DomKen
Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
Her husband had outed her long before in his book.
When you get your info from liars you are bound to be wrong.
You are aware, are you not, that she was an analyst, not an operative?
And what was the name of this book and on what date was it published?
A politics of Truth 2004
It was no secret that she worked at Langley, and that she was an analyst, not an operative.
I did the same thing in the Air Force at NSA, so trust me, I know the difference.
She was outed by Cheney and Rove in 2003 which is before 2004 so she was not outed by her husband.
She was an operative. She had a cover job and had traveled overseas extensively. At the time of her outing she claimed to work for Brewster Jennings and Associates which had an address not at Langley.
Just because she did not do sabotage does not mean she did not have a protected identity as evidenced by the cover job.
Then why was it an "open secret" that she worked for CIA. It was a well known fact before Cheney and Rov were accused of outing her.
And they were cleared, you forget that.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
pay special attention to the Robert Novac part of this.
What the Wilsons say is what they want to believe, and what you want to believe.
And it has absolutely nothing to do with Benghazi.
See my where I explained the OJ defense to Politesub.
Let's boil this done to facts and not Republican spin.
Wilson did not out his wife because in 2004 when the book came out she had already been outed by Cheney and Rove (the facts are that somebody with clearance told Scooter and Cooper testified that Rove did out her, who told Rove of course remains a "mystery").
Novak can claim she was an analyst but that is also untrue by the facts. She had a cover job and had traveled extensively working in combating nuclear proliferation. While much of the details of her career with the CIA remains classified we do know she worked undercover both as a consular officer in Athens and that she worked as an "energy consultant" for the front company Brewster Jennings in the mid 90's in Brussels and again in the 2001 to 2003 period based out of D.C.. When Novak wrote that she worked for the CIA he ended her career and the careers of every CIA officer who had Brewster Jennings as a cover job or on their resumes and endangered the lives of every foreign contact of all those people. Do you really believe that the CIA would go to the trouble of creating a front company if the fact that Plame worked for the CIA was not classified?
As to it not being about Benghazi I made a statement of fact about W and you rushed to his defense so I felt it necessary to try and bring some reality to you on this.
Having you guide me to reality is like having de Sade guide me to compassion.
So only the word of someone who changed her story every time it came up is valid to you.
If you cannot dispute the facts then what is there to even argue about.
You were wrong about the book. You were wrong about her being only an analyst. You were about Cheney.
It is long past time to accept this, the evidence is overwhelming that the W White House for strictly the basest of reasons outed a CIA agent involved in counter proliferation and in so doing ended the careers of a number of other agents and likely got US assets killed. That is what the Republican special prosecutor found.
You are complaining about me not accepting a truly asinine and unsupported conspiracy theory about Benghazi but you are rejecting overwhelming documentary evidence in the Plame scandal. What am I supposed to make of that?
|
RE: Benghazi - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread