Valerie Plame Sues Cheney, Libby and Rove Over CIA Leak

[WhyteP38]

I've read the senate committee report,

and

(we can ignore the irrelevant tangent about CLAIMS by REPORTERS who quoted Wilson ANONYMOUSLY OFF-THE-RECORD

If you read the report, as you CLAIM you did, then your comment doesn't make sense, because on page 45 of the report, the report states that Wilson admitted he was the source of the Washington Post article. Thus, it is more than a CLAIM. It is something Wilson admitted to.

The committee asked Wilson how he could have come to his conclusions given that he "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." (p. 45) Wilson claimed he "may have 'misspoken'." Note that Wilson did not say that the reporter had misquoted him.

That's a pretty big misspeak: claiming to have seen documents you've never seen, and then to have evaluated them as forgeries. Makes me wonder whether he had any other "misspeaks" of that severity in his report to the CIA, or his other communications to newspapers, TV, courts, etc. What version(s) of his tale are we supposed to accept, what version(s) are we supposed to reject, and what logic guides our selection process?

But again, this material is all old news to you, because as you said before, you've read the report. So why did you make a comment that you knew was misleading and inaccurate? That is, that it's a CLAIM (your phrasing) when it's actually something Wilson admitted to and was documented in the Senate report that you CLAIM to have read.

 

[HJB]

I made no claim that was misleading or inaccurate. Because Wilson was an ANONYMOUS SOURCE does not mean that the reporters reproduced his words accurately. Your whole argument rests on diversion. Below is the only "footnote" I will provide for you, since you may not be aware of the letter Wilson wrote to the Senators after the report was issued.
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/10/update_on_the_l.html
Try to get past the single-minded obsession with discrediting Wilson and address the simple relevant issue that I layed out in the last post. The reason we're talking past each other is you won't address the core issue... it's like discussing Ruby Ridge with someone who can't get past arguing anything other than that Weaver was a racist... true or not, it's irrelevant...

 

[WhyteP38]

I’m having difficulties with your claims. You claim to have read Wilson’s op-ed, and you claim to have read my posts in this thread, but you completely missed the Wilson quote from the op-ed that I included—in its own paragraph—in a previous post to which you responded.

Worse, you claimed to have read the Senate report, and then you made a comment that was inaccurate and misleading.

Inaccurate: You cast doubt on the validity of the articles in question. But Wilson himself has verified he was the source of the Washington Post article, and he did not dispute what the reporter wrote.

Wilson is no longer an “ANONYMOUS” source when he admits he is the source. Also, reporters tend to record interviews in case an interviewee later claims to have been misquoted or taken out of context. Perhaps that is why Wilson said that he “may have ‘misspoken’ “ to the reporter. Perhaps that is why Wilson did not say that the reporter had misquoted him or taken his statements out of context. I would think that you, of all people, would trust his statements regarding this.

Inaccurate: Your statement was also inaccurate in saying that the veracity of Wilson’s statements are an “irrelevant tangent,” when they actually go to the heart of the issue, because Wilson made untrue claims regarding his findings and has made further claims regarding people “misusing their access to classified information, in retaliating against the author of the op-ed” and “by ruining his wife's career.” These issues are the very ones you are so concerned about, so we need to judge his claims in large measure by Wilson’s veracity.

Your response to this issue is to link to a blog that quotes Wilson. How are we to believe these statements? Given that Wilson clearly lied--the Washington Post article (Pincus) and Wilson’s NYT op-ed directly contradict each other in a materially significant way and both cannot be true at the same time--which version(s) of his story are we to believe, what logic leads us to pick one over the others, and how does that logic help us determine the veracity of any of his future statements?

Misleading: Your statement was meant to cast doubt as to the validity of the issue—Wilson’s false claims—and doubt as to validity of the articles. But if you had actually read the Senate report as you claimed to have done, you would have already known that the Washington Post article, by Wilson’s own admission that you should trust, was no longer anonymously sourced.

So your statement was inaccurate and misleading. Thus, we now have a more important and unpleasant issue in this discussion to resolve, because you must have done one of three things:

1) You did not read the Senate report as you claimed, which would be a lie

or 2) you did read the report but willingly put out an inaccurate statement for the purpose of misleading readers, which is another type of lie

or 3) you did read the report, but you did a sloppy job of it and made a statement that showed you didn’t know what you were talking about

Until you address this issue, I can’t trust your statements.

 

[HJB]

I’m having difficulties with your claims. You claim to have read Wilson’s op-ed, and you claim to have read my posts in this thread, but you completely missed the Wilson quote from the op-ed that I included—in its own paragraph—in a previous post to which you responded.

I didn't miss it, I asked if you read the article... as in the whole article, and found anything factually wrong.

Worse, you claimed to have read the Senate report, and then you made a comment that was inaccurate and misleading.

...no I don't think so

Inaccurate: You cast doubt on the validity of the articles in question. But Wilson himself has verified he was the source of the Washington Post article, and he did not dispute what the reporter wrote.

Wilson is no longer an “ANONYMOUS” source when he admits he is the source. Also, reporters tend to record interviews in case an interviewee later claims to have been misquoted or taken out of context. Perhaps that is why Wilson said that he “may have ‘misspoken’ “ to the reporter. Perhaps that is why Wilson did not say that the reporter had misquoted him or taken his statements out of context. I would think that you, of all people, would trust his statements regarding this.

Wilson addressed the "mispoken" comment in the link I posted so I won't rehash it.

Your response to this issue is to link to a blog that quotes Wilson. How are we to believe these statements? Given that Wilson clearly lied--the Washington Post article (Pincus) and Wilson’s NYT op-ed directly contradict each other in a materially significant way and both cannot be true at the same time--which version(s) of his story are we to believe, what logic leads us to pick one over the others, and how does that logic help us determine the veracity of any of his future statements?

So tell me if I'm getting the gist of your point... if you hear a person's statements from two sources... second-hand from a reporter, then first-hand from the person, and the two statements don't match 100%... then the person must be a liar because the reporter must have reported exactly what the person said.

(You have never dealt with the media, have you?)

and so then, if the person tries to clarify, explain, or defend himself,... you say he's already proved himself a liar so why bother...

Check into the Kristof article... apparently he's not so sure anymore that Wilson declared the documents forgeries... imagine that, a reporter... wrong.

I won't address the rest of your post as it seems to continue downward into insult, and merits no response.

I made it clear earlier that if the CIA comes out and testifies that her career was not ruined by the whitehouse, that she was not a classified or covert employee transitioning (as she claims) from non-official cover to official cover, and if all of this is just for media attention, then I hope she loses her case.

If it is as she, and he, claimed,... then I hope they get some justice.

The attempts at discrediting Wilson hold no water as far as I'm concerned.

 

[WhyteP38]

Check into the Kristof article... apparently he's not so sure anymore that Wilson declared the documents forgeries... imagine that, a reporter... wrong.

So Kristof's doubts mean that the Pincus article (Washington Post, June 14, 2003) was inaccurate? Wilson himself has not claimed such.

Also, Wilson gave an evening keynote lecture to the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC) on June 14, 2003. In his lecture, he said, in part: “I just want to assure you that that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post …” Wilson knew who the American ambassador was who was cited in the Washington Post—him.

Therefore, since his statement to EPIC shows that that American ambassador was the same for both the NYT and Washington Post articles, that means Wilson was also the so-called anonymous source for the NYT article. Only now he’s not anonymous. So you cannot truthfully say that the “anonymous source” is just a CLAIM by the reporters.

And why didn't Wilson clear up the mess at that time? The NYT article was published May 6, 2003, and the WP article was published June 14, 2003, more than a month later.

That blog you linked to shows a letter from Wilson. And what is that letter? Another group of claims! You are using circular reasoning. You’re attempting to prove Wilson’s claims by using Wilson’s claims.

In the Senate report, Wilson says he “misspoke” to Pincus. Reading documents means you have them in your hands or on a computer. It takes time and effort to evaluate them so you can tell whether they are legitimate or forgeries. It is an active process. It is hard work. You compare the info to other sources of info. You mentally evaluate various items individually and again in various relationships to each other. And you reach a conclusion. You don’t read those kinds of documents and determine they are forgeries in 30 seconds.

Wilson claimed he did things that didn’t happen. He claimed he did things that are PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for him to have done. He didn’t see the documents. He didn’t evaluate the documents. He didn’t do anything with the documents at all: no touching, no reading, no evaluating, no drawing of conclusions. Nothing.

Misspoke? His spin on this issue is like me telling my buddies on June 14, 2003, “I went to the gun store, bought that Colt M4 they had, bought some ammo, and spent the rest of the day cleaning the gun and checking it out.” And then on July 6, 2003—22 days later—saying, “I misspoke when I said I did all those things. I did none of them. In fact, I didn’t even go to the gun store.”

In other words, none of those things was true. The claimed events didn’t happen. It was PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for them to happen because I never went to the gun store, just like Wilson never saw the documents. Where I come from, and everywhere I’ve been, that kind of discrepancy is called “a lie.”

Wilson clearly lied, and I don’t trust what he says. And until you resolve the issue of your inaccurate and misleading statement, your statements don't hold water for me.

 

[HJB]

Wilson claimed...

No, a reporter claimed... you have a hard time understanding that.

Wilson clearly lied, and I don’t trust what he says....

There's nothing anyone, including Wilson, could say to change that... hard to penetrate a closed mind.

...until you resolve the issue of your inaccurate and misleading statement, your statements don't hold water for me.

You think reality has a liberal bias, don't you?

 

[WhyteP38]

It's interesting that the strongest sources you have are one item on one blogger's website, Wilson's questionable claims, and a bunch of "sources" that you consistently refuse to substantiate.

But I guess if that's the best you can do ...

Well, this is beating a dead horse. So I'm beating feet outta here instead.

C-ya-wouldn't-want-2-B-ya!

 

[Big Ruger]

These two are hacks from way back. Clown wilson cant help but lie, and his wife likes to look at herself in the news. This suit was filed because their 15 min. were up and they want an extension.

 

[Kelly J]

People what about the fact that her own husband would introduce her in a party setting as " this is my wife she is a cia agent" does this not account for anything, there was no outing as it was already common knowledge, the woman was a cia employee, secret or not is BS in this case, all in the world that is going on here is an attempt to get their 15 min. of fame in a courtroom setting, BIG DEAL!

 

[HJB]

the fact that her own husband would introduce her in a party setting as " this is my wife she is a cia agent" does this not account for anything, there was no outing as it was already common knowledge, the woman was a cia employee

I don't think this could be considered "fact"... although there have been pundits claiming it as such. Fitzgerald's conclusions and the findings in the court cases will hopefully settle it once and for all.

 

[WhyteP38]

Now that Armitage has been allowed to speak ...

and we now know he was the source of the leak, we can update this thread.

The Washington Post, as left-leaning a rag as the NYT, wrote in an article titled, "End of an Affair":

(I)t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

 

[Scott Conklin]

This is what it sounds like when the fat lady starts warbling, right?

 

[Big Ruger]

I notice clowns Wilson have not dropped their suit Am I the only one who thinks Mr. Fitzgerald needs to answer some questions here? What no calls for Armitage to be "frogmarched" somewhere? Its funny how since this broke 2 wks ago, I haven't heard any retractions from the Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby haters out there. I wonder where does Libby go to get his good name back? Talk about someones life being destroyed. His was, by clown Wilson, and Fitzgerald, not to mention the willing accomplices in the leftist media, who drummed up a good frenzy over this.

 

[STLRN]

I notice clowns Wilson have not dropped their suit Am I the only one who thinks Mr. Fitzgerald needs to answer some questions here? What no calls for Armitage to be "frogmarched" somewhere? Its funny how since this broke 2 wks ago, I haven't heard any retractions from the Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby haters out there. I wonder where does Libby go to get his good name back? Talk about someones life being destroyed. His was, by clown Wilson, and Fitzgerald, not to mention the willing accomplices in the leftist media, who drummed up a good frenzy over this.

Amen to that, what is even more disturbing Fitzgerald knew about the Armitage aspect of it all along yet still was on the trail of a non-existent story.

 

[HJB]

This is what it sounds like when the fat lady starts warbling, right?

...she may be warming up. Hopefully, there will be a conclusion soon.

I'm not too worried about Libby's good name... all he had to do was tell the truth. On the other hand, I'm sure the people who think Libby has gotten a raw deal from this investigation, feel similarly that Bill Clinton got a raw deal from Ken Starr and those perjury and obstruction charges were bogus.

What drives people nuts, especially the media, about the current investigation is how tight-lipped the prosecutors are now compared to all the leaking the Starr people did, with grand jury testimony etc. And Fitzgerald probably didn't win much love with the press by throwing Miller in jail.

Wait for the conclusion before proclaiming the Fat Lady has struck up a tune. Remember, there was at least three leakers and several "leakees"... and some of the leaking was done before the Armitage-Novak conversation...

Although, this does seem to be dragging on pretty long...

 

[WhyteP38]

I'm just glad that the Wash. Post, a 276-degreer (that is, a person or organization that leans so far to the left as to be nearly horizontal), has finally come around to agreeing with me.

From one of my earlier posts in this thread:

If Plame’s career is ruined, she may want to point the first finger at her husband, who lied in very public forums.

From the Wash. Post article quoted above:

(I)t now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials.

 

[Big Ruger]

Sorry HJB, your just wrong. Maybe you havent been keeping up with current events but Armitage leaked this, period end of story. Now I understand that some of us have a large amount of hope that Rove, or Cheney did this, and that there is a sealed indictment somewhere, but it just aint so. Between clown Wilson running around yelling "DIG MY CIA WIFE, AINT SHE COOL?" and Richard Armitage, and Plame herself they didn't need any help. Also I cant believe you don't see a difference between Libby and Willy. One actually lied, the other forgot a conversation he'd had two yrs before. This was a political hatchet job from day one. You know what convinces me of that more than anything else? Chuck Shumers involvement, and the deafening silence from those idiots now.

 

[HJB]

Of course I know the difference between the perjury of Libby and that of Clinton... one was lying about leaking classified information, and the other was lying about having sex.

This may be much ado about nothing... we just won't know for sure until Fitzgerald concludes his investigation. Hopefully, he'll wrap it up soon.

 

[WhyteP38]

Of course I know the difference between the perjury of Libby and that of Clinton... one was lying about leaking classified information, and the other was lying about having sex.

Well, not exactly. One is about an aide to a vice-president who may have told a lie; we don't know yet. The other was about a sitting president, the highest elected official in the land, whom we know actually did lie. And did he lie about having sex? Apparently not, according to Bill-J Clinton, because oral sex isn't sex (although it sure does use the word "sex" to say what it is).

Regardless, the rules of perjury don't differentiate between why a lie is told. Oral sex may not be sex, but perjury is perjury.

 

[HJB]

I stand corrected...

Clinton was accused, and ultimately acquitted, of committing perjury...

Libby merely stands accused of perjury at this point.

...but perjury is perjury.

I agree.