Washington Post on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame

[Mavafanculo]

"In an October 27, 2005 appearance on Larry King Live, Bob Woodward commented on the Plame investigation by stating "They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that [former ambassador] Joe Wilson's wife [Plame] was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage. They did not have to pull anyone out undercover abroad. They didn't have to resettle anyone. There was no physical danger to anyone, and there was just some embarrassment."[53] In an October 28, 2005 appearance on Hardball, Andrea Mitchell was quoted as saying "I happen to have been told that the actual damage assessment as to whether people were put in jeopardy on this case did not indicate that there was real damage in this specific instance."[54]

LOL

.....However, two days later (from above) , Woodward's own newspaper reported that the CIA initially found the damage "serious enough to warrant an investigation," and stated that the agency typically waits until the conclusion of criminal investigations to launch formal damage assessments.

In an October 29 article by staff writer Dafna Linzer, headlined "CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure," the Post reported that the CIA "has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted." Linzer also wrote that the CIA indicated in a written questionnaire submitted to the Justice Department in 2003 that the resulting damage from the leak of Plame's identity was serious.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511010002

 

[Phenom78]

LOL

.....However, two days later (from above) , Woodward's own newspaper reported that the CIA initially found the damage "serious enough to warrant an investigation," and stated that the agency typically waits until the conclusion of criminal investigations to launch formal damage assessments.

In an October 29 article by staff writer Dafna Linzer, headlined "CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure," the Post reported that the CIA "has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted." Linzer also wrote that the CIA indicated in a written questionnaire submitted to the Justice Department in 2003 that the resulting damage from the leak of Plame's identity was serious.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511010002

For your own edification bra.

The CIA is not a judicial body. Any claim of a cime, whether it be an intelligence leak, or things less serious, are routinely sent to the Justice Dept for investigation. it in fact happens dozens of times every year, overwhelmingly to a finding that nothing occured of a criminal nature.

This is especially true when half the Congress is demanding an investigation of what happened (see Shumer's letter among others to the CIA Director).

No one is telling you to change your views Bra. Just to establish them, whatever they may turn out to be, in a sensical and rational manner. Part of that involves questioning your sources, and another part involves familiarizing yourself with how things operate. That way you won't be so easily mislead and propogandized.

 

[gjohnson5]

Yep , it always raises a red flag when people start retracting thier own statements. Maybe the initial statements were lies. It's easy enough to call someone else a liar, but when one lowers his own credibility by making conflicting statements , that means there is alot to analyze there...

Bob Woodward claimed that the CIA has completed a damage assessment related to the outing of agency operative Valerie Plame and found its detrimental effects to be "quite minimal." However, two days later, Woodward's own newspaper reported that the CIA initially found the damage "serious enough to warrant an investigation," and stated that the agency typically waits until the conclusion of criminal investigations to launch formal damage assessments.

LOL

.....However, two days later (from above) , Woodward's own newspaper reported that the CIA initially found the damage "serious enough to warrant an investigation," and stated that the agency typically waits until the conclusion of criminal investigations to launch formal damage assessments.

In an October 29 article by staff writer Dafna Linzer, headlined "CIA Yet to Assess Harm From Plame's Exposure," the Post reported that the CIA "has not conducted a formal damage assessment, as is routinely done in cases of espionage and after any legal proceedings have been exhausted." Linzer also wrote that the CIA indicated in a written questionnaire submitted to the Justice Department in 2003 that the resulting damage from the leak of Plame's identity was serious.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200511010002

 

[Mavafanculo]

......Then you presented them in an elephantine manner hoping to give them a credibility which they individually lack. I also suggest you did so because no credible news organization would print those views, and therefore you couldnt find any to quote.

Read the rest. A report from numerous former Intel Officials, the Wash Post on its NEWS pages (vs the non-news editorial pages), and on and on and on.....

My work here is done. Your position is toasted.

Damage, direct and indirect, current and future was done.

I ask again, acceptable to correct a political lie?

Wilson is a distraction a chosen villain to focus the rightwing echochambers venom.

Wilson doesnt matter.

Again, assume Wilson is the Incubus and a Bullshit artist (but per above even the report yo keep citing when you cut tru the distractions says he told the truth and was correct on the only stuff that matters) -->

Was the damage acceptable (edit-> in your opinion) to correct Wilson's arguendo political "lie" ???????


The question wont go away until you answer it.

 

[gjohnson5]

The problem is that it requres another leak from inside the Bush Administration to answer it. It is a common practice in the military to consider people "expendible"

But to lower, damage, and compromise you own information colleciton abilities is unheardof as far as I know

Was the damage acceptable to correct the political "lie"


The question wont go away until you answer it.

 

[Mavafanculo]

This is pretty straight foward.

Woodward:
"In an October 27, 2005 appearance on Larry King Live, Bob Woodward commented on the Plame investigation by stating "They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that [former ambassador] Joe Wilson's wife [Plame] was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage.


His own paper on NEWS pages 2 days later:
.....However, two days later (from above) , Woodward's own newspaper reported that the CIA initially found the damage "serious enough to warrant an investigation,

-

 

[gjohnson5]

Yep , just read and posted that. It's is a retraction of ones own statements which means that this person credibility is shot. it matters not where the source of his information comes from

This is pretty straight foward.

Woodward:
"In an October 27, 2005 appearance on Larry King Live, Bob Woodward commented on the Plame investigation by stating "They did a damage assessment within the CIA, looking at what this did that [former ambassador] Joe Wilson's wife [Plame] was outed. And turned out it was quite minimal damage.


His own paper on NEWS pages 2 days later:
.....However, two days later (from above) , Woodward's own newspaper reported that the CIA initially found the damage "serious enough to warrant an investigation,

-

 

[Mavafanculo]

The problem is that it requres another leak from inside the Bush Administration to answer it. It is a common practice in the military to consider people "expendible"

But to lower, damage, and compromise you own information colleciton abilities is unheardof as far as I know

No, I mean does Phenom666 consider it acceptable collateral damage.

-

 

[Mavafanculo]

No

I quoted generally credible sources. The Washington Post for example is such an organization.

But if you'd like I can go quote Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to counter your propoganda?

You quoted a fucking editorialist author shill - The NEWS PAGES from that credible source contradict him and you.

Fuck. You're worse than Hannity lol. There could be video of Cheney biting the head off a baby and you and him would still try to spin it.

 

[Phenom78]

Read the rest. A report from numerous former Intel Officials, the Wash Post on its NEWS pages (vs the non-news editorial pages), and on and on and on.....

My work here is done. Your position is toasted.

Damage, direct and indirect, current and future was done.

I ask again, acceptable to correct a political lie?

Wilson is a distraction a chosen villain to focus the rightwing echochambers venom.

Wilson doesnt matter.

Again, assume Wilson is the Incubus and a Bullshit artist (but per above even the report yo keep citing when you cut tru the distractions says he told the truth and was correct on the only stuff that matters) -->

Was the damage acceptable (edit-> in your opinion) to correct the political "lie"


The question wont go away until you answer it.

LOL

You still haven't documented any damage. You found quotes from some guy who claims (in contradiction to various others) that there was damage. he was so credible that they only sources you could find for his claims were blog sites and left wing radical opinion sites.

That would tell most intelligent people, you apparently being the exception, that there was something wrong with his testimony/credibility.

The Washington Post article you quoted references a request by the CIA to have the Justice Dept. investigate serious charges, not coincidentally brought by the democrats, that damage was done. It does not document or assert actual damage done. There is no contradiction.

The only contradictio is your own who first represents that no in depth investigation was performed, even asserting that the lack was a Bush conspiracy, and that was why no credible assessment of damage is known.

You then contradict yourself by attempting to assert that the CIA did in fact investigate, and found evidence of serrious damage.


LMFAO

This all in one thread.

You can't even follow your own reasoning, never mind what is transpiring in this case.