If you haven’t learned by now, Scylla, to shut the fuck up when it’s evident you don’t know anything about a topic except what you read in the papers and filter through that ideology-addled skull of yours, then there’s no hope for you.
That was a nice try by Wilson to weasel out of what he said. Saying that his wife still worked for the CIA is not the same as saying she was still covert.
When Blitzer actually puts him on the spot about that he refuses to comment. In fact, as I’ve cited, she lost her ability to be covert after Aldrich Ames, marrying Wilson and having kids with him. And, she really lost it when Wilson went to the NYT to publish an editorial about his secret missions that she sent him on, while pretending to be surprised that this would result in publicity which would compromise her notional status.
And you wonder why I think you guys are so stupid.
My understanding is that it does not generally become common public knowledge that someone has been a convert agent in her or his past either. It is supposed to remain secret to protect the identities and covers of others who may or may not still be actively covert.
I don’t know that I can particularly take Robert Novak’s word that any one particular person is not a “covert CIA operative.” If she or he were, how would Mr. Novak or anyone else without clearance know for certain?
If Richard Armitage did not know that she was a covert operative, that does not keep someone else from being the source of that bit of information for Novak.
I, for one, don’t know Cheney’s motives or Libby’s and Rove’s either. But I look at what Wilson discovered and wrote in his editorial. And I look at the information that was leaked to Novak, Cooper, Woodward, and the woman who went to jail rather than reveal her source and I remember what Libby wrote to her in jail. And I think about the way the misinformation was “cleverly” phrased in the President’s State of the Union message so that it was technically marginably “doable.” And I think about the moral character of Rove’s campaign strategies and Cheney’s war policies – and I think about whatever became of the so-called yellow cake…and I begin to see a pattern of behavior which helps me to form an opinion about their motives. It’s possible that Armitage may have been manipulated.
I specifically have not argued that classified information was not leaked. Clearly it was.
You’ll note that another officer claims it was nothing more than a telephone number and P.O. Box, so whether or not other operatives used it is disputable. Frankly, I doubt it since it would be stupid to tie covert operatives together in this fashion but your opinion may differ.
At any rate when you can show me what other agents were compromised at Brewster Jennings and in what fashion, than we can evaluate it.
Other than the fact that Aldritch Ames blew it, and Joe Wilson blew it by writing an editorial about a secret mission he’d been sent on. Kind of hard to be a covert NOC when your husband is writing editorials about his secret missions and you have young kids.
Not quite. He is stating the conditions necessary to convict.
And once again: if no crime were committed because Ms. Plame was not a covert agent, then why did the CIA refer the case to Justice? An inter-agency practical joke. Besides which, the snippet in question refers only to Libby.
That Novak quote. Did you provide the creative editing yourself, or did you find it on one of the sites you refer to for fair and balanced information?
Nah, that’s OK, when we remember that you think you are smart.
No wonder I think highly of you! Yes. That is possible. In fact, if one wishes to argue the retribution motive, this is the penultimate path, exceeded only by the possibilities of Armitage being complicit.
Sure, Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff wrote the article, but who is Michael Isikoff?
Why the same Michael Isikoff that pointed at Armitage and said of him that apparently had no intention of harming anyone. (And this BTW remains unproven)
Sorry, if Isikoff is reliable before (and it is clear to me his revelation does not change the mendacity of the administration) he is reliable now, and looking at the debunked examples that you used, you are really deluded in pretending you can spot misrepresentations. I have seen you do this before, you are not wine, you do not get better with age.
“Just because you are a character doesn’t mean that you have character.” -Pulp Fiction.
Which would only mean that Mr. Wilson shouldnt have made reference in his writing to his wife’s covert status. Which, so far as I know, he didn’t.
I stand corrected.
I can’t read their minds so I can’t tell you for sure. I would guess because not being prosecutors they didn’t know if there was a case and wanted Justice to investigate, and because Plame’s status was classified.
No. You’re obviously wrong.
Ahh, the old elucidator semantic bitchiness. I remember the last time you accused me fruitlessly of altering a quote.
By the way, you still haven’t explained why the CIA made the criminal referral to Justice. If, as you insist, she was not covert.
No. Sorry. Isikoff is not granted papal infallibility. The NYT times today confirmed Armitage (by his own admission) as the source of the leak (no cite, I read it in the paper) so that is corroborated.
Since Isikoff forms his opinion from Fitzgerald’s subpoena, the subpoena is the primary souce.
It would be stupid to take Isikoff’s opinion over the source from which he derives said opinion from.
I don’t understand. I went to the primary source Isikoff cites and found that it does not support his conclusion.
Don’t bitch me out just because you’re jealous over how great I am.
Ok, if thats not it, it means then that you love to ride dead horses, why? The only explanation left then is that the glue fumes keep you going.
dumbass.
Ok.
-
Plame not demonstrated to be covert
-
Original source for leak wasn’t Cheney, Rove, Bush, Scooter
-
No revenge motive can be inferred from leak
-
You guys are as full of shit as God is mercy.
-
Your horse/glue metaphors suck compared to my cow portholes.
Your ass is so fucking kicked.
Hold on just a second. The whole reason you started this thread was to tell us “besmirching lefties” that we found the guy who did it. Here, let me quote you:
I don’t think there’s any possible chance of misinterpretation here. IT WAS RICHARD ARMITAGE, you categorically state. Then Hamlet asks you why you’re not outraged at the administration for keeping someone on who did this. Why you’re not upset at an internal investigation that spent THREE YEARS with no results on who leaked the information? Why you’re not upset at Richard Armitage for committing this disgusting and treasonous act.
And your response is “That I know the difference between indicted and guilty?”
No. No Scylla. You can’t have your cow pie and eat it too. Did he do it or not? He can’t be unequivicably guilty when you want to accuse liberals of false accusations but simultaneously be “indicted but not yet guilty” when you wiggle your way out of blaming the administration and the damn leaker himself!
Oh, I see. “Classified” as distinct from “covert”. Semantic bitchiness, indeed.
And yes, its perfectly clear he’s referring to Libby. You see any other proper nouns?
As far as the truncated quote goes, I will leave that to each Doper’s individual judgement with “the calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces.” The quote you supplied is drasticly out of context, within context, it presents a picture quite at odds with your assertions. I’m willing to believe that you innocently picked it up, say at a fair and balanced site, and simply accepted it without investigating further, as it was in harmony with revealed truthiness.
Still, its clear, is it not, that the full context shows a much different picture than your suggestion? Much different.
Stop being a pea brain, I know that and I said that already, the point is that there is no evidence that that changes the mendacity of the administration. And speaking of infallibility, I was complaining on the statement of Isikoff regarding the “no harm intended” by Armitage.
The context still shows Fitzgerald disregarding as silly the idea that Valerie plame was not covert.
I don’t think boasting about being a great artful dodger will help: I was talking about the “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.” quote. It was not saying what you think.
Should I tell him that he forgot about the elephants in the spider web in that thread?
Nah, I think his mind is gone.
No need to get upset with a non-character.