If I Give Links To The CORRECT Information on Plame And Wilson?

Question

Can we all agree to put the issue to rest and go away feeling enlightened and uplifted by the truth?

Say "Yes" and I'll provide links and quotes.

The sources are two that I wouldn't trust but I feel most people would. CNN, The Washington Post, etc.

Okay, First:

Libby wasn't the original source of Plame's alleged "outing": It was a Democrat, Richard Armitage who has already admitted to it.

I quote:

"I feel terrible," Armitage said. "Every day, I think, I let down the president. I let down the secretary of state. I let down my department, my family, and I also let down Mr. and Mrs. Wilson."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/08/leak.armitage/index.html

Though, Libby did confirm Armitage's information.

Second:

This may not even matter considering one of the Lawyer's who drafted the 1982 Identities Protection Act stated that it doesn't apply in this case.

I quote:

PHILLIPS: Well, aside from maybe partisan politics, looking strictly at the law that you drafted, do you see any evidence, according to this law, any evidence of any criminal wrongdoing?

SANFORD: No, I think it's pretty clear that what Karl Rove said to Time magazine's Matthew Cooper doesn't even come close to the kind of knowing violation that is required by the act. Really, the act really requires an intent to harm national security, and that certainly can't be said in these circumstances, I think.

PHILLIPS: .....So in other words, what you're saying, the reason there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing is because Karl Rove didn't do anything wrong because he didn't know that Plame was covert.

SANFORD: That's pretty clear from the notes, the e-mails that Time magazine released to the grand jury that [White House political adviser] Karl Rove said that [former Ambassador Joseph] Wilson's wife -- he didn't even use her name -- but Wilson's wife "apparently works" at the CIA.

It seems to me there's a substantial question whether she qualifies as the kind of covert agent that was envisioned by the act. There are very tight requirements for that.

And there is a substantial doubt whether the agency was taking the kind of affirmative measures to conceal her identity that the act talks about.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/14/sanford/

Third:

A Senate Intelligence Committee found that Wilson was lying about certain documents being forged and that what he found in fact bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And it was found that Wilson was also lying about the CIA telling the White House it had qualms with the reliabillity of the Africa Intelligence.

I quote:

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

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.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39834-2004Jul9?language=printer

The Washington Post even went as far as to say this about Wilson:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html

So there you have it.

1. Armitage leaked Plame's name to the press.

2. What did take place between Libby and Armitage and the media probably didn't consitute a violation of the Identities Protection Act because
A: There was no intent to harm national security
B: Plame didn't qualify as the type of "Covert Agent" that the act required.

3. Wilson was lying about almost EVERYTHING he said. Mainly
A: The Yellowcake sales (there were attempts)
B: That the intelligence was fake because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong". He never saw them
C: His wife DID recommend him to go on the trip, which is a violation of policy.

So, take it or leave it. But please do not say that you were not given the chance and material to be enlightened by the truth.

Wyldfyr,
You seem to be ignoring every sentence but the one pertaining to national intelligence.

You are still avoiding the fact that it was Armitage who was the original source of the information. Not Rove and not Libby.

You also avoid the fact that it was clearly stated that Plame didn't meet the requirements for a covert agent that the 1982 Identities Protection Act set forth.

Explain that please.....

Answer 1

You can provide it all day long... they will never listen.

As you can see.... I am not wrong...

I like how I have more thumbs down than people that answered... notice... most could not answer...

Answer 2

You can provide whatever you want. It was a bullshit trick what the current Administration pulled. I have a great deal of respect for people in Ms. Plame's line of work, and I do not share the opinion that they are simply pawns that the Administration can use at will.

Whether it be "intelligence to order" intel failures or outing an agent in retribution, it was wrong.

Ever notice there are plenty of intelligence faillures, but very few political failures? I hypothesize it is the other way around.

Answer 3

So the intent of the perpetrator now becomes operative. So if Libby or Rove outed a covert CIA agent if they didn't intend to damage national security (which ex-CIA director Tenet says they did) that makes it all right? Their intent was obviously partisan and that still makes it a crime. Whether or not they knew that Plame was a covert agent has no bearing. Ignorance is no excuse. Ignorance at that level is inexcusable if not unbelievable. If no one had done anything wrong then Bush should never have promised to fire whoever was responsible.

Answer 4

Libs will continue to bash Bush on this even though the truth has been provided

Answer 5

Your joking right. It wouldn't matter if your provided a direct link to Wilson admitting he outted his wife in his own voice; someone would disagree with the link.

Answer 6

It depends on if the sources are reputable or not.

Answer 7

No, because I already know the truth.

Answer 8

thanks, but i think we are all capable of thinking for ourselves.

but i'm sure rush, bill and sean are just waiting for your phone call...