Remember Me?

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]
Page 8 of 28 Skip to Page:
< Older | Newer >
Topic: Better toke a new one, Mr. Soul...
Post #71 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 7:27 PM
phoo
 
Former Member










And more than 50 percent are unable to find Iraq on a map. That's not a majority to be proud of or to take sides with. They aren't informed enough to make such judgments.
That sure would explain how many of our current leaders got elected. :)
Contact Information:  phoo

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #72 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 7:29 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
OK - let's go back to the start & see if we can agree on the basic facts.

The memo was marked secret, but Plame's position wasn't.
Plame's position was classified & she had non-official status. Do you agree with that? If not, can you show why don't agree.

If she had NOTHING to do with her husband getting the job, she shouldn't have been mentioned in the memo.
Is this an inference or do you know this for a fact? I don't think what you are saying is correct.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

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.

That sure would explain how many of our current leaders got elected.
Phoo - you got that one right. Bush didn't even have 50% in 2000!

never said it was right or wrong, did I? Then why did you bring it up?  Your implications were clear to me. Everyone who knows you knows your feelings about PBS.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #73 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 7:34 PM
TomS
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
Back to the indictment, which jus tmay still exist, here is what MarK Ash has to say about the whole debacle:
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/19/185947/499


Returning to "06 cr 128"

By Marc Ash,

Tue Jun 20th, 2006 at 07:50:32 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors, which should be taken as an indication that we view this matter with the utmost seriousness.

For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment."

The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash.

On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report.

After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.

That leaves the most important question: If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?' That is a very troubling question, and the truth is, we do not yet have a definitive answer. We also continue to be very troubled that no one has seen the reported communication from Fitzgerald to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, and more importantly, how so much public judgment could be based on a communication that Luskin will not put on the table. Before we can assess the glaring contradiction between what our sources say and what Luskin says Fitzgerald faxed to him, we need to be able to consider what was faxed - and in its entirety.

What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered - in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.

Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.

The electronic communication from Fitzgerald to Luskin, coming immediately on the heels of our Monday morning, June 12 article "Sealed vs. Sealed" that became the basis for the mainstream media's de facto exoneration of Karl Rove was, our sources told us, negotiated quickly over the phone later that afternoon. Luskin contacted Fitzgerald, reportedly providing concessions that Fitzgerald considered to be of high value, and Fitzgerald reportedly reciprocated with the political cover Rove wanted in the form of a letter that was faxed to Luskin's office.

Our sources provided us with additional detail, saying that Fitzgerald is apparently examining closely Dick Cheney's role in the Valerie Plame matter, and apparently sought information and evidence from Karl Rove that would provide documentation of Cheney's involvement. Rove apparently was reluctant to cooperate and Fitzgerald, it appears, was pressuring him to do so, our sources told us.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation is a unique chapter in American history. The probe has managed to shed light into the inner recesses of perhaps the most secretive presidential administration in US history. His mission is not political, and he will not allow it to be.

However, we call upon the Special Counsel to consider the right of the American people to know what has happened. Nothing, we believe, is more important to the survival of democracy than the light of justice, and nothing more damaging than the curtain of secrecy that today surrounds the highest office in the land.

Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #74 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 8:00 PM
clark_griswold
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 849
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,12:29)
never said it was right or wrong, did I?
Then why did you bring it up? Your implications were clear to me. Everyone who knows you knows your feelings about PBS.
Mike,

I was commenting on the tone of the direction and writing...nothing more.  Just thought it reeked of PBS.  I think if they did a docu on my toliet sitting habits it would have very much the same tone.


See, I don't KNOW the answers.  I don't PRETEND to know the answers.  And you may be right.  I may be crazy.
Contact Information:  clark_griswold

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #75 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 8:05 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,12:29)
OK - let's go back to the start & see if we can agree on the basic facts.

The memo was marked secret, but Plame's position wasn't.

Plame's position was classified & she had non-official status. Do you agree with that? If not, can you show why don't agree.
I would agree that Fitzgerald has claimed this was her status, but he would still need to prove that this information was KNOWN by anyone who allegedly leaked her "name." So far, there is NO PROOF OF THIS. AND this is probably why Fitz is only indicting Libby for perjury and has dropped intentions to indict Rove.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,12:29)
If she had NOTHING to do with her husband getting the job, she shouldn't have been mentioned in the memo.

Is this an inference or do you know this for a fact? I don't think what you are saying is correct.
Unless the memo is released to the public, it's hard to know what the motivation was, but it seems very unnecessary for the CIA or the state department to mention Plame in this memo IF HER IDENTITY NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,12:29)
Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

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.

Again, I would like to see the memo and not go by third party descriptions, which may not be completely accurate. Wilson claimed his wife had nothing to do with him getting the job, so why was her name in the memo??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,12:29)
That sure would explain how many of our current leaders got elected.

Phoo - you got that one right. Bush didn't even have 50% in 2000!
The popular vote is NOT the determinant of who wins the president. Did you not ever take any government classes??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,12:29)
never said it was right or wrong, did I?
Then why did you bring it up? Your implications were clear to me. Everyone who knows you knows your feelings about PBS.
N/A
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #76 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 8:08 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (TomS @ June 21 2006,12:34)
Back to the indictment, which jus tmay still exist, here is what MarK Ash has to say about the whole debacle:
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/19/185947/499

Wasn't truthout the ones who claimed Rove was being indicted weeks ago?? Why are we interested in their speculation??
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #77 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 8:27 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
You're so full of it that it's a complete WASTE of time debating anything with you. I knew that you would refute the simple facts.

The fact is that her identity was classified & she had non-official cover. The fact is that the CIA wouldn't have asked for an investigation if she hadn't. The fact is that Fitzgerald wouldn't make this stuff up in doing his investigation.

but it seems very unnecessary for the CIA or the state department to mention Plame in this memo IF HER IDENTITY NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED.
You are so full of inferences that you can find your way to the truth.

Again, I would like to see the memo and not go by third party descriptions.
What's the matter ksdb?  You just quoted the WP a few posts back, but now you say they aren't trustworthy.  You can't have it both ways ksdb.

The popular vote is NOT the determinant of who wins the president. Did you not ever take any government classes??
No one said that. Of course, we know that the President isn't elected by popular vote. Once again, you are inferring stuff.

I'd love to have a formal debate with you because I'd tear you to shreds.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #78 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 8:39 PM
ksdb
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 924
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: None

Offline
Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,13:27)
You're so full of it that it's a complete WASTE of time debating anything with you. I knew that you would refute the simple facts.

You keep telling me it's a waste of time to debate, yet you keep coming back over and over like you're obsessed with me. You need to be angry with yourself, not me.

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,13:27)
The fact is that her identity was classified & she had non-official cover. The fact is that the CIA wouldn't have asked for an investigation if she hadn't. The fact is that Fitzgerald wouldn't make this stuff up in doing his investigation.

If it is such a simple and obvious FACT, then why isn't LIBBY BEING CHARGED WITH THE LEAK??

Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,13:27)
but it seems very unnecessary for the CIA or the state department to mention Plame in this memo IF HER IDENTITY NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED.

You are so full of inferences that you can find your way to the truth.
You tell us how you're stuck on facts. Explain why Wilson is not a liar when he claims his wife didn't help him get the job and you're own source acknowledges that she did.


Quote (Mr Soul @ June 21 2006,13:27)

The popular vote is NOT the determinant of who wins the president. Did you not ever take any government classes??

No one said that. Of course, we know that the President isn't elected by popular vote. Once again, you are inferring stuff.
No, you mouthed off about Bush not getting 50 percent of the vote in 2000 as if it had relevance. Stand by your own words instead of dancing.
Contact Information:  ksdb

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #79 Skip to the next post in this topic.
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 8:44 PM
Mr Soul
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 2649
Joined: Nov. 2004

Member Rating: 1.08

Offline
Nope - I'm done wasting time with right-wing wacko's like you. I gave you one last chance to agree on simple facts & you failed the test of reasonibility.

Just remember - you can't have it both ways.
Contact Information:  Mr Soul

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
Post #80
Skip to the previous post in this topic. Posted On: Jun. 21 2006, 9:36 PM
TomS
 

Avatar




Group: Members
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sep. 2004

Member Rating: 2.78

Offline
Quote (ksdb @ June 21 2006,13:08)
Quote (TomS @ June 21 2006,12:34)
Back to the indictment, which jus tmay still exist, here is what MarK Ash has to say about the whole debacle:
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/6/19/185947/499

Wasn't truthout the ones who claimed Rove was being indicted weeks ago?? Why are we interested in their speculation??

Yes, they were the folks who reported it, I'm interested b/c I know that they are usually a credible if entirely progressive anti-bush source - they have never printed anything like this that they didn't fully back up.  So I want to see what they make of all of this, and in fact their position is an interesting and possible one: the sealed indictment in the case sealed v. sealed is in fact an indictment of Rove, but action was not taken on it by Fitz for some other reasons.  In any case, all that we know is that Rove's lawyers said Fitz said this - Fitz just keeps saying "no comment."  We've enver been shown any evidence, no letters, nothing - just the lawyer's assertions.  It'd be funny if the sealed indictment was really of Rove.  Anyway, Truthout stands by their sources, and while they are strongly partisan, they are not liars.
Contact Information:  TomS

  • AOL  AOL:
  • ICQ  ICQ:
  • MSN  MSN:
  • YIM  Yahoo:
WEB  
< Older | Newer >
272 replies since Jun. 13 2006, 3:57 PM
Page 8 of 28 Skip to Page:

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