Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Byron York: There's a lot we don't know yet about the CIA flap
The Hill ^ | 7/13/05 | Byron York

Posted on 07/13/2005 3:28:51 PM PDT by Jean S

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-247 next last
To: Howlin

Don't forget that Cooper is married to Mandy Grunwald, another of Hillary's creatures.

Need I say more?


121 posted on 07/13/2005 6:04:59 PM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution © 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: generationfixit
Since we all know just a little about this...why is David Gregory and the rest of the MSM so focused on Rove? I mean Gregory is obviously a hack but it seems the actual investigation is not news...is this by design?

There's not news because the investigation is secret, and no one is talking about it. Therefore, there's nothing to report on it. The reason everyone is focused on Rove is because he was identified as one of two White House sources for the story. What we're not sure of is whether or not a)Rove actually leaked Plame's name, or something else and b)whether or not Plame was actually undercover at the time, or had been undercover within the five years before the leak, either of which would make releasing her name illegal.
122 posted on 07/13/2005 6:05:53 PM PDT by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: generationfixit
What if Rove is fired? What if we find out he did it and it's all done? What then? What possible benefit does this have for the Dems?

Because if they succeed in getting Rove, they'll immediately make the argument that he was authorized to leak Plame's identity by someone higher up in the White House, probably Dick Cheney, and then they'll start baying for his head while they link him back to President Bush.

And then, the articles of impeachment.

123 posted on 07/13/2005 6:08:06 PM PDT by CFC__VRWC ("Anytime a liberal squeals in outrage, an angel gets its wings!" - gidget7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Quick1; Howlin
Page 52 of the report:

That is EXACTLY what Alan Colmes just brought up on Hannity & Colmes

124 posted on 07/13/2005 6:08:22 PM PDT by Mo1 (We will stay in the fight until the fight is won ~~~ President G.W. Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Howlin

Now wouldn't that be special ;-)


125 posted on 07/13/2005 6:09:08 PM PDT by PogySailor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: TC Rider

No.

And my latest theory is this: Brit Hume said tonight that some OTHER reporter is the one who told Karl Rove that Joe Wilson was married to Valerie Plame. Now this was when Joe Wilson was telling everybody that Cheney went for him.

So I am thinking that Rove was honestly trying to warm Cooper off; in fact, Byron York just said on Hannity & Colmes that Rove knew while he was talking to Cooper that George Tenet was going to make a statement that very night that contradicted some of what Wilson was claiming.

But back to Miller: it's my opinion that Judith Miller just might be the "reporter" who told Karl Rove that Joe Wilson was married to Valerie Plame of CIA fame -- and she heard it from some big Democrat and that is who SHE is covering for.


126 posted on 07/13/2005 6:10:20 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

"What we're not sure of is whether or not a)Rove actually leaked Plame's name, or something else and b)whether or not Plame was actually undercover at the time, or had been undercover within the five years before the leak, either of which would make releasing her name illegal."

Please give us the rest of the requirements in the 1972 law that make an improper revealing of a covert agent's name illegal. No one at this point really believes any law was broken wrt to Plame, not even the Washington Compost or the NY Slimes.


127 posted on 07/13/2005 6:11:08 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
Page 52 of the report: "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." -US Ambassador to Niger

You're cherrypicking:

From the Washington Post:

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.

128 posted on 07/13/2005 6:13:07 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Wierd. I don't even have cable. :)


129 posted on 07/13/2005 6:13:11 PM PDT by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
They were outraged that Wilson lied in his op-ed piece (now proven by the Senate Intelligence Commmitte report)

BTW, are you unfamiliar with the fact that the reason the White House was so upset was because Wilson claimed he went for Cheney -- and that Cheney HAD TO HAVE SEEN HIS REPORT before Bush spoke those words in the State of the Union address, so they lied?

In fact, he never made a written report and Cheney never even knew he went.

Read pages 47 to 57 of that report........the BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committe Report said he lied about practically everything.

130 posted on 07/13/2005 6:16:19 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Cautor

If no one believes any law was broken, why is there still an ongoing investigation?


131 posted on 07/13/2005 6:17:37 PM PDT by Quick1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Did Colmes just say "It was well known she was undercover?"

ROFLMAO.


132 posted on 07/13/2005 6:18:41 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

But look at the chronology of this....

Wilson writes a story slaming Bush and lying about his trip.

Then in a way to get info a reporter asks Rove about his thoughts and Rove basically de-bunks Wilson.

Wilson is then proven a liar by the Senate and the press is now zeroing in on who leaked Wilson's wife's name? This just does not add up


133 posted on 07/13/2005 6:19:06 PM PDT by generationfixit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
My bet is that Judith Miller was that reporter -- and now Miller is refusing to say WHO told her about Plame.

Consider:

a. Judith Miller is a Washington-based reporter for the New York Times, specializing in WMD issues.

b. Valerie Plame is a Washington-based employee of the CIA, specializing in WMD issues. She also happens to socialize in circles frequented by the media.

My bet is that they knew each other. And I agree that Miller may well have been a source for others. And her source, in turn, was the wife of that renowned media hound, Joseph C. Wilson IV (if not Wilson...)

134 posted on 07/13/2005 6:19:54 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Howlin; Mo1; cyncooper
A heads up, Jow Wilson is going to be on the Today show tomorrow.

Saw the commercial while channel surfing earlier.

135 posted on 07/13/2005 6:21:59 PM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: CFC__VRWC

Ahhh Makes sense...forgot about the forever Nixon land they live in


136 posted on 07/13/2005 6:23:41 PM PDT by generationfixit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Quick1
What we're not sure of is whether or not a)Rove actually leaked Plame's name, or something else and b)whether or not Plame was actually undercover at the time, or had been undercover within the five years before the leak, either of which would make releasing her name illegal.

There are a few other elements to 50 USC 421.

Section (a) or (b) (either one alone) recites the necessary elements. The amicus brief filed by the media in this case argues that disclosing Plame's name does not clearly satisfy these elements, mostly because the US did not "take affirmative measures to conceal such covert relationship," but also for other reasons.

§ 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources
Release date: 2005-03-17

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


137 posted on 07/13/2005 6:23:44 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Did you see the way that Colmes opened the show yesterday? He said, "Will President Bush honor his promise to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak?" I saw where Bush said he'd fire anyone who was found to do something illegal; he never said anything about someone "involved" in the incident.

-PJ

138 posted on 07/13/2005 6:25:35 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Even better: today during the White House press conference, when he was asked that same question, Bush said that he thought it was too early to make judgements about this case, that we should wait until we have the facts.

On ABC tonight, they reported "The president refused to take a stand on whether Karl Rove should be fired or not."


139 posted on 07/13/2005 6:28:22 PM PDT by Howlin (Who is Judith Miller covering up for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Quick1

Because someone most probably lied and committed perjury in their testimony before the grand jury. It's the cover up that usually creates the problem. No one today is arguing the original disclosure was illegal except the totally uninformed or those who wish not to be informed. Miller is the one who is the key. She prefers a few months in jail to fingering one of her leftist presstitute pals.


140 posted on 07/13/2005 6:28:57 PM PDT by Cautor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 241-247 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson