Regarding Armitage, Novak, and the Wilson's Civil Case ...

DUers likely have read the recent columns by Bob Novak, pointing at Dick Armitage as having played a greater role in the leak case than Armitage has claimed.( "Novak: Real Story behind Armitage's role/ 9-13; "The real story behind the Armitage story"/ 9-14; Chicago Sun-Times) Likewise, Armitage "in an interview yesterday, said he stood by his account and disputed Novak's" ("Novak Accuses Plame Source of Distortion: Armitage Minimizes Role in Leak"/ 9-14; Wash.Post)

For some interesting, perhaps more accurate information on this brewing conflict, DUers may be interested in the 9-13 CREW Press Release announcing the Wilsons have added Mr. Armitage to the civil suit:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=154

Also please see the 9-13 Amended Complaint, filed in US District Court:

http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/091306ArmitageAmendedComplaintFinal.pdf

Enjoy!

The news almost slipped under the radar yesterday.

interview with BuzzFlash on 9-12-06, Ambassador Wilson stated, "Either the press is willfully ignorant, or they're complicit in the White House campaign. I think certainly in the case of the Washington Post and Mr. Broder, they're complicit."

They've crossed the line from being willfully ignorant. There is still so much more here that we have yet to discover and if the news media has its way, it will end up being classified information for the next 20 yrs or so.

was ever "willfully ignorant". They have been bought and paid for for a long long time......project Mockingbird (CIA infiltrating media) started in the 1950's.

and if I see one more "we need to apologize to Rove" editorial I am going to :puke:

to apologize to Rove: "(Broder) begins by saying that everybody behaved badly, particularly me and Mr. Fitzgerald. And we owe Karl Rove an apology. Of course, we know from testimony that Mr. Rove was, in fact, the original source for Time magazine. We have read excerpts from Hubris, and I know from my own conversations, that Rove was calling Chris Matthews and saying my wife was fair game, and Hubris will report that Rove also told Matthews that, to paraphrase, 'Wilson screwed the White House. Now they are going to screw the Wilsons.' Again I go back to what my friend said: What they have done to Valerie was treason. So, how do we owe Rove an apology?"
-- BuzzFlash interview; 9-12-06

Verbal Self-Defense" and the books which followed that one. According to the author, all the logical replies only keep the abuse going. (I never have figured out how to stop it, but.....)

Of course, Joe Wilson, etc., are absolutely correct. The problem is, we haven't caught on to actually how to play the game.

It's verbal warfare.

edit: woefully, I got in the wrong name...:blush:

should study the debating tactics of Minister Malcolm X.

his speeches.

Good suggestion!

examples of Malcolm's art is found in the classic book "Malcolm X Speaks." (Merit; 1965) Chapter XIV is "Confrontation With an 'Expert'." It is Malcolm's last appearance on the airwaves, and it is wonderful. Chapter XV is his "Last Answers and Interviews," which is also filled with outstanding examples of his ability to respond to any question with an answer that promoted his viewpoint. Malcolm was never defensive.

"Malcolm X: By Any Means Necessary" (Pathfinder; 1970) is similar to "Malcolm X Speaks." It has a lot of good questions & answers.

"Malcolm X: Speeches at Harvard" by Archie Epps (Paragon House; 1991) has some fascinating give-and-take with college audience members.

Also, if possible, there are a series of LPs of Malcolm's speeches that are a pleasure to listen to. I'm obviously dating myself here. I'm thinking that with today's modern technology, they must be available in other formats.

I was in the library when I read your reply, so I looked it up, found it was in this branch, and checked it out. I'm really looking forward to delving into it.

I requested the Harvard Speeches one, and that should be available in a few days.

I'd really like a video, but I have two movies of him, and neither one shows a lot of his speeches.

Yanno, this is a great idea, and since speech is such an important facet of getting our country back, and there isn't much besides Lakoff and the "Verbal Self-Defense" books I mentioned, would you consider doing a "group" here on some of these skills, inspired by Malcolm X? Sorta like what you did with the Plame threads. I know it would be a lot of work on your part, but I think it would be most helpful to us, and filling a huge need.

I hope you'll consider that.

Thanks again for the ideas. :hi:

When I used to take part in public debates, I would often spend some of my preparation time listening to Malcolm, or reading from the books I listed, or some others. Maybe I could go through some of those materials, and see if I could come up with some things that would be of interest to other DUers. I know that there are other folks here who could add a lot to the discussion, as well. That could be fun.

material available, and verbal violence is more and more a problem.

It's a horrible problem for me and other poor folk, as we have to endure so much ugliness when we go for "help". I've suggested to a couple of clergy that a verbal non-violence class, and how to protect yourself against this abuse would be a great service to those of us who get so much of this.

In my dirtyhippiecommiepinkobum days, we would have non-violence training, but it focused on dealing with "the other side", and now, as one can see from any glimpse of DU, there is as much verbal violence with each other as from outside influences. That BADLY needs to be addressed, and ideas of how not to become a doormat, yet not be violent in return.

And, of course, we are dealing with so much of the more sophisticated verbally-violent attacks in the media, and being parroted by dittoheads, etc. It would be really nice to have a bit more self-confidence with these crappy things. :)

Again, I appreciate the effort it would take on your part, and adapting it to online format, but I think it would be filling a very large need. I certainly didn't find the books available to be of much help. :(

He was part of the wrecking crew. Also glad that we can watch this case unfold, unlike the secrecy of the Fitzgerald investigation.

and will be forced to give a deposition, for there is much info and nuggets of truth to be gleaned there. I differ from you in that I don't think RA was part of the wrecking crew, per se. My contention has always been that Powell was being set up and RA was trying to muddy those particular waters. Now that isn't to say he hasn't been involved in some dirty deeds in his career and can be a fierce guy. But his loyalty to Powell has been and is absolute and he despises the way Powell was treated.

The picture of him being a big gossip has been as much dis-info as anything else in this matter. It seeks to make this just an oh so innocent mistake, where a couple of guys were having a cup of tea and nattering like two old ladies and, oh my goodness, it just slipped out.

If I find time today, I will send a letter of apology to Rove for considering him a treasonous, scum snake who looks like a pig and behaves like a cockroach and for telling everyone I can how I believe he should be interred in the "black hole of Calcutta". Oh wait, I have a nail that desperately needs to be filed. Perhaps my schedule will be lighter tomorrow and I can do it then.

*shadow government*

Hopefully we will find out more.

Rove has the odor of a skunk, the manners of a hyena and the ethics of a jackal.

*shadow government*

The surprising thing is that they keep reporting the fantasy facts as they would like it to be not what actually happened. Woodward with his lying on Larry King and then having to admit it but keeps his job. Viveca Novak lies prints it and then loses her job. BS Novak leaves CNN in a huff after Carville has a little fun prodding the press's dirt Devil with a pitchfork. Run Amok Judy Miller tries her damndest to protect Libby, throws herself on the bush administration's faux funeral pyre and the NYT tries to make her a martyr. Broder is a cony press person with an interest in preserving the status quo, the truth is no longer of concern. Meanwhile, Cooper caved and finds himself a new gig. NBC can't report fully because their erstwhile prognosticator is implicated and he has to avoid the subject - Russert.

It is an unholy alliance with the bush cabal that makes the marginal press try to cover up their sins of ommision and commision. :puke: on the press and they have eviscerated their own credibility. They were just hoping we were not paying attention so they can spin wash their latest dirty laundry. Freedom of the press they believe gave them the ongoing right to LIE! :eyes:

They need to drag them off to the Hague and take Novakula with them.

K&R!

:kick:

Doesn't mean he didn't leak. No apologies, Karl! None!

:kick:

Have you read the Corn & Isikoff book yet? I'm going to do a couple essays on it soon. Most of the information in it is known to DUers .... especially the participants of the infamous "Plame Threads" of yesteryear. I think it's interesting that what we said yesterday, which was considered too extreme for the mainstream media, is today recognized as being true. ..... And that being the case, I suspect that it may be time to say a few "new" things.

Looking forward to your essays on it. I imagine most of it will be two year old news to me, but I'm definitely interested in what they have to say about Armitage, especially since Plame has added him to her lawsuit.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/13/cia.leak/

The information on Armitage is of value. Some of the things about Judith Miller are worth the price of the book.

There are, of course, things that have been discussed on the Plame Threads that are not included in the book. One would think that David Wurmser's involvement in both the Plame and the neocon-AIPAC spy scandals would bring the espionage case to the authors' attention. But I suppose they can't address everything.

Is it salacious?

Interesting that Powell has finally come out against the B***ies, though not about Plame, but at least about something.

*shadow government*

detail about the blurring of Judith's roles. Her cover was being a reporter. But the authors make very clear that she was working to influence US policy in favor of -- who else? -- Mr. Chalabi!

I'm thinking of starting a series of new DU "Plame Threads" .... something to the tune of "101 Reasons Why I Support the Wilson Civil Suit." Novak, Miller, and a few other "journalists" deserve another look.

I also like that the authors document something that we might do well to consider, and that is how the OVP attacked Chris Matthews for his Plame coverage .... and it went well beyond Libby calling Russert to whine. Way beyond. It was ugly.

sitting in a tree....

Yes to the new Plame,even if it's just the regulars chiming in, and yes to the CM matter. He gets a lot of heat on DU and some of it is well deserved but as far as the Plame matter goes, he's been one of the best. Further, it would be helpful to know what goes on behind scenes, and that's it not always as easy as it looks to us out here. I'd love to say bring it on, but that phrase is forever tainted.

*shadow government*

I would be even more ignorant if it were not for my friends at DU.

A common theme I've noticed in the corporate news media is that the investigation's supposed to be over now since we've learned that Armitage leaked. WTF? Just because Armitage isn't a member of Rove's propaganda ministry per se as far as we know, that doesn't give him a right to break the law by outing a covert agent. And Armitage's involvement doesn't change the fact that Scooter obstructed justice. You can't un-tell a lie any more than you can un-ring a bell.

mostly said the whole thing was a big NO STORY b/c the info came from Armitage who 'clearly wasn't part of any so-called conspiracy.'

The message was that Fitzgerald and anyone who discussed the thing had wasted everyone's time for 2+ years.

******

Didn't Cheney makes notes on Wilson's opinion piece?? And wasn't there a 'smoking gun' on a plane trip??

******

Maybe we need an updated timeline.

But he just may be Novak's contact.

He has not named the other source. Fitz knows who that is. This investigation is not over. It is ongoing. Fitz is well know to being a bulldog and building a case.

Novak has spoken about Rove's role, though it is safe to assume he has not been fully honest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2137432

You should call him up and ask a few questions. :hi:

if you hear a Mr. Waterman as a question. (smile)

U.S. Press Bigwigs Screw Up, Again

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/091406.html


I just sent a copy to David Broder. Parry skewers the dolt and the other "see no eveil pundits," as he calls them, in this article.

The battles within,...almost make me,...NO,...literally make me :rofl:

Must be "hard work" being isolationists, like them, like those schizo-neosfreaks.

Poor bastards. Ohhhh how this bleeding heart liberal weeps for them and theirs.

*snark*