Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (173696)	10/31/2005 1:58:51 AM
From: Harvey Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Leak led to threats against CIA agent, husband reveals By David Usborne in New York Published: 31 October 2005 After her role as an undercover agent for the Central Intelligence Agency was leaked to journalists in 2003, Valerie Plame not only had to scramble to protect her colleagues and her operations, she was also faced with threats to her own safety, Joe Wilson, her husband, has disclosed. In his first interview since charges in the CIA leak scandal were filed on Friday against Lewis Libby, 55, who has quit as chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney, Mr Wilson told the CBS current affairs programme60 Minutes that his wife felt like she had been "hit in the stomach" when her cover was blown. The indictment sets the stage for either a trial next spring or a plea bargain that almost certainly would mean jail time for Mr Libby. A source close to the investigation told Time magazine that the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and Mr Libby's lawyer discussed possible plea options before the indictment was issued last week. But the deal was scotched because the prosecutor insisted that Mr Libby do some "serious" jail time. Several intelligence specialists spoke out at the weekend about the gravity of what had been done to Ms Plame, who joined the CIA as a case officer two decades ago, when she was 22 years old. It's the "moral equivalent to exposing forward-deployed military units," said Arthur Brown, who retired in February as the CIA's Asian Division chief. Mr Libby, who is expected to begin testifying to prosecutors this week, was charged on Friday with perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements in the course of an investigation into whether the White House deliberately disclosed Ms Plame's CIA role. The implication is that it was getting back at Mr Wilson, a diplomat, who had publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting the facts before going to war in Iraq. President Bush will try to claw his way back this week from a politically calamitous string of events. His first priority will be to announce a new nominee for the US Supreme Court. His first choice, Harriet Miers, withdrew her nomination last week after a rebellion among some of the President's conservative backers. Mr Bush's new choice could be revealed as early as this morning. It is widely assumed that he will select a person with long experience on the bench. Ms Miers was considered a "stealth nominee" because she had never served as a judge and had no public positions on social issues such as abortion. In the 60 Minutes interview, due to be broadcast last night, Mr Wilson spoke for the first time of the danger confronted by his wife. "There have been specific threats," he said, but declined to elaborate. " Beyond that I just can't go on," he said. Mr Wilson also sought to dispel any impression that it was somehow well known that his wife was an agent and that her exposure might therefore have been unimportant. He and only three others knew, he insisted. "Very few people outside the intelligence community" were aware of it, he said, " her parents and her brother, essentially". Her name first appeared in print in a July 2003 column by Robert Novak. The CIA demanded an investigation by a special prosecutor, which led to the charges against Mr Libby. Jim Marcinkowski, a former CIA agent who trained with Ms Plame, explained the ramifications. "If a CIA agent is exposed, then everyone coming in contact with that agent is exposed," he said. He added that it also makes it harder in future for the CIA to use the spouses of ambassadors as agents. As for the CIA, it is still assessing the damage that was done by the leak of Ms Plame's name. news.independent.co.uk

To: greenspirit who wrote (173696)	10/31/2005 2:26:55 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Cummings, re: "Ok, fine, if I'm setting up a strawman, then please explain to me and this board how your foreign policy decisions related to war would work Ed?. And try and give me something concrete to go on instead of fuzzy words like "lack of support". In other words, tell me how it would work? At what point do we as a nation move our troops out and declare we no longer support the mission? Tell me who will be the harbinger of this decision? And how? Because, from what I've witnessed, we just had a Presidential election and BOTH candidates ran on finishing the job in Iraq. The only candidates who ran on pulling our troops out didn't even make it through the primaries from BOT parties!. In other words, your candidates lost and lost BIG. You evidently can't help mixing apples and oranges. I've already explained that the public has the last word. They have the last word in electing, or not electing, those representatives who reflect their views, in refusing to serve in an all-volunteer service and in exercising their rights of free speech and assembly to voice their opinions on the war. That's the power of the public. The public does not set policy and the public does not implement it. Our elected officials run the country. That's the power of the elected officials. Now can you figure out "how your foreign policy decisions related to war would work?" What do polls have to do with the power of the elected officials? Nothing, at least not until election day. On election day good polls mean they get reelected, bad polls mean that new guys get to set the policies and implement them. Don't confuse the question of whether the public recognizes poor leadership on election day, however, with the question of whether the leadership is poor. Our elected leaders have the obligation to make wise choices regardless of whether the polls say that the public wants to move in that direction or in some other direction. Good and wise leaders make their best decision, not the decision of the majority. That's true leadership and true courage. What isn't true leadership and true courage is using the full power of the federal government to create blatant misinformation, deception and fears to keep the voting public fearful, misinformed and deceived for the purpose of winning elections. Valerie Plame ring any bells? Wmds in Iraq win any bells? Highest terrorist alert ring any bells? Iraq a terrorist haven ring any bells? Unmanned drones chemically attacking American cities ring any bells? Mushroom cloud ring any bells? Yellowcake from Niger ring any bells? Kerry's a weak kneed, lying traitor ring any bells? McCain's broke under pressure, is mentally unstable and has a black child ring any bells? Terrorists will take over Iraq if we leave ring any bells? Flowers and open arms ring any bells? No insurgency, just a few foreign fighters ring any bells? No systematic abuse of the Geneva conventions, just a few bad apples ring any bells? I'm sure there's much more; just make a list of all the things you "know" and you'll have a pretty good starting point. But, as history has shown and as the current polls seem to indicate, you can fool the public for a while but even us dumb shits will finally see that spin is spin and reality is reality. In case you can't figure out what that means, it means that those of you who still buy the spin and the spinners are soon going to find yourselves wandering aimlessly through a morass of fractured thinking an your way toward a trailer park on the edge of town. Ed