Cheney: Yeah, we outed Plame... But we're immune. - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***Harry Boy*** · 05-20-2007, 01:44 PM

Plames Husband Is An A$s Hole

He Thinks He's James Bond

We Can't Allow People Like Him Or Anyone Close To Him Running Around Loose Inside Our Government

PatsWSB47 · 05-20-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

and so here it is.... admission.... at long last, what we all knew to be true is right out in the open... they outed Plame ...

you gotta love the defense tactic... "ok, ok... yes, we did it... we disclosed the identity of a COVERT CIA officer... but look, it's part of our normal duties to tell select members of the media such information.... throw this case out... please??"

how utterly satisfying and vindicating on so many levels...

Judge Told Leak Was Part of 'Policy Dispute'

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 18, 2007; Page A03

Attorneys for Vice President Cheney and top White House officials told a federal judge yesterday that they cannot be held liable for anything they disclosed to reporters about covert CIA officer Valerie Plame or her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

The officials, who include senior White House adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, argued that the judge should dismiss a lawsuit filed by the couple that stemmed from the disclosure of Plame's identity to the media.

<snip>

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates asked: "So you're arguing there is nothing -- absolutely nothing -- these officials could have said to reporters that would have been beyond the scope of their employment," whether the statements were true or false?

"That's true, Your Honor. Mr. Wilson was criticizing government policy," said Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division. "These officials were responding to that criticism."

Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor who is representing Wilson and Plame, said the leak was no typical policy debate. President Bush himself said that revealing Plame's identity could be illegal conduct and a firing offense, he told Bates.

Chemerinsky said that after Plame's cover was blown, the couple feared for their safety and their children's safety and Plame lost any opportunity for advancement at the CIA.

You're "Cheney admission" is not found in that article. You are making that leap. You make a lot of leaps. Some of them "may" have some merit but the more bogus "proof" you put up here the more your credibility suffers, in my opinion. Just keeping it real.

sdaniels7114 · 05-20-2007, 07:13 PM

What's real is that the CIA doesn't like to talk about how much coffee the break room at Langley goes through. What's also real is that the front company that the CIA used to mask her identity got outed as well. I wonder how many other operatives handed out Brewster Jennings calling cards over the years and what about the critical work they were doing and what happens to their careers? All just flushed away so a hack could score some cheap political points. Shameful.

Patriot_in_NY · 05-20-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdaniels7114

What's real is that the CIA doesn't like to talk about how much coffee the break room at Langley goes through. What's also real is that the front company that the CIA used to mask her identity got outed as well. I wonder how many other operatives handed out Brewster Jennings calling cards over the years and what about the critical work they were doing and what happens to their careers? All just flushed away so a hack could score some cheap political points. Shameful.

True. She was NOC and had "nonofficial cover". which basically means the CIA would have disavowed her if she was busted in a foriegn country. She drove to the CIA headquarters daily, so to say she was a COVERT OPERATIVE is silly. However her disclosure had the unintended consequenses of "outing" Jennings company, which is bad. For the reasons listed above.

Hmmmm, sounds like a certain newspaper I know

mr3putt · 05-20-2007, 09:18 PM

Should we not hold the incumbant Administration to a higher standard than the scandle sheets?

The people they put at risk are working for them!!!

When running the "Empirial Presidency" there are no rules.....
Except Rove's rules.

Cheney is scum...period

***patsfan13*** · 05-20-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr3putt

Should we not hold the incumbant Administration to a higher standard than the scandle sheets?

The people they put at risk are working for them!!!

When running the "Empirial Presidency" there are no rules.....
Except Rove's rules.

Cheney is scum...period

Whoi was put in danger??????

Plame who hadn't been overseas in years and wasn't going overseas again????

scout · 05-20-2007, 10:13 PM

This is total B.S. Everyone knows that if a Democratic administration did this (and one in particular) that the Cheney defenders would be up in arms. Rove stated she was fair game. You can twist and spin that anyway that suits your purpose, but its bottom feeding at its' worst. So much talk about patriotism, moral, and bible thumping proclamations. It doesn't get too much lower then this. Unless you want to start an unproved war, which leads us right back to this topic.

sdaniels7114 · 05-20-2007, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Who was put in danger??????

Us, this country, the USA.

This is no different than when Heraldo went on TV and laid out the Army's battle plan years ago. Its just more abstract and you're more than smart enough to know that.

Patriot_in_NY · 05-20-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsSB42

You're "Cheney admission" is not found in that article. You are making that leap. You make a lot of leaps. Some of them "may" have some merit but the more bogus "proof" you put up here the more your credibility suffers, in my opinion. Just keeping it real.

He has a point PC........... explain how the text in the article YOU linked to explicitly details a "Cheney" admission. Part of this article speaks to Richard Armitage and his outing her to Novac (he should not have), which was to essentually add filler for Wilson's antics. Yes, there were some bad unintended consequenses such as the revalation of Brewster Jennings & Associates, but the truth is, we don't know the extent of the damage that it has done at this point. There are mixed report so far. Libby got fried for "being a moron" and he deserved it. The rest of this story is not nearly as advertised, it really isn't.

PC threw this out there, hoping that people would be duped into buying that there is some new revalation here. A for effort, but it just not the case. This is tactical posturing in a civil case is what this is. It means NOTHING at this point. Relax........... There are bad things afoot my friends, but lets keep our eye on the ball here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

This is total B.S. Everyone knows that if a Democratic administration did this (and one in particular) that the Cheney defenders would be up in arms. Rove stated she was fair game. You can twist and spin that anyway that suits your purpose, but its bottom feeding at its' worst. So much talk about patriotism, moral, and bible thumping proclamations. It doesn't get too much lower then this. Unless you want to start an unproved war, which leads us right back to this topic.

It doesn't get too much lower then this??

Ummmmm, yeah. Seriously dude............. put down the kool-aid and step away from the pitcher.

mr3putt · 05-21-2007, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsfan13

Whoi was put in danger??????

Plame who hadn't been overseas in years and wasn't going overseas again????

I guess you must have used your Top Secret clearence to uncover the details of what operations and contacts were blown...

Do you think the CIA will release that data?
This was political retribution foisted by Cheney upon Wilson's wife.

He sucks...and by defending this action....well...being so insightful I'm sure you can figure that out too.