Anybody ever seen David Corn and Doug Llewelyn in the same room?
Posted on 07/16/2005 12:43:25 PM PDT by Stultis
David Corn responding to Clifford May's column in National Review. Blah, blah, blah. Unconvincing. Those of you following this closely will want to read it for clues, but I'm only going to post what (to me) was the big news:
Here's another fact that may interest anyone who thinks May might have a point:Number of times I've been contacted by Patrick Fitzgerald, interviewed or contacted by his investigators, and called before the grand jury: 0.
What the h*ll is this? David Corn published an article only two days after Novak's column that exposed Plame in far greater detail than Novak had, and Fitzgerald is totally uninterested?!
Or is Corn lying? (Note the parsibility of the statement -- "interviewed or contacted ... and called before the grand jury". One part could be true without the union being true.)
| Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame? ^ |
||
| Posted by nativesoutherner On News/Activism ^ 07/15/2005 1:54:27 PM CDT · 57 replies · 1,970+ views National Review ^ | 7-15-05 | Clifford D. May From National Review this AM. Could be.... http://www.nationalreview.com |
||
|
|
||
| Who Exposed Secret Agent Plame? ^ |
||
| Posted by Renfield On News/Activism ^ 07/15/2005 7:57:36 AM CDT · 63 replies · 1,454+ views National Review Online ^ | 7-15-05 | Clifford D. May This just in: Bob Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA. Read — or reread — his column from July 14, 2003. All Novak reports is that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson is “an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.” Novak has said repeatedly that he was not told, and that he did not know, that Plame was — or had ever been — a NOC, an agent with Non-Official Cover. He has emphatically said that had he understood that she was any sort of secret agent, he would... |
||
I want to see Plames W-2 forms for the past 12 years.
Wilson, Corn--man, dems are a bunch of crybabies.
Kinda makes ya think that reporters' sources aren't the real interest of the grand jury, huh?
As far as Corn is concerned I can't take him seriously until he grows an upper lip. Just how well does he know Barney Frank anyway?!
later read
That number will probably change, David.
David Corn is a smarmy obnoxious putz.
I change channels every time he is on.
Do us a service SP and put him away.
Considering that The Nation is a marxist mouthpiece, it disheartens me to see guys like David Corn out there on the networks as though they were real journalists, not anti-American shills. What's next, the DC reporter for "The Daily Worker"?
Which may mean that Corn is one of the people being investigated.
Again, as noted by others elsewhere, IF there was any real smoking gun against Rove, it WOULD have been used before the November 2004 election.
The Leftist desperate grasping at straws continues....
Why is Cornhole part of the White House Press Corps, getting cheap shots at McClellan??
I thought gay men who wrote for partisan papers were forbidden.
If Fitzgerald is a dogged and as dedicated as he is said to be, the net will be very tight before the trap is sprung.
The "sources" are completely irrelevant from a legal perspective. Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. Noone "outed" her. The only relevance of the sources is political.
If Joe Wilson is the "source" everyoone will be aware that this was a political setup by the left.
Maybe I'm just slow today but I read a post about May's column, with some quotes, and it made no sense. I hope the article made more sense in it's entirety.
And no-one needs to feel obligated to ping me to numerous articles about this nothing story.
No one broke the law so I'm sticking with my previous statement; who cares.
Why bother? It was obvious Wilson was the leaker to Corn.
The "sources" are completely irrelevant from a legal perspective. Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. Noone "outed" her. The only relevance of the sources is political.
If Joe Wilson is the "source" everyoone will be aware that this was a political setup by the left.
I think he lost his lip in Clintons zipper during the 90's.
Anybody ever seen David Corn and Doug Llewelyn in the same room?
David cornholes himself:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1444282/posts
Corn is clueless. The leaker is the one who first reports the "secret" to someone else. In this case, Corn was the someone else.
Wrong!
They are a bunch of obstructionist is more like it.
If the MSM and their partners in the DNC were to drop this totally out of the realm of promotion and place this ridiculous agenda on the back burner, then the focus would have to be on the WOT, Judicial nominees, SS reform, and the economy.
ALL of which are in Dubya's hands and not theirs.
All of the afore mentioned being a positive.
'nuff said..
But they're a bunch of crybabies, too.
And here's Corn's original column FULLY outing Plame:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=823
A crybaby agenda....
That does have a ring to it.
Also, was it just gossip, reading that Valerie Plame was dating Joe Wilson while he was still married?
I need some teepee for my bunghole!
Hasn't Corn learned the rules? Wilson's got dibs on complaining about being smeared.
A Limerick about Joe Wilson: PerfidiaJoe took the Islamicists' side,
When he said that the President lied.
Since the Times spread Joe's tale,
Please put them in jail
And, certainly, Joe should be fried
bump
For the record, or at least Mr. Wilson's version of the record:
"In February (2003), I had lunch with David Corn, the articulate and determined critic of the war. I had become acquainted with him when we kept bumping into each other in the "green room" at Fox. I shared with him my concerns about the imperial nature of the administration's drive to war, and he asked me to write an article for the Nation. He felt my "establishment" credentials would lend credibility to the point of view espoused by the magazine - a point of view I hasten to add, that, by and large, I had come to share. I agreed and the piece, entitled "Republic or Empire," was published in mid-February."
Page 318, The Politics of Truth
So let's see, Corn talks to Wilson long before Novak writes anything: Corn is interested in Wilson's "establishment" credentials. This occurs long before Wilson's NYT piece and before Novak's column.
Seems to me that part of Wilson's establishment credentials would have been that his wife had an inside view of where Iraq was on WMD. Over drinks at lunch, don't you think?
A blurb for a talk show Corn is on tonight shows him saying that Rove twice passed on classified information about Valerie (I think we are calling her "Wilson" now).
I'd watch the show, except that Corn is, to me, like fingernails on a chalkboard. I can't take it.
I guess he thinks if he says it enough, some people will believe it. Maybe so, but those are all confirmed Libs, anyway.
Sounds like he's a target of the investigation if he hasn't been called into the grand jury by now.
Doesn't that by definition then make Corn himself one of the 'smearers'? Caught himself in his own trap, eh?
The weird case of the alleged CIA "leak" This is a summary of my notes concerning this completely twisted tale of politics vs. US national security. I'm beginning to wonder if Plame is a mole and should be investigated. I already believe that Wilson himself outted his wife, who's job as an anyalist - NOT A CULVERT AGENT - at the CIA was no secret.
Novak's original statement, from Mission to Niger, originally published July 14:
"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. 'I will not answer any question about my wife,' Wilson told me."
**This paragraph does not say two senior administration officials said Plame was a CIA operative. It says they told him SHE pushed to have her husband sent to Niger.**
Original article: Mission to Niger
July 16, David Corn writes in The Nation:
"Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?"
Later in the article, Corn states "wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer."
**David Corn appears to get the prize for first reporter to claim Plame is a culvert operative rather than a paper pusher. Novak certainly never made the claims Corn does.**
Corn's article in which the analyst suddenly becomes a culvert agent
Wilson says in an interview: . "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words."
He doesn't appear to be IMPLICATING Rove. Perhaps he's just honestly telling the world part of his democrat agenda.
Questions which need to be answered:
1: Obviously, who leaked Plame's occupation?
A: WHICH occupation was "leaked" by the CIA?
a1: Plame's WIDLEY KNOWN occupation as a non-covert analyst OR
a2: Her secondary occupation as a covert op?
(*these questions are the most important, IMO, because if the CIA confirmed Plame as a paper pusher of no particular import, than WILSON HIMSELF is the most likely source of the leak that she was also a covert operative*)
2: Why did this story stay totally under the radar for two whole months before breaking like a wave of someone else's sewerage on a foreign shore?
3: Is Wilson's Middle East Institute one and the same as Clark's weirdly fragmanted and utterly goofly claim that it was a "Mideast think tank" that called him to tell him to link 9/11 with Saddam?
Clark to Tim Russert, NBC's meet the press:
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence." ---
Clark retraction to the New York Times, whare the think tank makes it's appearance:
"I would like to correct any possible misunderstanding of my remarks on 'Meet the Press' quoted in Paul Krugman's July 15 column, about 'people around the White House' seeking to link Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein," Clark wrote to the Times.
"I received a call from a Middle East think tank outside the country, asking me to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11. Subsequently, I learned that there was much discussion inside the administration in the days immediately after Sept. 11 trying to use 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein.
Statement By George J. Tenet Director Of Central Intelligence, 7/11/03: "There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam’s efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region [Joe Wilson] to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerian officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales."
This is not what Wilson is telling us on his dozen or so daily appearances on TV a day.
9/09 Novak: Administration didn't 'call me to leak this'
"Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," Novak said on CNN's "Crossfire," of which he is a co-host. "There is no great crime here."
"They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators."
Novak's CNN denial of Wilson's leak charge
Also from September 9th, Wilson himself backpedals pretty hard in an interview on Good Morning America: "In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove. I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment."
"I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak."
(Wilson lie number one: first it was Rove and now it isn't.)
Then, like a little kid who just HAS to justify being naughty, Wilson adds: "I have great confidence that, at a minimum, [Rove] condoned it and certainly did nothing to shut it down."
ABC News article (buried way down at the bottom of the hype)
Newsmax (better written article)
"But most investigations of leaks in Washington never succeed: Who leaked the name of the CIA's Tel Aviv director to the New Republic in 1998? Who leaked Anita Hill's story to the press in 1991? Who leaked the investigation of former U.S. Rep. William Gray to the press in 1989?"
"The CIA reports classified intelligence leaks to the Justice Department weekly."
Wilson lie number two, and it's a whopper:
(July 22) Wilson said yesterday that journalists for the three major broadcast networks told him they had been contacted by someone in the White House. He named only one, Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, who interviewed Wilson and reported on July 22 that he said the administration was "leaking his wife's covert job at the CIA to reporters." Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday.
(July 22) Wilson said yesterday that journalists for the three major broadcast networks told him they had been contacted by someone in the White House. He named only one, Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, who interviewed Wilson and reported on July 22 that he said the administration was "leaking his wife's covert job at the CIA to reporters." Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday.
TOM BROKAW: NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell has been identified by some as one of the recipients of a leak about the undercover agent. But tonight, Mitchell said that was not the case, that her first discussion with an administration official about the matter was after the Robert Novak column was published. And that discussion, she said, was off the record.
Plamer is not an undercover operative, her name and job with the CIA are common knowledge, Wilson is the only source of this whole "leak" story, he lied about Rove being behind the leask and he lied about Andrea Mitchell having been one of the journalists allegedly contacted when Novak was allegedly contacted. < a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/May20030717.shtml">Background info on Iraq and uranuim from Cliff May
Interesting info on Wilson's antics, including his stated belief that Iraq did have chem weapons "like Mr. Bush" before the Iraq war, AND his plans for a MOVIE about this affair.
** Mr. Wilson told The Washington Post he and his wife are already discussing who will play them in a movie
Novak revealed on October 2nd that Plame worked for a possibly fictitious CIA front company. The company existed on paper, but it's not known if it actually existed. Novak revealed the name of the company because Plame listed herself as an employee of it when she donated $2,000 to Al Gore's 2000 campain, which is $1000 over the legal limit. The donation was altered to look like one $1000 dollar donation apeice from Wilson and his wife. Wilson also donated $1000 to the Bush campaign.
Wilson and Plame have hired a lwyer to sue anyone arrested for leaking...but they want to sue for defamation of character. Not endangerment. Defamation of character.
Is that right, I'm not versed in these thing? If he were a target, couldn't he still be called before a GJ?
They usually don't call targets in front of the grand jury, only witnesses and people they want to get on the record for future perjury charges.
I see.
"sounds like he's the target of the investigation"
So what if he is? Would he even get his hand slapped?
It's one of two things. Either Corn is so insignificant that the prosecutor can't be bothered, or Corn is a potential target.
Let's all chip in to buy Corn one...
http://www.cafepress.com/covertoperative.26322866
I think they should get another investigator. It makes me think that this Rove thing is just to keep Fitzgerald distracted from keeping up his good work against corruption in Illinois; he's been doing such a good job of it. Maybe Obama is guilty of something or is about to be caught with his hand in the cookie jar. A few IL republicans probably are nervous too. This Rove case is just a red herring and both parties are happy with it. It's more theatre.
Fitzgerald will get interested in a hurry once he realizes Corn has provided everyone with an affirmative defense (i.e., "I read what David Corn wrote in The Nation.")
He's already working at the Washington Post.
"Why Trust George W. Bush?", By David Corn, AlterNet. Posted September 13, 2002.
SNIP
On Sept. 11, a friend in Milan wrote me a letter full of anguish: "One year ago, everybody here [in Europe] was with the American people, suffering and sympathizing [with them.] As French president Jacques Chirac put it, we were all Americans, New Yorkers, that day. Can the Bush administration be for one minute aware of the solidarity and sympathy capital it has wasted?...People here are more afraid of George Bush than of Saddam Hussein."
Euro-hyperbole? Perhaps. But on the same day, Joseph Wilson, who was charge d'affaires at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad during Desert Shield and the last U.S. official to meet with Saddam, also sent me an email and observed, "It is criminal that the world now fears American jingoism more than Saddam." Bush has tainted a tragedy.
http://democrats.com/search.cfm?term=joseph%20wilson
Iraq: :"By Exploiting 9/11, Bush Scares The World More Than Saddam", 14-Sep-02
David Corn writes that Bush's "obsessive focus on Saddam Hussein, transformed the 9/11 recall-a-thon into a prep session for war. They have exploited a terrible event for their next crusade. And on their watch, the horror of that day has been used not to lessen the distance between America and the rest of the world but to increase it, as other nations recoil from and fear Bush's march to war. [A friend in Europe wrote]: "One year ago, everybody here was with the American people, suffering and sympathizing [with them]... Can the Bush administration be for one minute aware of the solidarity and sympathy capital it has wasted?...People here are more afraid of George Bush than of Saddam Hussein." Euro-hyperbole? Perhaps. But on the same day, Joseph Wilson... the last US official to meet with Saddam, also sent me an email and observed, 'It is criminal that the world now fears American jingoism more than Saddam.' Bush has tainted a tragedy."
Incidentally, the email Corn quotes here doesn't fit Wilson's "nonpartisan" story very well, LOL.
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.