Gman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 08:36 PM
Original message |
Whether Joe Wilson lied or not is completely irrelevant |
|
Edited on Sun Oct-30-05 09:05 PM by Gman
It's a red herring drug across the slimy trail of Scooter Libby and others to distract attention. The issues are that
1) Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent working for the CIA front company Brewster Jennings & Associates, had her cover completely blown and she was immediately in danger. The effects of her outing are that every other operative associated with BJ&A had their cover blown too. And being that BJ&A had been around for many years and as such the millions upon millions of dollars invested in BJ&A by the U.S. government to keep BJ&A a front company were immediately flushed straight down the commode without a second thought being given to how irresponsible that act alone was. Every other operative associated with BJ&A also was in immediate danger. And every other operative, not necessarily with BJ&A, that ever was known to associate with Plame is now in danger.
2) The reason there is no "underlying crime" in Scooter Libby's case is the fact that he lied and obstructed justice and overall blocked Fitzgerald from learning if in fact there even was an "underlying crime". Scooter Libby lied and obstructed justice to keep the government from finding out who committed the above mentioned crime. And, the really strange thing of all about Libby is that he didn't even have to lie. He could have just admitted the truth, he did confirm Plame worked for the CIA. He could have argued he didn't realize she was undercover thereby making it especially difficult to prosecute the actual violation of the law. One could even ask why Libby lied when he personally didn't even have to lie unless he was trying to protect one or two guys even higher in the White House than he was. So why did Libby lie? Who is he protecting?
It is a classic, tried and very true tactic of the revolutionary right wing to shift blame and divert attention. Do not even start to get into any debate with RW'er on whether or not Joe Wilson lied, regardless of the fact that Wilson's only "crime" was telling the truth. Once you start discussing anything other than the real facts of the case you start playing the revolutionary RW's game and you then give legitimacy to their misleading and otherwise false arguments that have no legitimacy to begin with
|
tuvor
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 08:40 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I've never seen any proof of their allegations. |
|
Without that, I wouldn't even consider using phrases like "whether he lied or not". Makes their crackpot theories sound respectable.
Wilson lied about something, freeps? Prove it. Prove it or shut up.
|
The Velveteen Ocelot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 08:41 PM
Response to Original message |
2. There is no "whether." Wilson didn't lie. Period. |
H2O Man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 08:41 PM
Response to Original message |
grasswire
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 08:44 PM
Response to Original message |
4. what is the alleged lie? |
|
I guess I'll have to go over to one of THEIR sites to find out what this alleged lie is.
|
unblock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 08:50 PM
Response to Original message |
5. in fact joe wilson is ENTIRELY irrelevant |
|
the white house blew the cover of a cia agent. their actions directly injured MRS. wilson, not MR. wilson.
the fact that they appear to have done this to get back at him is completely irrelevant.
if you deliberately attack someone with intent to do harm, it matters not one whit if your motive was money, power, notoriety, revenge against that person, revenge against someone in that person's family, or revenge against the person next door or down the street or someone else who happened to have the same name.
any and all focus on MR. wilson only gains the white house (some) sympathy as it helps explain their motive and this might sound reasonable to some people (their hardcore supporters, anyway).
focus only on VALERIE PLAME. it is she who was exposed, it is she whose career was destroyed, it is she whose life was put in jeopardy.
focus on her bacause they had NO EXCUSE to harm HER.
|
Gman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. Precisely! Joe Wilson is irrelevant |
|
Edited on Sun Oct-30-05 09:08 PM by Gman
Wilson simply went to Africa, came back and wrote a report.
Valerie Plame was harmed as were all other associated CIA assets when Plame was outed.
Getting back at Wilson is a motive for the crime. However, anything Wilson did or even may have in fact lied about has nothing to do with this crime and doesn't justify it as this argument attempts to do.
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
10. Bush covered for the leakers |
|
The White House did it and Bush did nothing about it. He knew it was his own VP and 2 key advisors who leaked and he pretended not to know. When did he know they were the leakers and why did he cover for them. Why is he still covering for them. The Bush White House owes the American people an explanation.
|
tulsakatz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 08:50 PM
Response to Original message |
|
....this case is not about what Wilson did, it's about what the officials did when they outed Plame.
That's a good point, one that hadn't occured to me before. In fact, a conservative just today mentioned that Wilson lied and I even asked him to explain how he lied.
Thanks for bringing that up, it simply doesn't matter what Wilson said or did.
|
AX10
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 09:47 PM
Response to Original message |
8. True. It's about what officials did to hurt Plame. |
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Oct-30-05 10:09 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Nearly a million dollars was spent |
|
investigating THEMSELVES. Why didn't they admit they were the leakers when Bush first said he wanted to know. Why did he say "we may never know", when the leakers were his own VP and 2 key advisors. When did he know they were the leakers. Why is he keeping either of them in his Administration. When did he know and why did GEORGE BUSH cover for them.
That is the ONLY issue.
|
johnnydrama
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-31-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
11. Republicans want people to be dumb |
|
It's the only way they can succeed.
They want people to say, oh no Joe Wilson lied, and just forget anything else.
They don't want people to look at that, and figure out the rest.
So we outed a CIA agent.
To any normal intelligence person, the Joe Wilson lied talking point makes absolutely no sense when followed through to the logical conclusion.
Not to mention the fact that he didn't lie.
This is akin to something like.
"That guy at the bar looked at me funny, so I murdered his entire family".
Does it really matter if he looked at you funny, when your reaction is around 1000 times too extreme.
|
DearAbby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Oct-31-05 05:03 PM
Response to Original message |
12. It is not about Wilson...it is about the exposing PLAME as a CIA agent |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 02:09 PM
Response to Original message |