Comments on: Obligatory Plame Post: Plame sheds little light in leak case

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 22:29:29 +0000

Plame “outed” herself years before when she was listed in public documents as a contributor to the Klinton campaing as working for the CIA.

What a joke…

By: PCD

PCD — Mon, 19 Mar 2007 13:32:34 +0000

Why isn't Wilson in the gunsights? How Wilson Outed Plame

By: Peejz

Peejz — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:46:34 +0000

P.S.- I don’t take impeachment lightly, nor is there anyone to impeach.

By: Peejz

Peejz — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 14:44:26 +0000

4- And Fitzgerald’s investigation had a narrow scope, and thus, he caught Libby in lying about having given Valerie Wilson’s info out.

TT, Fitzgerald scope wasn’t so narrow that he could not charge the person that did the leaking with the crime. That was the scope of the investigation, and without the charges, one seriously needs to question if in fact it was a crime to begin with. According to the statute, it is not a crime.

Fitzgerald knew it was Armitage, as he had his confession, prior to talking to Libby. What is the WH to investigate if in fact they know the source?

By: Toasted Tofu

Toasted Tofu — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 06:08:20 +0000

3- No charges were brought against him. And Fitzgerald’s investigation had a narrow scope, and thus, he caught Libby in lying about having given Valerie Wilson’s info out.

Think about the federal government as a corporation. If an employee violates internal operating policies, you’re likely to end up with your tit in the wringer and be sanctioned. Regardless of any potential public criminal wrongdoing, internally the company will fix the problems in such a serious matter as a covert operatives identity.

Bush said an “investigation” was underway and he would “fire” anyone implicated in this classified information outing. Well, we learned this week that there was no investigation by the White House. I guess that makes sense because the fox’s don’t normally investigate wrong-doing within the hen house, do then?

I’m certain it’s all partisan playing here with your position. If it was a Democratic president in office now, you’d be whining on and on about how corrupt the administration is. You’d be calling for impeachment.

But since it’s a Republican administration– You must protect him at all costs, with logic out the window and all.

By: Peejz

Peejz — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:41:24 +0000

Wow, great chart…and:roll: the only thing it represnts is well nothing…Armitage leaked the name, yet no charges were brought..this is a dog and pony show to drum up the nutroots support..

By: Toasted Tofu

Toasted Tofu — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 02:07:53 +0000

Peejz, please see this PowerPoint slide from the hearings on March 16th. Armitage is on the radar, along with the rest in the cast of goons.

By: FrmrArtyOffcr

FrmrArtyOffcr — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:05:04 +0000

Gee, I wonder if PLlame’s testimony that her identity as a CIA employee (hard to be a covert agent when you drive into the office parking lot every day) wasn’t WIDELY known on the Washington cocktail circuit will result in charges against herself or her husband for outing her? A supposed secret that is known, whether widely or not, is hardly a secret. Her testimony that she was trained to detect and then lose anyone who might be following her was an idiotic comment. Why would anyone bother following her from home to the office unless they already KNEW she was a CIA employee? Wouldn’t it be much easier to simply photograph the plates of every car entering the CIA compound in Langley, VA and then run the plates through the appropriate DMV database? It’s not like those DMV databases are particularly secure, or for that matter is it that hard to simply get someone a job at DMV to be able to access the database at the source. It would be VERY easy to figure out who to look for, the guy driving the 1984 Yugo is probably not high enough up on the food chain to have access to anything of value.