• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Republican talking points on Plame leak

davefoc

Philosopher
davefoc
Joined
Jun 28, 2002
Messages
9,434
Location
orange country, california
I've been listening to various Republican taling points for awhile on the Plame leak. I just thought it might be interesting to get them all down in one place and see how true they are:

1. Leaking Plames CIA role was OK because she wasn't really a covert agent.

2. Wilson was a liar so something needed to be done to counter the man.
2A. Wilson said that Cheney sent him. Cheney had never heard of him.
2B. Wilson said he had found that Iraq had not tried to get Niger yellowcake. In fact his report suggested that Iraq had tried to get Niger yellowcak.
2C. Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with him getting the assignment to Niger. In fact his wife suggested him.

3. The indictment was based on the idea that Libby lied, but Libby could have just made a mistake here or there like any of us could when we're talking about something that happened two years ago.

4. The indictment is just a technical violation and doesn't go to an underlying crime so it's not really that serious.

Can anybody help flesh out the list?

Item 4 struck me as so hypocritical that I didn't think that Republcans would use it beyond the first day or so when it got laughed out of the park. But it appears that I was wrong. It seems like it might stick around for awhile.
 
davefoc said:
I've been listening to various Republican taling points for awhile on the Plame leak. I just thought it might be interesting to get them all down in one place and see how true they are:

1. Leaking Plames CIA role was OK because she wasn't really a covert agent.

2. Wilson was a liar so something needed to be done to counter the man.
2A. Wilson said that Cheney sent him. Cheney had never heard of him.
2B. Wilson said he had found that Iraq had not tried to get Niger yellowcake. In fact his report suggested that Iraq had tried to get Niger yellowcak.
2C. Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with him getting the assignment to Niger. In fact his wife suggested him.

3. The indictment was based on the idea that Libby lied, but Libby could have just made a mistake here or there like any of us could when we're talking about something that happened two years ago.

4. The indictment is just a technical violation and doesn't go to an underlying crime so it's not really that serious.

Can anybody help flesh out the list?

Item 4 struck me as so hypocritical that I didn't think that Republcans would use it beyond the first day or so when it got laughed out of the park. But it appears that I was wrong. It seems like it might stick around for awhile.
Click to expand...
If LIbby lied under oath, only item 3 is important. My guess is they can prove that it wasn't a 'mistake'.
 
davefoc said:
I've been listening to various Republican taling points for awhile on the Plame leak. I just thought it might be interesting to get them all down in one place and see how true they are:

1. Leaking Plames CIA role was OK because she wasn't really a covert agent.

2. Wilson was a liar so something needed to be done to counter the man.
2A. Wilson said that Cheney sent him. Cheney had never heard of him.
2B. Wilson said he had found that Iraq had not tried to get Niger yellowcake. In fact his report suggested that Iraq had tried to get Niger yellowcak.
2C. Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with him getting the assignment to Niger. In fact his wife suggested him.

3. The indictment was based on the idea that Libby lied, but Libby could have just made a mistake here or there like any of us could when we're talking about something that happened two years ago.

4. The indictment is just a technical violation and doesn't go to an underlying crime so it's not really that serious.

Can anybody help flesh out the list?

Item 4 struck me as so hypocritical that I didn't think that Republcans would use it beyond the first day or so when it got laughed out of the park. But it appears that I was wrong. It seems like it might stick around for awhile.
Click to expand...

2D) Wilson's investigation was weak. By CIA standards, it was weaker than the evidence supporting an attempt to buy uranium from Niger. To this day, Britain has stood by the accuracy of it's report.

2E) Wilson's objectivity was tainted by his involvement in John Kerry's campaign.

#4 is an issue in that if investigators can't get a case against the people that they are after, they will take down anyone who may have said anything that disagrees with actual events. "You stated that on October 9, you purchased a Pepsi on your way to a meeting with Karl Rove. We have a receipt which shows that, in fact, you purchased a Dr. Pepper. Indict this man!" (a gross exaggeration, but you get the idea)
 
peptoabysmal said:
2D) Wilson's investigation was weak. By CIA standards, it was weaker than the evidence supporting an attempt to buy uranium from Niger. To this day, Britain has stood by the accuracy of it's report.

2E) Wilson's objectivity was tainted by his involvement in John Kerry's campaign.
Click to expand...
Aren't these two irrelevant if Libby lied under oath?
 
Bjorn, If Libby's fate was completely in the hands of the courts your comments would be entirely correct as regards to the prosecution of Libby.

But, to some degree Libby's fate hangs on public perception. If a large percentage of the population thought that the prosecution of Libby was just politically driven persecution, then Bush could have acted to remove Fitzgerald and the whole thing could have been swept under the rug.

Even now, the ability of Fitzgerald is limited by the fact that Bush can just pardon the players. If the Republicans could establish a widely held view that Libby, et al are just victims of the evil Democrats' political ploys then Bush could pardon Libby with limited political fallout.

And of course, any potential jurors can also be affected by the publicity and jury nullification is a real threat to a prosecution in a case like this since so many people have deep biases when it comes to politics that are not easily set aside.

And just as an aside, I really didn't mean for this thread to be just about Libby. What I intended was to list all the Republican talking points and then take an unbiased look at how honest they were. I am sure you are a little removed from this, but for those of us who listen to talk radio, read commentaries or watch politically oriented television in the US we are bombarded with the Republican talking points on this story. The are repeated more or less in tact over and over. The Republicans are clearly using a strategy where they same thing over and over and eventually regardless of the truth of the statement people begin to believe it because they've heard it so often. But what is the underlying truth of what they are saying? I thought once we had a fairly comprehensive list of their points we could take a look at how truthful they are being.
 
davefoc said:
Bjorn, If Libby's fate was completely in the hands of the courts your comments would be entirely correct as regards to the prosecution of Libby.

But, to some degree Libby's fate hangs on public perception. If a large percentage of the population thought that the prosecution of Libby was just politically driven persecution, then Bush could have acted to remove Fitzgerald and the whole thing could have been swept under the rug.
Click to expand...
But hasn't the time for that passed already?

Even now, the ability of Fitzgerald is limited by the fact that Bush can just pardon the players. If the Republicans could establish a widely held view that Libby, et al are just victims of the evil Democrats' political ploys then Bush could pardon Libby with limited political fallout.
Click to expand...
I cannot see that happen in this case, maybe because I cannot see how it could be a 'limited political fallout', but I may be wrong.

And of course, any potential jurors can also be affected by the publicity and jury nullification is a real threat to a prosecution in a case like this since so many people have deep biases when it comes to politics that are not easily set aside.

And just as an aside, I really didn't mean for this thread to be just about Libby. What I intended was to list all the Republican talking points and then take an unbiased look at how honest they were. I am sure you are a little removed from this, but for those of us who listen to talk radio, read commentaries or watch politically oriented television in the US we are bombarded with the Republican talking points on this story. The are repeated more or less in tact over and over. The Republicans are clearly using a strategy where they same thing over and over and eventually regardless of the truth of the statement people begin to believe it because they've heard it so often. But what is the underlying truth of what they are saying? I thought once we had a fairly comprehensive list of their points we could take a look at how truthful they are being.
Click to expand...
I'm not as removed as you seem to think (I live in the US even if I'm not there at the moment).

Even if the talking points were correct, I still don't see how he could get away if he lied under oath, or how the president would find excuses for it. Maybe the cover-up, as many times before, messed the whole thing up a lot more than the alleged crime.

I cannot see how a trial could be about the truth in Wilson's findings or who sent him there or if the White House knew about him going there. The investigation has been about the leak, and only about the leak.
 
Just what kind of undercover work was she doing??? For some reason I just cant picture her infiltrating some south american cocaine smuggling ring.
 
Tmy said:
Just what kind of undercover work was she doing??? For some reason I just cant picture her infiltrating some south american cocaine smuggling ring.
Click to expand...

I've been wondering about this in two directions. What is the basis for all the Republican statements that she wasn't really a covert agent. Who is the source for that information?

And like you, I have a hard time imagining that she was living a dangerous life of deep international intrigue.

My guess, is that she was part of a low risk, CIA team to assess local opinions and maybe gather some semi-secret intelligence.

The one thing I can't figure is how anybody thinks that releasing the classified status of a CIA employee is OK. The Bush administration obviously thought it wasn't OK, or they would have just admitted a long time ago. With hindsight, a much better approach for them would have been to concoct some sort of it-was-an-accident cover story and fess up to how the leak happened.

I guess the reason that they didn't go with that strategy is that leak investigations in the past had been almost universally fruitless, because everybody involved just lied and it wasn't possible to determine actual facts.
 
davefoc said:
I've been wondering about this in two directions. What is the basis for all the Republican statements that she wasn't really a covert agent. Who is the source for that information?

And like you, I have a hard time imagining that she was living a dangerous life of deep international intrigue.

My guess, is that she was part of a low risk, CIA team to assess local opinions and maybe gather some semi-secret intelligence.

The one thing I can't figure is how anybody thinks that releasing the classified status of a CIA employee is OK. The Bush administration obviously thought it wasn't OK, or they would have just admitted a long time ago. With hindsight, a much better approach for them would have been to concoct some sort of it-was-an-accident cover story and fess up to how the leak happened.

I guess the reason that they didn't go with that strategy is that leak investigations in the past had been almost universally fruitless, because everybody involved just lied and it wasn't possible to determine actual facts.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel like a scofflaw when I flash oncoming traffic that theres a speedtrap ahead!

Many she was on Martha Sterwart duty?? Trying to ig up dirt in illegal pot-holders or somthing.
 
bush_caligula.jpg


A chief of staff needs to be able to protect his ass without fear of legal consequences when engaged in the conduct of his profession as politician.
Click to expand...
 
Best so far: That drunken Irish Lout Hanniety sez "what is going on here? The Special Prosecuter was investigating a leak and here they are inditing Scooter. The unfairness, the bias, the typical Democratic horror".


Really, really sickening.

ps. No one brought up Clinton.

pps. This guy is a shill. And a bad one

ppps. We hates 'em, precious.
 
peptoabysmal said:
2D) Wilson's investigation was weak. By CIA standards, it was weaker than the evidence supporting an attempt to buy uranium from Niger. To this day, Britain has stood by the accuracy of it's report.
Click to expand...
MI6 has no, repeat no credibility over here on any matter pertaining to the Iraq War. Rather like the CIA on the other side of the pond. You say "to this day"; did they do any public standing by it today?
 
davefoc said:
... but for those of us who listen to talk radio, read commentaries or watch politically oriented television in the US we are bombarded with the Republican talking points on this story. The are repeated more or less in tact over and over. The Republicans are clearly using a strategy where they same thing over and over and eventually regardless of the truth of the statement people begin to believe it because they've heard it so often.
Click to expand...
No surprise there. On the tame shows it'll run and run, but there was some chatter in the media pages about a post-Katrina re-awakening of a cowed US media. We shall see how the independents handle it. A key metric is how many follow-up questions start "But surely ...". A nasty trick, but it works.

Of course, this matter will be getting a lot of Rove's attention, so any unfriendly interviewer risks a serious monstering from his imps and groupies. Perhaps we'll see Libby become a martyr.
 
A small update to the list:
1. Leaking Plames CIA role was OK because she wasn't really a covert agent.

2. Wilson was a liar so something needed to be done to counter the man.
2A. Wilson said that Cheney sent him. Cheney had never heard of him.
2B. Wilson said he had found that Iraq had not tried to get Niger yellowcake. In fact his report suggested that Iraq had tried to get Niger yellowcak.
2C. Wilson said his wife had nothing to do with him getting the assignment to Niger. In fact his wife suggested him.

3. The indictment was based on the idea that Libby lied, but Libby could have just made a mistake here or there like any of us could when we're talking about something that happened two years ago.

4. The indictment is just a technical violation and doesn't go to an underlying crime so it's not really that serious.

5. Wilson's report was so flawed that what the administration did to discredit it was justified.
5A. Wilson's investigation was weak. By CIA standards, it was weaker than the evidence supporting an attempt to buy uranium from Niger. To this day, Britain has stood by the accuracy of it's report.

5B. Wilson's objectivity was tainted by his involvement in John Kerry's campaign.

6. Clinton.


I added peptoabysmal's comments as a separate item. Item 3 really went to the argument that Wilson was a liar. Item 5 goes to the idea that his work product was flawed and based on biased thinking.

I'm not quite sure how Clinton plays into this. Admittedly, Clinton is the cause of a great many problems in the US according to the Republican spinmeisters but in defense of them, I don't believe as yet they have made the connection to the Plame leaks. I added him to the list however, to sate the popular demand for this entry.
 
davefoc said:
I'm not quite sure how Clinton plays into this. Admittedly, Clinton is the cause of a great many problems in the US according to the Republican spinmeisters but in defense of them, I don't believe as yet they have made the connection to the Plame leaks. I added him to the list however, to sate the popular demand for this entry.
Click to expand...
Hillary Clinton.
 
peptoabysmal said:
#4 is an issue in that if investigators can't get a case against the people that they are after, they will take down anyone who may have said anything that disagrees with actual events. "You stated that on October 9, you purchased a Pepsi on your way to a meeting with Karl Rove. We have a receipt which shows that, in fact, you purchased a Dr. Pepper. Indict this man!" (a gross exaggeration, but you get the idea)
Click to expand...
Yes, I do get the idea, Peppy. It is a gross exaggeration, so much so that it crosses over into irrelevant territory.
 
Bjorn said:
Even if the talking points were correct, I still don't see how he could get away if he lied under oath, or how the president would find excuses for it.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to give any excuse for a pardon. Here is a list of Bush pardons and while there is a general statement about why the pardons were issued, there is no individual justification - at least in this article.

[complete derail]
What an utterly weird set of pardons. Aren't there larger issues of the miscarriage of justice to be found in America? I mean, a friggen' bootlegger???
[/complete derail]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom