Valerie Plame....Idiot Bimbo Or Scheming Witch?

[JimH52]

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

On July 14, 2003,Washington Post journalistRobert Novak, using information obtained fromRichard Armitageat the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[34][35]Legal documents published in the course of theCIA leak grand jury investigation,United States v. Libby, andCongressionalinvestigations, establish her classified employment as acovertofficer for the CIA at the time when Novak's column was published in July 2003.[35][36][37]

The five-count indictment of Libby includedperjury(two counts),obstruction of justice(one count), andmaking false statementstofederal investigators(two counts). There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak.

So actually, fat boy Armitage should be in jail also? And Obama let these frigin crooks slide They screwed over all Americans with their "fake" war criteria. SCUM IS SCUM IS SCUM....

Hurry up please you gop rw nuts. Go to Wikipedia and change this before the entire world knows you are lying.

 

[bripat9643]

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

On July 14, 2003,Washington Post journalistRobert Novak, using information obtained fromRichard Armitageat the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[34][35]Legal documents published in the course of theCIA leak grand jury investigation,United States v. Libby, andCongressionalinvestigations, establish her classified employment as acovertofficer for the CIA at the time when Novak's column was published in July 2003.[35][36][37]

The five-count indictment of Libby includedperjury(two counts),obstruction of justice(one count), andmaking false statementstofederal investigators(two counts). There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak.

So actually, fat boy Armitage should be in jail also? And Obama let these frigin crooks slide They screwed over all Americans with their "fake" war criteria. SCUM IS SCUM IS SCUM....

Hurry up please you gop rw nuts. Go to Wikipedia and change this before the entire world knows you are lying.

Here's the only part that counts, numskull:

"There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak."​

 

[Political Junky]

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

On July 14, 2003,Washington Post journalistRobert Novak, using information obtained fromRichard Armitageat the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[34][35]Legal documents published in the course of theCIA leak grand jury investigation,United States v. Libby, andCongressionalinvestigations, establish her classified employment as acovertofficer for the CIA at the time when Novak's column was published in July 2003.[35][36][37]

The five-count indictment of Libby includedperjury(two counts),obstruction of justice(one count), andmaking false statementstofederal investigators(two counts). There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak.

So actually, fat boy Armitage should be in jail also? And Obama let these frigin crooks slide They screwed over all Americans with their "fake" war criteria. SCUM IS SCUM IS SCUM....

Hurry up please you gop rw nuts. Go to Wikipedia and change this before the entire world knows you are lying.

Here's the only part that counts, numskull:

"There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak."​

Is it Karma that Bob Novak died of cancer soon after he published her identity?

 

[JimH52]

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

On July 14, 2003,Washington Post journalistRobert Novak, using information obtained fromRichard Armitageat the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[34][35]Legal documents published in the course of theCIA leak grand jury investigation,United States v. Libby, andCongressionalinvestigations, establish her classified employment as acovertofficer for the CIA at the time when Novak's column was published in July 2003.[35][36][37]

The five-count indictment of Libby includedperjury(two counts),obstruction of justice(one count), andmaking false statementstofederal investigators(two counts). There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak.

So actually, fat boy Armitage should be in jail also? And Obama let these frigin crooks slide They screwed over all Americans with their "fake" war criteria. SCUM IS SCUM IS SCUM....

Hurry up please you gop rw nuts. Go to Wikipedia and change this before the entire world knows you are lying.

Here's the only part that counts, numskull:

"There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak."​

WAIT! You now are admitting she was a "CIA operative" when the premise of the OP is that she was not? You guys need to get together and coordinate better your lies.

 

[bripat9643]

Valerie Plame - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

On July 14, 2003,Washington Post journalistRobert Novak, using information obtained fromRichard Armitageat the US State Department, effectively ended Valerie Plame's career with the CIA (from which she later resigned in December 2005) by revealing in his column her identity as a CIA operative.[34][35]Legal documents published in the course of theCIA leak grand jury investigation,United States v. Libby, andCongressionalinvestigations, establish her classified employment as acovertofficer for the CIA at the time when Novak's column was published in July 2003.[35][36][37]

The five-count indictment of Libby includedperjury(two counts),obstruction of justice(one count), andmaking false statementstofederal investigators(two counts). There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak.

So actually, fat boy Armitage should be in jail also? And Obama let these frigin crooks slide They screwed over all Americans with their "fake" war criteria. SCUM IS SCUM IS SCUM....

Hurry up please you gop rw nuts. Go to Wikipedia and change this before the entire world knows you are lying.

Here's the only part that counts, numskull:

"There was, however, no count for disclosing classified information, i.e., Plame's status as a CIA operative. Indeed, it was already widely known (even by prosecutor Fitzgerald) that the actual "leaker" was Richard Armitage, via columnist Robert Novak. No evidence has ever come to light that Mr. Libby disclosed Plame's CIA status to Mr. Novak."​

WAIT! You now are admitting she was a "CIA operative" when the premise of the OP is that she was not? You guys need to get together and coordinate better your lies.

No, I'm not "admitting" that. I'm simply quoting the Wiki artical that explains Skooter was charged with exposing Plame. Indeed, the text I quoted states that Plame's position was public information.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dispute it or bounce, troll.

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

No, he didn't lie.
His memory of an event was different from Tim Russert's.

Wow!

The effort you put into your posts!

The real liars, as usual, are the Leftists/Democrats who put Plame/Wilson up as heroes, when they were simply the tools used by the Dems.

"Despite having ample opportunities to do so, Joe Wilson never complained about the "sixteen words" in President Bush’s State Of The Union address until almost five months after it was delivered.

And then only after he had met with top Democrat Senators and had signed on with John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

From then on Mr. Wilson promoted a two-fold story to reporters in which he claimed:

1) That he had personally debunked the claims of Iraq’s nuclear deals with Niger with an "unequivocal" report that circulated at the highest levels of the government.

2) That he had personally debunked the so-called Niger forgeries by pointing out to the CIA and State Department that the documents contained errors in names and dates.

We now know thanks to the report on this matter from the bi-partisan US Senate Select Committee On Intelligence that both of these claims were utterly false. (And indeed, the "sixteen words" themselves have turned out to be quite grounded in fact.)

A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.

When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.

With that in mind it is an easy step to suppose that it was Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV himself who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.

March 3, 2003: At the invitation of David Corn, Joe Wilson wrote a piece for the Nation, Republic Or Empire?

In it Wilson blasted the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration for their imperial over-reach. But he once again made no mention of uranium or any other suggestion that Bush misled the country or lied about Iraq’s WMD.


March 8, 2003: CNN’s Renay San Miguel interviewed Joe Wilson about the so-called Niger forgeries, which had just become a hot topic in the news.

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade.

So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about Iraq’s WMD and revise his "findings" from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the US Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence report?

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

May 6, 2003: New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth. “…that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.”

Note that unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson was now claiming to have personally taken an active role in debunking the so-called forgeries. Which is of course untrue, since we now know Wilson never saw the documents.

The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

(The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged.")

June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.

Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

Again, we now know that what Wilson told Pincus, like what he had told Kristof, was completely untrue, since the relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off."
When Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame Sweetness Light

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, there's an "unbiased" source.

Dispute it or bounce, troll.

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

You know that's total nonsense, don't you?


Sometimes the WaPo does the job it's supposed to.....as in the case of pinning the tail on the lying Democrat donkeys.


"Washington Post Debunks Valerie Plame Myths

Thursday, 09 Dec 2010 09:52 AM

By Ronald Kessler

Washington Post Debunks Valerie Plame Myths

If you have not tuned in to The Washington Post’s transformation into a fair and balanced newspaper, you may be amazed to see its editorial about the recently released film “Fair Game” based on former CIA operative Valerie Plame’s book.

The editorial exposes some of the most enduring myths perpetrated by the left and the mainstream media about Plame, the Bush administration, and the Iraq war.

...refutes the claim by former State Department diplomat Joe Wilson, Plame’s husband, that he “debunked a Bush administration claim that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger.”

In fact, the editorial says, an investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found that Wilson’s reporting “did not affect the intelligence community’s view on the matter, and an official British investigation found that President George W. Bush’s statement in a State of the Union address that Britain believed that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger was well-founded.”

The editorial slams the couple’s story that Plame’s exposure as a CIA operative was the result of a White House conspiracy.

“A lengthy and wasteful investigation by a special prosecutor found no such conspiracy — but it did confirm that the prime source of a newspaper column identifying Ms. Plame was a State Department official, not a White House political operative,” the editorial says.
The editorial notes that the film’s reception illustrates a troubling trend in political debates in Washington, where “established facts are willfully ignored.”

Wilson’s claim that Bush “deliberately twisted the truth about Iraq” was “eagerly embraced by those who insist the former president lied the country into a war,” the editorial says. “Though it was long ago established that Mr. Wilson himself was not telling the truth — not about his mission to Niger and not about his wife — the myth endures.”

Where previously the paper often distorted or suppressed the truth to further a liberal agenda, The Washington Post under Brauchli strives to present a fair and honest report.

In the current media environment, it takes courage to debunk liberal spin fostered by the mainstream media. "

Read more: Washington Post Debunks Valerie Plame Myths



"....“established facts are willfully ignored."
That's not you....is it?

 

[BullKurtz]

Thanks PoliticalChic for taking the time and effort to bring these facts forward.....not that it will make any difference to these leftist turds....they take their myths very seriously and won't tolerate them being challenged and proven wrong. You can expect to be called everything from a liar to a traitor now.

 

[blastoff]

100% agree with BullKurtz. Great job, PC!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dispute it or bounce, troll.

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

No, he didn't lie.
His memory of an event was different from Tim Russert's.

Gee....you're not laughing anymore.

 

[kiwiman127]

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

No, he didn't lie.
His memory of an event was different from Tim Russert's.

Wow!

The effort you put into your posts!

The real liars, as usual, are the Leftists/Democrats who put Plame/Wilson up as heroes, when they were simply the tools used by the Dems.

"Despite having ample opportunities to do so, Joe Wilson never complained about the "sixteen words" in President Bush’s State Of The Union address until almost five months after it was delivered.

And then only after he had met with top Democrat Senators and had signed on with John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

From then on Mr. Wilson promoted a two-fold story to reporters in which he claimed:

1) That he had personally debunked the claims of Iraq’s nuclear deals with Niger with an "unequivocal" report that circulated at the highest levels of the government.

2) That he had personally debunked the so-called Niger forgeries by pointing out to the CIA and State Department that the documents contained errors in names and dates.

We now know thanks to the report on this matter from the bi-partisan US Senate Select Committee On Intelligence that both of these claims were utterly false. (And indeed, the "sixteen words" themselves have turned out to be quite grounded in fact.)

A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.

When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.

With that in mind it is an easy step to suppose that it was Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV himself who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.

March 3, 2003: At the invitation of David Corn, Joe Wilson wrote a piece for the Nation, Republic Or Empire?

In it Wilson blasted the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration for their imperial over-reach. But he once again made no mention of uranium or any other suggestion that Bush misled the country or lied about Iraq’s WMD.


March 8, 2003: CNN’s Renay San Miguel interviewed Joe Wilson about the so-called Niger forgeries, which had just become a hot topic in the news.

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade.

So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about Iraq’s WMD and revise his "findings" from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the US Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence report?

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

May 6, 2003: New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth. “…that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.”

Note that unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson was now claiming to have personally taken an active role in debunking the so-called forgeries. Which is of course untrue, since we now know Wilson never saw the documents.

The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

(The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged.")

June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.

Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

Again, we now know that what Wilson told Pincus, like what he had told Kristof, was completely untrue, since the relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off."
When Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame Sweetness Light

Wow, just wow. Your retort sure took a lot of space but it didn't say anything, just a bunch of the ole' cut & paste and it was one of your worse post ever. It didn't address anything that I have posted in this thread.
Better try again
Soooooo

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

No, he didn't lie.
His memory of an event was different from Tim Russert's.

Wow!

The effort you put into your posts!

The real liars, as usual, are the Leftists/Democrats who put Plame/Wilson up as heroes, when they were simply the tools used by the Dems.

"Despite having ample opportunities to do so, Joe Wilson never complained about the "sixteen words" in President Bush’s State Of The Union address until almost five months after it was delivered.

And then only after he had met with top Democrat Senators and had signed on with John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

From then on Mr. Wilson promoted a two-fold story to reporters in which he claimed:

1) That he had personally debunked the claims of Iraq’s nuclear deals with Niger with an "unequivocal" report that circulated at the highest levels of the government.

2) That he had personally debunked the so-called Niger forgeries by pointing out to the CIA and State Department that the documents contained errors in names and dates.

We now know thanks to the report on this matter from the bi-partisan US Senate Select Committee On Intelligence that both of these claims were utterly false. (And indeed, the "sixteen words" themselves have turned out to be quite grounded in fact.)

A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.

When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.

With that in mind it is an easy step to suppose that it was Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV himself who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.

March 3, 2003: At the invitation of David Corn, Joe Wilson wrote a piece for the Nation, Republic Or Empire?

In it Wilson blasted the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration for their imperial over-reach. But he once again made no mention of uranium or any other suggestion that Bush misled the country or lied about Iraq’s WMD.


March 8, 2003: CNN’s Renay San Miguel interviewed Joe Wilson about the so-called Niger forgeries, which had just become a hot topic in the news.

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade.

So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about Iraq’s WMD and revise his "findings" from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the US Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence report?

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

May 6, 2003: New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth. “…that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.”

Note that unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson was now claiming to have personally taken an active role in debunking the so-called forgeries. Which is of course untrue, since we now know Wilson never saw the documents.

The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

(The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged.")

June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.

Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

Again, we now know that what Wilson told Pincus, like what he had told Kristof, was completely untrue, since the relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off."
When Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame Sweetness Light

Wow, just wow. Your retort sure took a lot of space but it didn't say anything, just a bunch of the ole' cut & paste and it was one of your worse post ever. It didn't address anything that I have posted in this thread.
Better try again
Soooooo

"...bunch of the ole' cut & paste ..."

Did I understand you to use ' cut & paste' as though it were a pejorative?

I wonder if you could explain that?

 

[JimH52]

The court found Scooter guilty of outing an undercover CIA agent. The links have been posted several times. Your sources are Right Wing Propaganda.

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

No, he didn't lie.
His memory of an event was different from Tim Russert's.

Wow!

The effort you put into your posts!

The real liars, as usual, are the Leftists/Democrats who put Plame/Wilson up as heroes, when they were simply the tools used by the Dems.

"Despite having ample opportunities to do so, Joe Wilson never complained about the "sixteen words" in President Bush’s State Of The Union address until almost five months after it was delivered.

And then only after he had met with top Democrat Senators and had signed on with John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

From then on Mr. Wilson promoted a two-fold story to reporters in which he claimed:

1) That he had personally debunked the claims of Iraq’s nuclear deals with Niger with an "unequivocal" report that circulated at the highest levels of the government.

2) That he had personally debunked the so-called Niger forgeries by pointing out to the CIA and State Department that the documents contained errors in names and dates.

We now know thanks to the report on this matter from the bi-partisan US Senate Select Committee On Intelligence that both of these claims were utterly false. (And indeed, the "sixteen words" themselves have turned out to be quite grounded in fact.)

A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.

When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.

With that in mind it is an easy step to suppose that it was Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV himself who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.

March 3, 2003: At the invitation of David Corn, Joe Wilson wrote a piece for the Nation, Republic Or Empire?

In it Wilson blasted the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration for their imperial over-reach. But he once again made no mention of uranium or any other suggestion that Bush misled the country or lied about Iraq’s WMD.


March 8, 2003: CNN’s Renay San Miguel interviewed Joe Wilson about the so-called Niger forgeries, which had just become a hot topic in the news.

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade.

So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about Iraq’s WMD and revise his "findings" from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the US Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence report?

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

May 6, 2003: New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth. “…that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.”

Note that unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson was now claiming to have personally taken an active role in debunking the so-called forgeries. Which is of course untrue, since we now know Wilson never saw the documents.

The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

(The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged.")

June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.

Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

Again, we now know that what Wilson told Pincus, like what he had told Kristof, was completely untrue, since the relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off."
When Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame Sweetness Light

You realize only the RW loons read your ramblings, right?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wrong!

Agree, what they found him guilty of was 4 counts of obstruction of Justice and/or perjury....

He lied under oath to purposefully deceive and lead the special prosecutor away from the truth in the investigation.

No, he didn't lie.
His memory of an event was different from Tim Russert's.

Wow!

The effort you put into your posts!

The real liars, as usual, are the Leftists/Democrats who put Plame/Wilson up as heroes, when they were simply the tools used by the Dems.

"Despite having ample opportunities to do so, Joe Wilson never complained about the "sixteen words" in President Bush’s State Of The Union address until almost five months after it was delivered.

And then only after he had met with top Democrat Senators and had signed on with John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

From then on Mr. Wilson promoted a two-fold story to reporters in which he claimed:

1) That he had personally debunked the claims of Iraq’s nuclear deals with Niger with an "unequivocal" report that circulated at the highest levels of the government.

2) That he had personally debunked the so-called Niger forgeries by pointing out to the CIA and State Department that the documents contained errors in names and dates.

We now know thanks to the report on this matter from the bi-partisan US Senate Select Committee On Intelligence that both of these claims were utterly false. (And indeed, the "sixteen words" themselves have turned out to be quite grounded in fact.)

A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.

When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.

With that in mind it is an easy step to suppose that it was Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV himself who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.

March 3, 2003: At the invitation of David Corn, Joe Wilson wrote a piece for the Nation, Republic Or Empire?

In it Wilson blasted the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration for their imperial over-reach. But he once again made no mention of uranium or any other suggestion that Bush misled the country or lied about Iraq’s WMD.


March 8, 2003: CNN’s Renay San Miguel interviewed Joe Wilson about the so-called Niger forgeries, which had just become a hot topic in the news.

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade.

So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about Iraq’s WMD and revise his "findings" from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the US Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence report?

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

May 6, 2003: New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth. “…that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.”

Note that unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson was now claiming to have personally taken an active role in debunking the so-called forgeries. Which is of course untrue, since we now know Wilson never saw the documents.

The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

(The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged.")

June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.

Among the envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

Again, we now know that what Wilson told Pincus, like what he had told Kristof, was completely untrue, since the relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off."
When Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame Sweetness Light

You realize only the RW loons read your ramblings, right?

You mean only informed individuals?
Leftists simply follow orders.

 

[Camp]

That post was not addressed to you Mr. Fake USMC.

"fake"? C'mon shit bag...tell me all about it.

You use USMC in your screen name but were never a Marine. That makes you a fake Marine. What else is there to tell about?