Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I want to see the Washington Post print a very large retraction tomorrow..

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
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 11:35 AM
Original message
I want to see the Washington Post print a very large retraction tomorrow..
because if they don't they're going to have to call Valerie Plame Wilson a liar and back it up with proof. She has shot down every false meme that they've been repeating for months now.

I won't hold my breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
demnan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, but don't count on it
the arrogance of the people who produce that newspaper is so profound they believe they make their own reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AValdoux Donating Member (738 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 11:49 AM
Response to Original message
2. Here's their coverage today
They are still arguing her status. No mention of the CIA's statement that she was definitely covert and her statement that she had been outside the US on a covert mission in the last 5 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031600276_2.html


AValdoux
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CottonBear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. If the CIA said so and conducted an internal investigation into the leak
then what sentient being could not understand that she was, indeed, covert?

To admit this fact would mean that Bush, Cheney, et al , lied about WMDs in Iraq. It's as simple as that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Just the fact that CIA demanded the investigation of an agent's identity leak would
establish her status as a FACT.

IF the corporate media was interested in actual FACTS and not in protecting the election of Bush/Cheney2004 and their campaign storyline that this WH is run by men of integrity who are stoically protecting this nation's security.

Focking corporate media KNEW the truth about this story in the first month it all went down, but chose to play dumb and carry the WH's water for them for the 16 months before the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. That has been my point from the beginning
It was the CIA who requested that the Justice Department look into this and they did....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingloudly Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. Then why....
didn't Fitzgerald charge anybody with "outing a covert agent" since there is a law that specifically prohibits doing this? It seems that after a 2-year investigation (which he has now officially closed and said there is nothing further to investigate and has declined an offer to testify to the Congressional Cmte) that he would have uncovered the fact of her covert status and then charged someone for it.

This must be some kind of Rove conspiracy! I wonder what he has on Fitzgerald!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Fitzgerald actually addressed that...
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 12:20 PM by Virginia Dare
it was when he used the allegory of throwing sand in the umpire's face. I think Fitzgerald genuinely thought a crime had been committed, but because of Scooter Libby's perjury, he couldn't prove it.

My theory is that Dick Cheney was the one who deliberately divulged Valerie Plame's name, vis a vis Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, knowing full well her status. Libby and Rove covered for him, somebody covered for Rove, but Libby will go to jail for it, so it will never be proven.

Welcome to DU!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Because liars in the VP office prevented such a prosecution.
So far one of those liars has been convicted for both lying and obstructing justice.

Go back and fetch another talking point.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingloudly Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. but.....
Libby admitted he told reporters about Plame working at CIA. So did Rove! With such a confession, why couldn't they be prosecuted for "outing" her if she was "covert"? Why didn't they charge Armitage (who Woodward and Novak both said told them first, and he admitted it)? The sentencing recommendations for outing a covert agent are much harsher than perjury or obstruction. Why not hit him with the more serious charge (and Rove, too)?

Curioser and curiouser!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Justice was denied because Libby OBSTRUCTED it. What part of that is too difficult for you?
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 02:33 PM by dicksteele
I would have thought a guy with "multiple advanced degrees"
would be able to grasp such a simple concept.

Enjoy your time at DU. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. I think we have another one!
Toying with them is sooo much fun!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 03:58 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Definitely
I just checked all the previous posts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Because the statute requires intent
And it was on that point that the obstruction prevented the determination. It's amusing to see an ideologist like yourself mystified by something any 8 year old would understand, simply because your ideology blinds you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. First of all you have to prove intent
That is a hard thing to prove... Not that the crime was committed, but the intent to do the crime is what is prosecutable by law... If there was no intent, there should of been no problem with everyone telling the truth... There were problems with who said what to whom, who leaked what....

Also it does not hurt when you have the Pres and VP declassifying documents....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Virginia Dare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
22. If there was no crime, then why did Libby feel compelled to
lie? That's the curious part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
myrna minx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Fitzgerald had declared the investigation as "in-active" not closed.
Edited on Fri Mar-16-07 02:34 PM by myrna minx
The law in itself is so narrowly written that it is challenging to actually charge anyone with that specific crime. Libby obstructed the investigation, therefore Fitzgerald was unable to get to determine what crimes, if any, were committed. Unless Libby sings, the investigation is stalled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alcibiades_mystery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
11. Are you stupid or something?
The whole point of bringing obstruction of justice charges is because the convicted felon who obstructed justice prevented a determination on the underlying offense. Fitzgerald has NEVER said that there was no underlying crime, so don't be a liar or an imbecile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I vote for "or something".
KnowhutImean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yes, Virginia, there really is a free press in America
Sorry, couldn't resist.:) I'll wait with you and hope for the best.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
17. WaPo's ombudsman needs to change his title to I'mAButtMan
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Heh - I'mWhiHoButtMan
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
18. That would require integrity, and
I've been waiting for just about 8 years for them to come out and apologize to Al Gore for their non-stop slanders to no avail, apparently integrity is out of fashion with them.

I don't blame you for not holding your breath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-16-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
23. Bob Woodward is a lying criminal. They will protect him until
he takes them down.
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 Thu May 02nd 2024, 04:22 PM
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