Posted on 09/27/2004 6:16:05 AM PDT by OESY
So, what really happened? One morning he opened his box of cereal and out popped instructions and an airline ticket?
HELLO!!!!!
It may be the information she has is more to do with the type of investigation that is normally conducted in the area of inquiry Wilson claims to have conducted, and other matters in that area, not Plame's "outing" per se.
Plame's occupation is considered classified information by the government...whether or not you agree.
It's not a matter of agreeing. It is a matter you are in no position to state authoritatively. There is evidence it was not classified, so we shall see.
You mean you really can't see that you're applying one standard to Novak and another to Miller? You can't think at all. LOL...a fool's cackle.
I don't see Miller and Novak's roles as the same since Miller didn't write an article explaining how and why Wilson was sent off to Niger. I have said nothing derogatory about Miller. I've been plain that I don't see any evidence she has done anything wrong, nor has Novak. How you conclude that is applying a different standard is beyond me. Cackle all day long, but you failed to explain this line of "reasoning".
Yes.
But I can't be sure and neither can you since his instructions have never been made public, nor has his report, nor the reports of the Ambassador to Niger or of General Fulford.
Are you not aware that the 9/11 Commission (even they) found Wilson's representations to be false? My observation that standing by the position that Wilson was forthright and honest in his representation of his trip is an absurd one is accurate.
There is not one post that indicates a wish that Judith Miller go to jail.
I would guess he's not been called or been called and refused to cooperate. If he'd revealed his sources he would certainly have told them and they'd be responding.
If he's been called and refused to cooperate, precedent indicates he would have been held in contempt like Russert and Cooper were. He may not have been called at all, but I find that unlikely.
Post #s 1,2,6,8,9, and 12 (that's as far as I got) all say (cheer) that the New York Times reporter should be forced to testify. Only 6 said clearly that that rule should apply to all reporters. When I brought up Novak there was clear discomfort among quite a few, you even attempting to say he should not be subjected to the same treatment as Miller.
So I suspect #5 in your link is a picture of a lady and her lawyer. Will stay tuned for further developments. Thanks.
I can't make any sense of this. Perhaps if you elaborated...
It's not a matter of agreeing. It is a matter you are in no position to state authoritatively.
At this point it's considered classified. That's why there's such an elaborate investigation.
I've been plain that I don't see any evidence she has done anything wrong, nor has Novak
So the entire investigation is nonsense...simply because you believe that Plame's occupation was not classified? Meanwhile, however, Miller will certainly go to jail if she doesn't reveal her sources.
I've already pointed out the error of your equating testifying with being complicit in wrongdoing.
I can't be more plain than that. If I witness a crime and testify that does not mean I'm going to jail.
What I find unlikely is that the sources wouldn't have revealed themselves by now. Most unlikely. If they had done nothing wrong they certainly would have...and spared everyone this immense time, trouble, and expense.
They have abused their privilage to the point that it needs to be taken away until they learn to be a little more responsible with it.
That is false. What on earth are you talking about? I never said he shouldn't testify.
I said maybe the information Miller has to offer has nothing to do with Plame but about other matters pertaining to WMD investigation.
At this point it's considered classified. That's why there's such an elaborate investigation.
That's your assumption.
So the entire investigation is nonsense...simply because you believe that Plame's occupation was not classified? Meanwhile, however, Miller will certainly go to jail if she doesn't reveal her sources.
No, I never said the investigation is nonsense. If you'd open your mind instead of stubbornly sticking to dem talking points perhaps you'd see there's plenty to investigate, all of it legitimate and important to be looked into. I'm sure you can save your tears for Miller. The other reporters who were held in contempt worked out a deal and testified. I don't foresee her going to jail.
First ammendment protection for me, but not for thee. The NYT pushed hard for Novak to reveal his source because the initial claims by Wilson were getting little traction and an accusation of spiteful leaking of a CIA agent against a Bush official would at least keep Wilson in the news. I'm really interested in what part the NYT reporter played in the story.
The 5th Amendment protects one from self-incrimination, not from having to incriminate others.
This chilling rejection of both First Amendment principles and evolving common law notions of a privilege protecting a reporter's confidential sources cries out for rejection on appeal, as does the undue secrecy surrounding the special prosecutor's filings in the case.
This says it all, doesn't it? "... evolving common law notions of a privilege ..." The 1st Amendment doesn't really address anything of the sort. Nor is a judicial inquiry into a crime, somehow an abridgement by law of congress of the freedom of the press.
This investigation was begun to find out who outed Plame and why. That puts Novak at the heart of it. If he was called and revealed his sources its almost impossible to believe that wouldn't be public by now. So he hasn't been called. The most obvious reason is that some high government official did screw up badly and the Administration is trying to sit on it until after the election - probably by getting Fitzgerald to alter the older in which he called witnesses.
Now I support the Administrations foreign policy.
I believe they lied or distorted in order to gain approval for the conquest of Iraq. I support that as justified considering the stakes and the narrow window of opportunity presented by 911.
I believe that electing Kerry would be a disaster for the country.
Therefore I find myself supporting their efforts in this case too.
But it's increasingly uncomfortable. Machiavellian tools are infinitely dangerous...and their users must be a thousand times more clever than boy scouts.
And don't ask me to believe the tortured justifications that I hope others will believe.
Goodness. He has stated his source was not from the Bush WH. I think it is likely his information led to the interesting widening of the investigation that has the Times heaving.
Your logic simply does not compute. "Be public now"? You wish. And coincidentally, so wishes the Times.
LOL
Interesting isn't it he never sent a report to the CIA
Not true.
Wilson knew allllll about supposed forged/fake documents that have now been accused of being done by an Italian at the behest of the French government
This is important.
I don't think Wilson has ever revealed the specifics of his instructions. Tenet said that the CIA had reasons other than the forged documents to investigate Niger-Iraq yellowcake sales...but didn't go beyond that.
The La Repubblica time-line has the CIA receiving copies or summaries of the forgeries in Dec-2001/Jan 20002 - just before Wilson was sent to Niger. The IEAE said the documents were forgeries in March 2003. The Information became public in April. Wilson spoke about them after that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.