[Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter
lfalen
lfalen at turbonet.com
Wed Mar 21 12:56:40 PDT 2007
disingenuous would have been a better word than semantics
-----Original message-----
From: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:45:47 -0700
To: "Carl Westberg" carlwestberg846 at hotmail.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter
> Carl
> They very likly might. , But remember that Clinton (Reno) fired 93 early in his tem, to prevent things from being investigated he did not want investigated. Nothing came of that. It is semantics to say that it is ok at the beginning of a term, but not later.
>
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: "Carl Westberg" carlwestberg846 at hotmail.com
> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:23:38 -0700
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter
>
> > Regarding "overblown political posturing" in the context of the attorney
> > firings. If roles were reversed, and it was a Democratic administration,
> > and a Republican Congress, wouldn't the Republicans be doing the same
> > "overblown political posturing" that the Democrats are being accused of? I
> > rather think the answer is yes. Carl Westberg Jr.
> >
> >
> > >From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > >Reply-To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > >To: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>, "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath
> > >inthematter
> > >Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:09:00 -0700
> > >
> > >There is something else that was left out by everyone. Some on the
> > >Washington social circuit knew who she worked for. therefore it was not
> > >exactly a secret. She mentioned something about this in testimony. I don't
> > >have the exact statement.
> > >No one has been charged with leaking her idenity. If they were it would be
> > >Armitage. This whole thing is overblown political posturing.
> > >Roger
> > >
> > >Roger
> > >-----Original message-----
> > >From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
> > >Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:10:44 -0700
> > >To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in
> > >thematter
> > >
> > > > Gary,
> > > >
> > > > You are learning very well from your mentor Dale Courtney about failing
> > >to include all relevant parts of a quote to make your point:
> > > > 'Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know her legal status, but
> > >said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
> > > >
> > > > [Left out]
> > > >
> > > > "They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not
> > >have known what my status was but that alone - the fact that I worked for
> > >the CIA - should have put up a red flag."'
> > > >
> > > > Or perhaps you didn't notice that the article appeared to be from its
> > >style an"analysis" or OP/ED piece not a straight-forward news report.
> > > >
> > > > [Notice also, like Courtney, you didn't write what the quote actually
> > >said.]
> > > >
> > > > As I pointed out, but which you carefully avoided addressing, it is not
> > >what Plame thought her status was, but what the way the law defines it
> > >which is the germane point here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Aside from that, perhaps you might be kind enough, now that we have the
> > >whole quote and other relevant information, to comment upon the ethics and
> > >perhaps the adherence to government honesty in this case.
> > > >
> > > > Was the outing of Plame as payback for her husband correctly pointing
> > >out that the administration's view of the Iraq/Africa nuclear connection
> > >was clearly wrong, if not a deliberate lie, a fine, a honest, ethical act
> > >by the administration or a despicably treacherous, if not childish one?
> > > >
> > > > Please bear in mind that this charitably called "misinformation" was
> > >used by the Bush administration as a key point to persuade a
> > >much-too-gullible-about-the-president's-honesty congress to approve
> > >entering a horribly destructive morass of which there does not seem to be a
> > >practical or honorable way to exit from or of undoing the damage to the
> > >image and influence of our country in the world community.
> > > >
> > > > In the past you have refused to respond to simple questions whose answer
> > >might force you to take a stand against one or more of your heroes by
> > >saying "I don't do homework assignments." If that is your position here,
> > >then we will all understand that you are afraid to directly comment on the
> > >issue raised by the question. That's hardly a valorous position for
> > >someone participating in a discussion of an issue, but such considerations
> > >have not deterred your abstinence in the past.
> > > >
> > > > W.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: g. crabtree
> > > > To: Art Deco
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:01 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in the
> > >matter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My understanding came in part from:
> > > >
> > > > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070317/D8NTJUS80.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The 1982 statute IS the law. Ms. Plame and her ridicules twit of a
> > >spouse, Joe 'sippin tea by the pool' Wilson like to characterize her
> > >position with the CIA as 007 when the fact of the matter is she didn't
> > >quite manage to ascend to the level of Mrs. Moneypenny. Even the special
> > >prosecutor realized that the woman came about as close to being a double
> > >naught spy as Jethro Bodine did. Analyst does not equal covert operative,
> > >period.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps a special prosecutor should look into securities being offered
> > >here on the V by unlicensed and unscrupulous vermin. It would make as much
> > >sense and net the same minor level of undesirable.
> > > >
> > > > g
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Art Deco
> > > > To: g. crabtree
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:56 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in
> > >the matter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Gary writes:
> > > >
> > > > "My understanding was that when Ms. Plame was on the stand before
> > >congress the other day she was asked if she thought that she met the
> > >criterion for being a covert agent under the Intelligence identities Act of
> > >1982, she ruefully admitted that she did not know if she met that standard
> > >or not."
> > > >
> > > > Although it is unclear where "your understanding" comes from since you
> > >did not enlighten us with a source, the rest is irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Plame was a CIA agent engaged in covert CIA activities including
> > >intelligence gathering about Iraq's alleged attempts to buy nuclear
> > >material in Africa. It doesn't matter what she believes her status under
> > >the 1982 statute is; what matters is how the law defines her activity.
> > > >
> > > > No evidence has ever been introduced by the Bush Administration to
> > >show that they carefully researched such matters before she was outed in
> > >retaliation for having the administration's lies with very tragic
> > >consequences exposed. Outing a CIA agent (read spy) without justification
> > >is high treason as you clearly understand from your comments about the NYT,
> > >although you seem to have forgotten that justification is part of the
> > >issue.
> > > >
> > > > Gary further writes:
> > > >
> > > > "A minor player has been convicted of having a poor memory and will
> > >doubtless be pardoned by the Commander in Chief before he does so much as
> > >10 minutes in jail."
> > > >
> > > > Let's see. A person who is one of the highest administrative aides to
> > >a very political vice president has a "poor memory." In high office,
> > >almost everything done, save pencil sharpening or fingernail clipping, is
> > >considered in the light of its political consequences and ramifications.
> > >One little slip by such an aide on a public matter, and hence from those
> > >whom he/she advises, is to be rigorously avoided. A super memory for
> > >details, not a poor one, is an absolute prerequisite for such a position.
> > > >
> > > > However, if you really think that poor Scooter really has a poor
> > >memory, perhaps you'd be interested in purchasing some initial stock in a
> > >silver mine that promises to return triple your money for each year you
> > >hold it.
> > > >
> > > > W.
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: g. crabtree
> > > > To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:44 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in
> > >the matter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My understanding was that when Ms. Plame was on the stand before
> > >congress the other day she was asked if she thought that she met the
> > >criterion for being a covert agent under the Intelligence identities Act of
> > >1982, she ruefully admitted that she did not know if she met that standard
> > >or not. If she wasn't sure of her status under the act, how, exactly would
> > >Libby, Rove, and Armitage? The fact that nobody has been charged with her
> > >'outing' belies the notion that a treasonous crime was committed in this
> > >regard.
> > > >
> > > > I think that it's quite clear that there was zero substance to the
> > >'plamegate' incident and that it was just another instance of the
> > >democratic's doing their best to make the current administration look bad.
> > >And with the help of a liberal media, their mission was accomplished. And
> > >what a monumental accomplishment it was. A minor player has been convicted
> > >of having a poor memory and will doubtless be pardoned by the Commander in
> > >Chief before he does so much as 10 minutes in jail. Ya'll should ought to
> > >be proud.
> > > >
> > > > If you really feel that a good hanging would be just the ticket to
> > >brighten up your dreary day, why don't you look to the NYT. More secrets
> > >harmful to the USA have been leaked from that cesspool in the last six
> > >months then from all the current administration members over the entirety
> > >of their careers.
> > > >
> > > > g
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Art Deco
> > > > To: Vision 2020
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:28 PM
> > > > Subject: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in the
> > >matter
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And we will believe them? Yeah, right.
> > > >
> > > > What a bunch of irresponsible, lying chickenshits!
> > > >
> > > > W.
> > > >
> > > > And while we are at it, why weren't Libby, Armitage, and Rove tried
> > >and hung for treason in the Valerie Plame matter?
> > > >
> > > > White House to allow Rove, Miers to be interviewed in firings of
> > >U.S. attorneys
> > > > WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House will allow the president's top
> > >political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers
> > >to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing
> > >of several U.S. attorneys was handled, but they will not testify under oath
> > >in the matter, Rep. Chris Cannon said Tuesday.
> > > >
> > > > The announcement came after current White House counsel Fred
> > >Fielding met with members of the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary
> > >committees, who had considered using subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and
> > >their two deputies to reveal what they knew about the reasons behind the
> > >firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys.
> > > >
> > > > But Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters after the meeting
> > >with Fielding that the offer from the White House is incomplete: "We would
> > >be able to interview the four people we requested ... but only in private,
> > >not under oath and with no transcript."
> > > >
> > > > Schumer said lawmakers would try to get tougher requirements for the
> > >interviews. And he and House Judiciary Committee head Rep. John Conyers
> > >both said their committees will move forward to approve the use of
> > >subpoenas to get White House officials to testify under oath.
> > > >
> > > > That would not mean that subpoenas would be issued immediately, only
> > >that the committees would be able to use them. (Posted 3:16 p.m.)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > =======================================================
> > > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > =======================================================
> > > >
> > >
> > >=======================================================
> > > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > >=======================================================
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need, right when you
> > need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01
> >
> >
> >
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list