Bob Novak on Plame....

[ryry215]

Cut and paste from the actual law: **** (4) The term "covert agent" means - (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency - (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or..... **** And on a common sense approch, no one seems overly covert to me if they drive to the CIA headquarters daily and park in the parking lot.

 

SO the CIA saying she was involved in COVERT operations is not enough? DO they really need to take a page from the Bush playbook and just de-classify all the nuclear proliferation projects she was working on? Open your eyes a bit here lug...

[ryry215]

And you know this how?

 

because the prosecutor has repeatedly said that the only reason the original crime cannot be prosecuted is because Libby refused to tell the truth. Hence the "obstruction of justice" charge. You see, all this is very easy to understand without your Bush tinted sunglasses on.

[lug]

because the prosecutor has repeatedly said that the only reason the original crime cannot be prosecuted is because Libby refused to tell the truth. Hence the "obstruction of justice" charge. You see, all this is very easy to understand without your Bush tinted sunglasses on.

 

 

The crime of outing a non-covert agent? I've never heard of it, ya DNC Koolaid drinker.

[pickinatit]

 

RN should read the act . It makes no distinction for a covert agent to be "overseas". If the CIA classifies an operative as covert then that is what they are. The CIA stated Plame was covert.

 

 

It wasn't Novak that determined that no crime was commited, it was the Special Prosecutor, Fitzgerald. I guess Fitzgerald never read the act.

[lug]

SO the CIA saying she was involved in COVERT operations is not enough? DO they really need to take a page from the Bush playbook and just de-classify all the nuclear proliferation projects she was working on? Open your eyes a bit here lug...

 

Does the CIA pronounce law or does what the law actually say have anything to do with it? Because reading the law says she is not a covert agent and THAT was the issue, not what she works on. I've worked on secret data before and it's not a crime for you to know that my real name is .

 

[ThudMaker]

 

It wasn't Novak that determined that no crime was commited, it was the Special Prosecutor, Fitzgerald. I guess Fitzgerald never read the act.

 

You can't tell that to people who want to believe what they want to believe, even in the face of facts.

[lug]

 

You can't tell that to people who want to believe what they want to believe, even in the face of facts.

 

 

http://www.box.net/shared/static/ndbtyqzzzd.wav

[ryry215]

 

You can't tell that to people who want to believe what they want to believe, even in the face of facts.

 

 

Thudmaker and Lug being classic examples:thu:

[ThudMaker]

 

Thudmaker and Lug being classic examples:thu:

 

Whatever, dude. We have the actual facts plain as day right there for you to read. We have lefties here suggesting that the word "overseas" is nowhere in the bill. No kidding. The bill clearly states "outside the United States" . . ."for 5 years" Did you not take a math class? This occurred in 2003. She hadn't been serving "outside of the United States" since 1997. That's six years. I guess liberal math is different than the math learned in school. There wasn't squat to prosecute other than Libby lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

[misterhinkydink]

Cut and paste from the actual law: **** (4) The term "covert agent" means - (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency - (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or..... **** And on a common sense approch, no one seems overly covert to me if they drive to the CIA headquarters daily and park in the parking lot.

 

She did go to Jordan to check out the aluminum tubes but I think they took a plane. It was this trip where she met the requirements of the above definition.

 

Identity classified? Check.

Served outside the US? Check.

[ryry215]

 

Whatever, dude. We have the actual facts plain as day right there for you to read. We have lefties here suggesting that the word "overseas" is nowhere in the bill. No kidding. The bill clearly states "outside the United States" . . ."for 5 years" Did you not take a math class? This occurred in 2003. She hadn't been serving "outside of the United States" since 1997. That's six years. I guess liberal math is different than the math learned in school. There wasn't squat to prosecute other than Libby lying about a crime that wasn't committed.

 

 

That's not what the prosecutor said.

 

*edit*

And are you really making the claim that one year over the 5 year limit of outside the US work makes it ok for high ranking officials to out her to the public. Even that fact is disputed. What about the people she worked directly with that were still overseas at the time working under cover? Their covers had all been compromised at that point as well. If one year over the limit makes it ok for you, I'll just have to laugh at the fact that you're talking about other people being blinded by political opinions. If there was no crime, Bush would not have pardoned Libby. There were crimes committed. We don't know what other crimes were committed because Libby lied, which is why he was sentenced to jail. I can't explain it any other way.

[chris-dax]

 

That's not what the prosecutor said.

 

 

I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky....

[K7Baixo]

Damn Bush - it's all his fault.

 

(Nevermind the quotations below...)

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

 

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

 

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

 

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

 

"e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

 

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

 

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

 

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

[ryry215]

 

, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998. "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 " e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

 

 

*Hint*

That has nothing to do with Libby lying to cover up the administrations "possible" crimes.

[stevenr]

I don't like either of the parties: I thought Bush was far worse than Gore, but couldn't bring myself to vote for either of them.

The reason I mentioned the Italian connection is because the misinformation has been promulgated for a decade, across countries and continents. Articles can't be trusted under circumstances like that. It probably would take a whole book to sort it out.

 

The bottom line for me is that political infighting has once again been prioritized above the national interest by both parties and most of the populace. Plum was working to prevent black market nuclear weapon trade. Her husband was a whistle blower trying to prevent what he saw as an unprovoked war.

Our loyalties (it seems to me) are so coopted by marketing that we write off our own interest in abstract party loyalty.

[ryry215]

 

I don't like either of the parties: I thought Bush was far worse than Gore, but couldn't bring myself to vote for either of them. The reason I mentioned the Italian connection is because the misinformation has been promulgated for a decade, across countries and continents. Articles can't be trusted under circumstances like that. It probably would take a whole book to sort it out. The bottom line for me is that political infighting has once again been prioritized above the national interest by both parties and most of the populace. Plum was working to prevent black market nuclear weapon trade. Her husband was a whistle blower trying to prevent what he saw as an unprovoked war. Our loyalties (it seems to me) are so coopted by marketing that we write off our own interest in abstract party loyalty.

 

 

 

+1.

It seems any time people take this administration to task they are accused of being "libs". I've never voted democratic in a presidential race. I would think it should outrage anyone for the CIA to have to stop anti-nuclear activities because of a case of political gotcha...It blows me away. They've really got people fooled.

[hawkhuff]

RN should read the act . It makes no distinction for a covert agent to be "overseas". If the CIA classifies an operative as covert then that is what they are. The CIA stated Plame was covert.

That's not how Fitz and his people interpreted the law. If they did, someone would have been charged. They weren't.

 

If anyone should have been charged it should have been Armitage.

 

Be that as it may, EVERYONE in DC has a big mouth. EVERYONE leaks about everything. They are worse than a gaggle of old women. Listening to this stuff can get really really tiresome. :bor:

 

When are the dems going to save us? It's been six months they've been in charge and they have done nothing. Now, they won't save us because the republicans are blocking them? WTF?? I thought they were the altruistic saviors of us all?? :confused:

[lug]

+1. It seems any time people take this administration to task they are accused of being "libs". I've never voted democratic in a presidential race. I would think it should outrage anyone for the CIA to have to stop anti-nuclear activities because of a case of political gotcha...It blows me away. They've really got people fooled.

 

It seems any time people take the Dems to task they are accused of being "neo-cons". I didn't vote Republican in the last presidential race. I would think it should outrage anyone that the Dems would use these political stunts to smear the administration for political gain over the good of the country because of a case of political gatcha...It blows me away. They've really got people fooled.

 

[ThudMaker]

+1. It seems any time people take this administration to task they are accused of being "libs". I've never voted democratic in a presidential race. I would think it should outrage anyone for the CIA to have to stop anti-nuclear activities because of a case of political gotcha...It blows me away. They've really got people fooled.

So you'd rather miss the point entirely and suggest that people should be convicted of crimes, when a crime wasn't committed. I didn't accuse you of being a lib. I pointed out that there were libs in this thread who couldn't read what the law stated, which is pretty clear. Beyond that, you're changing the premise based upon what you would like to see done and not what the law states. The law is neither Republican or Democrat. I suppose you vote for people who aren't interested in upholding the law and would rather invent them as they see fit.

[ryry215]

 

So you'd rather miss the point entirely and suggest that people should be convicted of crimes, when a crime wasn't committed. I didn't accuse you of being a lib. I pointed out that there were libs in this thread who couldn't read what the law stated, which is pretty clear. Beyond that, you're changing the premise based upon what you would like to see done and not what the law states. The law is neither Republican or Democrat. I suppose you vote for people who aren't interested in upholding the law and would rather invent them as they see fit.

 

 

And the fact is that Scooter Libby broke the law and was prosecuted for what the prosecutor claims was obstruction of justice in covering up a possible broken law by his boss. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the prosecutor. That's why they gave him jail time. Don't forget there was a jury and a judge involved too. Were they all "libs" that can't interpret the law?

[Pickdust]

For the record........

 

The Judge is the one who interprets the law (yes laws need interpretation where the language is unclear) There are strict cannons that guide statutory intrepretation when the language is unclear. (Before you start questioning me - Yes I am an attorney and yes I was a Judge for 5 years).

 

Sentencing, and entirely separate part of a trial, was, in this case, dictated by the Sentencing Guidelines. These Guidelines were congress' attempt to tie the hands of "Liberal" federal judges whom it believed to be handing down sentences that were too lenient (interpret "drug-dealers"). The guidelines were affirmed by the Supremes quite a while ago. This affirmation greatly reduced the discretionary powers of federal judges in sentencing matters. So be it!

 

So, the judge sentenced Libby in accordance with the Guidelines (there are aggravating and mitigating factors which translate into small additions or reductions to the months of incarceration) for the crime for which he was convicted. Politically motivated? In D.C.? Gee..................ya think!?

 

Regardless of a defendant's political affiliation none of this type of behavior reflects favorably upon our elected officials or on us as a whole.

 

PD

[ThudMaker]

And the fact is that Scooter Libby broke the law and was prosecuted for what the prosecutor claims was obstruction of justice in covering up a possible broken law by his boss. That's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the prosecutor. That's why they gave him jail time. Don't forget there was a jury and a judge involved too. Were they all "libs" that can't interpret the law?

Why do you keep flipping on whether you're talking about Libby or Armitage. Libby wasn't convicted based upon the law your moaning about. Armitage was the "outer." 2 separate issues. Stick to one or the other. Libby broke a law, not the one that specifically concerns Plame, which is what this thread is about. Nor is anyone suggesting a judge was out of the guidelines to sentence Libby. It is also within Bush's right to reduce/pardon the sentence. No kidding.

[lug]

 

Why do you keep flipping on whether you're talking about Libby or Armitage. Libby wasn't convicted based upon the law your moaning about. Armitage was the "outer." 2 separate issues. Stick to one or the other. Libby broke a law, not the one that specifically concerns Plame, which is what this thread is about. Nor is anyone suggesting a judge was out of the guidelines to sentence Libby. It is also within Bush's right to reduce/pardon the sentence. No kidding.

 

 

 

Well, to be accurate, Wilson was the "outer".

[chris-dax]

this is very interesting...

 

LEWIS LIBBY AND THE "COOPER COUNTS" [byron York]

2/10/07

 

link

 

I have a new piece up today about Matthew Cooper's testimony at the Libby trial. The remarkable thing about Cooper is that he is the basis

[Smorgasboy]

It's insane that the same people shrieking for impeachment when Clinton lied about a personal matter are now out in the weeds desperately arguing that a lie with serious national security implications should never have been investigated in the first place. I mean, are you people serious? Really? Are you really arguing that it was no big deal to reveal the identity of a cia agent that the cia, itself, designated "covert" (regardless of semantics), but when some guy tries to save his marriage by covering up a blowjob the country needs to go through the nightmare of impeachment?

 

My question is this: why are you hypocrites more beholden to political affiliation than to your country? How about we all just agree that when the cia designates someone as a "covert agent", political hatchetmen should be discouraged from blabbing their name all over the national media? Sounds reasonable to me, and if you twits could pull away from the partisan teat for a moment, it'd probably sound reasonable to you, too!