Originally Posted By Beaumandy "I did what I did," Armitage said. "I embarrassed my president, my secretary, my department, my family and I embarrassed the Wilsons. And for that I'm very sorry." <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_armitage_1" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmp l=story&u=/ap/20060908/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_armitage_1</a> Anyone who pushed the Rove is going to jail BS can now officially give it up and move on to your next " scandal ". Oh how some people are so easily duped.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer You can watch the video at this link.... <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/07/eveningnews/main1981433.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories /2006/09/07/eveningnews/main1981433.shtml</a> >>So, what exactly did he tell Novak? "At the end of a wide-ranging interview he asked me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador (Wilson) to Africa?' I said I didn't know, but that she worked out at the agency," Armitage says. Armitage says he told Novak because it was "just an offhand question." "I didn't put any big import on it and I just answered and it was the last question we had," he says. Armitage adds that while the document was classified, "it doesn't mean that every sentence in the document is classified. "I had never seen a covered agent's name in any memo in, I think, 28 years of government," he says. He adds that he thinks he referred to Wilson's wife as such, or possibly as "Mrs. Wilson." He never referred to her as Valerie Plame, he adds. "I didn't know the woman's name was Plame. I didn't know she was an operative," he says. He says he was reading Novak's newspaper column again, on Oct. 1, 2003, and "he said he was told by a non-partisan gun slinger." "I almost immediately called Secretary Powell and said, 'I'm sure that was me,'" Armitage says. Armitage immediately met with FBI agents investigating the leak. "I told them that I was the inadvertent leak," Armitage says. He didn't get a lawyer, however. "First of all, I felt so terrible about what I'd done that I felt I deserved whatever was coming to me. And secondarily, I didn't need an attorney to tell me to tell the truth. I as already doing that," Armitage explains. "I was not intentionally outing anybody. As I say, I have tremendous respect for Ambassador. Wilson's African credentials. I didn't know anything about his wife and made an offhand comment. I didn't try to out anybody." That was nearly three years ago, but the political firestorm over who leaked Valerie Plame's identity continued to burn as Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald began hauling White House officials and journalists before a grand jury. Armitage says he didn't come forward because "the special counsel, once he was appointed, asked me not to discuss this and I honored his request."<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting to see what David Broder wrote in the Washington Post.... <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601648.html?sub=AR" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/06/AR2006090601648.html?sub=AR</a> >>But caution has been notably lacking in some of the press treatment of this subject -- especially when it comes to Karl Rove. And it behooves us in the media to examine that behavior, not just sweep it under the rug. Sidney Blumenthal, a former aide to President Bill Clinton and now a columnist for several publications, has just published a book titled, "How Bush Rules: Chronicles of a Radical Regime." It is a collection of his columns for Salon, including one originally published on July 14, 2005, titled "Rove's War." It was occasioned by the disclosure of a memo from Time magazine's Matt Cooper, saying that Rove had confirmed to him the identity of Valerie Plame. To Blumenthal, that was proof that this "was political payback against Wilson by a White House that wanted to shift the public focus from the Iraq War to Wilson's motives." Then Blumenthal went off on a rant: "While the White House stonewalls, Rove has license to run his own damage control operation. His surrogates argue that if Rove did anything, it wasn't a crime. . . . Rove is fighting his war as though it will be settled in a court of Washington pundits. Brandishing his formidable political weapons, he seeks to demonstrate his prowess once again. His corps of agents raises a din in which their voices drown out individual dissidents. His frantic massing of forces dominates the capital by winning the communications battle. Indeed, Rove may succeed momentarily in quelling the storm. But the stillness may be illusory. Before the prosecutor, Rove's arsenal is useless." In fact, the prosecutor concluded that there was no crime; hence, no indictment. And we now know that the original "leak," in casual conversations with reporters Novak and Bob Woodward, came not from the conspiracy theorists' target in the White House but from the deputy secretary of state at the time, Richard Armitage, an esteemed member of the Washington establishment and no pal of Rove or President Bush. Blumenthal's example is far from unique. Newsweek, in a July 25, 2005, cover story on Rove, after dutifully noting that Rove's lawyer said the prosecutor had told him that Rove was not a target of the investigation, added: "But this isn't just about the Facts, it's about what Rove's foes regard as a higher Truth: That he is a one-man epicenter of a narrative of Evil." And in the American Prospect's cover story for August 2005, Joe Conason wrote that Rove "is a powerful bully. Fear of retribution has stifled those who might have revealed his secrets. He has enjoyed the impunity of a malefactor who could always claim, however implausibly, deniability -- until now." These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.<<
Originally Posted By HyperTyper Thanks for pointing this out, Darkbeer. Will Rove get any apology? When pigs fly. The random theorizing and unproven accusations don't stop there. The left can claim anything they wish about President Bush: He went AWOL, he "LIED" about WMD .... take your pick. And the media eats it up. But even hint at a little embarrassing behavior of the left, and watch out. Now ABC is close to airing a movie that portrays Clinton, Albright and others from the last administration in less-than-glowing terms. HOLY COW: Clinton, Berger, Albright and others are hopping mad, writing to Bob Iger in fits that this movie is "biased" and dares to make such unproven allegations. I am always amazed at the hypocrisy and "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude of the left. They do not allow others the same consideration they expect for themselves: That facts should be presented before the condemnations fly. Whatever. (I am surprised at the turn being taken by some media outlets. ABC critical of the Clinton administration? Wow. And Katie Couric is handing Rush a mic. Amazing. It seems at least a few people at the networks are waking up to glaring and proven bias, and are trying to compensate. A little. It's a start.)
Originally Posted By Beaumandy We tried to tell people about this. Yet they insisted Rove was going to jail and that Joe Wilson was a Saint. I think Fitzgerald should be run out of town. He's just another crook lawyer it turns out. This guy KNEW it was Armitage the first week of his multi year " investigation ", he spends millions of dollars where he pockets hundreds of thousands in personal fees, he lets Rove and Cheney dangle in the wind while idiot liberals push their conspiracies on us 24/7. Now that these " intellectuals " are once again wrong they just slink away into the night and say " Oh well, we tried ". At least we got Bush's poll numbers down! Pretty disgusting thing to do during wartime. But we are talking liberals here. There were SO many people on here who claim to be brilliant, people who pushed the Plame was covert, Rove is going to be indicted BS. Heck, jon is STILL saying someone should go to jail for outing Plame even though she hasn't been covert for more than 5 years. Such the intellectual that guy is. Just once it would be interesting if the libs who call conservatives stupid, actully got something right. These people are ALWAYS wrong, yet they tell people who don't agree with their moronic liberal views that their points are "worthless". It's one thing to be unpatriotic, God hating, terrorist loving and right once in awhile. But to always be wrong? Pathetic. Can't wait to hear the next " scandal " from the people who refuse to give America any ideas that could actually help the country.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd All republicans are liars. All republicans are thieves. All republicans are traitors. The only ability they have is to censor, block, and deny, their many, many crimes against america, and the people of the world. They are filth. They are your enemy. Everyone in the world knows this already.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Thank goodness Armitage confessed to this. I'll be able to sleep soundly tonight for the first time in 3 years.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <<<Thank goodness Armitage confessed to this. I'll be able to sleep soundly tonight for the first time in 3 years.>>> Hee hee.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I caught this story this morning in the LA Times. On page 11. What was on the front page? Some non-story about a six minute tape of Ah-nuld talking to his aides (regretably, no rants against the working class), a piece about Baghdad traffic cops, and a full story (with color photo) about the mystery of Lonelygirl15 who posts on YouTube. What was most interesting to me was the last paragraph of the Armitage article: >>Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News on Thursday, said he had cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.<< Just amazing. Fitzgerald not only knew who the leaked the name early in the investigation, he even forced him to keep silent on the matter. (Guess it's a good thing the "gossipy" Armitage kept his mouth shut for once, eh?)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Yet they insisted Rove was going to jail<< You keep saying this, yet as I look back through those old threads, I'm not seeing it. Perhaps by 'they' you mean pundits off the boards? Did some HOPE Rove would be implicated? No doubt. But for all the times you keep saying that people made these bold predictions, I look back at the threads in question and what I see are all sorts of qualifiers... "IF Rove is gulity..." "WHEN the investigation is complete..." and so forth. >>I am always amazed at the hypocrisy and "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude of the left.<< I am always amazed at how neither side sees how, depending on the issue, they have the same ability to be hypocritical. Some think their own party is above such things. And each side thinks the other is evil, corrupt, inept, etc., while their own is pure as the driven snow and has all the answers. Amazing, isn't it?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <while their own is pure as the driven snow and has all the answers.> I must confess -- I've always felt that way about you, Kar2oonMan.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <<< >>Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News,>>> Known propaganidists for money and power. cbs is not your friend. <<< on Thursday, said he had cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.<< Just amazing. Fitzgerald not only knew who the leaked the name early in the investigation, he even forced him to keep silent on the matter. (Guess it's a good thing the "gossipy" Armitage kept his mouth shut for once, eh?)>>> All republicans can do is lie, they are parasites, they are your enemy, remember? If armitage is being realeased from confidentiality, it means there is masses of evidence against the truely guilty party, being kept under wraps.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I must confess -- I've always felt that way about you, Kar2oonMan.<< The check is being sent to your address as we speak, Jim.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Having given it a few minutes to ponder, I'm thinking 'spooky' doesn't quite capture what I'm feeling. It's more creepy, with a small dose of mystery and fun. Thanks for letting me clarify.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd I met george bush one day in a fox hole, he told me he was searching for some rats, He pressed a button and blew up the rat's nest, it would have been cheaper to just use traps. He's a honooooooooonoonnkytonk honky! give me, give me, give me, the ignorance blues. Take a solo, all right...
