The stupidest nonscandal ever

[DesertFox]

In its lust to take down Karl Rove, the Washington press corps is protecting Joe Wilson by failing to tell the American people who he really is. So let me do it: Wilson is the Ward Churchill of the U.S. State Department.

Before his outburst, Churchill was an obscure professor in Colorado. Before his outburst, Wilson was an obscure former diplomat at Foggy Bottom.

Churchill called the victims in the Twin Towers "little Eichmanns," based on his hate for America. Wilson called George Bush a liar based on a two-week junket to Niger in which he lounged by a hotel pool and listened to his contacts tell him, "Uranium? We don't know nothin' about no uranium."

Churchill is a sanctimonious fraud, claiming to be a Cherokee so that he can enrich himself and smear America. Wilson is a sanctimonious fraud, claiming to be a Karl Rove victim so that he can enrich himself and smear George Bush. (He went on to serve as an adviser to the Kerry campaign.)

Now, here is the one most important thing you need to know about Joe Wilson. First, he complained bitterly that Rove had jeopardized the life of his wife, Valerie Plame. (Later he qualified himself and accused not Rove but "whoever did this.")

Yet, six months later, this man posed with his wife for a full-color, two-page photograph in Vanity Fair magazine.

Hypocrisy? Cynicism? Greed? Or simple stupidity? You make the call.

Here is the timeline: In July 2003, columnist Robert Novak wrote that according to two senior administration sources, Wilson was assigned his Niger fact-finding trip on the recommendation of his wife at the CIA.

(By the way, a Senate committee has proved that Wilson lied when he said his wife was not involved. Or, to use the punctuation that the Angry Left prefers when discussing Bush: WILSON LIED!!!)

More (http://www.starnewspapers.com/star/spedit/col/17-col1.htm)

[DoctorDoom]

Well, these are just FACTS! What do facts have to do with liberal muckrakers on a quixotic quest to destroy the administration?

Keep hammering, fools. And when 2006 rolls around...

[Warlady]

This is one of the best articles about the "WILSON/PLAME SELF DESTRUCT" liberal scandal I have read to date. I think Plame and Wilson just might end up in jail. I sense a real conspiracy going on here. Plame gets her husband sent to Niger and he sits around drinking tea instead of searching for the truth then comes back and tells lies. Oh boy. I'm sending this one out to everyone I know. I suggest you all do the same. At least I hope you will. This is getting the truth out to the public which is our job.

[Webruary]

Here's the bottom line folks. Just answer the following 3 questions.

1) Was Valerie Plame an Undercover Agent when Joe Wilson wrote his hit piece at the NY Times and Robert Novak discovered that it was she who recommended him for the Niger mission ?

IF THE ANSWER IS NO, The investigation is a WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY and they should all pack up and go home.

2) If the answer is YES ( anyone can verify this ? ), the next question is -- did Karl Rove KNOW she was undercover ? If the answer is NO, then the investigator should focus on someone else.

3) If the answer is YES, Rove knew that she was undercover, did Rove blow her undercover identity to Matt Cooper ?

The story thus far does not seem like he did. Mentioning a person as the one who recommended Wilson to the Niger mission is not blowing an undercover identity.

Regardless. THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 1 IS THE MOST CRUCIAL. If Valerie Plame was NOT undercover at the time Novak mentioned her, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED and the invesitgation is a HUMUNGOUS waste of taxpayer money ( who demanded the investigation in the first place ? He/she ought to be required to pay back the amount already spent ).

[Taylor]

The left wants Karl Rove fired because they think George Bush is stupid and can't even think for himself. They think if they get Rove, it's the same as getting Bush. They hate Rove because he's successful at getting Republicans elected. He helped Bush get elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. After Bush retires from politics and goes back to Texas, Rove will be working for another Republican. Probably a Republican who will be running for President in 2008.

:whistle:

[Traurin]

If Rove did reveal her identity knowingly, then that is certainly a crime and not exactly a nonscandal.

[DesertFox]

He didn't. It's been proven. The proof is in the articles on this page.

[PaulRevere]

Isn't it pathetic how these lefties are clinging to something that just isn't there? The only thing that I can think of is that they are playing their "you can fool some of the people all of the time" game, hoping that their howling accusations drown out the truth.

[Apollo5600]

The Dems can't win in the light, they need lies, they need propaganda, they need ignorance of the truth. They know they are full of it s***, but they don't care. AND THAT REALLY TICKS ME OFF!!!!!!!

[TheRealLobo]

If Rove did reveal her identity knowingly, then that is certainly a crime and not exactly a nonscandal.

If she is not in an "undercover" capacity then it certainly is NOT a crime, and is EXACTLY a nonscandal.

Your triple qualifier above makes it sound like a leftist's cheer.

Would you feel the same if it had been begala, carville, or clinton?

[Webruary]

If Rove did reveal her identity knowingly, then that is certainly a crime and not exactly a nonscandal.

ONLY IF VALERIE PLAME WAS A COVERT AGENT *AND* HE REVEALED SHE WAS COVERT.

Folks, lets stop all these back and forth and please please please, someone answer me with a straightforward YES or NO. I am getting tired of all these analysis when it all boils down to one simple question.

Here it is for all to hear, I am going to scream it because this the the BASIS of the investigation :

WAS VALERIE PLAME AN OFFICIAL, COVERT, CIA AGENT WHEN SHE WAS OUTED ?

a simple yes or no will suffice. ANYONE ?

[Naturalized-Texan]

WAS VALERIE PLAME AN OFFICIAL, COVERT, CIA AGENT WHEN SHE WAS OUTED ?

a simple yes or no will suffice. ANYONE ?
NO! Joe Wilson, himself, stated categorically that she was not a covert agent and hadn't been for the 6 years prior to the publication of the Novak column. Consequently, no law was broken.

[Webruary]

NO! Joe Wilson, himself, stated categorically that she was not a covert agent and hadn't been for the 6 years prior to the publication of the Novak column. Consequently, no law was broken.

Thank you. I'd be even more grateful if you could provide the link for this.

IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, WHY THE HECK ARE WE HAVING THIS INVESTIGATION FOR ? WHO CALLED FOR IT ? ( THEY SHOULD PAY FOR THE MONEY ALREADY SPENT ) WHY ARE WE WASTING TIME AND MONEY ON A NON-CRIME ?

Our elite are so devoid of common sense. TSK TSK TSK.

[DesertFox]

*Sigh*

Webruary, instead of shouting and hollering, how about reading the many posted threads on this subject? Your question has been answered many times over by many respected reporters and online sources. Do your own homework, especially since the hard part -- tracking it down -- has already been done for you.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Thank you. I'd be even more grateful if you could provide the link for this.

IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, WHY THE HECK ARE WE HAVING THIS INVESTIGATION FOR ? WHO CALLED FOR IT ? ( THEY SHOULD PAY FOR THE MONEY ALREADY SPENT ) WHY ARE WE WASTING TIME AND MONEY ON A NON-CRIME ?

Our elite are so devoid of common sense. TSK TSK TSK.
Actually, I and others have provided several links about those facts on other threads. I am about to open a thread that has a link that shows that Plame was "outed" in the mid 1990s by the CIA itself. Look for it.

[Kathy29]

It has been well established that Plame had done nothing remotely covert since 1998. It's been all over the news, all over the internet, all over everyplace.

[Warlady]

Web Wilson said those things to Wolf Blitzer in an interview on CNN. Perhaps you can find a transcript on their site.

[Federal Farmer]

The Dems haven't anything on Dubya, so go after his people. It's typical dirty politics, nothing else. This matter should have been over with long ago, but I suppose the Dems wouldn't mind too much if the story stayed in the news now in an attempt to put Dubya on the defensive through the SC hearings.

[Warlady]

FF I posted in another thread that this is all about the SCOTUS appointment but what it's ended up being is making the Democrats look likes asses. I'm quoting Rush. And he's absolutely correct. Plame's own husband has stated she hasn't been covert since 1998. That should have stopped the investigation in its tracks but I'm wondering if the prosecutor isn't investigating Plame and Wilson now. Nepotism jeoardized our national security. Someone's head should roll that's for sure but not a Republican. I think Wilson is trying to CYA now.

[maxparrish]

Thank you. I'd be even more grateful if you could provide the link for this.
IF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, WHY THE HECK ARE WE HAVING THIS INVESTIGATION FOR ? WHO CALLED FOR IT ? ( THEY SHOULD PAY FOR THE MONEY ALREADY SPENT ) WHY ARE WE WASTING TIME AND MONEY ON A NON-CRIME ?

Our elite are so devoid of common sense. TSK TSK TSK.

Web, a personal story of the nature of politics:

Until recently, a very close and dear friend of mine was a department head in one of the 10 largest cities in the U.S.. I worked for 'Mary' for several years in the late 1980's and consider her one of the two best bosses I have ever had.

What I liked (and still like) about Mary was her utterly honest and straightforward approach to management and her employees. She was kind, supportative, incredably efficient, detailed, and communative. She kept both her bosses and employees informed by copious memos and reports. And she was utterly incapable of lying (I always told her she was 'too good' to survive), and was kindly honest in all her dealings (including employee evaluations). And unlike most bosses, she really wanted to improve employees (not just dump on them)...oh, and she loved to laugh.

She rose through the ranks, becoming an assistant City Manager for a small city, then a major Director (department head) at a very large City. For five years she was an excellent Director...then "Politics".

She put out to bid for a major goods and services contract (millions), invited all bidders, had an evaluation committee look at the bids, selected a vendor and went to her City Council for approval. The 'vendor' selected had dealt with the City for many years BUT one of the losers protested at the Council meeting. They cryed: "unfair", "fixed evaluation committee", "collusion", etc. The Council paniced, ordered an investigation by a City auditor. She went on vacation, when she returned she was told that the Press had published the lurid accusations, the auditor screamed collusion, and she was forced to resign in disgrace.

What happened: many years before her arrival the City had standardized on a brand/standard of technology/systems and asked the maker to supply specs. (which did limit the non spec vendors). The auditor said that she could standardize (and she had openly done so for 5 years, following the standard) BUT the auditor determined ex/post/facto that the rationale for standardization (long since forgotten) was not good enough - therefore, what was called good management: "partnering" practice long approved was NOW called "collusion"...

Nothing was hidden. No processes were covered up. All approvals were granted to let the bid. The committee was cleared of any bias by the auditor. Everything was done in good faith, including standardizing on a technology...but the auditor said 'rules were violated', the standard could not be proved as necessary.

AND the newspaper screamed "too costly", "collusion", etc. Rumors and accusations flew: 'Mary was using technology to spy on the Auditor' (disproved); 'Mary was getting a kickback' (disproved); 'Mary lied to the Council' (disproved); 'Mary's bosses didn't know what she was doing' (disproved)...etc.

With all the screaming and wailing, the Council ordered "more investigations". The City Manager did his own investigation, laying the blame on Mary. The Council could not believe that all this 'collusion' was not sinister; they ordered another outside investigation (hired a fellow) and also asked the District Attorney to investigate. It dragged on for six months, finally the last City investigator upset everyone and tied the bid to the City Manager (saying he had recovered hundreds of pages of memos from the City Manger's hard drive showing he had met with the vendor) AND suddenly the Council says "We don't want to know anymore, its too confusing" and ordered the investigation shut down (meanwhile the D.A. finally says "I found that Mary did nothing illegal").

So here we are, Mary's career is over. She has been smeared repeatedly in the press, investigated by the Police department for 'electronic spying' (and cleared), the D.A. (and cleared), smeared by the auditor and city manager - then finally cleared by the last City investigator who was told to STOP investigating if it led somewhere else (up the line)...

And what was it over? A simple administrative choice done in the interests of good management, without any sinister motive.

But that is politics...the politician is terrified of being blamed, so he/she shoves anyone into the fire first...and people are destroyed (she spends many days crying, disbelieving her career is finished).

It's disgusting business, which is why I deeply hate politicians. Most are less worthy of life than a flat-worm.

[Federal Farmer]

Yea WL, they look foolish when they go on their tirades. I happened to catch The View this morning and Star Jones looked the fool when the subject came up; Barbara Walters acted the journalist though saying that the prosecutor had not yet spoken and judgement had to be suspended on the matter.

[DesertFox]

max, your story and friend Mary could be me in the education bidness here in Phoenix. I, too, lost my job, only it was because of a sexual harassment complaint that was found to be without substance when investigated by the State Board of Education's Investigative Unit. My then-District simply panicked at the prospect of being splashed all over the front pages of the Arizona Republic.

I could have sued and won, but my own ethics got in the way. My feeling is that an employer should be able to hire and fire as it pleases, for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all, consistent with its contracts. I can't sue these bastids and stay consistent with my own beliefs, so I'm now working elsewhere.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

My feeling is that an employer should be able to hire and fire as it pleases, for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all, consistent with its contracts.

:unsmile: This might be off-topic, but I disagree with that sentiment, & it might make an interesting discussion, in another thread.

[maxparrish]

max, your story and friend Mary could be me in the education bidness here in Phoenix. I, too, lost my job, only it was because of a sexual harassment complaint that was found to be without substance when investigated by the State Board of Education's Investigative Unit. My then-District simply panicked at the prospect of being splashed all over the front pages of the Arizona Republic.

I could have sued and won, but my own ethics got in the way. My feeling is that an employer should be able to hire and fire as it pleases, for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all, consistent with its contracts. I can't sue these bastids and stay consistent with my own beliefs, so I'm now working elsewhere. Politics and character (or honor) are incompatible. For example, Mary's boss promised (in private) to help her defend her name when she resigned, knowing the audit was bogus. BUT, he did the opposite, coming up with a phoney investigation to clear him (later he was found culpable in a third investigation). None of these people have a sense of shame, nor honor. They are scum. And when the papers got a hold of it, the 'controversy' took on a life of its own..."DEMANDING" that some crime be found (know about the Drefus affair?)...ending in a sputter and one demolished career.

Mary normally does not sue, she moves on. But given that her name is mud in her profession due to widespread press coverage she is sueing for defamation. She has suffered damage to her good name, the oldest (and conservative) property right dating from a time when honor ment something.

Nor am I quite so sanguine about applying my personal philosophy to an employment situation. While an employer should have a right to terminate, he must adhere to a contract; i.e. if one is hired with the assurance (in writing) that one has certain rights of appeal and hearings then one has those rights!

And frankly, employment is often war...and sometimes one has to employ every tactic availalbe because your enemy will do the same.

Yes this would make a good thread: Job Politics and Justice?