Libby Guilty

Another bit of astonishing fact behind this fiasco, apparently Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement. The CIA's stock is fairly low, but are these people idiots, or what?

This makes for interesting reading. Leftists, don't bother, because your minds are already made up.

http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2005/11/cia-incompetent-or-rogue.html

Maybe it is because I am not tuned into the ways of Washington, cyclops, but to my way of thinking, everyone, and I mean everyone, that ever does any work for the Central Intelligence Agency would sign a confidentiality agreement. What do you think the agency is doing if it isn't intelligence. How was Wilson supposed to know exactly everything he would find in Niger? If he already knew what he would find, and that all of it was not sensitive information, why go down there? If it was simply to go down to Niger to have some tea with a government official or two, then fine, save the money for the trip, stay here, and write a report.

People accuse me of being simplistic. Well, there are a few simple principles, that if followed, some of this nonsense would possibly be avoided.

I say, it is utter stupidity not to have had Wilson sign a confidentiality agreement. It may have been intentional stupidity, which is another indication this was nothing more than a sham trip, which is what most conservatives have viewed this as from the very beginning. And the reason Cheney was ticked off about it, and I don't blame him.

Unbelieveable. You are claiming that b/c the CIA never had Wilson sign a confidentiality agreement - despite the fact that he wasn't doing anything that was actually a secret - the trip was a setup designed to get Bush.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Unbelieveable. You are claiming that b/c the CIA never had Wilson sign a confidentiality agreement - despite the fact that he wasn't doing anything that was actually a secret - the trip was a setup designed to get Bush.

Cycloptichorn

You have finally gotten the point, cyclops. You can go ahead and disagree, but one thing I would ask you to do. Pay very close attention to the character, behavior, and future activities of the Wilsons, and that will give you a clue as to their actual credibility and their motives. I would also ask you to start paying closer attention to the CIA, and what is going on in that agency.

Per Libby, I don't know. He may have lied to try to avoid the unintended consequences of this case, but the case should never have been brought. As a matter of law, if Libby does not get vindicated by the court, he has to pay the price.

okie wrote:

Another bit of astonishing fact behind this fiasco, apparently Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement. The CIA's stock is fairly low, but are these people idiots, or what?

This makes for interesting reading. Leftists, don't bother, because your minds are already made up.

http://themiddleground.blogspot.com/2005/11/cia-incompetent-or-rogue.html

Why should he have signed it, Okie? Nothing he was doing was a secret.

You are way out in left field on this issue, and if you keep it up, I'll engage you and show how hollow your position is.

Cycloptichorn

I have seen the character of the Wilsons, Joe at least. I've seen him speak and read what he's written many times. The only prevalent emotion he shows is sadness for what has happened to him and his wife. I find it to be pretty repugnant that you would go after Wilson's motives so badly as to accuse him of completely fabricating stories and going all the way to Africa just to attack the president. You don't know him from Adam, you've never read anything about him that wasn't written as an attack by a fellow Republican, yet you are convinced that he's a snake in the grass. You are drinking the Koolaid, Okie. Wake up. A coordinated smear of someone's character doesn't actually make any of it true.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I have seen the character of the Wilsons, Joe at least. I've seen him speak and read what he's written many times. The only prevalent emotion he shows is sadness for what has happened to him and his wife. I find it to be pretty repugnant that you would go after Wilson's motives so badly as to accuse him of completely fabricating stories and going all the way to Africa just to attack the president. You don't know him from Adam, you've never read anything about him that wasn't written as an attack by a fellow Republican, yet you are convinced that he's a snake in the grass. You are drinking the Koolaid, Okie. Wake up. A coordinated smear of someone's character doesn't actually make any of it true.

Cycloptichorn

Correct, cyclops, I do not know the Wilsons. All I know is what I read, see, and hear. You do the same I presume. My judgement rides more on what they do instead of what they say. I have read both sides take on it. You apparently drink the koolaid of the left view, I drink the koolaid of the right, but I read it all and decide which take makes more sense.

My judgement rides more on what they do instead of what they say.

What was it they 'did' that made you suspect them so greatly? I'd like to know whether or not it was something they actually did, or just something you read some Republican write about what they did. Big difference!

Cycloptichorn

kuvasz, perhaps if you are posting with the thought I would read your posts, at least in entirety, please save yourself the trouble.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What was it they 'did' that made you suspect them so greatly? I'd like to know whether or not it was something they actually did, or just something you read some Republican write about what they did. Big difference!

Cycloptichorn

Vanity Fair, books, and movie, Kerry advisor, disconnect between reality and congressional briefing, and no written report.

Theres lots more, but thats starters.

Let's go one at a time -

Vanity Fair - they did an article about the outing after it happened. So what?

books, and movie - Now they have decided to make some money off of the crap they've been put through - and this makes you suspicious of them?

Kerry advisor - naturally, working for the Devil makes you suspicious of them, though I can't quite figure out what was wrong with it.

disconnect between reality and congressional briefing - I bet a million bucks you're confusing the actual report of the Senate intelligence committee, with the Republican addendum on the back.

and no written report - he wasn't asked to write one, to the best of my knowledge, by anyone.

Weak.

Cycloptichorn

Pretty strong case for the fact he wanted no track record to pin him down to what he actually found. What good was the work he did? If it wasn't worth writing down, I don't think his work was worth anything. He could find the time to write oped pieces, but found no time to write a report about what he did, that supposedly was so important, that he could base his antiwar vendetta on it. Nobody should have needed to ask him to write a report. They were wrong for not asking for it, and he was wrong for not doing it. Pretty strong case for the fact he wanted no track record to pin him down to what he actually found. What good was the work he did? If it wasn't worth writing down, I don't think his work was worth anything. He could find the time to write oped pieces, but found no time to write a report about what he did, that supposedly was so important, that he could base his antiwar vendetta on it. Nobody should have needed to ask him to write a report. They were wrong for not asking for it, and he was wrong for not doing it.

And here is Wilson's description of what he said about his trip and this meeting in his debriefing session.

Within an hour of my return to Washington in early March 2002, a CIA reports officer, at my request, arrived at my home. Over Chinese takeout, I gave him the same details of my trip and conclusions that I had provided to Owens-Kirkpatrick in Niamey before my departure. These included the account of the meeting between my Nigerien contact and the Iraqi official on the margins of the OAU meeting, as well as my observations about where our government might inquire further if it was not persuaded by my report or those of the ambassador and the general whose inquiries had preceded mine. (29)

In short, his work was worthless. He found out nothing we didn't already know in Niger. He was a partisan hack that already had a conclusion before he went, and therefore had nothing to write down. It was a sham, plain and simple