Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Plame ReduxFollow

#1 Aug 30 2006 at 10:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
CNN wrote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source who revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003, touching off a federal investigation, two sources familiar with Armitage's role tell CNN.

The sources said Armitage revealed Plame's role at the CIA almost inadvertently in a casual conversation with Novak, and it is not clear if he knew her identity was classified at the time.

Armitage was not indicted by the federal grand jury that investigated the disclosure of Plame's name to Novak and other journalists.

In a July 14, 2003, column, Novak noted that Plame was a CIA operative, citing two senior Bush administration officials. The column was primarily about Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, a former career diplomat and critic of the intelligence underlying the invasion of Iraq.

Novak has never revealed the original source of the information about Plame. However, he has confirmed that President Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, confirmed the information and was the second source cited in the column.
Story

The rest of the story is the usual yadda-yadda about the history of the case. I'm not sure where CNN gets off titling its story "Official source" when it hasn't at all been made official except by some unnamed sources. Damned liberal media.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Aug 30 2006 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
Damn. If he's 'former', I suppose now Bush can't fire him. Smiley: frown
#3 Aug 30 2006 at 10:34 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,677 posts
So is Karl still an evil no-good sumbitch?
#4 Aug 30 2006 at 10:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jawbox wrote:
So is Karl still an evil no-good sumbitch?


Oh, hell, yes.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#5 Aug 30 2006 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good
Not quite as evil as, if say, Rove, Novak, and Cheney got together.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#6 Aug 30 2006 at 2:17 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,784 posts
I sense an approaching, "Official Gbaji Talking Points Memo" tm , for this thread.
#7 Aug 30 2006 at 2:33 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Redjed wrote:
I sense an approaching, "Official Gbaji Talking Points Memo" tm , for this thread.


Not much to say really. A bunch of people knew she worked at the CIA, didn't know her employment was classified (assuming it was, which to date has *not* been confirmed), and one of them mentioned this to a reporter. Another person (Rove), when approached by said reporter, confirmed it (also not knowing if it was classified) but told him not to make a big deal out of it.

That pretty much it? Not sure where the scandal is here. What I've been saying all along is still the most important fact. Since lots of people knew she was working at the CIA and *didn't* know if she was a NOC, that means that if she was a NOC, her cover was blown long before any reporters entered the picture. It's a non-issue. Always was. But it's exactly the kind of story that the media loves, so it got blown far out of proportion to the facts. Meanwhile, the real issues kinda got ignored.

Pretty normal really.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#8 Aug 30 2006 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
I'm not sure where CNN gets off titling its story "Official source" when it hasn't at all been made official except by some unnamed sources. Damned liberal media.

They're not calling it an "Official source," they're calling Armitage an official within the State Department.

Liberal Media is saved!

#9 Aug 30 2006 at 6:45 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
trickybeck wrote:
Quote:
I'm not sure where CNN gets off titling its story "Official source" when it hasn't at all been made official except by some unnamed sources. Damned liberal media.

They're not calling it an "Official source," they're calling Armitage an official within the State Department.

Liberal Media is saved!


I assume he was referring to the title of the article: "Sources: State Department official source of Plame leak", and contrasting that to the last sentence of the first paragraph:

Quote:
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was the source who revealed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in 2003, touching off a federal investigation, two sources familiar with Armitage's role tell CNN.


So basically, "two sources" told CNN that Armitage was the "official source" of the leak. Yet that assumes that they themselves are "official sources" of the information in question. Otherwise, it's not "official", it's just what two random unamed people told someone at CNN. I'm personally curious what "familiar with Armitage's role" means exactly, but that's just me.

Make more sense now?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Aug 30 2006 at 7:25 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Quote:
Make more sense now?

You don't get it.

Official is not only an adjective, it's also a noun. Smiley: schooled

Clearly it's being used as a noun in this context.


Edit for clarity:

Sources say that Richard Armitage, a State Department official, was the source of the Plame leak



Edited, Aug 30th 2006 at 8:27pm EDT by trickybeck
#11 Aug 30 2006 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Lol. I know. ;)

I noticed that Joph used the phrase "official source". I copied it for my explanation, realized that it was an "official, who was the source", thought about changing it, but figured it was more amusing leaving it in...

Heh. You do know Joph was being deliberately tounge in cheek, right? I was just kinda following along.

but there is some validity, despite the "official source" gaff. Not that I'm doubting the story's facts in this case, but technically you've still just got a couple guys telling CNN that this is true. Which just makes it all the more amusing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Aug 31 2006 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
Trickybeck wrote:
Liberal Media is saved!


Liberal Media is in the Crapper, literally.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 286 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (286)