jaxx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 07:13 PM
Original message |
Olbermann talking about the indictments and Fineman agrees |
|
Says the Steve Clemons article is most probably correct. This is the first I've heard it mentioned on the cable news. http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001031.html
|
malaise
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 07:15 PM
Response to Original message |
1. MSNBC is down in our part of the globe |
|
something about the weather and the digital set up. I'm pissed as CNN is going on and on about Wilma.
|
jaxx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. It's over now, but Fineman is from Newsweek |
|
and they both think the Clemons article is accurate. We can only hope. Well they are still talking the leak. And the bushco's aren't coming out smelling like roses.
|
MO_Dem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. It went off at my house, too |
|
Our cable company only added MSNBC about a month ago and I was beginning to depend on it, especially Olberman. Especially today!
|
LSparkle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 07:16 PM
Response to Original message |
2. And Keith's take on how this all came about sounds dead-on |
|
Libby/Rove may not have known Plame was NOC when they leaked her name (thus, can't have "knowingly leaked") but then they were afraid they'd broken a law and tried to cover up (hence, they get nailed on perjury) ... Just like with Watergate, it's the cover-up that's gonna get 'em.
|
jaxx
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. I hope it gets them good..............all of them! |
shraby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
6. There's only one thing wrong with that assessment... |
|
seems I read that anyone accessing top secret information like about Plame has to sign for it and give the reason they need it.
|
spooky3
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
Edited on Tue Oct-25-05 07:49 PM by spooky3
why would they think anyone would care about V. Wilson's occupation unless they were blowing her cover? I can't imagine that something like "Wilson's wife is a doctor" or "Wilson's wife is a teacher" would have made for riveting copy. As soon as they learned she was in the CIA, they are smart enough to know they had better be damn sure that spreading info about her in the press was not illegal, if their intentions were good.
They knew exactly what they were doing.
|
grasswire
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
8. they spread her name to stop her work |
Jai4WKC08
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
9. I think they did it to punish Wilson |
|
If a Democrat were elected president, in 04 or any time in the future, Wilson would have been a lock for an important ambassadorship. Once his wife was outed, all his chances for future office, or any diplomatic assignment overseas, were over. Forever.
It was a matter of pure vindicativeness. And a warning to others who might dare to expose what they were up to.
|
truth2power
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Oct-25-05 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
10. Yes. It wasn't about smearing Wilson.. |
|
It was about shutting down Brewster Jennings and the work they were doing on WMD proliferation. And Cheney was in it up to his neck.
I think this will eventually come out.
|
bbgrunt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Oct-26-05 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
11. Exactly, Truth2. Valerie was a side benefit. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 10:00 PM
Response to Original message |