Is he drinking yerba mate out of a gourd?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN dont argue with the yanks nutter, they know best!

Nice cap.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

Interesting. I'm sure someone will reprint those articles en masse shortly. Conspiracy theorists, loosen your foil hats. 1984 fans, get a bigger hat.

Link

quote:

Armitage admits he prompted CIA leak New York Times Posted online: Thursday, August 31, 2006 at 0000 hrs IST WASHINGTON, August 30 Richard L Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state, has acknowledged that he was the person whose conversation with a columnist in 2003 prompted a long, politically laden criminal investigation in what became known as the CIA leak case, a lawyer involved in the case said on Tuesday. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer. The identification of Armitage as the original leaker to Novak ends what has been a tantalising mystery. In recent months, however, Armitage’s role had become clear to many, and it was recently reported by Newsweek magazine and The Washington Post. In the accounts by the lawyer and associates, Armitage disclosed casually to Novak that Wilson worked for the CIA at the end of an interview in his State Department office. Armitage knew that, the accounts continue, because he had seen a written memorandum by Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman. Grossman had taken up the task of finding out about Wilson after an inquiry from I. Lewis Libby Jr., chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby’s inquiry was prompted by an Op-Ed article on May 6, 2003, in The New York Times by Nicholas D Kristof and an article on June 12, 2003, in The Washington Post by Walter Pincus. The two articles reported on a trip by a former ambassador to Africa sponsored by the CIA to check reports that Iraq was seeking enriched uranium to help with its nuclear arms programme. Neither article identified the ambassador, but it was known inside the government that he was Joseph C Wilson IV, Wilson’s husband. White House officials wanted to know how much of a role she had in selecting him for the assignment. Wilson was a covert employee, and after Novak printed her identity, the agency requested an investigation to see whether her name had been leaked illegally. -NEIL A. LEWIS

I wonder how many lawyers it took to come up with that plan? And the New York Times is ultimately to blame?! The irony of it all! Armitage was expendible. looks like the Washington version of Dennis Kozlowski.

Ben Affleck on the Bill Mahre's show back in May.

quote:

Bill Sammon, Washington Examiner: "A lot of critics are conflating the two and are saying that because Bush disclosed this piece of information, they're implying that Bush leaked the name [Valerie Plame.]" Ben Affleck: "He probably also leaked the name. There's just no proof of that." Bill Sammon: "Even the prosecutor, even Fitzgerald is saying Bush didn't leak the name. So let's be clear, Bush didn't leak Valerie Plame's name -- not that we know of." Ben Affleck: "Because if he did, you can be hung for that! That's treason!" Bill Maher: "That is treason." Ben Affleck: "You could be killed. That's not a joking around Tom DeLay 'I'll do a year, I bribed the state officials with corporate money.' That's like they shoot you in the battlefield for doing that. Don't you think we should find out who leaked that name?"

will Plame drop her lawsuit? ...at least sue Armitage? doubt it.
will anybody apologize for anything? doubt it.
will this recieve a fraction of the attention the MSM has given it historically...too late.
is Affleck a douche?

This thread rocks. I'm listening to a conference call with Armitage right now.

There's a bold statement for ya.

quote:

One Leak and a Flood of Silliness By David S. Broder Thursday, September 7, 2006; A27 Conspiracy theories flourish in politics, and most of them have no more basis than spring training hopes for the Chicago Cubs. Whenever things turn dicey for Republicans, they complain about the "liberal media" sabotaging them. And when Democrats get in a jam, they take up Hillary Clinton's warnings about a "vast right-wing conspiracy." For much of the past five years, dark suspicions have been voiced about the Bush White House undermining its critics, and Karl Rove has been fingered as the chief culprit in this supposed plot to suppress the opposition. Now at least one count in that indictment has been substantially weakened -- the charge that Rove masterminded a conspiracy to discredit Iraq intelligence critic Joseph Wilson by "outing" his CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame. I have written almost nothing about the Wilson-Plame case, because it seemed overblown to me from the start. Wilson's claim in a New York Times op-ed about his memo on the supposed Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger; the Robert D. Novak column naming Plame as the person who had recommended Wilson to check up on the reported sale; the call for a special prosecutor and the lengthy interrogation that led to the jailing of Judith Miller of the New York Times and the deposition of several other reporters; and, finally, the indictment of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff -- all of this struck me as being a tempest in a teapot. No one behaved well in the whole mess -- not Wilson, not Libby, not special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and not the reporters involved. The only time I commented on the case was to caution reporters who offered bold First Amendment defenses for keeping their sources' names secret that they had better examine the motivations of the people leaking the information to be sure they deserve protection. 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. [email protected]