When you don't have facts just make them up.  

A few facts --

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/ ... 0953.shtml

A week after Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald announced that his investigation had been unable to establish that Valerie Plame was a "covert" CIA agent at the time she was "outed" by columnist Robert Novak, the press continues to refer to her using the bogus term.

Asked about Plame's "covert" status, Fitzgerald told reporters:

"I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward . . . We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."

• Richard Armitage, a LIBERAL, anti-war employee of the State Department revealed Valerie Plame's employment by the CIA to Novak.  
• Scooter Libby, was never charged with outing Valerie Plame.  No one was ever charged in spite of the fact that Armitage admitted to it.  For some reason Fitzgerald is content to have railroaded Libby for some thing he knew Armitage committed.  [Scooter is however guilty of having a really stupid name for an assistant to the VEEP.]
• Fitzgerald knew that Libby didn't "leak" Plame's identity well before he pursued criminal charges against him.  Most people call knowingly prosecuting a man for a crime he didn't commit to be prosecutorial misconduct.  Anybody remember Mike Nifong?  
• As late as April 2007, the CIA could not provide an answer to Rep. Hoekstra [Ranking Republican on the House Intel Committee] seeking to define Ms. Plame's status.  The answer from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of the "considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."  
• Libby was convicted on March 6, 2007, a month before the CIA admited they still couldn't decide if Ms. Plame was covert or not by the standards of the IIPA

Article Link 1 and Article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01572.html

Armitage's Leak

By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, September 14, 2006

When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week that he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state's interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he "thought" might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column.

An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of his being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration's war policy, and I had long opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.

A peculiar convergence had joined Armitage and me on the same historic path. During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview. I tried to see him in the first 2 1/2 years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me -- summarily and with disdain, I thought.

Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage's office said the deputy secretary would see me. This was two weeks before Joe Wilson outed himself as author of a 2002 report for the CIA debunking Iraqi interest in buying uranium in Africa.

I sat down with Armitage in his State Department office the afternoon of July 8 with tacit rather than explicit ground rules: deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even to an anonymous State Department official. Consequently, I refused to identify Armitage as my leaker until his admission was forced by "Hubris," a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn that absolutely identified him.

Late in my hour-long interview with Armitage, I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson -- who lacked intelligence experience, nuclear policy expertise or recent contact with Niger -- on the African mission. He told The Post last week that his answer was: "I don't know, but I think his wife worked out there."

Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA's Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission. As for his current implication that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson's role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column -- implying to me that it continued reporting Washington inside information.

Valerie Plame Wilson's name appeared in my column July 14, 2003, but it was not until Oct. 1 that I was contacted about it by Armitage, indirectly. Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's close friend and political adviser, called me to say that the deputy secretary feared he had "inadvertently" (the word Armitage used in last week's interviews) disclosed Mrs. Wilson's identity to me in July and was considering resignation. (Duberstein's phone call was disclosed in the Isikoff-Corn book, which used Duberstein as a source. They reported that Duberstein was responsible for arranging my unexpected interview with Armitage.)

Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage's current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was "no partisan gunslinger."

Armitage's silence for the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's request, that does not explain his silent three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald's appointment on Dec. 30, 2003. Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.

© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Article Link 2 and Portion of Article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

Columnist Robert Novak revealed that former Deputy Secretary of State, and Bush administration's internal Iraq war critic, Richard Armitage was the source of "the leak" about Plame's status. Neither Armitage nor anyone else has been charged with revealing Plame's CIA cover status.

Libby trial

On March 6, 2007, Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, making false statements, and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one count of making false statements. He was not charged for revealing Wilson's CIA status. His sentence included a $250,000 fine, 30 months in prison and two years of probation. On July 2, 2007, President George W. Bush commuted Libby's sentence, removing the jail term but leaving in place the fine and probation, calling the sentence "excessive."[43][44] In a subsequent press conference, on July 12, 2007, Bush noted, "...the Scooter Libby decision was, I thought, a fair and balanced decision."[45] The Wilsons responded to the commutation in statements posted by their legal counsel, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), and on their own legal support website.

Article Link 3 - You need to read the whole thing to make any sense of it.  

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2 ... e_pla.html

Fitzgerald refused to seek legal clarification on the issue of the applicability of the IIPA to Plame.  In the end, it was so only because he said it was so even though the CIA couldn't provide legal clarification of her covert status in April of 2007!  That was a month AFTER Scooter got railroaded!

Well, he was pleading his case yesterday in another forum.  I guess the moderators zapped an entire topic.  

Of course that is about the time "Pol Pot," aka "Joe Stalin" made their appearance.  Coincidence?  I wonder.  I think we shall see TagGoober at least once more.  He hasn't issued his parting flame where he demands we "leave Britney alone!!!"

I suspect he is like a bad burrito and will keep coming back and smell up the joint with each appearance.

Never accept the false premises offered by Dems.  Don't start you rebuttal by accepting the lies they tell.  Rush is good at shooting down the lies that form the foundation of Dem arguments.  (Hannity needs to learn this because he fails in this regard all the time.)

And to further clarify the facts of the case, Bob Novak made this release today.  Please, if anyone thinks "Scooter" Libby is guilty after reading this just pull out your Reynolds Wrap and cover your entire head with it.  

Novak Spanks McClellan for Lying About Plame.

Bob Novak wrote:McClellan at the White House podium never knew the facts about the CIA leak, and his memoir reads as though he has tried to maintain his ignorance. He omits Armitage's slipping Mrs. Wilson's identity to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to me. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.

McClellan writes that Rove told him this about his conversation with me after I called him to check Armitage's leak: "He (Novak) said he'd heard that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. I told him I couldn't confirm it because I didn't know." Rove told me last week he never said that to McClellan. Under oath, Rove had testified he told me, "I heard that, too." Under oath, I testified that Rove said, "Oh, you know that, too."

McClellan writes, "I don't know" whether the leaker -- he does not specify Armitage -- committed a felony. He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.

FACT:  Fitzgerald knew the source of the "non-leak leak" from the very beginning yet Fitzgerald prosecuted Libby for a crime Fitzgerald knew Libby did not commit.  
FACT:  There was no violation of the IIPA as Plame was not "covert."  The CIA confirmed this to a House Republican leader as late as April 2007!  
FACT:  Only and idiot, or a Democrat Party operative, could continue to maintain Valerie Plame was "outted."

First of all,paleocon, you ARE TABUGA, and SO, its ENTIRELY UP TO YOU when he comes here, or WHEN HE DOESNT.

Its very interesting how you are the only one who POSTS A FOUR PAGE RESPONSE to all of his accustaions, and he ALWAYS RESPONDS or DOES NOT RESPOND, in a GIVEN TOPIC, WHEN ITS CONVIENENT FOR  YOU

Hey Dittohead..Could you please check the IP Addresses to put this to bed.

SoldiersMum wrote:Hey Dittohead..Could you please check the IP Addresses to put this to bed.

That would be excellent. And VERY EMBARASSING if im wrong.