Posted on 10/19/2005 7:18:17 AM PDT by frankjr
shut up! Your wife works for the CIA!
Why ever did Joe broach the subject that Cheney sent him to Niger? Did he switch his story after the administration denied Cheney sent him?
What date did he say that on Blitzer's program?
You're right. Wilson's choice of words about who authorized the niger trip has always been used-car-salesman slick. He never actually fingered Cheney, but his clear desire, obviously, was to leave listeners with that impression, and to do so without actually saying as much.
The MSM dutifully reported the impression, rather than the precise quote, and -- presto! -- "Cheney sent Wilson" became an arrticle of faith. Ergo, Cheney knew of Plame's part and identity and must have been responsible for "outing" her.
Wilson really is a piece of absolute filth.
"OH!He simply MUST!"
Really?
Could you, please, show proof that Andrea Mitchell can't name witnesses who heard Wilson say Cheney sent him to Niger?
If you search the internet you might be able to find something.
I can't believe you until you find the proof somewhere.
Because he was asked the question - as a result of spinners saying 'Wilson lied when he said Cheney sent him.'
Jeebus. It would be much easier if you weren't trying to be purposefully obtuse. As for your question on the date - 8/3/03. Go read it, then try to explain why people are STILL trying to claim that 'Wilson lied when he said Cheney sent him.
Not only that, but how does he know what was said in the grand jury room. Rove and Scooter have testified freely many times. They gave waivers to all the reporters they talked to. One sat in jail for some time before she decided to testify. She then forgot who her source was. This is fn' ridiculous.
One journalist, NBC reporter and "Meet the Press" host Andrea Mitchell, appears to have several connections of interest.On July 6, she interviewed Wilson about his trip to Niger, and two days later she reported officials tried to cast Wilson as a Democratic "partisan." And on July 16, her husband, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, was honored at a White House reception held to celebrate former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday. The grand jury subpoenaed the guest list, which has not been released.
"I shouldn't talk about it," Mitchell said Friday, declining to say if she attended the reception. Asked why the grand jury might be interested in it, she said, "I can't even imagine."
Please prove that I am being purposefully obtuse.
Didn't Cooper bring the subject up at the end of the conversation?
You just did it for me.
Aren't we all allowed to request substantiation of statements?
Has Wilson ever disputed what Andrea Mitchell said he said?
Yep. Cooper called about welfare or social-security reform (forget which), then slipped the Plame questions in at the end.
This is important because the MSM and Wilson claimed that Rove and Libby were initiating contact with reporters.
Rove told Cooper not to get too far out on the Wilson story because Wilson had credibility issues. He then said something to the effect that Wilson was sent on the trip because his wife worked at the CIA.
He did not identify Plame as a NOC or use her name.
Personal theory is that Plame was removed from covert ops when it turned out she was having an affair with a married diplomat (Wilson) in 1997. Wilson was, at the time, Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council.
This affair opened one or both of them up to the possibility of blackmail. Wilson has since left public service.
Wilson decided to make a future with the Kerry camp by writing the article for the NYT and basically lying about what he found.
So if you say something to me and I report it, it doesn't count unless it is in my notes or on tape? When you talk to a reporter, you expect them to report what you say. If what Andrea said is untrue, Wilson could dispute it. So far he hasn't.
Thanks for refreshing my memory.
I keep that under cover.
Love your Tagline! Yes, stomping was my first choice, too. Just enough to get the message across (smile).
In quoting my post, you ask "who said 'Valerie Plame IS working on classified WMD work for the CIA, undercover'?"
You seem to have deliberately ignored the opening portion of my sentence, "Let's assume a situation where someone like Valerie Plame....."
My points were, and are, that (1) the Espionage Act is on its face much broader than the specific "code books," etc. that are discussed in it, and (2) that's the right way for it to be. I WANT "documents," "notes," and other "information" related to national defense to be protected from disclosure, which is just the way that the Espionage Act is written. And, just as I stated in my original post, IF "someone like" Valerie Plame IS in fact undercover on WMD issues, I want that information protected along with the "code books."
Now, do you have any response to my actual post, rather than just taking out a portion of a sentence?
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.