Korean Job Discussion Forums

[some waygug-in]

Some interesting comments from some of Valerie Plame's classmates can be found here:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
By Larry Johnson
From: TPMCafe Special Guests
The misinformation being spread in the media about the Plame affair is alarming and damaging to the longterm security interests of the United States. Republicans' talking points are trying to savage Joe Wilson and, by implication, his wife, Valerie Plame as liars. That is the truly big lie.


For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. Novak's column was not an isolated attack. It was in fact part of a coordinated, orchestrated smear that we now know includes at least Karl Rove.


Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

Jul 13, 2005 -- 12:47:20 AM EST

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.


The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.


The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.


They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.


But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.


The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.


At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage.

[mithridates]

[Ya-ta Boy]

Here is a link to a good NYT opinion piece, called "Follow the Uranium". It cuts through the distractions and the spin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/opinion/17rich.html


An excerpt: That the investigation has dragged on so long anyway is another indication of the expanded reach of the prosecutorial web.

Apparently this is finally beginning to dawn on Mr. Bush's fiercest defenders and on Mr. Bush himself. Hence, last week's erection of the stonewall manned by the almost poignantly clownish Mr. McClellan, who abruptly rendered inoperative his previous statements that any suspicions about Mr. Rove are "totally ridiculous." The morning after Mr. McClellan went mano a mano with his tormentors in the White House press room - "We've secretly replaced the White House press corps with actual reporters," observed Jon Stewart - the ardently pro-Bush New York Post ran only five paragraphs of a wire-service story on Page 12. That conspicuous burial of what was front-page news beyond Murdochland speaks loudly about the rising anxiety on the right. Since then, White House surrogates have been desperately babbling talking points attacking Joseph Wilson as a partisan and a liar.

These attacks, too, are red herrings...

***

Bush is currently saying that while this is all under investigation it is pointless to speculate on the outcome. He is right. The Grand Jury is scheduled to continue until October (I think.) The Special Prosecutor hasn't finished investigating, much less written a report.

That being said, this case is beginning to look extremely serious. Not just embarrassing, serious.

I hope it turns out to be just a summer scandal. I've lived through one Watergate and really prefer not to go through it again. I'm not sure the Republic can handle it.

[The Bobster]

[Kuros]

[bucheon bum]

Yeah seriously. Comparing Fallujah to Laos and Cambodia Bob? You're stretching it there.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Bob said:

[Nowhere Man]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Nowhere Man]

Joo,

If z= human rights' abuse

x=America
y=Saddam's Iraq

If law A indicates all potentially guilty of z must be tried, which of cases x and y must be tried?

What you are suggesting is that law A only be applied y while even rudimentary investigation of x indicates evidence of z.

Whether y's z is greater than x's doesn't make x innocent.

This, my friend, is logic.

Who should be tried? Both. Of cource we could introduce P, Q, and R who should also be tried for law A to see of they are guilty of z. Does that absolve x? No.

In the meantime, president G refuses to participate in Law A. Why? He's afraid that people like him might be guilty of z.

What you're saying is that x's abuses of z should be ignored. Why? Because of y. If x can indulge in z, then why can't y?

Because x is better? X can only ever be better than y if it never engages in z. Otherwise, it must be subject to law A.

A trial will determine whether Law A has been violated, not you repeating ad nauseum that x is better than y.

Your statements do not elevate x beyond Law A.

[Nowhere Man]

To get back to the original point:

Earth to "righties":

Your president, who continues to spread his great graces upon this country, said he would fire anybody who leaked info from the White House.

That statement, taken as it is, is not about legality.

Oooh, push it. Push it real good.

What is it? It's year one. Not even.

Democrats=taxes


What will the draft age be for your Iraq folly?
60?

Moreover, how about that tax cut?
Hope you enjoy it, cuz you're paying $2 billion a day for Iraq.

That is seriously bad-ass.

Vote us in some more Republicans and there will be no taxes at all.

Less government will be like Houdini at the bottom of a frozen lake.

Imagine all of the squealing you might have done over Kerry.

It's your rock. The sinking has only begun.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[The Bobster]

I have to say that I'm a little amused that Joo has managed to divert yet another thread about an unrelated topic back to his hobbyhorse about Saddam and all that ...

In the meantime, Bush has come down from his previous pledge to fire anyone who was involved in leaking the the info about outing a CIA emplyee down to the level of firing anyone who broke a law ... one mught guess that Rove can continue performing his magic (dirty) tricks for the Bushies right up until the moment he is convicted, forced to wear prison orange, and impelled to receive mail in an 8 x 10 room with a 300-lb roommate named Bubba whose favorite pickup line is "Hey, Karl, you got a purty mouth, dontcha ..."

Well, one more time, Karl Rove seems to have been instrumental in leading some reporters to name a name of a CIA operative, something that not only put her life in danger but also the lives of any and every sub-operative she might have worked with or turned to our side. We can argue about whether that meets the legal definition of treason - regardless, it's not good for our country, and it shows that this govt puts political vendattas ahead of national security, or at least they they see no distinction.

By the way, completely out of context, but I read recently that Rove never finished college. It means that if he's fired from the White House he could not even get a job at a Wonderland or ECC in Daejon ... foood for thought, or scrum for the sharks, as the case may be.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Bulsajo]