Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Because he never cleaned house of Clinton's people. He waited to see how they would perform, and whether they'd pursue the objectives of the administration. The replacement of these 8 US attorneys was the result of a 2 year process." Bingo. This is a non-story.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<What Bush did is unusual, because it was six years into his term. He wasn't cleaning house of Clinton people, he was essentially firing selected numbers of his own people. Why?>> <Because he never cleaned house of Clinton's people. He waited to see how they would perform, and whether they'd pursue the objectives of the administration. The replacement of these 8 US attorneys was the result of a 2 year process.> Um, no. But you've already admitted you were wrong on that one. <<By the way, didn't most of the eight fired USA's, who the Bush admin. claimed were fired for poor performance, actually receive good performance evaluations not long before they were fired?>> <Not that I'm aware of.> I believe ElKay addressed that - the attorneys in question themselves said they had "good" or "stellar" performance reviews, and I doubt they'd say that if they couldn't produce them. <And besides, there are lots of factors that can be considered when evaluating performance. It really doesn't matter, since a President doesn't need to give any reasons to fire one. > It matters if they lied to Congress about the reasons for the firings. Yes, these are indeed political appointments, and are often filled with people due to connections, patronage, etc. HOWEVER, once appointed, their loyalty is supposed to be only to the law, not to party or any particular person. Sampson's memos showed that's not how he viewed them, and the fact that he resigned so quickly is indicative that his was an untenable position. If it can be shown that any of these people were fired for overtly political reasons, i.e. for investigating Republicans "too aggressively" or not investigation Democrats aggressively enough, that would indeed be a scandal, since once they're sworn in, they're supposed to be loyal to the law only, and go after dirty people like Cunningham regardless of party affiliation. This hasn't been proven yet, but since the attorneys themselves allege it, it's worth looking into.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <There are enormous amounts of things that this adminstration has done, such as outing covert CIA operatives, that are plenty reason enough to get worked up about.> The Bush administration has not outed any covert CIA operatives.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Name one. Surely if we know of a covert operative being outed, someone would have been charged with that crime.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I suspect so, and if I'm right, you're wrong. Valerie Plame was not covert when the deputy at State mentioned her name to Bob Novak.
Originally Posted By gadzuux She says she was. The CIA was the entity that requested the investigation, which certainly implies that she was - and they've never said any differently. By blowing her cover, they also blew the 'shell' corporation that she worked for, endangering possibly hundreds of other investigators, and irrepairably harmed our ability to track nuclear proliferation. And why? Because they wanted to "get" her husband - to punish him for being a high-profile critic of their own false statements. And no - charges were not brought for outting an agent. Charges WERE brought on obstruction of justice and perjury. Guilty on four of five counts. But I guess that's easily shrugged off. How noble.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And why? Because they wanted to "get" her husband - to punish him for being a high-profile critic of their own false statements.<< Unless, of course, one chooses to believe that was Richard Armitage who was the original source of the leak. It seems clear he was, and that his motive was to hurt the Bush administration, with which he disagreed.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>And why? Because they wanted to "get" her husband - to punish him for being a high-profile critic of their own false statements.<< Unless, of course, one chooses to believe that was Richard Armitage who was the original source of the leak. It seems clear he was, and that his motive was to hurt the Bush administration, with which he disagreed.
Originally Posted By gadzuux But that ignores the evidence brought at trial. Yes, apparently armitage was the original source, but in the meantime we've got the VPs office going into overdrive in a concerted and deliberate effort to 'swiftboat' joseph wilson.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh That's not the evidence that was brought at trial. On the contrary, the evidence at the trial was that Mr Libby wasn't pushing Ms Plame's name.
Originally Posted By jonvn I saw some of the hearing the other day. Apparently, there were over 20 leaks of Plame's identity to the press. I do find it interesting that people claim that there is or is not evidence at trial when they themselves have already admitted to not seeing all the evidence at the trial.
Originally Posted By cmpaley >>I do find it interesting that people claim that there is or is not evidence at trial when they themselves have already admitted to not seeing all the evidence at the trial.<< They're just telling us what they were told is all. Right wing logic: Never believe your lying eyes, always trust what the radio or FAUXNews tells you.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWEyMWE5NDUwZWMyNGIxZTAzYmU3YjMyODczYzNiOTU=" target="_blank">http://article.nationalreview. com/?q=MWEyMWE5NDUwZWMyNGIxZTAzYmU3YjMyODczYzNiOTU=</a> >>Valerie Plame Wilson, the woman at the heart of the CIA-leak affair, is scheduled to testify tomorrow before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. There she will, for the first time, face questions about her role in the Niger uranium matter that eventually became the basis of the CIA-leak investigation. Here are a few questions Mrs. Wilson might be asked: 1) In a 2004 report, the Senate Intelligence Committee quoted a memo you wrote to the deputy chief of the CIA’s counterproliferation division (CPD) on February 12, 2002. In it, you suggested your husband for a trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had sought uranium there. According to the Senate report, you wrote, “My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.†Was that all your memo said? Was there any more? If so, what did it say? 2) Your memo was dated February 12, 2002. Was that before or after you learned that Vice President Cheney had asked a question about reports of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger? 3) On February 19, 2002, according to the Senate report, the CPD held a meeting with your husband to discuss a trip to Niger. A State Department report said the meeting was “apparently convened by [Joseph Wilson’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.†Is that accurate? Please describe what happened. 4) In January 2004, Vanity Fair published an article touching on your role in the Niger uranium affair. It said In early May [2003], Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq; one of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof. Over breakfast the next morning with Kristof and his wife, Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Kristof could write about it, but not name him. Is that account accurate? If so, please describe what you said to your fellow attendees, either publicly or privately, at the Democratic Policy Committee meeting. 5) There have been some questions about the wording of the Vanity Fair paragraph quote above, which says that your husband met for breakfast with “Kristof and his wife.†Just to be clear: were you at that breakfast? If so, what was said? 6) On June 13, 2003, Kristof wrote a column about the Niger-uranium matter. He wrote that he was “piecing the story together from two people directly involved and three others who were briefed on it.†Were you one of those people? 7) A month earlier, on May 6, 2003, Kristof wrote a column reporting that “In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the CIA and State Department that the information [of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal] was unequivocally wrong and that the documents [purporting to show such a deal] had been forged.†Kristof was later forced to admit that the envoy, your husband, had not actually seen the documents he claimed to have debunked. Did you know that at the time? Did you play any role in the preparation of that article? 8) At the Lewis Libby trial, Judge Reggie Walton said that he did not know if your job status was covert, classified, or other on July 14, 2003, the day your name was published in a column by Robert Novak. What is the answer? 9) Was your job status changing, or had it changed, during your last years at the agency? If so, when, and for what reason? 10) If your status was either covert or classified, and if you did in fact meet with the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and with Nicholas Kristof, did you view it as part of your covert or classified work to meet with political groups and a columnist from the New York Times to discuss matters within your purview at the CIA?<<
Originally Posted By gadzuux Let's not forget that valerie plame is not accused of anyhing innappropriate. This list of potential "gotcha" questions seems more to imply that she may be guilty of some crime or nefarious act. And that's the way that the GOP has been treating her all along. Let's be clear, she spent her life in the service of this country, and did nothing to bring this unwarranted attention to herself. But in the eyes of many republicans, she's at the eye of a s-tstorm that scandalized "their" administration, so therefore she's fair game. She's a patriot and an american hero. Lighten up on the poor woman.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Apparently, there were over 20 leaks of Plame's identity to the press.> Well, her husband did talk to a lot of reporters.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Let's not forget that valerie plame is not accused of anyhing innappropriate.> Certainly not anything criminal, but a lot of people believe that recommending her husband for a mission and then allowing him to misrepresent what he found on it was inappropriate. She and her friends politicized intelligence, and then complained when intelligence was politicized.
