Remember Me?

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]
Page 3 of 28 Skip to Page:
< Older | Newer >
Topic: Better toke a new one, Mr. Soul...
Post #21 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Posted On: Jun. 15 2006, 7:56 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,12:05)
ksdb - I do agree that Rove has not been indicted, therefore is presumed innocent. However, I want whomever leaked Plame's name to be held accountable. Do you want that - a simple yes or no will suffice. Please answer this question.

Actually I want an honest answer as to whether she was truly covert, and if so, why she would put her job at risk by bringing her husband to work.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,12:05)
If he mentioned to a couple of reporters that Wilson's wife got him the job, it was only to clear up the confusion that Wilson created by suggesting he was working for Cheney.

This is complete lie! Wilson never worked for Cheney and he never said that he did - everyone knows that. The right-wing press completely mis-stated this point & you bloody know it.
Nonsense. Read Wilson's own column. His own words made it sound like he was working directly for the vice president. Don't try to blame this on your right-wing bogeyman.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,12:05)
Let's make this more "simplier." If you're a CIA agent whose cover needs to be protected, don't tell your boss that your husband can do a job for the company and then let your husband write an editorial about the job in a major newspaper. Friends, family and neighbors get suspicious when they've never seen where you worked and all of a sudden your husband gets a temporary job helping the CIA with no background in that type of work and no known assocation to the CIA. Wouldn't take too much to figure out there might be a connection with the wife.

This is where I don't agree with you. In fact, I can't even really follow what you're saying here, i.e., it doesn't make any sense to me. If you're suggesting that Wilson shouldn't have written his original article, then I disagree.
That's your perogative. I just know that I wouldn't risk my wife's cover by telling the world I worked for her boss when she had a hand in getting me the job, especially if she truly had a sensitive position. How stupid can two people be??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,12:05)
If you're suggesting that he gave away her identity then you've got to prove it.

He put her at risk by going public.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,12:05)
And you've completely mistated Wilson's credentials to the point of smearing him, so you are completely wrong here.

Nonsense. Your smear accusation is imaginary. Wilson was not a trained CIA operative. Saying so is not a matter of smear.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,12:05)
Even Novak praised Wilson's credentials, as you pointed out long ago when we discussed this before.

He was being nice. Wilson was still not trained for CIA work and he obviously couldn't keep his mouth shut. That latter part doesn't bode particularly well for an "intelligence" job.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,12:05)
People knew that Wilson was a former state dept. worker, so it would not be unusual for him to get a gig with the CIA to go to Niger.

He didn't work for the CIA. The state department is not the CIA and people in Washington can distinguish between the two.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,12:05)
People did not know Plame worked for the CIA so how would they make the connection? Too funny - ksdb.

You like to ignore the obvious. They didn't know where she worked and they wouldn't have been able to confirm who she worked for. It's not like she could invite people to the office to visit. If your wife suddenly got a job for the CIA and wrote a newspaper column about it, people would wonder what you do in your private life when they've never seen you at a regular job site.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #22 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 15 2006, 9:54 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
Actually I want an honest answer as to whether she was truly covert.
And that's the way it always is with you ksdb.  This has all been discussed - why don't you look it up?  Right from Fitzgerald:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well known for her protection or for the benefit of all of us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, they be protected not just for the officer but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003.
Why is it that you don't believe this?  Do you think Fitzgerald is mistaken (or dumb).

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake a form of lightly processed ore by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.
Bullshit.  This is what he said & it is true.  The right-wing press miscontrued this to suggest he said that Cheney sent him.  Both Wilson & the Senate Report clarified that Cheney never asked Wilson to go on this trip.

He put her at risk by going public.
I just don't see that at all.

He didn't work for the CIA. The state department is not the CIA and people in Washington can distinguish between the two.
Sheer speculation & inference on your part.

If your wife suddenly got a job for the CIA and wrote a newspaper column about it, people would wonder what you do in your private life when they've never seen you at a regular job site.
You don't see my point.  I would agree with you if Wilson had not worked for the State Dept.   And is this your rationalization for Novak's blowing her cover?
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #23 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 1:26 AM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,14:54)
Actually I want an honest answer as to whether she was truly covert.

And that's the way it always is with you ksdb. This has all been discussed - why don't you look it up? Right from Fitzgerald:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well known for her protection or for the benefit of all of us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, they be protected not just for the officer but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003.
Why is it that you don't believe this? Do you think Fitzgerald is mistaken (or dumb).
Wake up McFly. Fitzgerald doesn't indicate that she had a covert role. In fact, he went out of his way to avoid it and chose to mention that she was classified.

Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.
Why wasn't Libby charged with revealing the leak of a "classified" officer?? Because there's no law against it?? Fitzgerald is shooting very low in this case because there's not much there.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,14:54)
In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake a form of lightly processed ore by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

Bullshit. This is what he said & it is true. The right-wing press miscontrued this to suggest he said that Cheney sent him. Both Wilson & the Senate Report clarified that Cheney never asked Wilson to go on this trip.
Nonsense. Wilson's own words and ego are written to make it sound like he was working FOR the vice president. Your quote proves it. Thank you. Wake up, read and comprehend what's going on. Give up the rw-press, bogeyman nonsense. No one buys it.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,14:54)
He put her at risk by going public.

I just don't see that at all.
Don't or won't admit??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,14:54)
He didn't work for the CIA. The state department is not the CIA and people in Washington can distinguish between the two.

Sheer speculation & inference on your part.
Prove me wrong.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,14:54)
If your wife suddenly got a job for the CIA and wrote a newspaper column about it, people would wonder what you do in your private life when they've never seen you at a regular job site.

You don't see my point. I would agree with you if Wilson had not worked for the State Dept. And is this your rationalization for Novak's blowing her cover?
Novak called the CIA to confirm that she worked there. They did. Why would they do that if her identity needed protection??
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #24 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 3:05 AM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
Wake up McFly. Fitzgerald doesn't indicate that she had a covert role. In fact, he went out of his way to avoid it and chose to mention that she was classified.
So your position is that it was OK to leak her name if it was only classified? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Plame had what's called "non-official" cover. It's my understanding that it's a felony to out someone with this status, but I could be wrong about it.

Why wasn't Libby charged with revealing the leak of a "classified" officer?? Because there's no law against it??
Are you sure about that?

Fitzgerald is shooting very low in this case because there's not much there.
Nice - now you're smearing Fitzgerald. I have heard nothing but praise about this man.

Seriously - you should contact Fitzgerald & just explain to him why this whole investigation is a waste of time because no law was broken.

Wilson's own words and ego are written to make it sound like he was working FOR the vice president.
Nonsense to you! Any "reasonable" person would not interpret it that way. Only a right-wing idelogue would interpret the way you do. I undersand what Wilson said perfectly and I expect more from you ksdb because I suspect that you are intelligent.

Don't or won't admit??
I'd admit it if I thought it was true but it's not.  Seriously - it's one of the furthest stretches I've ever heard coming from you.  And you need to prove it because you're making the claim, not me.

Prove me wrong.
I don't have to do that. Any person can see you are speculating by the language you use. You need to learn the difference between facts (observations) and inferences (speculation).

Novak called the CIA to confirm that she worked there. They did. Why would they do that if her identity needed protection??
That's a boldfaced LIE and/or DISTORTION!!! This is what Novak said:

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

Novak got most of his information about Plame from 2 senior administration officials. By the time that Novak called the CIA, they knew that Novak knew, so your point is idiotic.

You've maintained all along that this whole matter is Joe Wilson's fault. That tells me a lot about you ksdb and your values.

Please answer my simple questions - are you afraid to do that?
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #25 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 4:27 AM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Wake up McFly. Fitzgerald doesn't indicate that she had a covert role. In fact, he went out of his way to avoid it and chose to mention that she was classified.

So your position is that it was OK to leak her name if it was only classified? A simple yes or no will suffice.
In this case yes, because there was a conflict of interest and an abuse of privilege on the parts of Plame and Wilson.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Plame had what's called "non-official" cover. It's my understanding that it's a felony to out someone with this status, but I could be wrong about it.

If it's known ahead of time. There's no indication that her status was known by those accused of leaking her name.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Why wasn't Libby charged with revealing the leak of a "classified" officer?? Because there's no law against it??

Are you sure about that?
I read Fitzy's indictment charges against Libby. Nothing there about revealing a classified officer.

Count 1: Obstruction of Justice
Count 2: False statement
Count 3: False statement
Count 4: Perjury
Count 5: Perjury

Hmmm, where's the count on revealing classified info?? How can Fitz put up five counts such as these and not go ahead with a charge of leaking??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Fitzgerald is shooting very low in this case because there's not much there.

Nice - now you're smearing Fitzgerald. I have heard nothing but praise about this man.
Give me a break and drop the ignorant smear accusation everytime you don't like to face the truth. Perjury and obstruction of justice are lower than a leaking charge. It's not smear to point this out. This has nothing to do with Fitz's character or reputation.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Seriously - you should contact Fitzgerald & just explain to him why this whole investigation is a waste of time because no law was broken.

Libby's lawyers tried already. He'll have his day in court.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Wilson's own words and ego are written to make it sound like he was working FOR the vice president.

Nonsense to you! Any "reasonable" person would not interpret it that way. Only a right-wing idelogue would interpret the way you do. I undersand what Wilson said perfectly and I expect more from you ksdb because I suspect that you are intelligent.
Speaking of smear, you take every cheap opportunity to question the intelligence of anyone who doesn't lock step with your POV. It's tiresome and needless.

The CIA hired Wilson to do the job, and he had no reason at all to mention the vice president in the column he wrote. It was gratuitous and misleading.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Don't or won't admit??

I'd admit it if I thought it was true but it's not. Seriously - it's one of the furthest stretches I've ever heard coming from you. And you need to prove it because you're making the claim, not me.
Nonsense. If you had a classified or covert position, the last thing you would do is invite your husband to work for that company and then let him write editorials about it in the newspaper. If she dealt with people who had any suspicions about her, and then they saw her husband bragging about working for the CIA, it wouldn't take long to make a connection, and her ass would be grass.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Prove me wrong.

I don't have to do that. Any person can see you are speculating by the language you use. You need to learn the difference between facts (observations) and inferences (speculation).
You think it's only speculation that people in Washington would know the difference between the CIA and the State Department?? Maybe some folks are oblivious, but not the people who pay attention to their community.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Novak called the CIA to confirm that she worked there. They did. Why would they do that if her identity needed protection??

That's a boldfaced LIE and/or DISTORTION!!! This is what Novak said:

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

Novak got most of his information about Plame from 2 senior administration officials. By the time that Novak called the CIA, they knew that Novak knew, so your point is idiotic.
You keep proving me right by posting quotes that back up what I already explained. Novak called the CIA. If the CIA needed to protect her, all they had to do was deny knowing her or deny that she worked there.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
You've maintained all along that this whole matter is Joe Wilson's fault. That tells me a lot about you ksdb and your values.

Yes, it shows that I recognize an attention whore when I see one. Ask Joe how many copies of his book he sold. Most people who are worried about their wife's safety would keep a low profile or go into hiding. Instead Joe and Valerie posed for the cover of Vanity Fair. Joe makes the rounds on the political and news shows every chance he gets. How does this protect his wife whose life was allegedly endangered by exposing her identity??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 15 2006,20:05)
Please answer my simple questions - are you afraid to do that?

Your simple questions have been addressed. Have the honesty to admit it and drop the name calling and baiting.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #26 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 7:10 AM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
In this case yes, because there was a conflict of interest and an abuse of privilege on the parts of Plame and Wilson.
Well there you have it folks. There's not much more I can add to this discussion.

I couldn't disagree with you more on most of what you say here and it's really pointless to continue.

And we are completely out of sync on the Fitizgerald/Libbey issue. I am not saying that Libbey was the one who leaked Plame's name and therefore he is not guilty of the crime, which is why he was not indicted for those things.  Geez - what is it so hard to communicate with you, man.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #27 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 9:16 AM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,00:10)
In this case yes, because there was a conflict of interest and an abuse of privilege on the parts of Plame and Wilson.

Well there you have it folks. There's not much more I can add to this discussion.

I couldn't disagree with you more on most of what you say here and it's really pointless to continue.

And we are completely out of sync on the Fitizgerald/Libbey issue. I am not saying that Libbey was the one who leaked Plame's name and therefore he is not guilty of the crime, which is why he was not indicted for those things. Geez - what is it so hard to communicate with you, man.
Difficult?? Why?? Because I disagree with you?? Or are you just mad because Rove got an early Fitzmas present??  :laugh:
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #28 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 6:44 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
Difficult?? Why?? Because I disagree with you?? Or are you just mad because Rove got an early Fitzmas present?
I don't have a problem that we disagree. If I did I wouldn't discuss anything with you. But when we can't agree on the meaning of English sentences I have a problem. When we can't agree on the base ethics, e.g., outing a CIA agent who status is classified with non-official cover is wrong, I have problems.

Regardless of whether you agree with Joe Wilson or not, his op-ed piece was well written. The paragraph that mentions Cheney, that I cited above, was an essental part of his essay which established the premise for his trip, his findings & opinions. I'm positive that my college technical writing professor would agree with me on that.

It doesn't matter if his wife suggested his name or not to the CIA, the CIA asked him to go to Niger on this trip.  We have to trust their judgement on this.

If we can't agree on these essentials, then what's the point of debating? If we can't agree that Fitzgerald's investigation is important, then what's the point? If we can't agree what are FACTS and what are INFERENCES, then what's the point?
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #29 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 8:23 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,11:44)
Difficult?? Why?? Because I disagree with you?? Or are you just mad because Rove got an early Fitzmas present?

I don't have a problem that we disagree. If I did I wouldn't discuss anything with you. But when we can't agree on the meaning of English sentences I have a problem.
I won't argue that you have problems with English, but I don't take that as a cheap excuse to call you stupid the way that you do to me.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,11:44)
When we can't agree on the base ethics, e.g., outing a CIA agent who status is classified with non-official cover is wrong, I have problems.

The ethics are much larger than you're admitting. It was a conflict of interest and nepotism for Plame to recommend her husband to perform work for the CIA, especially given his vocal stance against the administration. Second, there's no reason for the CIA to hire the family members of agents who have NOC status or any need for secrecy. This was plainly a stupid move on both parties.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,11:44)
Regardless of whether you agree with Joe Wilson or not, his op-ed piece was well written.

Nonsense. It was what you like to call a smear piece and grandstanding on the part of someone who had very little involvement.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,11:44)
The paragraph that mentions Cheney, that I cited above, was an essental part of his essay which established the premise for his trip, his findings & opinions.

It was essential for creating a false impression that Wilson had a larger role than he really did. Wilson had not met with Cheney, had not consulted with Cheney's aides and did not have a memo from Cheney requesting his assistance. He was contracted by the CIA. Mentioning Cheney was gratuitous and unnecessary.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,11:44)
I'm positive that my college technical writing professor would agree with me on that.

This is a meaningless and irrelevant boast. Bring in an actual testimonial if you have one instead of presuming such nonsense.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,11:44)
It doesn't matter if his wife suggested his name or not to the CIA, the CIA asked him to go to Niger on this trip. We have to trust their judgement on this.

Why?? The CIA doesn't exactly have a spotless reputation for intelligence gathering. They didn't even ask Wilson for a written report. Has the CIA not been faulted for other intelligence failures?? Why would we assume this particular instance involved good judgment??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 16 2006,11:44)
If we can't agree on these essentials, then what's the point of debating? If we can't agree that Fitzgerald's investigation is important, then what's the point? If we can't agree what are FACTS and what are INFERENCES, then what's the point?

The point that your assumptions are wrong. If you can't deal with it, then move along.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #30
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 16 2006, 8:57 PM
phoo
 
Former Member










It was a conflict of interest and nepotism for Plame to recommend her husband to perform work for the CIA, especially given his vocal stance against the administration.
Nepotism, yes, but am I missing something or not? His vocal stance wasn't against the administration, at least not at first. He did what they asked and they didn't like what he found. He didn't say anything against them until later. I mean, he was one of them until the facts he found didn't support their view, then he became one of them....or are you suggesting that he was a mole and took the job with the explicit intentions of finding facts that were contrary to what the administration was saying at the time? Are you implying that Plame and Wilson were in this together from the beginning to discredit the administration?
Contact Information:  phoo

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
< Older | Newer >
272 replies since Jun. 13 2006, 3:57 PM
Page 3 of 28 Skip to Page:

© 2014 n-Track Software
Powered by iF 1.0.1 © 2006 ikonForums