home

Myths About PlameGate

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Wed Oct 19, 2005 at 10:18:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Think Progress has compiled a handy list of right-wing myths about the Valerie Plame Leaks investigation - and the facts that show they are myths.

The National Journal's Hotline has a list of everyone who has testified in Plamegate or been interviewed by Fitzgerald.

We're in another holding pattern. Blogometer and Memorandum are the places to catch what you may have missed yesterday.

Update: Dan Froomkin at the Washington Post has an terrific compilation of yesterday's and this morning's MSM and blog coverage. I also like Talent Show's post on Rove and Bush; Jeff Greenfield of CNN on The New York Times and Miller; and everything Laura Rozen at War and Piece is writing.

Tom Maguire has a new, long post up about Miller and Libby.

< Jury Rules Against Gay Convict in Rape Case | PlameGate: Powell and Flesicher >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Myths About PlameGate | 22 comments (22 topical)
    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    Jackal – The point was not who sent him, but that he was sent at all. It was a security question and should have been handled by a professional, not an ex-State Department employee. That he was sent demonstrates either terrible mismanagement by the CIA, or a desire within the CIA to launch a partisan attack by the use of Wilson. And what he didn’t find, according to his own editorial, is any sign of “sales” of uranium to Iraq. Of course that wasn’t the question. The question was, had there been any attempt, as stated in Bush’s ’03 SOTU. You write: The documents he relied on for that claim have been proven to be forgeries, something even Bushco admits...so what exactly is your point? The point is simple. Why didn’t Wilson say that? The facts are, of course, is that he didn’t address the question. And it was a simple question. All he had to do was say, I found no evidence that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium. He didn’t say that. Instead he talked about “no sales.” That is a completely different subject. So why didn’t he say, “NO ATTEMPT????" Most likely because of what he knew concerning this.
    The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(removed) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq." .... He said that an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran.
    As for Mrs. Wilson’s so-called “outing,” she was not covert. But again. Why are you so worried about this as compared to the demonstrations that we know are being viewed with happiness by the terrorists? And if you believe the actions so terrible, why are you not attacking Novak, only Bush??? BTW - Your continual personal attacks calling me a liar, traitor, ignorant, hack, etc., define your educational level, general position in society, vocabulary, etc., quite well. My congratulations.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    FACT – CIA SAYS WILSON WAS UNDERCOVER: “But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had ‘nonofficial cover,’ and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a Noc, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create.” [New York Times, 10/5/03]
    Leaving aside the many problems the NYT has had with facts, especially when they don't fit their agenda, can anyone explain to me why the CIA did not forbid Novak from using her name? If it was a problem for her name to have been leaked by Rove, Libby and even Wilson himself, then why did the CIA NOT take action when Novak inquired if he could do it? You know, just say no.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Bill Harlow, who was the CIA spokesman at the time, strongly urged Novak not to reveal her name. To tell him that he could not use her name would be a crime as he would be not just giving him advice he would be confirming to Novak that she was an CIA operative. It is not a crime for a journalist to out an agent, it is a crime for a government official to out an agent. WaPo/a>

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Once again, PPJ, you amuse and delight us with your incredibly tenuous grasp on reality and/or ignorance. I don't know if you're stupid or just plain trollish, but here's the explanation for you that everyone else knows: 1. When he contacted the C.I.A. about Plame, Novak himself admitted that he was strongly discouraged from identifying her, but did so anyway because "no one told me why I shouldn't other than it might 'cause problems' if I did..." 2. The C.I.A. could not "forbid" Novak from doing so because the C.I.A. is not a law enforcement authority, you dolt. They are a spy agency....duh... 3. Other than by breaking the Espionage Act by disclosing classified information to a non-cleared recipient i.e. "Don't write about Plame, she's a N.O.C.", how exactly PPJ do you surmise Novack could have been legally deterred by the C.I.A. from outing her? You seem to have gone from saying that she wasn't covert to "so what if she was, the C.I.A. screwed up?"...which one is it you subscribe to, PPJ? As for your supposition about the C.I.A. not preventing Novack from spilling the beans, more gas and hot air from a specialist...

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Wasn't one of the impeachment articles against Clinton perjury? Now its just a technicality? Didn't Bill Bennett go on Fox News Sunday and say that Clinton was a sitting president who had committed a felony, committed perjury?

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    Jim: "Blame Everyone Else." Protect the traitors at all cost.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:08 PM EST
    I see this sort of horsesh@t all the time with criminal defendants. It really comes as no surprise. So why should things be any different with criminal defendants in and around the Oval Office? And the arrogance and hubris of unindicted war criminals only compounds the problem. Once you start lying, the key is NOT to believe those lies yourself. Because, once you start believing your own lies, you simply can't stop lying. And so it is with The Bush League. The are so mesmerized by their own lies that they believe them. They believe they can do no wrong, that they are God's Chosen, that they are untouchable. How DARE you think that the law should apply to them!? And when lying doesn't work, lie some more. Lie about what the law means, lie about the facts, lie about ANYTHING you can to get your ass out of the fire. When are the American people ever going to wake up and realize that the neocons, and conservative Republicans generally, have nothing but contempt for the law!? The law applies to OTHER people, not them. All of this is about one huge topic: subversion of the rule of law by a fundamentalist Christian conservative coalition within the Republican Party - that has effectively BECOME the Republican Party. So long as you're a "good" Christian man or woman with "good" intentions, to hell with the law!!!!!

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    The most amazing part of watching this is the near reverence (witness the "Fitzmas" posts over at Kos) that the left has now assigned to the special counsel. Speculation runs high, and the assumption seems to be that anyone questioned by the Grand Jury is guilty of something. Contrast this to the vilification by the left of Ken Starr (and other special counsels during the Clinton years) and it's easy to see what the root of all this is: It's all about who's ox is being gored. Prediction: There won't be any indictments that are actually about the Plame "matter". Any indictments will stem from the investigation itself.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    It's all about who's ox is being gored.
    Truth since the politics of the city-state of Ur, I would guess. Probably since the earliest days of tribal politics, back in the hunter-gatherer days.
    Prediction: There won't be any indictments that are actually about the Plame "matter". Any indictments will stem from the investigation itself.
    There may not. However, Obstruction of Justice and interfering with an investigation should be a very serious matter to the hardcore L&O believers. As for the "Fitzmas" types, I'm just going to wait for the indictments. Then, if the charges justify it, I will enjoy my SchadenFreude. If the charges are followed by convictions, I'll likely revel in it. Until then...wait and see.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Prediction: There won't be any indictments that are actually about the Plame "matter". Any indictments will stem from the investigation itself.
    *Any* indictment of these creeps is a good thing, no matter what or where they stem from. Those people are all crooks and deserve to be in jail. Anyone who supports them is traitor to America.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:09 PM EST
    Hey James Robertson, what's amusing is the smears and "criminalization of politics" crap coming from the right, when it's a Republican Prosecutor appointed by a Republican Attorney General to investigate a crime alleged by the C.I.A. How exactly does the left have anything to do with what Fitzpatrick hands down? He's a Republican. He was appointed by Ashcroft. If someone on the right takes a fall, you want to blame....the left? The left whispered in Novak's ear, right? The left lied to the F.B.I. about who leaked the info, so much so that Ashcroft had to appoint a special prosecutor, right? The left put Judy Miller in jail for refusing to name her source, right? The left is to blame for all evils, especially those found out to have been committed by the right, right? As for Starr, the right howled for blood when, after $70 million spent trying to nail Clinton on Whitewater, he instead dug up an alleged crime completely unrelated to the original investigation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Fitzpatrick nails someone over the Plame issue, isn't that what the Republican President declared he wanted done, and what a Republican A-G appointed him to do? Try again, JR, you're all wet.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    Laughing Jackal, You might actually read what I wrote. It's pretty clear that you didn't. Try again...

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    JR-Looks more, to me, like you have not read your own comment.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Good morning Boys and Girls. There is nothing like (almost) a day away from the fevers of the blog world to restore the mind and refresh the sense of humor. Let me see.... Squeaky - Read your link. But the question was, what is the actual "law?" The issue with Novak has always bothered me. Like the dog that didn't bark, the lack of outrage about his actions by the Left clearly shows that the issue isn't the disclosure, if we believe that Mrs. Wilson's occupation was known by less than 10,000 people, but the desire to attack the war, and the Bush administration. As to your:
    It is not a crime for a journalist to out an agent, it is a crime for a government official to out an agent.
    This link to the law does not appear to cover only government officials. Jackal writes:
    Once again, PPJ, you amuse and delight us with your incredibly tenuous grasp on reality and/or ignorance.
    I am here only to serve. And if I have provided you an opportunity to display your uncontrollable desire to make ass*ne statements I am truly happy. Your debating abilities are truly insignificant. Do I think the CIA screwed up? By sending a non-CIA person, Wilson, to Niger? Absolutely. The political partisan stench in the following actions can almost be seen, as well as smelled. Why? Well, as has been pointed out by others, this is what Bush said in his 03 SOTU:
    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
    Note the word “sought. He didn’t say “purchased.” But Wilson, in his now infamous NYT editorial of 7/6/03, wrote:
    “In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.” “I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them “
    Note: The qualifier words are “to have transpired” and “allegations of uranium sales to Iraq..” Wilson didn't write Saddam didn't try. He wrote Saddam didn't succeed. And that wasn't the question. And that is why the CIA screwed the pouch when they sent him. A neutral professional would have answered the question, and the issue would have been dead, rather than being kept dishonestly alive by the Left. Link As to the apparent Catch 22 of how to not identify an actual secret agent, as opposed to Mrs. Wilson, I would say a policy of “No Comment” to all requests would fill the bill. With the understanding that if the journalist actually does it, they will be investigated and prosecuted if they knew the person was a secret agent. I invite you to use the link to the actual law in question for your education. Note the qualifier of “covert.” Et al – I have no way of knowing who, if any, will be indicted. If so, I hope that they mount a vigorous defense because what we are seeing is a tempest in a teapot, expanded. It is time for the American people to decide what is, and is not, important. As the Demos so correctly claimed about Clinton, this is a tremendous waste of time and money, and should have ended when the Senate Intelligence Committee correctly said that Saddam had “tried to purchase,” and that is what the British, and Bush, claimed. But the real irony is watching people who, through their demonstrations and statements encourage the terrorists to hang on and wait for a political settlement, cry false tears over the non-outing of a non-covert CIA agent.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    Once again PPJ is all smoke and no fire: 1. The controversy has nothing to do with Wilson being/not being C.I.A. - the C.I.A. approached one of their own (Plame) and asked her if she'd speak with her husband, a former Ambassador to Africa and one who held extensive expertise in that field, namely, uranium...and the result was the introduction and Wilson's agreement to undertake the trip...you should try reading, PPJ... 2. Wilson's Piece was entitled "What I didn't Find in Africa," not "Iraq didn't Succeed..." 3. the evidence that led Bushco to declare those infamous "16 words" has long since been debunked as blatant forgeries, so what are you blathering about trying to play semantic games? Bushco said Hussein "sought uranium." The documents he relied on for that claim have been proven to be forgeries, something even Bushco admits...so what exactly is your point? As for the tempest, PPJ, the C.I.A. says one of their own was betrayed by an American... [insults deleted, commenter warned. If he does not stop insulting other commenters he will be banned.]

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    PPJ-I see you are back to repeating lies until they seem true. Too bad thet the lies you are peddling have already been debunked by the ones who spun them in the first place. I guess you are just a third string propagandist.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    Darkly - The fact that the CIA claims she was covert doesn't make it so. I see you have engaged your selective belief system. As to Wilson's comment about filing suit, I will make you this bet. The day it goes to court, I will send TalkLeft $50.00, if you will send her $50. if he doesn't in say, 18 months. That, Darkly, is dealing in reality. What say you? Put up? Shut up? Your call. I also note that you, again, rush into a comment that doesn't involve you. Just can't resist an attack, eh? Oh well, we don't need market research to understand you. You have already defined yourself. Squeaky - What are you referring to? Your broad claim with no back up is laughable, and totally without support. et al - You are not capable of answering the question, so you just make personal attacks. How totally drool.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    I see you have engaged your selective belief system.
    Now this is hypocrisy. Followed by this oft repeated classic from the annals of hypocrisy
    You are not capable of answering the question, so you just make personal attacks.
    Its a good thing honesty does not count for anything here.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    SD - Then refute the charge. You too don't answer, just attack.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    ppj-I have answered every point you made as have many others, in other threads. You are like a broken propagandaphone. Make some new points, arguments or claims and you may wind up starting a dialogue.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    your lame arguments get refuted over and over and over. You don't care because you dont care about the truth. Your goals are to distract, infuriate, goad and bait. And that you are very good at. Then you whine when someone says something you don't like or cant refute. But c'est la vive. Thats who you are. Just a middle school bully with no conscience. Its a free country. Ultimately you are defined by your words here, not by what we say about them. The verdict has been in for a long time. The evidence has been overwhelming. You have defined yourself and the picture isn't pretty Is it an attack if its the truth? Just asking.

    Re: Myths About PlameGate (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    Squeak - You have answered nothing. And if I am wrong, post some links to prove it. There is a part of TalkLeft called "archives." Show us where you have refuted the point that Wilson said "no sales," when what Bush said was, "attempted." Come on, Squeak. You the man. Let's see some juice. Cause if you don't, I'm gonna say you talk the talk, but you can't walk the walk. SD - Same for you. It has been months since you have done anything but claim that I am wrong. Talk is cheap. Prove it or lose it, I say.

    Myths About PlameGate | 22 comments (22 topical)