sundevil777 94 #76 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteWas that what Fitzgerald concluded? Or is this just a widely believed theory?...Facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions. In Libby's testimony to the Grand Jury he said that Cheney instructed him to give the classified information to the media. Conclude what you wish. This gets into the charge that Cheney was so wrong to "declassify" her status, right? It is within his jurisdiction to declassify information. I think it was quite reasonable, since she wasn't doing anything covert, and she and her husband deserved to have their false allegations refuted. That was not the subject of the trial.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #77 March 7, 2007 Wilson should be prosecuted for lying to congress.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,646 #78 March 7, 2007 QuoteWilson was the one that "outed" his wife in the Who's Who. It was common knowledge among journalists, and advertised by themselves in vanity fair. The intelligence committee in the senate found Wilson's accusations against the administration to be false, except that he was correct that SH had indeed sought the yellow cake as had been reported earlier by a UN investigation. It was not just that they concluded SH wanted it, he sought it from sources in Africa. Wilson confirmed that in his report, but then went on to make allegations found to be false by the senate. It has also been confirmed that Plame was indeed the one that got Wilson assigned the task of doing the investigation, apparently so he would have the opportunity to make allegations against the admin - later shown to be false. The woman that wrote the Intelligence act says she thinks that Libby was not guilty of breaking that law. David Boies (Gore's 2000 election lawyer) can't understand why the special prosecutor didn't stop when he found out Armitage was the leaker of the not so secret info. Can you provde links for the intel committee findings?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #79 March 7, 2007 Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson#The_Senate_Intelligence_Committee_Report All the claims made on that page are supported by legitimate sources. It's all there. Have a look. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #80 March 7, 2007 Quote The intelligence committee in the senate found Wilson's accusations against the administration to be false, except that he was correct that SH had indeed sought the yellow cake as had been reported earlier by a UN investigation.... "Indeed"? Bit of an over statement don't ya think? The only thing the report concluded with regard to that claim was that the Prime Minister had assumed that the Iraqi delegation meant "uranium" when it stated that it wanted to "expand commercial relations" with Niger. Iran, on the other hand did try to buy 400 tons in 1998, but Niger didn't go for that one either. http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_toc.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #81 March 7, 2007 QuoteClinton was exonerated of that crime. The only thing more tiresome than left wingers who claim he did nothing wrong are right wingers who refuse to acknowledge that the impeachment failed. Those statements are not the same. The impeachment was a political event, very different from an actual trial like Libby's. The Senators did not exonerate him of anything - they refuse to convict for a small offense. Many of his defenders tried to push a censure motion in place of impeachment (Difi, Moveon), which tends to blunt this incredible tiresome claim that the failure to impeach translated to exoneration. At best you have not guilty by technicality. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #82 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWas that what Fitzgerald concluded? Or is this just a widely believed theory?...Facts are important and should be checked before drawing conclusions. In Libby's testimony to the Grand Jury he said that Cheney instructed him to give the classified information to the media. Conclude what you wish. This gets into the charge that Cheney was so wrong to "declassify" her status, right? It is within his jurisdiction to declassify information. I think it was quite reasonable, since she wasn't doing anything covert, and she and her husband deserved to have their false allegations refuted. That was not the subject of the trial. Since Bush gave Cheney the authority to order the declassification of data, Fitzgerald could not use that as the basis of a criminal indictment against Cheney, Rove, or Libby. But, for them to do it for political gain is clearly wrong and flies in the face of several executive orders relative to the handling of classified information. Bush/Cheney could have had them (Plame/Wilson) investigated if they thought there was some sort of impropriety going on, instead...they ruined her career._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #83 March 7, 2007 Wilson ruined her career.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #84 March 7, 2007 Quote Bush/Cheney could have had them (Plame/Wilson) investigated if they thought there was some sort of impropriety going on, instead...they ruined her career. I don't even see that as being the biggest issue. It would be interesting to see a report of contacts that Plame had in countries she worked and what has happened to those contacts since her CIA status was made public, but obviously no such report could ever be made public. My guess is that at least several of them haven't faired too well in their questioning by their governments. It would also be interesting to see a report on what information those contacts may have given up. THIS is the tragedy here. Not that Plame was compromised, but rather our intelligence gathering capabilities may have been and all for some political payback by some assholes that simply had to have no opposition to their horribly wrong ideas about how to conduct a war on terror.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #85 March 7, 2007 QuoteIt would be interesting to see a report of contacts that Plame had in countries she worked and what has happened to those contacts since her CIA status was made public. Excellent point...so much for protecting our sources and methods._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #86 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuote Bush/Cheney could have had them (Plame/Wilson) investigated if they thought there was some sort of impropriety going on, instead...they ruined her career. I don't even see that as being the biggest issue. It would be interesting to see a report of contacts that Plame had in countries she worked and what has happened to those contacts since her CIA status was made public, but obviously no such report could ever be made public. My guess is that at least serveral of them haven't faired too well in their questioning by their governments. It would also be interesting to see a report on what information those contacts may have given up. THIS is the tragedy here. Not that Plame was compromised, but rather our intelligence gathering capabilities may have been and all for some political payback by some assholes that simply had to have no opposition to their horribly wrong ideas about how to conduct a war on terror. Plame and Wilson compromised her so-called secrecy. To go on about how she was no longer secret doesn't seem reasonable.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #87 March 7, 2007 QuotePlame and Wilson compromised her so-called secrecy. To go on about how she was no longer secret doesn't seem reasonable. If you want to believe that, then I guess there's no point in me even trying to discuss it. But you're wrong.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #88 March 7, 2007 >Plame and Wilson compromised her so-called secrecy. The "blame the victim" strategy is alive and well I see! The CIA considered Plame to be under non-official cover status when she was outed. Most people are going to go with what the CIA thinks, rather than what right wing political commentators think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #89 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuote Bush/Cheney could have had them (Plame/Wilson) investigated if they thought there was some sort of impropriety going on, instead...they ruined her career. I don't even see that as being the biggest issue. It would be interesting to see a report of contacts that Plame had in countries she worked and what has happened to those contacts since her CIA status was made public, but obviously no such report could ever be made public. My guess is that at least serveral of them haven't faired too well in their questioning by their governments. It would also be interesting to see a report on what information those contacts may have given up. THIS is the tragedy here. Not that Plame was compromised, but rather our intelligence gathering capabilities may have been and all for some political payback by some assholes that simply had to have no opposition to their horribly wrong ideas about how to conduct a war on terror. Can someone show me any evidence of the White House intentionally outing Valerie Plame??? Armitage outed her... and he wasn't charged? I wonder why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #90 March 7, 2007 QuoteCan someone show me any evidence of the White House intentionally outing Valerie Plame??? Armitage outed her... and he wasn't charged? I wonder why? I also wonder why Armitage, Cheney and Rove weren't charged -- yet. Who knows? Maybe if we're all lucky, you will get to see the evidence.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #91 March 7, 2007 QuoteQuoteCan someone show me any evidence of the White House intentionally outing Valerie Plame??? Armitage outed her... and he wasn't charged? I wonder why? I also wonder why Armitage, Cheney and Rove weren't charged -- yet. Who knows? Maybe if we're all lucky, you will get to see the evidence. The thing is .... there is no evidence of what so many claim. It's an assumption based on the charges made by Joe Wilson... and he's proven his credibility. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #92 March 7, 2007 >there is no evidence of what so many claim. Other than the fact that Cheney's chief of staff is guilty of obstructing an investigation into that very claim. We now have proof that White House staff intentionally disrupted attempts to _get_ that evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #93 March 7, 2007 Quote The thing is .... there is no evidence of what so many claim. Well, you seem to be making a few assumptions yourself. Lemme suggest just a couple reasons why you haven't seen anything -- yet. 1) The lack of evidence is not evidence (in this case of their "innocence"). In other words, just because YOU haven't seen the evidence (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exists. A few of the jurors have already come out and said they're surprised that the rest of the conspirators haven't been charged. They've seen stuff we haven't (yet) and what IS available certainly does make it look like a conspiracy that originated at The Naval Observatory. So far, nothing looks like it ties directly to The White House, but again, that's just what we've been allowed to see. 2) It's entirely possible that some of this evidence itself is classified. It might be classified because it's sensitive material or it might be classified because certain members of the Adminsitration have the power to do so. Just wait. We may yet get to the real issue.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #94 March 7, 2007 So far, 17 people aside from my own discussion-starter have voted yes to pardon. Only 1 other has publicly identified himself as a yes voter. Can anyone else do so please, and explain? That's the original topic of the thread. Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #95 March 7, 2007 Quote>Plame and Wilson compromised her so-called secrecy. The "blame the victim" strategy is alive and well I see! The CIA considered Plame to be under non-official cover status when she was outed. Most people are going to go with what the CIA thinks, rather than what right wing political commentators think. "blame the victim" strategy is alive and well, because, she is to blame for her "outing". OK, so the CIA had her under non-official cover status. Non-official often means the same as not-at-all, and may apply perfectly to this case. She and her husband chose to "out" herself.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,426 #96 March 7, 2007 >"blame the victim" strategy is alive and well, because, she is to blame . . . Perfect. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #97 March 8, 2007 Quote>"blame the victim" strategy is alive and well, because, she is to blame . . . Perfect. I should have added that although she is to blame, she isn't a victim. She is being treated as a hero, will get rich from it.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #98 March 8, 2007 Quote OK, so the CIA had her under non-official cover status. Non-official often means the same as not-at-all, and may apply perfectly to this case. She and her husband chose to "out" herself. Actually . . . "unofficial cover" in CIA terms means she was not "under cover" (using a false identity) and she was not overty an "official" of the CIA. She could keep the identity (name, family, ect.) she was born with, but her JOB of making secret contacts was still secret. Her identity was part of the reason she was able to DO her job. She had access to places and people in foreign lands and a good excuse to mingle with them.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gmanpilot 0 #99 March 8, 2007 QuoteCan someone show me any evidence of the White House intentionally outing Valerie Plame??? Armitage outed her... and he wasn't charged? I wonder why? The evidence is in the form of the grand jury testimony Libby and others. Yes, Armitage outed her as well as Rove and Libbby, at the direction of Cheney._________________________________________ -There's always free cheese in a mouse trap. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #100 March 8, 2007 QuoteArmitage outed her as well as Rove and Libbby, at the direction of Cheney. Have proof of that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
