Is Joe Wilson a credible source?

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: charrison
You forgot bold this. Having your name in a document requiring secret clearence does not make you a covert agent. This document proves nothing....

Not just the document, but the PARAGRAPH containing her name.

... contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret ...

That still does not make her a covert agent. Documents take on highest security clearence based on information in them. This rating does not however mean all information becomes rated at the highest level. This also means that a paragraph would not be marked secret as the entire document would be market at least secret. There are also procedures for releasing non secret material from a classified document.

Without more information, one cannot tell from this article if there was anything secret attached to her name. So it appears I am still correct.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: charrison


That still does not make her a covert agent. Documents take on highest security clearence based on information in them. This rating does not however mean all information becomes rated at the highest level. This also means that a paragraph would not be marked secret as the entire document would be market at least secret. There are also procedures for releasing non secret material from a classified document.

Without more information, one cannot tell from this article if there was anything secret attached to her name. So it appears I am still correct.

Well, whatta' ya' know? MORE INFORMATION!

Plame?s identity marked as secret

Rove should be hung as a traitor.

Benedict Rove.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
You forgot bold this. Having your name in a document requiring secret clearence does not make you a covert agent. This document proves nothing....

And the new Time article stating: "A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law."?

woohoo more anonymous sources....

.. from a reputable publication with a track record of solid reporting. Couple that with all the other evidence and with simple logical analysis, e.g., it makes no sense for the CIA to press for an investigation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act if Plame wasn't eligible, and one has a compelling case. I agree it isn't 100%, absolutely air-tight conclusive proof -- just as I've said before. The evidence is plenty strong, however, to challenge the brainwashed Bush apologists who keep dismissing this scandal by asserting as fact Plame was not covert. That's wishful thinking, yet another of the unsupported BushCo propaganda points the drones chant endlessly.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Ahhh. Just as I thought. Bowfinger has no guts and no belief in the garbage he posts. This isn't about truth for him, it's about spewing and bluster and attacks on people.

Well at least I'vwe blown the lid off his act now and he has shown who the real chicken is here.

You should change your name to Chickenfinger.

:laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Any of the others in here want to take the wager as I outlined it?

DealMonkey?

BBond?

Speak up boys. Let's see you put something meaningful where you're mouth is. Let's see how cocksure you are of your position with something on the line. Or are you guys full of hot air too, just like Chickenfinger?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ahhh. Just as I thought. Bowfinger has no guts and no belief in the garbage he posts. This isn't about truth for him, it's about spewing and bluster and attacks on people.

Well at least I'vwe blown the lid off his act now and he has shown who the real chicken is here.

You should change your name to Chickenfinger.

:laugh:

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

Still no quote, just more evasion. You're desperately trying to change the subject; why would I let you off the hook? I've nailed you in a lie and everyone knows it. If you had an ounce of integrity -- or did not have a Texas-sized ego -- you'd admit you were wrong and move on.

Keep running Chicken. It's just a flesh wound. :laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ahhh. Just as I thought. Bowfinger has no guts and no belief in the garbage he posts. This isn't about truth for him, it's about spewing and bluster and attacks on people.

Well at least I'vwe blown the lid off his act now and he has shown who the real chicken is here.

You should change your name to Chickenfinger.

:laugh:

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

Still no quote, just more evasion. You're desperately trying to change the subject; why would I let you off the hook? I've nailed you in a lie and everyone knows it. If you had an ounce of integrity -- or did not have a Texas-sized ego -- you'd admit you were wrong and move on.

Keep running Chicken. It's just a flesh wound. :laugh:

You've shown your colors Chickenfinger. Your replies are now seen by all and evidenced as nothing but the pure blustery rantings they truly are.

Later, gutless wonder.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Ahhh. Just as I thought. Bowfinger has no guts and no belief in the garbage he posts. This isn't about truth for him, it's about spewing and bluster and attacks on people.

Well at least I'vwe blown the lid off his act now and he has shown who the real chicken is here.

You should change your name to Chickenfinger.

:laugh:

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

Still no quote, just more evasion. You're desperately trying to change the subject; why would I let you off the hook? I've nailed you in a lie and everyone knows it. If you had an ounce of integrity -- or did not have a Texas-sized ego -- you'd admit you were wrong and move on.

Keep running Chicken. It's just a flesh wound. :laugh:

You've shown your colors Chickenfinger. Your replies are now seen by all and evidenced as nothing but the pure blustery rantings they truly are.

Later, gutless wonder.

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

:laugh:

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Chicken is "mistaken" again.

There is nothing in Wilson's book suggesting his wife had no further overseas or covert assignments after they were married and moved back to D.C. In fact, he does not talk at all about the kinds of assignments she worked on during that period. Wilson barely mentions her (except for their romance) until the White House exposed her. In short, this is just another BushCo propaganda point, more disinformation to draw attention away from shameful, possibly criminal behavior.

[ ... ]

Bull. Your link is mistaken, speculating about information not actually in the book ... just like you. I not only read the book, I own a copy. There's nothing there about what Plame did once they moved back to the U.S. (and before Novak attacked). This is a perfect opportunity to prove me wrong. Provide quotes from the book supporting your claim. You can't because they aren't there. If your quotes are in it, I will gracefully acknowledge my error and apologize (something you'll never have the integrity to do).

In short, put up or slink back under your rock. I'm betting you'll either reply with your usual empty noise, or you'll run away entirely. What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't. It's just another of your lies.

[ Edit: trimmed redundant nested quotes ]

Tell you what Finger. Let's cut through the horsesh!t here and see who's really convinced of their position. Let's make a wager for all to see.

We will wait until Fitzgerald releases the truth of the matter.

If I'm wrong about Plame's status of not being a covert agent, I'll stop posting in this forum, forever, as TLC or anyone else.

If you're wrong in your assertion that Plame is a covert agent, then you stop posting here, forever, as Bowfinger or anyone else.

Deal?

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

Still no quote, just more evasion. You are a fraud. Even worse, you are a joke. Run, Chicken, run.

I offered you a deal to prove out your so frequent and silly bravodo stance and blustery prose. Yet you ignore it?

So who's the chicken now?

:laugh:

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

Still no quote, just more evasion. You're desperately trying to change the subject; why would I let you off the hook? I've nailed you in a lie and everyone knows it. If you had an ounce of integrity, you'd admit you were wrong and move on.

It's just a flesh wound. :laugh:

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Any of the others in here want to take the wager as I outlined it?

DealMonkey?

BBond?

Speak up boys. Let's see you put something meaningful where you're mouth is. Let's see how cocksure you are of your position with something on the line. Or are you guys full of hot air too, just like Chickenfinger?

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Any of the others in here want to take the wager as I outlined it?

DealMonkey?

BBond?

Speak up boys. Let's see you put something meaningful where you're mouth is. Let's see how cocksure you are of your position with something on the line. Or are you guys full of hot air too, just like Chickenfinger?

"What you won't do is provide a quote that proves your case. Why? Because you can't."

Look at all the gutless wonders. Asking for quotes to a TV show for a subject they don't have the fortitude to back.

Yep, the looper chickens are showing their tailfeathers.

:laugh:

 

[mylok]

i am confused, why is there an investigation if no law was broken?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: mylok
i am confused, why is there an investigation if no law was broken?

For the same reason there was an investigation into the Clintons for Whitewater when no law was broken.

 

[mylok]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok
i am confused, why is there an investigation if no law was broken?

For the same reason there was an investigation into the Clintons for Whitewater when no law was broken.

that does not answer the question (WTF does the Clintons have to do with this, please seek help you need it).

I would think the investigation was started because LEAKS are BAD. Now it has been confirmed Rove was one of the sources of the leak and the investigation needs to determine if Rove broke the law.

Now I understand a law may or may not have been broken but... how does any of this change the fact that Rove did something (illegal or legal) that was wrong. How does the party of personal responsibility defend this person. (oh ya they bring up Clinton, priceless)

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: mylok

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok
i am confused, why is there an investigation if no law was broken?

For the same reason there was an investigation into the Clintons for Whitewater when no law was broken.

that does not answer the question (WTF does the Clintons have to do with this, please seek help you need it).

I would think the investigation was started because LEAKS are BAD. Now it has been confirmed Rove was one of the sources of the leak and the investigation needs to determine if Rove broke the law.

Now I understand a law may or may not have been broken but... how does any of this change the fact that Rove did something (illegal or legal) that was wrong. How does the party of personal responsibility defend this person. (oh ya they bring up Clinton, priceless)

It doesn't have to be Clinton. It was just an example. Stop being so reactionary. You sound eerily like Bowfinger too with your "seek help" bit. BF, is that you in diguise? Running away from showing some guts, are you?

Investigations are performed to see if a law was broken. If one had to ensure a law was broken in the first place before beginning an investigation, that just throws the whole "innocent before proven guilty" thing right out the window.

I don't get the impression you are asking your question for any other reason than to go off on some sort of Democratic Underground rant though, as is evidenced in your second paragraph.

So, whatever.

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: charrison


That still does not make her a covert agent. Documents take on highest security clearence based on information in them. This rating does not however mean all information becomes rated at the highest level. This also means that a paragraph would not be marked secret as the entire document would be market at least secret. There are also procedures for releasing non secret material from a classified document.

Without more information, one cannot tell from this article if there was anything secret attached to her name. So it appears I am still correct.

Well, whatta' ya' know? MORE INFORMATION!

Plame?s identity marked as secret

Rove should be hung as a traitor.

Benedict Rove.

Don't insult Benedict Arnold, who if he had died before the treasonous act would be consider a national hero.


Quisling Rove

 

[mylok]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok
i am confused, why is there an investigation if no law was broken?

For the same reason there was an investigation into the Clintons for Whitewater when no law was broken.

that does not answer the question (WTF does the Clintons have to do with this, please seek help you need it).

I would think the investigation was started because LEAKS are BAD. Now it has been confirmed Rove was one of the sources of the leak and the investigation needs to determine if Rove broke the law.

Now I understand a law may or may not have been broken but... how does any of this change the fact that Rove did something (illegal or legal) that was wrong. How does the party of personal responsibility defend this person. (oh ya they bring up Clinton, priceless)

It doesn't have to be Clinton. It was just an example. Stop being so reactionary. You sound eerily like Bowfinger too with your "seek help" bit. BF, is that you in diguise? Running away from showing some guts, are you?

Investigations are performed to see if a law was broken. If one had to ensure a law was broken in the first place before beginning an investigation, that just throws the whole "innocent before proven guilty" thing right out the window.

I don't get the impression you are asking your question for any other reason than to go off on some sort of Democratic Underground rant though, as is evidenced in your second paragraph.

So, whatever.

no I am not Bowfinger i am just another person who thinks you need help (I am guessing you get that alot).

I do understand why investigations are started but in this case it is now crystal clear that Rove was the leaker (one of them anyway). The question is did he break any laws. Maybe he did or maybe he did not. This does not change the fact that what he did was wrong.

I think the left and right are the same, both full of crap (I do lean more to the left though). It would be refreshing to see one party step up and take responsibility though and not defend their boy at all costs. If any party was going to step up you would think it would be the party of personal responsibility.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Any of the others in here want to take the wager as I outlined it?

DealMonkey?

BBond?

Speak up boys. Let's see you put something meaningful where you're mouth is. Let's see how cocksure you are of your position with something on the line. Or are you guys full of hot air too, just like Chickenfinger?

Don't bother calling me out. I've already stated that I'm reserving my final judgement for October when the case is closed out.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: mylok

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: mylok
i am confused, why is there an investigation if no law was broken?

For the same reason there was an investigation into the Clintons for Whitewater when no law was broken.

that does not answer the question (WTF does the Clintons have to do with this, please seek help you need it).

I would think the investigation was started because LEAKS are BAD. Now it has been confirmed Rove was one of the sources of the leak and the investigation needs to determine if Rove broke the law.

Now I understand a law may or may not have been broken but... how does any of this change the fact that Rove did something (illegal or legal) that was wrong. How does the party of personal responsibility defend this person. (oh ya they bring up Clinton, priceless)

It doesn't have to be Clinton. It was just an example. Stop being so reactionary. You sound eerily like Bowfinger too with your "seek help" bit. BF, is that you in diguise? Running away from showing some guts, are you?

Investigations are performed to see if a law was broken. If one had to ensure a law was broken in the first place before beginning an investigation, that just throws the whole "innocent before proven guilty" thing right out the window.

I don't get the impression you are asking your question for any other reason than to go off on some sort of Democratic Underground rant though, as is evidenced in your second paragraph.

So, whatever.

no I am not Bowfinger i am just another person who thinks you need help (I am guessing you get that alot).

No, I don't get it a lot. I get it infrequently from the same small group of far lefties in here. They get upset that I point out the faults of liberals and the left and they feel it necessary to make such lame accusations at me as retribution, like you just did.

Did you happen to notice that I wasn't slamming Clinton in my reply? I gave an example of a case where their opposition went on a fishing expedition to try to uncover dirt on the Clintons with some very speculative and flimsy reasoning behind it. Of course it appears there are some people who hit the ceiling any time someone mentions Clinton in this forum and dosn't even stop to think through what is being said. Right now, one of those people would be you.

I do understand why investigations are started but in this case it is now crystal clear that Rove was the leaker (one of them anyway). The question is did he break any laws. Maybe he did or maybe he did not. This does that change the fact that what he did was wrong.

Who decides who is right and who is wrong in their actions? And the wrong based on what, morals? Do we really need more self-appointed morality police in this country?

I think the left and right are the same, both full of crap (I do lean more to the left though). It would be refreshing to see one party step up and take responsibility though and not defend their boy at all costs. If any party was going to step up you would think it would be the party of personal responsibility.

Well I've already stated my case that what Rove and Wislon both did was shady. I recognize both sides of the issue. Now which people in here are only focused on one side of the equation?

Ask yourself that before believing I'm full of crap and figure who is really full of crap on this issue.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: charrison
That still does not make her a covert agent. Documents take on highest security clearence based on information in them. This rating does not however mean all information becomes rated at the highest level. This also means that a paragraph would not be marked secret as the entire document would be market at least secret. There are also procedures for releasing non secret material from a classified document.

Without more information, one cannot tell from this article if there was anything secret attached to her name. So it appears I am still correct.

I love it -- "... without more information, one cannot tell ..." and yet you believe you are "... still correct..." Awesome, simply awesome.

Let me ask you this: Under what faulty logic would you bother rating individual paragraphs as "S(ecret)" if by doing so, you simply made the entire document also secret? Why not just mark the entire document and be done with it?

Further, do you suppose that the paragraph containing Plame's name and references to her being the wife of Wilson along with the "S" for "Secret" marked clearly next to this paragraph means that this is the part of the memo you should not release from the document?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Any of the others in here want to take the wager as I outlined it?

DealMonkey?

BBond?

Speak up boys. Let's see you put something meaningful where you're mouth is. Let's see how cocksure you are of your position with something on the line. Or are you guys full of hot air too, just like Chickenfinger?

Don't bother calling me out. I've already stated that I'm reserving my final judgement for October when the case is closed out.

Is that so?

Well I call bullsh!t on your claim:

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
If I'm wrong about Plame's status of not being a covert agent, I'll stop posting in this forum, forever, as TLC or anyone else.

I guess, we'll be seein' you Chicken.

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

[...]

You don't sound like you're reserving judgement whatsoever.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You don't sound like you're reserving judgement whatsoever.

Only with regards to Plame's status. Notice I haven't mentioned anything about Rove's guilt. Or anyone else's guilt. Or whether Wilson's claims -- which are deeply meshed with this case -- are credible or not.

Or did you miss all of that in your haste to form a libbie witch hunt?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You don't sound like you're reserving judgement whatsoever.

Only with regards to Plame's status. Notice I haven't mentioned anything about Rove's guilt. Or anyone else's guilt. Or whether Wilson's claims -- which are deeply meshed with this case -- are credible or not.

Or did you miss all of that in your haste to form a libbie witch hunt?

Making a determination of Plame's status before the facts are declared is not reserving judgement.

"Witch hunt." How ironic.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You don't sound like you're reserving judgement whatsoever.

Only with regards to Plame's status. Notice I haven't mentioned anything about Rove's guilt. Or anyone else's guilt. Or whether Wilson's claims -- which are deeply meshed with this case -- are credible or not.

Or did you miss all of that in your haste to form a libbie witch hunt?

Making a determination of Plame's status before the facts are declared is not reserving judgement.

"Witch hunt." How ironic.

Plame's status seems pretty clear based on the evidence we are seeing. Clearly her mention in the classified document was marked "S" for "(S)ecret" which is reserved for covert agents. How much clearer does it get?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You don't sound like you're reserving judgement whatsoever.

Only with regards to Plame's status. Notice I haven't mentioned anything about Rove's guilt. Or anyone else's guilt. Or whether Wilson's claims -- which are deeply meshed with this case -- are credible or not.

Or did you miss all of that in your haste to form a libbie witch hunt?

Making a determination of Plame's status before the facts are declared is not reserving judgement.

"Witch hunt." How ironic.

Plame's status seems pretty clear based on the evidence we are seeing. Clearly her mention in the classified document was marked "S" for "(S)ecret" which is reserved for covert agents. How much clearer does it get?

My response to that from another thread:

Now the lefties are jumping up and down about information being leaked (More irony? Where's the outrage?) from a classified memo that claims a paragraph with Plames name was marked secret, even though the article specifically states:

"Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said."

Was it marked secret because it contained Plame's name, or because there was other secret infromation in that paragraph? No matter, they bull right on ahead and make more jumps to conclusion. Also, we know Plame's name was still kept secret by the CIA, at least half-heartedly after they screwed up themselves and divulged her identity, but that fact still doesn't necessarily qualify her as a covert agent under the law. Nor does it prove that Rove knew Plame was covert either.

But one seemingly can't get those kind of facts through to those taking a header off the conclusions mat.

Sad, isn't it?