Re: (politics) With all this Rove/CIA business heating up...


i don't have the attention span for some of this, sorry if my reposnses
are not as involved as you'd like.....

No Names Please <gamehendge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:32:47 +0000, Matt wrote:

: > No Names Please <gamehendge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > : On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:11:52 +0000, Matt wrote:
: >
: > : > No Names Please <gamehendge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: > : > : On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:46:31 +0000, Matt wrote:
: > : >
: > : > : > : > questions over why she was working under her maiden name rather than her legal
: > : > : > : > name and why the CIA would bring a complaint at all if no crime had been
: > : > : > : > comitted aside, it appears he did not check to see if he was passing on
: > : > : > : > classified information.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > : i guess he didn't, but is he supposed to check everything he says before
: > : > : > : finding out if it is classified?
: > : > : >
: > : > : > actually, yes. it may seem burdonsome, but that's the way it works.
: > : >
: > : > : i don't agree. people with clearances talk to a lot of different people
: > : > : about a lot of different topics. they can't check everything that they
: > : > : say before they say it. when you have a clearance, you have to be
: > : > : responsible for discretion, which it seems, rove may have overstepped in
: > : > : this instance.
: > : >
: > : > it goes without saying that two people with clearance can freely discuss
: > : > material classified at the lowest common level between them without checking
: > : > with anyone.
: >
: > : that is not necessarily true. it depends what clearance each person has
: > : and whether they have reason to know the information. i've seen
: > : situations where a person couldn't tell their boss what they were working
: > : on because there was no need to know for the boss.
: >
: > fine. doesn't discount my point of view.
: >
: > : >and yes, rove appears to have overstepped.
: > : >
: > : > : > obviously there's a filter of what may need to be checked out - but it's
: > : > : > reasonable to be expected to check before commenting on members of the
: > : > : > intelligence community.
: > : >
: > : > : now i am confused. you said they should check everything, but then argue
: > : > : the opposite.
: > : >
: > : > as you said above, they talk about all sorts of different things. some matters
: > : > they know well, and some they don't. some contain classified material, some
: > : > do not. if they're dealing with info that has classified portions, the
: > : > responsibility of their clearance is to check everything, especially when
: > : > dealing with someone withno clearance. it's quite simple, and common sense.
: >
: > : it is not always simple. for example, in this case, there is very good
: > : chance that rove didn't know her status.
: >
: > if he didn't, he should have known to check. that's what's simple about
: > it. no matter how you argue, he failed to check.

: he did fail to check and that was a mistake, however, it was a mistake of
: the proportion that dems are trying to make it out to be.

the proportions are still yet to be determined- but this illustrates that
what may seem to be innocuous may in fact be very serious. which is why
secrecy regulations are what the are. can't scoff at them because you
don't think it's a big deal.

: >
: > : > : all he said was that wilson's wife is in the agency. he didn't say
: > : > : anything about her or even give her name.
: > : >
: > : > but people in town already knew his wife and her name, so it wouldn't be hard to
: > : > piece things together from that tidbit.
: >
: > : rove didn't know it. how would he know that others knew it?
: >
: > he failed to check. joe is a public figure who has been to plenty of
: > public affairs with his wife. she's known. rove passed along info that
: > she was a cia agent. it may not be illegal by the letter of the law, but
: > it's certainly a violation of the spirit.

: not even by the spirit of the law. the spirit of the law was to protect
: agents working overseas during the cold war. it was not at all meant to
: protect an agent working at a desk in washington.

so why wasn't the law repealed at the end of the cold war? because it
serves a purpose that goes beyond the cold war- i'm sure some desk agents
in DC do require this kind of protection. we do have foreign agents
operating in this coutry who are dangerous to our own people.

: > : > : > : it seems he over stepped his boundaries in response to the lies from her
: > : > : > : husband. that is not a defense, but it should be considered when
: > : > : > : determining what he did and why he did it.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > i don't think the verdict is in on what wilson lied or didn't lie about.
: > : >
: > : > : according to the senate intelligence committee, the verdict is in:
: > : >
: > : > is this the statement that only the republican members of the panel agreed to,
: > : > and that the dems didn't sign off on?
: >
: > : no. it was signed by the entire committee
: >
: > i don't know enough on this to comment, nor does it matter at this point.

: it does matter. you said that it had yet to be proved that wilson lied.
: the conclusions of the committee prove that he did lie.

and i've read conflicting info on which members of this committee signed
off on which parts of the report- and this is the aspect that i've not
cared to research. go and flame me on that, i don't care. you've said
the timing is off, and that's the crux of his lying. and i care more
about the info in the report that timing, and as far as i've seen, the
info was good. that's why the rest doesn't matter to me.

: > : > : from the washington post:
: > : >
: > : > : Jul 10, 2005:
: > : >
: > : > : "Former ambassador Joseph C Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February
: > : > : 2002, to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear
: > : > : weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically reccommended
: > : > : for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said
: > : > : publicly"
: > : >
: > : > : that is about as nice a way as the post can find to call him a liar.
: > : >
: > : > her job is on a wmd task force that reports to cheney. cheney wanted to know
: > : > what the deal was, thus he asked his task force to check it out.
: >
: > : that doesn't mean that cheney knew the details.
: >
: > he must not run his task forces very well if he doesn't get progress
: > reports from them.

: progess reports do not mean that cheney gets involved in every decision,
: such as who goes where. there has not been one shred of evidence
: showing that cheney had anything to do with sending wilson to africa.
: however, the senate committee determined, that in essence, his wife did
: make the decision which was rubber stamped by her supervisor.

no proof doesn't mean it didn't happen. i'm keeping all my options open
until the final report.

: > : > his wife's
: > : > boss asked her who could do the job, she recommended her husband. her boss
: > : > signed off on it, not her. she had no administrative power to send anyone
: > : > enywhere.
: >
: > : she didn't make the official decision, but it is clear that she did make
: > : the decision. her boss only rubber stamped it. stuff like this happens
: > : all the time. if she is claiming otherwise, that is a cop-out.
: >
: > she didn't, but she did. now who's contradictory? how can you
: > characterize actions about which no one has any info as a 'rubber stamp'?

: no one has any info? the senate committee determined that it was
: basically her who sent him.

i was referring to your rubber stamp comment. you don't know that it was
as such.

: "was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife"
:
: > you can call it a cop-out, but since she hasn't spoken publicly, it
: > wouldn't be her claim you're dismissing as such. still wasn't her
: > ultimate call....

: no, it wasn't her ultimate call, but you are right, it is a cop out. when
: people, such as her, do their job and recommend someone for a mission,
: even though they don't have the "ultimate call" in reality, they made the
: decision.

i think they make a suggestion. their superiors make the decisions. if i
suggest a specific epoxy for a job at work, it's not my decision. it's my
suggestion, even if it's the only one. My boss has to decide whether
to take my advice or not.

: > : > : the article continued:
: > : >
: > : > : "Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what
: > : > : the Bush administration did with the information -- were
: > : > : undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee
: > : > : report.
: > : >
: > : > : The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking
: > : > : intelligence about purported sales to Iraq, as he has said,
: > : > : bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary
: > : > : to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous
: > : > : statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms
: > : > : about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way
: > : > : into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 Sate of the
: > : > : Union address."
: > : >
: > : > i don't understand how his conclusions bolstered any case for
: > : > anything- he found no evidence of sales. i don't understand the
: > : > rationale for the statement above.
: >
: > : have you seen wilson's report? i haven't, but the committee did.
: >
: > nope, but the logical flaw in the statement above should make anyone
: > curious.

: what logical flaw? the committee saw the report and came to certain
: conclusions. you are just writing off those conclusions without seeing
: the report. is seems the flaw is in your logic.

the logical flaw is that wilson said there were no sales. the committee
says that his report bolstered evidence of sales. on it's face, that's
not congruent, and a reasonable person would want to read the report to
examine that disconnect before they agreed with it- i think that's a flaw
in your logic.

: > : > i don't know about the timing of what he said to who either. that's
: > : > really immaterial to me.
: >
: > : how about the timing that he said a report about what was going on was
: > : wrong, despite the fact that the report was not written when he said
: > : it and even after it was written, he never saw it.
: >
: > can't talk to any of this, sorry. whole lotta bull*** is pretty normal
: > for DC.

: why can't you talk to any of this? it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt
: that he lied. why can't you accept all of this evidence showing that he
: lied.

this is what i meant at the top- i didn't follow this, and can't speak to
it. i cuold accept it if i could read a copy of the report and it's
signatories. but i'm not compelled to find it, because as i said above,
timing to me isn't as important as the truth of the data withiin the
report.

even if you're right, i don't see how this relates to naming the agent.
in fact, i'd wager it red herring material.

: > : > if he's such a liar, there was no need to out his wife, these simple
: > : > timeline facts should be enough.
: >
: > : much of that information was classified at the time. are you
: > : suggesting that he should have given up classified information, isn't
: > : that what this whole thread is about?
: >
: > the timing of reports was classified? i'm sure they could have done
: > something less than endanger national security by blowing her cover.

: how exactly was national security endangered? other than by the dems
: trying to play with the homeland security appropriations bill?

the release of her name, and the subsequent release of the name of the
front company with which she worked put every agent in the field who had
contact with that firm in danger. just because this looks small, it does
not diminish the importance of secrecy.

: > : > that someone went out of their way to drag her into it is the
: > : > partisan hackery that should be uncovered.
: >
: > : the 'partisan hackery' was on the part of wilson, who was an active
: > : kerry supporter, using these lies against bush.
: >
: > now we're diverging..... partican hacks on both sides then. not sure
: > which lies wilson used.

: many of them are described above. you just wont accept all of the
: evidence showing them.

nope, not yet.

: > that bush knew about the niger falsehood during the state of the union?
: > most knew it was weak already.

: what falsehood was that?

yellowcake sales, what else are we talking about?

: > : > : again, he lied. both about what was in his report and what
: > : > : information was given to bush.
: > : >
: > : > how did he lie about what was in the report? that's new to me.
: >
: > : as the committee determined, the report actually bolstered the case,
: > : but he said that it diminished the case.
: >
: > again, i don't see how there being no sales bolsters a case. illogical
: > to me, therefore i doubt.

: once again, you didn't read the report. no sale does not mean that
: saddam didn't try to buy something. i recently tried to buy a car from
: someone, but we couldn't come to a deal. there was no sale, but there was
: an attempt.

so what's the point here if neither of us has read it? kinda pointless to
argue about it. what you provided doesn't jibe with me, and therefore i
won't accept it until i see it in its entirety.

: > : > : it goes on, pointing out other lies and possible conflicts of
: > : > : interest, but the point is proved.
: > : >
: > : > we'll have to disagree.
: >
: > : you don't agree that it has been proved that he lied? if you can't
: > : look at this evidence and agree to that point, then i guess this
: > : conversation is over, unless you can show something that proves it
: > : wrong.
: >
: > since i don't know about report timing, and that's your major point,
: > yeah, maybe we're done.

: which report timing don't i know about? the major point is that wilson
: lied about many things which have been proved above and you ignore since
: you can't argue the absolute proof

this is making me dizzy.

: > : > this fellow has some views that contradict some of the views you've
: > : > been taking. he seems reasonable to me, but ymmv.
: > : >
: > : > http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
: >
: > : this guy seems reasonable?
: >
: > yes he does.

: i guess that explains a lot about your point of view.

that i listen to a registered republican?

: >
: > : he loses all credibility as an unbiased journalist. look at the rest
: > : of
: >
: > so you think he's a journalist? that's a liberal definition. ;)

: i don't. hence my description of him. if you don't consider him a
: journalist, what do you consider him? why do you use him as a source?

you said he lost credibility as a journalist. if you didn't think he was
a journalist, why did you refer to him as one? i consider him an ex-cia
agent and co-worked of plame, that's why i listen to him.

: > : you respond by posting an editorial from a very liberal writer on a
: > : liberal publication.
: >
: > i did? funny, i thought i posted the commentary by a person who went
: > through the agency with valerie plame, who's a registered republican,

: registered republican? i know he claims to be a republican, but it is
: clear that he isn't.

uh-huh. so the sky is green, no matter what? no one has integrity unless
they're on your side of the issue? sorry, no buying that one.....

: > and who's an ex-cia officer with no partican agenda except to protect
: > the intelligence gathering community. of is that a different larry
: > johnson?

: look at his other writings and where this article appears and his agenda
: is clear.

: "More Lies From the Right" - ssia
: "Incompetence on Senate Intel" - attacking the republican chair
: "Correcting the Record on Valeria Plame" - partisan attacks against bush
: "Mr Bush, Have You No Shame" - ssia
: "The Intelligence Challenge: Can we Trust Our President" - ssia
: "The Big Lie About Valerie Plame" - actually tried to claim that wilson
: didn't lie, but those proving it, did.

everyone in the party is supposed to be lockstep with the admin, no
dissenters, right? big tent my ass.

: it is also the same larry johnson we gave the Dem party's weekly radio
: address. the same larry johnson we appeared before a panel of house and
: senate dems attacking bush.

i'm still unaware how a party affiliation makes you beholden to any member
of that party when that member does stupid ***. you obviously don't
believe in dissention within a party, so it's pointless to argue this with
you.

: how can you claim that he doesn't have a partisan agenda?

he does. he's pro-cia.

: the funny thing is, that the dems put this guy out to try and claim that
: leaking the name of an agent working a desk in washington hurts national
: security when in reality, he is greatly responsible for hurting national
: security for not doing a better job combating al-queda when he was deputy
: director for the office of counter terrorism at the state dept.

so when all else fails, attack the messenger? let's not get into an
arguement about who failed the country when- there's plenty of blame to go
around for that, and it starts at the top.
.