Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum   
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » Archives » Bush Outing a CIA Agent (Page 0)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Bush Outing a CIA Agent
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Remember Jack Ryan is just an analyst as well. [Smile]

msquared

Posts: 3997 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
msquared -

This was possibly the best comment in this thread!

Go Jack Ryan! [Smile]

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Doug -
quote:
Nope. It implies that someone has forgotten their opsec training. Quit focusing strictly on the administration: why did the CIA confirm her relationship when asked? That’s against the law too, so who’s the bigger idiot here; the “senior administration official” who most likely doesn’t work in intelligence, or the CIA agent for who this type of security is a lifeline?

The administration is in charge here. It was a senior Bush official - not some low level aide - that released what anyone with a brain knows is classified information and that was that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent - Period.

A few questions to ask are -

1) Who released it
2) How did they know she was an agent
3) Why was it released in the first place
4) Who from the CIA gave them the information and why would they make something like this public?
5) Why was it released to members of the press if Novak says he is the only one who asked the question in the first place.
6) Did anyone else in the Whitehouse know this information
7) Did the President know this)

And I'm sure there are dozens more.

The point is is that this is very serious. Very Serious even if she is just a analyst - which appently she was not.

Bush has the ultimate responcibility - he is the guy in charge and as stated a few times in this thread - his administration is a reflection of his style. Too hands off in my view. He has too many loose cannons roaming all over the place over there - and his faux cowboy mentality is an insult to cowboys and those of us who live in the Rural West!

All kidding asside - heads should roll over this!

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
Beren:
quote:
Does one need special "training" to recognize that revealing the identity of CIA agents is a breach of national security?
The short answer is yes. Anyone who has access to classified material, and the names of CIA agents is classified, must be cleared. Part of receiving that clearance is training in how to ensure its safety - including checking the clearance of whoever you are giving it to.
quote:
Quit focusing on the administration? Novak confirmed that the leak came from a senior Bush administration official. We are not talking about some fresh out of college intern here.
My point was that Novak also stated that the information was confirmed by someone within CIA. I’m not saying that there isn’t a problem within the White House, but that there is also a problem within the CIA. That combined suggests that this is less of a political hit than the Democrats want to claim.
More on this

OG:
quote:
As for the Three Decade figure, I suppose it might have been rounded up. Is she 40 exactly? Or is she in her forties? But even if it was somewhere between three decades and two-and-half decades, or even if it was just two decades of undercoverwork, it wouldn't matter. The point remains the same.
Everything that I’ve seen says that she is 40 exactly, so even if her service was rounded up it would still mean that she started as a teenager. That’s extremely unlikely.
And which point is that – that the retired agent grossly exaggerated her length of service to make a point? Or maybe he really has no idea of how long she has worked there, and was just grabbing his moment of fame. His claims do nothing to support the issue of her being exposed.
quote:
As for those saying she's "just an analyst" and that it was no big deal -- I hope that argument has been debunked. The RNC chair said it was more serious than Watergate. And the lives of the agents in the field who met with her, and are now in mortal danger should the link be made, are certainly a big deal. Not to mention the fact that many analysts go on to become more active agents.
Frankly, what the RNC chair says is irrelevant because he is not involved in the issue.

Murdok:
quote:
1) Who released it
2) How did they know she was an agent
3) Why was it released in the first place
4) Who from the CIA gave them the information and why would they make something like this public?
5) Why was it released to members of the press if Novak says he is the only one who asked the question in the first place.
6) Did anyone else in the Whitehouse know this information
7) Did the President know this

All excellent questions that should have been answered before accusing anyone of attempting a political assassination, don’t you think?
quote:
Bush has the ultimate responcibility - he is the guy in charge and as stated a few times in this thread - his administration is a reflection of his style. Too hands off in my view.
As opposed to being very "handy" with the interns? [Wink]
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryGuest
Member
Member # 1251

 - posted      Profile for OrneryGuest     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Perhaps the Three Decades figure meant she was undercover in the 1980s, 1990s, 2000's. I don't see what the purpose of lying would be, since a lie would be easily found out, and to no purpose.

Nonetheless, minimizing her time undercover does not negate the argument that the whitehouse has put agents at risk. And I can't see how this can be passed off as no big deal because she was "just an analyst". She was indeed undercover (witness the fact that no one without security clearance knew she was working for the CIA) and she met with agents in the field who are now in mortal danger should they be traced back to her.

PBS tends to have a more neutral bias than Fox News or the other networks, in my opinion. They're not as beholden to corporate interest, or to profit generation.

Posts: 136 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 980

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dan, my point is that even if one completely missed the security training, anyone with a modicum of common sense should realize that identifying a CIA agent/analyst by name to a member of the press is a breach of national security.

As for whether or not it was politically motivated, I reserve judgment on that until more evidence is presented. If it were just one leak, I might forgive it as a really stupid but understandable error. However:

quote:
Time magazine's online edition had earlier indicated that its reporters also were contacted. The magazine reported on its Web site July 17, three days after Novak's column, that "some government officials have noted to Time in interviews" the role Wilson's wife allegedly played in his mission to Niger.

Orlando Sentinel

If this is true, then this fits the pattern of a planned leak.

I have one general question for everyone. When Novak tried to confirm the agent's identity, is the CIA suppose to tell him the truth? If she really were an undercover agent, does the CIA confirm that? If the CIA confirms her undercover status, wouldn't that confirmation itself be a leak? [Confused]

Posts: 14 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Serotonin'sGone
Member
Member # 1219

 - posted      Profile for Serotonin'sGone   Email Serotonin'sGone   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Party line would be "we can niether confirm or deny that." Anything more then that constitutes a breach of security with any classified information. So whether they lied or told the truth is irrelevant.
Posts: 1117 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting article today by the WSJ: Stupid' Intelligence - Some of our spooks simply oppose Bush administration antiterror policy
Posts: 1370 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
OG:
quote:
Nonetheless, minimizing her time undercover does not negate the argument that the whitehouse has put agents at risk. And I can't see how this can be passed off as no big deal because she was "just an analyst". She was indeed undercover (witness the fact that no one without security clearance knew she was working for the CIA) and she met with agents in the field who are now in mortal danger should they be traced back to her.
From Novak:
quote:
… Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.
How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

Evidently many of people were aware that she worked for the CIA – her exact role was apparently “covered”, but that’s where the problem lies. If the person who spoke to Novak did not know that she was covered, then giving her name to the press was not a crime. You still have no proof that the individual “senior administration officials” had the clearance to know what her official capacity within the CIA was.

Beren:
quote:
Dan, my point is that even if one completely missed the security training, anyone with a modicum of common sense should realize that identifying a CIA agent/analyst by name to a member of the press is a breach of national security.
And my point is that unless someone had the clearance they would have no way of knowing that this information would be a breach.

Not all CIA employees are agents; not all CIA analysts are “covered”, so knowledge of how an intimate relationship between a CIA employee and a retired ambassador played a part in his being sent on an intelligence mission (which he publicized by the way) would not, of itself, be a crime.

Question: How does that article support the claim that this was a “planned” leak?
quote:
…"some government officials have noted to Time in interviews" the role Wilson's wife allegedly played in his mission to Niger.
The Washington Post has claimed that at least 6 reporters were called by the White House; however, none of those allegedly contacted have come forth. The statement by Time suggests that the Time reporters contacted the government officials – not the other way around, which would support Novak’s claim that this was not part of a “planned” leak.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Beren One Hand
Member
Member # 980

 - posted      Profile for Beren One Hand     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dan, I will concede several points, for you made some good arguments. If it turns out that Wilson's wife's position was common knowledge in Washington, and the administration officials were simply passing along information they believe to be common knowledge and unclassified, then while the leak is still a mistake, it is not as bad as the Democrats would like us to believe.

But if that is the case, then the Bush administration's unwillingness to accept an independent investigation of the matter is puzzling. Furthermore, if the leak was an innocent misunderstanding, why hasn't anyone stepped up to take responsibility?

I am concerned about this allegation made in the Washington Post:

quote:
A half-dozen other journalists were given the same information about Wilson’s wife by administration officials but declined to publish it.
MSNBC

This is simply an unsubstantiated allegation (for now) since the author did not provide the name of these journalists and, as you pointed out, none of them have come forward.

Posts: 14 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dan Allen -

Well, whether you think it's okay to out an agent or not - the question remains. Why? Who and when?

Wilson sure as hell did not release this. Nor did his wife. And if you read the quote from these high level Bush administation officials - it's phrased as if it means nothing important - thus was deviously constructed as reporter bait. With the premise being - treat something like common knowledge and you end up covering your little ass. Or if it was Karl Rove - your own big huge and nasty butt.

Novak should have been much smarter than this. Shame on him!

As for her CIA status - she was indeed a covert agent - this is not in dispute by anyone and even Ed Gillespie of the RNC said it's as serious as Watergate - more so.

I'm just suprised that you are such a Bush apologist...imagine that!?

As for the allegations - Karl Rove is feared and hated - I mean hated in Washington. By both republicans and democrats. Just ask John McCain about South Carolina and push polling.

Karl Rove is dirty, he is a political scum bag of the worst kind and as a student of Lee Atwater, he was considered even over the top. And let's not forget - Atwater was no angel himself - and just before he joined his political miscreant buddies in hell, he said he was sorry to all the lives he helped destroy and was seriously contrite about it.

Hopefully he found some peace and a forgiving God.

And last but not least -
To suspect Karl Rove with this leak is like thinking, "you know, bears do shit in the woods and where theres fire, I know there's smoke - unless you are in deep space".

So he is a big boy and if he leaked it - it was treason and he deserves to get what's coming to him. As does anyone else who leaked this mess to him or anyone else who knew in this collection of baffoons that make up the Bush administration.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
WmLambert -

Come on - you give us yet another right wing whacko editorial. And from the ultra conservative editorial pages of the Wall Street journal!

Find something a little more middle ground if you want to make some kind of point...anyone can find a partisan opinion - anyone, even my 10 year old son.

Or here's an idea - give us some of your own thoughts? What a concept! Too many poeple in here are so busy searching the internet and looking for supporting links and commentary from others. Either you are too lazy to think for yourself or can't. So which is it?

Use your brain - any monkey can copy a link and paste it. What do you, WmLambert, think?

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
chunga01
Member
Member # 1190

 - posted      Profile for chunga01   Email chunga01   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Come on - you give us yet another right wing whacko editorial
Sometimes an editorial states eloquently and powerfully thoughts that would otherwise appear clumsy. And if an idea has merit, what does it matter where the source is. First you should discredit the idea, then you can discredit the source. Discrediting the source is poor rhetoric at best, since the idea may well be Truth despite a faulty source.

The editorial that Wmlambert linked brings up some important points.

1. Lots of toes are getting squished in the intelligence communities by the war on terrorism, (not just Wilson's) and many in the alphabet agencies oppose it (not just Wilson.)

2. The intelligence community is wanting to continue the pre 9/11 tactic of waiting for the terrorist attack, then prosecuting the culprit.

This may or may not be true, but it's an issue that bears discussion, not just a "stop presenting other people's ideas" response.

quote:
Use your brain - any monkey can copy a link and paste it.
Wmlambert didn't state whether he was in agreement with the article or not, he just said it was interesting (which it was.) An ad hominem attack for posting a link seems a little excessive. And to nitpick... copying and pasting a link is an activity that would probably be well beyond the abilities of your everyday monkey. [Wink]
Posts: 150 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"Well - if the Busies would allow an investigation of the facts by an independent counsel instead of a rubber stamp justice department - I'm sure something would turn up.

But as far as I'm concerned - I've read Bob Novak's columns for many years and this is a man, who is a serious minded conservative, who said someone high up in the Bush administration outted Mrs. Wilson. I don't take things this guy says lightly.

He would have no reason to lie."

For once I actually agree with you. Although it is natural to want to shield oneself from scrutiny, the Bush Administration needs to get in front of this scandal and squelch it before it becomes too big of a scandal for them to have control over. I think that an Independent Counsel should be appointed and the source of the leak ferreted out and fired. President Bush needs to come out and say something to the effect that behavior such as this is not tolerated in his Administration and that whoever did this will be fired immediately once proven guilty.

Unfortunately, I think that the Administration already knows who the leak is, and has known for some time who the guilty person is. The problem with any leak is that it indicates a someone who has a serious disagreement with what is currently going on. It could be that the leak is Karl Rove, or someone else. Either way, I think it is a major player in the Bush White House. A peon would have been publicaly sought out and fired by now.

The White House is not handling this scandal well and it will blow up in their face if they are not careful. It won't just blow over and shouldn't. Outing a CIA Agent is a serious offense. Novak was not the only journalist who was approached with this information. It could already be that Novak and everyone else who was approached is under a gag order.

[ October 06, 2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"The problem with any leak is that it indicates a someone who has a serious disagreement with what is currently going on."

In this case, I think exactly the opposite is true; the leak was authorized by the White House, and exists only to give them plausible deniability.

Posts: 22178 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
2. The intelligence community is wanting to continue the pre 9/11 tactic of waiting for the terrorist attack, then prosecuting the culprit.
This is the problem - you see the intelligence community had plenty of evidence something was going to happen prior to 9/11 and was frantic to let someone know it. The Whitehouse basically ignored the facts - even as agents were warning months in advance of a terrorist plot involving airliners. They even knew the names of some of the hijackers and what flight schools they were learning to "fly" planes at.

The CIA and FBI were always in competition and not talking to one another. The Whitehouse dropped the bomb big time on this issue - not the intelligence community - by not paying any attention to experts in the field - I mean - Bush was taking one of the longest vacations of any president that year - 45 days worth - and the defense department was so busy working out all this hype for a missle defense shield that they didn't have time for anything else. They were so busy blasting Clinton, having secret meetings with energy companies, rewriting environmental laws and changing the tax system for the wealthy and corporate America they simply forgot about US security.

And as for Lambert - not an attack. A challenge to use his brain. He's obviously a smart guy form his other posts - So what does he think about the oped piece - just post something and tell us what you find interesting about it.

And I know some smart monkeys. They do most of my typing - can't you tell? [Smile]

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
Murdok:
quote:
As for her CIA status - she was indeed a covert agent - this is not in dispute by anyone and even Ed Gillespie of the RNC said it's as serious as Watergate - more so.
But it apparently was in dispute, or at least questioned, at the beginning of all of this – why else would Novak have received the confirmation from the CIA he did? The claim of “treasonous exposure” hinges on whether the individuals knew that she was undercover, or just an employee. The sad thing about this is that it wasn’t until after the article appeared that the CIA started doing what they should have done in the first place – namely “I can neither confirm or deny”. It’s clear now that she was a covered agent, but the confirmation is coming from those who claim to be so worried about the affect this will have on her (and her sources) safety.

FIJC:
quote:
For once I actually agree withy you. Although it is natural to want to shield oneself from scrutiny, the Bush Administration needs to get in front of this scandal and squelch it before it becomes too big of a scandal for them to have control over. I think that an Independent Counsel should be appointed and the source of the leak ferreted out and fired. President Bush needs to come out and say something to the effect that behavior such as this is not tolerated in his Administration and that whoever did this will be fired immediately once proven guilty.
The thing is, they have already done about as much as can be reasonably expected by publicly ordering the staff to cooperate fully with the investigators.
quote:
"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

Part of the problem is the assumption that there was, in fact, criminal intent; that has not been proven, and until it has there is no rational reason to call a special counsel.

Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
"Part of the problem is the assumption that there was, in fact, criminal intent; that has not been proven, and until it has there is no rational reason to call a special counsel."

Wait, so Ken Star should never have been called...?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
Murdok:
quote:
This is the problem - you see the intelligence community had plenty of evidence something was going to happen prior to 9/11 and was frantic to let someone know it. The Whitehouse basically ignored the facts - even as agents were warning months in advance of a terrorist plot involving airliners. They even knew the names of some of the hijackers and what flight schools they were learning to "fly" planes at.
But that information was not making it all the way up to the appropriate levels – even within the CIA and FBI. One of the truly frustrating things about the Moussoui case was that the arresting FBI agents suspected that he had pertinent information on a laptop, but could not access it without a search warrant – which was refused by a different section.
quote:
The CIA and FBI were always in competition and not talking to one another. The Whitehouse dropped the bomb big time on this issue - not the intelligence community - by not paying any attention to experts in the field...
I have to disagree with this because it was the competing agencies who were at fault. The experts are in the employ of the intelligence agencies, not the White House, and the agencies were the ones who ignored the warning signs.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I have to disagree with this because it was the competing agencies who were at fault. The experts are in the employ of the intelligence agencies, not the White House, and the agencies were the ones who ignored the warning signs.
Yeah - and who is supposed to take responsibility for these agencies? The Whitehouse. There is even record of Condie Rice getting briefed on the air liner terrorist possiblities long before 9/11, something she only recently remembers after being confronted with proof.

The Whitehouse, if it had it's act together, should have known about the potential risks.

The fact is the Clinton administration left a robust program for combating terrorism before leaving office. And the Bushies just ignored it for more important things like blaming the Clintons for trashing the Whitehouse - which was a fabrication, for missile defense systems and tax cuts. Oh - and cutting emission standards for polluters.

The simple fact is, they allowed thier own ineptness at running the government get in the way of security. And this after bragging it was time to bring the adults back to Washington.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Do you people work for one of the political parties?

Blindly attack! Blindly defend!

jm: Very neutral link. Couldn't find a Coulter or Limbaugh rant?

Dan: You really expect us to believe government officials don't know not to divulge who our CIA agents are unless they're trained? And you're very quick to jump on Wilson, aren't you?

jedilaw: Impeach the president? Did he even know about it? I agree he is ultimately responsible, but calling for impeachment is a tad premature at this point.

Murdok: Bush is a cowboy with loose cannons running around in his administration? Heads should roll? As we say here in Texas you're putting the cart before the horse.

This is serious business, and it diminishes the seriousness of the situation when you people react with knee-jerk hyperbole.

Somebody screwed up bad. There needs to be an investigation. Open and above board and the responsible parties should face the appropriate penalties. Or is impartial justice possible amidst the ongoing war of partisan politics?

Knight Ender
FYI: AOL ABC Story Linkedited to add link

[ October 06, 2003, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
KnightEnder - Bravo!
Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Knight, I agree, the rhetoric is getting overheated. God knows I turn my amps up to 11 from time to time. That being said, the buck stops exactly where in this administration? If Bush wants the credit, he has to risk the blame. If the allegations are true, and so far there is no reasonable explanation to suggest they are not true, we are dealing with a huge breach of national security. Ultimately,as you say, this is all stuff on Bush's watch carried out by his lietenants. [EDIT by Jedilaw: that mis-spelling is pretty Freudian, dontcha think? I'm gonna leave it in for the sake of irony...)

From earlier (Dan Allen, I think):
quote:
Part of the problem is the assumption that there was, in fact, criminal intent; that has not been proven, and until it has there is no rational reason to call a special counsel.
Yeah, because Whitewater, which happened before Clinton took office, had tons and tons of evidence of criminal intent, right? Which is why Starr never prosecuted that allegation, right? Conservatives have no moral authority to whine about Buish being attacked and investigated: they did it to Clinton from day one, long before Monica-Gate. All the right needed was a pretext, and Clinton, the eternal dumbass of the groin, gave them one by stroking the interns and lying about it. Well,fine. Let's turn the wonderful new standards of the conservatives on their president. We have at least as much here as Congress had when it appointed Ken Starr.

Go ahead, show me how this is different, how the partisan attacks on Bush are unwarranted while the ones on clinton were deserved.

[ October 07, 2003, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: jedilaw ]

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Part of the problem is the assumption that there was, in fact, criminal intent; that has not been proven, and until it has there is no rational reason to call a special counsel.
Somebody help me here, is this right? Does criminal intent have to be shown, or just criminal action? Because clearly the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, makes the disclosure of CIA operatives' names a criminal offence. So, there obviously has been a criminal offence committed. According to Novak and the Washington Post, the leak came from "two" highly placed members of the Bush White House Administration. Originally purported to have been committed by President Bush's senior political adviser Karl Rove, a man with whom Attorney General John Ashcroft has had a long political relationship. And even if it isn't Rove it is definitely someone in the Republican party. This being the case can the Republicans on this board honestly say to us that they believe Ashcroft can act as an unbiased objective investigator? Surely, if the political parties were reversed Republicans would be screaming for an independent special counsel investigation?

Knight Ender

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
KE:
quote:
Dan: You really expect us to believe government officials don't know not to divulge who our CIA agents are unless they're trained? And you're very quick to jump on Wilson, aren't you?
Specifically, the law governing this states that only the individuals who can access the information as part of their security clearances can be found guilty of the crime. If an individual receives information, without being told that it’s classified, how are they supposed to know that it is? Given that by itself, being employed by the CIA isn’t classified information, the assumption that whoever talked “must have known better” goes too far.

And as far as Mr. Wilson: Has anybody considered that this whole issue is now in the open because he blew the cover on his classified intelligence mission to Nigeria? If Mrs. Wilson’s CIA connections, not her actual position, but just the fact that she worked for the CIA, were as well known as has been suggested, who here really thinks that her contacts weren’t jeopardized before the July article?
You add to that the fact that Mr. Wilson has made several accusations that either he’s retracted, or haven’t been confirmed – why shouldn’t his actions be scrutinized?

Just who are those 6 reporters that Karl Rove personally called? Why haven’t they come forward?

quote:
Somebody screwed up bad. There needs to be an investigation. Open and above board and the responsible parties should face the appropriate penalties. Or is impartial justice possible amidst the ongoing war of partisan politics?
I agree fully – almost. The statement that “somebody screwed up bad” seems based more on the accusations than any actual evidence at this point.

Jedi:
quote:
Knight, I agree, the rhetoric is getting overheated. God knows I turn my amps up to 11 from time to time. That being said, the buck stops exactly where in this administration? If Bush wants the credit, he has to risk the blame. If the allegations are true, and so far there is no reasonable explanation to suggest they are not true, we are dealing with a huge breach of national security.
Rhetoric alert.

And where, exactly, should the blame go if the allegations are not true? Or the credit, for that matter.

So far, Bush has been very supportive of the investigation - he has stated his intent to deal with the individual(s) involved; how is that 'passing the buck'?

KE:
quote:
Somebody help me here, is this right? Does criminal intent have to be shown, or just criminal action? Because clearly the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, makes the disclosure of CIA operatives' names a criminal offence. So, there obviously has been a criminal offence committed. According to Novak and the Washington Post, the leak came from "two" highly placed members of the Bush White House Administration. Originally purported to have been committed by President Bush's senior political adviser Karl Rove, a man with whom Attorney General John Ashcroft has had a long political relationship. And even if it isn't Rove it is definitely someone in the Republican party. This being the case can the Republicans on this board honestly say to us that they believe Ashcroft can act as an unbiased objective investigator? Surely, if the political parties were reversed Republicans would be screaming for an independent special counsel investigation?
From the Act :
quote:
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
My understanding at this point is that Novak never got the idea that she was covered – from either the White House or the CIA. That's why I question the pure political motivation here; A CIA offical would be in a better position to know her status than two anonomous White House officials - wouldn't they?

Again, you are assuming that this is all centered around a political attack; the only evidence that it was political is the Democratically initiated accusation. Until the investigation can determine who was involved, and how they knew what they knew, there is no evidence that it was a politically motivated crime.

So far, Mr. Ashcroft has stayed out of this – the investigation was initiated, and is being run, by a non-partisan permanent employee. I think that he should stay out of it. Calling a special counsel would probably open this up to more partisanship, since I don’t see the DNC willingly accepting anybody that he would select.

Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post 
Even William Kristol isn't very happy with the way President Bush is handling things-- http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/195vxqyk.asp
Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Musket - Excellent OpED.

It seems that the Bushies have taken some of Kristols advice and by consolidating the Iraqi operations in the Whitehouse are trying to get a grip.

But to me and I'm not alone - it's a sorry admission that things are unraveling on his foriegn policy teams and in Iraq.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And where, exactly, should the blame go if the allegations are not true? Or the credit, for that matter.

Um, the credit for not committing a massive breach of national security amounts to: you lived up to your constitutional oath. Have a nice day. You don't get credit for doing what you are supposed to do, anymore than I get credit for feeding my kids.

You refer to that one statute from 1982 as if it's the only one that could possibly apply. God knows Starr went on a hunt in search of a crime and a statute, to the tune of $40 million dollars to find, what, oral sex? Kind of far afield from land deals and FBI files. You have steadfastly refused to specify how Starr's investigation was okay, but an independent counsel for this White House would be a mere partisan attack. You also manage to keep ignoring me when I say "if the allegations are true," as if I've somehow stated that everything we need is here and convictions are in hand. Try actually reading and responding to a post.

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
Jedi:
quote:
You refer to that one statute from 1982 as if it's the only one that could possibly apply. God knows Starr went on a hunt in search of a crime and a statute, to the tune of $40 million dollars to find, what, oral sex? Kind of far afield from land deals and FBI files. You have steadfastly refused to specify how Starr's investigation was okay, but an independent counsel for this White House would be a mere partisan attack. You also manage to keep ignoring me when I say "if the allegations are true," as if I've somehow stated that everything we need is here and convictions are in hand. Try actually reading and responding to a post.
Nice strawman Jedi; but Starr is irrelevant to this issue, sorry.

The “Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982” is the only relevant statute involved in whether the exposure of an undercover agent was a criminal act or not.

I just went back and re-read all of your comments on this thread, and the only place you used the word “allegedly” was in reference to what Starr did to Clinton. Since that’s irrelevant to this thread I ignored it.

The main gist of your applicable contribution seems to be:
quote:
posted September 29, 2003 01:46 PM Lat's assume it wasn't Rove, it had to be someone high enough to get access to CIA info on covert operatives, or at least credibly claim to have such access (otherwise Novak would have said they were full of it). Who is likely? Rice? Wolfie? Pearle?
quote:
posted September 30, 2003 10:58 PM Okay, I get it, the argument from the Bushies must be: "Look, we're a collosal bunch of screw ups and we just endangered the life of one of our own agents and botched possibly years of covert work, but we didn't mean to do it, so don't hold us responsible."
quote:
posted October 01, 2003 04:52 PM This isn't swamp gas. This is a pattern that has been emerging for some time now. Take off that official Rush Limbaugh set of blinders and ear plugs and actually look at what has been happening. The director of the RNC is right: this is bigger than Watergate, and that leads to a further conclusion: it is impeachable, for gross misfeasance if not malfeasance.
Just where did you say “if the allegations are true”?

But if you want to try to make comparisons between the Clinton and Bush II administrations, I think that Filegate might serve better – don’t you?
quote:
Civil Action No. 96-2123. Judicial Watch is representing the plaintiffs in a class-action suit filed by White House employees of the Bush and Reagan administrations whose FBI files were wrongly accessed by the Clinton White House. The White House and FBI are being sued under the federal Privacy Act, while the individual defendants B Bernard Nussbaum, Craig Livingstone, Anthony Marceca and Hillary Clinton B are being sued for common-law tort of invasion of privacy.

Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
By the Way Dan - What ever happened with the Judicial Watch lawsuit?

What ever became of "filegate"?

Was anyone ever prosecuted or did it ever really go anywhere? And if not - why?

How does it compare to the breach of security by a Bush official when outing a covert CIA agent? And if the bushies did this dastardly deed - then don't we have our own little filegate in the making, something beyond the felony criminal leak? I mean - they had to be looking at private files in the first place to be able to out Wilson's wife - don't you think?

So many questions and not one bit of an internal investigation by Bush and his staff.

See no evil...

Curious.

[ October 07, 2003, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Murdok ]

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
if the allegations are true, and so far there is no reasonable explanation to suggest they are not true, we are dealing with a huge breach of national security.
That looked pretty conditional to me, Dan.

Notice how you keep dodging the Starr issue. It won't do to simply say "Starr is irrelevant" without saying why. See, the GOP set the standard for political warfare with the Whitewater investigations, and I've yet to see any of you give a credible response to explain how your own weapons shouldn't be used against you now. Either the Starr thing was an over-zealous attack, or Bush isn't being attacked enough.

Again, I await an actual argument from you. Mere tautologies (it's irrelevant because I say it's irrelevant) will not suffice.

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Murdok
Member
Member # 1225

 - posted      Profile for Murdok   Email Murdok   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Jedi - the silence is because they are now toothless - and to say anything will only further the contention that they are indeed the hypocrites we on the left and middle have been saying all along.

They are very affraid - for the truth shall imprison them.

Posts: 954 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WmLambert
Member
Member # 604

 - posted      Profile for WmLambert   Email WmLambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just a quick restatement of forgotten fact. During the Starr investigations. Starr made a stunningly stupid decision to not investigate many of the more outrageous allegations against Clinton based on the difficulty of reconstitutiing known shredded documents and chasing down witnesses who fled abroad. The bimbo eruption thing was considered a "done deal" at the time, and it was thought sufficient to get Clinton out of office and allow his VP to take over the reins without damaging party control. It was thought it would be cheaper and quicker to just go forward with the stuff they had conclusive evidence on, and do less total damage to the nation. Little did anyone think at the time that his own party would condone his actions.

As a result of this early decision there will be many allegations never settled and never investigated fully. Both sides can argue about whether the Whitewater investigations proved illegal actions took place or not. Truth is - although there is plenty of undisputed evidence pointing in every which direction - there will probably never be any official settlement of anything.

It is simply a matter of subjective opinion whether Clinton was exonerated or escaped his just due. Anyone who claims otherwise can be made to look like a fool by asking what their "proof" is and then hitting them with the objective data that does not support their opinion. This is not the stuff of conspiracy theory - just open-ended speculation on things that should have been dealt with at the time.

Posts: 1370 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"By the Way Dan - What ever happened with the Judicial Watch lawsuit?

What ever became of "filegate"?

Was anyone ever prosecuted or did it ever really go anywhere? And if not - why?"

The Judicial Watch Filegate suit still has a docket number, but hasn't gone anywhere. In otherwords, it is still considered current, but probably won't go anywhere. I like Judicial Watch, but they have filed so many suits that they cannot possibly put in enough quality time in them, especially since their staff is still pretty small. Granted, they have a lot of money in the bank and still bring in over $15 million a year, unless they hired more quality lawyers and legal assistants, those cases aren't going to go anywhere.

As for no one being "prosecuted" for Filegate; Klayman's suit is a civil tort, not a criminal case. Only the state or federal government can prosecute individuals on a criminal basis. The burden of proof for civil cases is of a much lower standard than in criminal cases, and if the defendants lose, they pay monetary damages, not a prison sentence.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
"How does it compare to the breach of security by a Bush official when outing a covert CIA agent? And if the bushies did this dastardly deed - then don't we have our own little filegate in the making, something beyond the felony criminal leak? I mean - they had to be looking at private files in the first place to be able to out Wilson's wife - don't you think?"
One action that was not prudent on Wilson's part was that he implicated in several statements that he thought Karl Rove was the source of the leak. The media jumped on that statement and Rove's reputation has been smeared without any solid evidence that he did. Novak hasn't been saying much, but what we do know he said, was that the leaker was ""no partisan gunslinger". From this statement it is pretty clear to me that the Karl Rove was not the source of the leak. I think that in most Presidential Administrations, the staffers who tend to stay above partisan politics are those who deal with military and national security issues. Right now, I do not believe that Rove is the leak.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Just a quick restatement of forgotten fact. During the Starr investigations. Starr made a stunningly stupid decision to not investigate many of the more outrageous allegations against Clinton based on the difficulty of reconstitutiing known shredded documents and chasing down witnesses who fled abroad. The bimbo eruption thing was considered a "done deal" at the time, and it was thought sufficient to get Clinton out of office and allow his VP to take over the reins without damaging party control. It was thought it would be cheaper and quicker to just go forward with the stuff they had conclusive evidence on, and do less total damage to the nation. Little did anyone think at the time that his own party would condone his actions.

I'm sure you won't mind if I ask for a little support for those statements...

My impression was Starr never dug up anthing that he could actually win on the filegate/whitewater/travel office issues. I am certainly not under the impression, however, that they went forward with bimbogate to avoid damaging the country. They went with what would actually work, AFAIK. Of course, I am quite capable of being wrong.

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
Murdok:
quote:
What ever became of "filegate"?
The latest filing I’ve found was in 2000 – they were still trying to get email records apparently.
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/96-2123ll.pdf
quote:
Was anyone ever prosecuted or did it ever really go anywhere? And if not - why?
quote:
How does it compare to the breach of security by a Bush official when outing a covert CIA agent? And if the bushies did this dastardly deed - then don't we have our own little filegate in the making, something beyond the felony criminal leak? I mean - they had to be looking at private files in the first place to be able to out Wilson's wife - don't you think?
According to this site, the files actually were found in the White House; the question was whether it was intentional or not.
quote:
Majority says, "The committee’s investigation into the unauthorized possession of hundreds of FBI background files by the White House remains in progress. There are many questions that are unanswered; cooperation from the White House and other witnesses has not been full and complete; more witnesses must be interviewed; and, many more documents from earlier committee requests are outstanding. Accordingly, this is an interim report to inform the public as to the status of the investigation in the closing days of the 104th Congress."

Minority says, "If the majority had issued an honest report by pointing out the deficiencies of the Office of Personnel Security while acknowledging the lack of evidence that it was anything more than a bureaucratic mistake, we would have supported it. But when the majority makes such reckless findings as that this somehow "leads to the possibility that the Clinton Administration was attempting to prepare a political ‘hit list’," without even a shred of evidence or testimony supporting that charge, we can only conclude that honesty is not in the majority’s vocabulary. This report is yet another blow to this committee’s long tradition of oversight which is honest, fair, non-partisan, and credible."

http://www.kings.edu/twsawyer/portal/hr104862/

And we certainly could have a similar issue with this White House. But it boils back down to the actual intent. Looking at what’s been said, and understanding a little about how security clearances work, there is insufficient evidence to support, or even make, the claim that the leak was punitive in nature, or even criminal.
The descriptions I’ve read of what was said – by both the White House and the CIA, was that Mrs. Wilson was, as a CIA employee, tasked with asking her husband to prepare a report. If it was fairly common knowledge that Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA, in some unknown capacity – as Novak and others contended, then no, they didn’t have to “be looking at private files” to make the connection. The normal “beltway rumor mill” would have been sufficient, and there would be no criminal wrongdoing.

quote:
So many questions and not one bit of an internal investigation by Bush and his staff.
And what would be the point? Realistically, that’s like asking Enron to perform an internal audit to prove they weren’t bilking their stockholders.

Jedi:
quote:
quote:
if the allegations are true, and so far there is no reasonable explanation to suggest they are not true, we are dealing with a huge breach of national security.
That looked pretty conditional to me, Dan.
Yep, I missed that one, sorry about that – I guess I just focused on the exuberant ending of that sentence.

quote:
Notice how you keep dodging the Starr issue. It won't do to simply say "Starr is irrelevant" without saying why. See, the GOP set the standard for political warfare with the Whitewater investigations, and I've yet to see any of you give a credible response to explain how your own weapons shouldn't be used against you now. Either the Starr thing was an over-zealous attack, or Bush isn't being attacked enough.
Ahh. So this isn’t about right or wrong, just the “justification” to throw political muck? Sorry, but Starr is irrelevant to this issue because of the scope.

And you assume too much when you say thing's like "your own weapons".

Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jedilaw
Member
Member # 1020

 - posted      Profile for jedilaw   Email jedilaw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Okay, "your" may not be fair (I'm a litigator, so fair isn't my forte).

But, again, how is Starr's crusade irrelevant? The scope wound up large, but Starr was originally focused quite narrowly, then broadened when he found no support for his Whitewater case. The starting conditions for Starr's run amounted to unproven allegations of wrongdoing before the President was in office. The starting point in this case would be unproven allegations of wrongdoing by the Presiden't staff or members of his administration, while in office. Further, Whitewater involved Arkansas land deals, not national security.

Again, for the sake of redundancy: how, if Starr's investigation was justified, is an independent prosecutor NOT justified here when the alleged wrongdoing has a lot more potential to impact national interests? There are only two apparent answers here: 1) Starr wasn't legitimate and shouldn't have been sicced on Clinton or 2) Starr was legitimate, but differs from the current allegations because of x y or z.

I'm assuming you won't go for a third choice, namely that Starr was legitimate and we should appoint an independent counsel now.

As for the IC law being expired, it could be re-passed easily, and Bush would have to sign it or oppose it. If he really favors full cooperation, it would be difficult to justify a veto. Not that Congress is going to force that issue, at least not yet (they want him to win in '04, obviously, as they should want a member of their party to do).

Posts: 1600 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tokyo
Member
Member # 1277

 - posted      Profile for Tokyo   Email Tokyo       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
One action that was not prudent on Wilson's part was that he implicated in several statements that he thought Karl Rove was the source of the leak. The media jumped on that statement and Rove's reputation has been smeared without any solid evidence that he did.
Wilson has stated: "What I have confidence in — based upon what respectable press people in this town have told me — is that a week after the Novak article came out, Karl Rove was still calling around and talking to press people, saying Wilson's wife is fair game."

If Wilson is accurate, then it is not a smear; he is simply reporting what happened. It may not be "solid" evidence, but it carries weight, and should be a focus of the investigation.

quote:
Novak hasn't been saying much, but what we do know he said, was that the leaker was ""no partisan gunslinger". From this statement it is pretty clear to me that the Karl Rove was not the source of the leak.
Why should you disbelieve Wilson's word and then take Novak's as gospel? Wilson possibly has political motives, but Novak DEFINITELY has political motives. After the story became big, Novak told everyone that he had it on reliable sources that Plame was just an analyst--which turns out to have been false, a lie that served the political agenda held by Novak and his contacts. I don't trust a word Novak says on this post-mortem--he's more biased than anyone out there.

Let's also get over the GOP lie that the leak was incidental, off-hand, or in some other way not intentional. They shopped it out to at least half a dozen reporters--that's not something that just "slips."

I do believe it was Rove, because it is exactly the kind of dirty politics he is well-known for.

Posts: 601 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan Allen
Member
Member # 238

 - posted      Profile for Dan Allen         Edit/Delete Post 
Jedi:
quote:
But, again, how is Starr's crusade irrelevant? The scope wound up large, but Starr was originally focused quite narrowly, then broadened when he found no support for his Whitewater case. The starting conditions for Starr's run amounted to unproven allegations of wrongdoing before the President was in office. The starting point in this case would be unproven allegations of wrongdoing by the Presiden't staff or members of his administration, while in office. Further, Whitewater involved Arkansas land deals, not national security.
Unproven? The FTC determined that the Clintons were "potential beneficiaries" of illegal activities at Madison.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/timeline.htm

The whole reason the Whitewater investigation was initiated was because they refused to provide proof that they not beneficiaries of proven criminal acts. The expansion was due to their continued interaction with individuals directly linked to that proven illegal activity.
quote:
Again, for the sake of redundancy: how, if Starr's investigation was justified, is an independent prosecutor NOT justified here when the alleged wrongdoing has a lot more potential to impact national interests? There are only two apparent answers here: 1) Starr wasn't legitimate and shouldn't have been sicced on Clinton or 2) Starr was legitimate, but differs from the current allegations because of x y or z.
Starr’s investigation, originally Fiske’s, was justified based on the proven illegal activities surrounding the Whitewater and Madison organizations. So far, there has been no proven criminal activities found for an independent prosecutor to prosecute. That’s really the main reason Starr is irrelevant to this case - so far. And that’s why the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 is crucial to this investigation.

Tokyo:
quote:
Why should you disbelieve Wilson's word and then take Novak's as gospel? Wilson possibly has political motives, but Novak DEFINITELY has political motives. After the story became big, Novak told everyone that he had it on reliable sources that Plame was just an analyst--which turns out to have been false, a lie that served the political agenda held by Novak and his contacts. I don't trust a word Novak says on this post-mortem--he's more biased than anyone out there.
Specifically because Wilson publicly identified Rove as the leak, and then retracted that statement when he realized he couldn’t provide proof - he's shown that his word is potentially untrustworthy. He’s also made the claim that at least 6 reporters were ‘cold called’ with his wife’s name – but none of those reporters have come forward (which is suspicious since that would certainly sell more papers than staying silent), and the three (Novak, and 2 from Time) who were told about the connection say it was in relation to scheduled interviews. Novak’s interview was apparently about Wilson himself, Time didn’t say what theirs were for.
quote:
Let's also get over the GOP lie that the leak was incidental, off-hand, or in some other way not intentional. They shopped it out to at least half a dozen reporters--that's not something that just "slips."
There is no evidence, beyond Wilson’s claims, that it was anything but “incidental, off-hand, or in some other way not intentional.”
That it was a “bad thing” is beyond doubt, but Wilson’s accusations, and democrat desires, are not proof.

Posts: 1015 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1