Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

please check out this thread....has this been debunked

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
pepperbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:18 PM
Original message
please check out this thread....has this been debunked
or is this the debunker?

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17446

Wilson "admits" wife not a covert agent

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA, and that you've tried to enrich yourself writing this book and all of that.

What do you make of those accusations, which are serious accusations, as you know, that have been leveled against you.

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

BLITZER: But she hadn't been a clandestine officer for some time before that?

WILSON: That's not anything that I can talk about. And, indeed, I'll go back to what I said earlier, the CIA believed that a possible crime had been committed, and that's why they referred it to the Justice Department. She was not a clandestine officer at the time that that article in Vanity Fair appeared. And I have every right to have the American public know who I am and not to have myself defined by those who would write the sorts of things that are coming out, being spewed out of the mouths of the RNC...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
swag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Talk about misconstruing.
What Wilson is saying is that as soon as Novak blew her cover, she ceased to be covert.

Fucking duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Usual taking a comment out of context and "using" it as proof. Amb Wilson
was saying that once Novak outed her, she at that point had her cover blown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. meaning once her cover was blown, theres nothing left to hide
Wilson wrote the book and everything else AFTER her cover was blown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pepperbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. thanks guys! leave it to freeper. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
5. Triple jinx! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BOSSHOG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. I recall that was debunked
Merely by the semantics and proving that English is the hardest language on the earth.

In other words: the day novak exposed her identity she was no longer clandestine.

Wilson admitted no such thing and hannity continues to make a living on the ignorant trash which populate our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. Man they just love to twist his words, but he should have been a
bit more clear. "My wife ceased to be clandestine when Bob Novak blew her identity." The Vanity Fair article came after the outing. The damage to National Security was so severe that they can't even tell you how bad it was. Brewster Jennings, where Plame worked was a 20 year undercover operation that was blown to get revenge on a guy for telling the truth. We will probably never know the extent of the damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGKrebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. It's just so sad that people would have to be so careful
with their words that there could not be any misrepresentation no matter how they are parsed. In fact, it's probably impossible. It is almost unbearable that some people (like Hannity) would purposely misrepresent these words with such an important issue. He is deliberately deceiving his listeners to further a political agenda. This is very much the reason why there aren't enough people upset about this administration to effect a change. The water is sufficiently muddied to create enough doubt (unjustified as it may be) to keep people from getting too pissed off. Hannity and his rat pack are willing to sacrifice our justice system, much of our Constitution, and many American lives to try to prevent Republican electoral losses. EVEN if they believe that Dem wins are disastrous (which I am sure they do), at some point you would think they have to look up and realize that they are destroying the very principles they claim to defend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Pathetic isn't it? I mean the woman is working to keep nukes
out of the hands of terrorists, the very thing the righties are trying to scare us with, then they feign ignorance and pretend one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr. Death Donating Member (639 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Agreed, but as we've also seen,
if people are so careful that their words cannot be misconstrued, Hannity and his ilk will simply make up statements.

So you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
90-percent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. extent of the damage
The extent of the damage equals how many moles working with Brewster Jennings got murdered by powerful people not happy with being spied upon.

I've seen some speculation that maybe approx 10 folks trying to help the USA got killed as a result of Valerie Wilson's outing by Novak?

And also the real number of dead courtesy of Bob Novak is classified and may never be known!

-85% jimmy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
8. Another alternative interpretation
I'm not sure which is the correct one, since I can't recall how/if he clarified it. But his remarks could also be interpreted as meaning that she wasn't specifically undercover at the time she was outed, meaning she wasn't on assignment in a foreign country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
12. She was NOC. Once her cover was blown, she can never be again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoGOPZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-28-07 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
13. debunked many times
From Patrick Fitzgerald's press conference announcing the indictment of Libby.


Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community.

Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life.

FITZGERALD: The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well- known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security.

Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 05:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC