Comments on: Reason No. 384 Why I Love Our Commenters

By: Jeany

Jeany — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 04:18:34 +0000

Foolish. Now there’s an interesting choice of word.

By: bob atkinson

bob atkinson — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:16:56 +0000

Sort of OT but does anyone know why Valerie makes no mention of the hundreds of UNSCOM inspectors that had been on the ground for months in Iraq pre invasion in her book. Having been one of the main CIA persons struggling to find out what was really going on inside the country while having virtually no agents (humint) on the ground one would think she would have touched on the fact in her book that we finally had hundreds of professionals working in the light of day to uncover what had only been suspect by the CIA up till then.

By: Steve Kelso

Steve Kelso — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:54:51 +0000

ARMITAGE: Well, even Mr. Novak has said that he used the word “operative” and misused it. No one ever said “operative.” And I not only assumed it, as I say, I’ve never seen a covered agent’s name in a memo. However, that doesn’t take away from what Mrs. Plame said, it was foolish, yeah. Sure it was.

BLITZER: So you agree with her on that. ARMITAGE: Yeah. Absolutely.

BLITZER: So, then the question is: Why? Why did you do it?

Except Wolfie never asked that question. Not even close.

By: Anna Keppa

Anna Keppa — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:20:41 +0000

“Congress is awaiting the Judiciary Committee vote while the White House is negotiating furiously to exonerate the telecoms. The lawsuits won’t proceed till Congress acts.”

Sorry, but that’s apples and oranges. Congress has already given the admin an additional six months essentially to continue their current program. They didn’t declare it illegal.

The telecoms issue is different: the Bush admin
granted immunity to the telecoms companies, and Congress is considering whether to continue that practice. Some Dems want to retroactively withdraw immunity, but lots of problems lurk there, in that the Executive, not the Legislature, has primacy here, AND, if the immunity were legislatively rescinded telecoms could argue they are being subject to unconstitutional ex post facto applications of the law.

“Why would they ask for immunity if no laws were broken? That would only make sense to a Bush apologist with logical impairment and a gullet full of Kool-Aid.”

As I said, they had already been granted immunity by the Executive and some in Congress are now trying to take it away. But if the Executive has the underlying authority to perform the surveillance, and asks private companies to assist it, then what exactly are the companies guilty of? What laws did THEY break?

I suggest you check your facts, not just your premises.

By: Kevin Hayden

Kevin Hayden — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:25:08 +0000

Anna Keppa @ 87

If what’s being done is “illegal”, where is Congress? Where are the ACLU lawsuits?

Face it, you’re holding a suitcase full of helium.

Congress is awaiting the Judiciary Committee vote while the White House is negotiating furiously to exonerate the telecoms. The lawsuits won’t proceed till Congress acts.

Why would they ask for immunity if no laws were broken? That would only make sense to a Bush apologist with logical impairment and a gullet full of Kool-Aid.

By: Frank Probst

Frank Probst — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 21:20:20 +0000

ARMITAGE: Not only assumed it, that’s what the message said, that she was publicly chairing a meeting.
—————————
Are you fucking kidding me? As far as I know, the CIA doesn’t “publicly chair” meetings. Valerie Plame was not running a meeting in the CIA’s public lobby (”On our left, you can see a CIA agent of unclear status discussing a recent mission to Niger.”), and it didn’t air on CSPAN.

Armitage got her identity from a classified document. And the reason he didn’t know her identity already was that the CIA didn’t want him to know. He was played–brilliantly–by Rove and Libby, and he STILL doesn’t seem to get it.

By: Anna Keppa

Anna Keppa — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:14:04 +0000

Wilderness, as I predicted you can come up with no specific examples of adverse consequences. If you think the billions of
“unfiltered” communications made daily in this country can be listened to/read/monitored, you are well and truly a LOON. If what’s being done is “illegal”, where is Congress? Where are the ACLU lawsuits?

Face it, you’re holding a suitcase full of helium.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:19:22 +0000

Someone asked about the INR (State Department Intelligence) memo that was seen by Armitage. This was produced by Carl Ford on June 10th, Armitage saw it on June 12th, and met with Woodward on June 13th, 2003.

http://wid.ap.org/documents/li.....3/DX71.pdf

Note that every page has “Secret” Classification on it. The “provisionally declassified” labels were placed on the document AFTER they were declassified FOR the Libby trial. There are also blacked out notations next to the “Secret” or “Top Secret” Classifications separated by a slash and marked out.

The additional Classification notifications apparently contained the names of the operations or additional restrictions….such as limitations to a particular Department or sub-section, or restriction to a particular level.

http://dkosopedia.com/wiki/Classified_information

By: wilderness wino

wilderness wino — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:35:30 +0000

go to livelink.com or just google at&t data stream intercept to see what type of illegal spying has really been going on.
I don’t post here to get in long arguments with people that won’t even be around after the shit really hits the fan…

By: wilderness wino

wilderness wino — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:27:56 +0000

I am refering to the fact that they heve been capturing the entire unfiltered data streams fop all communications in, through, and out of the USA.
Let me find the link for you.
Oh ya the link is in the secret room at AT&T