Need help with repuke attacks on wilson

[cushla_machree]

I have had the pleasure talking with several repukes about this plame affair.

Their logic:

1. She was not 'covert', if she was they didn't 'know'

see, why would the whitehouse be expected to know her status? (this one was a real question)

2. Wilson has appeared in magazines, on the cover of vanity fair, wrote a book. The he is trying to make money excuse.

3. There is no 'proof'

The no proof one gets me the maddest. Because all of it is just allegations, and there is no proof ever. They all turn the debate around to 'provide me with evidence that a crime has been commited.' The right wing has perfected this excuse, and it is especially good because Bush NEVER gets charged with anything. But it really pisses me off because under Clinton, no proof was EVER needed. All they needed was the write something in print, and the mainstream would carry it. The Clinton body count comes to mind. Since there is never a stained dress with Bush, they refuse to admit he has done anything wrong. Even with wilson, with grand jury testimoney, no crime has been commited according to them.

How does one counter their B.S.?

[saracat]

1. There is proof.

There is the memo rgardong Valerie Plame that Cheney Bush and Rice had access too on Air Force one. Her status was marked "classified. Bush read it as did Colin Powell who testified to reading it. They are full of poop. Tell them to look it up. And the dates of Bush's "declassification " don't match. He "declassified much later than the leaks. Tell them to look that up too!

[Mz Pip]

2. Then why the investigation?

If Plame wasn't covert then there would be no point in investigating this.

2. So what? He's trying to tell his story. So what if he makes some money off the story? It's the American Way.

3. No proof? That's what the investigation is for. To uncover proof.

If all of this was so legal and not a big deal, why did Libby lie before a f*cking Grand Jury??? He's a smart man. He's a lawyer. Obstruction of Justice is a serious offense. Why risk your freedom for no good reason.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[cushla_machree]

15. Do you think there is a chance

That they really released her name by accident!

I think not, but does anyone think there is an argument that they relaly didn't know she was covert???

[Mz Pip]

16. Why mention her at all then?

What would it benefit them to mention her at all if she were just some desk jockey? Why bother? THese people don't do anything without careful thought. They mentioned her for a reason.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[cushla_machree]

19. Exacty

WHy use her name?? Specifically? It doesn't add up.

Also, there would be no investigation if there was not a concern by the CIA about USING her name.

[Webster Green]

3. Tell them they've been lied to...

1. She was covert. The freeps have been lied to, and are misinformed.

2. Doesn't matter if Wilson/Plame appeared in magazines, on the cover of vanity fair, or wrote a book. Nothing illegal there, and it doesn't justify what was done to them by their government.

3. Not yet perhaps, but plenty of evidence.

[rumpel]

8. The magazine appearance was after she was already exposed.

[Tempest]

4. Try this

1) The judge listening to the evidence made a determination that Plame was still under cover based upon the CIA's own definition. He further determined that an agent under cover was considered covert. It's part of the official record and can be used in a trial.

2) The magazines, the cover of Vanity Fair and writing the book didn't occur until after his wife was outed. And they were done in an attempt to set the record straight.

3) Libby provided the proof when he testified under oath that Bush gave the approval to leak classified documents with the intention of undermining Wilson.

[cushla_machree]

17. just making money!

2) The magazines, the cover of Vanity Fair and writing the book didn't occur until after his wife was outed. And they were done in an attempt to set the record straight.

How many books have been written about clinton, about Hillary? How about when they funded the book about Anita Hill? Obviously nothing is wrong with that, but when someone writes something crtical of Bush, suddenly they are just lying moneygrubbers.

Isn't that how politics work? You write? Ariticles, books, op-eds. Call me crazy here. No one has ever benefitted from poltical writings ever.

[cynatnite]

5. If she wasn't covert, why did the CIA ask the DOJ to investigate?

Wilson went public after his wife's cover was blown in retaliation for his op/ed piece about what he didn't find in Niger.

Exactly what proof are they looking for? Proof Joe Wilson went to Niger? Proof that the documents were forged? Proof that Plame was covert?

There is proof all over the place for this entire affair. They won't go looking for it for fear of being exposed to the truth.

Counter it by telling them to prove what they say is true. If they are so right, then they can back it up and tell them that RW talking mouths down't count.

[NanceGreggs]

6. The PROOF is already there ...

She WAS covert, and that has been admitted even by the WH. There was just too much documented proof of that fact, so they have already caved on that one.

Not KNOWING about it? Ignorance of the law is no excuse; never has been in any US court of law. With the vast resources available to this Administration, that fact of her status could have been easily checked.

Wilson wrote a book to make money? His wife's career was ruined, which has financial implications for both of them. And what about all of the Right-Wingers who have written books about their involvement with this administration? Did they do so without remuneration? I highly doubt it.

There is no proof? Since when is this White House interested in the proof of anything? WMDs in Iraq - where was the proof? Ties between Hussein and Al Qeada - where was the proof? Connections between 9/11 and Iraq - where was the proof?

But the biggest 'talking point' in the argument is this: If this Administration is completely innocent of any wrongdoing in this regard, or in any other regard where allegations have been made, why don't THEY insist on a full investigation into their own activities to PROVE that nothing untoward is going on? Such an investigation would clear them of any wrongdoing, and PROVE their accusers wrong. Why does it take a Patrick Fitzgerald's subpoena power to get them to finally talk, or to produce documents?

As the Bushbaby once said himself: "An innocent man has nothing to hide. An innocent man says, 'Come on in, and look at whatever you want to look at.'"

The average American citizen, if wrongly accused of something, would DEMAND a full investigation to prove themselves free of guilt.

If the White House is free of guilt, why do they find it necessary to obfuscate justice, avoid answering questions, thwart investigations into their activities time and time again?

[rumpel]

7. We have several threads here on this subject

here is just one from yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=881815&mesg_id=881815


from John W. Dean
No Apparent Violation Of The Identities Protection Act

As I pointed out when the Valerie Plame Wilson leak first surfaced, the Intelligence Identities And Protection Act is a complex law. For the law to apply to Rove, a number of requirements must be met.

Rove must have had "authorized access to classified information" under the statute. Plame was an NCO (non-covered officer). White House aides, and even the president, are seldom, if ever, given this information. So it is not likely Rove had "authorized access" to it.

In addition, Rove must have "intentionally" -- not "knowingly" as has been mentioned in the news coverage -- disclosed "any information identifying such a covert agent." Whether or not Rove actually referred to Mrs. Wilson as "Valerie Plame," then, the key would be whether he gave Matt Cooper (or others) information that Joe Wilson's wife was a covert agent. Also, the statute requires that Rove had to know, as a fact, that the United States was taking, or had taken, "affirmative measures to conceal" Valerie Plame's covert status. Rove's lawyer says he had no such knowledge.

In fact, there is no public evidence that Valerie Wilson had the covert status required by the statute. A covert agent, as defined under this law, is "a present or retired officer or employee" of the CIA, whose identity as such "is classified information," and this person must be serving outside of the United States, or have done so in the last five years.

There is no solid information that Rove, or anyone else, violated this law designed to protect covert CIA agents. There is, however, evidence suggesting that other laws were violated. In particular, I have in mind the laws invoked by the Bush Justice Department in the relatively minor leak case that it vigorously prosecuted, though it involved information that was not nearly as sensitive as that which Rove provided Matt Cooper (and possibly others).
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html

Besides, ALL WH employees have to sign a document where it clearly states they are not to disclose any classified material at the time of employment.

People get convicted every day with circumstantial evidence

Quite a few legal information on this issue in several Dean articles her:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/

[niyad]

9. ask them if they have been on a desert island the last three years.

1. plame was NOC, which is as covert as you can get. tell them to have somebody read them the relevant documentation from the CIA (since I assume none of them can actually read with any sort of comprehension, just like *)

2. so he wrote a book. BFD-- my standard response to this kind of crap is, "UNLESS and UNTIL you make the same complaint about anybody in the administration who has written a book, or made speeches, or in any way been compensated, YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO STANDING to whine about this. now stfu" (at least I don't have to listen to them anymore. silence is wonderful)

3. what would they define as PROOF? explain in detail.

on the other hand, as other people will probably advise, the best thing to do is simply not bother yourself, not waste your energy on these know-nothing sheeples. it only leads to ulcers and intense aggravation. I know most of us entertain the hope that there are actually functioning brains in those people, and that if we can just find the right words, the right symbols, the right way to communicate, we will get them to see the light.

"there are none so blind as they who will NOT see"

[cushla_machree]

14. PROOF!

Exactly. Whenever Bush does something, no proof is ever needed. But if he is accused of something, they just turn it around and go you just hate bush, there is no proof. I suppose proof would be a video in real time showing something happening.

Did Kenneth Star have 'proof' throughout his entire investigation?

I know most of us entertain the hope that there are actually functioning brains in those people, and that if we can just find the right words, the right symbols, the right way to communicate, we will get them to see the light.

HAhahahah. I think we all argue, not because we think it changes their minds, but it gives us satisfaction knowing we just totally owned them. Its like watching something terrible happen, you know you should stop, but you are just so intrigued but disgusted at the same time.

Now i don't think i am 100% right, but repukes take being stupid to a whole new level. there is just no thought processes going on, and that is what makes you want to scream. If there was a rational debate from them, you wouldnt feel as if the entire country was completely doomed.

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." John Stuart Mills

[flyarm]

10. the CIA demanded an independent council!! the Cia would not have

made that demand unless Plames status was classified!

those pukes are so full of shit..ask them what it will take ..* screwing a pink elephant on the front lawn of the white house with 1000 tv cameras filming it???????

for gosh sake..why can those idiots not read and inform themselves????????

GOP..the dumbest people on earth!

and they brag about being so damn dumb!

fly

[flyarm]

11. oh and ask your fundy friends why brewster jennings was outed..

a 13 yr covert operation!!

you will get blank stares..they will have no clue what you are talking about ..they are so dang stupid!

fly

[cushla_machree]

18. so what was

Bewster jennings doing? who pulled their plug?

[rumpel]

12. On your comment: The no proof one gets me the maddest

Here is Dean's latest

The Truth About Lewis "Scooter" Libby's Statements to the Grand Jury Claiming the President Authorized a Leak of Classified Information:
The President and Vice President Are Not In the Clear Yet

snip

At a minimum, the filing indicates that the President and Vice President departed radically, and disturbingly, from long-set procedures with respect to classified documents - and that the Vice President, in particular, exceeded his declassification authority. And it may indicate that they, too, ought to be targets of the grand jury.

snip
Finally, even if Bush and Cheney both get away clean of criminal charges, or even the suggestion of criminal conduct, this is still devastating for the Administration. Illegal or not, the President and Vice-President's actions, as recounted by Libby, are ugly in the extreme.

After all, Fitzgerald's filings indicate that, at a bare minimum, these highest of officials played fast and loose with declassification rules as part of a scheme to take an uncalled-for revenge against a critic who dared to question an Iraqi war justification. Even more damning, is that the critic turned out to be right: Weapons of mass destruction have never surfaced, no uranium was sold by Niger to Iraq, and the Administration's call to arms was bogus.

There will be more devastating revelations from the Libby case, I am certain. I have written of this matter in the past, and anticipate writing more in the future. The Commander-in-Chief-can-do-no-wrong veneer is wearing off, thankfully. For a nation that cannot hold its commander-in-chief responsible is something other than a democracy.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20060407.html

[dogday]

13. The CIA requested this investigation

I am going out on a limb here and say they knew what her status was and that is why the investigation was requested.. She was an active CIA NOC and The Administration outed her and her contacts and caused certain death to others because of this leak....