CIA leak: Now it can be told; Novak reveals in new book how the secret unfolded

Chicago Sun-TImes ^ | July 8th, 2007 | Robert D. Novak

[anglian]

"Any links on the Saddam-Libyan joint nuke project? I’d love to see this explored further."

Here are some hits on FR Saddam/Libya connections

http://tinyurl.com/22vf9v

[MadMax, the Grinning Reaper]

Re “Phil Spector”?

Both from Pennsylvania, and possibly both from Philly.

I heard Arlen Spector speak in the 60’s when he was sane.

Now that he is in his 60’s, he is in-sane.

Phil Spector -loved that “wall of sound” sound. Now he’s surrounded by a different type of wall.

[txrangerette]

Ahhhhhhh...a kind word. A balm to the soul. Thanks.

[fiftymegaton]

I’ve listened to the released clip of the Armitage-Woodward audio taped interview probably a couple hundred times now and there are a few things that stay with me that denote further importance, IMO.

My interpretations:
First of all one of Armitage’s main purposes(maybe THE main purpose) of having the interview at all was to tell Woodward that Wilson’s wife worked for CIA. (how ‘bout that?) This seems to be the case with Novak also.

Second, Armitage had direct talks with Joe Wilson about the Niger trip in the not too distant past(prior to the interview).

Third, Armitage was shilling for the Agency and specifically George Tenet. Just seems odd that the number two man at State sounded more like he was really the number two man at CIA.

Also, the overlying tone of the interview was to discredit the Administration and not Joe Wilson.

So we now know the President never gave any orders to out Ms. Plame yet it seems pretty obvious that Armitage was on a campaign to do just that.

The questions then become:
Why?
Who ordered him to do so?
or maybe What consensus was formed to proceed to do so? Between whom? And what was the overall objective?

All considered, it’s seems ‘not a partisan gunslinger’ was not a very good description at all when talking of Richard Armitage, IMO.

[A CA Guy]

By John Hughes July 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald may be called to testify about his prosecution of former vice presidential aide Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said. Leahy and Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the panel, indicated they want to ... quiz Fitzgerald on his handling of the case.

``I still haven't figured out what that case is all about,'' Specter said. ``There are a lot of ramifications that I think we ought to go into.
Why were they pursuing the matter long after there was no underlying crime on the outing of the CIA agent? Why were they pursuing it after we knew who the leaker was?''

AMEN!

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>You sir are as arrogant as The Old Hoosier.<<<

You seem to be the expert on arrogance. How arrogant IS an old Hoosier?

>>>Serving facts up to the likes of you would be to waste good pearls on swine because obviously you wouldn’t know a Marxist from a vegetarian.<<<

That is pretty mouthy from someone with weak facts.

>>>The problem with George Bush is that he is not primarily a conservative, he is primarily a Christian<<<

And not a very good one. Jesus instructed the rich man to sell all he owned and give the money to the poor. Bush, on the other hand robs from Peter to pay Paul (prescription drugs; massive foreign aid, etc.). In other words, Bush is a socialist (Marxist).

>>>Bush is first a committed Christian, then a devoted family man who values personal loyalty to an extreme, and third, a conservative when that philosophy does not conflict with the first two.<<<

Let me rephrase that: Bush is first a committed Socialist, then a devoted family man who values personal loyalty to an extreme (that is, loyalty of others to him, but not him to others), and third he throws a bone at the conservatives every now and then.

>>>But they are not conservative. <<<

Well we agree on two things (the SCV would be the other).

Just kidding. I agree with most of what you said.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>First, if he were a total leftist, why did he heroically push a supply side solution to the economic troubles following the Clinton Bubble.<<<

I admitted in my post that he threw us a bone every now and then. He cut taxes, which was good, then he implemented a massive transfer of wealth (actually, a massive transfer of debt since we are clean out of wealth).

>>>Freneau claims that Bush claimed to be a conservative, but after in office supported a lot of what Fr. called Marxist legislation.<<<

Robbing from Peter to pay Paul is not Christian. It is Socialism (Marxism).

I admit there is a certain amount of Constitutionally-authorized Socialism, for example National Defense; Post Offices and Postal Roads; national standards, patents, and copyrites; regulation of commerce; and maybe a few other things.

If Bush wanted a massive Socialist entitlement, that will burden our posterity with massive debt for generations, then why not request an authorizing amendment to the Constitution? Why not? Because he would never get it ratified, even if he got Congress to authorize it. So, instead, he usurps the Constutition and implements a massive redistrubution of wealth, which is Marxism. That is no logical way to explain that one away.

Note that I wrote “for generations”. I hope our nation survives a few more generations, but with Bush’s open borders policy, that might be stretching it a bit

>>>Actually, Bush had long ago come out for federal education testing mandates, modeling them after his work in Texas education.<<<

The state level is where it belongs, and also the only place it is authorized by the Constitution. If Bush wanted federal control over education, why not request an Amendment to the Constitution to authorize it? Why not? Because he would never get it ratified, even if he got Congress to authorize it. So, instead, he usurps the Constutition and implements central government control over education, and central government control over education is Marxism, period. That is no logical way to explain that one away.

>>>e one exception I see is McCain-Feingold . . . But Bush was not going to oppose McCain.<<<

Bush made his bed with the devil, and now he has to lie in it. Of course, he will always have a few apologists trying to put a positive spin on it.

>>>If HE’S a Marxist or Leftist so is almost - not all - but almost all of the rest of America and officeholders who supported the legislation that Fr. so railed against.<<<

Now you are getting the picture. Have you not wondered why the elite are so much for free trade, open borders, and nation-destroying legislation like the Amnesty Bill? Because that is what Marx called for.

>>>And why rail against LBJ for allegedly starting it all?<<<

Because his so-called Great Society sent this nation rolling down a hill towards hell. When Bush made the claim that illegals were doing jobs Americans would not do, he was partly right. Many Americans don’t need to work because they get free money and free health care, compliments of LBJ. So they sit around on their lazy asses all day, trash their homes and neighborhoods, and pass on their laziness to their posterity. If they had to work, or starve, they would. They certainly did before LBJ.

[syriacus]

All considered, it’s seems ‘not a partisan gunslinger’ was not a very good description at all when talking of Richard Armitage, IMO.

From what you've written, I'd have to agree.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Is the difference between the other leakers and Wilson that the other leakers said ‘Wilson’s wife’ and Libby said ‘Valerie Plame’?

Are they taking the position that saying it was the guys wife is okay, but providing her maiden name was not?

[SunkenCiv]

---

The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years Reporting in Washington by Robert D. Novak

---