TheHim over at EFFin’ Unsound takes Eric Earling to the woodshed for refusing to correct his statement about Valerie Plame Wilson. One of the points at issue is whether Ms. Wilson was or was not “covert” when she was outed to the press by senior administration officials.
Eric writes: “…let me amplify the original point: there is no evidence Plame was covert. ” Yeah…right.
The Republican disinformation machine has long attempted to throw up a smokescreen by disseminating the meme that Ms. Wilson was not really covert. But given the evidence uncovered in the Libby trial and evidence introduced by Plame’s testimony before the House Committee for Government Oversight and Reform, it could only be willful ignorance or unadulterated batshit crazy wingnuttery that could keep someone believing the discredited talking point.
I mean, there are really only two credible sources as to Ms. Wilson’s status. The first is the CIA. The fact is, the CIA called for the investigation in the first place. If Ms. Wilson’s status had not been classified, the CIA would have had no reason to call for an investigation.
As former CIA intelligence officer Larry C. Johnson points out, CIA director Michael Hayden approved a statement, read into the congressional record, that established Ms. Wilson as under cover, and her status at the CIA as classified when she was outed.
Even during the Libby trial, Patrick Fitzgerald made a statement confirming that Wilson was a CIA officer and that her position with the CIA was classified on the day she was outed.
The other credible source is Ms. Wilson, who obviously knows what her status was on 14 Jul 2003. She testified under oath that her status was covert and that the information about her status was classified. When asked whether she had traveled overseas as a covert operations officer within the last 5 years, she responded affirmatively. Her testimony before the committee can be seen here: Part I, Part II, and Part III.
She even pointed out that most of the individuals working in the CIA Counterproliferation Division were covert. Yeah…that includes people who went to CIA headquarters every day and worked behind a desk.
Eric apparently misunderstands the meaning of “testimony under oath” when he quipped, “Valerie Plame has her right to say whatever she’d like under oath.” Umm….no she doesn’t, Eric. The whole point of testifying under oath is that you give up your right to make untruthful or mislead statements. And, as we know from Scooter Libby’s failure to testify truthfully, the consequences for lying are severe. It defies credulity to imagine that Ms. Wilson would go before Congress and make false statements under oath—statements that were pre-screened by the CIA to avoid divulging remaining classified details—about her status at the CIA on a particular date.
Eric can close his eyes, clenched his fists, hold his breath, and wish with all his might that it ain’t so. But it is so. In fairness to Eric, I suppose we should chalk this up to willful ignorance…but, man, it sure makes Eric look no brighter than the kooky commenters over at (u)SP when he digs in on this.
first!
Heh she gave a thousand bucks to the Gore campaign in the name of her supposed hidden company. Doesn’t sound like she was trying to keep anything very covert.
GS, do you understand the concept of “cover”? Would you prefer it if she had said her employer was CIA?
Covert does NOT mean nobody knows who you are. It means they don’t know who you really work for. The existence of Brewster-Jennings was not a secret. Wilson was under orders to tell everybody who asked that she worked for Brewster-Jennings. The entire point of the company was to be a public name she (and others) could use. Having a cover employer doesn’t work if you don’t use the name, and it’s really, really, really hard to be covert if, when asked who your employer is, you answer either a) “I can’t tell you” or b) “The CIA”.
Fuckwit.
Is this the Eric Earling that works for the Dept. of Education?
Or, is he an unpaid dupe of the Bush Administration?
Goldy, what can I say? I am Republican, I lie, steal and cheat when I’m not being a family man (fat whore) or a crying hypocrite. Its what I know best. And the self righteous bastard that I am, I know best how to bury my head in the sand. You know, I’m finally starting to realize that global warming might exist.
Kindly Uncle Karl Rove would never risk the identity of a beautiful blond lady CIA agent! It would be … unpatriotic!
Besides we now know that Richard Armitidge was the first one to leak her name and he was an agent of Colin Powell. This proves that Uncle karl was only trying to help Mrs. Wilson by creating interest in her inevitable book.
What all of this shows is that, for all their insincere flag waving and ersatz patriotism, wingnuts don’t really care about America. All they care about is winning political games at any cost, including lying cheating stealing and fraud, and above all lying.
These guys think if they repeat a lie enough times, people will believe it. Well, some people will. They’ve come to believe their own lies.
But no one else does.
What all of this shows is that, for all their insincere flag waving and ersatz patriotism, wingnuts don’t really care about America.
No no no. We dont care for moonbats using their positions to send their lefty husband out and lie to the American people.
Here we have the first in what will probably be far too many installments of the Wingnut – English Dictionary
As we know, in English, the word “lie“, when used as a verb means:
This causes some confusion when dealing with wingnuts, as they have an entirely different meaning for the word.
As I’m sure that everyone can tell, this confusion is a detriment to effective communications with wingnuts. This confusion is furthered by the easily made mistake (due to the similar sounding words in these two entirely separate languages) that the wingnuts are speaking English.
Hopefully, this will clear up some of the confusion.
@8 Sorry, Dufus, but Wilson told the truth — Iraq didn’t procure uranium from Africa. Why would they? What would Saddam have done with it? He didn’t have a nuclear program. In fact, he didn’t have any WMDs at all. You guys wasted 3,000+ American lives to find that out. Don’t you feel just a little embarrassed by that?
@10 I don’t have any trouble communicating with wingnuts. To communicate effectively with wingnuts, all that’s required is to point an AK-47 at them and pull that little curved metal thingy.*
* Just kidding! Ann Coulter humor, y’know? C’mon, wingnuts, get a sense of humbone!!!
When Plame’s contacts are discovered and killed now that our enemies know she was undercover, I hope those contacts turn out to be Publicans. Let the traitors die – slowly – painfully. That’s what they deserve.
It will be interesting to learn who Ms. Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, told about her CIA status & when.
My guess is this guy is so in love with himself and such a media whore, that he more than likely talked with 1 or more people….bragging about his wife.
Time will tell…..but I suspect he couldn’t keep his yap shut for nothin’.
The biggest media whore is Bush, the dirtbag you worship, Impressed.
Wilson told the truth. Bush lied. Bush saw a way to make his cronies a few gigabucks, and it only cost a few hundred thousand lives. That’s Repubublican math.
Sorry, Dufus, but Wilson told the truth — Iraq didn’t procure uranium from Africa. Why would they? What would Saddam have done with it?
That depends on who you believe. The British and some in the CIA still stand by their claim that Sadam tried to buy uranium from Africa. The lefties dont. Of course the lefties still believe Bush went AWOL even after they got caught red handed in forging documents. Hell if the left ever did tell the truth that would be newsworthy in and of itself.
11
Hey that’s our line. And yes it is funny. hahahahhahaha
Anne Coulter is a babe. We love you.
OF COURSE YOU LOVE COULTER DOOFUS – SHE TELLS THE LIES YOU’RE ADDICTED TO LIKE CRACK.
Impressed @ 13
“It will be interesting to learn who Ms. Plame’s husband, Joe Wilson, told about her CIA status & when.
…Time will tell…..but I suspect he couldn’t keep his yap shut for nothin’.”
(Sheesh…another gullible wingnut!)
In fact, the Fitzgerald investigation found no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Wilson outed his wife. The investigation did find that there were nearly simultaneous leaks of Ms. Wilson’s identity to seven different reporters by senior administration officials: Richard Armitage, Ari Fleischer, Scooter Libby and Carl Rove.
I’m sure the seven simultaneous leaks of a classified CIA operative’s identity were just…you know, little accidents. Probably just a coincidence….
YOS LIB BRO–
Funny stuff!
You are the Halibut of the Blogosphere.
Check this out you Bush-loving loooooooooosers——
May 2003: Joe Wilson began to “advise” the Kerry for President campaign.
Wilson… said he has long been a Kerry supporter and has contributed $2,000 to the campaign this year. He said he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months and will campaign for Kerry, including a trip to New Hampshire… — David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03
Five months prior to October 2, 2003 would be May 2, 2003. What happened on that date?
May 2, 2003: Joe Wilson and Valerie 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.
(Coincidentally, all records of this particular conference at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee have been expunged from their website.)
May 3, 2003: Over breakfast, Wilson and Valerie told Kristof about his trip to Niger.
May 6, 2003: Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth.
I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.
The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. 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.
Note that unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson is now claiming to have taken an active role in debunking the so-called forgeries. Which is of course untrue, since we now know he never saw the documents.
And of course Mr. Wilson’s report was anything but “unequivocal.”
May 23, 2003: The John Kerry For President campaign recorded a $1,000 contribution from Joe Wilson.
June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.
During his trip, the CIA’s envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.
After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong,” the former U.S. government official said.
We now know that what Wilson told Pincus was completely untrue, since the relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson “had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.”
The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.”
June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired “about a month before” Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.
Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.
Armitage brought this up because he is a gossip and it was already common knowledge because Joe Wilson had been calling all of the newspapers trying to get them to run his story about his mission to Niger.
Given the chronology and Mr. Armitage’s remarks, it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere, when he was hawking his story about his trip to Niger.
@15;
# Upon being accepted for pilot training, Bush promised to serve with his parent (Texas) Guard unit for five years once he completed his pilot training.
But Bush served as a pilot with his parent unit for just two years.
# In May 1972 Bush left the Houston Guard base for Alabama. According to Air Force regulations, Bush was supposed to obtain prior authorization before leaving Texas to join a new Guard unit in Alabama.
But Bush failed to get the authorization.
# In requesting a permanent transfer to a nonflying unit in Alabama in 1972, Bush was supposed to sign an acknowledgment that he received relocation counseling.
But no such document exists.
# He was supposed to receive a certification of satisfactory participation from his unit.
But Bush did not.
# He was supposed to sign and give a letter of resignation to his Texas unit commander.
But Bush did not.
# He was supposed to receive discharge orders from the Texas Air National Guard adjutant general.
But Bush did not.
# He was supposed to receive new assignment orders for the Air Force Reserves.
But Bush did not.
# On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his “permanent address.”
But he wrote down a post office box number for the campaign he was working for on a temporary basis.
# On his transfer request Bush was asked to list his Air Force specialty code.
But Bush, an F-102 pilot, erroneously wrote the code for an F-89 or F-94 pilot. Both planes had been retired from service at the time. Bush, an officer, made this mistake more than once on the same form.
# On May 26, 1972, Lt. Col. Reese Bricken, commander of the 9921st Air Reserve Squadron at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, informed Bush that a transfer to his nonflying unit would be unsuitable for a fully trained pilot such as he was, and that Bush would not be able to fulfill any of his remaining two years of flight obligation.
But Bush pressed on with his transfer request nonetheless.
# Bush’s transfer request to the 9921st was eventually denied by the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver, which meant he was still obligated to attend training sessions one weekend a month with his Texas unit in Houston.
But Bush failed to attend weekend drills in May, June, July, August and September. He also failed to request permission to make up those days at the time.
# According to Air Force regulations, “[a] member whose attendance record is poor must be closely monitored. When the unexcused absences reach one less than the maximum permitted [sic] he must be counseled and a record made of the counseling. If the member is unavailable he must be advised by personal letter.”
But there is no record that Bush ever received such counseling, despite the fact that he missed drills for months on end.
# Bush’s unit was obligated to report in writing to the Personnel Center at Randolph Air Force Base whenever a monthly review of records showed unsatisfactory participation for an officer.
But his unit never reported Bush’s absenteeism to Randolph Air Force Base.
# In July 1972 Bush failed to take a mandatory Guard physical exam, which is a serious offense for a Guard pilot. The move should have prompted the formation of a Flying Evaluation Board to investigation the circumstances surrounding Bush’s failure.
But no such FEB was convened.
# Once Bush was grounded for failing to take a physical, his commanders could have filed a report on why the suspension should be lifted.
But Bush’s commanders made no such request.
# On Sept. 15, 1972, Bush was ordered to report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, the deputy commander of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group in Montgomery, Ala., to participate in training on the weekends of Oct. 7-8 and Nov. 4-5, 1972.
But there’s no evidence Bush ever showed up on those dates. In 2000, Turnipseed told the Boston Globe that Bush did not report for duty. (A self-professed Bush supporter, Turnipseed has since backed off from his categorical claim.)
# However, according to the White House-released pay records, which are unsigned, Bush was credited for serving in Montgomery on Oct. 28-29 and Nov. 11-14, 1972. Those makeup dates should have produced a paper trail, including Bush’s formal request as well as authorization and supervision documents.
But no such documents exist, and the dates he was credited for do not match the dates when the Montgomery unit assembled for drills.
# When Guardsmen miss monthly drills, or “unit training assemblies” (UTAs), they are allowed to make them up through substitute service and earn crucial points toward their service record. Drills are worth one point on a weekday and two points on each weekend day. For Bush’s substitute service on Nov. 13-14, 1972, he was awarded four points, two for each day.
But Nov. 13 and 14 were both weekdays. He should have been awarded two points.
# Bush earned six points for service on Jan. 4-6, 1973 — a Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
But he should have earned four points, one each for Thursday and Friday, two for Saturday.
# Weekday training was the exception in the Guard. For example, from May 1968 to May 1972, when Bush was in good standing, he was not credited with attending a single weekday UTA.
But after 1972, when Bush’s absenteeism accelerated, nearly half of his credited UTAs were for weekdays.
# To maintain unit cohesiveness, the parameters for substitute service are tightly controlled; drills must be made up within 15 days immediately before, or 30 days immediately after, the originally scheduled drill, according to Guard regulations at the time.
But more than half of the substitute service credits Bush received fell outside that clear time frame. In one case, he made up a drill nine weeks in advance.
# On Sept. 29, 1972, Bush was formally grounded for failing to take a flight physical. The letter, written by Maj. Gen. Francis Greenlief, chief of the National Guard Bureau, ordered Bush to acknowledge in writing that he had received word of his grounding.
But no such written acknowledgment exists. In 2000, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Boston Globe that Bush couldn’t remember if he’d ever been grounded.
# Bartlett also told the Boston Globe that Bush didn’t undergo a physical while in Alabama because his family doctor was in Houston.
But only Air Force flight surgeons can give flight physicals to pilots.
# Guard members are required to take a physical exam every 12 months.
But Bush’s last Guard physical was in May 1971. Bush was formally discharged from the service in November 1974, which means he went without a required physical for 42 months.
# Bush’s unsatisfactory participation in the fall of 1972 should have prompted the Texas Air National Guard to write to his local draft board and inform the board that Bush had become eligible for the draft. Guard units across the country contacted draft boards every Sept. 15 to update them on the status of local Guard members. Bush’s absenteeism should have prompted what’s known as a DD Form 44, “Record of Military Status of Registrant.”
But there is no record of any such document having been sent to Bush’s draft board in Houston.
# Records released by the White House note that Bush received a military dental exam in Alabama on Jan. 6, 1973.
But Bush’s request to serve in Alabama covered only September, October and November 1972. Why he would still be serving in Alabama months after that remains unclear.
# Each of Bush’s numerous substitute service requests should have formed a lengthy paper trail consisting of AF Form 40a’s, with the name of the officer who authorized the training in advance, the signature of the officer who supervised the training and Bush’s own signature.
But no such documents exist.
# During his last year with the Texas Air National Guard, Bush missed nearly two-thirds of his mandatory UTAs and made up some of them with substitute service. Guard regulations allowed substitute service only in circumstances that are “beyond the control” of the Guard member.
But neither Bush nor the Texas Air National Guard has ever explained what the uncontrollable circumstances were that forced him to miss the majority of his assigned drills in his last year.
# Bush supposedly returned to his Houston unit in April 1973 and served two days.
But at the end of April, when Bush’s Texas commanders had to rate him for their annual report, they wrote that they could not do so: “Lt. Bush has not been observed at this unit during the period of this report.”
# On June 29, 1973, the Air Reserve Personnel Center in Denver instructed Bush’s commanders to get additional information from his Alabama unit, where he had supposedly been training, in order to better evaluate Bush’s duty. The ARPC gave Texas a deadline of Aug. 6 to get the information.
But Bush’s commanders ignored the request.
# Bush was credited for attending four days of UTAs with his Texas unit July 16-19, 1973. That was good for eight crucial points.
But that’s not possible. Guard units hold only two UTAs each month — one on a Saturday and one on a Sunday. Although Bush may well have made up four days, they should not all have been counted as UTAs, since they occur just twice a month. The other days are known as “Appropriate Duty,” or APDY.
# On July 30, 1973, Bush, preparing to attend Harvard Business School, signed a statement acknowledging it was his responsibility to find another unit in which to serve out the remaining nine months of his commitment.
But Bush never contacted another unit in Massachusetts in which to fulfill his obligation.
I would bet you that you could pick anyone else that served in the National Guard at that time and find out that all their paperwork was on file and a complete record of their service was available.
Thanks for the link, Darryl.
(u)Impressed @ 20
What the fuck? You copy a “chronology” from a wingnut source that supposedly shows Wilson outed his wife.
Lets pretend for the moment that it isn’t full of wingnut fictions…. That last sentence (“Given the chronology and Mr. Armitage’s remarks, it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere, when he was hawking his story about his trip to Niger”) does not follow from anything preceeding it.
Of course, the wingnut chronology also contradicts the evidence uncovered by Fitzgerald, who found that Armitage directly learned of Ms. Wilson’s identity and employment from Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman who learned it from a Bureau of Intelligence and Research report.
Gawd…you gullible wingnuts will believe anything—any batshit crazy bullshit “theory” that the GOP propaganda machine puts out.
Snap out of it…it’s really pitiful to watch.
God it must suck being a wingnut. Having to swallow lie after lie after lie after lie, and so on, and so on…..
Is it hard keeping all those lies organized in you tiny little pea brains that have no room for either reality, or facts?
You cons ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO defend Rove, and Cheney. Make up any insane lie you can.
Why?
Because what they did was TREASON thats why.
Treason.
How does it feel having to defend traitors traitors?
I bet if Benedict Arnold was a Republicon, you would be defending him to your last breath…..
Why don’t you Republicons leave our country. You don’t like our constitution, or respect our nation’s laws. You support traitors, and liars like there is no tomorrow, and swallow any lie you are told no matter how obvious it is.
Call your new nation Retardonazilyingtraitorland.
I think dishonesty is pretty much the largest part of Republicon ideology. Thinking Reagan’s trickle up, and dismantling of our safety nets was somehow good for America. Thinking that causing the deaths of 100,000 plus innocent muslims in Iraq somehow makes us safer. Thinking a president that lies every time he opens his pie hole is a good man, not to mention Rove, or Cheney, Rice, or Rummy. Gonzales? Running up our national debt another 4 trillion dollars with nothing to show for it? Ignoring the drowning in New Orleans. Alienating our allies, and creating more enemies.
Why do you cons hate our constitution? Why do you think torture is acceptable. Why do you accept ignoring our wounded, and underfunding the VA while giving billions away to the top 1% with ridiculous tax breaks, while we have to borrow trillions from our enemies is ok? Ignoring global warming to help oil companies rape us for more profits every day?
Why. I bet you don’t have the mental capacity to even ask yourselves these questions. This does not compute, this does not compute, this does not compute is all your pea brains come up with……
The only thing that computes to the cons is fear, greed, and power. Any crime to attain more power is acceptable, unless of course it is committed by a Democrat.
How do you traitors sleep at night?
Today’s Republicons stand for nothing but crime, and should be treated like vermin!!!!!!!!!!!!
So, I guess the ‘wingnuts’ also include that bastion of conservative thought, The Washington Post Op-Ed?
“In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he [Wilson] claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.
A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false — and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife.
The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame’s name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak’s primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame’s identity — and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.“
That’s where Earling bases his original post – if you want to disagree, that’s your right, but I don’t see how saying the Post is out in wingnut right field on this one will fly.
Certainly, the administration played dirty politics; that you cannot deny. However, to make Wilson or Plame out as innocent victims in this is just not true – as the Senate Intelligence committee clearly showed.
“A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false — and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife.”
3 Republicans on the committee claimed this. It was not determined by any bipartisan anything. Read the report. Lie and misdirect. Lie and misdirect. Fact based people cut through the lies. Retarded cons eat them up…..
Goldy you sound like the horses ass at times . How many newspapers and Media Outlets defended their actions by hiring legal folks to argue that Plame was not a spy at the time ..We are talking about CNN and others saying legally she was a spy … Interesting they cover the story differently when a Bushie is involved .. Libby was guilty for lying … Which is perjury . Which is not outing a spy .. If he was having sex with Plame and lied you would still be wanting him behind bars .. So much for sex and perjury defence ..
She was on the PDC list for political contributions , and her husband is on a fact minding mission overseas using his real name ? Writing editorials with his name ,
If she was a spy , maybe she was working for Iraq, maybe thats what got he so mad … How do you know …
I mean if you were concerned about being undercover would you still run this blog … Well I guess it would make people believe not to take you seriously ..Second thought , you got a point .
So, I guess the ‘wingnuts’ also include that bastion of conservative thought, The Washington Post Op-Ed?
You don’t know the first thing about this scandal or the WaPo editorial board, do you?
That’s where Earling bases his original post – if you want to disagree, that’s your right, but I don’t see how saying the Post is out in wingnut right field on this one will fly.
Hahaha. Good one. Two words: Fred Hiatt.
@28
Are you trying for the world record in stupidity?
Hey Mick. Wipe the sand from your eyes. Fitzgerald, and the head of the CIA both said she was undercover. Why is this not good enough for you?
Because some right wing liar said she wasn’t undercover that’s why right?
When will you admit they committed treason???????
TREASON!!!!
T-R-E-A-S-O-N !!!!!
Deal with it you spineless right wing sheep pathetic lie repeating traitors!
How does it feel to defend traitors your traitors?
The destruction of Brewster Jennings? Looking for “real” WMD’s and not the imaginary ones…..
You know the CIA told Novak twice not to out her, and he did anyway. He knew he had high up cover. Even Judith Miller wouldn’t out her, or Matt Cooper. They knew it was treason, and even though they had a scoop, they refused to do Cheney’s bidding. Good ol Novak could care less. He would commit any act of treason, or crime, if he thought it helped the GOP. He is a good Republicon. Leave no crime behind.
Any of you want to know the real truth about Valerie Plame / Wilson’s outing just read this.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....9265/33252
All the right wing spin debunked…..
A loyal Republicon would rather cut off their ear than admit the Cheney Gang did what they did. Outing Valerie, and destroying Brewster Jennings.
They committed an act of fuc*ing treason.
And we all know why they did it. To stop people from questioning their lies in the runup to the war. Especially those in the CIA that knew they were lying, and were waiting to come forward.
Another act of treason. Lying about threats to our nation to gain political power.
With the Bushies, we don’t know where the treason stops….. or if it ever does.
Firing federal prosecutors for actually indicting corrupt Republicons? For not indicting (or marching before a grand jury) innocent Democrats?
How can you wingnuts defend these animals?
The debate is over: Bush/Cheney outed an undercover CIA operative. In the process they destroyed a CIA front company that used to track real WMD’s and destroyed the many intelligence networks that were intertwined with that operation.
Scotter Libby is the gateway drug to truth for conservatives which is why the dead enders refuse to believe anything except that Libby is suffering form memory problems and Fitzpatrick is an overzealous prosecutor.
To believe the truth that the conviction of Libby was just, that would then force you to believe Cheney & Bush conspired to wreck anybody at any cost for opposing their plans to invade Iraq.
To believe the truth that Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses would then force you to believe that Halliburton is moving it’s company to Dubai.
To believe the truth that Halliburton is moving it’s world headquarters to Dubai means you have to believe the legislation moving through the Iraqi parliament will turn over control of their oilfields & their revenue to foreign oil companies so they can/will invest in the reconstruction of the oilfields.
To believe the truth that Halliburton Dubai will gain partial control of Iraqi oilfields means you have to believe that Halliburton Dubai will be out of reach of US laws and taxes of the former Texas based oil company.
To believe the truth that Halliburton Dubai became wealthy from US laws, protection and no bid contracts to service US troops means you have to believe in the privatization and use of America’s military might promoted by the Project For The New American Century to project “our” leadership on the world.
To believe the truth that the objectives of the Project For The New American Century is to believe that its membership includes Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neoconservatives. And that they have planned the take over of Iraq going back to at least the mid 90’s and advocated in a letter to President Clinton to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.
To believe the truth about the Project For The New American Century is to believe that Bush/Cheney sacrificed America’s blood and treasure for their own financial gain.
Being a conservative is unpatriotic, anti-trop, and un-American: And that’s the truth.
correction @ 34.
Last line should read: Being a conservative is unpatriotic, anti-troop, and un-American: And that’s the truth.
THE WAPO EDITORIAL PAGE IS AT TIMES DOMINATED BY BUSH BOOT-LICKERS. NOT AS BAD AS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL BUT AT TIMES GETTING THERE. I MEAN KRAUTHAMMER? GIMME A BREAK.
SOME OF THE WAPO REPORTERS ARE STENOGRAPHERS – SEE STENO SUE SCHMIDT.
SOME GOOD REPORTING HAPPENS AT THE WAPO AND EVEN SOME DECENT EDITORIALS BUT THE WAPO IS HARDLY THE BASTION OF LIBERALISM THAT WINGNUTS MAKE IT OUT TO BE.
NICE TRY AT FANTASY-BASED DEFLECTION WINGNUTS.
I just love righties quoting the Washington Post’s unsigned editorials as evidence. All of their frothing about the dreaded “liberal media” magically disappears if they need it as a crutch for their rotting views.
Fitzgerald’s prosecution revealed Washington media figures had enabled liars in our government. Therefore, the source with the least possible credibility on this issue would be an unsigned editorial from a media outlet in the capital.
So, why would any right-winger cite exactly the wrong source, from a set of sources he would usually denigrate? Because the Post’s self-serving, auto-exoneration is the closest thing a Bush administration apologist can get to a supportive source of evidence for his views. That it contradicts sworn testimony in court, and now sworn testimony before Congress, means nothing, because reality itself means nothing to these people.
One thing Liberals have on their side is truth and time. Republicans have neither on their side.
In only 11 weeks, the new Democratic led congress is actually doing its Constitutional duty of oversight and the numbers of political and criminal scandals are growing by the day. Corruption, crime, and Iraq will define the legacy of George W. Bush and the Republican Party for decades to come as a failed presidency and a failed party.
This is history repeating itself; back in the 50’s the Republicans used fear and smear to gain power by destroying others. Valerie Plame is just another way of defining McCarthyism in contemporary history.
In the end, the results will be identical; the Republicans will be ousted from power for 40 years, maybe even more.
The choice is clear for conservatives; embrace the truth no matter how difficult of a pill it is to swallow, or lose your grip on shaping national policy for generations to come.
The choice is clear for conservatives; embrace the truth no matter how difficult of a pill it is to swallow, or lose your grip on shaping national policy for generations to come.
I couldn’t agree more.
Their time is over.
Long Live America! Let Freedom Reign!
In of Nov. ’08 Republicans have to defend 21 of 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate. As of this moment in American politics, 5-6 Republican seats are vulnerable in ‘08, with possibly 9-10 becoming vulnerable depending on how badly the conservatives are exposed via the courts and congressional hearings in the next 20 months.
There will not be another sea change in the House of Representatives and the White House stands a better than 50/50 chance going to Dems.
2010 doesn’t look much better for the Republicans either, they will have 19 seats to defend in the Senate vs. 15 for the Dems.
If 2008 looks anything like the 2006 elections, Republicans will be inconsequential in American politics.
If that becomes the case, then I look forward to 2011 with great anticipation where President Al Gore will have a filibuster proof Senate and a Democratic led House.
Good luck, assholes, you’ll need it.
So
How is the president not obstructing justice when he gets his AG to fire Carol Lam to stop her investigation of malfeasance in Porter Goss’ CIA?
Another little bit of Valerie Wilson’s testimony under oath is that after three Republican Senators added their little addendum that alleged that she had suggested sending her husband to Niger (falsely claimed by wingnuts to be a conclusion by the committee), the author of the memo on which they were basing that charge came to her in tears apologizing for how the Senators had twisted this person’s words. Waxman promised to “insist on getting” the actual memo that person wrote, which will blow up this wingnut allegation when received and made public, but of course that will not stop them from peddling it nonstop even after it is refuted by the facts.
From a story on ThinkProgress.org
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/.....lame-oath/
Thank God I don’t have to defend traitors. That would make me a traitor……
An example of tolerance by the left:
“When Plame’s contacts are discovered and killed now that our enemies know she was undercover, I hope those contacts turn out to be Publicans. Let the traitors die – slowly – painfully. That’s what they deserve.”
Valerie Plame was outed not just to directly punish Joe Wilson for blowing Bush’s false story about the Niger uranium connection. After all, the Wilson’s are probably pretty well off (especially now that Joe is on the lecture and book tour).
The not-so-subtle message was aimed at other potential leakers in the CIA and other places who might have been considering outing the Administration. “We don’t give a damn if this is a violation of Federal law. Open your mouth and we’ll come after you and your family.”
So could there be a parallel situation going on with the US Attorneys and the Fizgerald investigation? After all, the right wingers are trying to spin it as “Libby was convicted, end of the Plame story.”
Not so fast. Libby was convicted of perjury and obstructing the investigation. Fine. What about the leaking of Plame’s name? Why did Fitzgerald not follow thorugh and file any charges ON THE CORE ISSUE OF THE LEAK ITSELF?
He’s a US Attorney. Could the firing have been a not-so-subtle message to him to back off?
Jack Off Burton.
Who the fuck said we’re tolerant of traitors like you and Bush?
Nobody, fuck wad.
Hey Jack. Anyone still supporting Bush, and is not actively seeking mental illness therapy is an enemy of the United States.
Bush has done nothing but tarnish our name, abuse power, and lie repeatedly.
Bin Laden could never have hurt America as much as Bush has.
Just add the outing of Valerie Wilson to the long list of crimes that Bush, and Cheney have yet to be prosecuted for. Their day is coming…..
The investigations have only started……
Isn’t covert status something for which, by definition, no evidence would exist?
Speaking of right wingers, you should have heard Rush lying about the fired prosecutors.
Don’t blame the cons too much. The people they get their information from are flat out liars, and the cons are just too stupid to tell the facts from the fiction.
By the way…. In one year on this blog, I have not typed one single comment that was not 100% true, and can be backed up with links, and proof.
All Facts Support My Positions.
Frank Logan @ 48
“Isn’t covert status something for which, by definition, no evidence would exist?”
Nope. That is not the definition of covert status. Covert status means the CIA (or other intelligence agency) has made substantial efforts to hide an agent’s true employer. For example, the agency will provide the cover of an existing or a fictitious company that the covert agent works for.
In Ms. Wilson’s case, Brewster-Jennings was the company that was used to conceal her true employer. This is the company she would give for, e.g., hotel registrations, campaign donation forms, registration at continuing education courses, queries in social settings, etc.
Frank @ 48:
Are you serious?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
The reason the CIA goes to great lengths to conceal the truth is because there is evidence that could expose the covert operative.
That is precisely how covert officers in the CIA get exposed. Some credible piece of evidence comes to light and they are no longer covert.
For example: when the VP tells his lackey to spread Valerie Plames true identity to the media.
Get it now?