The real story about Plame!

[SuperScout]

A new book by Michael Isikoff, an investigative reporter for Newsweek, and David Corn, who writes for the far left wing magazine The Nation, casts many powerful people in Washington in an unflattering light, but not the people who Isikoff and Corn wish to besmirch.

A brief review for those of you who have lives, and who consequently haven't been following closely the details of the Plame Name Game: In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

First in leaks to reporters, and then in his own op-ed in The New York Times, a retired diplomat, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, said the president was lying. His claim to speak with authority was that in the spring of 2002, the CIA had sent him to Niger to see if Saddam had tried to buy uranium there.

Wilson's charge was important because it marked the beginning of the "Bush lied" meme about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee; the Robb-Silberman commission on prewar intelligence, and the British Butler commission all concluded it was Wilson who was not telling the truth. Saddam had indeed tried to buy uranium in Africa, as even Wilson himself had acknowledged to the CIA officers who debriefed him after his Niger trip.

One of the false claims Wilson made was that he had been sent to Niger at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney. In his July 14, 2003 column, Robert Novak disclosed that he had been sent instead at the insistence of his wife, Valerie Plame, who worked at the CIA.

Plame had once been an undercover operative. Concern was expressed that the leaker had violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. [There was no violation of the Act, or else Fitzgerald wouldhave indicted somebody for the offense.]

Wilson blamed the leak on White House political guru Karl Rove, claiming it was payback for his "whistle-blowing." [GASP!! anotehr liberal who was/is full of BS, and doesn't know what he's talking about? How can this be???] A special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was appointed to investigate the charge. Fitzgerald eventually indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then the chief of staff to the vice president, on a charge of having lied to a grand jury about from whom he had learned of Plame's occupation. He is awaiting trial. [$20 says he will either be found innocent, or the charges will be dropped before trial.]

No indictments have been brought on the charge Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate, because it is clear there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. [Isn't this what I jsut said?} The act applies only to those who are operating under cover overseas, or who have done so within five years of the disclosure of their identities. Plame had been manning a desk at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. for longer than that.

Isikoff and Corn disclose that it was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage [no friend of the current administration] who disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to Bob Novak, which is not exactly news to those who have been following the case. But Isikoff and Corn provide details which reflect poorly on Armitage, Fitzgerald and the journalists who knew the truth at the time.

Armitage disclosed to his boss, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and to Justice Department officials his role in the case in October, 2003, after a second Novak column, Isikoff and Corn say.

For more than three years, Rove and Libby have been accused, falsely, of being the source of the leak. Armitage, Powell, and Justice department officials knew the truth, but said nothing. Clarice Feldman, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, described Armitage's silence as "inexplicable and perfidious."

"Had he spoken out publicly immediately, could there have been a reason for the press to have demanded the appointment of the feckless special prosecutor?" she asked.

Fitzgerald knew in his first few days on the job that Armitage was the leaker; that the leak was inadvertent and that the Intelligence Identities Act hadn't been violated. Yet he has persisted in a sham prosecution.

Isikoff and Corn write: "The Plame leak in Novak's column has long been cited by Bush administration critics as a deliberate act of payback, orchestrated to punish and/or discredit Joe Wilson after he charged that the Bush administration had misled the American public about prewar intelligence."

They add, lamely, that: "The Armitage news does not fit neatly into that framework."

They don't mention that Isikoff and (especially) Corn have been among the journalists flogging this memo, and the time that it takes to research and write a book indicates they've known for quite some time that it isn't true. They're only willing to tell the truth, now, for money. [What, anothe rliberal without virtue or integrity?? Gasp!!]

[Jerry D]

I like what the "Washington Post" said about the investigation. If Mr Wilson wants someone to blame for outing his wife as a Spy just take a look in a mirror.

[SuperScout]

Wilson, like most self-important liberals, wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in their self-righteous asses. And even if they felt the bite, they wouldn't admit that they were bit. Wilson is a liar and a hypocrite.

[SuperScout]

?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.? ?Washington Post editorial

So there you have it, boys and girls. Even one of the most left-leading publications, the Washington Post , finally had the intestinal fortitude to admit the truth. Now, if we can just get some of the leftists apologists that occasionally post here to admit their mistakes, they might become a bit more credible.

Might just have to up my wager to $50 that Scooter Libby will either be acquited and found innocent of all charges, or the charges will be dropped by the special prosecutor before the trial even begins.

[Seascamp]

I?m still anxious to learn the source of the 400 tons of yellow cake found in Baghdad. I figure that Plame and Wilson got in way over their head from the get-go and have been pealing carpet trying to find a door out of the box they put them selves into.

For instance, how in the world does an alleged ?secret agent man? get a CIA privy report on the public street so quickly? Supposedly, he was on a CIA junket, therefore the CIA owned the information and assigned classification and routing. That alone has an eye-watering stench about it that announce some slight of hand flim-flam moves happening.

Notables usually get an assigned historic tag-sentence or so, and theirs could be, ?Oh what a mighty web we weave???.etc.


Scamp

[SuperScout]

Apparently, you saw the story long before I did! Not only is the story truly amazing, but that the WP would even print it is a story unto itself!

Scamp: the non-news about the yellow cake was the fastest disappearing story since the news broke about Paris Hilton's lost virginity. Seems folks just cannot seem to wrap their intellectual
arms around the concept of the logistics of shipping 400 tons of the stuff, off-loading it from some tanker, as to be the only plausible means of delivery, and then transporting said stuff to Baghdad. From what I know, yellwo cake is not used for anything other than enrichment purposes, and we all know wher that leads to: WMD

[Jerry D]

Brice , I heard of the Washington Post Story on Fox and friends the other day. Agreed it surprised me too they printed it too.

[Seascamp]

Not sure I?m not ready to assign some altruistic high notions or motives to the Post editorial. Gut feel says that some ?name? in the Mother ship decided to cease beating a dead horse, cut their losses n? liabilities and the Post got tagged to ring the wolf feeding bell. Plus maybe try to punch up sagging circulation.

As to the Baghdad yellow cake, ya, thats a bunch, it aint for eatin and is the source material used to make plutonium.

Best bet is that a French mining consortium is in the source loop, but the three monkies are keeping the suorce data under wraps. Maybe it just done growed out the river bank. :cl:

Scamp

[SuperScout]

Chalk it up to falling subsrciptions and advertising revenues, I suspect that the Washington Post, like the ol' Grey Lady herself, have succumbed to the lure of the almighty dollar more than ever, making them a bigger journalistic whore that ever before. Zoe, to cite mon ami Scamp, the story gets printed, all in an effort to sell more newspapers, and let the spears land wher they might.

If the Froggies are indeed the source of the yellow cake, it will require the efforts of such reporters as Eric Shawn and others of his calibre to pull the story out. Theywere the ones who blew the cover on the oil for food scandal, a story that has sadly slipped off the frontpages.

[reconeil]

Even though politics in general and especially overall deceptive and character assassinating Democrat style politics starting to-bore-hell-out-of me since so obviously perpetrated,...always glad hearing when Actual Truths of grave matters and concerns surface and/or slip-through-the-cracks.

Sure, such often eventually do. But, usually not soon enough to do any good: "For The People", nor to my liking. Hope none of those: "NONE EXISTENT WMD's" DON'T show up near my neighborhood?

Still, it's too bad or unfortunate that such typical: "Bush Bashings"(plus Administration) and/or deceits meant solely for making all Republican Leaders look BAD and all Democrat Leaders quite deceptively look GOOD come to light,...that finally The Truths don't garner near as much copy or air time as all the previous Lyings did. Truths about such seem to be sort-of kept big secrets,...or just deemed not: "Civil" nor politically-correct and/or sanitized enough for exposure to The People??

In fairness, The Mainstream Press/Media and/or DNC's main PR People must be just as embarrassed being caught disseminating such lies publicly, as are the purposeful truth twisting Democrats most always spouting same purposeful lies? Such understandable.

Besides, NO ONE (re. Democrats & Supportive Journalists) like being publicly exposed as hypocritical fools, anyway. So, it's only natural hiding or keeping their blatant biases and collusions under-the-rug,...and as much as possible.

Hey,...Democrat Politicians can't be ALL THAT BAD.
Otherwise, why would so many foreigners (even foreign enemies), ACLU, Cindy Sheehan and Jane Fonda types ALL much prefer that The Democrats: "Recapture The White House"?

See, I told you so. Democrat Leaders or Wannabees can't be ALL THAT BAD, after all.
Neil