RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


I call TREASON! Yes, I do!(43 posts)

I call TREASON! Yes, I do!OldEdScott
Oct 2, 2003 5:47 AM
Well, not me really, but that old flyboy and defeated incumbent President George H.W Bush, actually. Good old GHW finally brings inclusiveness to the Treason wars. In his remarks at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence at the CIA on April 26, 1999.

The text is available on the CIA Web site.

What young Dubya's father said was: "Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors."

Traitors? TREASON? Hell, I thought it was just political disagreement or criticism of the thuggish Bush White House that constituted treason. I am tickled to DEATH to know that, according to GHWB's formulation, I will have Big Dick Cheney or Boy Genius Rove to while away the hours with, presumably discussing Deep Politics, in Treason Camp soon.

Life just couldn't be sweeter.
And heres what the Shrub had to say:torquer
Oct 2, 2003 6:08 AM
Dubya was quoted yesterday as saying that if any of his staff was the source of the leaks, they would be "taken care of."

He should choose his words more carefully; this could be read that they would be taken care of Dirty Harry style ("bring 'em on"), but some of us more cynical types would expect that to mean new identities, safe houses, and six-figure fellowships at the American Enterprise Institute.

On the other hand, its a valuable skill for politicians to phrase their promises so that different constituencies can interpret them however they want.
I noticed that too. Every political writer I know hasOldEdScott
Oct 2, 2003 6:11 AM
been chuckling about that phrase. The consensus is, it means the AEI fellowship! 'Taken care of.' LOL LOL!
Are you inferring that Bush had the forethought...rwbadley
Oct 2, 2003 6:20 AM
or coherence to phrase a sentance in this manner? I'ts just the same ol' swill rolling out from between two lips.

"Taken care of" in this case is all he could come up with that implies he'll perform some act of vengance, when in fact he has no real idea what to do and will wait for his advisers to tell him what the polls say would be most appropriate.
i'm sure karen hughes wrote that line for him. nmrufus
Oct 2, 2003 6:23 AM
Are you inferring that Bush had the forethought...torquer
Oct 2, 2003 6:50 AM
"he'll perform some act of vengance...when in fact he has no real idea what to do and will wait for his advisers to tell him what the polls say would be most appropriate."

Why not? That approach seems to be working for him in Iraq, right?
don't infer, steam will get mad. nmrufus
Oct 2, 2003 8:01 AM
The George Bush Center for IntelligenceKristin
Oct 2, 2003 6:26 AM
That's like The Derik Zoolander School for Children Who Can't Read Good.
Bam! lol nm128
Oct 2, 2003 6:29 AM
or the Bill Clinton School for Ethics and Morality nmDougSloan
Oct 2, 2003 6:44 AM
george went to Bill's school........MR_GRUMPY
Oct 2, 2003 6:54 AM
unless you are talking about "personal" ethics and morality.
I guess I'm not surprised he came up in this context...rwbadley
Oct 2, 2003 7:08 AM
He may have had some problem with the truth vs fiction ;-)

The difference between Clinton/Bush being Clintons' staff and advisors appeared to have a semblance of honor and intent to try and do the 'right thing'. (from this liberals pov ;)) Clinton also had a sharp mind and did his own homework on the issues of the day. These key points may be what separates the wheat from the chaff. Clinton was an eloquent speaker and was tops at 'glad handing' on a world stage. These are of course in my opinion.

Don't get me wrong, the current administration has some fine quality staff and have done well for themselves.

It would seem the tone of Georges character is that squinty eyed 'ain't trustin' nobody nohow cuz I know how people are' sort. The whole 'we'll go it alone don't confuse me with issues cuz my mind is made up I rely on what my people tell me there's no real reason for me to get my news from elsewhere cuz WE make the news they'll get a whuppin when they get caught' sort of wears thin after a while...

;-)RW
Another takemoneyman
Oct 2, 2003 7:59 AM
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal opinion page, an admittedly biased source, looks at the "outing" a bit differently than the "mainstream" media. Joseph Wilson, the center of the attention, has said that Karl Rove was responsible for the leak, yet offered no evidence that such was the case. Wilson has been opposed to the war in Iraq, and in fact blew his own CIA cover by writing an op-ed piece in the NY Times in July. The outing by Novak came when he reported that Wilson was hired based on the recommendation of his wife. When he claimed openly that, in the words of the WSJ, "a U.S. President sent American soldiers off to die for a lie, certainly that operative's own motives and history ought to be on the table." Mrs. Wilson is no spook in Baghdad, but rather sits at a desk at CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Hardly the stuff that Tom Clancy novels are made of, and hardly endangering her credibility or her life. "It remains far from clear that any law was violated."

The real target in the furor is Karl Rove. He has been very successful in his job, and the Dems and the mainstream media are salivating thinking they can get him gone. Like a football coach targeting the star quarterback of the opposing team for injury. If they succeed, according to the WSJ, they will be able to dictate the rest of the course of the Bush presidency. I agree.

It's not national security or the lives of spies at risk. Its about politics, with the prize being the White House and all its trappings.

Food for thought.

$$
it really doesn't matter where his wife sat.rufus
Oct 2, 2003 8:10 AM
her identity as a cia employee, or operative, or whatever term you wish to use, was supposed to be kept secret. someone in this administration(i believe, scooter libby, with the full knowledge and approval of karl rove) revealed that identity, which broke the law.

meanwhile, other cia personnel have said that while she sits at a desk currently, she has worked covertly in the field in the past, and run intelligence assets.

" Wilson has been opposed to the war in Iraq, and in fact blew his own CIA cover by writing an op-ed piece in the NY Times in July" i don't know what you mean here. are you saying that wilson was also working for the CIA as a covert agent? he did go on a factfinding mission at their behest, but he hardly was a cia operative. or are you saying that since he ratted on the admin's phony claim, that he and all his acquaintances were fair game for revenge?
Jumping to conclusionsTJeanloz
Oct 2, 2003 8:23 AM
As I understand it, the law prohibits federal employees from revealing the identities of CIA agents. I like how people who have no idea what they're talking about have concluded that Karl Rove was the guy.

Other sources have said that it was basically common knowledge, or that the identification came from former employees. Bottom line is that it's premature to say at this point, and I really don't see the foul committed given the publically available information.
Clarification of the law neededDale Brigham
Oct 2, 2003 8:57 AM
I don't recall that the law prohibits only federal employees from revealing identities of covert agents, but rather is intended to prohibit anyone (e.g., you and me) from doing so. From what I have read, journalists that print same are protected from prosecution unless they engage in repeated or systematic violations of the statute. As I understand, this law was created in 1982 in response to Phillip Agee, a former CIA employee who "outed" CIA operatives worldwide, which, in some cases, lead to their murder.

I've had a hard time finding definitive descriptions of this statute, so I apologize if I am in error. Any lawyers out there to help set me straight? (Doug?)

Dale
Another takeLive Steam
Oct 2, 2003 8:30 AM
I like the way the previous respondent calls it a phony claim that Saddam and Co. tried to purchase Uranium for a bomb. How stupid and blind to reality, can one be? Does anyone really believe that Saddam wouldn't want to acquire uranium and hadn't tried to at one time or another? I see that thinking to be completely illogical. Besides this la-de-da Joseph Wilson IV is not a CIA operative as this same brilliant respondent to your prior post, pointed out. Who said he was qualified to actually ferret out info on uranium purchases in the first? Was he trained for this type of work? Can just anyone be a CIA operative because his wife works there? For all we know this schlep went to Africa to sip tea and eat scones. This whole thing stinks and I think it will blow up in the "D"ummy's face(s). This is a none issue. His wife is a nobody who has nothing to fear while going to get her nails done. Next!
It's just one more turn of the screw, Steam.OldEdScott
Oct 2, 2003 8:42 AM
Tightening, tightening, he gathering revulsion the country feels for the thuggery of this administration.

How can you, a principled conservative, admire these people, Steam? They're everything conservatives are NOT.
former ambassador to iraqrufus
Oct 2, 2003 8:42 AM
as well as diplomat and expert on that area of africa, he had connections in the niger government and intelligence agencies, knew personally many of the niger officials who supposedly had signed the phony documents.

do you get all your info from g. gordon liddy?
Not true, former Acting Ambassador to Iraq...TJeanloz
Oct 2, 2003 8:52 AM
For about a month before he left in the face of Desert Storm.

He also worked in Al Gore's office for two years.

Regardless, he is considered an expert on sub-saharan Africa.
Yes but ....Live Steam
Oct 2, 2003 9:06 AM
Since everyone knows him, why would anyone divulge the info to him? Why would they want to be the person to snitch on Saddam? Shouldn't someone working covertly been used to extract this type of info? This thing stinks of something!

How's this for a conspiracy? Wilson is a known Clintonista, so why he was selected for this I don't know. I know GW1 appointed him, but he flourished under Clinton's admin. He is one of them. Now follow me here, especially Ed since he will know how this stuff works. This la-de-da JW IV is planted by the Dems (his wife pushed his selection for this mission). No matter what he finds regarding uranium, he reports negatively to undermine Bush's policy and this admin. Then he plants the story with Novak about how his wife was outed by Carl Rove to inflict more damage to Bush's re-election bid.

Isn't it possible that this guy is lying on all accounts? If someone is capable of purposefully outing an agent for political purposes, as is alleged, someone is also capable of what I suggested for political purposes. I think la-de-da Wilson IV is deep throat! This will be a movie someday :O)
Fascinating stuff, isn't it?moneyman
Oct 2, 2003 9:13 AM
Sounds entirely plausible. And likely. And I'm no conspiracy theorist. I hate using cliches, but truth is stranger than fiction.

$$
Ah Steam, I like your style. We could use you.OldEdScott
Oct 2, 2003 9:20 AM
But you ignore the fact that Novak (and at least some of the other reporters, I believe) say the info came from two 'senior Administration officials.' In journalism, that is a very specific, technical term -- it means someone REALLY high up, the Vice President, the National Security Advisor, someone at the level of Karl Rove, etc.

Unless you're prepared to say Novak et al are lying about where their story came from, which is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible, your scenario doesn't hold up.

Good try, though. You think like a pro!
He's actually waffled on that a bit,TJeanloz
Oct 2, 2003 9:25 AM
Apparently when he asked Wilson for a comment, he told him that it was a former official, and at another point said it was somebody else. There's certainly reasonable doubt as to whether or not it was actually a current senior administration official. Further complicating things, when he was asked which it was (the one he told Wilson, or the one he printed) he said something like: "I misspoke", but wasn't clear about which time he had misspoken.
From the unimpeachable New York PostOldEdScott
Oct 2, 2003 9:35 AM
"Novak, in a column published Wednesday, wrote that he discovered Plame's identity when talking with a senior administration official about why Wilson, who had been part of President Clinton's National Security Council, had been chosen to investigate allegations that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

"A second official confirmed that Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, Novak wrote, adding that the CIA itself never suggested to him that publication of her name would endanger anyone ..."

So as recently as yesterday, Novak said 'senior administration official.' Has he waffled today?

Also, he wouldn't have used the formulation 'misspoke' to refer to an error in his written column.
I don't know, you don't know, this is retardedTJeanloz
Oct 2, 2003 9:41 AM
This has to be one of the more retarded episodes I've ever seen. At least the most retarded thing since Whitewater. It's a non-story, especially if, as everybody has suggested, the President can't be implicated.

I've seen so many reports that are based on nuance of language and style that I think we're playing a big game of telephone, and dissecting the statements we hear at the end. It does amuse me quite a bit that when Democrats want to, they ridicule the President for mis-speaking, but other times, they feaverishly claim that the President knows EXACTLY what he's saying at all times, and would say one wrong syllable. Funny stuff, really.
Stay on task! We're talking about Novak, not theOldEdScott
Oct 2, 2003 9:54 AM
President. And Novak's use of JOURNALISTIC language IS as precise and parsable as an algebraic equation. 'Senior administration official' has a SPECIFIC meaning according to the rules of journalism, rules I know by heart. I thought that's what we were discussing.

Whether this is a non-story or not is another matter altogether. If it's as big a non-story as Whitewater, we'll be hearing about it from Steam for the next 30 years!
Heheheheee!!! Who me? nmLive Steam
Oct 2, 2003 10:01 AM
I know :O)Live Steam
Oct 2, 2003 9:33 AM
Hey we're talkin' CIA, spy games and politics. This is totally within the relm of posibility.

You are wrong about how NOvak describes his source. This is what is important from Novak's response to this stupid affair - "This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: ''Oh, you know about it.'' The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause ''difficulties'' if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission."


I think you know I'm on to something here Ed. You know Wilson was a plant :O)
Man, you ascribe incredible powers to us!OldEdScott
Oct 2, 2003 9:45 AM
I WISH we were good enough to do a five-rail carom like this! Hell, I admire the three-rail carom the Bushies tried here, even though it blew up in their face. It was a valiant effort.

Dude, the BEST you can get out of the Novak thing above is that the SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL who told him about it was no 'partisan gunslinger' and did so off-handedly. It's STILL the case that that's where he got the information. To say he got it from Wilson is to say Novak's lying.

There IS one little teensy misrepresentation in Novak's piece, though: I'm HIGHLY dubious there's any 'senior administration official' who's not a partisan gunslinger. Novak's so sunk in right-wing politics (albeit of the paleolithic variety) that he can't see partisan gunslinging when it's aimed right at his face.

He got duped. Ho, ho. Score one for the neo-cons over the paleos!
I like my conspiracy better than yours :O) nmLive Steam
Oct 2, 2003 9:50 AM
"his wife pushed his selection for this mission"rufus
Oct 2, 2003 9:28 AM
so says novak and his administration sources. sources in the CIA says she was merely asked how they could contact her husband. but choose what you wish to believe, makes a great conspiracy theory. again, with the "vast left wing conspiracies".

btw, i thought i was on your ignore list.
Of course its about politics!torquer
Oct 2, 2003 8:57 AM
As was Whitewater. As was Iran-Contra. As was Watergate (which started with an attemped illegal wiretapping of the DNC offices by Nixon's re-election campaign: CREEP).

But identifying the motive of the accusers doesn't give the targets a pass if they behaved illegally. (Except in the case of Iran-Contra, where any of those convicted who weren't freed on technicalities were pardoned by the outgoing, not-reelected Bush senior.)

As far as the WSJ's point about the Wilson's not leading lives out of Tom Clancy (much less Ian Fleming!), my own questions about her status were resolved when yesterday's NY Times refered to her as an undercover operative. Sure, the Times is seen by some as a biased source, but when they make a statement in the first sentence of their lead article (upper-right corner, front page), they tend to choose their words carefully.

I'm willing to let a jury, rather than the WSJ, decide whether or not any law was violated.
Come on torquerLive Steam
Oct 2, 2003 9:09 AM
The Times has no credibility where this stuff is concerned! At least not any more since they admitted to writing fiction. The Times writes it so it must be so? And you guys say I am a blind follower :O
I said they choose their words carefullytorquer
Oct 2, 2003 10:34 AM
not that it MUST be so. I have first-hand experience (in the relatively simple realm of design, development and construction) of how Times writers often fail to get their facts straight.

But don't project your own credibility deficit onto this story. This isn't page six of the Post, and Jason Blair is as long gone as Socks the White House cat.

By carefull word choice I meant that they had "reliable", and certainly multiple sources when they describe someone's security status. Maybe even "senior administration figures."

In today's edition there is a full-column length story, "The Employee: Cover Story Kept Work for CIA A Secret," in which her "nonofficial cover" is discussed. The Times knows you and every Rush ditto-head will be combing through every word they write on this subject looking for an opening. I'll bet the rent that they did some fact-checking on this one.

BTW, I may have been wrong about that Ian Fleming lifestyle; "Mr. Wilson said his wife had instructed him to say that she would 'chew off her right arm before she talked to anyone from the press.'" What a woman!
I see - they changed?Live Steam
Oct 2, 2003 10:48 AM
Blair was a symptom, not the cause. The liberal editorial staff is still the same. I doubt they care one bit what Ditto-heads have to say about how they word a story. They still write fiction until proven otherwise.

So she'll chew her right arm off before she talks to the media? That is commendable in some way? Sorta like Susan McDougal preferring jail over testifying against Bubba? Maybe Wilson's wife is just as afraid of the Dumocratic machine as her!
But she wasn'tmoneyman
Oct 2, 2003 9:10 AM
an undercover operative. That's the point. She works in a office building in Virginia, not skulking around the streets of hostile capitols. There's no story, really. The democrats smell blood and want Rove out, even if it means making up "facts." That's what its about.

Since when have Democrats cared about the welfare of CIA agents?

Jury? It's a long way from a jury at this point. And the mainstream media has already tried and convicted Bush, Cheney and Rove.

$$
They all know it too!Live Steam
Oct 2, 2003 9:19 AM
"...the mainstream media has already tried and convicted Bush, Cheney and Rove."
Now she works in an office.rufus
Oct 2, 2003 9:25 AM
she hasn't always. and the networks and contacts that she set in place are probably still out there, in the field, working.
How do you know?TJeanloz
Oct 2, 2003 9:30 AM
You have some inside source at CIA leaking you this info? Because it certainly has not been public. It's all speculation.

I don't think the CIA has even confirmed her existence.
the same way steam knows she was "just an analyst"rufus
Oct 2, 2003 2:30 PM
based on what i'm hearing from cia people who know her and her job duties. steam believes every word from novak is gospel, i'm hearing different from several other sources.
We've established thatt Steam doesn't know anythingTJeanloz
Oct 2, 2003 2:50 PM
So you also know nothing of the topic?

Are you actually hearing this from CIA people who know her, or from a reporter who knows somebody who knows an unnamed source who knows Mrs. Wilson?

I've seen both printed in the media (and not necessarily in a partisan fashion), and I'm just curious whether you have anything new to base your assertion on, or if it's just repeating the same thing I'm reading in the Times.
yes, i've seen both.rufus
Oct 2, 2003 3:32 PM
but the only ones i've seen who are saying she was just an analyst are republican members of congress, republican pundits, or defenders of novak. i've seen several ex-cia people interviewed who said she was indeed an undercover operative.

so yes, i guess all i know is what i've seen on the news programs and in the papers. but i guess i'm giving more weight to what cia people say than what robert novak or mouthpieces for the administration say.