Woodward and Artmitage on Wilson - New England Patriots Forums

***patsfan13*** · 02-13-2007, 08:23 PM

Transcript of taped conversation between Armitage and Woodward weeks before the infamous Novak column. Played at eh Libby trial today

Quote:

“It was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency,” Woodward said. “I mean, that’s just —- “

“His wife works in the agency,” Armitage answered.

“Why doesn’t that come out?” Woodward asked. “Why does — “

“Everyone knows it,” Armitage responded.

“That have to be a big secret?” Woodward continued. “Everyone knows.”

“Yeah,” said Armitage. “And I know [expletive deleted] Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off because he was designated as a low-level guy, went out to look at it. So, he’s all pissed off.”

“But why would they send him?” asked Woodward, echoing the questions being asked at the very moment in the vice president’s office.

“Because his wife’s a [expletive deleted] analyst at the agency,” Armitage said.

“It’s still weird,” said Woodward.

“It’s perfect,” Armitage countered. “This is what she does — she is a WMD analyst out there.”

“Oh, she is,” Woodward responded.

“Yeah.”

“Oh, I see.”

“[Expletive deleted] look at it,” Armitage said.

“Oh, I see,” Woodward said. “I didn’t [expletive deleted].”

“Yeah, see?” Armitage said.

“Oh, she’s the chief WMD?” asked Woodward.

“No, she isn’t the chief, no,” Armitage responded.

“But high enough up that she can say, ‘Oh yeah, hubby will go’?”

“Yeah, he knows Africa,” said Armitage, referring to Joseph Wilson.

“Was she out there with him?” asked Woodward.

“No.”

“When he was an ambassador?”

“Not to my knowledge,” said Armitage. “I don’t know. I don’t know if she was out there or not. But his wife is in the agency and is a WMD analyst. How about that [expletive deleted]?”

Woodward testified that Armitage’s “everyone knows it” comment referred to the fact that Joseph Wilson was the at-that-time anonymous former ambassador criticizing Bush. But a fair-minded listener — including, perhaps, one or two on the jury — could just as easily conclude that the “everyone knows it” referred to the fact of Mrs. Wilson’s job status. A juror might also wonder exactly what Armitage meant when he said that an angry Joseph Wilson had “been calling everybody.”

This conversation occurred BEFORE Wilson's was named publicly, he was taking anonymous shots at the White House at the time.

Wonder why Armitage wasn't indicted for blowing Plame's cover He told Novak the same stuff later? Perhaps because Fitz knows she wasn't undercover.

***PressCoverage*** · 02-13-2007, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Transcript of taped conversation between Armitage and Woodward weeks before the infamous Novak column. Played at eh Libby trial today

This conversation occurred BEFORE Wilson's was named publicly, he was taking anonymous shots at the White House at the time.

Wonder why Armitage wasn't indicted for blowing Plame's cover He told Novak the same stuff later? Perhaps because Fitz knows she wasn't undercover.

Ah yes, Richard Armitage... The man who's credibility went down the toilet with Iran-Contra...

Awareness of this conversation is well documented... Anyhow, i addressed your assumption-leading questions in another thread, so I'll just post them here as well...

Armitage wasn't indicted because he rushed to investigators and owned up immediately... He never lied about what he said... And never changed his story... He was investigated thoroughly, twice... The difference between Armitage's mention, and Rove and Co.'s was that Armitage's was a slip in casual conversation (documented), and the others' was quite coordinated, selective and intentional as directed by Dick Cheney... and later covered up...

As for your insistance that she wasn't undercover, you continue to look stupid... And clearly, Armitage, in mid 2003 was quite mistaken about her role in the agency... But, of course, you'll buy the one statement among 100 that supports your agenda... you remind me of an OJ jury member...

The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert

Newsweek

Feb. 13, 2006 issue - Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.)

New York Times on 5 October 2003:
But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in non-conventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover", and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs

an article published in the October 19, 2003, issue of Time magazine:
Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a "nice European city." Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. "[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, 'Yeah, he works for us,'" says Rustmann. "The degree of backstopping to a NOC's cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is."

Larry C. Johnson, "a former CIA analyst who was in Plame's officer training class in 1985-86"[12], left the Agency in 1989, and later served as Deputy Director for Special Operations, Transportation Security, and Anti-Terrorism Assistance in the U.S. State Department's Office of Counter Terrorism until October 1993, has posted as a "special guest" in a blog on 13 June 2005 that prior to Novak's column of 14 July 2003 Valerie Plame was indeed a "non-official cover operative" (NOC):

Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. . . . Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.
A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

***patsfan13*** · 02-14-2007, 12:24 AM

Plame had done covert work but had been outed and hadn't been overseas in years and was no longer covert, hence no prosecutions for outing her. IIRC she was outed by Aldrich Ames.

As to Armitage's credibility, well he was an opponent of the administration's policy, however his conversation with Woodward was taped and that is what the transcript says.

2 other things, the defense will rest it's case by the end of the week and neither Libby or Cheney is going to testify, the defense must think the case is in the bag.

***PressCoverage*** · 02-14-2007, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Plame had done covert work but had been outed and hadn't been overseas in years and was no longer covert, hence no prosecutions for outing her. IIRC she was outed by Aldrich Ames.

As to Armitage's credibility, well he was an opponent of the administration's policy, however his conversation with Woodward was taped and that is what the transcript says.

2 other things, the defense will rest it's case by the end of the week and neither Libby or Cheney is going to testify, the defense must think the case is in the bag.

once again, you're wrong..... she was covert RIGHT UP UNTIL the Novak column, as declared by both her co-workers, and her Brewster-Jennings associates who were all jeopardized by the intentional leaks...

Libby and Cheney aren't testifying because they'll open themselves to complete destruction by Fitzgerald and you know it... This trial has been a disaster for Cheney... a disaster...

everyone, including Tricky Dick himself, agreed he would testify as the best "character witness" Libby had ... but the trial has been so unflattering for DICK, he's decided to throw his "Smithers" under the bus and run to his Asia tour....

***patsfan13*** · 02-14-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

once again, you're wrong..... she was covert RIGHT UP UNTIL the Novak column, as declared by both her co-workers, and her Brewster-Jennings associates who were all jeopardized by the intentional leaks...

Libby and Cheney aren't testifying because they'll open themselves to complete destruction by Fitzgerald and you know it... This trial has been a disaster for Cheney... a disaster...

Nope CIA hasn't officially weighed in and Fitzgerald also refused to describe her as covert. Also hubby described her as CIA n his Who Who's entry and even thought he didn't use her name in his entry, he wouldn't have done that if she were covert. Then we come to the NBC babe Andrea Mitchell who stated on national TV (Imus) that everyone on the DC party circuit knew that Plame was CIA on the Imus show. She later tried to react, but if you heard the
statement it was VERY matter of fact.

Also with Woodward, Novak and a couple of other reporters saying Libby never mentioned Plame to them and with the FBI agent and Miller having to retract parts of theie Grand Jury testimony the prosecution's case is a shambles. If the defense is in trouble then Libby would testify. Case closed.

***PressCoverage*** · 02-14-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Nope CIA hasn't officially weighed in and Fitzgerald also refused to describe her as covert. Also hubby described her as CIA n his Who Who's entry and even thought he didn't use her name in his entry, he wouldn't have done that if she were covert. Then we come to the NBC babe Andrea Mitchell who stated on national TV (Imus) that everyone on the DC party circuit knew that Plame was CIA on the Imus show. She later tried to react, but if you heard the
statement it was VERY matter of fact.

Also with Woodward, Novak and a couple of other reporters saying Libby never mentioned Plame to them and with the FBI agent and Miller having to retract parts of theie Grand Jury testimony the prosecution's case is a shambles. If the defense is in trouble then Libby would testify. Case closed.

does the CIA have to "officially weigh in?" lol... her husband NEVER described her in any way in the "Who's Who" entry... are you on heavy medication?... the listing provides her name only...

the case itself is about a lie and a cover-up... when you get your head around that, and stop bouncing all over the place, you'll come back to reality...

i'll remember you said "case closed"... sorta like "mission accomplished" with you people... get a clue...

***patsfan13*** · 02-14-2007, 01:39 PM

How bout Mitchell's comments on national TV and Armitage's comments to Woodward. doesn't exactly sound like she was a big secret.

I wish we could bet a couple of $ on the outcome of the trial. Libby willbe found innocent, maybe we could start a pool on whether Olbermann or Matthews will have a cornary first?

***PressCoverage*** · 02-14-2007, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

How bout Mitchell's comments on national TV and Armitage's comments to Woodward. doesn't exactly sound like she was a big secret.

I wish we could bet a couple of $ on the outcome of the trial. Libby willbe found innocent, maybe we could start a pool on whether Olbermann or Matthews will have a cornary first?

how can i comment on Mitchell, when i never saw it, and you haven't provided links to it? your post history proves you often just make things up, so why would i lend credence to your latest round of blather? Armitage suggesting it was "no big secret" is a bit of a stretch by him.... It most certainly was a secret to almost everybody... if i say "everyone knows you're a fraud, patsfan" that doesn't make it true that everyone knows...

... though i am doing my best to display just that...

again, Libby's fate is mere window dressing... he's as guilty as OJ was, and we all know how that one turned out... any aquittal will be the result of a high-level power play... even if he is convicted, he'll appeal, and then Bushie will pardon him...

what is important, which i've said from day 1, is that the sinister tactics of the Cheney/Bush inner circle have been exposed for everyone to see and confirm... it could increase the likelihood of oversight investigations, and bring us much closer to ultimate accountability....

***patsfan13*** · 02-14-2007, 02:10 PM

Hahahahahaha

Beautiful. If Libby is acquitted (regardless of the evidence) It is a power power play and an inside job... If he is guilty it proves the Bush administration is corrupt top to bottom.

HEads I win Tails you lose. Great analysis Mr Objective.

Thanks for todays silly laugher. I wouldn't have a hard times seeing you as a member of the MSM with your keen 'insight'.

***PressCoverage*** · 02-14-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Hahahahahaha

Beautiful. If Libby is acquitted (regardless of the evidence) It is a power power play and an inside job... If he is guilty it proves the Bush administration is corrupt top to bottom.

HEads I win Tails you lose. Great analysis Mr Objective.

Thanks for todays silly laugher. I wouldn't have a hard times seeing you as a member of the MSM with your keen 'insight'.

well, the administration already HAS been proven corrupt from top to bottom, so not quite sure what you're blathering about there... the evidence proves Libby lied, several times, in order to cover his own ass... because he knew he did something wrong...

you're presenting things that either were never mentioned in the trial, or are irrelevant to the merits of the case... you can talk and distort, and lie to people here who don't know better, but the fact is, your heroes are guilty of lying and misleading the US public, and the United Nations... and that is high treason...

but like another poster here said, "If I were my own judge, I wouldn't find me guilty either."