It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey
Awwww...another issue that Dem's got happy in their patns about that didn't come true.
Friday, September 01, 2006
End of an Affair
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
Unfortunately they're not done with this non-story. They're intent on trying to convict someone from the admin for something. Anything will do.
It is coming out the ONCE AGAIN, something the Dem's focused on, something that was ALWAYS a non-story in my mind, really was about NOTHING but getting power back.
It happens constantly
As we all know, it is immoral to want to get power back. The Republics did it for eight years. That's why they are so immoral, too!
thank you, Jim, for showing me I am right by not being able to refute the claims made...
and if you want to say going after Clinton was the same thing as all these false claims by the Dem's...Clinton lied under oath, and that is correct, not made up
I've never heard anybody dispute the fact that Clinton lied under oath. And the Republics spent 6 years and $35 million trying to get something on him. They couldn't. So they set up a perjury trap and he fell into it. He lied under oath, and I will never forgive him for that.
And it is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to Bush, to the Democrats, to the "war on terror" or anything else. It is the last desparate refuge of those who have no better explanation for their adherence to the Cult of Bush than to blame Clinton for everything that the Bush administration has done or failed to do.
And back on the Plame leak, I find it interesting that because Armitage mentioned in passing that Wilson's wife was a covert CIA operative, it somehow excuses the fact that Karl Rove did the same thing when he confirmed that Plame was a covert CIA operative (which information was classified).
this is a non-story, give up on it...even the washington times knows it is a joke
You mean the conservatively biased Washington Times? Wow, there's a revelation!
Sure I'll give up on it when you give up on the blow job. Deal?
How about lying to KEEP power. From David Sirota:
"The first pathological lie came in the Washington Post’s article where it notes President Bush suggested “that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war.” Vice President Cheney chimed in by saying Democrats “claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.” Yet, the Post also noted that “pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone.”
"Then there was Dan Senor - the administration’s former war mouthpiece claiming on Fox Newsd that “many leftist centered activists, political activists” — such as MoveOn.org — believe “we would be better off” if the United States withdrew from Afghanistan. But as Thinkprogress notes, “when pressed by Kasich, Senor couldn’t name any progressives who have advocated pulling out from Afghanistan and admitted that MoveOn.org has called for withdrawal from Iraq, not Afghanistan.”
"This is all a sign of desperation - the war has become such a political hot potato for the GOP they have resorted to trying to throw 95 yard hail mary passes as their 2006 election strategy. I hope they keep on with this - because I really think America has caught on to the lies."
Jim--
I read the dailykos and other lib blogs, and yes, Democrats really do think that being in Iraq makes us less safe. Using logic, they think pulling out would make us more safe, otherwise they wouldn't be demanding a pullout for the immoral war based on lies yadda yadda yadda to begin with.
You can dismiss the hordes of Democrats that hang out at places like this, but the candidacy of Ned Lamont shows that they have the power in the party today.
that has been more of a trend lately from the libs here...anytime liberals say something stupid, or take a position that is silly, it is said they are not liberals. This goofy part of the Dem party now runs the show
The Game said...
this is a non-story, give up on it...even the washington times knows it is a joke
September 02, 2006 4:01 PM
I think you mean the Washington Post, not the Washington Times.
ya, ya, you know what I meant...
Yeah, I knew. I was pointing it out because of this comment...
Jim said...
You mean the conservatively biased Washington Times? Wow, there's a revelation!
Sure I'll give up on it when you give up on the blow job. Deal?
While he's right that the Washington Times is conservative, I was pointing out that you actually meant the Washington Post, which is liberal.
game said...
It is coming out the ONCE AGAIN, something the Dem's focused on, something that was ALWAYS a non-story in my mind, really was about NOTHING but getting power back.
It happens constantly
Yeah, game, like you were the one who posted the non-story to begin with here. What the hell do you expect? How boring is this? Posting what even you think is a non-story, making people actually read it, and then doing a thread on what a non-story it is? Damn, you have sunk to a low to get posters here.
Sure, it is alleged that Clinton lied under oath, but that claim is disputed here, and even if the claims are completely true that he lied, they were pretty much over "so what" issues.
Now, Bush lies:
Iraq, Social Security, Cuba, & at least 25 others here, all being serious issues.
Bush lies about tax cuts & more.
There is even a site dedicated to his deceptions here.
So, take your penny-anny accusations at Clinton & shuv 'em. He wasn't one of my favorite people either, but at least every word that came out of his mouth wasn't a lie. Only half of them (unlike Bush, who lies continuously & consistently on everything).
So much for supporting the troops.
Post a Comment