Bush concedes CIA leak

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 24 2007, 09:49 PM) [snapback]484529[/snapback]</div>

I beg to differ. Please read the United States Code, Title 50, Chapter 15, Subchapter IV, Section 421:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 25 2007, 02:02 PM) [snapback]484792[/snapback]</div>

Is this the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), enacted in 1982, and wasn't it a direct result of former CIA agent Philip Agee's book Inside the Company: CIA Diary which, in revealing the identities of CIA agents and operatives, was directly responsible for the incarceration and/or deaths of many of them?

It baffles me to understand how Agee's actions (which resulted in the IIPA) can be interpreted as being any different from what high-level Bush administration officials did in the outing of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA employee in retaliation for her husband's public discounting of the Bush administration's false Iraq WMD claims to jusify the US invasion of Iraq.

 

Then there was that thing where Bush got in the camera, wagged his finger at me and said "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Luinski"... I've known he was a liar ever since he did that.

:lol: :lol:

 

All politicians are lyers.
Bush, Clinton, as well as "Miss Luinski".

 

Plame wasn't covered by the statute because she wasn't "covert", just working for the CIA does not make you a "covert" agent.

 

Plame posed as a private energy consultant while actually working for a CIA department tracking weapons proliferation.

It was officially an N.O.C. position, or non-official cover.
It means she would get access to foreign countries through bogus job titles of existing legitimate companies, in order to give and recieve information to agents that were fully undercover.

The outing of Valerie put these people at risk, more than herself. But worse, it killed a lot of the projects we had going that DIRECTLY relate to the very terrorist threat we supposedly are working against by fighting in Iraq and pressuring Iran.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jul , 12:56 PM)</div>

Yes she was.

Honestly, where do you people get your (mis)information?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 25 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]484912[/snapback]</div>

It's the Internet. Everything you read on the Internet is TRUE, right? :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 25 2007, 03:20 PM) [snapback]484912[/snapback]</div>

Faux News and freerepublic.com I imagine.

 

If she was, then why wasn't Dick Armitage charged???
I'm sure Fitzgerald would have liked to have gotten a conviction for the charge he was tasked to investigate?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jul 25 2007, 02:52 PM) [snapback]485010[/snapback]</div>

Reread the statute. It has to be an intentional disclosure in order to violate the law, not an inadvertent or an accidental one. Based upon what I read, it would appear that Richard Armitage had a case of a slipped tongue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate @ Jul , 02:52 PM)</div>

The case against Armitage was straightforward since he turned over relating papers and his computer to the prosecutor who was able to then verify Armitage's testimony that he was not aware of Plame's covert status when he talked to the press. On the other hand, Fitzgerald was unable to gather sufficient evidence as to whether or not Rove knew of her covert status because of Libby's lies that got in the way of the investigation. Since Fitzgerald did not have sufficient evidence to convict Rove, he did not press charges against him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jul 24 2007, 10:13 PM) [snapback]484546[/snapback]</div>

There was a complete investigation, with unlimited resources, with unlimited time. There is no evidence of any crime committed, other than Libby lying under oath during the investigation. The presumption of innocence always applies in criminal cases, but we certainly form opinions during the investigation. But when the investigator finds out the exact circumstances of the revelation, and decides not to bring charges, the evidence then speaks for itself. The "talking point" in this case is the one that ignores the evidence we do have, to hang on to a preconceived wish that a "gotcha" moment happened, when all the evidence shows the exact opposite.

I'm sure there's another investigation or hearing you guys can hold, while you're letting our boys die in Iraq. You were supposed to bring them home, weren't you? There was a lot you were going to do in the first 100 hours. Oh yeah, the minimum wage. At least the dying boys in Iraq can be assured their little brothers will earn more at Taco Bell this summer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IsrAmeriPrius @ Jul 25 2007, 11:02 AM) [snapback]484792[/snapback]</div>

You're a lawyer, right?

Are you going to ask that the Special Prosecutor be brought before the bar for not prosecuting the crime you see, that the investigators do not find? The investigators that had carte blanche, with unlimited resources and unlimited time?

Better to go ahead and start the Impeachment hearings. The American people so want those to begin.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul , 10:14 PM)</div>

The fact that charges were not brought does not imply that a crime was not committed, or that no evidence existed. It merely implies that there was not sufficient evidence to convict. The investigation into whether a crime was committed was impeded by Libby's lies.

Fitzgerald said: "the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby's false testimony obscured a confident determination of what in fact occurred."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 26 2007, 01:14 AM) [snapback]485290[/snapback]</div>

While Fitzgerald had significant resources and time at his disposal, I seriously doubt either were unlimited.

If I'm not mistaken, I seem to recall reading in the news that, in fact, he came quite close to a grand jury deadline when he had to make a determination on whether to file charges or let the whole matter lapse.

I also seem to recall that these time constraints were imposed as a direct result of the seemingly endless Clinton-Whitewater investigation by Ken Starr.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 25 2007, 10:14 PM) [snapback]485290[/snapback]</div>

Dragonfly and rudiger had already answered your question, the same way that I would have, before I had a chance to see it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Jul 19 2007, 01:02 PM) [snapback]481811[/snapback]</div>

Well, we did not even have to wait for the president to leave office before the truth emerged:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jul 24 2007, 11:49 PM) [snapback]484529[/snapback]</div>

Wait, are you talking about Clinton getting sucked off by a brunette?

 

And there it is. Since there is no intelligent response to McClellan being a big fat lieing shill for all of the other LIARS in the White House we have a mis-direction attack with the same old dead horse. "It's all Clinton's fault."

Or I guess it's OK for the White House to consistently LIE to everyone as long as it isn't under oath?

 

But it's completely different! Clinton's lie involved s-e-x, while Bush's involved national security! So of course Clinton HAD to have been impeached, while there's no reason Bush shouldn't go away scot-free!