24-07-2005 01:25									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Nixon brought down by an investigation of an incident originally not thought to be directly related to him? Could we be seeing the beginning of something bigger? They've got 3 years to pull it off. I think it took 2 years to bring down Nixon.

Exactly. What brought Nixon down was the coverup. While I dont believe that the president initially knew of (or ordered) this matter, the implications of a coverup are not insignificant. Dont forget, it wasnt the Dems who brought down trickie dickie, it was the Republicans. Even if Rove et al did nothing (and I dont believe that) this issue is one of confidence in the office of the president and someone needs to be fired (rather than quit).

	24-07-2005 04:11									#32
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Dont forget, it wasnt the Dems who brought down trickie dickie, it was the Republicans.

Well, trickie dickie wasn't an easy man to like. No, really.

	24-07-2005 05:14									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Well, trickie dickie wasn't an easy man to like. No, really.

And yet he won four national elections and was close to winning on a fifth.

	24-07-2005 06:34									#34
	Support Apolyton

quote: None of these guys had "leadership roles and/or with personal knowledge of Plame's role in the Agency - credibility or motives". They were all small fish in the agency. As I tried to explain previously, even if they were only mailmen with security clearances, they should know better than to flap their gums about this issue (which is why I question their credibility and motives).

We're flapping our gums and I doubt we know more about the CIA than these guys.

quote: Dont you think that there are people who really know what Plame did for the agency? Where is their testimony?

Her name was leaked, and now you want details about her role made public as well? Of course CIA people with knowledge of her activities aren't going to come out and broadcast that information. The CIA did in fact refer this matter to the justice dept as a criminal matter, so obviously they think her role merited cover. You missed the point of the testimony these guys gave, they weren't there to expose her even more, they were there to explain why leaking her name in the first place is harmful to national security. Did you watch it? I did. And these people weren't or aren't exactly small fries, although I expect Fox to stop inviting Johnson on as an expert - maybe a target, like Scott Ritter and the other people being smeared by this WH and its brown nosers in the media.

I fell for the GOP BS on this too... But no more...

	24-07-2005 06:36									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I honestly can't believe we have to endure (at least) 3.5 more years of these jokers.

	24-07-2005 06:50									#36
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Edan And yet he won four national elections and was close to winning on a fifth.

He won only three. He won two as Ike's VP, but the wins are more attributable to Ike than to Nixon. Then he won the Presidency because he sold the American public on he lie that he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.

He was about to win his fourth national election because his dirty tricks ran the more moderate Muskie out of the race, leaving Nixon to face the more liberal McGovern.

	24-07-2005 08:44									#37
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I feel like I've walked through the looking glass. Are you sober? Did you read the thread and my post?

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker We're flapping our gums and I doubt we know more about the CIA than these guys.

While it was many years ago and not for any american agency, I have enough intel experience to spot inaccuracies and half-truths in their testimonies. So I'm not 'flapping my gums'. I'm wondering why people who purport to have intel experience such as these particular ex-agency personel continue to politicize this issue in the media.

BTW, I'm the one who is advocating that these particular talking-heads shut the **** up.

quote: Her name was leaked, and now you want details about her role made public as well? Of course CIA people with knowledge of her activities aren't going to come out and broadcast that information.

Not at all. I want this out of the public arena. My point was that the only people who know the truth of the matter aren't talking and are not likely to do so. Since anyone who actually knows anthing isnt gonna tell us why are these four 'experts' continually quoted and their testimony given special credence? Its not as if there arent many more experienced people out their who could give a better explanation of this matter. There are numerous ex-CIA directors out there. Surely, their POV might be more cogent than 4 ex-analysts and case officers.

quote: The CIA did in fact refer this matter to the justice dept as a criminal matter, so obviously they think her role merited cover.

Thats an important point, but the devil may be in the details (which may not come out). The referal may simply have been required by protocol.

quote: You missed the point of the testimony these guys gave, they weren't there to expose her even more, they were there to explain why leaking her name in the first place is harmful to national security. Did you watch it? I did.

I watched as much as I could stomach and heard almost nothing that hasnt been quoted before. Anyone who's in the business, or been in the business, knows why it was harmful. This was pure political propaganda.

I want a message sent to the politicos that leaking her name will not be tolerated. I just question the motives of these four and I'm pretty sure I understand the motives of the Dems.

quote: And these people weren't or aren't exactly small fries,

Their former agency positions were posted in my last post. Those are not senior agency positions. Johnson, for example, was only in the CIA from 85 to 89. It's not hard to wonder how he knows what Plame was doing 14-15 years later?

quote: although I expect Fox to stop inviting Johnson on as an expert - maybe a target, like Scott Ritter and the other people being smeared by this WH and its brown nosers in the media.

I dont particularly watch any news agency so its unimportant to me.

quote: I fell for the GOP BS on this too... But no more...

Too?

Sorry, but I've always known it was wrong to release her name even though I doubt she was more than an analyst at this point in her career.

	24-07-2005 19:21									#38
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer I honestly can't believe we have to endure (at least) 3.5 more years of these jokers.

Remember there's a mid-term election. If it gets bad enough, there's always hope for impeachment and removal.

	24-07-2005 21:58									#39
	Tired of ads?

3.5 years

I want to know what that clown Robert Novak has to say about all this.

	25-07-2005 18:04									#40
	Tired of ads?

quote: It was a democratic hearing not a congressional one http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pr...2005721656.html Perhaps you didnt notice it was co-chaired by two democrats? Your inability to even get the insignificant facts correct speaks volumes with respect to your opinions on this matter.

It was a Congressional hearing (i.e. a hearing run by members of Congress) run by the Democrats. That's why the people who asked the questions were all Representatives and Senators. That's why the meeting was held in a the Dirksen Senate office building. Your ability to whine about insignificant details speaks volumes with respect to your opinions on this matter.

quote: None of these guys had "leadership roles and/or with personal knowledge of Plame's role in the Agency - credibility or motives". They were all small fish in the agency. As I tried to explain previously, even if they were only mailmen with security clearances, they should know better than to flap their gums about this issue (which is why I question their credibility and motives).

As for leadership roles, that depends on your definition of leadership, and I'm not going to squabble about that. There is however the fact that Vincent Cannistraro had a very senior position as the head of counterterrorism, who has corrobarated the substance of these mens' assertions. Regarding personal knowledge, Larry Johnson trained with Plame.

As for what you think they should do, I'd trust CIA analysts and case officers before some random person on the internet. Your explantion as to why their testimony is dangerous made absolutely no sense. You insist that their testimony is dangerous, and use that as a rationale to discredit them. Which is a strange thing to insist, considering that there's a public investigation into the matter - which I guess doesn't pose any danger for some unknown reason.

quote: Dont you think that there are people who really know what Plame did for the agency? Where is their testimony? As a minimum, hows about getting testimony from someone who is actually active instead of these retirees and washouts? Dont you think the Dems would've got someone with a little more 'gravitas' to testify if they could?

Active members would risk their careers if they testify. Duh.

quote: Your ignorance about intel matters is deafening.

I'm not the one insisting that Plame's an analyst desk jockey in the face of all evidence.

Your explanation of why their testimony is a problem is pathetic. As is your slander of these men as "washouts."

	25-07-2005 18:27									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Thats an important point, but the devil may be in the details (which may not come out). The referal may simply have been required by protocol.

There wouldn't be an investigation today if her role didn't merit cover. The first witness of the the special prosecutor would have been the Director of the CIA establishing her status. And if he said that she was a desk jockey, that'd be the end of it. Why is Judith Miller in jail if the leak didn't compromise operations and assets?

Furthermore, if we suppose that Johnson et al.'s testimony about Plame's status somehow compromises intelligence, so would any indictments the special prosecutor hands out.

	25-07-2005 18:33									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

One also needs to consider that the CIA does not like this President at all. Even if it were the case that Plaime wasn't a secure asset, they are the type of people who'd say she was in order to get back at the Prez. It's not like they haven't done worse.

	27-07-2005 15:19									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Yet another "washout" confirms Johnson et al:

quote: Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified information.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2602069_pf.html

And another nail in the coffin for GOP talking points that Rove was merely trying to get the Douchebag of Liberty's facts straight.