So there were no CIA officers.

Apparently there really wasn't any "testimony" either...

I didn't see anything about an oath being administered (although the impication is there)...of course lying under oath doesn't really matter to most democrats anyways...does it?

More "witnesses" that were not even there....Lol.

Just another pep rally for Bush bashers trying to fool the public into thinking they were holding some sort of legitimate inquiry....

Talk about desperate!

I'm not sure why it's a big deal if they are current or former CIA officers. Did they suddenly lose their memory when they left the government?

I do agree the important inquiry is the one being conducted by the Special Prosecutor.

He does seem to be taking this seriously, no?

What would you say are the odds of him concluding his investigation with no indictments of any government official? Are you highly confident that will occur?

Myself, I am 50-50, a coin flip basically. I don't think we know nearly enough about the evidence he's gathered to be confident one way or the other.

1. They were misrepresented as CIA officers. They are not. If they had any information other than innuendo...the real investigator would be talking to them.
2. If they are "former officers," most likely they they were not there when the incident took place and really are no more witness than you or I. Their opinions are irrelevant.
3. Since this is just a publicity stunt, not a real hearing with subpoenas...the fact that they showed up to bash the administration just shows them to be political operatives. Out of a giant organization like the CIA, I am not surprised that the Dems could find a few left leaning guys who, for whatever reason, no longer work there...to bash the president

I see your point. Yes, the "hearing" does seem like political theatre.

What about my other question? Are you highly confident there will be no indictments of government officials, not confident at all, or somewhere in the middle (coin flip)?

Thank you for considering my post. Okay, I'll bite on your other question.
No, I am not confident.. There is really almost zero evidence out there to indict anyone..only innuendo. .but if someone is indicted, I believe it will be someone that we really have not considered. If it were Rove, Miller would not still be in jail refusing to talk.

I really do think that Wilson or Plame may be the culprit based on their record of misrepresentations. Wilson clearly thought that if Kerry were elected (with his help), that he would be made an ambassador. His wife could have continued to stay home with the kids...the wife of an important ambassador. The book deal and speaking fees are just gravy. Just how many millions do you think they would need to make to justify their exposure of Valerie...when she hasn't really served in the field for many years.
Heck, f you send me a couple hundred bucks, I will leak out that my wife is covert.

i forgot all about that.. thx

definitions aside, I would expect "US Attorney has pursued it so vigorously," would only apply if convictions were sought somewhere?
And "CIA referred the matter for criminal investigation" is to complicated for me to comment on.

did any of these guys say anything about the days when Bill Casey was CIA Director? I liked bill's act for a few reasons. One of them was that there was always good strategic action happening.. at least enough for me to get a rough idea of what's happening..

thx cause i'm still waiting to read it.

Quote:

...of course lying under oath doesn't really matter to most democrats anyways...does it?

Neither does going on national television and telling the story about WMD. Except when Clinton lied we didn't have to bury 17 hundred plus American GI's.

If you or anyone in the Democratic party could prove that anyone in the administration lied about anything...the President would have already been impeached......like the last one.
Get over it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fintstone


So your little group of democrats held a little "let's bash bush" party to try to create an impression that they were somehow "investigating something?"

------- yep. [assuming you're correct]
They all do it in one way or another in order to give their supporters it's entertainment. It seems that the guys who throw these bubble gun parties are either returning a favor or in need of support. imo Bush has paid back a lot of favors, except the bible thumpers. They don't seem pissed off either for Bush not pushing their hard issues! According to show biz Reagan's parties were pretty good and Bush's suck. The Bill&Hillary show is in early production.. Stand by all viewers for good entertainment.


Might just as well called it a Democratic rally! http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/drummer.gif

did you guys know that the homicides in NYC is down to 250/yr.

It's been a bit lower that normal during post Guliani sic days.
afaik it's demographics and the percentage of crooks in jail that mainly effect the 250. If more $ into judicial and prison cells availability they could probably get the number way way down. If I figure a small % of crooks are killers then you'd have to can about a hundred or a thousand crooks to save one human being. I figure the cost of one murdered life at $500,000,000..

I look at the WMD thing like this. If someone keeps thumping their chest, ignoring a settlement, keeps making idol threats, helping those who want harm me or my family, at some point, I'm going to go over and kick their ASS. That is how you had to handle bullies in school, that is what President Bush did. So get over it, when most of the military (including those who have been/ are there) support the President's actions, it makes it clear that most liberals don't have a clue.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1122226321.jpg

harm = murder imo

I'd be more relaxed if the CIA was still allowed to liquidate anyone, anywhere, who they felt was a threat or contributing to a threat to US citizens. This may not happen till the US lives in a world like Israel. The issues of liberal or progressive won't be an issue then.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jyl

"I'm not sure why it's a big deal if they are current or former CIA officers. "
--------- maybe the issue should be what's the officer's political position.. especially those of an older bureaucrat ?

"I do agree the important inquiry is the one being conducted by the Special Prosecutor. What would you say are the odds of him concluding his investigation with no indictments of any government official? Are you highly confident that will occur?"
---------- I figure the pros' power will be determined by the amount of $ he's allocated. I consider Fitz a wild card and can go hunting in any direction he feels confident in, somewhat . His future will be framed by his performance on this and he seems hungry. I would bet someone is going to be charged for something. I don't think he would waste time in an area unless he could dig up enough info for a conviction. Although Starr's inquiry couldn't dig up enough to convict Hillary it stopped there with him. He had dirt but no convictable evidence. It'll be interesting to see if the current gamers are as good as Hillary?

So Byron, which one of the intellectuals in that picture is you? :D

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fintstone
[B]
".but if someone is indicted, I believe it will be someone that we really have not considered."
-------- exactly my thoughts also. Ole' Fitz is a hunting he will go.


"Heck, if you send me a couple hundred bucks, I will leak out that my wife is covert."
-------- imo.. remapping your world thru political manipulation and getting paid a few million bucks for bs is often the American way of politics. Although I think Wilson screwed up his hustle there still seems enough time for him to pick up a few thou from writing a book.

He has already written and sold the book...now he is making his money for speaking engagements at democratic functions...the same way Bill and Hillary were paid off.

The well dressed, smart looking one:D

The plot thickens:

Correcting the CIA
Robert Novak

August 1, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A statement attributed to the former CIA spokesman indicating that I deliberately disregarded what he told me in writing my 2003 column about Joseph Wilson's wife is just plain wrong.

Though frustrated, I have followed the advice of my attorneys and written almost nothing about the CIA leak over two years because of a criminal investigation by a federal special prosecutor. The lawyers also urged me not to write this. But the allegation against me is so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist that I feel constrained to reply.

In the course of a front-page story in last Wednesday's Washington Post, Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei quoted ex-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow describing his testimony to the grand jury. In response to my question about Valerie Plame Wilson's role in former Amb. Wilson's trip to Niger, Harlow told me she "had not authorized the mission." Harlow was quoted as later saying to me "the story Novak had related to him was wrong."

This gave the impression I ignored an official's statement that I had the facts wrong but wrote it anyway for the sake of publishing the story. That would be inexcusable for any journalist and particularly a veteran of 48 years in Washington. The truth is otherwise, and that is why I feel compelled to write this column.

My column of July 14, 2003, asked why the CIA in 2002 sent Wilson, a critic of President Bush, to Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases. All the subsequent furor was caused by three sentences in the sixth paragraph:

"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 that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA [Harlow] says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow. His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.

So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it, her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."

Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.

I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Bill Harlow, then CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.

The recent first disclosure of secret grand jury testimony set off a news media feeding frenzy centered on this obscure case. Joseph Wilson was discarded a year ago by the Kerry presidential campaign after the Senate committee reported much of what he said "had no basis in fact." The re-emerged Wilson is now accusing the senators of "smearing" him. I eagerly await the end of this investigation when I may be able to correct other misinformation about me and the case.