Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How Fitzgerald can show Intent on Bolton and Cheney:

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
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:06 AM
Original message
How Fitzgerald can show Intent on Bolton and Cheney:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/19/85343/663

How Fitzgerald can show Intent on Bolton and Cheney:

Bolton and Cheney may be in deep trouble as indictments may come down any day. The "name game" just might come back to haunt them as it can show INTENT to out a covert operative.


::

I deduced this myself from a comment Colin Powell made yesterday about the memo said "Valorie Wilson" and didn't say the name "Plame". This is an extremely important distinction because all the people in the WH first heard about Ms. Wilson from that memo.

When Novak outed her, he used the name "Plame". This allows the prosecutor to trace back to who called her "Plame". It is also significant because "Plame" is her undercover name and they had no reason to use it unless someone knew that she was undercover and knew what her undercover name was (it is actually her maiden name, but again they were trying to say that Ms. Wilson sent her husband to Niger, so using "Valorie Wilson" would have sufficed).

Anyway, the point being that someone had to look her up in the CIA and find out her undercover name, this shows that whoever originally leaked "Plame" knew she was undercover. Also, whoever then leaked "Plame" to the press instead of "Wilson" was probably using "Plame" instead of "Wilson" for a reason, which could be used to show intent.

There was one person who was both with Bolton, who requested CIA agents names around that time of the outing, and the WHIG group (Cheney's group). It was John Hannah. So, I believe that Hannah is the connection for why they told the press "Plame" instead of "Wilson" as he knew "Plame" from his boss Bolton and then told the WHIG group about "Plame" being her undercover name. If Hannah has indeed flipped, then that means that he knows enough to take both Bolton and Cheney down.

The place I found that Hannah has flipped is:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_w...

This has been speculated in the main stream media for over a year, but this is the first time someone has confirmed it with a "source close to the investigation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good point. But do you really consider the Corporate Media "main stream??"
NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. sad, aren't they
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laura PourMeADrink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
3. Interesting. I think you are right. What names or content each
player used can provide a trail back. It is just like this story from Reuters that Fibby said that Plame worked for WINPAC...http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=pol...

snip
According to Miller's account of a July 8, 2003, meeting with Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, she wrote in her notes that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, or Winpac, unit, which tracks the spread of unconventional arms.

A former intelligence official said Plame did not work at Winpac but for the CIA's clandestine service, known as the directorate of operations. The former official, who is familiar with Plame's activities at the CIA, spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. snip

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Yeah, the WINPAC mistake could also be a tracer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. Oned didn't have to find the name Plame by looking her up in the CIA.
Her name was available on the Internet in bios on Wilson. She was listed as the former Valerie Plame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. obviously, but they never would have used that when the memo they saw
said "Valorie Wilson"

Sure they could have seen that her maiden name was Plame, but they knew her as Joe Wilson's wife and the memo identified her as such. To use "Plame" when outing her shows that they were specifically using "Plame" as opposed to "Wilson" for a reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. There is no doubt about that at all. True. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
8. Yeah and the thing is
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 09:02 AM by mmonk
Fitz has all he needs if Hannah has flipped to unravel it all in front of the American people. I'm sure Hannah was already feeling heat from the AIPAC investigation and having Fitz on this was just too much. He knew it was just a matter of time before prosecutors had everything and it was time to play Let's Make a Deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. yep, Miller and Cooper just managed to delay things, that's all
that is why their testimony has been called a "side-show"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
10. hmm... why so little response...
eh...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. .
:kick:
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 Tue Oct 21st 2014, 07:03 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