Washington Post: WH not responsible for Plame leak.

  1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...0.html?sub=new

    In an 9/1/06 editorial, the Washington Post admits that since the leaker was a WH critic, Richard Armitage, that:

    "It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue."


    "Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife."

    That's what I said all along. When you try to hide behind your gov't position to place your husband in a position where his lies influence the political process, you SHOULD BE EXPOSED. And both Joe Wilson and his wife should have known, or at least, expected, just that result when they tried to play Oz with the election.

    In this case, the just fear of a secret manipulative gov't would lie in allowing such manipulations to remain in secret. I've said this before: if Valarie Plame had been a Republican, using her position to try to influence the election FOR Republicans: this story - and her illicit complicity in it - would have been bigger then Watergate, and rightly so.

    Only a jaded sense of the ends justifying the means would allow the villian of this story to be portrayed as the victim.

    Turns out, I was right all along.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 1, '06
    •  
  2. 52 Comments

  3. by   pickledpepperRN
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Media matters might want to put FOXNews on trial over this, but I, I quoted the Washington Post, surely not a 'right wing' news source.

    Besides, the media matters article is discussing whether Armitage should be 'cleared' of charges on the matter. Fox's article suggested that Armitage was 'cleared' and Scooter Libby wasn't BECAUSE Armitage wasn't a WH team player. Media Matters disputes that rationale for why Armitage wasn't charged.

    That is a different discussion altogether from whether Armitage WAS a 'White House' player, part of a WH smear campaign. It is clear that he was a critic of the WH, especially on the war in Iraq, and not an ally.

    I maintain that, if the political labels were reversed, Libby would have been hailed as the 'hero' that braved reprisals to uncover the source of a secret gov't manipulation to steal the election.

    V. Plame is the G. Gordon Libby of a Watergate-esque enterprise. She needed to be exposed. Maybe when all is said and done, she'll get a talk show out of it.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 1, '06
  5. by   pickledpepperRN
    I've used Fox news in this forum. Are you saying that if the Post prints it it is true?

    Are you claiming that this was true?:
    … The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa….
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html

    So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me.

    From, "What I Told the Grand Jury" , Matthew Cooper Jul. 17, 2005
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...3899-4,00.html

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...3899-1,00.html

    My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room
    by Judith Miller


    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...A90994DD404482

    Editorial - http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssen...l/15417739.htm
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    I've used Fox news in this forum. Are you saying that if the Post prints it it is true?
    Not at all.

    All I was saying is that the Washington Post is a source used confidently by liberals and has a history of this kind of journalism, by which I mean Watergate.

    So, if EVEN the Washington Post admits that blaming the Bush Adminstration for uncovering the mischief of political hacks using a gov't shield to hide their actions is an untrue allegation, then it must have merit to those inclined to believe otherwise.

    See, I'm inclined to believe that uncovering the political misuse of gov't position is a GOOD thing. And most people that disagree with me in this specific case - they generally believe the same thing. This story would have a completely different spin if the party labels had been reversed.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 1, '06
  7. by   Roy Fokker
    Timothy,

    I shudder everytime I hear the nauseating word "bi-partisan".

    Speaking of Valerie Plame:
    Search for 'Jon Stewart Gates of Hell Daily Show July 13, 2006' on youtube.com I won't post the link because it might violate TOS - but I thought it was pretty funny
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    I'm embarrassed that I didn't mention - The original article was not an article. It is an editorial. Opinion.

    The Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his minions prefer destroying those who call them to account for failed policies rather than admitting error and taking corrective measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United States.
    As we move toward a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised that people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you choose to blow the whistle, you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal assault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also are sliming America.
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090206Y.shtml
    Last edit by pickledpepperRN on Sep 2, '06
  9. by   ZASHAGALKA
    "The Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his minions prefer destroying those who call them to account for failed policies rather than admitting error and taking corrective measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United States.
    As we move toward a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised that people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you choose to blow the whistle, you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal assault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also are sliming America."


    Except that the key point at issue is that EVERYTHING Joe Wilson said was a lie. It was a specific kind of lie: for political effect.

    And the credibility to MAKE that charge came from him being sent by the gov't. Mr. Wilson lied again, claiming that it was Vice President Cheney that sent him, and not his wife.

    Did he really expect not to be exposed in his lies? More importantly, are you really comfortable calling the exposure of such lies a 'chararcter assassination'.

    It ain't a smear if its the truth. And isn't that the whole argument: The Bush Administration 'smeared' Joe Wilson and Valarie Plame by telling the truth about them?

    This has nothing to do with 'whistleblowing' and instilling fear in people to not come forward with the truth. Unless, of course, you consider 'Scooter' Libby, who IS being destroyed for telling the truth in this matter.

    Joe Wilson's credibility was 'destroyed' by the 'smear' campaign of the truth. That says it all.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 2, '06
  10. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    "The Plame/Wilson affair stands as a stark reminder that President Bush and his minions prefer destroying those who call them to account for failed policies rather than admitting error and taking corrective measures that will serve the longterm interests of the United States.
    As we move toward a new war with Iran, we should not be surprised that people who know the truth are reluctant to come forward. If you choose to blow the whistle, you are choosing career suicide and a full frontal assault on your character. In smearing the Wilsons, Bush and Cheney also are sliming America."


    Except that the key point at issue is that EVERYTHING Joe Wilson said was a lie. It was a specific kind of lie: for political effect.

    And the credibility to MAKE that charge came from him being sent by the gov't. Mr. Wilson lied again, claiming that it was Vice President Cheney that sent him, and not his wife.

    Did he really expect not to be exposed in his lies? More importantly, are you really comfortable calling the exposure of such lies a 'chararcter assassination'.

    It ain't a smear if its the truth. And isn't that the whole argument: The Bush Administration 'smeared' Joe Wilson and Valarie Plame by telling the truth about them?

    This has nothing to do with 'whistleblowing' and instilling fear in people to not come forward with the truth. Unless, of course, you consider 'Scooter' Libby, who IS being destroyed for telling the truth in this matter.

    Joe Wilson's credibility was 'destroyed' by the 'smear' campaign of the truth. That says it all.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    WAS THIS TRUE?

    ... The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa....
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030128-19.html
  11. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    WAS THIS TRUE?
    Yes.

    So maintains the White House.

    So maintains the Senate.

    So maintains the CIA.

    So maintains the British Gov't.

    So maintains the 9/11 Commission.

    There is a difference between 'sought' and 'obtained'. SH did indeed 'seek' uranium from Niger.

    Yes, it was true. More importantly, Joe Wilson knew it to be true and purposely lied about it. It was some of the information from Joe Wilson's very trip that encouraged the CIA to conclude that this information WAS true.

    See, Mr. Wilson discovered that high level Iraqi officials had indeed been in negotiations w/ top Niger officials. Mr. Wilson decided it wasn't relevant. The CIA disagreed.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 2, '06
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

    "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."

    The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium.

    Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

    US Senate: The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."


    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 2, '06
  13. by   pickledpepperRN
    Thanks for answering. Now I am really confused.

    So Iraqi officials went to Niger. They did not talk about uranium. T
    It makes me dizzy!

    I guess the term is not lie. Is it mislead?
    So if the definition of lie is so exact how can they say, "EVERYTHING Joe Wilson said was a lie."

    ...Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible....

    ...Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
    Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
    The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade....

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

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92659,00.html

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in564585.shtml

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030722-12.html

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0040715-7.html

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...3607%2C00.html

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030711-7.html
  14. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    I guess the term is not lie. Is it mislead?
    So if the definition of lie is so exact how can they say, "EVERYTHING Joe Wilson said was a lie."
    The definition of a lie isn't so exact: it's the failure to tell the truth.

    Pres. Bush's State of the Union Address' famous 16 words were the truth, as we knew it then, and as we know it now. The faked Italian papers were a temporary diversion, but ultimately, not on point to the real issues. This is especially the case in that the British Gov't didn't even KNOW about those papers when it made its assessment. It not only wasn't a lie, it not only was NOT misleading, whether intentional or not, it was the truth.

    Wilson, on the other hand, purposely distorted the truth in order to make politically charged allegations to bolster the campaign of his political ally. He had knowledge of the meetings in Niger and purposely ignored their importance. He lied about who had sent him. He lied about the fact that 'high level' Administration officials were aware of his allegations and had rebuffed them for political purposes. Indeed, Wilson was a campaign advisor for Kerry when he began to make his claims. His claims were politically motivated lies. He CONSISTENTLY lied.

    What's worse: the media bought it, hook line and sinker. So much so, that the Washington Post admits it in its piece yesterday: "He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."

    It was more then just unfortunate, it was dastardly. So many people owe the Bush Administration an apology over this. And the charges against 'Scooter' Libby should be dropped, immediately. Think it'll happen?

    Ultimately, IF the case goes forward, which is doubtful now, I think Libby will get an indignant Pardon, and RIGHTLY SO.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 2, '06

close