Plame Wilson

[Westside Steve]

I thought I'd move this out of the Wilileaks thread just for focus.

 

 

So if I had to bet here's what I think happened.

Plame and Wilson had an axe to grind with the Bush administration and actively supported John Kerry.

Hoping to find something embarrassing about the claim that Iraq had tried to buy Uranium from Niger Plame lobbied for and succeeded in getting her partisan husband that assignment.

He then publicly (and incorrectly) boasted about his shoddy report.

 

A bipartisan panel found that to not be the case.

 

He stated that his wife, a desk jockey, had absolutely no influence on his assignmet and it was purported to have been requested by Dick Cheney's office.

 

I have no idea why her identity was leaked by Armitage but he's no NeoCon loyalist.

Maybe it was a mistake.

Your call.

 

So when reporters (Novak?) asked if Cheney's office had indeed asked Wilson to go they truthfully said no.

Since her identity was known the logical question then was "Was it his wife?"

And the answer "That's what we heard."

 

The questions reamain:

Why did someone want to pretend Cheney asked for that report?

Why did Wilson mischaracterize his findings?

Incompetence or subterfuge?

Why do Wilson and Plame tell opposing stories about how he got the assignment?

Why would Armitage tell anyone in the first place.

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Plame sought Joe's appt to that post, and lobbied twice for it.

 

Armitage was a former member of the Clinton admin. He had no loyalty to the Bush admin either.

It's a dangerous political game they were playing.

 

Yes, Plame and Wilson donated $$$$$$$ to Kerry.

 

Confusion reigns and wins. They confounded the investigation, just like the lawyers for O.J. Simpson did.

 

It was to discredit the Bush admin, for political purposes. The left is that corrupt,

 

and they play for keeps.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Instead of guessing about motives and "subterfuge" and making up conspiracy theories, why not just go with what we know to be true? Because you're saying some things in there that aren't true and are counter to what we know. I've also pointed them out to you before.

 

You're like a goldfish, man. We can go over something a million times. Once you swim around the bowl once more it's new to you all over again.

 

 

Ex: Who is going to sacrifice for global warming? You? Al Gore? (Steve, it's not about personal sacrifice. And here's why...)

 

Next post: I just don't see anyone lining up to sacrifice personally.

 

 

Ex: Wilson said Cheney's office asked him to go. (No, Steve. He clearly states in his editorial that he'd been told the VP's office had questions about a possible sale and had asked the CIA about it and the CIA agreed to send Wilson.)

 

Next post: Why is Wilson saying Cheney's office sent him?

 

 

Ex: She wasn't covert. She wasn't covert. She was a desk jockey. (No, Steve. She was a covert CIA agent. She was working on weapons of mass destruction programs in Iraq and Iran.)

 

Next post: She was a desk jockey.

 

 

 

Ex: She wasn't outed because she wasn't covert. (No, Steve. We know that multiple members of the Bush administration fanned out and discussed her identity with reporters. This was a concerted push back for political reasons organized somewhere in the White House, pretty obviously in the VP's office.)

 

Next post: Maybe it was a mistake.

 

 

Ex: He lied about his wife recommending him. (So what? Doesn't mean you get to out the man's wife and end her career. You just say, "We didn't ask him to go." Or "We didn't send him. The CIA did.")

 

Next post: Why'd he lie about his wife recommending him?

 

 

 

You'll excuse me for not wanting to go around the bowl one more time with you.

[Mr. T]

The damage has already been done, and the liberal media will continue to spin it so peeps like heck can believe a pipe dream.

[Westside Steve]

You'll excuse me for not wanting to go around the bowl one more time with you.

 

 

Oh I didn't really expect you to man up.

As usual rather than to admit the truth in any instance you complain about the questions again and again.

And STILL aviod answering.

So who's the goldfish?

 

 

And then you demand we stick to what we know.

We know all the things I listed.

 

And we know you couldn't get any meaningful conviction with all the power and money of the special "persecutor".

That musta been a pisser eh?

 

Hell Heck even in the bullshit Whitewater case there were multiple convictions.

Sorry bud this one's from the left end of the fever swamp.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And from the Drudge Report.

Oops.....

I meant the WaPo....

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html

[calfoxwc]

For all our sakes, Heck, please stop with the changing of subjects, like going to global warming AGAIN.

 

Seriously, can't you stay on subject at all? Any LEGIT REASON, like ADD or something?

 

OTH, at least you didn't come up with Halliburton.

 

Talk about being a "goldfish"... you gotta be kidding, Heck, seriously.

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, I feel like less of a man now. Especially after you just gave us another example.

 

I had just written this:

 

"Ex: He lied about his wife recommending him. (So what? Doesn't mean you get to out the man's wife and end her career. You just say, "We didn't ask him to go." Or "We didn't send him. The CIA did.")

 

Next post: Why'd he lie about his wife recommending him?"

 

 

And then what did you do? You posted a link to an article entitled, "Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission

Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role."

 

Come on, man.

 

Maybe you can say she recommended him for the role one more time, and then I can say that doesn't make it okay to blow her cover, and then this act will be so perfected we can take it on the road.

[calfoxwc]

Heck translation:

 

"Steve just kicked my butt again, and I'm starting to pout."

[heckofajobbrownie]

And Cal, I was just kidding about your "Heck translations." They're often barely understandable, always embarrassing, and remind me of something a child would do while making his "poopy face."

[Westside Steve]

Yes, I feel like less of a man now. Especially after you just gave us another example.

 

I had just written this:

 

"Ex: He lied about his wife recommending him. (So what? Doesn't mean you get to out the man's wife and end her career. You just say, "We didn't ask him to go." Or "We didn't send him. The CIA did.")

 

Next post: Why'd he lie about his wife recommending him?"

 

 

And then what did you do? You posted a link to an article entitled, "Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission

Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role."

 

Come on, man.

 

Maybe you can say she recommended him for the role one more time, and then I can say that doesn't make it okay to blow her cover, and then this act will be so perfected we can take it on the road.

 

 

And even after this rant no answer.

Come on man.

 

BTW that article underscored more than that one discrepancy in their actions.

 

And you won't answer anything even though your enire case is innuendo.

 

You're just angry that your pipe dream of watching Cheney and Rove march up the thirteen steps to the gallows has gone up in smoke.

Cheer up; do some Christmas shopping.

WSS

 

 

[calfoxwc]

And Heck,

 

You smart off to anyone and everyone who ever disagrees with you, like the

 

fat spoiled kid in "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", only not as intelligent.

 

So, I lower my translations to fit your lack of legit contributions to this board.

 

NOTE: Heck, the cowardly lyin, is still too frightened to start his own thread.

 

But he's brave enough to argue with everybody elses' threads.

 

I think I hear Heck doing the "chicken dance".