"Press"ing Plame

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by fintstone
If you had a clue you might be dangerous. No matter what I post, your next post implies I said something else. What exactly would saying that what Fitz did or didn't do was "interesting" would would cause you to believe that it meant "Fitzpatrick is a lefty scum?" No wonder liberals are so confused...it must be a reading comprehension problem. When confronted with new issues...before move-on.org or a liberal blog has prepared a position for them or some sort of bumper-sticker, catch-phrase...they have nothing coherent to say. Too bad innuendo and name-calling only pass for an argument in liberal land.

Perhaps Fitz did not depose Plame/Wilson because he intends to indict Wilson for "outing" Plame...or because he already had clear info that Plame was not covert...in which case there was no crime to convict Wilson on when he outed Plame and no reason to ask the question.

Oh, I’m the lefty scum. I get it

Look, the Special Prosecutor told us right in the indictment about Plame's status. I know that you do not like the fact that her status with the CIA was classified and not known outside the intelligence community, and I know you will never, ever concede anything that does not square with your blind support of Bush/Cheney, but its right in the indictment, for God's sake:

At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Forgive me if I take his word over your unnamed "new witnesses."

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Oh, I’m the lefty scum. I get it

Look, the Special Prosecutor told us right in the indictment about Plame's status. I know that you do not like the fact that her status with the CIA was classified and not known outside the intelligence community, and I know you will never, ever concede anything that does not square with your blind support of Bush/Cheney, but its right in the indictment, for God's sake:

At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Forgive me if I take his word over your unnamed "new witnesses."

Certainly you must consider Fitz clairvoyant if you think he knows more about what happened than actual witnesses. Of course, the witness came forward after Fitz's indictment. If Plame's status was indeed classified in the period you cite, then Wilson did indeed release classified info and should be indicted himself. It seems that the liberals have once again painted themselves into a corner....I wonder how much press coverage we will see when Libby's lawyer brings this up in court. Things usually go downhill fast for liberals once the folks they attack are allowed to defend themselves.

[Rodeo]

Oh! Why didn't you say that already? Man, I never would have guessed. Well, then you're right of course.

There are witnesses; in fact there are "actual" witnesses.

And I've been getting my information from reading the indictment. I feel so foolish.

So what else did the "actual witnesses" say?

[fintstone]

I can certainly understand why you would feel foolish.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242

Vallely told WND that, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job at the CIA in the spring of 2002 – more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identifying her, citing administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific. WND learned of Vallely's claim through an interview Thursday night on the ABC Radio network's John Batchelor show.

Again, tonight, Vallely repeated his assertions that he met at least three times with Wilson in the Fox "green room." He said he is certain it was in 2002.

Vallely told WND that, in his opinion, it became clear over the course of several conversations that Wilson had his own agenda, as the ambassador's analysis of the war and its surrounding politics strayed from reality.

"He was a total self promoter," said Vallely. "I don't know if it was out of insecurity, to make him feel important, but he's created so much turmoil, he needs to be investigated and put under oath."

The only indictment in Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year investigation came one week ago when Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury in the case. He faces up to 30 years in prison and $1.25 million in fines if convicted on all five counts. He pleaded not guilty.

Vallely said, citing CIA colleagues, that in addition to his conversations with Wilson, the ambassador was proud to introduce Plame at cocktail parties and other social events around Washington as his CIA wife.

"That was pretty common knowledge," he said Friday. "She's been out there on the Washington scene many years."

If Plame were a covert agent at the time, Vallely said, "he would not have paraded her around as he did."

"This whole thing has become the biggest non-story I know," he concluded, "and all created by Joe Wilson."

[Rodeo]

Your “actual witness,” Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, has actually been published in “WorldNetDaily,” that world famous, highly respected news organization. I notice he’s all over the “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” site also (an ironic name if ever there was one).

So with that kind of “actual witness,” it’s no wonder you dismiss the FBI investigation out of hand, even though the FBI interviewed hundreds of “actual witnesses,” and concluded:

“Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson (“Valerie Wilson”). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified. Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.”

[Rodeo]

The more I learn about the people that continue to support this lying, torturing, leaking, "Brownie you're doin' a heck of a job" administration, the more I realize what a horrible mistake this country made in ever trusting Bush/Cheney.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Your “actual witness,” Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, has actually been published in “WorldNetDaily,” that world famous, highly respected news organization. I notice he’s all over the “Swift Boat Veterans For Truth” site also (an ironic name if ever there was one).

So with that kind of “actual witness,” it’s no wonder you dismiss the FBI investigation out of hand, even though the FBI interviewed hundreds of “actual witnesses,” and concluded:
....

You posted the words of a retired Colonel who was anti-war recently and attempted to discredit anyone who disagreed...because of the Colonel's "service." Now here is a retired General who you insult..and imply he is a liar...and his service apparently means nothing. That is pretty funny.

[Rodeo]

yep. you're right. the justice department has gotten it all wrong. the indictment has gotten it all wrong. the cia has goten it all wrong. the fbi has gotten it all wrong.

flint has gotten it right, flint has gotten it right, flint has gotten it right

repeat every waking moment of your life and you will know what its like to live in flint's world

i'm done with you.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Rodeo
yep. you're right. the justice department has gotten it all wrong. the indictment has gotten it all wrong. the cia has goten it all wrong. the fbi has gotten it all wrong.

flint has gotten it right, flint has gotten it right, flint has gotten it right

repeat every waking moment of your life and you will know what its like to live in flint's world

i'm done with you.

It hurts to be caught contradicting yourself so often, doesn't it? Now you are showing a bit better judgment. Stick to your strengths. It probably is a good idea to revert to the name-calling/insults again and leave the more complex discussion to others.

Welcome to "my world." Try driving outside your small backward bastion of liberalism and visit the United States where the rest of us live...We are celebrating Veterans Day this weekend.

[RoninLB]

Originally posted by RoninLB

The Lib's policy brain for attacking Bush related to the war was on C-span or C-span2 early this morning.

He's the lead lawyer for the gangsters down at Gitmo.

Bingo.. I found one source of many hate Bush fans. Hooahhh

This guy's name is Ratner. I think I found his twin or it may be the same guy. Either that or he hands out a script and everybody repeats the exact wording.

I suggest all to watch or read what he says.

[fintstone]

Thomas Sowell puts things in perspective:

Fishing license indictment
By Thomas Sowell

Nov 1, 2005

We have been hearing for a long time what a terrible thing it is to reveal the name of a covert C.I.A. agent -- and it is a terrible thing because that can be a life-and-death situation for the agent exposed and a devastating setback for this country's ability to get people in other countries to supply intelligence.

But it was quite an anticlimax when the man who is accused of doing that -- Lewis Libby on Vice President Cheney's staff -- is not even charged with the crime for which a special prosecutor was appointed, with extraordinary powers and an extraordinary budget.

Unfortunately, this situation is not unique. It is not uncommon for a prosecutor to charge someone with a crime that did not even exist when the prosecutor's investigation began. In other words, the crime was created during the course of the investigation.

That leaves completely aside the question whether the person accused is in fact guilty or innocent of the crime with which he is charged. And presumably if the prosecutor had enough evidence to charge the accused with the crime for which the investigation was authorized in the first place, he would have done it.

One of the legal problems is that it is by no means clear that a crime was actually committed in this case.

It is one thing to tell the world the name of some C.I.A. agent operating in Iran or North Korea, for that agent may never come back alive as a result of being outed. It is something else to say that Joe Wilson got the assignment to go to Niger because his wife sits behind a desk at C.I.A. headquarters in Virginia.

Put bluntly, too often the authorization of an investigation is essentially a fishing license to enable the prosecutor to find something to prosecute, whether or not he can get evidence to prosecute the crime he was supposed to be investigating.

In the case of Lewis Libby, the case against him consists essentially of the fact that he remembers various conversations with reporters differently from the way those reporters remember those conversations.

Any married couple who have gone on vacation together and come back with the husband remembering some things differently from the way the wife remembers them can see why this can be a hard case in which to prove perjury, much less the original crime that was supposed to be investigated.

However, prosecutors nailed Martha Stewart, so they may be able to nail Lewis Libby. In the meantime, it is fascinating to see people who were downplaying an organized campaign of perjury and subornation of perjury by Bill Clinton a few years ago, now touting the indictment of Lewis Libby as proof that the whole Bush administration is corrupt.

There is no talk today about "move on," with or without the dot com. There is no one saying "get over it." More important, there is no orchestrated campaign of character assassination in the media against special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the way there was against special prosecutor Kenneth Starr during his investigation of Bill Clinton's perjury.

There is no need to demonize Mr. Fitzgerald. What really needs serious re-examination are laws under which special prosecutors are issued unlimited fishing licenses to go see if they can trip someone up on inconsistencies in their statements about something that was not even a crime in the first place.

After any special prosecutor has spent millions of tax dollars and is caught in the media spotlight, the temptation is to find something, anything, rather than say it has not been worth the expense or the bother. A regular prosecutor has many other cases to turn to if one particular case does not look worth investing more time and money in, when other cases are demanding attention.

A special prosecutor has only that one case and so has no incentive to weigh alternatives like a regular prosecutor.

Even aside from cases involving a special prosecutor, there are far too many complicated laws regulating too many things for which people can easily be indicted, leading to a media frenzy -- and often a biased frenzy at that.

To the liberal media, the accused is "innocent until proven guilty" -- when the accused shares their political views. Otherwise the standard is "the appearance of impropriety."