Valerie Plame Wilson - "FAIR GAME" - her book is now available!

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Genx87
What is the argument about now?

Chicken's ability to read unreleased books and not provide any explanation and his related penchant for calling other people liars.

Again, if you hate wilson so much for supposedly lying, what do you do about yourself and your blatant lying?

This isn't about me, fool, even though you try so damn hard to make it that. It's about the liar Wilson. Get a grip, son.

 

[Stoneburner]

Is there something wrong with being a liar? Is it okay for a nobody like you to lie?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Is there something wrong with being a liar? Is it okay for a nobody like you to lie?

You seem to have no problem with lies be it a nobody like you or a somebody that writes an article to the NY Times. So tell me all about liars. Why are you so prepared to apologize for a known liar as in Wilson's case?

 

[Stoneburner]

Answer my questions and I'll answer yours. You lied blatantly about reading an unreleased book. Why should I take you seriously? And since you are a blatant liar, don't you feel any bit hypocritical?

And Joe Wilson didn't write an article he wrote an Op-Ed 🙂 You just lied again :roll:😉

 

[Craig234]

Plame has explained very carefully exactly how Wilson was selected - none of which changes the fact that, as I showed, he was the ideal person for the mission, and if she HAD suggested his name she would have done the right thing.

She explained that a woman who worked for her got a phone call from the VP's office requesting this e investigated - and that this flustered the woman because it was going outside the chain of command. The woman came to Valerie, who was also concerned. While they were discussing it, a third person came by, heard the situation, and suggested to Valerie that Joe would make sense to send for it. They went to Valerie's boss, and he asked her to have Joe come in the following week to talk about it, and asked her to send an e-mail to his boss with Joe's background, to remind him about who Joe was. She did. Others than Valerie made the decision to send Joe. Joe did not know about the e-mail until the Senate investigation; Valerie had not mentioned it to him at the time and had forgotten about it, she explained. Jow was angry with her, because it was a surprise that wasn't quite consistent with what he had been saying, but it doesn't change the main facts, and does not in any way 'prove Wilson a liar'.

The right cannot begin to show anything wrong with Wilson as just the right person for this, so it doesn't matter who suggested him as far as that - instead, the White House tried the attack of nepotism, lie that iti s, simply to try to avoid the accountability for their mistakes. They are trying to make the 'who suggested his name' question an issue for the purpose of that attack, not because she was wrong if she did.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Plame has explained very carefully exactly how Wilson was selected - none of which changes the fact that, as I showed, he was the ideal person for the mission, and if she HAD suggested his name she would have done the right thing.

What do you mean "if she HAD"? Plame was asked about her recommendation and then LIED about ever submitting one. The recommendation with her signature is out there for your viewing.

 

[Craig234]

No, you're lying about what she did. She wrote an e-mail her asked boss to send to his boss listing Wilson's qualifications recommending him for the mission. That's not her recommending him - again, if she had, she was doing the right thing - it's her supplying information she was asked for about her husband.

At least, that's her story which hasn't been disproven; until we have her boss come out and say "that's not true", I've seen nothing to contradict her.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Craig234
No, you're lying about what she did. She wrote an e-mail her asked boss to send to his boss listing Wilson's qualifications recommending him for the mission. That's not her recommending him - again, if she had, she was doing the right thing - it's her supplying information she was asked for about her husband.

At least, that's her story which hasn't been disproven; until we have her boss come out and say "that's not true", I've seen nothing to contradict her.

I believe her story is that her desk mate got a call from the VP's office asking about Niger and yellow cake, something that was, according to her, a complete oddity since all such requests have a normal and completely different channel. So while discussing what the implications of that direct call were a third person suggested Plane's husband would be perfect for to go find out in Niger. She notified her superiors in an email that Wilson would be suggested and the other details as was her job and then forgot she even sent it, it being so par for the course. So her name was associated with the suggestion of Wilson, since he was perfect for the job, but it wasn't her idea at all. His trip was also paid by the CIA, according to her, and wasn't any junket.

Plame is just another victim of a right wing smear to protect the Criminal in Chief and his traitor VP.

 

[Stoneburner]

I still don't understand why the right wing is so lacking in integrity that they would attack a CIA operative who dedicated her life to service, particularly in the all important field of non-proliferation, and another public servant who was widely praised for his actions during the first IRaq War, by Bush Classic no less. They seem like good people. All in defense of Scooter Libby and Karl rove, two complete fuckheads.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Gam...&qid=1193094387&sr=8-2

Should answer everybody's questions about this affair. I know somebody here managed to read it before it was released (Hi tlc 🙂) but the rest of us can finally learn what the person in the center of this mess has to say.

wait.. she's was a cia agent. how the hell was she allowed to write the book???

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Gam...&qid=1193094387&sr=8-2

Should answer everybody's questions about this affair. I know somebody here managed to read it before it was released (Hi tlc 🙂) but the rest of us can finally learn what the person in the center of this mess has to say.

wait.. she's was a cia agent. how the hell was she allowed to write the book???

Through some legal wrangling and a bit of redaction.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Evan, you can not compare truthout to Politico.

Politico is a news organization that writes on a wide variety of politically oriented stories.
Truthout is a left wing propaganda site.

Just yesterday you had never heard of Politico and now you can say with seeming certainty that Truthout is left-wing propaganda but that Politico is not? Again, do you see why people don't take you seriously?

Politico may lead to the right, as you claim, but their entire existence is not built on bashing the left.
Truthout leans to the left and has its entire existence based on bashing the right.

Do you not understand this difference?

I understand it plenty well, it's just that your opinion of Truthout (which you state as fact) is laughable; you didn't know Politico existed until yesterday according to your own words. How would you know either way?

Furthermore, the problem is not the content he linked to, it is the very fact that he linked to Truthout in the first place.

Next time we have a debate about Hillary I?ll post a link to the FreeRepublic and we?ll see how long it takes before someone on the left jumps all over me for the link.

The mere fact that stoneburner thinks that Truthout is a site worth linking to exhibits his FAR left leaning. Most of the lefties on here would have known better than to post to a site like that.

You over-exaggerate the bias because you disagree with the ideology. No one here is fooled into thinking that you're an objective observer.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
So you'll point out a single mistake of a leftist web site like Truthout yet completely miss the boat on a right-wing leaning web site like Politico? Yet you go on to claim that you don't think Politico and Truthout can be compared in terms of bias, despite your claim mere minutes before this statement that you couldn't even remember visiting Politico? And you wonder why people question your motives in every thread?

The fact that Politico (a web site I like btw) has two former Washington post editors doesn't absolve it from biases, just as you have continually pointed out with NY Times articles. Again, Truthout has clear left-wing biases, but your poorly researched/hashed together argument for why it's null and void when that exact same information can be found from direct sources (Cooper) in addition to other independent outfits (Time) makes your criticism moot; even far-left papers like the NY Times posts information that is highly accurate and well-researched, despite their well-known gaffes over the years.

Evan, you can not compare truthout to Politico.

Politico is a news organization that writes on a wide variety of politically oriented stories.
Truthout is a left wing propaganda site.

Politico may lead to the right, as you claim, but their entire existence is not built on bashing the left.
Truthout leans to the left and has its entire existence based on bashing the right.

Do you not understand this difference?

Furthermore, the problem is not the content he linked to, it is the very fact that he linked to Truthout in the first place.

Next time we have a debate about Hillary I?ll post a link to the FreeRepublic and we?ll see how long it takes before someone on the left jumps all over me for the link.

The mere fact that stoneburner thinks that Truthout is a site worth linking to exhibits his FAR left leaning. Most of the lefties on here would have known better than to post to a site like that.

I agree with you take on the two sites. However, you have to also take into consideration WHAT the site is being used to convey. In this case, the site is being used solely as a reference point to Matt Cooper's open letter about his involvement in the Plame incident. There is no bias being propagated by Truthout in the instance.

I would equate it to you linking to a video of some Dem eating puppies on Drudge. Drudge's blatant right wing bias wouldn't diminish the content of the video. His comments on it can easily be dismissed....but the video in and of itself would still hold weight.

Yes, this is spot on.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

You know what would be funny? It would be kinda funny if some angry, disgruntled, outed and endangered CIA agents decided to rendition and "disappear" Armitage, as a matter of national security. Now that would be hilarious!

"You tried to get us killed in Niger?!? Now we're gonna kill you!"

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, we agree up to the point about there being some conspiracy. There is no logical explaination for this conspiracy allegation.
Ok, so how exactly is the person who leaked it to the press(Novak) not involved if there was a conspiracy? Novak put it out there and got it from Armitage.

Here are a couple of very good summaries about how there was both an 'innocent' leak, and a conspiracy against Wilson - with a bit of overlap.

(Libby, out to get Wilson, sent out a memo about Plame, from which Armitage learned of Plame, who he innocently leaked to Novak, which Rove who was out to get Wilson confirmed besides his own leaks to Matt Cooper of Time for example, and so on - there was something more complicated than only innocent leaking and only conspiracy).

Link 1

Link 2

So basically it is supposed that Armitage did so for bureaucratic reasons? To distance the agency? How does that exactly fit into the conspiracy angle? Seems like quite a stretch to say he wasn't part of it(WH conspiracy) but yet 'started' it.
Still loads of supposition and speculation where claims of "evidence" are laid out IMO.

Did you read the links?

Yes, it's supposed that Armitage did so for reasons other than being involved in the conspiracy.

How does that fit in to the conspiracy angle, you ask? Again, by his not apparently being involved in the conspiracy to 'out' Plame - though he apparently learned of her from the memo from Libby, who was sending around that info because he was 'out to get' Plame, with some others.

A stretch to say he wasn't part of the conspiracy and yet 'started' it? No. Coincidence, complication, yes. Not a stretch when the facts show it to be the case.

Had there not been a conspiracy, Libby wouldn't have been researching and sending out info on Plame's involvement for Armitage to see and leak.

Loads of supposition and speculation? Not about the key facts, only the secondary details.

You say that as if there's still doubt whether there was a conspiracy, doubt whether Rove and Libby were out leaking as two of the four identified leakers, and so on.

What's clear is that they were 'out to get Wilson' because he exposed their own lying; that they (as well as Armitage) outed a CIA agent; and that Bush promised to take disciplinary action against those involved, and broke his word, after it was learned that the White House press secretary's assurances from Rove and others that they weren't involved in leaking her name were lies.