|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv
Yes, the spunk is all over the blue dress on this one.
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0507180801.asp
You remember Bill Gertz don't you, host? Here's what you said about him on 10/29/05:
"Allegedly." "Whoever did so." "may have been trying."
Who did it, Jimmy Hoffa? What a pathetic fabrication.
 |
Marv, there is no "alledgedly", in the text of any of these quotes from washington post's Mike Allen in his other reporting of the same comments from a "Senior Administration Official":
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...1208-2003Sep27
.......Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for attacking Iraq........
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...¬Found=true
Probe Focuses on Month Before Leak to Reporters
FBI Agents Tracing Linkage of Envoy to CIA Operative
By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 12, 2003; Page A01
......... On July 7, the White House admitted it had been a mistake to include the 16 words about uranium in Bush's State of the Union speech. Four days later, with the controversy dominating the airwaves and drowning out the messages Bush intended to send during his trip in Africa, CIA Director George J. Tenet took public blame for failing to have the sentence removed.
That same week, two top White House officials disclosed Plame's identity to least six Washington journalists, an administration official told The Post for an article published Sept. 28. The source elaborated on the conversations last week, saying that officials brought up Plame as part of their broader case against Wilson.
"It was unsolicited," the source said. "They were pushing back. They used everything they had." ........
............... Officials have said Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon and National Security Council senior director for African affairs, was not chosen because of his wife.
On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report.
After Novak's column appeared, several high-profile reporters told Wilson that they had received calls from White House officials drawing attention to his wife's role. Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said she received one of those calls.
Wilson said another reporter called him on July 21 and said he had just hung up with Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove. The reporter quoted Rove as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game," Wilson said. Newsweek has identified that reporter as MSNBC television host Chris Matthews. Spokespeople said Matthews was unavailable for comment.
McClellan, the White House spokesman, has denied that Rove was involved in leaking classified material but has refused to discuss the possibility of a campaign to call attention to the revelations in Novak's column.
On July 17, the Time magazine Web site reported that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." On July 22, Wilson appeared on NBC's "Today" show and said that disclosing the name of a U.S. intelligence officer would be "a breach of national security," could compromise that officer's entire network of contacts and could be a violation of federal law.
Wilson said that brought an immediate halt to the reports he had been getting of anonymous attacks on him by White House officials.
An administration source said, "One of the greatest mysteries in all this is what was really the rationale for doing it and doing it this way."
|
Quote:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...29/asb.00.html
CNN NEWSNIGHT AARON BROWN
Justice Department Launches Probe Into Outing of CIA Agent; Rough Patch for Governor Gray Davis
Aired September 29, 2003 - 22:00 ET
We're joined now by Mike Allen who had the byline or byline and a half I think on this one over the weekend. Mike, it's good to have you. This story literally has been floating out there since mid, late July. I looked at an e-mail I got in August about it. Why did it become news now?
MIKE ALLEN, "WASHINGTON POST": Well, Aaron, why didn't you act on that e-mail? You would have had a big scoop. You're right.
BROWN: Thank you. You're absolutely right.
ALLEN: You're right this built unbelievably slowly. Robert Novak's column disclosing this name appeared on July 14. We learned today that the first CIA written request for an investigation went to the Justice Department at the end of July.
But at the end of late last week how does anything come out in Washington, there was a briefing for some lawmakers on the Hill on the progress of the investigation that got the ball rolling on this news story. This morning the president in a very small meeting with a couple aides said I want to get to the bottom of this.
BROWN: Just one more question on this. It's not that any specific fact had changed from the first of August when I suspect a lot of people started to hear about this. It's that somebody in Congress took it more seriously.
ALLEN: Well, that's right. Somebody in Congress started talking about it so more people in the administration started talking about it.
BROWN: One of the things about your piece I found interesting is in an administration that's been pretty disciplined is there is now some backbiting if you will around the story, people talking about the leakers as not being very smart.
ALLEN: Yes, there's a lot of interest in what the motives are both of the leakers and the people talking about the leakers. One administration official who talked to us this weekend said that they thought that the leak was wrong and they thought it was a miscalculation that it may have hurt the administration more than it hurt Joe Wilson.
BROWN: And the motive is the motive for or -- let me try it this way. Based on your reporting was the motive for the leak essentially what Mr. Wilson has said it was, Ambassador Wilson, that it was revenge?
ALLEN: Yes, in addition to that Ambassador Wilson has said that he thought it was to intimidate others who might come forward. My colleague, Howard Kurtz, today talked to another one of the reporters who was told the name before it was published and their sense was just that the administration official thought that Joe Wilson was getting a big ride in the media and they wanted to sort of cast doubt on his whole investigation, which sort of pulled the plug out of the Niger uranium element.
BROWN: From what you've been able to find out how many reporters were called on this? Was it somebody just picking up the phone book and looking under reporters in the yellow pages and making cold calls?
ALLEN: It seems to be that this was a place where these were officials that had relationships with the reporters. There were some high profile people that were called. There's a variety of reasons. One thing that a lot of journalists started talking about among themselves today is why more people didn't do the story at the time.
But we were told that some people were uncomfortable with it. Some people thought it was a little bit off the point of what was being said about Ambassador Wilson so there were a variety of reasons but this weekend they all came together and no there's a great deal of attention to who talked to whom about this at what point.
BROWN: A couple more. What do you make of the White House reaction to it all today?
ALLEN: Well, as John King pointed out at the top of the broadcast they decided not to do any internal investigation. Nobody is being called in to ask what they said. At the briefing today, one reporter said it reminded them of a don't ask, don't tell investigation.
|
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3129941/...wsweek/page/3/
Secrets and Leaks
By Evan Thomas and Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Updated: 7:56 a.m. ET Oct 6, 2003
.......Wilson told NEWSWEEK that in the days after the Novak story appeared, he got calls from several well-connected Washington reporters. One was NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell. She told NEWSWEEK that she said to Wilson: “I heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that that was the real story.” The next day Wilson got a call from Chris Matthews, host of the MSNBC show “Hardball.” According to a source close to Wilson, Matthews said, “I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game.” (Matthews told NEWSWEEK: “I’m not going to talk about off-the-record conversations.”).......
|
Consider that Michael Isikoff co-reported the preceding Oct., 2003 excerpt and co-authored the book, with David Corn, that the OP editorial for this thread was published in response to; with an admittedly "flawed" spin on the signifigance of what Corn and Isikoff published, regarding the Plame CIA Leak investigation.
This legal pleading excerpt by Patrick Fitzgerald in response to a Discovery Motion by Scooter Libby's defense team, to the judge presiding over the criminal trial of Libby for five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice in the Plame CIA Leak investigation is certainly relevant:
Quote:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do..._to_compel.pdf
Filed 04/05/2006
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) CR. NO 05-394 (RBW) v. ) ) I. LEWIS LIBBY, ) also known as “Scooter Libby” ) GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by PATRICK J. FITZGERALD, SPECIAL COUNSEL, respectfully submits the following response to the “Third Motion of I. Lewis Libby to Compel Discovery Under Rule 16 and Brady.”
(Begining near Top of Page 27: )
.........On September 29, 2003, the Washington Post reported that “two White House officials leaked the information to selected journalists to discredit Wilson.” (Washington Post, “Bush Aides Say They’ll Cooperate With Probe Into Intelligence Leak,” by Mike Allen, September 29, 2003)............
(Begining near Bottom of Page 29: )
.....Defendant also asserts without elaboration that “documents that help establish that no White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson caused the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identity also constitute Brady material.” Once again, defendant ignores the fact that he is not charged with participating in any conspiracy, much less one defined as a “White House-driven plot to punish Mr. Wilson.” Thus, putative evidence that such a conspiracy did not exist is not Brady material. <b>Moreover, given that there is evidence that other White House officials with whom defendant spoke prior to July14, 2003 discussed Wilson’s wife’s employment with the press both prior to, and after, July 14, 2003 – which evidence has been shared with defendant – it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to “punish” Wilson.</b>10 Surely, defendant cannot claim that any document on its face that does not reflect a plot is exculpatory....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
....... I still think it would have been bad form by Rove to do so even in passing, but to claim it was done as a deliberate sabotage of some minor diplomats wife career is just asinine in the extreme. If mean spiritedness was in fact a motivation, I'm sure that the executive branch could ruin Mrs. Plame's career as a CIA agent without exposing themselves to legal action.
|
|
Marv and Ustwo, unless you have read all of the pleadings on special counsel Fitzgerald's DOJ website; by your own posted words and the "influence" that you presumably put up little resistance towards (I visit the places that the "Joe Wilson is a sleazebag" folks read for the sustenance of their POVs), I suspect you have little comprehension of what is actually going to happen in the "Libby case" and in Fitzgerald's overall investigation. The next year, or three....are going to be interesting, unless Bush himself engineers a "Nixon style" saturday night massacre by firing Patrick Fitzgerald in an attempt to end this investigation and prosecutions that will result. Fitzgerald only hints at the evidence and testimony he has compiled. He won't even have to disclose most of it, to prosecute Libby. Only Libby and the Bush admin., faithful try to transform the Libby prosecution into a trial about the actual crime of disclosing classified information for political revenge. In this Libby trial, neither the judge nor Fitzgerald will permit that to happen. Fitzgerald won't have to disclose the bulk of the evidence he's gathered until further prosecutions of Bush administration officials, or in their sentencing hearings if they cop pleas....until late 2007 and through 2008.
.....and finally, Marvelous Marv....I'll leave it to other readers to decide for themselves, what your mocking quote of ole "host's" comments about Bill Gertz and your "allegedley" gambit, reveal about the respective earnestness of you....and of me.
Not only did you fail to reply to my post, ten months ago,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...5&postcount=61
in which I provided a thorough rebuttal to your NRO/Bill Gertz "stuff", in your last post here,......but you copied and pasted the quote of my Bill Gertz comment from that ten month old post, to mock me on this thread.
I even posted a second time.....ten months ago, asking you to respond to the post I linked in the preceding paragraph:
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...25#post1924725
(post #65...on 10-29-2005)
<b>host wrote:</b>
Marv, you ignored my last post....presumably because the contents of it reduced your argument above to what it truly is....Rove/Libby/Cheney BS.....unsubstantiated.....found to have no merit by a three judge, federal circuit court appellant panel....in the Plame leak case,,,,the case that we are discussing here.
The fact that repub. shill Toensing advanced your argument....your Bill Gertz article.....to the court...with no accompanying sworn affidavits....not even one from "reporter" Gertz, himself, was already pointed out to you, and you ignore it and repeat the same, unsubstantiated misinformation, according to Gertz, from "unidentified" CIA sources, shows that you might not have anything else of substance to back you up........
.....The bar here is raised, Marv. Rise up to it's level and stop repeating arguments that have already been unmasked as crap, or defend them with facts that others can examine for themselves, like I (and others here) regularly do......
|
pan6467 followed the above linked post with a well referenced description of the publication that Bill Gertz writes for.....the washington times.
<b>Marv, you're giving me an impression</b> that your goal in your last post, and in any of your posts on this thread, is not to stimulate a discussion, or even to defend your POV.
Last edited by host; 09-04-2006 at 10:12 PM..
|