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

[Jhhnn]

The great thing about the neocons and their allies is that the second liar doesn't stand a chance...

Given plenty of time to coordinate their stories, the only guy who missed out was scooter... and now he's a hero for the rightwing...

So, uhh, why didn't Novak call Plame, ask if she'd mind him blowing her cover so he could establish the nepotism smear to discredit her husband? According to him, nobody at all had any objections prior to the fact- not the CIA, Wilson, nobody...

What did we expect him to say, after all? Did we expect him to say that he'd done the deed as a favor to the admin, to his pal Rove? Hardly...

All of the honest information wrt african uranium was old stuff, set aside by cooler heads prior to 9/11, put into a proper context. It's not like the iraqis' trade delegation visits were secret. Of course, conflating Iraq, alQ, Osama and all the rest required the proper levers, so this was dragged out, re-spun, and voila! one more reason for invasion...

All the claims about a reconstituted iraqi nuclear program were bunk, hokum, and those presenting them knew it full well. They also knew they'd created an atmosphere in which such claims would sell, and that was all that mattered...

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, wasn't there a case of a significant quantity of missing yellowcake just recently reported in the news? Apparently it's not all THAT difficult for yellowcake to disappear when the right amount of money is available, and Saddam had quite a little slush fund going.

Actually, Wilson reported that the yellowcake is *very* tightly controlled and there was no real danger of the Iraqis being able to buy any on any 'black market'.

That was a reason for his reporting that this was a non-issue, disregarded by the administration.

Yep. Tightly controlled:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=2570

I knew I read something fairly recently about missing uranium/yellowcake. Of course, as the article states, it's probably a psy-ops campiagn. :roll:

On an interesting side note, the Shikolobe (sp?) mine in the Congo that is the basis for that article you linked provided the uranium for the atomic bombs that were dropped by the US in WWII.

The same claim was made in the late 1990's - though back then it was the People's Republic of North Korea that was looting the mine for uranium - not Iran.

Bush probably took one from Clinton's playbook . . . lol

Very interesting, particularly since NK has reportedly developed nukes and, allegedly, Iran is on its way to that goal as well.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Why is the factcheck article dispositive on this matter? Two books i've read and various articles, mainly from the washington post, revealed that the cia had concluded long before the state of the union address that the claim was not CREDIBLE. There is a largely ignored story here, i.e. the bush administrations standard of proof has fallen to nothing. The burden of proof is on the proponent of a document or claim.

Gee, why would the Washington Post ever print something that disparages Bush? Like THAT would ever happen.

By the same token, why should I take anything you say seriously? Well I don't take you seriously because your facts are always wrong, not because of your ideology Care to explain how WAPO was wrong? of course not! That'd require actual work and could actually backfire on you!

If you don't take anything I say seriously then why are you dogged determined to reply to anything I say?

qLet's try to recap here before this thread starts meandering off in a million directions.

Yes, let's do that.

1) It was the CIA that wanted an investigation

The CIA had no choice in the matter. By default there has to be an investigation requested when it's been alleged that a CIA agent was outed.

2) It was the CIA that said their assets were compromised

Yet they refuse to provide any actual publicly available proof of that claim.

3) It was teh CIA that has said PLame was under non official cover

It was some in the CIA that claimed that. Again, they provided no publicly available proof.

4) Wilson was right about yellowcake and niger

Yep. According to the SSCI, he was.

5) The falsity of the niger claim was known, or at least the lack of credibility was understood, LONG BEFORE THE SOTUA.

Proof?

6) Plame was targetted by Rove by his own admission to CHris Mathews.

Proof?

No need to keep ranting and raving, the conservative line on this topic is false on all points.

lol. You're one of the most partisan tools in this forum so that claim falls on deaf ears. I seriously doubt some of the avowed lefties would agree on the points you're trying to make, but let's see you try. I'll be eagerly awaiting your answers.

 

[First]

^ WTF? Why on earth would the CIA publicly reveal the assets that were comprised from Plame's covert status being blown? And why would they provide the public details of her formerly covert status other than confirming she was covert? Or would CIA break the law by lying about Plame's covert status and the fact that assets were blown because they're a vast left-wing organization that wants to protect only lefties? :roll:

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, wasn't there a case of a significant quantity of missing yellowcake just recently reported in the news? Apparently it's not all THAT difficult for yellowcake to disappear when the right amount of money is available, and Saddam had quite a little slush fund going.

Actually, Wilson reported that the yellowcake is *very* tightly controlled and there was no real danger of the Iraqis being able to buy any on any 'black market'.

That was a reason for his reporting that this was a non-issue, disregarded by the administration.

Yep. Tightly controlled:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=2570

I knew I read something fairly recently about missing uranium/yellowcake. Of course, as the article states, it's probably a psy-ops campiagn. :roll:

On an interesting side note, the Shikolobe (sp?) mine in the Congo that is the basis for that article you linked provided the uranium for the atomic bombs that were dropped by the US in WWII.

The same claim was made in the late 1990's - though back then it was the People's Republic of North Korea that was looting the mine for uranium - not Iran.

Bush probably took one from Clinton's playbook . . . lol

Very interesting, particularly since NK has reportedly developed nukes and, allegedly, Iran is on its way to that goal as well.

North Korea mines their own indigenous uranium - regretfully, reactors using natural-uranium fuel are more suitable for producing plutonium for weapons.

Known resources of indigenous uranium in Iran are limited and for the better part of the 1990's Clinton/Gore convinced Yeltsin not to develop Iranian mining capabilities.

If you want to put a big dent in Iran's nuke program you need to stop the Russian Defense Industrial Complex. The Richard Perle Plan is to buy 'em off.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ WTF? Why on earth would the CIA publicly reveal the assets that were comprised from Plame's covert status being blown? And why would they provide the public details of her formerly covert status other than confirming she was covert? Or would CIA break the law by lying about Plame's covert status and the fact that assets were blown because they're a vast left-wing organization that wants to protect only lefties? :roll:

Doesn't the left expect Bush to tell them everything he ever knew or heard about Saddam's WMDs? Now all of the sudden where Plame is concerned intelligence is sacrosanct?

Wow.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
btw, wasn't there a case of a significant quantity of missing yellowcake just recently reported in the news? Apparently it's not all THAT difficult for yellowcake to disappear when the right amount of money is available, and Saddam had quite a little slush fund going.

Actually, Wilson reported that the yellowcake is *very* tightly controlled and there was no real danger of the Iraqis being able to buy any on any 'black market'.

That was a reason for his reporting that this was a non-issue, disregarded by the administration.

Yep. Tightly controlled:

http://www.blacklistednews.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=2570

I knew I read something fairly recently about missing uranium/yellowcake. Of course, as the article states, it's probably a psy-ops campiagn. :roll:

On an interesting side note, the Shikolobe (sp?) mine in the Congo that is the basis for that article you linked provided the uranium for the atomic bombs that were dropped by the US in WWII.

The same claim was made in the late 1990's - though back then it was the People's Republic of North Korea that was looting the mine for uranium - not Iran.

Bush probably took one from Clinton's playbook . . . lol

Very interesting, particularly since NK has reportedly developed nukes and, allegedly, Iran is on its way to that goal as well.

North Korea mines their own indigenous uranium - regretfully, reactors using natural-uranium fuel are more suitable for producing plutonium for weapons.

Known resources of indigenous uranium in Iran are limited and for the better part of the 1990's Clinton/Gore convinced Yeltsin not to develop Iranian mining capabilities.

If you want to put a big dent in Iran's nuke program you need to stop the Russian Defense Industrial Complex. The Richard Perle Plan is to buy 'em off.

Except there's very little information on the veracity of the NK uranium mine claims. The same conventional wisdoms about their mines have been circulating for years.

You do know that Kim Jong-il is also an expert at the internet too? Is there nothing that man can't do?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ WTF? Why on earth would the CIA publicly reveal the assets that were comprised from Plame's covert status being blown? And why would they provide the public details of her formerly covert status other than confirming she was covert? Or would CIA break the law by lying about Plame's covert status and the fact that assets were blown because they're a vast left-wing organization that wants to protect only lefties? :roll:

Doesn't the left expect Bush to tell them everything he ever knew or heard about Saddam's WMDs? Now all of the sudden where Plame is concerned intelligence is sacrosanct?

Wow.

lmao, now you're just grasping at objects that don't exist and deflecting badly. How is Bush telling the American people about WMDs, information that is NOT classified (nor should it be as it doesn't reveal any sensitive procedural or tactical information) the same as the CIA publicly revealing to the American people (and therefore the world) which U.S. companies and agents' (located in foreign countries) covers were blown? Lord.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ WTF? Why on earth would the CIA publicly reveal the assets that were comprised from Plame's covert status being blown? And why would they provide the public details of her formerly covert status other than confirming she was covert? Or would CIA break the law by lying about Plame's covert status and the fact that assets were blown because they're a vast left-wing organization that wants to protect only lefties? :roll:

Doesn't the left expect Bush to tell them everything he ever knew or heard about Saddam's WMDs? Now all of the sudden where Plame is concerned intelligence is sacrosanct?

Wow.

lmao, now you're just grasping at objects that don't exist and deflecting badly. How is Bush telling the American people about WMDs, information that is NOT classified (nor should it be as it doesn't reveal any sensitive procedural or tactical information) the same as the CIA publicly revealing to the American people (and therefore the world) which U.S. companies and agents' (located in foreign countries) covers were blown? Lord.

Didn't Plame work in the CPD at the CIA in the first place? Are you really trying to say that her work, which probably went to Bush on occassion, was classified but then again it wasn't?

You're funny.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ WTF? Why on earth would the CIA publicly reveal the assets that were comprised from Plame's covert status being blown? And why would they provide the public details of her formerly covert status other than confirming she was covert? Or would CIA break the law by lying about Plame's covert status and the fact that assets were blown because they're a vast left-wing organization that wants to protect only lefties? :roll:

Doesn't the left expect Bush to tell them everything he ever knew or heard about Saddam's WMDs? Now all of the sudden where Plame is concerned intelligence is sacrosanct?

Wow.

lmao, now you're just grasping at objects that don't exist and deflecting badly. How is Bush telling the American people about WMDs, information that is NOT classified (nor should it be as it doesn't reveal any sensitive procedural or tactical information) the same as the CIA publicly revealing to the American people (and therefore the world) which U.S. companies and agents' (located in foreign countries) covers were blown? Lord.

Didn't Plame work in the CPD at the CIA in the first place? Are you really trying to say that her work, which probably went to Bush on occassion, was classified but then again it wasn't?

You're funny.

Huh? The CIA revealing to the public the agents and companies that were blown, both of which could have been located overseas at the time, is no where near the same thing as Bush revealing more information to the public about the location of WMDs. It's an open discussion because there's not such thing as a covert war of 200,000 troops. One thing is by nature secret, the other is by nature open for debate and political back and forth. I can't help it if you don't see this elementary difference.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ WTF? Why on earth would the CIA publicly reveal the assets that were comprised from Plame's covert status being blown? And why would they provide the public details of her formerly covert status other than confirming she was covert? Or would CIA break the law by lying about Plame's covert status and the fact that assets were blown because they're a vast left-wing organization that wants to protect only lefties? :roll:

Doesn't the left expect Bush to tell them everything he ever knew or heard about Saddam's WMDs? Now all of the sudden where Plame is concerned intelligence is sacrosanct?

Wow.

lmao, now you're just grasping at objects that don't exist and deflecting badly. How is Bush telling the American people about WMDs, information that is NOT classified (nor should it be as it doesn't reveal any sensitive procedural or tactical information) the same as the CIA publicly revealing to the American people (and therefore the world) which U.S. companies and agents' (located in foreign countries) covers were blown? Lord.

Didn't Plame work in the CPD at the CIA in the first place? Are you really trying to say that her work, which probably went to Bush on occassion, was classified but then again it wasn't?

You're funny.

Huh? The CIA revealing to the public the agents and companies that were blown, both of which could have been located overseas at the time, is no where near the same thing as Bush revealing more information to the public about the location of WMDs. It's an open discussion because there's not such thing as a covert war of 200,000 troops. One thing is by nature secret, the other is by nature open for debate and political back and forth. I can't help it if you don't see this elementary difference.

C'mon. You seem to want it both ways. Either that information is classified or it is not. Make up your mind and stop trying to deflect with the stories of agents and companies being blown, information that doesn't need to be brought into the picture to establish whether or not Plame was covert. What were these TDYs she supposedly went on, where did she go, and what were the dates? No other agent names or front companies need to be disclosed.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets face some facts here TLC. The American public does not believe GWB anymore or the Kool aid defenses you are coming up with.

Nor can the Democrats prove their version of events without a better court and executive record access. But if we can peel of an GWB insider, it could speed up the normal lengthy process of fry the little fish and work your way up.

Which means that its a Mexican standoff right now. But time is not on the side of GWB&co. GWB&co will not be vindicated by time, but with some real luck they may escape later prosecution on this issue. Which may prove bitter sweet if they prosecuted for many other things. But escaping prosecution may be contingent on some luck
and prosecution will be far more certain if GWB& co. does something really stupid between now and 1/20/2009. Or if one of their already huge chickens come flying. home to roost.

So why engage in meaningless pissing contests now?

 

[eits]

wait...

you believe anything that neocon ass-kissing pig-man in a bad vest suit says? really?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ WTF? Why on earth would the CIA publicly reveal the assets that were comprised from Plame's covert status being blown? And why would they provide the public details of her formerly covert status other than confirming she was covert? Or would CIA break the law by lying about Plame's covert status and the fact that assets were blown because they're a vast left-wing organization that wants to protect only lefties? :roll:

Doesn't the left expect Bush to tell them everything he ever knew or heard about Saddam's WMDs? Now all of the sudden where Plame is concerned intelligence is sacrosanct?

Wow.

lmao, now you're just grasping at objects that don't exist and deflecting badly. How is Bush telling the American people about WMDs, information that is NOT classified (nor should it be as it doesn't reveal any sensitive procedural or tactical information) the same as the CIA publicly revealing to the American people (and therefore the world) which U.S. companies and agents' (located in foreign countries) covers were blown? Lord.

Didn't Plame work in the CPD at the CIA in the first place? Are you really trying to say that her work, which probably went to Bush on occassion, was classified but then again it wasn't?

You're funny.

Huh? The CIA revealing to the public the agents and companies that were blown, both of which could have been located overseas at the time, is no where near the same thing as Bush revealing more information to the public about the location of WMDs. It's an open discussion because there's not such thing as a covert war of 200,000 troops. One thing is by nature secret, the other is by nature open for debate and political back and forth. I can't help it if you don't see this elementary difference.

C'mon. You seem to want it both ways. Either that information is classified or it is not. Make up your mind and stop trying to deflect with the stories of agents and companies being blown, information that doesn't need to be brought into the picture to establish whether or not Plame was covert. What were these TDYs she supposedly went on, where did she go, and what were the dates? No other agent names or front companies need to be disclosed.

Disclosing locations and dates? Do you honestly believe you are more qualified than the CIA to label information classified or not? I'm all for openness, I love the National Security Archives, the GAO, and the Freedom of Information Act. But I'm not daft enough to draw a parallel between Bush's WMD information being classified simply because the CIA decided to keep classified the details of a formerly covert agent, whose status was blown according to the CIA and according to Plame, testified to under oath. Why would either the CIA or Plame lie again?

I wonder if you even realize how paranoid and asinine you sound in all of this.

 

[Stoneburner]

1) It was the CIA that wanted an investigation

The CIA had no choice in the matter. By default there has to be an investigation requested when it's been alleged that a CIA agent was outed.

Read Hubris by Mike Isikoff and David Corn. The mid level brass was enraged by this affair.

2) It was the CIA that said their assets were compromised

Yet they refuse to provide any actual publicly available proof of that claim.

3) It was teh CIA that has said PLame was under non official cover

It was some in the CIA that claimed that. Again, they provided no publicly available proof.

Let's take 2 and 3 together. The CIA isn't here to provide proof, as Evan pointed out. Though their assets were compromised, why would they go out and flatly state it? Wouldn't that be, I don't know, ungodly stupid? To be honest, I already have a low opinion of your rationality and these two answers don't help.

4) Wilson was right about yellowcake and niger

Yep. According to the SSCI, he was.

5) The falsity of the niger claim was known, or at least the lack of credibility was understood, LONG BEFORE THE SOTUA.

Proof?

Again, 4 and 5 together. THE DAMN LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED BY THE CIA FROM PREVIOUS SPEECHES. THE BRITISH INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES EVEN TOLD WHITE HOUSE PEOPLE TO STOP MAKING THE CLAIM. MAYBE IF I TYPE THIS IN CAPS I WON'T HAVE TO REPEAT IT 40 TIMES.

6) Plame was targetted by Rove by his own admission to CHris Mathews.

Chris Mathews called Rove and Rove told him this ?

No need to keep ranting and raving, the conservative line on this topic is false on all points.

The myth of equivalence in culpability for lowering the standards of political discourse is just that. David Brock, once a right wing hatchet man, has revealed everything in his last two books.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Disclosing locations and dates? Do you honestly believe you are more qualified than the CIA to label information classified or not? I'm all for openness, I love the National Security Archives, the GAO, and the Freedom of Information Act. But I'm not daft enough to draw a parallel between Bush's WMD information being classified simply because the CIA decided to keep classified the details of a formerly covert agent, whose status was blown according to the CIA and according to Plame, testified to under oath. Why would either the CIA or Plame lie again?

I wonder if you even realize how paranoid and asinine you sound in all of this.

Gotcha. The same type of argument the left levies against Bush about releasing classified information about Iraqs' WMDs does not apply when it concerns the darling of the left, Valerie Plame.

You bet I'm sounding assinine and I'm doing it on purpose to display the hypocrisy of the lefties for everyone to see. It's just more of their selective reasoning. What applies to one doesn't apply to another and the left will determine where and when it applies. And everyone else is "assinine." :roll:

What a bunch of maroons.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Read Hubris by Mike Isikoff and David Corn. The mid level brass was enraged by this affair.

Don't make stupid assumptions because you have no idea what I have or have not read. I read Hubris already. Mid-level brass being enraged has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it was mandatory that the CIA request an investigation into this leak.

Let's take 2 and 3 together. The CIA isn't here to provide proof, as Evan pointed out. Though their assets were compromised, why would they go out and flatly state it? Wouldn't that be, I don't know, ungodly stupid? To be honest, I already have a low opinion of your rationality and these two answers don't help.

To be frank, your opinion doesn't mean squat to me so why even bring it up? As as I'm concerned, you're a know-nothing kid who hasn't even gotten out of the driveway in the trip around the block yet.

btw, calling Plame "covert" and her actually being covert as defined under IIPA are two different things. Even Plame testified to that herself. When ask if she was considered covert under the IIPA she deflected answering by saying "I am not a lawyer." She also stated that at the CIA "undercover" and "covert" are used interchangably. So be careful when tossing around the claim that Plame was covert because unless we see some dates of her overseas travels and that they were for extended stays and not just brief junkets, Plame doesn't fall under the status of "covert" as defined in IIPA. Nor has the CIA ever issued a statement that says Plame was covert according to the IIPA.

Asking for dates and places isn't ungodly stupid. It's the only way to verify whether Plame truly was IIPA covert or merely undercover.

Got it?

Again, 4 and 5 together. THE DAMN LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED BY THE CIA FROM PREVIOUS SPEECHES. THE BRITISH INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES EVEN TOLD WHITE HOUSE PEOPLE TO STOP MAKING THE CLAIM. MAYBE IF I TYPE THIS IN CAPS I WON'T HAVE TO REPEAT IT 40 TIMES.

I'm not asking for caps, I'm asking for some proof. Veins popping from your forehead does not constitute proof of your claim. Try again.

Chris Mathews called Rove and Rove told him this ?

Again, some proof. Your words alone are not proof.

 

[Stoneburner]

You read hubris you liar? The mathews thing and the words being removed from the previous speech are in there. So you have a piss poor memory and/or are a liar

You are also illogical. You said the CIA HAD TO ask for an investigation. I pointed towards facts that showed some mid level brass WANTED an investigation.

 

[Stoneburner]

ANd since you are a stupid liar

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/


and here's some more!


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0720-09.htm


"The fallout from the uranium charge hung over Mr. Bush and his entourage during their recent African tour. The president and White House officials initially pointed fingers at the C.I.A. over their vetting of the speech; George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, took responsibility, though it was soon disclosed that he had removed the same charge from a presidential speech just three months earlier. Mr. Tenet told lawmakers last week that he had not even seen the final draft of Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech."


All this stuff was widely reported. I'm guessing you don't really know much about what goes on besides what oreilly talks about.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

No, stupid. You claimed that Rove targeted Plame by his own admission. If you bothered to read Plame's book, which was incidentally titled "Fair Game" you'll also notice that Rove disavowed saying that, claiming those were Matthews' own words, and Rove stated that he didn't consider Plame "an appropropriate target in this debate."

As to the removal of the Niger claim from the speech, if you did a little due diligence instead of just parroting KOS and DU talking points you'd already know that they were NOT the same words in the previous speeches that was used in the SOTU address. Additionally the speech writers had assumed that there was now more evidence to suport the claim of Iraq attempting to procure yellowcake from Africa. And even though Tenet himself did not vett the speech (which is really a red herring because Tenet did not do such things, his underlings did) the SOTU address was reviewed at by the CIA and the 16 words were left in.

Once again you leave out pertinent information to try to make your point but you only make yourself look foolish, ignorant, and desperately reaching in the process of doing that. Someday you may learn how to tell the entire story and not look so mcuh like a partisan BDS troll.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
You read hubris you liar? The mathews thing and the words being removed from the previous speech are in there. So you have a piss poor memory and/or are a liar

You are also illogical. You said the CIA HAD TO ask for an investigation. I pointed towards facts that showed some mid level brass WANTED an investigation.

Two-timing, Lying Cheat

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

:roll:

As per his usual MO, 1EZduzit's contribution consists solely of a personal attack on a forum member and adds absolutely NOTHING of value to the topic.

Do you have anything to say about the Plame affair that is a rebuttal to my comments on the issue or are you just going to be your usual ad hom-ish, trollish self?

 

[Stoneburner]

Chicken, you've lost it completely.

1) IS valerie plame's book even out?
2) YOu wanted EVIDENCE. Chris Mathews is EVIDENCE.
3) You are barking up a telephone pole here. Did you even read that link I sent? THOSE WERE TENET"S WORDS. Colin POwell Himself wondered why those words were being thrown around. British INtelligence said the claim was bunk.
4) Where is the evidence the CIA vetted the speech? The poitn was, Hadley or Feith or maybe Cheney PURPOSEFULLY put those words in. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THIS NONSENSE. You also need to explain what the hell your point is. What further evidence? Did you really read Hubris? If you had you'd know EVERYTHING you are saying is nonsensical or wrong.


So you claim you read Hubris, which you did not, and now you seem to be saying you read Valerie PLame's book, which far as I can tell is unreleased since I haven't been able to find a copy of it. Keep up the lying.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Chicken, you've lost it completely.

1) IS valerie plame's book even out?
2) YOu wanted EVIDENCE. Chris Mathews is EVIDENCE.
3) You are barking up a telephone pole here. Did you even read that link I sent? THOSE WERE TENET"S WORDS. Colin POwell Himself wondered why those words were being thrown around. British INtelligence said the claim was bunk.
4) Where is the evidence the CIA vetted the speech? The poitn was, Hadley or Feith or maybe Cheney PURPOSEFULLY put those words in. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THIS NONSENSE. You also need to explain what the hell your point is. What further evidence? Did you really read Hubris? If you had you'd know EVERYTHING you are saying is nonsensical or wrong.


So you claim you read Hubris, which you did not, and now you seem to be saying you read Valerie PLame's book, which far as I can tell is unreleased since I haven't been able to find a copy of it. Keep up the lying.

1) No, it's not out yet. The sentence was supposed to read "If you bothered to read about Plame's book." I erred by ommitting a word by mistake. Shit happens.

2) Chris Matthews is a talking head. The crap that comes out of his mouth is no more reliable than relying on Rush Limbaugh's words as "evidence."

3) Tenet said in an interview that he did not thoroughly review the SOTU speech before it was given, and therefore that he ?ultimately [has] to take my share of responsibility? for what the president said. THOSE WERE TENET'S words.

4) http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0711-02.htm

Bush's national security adviser specifically pointed to the CIA and said it had vetted the speech. If CIA Director George Tenet had any misgivings about that sentence in the president's speech, ''he did not make them known'' to Bush or his staff, said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Ready to admit you were wrong now? Or will people like you and Harvey keep claiming I'm the one who's always wrong when neither of you can seem to get your facts straight.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
:roll:

As per his usual MO, 1EZduzit's contribution consists solely of a personal attack on a forum member and adds absolutely NOTHING of value to the topic.

Do you have anything to say about the Plame affair that is a rebuttal to my comments on the issue or are you just going to be your usual ad hom-ish, trollish self?

Nobody with even half a brain would waste their time arguing with a liar.