Most of my information I gained from various news reports in WaPo, the book Hubris, plus information from congressional hearings.

Don’t you think it’s telling that Powell, Armitage and others who had a different view were let go in 2004 while Cheney’s sycophants remained? Armitage and Powell had serious disputes with the rest of the administration and to suggest that they would carry the administration’s water into blatantly criminal activity is really a stretch.

And again, how exactly does outing Plame bolster the administration’s case for war? How does it undermined his credibility? It doesn’t. It does the opposite.

The other 2 had 5 grand jury appearances where Fitzgerald repeatedly tried to get the truth. The fifth one, was the appearance that Rove got out of an indictment by using Viveca Novak’s recollection. Even though Fitz was skeptical, he decided not to indict him. How is any of that opinion?

Unless you have access to transcripts of the actual interviews, and I suspect you don’t, then almost all of that is opinion or, at best, an educated guess.

Armitage himself has said in interviews that he panicked and went to Powell when he found out that he had broken the law- of the 4 I think that he may not have thought about Plame’s covert status. He went to Fitzgerald early on and threw himself on his mercy. Fleischer agreed to cooperate in return for immunity. The other 2 had 5 grand jury appearances where Fitzgerald repeatedly tried to get the truth. The fifth one, was the appearance that Rove got out of an indictment by using Viveca Novak’s recollection. Even though Fitz was skeptical, he decided not to indict him. How is any of that opinion?

The four didn’t know that Ashcroft was going to turf the case to Fitzgerald who was a straight arrow and actually did an investigation. Two panicked and told the truth right away- the other two brazenly lied.

Well, kritter, that is your OPINION. You still haven’t explained why an opponent of administration policy, Armitage, would so cavalierly risk 10 years in jail by the careless leak of Plame’s name, nor have you explained how outing Plame hurts Wilson’s criticism of the administration selling the war and the credibility of his op-ed. It doesn’t. It does and did the opposite.

There’s simply no evidence that this was some grand conspiracy and there’s quite a bit of evidence and argument that it was not. That you insist the conspiracy is beyond dispute is mind boggling.

It doesn’t reveal her identity, but lets face it he was butting heads with the current Admin and doing so in a very public forum. I have no problem with the theory of what he did (leaving aside the issue of him being right), and I can see being so concerned he felt he had to do it. Not thinking that he might be jepordising his wife’s “cover” is absurd. She was involved in him going to Africa. Why would they send a known critic? People would ask and nothing seem secret in this govt regardless of who is in the WH. Common sense says if you want to keep a low profile then your spouse also has to do so. The more scrutiny they are under, the more you are under.

As far as Wilson and Plame are concerned- they committed no crimes. If Wilson believed that the uranium evidence was false, he had a duty to write the op-ed, and his wife was doing what she was supposed to do to keep Americans safe.

Entropy- a diehard clings to misinformation even when the facts of the matter are no longer in dispute. That is what has been going on in this thread. Why not just accept that Libby and Cheney cooked up this scheme to get back at Wilson.

Uh, no. To say that armitage outed Plame as some kind of Rovian plot is certainly not a “fact.” Ascribing intent where no evidence of it exists is truly diehard. The matter is “no longer in dispute” only among those such as yourself, who believes whatever theory about Bush and his cronies casts him in the worst light and portrays opponents such as Wilson and Plame as innocent angelic figures. If “diehard” means that I believe the truth lies somewhere in between, then so be it.

Personally, I do believe the the White House was out to attack the credibility of Wilson and his op-ed – there is a lot of evidence to support that. But these leaks look a lot more like buffoonery than some grand plot. You’d think if 4 senior WH officials were KNOWINGLY violating the law, including one who was no friend of the administration, they would have done a bit more to, you know, cover their tracks and provide some plausible deniability. If they KNEW FOR A FACT she was covert and covered by this law, they would have known exactly the reaction it would produce, including an investigation and prosecution. And yet, despite knowing they could face 10 years in jail, all four of them almost nonchalantly leaked her name. And assuming, as you do, that all this is true, there is still the question of how this hurts what Bush and Co. really cared about, which was selling a war. Exposure of Plame had exactly the opposite effect, as anyone could have, and would have, foreseen.

I find it rather amusing that depending on the particularly conspiracy, the Bush Administration is portrayed by the left as either devilishly cunning on par with the Illuminati or more incompetent that Sheriff Coltrane chasing the Dukes. Which portrayal seems to mostly hinge on which one will make the administration appear in the worst possible light. For me, I err on the side of incompetence, since it has been proven many times over. In my view, this leak is just another example.

At the same time, they were condemning those who spoke out against the war as treasonous!

Plame was the victim here not the perpetrator of the crime. I heard all of the excuses as to why Goodling should not have to walk into a perjury trap. The fact that the right wants to try to turn Plame into a perjurer shows their rank hypocrisy. If she recommended Wilson or didn’t recommend him makes not the slightest bit of difference here so quit trying to make that point.

Bush/Cheney make such a big deal about WMD and the need to be pre-emptive, then they out a resource, that breaks up a whole chain of connected operatives, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and losing a chain of resources that we are in deep need of.

Her expertise was WMD, she was heading a team of operatives, they are now likely all known by our enemies.

There was a time in this country when we would hang people for this type of treason.

Style over substance fallacy.

You completely ignored the facts I presented and instead went all faint over my choice of language.

How about you try that again. Got something of value to add?

Why?

That is (and leaving aside for now the issue of whether Plame recommended Wilson for the trip) how does his writing an editorial about the trip reveal Plame’s identity?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/13/politics/main2006236.shtml

It also isn’t unreasonable for them to have mentioned Plame. Wilson wrote an editorial on a CIA job his wife recommended him for. There have also been questions about her truthfulness.
Sen. Bond also took issue with Mrs. Wilson’s description of her “quick e-mail” touting her husband’s qualifications. “We have…checked the memorandum written by Ms. Wilson suggesting her husband to look into the Niger reporting,” Bond told NRO. “I…stand by the Committee’s finding that this memorandum indicates Ms. Wilson did suggest her husband for a Niger inquiry. Because the quote [the portion of the memo quoted in the Senate report] obviously does not represent the entirety of the memorandum, I suggest that the House Government Reform Committee request and examine this memorandum themselves. I am confident that they will come to the same conclusion as our bipartisan membership did.””

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDk5ZWZiNGEwOGZmNjkyY2VkNWUzYThkMWJlOGRiYzQ=&w=MQ==

Now I could care less about Libby, and the politics involved, but letting your husband write an editorial on a trip you recommended is is idiotic if you are a super secret spy. Go after anyone who screwed up wont bother me a bit, but feeling sorry for Plame and Willson is just idiotic.

I see them more as Energizers, you know great big near-sighted pink bunnys going ’round and ’round in circles banging the same drum… over and over and over again! :]

Wow, the diehards are out in full force today_ guess you guys were fully indoctrinated with the “alternate universe version of events” again!

Oh please. Diehards my ass.

That it does, that it does. I find living permanently in fear of an event or events that may never happen leads to an unhealthy outlook on life. Hatred of islamofascists and illegal aliens doesn’t do much for me either. We’ve had 6 years of post 9/11 demagogery-not real leadership. FDR had to deal with WWII and the Great Depression, but always led in hope. We came through those events because of it, and because the country united in the war effort. Big difference in whats in the WH now.

‘Moderate’ doesn’t mean blaming both side regardless who’s actually to blame.

No, it presumably means cussing out people you disagree with, though.