Re: Washington Post Blows the Lid off Wilson & Plame Liars
- From: "hob" <dehoberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 11:35:54 -0600
"Nancy Porker Pelosi" <$20 Billion in pork at my dirty democrat house .gov>
wrote in message news:45fabedc$0$2461$a82e2bb9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
I'm sorry - you must be posting from another dimension.
Further, your browser drops words that are needed here in this dimension to
make truth from fact.
1) The trial was about a Mr Libby lying, and lack of evidence presented at
that trial to prove tomatoes are green has no bearing on proving that
tomatoes are green or not; nor does a _lack_ of evidence presented at a
trial about lying prove or disprove that there was a conspiracy to punish Mr
Wilson.
Actually, in the first paragraph of your cite, they note the "abundant
testimony" that the the Chief of Staff of the Vice President was "dedicated
to discrediting" Mr Wilson and that he had found out about Ms Plame "from
official sources".
Punishing Mr Wilson pe se is not illegal - morally repugnant and
indicative of the ethics of the White House, perhaps, but not illegal.
2) In this dimension, there was ample evidence given that Ms Plame had been
a covert OPERATIVE. She was not presently covert, but she had been and could
be in the future, and that is what counts. All persons in contact with her
at any time in the past now become soiled goods, and the time and money
spent building the connections is forever lost.
Not covert NOW- rather, covert operative at any time in the past or
possibly in the future.
And the Post should read its first paragraph and reconcile it with its
fifth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/06/AR2007030602020_pf.html
making
Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging
that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in
the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in asubsequently
July 6, 2003, op-ed, he 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
established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson wasalong
recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact,
with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr.Mr.
Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert
CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the
leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.
The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special
prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation,
Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. Indeputy
fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former
secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the WhiteHouse.
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.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Washington Post Blows the Lid off Wilson & Plame Liars
- From: Nancy Porker Pelosi
- Re: Washington Post Blows the Lid off Wilson & Plame Liars
- References:
- Washington Post Blows the Lid off Wilson & Plame Liars
- From: Nancy Porker Pelosi
- Washington Post Blows the Lid off Wilson & Plame Liars
- Prev by Date: Re: Harry Reid Gets Bitch Slapped by Bush Again : Great Show!
- Next by Date: More Bush / Gonzales dirt leaks
- Previous by thread: Washington Post Blows the Lid off Wilson & Plame Liars
- Next by thread: Re: Washington Post Blows the Lid off Wilson & Plame Liars
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|