LawTalkers - Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Please tell me that you are not billing me for that post (and don't give me the excuse that you are having your summer associate phone it in. again).

[0.1 hours, Client Development: Feed the Beast.]

Gattigap

07-14-2005 02:00 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Serious question for you, Slave, and bilmore.

Let's assume that you are right about everything -- Wilson's partisan motivation, that he lied, that Plame picked him for the mission because she wanted to set the Admin up, etc.

It is not disputed that Plame had non-official cover at one point in time, and was "employed" by a company that was a CIA front.

Let's assume that someone in the Admin (doesn't have to be Karl Rove) told Novak and Cooper and others that Wilson was a liar and that they should assess his motivation becuase his wife set him up on the mission. Let's assume that the statute wasn't broken by this act.

Even assuming all that you assert is true, we still have a front company whose cover has been blown, along with the cover of every CIA person who has worked there, and every foreign source who provided information to the CIA via that front company. I am sure that Russian intelligence and Chinese intelligence and French intelligence and every other country in the world that has reason to keep an eye on us for business or security reasons (or vice versa) has now rolled up any then-current activities related to this front, and are going back and figuring out all of the past covert activities they did.

Was it worth it? And would you be so sanguine about it if it were the Clinton Administration that flipped a CIA front company and all of the agents operating through it because they didn't like the comments an agent's wife or husband made about sending US forces into Bosnia (which was, as you may recall, a rather partisan dispute)?

This question is, I think, worth repeating for Slave and bilmore. I'd hate to think that they missed it first time 'round.

SlaveNoMore

07-14-2005 02:15 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

Not Bob
Even assuming all that you assert is true, we still have a front company whose cover has been blown, along with the cover of every CIA person who has worked there, and every foreign source who provided information to the CIA via that front company. I am sure that Russian intelligence and Chinese intelligence and French intelligence and every other country in the world that has reason to keep an eye on us for business or security reasons (or vice versa) has now rolled up any then-current activities related to this front, and are going back and figuring out all of the past covert activities they did.

Was it worth it? And would you be so sanguine about it if it were the Clinton Administration that flipped a CIA front company and all of the agents operating through it because they didn't like the comments an agent's wife or husband made about sending US forces into Bosnia (which was, as you may recall, a rather partisan dispute)?

1) I have to read anything at all about other agents being affected by this or of other operations being blown. If that truly was the case, I'm assuming we'd hearing a lot more about it.

2) Was it worth it? I don't know. Wilson had his platform and was able to spew his nonsense all of the place. The Plame Affair has allowed him to repeatedly return to the spotlight and re-iterate his lies. Had it not happened, he may have just gone away.

3) It's also important to recall the origin of the law; namely, that it was put in place after the Agee incident. Only one person has ever been prosecuted under the law, and that involved some pillow talk whereby someone outed 2 agents that were out in the field.

Gattigap

07-14-2005 02:21 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
1) I have to read anything at all about other agents being affected by this or of other operations being blown. If that truly was the case, I'm assuming we'd hearing a lot more about it.

* Why would you assume that we would hear a lot more about covert CIA operations? I understand that you've bought Rove's rationale that Plame's fair game because she was married to Wilson, and that you really really really don't like Wilson, but how does this lead to the conclusion that the doors to Langley are now open?

* Outing of CIA agents are troubling to you only if there's demonstrable evidence of fallout? Really?

SlaveNoMore

07-14-2005 02:21 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
For some perspective, let's all recall that Niger was not supplying Iraq with yellowcake, that the White House and CIA have already acknowledged that the suggestion to the contrary was in error, and that Wilson was correct in challenging the White House line.

For other perspective, let us recall that the investigation of Lord Butler stands by the Niger intelligence, the British stand by the assertion that those magic words in the State of the Union were patently true, and the Bi-partisan Senate Commission wrote that Wilson fully misrepresented these findings.

SlaveNoMore

07-14-2005 02:29 PM

"Hack" Wilson

Quote:

Shape Shifter
"ABSTRACT - Valerie Wilson, known to country by her maiden name Valerie Plame, returns to CIA in new job...."

Let me guess, she's undercover again.

http://www.nathanslunch.com/Nathans04%20079.JPG

(link to a large picture of Val and Joe)

Tyrone Slothrop

07-14-2005 02:29 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
For other perspective, let us recall that the investigation of Lord Butler stands by the Niger intelligence, the British stand by the assertion that those magic words in the State of the Union were patently true, and the Bi-partisan Senate Commission wrote that Wilson fully misrepresented these findings.

STP.

SlaveNoMore

07-14-2005 02:33 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
E.g., Jeff Gannon (see last paragraph), or Guckert, or whatever his name is now.

Sidney "Hatchet Man" Blumenthal? Dude, he's slimier than Rove and DeLay put together

Not Bob

07-14-2005 02:35 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

I don't think so. Why would the Chinese announce that they've executed the the second commercial attache from their New Delhi embassy? Why would the French announce that they've re-assigned a charge d'affairs from a posting in Argentina to one in Zambia? And do you really think that with all of the mob hits in Russia, anyone would notice the death of some former employee of the state arms dealer during a car-jacking in Odessa?

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
3) It's also important to recall the origin of the law; namely, that it was put in place after the Agee incident. Only one person has ever been prosecuted under the law, and that involved some pillow talk whereby someone outed 2 agents that were out in the field.

Again, my question assumed that the law wasn't violated. Was it worth it to burn an entire front company to discredit one guy? Unlike Ty, I am assuming for the purposes of this question that he and his wife were partisan hacks who just wanted to make the Admin look bad, and that the specific law wasn't violated.

I don't think so, and I think that if it happened while Clinton was president (think James Carville or George S. as Karl Rove), there would be calls for hearings at a minimum, and calls for impeachment on the talk radio circuit.

Tyrone Slothrop

07-14-2005 02:37 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sidney "Hatchet Man" Blumenthal? Dude, he's slimier than Rove and DeLay put together

While that may be, do you dispute what he says about Gannon?

sgtclub

07-14-2005 02:38 PM

Das anti-Kapitalists!

Quote:

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I think education is working with respect to drug education, actually. The G spends all sorts of (my) money "educating" the public on it, the public receives this information and in large numbers very sensibly makes the better choice: i.e., this whole war on drugs thing is moronic, pass the blunt.

This seems to me to be an example of an educational program leading to a good outcome (in this case, rejection of baseless, manipulative propaganda and possibly an eventual end to a resource wasting and liberty infringing prohibition). Perhaps the outcome that comprehensive sex ed would lead to is similar - 'cause I know that my own thorough sex ed class did not make the whole thing terribly appealing. The image of turbo-geek bio teacher Mr. Doren demonstrating the resiliency of condoms by shooting them rubber-band-gun style at the slackers in the back of the class will stay with me always.

BR(Don't even get me started on the "over-the-head condom balloon inflation" trick - I'm sure the only reason I now have (relatively) normal sexual function is because a classmate saved the day by asking "so, does this mean you're a dickhead, Mr. Doren?")C

You really think education is working at anything other than the margins? I'm with you on legalization, but I was under the impression that drug use has not dropped dramatically over the last 25 years.

As an aside, I had a MILF teach my sex ed class. Needless to say, I paid perfect attention and was the teacher's pet.

SlaveNoMore

07-14-2005 02:40 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
While that may be, do you dispute what he says about Gannon?

I'll volunteer that I know little to nothing on the subject.

Penske_Account

07-14-2005 02:45 PM

"Hack" Wilson

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Let me guess, she's undercover again.

http://www.nathanslunch.com/Nathans04%20079.JPG

(link to a large picture of Val and Joe)

I have fond memories of Nathans.

Tyrone Slothrop

07-14-2005 03:00 PM

Joe wilson

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'll volunteer that I know little to nothing on the subject.

Blumenthal's article on Salon was three pages. I quoted part of one of those pages, with background facts that seemed undisputed, and did not bother to quote the opinions that led and concluded his piece. If there's a factual inaccuracy in there, I'd like to know about it, but I didn't see one.

Diane_Keaton

07-14-2005 03:10 PM

"Hack" Wilson

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I have fond memories of Nathans.

Hmmn. Hot dogs.

Okay so could someone clear some things up here. On the phone with press, Rove is making a point that a CIA officer claiming X, Y and Z didn't go on a particular mission related to X, Y and Z at the behest of the Pres., but rather, at the direction of his wife, in an attempt to explain to the reporter how comments made about X, Y and Z should be taken in context. Reporter, is a press guy that is in-the-know, or at least his employer is and knows wife is a CIA agent and knows her name. We on the other hand being the ignorant public (excepting Slave of course who likes to eat at Nathans, NTTAWWT, and stalk Plame and hubby for a special signature on Slave's copy of Plame hubby's book) don't know shit about these people and a dude named Robert Novak announces to the free world, terrorists and all, that Plame is an undercover spy and blames Rove for outing her b/c of the discussion Rove had with a Washington Reporter.

Okay. Just checking.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:55 PM.

Page 260 of 334

260

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page