public debate," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA.

Other experts said the ultimate success of the lawsuit, measured in dollars, may be beside the point. They said the suit is likely to give Plame, Wilson and their legal team an opportunity to question the officials under oath and obtain their notes, documents and even statements and grand jury testimony given as part of the Fitzgerald probe.

That could help answer the major unanswered question: the identity of a senior administration official who tipped Novak off about Plame. Novak discussed his role in the investigation this week, but has declined to reveal his main source.

"The key point is that filing the lawsuit will permit Plame/Wilson to subpoena witnesses—such as Robert Novak—to provide testimony," said John Nockleby, a professor at Loyola Law School in California. "As a result, we may finally learn who is the mystery person who first spoke to Novak.""
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060713plame,1,6468726.story?coll=chi-news-hed

Just out of curiosity, can you post a source as well?

(Sorry, haven't been keeping current on this issue)
That is from a former CIA agent, Larry C. Johnson.

You can read his statement to congress here in a PDF:
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722113326-59442.pdf

They said the suit is likely to give Plame, Wilson and their legal team an opportunity to question the officials under oath and obtain their notes, documents and even statements and grand jury testimony given as part of the Fitzgerald probe.


This could be interesting. I wonder what else will surface.

From what I understand:

Dick Cheney + Karl Rove =/= The federal govt.

Cheney and Rove are both US citizens. Just because they have a high ranking office and a stupid motorcade that holds up traffic for half an hour every morning does not (in theory) grant them any special immunities.
It is good to know that in a democracy, no one individual has immunity when it comes to illegal activities.

It can and does make sense that the individuals are being sued if the evidence supports such legal action. From what I have read so far in this case, there indeed seems to be some justification for the lawsuit.

I guess Corny was a little over zealous in his comment when he suggested that the individuals could not be sued.

Thanks for the clarification. ;)

It is good to know that in a democracy, no one individual has immunity when it comes to illegal activities.


Personally, I feel the leaders of our nation should be put under more scrutiny.

It is good to know that in a democracy, no one individual has immunity when it comes to illegal activities.

It can and does make sense that the individuals are being sued if the evidence supports such legal action. From what I have read so far in this case, there indeed seems to be some justification for the lawsuit.

I guess Corny was a little over zealous in his comment when he suggested that the individuals could not be sued.

Thanks for the clarification. ;)

Had a long couple of days ontop of the fact that I have been out of the loop for the last week.

Personally, I feel the leaders of our nation should be put under more scrutiny.
I agree, if they are breaking laws and violating the Constitution. All "democratic" leaders should be held accountable.

I agree, if they are breaking laws and violating the Constitution. All "democratic" leaders should be held accountable.

Here I will agree wit you :)

I agree, if they are breaking laws and violating the Constitution. All "democratic" leaders should be held accountable.

They should be held doubly accountable, as they speak for the people that elected them. They are to represent their nation, every single citizen, and it is easy for a leader's fallancies to be confused with a people's fallancies.

Personally, I feel the leaders of our nation should be put under more scrutiny.
At all times. If we put the amount of scrutiny on our politicians that People Magazine puts on Angelina Jolie, we'd be in pretty good shape.

At all times. If we put the amount of scrutiny on our politicians that People Magazine puts on Angelina Jolie, we'd be in pretty good shape.
Hell, if as many people could name their Congressman and Senators as can name the latest "American Idol", we'd be in good shape.

This whole issue is a crock. The original case was NOTHING more than the Democrats making up criminal charges because of a political difference. That is a favorite tactic of dictators around the world.


THey are now trying to keep this dead issue in the press because of the upcomming elections. This is WAYYYY beyond anything the worst kind of dirty politics. It should be criminal.

At all times. If we put the amount of scrutiny on our politicians that People Magazine puts on Angelina Jolie, we'd be in pretty good shape.

I agree - but lets scrutinize the REAL scum first. That would be Mr. Wilson and the Democratic smear merchants.

This whole issue is a crock. The original case was NOTHING more than the Democrats making up criminal charges because of a political difference. That is a favorite tactic of dictators around the world.


THey are now trying to keep this dead issue in the press because of the upcomming elections. This is WAYYYY beyond anything the worst kind of dirty politics. It should be criminal.

Yes, it reminds me of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in the '90's.

Yes, it reminds me of a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in the '90's.


You mean the one that a high official lied about in a court case - or the one that the court case was about. It was not about a non crime. It was about undermining our judicial system. He tried to use the power of his office to deny proper redress to another citizen.

A better example would be the fraudulent accusations against the Supreme Court nominee - you know the "uncle Tom" as the left is so fond of calling him.

You mean the one that a high official lied about in a court case - or the one that the court case was about. It was not about a non crime. It was about undermining our judicial system. He tried to use the power of his office to deny proper redress to another citizen.

A better example would be the fraudulent accusations against the Supreme Court nominee - you know the "uncle Tom" as the left is so fond of calling him.

I meant the one where the alleged perjury occured. I get it mixed up with the other suit alleging financial impropriety that was filed earlier in that decade, and it's difficult for me to remember which led to accusations of perjury.

Whether this whole issue was a non-crime or not is a the problem, but it seems the Wilson's feel it was and are willing to pursue legal action. The legal system is built to accomodate the requests of all plaintiffs, even if their cases may lead to a bad image for one political party or another. Until the evidence is heard and the verdict delivered, we can't really say whether this whole thing is a farce or not.

I agree - but lets scrutinize the REAL scum first. That would be Mr. Wilson and the Democratic smear merchants.
Your posts are more and more resembling those of a right wing extremist. Your views on "democracy" are oddly amusing.

This whole issue is a crock. The original case was NOTHING more than the Democrats making up criminal charges because of a political difference. That is a favorite tactic of dictators around the world.


THey are now trying to keep this dead issue in the press because of the upcomming elections. This is WAYYYY beyond anything the worst kind of dirty politics. It should be criminal.

Yes it was known that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. By working for the CIA that could mean she is the one who mows the lawn or serves coffee at the meetings.

What Mr. Novak did is reveal her status as a non-official cover agent. Had she been captured abroad, she would have enjoyed no legal protections whatsoever. She could be disembowled and the US would be in no legal position to even raise a finger.

Worse yet, this is part of a continuing tradition by the administration of removing those that do not agree with it, and punishing those who dare speak against it. (There is quite a long list, but if you don't know where to start, look up Ian Thompson).

With all due respect, I feel compelled to state that those who believe that the Valerie Plame case is criminal are either sorely confused, or are advocating an executive branch that is stronger than all other branches of the American government.

Before I am falsely accused of having any sympathy toward the Democratic party, I must state that I do understand that the Democrats no less crooked than their counterparts and that they do fight with the ferocity of cornered rats.

From the swift retribution against those who dare disagree with the administration to the downright mockery of scientific research, to the signing clauses, all of this has been part of a conspiracy by the present administration to place itself above the rest of America. The government has been expanded into places where it has never gone before, enforcing its morality on me, removing civil liberties without providing increased security, and in general acting as though its members are meant to be served by the people they are supposed to be serving.

The present administration's borderline elected facism has grown much too far. I believe its time we take back this beast and trim it down to size, and remind those who call themselves public servants that they have no executive privelige to violate our constitutional rights.

This whole issue is a crock. The original case was NOTHING more than the Democrats making up criminal charges because of a political difference. That is a favorite tactic of dictators around the world.


THey are now trying to keep this dead issue in the press because of the upcomming elections. This is WAYYYY beyond anything the worst kind of dirty politics. It should be criminal.
How much does Bush pay you to come up with this shit? I can't decide if whatever amount it is is too much or not enough.

How much does Bush pay you to come up with this shit? I can't decide if whatever amount it is is too much or not enough.

is it getting hot in here or is it just me?


Lets not have this turn into a flame war.

is it getting hot in here or is it just me?


Lets not have this turn into a flame war.
I wasn't flaming. I called what he said shit because it had no value and was based on opinion.

I wasn't flaming. I called what he said shit because it had no value and was based on opinion.

I didn't say you were flaming. I was just mentioning that calling someone's post shit, even if it is complete and utter shit of the worst kind, accelerates the degeneration of an intellectual discussion into a flame war.

I would really like to keep this an intellectual discussion with actual debate. And I would like to see some evidence supporting the notion that Mr. Wilson is part of this ominous conspiracy of "Democratic Smear Merchants"

I didn't say you were flaming. I was just mentioning that calling someone's post shit, even if it is complete and utter shit of the worst kind, accelerates the degeneration of an intellectual discussion into a flame war.

I would really like to see some evidence supporting the notion that Mr. Wilson is part of this ominous conspiracy of "Democratic Smear Merchants"
I guess you're right. That's a better way of putting it.

How much does Bush pay you to come up with this shit? I can't decide if whatever amount it is is too much or not enough.

Given the average Bushevik mindset, there probably wasn't any financial incentives involved. He probably felt it was God's Commandment for him to defend the honor of Dear Leader Chairman Shrubya by denouncing the attempts by the Evil Commie Liberal Al Qaeda in New England to question his competence and turn the United States into a Godless Gay Muslim wasteland.

Comments from Plame and Wilson at a press conference:

PLAME: Good Morning. I'm proud to have served my country by working at the Central Intelligence Agency. I and my former CIA colleagues trusted our government to protect us as we did our jobs. That a few reckless individuals within the administration betrayed that trust has been a grave disappointment to every patriotic American.

Joe and I have filed this action with heavy hearts but with a renewed sense of purpose. I would much rather be continuing my career as a public servant than be a plaintiff in a lawsuit. But I feel strongly and justice demands that those who acted so harmfully against our national security must answer for their shameful contact in court.

WILSON: My name is Joe Wilson. I proudly served my country as a Foreign Service officer for twenty-three years. I was deeply honored to be appointed Ambassador to two African countries by President George Herbert Walker Bush, for whom I also served as acting ambassador to Iraq during the first Gulf War. In that capacity, I was the last American diplomat to confront Saddam Hussein before the launching of Desert Storm. In the Clinton Administration I was Senior Director of African Affairs at the National Security Council.

After my retirement from the Foreign Service in 1998, I undertook two discreet missions at the request of my government to the Republic of Niger to look into uranium related matters. In each case, I reported back my conclusions faithfully and truthfully.

One mission was to look into assertions that Iraq had purchased or was in the process of purchasing uranium yellowcake from Niger. I found no evidence that there was any truth to the allegation. The US Ambassador to Niger, and a four star Marine Corps general also looked into the allegation and came to the same conclusion that the claim was bogus.

Weeks before President Bush uttered his now infamous sixteen words in the 2003 State of the Union address, the National Intelligence officer, representing the intelligence community as a whole reported to the administration that the allegation was “baseless” and should not be used. Regrettably, that counsel was not heeded.

In the months that followed I privately urged the administration correct the public record on the falsehood in the State of the Union. When the administration refused to do so, I exercised my civic duty to hold my government to account for what it had said and done in the name of the American people. I wrote an article in the New York Times entitled “What I didn’t find in Africa.” The day following the appearance of the article the administration spokesman finally admitted that the sixteen words “did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union”. Subsequently, the Director of Central Intelligence confirmed that the statement should never have been made. Within weeks, the Deputy National Security Adviser offered his resignation, acknowledging that he had been told on several occasions that the intelligence community did not want the President to be a “witness of fact” about an unsubstantiated allegation.

Even as the administration was belatedly coming clean, some officials and their allies launched what the special prosecutor has called a concerted effort to use classified information to quote discredit, punish, or seek revenge unquote against my wife, Valerie, and myself. This attack was based on lies and disinformation, and included the compromise of Valerie’s identity as a classified officer of the Central Intelligence Agency. These officials’ abuse of power for personal revenge broke faith with their obligations as public servants to uphold and defend the constitution.

But this remains a nation of laws. No administration official however powerful is above the law and I have confidence in the American system of justice. This suit is about the pursuit of justice.

To assist us in defraying the costs of this suit the Joseph and Valerie Wilson Support Trust has been established with a web site at www.wilsonsupport.org. We are under no illusions about how tough this fight will be but we believe the time has come to hold those who use their official positions to exact personal revenge responsible for their actions.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Valerie_Plame_speaks_about_suit_0714.html

Had a long couple of days ontop of the fact that I have been out of the loop for the last week.

That was your own fault with obvious flamebaiting as your first returning post.

You might as well have started a thread labelled "Bust my chops"

I meant the one where the alleged perjury occured. I get it mixed up with the other suit alleging financial impropriety that was filed earlier in that decade, and it's difficult for me to remember which led to accusations of perjury.


You mean the ADMITTED perjury.

Whether this whole issue was a non-crime or not is a the problem, but it seems the Wilson's feel it was and are willing to pursue legal action. The legal system is built to accomodate the requests of all plaintiffs, even if their cases may lead to a bad image for one political party or another. Until the evidence is heard and the verdict delivered, we can't really say whether this whole thing is a farce or not.

Yes we can. SHe was not covered by any law, had not been an agent for years and was not under cover. Wilson disclosed her Identity to Novak, and Fitgerald found no evidence to support thier claims. This is a standard democratic tactic as of late, and it is abhorrent.

That was your own fault with obvious flamebaiting as your first returning post.

You might as well have started a thread labelled "Bust my chops"

I see no one here can recognize sarcasm when it hits them in the face. Not my fault that you and TG can't. No one else had a problem. Everyone got a laugh about it because they know me.

You mean the ADMITTED perjury.



Yes we can. SHe was not covered by any law, had not been an agent for years and was not under cover. Wilson disclosed her Identity to Novak, and Fitgerald found no evidence to support thier claims. This is a standard democratic tactic as of late, and it is abhorrent.
I see a book tour following the trial.

Hey idiots.. according to the CIA director, this tramp was NOT AN UNDERCOVER AGENT!! Therefore her identity was NOT A SECRET! sheesh.. get over it..

I see a book tour following the trial.

Yep, - just about the time of the 2008 elections, and it will somehow incorporate the Republican candidate in the conspiracy.

Hey idiots.. according to the CIA director, this tramp was NOT AN UNDERCOVER AGENT!! Therefore her identity was NOT A SECRET! sheesh.. get over it..

Not only him - it was pretty much public knowledge among the Washingtonians

Hey idiots.. according to the CIA director, this tramp was NOT AN UNDERCOVER AGENT!! Therefore her identity was NOT A SECRET! sheesh.. get over it..

Agreed. She wasn't an undercover agent so this lawsuit really does not have a leg to stand on.

Hey idiots.. according to the CIA director, this tramp was NOT AN UNDERCOVER AGENT!! Therefore her identity was NOT A SECRET! sheesh.. get over it..

Can you give me a source for that?

don't hold your breath -

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/15.html#a3950

Yes we can. SHe was not covered by any law, had not been an agent for years and was not under cover. Wilson disclosed her Identity to Novak, and Fitgerald found no evidence to support thier claims. This is a standard democratic tactic as of late, and it is abhorrent.
I don't think you have any reason for believing this. Or a link that isn't a blog.

Hey idiots.. according to the CIA director, this tramp was NOT AN UNDERCOVER AGENT!! Therefore her identity was NOT A SECRET! sheesh.. get over it..
This CIA director?

"WASHINGTON - Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., revealed Friday that two years ago he discussed the blown cover of CIA operative Valerie Plame with then CIA director George Tenet and that Tenet "was furious." Tenet promptly called the Justice Department to demand an investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak, Schumer said at a hearing held by House and Senate Democrats.

Novak revealed Plame's identity in July 2003 in a column in which he said she played a key role in having her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, sent to Niger to investigate reports that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had tried to buy materials for a nuclear weapon there.

The Democratic panel heard from five former CIA operatives who said the disclosure of Plame's classified identity was a breach of the law that forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer and a violation of trust that has harmed America's intelligence-gathering capabilities."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1449003/posts

The Bushevik's ability to distort reality is amazing.

Joe Wilson was a Republican with a long distinguished career in the diplomatic corps. He was hailed as a hero by George H. W. Bush for facing down Saddam before the first Iraq conflict.

But he dares to criticize the current Bush and suddenly he's a liying poseur.

Valerie Plame was a NOC. That cannot be disputed. Fitzgerald (a Republican,) stated in his press release that her status WAS classified. When her cover was blown, the CIA (noit the Dems,) requested that this case be investigated. SO JOHN ASHCROFT's Justice Department assigned a special prosecutor. If her status was not classified, neither the CIA nor the Justice department would have started the investigation

But now, in the Bushevik's eyes, the CIA simply has an ax to grind agains Bush and Fitzgerald is a glory-seeking prosecutor of no merit.

Now, putting all that aside, the revelation the Brewster Jennings and Assoc. was a CIA cover company destroyed EXISTING OPERATIONS into WMD. Even if Plame was currently inopertive in a covert sense, her associates WERE. The fact that no names have surfaced means that steps are still being taken to protect the identities of HER FELLOW CIA OPERATIVES who are working to investigate WMD.

That factoid is simply ignored by the Busheviks.

I don't think you have any reason for believing this. Or a link that isn't a blog.

even USAlpenstock doesn't believe what he writes. He's obviously someone just playacting. No one could be that blindly ignorant. Right?

Please let me be right.

I don't think you have any reason for believing this. Or a link that isn't a blog.

I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who in America.

I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee,

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-nws-novak12.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/14/MNG8QJDSCL1.DTL

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/450hiynd.asp

The Bushevik's ability to distort reality is amazing.

Joe Wilson was a Republican with a long distinguished career in the diplomatic corps. He was hailed as a hero by George H. W. Bush for facing down Saddam before the first Iraq conflict.

But he dares to criticize the current Bush and suddenly he's a liying poseur.

Valerie Plame was a NOC. That cannot be disputed. Fitzgerald (a Republican,) stated in his press release that her status WAS classified. When her cover was blown, the CIA (noit the Dems,) requested that this case be investigated. SO JOHN ASHCROFT's Justice Department assigned a special prosecutor. If her status was not classified, neither the CIA nor the Justice department would have started the investigation

But now, in the Bushevik's eyes, the CIA simply has an ax to grind agains Bush and Fitzgerald is a glory-seeking prosecutor of no merit.

Now, putting all that aside, the revelation the Brewster Jennings and Assoc. was a CIA cover company destroyed EXISTING OPERATIONS into WMD. Even if Plame was currently inopertive in a covert sense, her associates WERE. The fact that no names have surfaced means that steps are still being taken to protect the identities of HER FELLOW CIA OPERATIVES who are working to investigate WMD.

That factoid is simply ignored by the Busheviks.


The factoid is that Victoria Toensing, the main AUTHOR of the law supposedly violated, declared that Plame was not covered under the law.

Fitzgerald evidently agreed - as he could not press a SINGLE charge as to this fact.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-nws-novak12.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/06/14/MNG8QJDSCL1.DTL

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/450hiynd.asp
Her name was in Who's Who. The information that she was CIA came from elsewhere.
None of these articles dispute that she was a CIA operative.

The factoid is that Victoria Toensing, the main AUTHOR of the law supposedly violated, declared that Plame was not covered under the law.

Fitzgerald evidently agreed - as he could not press a SINGLE charge as to this fact.
"In coming to the defense of Novak, both on the October 12 edition of Hardball and in her Post op-ed, Toensing failed to disclose that she and Novak are close friends."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510130008

Agreed. She wasn't an undercover agent so this lawsuit really does not have a leg to stand on.
I guess their lawyer does feel a little differently than you? Lets see now, who is more qualified to make such a decision, you or the lawyer? I kinda lean towards the lawyer...no offense Corny.

The factoid is that Victoria Toensing, the main AUTHOR of the law supposedly violated, declared that Plame was not covered under the law.
It is comments such as these that brings your credibility into question. I believe that you tend to embellish "facts" or "sensationalize" on a consistent basis.

Toensing was apparently referring to a law she helped draftas chief counsel on the Senate intelligence committee, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act

Now, either she was "the main AUTHOR" of this law or she "helped draft" the law. That is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is your spin.

Her name was in Who's Who. The information that she was CIA came from elsewhere.
None of these articles dispute that she was a CIA operative.


It was almost common knowlege around Washington.

http://www.slate.com/id/2091907

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501829.html

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/how_covert_was__1.html

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/how_covert_was_.html

I guess their lawyer does feel a little differently than you? Lets see now, who is more qualified to make such a decision, you or the lawyer? I kinda lean towards the lawyer...no offense Corny.


How about the Prosecutor?????

It is comments such as these that brings your credibility into question. I believe that you tend to embellish "facts" or "sensationalize" on a consistent basis.



Now, either she was "the main AUTHOR" of this law or she "helped draft" the law. That is somewhat irrelevant. What is relevant is your spin.

What do you think her job as Chief Council entailed???? Sheese!

It was almost common knowlege around Washington.

http://www.slate.com/id/2091907

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501829.html

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/how_covert_was__1.html

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/10/how_covert_was_.html

What do any of those links have to do with her identity being common knowledge before "plamegate" went down?

How about the Prosecutor?????

You mean Fitzgerald? The guy who said, quite explicitly, that her status was classified?

even USAlpenstock doesn't believe what he writes. He's obviously someone just playacting. No one could be that blindly ignorant. Right?

Please let me be right.

Unfortunately, Busheviks are like Michael Jackson when it comes to image. Make up even the most outrageous claims and sooner or later they'll both do something to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Let's look at what Woodward says, in his effort to poo poo the situation, a situation that he had every reason to downplay, since he was himself involved.

WOODWARD: ... They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that Joe Wilson's wife was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment.

So Woodward called in to the CIA. And they gave him an accurate accouting of the covert operations involved in the scandal. Riiiiiight. These guys are horrible at keeping secrets, I guess.

It also jibes with what I wrote a few days ago. The short version - the CIA was not making much of an effort to conceal her status: her Brewster-Jennings cover was not constructed with any great verve, neither she nor the CIA were exhorting her husband to keep quiet about the news (sure to be of interest to foreign spy-chasers) that he did contract consulting for the CIA, and the CIA press office did not know her status when Novak called, or exert themselves to prevent publication afterwards.

Let's see. Wilson was a career diplomat who had worked his whole life in government. If they suddenly went to great pains to hide his activities, I wonder what foreign agents would think. Hmmmm. And who would guess that a career Washintonian would have a wife who was employed in an international consulting firm. Politicians never grease the wheels for their relatives, right?

USaplenstock, what's more suspicious. The wife of an Ambassador having a cushy internatiuonal job, or the wife of an ambassador inexplicably disappearing from time to time?

See, the whole point of covert operations is to make it look like there is no effort to be covert.

Finally, why would the press office know the status of a covert operative? IF they did know, why would they tell Novak? If they did tell Novak, why would they tell the truth? Do you honestly expect them to say "her identity is secret, don't print anything." Even if they eventually DID say that, they would have to get authorization first in order to say that, because saying that was, by definition, revealing a secret that they are not allowed to reveal under penalty of law?

Remember, part of the law involved is that the person has to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. We have no way of knowing, but that caveat might be the lone thing between Rove and indictment. A CIA employee would not have that excuse.

To sum up, if shit had hit the fan because of the Plame affair, the CIA would have to lie to Woodward and Novak about it.

What do any of those links have to do with her identity being common knowledge before "plamegate" went down?

It was known. She was not an undercover agent, she had a desk job. There was no crime.

It was known. She was not an undercover agent, she had a desk job. There was no crime.

You can repeat the same line over and over again. It's still a lie.

Answer me this. If she was not covert, why did the CIA order an investigation into who blew her cover? If the CIA did not present proof that she was covert, why did the Justice Department accept the case? If, after an exhaustive investigation it was found that she was not covert, why did Fitzgerald (again, a Republican,) say her status was classified in his press release?

As far as the crime is concerned, that statute requires that INTENT be proven. Intent is very very hard to prove. Lack of indictment IS NOT proof that she was not covert.

To sum up. The CIA thought her status was classified. The DOJ thought so too. The Special Prosecutor confirmed it. Undeniably.

Yes, she worked at a desk from time to time. Most likely all CIA operatives who visit Washinton from time to time do some desk work. This isn't James Bond, after all. This is real life. Real life entails paperwork, even if you are a secret agent.

USlaughingstock, imagine this converstation:

CIA Official: Hi, we'd like an investigation into who revealed the identity of one of our desk jockies

DOJ Official: Huh? A paper pusher? Is it even a crime to reveal the identity of a clerk?

CIA: Well, no.

DOJ: Oh...so, was her desk job a cover for some secret work?

CIA: Er...no.

DOJ: So...she was just some low level functionary with no official or unofficial cover?

CIA: That's right.

DOJ: [click]

CIA: Hello? Hello? Damn.

It was known. She was not an undercover agent, she had a desk job. There was no crime.
You fail at reading comprehension.

That is from a former CIA agent, Larry C. Johnson.

You can read his statement to congress here in a PDF:
http://www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20050722113326-59442.pdf


Let me do the honor of reposting this link.

Let's look at what Woodward says, in his effort to poo poo the situation, a situation that he had every reason to downplay, since he was himself involved.



So Woodward called in to the CIA. And they gave him an accurate accouting of the covert operations involved in the scandal. Riiiiiight. These guys are horrible at keeping secrets, I guess.



Let's see. Wilson was a career diplomat who had worked his whole life in government. If they suddenly went to great pains to hide his activities, I wonder what foreign agents would think. Hmmmm. And who would guess that a career Washintonian would have a wife who was employed in an international consulting firm. Politicians never grease the wheels for their relatives, right?

USaplenstock, what's more suspicious. The wife of an Ambassador having a cushy internatiuonal job, or the wife of an ambassador inexplicably disappearing from time to time?

See, the whole point of covert operations is to make it look like there is no effort to be covert.

Finally, why would the press office know the status of a covert operative? IF they did know, why would they tell Novak? If they did tell Novak, why would they tell the truth? Do you honestly expect them to say "her identity is secret, don't print anything." Even if they eventually DID say that, they would have to get authorization first in order to say that, because saying that was, by definition, revealing a secret that they are not allowed to reveal under penalty of law?

Remember, part of the law involved is that the person has to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. We have no way of knowing, but that caveat might be the lone thing between Rove and indictment. A CIA employee would not have that excuse.

To sum up, if shit had hit the fan because of the Plame affair, the CIA would have to lie to Woodward and Novak about it.



Sorry no Fitzmas for you.

Get back to me when you get a conviction.

Sorry no Fitzmas for you.

Get back to me when you get a conviction.
Ahh, so end of discussion when you can't back up your points?

Sorry no Fitzmas for you.

Get back to me when you get a conviction.

Bender from The Breakfast Club: Just answer the question, Claire!

Ahh, so end of discussion when you can't back up your points?


Not at all.

I backed up my points and apparently Fitzgerald agrees with me. He has decided he will not prosecute anyone for "outing" Plame.


As I said, no fitzmas for you. I know you and your ilk have rabidly pursued this hope, but once again the truth does not support your side. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Not at all.

I backed up my points and apparently Fitzgerald agrees with me. He has decided he will not prosecute anyone for "outing" Plame.


As I said, no fitzmas for you. I know you and your ilk have rabidly pursued this hope, but once again the truth does not support your side. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Answer the question, hack. I've refuted every one of your points. Now you're supposed to refute my rebuttal. Repeating THE SAME EXACT THING AGAIN just makes you look like a tool.

Once again, outing a CIA agent is not a crime. KNOWINGLY outing a person YOU KNOW TO BE a CIA agent is. That's called intent, which is very very hard to prove. A conviction has nothing to do with her covert status.

Answer the question, hack. Outing a CIA agent is not a crime. KNOWINGLY outing a person YOU KNOW TO BE a CIA agent is. That's called intent, which is very very hard to prove. A conviction has nothing to do with her covert status.

USLaughingStock also supports O.J. Simpson in his quest to find The Real Killers™ on the golf course, and believes that Michael Jackson would never touch a kid inappropriately.

USLaughingStock also supports O.J. Simpson in his quest to find The Real Killers™ on the golf course, and believes that Michael Jackson would never touch a kid inappropriately.

No, USlaughingstock's denial goes beyond that. He believes that neither Nicole Brown Simpson nor the child in question in the Jackson case ever existed.

Answer the question, hack. I've refuted every one of your points. Now you're supposed to refute my rebuttal. Repeating THE SAME EXACT THING AGAIN just makes you look like a tool.

Once again, outing a CIA agent is not a crime. KNOWINGLY outing a person YOU KNOW TO BE a CIA agent is. That's called intent, which is very very hard to prove. A conviction has nothing to do with her covert status.


No you haven't.

You have not even laid a glove on most.

Your screaming up and down does not count - that may work with your mommy, but not in the real world with adults.
I have the ultimate refutation on my side NO CONVICTION - NOT EVEN A SINGLE CHARGE of outing a CIA Agent.

So, until you get that conviction. ALL we got is a political hit.

I have the ultimate refutation on my side NO CONVICTION - NOT EVEN A SINGLE CHARGE of outing a CIA Agent.

So, until you get that conviction. ALL we got is a political hit.

Osama Bin Laden was never convicted of any link to 9/11 too. So until you get that conviction, all you got is a politico who merely says he's guilty.

Al Capone was never charged of being a mob boss. He was charged with tax evasion. Thereby, Al Capone was not a mob boss.

See? We can make illogical arguments too.

If you ever tried to make a living as a lawyer, you'd die broke.

No you haven't.

You have not even laid a glove on most.

Your screaming up and down does not count - that may work with your mommy, but not in the real world with adults.
I have the ultimate refutation on my side NO CONVICTION - NOT EVEN A SINGLE CHARGE of outing a CIA Agent.

So, until you get that conviction. ALL we got is a political hit.
We all know it was a political hit. We've been saying that from the beginning. You're just confused about what the hit was. It was a move by the Bush Administration against Wilson and Plame. As Rambo would say, "They drew first blood."

Osama Bin Laden was never convicted of any link to 9/11 too. So until you get that conviction, all you got is a politico who merely says he's guilty.

Al Capone was never charged of being a mob boss. He was charged with tax evasion. Thereby, Al Capone was not a mob boss.

See? We can make illogical arguments too.

If you ever tried to make a living as a lawyer, you'd die broke.

USLaughingStock also stabs himself in the ass with his brand of "logic" like this:

1) If there is no conviction, there is no crime.
2) Many if not all of the detainees at Guantanamo have not been formally charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.
3) Therefore, many if not all of the detainees at Guantanamo are not criminals.

Turning Bushevik "logic" back on itself is fun, isn't it?

We all know it was a political hit. We've been saying that from the beginning. You're just confused about what the hit was. It was a move by the Bush Administration against Wilson and Plame. As Rambo would say, "They drew first blood."


RRRIIIGGGHHTTT :rolleyes:

Joe Wilson has lied from the get-go. The incident with his wife was just one of them.

RRRIIIGGGHHTTT :rolleyes:

Joe Wilson has lied from the get-go. The incident with his wife was just one of them.
From the Get-go?

"Washington Post profile of Wilson:

In 1990, while sheltering more than a hundred Americans at the U.S. Embassy and diplomatic residences, he briefed reporters while wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie -- a symbol of defiance after Hussein threatened to execute anyone who didn't turn over foreigners.

The message, Wilson said: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."

This toughness impressed President George H.W. Bush, who called Wilson a "truly inspiring" diplomat who exhibited "courageous leadership" by facing down Hussein and helping to gain freedom for the Americans before the 1991 war began."

oh yeah, the pwnage is great in this thread :D

Hopefully, justice will be served.


If that were the case, Wilson would be in Jail along with Ronnie Earle.

If that were the case, Wilson would be in Jail along with Ronnie Earle.
LOL!

What law did Wilson break?

USLaughingStock also stabs himself in the ass with his brand of "logic" like this:

1) If there is no conviction, there is no crime.
2) Many if not all of the detainees at Guantanamo have not been formally charged with a crime, much less convicted of one.
3) Therefore, many if not all of the detainees at Guantanamo are not criminals.

Turning Bushevik "logic" back on itself is fun, isn't it?

Um, I hate to break it to you, there was not even enough evidence to bring charges. In other words, it was effectively thrown out of court.

Um, I hate to break it to you, there was not even enough evidence to bring charges. In other words, it was effectively thrown out of court.
Sometimes, the system does fail.

LOL!

What law did Wilson break?

Truth be told, I would love to know this as well.

Truth be told, I would love to know this as well.
I'll join you in watching the grass grow while we wait.

I'll join you in watching the grass grow while we wait.

*cooking*

BBQ?

*cooking*

BBQ?
Throw more cheese on those burgers.

Throw more cheese on those burgers.

*throws more cheese on the burgers*

Want the bread grilled too?

*throws more cheese on the burgers*

Want the bread grilled too?
It'd be nice.
*lounges out*

I'd help out but I know how much you like serving your guests. Get me a beer, while you're up.

Truth be told, I would love to know this as well.


Figure of speech, although the Rove, Cheney et al should have some sort of legal recourse.

Figure of speech, although the Rove, Cheney et al should have some sort of legal recourse.
Why? They seem to be getting through this intact.

From the Get-go?




On this issue - yes. I did not know that we were discussing anything other than the Plame case.

It'd be nice.
*lounges out*

I'd help out but I know how much you like serving your guests. Get me a beer, while you're up.

*serves the beer and the burgers*

There ya go :)

On this issue - yes. I did not know that we were discussing anything other than the Plame case.
I was under the impression that Wilson's character was being called into question.

No you haven't.

You have not even laid a glove on most.

You're right, it's not a glove I laid on you, it's a foot upside your head.

Your screaming up and down does not count - that may work with your mommy, but not in the real world with adults.[/quote]

Yes, that was a mature refutation of the facts.

I have the ultimate refutation on my side NO CONVICTION - NOT EVEN A SINGLE CHARGE of outing a CIA Agent.

Listen very carefully. No conviction means there is no evidence that a specific person intentionally outed Plame while having knowledge that Plame was covert AND that the leaking person was charged with keeping that secet. THAT'S ALL. Your logic of no conviction = no crime is absurd.

By that logic, Nicole Brown Simpson was not murdered. Let's not even bring O.J. into the equation. Whether O.J. did it or not, it is clear that a murder did indeed happen.

So, until you get that conviction. ALL we got is a political hit.

No, we have an outed CIA agent but not enough evidence to convict anyone for outing her. The lack of a conviction DOES NOT SPEAK to her covert status one bit. Period.

If that were the case, Wilson would be in Jail along with Ronnie Earle.
Why should Wilson go to jail?

It would appear that you have an aversion towards justice unless it serves your own interests? Democratic principles are totally abhorrent?

Why should Wilson go to jail?

It would appear that you have an aversion towards justice unless it serves your own interests? Democratic principles are totally abhorrent?

Classic Bushevism.

RRRIIIGGGHHTTT :rolleyes:

Joe Wilson has lied from the get-go. The incident with his wife was just one of them.

Nuh uh uh. Joe Wilson did not get convicted of lying. Thereby, he was not lying.

It's so fun using people's arguments against themselves. It shows what big hypocrites they are.

Nuh uh uh. Joe Wilson did not get convicted of lying. Thereby, he was not lying.

It's so fun using people's arguments against themselves. It shows what big hypocrites they are.
He won't acknowledge this.

Why? They seem to be getting through this intact.

At what cost???? They are innocent and they have been smeared mercilessly and have been threatened with jail, simply because they disagree politically with the Democrats. How much money have they had to pay in order to prove their innocence??? How much money does it take to get back a good name??? What price do you put on the agony that they have been put through????

Nuh uh uh. Joe Wilson did not get convicted of lying. Thereby, he was not lying.

It's so fun using people's arguments against themselves. It shows what big hypocrites they are.

We will see. I have a feeling however that this lawsuit will backfire on them.

As for hypocracy, not really. This has yet to be decided in court. I am willing to live with the decision. Unlike you, who simply want blood because of a political difference.

You don't care what the courts said - I do.

Classic Bushevism.

You obviously missed the fact that I was using a figure of speech. But nice try anyway.

The lack of a conviction DOES NOT SPEAK to her covert status one bit. Period.

The fact that it was pretty much thrown out of court however, does.

The fact that it was pretty much thrown out of court however, does.

I see, when you get backed into a corner, you just make shit up. Nothing was "thrown out" of court.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, there never would have been any case at all.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, the CIA would not have contacted the Justice Dept.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, the Justice Department would never have taken the case.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, there would not have been enough evidence to form a grand jury.

You never address these facts because you can't.

I see, when you get backed into a corner, you just make shit up. Nothing was "thrown out" of court.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, there never would have been any case at all.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, the CIA would not have contacted the Justice Dept.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, the Justice Department would never have taken the case.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, there would not have been enough evidence to form a grand jury.

You never address these facts because you can't.

He also denies being a Bushevik, so that speaks for itself :D

The fact that it was pretty much thrown out of court however, does.

I missed this. Can you post a source?

He also denies being a Bushevik, so that speaks for itself :D

He's probably just playing the role of a Bushevik. Still, it's fun to run circles around his assumed role.

At what cost???? They are innocent and they have been smeared mercilessly and have been threatened with jail, simply because they disagree politically with the Democrats. How much money have they had to pay in order to prove their innocence??? How much money does it take to get back a good name??? What price do you put on the agony that they have been put through????
This is exactly how I feel about Plame and Wilson. Your heart is directed to the wrong people.

I see, when you get backed into a corner, you just make shit up. Nothing was "thrown out" of court.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, there never would have been any case at all.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, the CIA would not have contacted the Justice Dept.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, the Justice Department would never have taken the case.

Repeat after me: If she had not been covert, there would not have been enough evidence to form a grand jury.

You never address these facts because you can't.



Look at Fitzgeralds quote you stated earlier (I think it was you) He specifically said her status was confidential, and he also said she was not covert. It is an important point to the law. Again, the Authors of the law claim it was she was not covered, At least a half dozen people in Washington - members of the press no-less, knew. Andrea Mitchell said she knew she worked for the CIA, but as you reported, she did not know she was undercover - Yet she actually listed Her cover agency as her employer??? You don't think THAT blew her cover???? The Soviet Unions and Cuban governments knew she was undercover - and who knows who they told.

Give me a break.:rolleyes:

I was thinking about the whole plame thing, and one thing got to me.
Valerie Plame worked in Nucklear Proliferation.
The face company that she worked with, and many of her colleages, are probably in hiding now.
What if, just on the off chance, one of them was about to intercept something like, say, a suitcase nuke that someone had smuggled out of some forgotten soviet stockpile and was selling on the black market.
That suitcase nuke then gets sold instead to an Al-Queda operative.
That Al-Queda operative smuggles it into the country.
He makes his way to new york city...

And all because of Karl Rove's desire to avenge himself on anyone who points out that he made a mistake.

And all because of Karl Rove's desire to avenge himself on anyone who points out that he made a mistake.
Oh, I think this whole matter goes much, much deeper than that!!

Oh, I think this whole matter goes much, much deeper than that!!
Ok, so it was also about silencing critics. Doesn't make it much less petty in comparison to the possible consequences.

Look at Fitzgeralds quote you stated earlier (I think it was you) He specifically said her status was confidential, and he also said she was not covert. It is an important point to the law. Again, the Authors of the law claim it was she was not covered, At least a half dozen people in Washington - members of the press no-less, knew. Andrea Mitchell said she knew she worked for the CIA, but as you reported, she did not know she was undercover - Yet she actually listed Her cover agency as her employer??? You don't think THAT blew her cover???? The Soviet Unions and Cuban governments knew she was undercover - and who knows who they told.

Give me a break.:rolleyes:
When did Fitzgerald say that she was not covert? How can he say her status is confidential, yet he decides to break that confidentiality?

"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

Libby’s lawyers had asked Fitzgerald to produce evidence that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent at the CIA. They had also asked for an assessment of the damage, if any, caused by the exposure of her identity.

In papers filed with the court, Fitzgerald refused both requests. Now, in the courtroom, Judge Walton wanted to hear Fitzgerald’s reasons.

“Does the government intend to introduce any evidence that would relate to either damage or potential damage that the alleged revelations by Mr. Libby caused, or do you intend to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Wilson’s status and whether it was classified or she was in a covert status or anything of that nature?” Walton asked.

“We don’t intend to offer any proof of actual damage,” Fitzgerald said. “We’re not going to get into whether that would occur or not. It’s not part of the perjury statute.”

It was an astonishing statement, in the context of what Fitzgerald has said in the past.

Go back to the news conference he held last October in which he announced the Libby indictment. The case was very serious, Fitzgerald said, as he launched into the famous metaphor in which he compared the CIA-leak case to a baseball game in which the pitcher threw a fastball, hit the batter and “really, really hurt him.”

This case is kind of like that, Fitzgerald said, only “it’s a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn’t to one person. It wasn’t just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.”

There was no way one could listen to that and escape the conclusion that Fitzgerald was claiming the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s identity did serious damage. But that was then. Now Fitzgerald doesn’t want to talk about it.

But what about Mrs. Wilson’s job status? When that issue came up, the conversation went truly off track.

Wells was again pressing the judge to force Fitzgerald to turn over evidence of the damage done. The reason he needed it, Wells said, is that Fitzgerald will likely — and understandably — tell the jurors that the case began with the outing of a CIA agent.

“What [the jurors] are hearing is that, as Mr. Fitzgerald said in his press conference, Mr. Libby outed a CIA agent, and they are going to be sitting in the box thinking 007’s identity has been disclosed and that my client is a terrible person,” Wells said. “It’s going to be like we have turned over the crown jewels because we outed a classified CIA agent.”

The judge then turned to Fitzgerald. What did he have to say?

“We are trying a perjury case,” Fitzgerald said. “If she turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee, it’s not a defense if you lie in a grand jury under oath about what you said.”

So there you have it. Not only does it not matter if the Valerie Plame Wilson leak did any damage, or no damage at all. It doesn’t even matter if Wilson even worked for the CIA. What Patrick Fitzgerald set out to investigate, the alleged politically motivated, deliberate exposure of a covert CIA agent, no longer matters.

A bit more food for thought.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/051106.html

"It’s not part of the perjury statute.”

Which part of that sentence is hard to understand? You'll recall a similar situation with the Clinton impeachment. It wasn't about infidelity, it was about perjury.

This seems to be an opinion based website. So take it with however much salt you like. I just found it funny.

"The discredited story about a "Jean Edwards," a Washington, DC, lawyer and purported resident of Jamaica, who listed "Brewster-Jenning and Associates" [sic] as her employer from 1985 to 1989 on an on-line resume posted on the Akerman Senterfitt law firm's web site, is once again being circulated on the Internet.

The story about Edwards and her attendance at various nuclear technology conferences after she supposedly left Brewster Jennings in 1989 and became a "CIA Case Officer," also listed on her resume, was circulated by a Carolyn Kuhn during last March's America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington, DC.

At the same time, another phony story was circulated that a "Robert Ellman" also listed Brewster Jennings as his employer on his online resume.

The salting of "Brewster Jennings" in the two online resumes was such a sloppy disinformation campaign, Edwards' resume had the firm listed as "Brewster-Jenning." Misspellings are common indicators of online forgeries since the programmer perpetrators of such computer hacks are often poor English-speakers from Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe.

Kuhn's now discredited story was an attempt to show that Brewster Jennings & Associates was a well known operation.

The story and the forgery of the resumes was an attempt to clear Scooter Libby of any wrongdoing while his major financial backers met at the AIPAC meeting in Washington to set up his defense fund. The fake Brewster Jennings resume stories were an attempt to garner sympathy for Libby and another attempt to smear Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph Wilson.

Some of those involved with the fake resume story were also associated with the fake Niger documents that helped propagandize the public and media for the attack on Iraq.

The reappearance of the fake resume story just after the announcement last week of the Wilsons' lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and ten unnamed "John Does," is no coincidence.

WMR's CIA sources have stated that Brewster Jennings & Associates was not active in the 1980s but was activated in the early 1990s to deal with the proliferation of nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

© 2006 WayneMadsenReport.com. All Rights Reserved."
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1016.shtml

This seems to be an opinion based website. So take it with however much salt you like. I just found it funny.

"The discredited story about a "Jean Edwards," a Washington, DC, lawyer and purported resident of Jamaica, who listed "Brewster-Jenning and Associates" [sic] as her employer from 1985 to 1989 on an on-line resume posted on the Akerman Senterfitt law firm's web site, is once again being circulated on the Internet.

The story about Edwards and her attendance at various nuclear technology conferences after she supposedly left Brewster Jennings in 1989 and became a "CIA Case Officer," also listed on her resume, was circulated by a Carolyn Kuhn during last March's America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington, DC.

At the same time, another phony story was circulated that a "Robert Ellman" also listed Brewster Jennings as his employer on his online resume.

The salting of "Brewster Jennings" in the two online resumes was such a sloppy disinformation campaign, Edwards' resume had the firm listed as "Brewster-Jenning." Misspellings are common indicators of online forgeries since the programmer perpetrators of such computer hacks are often poor English-speakers from Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe.

Kuhn's now discredited story was an attempt to show that Brewster Jennings & Associates was a well known operation.

The story and the forgery of the resumes was an attempt to clear Scooter Libby of any wrongdoing while his major financial backers met at the AIPAC meeting in Washington to set up his defense fund. The fake Brewster Jennings resume stories were an attempt to garner sympathy for Libby and another attempt to smear Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph Wilson.

Some of those involved with the fake resume story were also associated with the fake Niger documents that helped propagandize the public and media for the attack on Iraq.

The reappearance of the fake resume story just after the announcement last week of the Wilsons' lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, and ten unnamed "John Does," is no coincidence.

WMR's CIA sources have stated that Brewster Jennings & Associates was not active in the 1980s but was activated in the early 1990s to deal with the proliferation of nuclear weapons after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

© 2006 WayneMadsenReport.com. All Rights Reserved."
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1016.shtml

Bushevism runs rampant in the nation, and all we can do is hope the country is still standing when Dear Leader finally leaves office.

Bushevism runs rampant in the nation, and all we can do is hope the country is still standing when Dear Leader finally leaves office.
I'm sure it would be difficult to find out if it is true that the same people who came up these phony documents are the same with the Nigeria stuff but it wouldn't be a surprise.

We will see. I have a feeling however that this lawsuit will backfire on them.

As for hypocracy, not really. This has yet to be decided in court. I am willing to live with the decision. Unlike you, who simply want blood because of a political difference.

The hypocrisy comes from your side. The CIA went to court because they felt that at the time of the leak, Plame's status and the actions she took under their auspices was sufficiently sensitive to warrant a covert status, even after she left.

Witness protection programs are the same way. Just cause you've already testified and put a mob boss in jail doesn't mean that your name gets to be trumpeted on the media cause you'll end up wearing concrete shoes on a river cruise.

But you don't think that way. You think it's ok merely because the courts didn't convict the leaker.

So in your world view, Saddam Hussein did NOT direct the mass murder of hundreds or thousands of people. Why? Because he wasn't convicted yet.

Just like Osama bin Laden did not play a mastermind role in the 9/11 bombings.

Or Hitler never ordered the extermination of the Jews.

Why? Because they were never convicted in court.

Do you hold this view? If you don't, you're a hypocrite.


You don't care what the courts said - I do.

Bollocks. You only care about what you say and not what the courts do. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making up garbage from thin air like that rubbish about the case being thrown out of court.

Yet she actually listed Her cover agency as her employer??? You don't think THAT blew her cover????:

The only people who think that giving a false address would somehow give their real address away are mentally deficient retards.

Or Sherlock Holmes.

You're definitely no Holmes.

My name is Saddam Hussein. Figure out my real name genius. :rolleyes:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former CIA operative Valerie Plame and her husband sued Vice President Dick Cheney, top White House aide Karl Rove and others on Thursday for their role in the disclosure of her classified CIA status.

Ahh, one last desperate grasp by two pathetic idiots at holding onto fame.

It's almost cute.

Ahh, one last desperate grasp by two pathetic idiots at holding onto fame.

It's almost cute.

And yet certain people claim New York Times was treasonous for revealing "state secrets"

The only people who think that giving a false address would somehow give their real address away are mentally deficient retards.

Or Sherlock Holmes.

You're definitely no Holmes.

My name is Saddam Hussein. Figure out my real name genius. :rolleyes:

And the thing is, that's her cover company. That's the one she's supposed to list for all public documents.

Outing herself would be listing "Covert Operative" on her library card.

Maybe that's too hard for the Bushistas to understand. Hmmm. I've got it. Think of:
Brewster Jennings = Clark Kent

Covert CIA Weapons Proliferation Expert = Superman.

What name does Superman have on his gym membership? Clark Kent.

High School Diploma? Clark Kent.

Online Personals Ad? manosteel2000

Ahh, one last desperate grasp by two pathetic idiots at holding onto fame.

It's almost cute.

If you sit a infinite number of monkeys in a room and have them type for an infinite time, they'll eventually reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare.

It only takes six monkeys drunk on tequila a week and a half to form the average response from a diehard Bushista.

Ahh, one last desperate grasp by two pathetic idiots at holding onto fame.

It's almost cute.
I'm sure that all Covert CIA operatives are in it for the fame.

I'm sure that all Covert CIA operatives are in it for the fame.

That's just a great line. Bravo.

Reality check. Plame outed herself by appearing at the the first Ron Ridenhour Award for Truth-Telling luncheon with her husband Joseph Wilson in October, 1993. That's just how important her cover was to her. :rolleyes: On January 17, Vanity Fair published an article, with a freakin' photograph, no less, showing Valerie Plame's face quite clearly. Real CIA operatives get their pictures taken in public all the time. Particularly when their anonymity is so very important to them. It wasn't until the following July that Novak published her identity, and the whole "Plamegate" thing flared up. She was a low level operative at best, and all this bruhaha is much ado about nothing.

The whole thing is a farce. Periodically it gets dug up again when they seem to need the publicity. Then the cries for Rove's blood begins anew. I kinda hope Rove countersues for libel. 'Twould serve her right.

The whole thing is a farce. Periodically it gets dug up again when they seem to need the publicity. Then the cries for Rove's blood begins anew. I kinda hope Rove countersues for libel. 'Twould serve her right.


Except for the fact that revealing a covert operative...any operatives name to a media source is illegal.

Lawbreaking, you see..is the real issue.

Reality check. Plame outed herself by appearing at the the first Ron Ridenhour Award for Truth-Telling luncheon with her husband Joseph Wilson in October, 1993. That's just how important her cover was to her. :rolleyes: On January 17, Vanity Fair published an article, with a freakin' photograph, no less, showing Valerie Plame's face quite clearly. Real CIA operatives get their pictures taken in public all the time. Particularly when their anonymity is so very important to them. It wasn't until the following July that Novak published her identity, and the whole "Plamegate" thing flared up. She was a low level operative at best, and all this bruhaha is much ado about nothing.

The whole thing is a farce. Periodically it gets dug up again when they seem to need the publicity. Then the cries for Rove's blood begins anew. I kinda hope Rove countersues for libel. 'Twould serve her right.

Once again, her public identity is not a secret. Public Identity = Clark Kent, remember? Pointing at her and saying "That's Valery Plame Wilson, Wife of Joe WIlson and a Consultant for Brewster Jennings and Assoc," is revealing her PUBLIC IDENTITY.

Pointing at her and saying, "That's Valery Plame, covert opertive, weapons proliferation specialist who uses Brewster Jennings as a cover business," IS OUTING HER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates

The Boston Globe reported: "Former intelligence officials confirmed Plame's cover was an invention and that she used other false identities and affiliations when working overseas. "All it was was a telephone and a post office box," said one former intelligence official who asked not to be identified. 'When she was abroad she had a more viable cover.'".[1]. And Knight Ridder reported (19 October 2003):

Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, the name of which has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis. Now, Plame's career as a covert operations officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with -- on business or not -- may be in danger. The directorate is conducting an extensive damage assessment. And Plame's exposure may make it harder for American spies to persuade foreigners to share important secrets with them, U.S. intelligence officials said.

Once again, her public identity is not a secret. Public Identity = Clark Kent, remember? Pointing at her and saying "That's Valery Plame Wilson, Wife of Joe WIlson and a Consultant for Brewster Jennings and Assoc," is revealing her PUBLIC IDENTITY.

Pointing at her and saying, "That's Valery Plame, covert opertive, weapons proliferation specialist who uses Brewster Jennings as a cover business," IS OUTING HER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates
This is what happens when you get all the information on this case from right wing bloggers.

Reality check.


it bounced