• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Henry Waxman Opening Statement In Plame Hearing

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Maybe because it is a meaningless scandal that is more about politics than anything else?
About the only thing non-political about this scandal is the way her name came out in the first place. After that it is all about politics and scoring points against the other side.
Maybe it's about the continuous string of lies this administration has given as excuses for starting an elective war that, so far, has resulted in 3,200 American troops dead, tens of thousands wounded, many of whom are scarred and disabled for life, possibly hundreds of thousands more dead and wounded innocent civilians, and the waste trillions of dollars of debt our great grandchildren will still be paying for generations.

Maybe it's about the vindictive criminality of outing Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative, thereby sacraficing of the career of an American patriot dedicated to participating in the war against nuclear proliferation and the value to our nation's defense of all she could have offered, had the Idiot In Chief and his gang of criminals not decided that all of what he had done for our nation wasn't as valuable as trying to discredit her husband, whose only sin was disclosing their lies.

Maybe the only reason the matter is political is because the Bushwhackos' motivations in outing her were in the hope that they could obtain a political advantage by attempting to divert attention from their crass, traitorous criminality.

Maybe you continue to post lie after lie, trying to further distract and divert attention from what they've done and what they continue to do, because you're one of the mindless toadies on the payroll of the criminal traitors of this administration.
 
The way that her name came out in the first place appears to be highly political and is the meaning behind the scandal.
 
You're a sad human being if you honestly still think Plame wasn't a NOC. I guess being a conspiracy kook is what righties are defined as these days. Gives us real righties a bad name.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
One a side note: Is it not highly ironic to watch the liberals of the forum trip over themselves to defend a former CIA operative.
In any other CIA thread they would be tripping over themselves to blame the CIA for all the worlds problems.

No wonder the CIA wouldnt hire you . You are such a lying hack.


Let me guess the Cia wouldl not hire you because you failed the POLY.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Plame Wilson said she had no role in sending her husband on a CIA fact-finding trip to Niger. Wilson said in a newspaper column that his trip debunked the administration's pre-war intelligence that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa.

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.
Then who sent him?
We know that his story about being sent by Chenney is a lie. And now she claims that she had nothing to do with it... did Wilson just up and go by himself?
jeeez...Wilson never said Cheney sent him. He said the Vice-President's *office*. It was someone within DICK's office (and probably was at the original request of Cheney, himself, to send *someone* there to check it out).
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
All that I see from you is meaningless assertion after meaningless assertion. Business as usual?
Maybe because it is a meaningless scandal that is more about politics than anything else?
About the only thing non-political about this scandal is the way her name came out in the first place. After that it is all about politics and scoring points against the other side.

It's it's so "meaningless" why are you in here trying so desperately to deflect blame from the administration?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
All that I see from you is meaningless assertion after meaningless assertion. Business as usual?
Maybe because it is a meaningless scandal that is more about politics than anything else?
About the only thing non-political about this scandal is the way her name came out in the first place. After that it is all about politics and scoring points against the other side.


You mean like the rigities trying to delay the inevitable withdrawl from Iraq until after the Dem's take the Whitehouse, so that you can blame them for the "cutting and running"?

Who cares how many people die until then, as long as your side "scores points", right?

:cookie:
 
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
The way that her name came out in the first place appears to be highly political and is the meaning behind the scandal.
We know how her name came out and it appears that it was not political at all.
Armitage is not known as the type of guy to engage in partisian political battles.

My problem with this whole mess is the attempt by the Democrats to use it for political reasons.
 
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
You mean like the rigities trying to delay the inevitable withdrawl from Iraq until after the Dem's take the Whitehouse, so that you can blame them for the "cutting and running"?

Who cares how many people die until then, as long as your side "scores points", right?

:cookie:
It is only 'inevitable' to you and your like, those of us on the right would like to actually win the war.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is only 'inevitable' to you and your like, those of us on the right would like to actually win the war.
The war was over a long time ago. Remember "Mission Accomplished"?
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
We know how her name came out and it appears that it was not political at all.
Armitage is not known as the type of guy to engage in partisian political battles.
That doesn't address the testimony from Libby's trial showing that Cheney and Rove were up to their asses in outing her.
My problem with this whole mess is the attempt by the Democrats to use it for political reasons.
Democrats didn't make this a political issue. The political issues started when Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the entire administration team of lying, murders and traitors started a war based on nothing but lies. Politics spilled into this case because the Bushwhackos thought it was more important to cover up the truth about their war of lies by trashing the careers and the work of valuable intelligence assets like Valerie Plame and endangering the lives of everyone she worked with.

Your real problem is that you're as much a liar as the worst of them. The only question is, why? Do you work for the Bushwhacko administration, or are you just that detached from reality? :roll:
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is only 'inevitable' to you and your like, those of us on the right would like to actually win the war.
The war was over a long time ago. Remember "Mission Accomplished"?
Oh please... the 'mission accomplished' banner was there for the sailors on the ship whose mission was in fact accomplished. They did everything that had been asked of them and they were about to return home. Wording similar to that is used all the time when ships return from deployment.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is only 'inevitable' to you and your like, those of us on the right would like to actually win the war.
The war was over a long time ago. Remember "Mission Accomplished"?
Oh please... the 'mission accomplished' banner was there for the sailors on the ship whose mission was in fact accomplished. They did everything that had been asked of them and they were about to return home. Wording similar to that is used all the time when ships return from deployment.
Did you miss the speech made by Bush?
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: MonkeyK
The way that her name came out in the first place appears to be highly political and is the meaning behind the scandal.
We know how her name came out and it appears that it was not political at all.
Armitage is not known as the type of guy to engage in partisian political battles.

My problem with this whole mess is the attempt by the Democrats to use it for political reasons.

John, the only party politicizing things is the republican party. They have this tactic where they accuse the democrats, who are not politicizing, of politicizing - which is politicizing.

The right wing has a hard time seeing through this taxtic for what it is.

If you go back to ghe beginning of the incident, Nancy Pelosi said the incident should have an investigation to see if senior White House staff were involved. She was right. The White House dismissed her view saying that there was absolutely no indication any White House staff were involved in the leak, when in fact there was some reason to suspect it and the investigation was to get more evidence. (The White House was wrong; an investigation was needed, did happen, and found senion White House staff were involved).

Tom DeLay attacked Pelosi, who had correctly asked for an investigation, by saying that the democrats were 'politicizing' the issue. Sound familiar? You are sounds like DeLay.

The republicans know the public doesn't like 'politicizing issues', and so in a terribly dishonest manner they are the ones who politicize by attacking democrats for politicizing.

It's the same logic as when researchers who push a policy for researching the harmful effects of smoking on health are attacked by tobacco companies of being selfish trying to get the money for it - ignoring the fact that the researchers have a much better agenda even while they do benefit from the money, and it's the tobacco companies who are the people acting selfishly at great cost to the country.

John, when one side has an organized campaign (apart from Armitage) to smear a man who exposes the administration lying to the public, resulting in the White House withdrawing part of the state of the union speech, and then lies to the FBI to protect Cheney's involvement, and is then caught, the fact that they are in political trouble is not because it's the democrats fault for politicizing, it's for the republicans' fault for their wrongdoing. You are fighitng against a patriot who did the right thing for the country.
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
It is only 'inevitable' to you and your like, those of us on the right would like to actually win the war.
The war was over a long time ago. Remember "Mission Accomplished"?
Oh please... the 'mission accomplished' banner was there for the sailors on the ship whose mission was in fact accomplished. They did everything that had been asked of them and they were about to return home. Wording similar to that is used all the time when ships return from deployment.
Did you miss the speech made by Bush?
Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

John is outdoing himself with errors.

The president doesn't go to a ship after a 'war', as his major address on the war for the nation, just to send a message to the one ship - hs mesage was about the whole war.

This is common sense.

You don't need any more to udnerstand 'mission accomplished' referred ot the war and not the ship, but there is more - the fact that the White House initially lied about the banner and said they had nothing to do with it and the men on the ship had done it, until they got caught and had to admit they did it. Why would they lie if they didn't know they had done wrong? They did know they did wrong. The even was well understood to be a photo op for 2004 campaign footage, which ended up not being usable.

As for the 'boys going home' and the White House deceipt, remember, the ship would have been home but for the White House ordering it to circle around just our of sight from the San Diego coast, to give the illusion that it was somewhere way out to sea that Bush had flown. As I said, it was a photo op for campaign footage.

John, with dozens of posts like this, and the dozend of missing posts responding when you are proven wrong, you are crossing from 'different opinion' to 'propagandist'.

From a news story at the time:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and others said the accusation that the leak may have come from senior administration officials created a conflict of interest with the Bush-appointed attorney general and his staff...

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Republican of Texas, scoffed at the Democrats' call for an independent counsel, saying the idea "must be in [Democrats'] political handbook."
 


In his syndicated column, the journalist, Robert Novak, confirmed that two of his sources were Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, and Bill Harlow, then a spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, both of whose roles in the case were already widely known.........

One of the sources for Novack's info was Harlow.....Hmm

.......His new column confirmed what he hinted at in a previous one: that although he had been told that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, he learned her name from reading her husband's entry in Who's Who in America, which listed her as Valerie Plame

So, he figured the name by himself.... Hmm. How hard could it be for others?

Link

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

The CIA had an oportunity to put a stop to the story by Novack, but did not....Hmm

In a column published Oct. 1, 2003, Novak wrote that the CIA official he spoke to "asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name.".........

The CIA says she will not be given another foreign assignment (likely because her cover had been blown at least twice b4), CIA never suggested she or anybody else w/b endangered by exposing her name.

In a strange twist in the investigation, the grand jury -- acting on a tip from Wilson -- has questioned a person who approached Novak on Pennsylvania Avenue on July 8, 2003, six days before his column appeared in The Post and other publications, Wilson said in an interview. The person, whom Wilson declined to identify to The Post, asked Novak about the "yellow cake" uranium matter and then about Wilson, Wilson said. He first revealed that conversation in a book he wrote last year. In the book, he said that he tried to reach Novak on July 8, and that they finally connected on July 10. In that conversation, Wilson said that he did not confirm his wife worked for the CIA but that Novak told him he had obtained the information from a "CIA source."

Novak told the person that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA as a specialist in weapons of mass destruction and had arranged her husband's trip to Niger, Wilson said. Unknown to Novak, the person was a friend of Wilson and reported the conversation to him, Wilson said........

Wilson knew the stroy about his wife was coming out days before it actually appeared, and apparently did nothing. So, Plame would have known as well......Hmmm..

On July 9, Tenet and top aides began to draft a statement over two days that ultimately said it was "a mistake" for the CIA to have permitted the 16 words about uranium to remain in Bush's speech. He said the information "did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and the CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

The CIA "OK's" the yellow cake story?

Linl

I know you guys hate GWB, fine.

But IMHO everyone's missing the real story here - it should be about the CIA.

Weren't they the ones who also said that "WMD" was a "slam dunk case"? Then got busy backtracking? Yup.

Non-stop screw ups from them, evidence of playing politics - which they s/n be doing. IMHO, part of Bush's legacy will be his inability to get them in good working order, and the problems they caused him.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the "bang-up job" they did in uncovering the 9/111 plot.

Fern

EDIT: I wonder why the media doesn't point out this stuff. All one must do is listen to Wilson's and others testimony to see these odd events. E.g., Wilso & Plame, along with the CIA knew this story was coming. and LET IT. They now feign outrage while receiving $millions in book & movie deals..... She nows claim "fear", when even those at the CIA said no danger. Course, IIREC, the tune changed 180 degrees in the hearing. Why? How?

Why does the media do nothing but hype their story without any critical thinking whatsoever?

You guys are always critizing people for acting like "sheeple". Why are you just parroting the media line without any of your own critical thinking?

I noticed when you see something that is clearly "non-sheeple", you usually avoid it like the plague. Like my post above with my own personal thoughts & observations on the yellow cake issue. It's like if it ain't piped directly to you from the media, ignore it.

Over time the real sheeple reveal themselves, as do those who think for themselves.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Fern
Weren't they the ones who also said that "WMD" was a "slam dunk case"? Then got busy backtracking? Yup.
link

Could this be backtracking?

Do we have a transscript of the comments he made? (prolly unlikely, but if so I'd like to see them).
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Fern
Weren't they the ones who also said that "WMD" was a "slam dunk case"? Then got busy backtracking? Yup.
link

Could this be backtracking?

Do we have a transscript of the comments he made? (prolly unlikely, but if so I'd like to see them).

I've also read what hers posted. Don't forget, the CIA was doing a lot that could hurt the case for WMD, and that's why Cheney was over there many times twisting analysts' arms.

Also remember that Cheney created an 'alternate CIA' intelligence group under his control which 'stovepiped' raw informtation, bypassing CIA analysis, to him and then to Bush.

The blame is with Cheney for his reckless push for one conclusion, and Bush for allowing it.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: her209
Originally posted by: Fern
Weren't they the ones who also said that "WMD" was a "slam dunk case"? Then got busy backtracking? Yup.
link
Could this be backtracking?

Do we have a transscript of the comments he made? (prolly unlikely, but if so I'd like to see them).
No backtracking here.

link
Three months later, on Dec. 21, 2002, Woodward says CIA Director George Tenet brought his deputy, John McLaughlin, to the oval office to show the president and the vice president their best evidence that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction.

?McLaughlin has access to all the satellite photos, and he goes in and he has flip charts in the oval office. The president listens to all of this and McLaughlin's done. And, and the president kind of, as he's inclined to do, says ?Nice try, but that isn't gonna sell Joe Public. That isn't gonna convince Joe Public,?? says Woodward.

In his book, Woodward writes: "The presentation was a flop. The photos were not gripping. The intercepts were less than compelling. And then George Bush turns to George Tenet and says, 'This is the best we've got?'"

Says Woodward: ?George Tenet's sitting on the couch, stands up, and says, ?Don't worry, it's a slam dunk case.?" And the president challenges him again and Tenet says, ?The case, it's a slam dunk.? ...I asked the president about this and he said it was very important to have the CIA director ? ?Slam-dunk is as I interpreted is a sure thing, guaranteed. No possibility it won't go through the hoop.? Others present, Cheney, very impressed.?

What did Woodward think of Tenet?s statement? ?It?s a mistake,? he says. ?Now the significance of that mistake - that was the key rationale for war.?
 
Was Woodward present at the meeting? Sounds like he was.

Otherwise, reading doesn't clarify it for me.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
I know you guys hate GWB, fine.

But IMHO everyone's missing the real story here - it should be about the CIA.
NO! That's another story, entirely. The subject of Waxman's hearings is about who outed Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative and why. Scooter Libby was convicted of purjury and obstruction of justice for lying to the FBI and the grand jury about his part in the scheme, and testimony in that trial showed that Cheney and Rove were fully involved in it.
Weren't they the ones who also said that "WMD" was a "slam dunk case"? Then got busy backtracking? Yup.
Actually, that was George Tenet's "slam dunk" statement and the rest of his actions as head of the CIA, and there are plenty of other discussions about how much of a suck ass toady he was and how much of it was choreographed by the criminals in the Whitehouse who set up their own intelligence (and I use the word loosely) channels to "stovepipe" just the cherry picked tidbits of information they wanted to hear without interference from those in the CIA who tried to provide a picture more based in reality.
Non-stop screw ups from them, evidence of playing politics - which they s/n be doing. IMHO, part of Bush's legacy will be his inability to get them in good working order, and the problems they caused him.
I think he'll be remembered as the worst and most devastating President in the history of our nation. He's every bit as much to blame as the anyone else in that gang of murderous traitors.

George Bush could fsck up a wet dream. He may even go down in history as "The man who broke the world." :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:
 
Back
Top