Republican Fred Thompson officially Announces Candidacy for President. Good News, Or? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

aceventura3 · 05-31-2007, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

So Bush/Cheney/Rove/Libby are all just dumb animals that don't know any better?

No. They are pretty smart. They knew exactly what they were doing. How did you conclude what you wrote above based on what I wrote?

I remember reading what Bill Gates once said about what Microsoft was going to do to the competition at one of the anti-trust trials. Things can be ruthless in the world and even smart people can be ruthless. I only made the point that Plame had to know who she was dealing with, if she didn't - she was not a good CIA agent.

Even Honest Abe Lincoln used his political power to get what he wanted or to send a message.

Quote:

Sorry, anyone at that level of power is immediately disqualified from that kind of analogy. Those guys knew what they were doing and had what they thought were very good reasons for it. I think those were bad and illegal reasons, but that's just my opinion and doesn't really matter in the greater scheme of things.

I don't want to go through this again, as I did with another poster here on another issue. All I will say is - there are professions and things certain people should avoid if they don't want to get hurt.

The_Jazz · 05-31-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I would say it is more like, kicking a pitbull while wearing high heels rather than running shoes with the scent of raw meat behind your ears.

OK if Bush et al aren't the pitbull, then who is? The pitbull is just reacting dumbly and instinctually in this scenario.

And Plame by no means kicked the dog. Maybe her husband did, but they just used her to attack him. That's both unethical and illegal in my book.

ubertuber · 05-31-2007, 04:04 PM

Ace, even if I were to stipulate your assessment as the status quo, I wouldn't think it was OK. If we expect better and nail the people we can catch, we can have a better system.

I guess on some level it sounds like you feel that things are the way they are and there isn't any reason to expect more.

host · 05-31-2007, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

No. They are pretty smart. They knew exactly what they were doing. How did you conclude what you wrote above based on what I wrote?

I remember reading what Bill Gates once said about what Microsoft was going to do to the competition at one of the anti-trust trials. Things can be ruthless in the world and even smart people can be ruthless. I only made the point that Plame had to know who she was dealing with, if she didn't - she was not a good CIA agent.

Even Honest Abe Lincoln used his political power to get what he wanted or to send a message.

I don't want to go through this again, as I did with another poster here on another issue. All I will say is - there are professions and things certain people should avoid if they don't want to get hurt.

In your "world" ace, no one who has a job to protect, a career, or a reputation, and certainly no one who is a spouse of anyone employed in a classified position in a government agency, <b>SHOULD....if they know what's good for them</b>, openly challenge or criticize the principles in the US executive branch, or they will be "paid back" if they sepak out publicly, just as Plame was, for her husband's challenge of white house assertions to justify invading Iraq and toppling it's government.

Do I have what you are saying, about right, ace? Why would you or anyone, want to be (settle for....) living in a country where the elected leaders claim they stand for "freedom", but behave like that....making an "example" of Plame, to discourage the "rest of us" from speaking out in objection, even to the point of "outing" a 20 year covert CIA veteran, managing a group working on investigation of possible Iranian WMD programs?

ace, here is the issue that your opinion, vs. mine....and others who have weighed in here, can be reduced to....it's in the last sentence in this opinion piece:

Quote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...nation/1200952
Opinion
Meet Fred Thompson: Friend of Felons

John Nichols Thu May 31, 1:53 PM ET

.........According to Thompson, in a speech delivered May 12 to the Council for National Policy, "I didn't know Scooter Libby, but I did know something about this intersection of law, politics, special counsels and intelligence. And it was obvious to me that what was happening was not right. So I called him to see what I could do to help, and along the way we became friends. You know the rest of the story: a D.C. jury convicted him."

Whatever the facts of their relationship, however, there is no debating Thompson's loyalty to Libby. He is the leading proponent of a presidential pardon for the convicted felon. And he regularly uses his prominence as a TV lawyer to accuse the man who brought Libby to justice, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, of "perverting the rule of law."

In the faux-conservative circles that define the modern Republican Party, <b>Thompson is more closely associated with the defense of the disgraced White House aide than with any particular stand on the issues facing the nation.</b> That's one of the reasons why so many of the true believers in the Bush presidency are so very enthusiastic about Thompson's now likely candidacy to replace Bush

Since Libby was convicted in March on four counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements about how he learned the identity of
CIA officer
Valerie Plame -- the wife of former Ambassador Joe Wilson (news, bio, voting record), who was targeted for attack by Cheney's office after he exposed the administration's manipulation of intelligence when it was lobbying for war with
Iraq -- <b>Thompson has maintained that special counsel Fitzgerald, the federal judges associated with the case and the federal grand jury that decided it were all part of "the Beltway machinery"</b> that railroaded an innocent man because "he worked for Dick Cheney."

"The Justice Department, bowing to political and media pressure, appointed a Special Counsel to investigate the leak and promised that the Justice Department would exercise no supervision over him whatsoever -- a status even the Attorney General does not have," <b>Thompson explained in his May 12 speech. "The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law, by anyone, and everybody -- the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it. Ms. Plame was not a 'covered person' under the statute and it was obvious from the outset."</b>

Thompson was, of course, speaking as an experienced player in courtroom dramas on ABC.

Here is what an actual prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, said in the 18-page Libby sentencing memorandum released two weeks after Thompson asserted that "everybody knew" Plame-Wilson was "not a covered person" under the rules that protect covert agents: "[It] was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent."

Fitzgerald also detailed how Libby had blown Plame-Wilson's cover in conversations with reporters and White House aides, and explained that, "Mr. Libby kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned about Ms. Wilson's CIA employment."

To all of this, Thompson says, "In no other prosecutor's office in the country would a case like this one have been brought."

Fitzgerald says: "To accept the argument that Mr. Libby's prosecution is the inappropriate product of an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, one must accept the proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice President. To state this claim is to refute it. Peremptorily closing this investigation in the face of the information available at its early stages would have been a dereliction of duty, and would have afforded Mr. Libby and others preferential treatment not accorded to ordinary persons implicated in criminal investigations."

<b>This is, frankly, a better debate than any that will broadcast during the course of the presidential race.</b>

Thompson, a career politician who plays a prosecutor on TV,<b> says that it is wrong to prosecute someone who knowingly used a position in the White House to punish critics of the Bush administration and then lied about his abuses of authority and the public trust.</b>

Fitzgerald, a career prosecutor who tends to avoid the cameras, disagrees.

Thompson is preparing to seek the presidency <b>as the standard bearer of the wing of the Republican Party that turns a blind eye to official misconduct.
</b>
Fitzgerald is preparing to return to his work as one of the nation's most trusted enforcers of the rule of law.

<b>Here is a real contest for Americans to decide. They can choose between two tickets: Thompson/Libby versus Fitzgerald/Rule of Law.</b>

aceventura3 · 06-01-2007, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

OK if Bush et al aren't the pitbull, then who is? The pitbull is just reacting dumbly and instinctually in this scenario.

I thought this was common knowledge. Dick Chaney is the administration "pitbull", or the behind the scene guy that does the "unpleasant work". I have never met or studied "nice", powerful, yet effective person ( I do think Bush is in the category) who did not have a guy like Dick Chaney. I don't know Dick Chaney personally, but I have met people who are like him and has his personality. If you choose to pick a fight with these people, you cannot do it in a half-assed way. You must be prepared to take it to the limit, people who are not willing to do that are foolish to take on the fight.

Quote:

And Plame by no means kicked the dog. Maybe her husband did, but they just used her to attack him. That's both unethical and illegal in my book.

You may be correct about it being unethical and illegal, but like I said legality and ethics don't always protect you. Fitzgerald doesn't think the outing of Plame was illegal enough to bring charges against anyone. On the question of ethics, I am sure there are people who would argue both sides of that question.

You assume Plame is an innocent victim, I don't. I assume she knew what she and her husband were doing. She is a CIA agent, a agent who was covert, doesn't that say enough about her ability to play the game and fool people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Ace, even if I were to stipulate your assessment as the status quo, I wouldn't think it was OK. If we expect better and nail the people we can catch, we can have a better system.

Yes, we can have a better system but we don't. There are people who clearly go over the line and then there are those who "test the limits". We live in a world were people who "test the limits" will always rationalize their actions. I think this is a situation were the administration "tested the limits" but did not cross the line. Reasonable people can disagree. However, they did give Fitzgerald the freedom to investigate this matter.

So in my view not only did the Administration "test the limits", they are now thumbing their nose at critics given Fitzgerald's unwillingness to bring the outing issue to trial.
In addition, you have the Gonzales matter, the war funding issue and a few other things were the Administration is just wiping the floor with their critics and oppnents. It amazes me how people under-estimate Bush and his team.

Quote:

I guess on some level it sounds like you feel that things are the way they are and there isn't any reason to expect more.

I don't have an Ivy League education, but I do have a good street education. The irony is that when people think of street knowledge they percieve that it only applies to the street and not to board rooms and to Washington's ivory towers. Nothing has changed since Cain and Abel. We can expect more, but should not be surprised when our expectations are not met.

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

In your "world" ace, no one who has a job to protect, a career, or a reputation, and certainly no one who is a spouse of anyone employed in a classified position in a government agency, <b>SHOULD....if they know what's good for them</b>, openly challenge or criticize the principles in the US executive branch, or they will be "paid back" if they sepak out publicly, just as Plame was, for her husband's challenge of white house assertions to justify invading Iraq and toppling it's government.

Do I have what you are saying, about right, ace? Why would you or anyone, want to be (settle for....) living in a country where the elected leaders claim they stand for "freedom", but behave like that....making an "example" of Plame, to discourage the "rest of us" from speaking out in objection, even to the point of "outing" a 20 year covert CIA veteran, managing a group working on investigation of possible Iranian WMD programs?

I think you get my point if you understand that things are not always fair.

Quote:

ace, here is the issue that your opinion, vs. mine....and others who have weighed in here, can be reduced to....it's in the last sentence in this opinion piece:

Fitzgerald has the freedom to bring the issue to trial, he has not done that for whatever the reason. So when you say the rule of law, I would argue that the rule of law is not on either side at this point because it has not been invited to the party.

host · 06-01-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

......I think you get my point if you understand that things are not always fair.

Fitzgerald has the freedom to bring the issue to trial, he has not done that for whatever the reason. So when you say the rule of law, I would argue that the rule of law is not on either side at this point because it has not been invited to the party.

ace, do you disagree with my expectation that the executive branch, charged with upholding the law, and enforcing it, should itself, respect the rule of law?

This isn't about "fairness", it's about official decisions to elect to disclose classified intelligence agency info, while our "troops are in the field", to punish someone because her husband publicly questioned statements by the president in his attempt to justify going to war.

...again, ace.... you're leaving me to assume that you choose the "Thompson ticket", over Fitzgerald's:

Quote:

From the end of my last post:

....Thompson, a career politician who plays a prosecutor on TV, says that it is wrong to prosecute someone who knowingly used a position in the White House to punish critics of the Bush administration and then lied about his abuses of authority and the public trust.

Fitzgerald, a career prosecutor who tends to avoid the cameras, disagrees.

Thompson is preparing to seek the presidency as the standard bearer of the wing of the Republican Party that turns a blind eye to official misconduct.

Fitzgerald is preparing to return to his work as one of the nation's most trusted enforcers of the rule of law.

<b>Here is a real contest for Americans to decide. They can choose between two tickets: Thompson/Libby versus Fitzgerald/Rule of Law. </b>

Which "ticket" do you choose ace, Thompson's, or the rule of law? Isn't it just a tad fucked up, that Thompson still raises money for Libby and writes op-ed attacks on Fitzgerald's motives, and boasts about it to a secret gathering of CNP goons <b>after Libby is convicted on 4 of 5 counts of obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation?</b>

Can you not see that Thompson is leveraging his "image" as the TV character that he plays....the NYC District Attorney in an extremely popular and long running TV show, to run both a PR campaign to counter Fitzgerald's unimpeachable record as a smart, dogged, apolitical, credible, honest, and ethical US Attorney ("Acting" as if Thompson's fictional character is an "equal" offset to Fitzgerald's "real life" one...), and a political campaign to pander to the republican party fringe that swallows the anti "rule of law" bullshit he is spewing about poor "victimized" Libby and his 5 million dollar, eleven lawyer legal team being no match for "hatchet job" prosecutor Fitzgerald and a jury of Libby's peers in DC....

You ace, make it clear that you subscribe to republican official lawbreaking and scorn for the law, because it can all be excused as "political", and therefore, somehow understood, and then excused. Ace, if Libby was witnessed by several citizens who later testified against him in court, driving the getaway car (a witness "made" his license plate numbers...) for a couple of unidentified others who were seen leaving Plame's residence moments before Plame called 911 to report that she had been assaulted and badly beaten, and then Libby falsely told investigators that he had sold his car to a news reporter who he had allowed to drive it home the day before Plame was assaulted, before returning the license plates to Libby, how do you think the opinions from you and Thompson would seem....mainstream...or on the fringe?

Fitzgerald is following the law ace....the "process" is a special one, because the "perp" at the center of this crime is the VP of the United States, and it isn't over....it's playing out as the constitution planned for it, to. You and Thompson are on the wrong side of this, ace:

Quote:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationwo...,2044545.story
Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover
By Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce
Washington Bureau

....Novak, in an interview, <b>said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."</b>

Wilson and others said such a disclosure would be a violation of the law by the officials, not the columnist.

Novak reported that his "two senior administration officials" told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.

A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said....

Quote:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/R...armitages_leak
Armitage's leak
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, September 14, 2006

...... First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column........

Quote:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=121165
Posted 09/13/2006 @ 11:51pm
Novak vs. Armitage: Was the Plame Leak Deliberate?

The book I co-wrote with Michael Isikoff, Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, has set off a dispute between conservative columnist Bob Novak and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.....

...At the end of his new column, Novak excoriates Armitage:

Armitage's silence the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source.

Novak neglects to note that Karl Rove was the source he used to confirm the leak he had received from Armitage--and that Rove also leaked classified information on Valerie Wilson to Matt Cooper of Time magazine before the leak appeared in Novak's column. Nor does Novak mention that Scooter Libby leaked information on Valerie Wilson to Judith Miller of The New York Times weeks before Novak entered Armitage's office--and also confirmed Rove's leak to Cooper. (A source close to Rove is quoted in Hubris saying that Rove "probably" learned about Valerie Wilson from Libby.) Like Armitage, Rove and Libby kept silent, even as the White House claimed they were not involved in the leak. Maybe it's time for all leakers to come clean and tell what happened.....

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/do...r_28102005.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE PRESS CONTACT: FRIDAY OCTOBER 28, 2005

WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL I. LEWIS LIBBY INDICTED ON OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, FALSE STATEMENT AND PERJURY CHARGES RELATING TO LEAK OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION REVEALING CIA OFFICER’S IDENTITY

WASHINGTON – Senior White House official I. Lewis Libby was indicted today on obstruction of justice, false statement and perjury charges for allegedly lying about how and when in 2003 he learned and subsequently disclosed to reporters then-classified information concerning the employment of Valerie Wilson by the Central Intelligence Agency. Libby was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in a five-count indictment returned today by a federal grand jury as its term expired, announced Justice Department Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald....

...“When citizens testify before grand juries they are required to tell the truth,” Mr. Fitzgerald said. <b>“Without the truth, our criminal justice system cannot serve our nation or its citizens. The requirement to tell the truth applies equally to all citizens, including persons who hold high positions in government. In an investigation concerning the compromise of a CIA officer’s identity, it is especially important that grand jurors learn what really happened. The indictment returned today alleges that the efforts of the

[Page] 2

grand jury to investigate such a leak were obstructed when Mr. Libby lied about how and when he learned and subsequently disclosed classified information about Valerie Wilson,”</b> he added.
Mr. Fitzgerald announced the charges with John C. Eckenrode, Special Agent-in-Charge of the Philadelphia Field Office of the FBI and the lead agent in the investigation. The Washington Field Office and the Inspection Division of the FBI assisted in the investigation.....

Later that day, Fitzgerald said the following in a press conference that followed the indictment announcement:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/28/po...pagewanted=all
Transcript
Fitzgerald News Conference

Published: October 28, 2005

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation, but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one. OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation. I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded. This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Let me then ask your next question: Well, why is this a leak investigation that doesn't result in a charge? I've been trying to think about how to explain this, so let me try. I know baseball analogies are the fad these days. Let me try something. If you saw a baseball game and you saw a pitcher wind up and throw a fastball and hit a batter right smack in the head, and it really, really hurt them, you'd want to know why the pitcher did that.

[...]

In this case, it's a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn't to one person. It wasn't just Valerie [Plame] Wilson. It was done to all of us.

And as you sit back, you want to learn: Why was this information going out? Why were people taking this information about Valerie Wilson and giving it to reporters? Why did Mr. Libby say what he did? Why did he tell [New York Times reporter] Judith Miller three times? Why did he tell the press secretary on Monday? Why did he tell Mr. [Matthew] Cooper [of Time magazine]? And was this something where he intended to cause whatever damage was caused?

Or did they intend to do something else, and where are the shades of gray?

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure what happened, and somebody blocked their view.

As you sit here now, if you're asking me what his motives were, I can't tell you; we haven't charged it.

So what you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is it prevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make.

ace.... Patrick Fitzgerald made it quite clear that Libby's crimes were akin to throwing sand in the eyes of an umpire trying to call a play in a baseball game. Can you point us to anything that came from Libby during his trail that makes "the play"....the deliberate outing of Valerie Plame Wilson by VP Cheney with the complicity of president Bush, significantly clearer to "call". Libby and Cheney were slated to testify in Libby's defense, but they didn't ace...and Libby was convicted. Why do you think that neither Libby or Cheney took the witness stand to defend the actions and statements of the man who Cheney called "one of the finest men that I've known"?

You didn't answer the question I asked about what you have been correct about, in your posted opinions of the Plame CIA leak and it's criminality.

Patrick Fitzgerald got the ball rolling, ace....and now the ball is on the "court" where it belongs, given the process mandated in the US Constitution to deal with "high crimes and misdemeanors" by high federal officials, and the "process" is continuing:

Quote:

http://www.henrywaxman.house.gov/news_letters.htm
Committee Assignments
Rep. Waxman is the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. For more information, visit Committee Assignments.

March 8, 2007
Rep. Waxman Requests Meeting with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald Regarding Disclosure of CIA Agent's Identity
Chairman Waxman and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform today sent a letter to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald commending him for his investigation and requesting a meeting to discuss testimony by Mr. Fitzgerald before the Committee.

March 12, 2007
Rep. Waxman Renews Niger Queries
Chairman Waxman asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to respond to a series of unanswered letters, including two letters raising questions about the President’s claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger.

April 17, 2007
Chairman Waxman Postpones Vote and Renews Request for Rice Testimony
Chairman Waxman wrote to Secretary Rice announcing a one-week postponement of the Committee’s consideration of a subpoena and asking her to schedule a voluntary appearance before the Committee prior to the Memorial Day recess.

April 27, 2007
Chairman Waxman Invites Former CIA Director to Testify on Iraq War Intelligence
Chairman Waxman has invited former CIA Director George Tenet to testify before the Committee on May 10th regarding one of the claims used to justify the war in Iraq - the assertion that Iraq sought to import uranium from Niger - and related issues.

May 4, 2007
Committee Seeks Niger Documents and Testimony and Instructs State Department Not to Impede Probe
Chairman Waxman sent a letter to Secretary of State Rice informing the Secretary that the legislative affairs officials in the Department should not hinder the Committee’s inquiry into why Secretary Rice and President Bush cited forged evidence to build a case for war against Iraq, advising the Secretary that the Committee will depose a nuclear weapons analyst at the State Department, and requesting relevant documents.

May 11, 2007
Committee Reiterates Request for Documents Related to Plame-Wilson Disclosure
Chairman Waxman and Rep. Davis send a letter to CIA Director General Hayden reiterating their request for documents relevant to the Committee's investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson

May 11, 2007
Committee Requests Deposition of National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley
Chairman Waxman sent a formal request to Stephen Hadley, the National Security Advisor, to appear for a deposition. The deposition is part of the Committee investigation into why President Bush and other senior Administration officials cited forged evidence in building a case for war against Iraq.

Quote:

http://oversight.house.gov/investiga...Agent+Identity
Investigations
Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity

On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak wrote an op-ed that appeared in the Chicago-Sun-Times, the Washington Post, and many other major newspapers publicly identifying Valerie Plame -- the wife of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson -- as a covert CIA agent. Mr. Novak's column cited "two senior administration officials" as the source of the information. (Source: Robert D. Novak, The Mission to Niger, Chicago-Sun Times [July 14, 2003].)

Rep. Waxman has called for Government Reform Committee hearings on whether White House officials breached national security law by disclosing the identity of a CIA agent and has sought information from National Security Advisor Rice on how the White House responds to allegations regarding the release of classified information. Rep. Waxman and other senior members of Congress, including House Democratic Leader Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Daschle, have requested a GAO investigation into whether the White House complied with internal security procedures for protecting Valerie Plame's identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred.(Last Updated August 30, 2004)

Chronology
Friday, May 11, 2007
Committee Reiterates Request for Documents Related to Plame-Wilson Disclosure

Chairman Waxman and Rep. Davis send a letter to CIA Director General Hayden reiterating their request for documents relevant to the Committee's investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.
Monday, April 23, 2007
New Evidence of Security Problems at the White House

Current and former employees of the White House Security Office have reported to Chairman Waxman that there was a systemic failure at the White House to follow procedures for protecting classified information. According to the security officers, the White House regularly ignored security breaches, prevented security inspections of the West Wing, and condoned mismanagement of the White House Security Office.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Committee to Consider Subpoena of Andrew Card

Chairman Waxman informs former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that the Oversight Committee will meet on April 25 to consider a subpoena for Mr. Card’s testimony regarding the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert identity and White House security procedures unless Mr. Card agrees to appear before the Committee voluntarily.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Chairman Waxman Asks Andrew Card for Interview Regarding White House Security Procedures

Chairman Waxman asks former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card for an on-the-record interview regarding White House security procedures designed to protect classified information.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Committee Requests CIA Documents Related to Disclosure of CIA Agent

Citing concerns that a Senate Intelligence Committee report may be inaccurate, Chairman Waxman asks the CIA for Agency memos related to Ambassador Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger and the subsequent disclosure of Ms.Wilson’s covert status. Ms. Wilson recently testified before the Oversight Committee that the Senate report incorrectly claims that she was responsible for her husband’s mission, and that the CIA official who authored related memos attempted to correct the Senate’s distortions was denied the opportunity to clarify the matter.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Waxman Questions White House Security Practices

Rep. Waxman asks White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to explain why the White House failed to conduct any investigation following the disclosure of Valerie Plame Wilson’s covert CIA employment. The letter follows the testimony of the Director of the Office of Security at the White House, James Knodell, that the White House Security Office did not follow the investigative steps prescribed by Executive Order 12958.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Hearing Examines Exposure of Covert CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson's Identity

The Oversight Committee held a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. At the hearing, the Committee received testimony from Ms. Wilson and other experts regarding the disclosure and internal White House security procedures for protecting her identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred....

aceventura3 · 06-02-2007, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

ace, do you disagree with my expectation that the executive branch, charged with upholding the law, and enforcing it, should itself, respect the rule of law?

Yes. However, there can be laws on the books that should be broken or tested. Andrew Johson was the first US President to ever be impeached, he violated the Tenure in Office act passed by Congress to restrict the President's ability to terminate members of his Cabinet. Johnson nor any President should have respected this law, Johsno violated the law knowing the consequences.

Quote:

This isn't about "fairness", it's about official decisions to elect to disclose classified intelligence agency info, while our "troops are in the field", to punish someone because her husband publicly questioned statements by the president in his attempt to justify going to war.

The President has the authority to decalssify information. If I were President and I found that people in the CIA were not loyal, I would act against them in a punitive manner, perhaps others would not. That may explain the way I feel about this compared to you.

Quote:

...again, ace.... you're leaving me to assume that you choose the "Thompson ticket", over Fitzgerald's:

Fitgerald is an attorney, attornies do what they do, I am indifferent to them. Thompson's article reflected what I thought about the Libby trial and conviction.

Quote:

Which "ticket" do you choose ace, Thompson's, or the rule of law?

Based on the way you present the question, I choose Thompson.

Quote:

Isn't it just a tad fucked up, that Thompson still raises money for Libby and writes op-ed attacks on Fitzgerald's motives, and boasts about it to a secret gathering of CNP goons <b>after Libby is convicted on 4 of 5 counts of obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation?</b>

Thompson is free to do what he chooses. His acts don't violate the law.

Quote:

Can you not see that Thompson is leveraging his "image" as the TV character that he plays....the NYC District Attorney in an extremely popular and long running TV show, to run both a PR campaign to counter Fitzgerald's unimpeachable record as a smart, dogged, apolitical, credible, honest, and ethical US Attorney ("Acting" as if Thompson's fictional character is an "equal" offset to Fitzgerald's "real life" one...), and a political campaign to pander to the republican party fringe that swallows the anti "rule of law" bullshit he is spewing about poor "victimized" Libby and his 5 million dollar, eleven lawyer legal team being no match for "hatchet job" prosecutor Fitzgerald and a jury of Libby's peers in DC....

Yes I see it. Politicians develop strategies to win support. I also see it when Democrats do it.

Quote:

You ace, make it clear that you subscribe to republican official lawbreaking and scorn for the law, because it can all be excused as "political", and therefore, somehow understood, and then excused.

I fully support accepting consequences. If I break the law or if anyone breaks the law they should be prepared to deal with the consequences. There are laws I would choose to break in certain circumstances, I bet others would too. I don't make excuses for that. The issue here is that it has not been proved the the law was broken.

Superbelt · 06-04-2007, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Specific to this issue. The Administration has not been found guilty of outing Plame, but they certainly sent a message to everyone in the CIA. I don't pretend that politics is pretty or for the weak.

Ooh they sent a message to the CIA alright. But the message is "We only pay lip service to actual national security, and we'll play scorched earth politics with our agency personell if it helps our partisan causes.

Plame worked on WMD issues under her front company. That work and the likely millions that went into it are now ruined and lost forever. All because the Admin wanted to 'send a message'?
Is this something you really want to defend?

Also, the Administration HAS been found guilty of outing Plame. Two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal investigators.

Willravel · 06-04-2007, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I have never met or studied "nice", powerful, yet effective person ( I do think Bush is in the category) who did not have a guy like Dick Chaney.

I don't have a guy like that. I guess I'm not powerful enough yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You assume Plame is an innocent victim, I don't. I assume she knew what she and her husband were doing. She is a CIA agent, a agent who was covert, doesn't that say enough about her ability to play the game and fool people.

She was looking for the truth; doing her job. She was being a responsible CIA operative (something I didn't knew existed anymore). They just happened to have found out that the Africa source for uranium story was bogus, and the president lied. It's because of that her cover was blown.

aceventura3 · 06-04-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Ooh they sent a message to the CIA alright. But the message is "We only pay lip service to actual national security, and we'll play scorched earth politics with our agency personell if it helps our partisan causes.

Plame worked on WMD issues under her front company. That work and the likely millions that went into it are now ruined and lost forever. All because the Admin wanted to 'send a message'?
Is this something you really want to defend?

Can you see the other side of the issue? Certainly, using Plame to send a message is problematic, however, at some point people in the CIA have to show loyalty to the administration, discretion and good judgement.

The CIA has used the media and disinformation in other countries to discredit world leaders and and governments. They are trained on how to do this and do it well. Plame (pure speculation on my part) knew exactly what her husband was doing and knew the impact it would have on public support of the war in Iraq. Basically the information obtained and reported on by Plame's husband was not material to our case for war. The article, however, was used to discredit the case for war. As an agent of the CIA she should not have let her husband publish the information in a manner that could be linked to her. She failed the loyalty test, she failed in using discretion, and she failed in using good judgement.

Can you imagine if every CIA agent with a political agenda, used the power of thier position, unchecked, to do whatever they want? Like it or not, the CIA is accountable to the office of the President. Our Constitution does allow for checks and balances and member of the CIA do have recourse, I just suggest they do it in a proper manner.

Quote:

Also, the Administration HAS been found guilty of outing Plame. Two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal investigators.

If you are talking about Libby, I think that connection is reaching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't have a guy like that. I guess I'm not powerful enough yet.

I let my wife handle that stuff for me. I often feel guilty after she is done what she does to people. There have been a few times where I went back and apologized and reminded them not to piss her off again.

Quote:

She was looking for the truth; doing her job.

I don't think trying to discredit the case for war was her job or her husband's. If that is what she wanted to do she should have submitted her resignation, and then took on her political cause.

Quote:

She was being a responsible CIA operative (something I didn't knew existed anymore). They just happened to have found out that the Africa source for uranium story was bogus, and the president lied. It's because of that her cover was blown.

the President did not lie. He did not make the stry up. I think that is the problem. People associated with the CIA should not be cloesly connected to people calling the President a lier. Her husband could have relased the information to a reporter anonymously, the same way others do.

dc_dux · 06-04-2007, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Can you see the other side of the issue? Certainly, using Plame to send a message is problematic, however, at some point people in the CIA have to show loyalty to the administration, discretion and good judgement.

Career employees, including covert operatives, in the CIA have absolutely NO moral or legal responsibility or obligation to show "loyalty to the administration" In fact, good judgement would require them to do otherwise and show their loyalty solely to the Constitution and the rule of law, rather than any present or future president.

aceventura3 · 06-04-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Career employees, including covert operatives, in the CIA have absolutely NO moral or legal responsibility or obligation to show "loyalty to the administration" In fact, good judgement would require them to do otherwise and show their loyalty solely to the Constitution and the rule of law, rather than any present or future president.

To whom do they owe loyalty? I thought the CIA chain of command goes up to the President. If I am wrong, I will change my view.

However, I think employees owe loyalty to those higher in the chain of command. If an issue is in dispute the honorable thing to do is to seek proper recourse through available channels. Using your husband (speculation on my part) is not proper in my view. Using the media is not proper in my view. When I have had major disputes with my superiors in employment situations , I went up the ladder or resigned.

{Added}
I thought about this some more. I think you help define how a person will see the Plame issue. In general it boils down to the qestion of loyalty. Those who answer the loyalty question as you do compared to those who answer the loyalty question as I do. In my view what the administration did to Plame was not nice, but it was something that needed to be done. Further, I think the administration did it in a manner within the letter of the law and gave Fitzgerald the power and freedom to investigate the matter and bring it to trial if needed to further emphasize the point the Administration was sending.

dc_dux · 06-04-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

In my view what the administration did to Plame was not nice, but it was something that needed to be done.

Why did Bush need to retaliate againt Plame? .She did not appoint her husband to investigate the Niger connection...In fact, she did not even recommend him. A co-worker knew of his experience with Iraq, Africa and nuclear issues under both GWH Bush and Clinton...and suggested him to Plame's boss who agreed he was emminently and uniquely qualified for the mission.

Quote:

I don't think trying to discredit the case for war was her job or her husband's. If that is what she wanted to do she should have submitted her resignation, and then took on her political cause.

He reported his findings, along, with his personal opinion (not hers) which were contrary to what Bush wanted the American people to believe....She had nothing to do with it...and for that, she was outed by the WH.

If you think it was honorable for the WH to retaliate against her...for what you describe as "disloyalty to the administration"....solely based on her husband's findings and opnion....and through no actions of her own.,...then we absolutely disagree on the meaning of loyalty. A president should be loyal to CIA covert operatives who serve the country and not the man.

Willravel · 06-04-2007, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I let my wife handle that stuff for me. I often feel guilty after she is done what she does to people. There have been a few times where I went back and apologized and reminded them not to piss her off again.

LOL, whoa, remind me never to cross her (not that I ever would).

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't think trying to discredit the case for war was her job or her husband's. If that is what she wanted to do she should have submitted her resignation, and then took on her political cause.

'Discredit the case for war' in plainer terms is seek the truth, actually. It was her job to gather intelligence about threats to the US. It's her job to determine whether something is or isn't a thread. This OBVIOUSLY wasn't a threat, so she took an active role in finding proof of the truth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

the President did not lie. He did not make the [story] up. I think that is the problem. People associated with the CIA should not be [closely] connected to people calling the President a lier. Her husband could have [released] the information to a reporter anonymously, the same way others do.

In early 2002, the CIA and State Department already knew the classified information about yellow cake from Africa was inaccurate. Marine General Carlton Fulford personally went to Niger and determined that there was little chance any of the uranium could have been sent to Iraq. He sent a report saying as much to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs. The US Ambassador to Niger came to the same conclusions and reported to the state department.

It wasn't until January 2003 that Bush made the statement in his State of the Union Address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This was long after everyone knew the intelligence was bullshit. Either Bush was left in the dark about something that coincidentally supported his wish to invade Iraqw (the odds of this are astronomical), or he deliberately used outdated and incorrect information to fool the American people into supporting the bullshit war.

Read about it yourself. Wiki actually has a really great page on it here. I got a lot of my information from there and verified it with news articles published in the past 4-5 years. It's a good read.

dc_dux · 06-04-2007, 09:27 PM

ace.,,,you may also want to reread the Op Ed by Joseph Wilson, in which he walks through the process by which he came to conclusions about Niger as a soure of yellowcake....and how the WH either ignored his findings or misrepresented (ie lied) his findings:

What I Didnt Find in Africa

and for that, the WH retaliated against his wife, for which the DCI was concerned enough to ask for a DOJ investigation.

And you think the WH action was honorable and necessary?

Willravel · 06-04-2007, 09:51 PM

I love that article, DC. I've read that more than a few times, and now it's bookmarked!

tecoyah · 06-05-2007, 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

To whom do they owe loyalty? I thought the CIA chain of command goes up to the President. If I am wrong, I will change my view.

However, I think employees owe loyalty to those higher in the chain of command. If an issue is in dispute the honorable thing to do is to seek proper recourse through available channels. Using your husband (speculation on my part) is not proper in my view. Using the media is not proper in my view. When I have had major disputes with my superiors in employment situations , I went up the ladder or resigned.

Out of curiosity, Do you think you might revise your "Ethics" in this situation if you felt people would die if you did not? And, is it ok to ignore pertinent Data if it is in dissagreement with your objective?

Superbelt · 06-05-2007, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Can you see the other side of the issue? Certainly, using Plame to send a message is problematic, however, at some point people in the CIA have to show loyalty to the administration, discretion and good judgement.

Can I see the other side of the issue? No, I can't. My mind doesn't process asshole thought processes that well. People in the CIA have to protect this country. Not protect the Administration's agenda when the reality does not intersect with their motives. Joe Wilson simply discredited what was a very large part of the President's argument for war. It was very much 'material to our case for war'. How could scare tactics over nuclear weapons be anything BUT? The PRESIDENT had a huge national platform to whip this nation into a frenzy of fear against the possibility that Iraq was preparing nuclear weapons to use against us. I expect and demand that those in our government are truthful to us and if anyone has a way of getting it to us, they do.

Valerie Plame was not appointed to the CIA by Bush. She doesn't own him any extraordinary loyalty. She did not sign one of his draconian loyalty oaths. She was hired to do a job, and she did her job.

Can you imagine if every CIA agent surgically implanted their lips to the Executives ass and ignored the truth, using their position to allow a President to lie us into war in which we are quickly approaching 3,500 casualties?
The CIA is accountable to the office of the President, but the President is supposed to be accountable to us, and the CIA is not supposed to protect him from the truth or help him LIE to us.

The connection to Libby is not reaching. He was the Chief of Staff to the VP. The 4th most powerful and influential position in our Executive Office. There is a reason he was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators. He was protecting others in the Executive Office. It didn't start or stop with Libby. We know that Rove was one of the sources as well, so that is TWO of the four most powerful and influential positions in the Executive Office, that we know of, that were privy to this crime.

The President lied. He was informed well before his SOTU that the yellowcake claim was false. He lied about it to us anyway.

aceventura3 · 06-05-2007, 07:17 AM

I again read the Wilson article in the New York times dated 7/6/03. I do not think Wilson should have written the article. I think (speculation) Plame was aware of her husband's mission, findings, and later his plans to write the article - I further believe the intent of the article was to discredit the case for war.

Wilson conducted his investigation but by his own words did not have access to all of the information, but based on his investigation he made his conclusion about the yellow cake and he was proved correct. However, I think it is reasonable to consider that others who investigated the issue could come to a different conclusion. If presented with conflicting reports it is also reasonable for the "decider" to act on one or the other based on a judgement call.

In the article Wislson uses terms like "highly doubtful", and "probably forged". Further, he was not aware of any written report of his findings nor did he have firsthand knowledge of if and how the information was communicated to the Office of the Vice President or the Office of the President. Yet, he broadly concludes the following:

Quote:

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

He says "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program...", rather than being specific in relationship to the information he gathered. How does he make that conclusion? I think that is a conclusion he could only make with the assistance of his spouse, a CIA employee or with some other CIA insider.

So in my view we have a covert CIA agent engaged in pillow talk or some other form of talk, expressing her opinion on intelligence matters, and then being involved in publishing information in a major newpaper to discredit the case for war.

I think what happened shows disloyalty, lack of discretion and poor judgement.

I do understand how others see it differently. Unless, there is a change in how, I or you guys who disagree with me, address the question of loyalty in this issue, we will never see this the same way.

{added}

Just for the record, concerning "lies", here is something I came across - I think saying Bush lied is wrong.

Quote:

Summary
The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

I would suggest going to the link and reading the whole thing.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

host · 06-05-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

http://article.nationalreview.com/pr...jY4ZjhkZjkwNDI
May 14, 2007, 0:57 p.m.

First Things First

By Fred Thompson

Editor’s note: This speech was delivered to the meeting of the Council for National Policy in Tysons Corner, Virginia on Saturday, May 12, 2007.

One thing about folks knowing you are going to speak at the Council for National Policy, you get lots of advice as to what to say. A lot of good advice. Good talking points. In fact enough for several speeches. Also, some of your friends, knowing that you are thinking about running for President, urge you to give a rousing campaign speech....

.....I didn’t know Scooter Libby, but I did know something about this intersection of law, politics, special counsels and intelligence. And it was obvious to me that what was happening was not right. So I called him to see what I could do to help, and along the way we became friends. <h3>You know the rest of the story: a D.C. jury convicted him.....</h3>

Translation: wink, wink....hey, Council for National Policy members....I'm an ignorant racist, bigot, too !

dc_dux · 06-05-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So in my view we have a covert CIA agent engaged in pillow talk or some other form of talk, expressing her opinion on intelligence matters, and then being involved in publishing information in a major newpaper to discredit the case for war.

I think what happened shows disloyalty, lack of discretion and poor judgement.

Ace....I have to admit I do find it amusing that you have no basis for Plame's involvement in Wilson's article other than speculation about "pillow talk".

It sorta contradicts a statement you made in another thread regarding federal employees and how you "assume some people have the ability to not compromise their principles." (link)

I guess you think only WH political employees will not compromise their principles and a career CIA operative will (without presenting a shred of evidence or any factual information to back it up).......hardly an objective or consistent analysis.

aceventura3 · 06-05-2007, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace....I have to admit I do find it amusing that you have no basis for Plame's involvement in Wilson's article other than speculation about "pillow talk".

I layout my arguement for my speculation. I know I could be wrong, I know that Plame may be an innocent victim of this mess.

However on its face I cannot see how Wilson, not being a CIA insider, can be so adamant that Bush twisted and misused intellegence information. I can see how he would have an opinion on the yellow cake intel he provided, but then he did not prepare a written report, he did not know if one was prepared, he did not know if his report was even shared with the VP or President, he did not know about other intelligence, he did not even read the initial report leading to his assignment. He also assumes that the people he talked to while on official US government business would be honest with him given the trade restrictions and the climate against Iraq at the time. I cannot ignore these bit of information, so I assume Plame was involved.

Also, there is no evidence that she tried to distance herself from her husband's political views, not only what he writes in the article but also afterward with all the publicity he was surrounded by. As a covert agent at the very least, not controlling her husband was foolish, unless she had no concerns about staying covert.

Quote:

It sorta contradicts a statement you made in another thread regarding federal employees and how you "assume some people have the ability to not compromise their principles."

Not at all. There is often a price for taking a principled stand. Wilson and Plame, given Plames position as a CIA employee, should not have expected to call the President a lier, say intelligence was misused and expect no response from the White House. When people take principled stands relative to their employment they should be prepared to resign and then give 100% effort to their cause. I said Plame did not use good judgement, this is an example of that.

Quote:

I guess you think only WH political employees will not compromise their principles and a career CIA operative will (without presenting a shred of evidence or any factual information to back it up).......hardly an objective or consistent analysis.

We can use George Tenant as an example. He had conflicts with the Administration, resigned, and then went public with his issues and concerns. I think what Plame did (again I do not think she is an innocent victim) compared to the way Tenant handled his situation is very different.

I don't know how objective I am on this issue (never made that claim) based on my bias towards loyalty. I can tell you up front, people who do what Plame (based on my view that she is not an innocent victim) did, have an extra burden of proof with me. This would be true regardless of party or the underlying issue.

Superbelt · 06-05-2007, 11:29 AM

So let me get this straight. You believe our public servants should be beholden entirely to the wishes of the President. Even when they have the capability and substantiation to alert the American public (i.e. their real boss) to falsehoods and lies.

You see Tenet as a shining example of a public servant. Someone who knew things were wrong, but toed the Administration line, publicly at least, as long as he was in office. A failure to act that at least partially contributed to us ultimately going to war on false pretenses that resulted in 3500 allied casualties.

Sorry, but that's messed up.

seretogis · 06-05-2007, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

So let me get this straight. You believe our public servants should be beholden entirely to the wishes of the President. Even when they have the capability and substantiation to alert the American public (i.e. their real boss) to falsehoods and lies.

You see Tenet as a shining example of a public servant. Someone who knew things were wrong, but toed the Administration line, publicly at least, as long as he was in office. A failure to act that at least partially contributed to us ultimately going to war on false pretenses that resulted in 3500 allied casualties.

Sorry, but that's messed up.

Who in the CIA is elected by the public, and thus qualifies as a "public servant?" Elected officials are public servants, and government organizations work with those public servants to help them serve the public. Work with, not against. If un-elected officials of government organizations take issue with the way the duly elected public servants are going about things, they have the option to resign and voice their frustration as a private citizen.

Willravel · 06-05-2007, 11:43 AM

You're a public servant if you work for the government, and only a small fraction of government positions are elected.

It was Plame's job to gather intelligence about threats to the US. It's her job to determine whether something is or isn't a thread. The yellowcake OBVIOUSLY wasn't a threat, so she took an active role in finding proof of the truth.

The_Jazz · 06-05-2007, 11:46 AM

Can we get back on the topic of Fred Thompson at least? There's plenty of other threads about Plame et al.

Superbelt · 06-05-2007, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

Who in the CIA is elected by the public, and thus qualifies as a "public servant?" Elected officials are public servants, and government organizations work with those public servants to help them serve the public. Work with, not against. If un-elected officials of government organizations take issue with the way the duly elected public servants are going about things, they have the option to resign and voice their frustration as a private citizen.

You don't consider police officers to be public servants then?

"To Protect and to Serve"

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Can we get back on the topic of Fred Thompson at least? There's plenty of other threads about Plame et al.

I just did a page search and the first 13 instances of 'Libby' in this thread were from Host, the OP.
I don't think he'll mind the tangent. He started it.

seretogis · 06-05-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

You don't consider police officers to be public servants then?

"To Protect and to Serve"

I consider them a local government agency. If you live in Sometown, USA and you and your fellow Sometownians elect John Someguy as Mayor and he passes a local ordinance, would you not expect the police to enforce it rather than sit, consider the ordinance carefully, then perhaps decide maybe to enforce it? It is not their place to decide whether or not to enforce it, they do their job and uphold the law which the elected government officials draft.

Granted it is a bit more complex on a national level, but the CIA is still a government agency and it is their job to serve the elected government, not "the people" directly. If they work to undermine the [legitimate] efforts of a [legitimate] administration, regardless of political affiliation, they are undermining the foundation of our system of government.

To head off a possible response regarding this: Whether or not Bush or his war are legitimate are not really what I am arguing for or against.

aceventura3 · 06-05-2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

Sorry, but that's messed up.

What is messed up? Wilson and Plame did what they could to discredit the case for war. The Administration responded. A special investigator investigated. Libby got 30 months. Plame got her day in front of Congress. Plame and Wilson got on the cover of Vanity Fair. wilson and Plame have a lawsuit pending. Wilson and Plame will make who knows how much on book deals. Plame may get Julia Roberts to play her in the movie. Isn't this like a fairy tale come true for our secret agent and her husband?

Willravel · 06-05-2007, 02:20 PM

FRED THOMPSON

That is all.

dc_dux · 06-05-2007, 02:23 PM

seretogis.....there are federal standards of conduct for federal employees..."to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government.....

ace...I know you hold Plame accountable for her husband's actions even without a shred of evidence...but I dont think that position would get very far in an internal investigation of her actions, which the DCI never felt was necessary.

OK...back to Thompson

aceventura3 · 06-05-2007, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

seretogis.....there are federal standards of conduct for federal employees..."to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government.....

ace...I know you hold Plame accountable for her husband's actions even without a shred of evidence...but I dont think that position would get very far in an internal investigation of her actions, which the DCI never felt was necessary.

OK...back to Thompson

Thanks for the link. I bet if Fred Thompson had the authority to investigate this issue he may find proof that Plame was complicit with her husband. This link is no different than the logic others use who speculate about Bush and Chaney being complicit in various endevors without a shred of evidence.

You have to agree that obtaining evidence is often the purpose of an investigation.

If I were Fred Thompson I would point out the fact that in the link you provided we would find that one should not use non-public information for private gain, which Plame did (based on my speculation, but if Thompson could investigate I would bet he could get hard evidence...). Plame shared that information with her husband and used him as a shrew. And even Thompson knows that using shrews is consistant with Plame's CIA training as a covert agent to spread disinformation.

I bet Fred Thompson has this all figured out even without the help of Tom Clancey.

The_Jazz · 06-05-2007, 03:27 PM

You guys are a laugh riot.

At least I now have confirmation that Jon Stewart's not posing as one of you characters.

Or so I heard Fred Thompson say.

host · 11-06-2007, 12:19 AM

From post #6

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Host, snarkey comments aside, my question is actually relevant to the topic at hand. I can't believe with all your google skills that you aren't able to find it. The only other alternative is that you aren't willing to find it, which would mean that you aren't really interested in discussing anything.

Thompson's first role was playing Fred Thompson in "Marie". It's a movie about the woman who took on the governor of Tennessee and the pardon board in the mid-70's. Thompson defended her when she was illegally removed from office for refusing to rubber-stamp pardons that had been bought and paid for. When Roger Donaldson made it into a movie, he asked Thompson to play himself. That's his first role, as a crusading lawyer defending the unjustly accused.

<h3>Thompson was also responsible for Howard Baker's question "what did the President know and when did he know it" during Watergate.</h3>

So host, when you attack Thompson as being an "entertainment personality", you really make yourself look uninformed and ignorant of the facts.

The_Jazz, the historical record strongly suggests that Fred Thompson was a political hack, secretly acting at the direction of, and in the best interests of a criminal president, instead of in the way he appeared to be acting on the surface, part of a sincere congressional effort to check and balance the unlawful acts of the executive branch.

I think it is reasonable to say that the record shows that Thompson, a member of the bar, acting in that capacity, and thus, as an officer of the court, can and should, now that this info is public, be held to a higher standard....the double dealing SOB was earnestly and secretly helping the president to attempt to obstruct the Watergate congressional committee investigation, and that is contempt of congress, and obstruction of justice, not to mention an indication of intense partisanship.

The record indicates that the Nixon white house had programmed the cooperative Thompson to appear that he was examining, as a committee staff attorney designated by a prominent senator, a sworn witness who was cooperating with the committee's investigation, John Dean. Instead the record shows that Thompson's intent was to discredit Dean, via white house instructions. Thompson also misled the official record of the hearing, and all in America who were watching the televised hearing, by falsely denying Dean's accusation that Thompson took direction from the white house, in the manner in which he was examining witness Dean.

You are certainly welcome to post how you think this makes "anyone look", considering the final sentences in your post #6.

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...19179&ft=1&f=2
Election 2008
Thompson's Watergate Role Not as Advertised

by Peter Overby
All Things Considered, November 5, 2007 ·

......This early national attention takes on new relevance as the clock ticks on the presidential nominating process; Iowans will begin the process of choosing the party's nominee in just nine weeks. Thompson's public role in the hearings is clear. However, just how did this early moment of confrontation shape Thompson?

In the spring of 1973, President Richard Nixon has just been re-elected in a 49-state landslide. But the victory was tainted by increasing evidence that his closest aides had conspired to suppress political opposition, most blatantly by planting a telephone bug at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate building in Washington.

The Senate named a select committee to investigate and the panel's Republican was Howard Baker of Tennessee. For his chief counsel, Baker brought in a side-burned, 30-year-old lawyer from his home state.

"I had high regard for him as a lawyer and as a friend," Baker said.

White House Tapes Revealed

The young friend was Fred Thompson. One morning that summer, Thompson would become famous when — during one of the nationally televised hearings — he questioned Butterfield.

Thompson began, "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?"

Butterfield, after a long pause, responded, "I was aware of listening devices, yes sir."

Thompson worked methodically through his questions. "On whose authority were they installed, Mr. Butterfield?"

"On the president's authority, by way of Mr. Haldeman [then-chief of staff H.R. "Bob" Haldeman] and Mr. Higby [Lawrence Higby, a Haldeman aide]," Butterfield said.

The session was a turning point in the investigation.

Baker had famously, and repeatedly, asked, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" After Butterfield's testimony, everyone knew that Baker's question could be answered, definitively, from tapes in the White House.

Nixon fought for a year to keep the tapes secret. But when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against him, he was done. In August 1974, he resigned.

An Ambiguous Role in Watergate

Today, the Web site of Thompson's presidential campaign says he "gained national attention for leading the line of inquiry that revealed the audio-taping system in the White House Oval Office." But in other accounts, Thompson's role in the Watergate probe was much more ambiguous.

One instance came at a hearing three weeks before Butterfield testified. <h3>The witness was John Dean, formerly Nixon's chief counsel, then the star witness against the president.

Thompson opened his cross-examination with an attempt to disarm Dean:</h3> "I hope I'm not considered to be badgering you in any way, but I'm sure you realize, as one lawyer to another, that your actions and motivations are very relevant."

Dean shot back, "In fact, if I were still at the White House, I'd probably be feeding you the questions to ask the person who's sitting here."

Thompson hesitated and then began, "Well, Mr. Dean," as laughter rolled through the hearing room. <h3>"And if I were here as I am, I would respond as I have responded, that I don't need any questions to be fed to me from anybody."

In fact, Thompson was being fed information — by Nixon lawyer J. Fred Buzhardt. White House tapes, later made public, captured Nixon, Buzhardt and others discussing the cooperation of both Thompson and Baker, not once but several times.

In a phone call on June 11, 1973, for example, Nixon asked for "a brief report" from Buzhardt, and the lawyer said, "I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day." He added that Thompson seemed "perfectly prepared to assist in really doing a cross-examination" of Dean.
</h3>
How'd He Know About the Tapes?

But the Oval Office tapes fail to address another question: How did Thompson come to question Butterfield about the tapes?

Thompson already knew what Butterfield would say. Butterfield had spilled it all to committee investigators in a private meeting three days earlier. And a memo written by Thompson had prompted him to do it.

<h3>The Democratic investigator in the meeting, Scott Armstrong, had obtained an old memo of Thompson's, intended to be seen only by the committee's Republicans. In the document, Thompson had summarized a set of attack points — delivered from the White House — and included long quotations from Nixon.</h3>

During that meeting of committee investigators, Armstrong laid the memo in front of Butterfield and asked about the long quotes. Was there a stenographer in the Oval Office? Did Nixon dictate something?

Butterfield said no and no.

With the question still hanging there after three hours, Armstrong turned it over to his Republican counterpart, Don Sanders.

<h3>"If it weren't for Thompson having created the document and collaborated with the White House on that, the taping system would not have been found," Armstrong says. He says he has always been amazed that Thompson got such a boost from the disclosure of the tapes. "I thought Thompson would be filling out his resume looking for new work."</h3>

Thompson's campaign didn't respond to an NPR request to speak with the candidate. But his recollections were recorded at a reunion of Watergate committee veterans in 1992, by a program called the Public Radio Law Show. NPR obtained the tape from the library of the University of Missouri, Columbia, which received Sanders' papers after he died in 1999.

On that program, Thompson recalled events this way: "Don Sanders on the staff really was the guy who asked the question at a staff meeting. He came to me and told me that. And that was kind of my reaction, somewhat of a surprise, to say the least." Sanders was Thompson's deputy counsel.

Defining Moment?

Also during the 1992 reunion, Sanders recalled asking Butterfield pointblank if there was a taping system: "He said, 'Well, I was hoping you wouldn't question me about that. I wondered what I would say if I were asked that, but I feel like I have to tell the truth.' So he did."

To relay the news to Thompson, Sanders said he first had to call him out of a local pub. "Because he was with some reporters, I got him away from them, and got him out on the street corner and told him the story," Sanders said.

Committee Democrats were glad to let Thompson be the one to drop the bombshell on television.

"By having Thompson ask the question, you're having the president's own people ask the embarrassing question," said Stanley Kutler, a long-time historian of Watergate at the University of Wisconsin. <h3>"So it's no great heroic task that Fred Thompson takes on."</h3>

Kutler sees Thompson as someone who successfully navigated treacherous waters, while always mindful that he was working for Baker. He said it's not a case of someone telling truth to power.

"Is this a defining moment for Fred Thompson?" Kutler said. "Maybe it really was, because for the first time it put him in the public eye. And I think it's safe to conclude that, having been in the public eye, he kind of liked it."

<h3>Watch the video:</h3>

Quote:

http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_stor...b18cc342a4bdc8
John W. Dean III, former White House counsel, is sharply questioned by Fred D. Thompson, the minority counsel, about the Watergate coverup in June 1973.

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675541/
updated 3:46 p.m. ET, Mon., July. 9, 2007

WASHINGTON - Fred Thompson gained an image as a tough-minded investigative counsel for the Senate Watergate committee. Yet President Nixon and his top aides viewed the fellow Republican as a willing, if not too bright, ally, according to White House tapes.

....Friendly, but not 'very smart'
<h3>Publicly, Baker and Thompson presented themselves as dedicated to uncovering the truth.</h3> But Baker had secret meetings and conversations with Nixon and his top aides, while Thompson worked cooperatively with the White House and accepted coaching from Nixon's lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt, the tapes and transcripts show.

"We've got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson," Buzhardt told Nixon in an Oval Office meeting on June 6, 1973. The meeting included a discussion of former White House counsel John Dean's upcoming testimony before the committee.

Dean, the committee's star witness, had agreed to tell what he knew about the break-in and cover-up if he was granted immunity against anything incriminating he might say.

Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not "very smart."

"Not extremely so," Buzhardt agreed.

"But he's friendly," Nixon said.

"But he's friendly," Buzhardt agreed. "We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him, if Dean does appear next week, to do a very thorough cross-examination."

Five days later, Buzhardt reported to Nixon that he had primed Thompson for the Dean cross-examination.

"I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day," Buzhardt said. "Uh, perfectly prepared to assist in really doing a cross-examination."

Later in the same conversation, Buzhardt said Thompson was "willing to go, you know, pretty much the distance now. And he said he realized his responsibility was going to have be as a Republican increasingly."

Note that "liberal" NPR is running it's "in depth" coverage of this news story, nearly four months after the AP first reported it.

The_Jazz · 11-06-2007, 05:16 AM

host, you're once again ignoring the real world results in an attempt to skewer a Republican.

So basically the White House THOUGHT that Thompson was going to help them. In reality he did nothing of the sort.

Seriously, you're trying to defame the guy because of what someone else thought he would do. You've even gone so far as to highlight the evidence to the contrary in the NPR story with Armstrong's quote about how the taping system wouldn't have been found and revealed WITHOUT THOMPSON'S HELP. Sounds to me like he pretty much did his job and did it with efficiency.

All this said, I have no intention of voting for Thompson, and the one opportunity that I had to vote for him in 1992, I didn't vote for him then either. My sole point of respond is to "poke the bear" to see what else you'll come up with in your singleminded pursuit of ridding the world of Republicans. I'm convinced that there has never been a single individual, real or fictional, that you would deride and belittle if you saw them as a Republican. I'm hoping for more entertainment.

host · 11-06-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

host, you're once again ignoring the real world results in an attempt to skewer a Republican.

So basically the White House THOUGHT that Thompson was going to help them. In reality he did nothing of the sort.

Seriously, you're trying to defame the guy because of what someone else thought he would do. You've even gone so far as to highlight the evidence to the contrary in the NPR story with Armstrong's quote about how the taping system wouldn't have been found and revealed WITHOUT THOMPSON'S HELP. Sounds to me like he pretty much did his job and did it with efficiency.

All this said, I have no intention of voting for Thompson, and the one opportunity that I had to vote for him in 1992, I didn't vote for him then either. My sole point of respond is to "poke the bear" to see what else you'll come up with in your singleminded pursuit of ridding the world of Republicans. I'm convinced that there has never been a single individual, real or fictional, that you would deride and belittle if you saw them as a Republican. I'm hoping for more entertainment.

What are you talking about? Are we reading the same reporting? Two sources, four months apart.....same "take" on what happened in 1973. Thompson and Baker intended to help the Nixon white house, while intentionally appearing to be part of the committee's investigation of Nixon. Thompson is not described GIVING "an old memo of Thompson's, intended to be seen only by the committee's Republicans", .....to Democratic investigator in the meeting, Scott Armstrong". If there is any doubt, it is removed by this, from Armstrong;
""I thought Thompson would be filling out his resume looking for new work.""

Why did Armstrong think that? Because Thompson carelessly and inadvertently gave access to his "old memo" to democrat appointed investigator, Armstrong.

The additional support for the way I presented Thompson in my last post is this, from the July AP reporting:

Quote:

...while Thompson worked cooperatively with the White House and accepted coaching from Nixon's lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt, the tapes and transcripts show.....

.... I've supported everything I've posted on this thread, and on every other, yet your intent seems to be to "paint" me as posting as if I do not have my details in order......just rabidly partisan "for the hell of it". That is a smear tactic, IMO. I provide enough to offer ample opportunity for rebuttal, but your response is to shoot the messenger.

Quote:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...19179&ft=1&f=2

...The Democratic investigator in the meeting, Scott Armstrong, had obtained an old memo of Thompson's, intended to be seen only by the committee's Republicans. In the document, Thompson had summarized a set of attack points — delivered from the White House — and included long quotations from Nixon.

During that meeting of committee investigators, Armstrong laid the memo in front of Butterfield and asked about the long quotes. Was there a stenographer in the Oval Office? Did Nixon dictate something?

Butterfield said no and no.

With the question still hanging there after three hours, Armstrong turned it over to his Republican counterpart, Don Sanders.

"If it weren't for Thompson having created the document and collaborated with the White House on that, the taping system would not have been found," Armstrong says. He says he has always been amazed that Thompson got such a boost from the disclosure of the tapes. "I thought Thompson would be filling out his resume looking for new work."....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19675541/
Publicly, Baker and Thompson presented themselves as dedicated to uncovering the truth.
But Baker had secret meetings and conversations with Nixon and his top aides, while Thompson worked cooperatively with the White House and accepted coaching from Nixon's lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt, <h2>the tapes and transcripts show.</h2>

"We've got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson," Buzhardt told Nixon in an Oval Office meeting on June 6, 1973. The meeting included a discussion of former White House counsel John Dean's upcoming testimony before the committee......

The_Jazz · 11-06-2007, 08:38 AM

host, I think you're reading them with the intent of deriding Thompson. I'm reading them with an open mind. When I see

Quote:

"If it weren't for Thompson having created the document and collaborated with the White House on that, the taping system would not have been found," Armstrong says.

that says to me that Thompson was intrumental in uncovering and revealing for the committee one of the most valuable pieces of information about the whole Watergate affair. Taking Armstrong at his word that Thompson "collaborated" with Nixon et al, he certainly didn't do them any favors by revealing the existance of the recording system and I suppose some could argue that he worked more for the welfare of the nation than Richard M. Nixon's interests. Hell, Thompson described himself as a Nixon loyalist in 1975, so it's not like this is really news.

Baker and Thomspon walked a fine line between what was best for the United States and what was best for the Republican Party. In the end, revealing all of the incriminating evidence in open testimony pretty much sealed the deal on Nixon.

In other words, I think that Thompson worked well with the White House and then turned around and fucked them for the betterment of the country. Your evidence proves my point just as well as it proves yours. In fact, given the end result (including the fact that Baker was ready to impeach Nixon in 1974), I think that it supports my position much better than it does yours.

host · 11-06-2007, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

host, I think you're reading them with the intent of deriding Thompson. I'm reading them with an open mind. When I see

that says to me that Thompson was intrumental in uncovering and revealing for the committee one of the most valuable pieces of information about the whole Watergate affair. Taking Armstrong at his word that Thompson "collaborated" with Nixon et al, he certainly didn't do them any favors by revealing the existance of the recording system and I suppose some could argue that he worked more for the welfare of the nation than Richard M. Nixon's interests. Hell, Thompson described himself as a Nixon loyalist in 1975, so it's not like this is really news.

Baker and Thomspon walked a fine line between what was best for the United States and what was best for the Republican Party. In the end, revealing all of the incriminating evidence in open testimony pretty much sealed the deal on Nixon.

In other words, I think that Thompson worked well with the White House and then turned around and fucked them for the betterment of the country. Your evidence proves my point just as well as it proves yours. In fact, given the end result (including the fact that Baker was ready to impeach Nixon in 1974), I think that it supports my position much better than it does yours.

There is nothing to CLEARLY support your

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

... I think that Thompson worked well with the White House and then turned around and fucked them for the betterment of the country. ...

I suggest that you listen to the recording of yesterday's NPR broadcast. My "take" matches the conclusion in the AP reporting, and is supported by the recorded Nixon tapes conversations. Your opinion is not supported by the reporting or by the evidence. There is no record that confirms Thompson giving his "old memo" to Scott Armstrong. There is a record of Thompson's denial to Dean that he, Thompson, had been coached by the white house.

...and, consider this:

Quote:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3447219&page=2

The Fred Thompson Watergate Myth
Was GOP Candidate More Friend Than Foe to Nixon?

.....The Tip-off

Dash's decision was especially generous considering what Thompson was doing behind the scenes to help the Nixon White House prepare for the question.

In Thompson's 1975 book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/that-point-time-Watergate-Committee/dp/0812905369">"At That Point in Time: The Inside Story of the Senate Watergate Committee"</a> he writes that after learning of the existence of the tapes he "wanted to be sure that the White House was fully aware of what was to be disclosed so that it could take appropriate action. ... I believed it would be in everyone's interest if the White House realized, before making any public statements, the probable position of both the majority and minority of the Watergate committee."

Thompson wrote that "[e]ven though I had no authority to act for the committee," he called Fred Buzhardt, the White House counsel on Watergate matters.

"'Fred,' Thompson recalls saying, 'the committee is aware of the fact that every conversation in the White House is on tape. I know you realize the significance of this. It's not my place to give you advice, but I think that if I were you I'd start making plans immediately to get those tapes together and get them up here as soon as possible.'

"There was a short pause. Then Buzhardt said, 'Well, I think that is significant, if it is true. We'll get on it tomorrow.'"

Scott Armstrong, the senior investigator for Democrats on the Watergate Committee, said he didn't know until Thompson's book was published that Thompson had tipped off Buzhardt about Butterfield's pending testimony, but it didn't surprise him, since Thompson had tipped off the White House about the explosive testimony of former Watergate conspirator John Dean.

A staffer on the committee, Armstrong said, provided him with a copy of a document Thompson had written to Republicans on the committee with Buzhardt's instructions as to what to ask Dean about. "This was after Thompson told them what Dean was going to testify to," Armstrong told ABC News. During his closed-door interview with Butterfield, Armstrong asked the White House counsel about the document, "and my assumption was over the weekend we were going to see the resignation of Fred Thompson, since he was subverting the Watergate Committee."

"There was nothing more secret than what Dean was going to testify to," Armstrong said. "Ervin said, 'Don't share anything with Baker and Thompson, because they're not trustworthy."

But instead, Armstrong said, "Ervin very generously gave Baker the nod to go ahead and do the Butterfield question. And rather than ending Thompson's career for all time, it seems to be something Thompson now feels he can brag about." <h3>But in reality, Armstrong insisted Thompson "was a spy for Richard Nixon on the Watergate Committee." ...</h3>

In quoting Armstrong in it's July reporting, it appears that AP made an effort to "tone down" Armstrong's opinion of Thompson's intent. Armstrong also told ABC that

Quote:

....A staffer on the committee, Armstrong said, provided him with a copy of a document Thompson had written to Republicans on the committee with Buzhardt's instructions as to what to ask Dean about. .....

It is not supported by the record that Thompson gave the overall committee anything. It is established that Armstrong was given info by a "A staffer on the committee", that was clearly embarassing to Thompson...that he was receiving and passing, Nixon's attorney, Buzhardt's instructions to Thompson's fellow republicans on the committee.These republicans all outwardly gave the apperance of earnestly working on a bi-partisan, congressional committee investigation of the Nixon white house.

It is a testimony to the success of their duplicity that, 34 years later, you interpret Thompson to have been doing the exact opposite of what the evidence of his actions, and intent was.

Ustwo · 11-06-2007, 08:54 AM

You know host, if you could do me the favor, please tell me which Republican is the worst, more corrupt, and most vile so I know who to vote for in the primary.

Thompson is my current front runner though.

MrTia · 11-06-2007, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know host, if you could do me the favor, please tell me which Republican is the worst, more corrupt, and most vile so I know who to vote for in the primary.

Thompson is my current front runner though.

unfortunately, jeb bush isn't running. :P

05-31-2007, 04:04 PM	#43 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Ace, even if I were to stipulate your assessment as the status quo, I wouldn't think it was OK. If we expect better and nail the people we can catch, we can have a better system. I guess on some level it sounds like you feel that things are the way they are and there isn't any reason to expect more. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

06-04-2007, 09:27 PM	#55 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	ace.,,,you may also want to reread the Op Ed by Joseph Wilson, in which he walks through the process by which he came to conclusions about Niger as a soure of yellowcake....and how the WH either ignored his findings or misrepresented (ie lied) his findings: What I Didnt Find in Africa and for that, the WH retaliated against his wife, for which the DCI was concerned enough to ask for a DOJ investigation. And you think the WH action was honorable and necessary? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 06-04-2007 at 09:30 PM..

06-05-2007, 11:46 AM	#66 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Can we get back on the topic of Fred Thompson at least? There's plenty of other threads about Plame et al. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

06-05-2007, 02:20 PM	#70 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	FRED THOMPSON That is all. Last edited by Willravel; 06-05-2007 at 02:31 PM..

06-05-2007, 02:23 PM	#71 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	seretogis.....there are federal standards of conduct for federal employees..."to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain. To ensure that every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the Federal Government..... ace...I know you hold Plame accountable for her husband's actions even without a shred of evidence...but I dont think that position would get very far in an internal investigation of her actions, which the DCI never felt was necessary. OK...back to Thompson __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

06-04-2007, 09:51 PM	#56 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I love that article, DC. I've read that more than a few times, and now it's bookmarked!

06-05-2007, 11:29 AM	#63 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	So let me get this straight. You believe our public servants should be beholden entirely to the wishes of the President. Even when they have the capability and substantiation to alert the American public (i.e. their real boss) to falsehoods and lies. You see Tenet as a shining example of a public servant. Someone who knew things were wrong, but toed the Administration line, publicly at least, as long as he was in office. A failure to act that at least partially contributed to us ultimately going to war on false pretenses that resulted in 3500 allied casualties. Sorry, but that's messed up.

06-05-2007, 11:43 AM	#65 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	You're a public servant if you work for the government, and only a small fraction of government positions are elected. It was Plame's job to gather intelligence about threats to the US. It's her job to determine whether something is or isn't a thread. The yellowcake OBVIOUSLY wasn't a threat, so she took an active role in finding proof of the truth.

06-05-2007, 03:27 PM	#73 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	You guys are a laugh riot. At least I now have confirmation that Jon Stewart's not posing as one of you characters. Or so I heard Fred Thompson say. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

11-06-2007, 05:16 AM	#75 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	host, you're once again ignoring the real world results in an attempt to skewer a Republican. So basically the White House THOUGHT that Thompson was going to help them. In reality he did nothing of the sort. Seriously, you're trying to defame the guy because of what someone else thought he would do. You've even gone so far as to highlight the evidence to the contrary in the NPR story with Armstrong's quote about how the taping system wouldn't have been found and revealed WITHOUT THOMPSON'S HELP. Sounds to me like he pretty much did his job and did it with efficiency. All this said, I have no intention of voting for Thompson, and the one opportunity that I had to vote for him in 1992, I didn't vote for him then either. My sole point of respond is to "poke the bear" to see what else you'll come up with in your singleminded pursuit of ridding the world of Republicans. I'm convinced that there has never been a single individual, real or fictional, that you would deride and belittle if you saw them as a Republican. I'm hoping for more entertainment. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

11-06-2007, 08:54 AM	#79 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	You know host, if you could do me the favor, please tell me which Republican is the worst, more corrupt, and most vile so I know who to vote for in the primary. Thompson is my current front runner though. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.