Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby citizenspook » Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:53 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://citizenspook.blogspot.com">citizenspook.blogspot.com</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>is now leading once again to a bible stdies site<br><br>this is very encouraging because they are running scared<br><br>you can run from fits<br><br>we e mail everything to good old randy samborn anyway<br><br>see my lates DAVID CORN is caught in a big lie<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
citizenspook
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:27 pm

<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>One of the most interesting aspects of that report concerns the fact that it was David Corn who was the first person in the media to out Plame's "covert" status as a CIA officer. Novak published her name on July 14, 2003 but it wasn't until two days later, July 16, 2003, that DC was the first person to publish that she was an undercover CIA agent working on WMD. His source may have been JW.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>I'd be interested in seeing the specific Corn quote to which you are referring, cs. As I said on another thread, Novak used the term "operative" in his column in which he outed Plame. There was a lot of discussion at that time about his use of that word, because "operatives" ARE undercover, analysts are not. When confronted on this, I recall Novak trying to backpedal bigtime, claiming that he didn't know the difference. Sure he didn't. All experienced media people know the difference, none more so than Novak, I would guess. Corn would assume Plame's undercover status from Novak's use of the word "operative".<br><br>I am having no trouble linking to your site, btw. No Bible thumpers there, unless you are undercover. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :eek --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:59 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/101503.aspx">www.hillnews.com/marshall/101503.aspx</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>clip from Oct 15, 2003 article<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Taking Novak up on his challenge over his one regret<br><br>When Robert Novak identified Valerie Plame as a CIA employee in his syndicated column July 14, did he think she was a covert agent, an analyst or just some Langley paper-pusher? <br><br>It’s not an idle question, because what Novak knew is almost certainly what his sources knew. And what his sources — those “two senior administration officials” — knew is central to the current FBI investigation. <br><br>On NBC’s “Meet The Press” Oct. 5, Novak said he didn’t know what Plame did at the CIA and had no reason to believe she was covert.<br><br>“The one thing I regret I wrote,” he told Tim Russert: “I used the word ‘operative,’ and I think [David] Broder will agree that I use the word too much. I use it about hack politicians. I use it about people on the Hill. And if somebody did a Nexis search of my columns, they’d find an overuse of ‘operative.’ I did not mean it.”<br><br>Could that really be true? Was the whole thing just a misunderstanding? <br><br>There are at least three reasons to believe Novak knew a lot more about Plame’s status than he’s now letting on. <br><br>• Reason 1: In the intelligence world, ‘operative’ pretty much always means a clandestine agent. In his column he referred to Plame as an “Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.”<br><br>Could a veteran columnist such as Novak have been so sloppy with this word? Not if you go by his past practice. <br><br>I took Novak up on his Nexis challenge, and he does make frequent use of the word “operative.” But the question is how he uses it in this context. I searched for all the times Novak has used the term “agency operative” or “CIA operative,” and I came up with six examples. In every case, Novak clearly used the phrase to refer to clandestine agents. <br><br>On Dec. 3, 2001, Novak used the “CIA operative” phrase to describe Mike Spann, the clandestine CIA operative who was killed at the prison uprising at Mazar-i-Sharif during the Afghanistan war. A month earlier, on Nov. 1, he used “agency operative” to refer to agents who had handled the late Afghan resistance leader Abdul Haq. <br><br>Little more than a month before that, on Sept. 23, he used “CIA operative” to refer to the clandestine operatives in Latin America that former CIA Director Stansfield Turner cracked down on in the late 1970s.<br><br>In a July 5, 1999, book review in The Weekly Standard, Novak referred to the hero of Bill Buckley’s Blackford Oakes spy novels as a “CIA operative.” Needless to say, Blackford Oakes, a spy novel hero, is undercover. The other two references, from 1997, also clearly refer to an undercover operative. <br><br>In other words, Novak knows the phrase “agency operative” is a term of art with a very specific meaning. And he uses it advisedly. Now he says he used it in a completely different way when referring to Plame. That strains credulity, to put it mildly.<br><br>• Reason 2: A week after Novak’s column appeared, Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce of Newsday wrote an article about the disclosure and Novak’s role in it. The whole point of the article was that Novak and his sources had blown the cover of an undercover operative. <br><br>If Novak doubted Plame was undercover or hadn’t known it at the time, you’d think he would have mentioned it. But he didn’t. When he asked, he told Phelps and Royce: “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name and I used it.”<br><br>Only after the feeding frenzy started — and the stakes got higher — did Novak change his tune.<br><br>• Reason 3: The third clue is murky, but suggestive.<br><br>In his original column Novak wrote: “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.”<br><br>That sourcing seems odd. Novak flatly asserted that Plame was CIA and then sourced the claim that she got Wilson the gig in Niger to “two senior administration officials.” I’d want to source both points. But this circuitous sourcing would make a lot of sense if Novak wanted to avoid a sentence that read: “Two administration officials told me that Wilson’s wife was an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction.” And you can certainly see why he would have wanted to avoid it.<br><br>All the available evidence points to the conclusion that Novak and his sources knew full well that Plame was a clandestine age<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:25 pm

I assume this is the Corn article you are referring to, cs:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=823">www.thenation.com/blogs/c...=3&pid=823</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>BLOG | Posted 07/16/2003 @ 4:13pm <br>A White House Smear <br><br>Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others? <br><br>It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted. <br><br>In a recent column on Nigergate, Novak examined the role of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV in the affair. Two weeks ago, Wilson went public, writing in The New York Times and telling The Washington Post about the trip he took to Niger in February 2002--at the request of the CIA--to check out allegations that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium for a nuclear weapons program from Niger. Wilson was a good pick for the job. He had been a State Department officer there in the mid-1970s. He was ambassador to Gabon in the early 1990s. And in 1997 and 1998, he was the senior director for Africa at the National Security Council and in that capacity spent a lot of time dealing with the Niger government. Wilson was also the last acting US ambassador in Iraq before the Gulf War, a military action he supported. In that post, he helped evacuate thousands of foreigners from Kuwait, worked to get over 120 American hostages out Iraq, and sheltered about 800 Americans in the embassy compound. At the time, Novak's then-partner, Rowland Evans, wrote that Wilson displayed "the stuff of heroism." And President George H. W. Bush commended Wilson: "Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job." <br><br>The current Bush administration has not been so appreciative of Wilson's more recent efforts. In Niger, he met with past and present government officials and persons involved in the uranium business and concluded that it was "highly doubtful" that Hussein had been able to purchase uranium from that nation. On June 12, The Washington Post revealed that an unnamed ambassador had traveled to Niger and had reported back that the Niger caper probably never happened. This article revved up the controversy over Bush's claim--which he made in the state of the union speech--that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium in Africa for a nuclear weapons program. <br><br>Critics were charging that this allegation had been part of a Bush effort to mislead the country to war, and the administration was maintaining that at the time of the speech the White House had no reason to suspect this particular sentence was based on faulty intelligence. "Maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said days before the Post article ran. "But no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions." Wilson's mission to Niger provided more reason to wonder if the administration's denials were on the level. And once Wilson went public, he prompted a new round of inconvenient and troubling questions for the White House. (Wilson, who opposed the latest war in Iraq, had not revealed his trip to Niger during the prewar months, when he was a key participant in the media debate over whether the country should go to war.) <br><br>Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation. <br><br>Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer. Wilson says, "I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech." <br><br>So he will neither confirm nor deny that his wife--who is the mother of three-year-old twins--works for the CIA. But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it. <br><br>The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson's wife is such a person--and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her--her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good. <br><br>This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a "pattern of activities" to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry. <br><br>Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson's wife and had no reluctance about naming her. "I figured if they gave it to me," he says. "They'd give it to others....I'm a reporter. Somebody gives me information and it's accurate. I generally use it." And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials. <br><br>So where's the investigation? Remember Filegate--and the Republican charge that the Clinton White House was using privileged information against its political foes? In this instance, it appears possible--perhaps likely--that Bush administration officials gathered material on Wilson and his family and then revealed classified information to lash out at him, and in doing so compromised national security. <br><br>Was Wilson's wife involved in sending him off to Niger? Wilson won't talk about her. But in response to this query, he says, "I was invited out to meet with a group of people at the CIA who were interested in this subject. None I knew more than casually. They asked me about my understanding of the uranium business and my familiarity with the people in the Niger government at the time. And they asked, 'what would you do?' We gamed it out--what I would be looking for. Nothing was concluded at that time. I told them if they wanted me to go to Niger I would clear my schedule. Then they got back to me and said, 'yes, we want you to go.'" <br><br>Is it relevant that Wilson's wife might have suggested him for the unpaid gig. Not really. And Wilson notes, with a laugh, that at that point their twins were two years old, and it would not have been much in his wife's interest to encourage him to head off to Africa. What matters is that Wilson returned with the right answer and dutifully reported his conclusions. (In March 2003, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that the documents upon which the Niger allegation was based were amateurish forgeries.) His wife's role--if she had one--has nothing but anecdotal value. And Novak's sources could have mentioned it without providing her name. Instead, they were quite generous. <br><br>"Stories like this," Wilson says, "are not intended to intimidate me, since I've already told my story. But it's pretty clear it is intended to intimidate others who might come forward. You need only look at the stories of intelligence analysts who say they have been pressured. They may have kids in college, they may be vulnerable to these types of smears." <br><br>Will there be any inquiry? Journalists who write about national security matters (as I often do) tend not to big fans of pursuing government officials who leak classified information. But since Bush administration officials are so devoted to protecting government secrets--such as the identity of the energy lobbyists with whom the vice president meets--one might (theoretically) expect them to be appalled by the prospect that classified information was disclosed and national security harmed for the purposes of mounting a political hit job. Yet two days after the Novak column's appearance, there has not been any public comment from the White House or any other public reverberation. <br><br>The Wilson smear was a thuggish act. Bush and his crew abused and misused intelligence to make their case for war. Now there is evidence Bushies used classified information and put the nation's counter-proliferation efforts at risk merely to settle a score. It is a sign that with this gang politics trumps national security.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby rocco322 » Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:38 pm

What a dangerous punk Corn is. It's so frustrating that this guy gets a pass. His history is a prime example of gatekeeping infiltration. <p></p><i></i>
rocco322
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 9:18 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:42 pm

Looks like a good article to me. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby dbeach » Tue Nov 01, 2005 9:19 pm

And the debunko squad is trying to demonize SC on his own forum caling him nmaes and hurling insults..<br><br>MAYBE theye need a class in manners<br>or to learn to add to the discussion via discourse rather that name calling as a method os silencing opponents.. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby dbeach » Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:12 am

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5229304">www.democraticunderground...04x5229304</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>and debunked ,insulted and ridiculed at DU..say alot about the posters and nil about TRUTH <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby manxkat » Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:49 am

Exactly, dbeach. That's why I stopped going to DU. David Corn is definitely compromised, because like you said on DU he was a real naysayer on the Ohio election fraud -- didn't believe it for a second (I remember Randi Rhodes interviewing Corn on the air and she was really getting frustrated at his "denial"). Corn also, of course, is a total believer in the Bush administration's version of 9/11 and completely poo-poos any questioning of that crime. So, when I saw that Citizen Spook was linking Corn to Joe Wilson, I had to read and learn. I can't say I'm completely convinced, but I do think there's ample reason to suspect Corn (and probably Wilson too).<br> <p></p><i></i>
manxkat
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Citizenspook totally hacked by the creeps

Postby dbeach » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:01 am

I think CS is on to something hugh..now Iread last yr that wilson may be compromised and as for mr.corn he shuts down any dissent with his smarm and nasty intellect..Operation Mockingbird has neen a boomin sucess..<br><br>Read the CS forum today Anti and CS are dueling with some dude....<br><br>Somewhere in blogville Someone had a thread about debunkers and their phrases.<br>.Insults,,vulgarities,personal attacks ,labeling and more vocal methods in print of silencing,controlling and disrupting the Free flow of info <br><br>particularly calling out names like nutso weirdo crazy CTs<br><br><br>Society has conditioned the masses to be afraid and if we hear dangerous words like nut case or loner or postal worker or deranged VN Vet..Its a mind control reaction to start labeling as a defense..and stigmatize the person .<br><br>.Its all bout the control of your very SOUL!!<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re:...ample reason to suspect Corn..

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:11 am

Everyone chooses their own level of tolerance for unusual theories. Because Corn has chosen a level that does not correspond to cs's level should not make him a "gatekeeper". Likewise, Wilson may be an egostistical, attention-seeking puke, but that does not automatically make him--or his wife Valerie-- a conspirator. Frankly, such black-or-white histrionics make me uncomfortable.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>histrionic<br>adj <br><br>1. Said of behaviour, etc: theatrical; melodramatic; expressing too much emotion.<br><br>Thesaurus: melodramatic, sensational, theatrical, fustian, ranting, affected, artificial, forced, insincere.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>The FACT is that Novak used the word "operative" to describe Valerie Plame. No quibbling about that, right? That was a very significant word to use. Do you trust Novak's excuse for using that word or don't you? Novak's use of that word is where my tolerance level turns on a yellow caution light. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 11/1/05 10:20 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

cornucopia

Postby dbeach » Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:35 am

corn debunked the Ohio recount after a 30 minute interview with a republican pit boss..then he discourages Nation mag readers from fighting for a recount..and used the name calling phrases and Conspiracy theorist insults to silence dissent.<br><br>the debate is controlled from the top NOT from left nor right..nofacts and mr.corn are playing the most dangerous game.Espionage..Both work for the same rogue intell agencies which I call syndicates of crime..<br><br>All my words are my speculations based on no proof BUT my own research of whatI in my value system perceive as TRUTH.<br><br>corn is part of the MM ..He may write for nation which is supposed to be left...but I consider it MM<br><br>INHO<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://thewebfairy.com/911/constantine/part14.htm">thewebfairy.com/911/const...part14.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"Instead, he finds "respectable" stories, scoops just below the headlines ...<br>and brushes up against smaller conspiracies routinely, but watches his<br>language, avoids inflammatory words like "fascism," and feigns prof<br>essionalism. <br><br>The Nation claims that David Corn "broke news of the Bush-Enron oil deal."<br>"Did George W. Bush once have a financial relationship with Enron?" Corn<br>writes. The year was 1986, and "according to a publicly available record" “<br>that is, the book First Son, by Bill Minutaglio (so much for "breaking" the<br>story) “ Bush and Enron "drilled for oil together--at a time when Bush was a<br>not-too-successful oil man in Texas and his oil venture was in dire need of<br>help. Bush's business association with Enron, it seems, has not previously<br>been reported." Except in Minutaglio's book. So far, no conspiracy. But Corn<br>is strolling onto the doggy path, and must hold his nose and watch his<br>tongue lest someone notice. "It shows the credibility of the Bush gang and<br>that of Enron deserve questioning when either one is talking about the<br>other." What's this? A conspiracy of silence? (And did Bush or Enron ever<br>have a serious claim to credibility?)<br><br>Ironically, David Corn, Noam Chomsky, Marc Cooper and other writers for The<br>Nation frown on anyone who deals in "conspiracies," and often speak<br>condescendingly about these geeky, paranoid mollusks. In fact, there are<br>"conspiracy theorists" on the Internet who probed deeply into Bush's<br>connections to Enron years ago (I have those postings on file, and some are<br>posted in the Usenet newsgroups), but along comes David Corn detailing a<br>conspiracy without actually using the word, and all the while praying to his<br>personal god that no one notices.<br><br><br>"The CIA doesn't smuggle drugs ..." is the baldest lie in American history."<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: cornucopia

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:46 am

Ok, ok, I'm more of a conspiracy nut than he is. All that proves is he is a puss who is afraid to risk his "credibility, not necessarily that he is a gatekeeper.<br><br>BUT, good argument, dbeach. You should do more of it. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: cornucopia

Postby dbeach » Wed Nov 02, 2005 2:51 am

It ain't about me BRO..its about the control freaks and they seem to have many actors ready for the grand finale..I just pray the Cavalry shows up with the Indians as their pals this time and for ONCE get it rt.:<br><br>..Arrest the DC politicians ..about every one of em<br><br>then maybe I can retire as the beach bum of my dreams shufflin down the eternity of endless SUMMER and OCEAN<br><br>and WHO KNOWS?? MAYBE I might invite all of RI along. <p></p><i></i>
dbeach
 
Posts: 2650
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

dbeach:

Postby Homeless Halo » Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:36 am

Do you surf? <p></p><i></i>
Homeless Halo
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 1:51 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Plame Investigation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest