Posted on 09/30/2005 11:52:47 AM PDT by jimbo123
how many lies and lying omissions did I find in the article? I gave up at 7.
It is now my opinion that is all they have. Which is absolutely nothing. They will try to muddy very clear statements from the President to prove "corruption" and it will get just about as far as...mmm...Enron gate. (Sorry, that is the only one I could remember. They are so insignificant.)
Quite plausible, as it seems clear Wilson has a big mouth and little discretion. He seems particularly ill-suited to carry out an intelligence-gathering assignment.
We should also consider that it is quite possible that Miller, as the in-house NYT expert on Iraqi WMD, was asked to provide comments on drafts of Wilson's piece, or even was the principal editor of it, and may even have been the one who convinced Wilson to write it in the first place.
In other words, as soon as the Times published Wilson’s piece – and before Bob Novak printed her name in his column and David Corn provided details about her CIA work and cover story in the Nation’s online edition -- Plame’s career as a covert agent had, effectively, been terminated.
This is way overboard, it simply does not logically follow that she would necessarily have been outed (even assuming to begin with that she was covert at the time).
CNN just ran a comment from her to the effect that she got the waiver, AND narrowed the testimony. The second half of that is probably what we're looking at.
Oddly, both of the time frames given for Plame's last trip out in the field as a covert agent are more than 5 years prior to July 2003. Oops.
NYT's, wow must be true. Not. The 3rd sentence reported Libby's name as fact before any mention of it being reported by the Times. No bias there.
"Miller arrived at about 8:30 a.m. at the courthouse as part of an agreement reached Thursday with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to disclose her conversations in July 2003 with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby..."
To borrow an old phrase from the bubba years, I question the timing, wonder who is orchestrating this, and why the diversion? If she is protecting a yet unnamed source, Scooter better sleep with one eye open.
It would be so easy to orchestrate. Scooter's name was mentioned last night by those "close to the investigation."
It coould have gone like this:
"Judith, it is time to go home."
"But I'm protecting my source."
Ring, Ring, Ring.....
Unamed Source: Judith, it's okay. Talk to the SP. BTW, call Scooter Libby, just for the record. Ask him if that paper he signed last year is still good."
(Last night it was reported that a letter was written by the source. Now it's Judith's attorney calling Scooter. Pretty damned slose to the way the Cooper thing played out. Remember the air of drama Cooper gave it? And then it is revealed he called Rove's guys?)
So, Judith testifies, Scooter's name is out there thanks to the NYT's (so much for journalistic integrity) & after her testimony she makes a statement that she still will protect her source. SHe will not be naming him.her to the press.
Win, Win situation for her. Scooter's name is out there and she does not have to lie about it.
Footnote: do not forget the escalation of "tension" between bubba and President Bush. The President drew last blood with his speech--time for bubba to make a move.
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.