posted on February 10, 2007 09:06:15 AM
From "The Nation", 2003, available to ALL to read...they have a website that ANYONE can go to:
"""A White House Smear
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.
In a recent column on Nigergate, Novak examined the role of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV in the affair. Two weeks ago, Wilson went public, writing in The New York Times and telling The Washington Post about the trip he took to Niger in February 2002--at the request of the CIA--to check out allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium for a nuclear weapons program from Niger. Wilson was a good pick for the job. He had been a State Department officer there in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government. Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported. In that post, he helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, worked to get over 120 American hostages out Iraq, and sheltered about 800 Americans in the embassy compound. At the time, Novak's then-partner, Rowland Evans, wrote that Wilson displayed "the stuff of heroism." And President George H. W. Bush commended Wilson: "Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job."
The current Bush administration has not been so appreciative of Wilson's more recent efforts. In Niger, he met with past and present government officials and persons involved in the uranium business and concluded that it was "highly doubtful" that Hussein had been able to purchase uranium from that nation. On June 12, The Washington Post revealed that an unnamed ambassador had traveled to Niger and had reported back that the Niger caper probably never happened. This article revved up the controversy over Bush's claim--which he made in the state of the union speech--that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program.
Critics were charging that this allegation had been part of a Bush effort to mislead the country to war, and the administration was maintaining that at the time of the speech the White House had no reason to suspect this particular sentence was based on faulty intelligence. "Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said days before the Post article ran. "But no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions." Wilson's mission to Niger provided more reason to wonder if the administration's denials were on the level. And once Wilson went public, he prompted a new round of inconvenient and troubling questions for the White House. (Wilson, who opposed the latest war in Iraq, had not revealed his trip to Niger during the prewar months, when he was a key participant in the media debate over whether the country should go to war.)
Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.
Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer. Wilson says, "I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech."
So he will neither confirm nor deny that his wife--who is the mother of three-year-old twins--works for the CIA. But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it.
The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson's wife is such a person--and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her--her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.
This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a "pattern of activities" to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.
Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson's wife and had no reluctance about naming her. "I figured if they gave it to me," he says. "They'd give it to others....I'm a reporter. Somebody gives me information and it's accurate. I generally use it." And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials.
So where's the investigation? Remember Filegate--and the Republican charge that the Clinton White House was using privileged information against its political foes? In this instance, it appears possible--perhaps likely--that Bush administration officials gathered material on Wilson and his family and then revealed classified information to lash out at him, and in doing so compromised national security.
Was Wilson's wife involved in sending him off to Niger? Wilson won't talk about her. But in response to this query, he says, "I was invited out to meet with a group of people at the CIA who were interested in this subject. None I knew more than casually. They asked me about my understanding of the uranium business and my familiarity with the people in the Niger government at the time. And they asked, 'what would you do?' We gamed it out--what I would be looking for. Nothing was concluded at that time. I told them if they wanted me to go to Niger I would clear my schedule. Then they got back to me and said, 'yes, we want you to go.'"
Is it relevant that Wilson's wife might have suggested him for the unpaid gig. Not really. And Wilson notes, with a laugh, that at that point their twins were two years old, and it would not have been much in his wife's interest to encourage him to head off to Africa. What matters is that Wilson returned with the right answer and dutifully reported his conclusions. (In March 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that the documents upon which the Niger allegation was based were amateurish forgeries.) His wife's role--if she had one--has nothing but anecdotal value. And Novak's sources could have mentioned it without providing her name. Instead, they were quite generous.
"Stories like this," Wilson says, "are not intended to intimidate me, since I've already told my story. But it's pretty clear it is intended to intimidate others who might come forward. You need only look at the stories of intelligence analysts who say they have been pressured. They may have kids in college, they may be vulnerable to these types of smears."
Will there be any inquiry? Journalists who write about national security matters (as I often do) tend not to big fans of pursuing government officials who leak classified information. But since Bush administration officials are so devoted to protecting government secrets--such as the identity of the energy lobbyists with whom the vice president meets--one might (theoretically) expect them to be appalled by the prospect that classified information was disclosed and national security harmed for the purposes of mounting a political hit job. Yet two days after the Novak column's appearance, there has not been any public comment from the White House or any other public reverberation.
The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security. ""
posted on February 10, 2007 09:26:53 AM
New questions about who outed Valerie
Apparent meeting with couple discussing Niger violated CIA code
Posted: November 23, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
In violation of CIA regulations that bar contact with reporters without permission, Joseph Wilson's agency-employed wife Valerie Plame apparently accompanied him to a breakfast meeting with New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof in which they discussed the ambassador's controversial mission to Niger one month before Plame allegedly was "outed" by Robert Novak.
In a WND column, investigative reporter Jack Cashill points to a "stunning admission" by Wilson in a January 2004 Vanity Fair magazine story that apparently has been overlooked.
The article by reporter Vicky Ward says:
In early May, Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq; one of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him.
Cashill says if "his wife" refers not to Kristof's spouse but to Plame, "which it almost assuredly does," Wilson "has implicated Plame in a serious transgression."
Cashill points out that Wilson, himself, wrote in the preface to the paperback version of his book, "The Politics of Truth," that, "As an employee of the CIA, she could have no contact with the press without prior approval."
Sitting in at a breakfast with a Times reporter in which her husband discusses a CIA trip that she recommended "certainly qualifies as 'contact,'" Cashill writes. Citing the Vanity Fair article, the online reference source Wikipedia interprets "his wife" as Plame, stating in a timeline: "3 May, 2003: Wilson, Plame and Kristof meet for breakfast. Wilson tells Kristof about his trip to Niger, on the condition that Kristof not name Wilson as his source."
Cashill points out that at this breakfast, "Wilson began planting the seed that the forged Iraq-Niger uranium documents, about which little was still known, were the very same ones that he had allegedly discredited in February 2002."
Kristof wrote May 6, 2003, in the first article to result from a Wilson leak, "The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway."
But Cashill notes that in Wilson's preface to his book, he denies any claim to having debunked the forgeries and dismisses the Kristof remark as a "badly worded reference."
Cashill says this protest would carry more weight if several other reporters to whom Wilson leaked had not made comparable claims, including Walter Pincus of The Washington Post and reporters from The New Republic.
As WorldNetDaily first reported, retired Maj. Gen. Vallely claimed Wilson revealed Plame's employment with the CIA to him in a casual conversation in the Fox News "green room" the year before she allegedly was "outed" by Novak.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." Mike Adams
posted on February 10, 2007 10:13:29 AMJust part of the whitewash by WorldNUTdaily
Its a tough job but someone has to point out the liberal fallacy's.
"When I talk to liberals, I don't expect them to understand my positions on various issues. I spend most of my time trying to help them understand their own." Mike Adams
posted on February 10, 2007 03:23:40 PM
linduh drools, ""She's getting DESPERATE.....two articles now from 3-4 years ago.""
The articles are pertinent to the topic especially this one...can you read the title? No, I knew that was way beyond you.
History doesn't mean much to the illiterate, uneducated neocons but it has happened and even they can only deny it...they can't make it go away
Yup, they're getting desperate...have to bring up a president from 6 years ago...because they have NO defense for the one we have now
posted on February 10, 2007 04:12:25 PM
I knew you wouldn't have anything resembling an intelligent answer...or any answer at all...you never change....
posted on February 10, 2007 11:28:54 PM
linduh, you lie constantly ...here's another one from the other thread:
mingotree
posted on February 10, 2007 07:57:07 AM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
linduh drools, """Linda_K
posted on February 9, 2007 07:21:34 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They're all so very upset that NO ONE was indicted they can't stand it."""
Uh, linDUH, want to read the first sentence of this news report???
Makes YOU A LIAR!
""Cheney's top aide indicted;
CIA leak probe continues
Libby charged on 5 counts, confident he'll be 'totally exonerated'
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Posted: 6:50 a.m. EDT (10:50 GMT)
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald describes the charges Friday.
Image:
RELATED
Reaction to CIA leak indictments
Libby helped shape Iraq policy
SPECIAL REPORT
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CIA leak investigation is "not over," special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Friday after announcing charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff.
Fitzgerald said he will be keeping the investigation "open to consider other matters." But, he said, "the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded."
Libby resigned Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on five charges related to the leak probe: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements. (Charges explained)
Libby said in a written statement he is "confident that at the end of this process I will be completely and totally exonerated."
"Today is a sad day for me and my family," he said.
"I have spent much of my career working on behalf of the American people," he said. "I have conducted my responsibilities honorably and truthfully." (Quote gallery)
During an afternoon news conference, Fitzgerald outlined what he called the "very serious" charges. (See video of Fitzgerald outlining charges -- 13:50)
"A CIA officer's name was blown, and there was a leak, and we needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it," he said.
"Given national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.""""
posted on February 10, 2007 11:32:15 PM
Here's how "well" it's going for old Scooter Simply "great" defense LOL!!!
From "The Nation":
Libby Trial: Prosecution Rests--Strongly
It was Hail Mary time for Ted Wells, an attorney for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, as the prosecution moved toward resting its case in the perjury trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. On Thursday, Meet the Press anchor Tim Russert was back on the stand to be cross-examined by Wells. The previous day, Russert had kicked Libby's cover story in the groin. He had disputed Libby's claim that in the days before the leak that outed Valerie Wilson as a CIA officer he (Libby) had learned about her CIA connection not from official sources but from Russert. No way, the newsman said. The Russert call is critical for Libby, who has maintained he never shared official (that is, classified) information about Valerie Wilson with other reporters and only passed along gossip he had picked up from Russert. But on the stand Russert stuck to his version: he didn't say anything to Libby about Wilson's wife during a phone call on July 10 or 11, 2003, because he knew nothing about Wilson's wife until the leak appeared in a July 14 Robert Novak column.
So what was Wells to do? He started off Wednesday by taking shots at Russert's memory. (See here.) He made little progress. On Thursday, he tried to undermine Russert's credibility on other fronts. Wells attempted to make an issue of the fact that until Russert appeared as a witness in this trial he had never divulged publicly that he had talked to the FBI about the CIA leak investigation in November 2003. Wasn't Russert's call with the FBI a "newsworthy event?" Wells inquired, hinting that Russert had for years hid part of his involvement in the CIA leak case. Russert explained that he had not reported the conversation because the FBI agent had asked him to keep it confidential.
Wells then tossed far-fetched theories at the jury. On the stand, Russert had said that none of his NBC colleagues had told him anything about Wilson's wife. What about David Gregory and Andrea Mitchell? Wells asked. None meant none, Russert noted. But Wells still was holding out the possibility that Gregory received leaked information on Wilson's wife from then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and then quickly relayed it to Russert, who shared it with Libby. It's a thin theory--especially because neither Russert nor Gregory reported any news about Wilson's wife at the time. And the timing of real-world events may undermine the theory. But Wells keeps hammering at this possibility.
To buttress this part of his case, Wells tried to play for the jurors a video clip of Andrea Mitchell saying on CNBC in early October 2003 that she had known about Valerie Wilson's CIA employment prior to the Novak leak. But Mitchell, in two later interviews on Don Imus's radio show (which also aired on MSNBC), said she had misspoken and she retracted the comment. Wells suggested that Russert and Mitchell had conspired to undo Mitchell's remark so Russert's statements related to the leak case would not be undermined. He asked permission to show all these tapes to the jury. "This is nitpicky at best," Judge Reggie Walton complained. He ruled the tapes could not be played.
Next Wells took another shot at Russert's credibility. He pointed out that during Russert's appearance the previous day he had testified that Libby used the words "hell" and "damn" when he had called Russert in July 2003 to complain about Hardball host Chris Matthews' on-air criticisms of Cheney and Libby. Yet, Wells said, when Russert gave a deposition to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in August 2004 about this conversation with Libby he had not referred to these curse words--as if Russert had somehow suspiciously changed his account. Russert explained that during his deposition he had said that Libby had been "venting" and that word covered the cursing.
Such small stuff did not seem to impress the jurors; many appeared to be unriveted by Wells' questioning of Russert. Finally, Wells played his last card. Was there, he dramatically asked the witness, "bad blood" between Russert (and all of NBC News) and Libby? "No, sir," Russert replied in the quiet tone he had used throughout his testimony. But Wells had evidence to suggest otherwise.
It was another Imus clip. On the morning of October 28, 2005, hours before Fitzgerald was to announce indictments in the CIA leak case, Russert was on the show (via telephone) telling Imus about the mood of anticipation within the Washington press corps and his own NBC News bureau: "It was like Christmas Eve last night. Santa Claus is coming tomorrow. Surprises. What's under the tree?" Citing this comment, Wells contended that Russert was "elated" that Libby was about to be indicted. No, Russert said, he was referring to the fact that a "big news day" was coming and that no one knew for sure what Fitzgerald would announce. Was Russert equating an indictment of Libby with Christmas "presents under the tree?" Wells asked. No, the television host said. "You looked very happy" in the Imus clip, Wells countered. That was a "still picture," Russert noted. The cross examination was over
One more swing and a miss for Wells. In the first three weeks of the case, Wells and co-counsel Bill Jeffrey have suggested there have been a Variety Pak of plots against their client: a CIA conspiracy against Libby, a State Department conspiracy against Libby, a White House conspiracy against Libby, and, now, an NBC News conspiracy against Libby. But they have introduced no evidence to back up any of this. Wells' attempt to transform Russert's Christmas comment into proof that Russert and NBC News were bent on ruining Libby was typical. It was silly. But Wells is merely acting as a defense attorney should. Pull on any thread you can. Raise any matter that might sow confusion or doubt among the jurors. Nevertheless, he failed to undercut Russert, Fitzgerald's final witness.
The prosecution ended strongly. Fitzgerald has presented a parade of witnesses who have contradicted Libby on the key points: what he had known about Valerie Wilson and what he had told journalists. The defense is expected to call its first witnesses on Monday. The lineup will probably include several reporters who spoke to Libby before the CIA leak happened and who will testify that he said nothing to them about Valerie Wilson's wife. But Wells might need more than that--and more than word games and hints of plots--to beat back Fitzgerald.
posted on February 11, 2007 07:41:21 AM
Don't know why you're so upset about being caught in another lie...it happens so often !
"""Linda_K
posted on February 10, 2007 03:30:37 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, sybil, YOU are the one who has posted two threads now with VERY OLD news.
Here's a CLUE.....
No one was indicted for outing valerie plame
NO ONE.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 10, 2007 03:35 PM ]
mingotree
posted on February 10, 2007 03:36:32 PM edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"""No one was indicted for outing valerie plame"""
Did someone say there was?? """""
Since YOU can't answer linduh, NO one said there was.
However Scooter WAS indicted in connection with the bush administrations act of treason in outing a secret CIA agent....shamful how you defend an act of treason....tsk tsk tsk..
""The articles are pertinent to the topic especially this one...can you read the title? No, I knew that was way beyond you.
History doesn't mean much to the illiterate, uneducated neocons but it has happened and even they can only deny it...they can't make it go away """
I guess quoting the Constitution is over for you.....it's a REALLY old old old article LOL!!!
posted on February 11, 2007 12:16:39 PM
LIAR_K WANTED UP TO-DATE INFO YOU GOT IT LIAR_K READ BELOW!! THE QUESTION IS LIAR_K HOW LOW CAN THE BUSHY GANG GO?
Libby Trial Sheds Light on White House
Sunday, February 11, 2007 1:18 PM EST
The Associated Press
By TOM RAUM
WASHINGTON (AP) Sworn testimony in the perjury trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has shone a spotlight on White House attempts to sell a gone-wrong war in Iraq to the nation and Vice President Dick Cheney's aggressive role in the effort.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald rested his case against Cheney's former chief of staff on Thursday in a trial that has so far lasted 11 days. The defense planned to begin its presentation Monday.
The drama being played out in a Washington courtroom goes back in time to the early summer of 2003. The Bush administration was struggling to overcome growing evidence the mission in Iraq was anything but accomplished.
The claim about weapons of mass destruction that was used to justify the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 had not been supported. Insurgent attacks were on the rise. Accusations were growing that the White House had distorted intelligence to rationalize the invasion.
Trial testimony so far including eight hours of Libby's own audio-recordedd testimony to a grand jury in 2004 suggest that a White House known as disciplined was anything but that.
What has emerged, instead, is:
a vice president fixated on finding ways to debunk a former diplomat's claims that Bush misled the U.S. people in going to war and his suggestion Cheney might have played a role in suppressing contrary intelligence.
a presidential press secretary kept in the dark on Iraq policy.
top White House officials meeting daily to discuss the diplomat, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, and sometimes even his CIA-officer wife Valerie Plame.
Libby is accused of lying to the FBI and the grand jury about his talks with reporters concerning Plame. Libby got the White House press secretary to deny he was the source of the leak. He says he thought he first heard about Plame's CIA job from NBC's Tim Russert.
But after checking his own notes, he told the FBI and the grand jury Cheney himself told him Plame worked at CIA a month before the talk with Russert, but Libby says he forgot that in the crush of business.
Cheney already was helping manage the administration's response to allegations that it twisted intelligence to bolster its case on Iraq when Wilson's allegation in a New York Times op-ed piece on July 6, 2003 came into his cross hairs.
Cheney told Libby to speak with selected reporters to counter bad news. He developed talking points on the matter for the White House press office. He helped draft a statement by then-CIA Director George Tenet. He moved to declassify some intelligence material to bolster the case against Wilson.
Cheney even clipped Wilson's column out of the newspapers and scrawled by hand on it: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an ambassador to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"
Cheney and Libby discussed the matter multiple times each day, according to Libby's grand jury testimony.
A former Cheney press aide, Cathie Martin, testified she proposed leaking some news exclusives but was kept partly in the dark when Cheney ordered Libby to leak part of a classified intelligence report. Later she arranged a luncheon for conservative columnists with Cheney to help bolster the administration's case.
"What didn't he touch? It's almost like there was almost nothing too trivial for the vice president to handle," said New York University professor Paul Light, an expert in the bureaucracy of the executive branch.
"The details suggest Cheney was almost a deputy president with a shadow operation. He had his own source of advice. He had his own source of access. He was making his own decisions," Light said.
Wilson had written that he had not discovered any evidence that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa. Wilson also asserted that the administration willfully ignored his findings.
Bush mentioned the unsubstantiated Africa connection in his State of the Union address in 2003. The White House and the CIA disavowed the 16-word assertion shortly after Wilson's criticism appeared in print.
A week after Wilson's article, his wife's CIA employment was disclosed in a column by Robert Novak, who wrote that two administration officials told him she suggested sending the former ambassador on the trip.
The disclosure led to a federal investigation into whether administration officials deliberately leaked her identity. Her job was classified and it is a crime to knowingly disclose classified information to unauthorized recipients.
Libby, 56, is not charged with that. He is charged with lying to the FBI and obstructing a grand jury investigation into the leak of Plame's identity. Libby is the only one charged in the case.
Cheney was upset by Wilson's suggestion that his trip was done at the vice president's behest and that the vice president had surely heard his conclusions well before Bush repeated the Niger story in his speech.
The CIA later said Wilson's mission was suggested by his wife but authorized by others. The agency said Wilson's fact-finding trip was in response to inquiries made by Cheney's office, the State Department and the Pentagon.
Testifying for the prosecution, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said he was surprised to find the administration was backing off the 16 words that he had been defending. He said it wasn't the first time he spoke of the administration's position with great certainty, only to find it had changed and nobody had bothered to let him know.
Fleischer acknowledged passing along Plame's identity to two reporters. But he testified he did not know at the time that her CIA job was classified.
According to prosecution testimony, Libby had conversations about Plame's identity with Cheney as well as with a Cheney spokeswoman, a undersecretary of state and two CIA officials before he talked to Russert. In addition, former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testified that Libby discussed Plame's CIA employment with them.
Russert, the final witness for the prosecution, flatly denied Libby's assertion that the two had discussed Plame before Novak's column appeared.
On the grand jury tapes, Libby also described steps that Cheney took to use parts of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified assessment of Iraq's weapons capabilities, to rebut Wilson.
Among those not informed about this Cheney maneuver, according to the Libby tapes, were then-White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr., then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
"What was interesting to me was what appears to be the total involvement of the vice president," said Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar who worked in the Eisenhower and Nixon White Houses. "If he's down to micromanaging news leaks and responses at that level, I found that quite astounding."
Meantime, it's become clear that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the first to disclose Plame's work to reporters Washington Post editor Bob Woodward and then Novak. Armitage says it was a mistake, claiming he didn't know her job was classified.
Ultimately, he, Fleischer and special presidential adviser Karl Rove all have acknowledged talking to reporters about her. According to testimony, at least six reporters were privately told by top administration officials of Plame's connection with the CIA.
posted on February 11, 2007 01:06:20 PM
I said:
"Treason??? ROFLMHO....no ones been indicted for committing TREASON either. You really HAVE lost it....totally."""
mingo then says:
Nobody said that either! linduh, those voices in your head are really screwing you up but now you're hallucinating, too! Poor old thing...
If you want to argue why don't you find something someone actually posted?
LOLOLOL!!
However sybil has already forgotten what she did post, which was:
"However Scooter WAS indicted in connection with the bush administrations act of treason in outing a secret CIA agent....shamful how you defend an act of treason....tsk tsk tsk"..
You need a LONG, long break.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 11, 2007 01:09 PM ]
posted on February 11, 2007 01:11:41 PM
And , linduh, you need a long long education....or even a short one to improve the one you never had
The following sentence, IF you understand English, does NOT say Libby was indicted for treason:
""""However Scooter WAS indicted in connection with the bush administrations act of treason in outing a secret CIA agent....shamful how you defend an act of treason....tsk tsk tsk".."""
See, "in connection with " does not mean "for"....
Ok, you're not hallucinating...you're just illiterate....
posted on February 11, 2007 01:19:10 PM
I have no problem understand what you do all the time. You post these LIES all the time and then when I respond to them....as I did...then you try and make it sound like you weren't accusing this President and his administration of TREASON.
posted on February 11, 2007 01:37:54 PM
linduh Changes Subject to Take Attention Away From Her Continual Inability to Read English:
""then you try and make it sound like you weren't accusing this President and his administration of TREASON.""
SHOW ME WHERE !!
I never tried to make it sound like I didn't accuse bushit of commiting treason because I believe he did.
I have no reason to hide it and have never denied it so you are caught in a lie again....my goodness, are you going for a world record...I think bush has the trophy now !
