8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:41 am
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
He concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger


And where or when did the admin ever make that claim?

This is what Bush said...
Quote:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa


Nobody ever claimed that Iraq actually bought yellow cake, only that they wanted to.

There is a big difference between the two statements.



But the White House knew, when Bush made the speech, conclusively that Saddam had not recently sought yellow cake. That makes Bush's statement a lie, and the White House has admitted this. But I guess to a literalist Bush was right on the mark.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 08:49 am
Advocate wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
He concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger


And where or when did the admin ever make that claim?

This is what Bush said...
Quote:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa


Nobody ever claimed that Iraq actually bought yellow cake, only that they wanted to.

There is a big difference between the two statements.



But the White House knew, when Bush made the speech, conclusively that Saddam had not recently sought yellow cake. That makes Bush's statement a lie, and the White House has admitted this. But I guess to a literalist Bush was right on the mark.


Let me make this simple for you.

Joe Wilson concluded that..."
Quote:
He concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger".


That statement is 100% true, because they didnt buy any.

Now, the Bush admin, working with the info given to them by British intelligence, made this claim...
Quote:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa


Now, according to factcheck.org Bush may have been wrong, but he wasnt lying.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

But, for you and others to claim that Bush said Iraq actually bought yellow cake is a lie, because the Bush admin NEVER said that.

You have distorted and twisted what was said to fit your own hate for Bush.
Why is that so hard for you to admit.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:35 am
House panel votes to cite Rove with contempt

36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House Judiciary Committee has voted to hold former White House strategist Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena to testify.


Voting along party lines Wednesday, the committee said Rove broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats.

The committee decision is only a recommendation, and it was unclear whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi would allow a final vote.

Rove has denied any involvement with Justice Department decisions, and the White House has said Congress has no authority to compel testimony from current and former advisers.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 09:45 am
cicerone imposter wrote:
House panel votes to cite Rove with contempt

36 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The House Judiciary Committee has voted to hold former White House strategist Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for ignoring a subpoena to testify.


Voting along party lines Wednesday, the committee said Rove broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats.

The committee decision is only a recommendation, and it was unclear whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi would allow a final vote.

Rove has denied any involvement with Justice Department decisions, and the White House has said Congress has no authority to compel testimony from current and former advisers.


Most of the people in this country are in contempt of congress arent they?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jul, 2008 10:13 am
mysteryman wrote:
Advocate wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
Quote:
He concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger


And where or when did the admin ever make that claim?

This is what Bush said...
Quote:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa


Nobody ever claimed that Iraq actually bought yellow cake, only that they wanted to.

There is a big difference between the two statements.



But the White House knew, when Bush made the speech, conclusively that Saddam had not recently sought yellow cake. That makes Bush's statement a lie, and the White House has admitted this. But I guess to a literalist Bush was right on the mark.


Let me make this simple for you.

Joe Wilson concluded that..."
Quote:
He concluded that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that Iraq had purchased uranium yellowcake from Niger".


That statement is 100% true, because they didnt buy any.

Now, the Bush admin, working with the info given to them by British intelligence, made this claim...
Quote:
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa


Now, according to factcheck.org Bush may have been wrong, but he wasnt lying.
http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

But, for you and others to claim that Bush said Iraq actually bought yellow cake is a lie, because the Bush admin NEVER said that.

You have distorted and twisted what was said to fit your own hate for Bush.
Why is that so hard for you to admit.


You owe me an apology. I never said that Bush said Iraq made a purchase. Maybe you are the one who distorts.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 01:38 pm
White House Forged Letter to Start Iraq War?
By David Knowles
Aug 5th 2008 9:24AM
Filed Under:eBush Administration, Featured Stories, Dick Cheney, Scandal, Media


In an explosive new claim, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Ron Suskind details how the White House directed the CIA to forge and leak a letter to help buttress its case for invading Iraq. The letter, which found its way into the hands of a reporter from London's Sunday Telegraph, seemed to show proof that the 9/11 hijackers, including Mohammad Atta, had received training from Saddam Hussein's government.

The problem is, according to Suskind, the letter was a fake, and no such training took place. The White House adamantly denies the charges made in "The Way of the World," which was released today. Other revelations from the book?


The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official "that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq--intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion."


While accusations of this magnitude should always be met with skepticism, one only needs to look back to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident to realize that such tactics of deception have been employed before to start a war. In fact, as Seymour Hersh recently uncovered, the Bush Administration was planning similar smoke-and-mirrors options for Iran.

And what if what Suskind claims is true?


The author claims that such an operation, part of "false pretenses" for war, would constitute illegal White House use of the CIA to influence a domestic audience, an arguably impeachable offense.


Given the duration remaining on the Bush's Last Day clock, that option seems unlikely.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 02:03 pm
It seems unlikely because of the makeup of congress and its leaders and the supreme court. They have all failed our country - big time.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 02:19 pm
Sounds like a way to sell books. You guys run along and buy a couple copies and be sure to wear a drool bib as you read it.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 02:41 pm
McG, I know what you mean. The truth should be avoided at all cost -- it is for wusses.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Tue 5 Aug, 2008 03:09 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Sounds like a way to sell books. You guys run along and buy a couple copies and be sure to wear a drool bib as you read it.


Of course it's a way to sell books; what other reason is there? The point you miss is simply that there can be no falsehood claimed in the book, because they can be sued for defamation of character.

So, what exactly is your point? That your ignorance far exceeds your ability to reason?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 08:39 am
Plame has suffered another devastating loss. It is sort of like going to court to seek redress, and getting raped a second time.


Plame can't sue Dick Cheney & pals
BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, August 12th 2008, 11:31 PM

WASHINGTON - Another court said Tuesday that outed ex-CIA spook Valerie Plame can't sue Vice President Cheney, ex-Bush political guru Karl Rove or ex-Cheney senior aide Lewis (Scooter) Libby over the disclosure that she was an operative for the spy agency.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington upheld a lower court decision to dismiss the lawsuit, which alleged the Bushies conspired to punitively expose Plame as a CIA agent after her husband conducted a fact-finding mission that helped debunk claims Saddam Hussein had tried to buy weapons-grade uranium in Africa to build a nuclear warhead.

Plame and her husband, ex-Ambassador Joe Wilson, accuse the troika of violating their constitutional rights, and they plan to press on.

"They want to continue fighting on," said the couple's legal counsel, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "We're disappointed but we feel the decision contains some huge flaws. ... We will most likely appeal to either [the full circuit court] or the Supreme Court."
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 08:55 am
Advocate wrote:
White House Forged Letter to Start Iraq War?
By David Knowles
Aug 5th 2008 9:24AM
Filed Under:eBush Administration, Featured Stories, Dick Cheney, Scandal, Media


In an explosive new claim, Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Ron Suskind details how the White House directed the CIA to forge and leak a letter to help buttress its case for invading Iraq. .....

Small problem, the main sources for Suskind's claim denies it. So if his main sources deny it, then apparently he made it up. Besides, it isn't plausible.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_iraq

"WASHINGTON - Two former CIA officers Tuesday denied that they or the spy agency faked an Iraqi intelligence document purporting to link Saddam Hussein with 9/11 bomber Mohammed Atta, as they are quoted as saying in a new book."
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 09:17 am
The CIA officers have a major problem in contradicting Suskind. The latter has statements on tape contradicting the denials. In any event, I hope, we will soon have testimony made under oath.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Aug, 2008 09:45 am
Advocate wrote:
The CIA officers have a major problem in contradicting Suskind. The latter has statements on tape contradicting the denials. In any event, I hope, we will soon have testimony made under oath.


Not only are Bush's administration and congress broken, but our intelligence community seems to support all that is harmful to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. This downward path of our protections against our own government is now broken for good. Another Bush legacy that the historians better record for future elected officials, or this country is doomed.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 05:16 pm
This is amazing and disgusting. The lower course dismissed on the basis that the outing was somehow connected to the miscreants official duties.


Obama Lawyers Urge Rejection of Leak Suit Against Cheney, Rove


By Greg Stohr

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court not to revive a lawsuit accusing former Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in the George W. Bush White House of illegally revealing the identity of a CIA agent.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, the government’s top courtroom lawyer, told the justices in a legal filing today that a federal appeals court was right to dismiss the suit by former CIA operative Valerie Plame.

The suit also names former White House political adviser Karl Rove and former Cheney aide I. Lewis Libby.

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at [email protected].
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 May, 2009 05:36 pm
@Advocate,
It seems to me that blocking crime to be investigated and prosecuted is also a crime. They become coconspirators to the crime committed.
0 Replies
 
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 06:04 am
@Advocate,
I didn't know this thread was still going on, but it is amazing as well as disgusting how the Obama Administration seems to be in agreement all of a sudden with Bush, Cheney and others. Political? Yes! Close Gitmo, put the so-called felons in Federal Prisons or send them home if picked up erroneously.
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 07:56 am
@teenyboone,
Yeah, it couldn't be that Bush was right, and Obama recognizes that now that he's Head of State ....
teenyboone
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 08:07 am
@Ticomaya,
Tico,
Whether Bush was right is debatable. A lot of what they did was to justify picking up potential terrorists but it appears that many if not the majority were/are innocent. Holding people without chaging them is akin to the Russians sending dissidents off to a Gulag, working them to death and many of them dying while being held. What of the so-called terrorists who was tortured to death? What does his family get? Is he not as important to his family as members of my own? No, Bush was wrong and you know it!
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 May, 2009 08:12 am
@Ticomaya,
No, it doesn't mean Bush was right.

It could just mean that the courts need to set a line as to what evidence must be necessary before officials can be sued. Without setting some line, if this suit is allowed to go forward without standards, then every idiot that thinks they were wronged by an action of the government would sue.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 01:38:53