To: zook
This is as much as I dare excerpt:
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."
44 posted on 07/10/2004 5:26:48 AM PDT by kristinn
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies [br />
To: Jeff Gannon
Ping! Anything you know about this???
54 posted on 07/10/2004 6:00:20 AM PDT by Maigrey ( If you disagree with {Kerry} on most any issue, you may just have caught him on the wrong day. -GWB)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies >
To: Maigrey
The truth will set you free! I point you to the WashPo story from Dec 26, 2003 that says the CIA is upset with me for talking about a document they say is a forgery (when they are not denying that it exists) that details EXACTLY what the Senate Intel Committee says.
Plame got him the job and the White House didn't know they were sending him - otherwise they would have nixed it knowing that Wilson was anti-war.
The sweet taste of vindication.
108 posted on 07/10/2004 10:21:23 AM PDT by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies >and the other stuff in a thread about one of his Plame articles:
To: ConservativeMajority; Jeff Gannon
This is a witch hunt because Jeff Gannon has slapped the reporters silly with at least one of his excellent questions at a White House press briefing.
5 posted on 03/09/2004 6:56:04 AM PST by Peach (The Clintons have pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >
To: Peach
You are kind. What is interesting about this is that I have become ensnared in this matter because I asked questions of my government.
This may a chilling effect on freedom of the press.
All this commotion, but the central question has yet to be answered: At the time that Robert Novak's column was published, was Valerie Plame a "covert operative"?
The CIA has refused to comment on this very important point.
If she was not, then no crime has been committed and all communications between the administration and reporters is just gossip.
9 posted on 03/09/2004 7:43:33 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies >
To: JohnGalt
Your professed insight into the motivation of the Grand Jury is merely guesswork.
The document in question has never been acknowleged by any government agency to even exist.
This is a one-sided investigation where people are being accused of crimes for revealing names and information that may have not been secret in the first place.
11 posted on 03/09/2004 7:53:13 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies >
To: Jeff Gannon
That is simply not true, Jeff.
You are ensnared because you made reference to a government document, which appears to have been a forgery. You need to tell the Grand Jury who made you privy to that document.
12 posted on 03/09/2004 7:54:19 AM PST by JohnGalt (What tale will serve me here among Mine angry and defrauded young? -- R. Kipling)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Jeff Gannon
What was the document you referred to in the interview with Wilson?
13 posted on 03/09/2004 7:54:55 AM PST by JohnGalt (What tale will serve me here among Mine angry and defrauded young? -- R. Kipling)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Jeff Gannon
All this commotion, but the central question has yet to be answered: At the time that Robert Novak's column was published, was Valerie Plame a "covert operative"?
This, of course, would be argued in a motion to quash the subpoena, if you and other journalists are subpoenaed. If not then, before a judge in a contempt action, if they're so foolish as to attempt to compel your testimony, despite the First Amendment, or--and this is a stretch--if anyone is criminally charged out of this.
14 posted on 03/09/2004 7:57:28 AM PST by Catspaw
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: ConservativeMajority; Jeff Gannon
This entire situation has me totally confused...........
15 posted on 03/09/2004 7:58:06 AM PST by Gabz (The tobacco industry doesn't pay cigarette taxes - smokers do!)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: JohnGalt
I disagree with your characterization of the document itself, but that aside, I maintain that I am under no obligation whatsoever to reveal my sources. That is a fundamental element of maintaining a free press.
16 posted on 03/09/2004 8:01:36 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Jeff Gannon
Sorry, Jeff, but you claimed in this report you did not why you were being subpoenaed which is untrue. You know very well why you are being subpoenaed.
You are a logical target for the Grand Jury probing either the forged Nigerian documents, 'forged' being the FBI's characterization not mine, or L'Affair Plame.
The law does believe you are obligated so you are incorrect. While I would respect your integrity in accepting the consequences in refusing to release your sources, you are still obligated by the law to reveal who made you privy to the document you referenced. I am sure as a 'conservative' you understand the difference, don't you?
17 posted on 03/09/2004 8:09:02 AM PST by JohnGalt (What tale will serve me here among Mine angry and defrauded young? -- R. Kipling)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies >
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: JohnGalt
Justin Raimondo is that you? I didn't think you hung out here anymore.
Oops, now I've "outed" someone else!18 posted on 03/09/2004 8:17:43 AM PST by Jeff Gannon (Listen to my radio show "Jeff Gannon's Washington" on www.RIGHTALK.com)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies[i>
That thread goes on and on between John Galt and Jeff Gannon. I believe there is a lot of information to be gleaned there, especially since he basically admitted to outting somebody besides John Galt.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
