[gadster]

Why the **** haven't the investigators of this piece of treason just ASKED the journo who wrote the article "who did the leakage"??? wtf??? With the Patriot Act in place, surely it would be a no-brainer to detain said journo 'til he fessed up?

Betraying the identity of covert agent is the biggest compromise of 'national security' there is. It's not just the agent that gets compromised, it's the whole network, including their kids.

But, strangely it seems, we won't get to the bottom of this one. Already it's page 22, 1 column material.

Maybe in 50 years time when they declassify the documents (if they still do that then) we may find out the truth. And someone might make a documentary. Which no one will watch. Or it will become conspiracy theory fodder.

It just shîts me how good this world could be, but how ****ed it actually is.

[Lerkfish]

rule of thumb: the higher the level of the complicity, the longer it will be before we know anything.

Expect to never find out.

[zigzag]

Because (a) journalists don't usually give up sources, even when threatened with jail time, and (b) we tend to shy away from going after journalists because of (a) and also because we have an interest in a free press even when it acts irresponsibly, as Novak did.

Of course, a free press is also a conduit for administration officials who use it to disseminate leaks. But that's a price we seem to be willing to pay.

This story will probably go nowhere.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Because (a) journalists don't usually give up sources, even when threatened with jail time, and (b) we tend to shy away from going after journalists because of (a) and also because we have an interest in a free press even when it acts irresponsibly, as Novak did.

Of course, a free press is also a conduit for administration officials who use it to disseminate leaks. But that's a price we seem to be willing to pay.

This story will probably go nowhere.

correct. the ONLY way it will go somewhere is if person who ordered the leak's superiors want to hang them out to dry. If the leak has no superiors, that won't happen.

[gadster]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Because (a) journalists don't usually give up sources, even when threatened with jail time, and (b) we tend to shy away from going after journalists because of (a) and also because we have an interest in a free press even when it acts irresponsibly, as Novak did.

Of course, a free press is also a conduit for administration officials who use it to disseminate leaks. But that's a price we seem to be willing to pay.

This story will probably go nowhere.

I'm not talkin' threats. I'm talkin' TEH PATRIOT ACT, just smuggle the ƒüç?´® onto a plane down to Guantanamo Bay and do the interrogation down there, mofo. Either that or demand favourable coverage for 2004?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
I'm not talkin' threats. I'm talkin' TEH PATRIOT ACT, just smuggle the ƒüç?´® onto a plane down to Guantanamo Bay and do the interrogation down there, mofo. Either that or demand favourable coverage for 2004?

Are you being tongue in cheek?
As I said, the person directing the leak was doing so in direct retaliation against someone embarrassing the administration by pointing out it knowingly lied in the SOTU speech.
Now, who made the patriotic act? Do you think they will use it against themselves?
It is in the administration's best interest to NOT reveal the source of the leak.

The purpose of the patriot act is harry and control the opposition to the administration, not the administration itself.

I guess you forgot just whose rights were being trampled here.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The purpose of the patriot act is harry and control the opposition to the administration, not the administration itself.

I guess you forgot just whose rights were being trampled here.

Please post examples of people whose rights have been trampled by the Administration and the Patriot Act.

[gadster]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Are you being tongue in cheek?
As I said, the person directing the leak was doing so in direct retaliation against someone embarrassing the administration by pointing out it knowingly lied in the SOTU speech.
Now, who made the patriotic act? Do you think they will use it against themselves?
It is in the administration's best interest to NOT reveal the source of the leak.

The purpose of the patriot act is harry and control the opposition to the administration, not the administration itself.

I guess you forgot just whose rights were being trampled here.

Yeah, guilty as charged. Tongue firmly in cheek. The Patriot Act has to be the most pernicious piece of Legislation enacted in ant democracy, ever. Patriot, my ass. This is 1984 writ true. You gotcha 'double speak', you gotcha 'war is peace',' ignorance is strength' etc.

Funny, I was always a bigger fan of Huxley myself. Which is even scarier. And more likely. You of all people here will know how ****ed up the media is, and understand the ramifications.

So spill the beans Lerk, media people always seem to know what is going on, but strangely the news-readers don't. (?)

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by gadster:
Betraying the identity of covert agent is the biggest compromise of 'national security' there is.

I'd say Bill Clinton's devastating cuts to our intelligence agencies has been a bigger compromise. So was Clinton's allowing the export of rocket technology to China.

As for the 'leak' bruhaha, consider Wilson's chief complaints and accusations...

From Mr. Joe Wilson himself:

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's employment, said the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures.

From this story:

Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents.

Wilson's complaints are unfounded, and this whole episode has been an attempted hatchet job. If her relationship to him and her maiden name were so damn precious, he shouldn't have it displayed on his bio at the Middle East Institute web site, where both have been listed since 2002.

[gadster]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I'd say Bill Clinton's devastating cuts to our intelligence agencies has been a bigger compromise. So was Clinton's allowing the export of rocket technology to China.

As for the 'leak' bruhaha, consider Wilson's chief complaints and accusations...

From Mr. Joe Wilson himself:

From this story:


Wilson's complaints are unfounded, and this whole episode has been an attempted hatchet job. If her relationship to him and her maiden name were so damn precious, he shouldn't have it displayed on his bio at the Middle East Institute web site, where both have been listed since 2002.

Well listen up dckhed. i, at least, know what's going on here and it is most F O U L ! No matter what your or yer zionista terrorists try, in the fulness of time, good will out. You can send as many spin doctors to places like this as you like. You can spend as much money as you like. But if it looks like a turd , and it smells like a turd, and it feels like a turd, then, well, it's a ****en turd.

Smelt you from a mile off, you turd. Now why don't you go home for some chicken soup and stop pretending like you have a clue. Because you clearly don't.

spacefreak, eh? perhaps you could share how you cane to choose such a groovy : name? rolleyes:

[zigzag]

spacefreak, an administration official could be caught selling crack to schoolchildren and you'd find a way to rationalize it.

As numerous authorities have pointed out, Wilson's wife was a bona fide CIA operative. A spy. It's not that no one could discover her maiden name, it's drawing a public connection between that name and her status as a CIA operative that matters. Get it? No one was supposed to know that she was a spy for the CIA.

Good grief, even the White house has admitted that it's a serious breach. What else do you need to know?

[BlackGriffen]

spacefreak, do you have the memory of a goldfish or something? Does this thread, where your irrelevant bit of trivia was dismissed for what it is, ring a bell?

Your memory must be short, otherwise what you've done in this thread is tantamount to lying. Or do you believe that if you trot out a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it? Been taking lessons form Bush in the honesty department?

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by gadster:
So spill the beans Lerk, media people always seem to know what is going on, but strangely the news-readers don't. (?)

I wouldn't go that far, there is a variety of political viewpoints in the industry.

If there is any advantage, I'd say it comes from being paid to be cynical and skeptical. Therefore, not usually as easily swayed by rhetoric or propaganda, more in tune to "following the money", or trying to suss where the true motivations/power/influence resides.

I think the general population is more willing to take things at surface level, be more trusting of whoever appears to match their political views..they forego critical thinking and replace it with loyalty.
Loyalty CAN be a good thing, but it does little to further understanding.

BUT, journalists are just like any other profession, you have a cross section of diverse views.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Does this thread, where your irrelevant bit of trivia was dismissed for what it is, ring a bell?

Your memory must be short, otherwise what you've done in this thread is tantamount to lying. Or do you believe that if you trot out a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it? Been taking lessons form Bush in the honesty department?

It can't be a lie if it's absolutely true. Even if you keep calling it a lie, it still won't become one. That's the beauty of factual evidence.

Actually, in that prior thread, you attempted to debate my points....remember how you fared then? Here, let me refresh your memory:

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:Yes, but when is an important question that you have not answered... The web site says copyright 2002. IIRC, this whole thing happened in 2002. When in 2002 was the web site made? If it was made before the Novak story broke, then yeah, the ambassador should face the consequences for what looks like a negligent leak of a less critical nature.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
The Novak Story was published on July 14, 2003

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by gadster:
You can send as many spin doctors to places like this as you like.

No spin is needed, not when I have facts on my side.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
spacefreak, an administration official could be caught selling crack to schoolchildren and you'd find a way to rationalize it.

As numerous authorities have pointed out, Wilson's wife was a bona fide CIA operative. A spy. It's not that no one could discover her maiden name, it's drawing a public connection between that name and her status as a CIA operative that matters. Get it? No one was supposed to know that she was a spy for the CIA.

Good grief, even the White house has admitted that it's a serious breach. What else do you need to know?

**coughcough**

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It's not that no one could discover her maiden name, it's drawing a public connection between that name and her status as a CIA operative that matters. Get it?

I fully understand the seriousness of such a leak, and I don't condone it. It is Mr. Wilson's complaint and reasoning that I am contradicting when I quote

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's employment, said the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures.

and then point out that her name and relationship to him has been sitting on his public web page for the better part of 2 years.

I just visited his web page, and it has been removed. It looks like my argument reached some higher-ups and caused some problems.

Very interesting. The search page on the website is down as well, and they have finally updated their copyright to read 2003.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Actually, in that prior thread, you attempted to debate my points....remember how you fared then? Here, let me refresh your memory:

I remember quite well. In fact, so well that I remember the whole thing, and not just the first half.

That doesn't change the fact that the administration should be thoroughly investigated and those responsible for the allegedly intentional leak of obviously critical information (the fact that the woman's employment was linked directly to her name in a major media outlet is important). Sorry, but you aren't getting out of this with a tu quoque logical fallacy. If the Ambassador screwed up, it doesn't lessen the alleged wrongdoing of those in the Bush administration.[/B]

Like I said, before, the claim is an irrelevant distraction tactic. You didn't seem to object to the characterization at that time. In fact, you said:

Spacefreak, the poor of memory, said: I do agree, however, that whoever did leak to Novak the info should be held accountable.

Well I'll be damned if that isn't an admission that what you are bringing up again here was irrelevant then, too.

How's that crow? Does it taste anything like foot? Would you like me to bake it up in to a humble pie for you?

BlackGriffen

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I fully understand the seriousness of such a leak, and I don't condone it.

Then why did you just make this statement, which is the one I was addressing: "Wilson's complaints are unfounded, and this whole episode has been an attempted hatchet job."

Nevermind, you don't have to answer.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Then why did you just make this statement, which is the one I was addressing: "Wilson's complaints are unfounded, and this whole episode has been an attempted hatchet job."

That's why I used the phrase "Wilson's complaints". That's what I was targeting (again).

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
How's that crow? Does it taste anything like foot? Would you like me to bake it up in to a humble pie for you?

You didn't even have the year of the Novak colum correct, Mr. "This All Happened in 2002".

Enjoy your pie.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
As I said, the person directing the leak was doing so in direct retaliation against someone embarrassing the administration by pointing out it knowingly lied in the SOTU speech.

I'll repeat myself because some people like to muddy the waters and stray from the salient point of the issue.

Someone in the administration, someone with knowledge and someone who would be in a position to leak that information to Novak did so, knowing it was sensitive information, and did so intentionally. Now, they might have done so by virtue of being monumentally incompetent, but that's doubtful since someone who would be trusted with such information would not normally be that indiscrete.....
Therefore, logic dictates that two bad things occured, one: the leak of the identity, and two: the decision to publish that information. The first one should be considered a treasonous (or whatever level of criminality is appropriate), and the second should be considered unethical and compromising of the integrity of the reporter.

the attempt to miscast this act of retribution as anything other than that is the desperate act of a blind apologist.

as always, AND AS IT SAYS IN MY SIG, this is IMHO.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
You didn't even have the year of the Novak colum correct, Mr. "This All Happened in 2002".

Enjoy your pie.

Now you're trying to burn me on trivia when you get the substance wrong? What's next? Are you going to go after spelling errors, too?

If this is the peak of your intellectual and debating skills, I've been wasting my time.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Now you're trying to burn me on trivia when you get the substance wrong? What's next? Are you going to go after spelling errors, too?

If this is the peak of your intellectual and debating skills, I've been wasting my time.

BlackGriffen

yes.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Now you're trying to burn me on trivia when you get the substance wrong? What's next? Are you going to go after spelling errors, too?

Contrary to your portrayal, the dates of events are not trivial, but rather quite significant - especially when basing your argument on such dates.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Yes, but when is an important question that you have not answered... The web site says copyright 2002. IIRC, this whole thing happened in 2002. When in 2002 was the web site made? If it was made before the Novak story broke, then yeah, the ambassador should face the consequences for what looks like a negligent leak of a less critical nature.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Contrary to your portrayal, the dates of events are not trivial, but rather quite significant - especially when basing your argument on such dates.

You really do have a problem with reading the entirety of posts, don't you?

The very next line after the quote you posted was:

That doesn't change the fact that the administration should be thoroughly investigate

I brought up the timing argument, and then dismissed it as irrelevant to the topic at hand. I was arguing for the sake of argument on that point, I guess.

You then agreed with me (as shown in previous posts).

sf, reading comprehension is more than just knowing what the words mean. You have to stitch them together in to a cogent and complete thought.

Put in other words, you're bragging that in spite of losing the war, you won a minor battle that was of no consequence.

Would you like me to give you 50 points, too?

The facts are these: the Bush administration contains a slimeball who was willing to leak the name of a CIA operative to get revenge on her husband, and silence future potential dissenters. That slimeball must be found and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Odds are that slimeball won't be found because Bush refuses to have Ashcroft appoint an independent prosecutor, because it would be too politically damaging to Bush if the public were to find out who the slimball(s) are.

What you brought up was an irrelevant attempt to distract from these basic facts, making your role in this akin to Bush's, writ small.

BlackGriffen

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
What you brought up was an irrelevant attempt to distract from these basic facts, making your role in this akin to Bush's, writ small.

Nope...just pointing out a flaw in Wilson's complaint. If we are going to recap the entire episode, all events are open to scrutiny.

Find the leak I say. Make Novak talk. But keep Wilson away from the microphones, for his particular arguments (which I pointed out) are unfounded considering his (suddenly removed) public website bio that published the very information whose release he states upset him so much.

[dcmacdaddy]

Whether or not Joseph Wilson had his wife's name published on a personal website is irrelevant. It's not like there was no one in her life who didn't know her name--Think about her kids teacher or the guy who did her dry-cleaning or some neighbors down the street--I am sure lots of people knew her in both roles as Valeria Plame and as Joseph Wilson's wife.

However, outside of her husband and some people at the CIA, NO ONE knew she was a spy. And this is where you fail to see there is a problem. Someone, in the White House, knew she was a spy and revealed that information to someone who should not have known that about her.

If the leaker told his/her hair-stylist about Valerie Plame it would have been just as wrong as telling Robert Novak. The inappropriate release of classified information is the error here, not the inappropriate release of classified information to a newspaper columnist.

Had Robert Novak never wrote what he wrote we probably wouldn't know anything about this, but that doesn't change the fact that knowingly and willfully giving classified information to someone who shouldn't have it is wrong . . . and a crime.

That is the problem right there and everything else is just a secondary issue.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Find the leak I say. Make Novak talk.

I honestly don't think you're going to want that to happen. I don't think you, a Bush apologist, really wants to find out who leaked this information...because if you do, you'll have to recognize the act as treasonous, and you'll have to assign that accusation to whoever it is. And, I think the real person who ordered and directed that leak is fairly high up in the administration, higher up than would make you comfortable.

And, when that happens, you're going to either have to accuse your hero of treason (or whatever the actual level of the crime is), or be in the awkward position of pretending the crime is not treason.
I rather think you'll never accuse your heroes of treason, so that would mean you'd have to swallow the bile of defending treason as an acceptable practice.

should be interesting.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Whether or not Joseph Wilson had his wife's name published on a personal website is irrelevant. It's not like there was no one in her life who didn't know her name--Think about her kids teacher or the guy who did her dry-cleaning or some neighbors down the street--I am sure lots of people knew her in both roles as Valeria Plame and as Joseph Wilson's wife.

However, outside of her husband and some people at the CIA, NO ONE knew she was a spy. And this is where you fail to see there is a problem.

I see the problem just fine. My complaint (and really only complaint in the matter) lies with Wilson's actual complaints. If you had read my post above (and the one in a similar thread), you'd have seen what my single argument was.

From Mr. Joe Wilson himself:

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's employment, said the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures.

You're right, it is not the primary issue here. But when Wilson runs to the microphones and belches this stuff out, he sets himself up for the counter point I have argued..."why has her maiden name and relationship been published on your web page since (at least) 2002?"

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I honestly don't think you're going to want that to happen. I don't think you, a Bush apologist, really wants to find out who leaked this information...because if you do, you'll have to recognize the act as treasonous, and you'll have to assign that accusation to whoever it is.

Then so be it.

And, I think the real person who ordered and directed that leak is fairly high up in the administration, higher up than would make you comfortable.

Based on what evidence?

And, when that happens, you're going to either have to accuse your hero of treason (or whatever the actual level of the crime is), or be in the awkward position of pretending the crime is not treason.
I rather think you'll never accuse your heroes of treason, so that would mean you'd have to swallow the bile of defending treason as an acceptable practice.

My heroes aren't elected officials or senior administration officials, so I have no idea who or what you are talking about.

[gadster]

OK, spacefreak, after setting the mods on my ass, can you address the real question? Why hasn't the admalistration pursued the obvious point of investigation? Has the journo been asked who leaked the info by investigators, or didn't that occur to them?

Isn't this plainly a yet another cover-up?

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I see the problem just fine. My complaint (and really only complaint in the matter) lies with Wilson's actual complaints. If you had read my post above (and the one in a similar thread), you'd have seen what my single argument was.

From Mr. Joe Wilson himself:


You're right, it is not the primary issue here. But when Wilson runs to the microphones and belches this stuff out, he sets himself up for the counter point I have argued..."why has her maiden name and relationship been published on your web page since (at least) 2002?"

Ah, I misunderstood you. So you agree it's treason to expose an undercover spy (good). You just don't like the way Wilson made his complaint (seems odd to me, too, although the article you linked doesn't give an exact quote, so something could have been lost there).

Anyway, not only is this "not the primary issue here," it is completely irrelevant! The point is we need to find whoever is commiting treason from high inside the White House. Someone in the White House thinks it is okay to expose undercover American spies.

Bush, strangely enough, isn't interested in finding the traitor. (He only made public statements two months after the incident, after it was leaked that the CIA had started an investigation. Recently he has said publicly that "we may never know" who the traitor is, a clear signal that he thinks we never will know.) Bush is shielding the traitor within his administration.

[gadster]

The silence on this issue is deafening. No one seems willing to stick up for the administration?

[BlackGriffen]

The problem is that those supportive of the administration seem like they are content to accept the administration's explanation that the leaker won't be found. Ignoring, alongside Bush, the conflict of interests inherent in having the DOJ investigate the White House. If this were Clinton, the same people would be screaming at the top of their lungs in the streets for Bush to appoint an independent prosecutor. Sadly, the Democrats don't control enough of any house to force Bush's hand in the matter, so this will likely die a silent, bureaucratic death.

I, for one, couldn't vote for an administration that was pulling BS like this on a matter this serious. I don't know how anyone of good conscience could do otherwise. If Bush were honestly doing everything possible to find the leaker (read: appointing an independent counsel), I would be more willing to let the issue go. As it stands, there is no excuse for conducting the investigation as the administration has done.

BlackGriffen