Ticomaya wrote:... and fighting terrorists that attack the United States.
are they finally planning to do something about that?
i will switch hats for a second. the article by the WSJ (and how such good news reporting can co-exist with such lousy editorials is beyond the comprehenion of science).
the article lays out what timberland and i agreed upon many pages ago, viz., that if those people who said to novak, cooper et al had not actually known they were leaking classified information, then the party who did know it was classified and told the former parties is/are the ones responsible under the law.
and clearly it is going well beyond simply Plame's outing. For if that report written by the State Dept was classified as secret and someone leaked secret information, regardless of it being wrong about Plame, that is an offense in its own right.
someone leaked secret information, knowingly, whether directly to the press or to someone else who later did.
that is where this is going.
its why while i have shown rove talked to reporters in an attempt to smear wilson i have also agreed that he might not have known what he was saying was a secret. i am pissed at him because he presented lies as facts, and have responded to these lies on this thread.
but, i have yet to see convincing evidence (see cooper's email and testimony/Meet the Press appearance) that rove knew he was leaking classified information, even thought i believe he is a source of the leaks.
nevertheless, what he did was contemptable, and he would not have an office right next door to the president.
kuvasz wrote:That was the basic issue of the article posted by foxfyre, viz., that since Plame was already outed prior to Novak's column, any investigations of criminal activity pertaining to Novak's public revealations were without merit.
The basic issue in the article that she posted (and I posted earlier also) was the hypocrisy of the media. But it appears you missed that.
But I digress, because the point I'm trying to make is a different one:
Quote:And if the Supreme Court had thought that the Appellate Court rulings were wrong, and you and the amicus brief were correct, they would have taken the case.
I don't suppose it would do any good to point out that you are, once again, wrong when you make this assertion.
But you apparently think you know what the Supreme Court was thinking when it decided to deny cert. If your prognostication abilities are up to it, would you do me a favor? Tell me who Bush is going to nominate to the SCOTUS tonight ... I'm going to be busy, and I'd like to know now.
Quote:just read the amicus brief, it only runs a couple of dozen pages in total.
I did read the amicus brief ... in fact, I read it before you did.
kickycan wrote:ehBeth wrote:Ticomaya wrote:... and fighting terrorists that attack the United States.
are they finally planning to do something about that?
Heeheehee...
<sigh> You buy them books ....
People don't get fired because someone said they might have done something.
Try firing someone in the private sector on that flimsy reason.
I think we've done pretty good in deflecting terrorist attacks here--and I think our service personnel are doing valiant work in Afghanistan and likely other stans.
Whatever. Let's get back to the topic, PLEASE!
How much would you pay to get one free punch in the face on that pig Karl Rove?
Wait a minute. If Rove didn't know he was leaking, why did he tell Cooper it was double super secret? (Or something to that effect that led to the super secret comment in Coopers notes?)
Kuvasz said:
Quote:What else are they going to try, accuse Fitzgerald and the CIA of being influenced about this by Bill Clinton's powerful penis?
ROFLMAO!!! hehehehe
SCROTUS appointment? Sounds awfully similar to scrotum.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:since i got no reply the first time on this, i'll repost it. just in case lash didn't see it the first time...
DontTreadOnMe wrote:Lash wrote:DTOM-- If you REALLY want to read about the phone call that Wilson neglected to follow up on, you can subscribe to the WaPo. My link expired.
no, i don't want to subscribe to the wapo and no, i don't want to read an op-ed.
It's not an op-ed. It's the one of the reports or conclusion pieces from the 911 Commission. I had it linked and it's no longer accessible. I wouldn't make a claim that serious on an op-ed. If you want to know bad enough to subscribe, you can.
what i want, is for you to provide the title, link and text of an official report that states that "wilson was given a contact phone number and he did not bother to call it".
I just did. You don't want it. I even provided you with the page. Why would you ask for some thing you've refused twice?
ya see, i just finished reading the text of the senate committee report, specifically the sections on "the ambassador" and "niger" and the conclusions of the sections related to niger and the "16 words".
Congratulations. I've read it too. Before you did. (Inside kuvasz joke, pardon.)
and there is not one single referrence to wilson having been given any phone numbers.
If you want to see it, I gave you the link and the page number.
he was given "talking points", which i take to mean as a list of questions. but no referrence to any phone numbers is made. nor does the report in any way scream "wilson lied".
If you know how to read you see he lied. His book said his wife didn't have anything to do with his assignment. Anyone with any brain activity and a smidge integrity can easily see that's a lie. They report she was found to have gotten him the assignment.
so unless you can provide the things i've asked you for, i will have to conclude that either there is no official referrence to the alleged phone number provided and that it is simply part of a partisan hit piece. or that you just made it up
so which is it ?
It is that you refuse to look at the link I've provided on the page where I told you it is.
edited for puncts
Just want to make sure you see this.
I'm wondering about the timing today that the SC appointment would be put forth tonight?
Damage control? Get the press off of one topic, onto another?
Found it elswhere:
(U) Problems with the Intelligence Community's HUMINT efforts were also evident in the Intelligence Community's handling of Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium from Niger. The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access enjoyed by the spouse of a CIA employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available. Given the nature of rapidly evolving global threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons and weapons technology, the Intelligence Community must develop means to quickly respond to fleeting collection opportunities outside the Community's established operating areas. The Committee also found other problems with the Intelligence Community's follow-up on the Iraq-Niger uranium issue, including a half-hearted investigation of the reported storage of uranium in a warehouse in Benin, and a failure, to this day, to call a telephone number, provided by the Navy, of an individual who claimed to have information about Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium from Niger.
It was Wilson who screwed that up. He didn't use the phone number and this issue was one of the things he was given to do.
He didn't want to find it.
This entire section bashes the CIA for using such an idiot and not making sure he did the bare minimum he should have done.
sumac wrote:I'm wondering about the timing today that the SC appointment would be put forth tonight?
Damage control? Get the press off of one topic, onto another?
That kind of timing can only be described as impecable.
As far as the 9/11 comission is concerned, there has been so much that WASN'T included in that commission in order to gain greater objectivity as to the true causes on that fateful day, and I do not hold much weight in that document whatsoever.
Niger did not sell Yellow cake to Saddam,
Niger did not sell yellow cake to Saddan. Bush was lying.[/size]
The result of the big lie
1750 American service people dead
45,000 service people wounded
110,000 Iraqi's dead
Uncounted Iraqi's wounded
200 billion dollars spent.
And all I hear is Wilson is a liar.
au1929 wrote: Niger did not sell Yellow cake to Saddam,
Niger did not sell yellow cake to Saddan. Bush was lying.[/size]
The result of the big lie
1750 American service people dead
45,000 service people wounded
110,000 Iraqi's dead
Uncounted Iraqi's wounded
200 billion dollars spent.
And all I hear is Wilson is a liar.
Next, they'll try and connect all those deaths to Wilson's "lies."
Web Exclusive | Tony Karon
Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road
Tony Karon's Web Log: The question is no longer whether the President uttered a falsehood in his indictment of Iraq; it's at what point the Administration learned the claim of uranium purchases from Niger was false
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2003
Vignette StoryServer 5.0 Thu Jun 23 12:05:48 2005
Is a fib really a fib if the teller is unaware that he is uttering an untruth? That question appears to be the basis of the White House defense, having now admitted a falsehood in President Bush's claim, in his State of the Union address, that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa. But that defense is under mounting pressure from a variety of sources claiming that the White House could not have been unaware that the claim was false, because it had been checked out ?- and debunked ?- by U.S. intelligence a year before the President repeated it.
So, the White House is not contesting the fact that the President made a false claim ?- merely whether he, or those who prepared his speech, knew at the time that it was false. And holding the line forces White House press secretary Ari Fleischer into a rhetorical dance that can only be called Clintonesque: conceding on the one hand that the claim made by the President was based on forged evidence that Iraq had tried to buy "yellow cake" refined uranium from Niger, but at the same time maintaining that "I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement."
While the Bush administration may have been sweating, just a little during the past two months, over the absence of WMD finds in Iraq, a majority of Americans appear willing to believe that going to war was justified even if no such weapons are ever found. Across the Atlantic, however, Bush's closest ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair, is being roasted daily by Britain's media and legislature, some of the fiercest attacks coming from within his own party. Just this week, a parliamentary inquiry exonerated Blair's government on the charge that it "sexed up" intelligence reports to exaggerate the threat posed by Saddam's regime, but nonetheless remained deeply skeptical of the case made by Blair for going to war.
The fact that Blair's and Bush's governments face parallel but separate inquires from their own legislatures operates, in some ways, like the police tactic of interrogating suspects separately in the hope of finding discrepancies in their testimony. The U.S., for example, started a lot earlier than the British conceding that actual weapons of mass destruction may never be found in Iraq. British officials were apoplectic some weeks ago when the President and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld suggested Saddam may have destroyed his banned weapons before the invasion. Blair, after all, has stuck by the promise that WMD will be found in Iraq ?- at least until this week, when he began the subtle migration to a claim that the coalition may only find evidence that Iraq had maintained weapons programs rather than any actual weapons.
Blair, moreover, appears to be sticking by the Niger uranium allegation despite the White House retraction, insisting that it was based on sources besides the forged letters. U.S. officials had hinted, also, that other sources had pointed to Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium in Africa, but that none of these leads was considered strong enough to include in the President's speech.
Hardly surprisingly, the Democrats are demanding an inquiry. The surging support for antiwar Vermont governor Howard Dean in the Democratic nomination race signals deep discomfort among the party's core supporters over the war, and some of those who voted for the war may be inclined to use the presence of fake intelligence in President Bush's case for war to back away from their own support for the invasion. Still, they may have plenty to work with, because there's plenty of evidence emerging to challenge the White House assertion that it was not informed, before the State of the Union speech, that the Niger claim had been debunked by U.S. intelligence.
Just last weekend, the man sent by the CIA to check out the Niger story broke cover and revealed that he had thoroughly debunked the allegation many months before President Bush repeated it. Ambassador Joseph Wilson emphasized that he had reported back through traditional channels, and asked whether his report had been ignored because it didn't fit with the administration's preconceptions about Iraq.
More troubling questions arise from the claim by IAEA chief Dr Mohammed el-Baradei, who was in charge of the nuclear component of the prewar UN inspection program in Iraq, that he was provided with the Niger "evidence" only in February, despite it having been shared on Capitol Hill the previous October. The U.S. and Britain were publicly committed to sharing intelligence with the UN inspectors in order to help them find a "smoking gun," yet el-Baradei was kept in the dark about evidence that was ostensibly directly relevant to his inquiry. And, of course, almost as soon as he was shown the Niger documents, el-Baradei and his team concluded that they were forgeries. Also, despite U.S. and British claims that "other sources" had indicated Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in Africa, el-Baradei stresses that the Niger forgeries were the only evidence offered to the investigators.
Even more damning are reports that CIA sources insist the Bush administration was made aware some time before the State of the Union address that the Niger allegation was false. If those prove true, it kicks the jams out from under the administration's claim that the presence of a falsehood in the President's case against Iraq was simply the product of ignorance. And it may be expected that the CIA will more and more sharply signal that it passed its findings up the food chain, because on the basis of Ambassador Wilson's revelations, they'd be left to take the blame if they didn't. Then again, the media may turn its attention to the role of the Vice President's office: After all, Ambassador Wilson claims his inquiry was initiated by a request from Dick Cheney's office to check out the allegation. So presumably, Wilson's findings will have been reported back there. If so, the former ambassador is not the only one who will want to know what they, and other top officials, made of, and more importantly did with his information.
And right now, the game in Washington is to pin the blame for the fact that a fib, conscious or unconscious, made it into the State of the Union address. And in a summer news trough, that's bad news for the White House.
Feed Rove to the donkeys.
Bush wasn't lying.
The 911 Commission found that--the Butler Report found that. I don't know why people insist on perpetuating that lie.
