"Senators Kerry and Lugar May Have Blown Cover of CIA Agent"

[ClarkUSA]

Oops. Of course, I am still waiting for Novak to go to jail for blowing a CIA NOC agent Plame's cover. That we do know is 100% true.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Mr. Smith came to Washington again Monday, as an alias for a Central Intelligence Agency officer who works covertly. Senators, however, may have blown his cover.

..........
``We referred to this other analyst at the CIA, whom I'll try and call Mr. Smith here, I hope I can keep that straight,'' Bolton said at one point.
..........

In questioning Bolton, Kerry read from a transcript of closed-door interviews that committee staffers conducted with State Department officials prior to Monday's hearing.

``Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from his position? The answer is yes,'' Kerry said, characterizing one interview.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Bolton-Analyst.html

[Bluebear]

1. Well, now they'll probably bring Kerry up on treason charges

He's a Democrat!

[mahina]

2. Then Novakula is right behind him.

[Bluebear]

8. No no no no, IOKIYAR

[EVDebs]

47. Senators didn't 'blow' CIA agent's cover

Senators didn't 'blow' CIA agent's cover
Contrary to AP story, name previously cited several times

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43759

Faux-reporter Anne Gearan owes us all an apology, and an investigation into any Operation Mockingbird payola behind her phoney story wouldn't hurt AP's now sullied credibility !

[mahina]

99. ?

Hey?

[ProfessorPlum]

3. This has already been discredited

The guy in question, F. Armstrong, was already known as working for the CIA. It's been in the public record for years. Google him and see for yourself.

[ClarkUSA]

11. Has it, really? What is your source?

The article points out:

'It is not clear whether Armstrong is the undercover officer, but an exchange between Kerry and Bolton suggests that he may be.

In questioning Bolton, Kerry read from a transcript of closed-door interviews that committee staffers conducted with State Department officials prior to Monday's hearing.

``Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from his position? The answer is yes,'' Kerry said, characterizing one interview. ``Did John Bolton share that view?'' Kerry said, and then said the answer again was yes.

``As I said, I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that,'' Bolton replied evenly. ``I thought that was the honest thing to do.'''

[Mass]

15. Here is a link among other linking him to the intelligence community

http://www.cfr.org/pub4414/cfr/cuba_and_terrorism_post_911.php

[ClarkUSA]

18. Thanks, but it doesn't say that Fulton Armstrong is CIA

Unless I am missing something?

[Mass]

21. Fulton Armstrong/National Intelligence Officer for Latin America

What is an NIO??

http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_personnel.html (you will see the name of his successor).

[x_y_no]

35. NIO = National Intelligence Officer

It's an analyst position, not operations.

[Mass]

38. The article says that Mr Smith was an analyst

whoever Mr Smith is.

[ProfessorPlum]

16. here is just one

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43759

[ClarkUSA]

22. I can't read any of the article's links because it requires $$ /membership

Just wanted to know whether the articles mention that Fulton Armstrong is a CIA agent.

[Mass]

25. Here it is (though it does not require membership for me).

WND MEDIA MATTERS
Senators didn't 'blow' CIA agent's cover
Contrary to AP story, name previously cited several times
Posted: April 12, 2005
2:44 p.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

An Associated Press story said Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar may have "blown" a CIA agent's cover during confirmation hearings for John Bolton, but the agent's name has been cited publicly at least four times in the past few years.

AP diplomatic writer Anne Gearan wrote that in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee's hearing yesterday on Bolton's nomination by President Bush as ambassador to the U.N., Chairman Lugar and Kerry "both mentioned a name, Fulton Armstrong, that had not previously come up in public accounts of the intelligence flap."

Gearan added, "It is not clear whether Armstrong is the undercover officer, but an exchange between Kerry and Bolton suggests that he may be."

But Armstrong's name already has turned up in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Salon.com and the now-defunct, Washington Times-owned Insight on the News, according to Jeffrey Lewis, research fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.



Writing in his weblog, Lewis said that after Lugar mentioned Armstrong's name in opening remarks, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., suggested there was something untoward about mentioning Armstrong’s name and everyone played along with the ridiculous 'Mr. Smith' charade until Kerry read Armstrong’s name in a transcript."

[ClarkUSA]

32. I meant the links in the article itself (to the WSJ, NYT archives, etc.)

Thanks anyway.

[ProfessorPlum]

28. It didn't require any membership for me, but this link

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2002/10/01/World/Castro.Weaponizes.West.Nile.Virus-273166.shtml

Has the following phrase in it;

"The CIA's national intelligence officer for Latin America, Fulton Armstrong, is "coordinating talking points" on the issue. But when contacted by Insight he declined comment. "

This was from the fall of 2002.

I'm not sure why Chris Dodd didn't want his name released - maybe there was some issue about a particular thing that he did/didn't do where his name wasn't associated with it . . . but he was a known CIA guy for years.

[Crunchy Frog]

97. If it hasn't been posted here already,

here's an article from over a year ago, originally published in Salon, that clearly identifies Fulton Armstrong as a CIA analyst.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5585.htm

There was a senior CIA analyst by the name of Fulton Armstrong who was attacked, using leaks to the press, which alleged that he was disloyal and somehow under the influence of the Cuban government.

I've seen several others on various thread on this subject today. It is very clear from all the evidence I've seen, that his identity was already known.

I haven't gotten through the whole thread, and I'm getting in on it kind of late, so I apologize if I've repeated anything that's already been posted.

[EVDebs]

49. The AP article is more Gannon/Guckert style 'journalism' eom

[Pepperbelly]

100. Media Matters has traced Armstrong's mention in the press ...

long before these hearings.

Thus, how could his cover have been blown now when it was actually "blown" long ago?

[Zenlitened]

4. Well, in the interest of accuracy, the headline was...

"Senators may have blown cover..."

Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., both mentioned a name, Fulton Armstrong, that had not previously come up in public accounts of the intelligence flap.

[Me.]

10. Also

it is not known if Fulton Armstrong is indeed an undercover agent.

[peacetalksforall]

12. This is White House-NYT cooperation. It was a coordinated

opportunity to discredit. This is the way it works in the vast right wing conspiracy. People will only hear Kerry's name. Millions will not know that it was discredited.

Right wing pundits say that the internet is not responsible. There is no responsibility at the so-called higher levels of the news either.

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. Was the transcript classified?

If it's an unclassified document with Armstrong's name open for the public, then I don't understand how it can be blowing his cover. :shrug:

[Mass]

6. His name has been in the open for years.

[KoKo]

40. Here's an Excellent article about this posted in GD Forum this a.m....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3467069&mesg_id=3469349

[sniffa]

7. nice thread titLe

:eyes:

is that reaLLy necessary?

[Langis]

9. This is Bullshit, he was a known NIO long before this

http://www.bradynet.com/bbs/venezuela/100049-0.html

[onehandle]

13. The article says "Senators (plural) May Have Blown Cover of CIA Agent".

Not "Kerry May Have Blown Cover of CIA Agent"

[bobthedrummer]

14. I don't think so.

:+

[htuttle]

17. Totally false bullshit -- the CIA lists the NIOs on their own website

http://www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_personnel.html

For example, as you can see from this link, the NIO for Latin America who was hired to replace Fulton Armstrong in 2003 is Joanna Wallace. They even have a short bio for her.

That's neither 'classified' or 'covert'.

I swear, I must have posted this information half a dozen times since the Right Wing Noise Machine kicked into gear on it. ARE CORPORATE REPORTERS SIMPLY TOO STUPID TO USE GOOGLE??!??

:mad:

[glitch]

29. You are assuming that corporate reporters intention is to report but too

stupid to report accurately. That is not what corporate reporters are paid to do.
These corporate reporters are doing exactly what they're paid to do.

[cestpaspossible]

19. "may have" translation: did not. nt

[kerrygoddess]

20. Non issue...

As already posted here, this was a White House planted story. First showed up in White House News on Yahoo. Armstrong's name is all over the net and it was very public that he was an agent. The documents mentioned were declasified years ago.

[ClarkUSA]

23. Then why was it played hush-hush by the Senate Committee?

If you're correct, then someone should inform the AP so they can print a public retraction.

[Zenlitened]

24. Are you assuming that Armstrong is "Mr. Smith"? - n/t

[ClarkUSA]

26. That's what it sounds like from the way the article is written.

"During questioning on John R. Bolton's nomination to be President Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton and members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee referred to ``Mr. Smith'' as one official among several who were involved in a dispute over what Democrats asserted was Bolton's inappropriate treatment of an intelligence analyst who disagreed with him.
.........

In questioning Bolton, Kerry read from a transcript of closed-door interviews that committee staffers conducted with State Department officials prior to Monday's hearing.

``Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from his position? The answer is yes,'' Kerry said, characterizing one interview. ``Did John Bolton share that view?'' Kerry said, and then said the answer again was yes.

``As I said, I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that,'' Bolton replied evenly. ``I thought that was the honest thing to do.''

[Zenlitened]

30. I realize that. I guess what I'm trying to say is we don't really know...

... whether "Mr. Smith" is Armstrong or someone else entirely. Makes the article look like insinuation rather than reporting. Which would be par for the course these days. :)

[ClarkUSA]

34. True.

The Kerry camp need to go on the record and clear this up if the AP is unwilling to do so.

[sandnsea]

65. Why?

Once again, Dems make something a bigger issue than it needs to be for whatever self-defeating purpose that I will never understand. Do you see anybody around here posting talking points from the White House against Dean or Clark or Biden or anybody???

Do you know that 40 minutes after the AP broke this story, they wrote the story that the White House would support Delay?

Why we lose. We'd rather eat our own than stay focused on the real opposition.

[ClarkUSA]

81. Only if the story became a point of more confusion of course...

which it seems not. If it were Clark being mentioned in this article, I'd say the same, btw.

This was an AP article not a White House press release, so let's get that clear. I I didn't get this from CounterPunch (leftwingnut source) or the Washington Times (rightwingnut source).

Why we lose is more about election reform and the fact that Democrats do not have a good, clear message for voters more than anything that happens here at DU.

And posting an AP article isn't "eating our own" as far as I am concerned.

Get over yourself.

[sandnsea]

84. Gearan reports on the White House

You don't find it odd that something that happened in the Senate ends up as a White House AP report? Wake up. Not knowing when you're being played by the right is as important as anything.

[ClarkUSA]

85. Huh?

"You don't find it odd that something that happened in the Senate ends up as a White House AP report?"

Um, it was in the NYT Washington section. What's unusual about that?

[kerrygoddess]

86. It first ran late yesterday afternoon (PST) in Yahoo White House News

Then the news wires picked it up. Anne Geran writes diplomatic and White House correspondence for AP. She is credited with first running the story.

Armstrong's name has been out there in the news regarding Bolton since 2002:

This is from an email I got from a Kerry source on this subject:

Senator Lugar said his name in his opening remarks (so it was already in the public record of the hearing), and the press has already written extensively identifying "Mr. Smith" by name:

* The Washington Times-owned Insight on the News identified Armstrong as the NIO who was "coordinating" Bolton’s speech in September 2002.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2002/10/01/World/Castro.Weaponizes.West.Nile.Virus-273166.shtml

* The New York Times published a story about efforts by Otto Reich to pressure Armstrong in January 2003.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70D10FB3D5A0C768CDDA80894DB404482&incamp=archive:search

* A Wall Street Journal opinion piece accused Armstrong of a "lackadaisical approach to a mounting body of disturbing evidence" about threats to the United States from Cuba and Venezuela in March 2003.

http://www.hispanicvista.com/html3/031703hc.htm

* Salon mentioned Armstrong, again by name, as an analyst who had been smeared as "somehow under the influence of the Cuban government" in January 2004.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/23/johnson/index1.html

[sandnsea]

89. Huh?

Anne Gearon wrote it, it was an AP article. I would have thought you would have had time to figure out what her job is by now. If you were really interested in getting to the bottom of the story and all.

[ClarkUSA]

91. So what?

This silly baiting by you is so ridiculous.

But I'm sure there's a point somewhere. Uh huh.

:tinfoilhat:

[kerrygoddess]

33. Here's a full debunking -

Late Update: Let me be clear about this: Senators Kerry and Lugar said nothing new by mentioning Armstrong’s name.

The Washington Times-owned Insight on the News identified Armstrong as the NIO who was “coordinating” Bolton’s speech in September 2002.
The New York Times published a story about efforts by Otto Reich to pressure Armstrong in January 2003.

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece accused Armstrong of a “lackadaisical approach to a mounting body of disturbing evidence” about threats to the United States from Cuba and Venezuela in March 2003.

Salon mentioned Armstrong, again by name, as an analyst who had been smeared as ” somehow under the influence of the Cuban government” in January 2004.

Senator Lugar—according to my transcript—opened the hearing by announcing:

Now, staff has in fact interviewed Mr. Westerman; Carl Ford, who will be appearing before the committee, as I understand, tomorrow morning at our hearing at 9:30; Mr. Fred Flights (ph), the Bolton special assistant who might know something about this; Tom Fingar, the INR principal deputy assistant secretary at the time; Fulton Armstrong, national intelligence officer for Latin America at the NIC at the time; Stuart Cohen, Mr. Armstrong’s supervisor at the NIC at that time.

Later, Chris Dodd suggested there was something untoward about mentioning Armstrong’s name and everyone played along with the ridiculous “Mr. Smith” charade until Kerry read Armstrong’s name in a transcript.

Even later update: Anne Gearan, AP Diplomatic Writer, should be ashamed of this paragraph:

Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., both mentioned a name, Fulton Armstrong, that had not previously come up in public accounts of the intelligence flap.

Other than the four that I cited, she means. - http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/index.php?id=535

[ClarkUSA]

36. Has anyone contacted the NY Times about this AP story yet?

The NY Times does print retractions, even if the AP doesn't.

[e-mail]

[kerrygoddess]

37. I know a couple people emailed AP

Can you email them too, I will.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Sure can do.

[e-mail]

[bobthedrummer]

42. thank you, kerrygoddess.

That clears it up for this independent Kerry voter.
And Wisconsin went to Kerry/Edwards last November-we were a "battleground" State for Blue!

[LittleClarkie]

43. Purple, really

Gotta work on that, we do ;)

[bobthedrummer]

45. Congress yes, Governor no. Mark Green needs unseating, that's for

sure.
Btw, I was for Kathleen Falk for Governor.

[htuttle]

27. People started writing AP yesterday about it

But don't hold your breath on seeing a public retraction. I've hardly ever seen AP run a retraction.

I have no idea what the 'Mr. Smith' business was about, but as I pointed out in reply #17, the CIA lists all the current NIO personnel (with bios) on their own website. It's not classifed by any means.

I think the whole thing is just more right wing mud.

[kerrygoddess]

39. They actually called me during the primaries about a retraction

I emailed them about something they misquoted about Kerry and they called me about it and said they would retract. it was the national Desk editor who called. never did find the damn thing anywhere but I did get a response.

[ProfessorPlum]

31. It's nice to think that people might actually care about

blown covers for CIA agents, though.

[sandnsea]

44. Discredit the Democratic Party, great strategy!!

You do realize that when you slander one Democrat for something this serious, you slander the entire party, right? Meaning even if Clark were the 2008 candidate, you're helping to make his job harder, right?

This was posted right after the AP WHITE HOUSE reporter broke it. And debunked within minutes. I suppose you were just too excited to slam a Democrat to think about doing YOUR OWN research OR the long term consequences of the slander.

:banghead:

[ClarkUSA]

46. CHILL OUT, man. Duh. Have you bothered to even read this thread?

No one is slandering anyone. Get a grip, willya? I don't spend every minute checking threads here, so forgive me. It's not as if anyone mentioned my post was a dupe, either.

I was posting this because I was concerned and I got some great feedback and info about it. Your nasty accusations are not only unnecessary but also undeserved. Thank goodness most people here are terrific about discussing the message not attacking the messenger. In fact, I am writing the NYT along with kerrygoddess about printing a retraction.

Next time someone posts some rightwingnut/leftwingnut crap about Clark, it'd be great if you acted even half as outraged.

[sandnsea]

48. I read the thread

Pulling teeth to get you to accept this had been thoroughly debunked, seems to me.

I just don't understand why people think slandering Dems helps their candidate. It happens every single day.

[ClarkUSA]

50. Uh huh. Obviously someone has an axe to grind here and it isn't me.

Asking for sources isn't pulling teeth in my book.

However, it is pulling teeth trying to get through to you. My, aren't you hostile and prone to presumptuous pronouncements about others?

Have a nice day.
:hi:

[Leilani]

51. By posting an article, the OP is slandering the Dem Party?

You have got to be kidding!

Now, you cannot post articles if they put Kerry in a bad light.

And the story has NOT been debunked...AP, NYT, WP, & all over the web.

I watched the entire hearing yesterday, & parts of it twice.

Lugar gave a list of people who were being interviewed by staff about Bolton problems in his opening statement. Never mentioned a relationship about Mr Smith or alluded to the fact that he might be undercover.

Later, during the hearing, Kerry read a passage which made it obvious that said person was undercover.

Meanwhile, throughout the hearings ALL senators referred to said person as Mr.Smith.

You know why Kerry blew it? Because he's always there ONLY when it's time to do his questioning. For some reason he doesn't see the need to sit & listen to the hearing & follow testimony the way others do.

Kerry made a mistake, & blaming a poster for making the Dem party look bad is outrageous. If Kerry hadn't blown it, there would be no story.

[Mass]

53. You may want to read that before you speak

http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120007.

Or do you also assume mediamatters is wrong because it does not fit your ideas.

Second source:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1720006&mesg_id=1720298&page=

I dont agree with sandandsea that it slanders the Democratic Party, but I have followed all the hearings and you make it look a lot worse than it is.

[Leilani]

54. I'm basing my opinion on what I saw.

Right now, I'm watching the replay of this AM's hearing. Said person is still being referred to as Mr. Smith.

And the hearing started at 3:00, & Kerry just showed up to do his questioning.

If Kerry made a mistake, why not admit it? Whether the person was known or not is moot.

The Committee followed the policy of not naming the person.

Finally, the story is all over the place, yet some people do not want to discuss it. Why?

[Mass]

55. Ask mediamatters and worldailynews ...

They may be more informed than you and me.

For the rest, Kerry was far from being the only one to arrive late and they have CSPAN in their offices as well you know. Some people can multitask.

[kerrygoddess]

57. Some people need to continue to spread Rovian TP's

Oh well.

[Leilani]

58. If I am critical of anything:

"I am spreading Rovian TP's"

Why are we no longer able to have reasoned discussion & exchange of ideas?

Sounds like Freeperville to me.

None of this, none of this would be an issue, if Kerry had simply followed the policy of referring to said person as Mr.Smith, as all the other Senators did.

[sandnsea]

61. Lugar announced the name

How can Kerry be the one who broke the cover when Lugar announced the name before Kerry did. And why aren't DUers all over Lugar's ass instead of Kerry's? Nooo, just jump whenever the White House, Karl Rove and Drudge ring their bell. It's putrid.

[ClarkUSA]

66. You don't get it.

I could care less about Lugar making a mistake like this. WTH cares about the GOP? Besides, we know from Novak's example that Lugar is golden, too. I do care whether Kerry did something that could be used against him - even though he is not my candidate of choice, it would reflect badly on all Democrats.

Why can't people discuss this without being accused of the worst motives by you
and others? It is General Discussion: Politics, after all. I learned a few things and perhaps many others who are reading this thread have too.

Isn't that the point of discussion?

[Mass]

69. Listen to the hearing - look on the web

The name is known as being in the intelligence community and has been for a long time (which is what many people have pointed to you at the beginning of the thread), so it would be surprising he would be undercover after having been that visible, which is the point what mediamatters is trying to make.

As you can read for the article you posted, AP does not say that he is anyway undercover(in fact, they state he is an analyst), just that the name had not been heard until now in the intelligence flap. Not surprising given that his specialty is Cuba.

[ClarkUSA]

62. I agree

Good thing Lugar did the same because the GOP can't make an issue of it.

It would be interesting to see whether both Kerry and Lugar begin to say "Mr. Smith" now.

Why the pretense if everyone knows about Fulton Armstrong anyway? Seems rather silly.

[ClarkUSA]

59. What?

Leilani has a right to her opinions, IMO. I'm getting tired of all the nasty insinuations against fellow grassroots Democrats.

[kerrygoddess]

79. It does not help us (the party) to do this

We need to be unified not divided. Sure everyone is entitled to their opionions but why help the Repubs?

[kerrygoddess]

56. It was initially posted in the WHITE HOUSE NEWS on Yahoo

What does that tell you?

The guy has been in the news as CIA agent for some time. It's not an issue, why make it one?

[Leilani]

68. When I read it last night

it was posted under politics/congress

[sandnsea]

60. Neil Silver

Perhaps this is Mr. Smith??

"Meanwhile, committee Democrats meeting behind closed doors were interviewing Neil Silver, a senior department intelligence official, and a CIA agent whose identify the senators sought to conceal."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/04/12/national/w081342D42.DTL

I am pissed whenever any Democrat goes after Democrats. It's just unbelievably stupid. The same thing happened in the campaign. We helped them spread their shit more than they did, and we still haven't learned.

[Mass]

63. No, those are two different people

or at least that is what they said during the hearing.

However, this is the typical example of something overblown. I dont mind the OP as he posted something and just waited for answers without provocation.

I could even accept that Kerry, reading from a text, could have forgotten to change the name to Mr. Smith (all other people were speaking and not reading a text).

I simply really dislike when somebody insists in trying to invent reasons why he would have make the error to make him look bad (they can watch the hearings in their offices in they want and you see some senators work on other things during the hearings as well).

[sandnsea]

64. A cover

Means you aren't supposed to know who you're covering. If everybody knew who Mr. Smith was, then there wasn't any cover to begin with.

[Mass]

67. Yes

Actually the AP article says it is not clear if Armstrong is Mr Smith, as it should be, because nobody said that it was. It is all guess, but some insists they know. I may be less bright that some posters here, but I have to say I dont know from the hearing if this is the case.

In addition, I was not surprised because, why I am not well versed in intelligence issues, I knew the name Fulton Armstrong (read it in articles). Typically, people undercover are not none by the great public.

[Leilani]

70. Don't give me shit about the campaign

Kerry had a united party, more money than Bush, & he lost.

The Kerry supporters are more concerned about his image than they are that we are stuck with Bush for another 4 years.

He lost because he ran a miserable campaign, & the Kerry supporters haven't come to grips with it.

If he had won, we wouldn't be worried about a Bolton appointment right now.

So don't dump on Dems about the campaign.

[sandnsea]

71. No

Kerry supporters are more concerned with Bush policies and have been fighting those policies for months now. Other people are more concerned with positioning themselves for 2008, which is all this thread was ever about.

And no, Kerry did not have a united party. It was inch deep support and that's been clear for a long time now, especially with posts like yours.

He did better than any candidate against a sitting President in nearly 100 years. There wasn't a damned thing wrong with his campaign, he did better than any other candidate could have.

[ClarkUSA]

73. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

"There wasn't a damned thing wrong with his campaign, he did better than any other candidate could have."

Even Mary Beth Cahill admitted the campaign made mistakes, even if you can't.

And attacking fellow Democrats isn't going to change anything. You might take your own advice. Paranoia isn't becoming, either, but do continue.


:crazy:

[sandnsea]

76. It sure isn't

Mistakes doesn't mean a bad campaign. There are always going to be mistakes in life.

I've seen quite enough of the incredibly lame "I was just asking a question" garbage. I didn't start a thread spreading Rove talking points, I never have against any Democrat. Don't talk to me about attacking fellow Democrats.

[ClarkUSA]

78. Now you're putting words into my mouth - nice trick.

1. I didn't say anything about a bad campaign.

To be very clear, you said the campaign didn't do anything wrong and I pointed out that Mary Beth Cahill admitted to regretting mistakes made during the campaign. To me, making mistakes is doing the wrong thing. Duh.

2. I didn't ask a question in my OP. I posted an article and mentioned Novak and also said that we KNOW Novak's outing of a CIA agent is 100% true (the implication was this AP article did not have that going for it). I asked for sources for debunking this. And I asked people to write to the AP and the NYT.

The only Democrat attacking fellow Democrats here is YOU. The hilarious part is you actually think this somehow is part of some nefarious scheme to "position" for 2008. Yeah right.

:tinfoilhat:

[sandnsea]

83. Whose putting words in whose mouth

I didn't say the campaign didn't do anything wrong. I said there was nothing wrong with the campaign that was run. The campaign. In which I expect mistakes to be made, like in anybody's campaign.

People posted that the article had been debunked and you just didn't seem satisfied. If it wasn't premature gloating over a scandal, so be it. But I've never seen somebody fight so hard against the facts for altruistic reasons.

[ClarkUSA]

87. You must write fiction -- you're so good at it.

I see nothing but semantic games from you:

"I didn't say the campaign didn't do anything wrong. I said there was nothing wrong with the campaign that was run."

But in Message 71, you declared, "There wasn't a damned thing wrong with his campaign..."

I stand by what I said (see proof above). Is one of us having a problem with reading comprehension? :eyes:


"People posted that the article had been debunked and you just didn't seem satisfied. If it wasn't premature gloating over a scandal, so be it. But I've never seen somebody fight so hard against the facts for altruistic reasons."

You've been overreacting and exceptionally judgmental during this whole thread - how many times can you attack a fellow Democrat with nasty insults? Go ahead. Do Kerry proud. We've all seen how altruistic YOU are.

:tinfoilhat:

[sandnsea]

88. Here's the fiction

"I posted an article and mentioned Novak and also said that we KNOW Novak's outing of a CIA agent is 100% true (the implication was this AP article did not have that going for it). I asked for sources for debunking this. And I asked people to write to the AP and the NYT."

That was not what was in your OP at all. So what was the purpose of the OP again???

And, BTW, there wasn't anything wrong with the campaign. There isn't anything wrong with alot of things, which doesn't mean that anything is ever executed 100% perfectly. That's just common sense.

But then, common sense would tell some people that ripping apart every Democratic politician for the next 2 years isn't exactly the way to win anything in 2006.

[ClarkUSA]

94. D'uh!

Hey, get a clue. I never said I put it all in my OP. However, everything I said above is in this thread under my name. As for the Kerry campaign during the general election, I have to disagree with you 100% there, but that's still my right as a Democrat and an American, I believe. And just for the record, I do not think that the Clark campaign was without mistakes which were wrong for the success of the effort - even Clark himself admitted and took responsibility for all of them, bless him. But he still did damn well for a four-month run with no prior campaign experience, IMO.

Pontificate to someone else. You've been hideous to me and have no credibility lecturing me on etiquette, politics or common sense after the way you've attacked me during this whole thread. And if I want to post about Democratic figures from articles in the NYT, I will continue to exercise my right as a DU member to do so, if you don't mind.


Goodnight.

[sandnsea]

95. rotflma

"I'll do whatever I want and you can't stop me and I don't care who it hurts and I'll hold my breath until my face turns blue. So there."

Go right on ahead and post whatever you want. And as I said in the very first post I made to you, GREAT DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY!!!

rotfl

[ClarkUSA]

96. You are as charmingly erudite as ever, I see

Do you pick up your toys in the playground, too? I haven't seen prose like that since second grade.

Oh and check your anagrams. You're off-the-mark there along with everything else.

Now off to bed. I've got meetings all day tomorrow but this thread has been both entertaining and informative.

Good luck with your career as a GREAT DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY consultant.

Watch out, Karl Rove, you've met your match. :rofl:

[sandnsea]

98. o

How astute of you to notice a typo. Watch out Karl Rove indeed.

[kerrygoddess]

75. Do you want to talk about Clark's campaign during the primary?

How far did he get?

Kerry supporters don't need to come to grips, we know who he is and what he is doing for our country.

Maybe you should come to grips, huh?

[fedupinBushcountry]

77. Amen

You said it perfectly.

[Leilani]

82. This had nothing to do with Clark

whether you like it or not

This is about my anger over the fact that Bush is still in office.

That everyday we are being hurt, as individuals & as a nation.

I have the right to criticize Kerry, if I want.

Did Clark run a lousy campaign? Yes, because I tell the truth.

[Mass]

101. Sure you have the right to criticize Kerry

Other people have the right to criticize what you say when they dont agree with your characterizations.

[LittleClarkie]

92. But...Kerry's also a Dem

Shouldn't we also not be dumping on him about the campaign?

I could go for that.

Btw, IMHO, unified party my ass. We couldn't even decide amongst ourselves what the main focus of the campaign should have been. Kerry was being pulled around like a pushmepullyou.

If we were unified at all, it was a very superficial thing. Several of us were ABB, and it showed. Some people seemed to think Kerry was getting in the way of THEIR campaign against Bush. Running against the other guy and not for our guy rarely works.

[kerrygoddess]

52. Full Debunking in today's World Net Daily

MEDIA MATTERS
Senators didn't 'blow' CIA agent's cover
Contrary to AP story, name previously cited several times

Posted: April 12, 2005
2:44 p.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

An Associated Press story said Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar may have "blown" a CIA agent's cover during confirmation hearings for John Bolton, but the agent's name has been cited publicly at least four times in the past few years.

AP diplomatic writer Anne Gearan wrote that in the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee's hearing yesterday on Bolton's nomination by President Bush as ambassador to the U.N., Chairman Lugar and Kerry "both mentioned a name, Fulton Armstrong, that had not previously come up in public accounts of the intelligence flap."

Gearan added, "It is not clear whether Armstrong is the undercover officer, but an exchange between Kerry and Bolton suggests that he may be."

But Armstrong's name already has turned up in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Salon.com and the now-defunct, Washington Times-owned Insight on the News, according to Jeffrey Lewis, research fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.

During the hearing, the AP reported, Bolton and members of panel referred to "Mr. Smith'' as one official among several in a dispute over what Democrats asserted was Bolton's inappropriate treatment of an intelligence analyst who disagreed with him.

The Washington Post ran the AP story but chose to censor Armstrong's name in a quote by Kerry:

"Did Otto Reich share his belief that should be removed from his position? The answer is yes," Kerry said, characterizing one interview. "Did John Bolton share that view?" Kerry asked. Again, he said the answer was yes.
Writing in his weblog, Lewis said that after Lugar mentioned Armstrong's name in opening remarks, Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., suggested there was something untoward about mentioning Armstrong’s name and everyone played along with the ridiculous 'Mr. Smith' charade until Kerry read Armstrong’s name in a transcript."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43759

[democracyindanger]

90. World Nut Daily isn't the greatest source to cite

I completely believe the debunking, but World Nut Daily is a steaming pile of crap. Michelle Maglalang's racist mug on their front page should set off every wingnut alarm you've got.

[kerrygoddess]

93. Just stated as one of the sources who has debunked... but

You know when the conservatives themselves debunk it, well it's just not newsworthy even to them.

But here's what Media Matters says (WorldNet also quoted them):

Conservative Internet gossip Matt Drudge attempted to smear Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) by linking to an Associated Press report that falsely suggested that Kerry and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) "may have blown" the cover of CIA officer Fulton Armstrong.

Drudge went further than the AP in implicating Kerry. Omitting Lugar's name, he titled the link simply "Kerry Blows CIA Agent Cover?..." The AP article, written by AP diplomatic writer Anne Gearan, reported that Kerry and Lugar both mentioned Armstrong by name during the April 11 Senate confirmation hearings of John Bolton, President Bush's nominee to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, and falsely suggested that they "may have blown his cover" by doing so.

In fact, while Bolton's critics had apparently not previously mentioned Armstrong in connection with allegations that Bolton tried to retaliate against an intelligence analyst who corrected the text of a speech he delivered, government, news, and non-profit sources had publicly identified Armstrong as a CIA officer on multiple occasions prior to the April 11 hearing. In claiming that Armstrong "works covertly," Gearan apparently overlooked several significant references:

Former intelligence official Larry C. Johnson referred to "a senior CIA analyst by the name of Fulton Armstrong" in a January 23, 2004, interview with Salon.com.

A House International Relations Committee schedule for the week of February 24, 2003, identified "Mr. Fulton Armstrong (Invited), National Intelligence Officer for Latin America, CIA" as a possible witness for a hearing titled "Overview of U.S. Policy Toward the Western Hemisphere."

A summary of a 2001 conference hosted by the National Intelligence Council (NIC), an agency that advises the director of central intelligence, titled "Prospects for WTO Trade Negotiations After Seattle: Foreign Strategies and Perspectives," identified Armstrong as a "National Intelligence Officer" for Latin America, a post within the NIC that "reports to the Director of Central Intelligence in his capacity as head of the US Intelligence Community."

A listing of "expert speakers" on the website of the American Management Association identified "Fulton Armstrong, National Intelligence Officer for Latin America, long-time C.I.A. expert in the region." (That page is no longer posted on the website but is available through the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.)

The faulty AP story appeared in major newspapers including the Los Angeles Times, Newsday, and The Washington Post, which actually expunged Armstrong's name from the version of the story it published despite it having been widely reported both before the hearing, as noted above, and in coverage of the hearing.

See link for further links - http://mediamatters.org/items/200504120007

[Mass]

72. I guess the amazing thing is that most blogs I read

did not make a big deal of that, I guess. The main thing I have read was an AP release and the post on Drudge plus a couple of threads here. I guess this shows this is really not a big deal.

[ClarkUSA]

74. Good thing.

[OzarkDem]

80. The opposite, actually

I read another story earlier that said R's on the committee forced the agent's identity to be revealed. Another Rove dirty tricks campaign, for certain.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43759

Senators didn't 'blow' CIA agent's cover
Contrary to AP story, name previously cited several times

Posted: April 12, 2005
2:44 p.m. Eastern


An Associated Press story said Sens. John Kerry and Richard Lugar may have "blown" a CIA agent's cover during confirmation hearings for John Bolton, but the agent's name has been cited publicly at least four times in the past few years.

snip

But Armstrong's name already has turned up in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Salon.com and the now-defunct, Washington Times-owned Insight on the News, according to Jeffrey Lewis, research fellow at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland.