Robert Novak: Joseph Wilson DID NOT forcefully object to publishing of Flame's name

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner


And FERN, the problem is that Tenet was, immediately following 9-11, in bush's corner.

What's the meaning or relevance of your statement above?

Fern

 

[Genx87]

For being a non-story this thing sure has marathon like legs. What are we going on year 4 of this?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Tastes, Didn't fitzgerald state "there was a crime but libby threw sand in our face"?? Aren't there several crimes that go without charges being filed? What a senseless thing to say.

Also, there was never any evidence of a uranium deal or potential deal with Niger. CIA sources confirmed this. People who keep claiming Wilson "Lied" have yet to show any evidence of it.

And FERN, the problem is that Tenet was, immediately following 9-11, in bush's corner.

Here's what the CIA sources and SSCI confirmed, and what Wilson himself confirmed, then denied, then confirmed, then denied, and then confirmed. He couldn't even keep his story straight:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/...lsons_forgetfulne.html

Edit: And as far as Fitzgerald goes, he knew from the very beginning that Armitage was the leaker. So why didn't he go after him instead of ringleading this ridculously drawn out public circus?

 

[heyheybooboo]

You can always tell the disinformation when the Cons get their panties in a wad about The Biggest Lie: Yellow Cake


From: Niger Uranium: Still a False Claim
Carnegie Endowment Non-Proliferation Project

Niger has two uranium mines, both owned by a French multi-national consortium (COGEMA) that receives all of Niger's ore for processing. With annual yellowcake production around 2,900 tons, Niger has the third-highest uranium production in the world behind Canada and Australia. Almost all of this yellowcake is exported to France, Japan, and Spain (the countries that make up the COGEMA consortium).

To obtain 500 tons of yellowcake as outlined in the NIE, Iraq would have had to: 1) import one-sixth of the uranium that Niger produces in an entire year, and 2) hide these imports from the consortium that tightly controls the mines and pre-sells the uranium to its members before it is even mined. These are not trivial matters. Even on a much smaller scale, French, international or U.S. authorities would certainly have detected such activity-especially after Niger signed a comprehensive safeguards agreement with the IAEA in June 2002.

The numbers tell us that Iraq's alleged interest in Niger uranium - even if true - never represented an immediate or significant threat to the United States. Simple math and common sense confirm that the claim should never have appeared in administration statements as evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapon program.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Puhleeze.

If you followed the Plame affair at all and took off your partisan spectacles you'd know the purpose of the Novak article was not to "out" Plame but to discredit Wilson's own article about what he claimed he didn't find in Africa.

You mean, what he ACTUALLY didn't find in Africa... specifically any evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium. Strangely, the intelligence communities from most other European nations who looked into the matter arrived at the same conclusion, and several sources warned the Bushwhackos that the source for those stories was highly unreliable.

The only reason Plame was mentioned at all was to demonstrate the nepotism involved in Wilson being selected and sent on the mission in the first place; nepotism Wilson denied, which was just one of his lies concerning the whole affair.

Which makes outing her that much more wrong and that much more criminal. The Bushwhackos sacraficed Plame's value a CIA asset and risked unmasking every other CIA operative and information source she may have encountered, all for political gamesmanship.

In case you don't understand the gravity of that:

trea·son (tre'z?n)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
   
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Besides that, it's like two crime families here each trying to put out a hit on the other, yet you try to play it off as if Plame and Wilson were some poor innocent souls at the mercy of some big crime boss for a minor transgression.

Bushwhackos are criminals of the worst kind. I believe they should be tried for TREASON for outing Valerie Plame and for shredding the rights guaranteed to all Americans under the U.S. Constitution. I believe they should be tried for the murder of every American who has died in their war of LIES in Iraq. As of 10/6/07 11:24 pm EDT, the toll stands at 3,815.

🙁

Please do tell us what crimes were commited by Plame and Wilson. Be sure to include the body count of American deaths resulting from those crimes. :roll:

Give me a break.

Why? Lying sycophants like you don't deserve one. No breaks for you. 😛

Talk about morally bankrupt. Jeezuz. Stop being so blindly one-sided.

Pot, meet kettle. :thumbsdown: :frown:

How many times do you and the rest of the lefties have to be corrected on this, Harvey?

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs...s_on_iraq_uranium.html

- A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from ?a number of intelligence reports,? a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

- Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush?s 16 words a ?lie?, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

- Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

First of all, if outing Plame was criminal then someone should have been charged for it and found guilty. Nobody was found guilty of outing Plame. NOBODY. Get that through your thick excuse for a skull. If anyone should have been guilty it should have been Armitage, but since the left didn't want to see Armitage go to jail they turned a blind eye. Apparntly lies don't mean anything and are perfectly acceptable if they can't be pinned on Bush and Co.

Secondly, the only whacko here is you with your own lies and distortions. You're so drunk on your own unhinged looney left kool-aid you couldn't separate facts from fvcks. Wilson was the real liar yet he's YOUR lair, I guess, so it's perfectly OK with you. Since you're so big on using the words lie and liar maybe you should actually find out what they mean and how the words are applied before you spew them around like some pedophile tossing candy to school kids?

Third, you don't seem to display any similar faux outrage when it comes to the FISA or SWIFT disclosure, disclosures that without a doubt had far more impact on the security of this country than releasing the name of some obscure CIA desk jockey who was relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things (and who outed herself long before Novak did, btw). If her stupid husband hadn't been a asswipe and hadn't acted like a partisan monkey turd tosser in the first place the Plame Affair would never have happened.

This is largely a lie-filled post, IMO. I'll take it point by point.

1. There is no statue on the books for 'outing' an undercove CIA agent, but the harm of outing Plame is clearly large with her on the non-proliferation work.

Usually it's the left who might do such a thing to oppose the CIA's questionable activties, and the right screams murder, 'treason' and such. They're hypocrites here.

2. There's not enogh of a coherent point to answer here, other than the false charge that Wilson 'was the big liar here'.

Wilson's story may have a couple small errors, but is generally correct; it's the deceipt in the weasel-worded 16 words that was the problem.

It's clear to anyone who isn't ideologically driven to ignore the evidence that the administration was loose with the truth to 'sell' its war.

Read your own source, factcheck: it explains that the CIA itself changed its position, that it had been wrong all along to conclude Iraq had pursued Uranium. The timing was such that the CIA had earlier felt they had pursued Uranium, and that some of the evidence Wilson brought back (I thought the right said he had just partied there?) helped prove it, but the CIA came later to the position that Wilson had been right all along, when Wilson said there was insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion they had sought Uranium.

Again, as factcheck concludes, it was the *opinion* of a Nigerian that they probably wanted Uranium, but Uranium was not discussed in the 1999 meetings. As Wilson said:

Wilson: ?At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date.

3. You are lying in calling her an 'obscure desk jockey'. We've been through many times how she had been a NOC, an overseas operative, and the danger of revealing her.

She did not 'out herself'. She was perfectly able to function in her role as a NOC as needed.
There's a reason *Bush's* CIA pursued the outing as a crime.

Your childish spewing against Wilson at the last paragraph is garbage, but suffice it to say that the man acted as a patriot, revealing the truth when the president said something false in the State of the Union which the adminitration itself then immediately retracted as a mistake to have said, an admission it appears would not have happened but for Wilson's whistle-blowing, after he spent months trying to get the administration to correct it discreetly, working through private connections.

The administration is to blame for his having to make a public issue of it, when they refused his efforts to get it corrected.

 

[Lemon law]

Surely TLC can do better than this set of arguments.

First of all, if outing Plame was criminal then someone should have been charged for it and found guilty. Nobody was found guilty of outing Plame. NOBODY. Get that through your thick excuse for a skull. If anyone should have been guilty it should have been Armitage, but since the left didn't want to see Armitage go to jail they turned a blind eye. Apparntly lies don't mean anything and are perfectly acceptable if they can't be pinned on Bush and Co.

( 100% partisan spin and totally distorted. It was the CIA itself and not "the lefties" that lodged the criminal charges. The fact that Armitage failed to be prosecuted is due to the fact that the law governing the criminality simply had a loophole. But in the process of investigation and piecing together the truth a Republican appointed prosecutor dumped on Libby for lying and obstructing the investigation. A decision made by Fitzgerald and I see zero evidence that "lefties" wanted Armitage to be spared. Which is another allegation TLC makes with zero support )




Secondly, the only whacko here is you with your own lies and distortions. You're so drunk on your own unhinged looney left kool-aid you couldn't separate facts from fvcks. Wilson was the real liar yet he's YOUR lair, I guess, so it's perfectly OK with you. Since you're so big on using the words lie and liar maybe you should actually find out what they mean and how the words are applied before you spew them around like some pedophile tossing candy to school kids?

( I have no idea what the above TLC paragraph means or implies. But its sounds like nothing like a spittle filled rant against lefties with no clear argument or support.
Exactly how did Wilson lie? He simply reported that he found no basis in fact for the British claim that Saddam was trying to purchase Uranium from Niger. An argument that the CIA agreed with prior to GWB echoing that claim in the STU speech. )

Third, you don't seem to display any similar faux outrage when it comes to the FISA or SWIFT disclosure, disclosures that without a doubt had far more impact on the security of this country than releasing the name of some obscure CIA desk jockey who was relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things (and who outed herself long before Novak did, btw). If her stupid husband hadn't been a asswipe and hadn't acted like a partisan monkey turd tosser in the first place the Plame Affair would never have happened.

( I don't know who you is but I have lots of outrage at the FISA and SWIFT disclosures. And what bearing does any contention that Flame was obscure or important have to do with anything. Remember the CIA was the party upset and who pressed criminal charges against the outing of one of their own. Then you say Plame outed herself?
Something I find highly dubious and something you just slip in out of nowhere. And then you come up with its her asswipe of a husband who acted like a Partisan turd tosser. When Wilson was a republican. And you have yet to demonstrate that the report he submitted to the CIA was politically motivated in any way. )

TLC, I have to really wonder about your logic or should I say your lack of it.


But the high road question is and remains----is there any credibility to the contention that Saddam was trying to acquire yellowcake Uranium from Niger or anywhere else? Then there is another hurdle to leap. Namely is their any credibility to the claim Saddam had any ability to refine that yellowcake by separating the U235 from the U238. Again the immediate threat question rests on another dubious and previously CIA debunked claim that the Aluminum tubes could only be used in centrifuge rotors.
Once Saddam had both centrifuges and yellowcake, any bomb would still be at least five years away.

I still think GWB&co. were sending the message that their lies were not to be exposed. In the fullness of time, I fully expect a conspiracy to defraud will be proved and GWB&co. will go to jail for this and a host of other crimes. But thats a partisan opinion, by in large us "lefties" are concerned with verifiable facts. Pretending that the evidence can forever hidden seems to motivate the spittle from the right. As you frantically pretend that our suspicions can't be true. When a pima facia circumstantial evidence makes it the only plausible explanation.

The same spittle came out of watergate, but finally the truth came out. Until then, us "lefties" will keep on working to GET AT THE TRUTH and FIND THE PROOF.

 

[Stoneburner]

Chicken, you don't know how the legal process works, do you? Not all investigations lead to charges or indictments. But if somebody lies, that is a SERIOUS CRIME. The absence of an indictment does not mean there was no crime. The point Fitzgerald made so eloquently at his press conference was the investigation of the crime was thrown off by the lies told by libby, and really rove too. Indictments require EVIDENCE. If Fitzgerald used the same standard of proof as the whitehouse used for iraq, then hell, even you'd be in jail right now 🙂

As for all that bunk about wilson lying, that's always been a red herring. Wilson was a republican, praised by bush classic, and doing his job. Sure he's gotten a bit self promotional, but it doesn't mean he's wrong. The right wing has lost any sense of direction with this Plame stuff... their usual method is to attack anybody tangentially related who provides the easiest target. That happened to be Wilson... but the truth is, despite the noise machine being turned on him he still has come out unscathed. Mother teresa faired worse after Hitchy got through with her 🙂

Regardless, the fact that the whitehouse would purposely TARGET a CIA operative for political reasons is vile. And Karl Rove specifically said " PLAME IS FAIR GAME".

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner


And FERN, the problem is that Tenet was, immediately following 9-11, in bush's corner.

What's the meaning or relevance of your statement above?

Fern

The person who ran the CIA was in bush's camp so it's somewhat absurd to claim the CIA set bush up? I wonder if the fact she was "non-official" had anything to do with this.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It was the CIA itself and not "the lefties" that lodged the criminal charges.

A minor correction, the CIA concluded that the incident should be referred to the Justice Department to request a criminal investigation. They cannot press charges themselves.

This implies that they viewed Plame as a covert agent under the statute, even though another element of the crime was not provable, resulting in no charges.

But the high road question is and remains----is there any credibility to the contention that Saddam was trying to acquire yellowcake Uranium from Niger or anywhere else? Then there is another hurdle to leap. Namely is their any credibility to the claim Saddam had any ability to refine that yellowcake by separating the U235 from the U238. Again the immediate threat question rests on another dubious and previously CIA debunked claim that the Aluminum tubes could only be used in centrifuge rotors.
Once Saddam had both centrifuges and yellowcake, any bomb would still be at least five years away.

The CIA itself concluded, using TLC's own source:

we [The CIA] no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad

The same spittle came out of watergate, but finally the truth came out. Until then, us "lefties" will keep on working to GET AT THE TRUTH and FIND THE PROOF.

Sadly, Watergate was a freak accident that the truth came out and action was taken. For example, had not Nixon inherited a taping system going back to Eisenhower...

Needless to say, as useful as such tapes would be today, they hardly tape talks now.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Puhleeze.

If you followed the Plame affair at all and took off your partisan spectacles you'd know the purpose of the Novak article was not to "out" Plame but to discredit Wilson's own article about what he claimed he didn't find in Africa.

You mean, what he ACTUALLY didn't find in Africa... specifically any evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire yellow cake uranium. Strangely, the intelligence communities from most other European nations who looked into the matter arrived at the same conclusion, and several sources warned the Bushwhackos that the source for those stories was highly unreliable.

The only reason Plame was mentioned at all was to demonstrate the nepotism involved in Wilson being selected and sent on the mission in the first place; nepotism Wilson denied, which was just one of his lies concerning the whole affair.

Which makes outing her that much more wrong and that much more criminal. The Bushwhackos sacraficed Plame's value a CIA asset and risked unmasking every other CIA operative and information source she may have encountered, all for political gamesmanship.

In case you don't understand the gravity of that:

trea·son (tre'z?n)
n.

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
   
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Besides that, it's like two crime families here each trying to put out a hit on the other, yet you try to play it off as if Plame and Wilson were some poor innocent souls at the mercy of some big crime boss for a minor transgression.

Bushwhackos are criminals of the worst kind. I believe they should be tried for TREASON for outing Valerie Plame and for shredding the rights guaranteed to all Americans under the U.S. Constitution. I believe they should be tried for the murder of every American who has died in their war of LIES in Iraq. As of 10/6/07 11:24 pm EDT, the toll stands at 3,815.

🙁

Please do tell us what crimes were commited by Plame and Wilson. Be sure to include the body count of American deaths resulting from those crimes. :roll:

Give me a break.

Why? Lying sycophants like you don't deserve one. No breaks for you. 😛

Talk about morally bankrupt. Jeezuz. Stop being so blindly one-sided.

Pot, meet kettle. :thumbsdown: :frown:

How many times do you and the rest of the lefties have to be corrected on this, Harvey?

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs...s_on_iraq_uranium.html

- A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from ?a number of intelligence reports,? a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

- Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush?s 16 words a ?lie?, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

- Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

First of all, if outing Plame was criminal then someone should have been charged for it and found guilty. Nobody was found guilty of outing Plame. NOBODY. Get that through your thick excuse for a skull. If anyone should have been guilty it should have been Armitage, but since the left didn't want to see Armitage go to jail they turned a blind eye. Apparntly lies don't mean anything and are perfectly acceptable if they can't be pinned on Bush and Co.

Secondly, the only whacko here is you with your own lies and distortions. You're so drunk on your own unhinged looney left kool-aid you couldn't separate facts from fvcks. Wilson was the real liar yet he's YOUR lair, I guess, so it's perfectly OK with you. Since you're so big on using the words lie and liar maybe you should actually find out what they mean and how the words are applied before you spew them around like some pedophile tossing candy to school kids?

Third, you don't seem to display any similar faux outrage when it comes to the FISA or SWIFT disclosure, disclosures that without a doubt had far more impact on the security of this country than releasing the name of some obscure CIA desk jockey who was relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things (and who outed herself long before Novak did, btw). If her stupid husband hadn't been a asswipe and hadn't acted like a partisan monkey turd tosser in the first place the Plame Affair would never have happened.

This is largely a lie-filled post, IMO. I'll take it point by point.

1. There is no statue on the books for 'outing' an undercove CIA agent, but the harm of outing Plame is clearly large with her on the non-proliferation work.

Usually it's the left who might do such a thing to oppose the CIA's questionable activties, and the right screams murder, 'treason' and such. They're hypocrites here.

2. There's not enogh of a coherent point to answer here, other than the false charge that Wilson 'was the big liar here'.

Wilson's story may have a couple small errors, but is generally correct; it's the deceipt in the weasel-worded 16 words that was the problem.

It's clear to anyone who isn't ideologically driven to ignore the evidence that the administration was loose with the truth to 'sell' its war.

Read your own source, factcheck: it explains that the CIA itself changed its position, that it had been wrong all along to conclude Iraq had pursued Uranium. The timing was such that the CIA had earlier felt they had pursued Uranium, and that some of the evidence Wilson brought back (I thought the right said he had just partied there?) helped prove it, but the CIA came later to the position that Wilson had been right all along, when Wilson said there was insufficient evidence to reach the conclusion they had sought Uranium.

Again, as factcheck concludes, it was the *opinion* of a Nigerian that they probably wanted Uranium, but Uranium was not discussed in the 1999 meetings. As Wilson said:

Wilson: ?At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date.

3. You are lying in calling her an 'obscure desk jockey'. We've been through many times how she had been a NOC, an overseas operative, and the danger of revealing her.

She did not 'out herself'. She was perfectly able to function in her role as a NOC as needed.
There's a reason *Bush's* CIA pursued the outing as a crime.

Your childish spewing against Wilson at the last paragraph is garbage, but suffice it to say that the man acted as a patriot, revealing the truth when the president said something false in the State of the Union which the adminitration itself then immediately retracted as a mistake to have said, an admission it appears would not have happened but for Wilson's whistle-blowing, after he spent months trying to get the administration to correct it discreetly, working through private connections.

The administration is to blame for his having to make a public issue of it, when they refused his efforts to get it corrected.

Plame exposed herself back in 1999 by making a political contribution of $1000 to Al Gore's campaign and listed her place of employment as Brewster-Jennings & Associates, the front company she used for CIA cover. The excuse by the left for that was that she was still working in an undercover capacity. However, that doesn't fly because she was already married. If she wanted to conceal her undercover status why didn't she contribute as Valerie Wilson and simply list her occupation as mother or wife of a diplomat? Why would she use her old name and correlate it with her front company? She drove her car to work every day CIA headquarters in Langley. It wouldn't have been difficult for anyone to put two and two together. Then there's also the earlier allegations about her status being uncovered by the intel illeally provided to Cuba some years previous. Why would the CIA keep Plame as a NOC when such risks were known already? Sorry, but nothing in the clame that Plame was still a NOC smells right at all.
As to what Factcheck concludes, you ommitted the part immediately following the portion you posted:

But that's not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson?s report upon his return from Niger:

Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It was the CIA itself and not "the lefties" that lodged the criminal charges.

A minor correction, the CIA concluded that the incident should be referred to the Justice Department to request a criminal investigation. They cannot press charges themselves.

This implies that they viewed Plame as a covert agent under the statute, even though another element of the crime was not provable, resulting in no charges.

But the high road question is and remains----is there any credibility to the contention that Saddam was trying to acquire yellowcake Uranium from Niger or anywhere else? Then there is another hurdle to leap. Namely is their any credibility to the claim Saddam had any ability to refine that yellowcake by separating the U235 from the U238. Again the immediate threat question rests on another dubious and previously CIA debunked claim that the Aluminum tubes could only be used in centrifuge rotors.
Once Saddam had both centrifuges and yellowcake, any bomb would still be at least five years away.

The CIA itself concluded, using TLC's own source:

we [The CIA] no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad

The same spittle came out of watergate, but finally the truth came out. Until then, us "lefties" will keep on working to GET AT THE TRUTH and FIND THE PROOF.

Sadly, Watergate was a freak accident that the truth came out and action was taken. For example, had not Nixon inherited a taping system going back to Eisenhower...

Needless to say, as useful as such tapes would be today, they hardly tape talks now.

See, this is typical of the left. Omit, omit, omit, and leave out the relevant facts.

Let's show what you DIDN'T include in the parts you quoted. Here's the entire quote which you parsed:

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.

Makes a bit of a difference. Not only that, the SSCI report concluded even further down the road that Bush's 16 words were NOT lies.

And Factcheck's ultimate conclusion is:

The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.

Now please stop with all your quote parsing to attempt to make the Factcheck link say what you wish it said instead of what it really says.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner


And FERN, the problem is that Tenet was, immediately following 9-11, in bush's corner.

What's the meaning or relevance of your statement above?

Fern

The person who ran the CIA was in bush's camp so it's somewhat absurd to claim the CIA set bush up? I wonder if the fact she was "non-official" had anything to do with this.

Tenet was in GWB's camp? he was appointed by Bill C. According to his owrds he sincerely believed Sadam had WMD etc.

No matter, in an otherwise carreer type organization the political leanings of an (political) appointee like Tenet cannot be reasonably attributed (downward) to others in the organization.

Fern

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: techs
And why would you post anything this traitor says?

The fact that you're willing to label anyone you disagree with as a "traitor" speaks volumes. You're a disgrace. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

 

[Stoneburner]

TasteslikechickenbutsmelllikeBS, why were those words removed from speeches prior to the State of the union address? Their veracity was in question LONG BEFORE. Here's another problem with illogical people... they can't keep things straight. Even before officially saying they were unofficially rejecting the claim, there was insufficient evidence to support the claim. I'm curious why you are using a single website as the entirety of your evidence. Most of the stuff you are repeating is patently wrong.

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Stoneburner


And FERN, the problem is that Tenet was, immediately following 9-11, in bush's corner.

What's the meaning or relevance of your statement above?

Fern

The person who ran the CIA was in bush's camp so it's somewhat absurd to claim the CIA set bush up? I wonder if the fact she was "non-official" had anything to do with this.

Tenet was in GWB's camp? he was appointed by Bill C. According to his owrds he sincerely believed Sadam had WMD etc.

No matter, in an otherwise carreer type organization the political leanings of an (political) appointee like Tenet cannot be reasonably attributed (downward) to others in the organization.

Fern

You should read the 1 percent doctrine by Ron Suskind. It'll tell you why he was in bush's camp 🙂 Actualy I could telll you why; Bush kept him on and supported him after 9-11 so tenet thought he owed bush. Since then he covered for them.

And you are absolutely right, in fact tenet's bush grubbing was loooked down upon by many of his subordinates. PRoblem is, it's hard to find support for your idea that the cIA was setting up bush w hen it requires political homogeneity. There is no evidence that the CIA's motives here were political.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
TasteslikechickenbutsmelllikeBS

Grow up, kid.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: techs
And why would you post anything this traitor says?

The fact that you're willing to label anyone you disagree with as a "traitor" speaks volumes. You're a disgrace. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Well, what was the value of printing an article that seriously jeopardizes the safety of our CIA members and the US in g eneral?

What was the value of that article.. can you tell us?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: techs
And why would you post anything this traitor says?

The fact that you're willing to label anyone you disagree with as a "traitor" speaks volumes. You're a disgrace. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Well, what was the value of printing an article that seriously jeopardizes the safety of our CIA members and the US in g eneral?

What was the value of that article.. can you tell us?

Pretty despicable isn't it? Novak should have been thrown under the bus as well.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: techs
And why would you post anything this traitor says?

The fact that you're willing to label anyone you disagree with as a "traitor" speaks volumes. You're a disgrace. :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Well, what was the value of printing an article that seriously jeopardizes the safety of our CIA members and the US in g eneral?

What was the value of that article.. can you tell us?

Pretty despicable isn't it? Novak should have been thrown under the bus as well.

I almost wonder if the whole thing was a planned diversion tactic... like.. was something else going on that was covered up by the media because this story was so big?

YES.. it was a miserable thing to do no matter what the reason.. .. That is one of the reasons I don't like any politician...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It was the CIA itself and not "the lefties" that lodged the criminal charges.

A minor correction, the CIA concluded that the incident should be referred to the Justice Department to request a criminal investigation. They cannot press charges themselves.

This implies that they viewed Plame as a covert agent under the statute, even though another element of the crime was not provable, resulting in no charges.

But the high road question is and remains----is there any credibility to the contention that Saddam was trying to acquire yellowcake Uranium from Niger or anywhere else? Then there is another hurdle to leap. Namely is their any credibility to the claim Saddam had any ability to refine that yellowcake by separating the U235 from the U238. Again the immediate threat question rests on another dubious and previously CIA debunked claim that the Aluminum tubes could only be used in centrifuge rotors.
Once Saddam had both centrifuges and yellowcake, any bomb would still be at least five years away.

The CIA itself concluded, using TLC's own source:

we [The CIA] no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad

The same spittle came out of watergate, but finally the truth came out. Until then, us "lefties" will keep on working to GET AT THE TRUTH and FIND THE PROOF.

Sadly, Watergate was a freak accident that the truth came out and action was taken. For example, had not Nixon inherited a taping system going back to Eisenhower...

Needless to say, as useful as such tapes would be today, they hardly tape talks now.

See, this is typical of the left. Omit, omit, omit, and leave out the relevant facts.

No, it's typical of the right - I had to point out the things YOU omitted.

Let's show what you DIDN'T include in the parts you quoted. Here's the entire quote which you parsed:

Yes, let's, and see how I quoted the right things.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.

Makes a bit of a difference. Not only that, the SSCI report concluded even further down the road that Bush's 16 words were NOT lies.

And Factcheck's ultimate conclusion is:

The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.

Now please stop with all your quote parsing to attempt to make the Factcheck link say what you wish it said instead of what it really says.

[/quote]

Yes, they reached the concusion that they had been wrong nearly five monhs after the state of the union, but what you miss is that they concluded they had been wrong along - wrong at the time that Wilson was disagreeing with them. When they realized it isn't the issue, as much as that they came to the position Wilson had all along - for which you called him a 'liar'.

I have never said otherwise than that Bush may not have known there was any reason to question the words he was reading; the people he appointed made those mistakes.

It's your falsehoods I pointed out, using your own source and others.

It's clear the administration was loose with the truth as it pushed the war Bush wanted, and that Bush was very tolerant of any such errors. Remember, Bush was arguing that he could not wait the estimated three months for Hans Blix's inspectors to finish the inspections because the threat of a 'mushroom cloud' was too pressing - which was nonsense. So he broke his word to Congress that their vote was not a vote for war and he'd go to war only if the inspections were blocked, and invaded.

Have you ever seen Bush say anything admitting his administration erred about not letting the inspections finish, Rumsfeld saying they knew where the weapons were, etc.?

My quotes are just fine as they were. You're the one pushing the falsehoods as I showed.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Well, what was the value of printing an article that seriously jeopardizes the safety of our CIA members and the US in g eneral?

What was the value of that article.. can you tell us?

Oh please. Valerie Flame was never undercover and nobody was jeopardized. It was nothing but political retribution and partisan politics.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: dahunan
Well, what was the value of printing an article that seriously jeopardizes the safety of our CIA members and the US in g eneral?

What was the value of that article.. can you tell us?

Oh please. Valerie Flame was never undercover and nobody was jeopardized. It was nothing but political retribution and partisan politics.

As (almost?) always, conclusions without any legitimate facts and argument to back them up from Pabster.

Plame *was* undercover. The CIA said so, officially. The CIA referred her outing for criminal investigation based on her history of undercover work.

Fitzgerald confirmed she had been undercover.

 

[Lemon law]

Well the real TLC comes out when he says----Sadly, Watergate was a freak accident that the truth came out and action was taken.

Which is another way to say if you are not caught in a crime, no crime occurred?

Sorry TLC, a crime is a crime, if justice exists the criminal is caught and punished. Sadly sometimes the criminal gets away with it. It sad when the criminal gets away with it, and not as you say "Sadly Watergate was a freak accident" because Nixon got caught by his own taping system. So blame the taping system?????????

Your own words speak volumes in a eloquence I can't even imagine.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Well the real TLC comes out when he says----Sadly, Watergate was a freak accident that the truth came out and action was taken.

LemonLaw, that's what I said, not TLC - and my meaning wasn't that it was sad that he got caught, but sad that it was a freak accident for wrongdoing to get caught.

I'd rather that wrongdoing like Watergate was caught a lot more reliably.

A lot of freak things came together for Watergate to be more than a minor story long forgotten, from the unusual dedication of the Washington Post, to the old taping system having recorded such private conversations, and the accidental discovery by a democratic Congress of the incriminating tapes, to the cooperation of a disgruntled man who was effectively running the FBI.

Usually, and I can name many examples, the wrongdoing goes unpunished.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Yes, they reached the concusion that they had been wrong nearly five monhs after the state of the union, but what you miss is that they concluded they had been wrong along - wrong at the time that Wilson was disagreeing with them. When they realized it isn't the issue, as much as that they came to the position Wilson had all along - for which you called him a 'liar'.

I have never said otherwise than that Bush may not have known there was any reason to question the words he was reading; the people he appointed made those mistakes.

It's your falsehoods I pointed out, using your own source and others.

It's clear the administration was loose with the truth as it pushed the war Bush wanted, and that Bush was very tolerant of any such errors. Remember, Bush was arguing that he could not wait the estimated three months for Hans Blix's inspectors to finish the inspections because the threat of a 'mushroom cloud' was too pressing - which was nonsense. So he broke his word to Congress that their vote was not a vote for war and he'd go to war only if the inspections were blocked, and invaded.

Have you ever seen Bush say anything admitting his administration erred about not letting the inspections finish, Rumsfeld saying they knew where the weapons were, etc.?

My quotes are just fine as they were. You're the one pushing the falsehoods as I showed.

They reached a conclusion 5 months later that Bush had been wrong because there was confusion about the forged documents. But the SSCI subsequently concluded that Bush had not been wrong in his statement, at least based on Wilson's findings. Even Wilson admitted in his book that Mayaki, the PM of Niger, told him that he was approached by Baghdad Bob about having a meeting to discuss expanding commercial relations. Now unless you're actually gullible enough to believe that Comical Ali travelled to Niger to talk about importing goats, cowpeas, or onions there's little doubt of the intent of his visit.