|
28 Aug 06 - 06:52 PM (#1821088) Subject: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy None other that Richard Armitage of the State department "outed" Valerie Plame. I think apologies are in order for Rove, Scooter and Bush Boy. |
|
28 Aug 06 - 07:23 PM (#1821119) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Jack the Sailor Sorry, Scooter didn't do it but he lied to cover for Armitage? HAHAHAHAHAHA |
|
28 Aug 06 - 07:26 PM (#1821122) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Donuel Drudge and Tucker Carlson are dancing in the streets calling the whol affair a conspiracy of lunatic liberals. The way DC works... You are innocent until investigated. Armitage was investigated. Just ask yourself why Colin Powell never told Bush that his #1 associate Armitage was the one who did it all. After week 8 of Bush stammering about finding who did it, do you think Powell was deliberately silent? If you can not answer the question, I will not answer it for you, however... the best fall guy/goat is always the one already out of the picture. |
|
28 Aug 06 - 07:30 PM (#1821127) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Arne Old Guy sez: None other that Richard Armitage of the State department "outed" Valerie Plame. I think apologies are in order for Rove, Scooter and Bush Boy. Ummm, no one said that only one person outed Plame. In fact, various news sources have said they heard it from more than one maladministration official, and Rove has admitted to spilling the beans (as, apparently, did Libby; his changing story was part of the legal difficulties he's in). Also, just out of curiosity, since when did State form a fourth branch of gummint? I must have missed the news release.... Cheers, |
|
28 Aug 06 - 09:20 PM (#1821208) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: The Fooles Troupe "since when did State form a fourth branch of gummint?" I thought it was the ONLY 'branch of gummint'... especially in 'war time'... |
|
28 Aug 06 - 09:49 PM (#1821225) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Don Firth (Sigh) Don Firth |
|
28 Aug 06 - 10:11 PM (#1821235) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: John on the Sunset Coast That was a great impression of Charley Brown, Don. |
|
29 Aug 06 - 01:38 AM (#1821386) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy http://newsbusters.org/node/7231 Plame Kerfuffle Ending with a Thud Posted by Matthew Sheffield on August 28, 2006 - 21:16. With the recent disclosure that Richard Armitage, an anti-Iraq war deputy of former secretary of state Colin Powell, was Bob Novak's source for the Valerie Plame leak, the political scandal that never should have been may finally be wrapping up. All that seems to remain is a three-and-out trial of departed White House aid Scooter Libby... ...Whatever Armitage's motives, the fact that he was the Novak leaker undermines — destroys, actually — the conspiracy theory of the CIA-leak case. According to Isikoff, in an excerpt of Hubris published in Newsweek: "The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone…"... ...Don't hold your breath waiting for apologies from the Joe Wilson cheerleaders (the New York Times, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and their leftist blogger pals come to mind) who were denouncing the vile traitors in the Bush White House. |
|
29 Aug 06 - 09:32 AM (#1821616) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Arne IC that Old Guy, just like a good Republican should, ignores what I said. Even if it was Armitage that first did it, Rove and Libby did as well (and then lied about not doing it). And all of them are part of Dubya's maladministration. What gives Old Guy reason to stand up and cheer is beyond me. Do you think that Old Guy is going to hold the presnit to his promise to fire anyone involved? Cheers, |
|
29 Aug 06 - 12:34 PM (#1821780) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy Here it is in the words of your favorite pinko rag: Ex-Colleague Says Armitage Was Source of CIA Leak By R. Jeffrey Smith Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, August 29, 2006; Page A06 The leak of information about an undercover CIA employee that provoked a special prosecutor's investigation of senior White House officials came from then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, according to a former Armitage colleague at the department. Armitage told newspaper columnist Robert D. Novak in the summer of 2003 that Valerie Plame, the wife of a prominent critic of the Iraq war, worked for the CIA, the colleague said. In October of that year, Armitage admitted to senior State Department officials that he had made the remark, which was based on a classified report he had read. Novak collected what he considered to be a confirming comment from White House political strategist Karl Rove, then wrote a column in July 2003 that cited Plame's CIA employment as a reason to question the credentials of the critic, former U.S. ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. In 2002, the CIA sent Wilson to Niger to determine whether Iraq was seeking nuclear material there. He subsequently accused the White House of distorting intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. Novak's column set off a chain of events that culminated in the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald and a grand jury's indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for lying to investigators about his own conversations with reporters regarding Plame. Fitzgerald has never commented on Armitage's role and has not brought charges against him. Armitage's role in the case -- which he confirmed to the FBI in 2003 and later described to Fitzgerald and to the grand jury, his colleague said yesterday -- raises questions about when the White House became aware of the origins of Novak's story. President Bush said as late as 2005 that he was eager to learn all the facts behind the leak. The case's origin in a conversation between Novak and Armitage is one of Washington's worst-kept secrets. Neither Novak nor Armitage has confirmed it, however, leaving a measure of uncertainty until now. A story this weekend by Newsweek magazine was the first to cite confirming statements by former Armitage associates. Armitage did not return a phone call to his office yesterday, but his former colleague, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Armitage had described disclosing Plame's employment to Novak in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip, at the end of a conversation in Armitage's office. Armitage did not know at the time that Plame's identity was considered secret information and senior State Department officials concluded he did "not do anything wrong" when they learned about it months later, the former colleague said. Armitage and two officials he later briefed on his role -- State Department legal adviser William Howard Taft IV and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- each discussed the matter with the FBI and testified before the grand jury, the former colleague said. But Fitzgerald told Armitage in February that he would not be charged with a crime, he said. Three weeks before Armitage spoke to Novak, he made a similar, offhand disclosure of Plame's employment to Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward, the former colleague added. Armitage disclosed the conversation to Fitzgerald after Woodward reminded him of it in October 2005, and Woodward subsequently gave a deposition about the conversation. "Of course, I have nothing to say about sources," Woodward said yesterday. Armitage's involvement in the matter does not fit neatly into the assertions of Bush administration critics that Plame's employment was disclosed as part of a White House conspiracy to besmirch Wilson by suggesting his Niger trip stemmed from nepotism at the CIA. Wilson and Plame have sued top administration officials, alleging that the leak was meant as retaliation. But Armitage, the source Novak had described obliquely as someone who is "not a political gunslinger," was by all accounts hardly a tool of White House political operatives. As the No. 2 official at the State Department from March 2001 to February 2005, Armitage was a prominent Republican appointee. But he also privately disagreed with the tone and style of White House policymaking on Iraq and other matters. "Just because Armitage did this on his own, earlier, doesn't mean that there wasn't a White House conspiracy to 'out' Valerie [Plame] Wilson. We don't think it affects the case," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the group pressing the lawsuit. |
|
29 Aug 06 - 01:57 PM (#1821859) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Arne Old Guy still doesn't read too well: "Just because Armitage did this on his own, earlier, doesn't mean that there wasn't a White House conspiracy to 'out' Valerie [Plame] Wilson. We don't think it affects the case," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, the group pressing the lawsuit. When will Rove get the sack, eh, Old Guy? Or is Dubya a liar? No, don't answer that last one; we already know.... Cheers, |
|
29 Aug 06 - 01:59 PM (#1821864) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Jack the Sailor How far up George Bush's ass does your head have to be not to accept the fact that Libby and Rove admitted to leaking the name? |
|
29 Aug 06 - 02:56 PM (#1821925) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy Does that mean you are not going to apologize? NY Times repeated bogus GOP talking point that Bush promised to fire leaker only if Plame were identified by name In a July 13 New York Times article, staff writer David Sanger advanced the White House spin that President Bush could decline to fire White House senior adviser Karl Rove over Rove's apparent outing of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame and still comply with his pledge to take "appropriate action" against leakers in the Plame case. In advancing this spin, Sanger selectively quoted from a press conference in which Bush responded to a question about whether he stood "by his pledge to fire anyone found" to have "leaked the agent's name." Sanger then quoted unnamed White House officials saying that if Rove merely identified Plame -- which Rove reportedly did when he told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife worked at the CIA -- rather than "named" her, and Bush took no action, he would not be violating his pledge to fire the leaker. But in repeating the White House officials' assertion without challenge, Sanger ignored several instances in which Bush and White House press secretary Scott McClellan made a broader pledge that anyone leaking classified information -- and not just the actual name of a CIA agent -- would be fired. http://mediamatters.org/items/200507130006 |
|
29 Aug 06 - 08:39 PM (#1822237) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Arne Old Guy: Just because some folks said (falsely) that Dubya meant what he said and that he would fire anyone involved with the leaking doesn't mean that others might not have floated "trial balloons" for an 'out' in case anyone actually got caught. That wouldn't be the first time this maladministration has been caught talking out of both sides of their mouth. But if, as one might assume from your quoting this piece here, you think that Dubya really meant it when he said he'd fire anyone involved, aren't you going to demand that he do what he said he was going to do? So which is it, Old Guy? Is Dubya a liar or a sleazebucket ... or both?.... Cheers, |
|
29 Aug 06 - 08:53 PM (#1822245) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Bobert Ya see, Oldster... A conspiracy ain't a conspiracy if there's only one crook... No aplogy is owed any of the other co-conspirators... ...except in yer narrow little world... Bobert |
|
29 Aug 06 - 09:50 PM (#1822277) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy I will wait and see what GWB does. My narrow little world extends quite a bit beyond your your narrow little Washinton Post world. For instance I was watching CSpan today and there was a radio station in NO broadcasting it's regular show. People were calling in about Katrina. One guy called in and started ripping GWB about people dying because of unsafe drugs, etc. etc. the whole Liberal 9 yards. The host cut him off and said, as near as I can recall, "I was in Vietnam and we did not have time to discuss partisan politics or anything for that matter except getting through it. Down here in NO we are like that now. We don't discuss that stuff because we are too busy. We are trying to get through and we are grateful for everything we are getting." He also interviewed GWB Nagin Blanco and Landrieu. It was very informative. Bobert opens up the WAPO and what ever leftist crap in there are his beliefs and tomorrow's talking points. PS: After that, Lest you think CSpan is biased, there was something on there called Camp Democracy. It started with some guy saying "the republicans say we don't have a plan. We do have a plan and were are going to present that plan". Then this old reformed dude from the Black Panthers with dread locks hanging down to his ass, talking real slooow, explains how nobody had been charged with racisim. Then two dyke looking women, one from NOW, were ripping on Bush and demanding this and demanding that. Where's the plan? The plan is to blame everything on Bush. All they care about Katrina is that it gives them something to beat up on Bush about. Where is their support for the victims? what are they doing for them? Just using them for their political agenda. And if it were Gore, or Kerry as president, the disaster would still have happened and they would be the target of their hate. |
|
29 Aug 06 - 09:56 PM (#1822280) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: GUEST,282RA Old Guy I think if you'll check a little more you'll discover that Armitage was PART OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. Colin Powell was his boss. Also Rove STILL participated in the leak afterwards by repeating it to others. And this is all based on whether this story is even true. Last I heard, Armitage thought he might have been the leak but I haven't heard that anyone has actually confirmed anything. Otherwise Armitage would be charged and Rove investigated all over again. |
|
29 Aug 06 - 10:12 PM (#1822285) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy "Rove STILL participated in the leak" When and who? As the pinko rag reported: "Novak collected what he considered to be a confirming comment from White House political strategist Karl Rove" That is a stretch to Rove outed Plame. Now if you keep insisting Scooter changed his story to cover his ass, Woodward did the same as soon as he realized he was implicated. I watched him explain on TV and he was real nervous while talking about it |
|
29 Aug 06 - 10:13 PM (#1822286) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: pdq CEO of The Washington Post Company is Donald Graham, a spoiled brat Liberal who went to expensive prep schools, then inherited the newspaper. He is the cousin of Florida Democrat senator Bob Graham, a man who lives in a town of approximately 16,000, mostly built on land once owned by Grahams and their relatives. He works well with organized crime people and has more money than a human could ever need. He coordinates Democrat goals with the anti-Republican crap that comes out of the Washington Post on a daily basis. At least Ann, Rush and Sean tell people they are political. The washington Post is the official mouthpiece of Democrat character assassins and should have that printed clearly at the top of each page. |
|
29 Aug 06 - 10:29 PM (#1822291) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: GUEST,282RA >>"Rove STILL participated in the leak" When and who?<< But officials at the White House also told reporters about Wilson's wife in an effort to discredit Wilson for his public attacks on Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence. Karl Rove confirmed to Novak that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, and days later offered the same information to Time reporter Matt Cooper. Check it out: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14533384/site/newsweek/ |
|
29 Aug 06 - 10:46 PM (#1822295) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy So it goes from "Novak collected what he considered to be a confirming comment" to "Karl Rove confirmed to Novak" So who was the original leaker? |
|
29 Aug 06 - 11:08 PM (#1822312) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: 282RA I can tell you who might be in line to get fingered. The only high official in Bush's circle to leave of his own accord. Someone close to Armitage. |
|
29 Aug 06 - 11:16 PM (#1822321) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy The Grahams and their relatives are what is called Limousine Liberals like Kerry. |
|
29 Aug 06 - 11:36 PM (#1822337) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: GUEST,282RA Armitage appears to have thrown himself under the bus to protect Powell--his old boss. He knows where too many bodies are buried and is the only one to show any remorse over the mess this administration has made of the Middle East. He was probably going to be fingered as the leak or at least threatened with it in order to ensure his silence or to get rid of him altogether and Armitage might have foiled that by naming himself. Ultimately, though, all roads lead back to Cheney. He's really the only guy that would have leaked it. Rummy's to busy losing the war, Condi's head is up her ass, Powell just doesn't seem to be the type to resort to that kind of deviousness, Rove might help but not instigate--it's too hot for him, Bush is too stupid--gotta be Cheney. |
|
29 Aug 06 - 11:50 PM (#1822345) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy You know, I honestly believe Rove and Cheney sit back and cook up these things as bait for the Liberals to wear them selves out on. I see them giving speeches and making comments that the only purpose I can see for them is as a troll. When are Libs going to come up with something besides finger pointing and blaming the administration for everything. Everybody including the administration knows everything is not rosy. All the hell they need to do is find something positive to campaign on and drop the negative stuff. Can you see a car company selling cars buy saying the other cars are no good? Or "our cars are better" without being able to show how they are better? |
|
30 Aug 06 - 10:41 AM (#1822711) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Donuel In a nutshell Novak and others disclosed a covert CIA agent in the newspaper. Novak is not talking for 2 years now. An investigation looked into who told Novak. Novak is not arrested. Cheney's assistent gets nabbed. NOW we are all to believe Novak. Novak has all the answers. Novak finally says who put him up to disclose agents?????????? No. He says Armitage should "out himself". Right wing shock talk jocks yell ARMATIGE DID IT ARMATIGE DID IT !!!! no Novak is still not talking. He is still a free man. |
|
30 Aug 06 - 12:00 PM (#1822770) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Arne Old Guy: Then this old reformed dude from the Black Panthers with dread locks hanging down to his ass, talking real slooow, explains how nobody had been charged with racisim. Then two dyke looking women, one from NOW, were ripping on Bush and demanding this and demanding that. Old Guy: Don't look now but your racist, prejudiced shirt-tails are showing.... Cheers, |
|
30 Aug 06 - 12:02 PM (#1822771) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Arne Old Guy: "Rove STILL participated in the leak" When and who? As the pinko rag reported: "Novak collected what he considered to be a confirming comment from White House political strategist Karl Rove" That is a stretch to Rove outed Plame. Sounds to me like that's a direct statement that Rove outed her. Cheers, |
|
30 Aug 06 - 01:21 PM (#1822816) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: GUEST,282RA Old Guy thinks that as long as Rove wasn't the FIRST to name names, then he's not the leak. If Rove named any manes at all about who is an undercover agent no matter who was the first, he still participated in the leak and is still guilty. He never went to trial as far as I know so he can still be charged later on without it being double-jeopardy. I think Fitzgerald is still eyeing Cheney and is willing to let Rove slide--at least for now. Cheney has to be the original leak. We've known it since Libby's arrest. |
|
30 Aug 06 - 01:52 PM (#1822835) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Greg F. Old Guy thinks... Not. |
|
31 Aug 06 - 12:08 AM (#1823232) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: DougR Jack the Sailor: I rarely get a chuckle out of your posts but the first one you made in this thread was a knee slapper. DougR |
|
31 Aug 06 - 12:41 AM (#1823248) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: John on the Sunset Coast Christopher Hitchens, the now agnostic lefty, avers that Armitage did leak Plame precisely to embarrass the Bush admin. because he (and Powell) disagreed with administration Iraq policy. He, and State, stood by mute whilst the Govt spent millions or more in special investigation, looking for phantoms that didn't exist. How cowardly of them! Whatever good will I had for Colin Powell, and it was alot, will have been dissapated if Hitchens is correct. Since one can only be outed once, the rest is moot. Cf to virginity...you can only lose it once. |
|
31 Aug 06 - 12:51 AM (#1823257) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy Glad I can be of service. Me predudiced? Only against assholes. |
|
31 Aug 06 - 12:54 AM (#1823260) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy Especially arrogant assholes. |
|
31 Aug 06 - 10:01 AM (#1823563) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: GUEST,BP "Christopher Hitchens, the now agnostic lefty...." I think that should have read "apostate". For the benefit of US readers, C. Hitchens' brother Peter made the journey many years ago from Trotskyite to boggle-eyed right-wing ranter, and it appears that Christopher is following the same trajectory. He's always been committed more to his own cleverness than to any great cause, and his pronouncenments really don't need to be taken seriously. |
|
31 Aug 06 - 11:06 AM (#1823606) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: John on the Sunset Coast BP-I called him that because he says he no longer thinks of himself as a person of the left, nor does he consider himself a person of the right. For the time being I'll take him at his word...kind of. |
|
31 Aug 06 - 02:55 PM (#1823757) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Arne John on the Sunset Coast: Since one can only be outed once, the rest is moot. Not true. Plame's occupation only came out publicly in Novak's column, after Rove had spilled the beans also. When Rove spilled the beans before the news was out, it was still illegal (not to mention a really bad idea). Tell you what, let's get a Congressional committee to get all those creeps on the stand under oath to explain who did what, when, and why. Cheers, |
|
31 Aug 06 - 02:56 PM (#1823759) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Arne Old Guy: Everybody including the administration knows everything is not rosy. Glad you admit that. The maladministration doesn't. Cheers, |
|
31 Aug 06 - 02:58 PM (#1823763) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Arne Old Guy: Can you see a car company selling cars buy saying the other cars are no good? Or "our cars are better" without being able to show how they are better? Pointing out that the other guy's car has a cracked block can't hurt your chances of a sale.... Cheers, |
|
31 Aug 06 - 03:22 PM (#1823785) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy Certianly |
|
31 Aug 06 - 06:37 PM (#1823996) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: GUEST,282RA Colin Powell's rep and career are ruined. Serves him right going to work for Bush. |
|
01 Sep 06 - 12:03 AM (#1824226) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy Damned right. Harry Belafonte said Powell and Condi are just house n*****s anyway. |
|
01 Sep 06 - 10:35 AM (#1824578) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Greg F. On the basis of their performance, Harry is absolutely right. May be why the approval rating for the BuShite administration among Blacks is less than two per cent. Apparently they're a deal smarter than lots of White folks. Can you see a car company selling cars buy saying the other cars are no good? Or "our cars are better" without being able to show how they are better? Guess Fat Old Woody doesn't have a TV or read newspapers or magazines. since this is precisely what U.S auto manufacturers do and have done this fifty years or more. |
|
05 Sep 06 - 06:11 PM (#1827856) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: GUEST,other old guy I read with unbelief Armitage described as "anti-Iraq war" Read the letter to Clinton he signd in 1998 along with Rumsfeld, Wm Kristol, R. Perle, P. Wolfowitz and other neocons. He said "The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That needs to become the aim of American foreign policy." Read his speeches leading up to the war. For example his speech on 1-21-03 at the US Institute of Peace. He is clearly arguing that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and that we almost certainly will need to wage war. To "old man" either your nose is growing or you have not taken any care in determining the truth of this absurd suggestion. |
|
05 Sep 06 - 07:47 PM (#1827945) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Barry Finn Beware the eyes of Nov. It seems that there is a republician campain just starting now that trying to dump the blame for 9/11 on Clintion. Which is gearded to remove some heat from Bush & Company from that & the Iraqi war. "ABC plans to show a 9/11 movie made by a right-wing producer who blames Clinton and defends Bush." Sorry about the cut & paste "Dear Media Action member," "Next week, ABC will air a six-hour miniseries on the 9/11 attacks, with a budget of $30 million. The apparent goal? To blame 9/11 on the Clinton administration and defend President Bush." "The writer and producer of 'The Path to 9/11' is an outspoken conservative activist. And the right wing is thrilled about the movie—Rush Limbaugh said "the film really zeros in on the shortcomings of the Clinton administration" and "It's sort of surprising that ABC's picked it up, to me." "ABC is billing the movie as an objective account based on the 9/11 Commission Report, but the miniseries is riddled with misinformation. Ask your local ABC station to either fix the politically-motivated inaccuracies in The Path to 9/11 or not air it at all." "Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, has already exposed a key scene as pure fiction: "this scene—which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden—never happened. It was completely made up by [writer and producer Cyrus] Nowrasteh." "The right wing is working hard to whitewash the Bush administration's total failure on terrorism. The Path to 9/11 glosses over the terrible negligence of President Bush and Condoleezza Rice, who ignored an intelligence briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." The Bush administration ignored warnings from outgoing Clinton security officials to focus on the threat of a domestic terrorist attack." "In response to growing public criticism, ABC just shut down the movie's official blog. But ABC shouldn't air politically-motivated inaccuracies at all—especially not in commemoration of the tragedy of 9/11." SEE: Moveon.Org Civic Action for more info or sources Ask your local ABC station to either fix the politically-motivated inaccuracies in The Path to 9/11 or not air it at all. WCVB (781) 433-4000 placamera@hearst.com Barry Is this Hearst Communications? Who says that Big Business & the Republican Government aren't whores working & sleeping from the same bed |
|
05 Sep 06 - 09:00 PM (#1828003) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy "which makes the incendiary claim that the Clinton administration passed on a surefire chance to kill or catch bin Laden—never happened." Sudan's Angle How Clinton passed up an opportunity to stop Osama bin Laden. BY RICHARD MINITER Monday, October 8, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT Hours before cruise missiles began raining out of the dark skies of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden appeared on Al-Jazeera, an Arabic-language television network. America "deserved" the attacks of Sept. 11, he said, and called on all Muslims to rise up and strike back at the free world. "America is full of fear from its north to its south, from its east to its west," he said. "Thank God for that." How did we get here? It seems clear that the storm clouds of war began to gather during the Clinton presidency, which was paralyzed by dangerous indecisiveness in combating bin Laden. President Clinton and his top officials knew that the archterrorist posed a real threat to our way of life--beginning with his gunners shooting at American soldiers in Somalia in 1993, a plot to kill Americans in a Yemen hotel, and escalating into simultaneous bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa--which killed 224 people--and the assault on the USS Cole a year ago this week. Yet the administration did little to thwart this menace. Consider a seemingly small event in 1996 to which future historians may devote volumes as a turning point that set the world on a course toward war. That year the government of Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden, then living in its capital city, and turn him over to American authorities, the Washington Post and several British newspapers reported last week. This prompts two questions: If President Clinton could have taken bin Laden into custody, prosecuted him for murderous attacks on Americans in Somalia and spared the lives of thousands who were killed or wounded in future attacks, why didn't he do it? And can we believe the Sudanese government is telling us the truth about its plan to arrest bin Laden? The answers to those two questions are tightly intertwined in a disturbing tale of deliberately missed opportunities that defines the Clinton legacy. In the early 1990s, bin Laden was comfortably ensconced in Khartoum, Sudan's dusty, dreary capital. He chose Sudan for the same reasons he later chose Afghanistan: It was run by Islamic militants who had seized power in a largely bloodless coup and who enforced religious law at the point of an AK-47. Its leaders also desperately needed the millions of dollars bin Laden could bring to one of the poorest Muslim countries. And a low-grade continuing civil war promised to keep its government in his debt. And the Sudanese--at the time--cast an indulgent eye toward terrorists. At first all went according to plan. Bin Laden invested in a string of ventures in Sudan, ranging from airport construction to farms and factories. No doubt along the way Sudanese officials received bribes. But within a few years, payoffs and poor business acumen took its toll. A bin Laden bookkeeper later told the press that the archterrorist lost some $150 million in his Sudanese ventures. By 1996 bin Laden was wearing out his welcome. The government had extracted what it could from him and now his activities--along with those of the Sudanese government--were taking a heavy toll on the country. America and the United Nations imposed virtually every possible sanction on the Sudanese government. The U.S. and much of the developed world cut trade ties. U.S. and U.N. development aid was drying up. World Bank loans were suddenly impossible to secure. The Western press, when it wasn't writing about Sudan's hospitality for terrorists, its poverty and its debilitating civil war, was focusing on a flourishing modern-day slave trade. Western evangelicals and human-rights activists were coming by truck from Uganda and by chartered plane from Kenya to visit, comfort and fund the rebels who fought for the rights of the predominantly Christian south and to end the slave trade. As a result, the avarice and ambition of Sudan's ruling elite--who hoped to tap the oil-rich lands held by the southern rebels--were frustrated. As these powerful external pressures began to turn Khartoum against bin Laden, a split among the ruling factions sealed bin Laden's fate. Sudan's president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, had come to power in a 1993 coup engineered with the help of an Islamic extremist named Hassan Turabi. By 1996 the two men were feuding. Mr. Turabi enjoyed the support of the various terrorist organizations then residing in Sudan, if the representatives of Sudan's government, with whom I've spoken over the past few weeks, are to be believed. This seems plausible given Mr. Turabi's militant take on Islam and his numerous public statements in support of various holy wars against the prosperous infidels of the Western world. President Bashir saw a unique opportunity to weaken his bitter foe while simultaneously repairing his ties with America and Western Europe by arresting and deporting the gun-toting guardians of his rival. Through a back channel--an Arlington, Va.-based woman who had frequent contact with President Bashir--Sudan made an approach to both the CIA and the FBI in the spring of 1996. A secretive meeting near the Rosslyn Metro stop on March 3, 1996, and a series of cables and faxes fleshed out the offer. Sudan would take bin Laden into custody and turn him over to Washington--or to any other government the Clinton administration designated. A few facts made Sudan's claim credible. Sudan turned over the infamous "Carlos the Jackal" to France--which makes it plausible that Khartoum would agree to hand over a then less infamous terrorist to a much greater power. To prove its bona fides, Sudan provided a series of surveillance photographs and other intelligence material that revealed that they kept close watch on bin Laden. They knew his whereabouts and had the ability to bring a large force to bear in a surprise attack on bin Laden. In fact, a Sudanese representative told me, bin Laden could have been captured as his truck moved through the streets of Khartoum. In addition, Sudan offered to turn over all of its files on bin Laden--the result of more than four years of day-to-day surveillance. A Sudanese government representative indicated that these files filled several rooms and included the history of numerous financial transactions, which could be used to expose the global spider web known as al Qaeda. Finally, Sudan has little incentive to lie about bin Laden these days. The U.N. Security Council recently lifted its sanctions on Khartoum, and Washington has warmed to the dictatorship whose help it may need to win the war on terrorism. Ultimately the Clinton administration refused Khartoum's offer. Instead, the Clinton administration simply asked the Sudanese to deport bin Laden. Steven Simon, director of counterterrorism on President Clinton's National Security Council, told the Washington Post: "I really cared about one thing, and that was getting him out of Sudan." The Clinton administration hoped that Saudi Arabia might agree to arrest, try and execute the terrorist. This was a mind-bogglingly shallow reading of Saudi politics. The Saudi regime is weak and fears the retaliation of the many militant groups active on its soil. "One can understand why the Saudis didn't want him--he was a hot potato--and, frankly, I would have been shocked at the time if the Saudis took him," Mr. Simon told the Post. The Clinton administration focused on buying time, not fighting terrorists. "My calculation was, 'it's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time.,' " Nor did the administration believe that extraditing bin Laden to America would be wise. "In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," Sandy Berger, who in 1996 was deputy national security adviser, told the Post. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him someplace where justice is more"--Mr. Berger paused, according to the Post--"streamlined." Senior Clinton staffers told the Post about a "fantasy" in which the Saudis would kill bin Laden. But let's not pass too quickly over Mr. Berger's careless words. If the Clinton administration sought "streamlined" justice and saw bin Laden as a great enough threat to America's interests that they hoped another country would kill him, the president could have secretly overturned the executive order banning assassinations of terrorists and sent in a U.S. Army sniper team. Clearly what Clinton officials really wanted was for another country to take the political heat. Mr. Berger's sentiments ignore the substantial benefits that would have accrued from putting bin Laden on trial in America. The time and expense would have produced a voluminous record that would have persuaded any fair-minded observer, in America or abroad, that bin Laden and his band were what U.S. intelligence thought they were--terrorists who had already succeeded in killing Americans. When Saudi Arabia refused to take bin Laden, the Clinton administration had no backup plan. Washington simply told Khartoum to deport him. A Sudanese government representative told me American officials told their Sudanese counterparts, " 'We don't care where he goes.' " Shortly thereafter bin Laden left on a chartered plane for Afghanistan. Sudanese officials learned that he succeeded in transferring some of his financial assets out of Sudan. His departure bought time for President Clinton--and for bin Laden. Even now U.S. intelligence sources have not examined the copious records that Sudan's spy network kept on bin Laden. For those in the U.S. government who doubt the account of the Sudanese and scoff at the reckless fecklessness of the Clinton administration, there is a simple resolution: Send a trusted agent to visit the file rooms of Khartoum. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289 |
|
05 Sep 06 - 10:37 PM (#1828070) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Barry Finn Excuse me but did 9/11 happen on Clinton watch or Bushes. There was certinally enough time lapse. Bush ignored an intelligence briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."* "http://www.moveon.org/r?r=2069&id=8665-3971286-3fbiJz3oPzQPPhkVqy7q_A&t=7" "The Bush administration ignored warnings from outgoing Clinton security officials to focus on the threat of a domestic terrorist attack. Poppies for planes" by Robert Scheer, May 22, 2002 http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=13365 Again this was Bush's watch, the whole nightmare. Remember when he was asleep in the classroom for the 1st 7 minutes trying to wake up? Katrina was on Bush's watch & call. Iraq was on Bush's watch & call Afganistan was on Bush's watch & call Lebanon & Israel was on Bush's watch & call Flue vaccine was on his watch Immigrant's are watching his call The list is to long I gotta pick up my kid. Barry |
|
06 Sep 06 - 12:24 AM (#1828107) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy Monicagate was on Clintons Watch and call Gennifer Flowersgate " Paula Jonesgate " Kathleen Willeygate " Sherry Rowlandsgate " Juanita Broaddrickgate " Lincoln bedroomgate " Travelgate " Whitewatergate " Chinagate " Chicago heatwavegate " Alfred Murrah Federal Building bombing " NAFTA " Fostergate " Baghdad cruze missile attack " Somalia " Serbia bombing " Bosnia " Marc Rich pardon " US embasy in Kenya bombing " US embasy in Tanzania bombing " Sudan Bombing " Afghanistan cruze missle attack " Baghdad bombing " USS Coe bombing" World Trade Center I bombing" North Korea free reactor " |
|
06 Sep 06 - 12:56 AM (#1828114) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Barry Finn Clinton got a blowjob & the republicans spent much time & money on trying to impeach him, Bush started a war now we're near 3000 dead Americans. Clinton got a blowjob & the republicans spent alot of time & money trying to impeach him for investing money that was fnd to be a legal business transaction. Clinton got a blowjob & the republicans are blaming him for all the things that went sour after he left office & even the sour things that they had a hand in creating before he left office just to make their party look good. Did the reactons of the Clinton people do damage to the American people or their name, did he drag our name through the mud & spend our well earned tax dollars to put us into the worst financial toilet ever. Did he take the UN & turn it into a world laughing stock only to beg it's aid later to hepl put an end t a war they wanted no part in & did they in turn say go it alone. Did Clinton let the energy monsters make policy so they could rape the American people & then tell the same people that they're shit out of luck & make them pay double by giving the tax breaks to those that already had sucked their blood dry. Did Clinton ignore the enviorment, put education behind so far the every kid was left behind, no he just got a blowjob. Did Bill triple the bill on healthly living, no Bush did. Get a grip we weren't in a bad place before Bush started sleeping at the wheel. Today we're in an awful bad way. The world hate us, the American people even hate US. If China calls in it's makers we're in the poor house, not the poor house we're in now but the real one, you know the cardboard box, right under the Wall Street street sign, the one that's ontop of the world Bank's bank account. GET A GRIP, what were you thinking when you fell out of bed this morning. Did you wack your skull on a manhole cover? Barry |
|
06 Sep 06 - 01:00 PM (#1828529) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy My list is longer than your list. Now sit down and quit waving your arms and consider what happened in 2000. The bottom fell out under Clintoons watch. And Armitage done it. A person can only be outed once. |
|
07 Sep 06 - 12:53 AM (#1828953) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy 10th Worst Stock Market Crash: Date Started: 1/15/2000 Date Ended: 10/9/2002 Total Days: 999 Starting DJIA: 11,792.98 Ending DJIA: 7,286.27 Total Loss: -37.8% |
|
07 Sep 06 - 12:59 AM (#1828955) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy Truth Matters The last recession began under Clinton, despite rewrites on the Left. http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200405050850.asp |
|
11 Sep 06 - 12:16 AM (#1831618) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy Washington Post: Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. |
|
11 Sep 06 - 12:40 AM (#1831622) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Barry Finn Now's the time that we should blame the victims. Shot the messangers is a good way too. How's it feel to rape the same victim twice? Barry |
|
11 Sep 06 - 03:15 AM (#1831645) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: dianavan "Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials." What does that have to do with 'outing' Valerie Plame? |
|
11 Sep 06 - 04:32 PM (#1832103) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: kendall Old Guy, it's interesting how you include in your list of "gates" such petty crap that doesn't come close to Bush and his illegal unnecessary war. Paula Jones. Ok, she testified on tv that she couldn't get a good job because Clinton blacklisted her. Then she drives away in a Mercedes! Can you buy a Mercedes on food stamps? Monica gate? do you really think that "rises" to the level of tens of thousands of dead in Iraq? Why don't you come up with a list of IMPORTANT things? By the way, the name of that ship was the USS COLE, not Coe, and it was at the end of Clinton'e watch. What has Bush done about that? Where were you when Bush declared that he didn't know where Bin Laden was, and didn't care? Your arguments are so weak they are helpless. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 12:35 AM (#1832362) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: DougR Old Guy: Would you please stop confusing these folks with facts! The world, you must have surmised is not what it is, it is what they view it to be! Shame, shame. DougR |
|
12 Sep 06 - 01:05 AM (#1832375) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy I keep thinking of the Dark Ages when people thought that whatever you could see was conjured up by demons and spirits. Nothing could be trusted. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 08:05 AM (#1832543) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: kendall Monicagate is a fact? Sure it is, but does it equal tens of thousands of dead in an ILLEGAL war? Get real! Again I say, give us some IMPORTANT "facts". Ohn by the way, it is the republican party that wants to go back to the dark ages. |
|
12 Sep 06 - 11:16 AM (#1832690) Subject: RE: BS: Plamegate over Armitage done it From: Old Guy < a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/08/politics/main262484.shtml">"Oct. 12, 2000 - Navy destroyer, USS Coe, is bombed off the coast of Yemen." Coe is obviously a misspelling. And it happened on Clinton's watch which is all that I asserted. "Flue vaccine was on his watch" does it equal tens of thousands of dead in an ILLEGAL war? Get real! Again I say, give us some IMPORTANT "facts". I suppose if GWB whipped out his schlong infront of some bimbo, it would be in the headlines of the WAPO, NYT and LA Times for a year at least. |
