OT: Yes We Can

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

You mean besides Armitage himself admitting it?

Aside from NYT innuendo, has anybody ever testified that they did what you said for the purposes you imply?

Here, maybe this will help (I kind of doubt it, but hey, due diligence and all):

  • The man who "leaked" Plame's identity and her involvement in her husband's Niger junket to columnist Bob Novak and other reporters was not Karl Rove, Scooter Libby or anyone else in the White House. It was Richard Armitage, then deputy secretary of state. * Armitage's motives were not malicious. He is "a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters" and "apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity." * It was from a classified memo that Armitage learned Plame worked for the CIA. But there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act; special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status." (By all available evidence, Plame's covert status had expired by the time of her "outing" anyway.) * In October 2003 Armitage confessed to his boss, Colin Powell, that he was the "leaker." The State Department decided to withhold this information from the White House, because "Powell and his aides feared the White House would then leak that Armitage had been Novak's source--possibly to embarrass State Department officials who had been unenthusiastic about Bush's Iraq policy." * Some of that is undoubtedly Taranto's spin (tell me all about it in comments), but it's looking more and more definite that Armitage was Novak's source. If so, that raises a couple of questions, like "what was Fitzgerald (who knew about Armitage) hoping to accomplish with his investigation other than promoting his career" and "why didn't Armitage go public early on and save the Bush administration years of headaches?"

From:

Other sources are available with the same information, this one was nice and succinct.

Bottom line, the administration had nothing to do with this "leak", it was done by the shadow government that's been attempting to undermine the Bush administration since its inception.

Reply to
Mark & Juanita
Loading thread data ...

Mark and Juanita, I really am tired of your OT blithering. You use this site for the wrong reasons. The topic is WOODWORKING. I, for one, would like to be able to enjoy this site for its intended purpose. I have no hope that you will change so I am unsubscribing. Roger

Reply to
Roger Woehl

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

What part of "OT" in the subject line did you not understand? What, exactly, about the subject line led you to believe that the post was woodworking-related? Whose fault is it that you opened and read a post that was clearly marked as off topic?

Reply to
Doug Miller

Not to mention all the spam that shows up in this forum. Which I find much more objectionable than a few off topic posts.

But since I am a rough, tough, macho internet denizen, i can cope. I can deal with it.

Reply to
Lee Michaels

hl"

I just grin and bear it. I sweep the pile of useless electrons off the floor every day then recycle them by posting silly shit. As far as being a touch, macho internut is concerned, let's just say my keyboard is all stainless steel, I operate it with a hammer and my monitor is made out of bullet-proof glass. My chair, of course, has a 5 point harness. I wear a helmet and wear a bib.

Reply to
Robatoy

What no Nomex?

Mark

Reply to
Markem

How can Armitage 'admit' to something Wilson allegedly did?

What other purpose could there possibly be?

Novak says he had two (2) sources. Who was the other?

I can believe that.

Why was the information passed to Armitage, 'a notorious gossip'?

Novak says he had more than one source.

Evidently, it was the shadow government, presided over by Cheney, that leaked the information to Armitage, eh?

Reply to
Fred the Red Shirt

What? No drool bucket?

Dave in Houston

Reply to
Dave in Houston

I knew it! I knew it!

:-)

Reply to
Larry Blanchard

The vast majority of the spam disappears when you filter out any post which originated at googlegroups.com .

Reply to
Doug Miller

Indeed.

Reply to
Dave Balderstone

googlegroups and ".gmail.com". I had all "gmail.com" filtered until I realized Charlie Self posts through "gmail".

Doug, do you know of a way to block all "gmail.com" posts except Charlie's using a "NewsProxy" filter?

Reply to
Nova

So just filter anything coming from Google Groups, without regard to the From: address, and allow what few posts may remain, having a gmail address, to come through. (See second example below.)

Certainly. There are two ways to go about it.

First, exactly what you asked for:

  • score:+100 from:@gmail.com
  • score:-100 from: snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com
  • drop score:100

Second, easier and nearly as effective:

  • drop message-id:google
Reply to
Doug Miller

Ya must be a lumberjack.

formatting link

Reply to
fmhlaw

Thanks Doug.

Reply to
Nova

Yes we can! :-)

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

That's what the bib is for. [Which, by the way, was too much information]

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Just curious why he singled me out. It's not like I was the OP for this OT thread. Maybe mine was the last entry he had read to him and it stepped on his last nerve?

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

Your ISP provides the list of newsgroups, at least Earthlink.net does.

After that, either OE6 or ThunderBird will work.

Lew

Reply to
Lew Hodgett

Oh please Fred, you know what I meant. As far as Wilson having revealed her name, there are numerous sources that indicate in years prior to this silly hoopla the he mentioned his wife worked for the CIA.

Oh, let's try this. A pretty-much unknown guy by the name of Joe Wilson gets sent to Niger to "investigate" the sale of yellow-cake uranium to Iraq, comes back and says, nope, no yellow cake sales in Niger. Now, aside from the fact that his investigation was as thorough as the old skit, "nope, no vikings here, we're just simple farmers, the huts were on fire and cows wandering the streets when we got here", he had an agenda and used this trip to promote it. When he was asked who sent him, he made the statement that he was sent directly at the behest of Dick Cheney. Cheney's office indicates they had nothing to do with sending him. Don't you think that a comment saying, well, his wife is an employee of the CIA in the same division that would investigate this kind of thing and it appears that

*she* recommended him for this trip might be just a tiny bit relevant to the overall story here?

Love your debating technique Fred. You get shown where you're wrong and throw out another, "well, what about ...?". I'm not playing that game.

I don't know Fred, why don't you ask the people in the State Department and CIA who hate the Bush administration and have been overtly and covertly undermining the administration for the past 7 years? Why are you so offended by this so-called security violation that wasn't while not addressing my original question regarding why it was seemingly OK to leak little things like the fact we were monitoring Al Quaeda satellite phone conversations in Afghanistan or tracking money through international banks? Little things that *really* caused the loss of serious national security secrets and most likely have contributed to real soldiers' deaths, yet the Valerie Plame "case" was worthy of an inquisition?

What the @#$% difference does that make?

Reply to
Mark & Juanita

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.