crooksandliars.com— t's official. Valerie Plame was a covert agent at the time her name was leaked by Novak. Will Victoria Toensing issue an apology? And Fred Hiatt should follow her lead.
May 29, 2007View in Crawl 4
Here you go, dirk. Suck on this.<a class="user" href="http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22512034&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2Fnews%2F20070530%2Fa_plame30.art.htm&partnerID=1660">http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22512034&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2Fnews%2F20070530%2Fa_plame30.art.htm&partnerID=1660</a>Ex-CIA officer called on to explain varied accounts Senator: Plame's versions add to 'misinformation' By Richard WillingUSA TODAY WASHINGTON — Former CIA officer Valerie Plame should explain "differences" in her various accounts of how her husband was sent to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate reports Iraq was trying to buy uranium there, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said.Plame's differing versions have furthered "misinformation" about the origins of the case that roiled Washington beginning in July 2003, said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. Plame gave those accounts to the CIA's inspector general, Senate investigators and a House committee in March.A February 2002 CIA memo released last week as part of a study of pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Plame suggested her husband, former State Department official Joseph Wilson, for the Niger trip, Bond said. That "doesn't square" with Plame's March testimony in which she said an unnamed CIA colleague raised her husband's name, Bond told USA TODAY.Here are Plame's three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, according to Bond:•She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson.•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.CIA officials have been unable to verify Plame's March version, Bond said. Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said the "public record on the matter is extensive, and, at this point, I can't add anything to it."Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative was revealed after Wilson accused the Bush administration of ignoring his Africa findings. The disclosure of Plame's status led to a federal investigation that culminated in former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby's conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.Libby is scheduled to be sentenced next Tuesday. In court papers made public last weekend, prosecutors recommended he be sentenced to 30 to 37 months in prison.A spokeswoman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she's not sure whether Rockefeller would support having committee investigators interview Plame. The priority for Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is finishing the committee's investigation into Iraq war intelligence, Wendy Morigi said.Bond said he has written to the CIA for permission to re-interview Plame.Plame has "always been very consistent that she is not the person responsible for sending Joe Wilson" to Africa, said Melanie Sloan, Plame's attorney.Questioning Plame's truthfulness now, she said, is an attempt to draw attention from the "real wrong here — a White House that outed a covert operative and undermined national security."Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon, said later that he had found nothing to support the report that Iraq was trying to buy uranium for a secret nuclear program from Niger.In July 2003, Wilson wrote a column in The New York Times accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence by including the erroneous report in the president's State of the Union address the previous January — two months before the war began.Days later, Plame's CIA employment was revealed by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Plame and Wilson said the implication that she had used her CIA status to arrange her husband's Niger trip was false. The disclosure, they argued, was meant to discredit Wilson and his findings by suggesting that the trip was merely a junket.
@darkciti,you missed understood me. My motive was not to discredit your podst, but to reveal the fact that he doesn't even use his real name. He's another fraud. I was discrediting the Bush Admin.
How do you feel about Bush committing treason by outing a covert CIA agent during a time of war? And why do you suppose he would do so, to a CIA covert operative who was investigating the black market sales of WMD's? Valerie Plame was not the only agent outed.... Bush outed a whole network (Brewster Jennings) of intelligence investigating the black market sales of WMDs, yet Bush claims to go to war due to Saddam having WMD's. Don't you find that rather suspicious?
If she was a covert agent, why didn't Fitzgerald prosecute Armitage (who was the source of the Novak story) for illegally outing her? Instead he prosecutes a guy who he new was not the source of the story (He had already struck a deal with Armitage before Libby was called to testify).Libby's mistake, instead of sticking with his I do not recall answer, he decided that his interview with Russert in which Russert mentioned the Novak story was the 1st time he had heard about Plame when it turned out that he had 1 year earlier from Channey.Anyone care to explain how that question was relevant given that we now know that Arbitage was the source of the Novak story? It did not really matter when Libby 1st heard of Plame, he was not the source of the Novak story and Fitzgerald new it.
Now all you liberals here think, Bush supposedly was trying to cover up ignoring Wilsons SUPPOSED discovery on the trip to Niger that the Niger intelligence was based on documents that he discovered and reported were forged, and the president intentionally ignored that and lied about the intelligence. The Bi-Partisan Senate Intelligence Committie report found the following:The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger. So what did Wilsons report on that trip to Niger actually say, here's the CIA's conclusion. Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said. Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq." According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. Now, the British Intelligence sources on Iraq's Niger trip were from numerous sources, but Mayaki was not one of them, so when Wilson returned and reported to the CIA that Mayaki met with Iraqi officials and got the impression that Iraq wanted to discuss Yellowcake (he let the matter drop do to the UN sanctions), he actually added more credibility to the British Intelligence report.So, it turns out that his assertion that Bush ignored his report that the intel was bad, was a complete and outright fabrication, he never reported that to the CIA and he knew it, he also knew that his trip added more credibility to the British intelligence reports suggestion that Iraq was there seeking Yellowcake.Now Bush knows Wilsons report to the CIA added credibility to the intelligence from the British, and now this guy is out there saying that he reported that there was no credible evidence of Iraq seeking Yellowcake because the intelligence was based off of forged documents (which was actually based on British sources, he might not have known that himself when he went to Niger) and that the 16 words in the Presidents speach were lies.So it turns out that the Bush admin was trying to correct the record, and I find it very sad to sit here reading all of your posts suggesting that Bush, Cheney and all of them should be impeached because they dare mention that this guy was lying his @.?>.. off and worse, he knowingly fabricated a story that he had discovered these forged documents that he did not know existed until after his trip and report, and were discovered by the Italian intelligence agency after Bush's speech.So if anyone needs to issue an appology, Wilson needs to appoligize to the entire country, and we all know that if the situation were reversed and some Republican knowingly made up a story about a Democrat President that if true could rise to the level of an Impeachable offense you guys would be calling, no, screaming for his head!No, you are all acting as if his fabrications and lies are all true.
Dumb people block users so that they feel that they're right. Smart people compose reasonable arguments. Start a blog if you want to talk to yourself and have no intelligent beings criticize your thoughts.
Closed AccountMay 31, 2007
Here you go, dirk. Suck on this.<a class="user" href="http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22512034&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2Fnews%2F20070530%2Fa_plame30.art.htm&partnerID=1660">http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22512034&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2Fnews%2F20070530%2Fa_plame30.art.htm&partnerID=1660</a>Ex-CIA officer called on to explain varied accounts Senator: Plame's versions add to 'misinformation' By Richard WillingUSA TODAY WASHINGTON — Former CIA officer Valerie Plame should explain "differences" in her various accounts of how her husband was sent to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate reports Iraq was trying to buy uranium there, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said.Plame's differing versions have furthered "misinformation" about the origins of the case that roiled Washington beginning in July 2003, said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. Plame gave those accounts to the CIA's inspector general, Senate investigators and a House committee in March.A February 2002 CIA memo released last week as part of a study of pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Plame suggested her husband, former State Department official Joseph Wilson, for the Niger trip, Bond said. That "doesn't square" with Plame's March testimony in which she said an unnamed CIA colleague raised her husband's name, Bond told USA TODAY.Here are Plame's three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, according to Bond:•She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson.•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.CIA officials have been unable to verify Plame's March version, Bond said. Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said the "public record on the matter is extensive, and, at this point, I can't add anything to it."Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative was revealed after Wilson accused the Bush administration of ignoring his Africa findings. The disclosure of Plame's status led to a federal investigation that culminated in former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby's conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.Libby is scheduled to be sentenced next Tuesday. In court papers made public last weekend, prosecutors recommended he be sentenced to 30 to 37 months in prison.A spokeswoman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she's not sure whether Rockefeller would support having committee investigators interview Plame. The priority for Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is finishing the committee's investigation into Iraq war intelligence, Wendy Morigi said.Bond said he has written to the CIA for permission to re-interview Plame.Plame has "always been very consistent that she is not the person responsible for sending Joe Wilson" to Africa, said Melanie Sloan, Plame's attorney.Questioning Plame's truthfulness now, she said, is an attempt to draw attention from the "real wrong here — a White House that outed a covert operative and undermined national security."Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon, said later that he had found nothing to support the report that Iraq was trying to buy uranium for a secret nuclear program from Niger.In July 2003, Wilson wrote a column in The New York Times accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence by including the erroneous report in the president's State of the Union address the previous January — two months before the war began.Days later, Plame's CIA employment was revealed by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Plame and Wilson said the implication that she had used her CIA status to arrange her husband's Niger trip was false. The disclosure, they argued, was meant to discredit Wilson and his findings by suggesting that the trip was merely a junket.
diggeonMay 31, 2007
@CarpeFishem - "Oh, yeah. I really trust Crooks and Liars. /NOT"<a class="user" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/</a>
stepnw1fMay 31, 2007
@darkciti,you missed understood me. My motive was not to discredit your podst, but to reveal the fact that he doesn't even use his real name. He's another fraud. I was discrediting the Bush Admin.
stepnw1fMay 31, 2007
@moin1097,And you jerk off to it while hoping we do kill ourselves. Get help for yourself.
stepnw1fMay 31, 2007
How do you feel about Bush committing treason by outing a covert CIA agent during a time of war? And why do you suppose he would do so, to a CIA covert operative who was investigating the black market sales of WMD's? Valerie Plame was not the only agent outed.... Bush outed a whole network (Brewster Jennings) of intelligence investigating the black market sales of WMDs, yet Bush claims to go to war due to Saddam having WMD's. Don't you find that rather suspicious?
brallsplpJun 1, 2007
If she was a covert agent, why didn't Fitzgerald prosecute Armitage (who was the source of the Novak story) for illegally outing her? Instead he prosecutes a guy who he new was not the source of the story (He had already struck a deal with Armitage before Libby was called to testify).Libby's mistake, instead of sticking with his I do not recall answer, he decided that his interview with Russert in which Russert mentioned the Novak story was the 1st time he had heard about Plame when it turned out that he had 1 year earlier from Channey.Anyone care to explain how that question was relevant given that we now know that Arbitage was the source of the Novak story? It did not really matter when Libby 1st heard of Plame, he was not the source of the Novak story and Fitzgerald new it.
brallsplpJun 1, 2007
Now all you liberals here think, Bush supposedly was trying to cover up ignoring Wilsons SUPPOSED discovery on the trip to Niger that the Niger intelligence was based on documents that he discovered and reported were forged, and the president intentionally ignored that and lied about the intelligence. The Bi-Partisan Senate Intelligence Committie report found the following:The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger. So what did Wilsons report on that trip to Niger actually say, here's the CIA's conclusion. Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said. Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq." According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. Now, the British Intelligence sources on Iraq's Niger trip were from numerous sources, but Mayaki was not one of them, so when Wilson returned and reported to the CIA that Mayaki met with Iraqi officials and got the impression that Iraq wanted to discuss Yellowcake (he let the matter drop do to the UN sanctions), he actually added more credibility to the British Intelligence report.So, it turns out that his assertion that Bush ignored his report that the intel was bad, was a complete and outright fabrication, he never reported that to the CIA and he knew it, he also knew that his trip added more credibility to the British intelligence reports suggestion that Iraq was there seeking Yellowcake.Now Bush knows Wilsons report to the CIA added credibility to the intelligence from the British, and now this guy is out there saying that he reported that there was no credible evidence of Iraq seeking Yellowcake because the intelligence was based off of forged documents (which was actually based on British sources, he might not have known that himself when he went to Niger) and that the 16 words in the Presidents speach were lies.So it turns out that the Bush admin was trying to correct the record, and I find it very sad to sit here reading all of your posts suggesting that Bush, Cheney and all of them should be impeached because they dare mention that this guy was lying his @.?>.. off and worse, he knowingly fabricated a story that he had discovered these forged documents that he did not know existed until after his trip and report, and were discovered by the Italian intelligence agency after Bush's speech.So if anyone needs to issue an appology, Wilson needs to appoligize to the entire country, and we all know that if the situation were reversed and some Republican knowingly made up a story about a Democrat President that if true could rise to the level of an Impeachable offense you guys would be calling, no, screaming for his head!No, you are all acting as if his fabrications and lies are all true.
secondguesserAug 3, 2007
Dumb people block users so that they feel that they're right. Smart people compose reasonable arguments. Start a blog if you want to talk to yourself and have no intelligent beings criticize your thoughts.