Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Help me debunk new GOP attack on Wilsons...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Liberal_Andy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:50 AM
Original message
Help me debunk new GOP attack on Wilsons...
I saw John Fund saying "Joe Wilson himself said she was no longer covert on the day Novak's article was published." Yes, I remember seeing him say that, but I'm pretty sure what he was saying was, "She was a covert agent right up to the minute Novak outed her. At that point, she was no longer covert. Thanks Bob:" I think the quote was something like, "The day Novaks column ran, my wife was no longer covert."

Anybody else remember this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Beaver Tail Donating Member (903 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. Of Course she was no longer covert when
Novak publlished her name. How can you be convert when you are outed? Pay attention to Wilsons Words "On the Day" not "Before he published the article"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. John Fund and Ken Mehlman both deserve
the lie like a dog award for the whoppers they have told on this one....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. You got it right, its just a mischarecterization
www.mediamatters.org has been covering all the wilson myths in the media
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Andy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
12. thanks, good link!!
it's all there!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNicholson Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. I read in somewhere that Plame was outed....
twice before this whole fiasco began.

1st time being by Aldrich Ames in 1994 / 1995 when she was outed to the Soviets.

2nd time by the CIA itself, by accident to Cuba.

How could she still be covert if this is true? I don't understand this at all.

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Andy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. links?
do some research, is it true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNicholson Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. I just googled a bunch of words and came up with this quote:
"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994,"

From Saturday's NYT. I dont have a subscription though....

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/11/opinion/11KRIS.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skypilot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. "I read somewhere..."
Sounds kinda like "Some people say..."

A FOX News staple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNicholson Donating Member (9 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. Sorry....it might have been Kos or TalkLeft that I read the story......
I just posted the original link...looks like a Kristoff editorial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 09:59 AM
Response to Original message
5. He said that meaning the second she was outed, she was no
longer covert, he went on t.v. the next day to clarify the remark for those to dense to get what he was saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Andy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. thanks, I didn't see the "next day" appearance
Joe's done a great job defending himself, if only the press did a little work and learned the facts of the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. Here is the info for you from Media Matters:
Note: After this item was written, but before it was posted, the AP corrected its error. New versions of the article read:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150003
<snip>
In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

Wilson also said "my wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity."

In an interview Friday, Wilson said his comment was meant to reflect that his wife lost her ability to be a covert agent because of the leak, not that she had stopped working for the CIA beforehand.

Though the AP ran a correction, other news outlets had already repeated its mistake. CNN's Ed Henry told viewers that "Wilson himself suggested that she was not undercover." The Drudge Report link to the AP story suggested the same thing, and numerous other news outlets picked up the AP article.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmylips Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
7. Hey, if the Repigs are so right, why carry such attacks against Wilson?
They can no longer muddy the waters, the stink is out all over the land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorbuddha Donating Member (822 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
9. These guys are tap-dancing in their cesspool
Don't get splashed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
11. this has already been clarified both by AP
(who carried the quote) and Wilson himself.

You are correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
16. If Bush is correct that Plame was not covert, how does he explain
the following facts?
1. After conducting its own investigation of the leaks, the CIA formally requested that the Justice Department begin a criminal investigation;

2. After the Justice Department investigation had begun gathering evidence, Attorney General Ashcroft found it neccessary to recuse himself;

3. After Ashcroft's recusal, the Justice Department felt that it was neccessary to appoint a special prosecutor;

4. The special prosecutor's investigation has gone on for many, many months;

5. Various media organizations filed briefs in the Cooper/Miller case arguing that no crime could have been committed since Plame was not covert, but neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals accepted that argument; and

6. Judge Tatel's concurring opinion in the Court of Appeals decision in the Cooper/Miller case discussed:

a. "criminal leaks,"

b. "the crime,"

c. "the plot against Wilson,"

d. the leak at issue being "harmful to national security," and

e. identifying the leakers being "essential to remedying a serious breach of public trust."
These comments by Judge Tatel followed his analysis of the evidence filed by Fitzgerald under seal.


It seems odd that no one in the CIA, the Justice Department, the Attorney General's office, the special prosecutor's office, the District Court overseeing the grand jury, or the Court of Appeals would bother to check to see whether the status of Valerie Plame fell within the statute. It must be "hard work" to check something like that.

It is an indication of how weak the republican case is that they focus on such a flawed argument in defense of Bush and his criminal minions. After all, arguing that no crime was committed because Plame was not covert is a tacit admission that the leaks occurred and that those accused of leaking were responsible. Evidently, to Bush and his followers, restoring honor and dignity to the White House means parsing criminal statutes and using legal loopholes in an attempt to avoid indictments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
17. I heard fund repeating that lie on Hardball the other night...
...why did they have Fund on anyway? Was O.J. Simpson not available to give the spousal abusers point of view???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Andy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. ROFL!
I thought the same thing. What a dork!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
19. hey liberal_andy...how are you feeling? How's your treatment
coming?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal_Andy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. my last radiation was a week ago, Monday...
the last chemo, the week before, and I am feeling MUCH better, thank you for asking!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 12:50 PM
Response to Original message
21. The Prosecutor will determine that
If there was no initial reason to keep her identity a secret, the whole case would not have gone any further than that initial finding of fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snippy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. He, and judges who have participated in the case, likely already have.
The Court of Appeals opinion in the Cooper/Miller case makes it seem likely that Bush will not be successful with this argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
23. Another debunking site
Really a mirror site, reflecting the Left Coaster's work:

http://amsam.org/2005/07/talking-points-and-countering....

Fund's talking point is answered first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 21st 2014, 06:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC