|Anyone want to comment on Wilson-gate ?||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 28, 2003 4:15 PM
|Is it a non-issue, or is it "the big one."|
|I've been out of touch for a few days. What'd I miss? (nm)||Cory|
Sep 28, 2003 6:51 PM
|The short story||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 29, 2003 5:00 AM
|Bush guys get mad at person who says that Iraq didn't try to buy uranium. Leak that his wife is CIA, to get back at him.
Sep 29, 2003 5:15 AM
|It's definitely not "the big one", but it probably is a bit of an issue. There's no way that Karl Rove is stupid enough for something like that to be traceable back to the President. The "Senior Administration Official" will probably resign.
The crux of the issue really is how involved his wife was. I'd say there's a difference whether she was an analyst at Langly or in the field in Bagdhad, and I suspect it was the former.
|if she were simply an analyst||rufus|
Sep 29, 2003 6:48 AM
|there's be no need for her identity and occupation to be kept a secret. it appears that she, using her own name, had a phony job in the energy industry, and used the contacts and people she met in that position, to gather information about the buying and selling of WMD's around the world. as such, once her identity as a cia operative was revealed, her usefulness becomes zero, and any information networks she had developed evaporate. it could take a long time to recover and redevelop information assets in this area.|
|I don't think it's that clear,||TJeanloz|
Sep 29, 2003 7:01 AM
|I haven't seen a published report about what she was actually doing, except that she was "undercover", which implies something along the lines of what you describe.
However, the issue is really whether or not exposing her directly put her or her network in physical danger. If it did not, I don't think it's a big deal. If it did, it is a big deal. I don't believe the answer to this question is publically available.
In an ideal world would her name have been released? Probably not. Do I believe it was released in a deliberate attempt to threaten her and other agents, probably not. Do I think it was released to discredit her husband? Probably the likely scenario.
|What about her contacts ?||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 29, 2003 7:01 AM
|How many of them will die ?|
Sep 29, 2003 7:04 AM
|I think it's pretty premature to believe that everybody she's ever met is in danger. I know people who work for the CIA, and should they be exposed, I'm not worried. You and I have no idea who her contacts are, how mundane or critical they are, and how much danger they might be in. It's ridiculous to speculate that everybody who comes in contact with the CIA will be killed if they are exposed. This isn't James Bond.|
|It's the American way, to speculate.||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 29, 2003 7:22 AM
|Yes, I know that it may be premature to get out the tar and feathers, but when you are not a bush-friendly person, it's easy to start beating the drum.|
|The credibility cost||Starliner|
Sep 29, 2003 8:48 AM
|Did whoever exposed her weigh the benefit of exposing her against the cost of wasting the time, energy and resources it took to build up a network, and the increased difficulty it may now take to recreate it, considering how the risk of being exposed is now a very real consideration for any potential recruits?
Sounds like a case of treason.
|When we're talking about attack politics, they seldom..||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 29, 2003 9:01 AM
|weigh the costs.............. Question. What would people say, if Clinton's people did this ???????|
|The same thing, but that doesn't make it right,||TJeanloz|
Sep 29, 2003 9:05 AM
|If the tables were turned, conservatives would almost certainly be branding the offender as a traitor. That's the political game.
The undertone is that she was put in imminent danger by her exposure - but that isn't really clear to me. People say that this will effect others, but everybody in the Government knows there's some degree of politics going on, and if being exposed without being endangered is part of those politics, I don't think it would change people's attitudes.
|Weigh the costs?||53T|
Sep 29, 2003 9:15 AM
|If Mr. high and mighty knew his wife was working for the administration (CIA is in the Executive branch) why did he feel so compeled to make trouble? If he has to clear his conscience, he has to pay the price. Politics is not a game.|
|Excellent point! Can you believe ...||Live Steam|
Sep 29, 2003 9:32 AM
|all these conspiracy theorist? It's not like the Bushies caused a plane to fly into the side of a mountain or something :O)|
|Make trouble ??????||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 29, 2003 9:49 AM
|If by making trouble, you mean telling the truth. Then, yes, he was making trouble.
Heads will roll, on this one.
|Funny stuff!! LOL!!!||Live Steam|
Sep 29, 2003 10:11 AM
|"Ashcroft should recuse himself"? Like Janet Reno was capable of investigating Bubba or herself for that matter?
This Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV (la-de-da), says "My sources tell me that at a minimum Mr. Rove condoned it." Sounds like he is relying on leaked info himself. This guy was a Clinton lackey. I wouldn't be surprised if he outed his wife himself. It's probably cheaper than divorce.
Look at how he sells himself in the link below. He's probably pissed that he didn't get any contracts out of the Bush admin.
|Are you the only person ...||sacheson|
Sep 29, 2003 11:23 AM
|... that doesn't see yourself as a one-sided, close-minded, conspiracy theorist freak you are?
Just when I think you can't get any more absurd, you drum up some obnixious comment that Wilson wants a divorce, so he leaked the information.
Tell us the truth - do you actually believe this stuff yourself?
Man, you're a piece of work.
|LOL!!!!!! You're easy :O)||Live Steam|
Sep 29, 2003 11:40 AM
|Hey you know what's really funny? I didn't know anything much about Joseph la-de-da Wilson IV so I did a Google on him - after I made the post above. Guess what I found? (Pay attention now because this is the funny part) There has been a rumor on the Net about just that - that la-de-da Wilson outed his wife because he wants a divorce from her :O) Really do a Google and see for yourself. I thought that was very funny. Don't you? :O)|
|There's lots of stuff on the net.||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 29, 2003 12:30 PM
|including the one that claims that the whole reason for this Iraq war, is because of george's E.D.
You can't claim that one about 'ol Bill Clinton.
Ps. here's a funny one
"At the same time, the administration has been forced to admit that its most urgent reason for going to war in Iraq in the first placethe imminent threat supposedly posed by Saddam Husseinnow seems flimsy, at best. Even friends are becoming problematic. One of them is David Kay, whose preliminary report found no conclusive evidence that Saddam had had weapons of mass destruction, or programs to make them. Administration officials still expect to strike gold, so to speak. "I'll tell you what," said one Bush political insider. "We really need to find some fkin' WMD!"
|yes, it's a vast left-wing conspiracy. nm||rufus|
Sep 29, 2003 11:23 AM
|yes, politics is a game.||rufus|
Sep 29, 2003 11:28 AM
|with very high stakes. in this case it appears the bush administration felt it was more important to seek payback against someone they percieved as a political enemy, someone who possessed information that might have just disrupted the neo-con plans for US hegemony over the rest of the world, than it was to allow his wife to continue in her work tracking and preventing the sale of WMD's around the world, and thereby keeping this country safer from their use by madmen.|
Sep 30, 2003 7:27 AM
|If determining the governance of the world's poulation, the application of the force of the world's armies, and the expenditure of he world's public treasuries is a game, what is reality?
BTW, the neo-cons (whoever they are, I happen to be a neo-realist) don't have to plan for hegemony. We are already there, and have been since 1993.
|that is governing, not politics. nm||rufus|
Sep 30, 2003 8:03 AM
|if only those pesky repubs and kenneth starr||rufus|
Sep 29, 2003 11:37 AM
|hadn't felt so compelled to make trouble over a BJ. :(|
|Investigate Novak immediatly! (nm)||53T|
Sep 29, 2003 6:51 AM
|John Dean says that Nixon wasn't this bad.||MR_GRUMPY|
Sep 29, 2003 10:09 AM
|Good 'ol John Dean pops up again, and puts in his 2 cents. I guess that he wants to show that his old boss wasn't too bad, after all.