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

On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:50:31 +0000, Matt wrote:

>
> 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.

i'm not "scoffing" at the regulations as i know them and have dealt with
them in the past. i am scoffing at the dems making a big deal out of what
is a very minor infraction of protocol and not necessarily breaking any
rule.

>
> : >
> : > : > : 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?

a lot of old laws are never repealed. either they are forgotten or it
just isn't worth the time. that doesn't change the spirit of the original
law, which in this case, was what was stated above


> 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.

the law didn't cover desk agents in DC, so if they need that protection,
they would need a different law.

> we do have foreign agents
> operating in this coutry who are dangerous to our own people.

i'm sure we do, but what does that have to do with a paper pusher in DC?

>
> : > : > : > : 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.

as the washington post reported, it was signed by all members of the
committee.

> you've said
> the timing is off, and that's the crux of his lying.

i didn't say that at all. i said the fact that he claimed to have read a
report that didn't yet exist and claimed that it said the opposite of what
it eventually did say (all facts) is more proof that he lied. it is only
one of many of his lies.

> and i care more
> about the info in the report that timing, and as far as i've seen, the
> info was good.

actually, it wasn't, as was reported by the post.

> that's why the rest doesn't matter to me.

so you don't believe the post on this one issue, therefore you just ignore
the rest of his lies?

>
> : > : > : 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.

the report has been issued. that is what has been described in the post
article, which claims that wilson's report actually bolstered the case,
not diminished it as he claimed.

>
> : > : > 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.

it seems pretty clear based on all the evidence. how do you think wilson
ended up going? do you think his wife's supervisor ignored her
recommendations, then turned around and picked him anyway? do you really
believe that she had nothing to do with him going?

>
> : "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.

in essence, you made the decision. if, otoh, your boss is given multiple
choices and uses some sort of process to pick one of them, then your boss
has made the decision. i actually find it funny that anyone is even
arguing this point. i don't think even the dem party is arguing this
point.

>
> : > : > : 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.

that's not at all what it said. wilson claimed there was no activity, not
that there were no sales. the committee determined that his report
actually bolstered the case for 'activity' it doesn't talk at all about
actual sales.

>
> : > : > 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.

but how do you know about the truth of any data in the report? the senate
committee determined what the data in the report said and you are just
dismissing that and coming up with your own meaning of what wilson's
report said.

>
> 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.

it is showing the reason why rove did what he did and showing how wilson
is actually more to blame for the entire situation than rove is. that is
not saying that what rove did was improper, but, once again, it is not
nearly as big a deal as what it is being made to be and not as big a deal
as what wilson did.

>
> : > : > 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 'might' endanger the some agents (although how anyone would find out
who had contact with this firm, i don't know) but that is far from
endangering national security.

>
> : > : > 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.

do you have anything to disprove the lies or do you just choose not to
accept them?

>
> : > 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?

there is no proof that it was a falsehood. they weren't talking about
actual sales, but of saddam trying to buy the material. it hasn't been
proved that he didn't try and it hasn't even been close to proved that
bush knew that the british intelligence that he based that statement on
was false.

>
> : > : > : 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.

i'm going by the results of a committee investigation vs you going by the
word of a proved liar and he is a proved liar by just looking at the
timing of the report that he said he read although it wasn't written.
there is no argument against that lie.

>
> : > : > : 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.

me too. there are several reports here and i know the timing of all of
them.

>
> : > : > 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?

no, that you think he is reasonable. got proof of the registration? how
about his voting record?

>
>
> : > : 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.

i said he had no credibility as an unbiased journalist. that is hardly
endorsing him as one. the fact that he has written as series of articles
makes him a journalist.

as an ex-cia agent and co-worker of plame, do you think there might be a
chance that he is just sticking up for her, despite what the truth is?

>
> : > : 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.....

umm, wrong. look at his writings and his appearances (for example, giving
the dems weekly radio address) and you can see pretty clearly that he is
not a republican.

of course you don't buy it though, because you have made up your mind
despite the large amount of evidence contrary to it.

>
> : > 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.

nice try, but there is a difference between dissenting and what this guy
has done. every bit of his writing is against the president and the
party. if that is the case, then you are not a member of the party.

>
> : 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.

you were doing so well keeping it not personal until this post. too bad,
i had enjoyed the discussion with you. now you are so far out that all
you have left is to attack me. as stated above, there is a difference
between dissenting with some points and going on an all out attack of the
party. its like saying you are a manchester united fan, then going to the
match and rooting for arsenal. if that is the case, it is clear that you
are not an MU fan.

>
> : how can you claim that he doesn't have a partisan agenda?
>
> he does. he's pro-cia.

he is clearly pro-democrat, which is funny, because they tend to be
anti-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,

all else fails? the only failure is your failure to look at all of the
evidence and realize what both wilson and your biased source are about.

> 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.

this is a guy out there claiming that others hurt national security. his
record and failures in that area is most certainly on the table if he is
going to make such outrageous claims.

.