libertypirate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 02:39 PM
Original message |
| Treasongate under the surface, the company is a bigger deal |
|
They made the story about Joe Wilson and his wife but that only obscures the point and much deeper questions. Outing the company that Plame worked for ensured one thing; that it would no longer be an asset in the fight against WMD and terrorism.
This clandestine operation was investigating the proliferation of WMD and terrorism financing, what was the benefit to the administration by exposing such an important operation to our national security?
This question must be pursued it cannot be simply explained because it wasn't in the original Novak column that the cover companies name was printed. Maybe this was a two for but we are concentrating on the wrong side of this issue. Exposing the entire covert company directly affected our ability and exposed assets working with us.
What I don't understand is how did this not hurt the war against terrorism?
|
flyingfysh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 02:42 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Every CIA agent working with the company was exposed |
|
The CIA probably had multiple people working through that company. So anyone who has claimed association with that company through the years is also exposed as a CIA agent.
So multiple agents have probably been exposed.
|
Son of California
(467 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 02:44 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. yeah, lets hear the Repubs explain that |
|
I'd like to see a pundit from our side hit them with that on TV...... how was it not a victory for the terrorists that this undercover company was exposed?
|
GeekMonkey
(418 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 02:45 PM
Response to Original message |
| 3. You are under the assumption that hurting anti-terrorism |
|
and hurting the administration are not opposite things.
Outing her helped the administration by sending a message to future would-be whistleblowers that you will face the full powers of the executive branch if you cross them.
The fact that it hurt the anti-terrorism effort is not a concern to this administration. They are not concerned at all about national security, only politics and power.
|
libertypirate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 4. Duh, but their ditto heads are very concerned... |
Just Me
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message |
| 5. That's the most disconcerting issue: they sacrificed national security. |
|
This cabal does nothing without an intention to benefit themselves (not just politically, either). Was there something more to the outing than merely political revenge and a well-orchestrated plan to conceal their lies about WMDs, as if that isn't bad enough?
Was this also a plan to conceal illegal profiteering or to advance illegal profiteering? After all, we are talking about oil-diggers and weapons dealers, here, who lie and conceal as a matter of course.
|
libertypirate
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 6. This story would have longer legs if this was focused on. |
Booster
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jul-20-05 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 7. I agree and think Cheney would be in deep doo doo if that covert |
|
company were allowed to keep up their investigating. I'm sure you can tie the secret energy meetings in with what Valerie's covert company was finding out.
|
Ian David
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-21-05 06:13 AM
Response to Original message |
| 8. Randi Rhodes covered this. It's scarier than you think |
|
If I remember correctly, they blew the cover off Plame's operation because it was getting close to uncovering links between Bush, Cheney, the CCI Bank, and nuclear technology brokers, the Saudi royal family, and the Bin Laden family.
Tried to find links, but I don't have time right now.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 21st 2013, 08:23 AM
Response to Original message |