[opendtv] Re: Off topic
- From: Bob Miller <bob@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 18:56:24 -0500
Craig Birkmaier wrote:
>At 1:32 AM -0500 11/5/05, Bob Miller wrote:
>
>
>>I think it has been shown that his wife had nothing to do with assigning
>>him to this mission. She was used to ask him to come in to be offered
>>the mission and she then supplied bona fides as to his credentials but
>>was not in the instigation of or the decision to send him.
>>
>>
>
>I think it has been shown that you are incorrect. She was intimately
>involved in the decision to send her husband on this mission. What
>has not been shown as clearly, is why the CIA felt it necessary to do
>this. What is coming out is the fact that the CIA was unhappy with
>the White House and put this stunt together to take the heat off of
>their "lapses in intelligence."
>
>
>
I would be interested in your source for this. All the info I have seen
says that she was not the person who picked, chose or even suggested her
husband for this mission. There was a misquote from some official where
it was said he had taken her suggestion but he then denied it.
>>Her identity was still classified information whether she was active
>>over seas or not. Her cover was intact and she was a asset. The leaking
>>of her identity jeopardize other agents using the same cover she still
>>used. And the people with classified access to her identity in the White
>>House did not have the right and I am sure they did not ascertain that
>>outing her was OK. If it was not technically criminal it was ethically
>>wrong and as holders of classified clearances the parties who leaked it
>>were knowledgeable of what they did. It should be criminal IMO. We will
>>see if it was.
>>
>>
>
>No here identity was not classified. It was WIDELY know in Washington
>that she worked for the CIA. She was no longer involved in any covert
>activities...had not been for a decade.
>
>If there was something ethically wrong, it was the fact that here
>husband wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times, filled with
>lies, in an effort to drum up PR for his book, which slammed the
>White House. Ironically, in the book he verifies the FACT that Sadam
>was indeed trying to buy Yellow Cake from Niger, just as Brittish
>Intelligence had indicated.
>
>What this illustrates is that the party in power does not necessarily
>have control of the government agencies that it is charged with
>operating. There's nothing new here; the giant government bureaucracy
>is self protecting and self regulating; there are always people
>working against you...
>
>Just look at the new book from the director of the FBI under Clinton.
>
>This whole affair has been nothing more than a huge publicity stunt.
>
>
Maybe but I have heard of no individual that did not have security
clearance to know her identity who did. Is there a name you know who
knew her identity before this disclosure? AND even if her identity was
known, which I doubt, it does not change the fact that it was still
classified information. Whether technically the level of classification,
because of the length of time since she was active overseas, would make
make this non criminal does not change the fact that is was still
classified info that was not supposed to be divulged under whatever
penalties might apply shy of the criminal.
>
>
>>Even the president said so when he first stated that he would fire
>>anyone involved in the leak before he back tracked and said they had to
>>be found criminally guilty. I am sure if Rove is found guilty Bush will
>>up the ante to someone who has received the death penalty.
>>
>>
>
>Another lie. The White House has never changed its story on this
>issue. But the media has mangled it. The position has always been -
>if you are indicted you must resign.
>
>
Not talking about a position, talking about what specifically Bush said.
I heard it. He said anyone involved with the leak would be fired period.
I also heard him when he changed his mind to only someone indicted.
Someone could have leaked and never be indicted because of the
technicality but that does not excuse the leak of classified info and it
doesn't change what the president said.
>
>
>>The CIA instituted this investigation, demanded it because they thought
>>it was important enough. I think so also.
>>
>>
>
>And what they found out confirmed what the President said, based on
>Brittish intelligence reports. I am growing so tired of this whole
>attempt to bring down an administration that went through the proper
>steps to go after Iraq. There is a high level tie in here to the
>whole DTV mess. The mass media caused us to lose the was in Vietnam,
>based in large part on lies about what was really happening, and
>relentless anti-war publicity. Now that the Democrats are out of
>power, they have become willing accomplices to try to overthrow
>another administration.
>
>Don't get me wrong. I'm not happy with either party. Our Republic is
>on the brink of total collapse, and the mass media is leading the
>assault.
>
>
My understanding of the British Intelligence reports were that they were
accepted as gospel by Bush even though he was warned that they were
possibly based on forgeries which turned out to be true. I believe this
was communicated forcefully to the administration before there use in
the State of the Union.
>
>
>>>This was a direct attempt to discredit the Bush administration.
>>>Wilson LIED in his editorial in the new York Times. This LIE is
>>>confirmed in his own book, which is the real reason that this whole
>>>affair became public. This is nothing more that inside the beltway
>>>politics.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I think it was an attempt to find out if the main thread of a
>>justification to go to war, WMD, would stand up to just checking it out.
>>Minimal due diligence. It didn't. Which really pissed off a gun slinger
>>administration. As I said I voted for his father twice and Reagan before
>>that twice but I never voted for this one and have never believed
>>anything he says. I trusted Powell. He was the only credible figure in
>>this administration for me and the canary who died.
>>
>>
>
>You are wrong about this. There is more than ample evidence that Iraq
>was trying to buy Yellow Cake from Niger. There is more than ample
>evidence that WMDs did exist. It is not a question of whether they
>existed, but where did they go. We have tons of evidence that the
>Soviet Union was pulling all kinds of stuff out of the country just
>before the invasion. There were convoys of trucks heading into Syria
>for weeks. There were ships filled with stuff that sailed just before
>the invasion.
>
>I'm sorry, but this whole idea that we rushed to war without just
>cause is ridiculous. The majority of Democrats who are now crying
>foul voted to go to war.
>
>The UN was enabling the biggest heist in the history of government
>enabled corruption. It looks like the oil for food siphoned off a
>bout $50 billion, straight into the hands of the corrupt UN officials
>and the government leaders who opposed U.S. efforts to clean up this
>mess.
>
>Sorry Bob, but the decision to invade Iraq was completely justified,
>and the world will be a safer place because of this action. Stop the
>bellyaching!
>
>
>
>>>The whole ATSC affair is equally sordid, and I can assure you that
>>>more laws were broken in the AdvancedTelevision process than in this
>>>supposed leak case.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I am sure of that.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Glad we agree about something.
>
In the end I think we will agree on both of these items.
Bob Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
