digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

VIDEO: Top Bush Official Reveals White House Never Investigated Plame Leak

thinkprogress.org — Dr. James Knodell, director of the Office of Security at the White House, revealed today that to his knowledge the White House has never ordered a probe, report, or sanctions as a result of the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mightydavefish, on 10/12/2007, -16/+72They didn't need to investigate it, they initiated it.
    Bush knew who did it, so no point in investigating, right?
    • geegel, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Almost right. Which leaves one question: Did they initiate the investigation or investigate the initiation o_O
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -15/+25This is standard operating procedure for this WH. Why does the media keep treating them like they don't mean to be criminals?

      They mean to be criminals and get away with as much as they can get away with. If these were children, would we keep saying, "Now Georgie, I'm sure you're right that it must have been someone else put that M80 up the cat's butt..." ?


    • Groovemaster, on 10/12/2007, -17/+32"Why does the media keep treating them like they don't mean to be criminals? "

      Because they control the (mainstream) media.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 10/12/2007, -13/+17seeing these articles just greatly increases how much i despise the current administration. I want to become a high school history book author, just so I can make sure that the truth about these thugs is known forever.
    • Bamont, on 10/12/2007, -17/+16"seeing these articles just greatly increases how much i despise the current administration. I want to become a high school history book author, just so I can make sure that the truth about these thugs is known forever."

      The truth is subjective. Quite frankily, there's so much crap about this administration that's been proven wrong and then rerun on page 25 of the New York Times that I don't even bother following it anymore. They're the first administration in history to succumb to the whim of the internet, I chalk that up to a lot of their issues.

      Bottom line is that a large portion of these posts are manipulated in such a manner that at times, the headlines don't have anything to do with the article itself. People are all about promoting their own agendas, and sometimes, I wish this ***** would get off of Digg. This place wasn't established for that, and I despise it's very existence on this website.
    • cowjuice13, on 10/12/2007, -22/+12Why would you investigate something that was never illegal to begin with? All they are doing is trying to find something that they can blame on this administration. He hadn't even done anything wrong until after the investigation began, sounds eerily similar to entrapment to me. If there is no crime then create one.
      http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/11/221829.shtml
    • rebotfc, on 10/12/2007, -12/+161) Yeah but Bill Clinton ...
      2) ?????
      3) Profit
    • MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11But they have no problem investigating millions of americans who haven't done anything illegal. And if it wasn't illegal why would they have hid what was going on? If your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about right?
    • blackolive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Funny debate on the same topic: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/16/waxman-v-toensing/

      The republican gets caught lying & keeps on lying.
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10@cowjuice13

      I'm going to guess you don't actually know what entrapment means, so I'll just let that slide.

      If you're curious about whether or not a crime was committed? Yes. A crime was committed. You can't just intentionally out undercover CIA agents.

      Ooh, here's a good reference for you. Maybe you saw Mission Impossible. You remember the NOC list? Well, Valerie Plame would have been on it. She had NOC status.
    • klpowell, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Did you miss the part where it was determined she was not a covert agent and thus her identity could not be leaked? She was a covert agent, but had returned from the field. You are not a covert agent if you are working at langley. Or did you miss the part where Armitage and that he has admitted that but he was not the focal point of the witch hunt? And @david76 your not a NOC if you work at langley it would defeat the purpose of being a NOC if you were working at the CIA's headquarters. But, i forgot looking at facts doesnt tmatter on digg
    • phatt-matt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12Wrong. They didn't investigate because Fitzgerald was assigned the task of investigating the matter. Also, Fitzgerald knew early in his investigation that the leaker was not from the Whitehouse. The leaker was Armitage in the Defense Department. Get your facts straight.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+9Fitzgerald was the investigator.
      Why would they investigate though? When you get past the anti-Bush propaganda, you realize that Joe Wilson leaked his own wifes name.
      Case closed, the guy is an idiot and an opportunist.

      http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame

    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8@stonewaljacksn

      Thank the heavens to aren't a history teacher, do your homework for like 2 minutes on google and you'll realize that this article is nothing but anti-Bush propaganda.
      Look, this admin has done some ***** things, but this has nothing to do with them.
      So, yea, I'm glad your not teaching anyone history.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10"They didn't need to investigate it, they initiated it.
      Bush knew who did it, so no point in investigating, right?
      "

      Wrong. The initial leak came from Richard Armitage, who was against the war. There was no vendetta against Wilson.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2xGORDOx:

      >Why would they investigate though? When you get past the anti-Bush propaganda, you realize that Joe Wilson leaked his own wifes name.

      He said that she (correctly) worked for the CIA which marginal fake news sites like Little Green Footballs and Fox news attempt to portray as disclosing her covert status.
    • CJWright, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Better to digg this link: http://digg.com/politics/Putting_big_media_to_shame
      and
      http://digg.com/world_news/Left_vs_Right_East_vs_West_Spartan_vs_Theban#c5737829
      and
      http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/When_And_Why_Joseph_C_Wilson_IV_Outed_Valerie_Plame
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ Geekee

      Richard Armitage is part of PNAC so unless you're saying PNAC is against the war too unless this is opposite day you're wrong. Additionally, the white house said they had to rebuff Wilson and they did so by claiming his wife sent him which doesnt matter if she did or not. Is that a vendetta? I dont know. But did the white house put out the information? Yes. Rove said so himself

      Lets remember that ENTIRE NETWORKS of our CIA agents were destroyed just so the White House can look good. Whether its "illegal" is secondary, we know it was wrong and it hurt our agents in the field. I guess that doesnt matter either, all that matters is that they walked the legal and illegal lines and lie about it on top of it all. Well...It depends where your definition of "lies" lie.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4xGORDOx:, I read through that entire webpage you pointed to and I saw not a single case of Wilson mentioning his wife's occupation until after the Novak column. The entire thing is a bunch of dates with rampant speculation that the author _thinks_ Wilson outed his wife to Democrats -- why? we don't know. A bunch of *****, in other words. Throw out a bunch of facts and insert a few non-facts in the middle to make them seem more credible. Nonsense.

  • DeflatorMouse, on 10/12/2007, -43/+14There's no need to investigate imaginary events.
    • anchorman, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30@DeflatorMouse

      Since the White House has literally hundreds of people that work there... it would be impossible to know that something was 'imaginary' without an investigation.

      Bush himself said: "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,..."

      Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/
    • FoxifiedNutjob, on 10/12/2007, -12/+26Who re-elected these Terrorists?!! Complete retards you Bush psychos are!!

      Bush is a border-line retard corporate puppet. Never forget who supported this failure, don't let them distance themselves from him. Whining about Libs and Dems and Clinton and Kerry and gay sex, while offering nothing of substance - and most notably - no defense for the lying little sack of ***** from Texas they shackled us with!

      America's enemy is the idiot who IGNORES that Bush lied to us about Iraq, IGNORES that Bush defends treason, IGNORES that Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11, IGNORES that Bush had already blundered our war effort in Iraq, IGNORES that Bush still tries to link Iraq and 911, IGNORES that Bush was going to run amok with our Constitution and still voted to re-elect this miserable failure.

      The enemy from within has perpetuated this death and devastation. Don't forget it.

      It is because of a bush voter that the country is in the atrocious position it is in today.
    • WMD404, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@foxifiednutjob: If I could digg your comment more than once I would. Hear, hear!
  • PDAIsAOk, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Reminds me of The Departed, with the dirty rat working for the cops who has to find himself, now I wonder who is going to take the fall for this instead...oh yea Scooter Libby already did, case closed
    • hoserjoe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Is it true that she was really a secretary temp? How could she be a covert spy if she was actually just an office flunky? Was she doing the "under the desk" thing with Clinton?
  • mwsherman, on 10/12/2007, -15/+19Sort of off topic, but Valerie Plame is a total hottie. That testimonial was the best thing on C-Span in years.

    • InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -13/+16Hot, smart, and hates the Bush admin with a passion. She rocks.
    • Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7... and she can probably kill with her pinkie finger.
  • shootdashit, on 10/12/2007, -14/+38how many lies is this now that Bush has been publicly caught telling?
  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -20/+8Covert my ass, what case was she handling?
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19Apparently she was managing the proliferation analysis of Iran, funny irony, huh? By outing her the White House also blew the cover of the entire front company that the CIA had set up.
    • hipnerd, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11"A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.
      ...
      The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

      Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret."

      Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html

      The CIA thought she was classified. I think they would be in a position to know. The CIA is also the agency that asked the Justice Department to investigate the leak -- not Democrats on a witch hunt: the CIA. Plame was working as a specialist in WMDs under a non-official cover at the CIA front company Brewster-Jennings. Revealing her name jeopardized the lives of every single informant she had developed in her tenure at the CIA. Furthermore other agents used Brewster Jennings as a front company. All of their contacts and informants were also compromised. Some of them may have been put to death.

      I'm sorry you can't take your partisan blinders off long enough to recognize that a serious crime took place here.
    • hoserjoe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5"though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert,"
      She wasn't covert - she was just an office flunky at Langley.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6hoser:

      >"though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert,"
      She wasn't covert - she was just an office flunky at Langley.

      So why did the CIA request the investigation then?
    • fungible, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"So why did the CIA request the investigation then?"

      "But she was an office flunky at Langley!"

      See, this is the Republican MO. Just say something enough times and that makes it true.
  • chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -19/+14a) The federal prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald) determined that no crime was committed
    b) Plame worked at CIA headquarters for 5 YEARS - and notice that she refused to answer whether or not, by law, she was considered covert. In fact, the writer of that law said that Plame would not be considered covert.
    • bradtacs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+20She seeems pretty clear in this video here in saying she was in fact a covert agent at the time of the leak.

      http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/16/putting-the-myth-to-rest-plame-was-covert/
    • johnhummel, on 10/12/2007, -10/+21a) well, other than perjury and obstruction of justice

      b) Did you not see the testimony? How many people need to say "She was covert"? I watched the procedings, and she was asked 3 times "As of this date, within the last 5 years, were you covert?" Her response each time: Yes, I was covert. I was undercover. My status was classified. How many more times did she have to say it? Did she need a big button on her shirt saying "Hey, you stupid ***** - I'm a ***** covert agent?"
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -10/+22chris:

      >a) The federal prosecutor (Patrick Fitzgerald) determined that no crime was committed

      Ha ha. No, actually he brought five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and false statements and has gone on record stating that this obstruction has prevented him from fulfilling his investigation.

      >b) Plame worked at CIA headquarters for 5 YEARS - and notice that she refused to answer whether or not, by law, she was considered covert.

      You must be watching Fox. Here's the actual quote: "I am here to say I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency," If you stop watching Fox and reading Republican tripe, you won't get body slammed like this on public forums. Additionally the director of the CIA stated that she was covert. You should get angry at Fox and the blogs for misinforming you like this allow me to make you look soooooo stupid.

    • bradtacs, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Not only that but she also clearly said she had been working specifically in non proliferation of WMD and had been out in the field within 5 years.
    • smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7of course there was no crime committed, if the president tells someone they can release the information its not a crime.
      That said, Scooter wasn't convicted of doing nothing, it was for lying... covering up the fact that this information was allowed to be released which would obviously be an attempt to get back at a critic of the pre-war "intelligence".
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -7/+13smcavoy:

      >of course there was no crime committed, if the president tells someone they can release the information its not a crime.

      Not quite -- he may have the ability to declassify information, but there's a procedure for that. He didn't declassify it, at least in no sense of the term that anyone would understand. And before we declare that there wasn't any crime, let's find out if it falls under the section marked "treason."
    • consonance, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10@smcavoy
      Actually, I believe there's a clause in the FISA Act that makes it illegal to reveal the name of a covert CIA agent. So if the president told someone to leak her name, that might count as a conspiracy to commit a crime. (I'm not sure about that last part.)
    • Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@bigdavediode >"Here's the actual quote: "I am here to say I was a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency"

      Notice what she said. She used the "meaning of is" defense. No one denies that she was a covert officer *in 1985* or at some time in the past. Her statement is entirely true under her oath because she was (at some time in the past) a covert officer. What it does not address is whether or not she was a covert officer *at the time Novack published his column.*
    • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2@habermus

      Your point was refuted in Ms. Wilson's testimony.

      http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/

      FTA--Cummings also asked Wilson to respond to the specific claim, made by Victoria Toensing and others, that Plame had lost her covert status because she 'had not been stationed abroad within five years.' Cummings asked, 'During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?' She answered,'Yes I did, congressman.'
    • hoserjoe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@johnhummell:
      "Did she need a big button on her shirt saying 'Hey, you stupid ***** - I'm a ***** covert agent?'"

      I guess she did, because she sure was deluded about her status. She thought she was covert, but everybody else says she wasn't. Sounds like she's got mental problems, too
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4habemus:

      >Notice what she said. She used the "meaning of is" defense. No one denies that she was a covert officer *in 1985* or at some time in the past. Her statement is entirely true under her oath because she was (at some time in the past) a covert officer. What it does not address is whether or not she was a covert officer *at the time Novack published his column.*

      Fantasy. Pure fantasy. Try a different lie, or try and pass that off to someone who doesn't read the testimony transcripts. Maybe you should start some kind of fake conservative fake blog. Here's what she actually said: "In the run-up to the war with Iraq I worked in the counter proliferation division of the CIA -- still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified."

      Then she was asked if it was within the previous five years, and she said "yes." Lie to yourself if you want to, but don't try to lie to everyone else. And don't repeat lies, especially to protect those who risked this and could have gotten people at Brewster-Jennings killed in Iran.

      hoser:

      >I guess she did, because she sure was deluded about her status. She thought she was covert, but everybody else says she wasn't.

      Except, of course, for the director of the CIA.
  • nypix, on 10/12/2007, -10/+15Libby's the fallguy, and will receive a presidential pardon when Bush is leaving.

    Nothing like having a corrupt admin right under everyones nose and watching it happen and having nothing done about it.

    It should sicken everyone.
  • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -12/+29 There is a saying that goes something like "You get the government you deserve.". This wouldn't be happening if Americans would have had the strength of character that they claim to have. This wouldn't be happening if instead of trying to mock and divide your friends, you listened to them. You guys wouldn't be a few steps away from complete open dictatorship, if you only acted like men and took a stand when it became obvious that they lied about the reasons for the Iraqi war.

    Let me say this and be very clear - If Americans had 1/2 of the character their forefathers had none of this would have happened. Heck, even the war time Italians had the good sense to hang Musilini on a meat hook, Bush will simply walk away. The french had eneough charactor to behead M.A, Cheney, Rice, etc will walk along with Bush...

    Never again preach about American bravery, or strength. What you may once had, has been bought by shiney trincets. Just make sure you tell your children that they live in a less free country because you were too busy watching American idol to give a rats ass about your country.

    Sorry if that sounds anti-American, but how much more does it take before you finally stand up for yourselfs against these criminals assulting your way?

    • jonpotz, on 10/12/2007, -11/+10I'm American, and I agree with your statements. Our government betrayed us and people are too stupid or care too little to make a change or do something about it.

      We have uneducated hicks that have this blind patriotism and think Bush is a good person and a stand up guy. No matter what he does, they will stand behind them. It is sickening. Most of these people are just racist bigots who just want to see Arabs, or terrorists in their eyes, die.

      America is a lost cause and I can't wait to get out of here.

      I can safely say, anyone who still supports Bush is a racist uneducated idiot.

      I'm just glad I run an internet business and don't have to be based out of USA to make money.

      Copenhagen, here I come!
    • InfamousAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -13/+13@waiting,

      I hear what you're saying, but you're unfairly categorizing roughly half of the U.S. population. There certainly is a very large segment of the U.S. population who are Bush supporters or sympathizers (and consequently, deniers of his and his administration's crimes), but there are many of us who despise the damage he's doing to our country, our freedoms, and our way of life. I personally think the lot of them are guilty of treason but because I *support* the American way of life and governmental principles, I choose to take action vocally, through protest, and by voting.

      Would you have me incite a revolution to change things? I'm not prepared to take that step, because I do believe in our system despite how ***** up it's become.

      Like the Reagan years, the Bush years have been murder for many Americans. I am confident that in time, these men who are so corrupt and, in my opinion, evil, will eventually be exposed as the criminals they are and the country will right its course.

      If it doesn't, the great experiment we've been living for over 200 years will be destroyed and the entire world will suffer for it.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9InfamousAthiest,

      I have to blame all Americans for this - you know why? Because you all got to vote - which is more than many piss ant countries do and they don't allow thier governments what all of America has allowed this one to get away with...

      I mean no disrespect to any individual American, I count many of you some my closest friends and know how much it hurts many of them to see their country get taken over the way it has. That said though - you as Americans have had more freedom to change and alter your government and instead of using that power you sat back watching American Idol, or arguing about things, wishing for things - all the while killings, senseless wars and lies have ruined how many innocent people's lives? Who is to blame for those deaths? Who is going to explain to the women who has lost her children because you weren't willing to stand up for your rights? Are you going to take care of the endless orphans because Americans in general couldn't get up the collective balls to stand up to your government - despite being explicitly warned about this happeneing by your founding fathers?

      I mean no confrontation on these things, but make no mistake blood is on your hands just as it is on the hands of every American for allowing this to go on. Americans, and Americans alone could have stopped this and they didn't. That is where the blame begins, and ends.

      I know there is a large majority of people in America that didn't like what they were seeing, but they still did nothing about it and that makes them, at best, cowards and unworthy of the image of America.

      The good news it can be changed - but America has to be willing to stand up for it and sadly it doesn't appear they are.

    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -8/+7@Waiting2awake: You're assuming that American voters are the reason Bush is in office. It's hard to blame the voters knowing what happened in the 2000 and 2004 electioneering.
    • minox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6@entropy

      I'll have to quote George Will on this one.
      "In 2000 Americans were reminded that electoral votes select presidents. In 2004 Democrats were reminded that Bruce Springsteen does not."
  • consonance, on 10/12/2007, -11/+14This keeps getting stranger and stranger. I've GOT to know how they plan on blaming this on Clinton.
  • VhaidraU, on 10/12/2007, -11/+13Key words, "to his knowledge". While I believe the administration is corrupt, thinkprogress.com is quite often wrong and one of the masters of spin.
    • est1984, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4it's called covering your ass, you can't be held accountable for what you "don't know." lets jump through some more hoops, shall we?
  • Babykitkat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Bush Lies

    http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm
    http://www.bushlies.net/
    http://tvnewslies.org/html/bush_lies.html
    http://www.bushwatch.com/
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070326/kenning
  • GLJones, on 10/12/2007, -22/+13I just have to laugh at the idiots posting here. Plame was NOT a covert operative, no matter what she said at the hearing. This was determined by the prosecutor and no charges were filed because she was NOT a covert agent...not because of political pressure from the WH.

    Yet another made-up scandel to try and put the WH in a bad light. I don't agree with everything this president has done but this making up crap and hammering it on the news is hurting this country. The latest is this firing of the attorneys. The president can hire and fire them at his discression. That's it! The reasons don't matter. It's his call. Time for the idiots caling for hearings and crap to actually go and do something for the people they represent and stop spending 100% of their time bashing the current administration.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -13/+15 Seriously, can you walk and chew spitting tobacci at the same time? You are not only a traitor to your country, but an insult to the human species.

    • boilerplate, on 10/12/2007, -9/+12Oh, you mean that Bush was entitled to fire the prosecutors the same way Nixon was entitled to fire Archibald Cox during the Saturday Night Massacre. Right. Excellent point.

      Evidentially, those who get a C in History are condemned to repeat it.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8Very cogent response, waiting2wake. Let me guess: you're one of those leftist tards screaming "Don't question my patriotism!" any time anyone criticizes your ideology, but when presented with FACTS about this case instead of rhetorical conjecture that has been proven unoquivically false, your response is "z0mg u r teh inbred retard traitor i killz u wTF?1??" I'm so sick of you *****-for-brains wanna-be political pundits.
    • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -11/+11The same way Clinton was entitled to fire all 93 federal prosecutors during his administration, particularly the one investigating the Whitewater case?

      Every president has the right to fire and appoint federal prosecutors whenever they wish to for whatever reason they want. That's why it's written that they serve "at the president's discretion," you conspiracy-addled *****.
    • bradtacs, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14For the love of god when will people stop with this Clinton nonsense, how many times does that arguement need to be debunked?

      I swear to god it is like talking to a parrot;

      SWKAWK but Clinton.. SKAWK serve at the *pleasure* of the president.. SKWAWK
    • boilerplate, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3ark7

      I'm not saying that Bush broke the law when this happened. We all know that this was snuck into law late last year, much to the admitted regret of the sponsor of the legislation. Historically, authoritarian governments very seldom break their own laws when they do whatever the hell they want to their populace, they just force through whatever laws they need to suite the situation. That's not the point and if you miss that...well, I would imagine you have a rally at a beer garden to get to. Nice brown shirt by the way.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11@Ark,

      Actually your few brain cells have let you down yet again. I am actually right of centre in political thought - at least fiscally. The term "leftist" simply doesn't apply to me. That said some terms that do are freedom loving, and willing to call a spade a spade. You dolt! See, how easy that is?

      Now, if you wish to be controlled, and have your thoughts given to you like your morning tea - that is your business. However when your idiocy affects others lives, when your mentally lazy attitude hurts others you should be prepared to deal with others that don't have those short comings.

      Bush, and the right wing party of the US has been hijacked. There are no more true conservitives in the US and a lot of that has to do with the political process being dumbed down and distilled to sound bytes fed to those without the attention span to realize it...

      You have done well my fine little trogladite
    • crichton101, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9So you're saying she and the Director of the CIA are liars? And that she lied under oath? If that's true then will the administration push for her to charged with perjury? Cause if they don't then they are validating that she infact WAS a covert agent. If she wasn't covert, then why did Libby feel compelled to lie to the federal grand jury, which was why he is now convicted for perjury? Why would Bush have said anything about wanting to investigate the leak if by your assertion that she wasn't covert, because then there was nothing leaked? Here's a reality check, she was a covert agent, undercover, what ever you want to call it. Her name was leaked for political reasons, and entire networks of spys and informants were revealed to the groups we were spying on, and many other covert agents lives were endangered because in outing her, they also had their cover blown.
    • EntropyMan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6@GLJones, given that Fitzgerald can't talk about why he didn't bring other charges, you have no basis to claim it's because Plame was or wasn't a covert operative. She's now sworn she was under oath. If anyone wants to disprove that, let them charge her with Perjury.

      The fact is, if the first leak of her cover status was unintentional (as it seems to be with Armitage at least), then that would stop those charges from being filed against Libby. If Libby can claim the information was already leaked (by Armitage), then there is no real leak case against Libby, even if the Libby/Cheney/Bush agenda was to intentionally publicize the leaked information.

      It has nothing to do with Plame's covert status. Now do you understand?
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@ GL Jones

      The reason the Fitzgerald didnt bring charges about the Covert status is because Scooter lied and threw "dirt in his eyes". OR dont you remember that at all. Also, if Plame lied I expect the Republicans to proclaim that she committed perjury. They wont because Hayden DIRECTOR OF THE CIA told them she was covert.

      So, Fitzgerald, Plame, Hayden and the CIA are all lying because they hate Bush? How convient
  • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -14/+12You know why? Because the person who revealed her identity to the press, Richard Armitage, doesn't work there anymore.

    This non-scandal scandal is one of the worst examples of a partisan news industry *****-up in a long, long time.
    • ClosedCaption, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3The CIA is partisan? Ashcroft who recused himself is partisan for letting it continue? Fitzgerald is partisan? 2 Grand Juries are partisan?

      Thats alot of ppl to dismiss just to believe the ppl involved in wrongdoing
  • Depthfunction, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Why should there be an investigation? Bush is probably already aware that his administration is corrupt and full of traitors to the US. Why investigate something that you already know to be true?
  • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+82008 can't come soon enough.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4 It won't matter. The dem's are just as bad. Wake up! Your country is being played like a fiddle. Both parties are just two sides of the same mindset. If the Dem's were really the answer, they would be doing something now - they would have done something back then - they didn't. Why? Because they will use and abuse the same laws that got enacted this time - and in 4 years Americans will be sick of them and vote in the republicans and we start this crap all over again.

      Why is it so hard to see? As was said in waking life - Two management teams vying for control of Slavery Inc.

      Always remember "Problem - reaction - solution". STart a problem, watch the people react and demand action and then provide the solution you want...

    • hoserjoe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4"2008 can't come soon enough."
      At last we'll be able to elect a gay brown-skin true ***** *****-for-brains muslim digger for president!
  • mygrat, on 10/12/2007, -10/+10Hmmmm... kind of hard to investigate something that never happened. Why aren't you whiney ass liberals bent out of shape over Sandy Bergers failure to take a polygraph like he promised the American people. He's the one that should be behind bars... he actually committed a crime....

    oh, I forgot... for you hypocritical liberal pussies, it doesn't fit your agenda. It only goes to show you liberal pussies have an agenda and it sure as hell isn't national security...
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6 Boy, you have a real issue. Listen really carefully - HTF can you speak about being "pussies", while you are sitting at home and the soldiers your admin has sent to die - without proper equipment, food, shelter, are being brought home and treated like ***** by the very same admin?

      Buddy, you need to check yourself. While you are sitting there cowaring in fear of those brown skinned people you are giving away your childrens country without so much as a whimper..

      You are a disservice to your race.

    • bbear, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Cry more
    • mygrat, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11you want to know why I have an issue waiting2awake? Because I served my country over there. I flew cover for countless missions as a naval aviator. You guys have a double standard that is not backed by logic. It's all rhetoric. I've been there... I'm intimate with what is happening and I support my countries effort to rid this world of headchoppers, who would in an instant shut down this Digg board and silence your right to dissent.

      You can't possibly fathom the consequences of failure, because it's not easy for liberal asses like yourself to understand the world at large. Your hatred for our president blinds you to the threats of this world caused by radical islam. The president is not the threat... islamic radicals are your threat and you don't even see it.... it's pathetic.
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5mygrat:

      >You can't possibly fathom the consequences of failure

      Yeah, if we fail in Iraq then terrorism will skyrocket, just like it's doing now. Because if we're not there then all the Iraqis will swim across the ocean and attack us.
  • MeanGeno, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6I'm neither a republican nor a democrat, but this bush administration never amazes me. Just went things can't get any more bad than they are, they only get worse. Bush and his dumbasses are a disgrace to the country
    • klpowell, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10If you just watched TV you would think the Bush administration did nothing write but of course that is because the media ignores the good things and instead focuses on wild goose chases such as outing a so called covert agent who was no long covert at the time or firing US attorneys which he is in his constitutional authority to do. Why do we not see reports of the lowest unemployment rate in the last 10 years? why don't we see the thriving economy that has gone ignored? Why don't we see the national deficit being cut atleast in half each quarter? Why is it that being a conservative in this country makes you a hate monger and a racist? Because the liberal controlled media has told you mind mushed tv watchers that its true right?
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6klpowell:

      >If you just watched TV you would think the Bush administration did nothing write but of course that is because the media ignores the good things and instead focuses on wild goose chases such as outing a so called covert agent who was no long covert at the time

      The CIA director tells us differently. Why do you continue to lie?

      >or firing US attorneys which he is in his constitutional authority to do.

      Especially when they're investigating... him. No, that was all settled under Nixon.
    • NeoNeko, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5quote klpowell "If you just watched TV you would think the Bush administration did nothing write but of course that is because the media ignores the good things and instead focuses on wild goose chases such as outing a so called covert agent who was no long covert at the time or firing US attorneys which he is in his constitutional authority to do."

      You forgot at least two other wild goose chases. Iraq and soon to be Iran. And those are the worst ones. Talk about selective intelligence.

      quote klpowell "Why do we not see reports of the lowest unemployment rate in the last 10 years?"

      Because while it may be lower a good paying manufacturing job with benefits is not the same as minimum wage flipping burgers for no benefits. Maybe employment is up. But average take home pay and job quality is way down. Thank you bush administration! Under the Bush administration children can dream of a bright future where they too can sell bags of oranges under an over pass with their new illegal immigrant friends.

      quote klpowell "why don't we see the thriving economy that has gone ignored?"

      Because that is a perception that most outside of the GOP can't share for obvious reasons again.

      quote klpowell "Why don't we see the national deficit being cut atleast in half each quarter?"

      Because it was Bush's fault it got ramped as insanely high as it did. So at this point he is still attoning for some of his many mistakes. No need to clap hands for him yet.

      quote klpowell "Why is it that being a conservative in this country makes you a hate monger and a racist? Because the liberal controlled media has told you mind mushed tv watchers that its true right?"

      Nope it has more to do with the fact that many important and visible leaders of the GOP spout a constant stream of hate speak about gays and radical islam but never take time to consider radical christianity. That is because they are the radical christians. Not mainstream in any way.
  • derekknight, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3OJ never found the real killers.
  • dvdcpu, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3This is exactly why we need a video section.
  • Habemus, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6This is the Goddamned stupidest post I've ever read at Digg and I've been to one world fair, a picnic, and a rodeo so I've gotten around. What the ***** do you think the Fitzgerald investigation was doing -- making doughnuts? *He* was doing the investigation, ***** at the behest of the White House through the Department of Justice.
  • JesusKills4U, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3The White House were looking for the CIA leak as hard as O.J. Simpson was looking for Nicole Brown's killers. Less than a handful of White House people knew her relationship and identity, yet 4 years later, they still can't pinpoint the leak?
    • rhinohelix, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5They already know who leaked her name. They knew before Fitzgerald even began his investigation. Hint: it wasn't anyone at the White House. Richard Armitage. More poo flung at the wall by the Left just hoping to see what sticks.
    • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3If you watch the hearing according to Knodell's testimony --Everyone who new about the leak had a responsibility to report it according to white house regulations. When Knodell knew about it, it was his responsibility to initiate an internal investigation regardless of who reported to him--yet he did not. Just because Fitzgerald was investigating, he was not relieved of that responsibility.
  • chase001, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Does anyone expect treasonous criminals to properly investgate themselves or their rubber stamp 109th Congress for that matter?
  • willyd73, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Was Bush responsible for every ridiculous government program that has been created in the last fifty years? Is Bush responsible for the cost of welfare and our ridiculously bloated tax code? Was Bush responsible for taking our currency off the gold standard? Is it Bush's fault that 100 Senators and 435 Representatives get elected each and every time by promising more and more money to the people or the corporations that back them? I am sick of hearing about the deficit...it is a BS number. As a percentage of GNP we had a much higher deficit several other times in our history. It is just another meaningless political talking point just like this Valerie Plame "scandal". Her identity was compromised on at least two prior occasions. Once was when her classified dossier was inadvertently left unattended in the Cuban embassy. If the Russians and the Cubans already knew she was CIA, who gives a ***** what anyone said to Novak? Also, where was all this outrage when the New York Times was publishing the id numbers of suspected CIA planes and supposed CIA front companies? I guess that was just good journalism, but this is criminal. If you guys are so worried about security breaches, why don't you ask Sandy Berger why he was removing top secret documents from the State department? When is he going in front of Kennedy and company?
    • azAZ09, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1@ willyd73
      I'm glad you brought up responsibility. Once, my dog broke free of two levels of restraint (a chain and a fence) and tore up a neighbor's yard. It was not my fault, I had taken every reasonable precaution against it, but it was my responsibility to make it right by my neighbor. You see, fault and responsibility are separate things. Most of us learn this as children.

      These problems you mentioned may not be his fault, but Bush took responsibility for those things when accepted his role as President of the United States. The presidency is a huge responsibility. If he's going to be a leader he should lead. Part of accepting a role of leadership is accepting the responsibility and doing what he can to make them better. He hasn't. He had gained majority control in all three branches of government, and did nothing to change those problems you mentioned. Bush needs to choose to lead instead of mislead. Cost of welfare? minuscule compared to the cost of the war, the cost of U.S. standing in world, and the cost of government's integrity.

      Saying Plame's Identity was compromised prior to the leak is a talking point that's parroted around digg. Even if it were proven, contrary to the testimony of Hayden and Plame, every member of the staff who knew anything at all leak had a responsibility to report it to Knodell, and when Knodell found out about it--his responsibility was to initiate an internal investigation yet didn't. Either he wasn't doing his job out of malice--because he decided not to or went along with someone telling him not to, or he wasn't doing his job because he was incompetent.

      Either way he should be sharing a steam vent with Brownie.They could hold up cardboard signs that say "will shield you from accountability for food." (Save a spot on the sidewalk for Gonzalez.)





    • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1@azAZ09: You've got to be kidding me. Your argument has no legal standing. The comparison to your dog is just silly.
  • Shivv, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Outside of any partisan bickering, the fact is that four people (that we know of) admitted to leaking Plame's name. Richard Armitage of the State Department, Karl Rove of the White House, Ari Fleischer (WH Press Secretary) and Scooter Libby of the Office of the Vice President. Libby, as we know, was convicted of 4 counts of obstruction, perjury, and lying to investigators. Fleischer testified in Libby's case for the prosecution under an immunity agreement.

    That leaves Rove and Armitage. Fitzgerald actually has Armitage on tape telling Bob Woodward about Plame. Rove admitted to it in his GJ testimony. Thus, it is logical to say that the leak of Plame's name was not illegal. If it were, both Rove and Armitage would have had charges filed against them, and probably would have both been convicted.

    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Shivv:

      >Thus, it is logical to say that the leak of Plame's name was not illegal. If it were, both Rove and Armitage would have had charges filed against them, and probably would have both been convicted.

      False. It is impossible for Fitzgerald to prove given the cavalcade of leaks coming from the administration about this one case, a case against any particular person for responsibility for this. That doesn't mean there was no crime. In fact, your list alone (about a single case!) showed that there was an organized effort to get her name to the media. Only a few people had access to the NOC list.
    • Glynth, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1IT WAS NOT A CRIME. This is undisputed fact. It's only disputed by people with no clue as to legal matters. The prosecutor for "Scooter" Libby could not convict him for anything but perjury and obstructing justice because he didn't commit a crime by "leaking" the name of a NON-CONVERT agent. This is fact and History will document it as such. There's no room for argument (unless you bring in some undiscovered detail but I highly doubt you've got something that hasn't been blown to smithereens a thousand times already by the finest legal minds in the country!).
  • CJWright, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Yeah and like I said above, better to digg these links - AND READ THEM: http://digg.com/politics/Putting_big_media_to_shame
    and
    http://digg.com/world_news/Left_vs_Right_East_vs_West_Spartan_vs_Theban#c5737829
    and
    http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/When_And_Why_Joseph_C_Wilson_IV_Outed_Valerie_Plame
  • SLuM, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Everyone know who she was as many have said before. She wasn't covert when Robert Gates when he was the CIA director. I don't see any fault in this. The administration has done alot of stupid and bad *****, this isn't one of them.
  • analyze, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Anything posted from ThinkPropapgana is disinformation. Buried as inaccurate liberal indoctrination.
  • piznut, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Why would they investigate it? It was completely intentional on their part.

    That would be like Bin Laden investigating 9-11.
  • Bridgetown, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4She wasn't covert.
    • stevebee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Exactly. Plame was not "covert" no matter what she says. Thus, there could be no crime.
      Period.
      Since there was no crime, there should have been no investigation. No investigation, no thousand questions until some two people gave answers that disagreed.

      The whole thing is a non-story. Majoring in the minors.
      Typical liberal crap...fiddling while Rome burns.
      We're in the midst of a historic clash of civilizations and the libs whine about Valerie Plame.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.