[Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter

[Carl Westberg]

Regarding "overblown political posturing" in the context of the attorney 
firings.  If roles were reversed, and it was a Democratic administration, 
and a Republican Congress, wouldn't the Republicans be doing the same 
"overblown political posturing" that the Democrats are being accused of?  I  
rather think the answer is yes.    Carl Westberg Jr.


>From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>Reply-To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>To: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>, "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath 
>inthematter
>Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:09:00 -0700
>
>There is something else that was left out by everyone. Some on the 
>Washington social circuit knew who she worked for. therefore it was not 
>exactly a secret. She mentioned something about this in testimony. I don't 
>have the exact statement.
>No one has been charged with leaking her idenity. If they were it would be 
>Armitage. This whole thing is overblown political posturing.
>Roger
>
>Roger
>-----Original message-----
>From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
>Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:10:44 -0700
>To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in 
>thematter
>
> > Gary,
> >
> > You are learning very well from your mentor Dale Courtney about failing 
>to include all relevant parts of a quote to make your point:
> > 'Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know her legal status, but 
>said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.
> >
> > [Left out]
> >
> > "They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not 
>have known what my status was but that alone - the fact that I worked for 
>the CIA - should have put up a red flag."'
> >
> > Or perhaps you didn't notice that the article appeared to be from its 
>style an"analysis" or OP/ED piece not a straight-forward news report.
> >
> > [Notice also, like Courtney, you didn't write what the quote actually 
>said.]
> >
> > As I pointed out, but which you carefully avoided addressing, it is not 
>what Plame thought her status was, but what the way the law defines it 
>which is the germane point here.
> >
> >
> >
> > Aside from that, perhaps you might be kind enough, now that we have the 
>whole quote and other relevant information, to comment upon the ethics and 
>perhaps the adherence to government honesty in this case.
> >
> > Was the outing of Plame as payback for her husband correctly pointing 
>out that the administration's view of the Iraq/Africa nuclear connection 
>was clearly wrong, if not a deliberate lie, a fine, a honest, ethical act 
>by the administration or a despicably treacherous, if not childish one?
> >
> > Please bear in mind that this charitably called "misinformation" was 
>used by the Bush administration as a key point to persuade a 
>much-too-gullible-about-the-president's-honesty congress to approve 
>entering a horribly destructive morass of which there does not seem to be a 
>practical or honorable way to exit from or of undoing the damage to the 
>image and influence of our country in the world community.
> >
> > In the past you have refused to respond to simple questions whose answer 
>might force you to take a stand against one or more of your heroes by 
>saying "I don't do homework assignments."  If that is your position here, 
>then we will all understand that you are afraid to directly comment on the 
>issue raised by the question.  That's hardly a valorous position for 
>someone participating in a discussion of an issue, but such considerations 
>have not deterred your abstinence in the past.
> >
> > W.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: g. crabtree
> > To: Art Deco
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:01 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in the 
>matter
> >
> >
> > My understanding came in part from:
> >
> > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070317/D8NTJUS80.html
> >
> >
> > The 1982 statute IS the law. Ms. Plame and her ridicules twit of a 
>spouse, Joe 'sippin tea by the pool' Wilson like to characterize her 
>position with the CIA as 007 when the fact of the matter is she didn't 
>quite manage to ascend to the level of Mrs. Moneypenny. Even the special 
>prosecutor realized that the woman came about as close to being a double 
>naught spy as Jethro Bodine did. Analyst does not equal covert operative, 
>period.
> >
> > Perhaps a special prosecutor should look into securities being offered 
>here on the V by unlicensed and unscrupulous vermin. It would make as much 
>sense and net the same minor level of undesirable.
> >
> > g
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: Art Deco
> >   To: g. crabtree
> >   Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:56 AM
> >   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in 
>the matter
> >
> >
> >   Gary writes:
> >
> >   "My understanding was that when Ms. Plame was on the stand before 
>congress the other day she was asked if she thought that she met the 
>criterion for being a covert agent under the Intelligence identities Act of 
>1982, she ruefully admitted that she did not know if she met that standard 
>or not."
> >
> >   Although it is unclear where "your understanding" comes from since you 
>did not enlighten us with a source, the rest is irrelevant.
> >
> >   Plame was a CIA agent engaged in covert CIA activities including 
>intelligence gathering about Iraq's alleged attempts to buy nuclear 
>material in Africa.  It doesn't matter what she believes her status under 
>the 1982 statute is; what matters is how the law defines her activity.
> >
> >   No evidence has ever been introduced by the Bush Administration to 
>show that they carefully researched such matters before she was outed in 
>retaliation for having the administration's lies with very tragic 
>consequences exposed.  Outing a CIA agent (read spy) without justification 
>is high treason as you clearly understand from your comments about the NYT, 
>although you seem to have forgotten that justification is part of the 
>issue.
> >
> >   Gary further writes:
> >
> >   "A minor player has been convicted of having a poor memory and will 
>doubtless be pardoned by the Commander in Chief before he does so much as 
>10 minutes in jail."
> >
> >   Let's see.  A person who is one of the highest administrative aides to 
>a very political vice president has a "poor memory."  In high office, 
>almost everything done, save pencil sharpening or fingernail clipping, is 
>considered in the light of its political consequences and ramifications.  
>One little slip by such an aide on a public matter, and hence from those 
>whom he/she advises, is to be rigorously avoided. A super memory for 
>details, not a poor one, is an absolute prerequisite for such a position.
> >
> >   However, if you really think that poor Scooter really has a poor 
>memory, perhaps you'd be interested in purchasing some initial stock in a 
>silver mine that promises to return triple your money for each year you 
>hold it.
> >
> >   W.
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: g. crabtree
> >   To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020
> >   Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:44 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in 
>the matter
> >
> >
> >   My understanding was that when Ms. Plame was on the stand before 
>congress the other day she was asked if she thought that she met the 
>criterion for being a covert agent under the Intelligence identities Act of 
>1982, she ruefully admitted that she did not know if she met that standard 
>or not. If she wasn't sure of her status under the act, how, exactly would 
>Libby, Rove, and Armitage? The fact that nobody has been charged with her 
>'outing' belies the notion that a treasonous crime was committed in this 
>regard.
> >
> >   I think that it's quite clear that there was zero substance to the 
>'plamegate' incident and that it was just another instance of the 
>democratic's doing their best to make the current administration look bad. 
>And with the help of a liberal media, their mission was accomplished. And 
>what a monumental accomplishment it was. A minor player has been convicted 
>of having a poor memory and will doubtless be pardoned by the Commander in 
>Chief before he does so much as 10 minutes in jail. Ya'll should ought to 
>be proud.
> >
> >   If you really feel that a good hanging would be just the ticket to 
>brighten up your dreary day, why don't you look to the NYT. More secrets 
>harmful to the USA have been leaked from that cesspool in the last six 
>months then from all the current administration members over the entirety 
>of their careers.
> >
> >   g
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     From: Art Deco
> >     To: Vision 2020
> >     Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:28 PM
> >     Subject: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in the 
>matter
> >
> >
> >     And we will believe them?  Yeah, right.
> >
> >     What a bunch of irresponsible, lying chickenshits!
> >
> >     W.
> >
> >     And while we are at it, why weren't Libby, Armitage, and Rove tried 
>and hung for treason in the Valerie Plame matter?
> >
> >     White House to allow Rove, Miers to be interviewed in firings of 
>U.S. attorneys
> >     WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House will allow the president's top 
>political adviser, Karl Rove, and former White House counsel Harriet Miers 
>to be interviewed by congressional committees investigating how the firing 
>of several U.S. attorneys was handled, but they will not testify under oath 
>in the matter, Rep. Chris Cannon said Tuesday.
> >
> >     The announcement came after current White House counsel Fred 
>Fielding met with members of the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary 
>committees, who had considered using subpoenas to force Rove, Miers and 
>their two deputies to reveal what they knew about the reasons behind the 
>firings of at least seven U.S. attorneys.
> >
> >     But Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters after the meeting 
>with Fielding that the offer from the White House is incomplete: "We would 
>be able to interview the four people we requested ... but only in private, 
>not under oath and with no transcript."
> >
> >     Schumer said lawmakers would try to get tougher requirements for the 
>interviews. And he and House Judiciary Committee head Rep. John Conyers 
>both said their committees will move forward to approve the use of 
>subpoenas to get White House officials to testify under oath.
> >
> >     That would not mean that subpoenas would be issued immediately, only 
>that the committees would be able to use them. (Posted 3:16 p.m.)
> >
> >
> >
> > 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >     =======================================================
> >      List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >      serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                    http://www.fsr.net
> >               mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> >     =======================================================
> >
>
>=======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>=======================================================

_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need, right when you 
need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01