Fuck me if it's true! From DKos:

quote:

Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury. McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis. Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thebl...s-cov_3556.html

And what's really interesting is the speculation of why Special Prosecuter Fitzgerald has taken so long - we're talkin' perjury, man!:

quote:

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has stated in court pleadings that he already knows the identity of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper's sources regarding the senior white house official who leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. . . . So, why is it so necessary for them to provide the information? As the Wapo article suggests, the investigation has moved from one involving the identity of the White House official to one involving perjury - i.e., a cover-up. The source may have been questioned in front of the grand jury and lied. Knowing the identity of the source is not enough for a perjury conviction. There must be two witnesses to the perjurious statement. Telephone records would not be enough, because they only provide the number dialed, not the identity of the person speaking. Matthew Cooper's and Judith Miller's e-mails and notes may provide that corroboration. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011281.html

Wow, talk about a fucking Dem. dream come true! And let's not forget what our beloved leader's dad has said in the past about exposing sources:

quote:

[W]e need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country. Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors. http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affai...ech_042699.html

Or perhaps more importantly, what our beloved leader has said himself:

quote:

I have told my staff, I want full cooperation with the Justice Department. And when they ask for information, we expect the information to be delivered on a timely basis. I expect it to be delivered on a timely basis. I want there to be full participation, because, April, I am most interested in finding out the truth. And, you know, there's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of -- this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20031006-4.html

What say you now, dear George, if this actually holds true?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I've always believed firmly that Karl Rove is the devil. What a douche.

___________________

i won't hold my breath. couldn't bush pardon him anyway?

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

Holy shit is this incredible! First, much came out over the weekend from Newsweek, which directly fingers Rove talking to Matt Cooper THREE FUCKING DAYS before the Novak column came out. Emails were recovered. You can read Isokoff's story here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/

And Jesus, out came the Press yesterday absolutely hammering Scott M. on the issue! Our Press FINALLY grew a nutsack! There is a God! This excerpt is just fucking beautiful:

quote:

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative? MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing. Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position? MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium.... Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'? MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete. Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not? MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it. Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime? MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing. Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"? MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well. Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not? MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation... Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate? MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish. Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he? MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it. Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today? MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question. QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation? MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that..... And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that. Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't. MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date? MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period. Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan? MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response. Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa? MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions. Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been... MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions. Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go? MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point. Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here? MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction. Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove? MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this. Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff? MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation. Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way? MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions.... http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1000977098

So Scottie stonewalled the shit out of the reporters. Possible obstruction of justice on his part? It now comes to the question of the President - exactly what did Bush know and when did he know it?

Senator Reid put it well, and it's a thought we should all keep in mind in the coming days:

quote:

Washington, DC – “I agree with the President when he said he expects the people who work for him to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration. I trust they will follow through on this pledge. If these allegations are true this rises above politics and is about our national security.”

And where the fuck are you Republicans now who once defended this fucking sleezebag? Fucking mum:

quote:

Because of the powerful role Mr. Rove plays in shaping policy and deploying Mr. Bush's political support and machinery throughout the party, few Republicans were willing to discuss his situation on the record. Asked for comment, several Republican senators said on Monday that they did not know enough or did not want to venture an opinion. But in private, several prominent Republicans said they were concerned about the possible effects on Mr. Bush and his agenda, in part because Mr. Rove's stature makes him such a tempting target for Democrats. "Knowing Rove, he's still having eight different policy meetings and sticking to his game plan," said one veteran Republican strategist in Washington who often works with the White House. "But this issue now is looming, and as they peel away another layer of the onion, there's a lot of consternation. Rove needs to be on his A game now, not huddled with lawyers and press people." A senior Congressional Republican aide said most members of Congress were still waiting to learn more about Mr. Rove's involvement and to assess whether more disclosures about his role were likely. "The only fear here is where does this go," the aide said. "We can't know." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/p...RWwlwUJhqVx+9bg

So to recap on a couple of issues here:

1. Wilson was FUCKING RIGHT, and you fucking Republicans knew it. He exposed this White House on their bullshit, and it was IMMEDIATELY pronounced to slime him with your favorite fucking slime weapon - Karl Rove.

2. Bush should keep to his word and fire Rove. You really think Bush would fire his brain? Who will think for him then?

3. Why the fuck exactly are we in this war again?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Crap, I forgot probably one of the most important recap points:

4. This Administration along with it's fucking mouthpiece Novak WILLINGLY and SHREWDLY put politics ahead of the war on terrorism, that war in which they boast from the highest of fucking mountains that they fight oh so diligently, and which keeps their poll numbers up (the only ones so far). What do I mean? This Administration WILLINGLY outed a CIA covert operative who's sole purpose for the CIA was to find WMD proliferation,

YES, WMD PROLIFERATION - WASN'T THAT ONE OF OUR PRIMARY FUCKING PURPOSES IN THIS WAR ON TERRORISM? WAS THIS NOT ONE OF THE PRIMARY FUCKING REASONS WHY WE WENT TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE?!?!??!

So they exposed Wilson's wife, the covert CIA agent, as a means of revenge against Wilson who himself exposed the absolute bullshit lies of this Administration for putting us into this Iraq debacle in the first place.

Anyone fucking getting this yet? How exactly does this Administration fucking fight the war on terrorism so well when it exposes covert CIA agents and their sources who's very fucking JOB is to fight the fucking war on terrorism? All out of fucking revenge?!?!?!?!

WHAT THE FUCK, REPUBLICANS? Do you support this behavior or not?


Added in Edit: I'm not done yet, damnit! Remember those fucking comments that Rove said about liberals and 9/11? Remember how all you fucking Conservatives rallied around him in support of his unbelievably bullshit comments and asinine point? Well it seems pretty interesting how someone who's more than happy to put a political smear on someone who was right about our intelligence and disregard both principle of fighting the war on terrorism AND law forbidding the deliberate outing of covert CIA agents, let alone one who's very job was to fight the war on terrorism.

Please, Conservatives, please tell me you will not support this guy. How on earth could you?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Last edited by MisterOpus1 on Jul-12-2005 at 15:30

Wow ... I kinda feel sorry for McClellan. He got taken down big time. I bet he wants to kill Rove. Who was the reporter asking hte questions? Anyway I don't really see any obstruction of justice if the prosecutors advised him not to talk about the case publically.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Wow ... I kinda feel sorry for McClellan. He got taken down big time. I bet he wants to kill Rove. Who was the reporter asking hte questions? Anyway I don't really see any obstruction of justice if the prosecutors advised him not to talk about the case publically.

Yeah, obstruction is a bit of a reach. And I'd wanna kill Rove too if I were him. Nevertheless this part of the Q & A is damn interesting:

quote:

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began. Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation? MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that..... And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that. Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't. MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them. Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date? MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period. Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

Ahh, back "in that time period". Very precise. Exactly what was said to him and when? And furthermore, why did the President comment on this later? Here's what Scotty said:

quote:

QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . . McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it. QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . . McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved. QUESTION: How does he know that? McCLELLAN: The President knows. ..... QUESTION: Weeks ago, when you were first asked whether Mr. Rove had the conversation with Robert Novak that produced the column, you dismissed it as ridiculous. And I wanted just to make sure, at that time, had you talked to Karl? McCLELLAN: I've made it very clear, from the beginning, that it is totally ridiculous. I've known Karl for a long time, and I didn't even need to go ask Karl, because I know the kind of person that he is, and he is someone that is committed to the highest standards of conduct. QUESTION: Can you say for the record whether Mr. Rove possessed the information about Mr. Wilson's wife, but merely did not talk to anybody about it? McCLELLAN: I don't know whether or not -- I mean, I'm sure he probably saw the same media reports everybody else in this room has. QUESTION: When you talked to Mr. Rove, did you discuss, did you ever have this information? McCLELLAN: We're going down a lot of different roads here. I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was. Scott McClellan Press Gaggle September 29, 2003 http://www.thismodernworld.com/webl..._10.html#002315

The next day, Bush said:

quote:

QUESTION: Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it. . . THE PRESIDENT: Yes. QUESTION: Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him . . . THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. George W. Bush Remarks to Reporters September 30, 2003 http://www.thismodernworld.com/webl..._10.html#002315

And then, of course, Bush spoke 9 months later about it, stating that he would fire anyone who was involved with leaking Valerie Plame:

quote:

Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position? MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/e...t_id=1000977098

And if you want to get nitpicky, what exactly did the prosecution say to Scotty?:

quote:

“The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium.” “That’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy.” “There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.” “Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House.” “I think probably more than one individual who’s involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20050711-3.html

So he couldn't answer the questions because the prosecution expressed a preference that he not talk about it. That sure as shit hadn't stopped him in the past, nor did it stop Bush either, did it?

And how did Bush and Scotty know exactly how Karl didn't have a role in it? Somebody's fibbin.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And how did Bush and Scotty know exactly how Karl didn't have a role in it? Somebody's fibbin.....

Maybe they asked him and Rove lied? Bush did appoint the special prosecutor in this case, Patrick Fitzgerald, who's been pretty hard-hitting in this case, so I would imagine he would want to kill Rove right now as well. I'm very curious to see what the white house does.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Anyone fucking getting this yet? How exactly does this Administration fucking fight the war on terrorism so well when it exposes covert CIA agents and their sources who's very fucking JOB is to fight the fucking war on terrorism? All out of fucking revenge?!?!?!?!

The same way that they told the FBI to back off on it's investigations of the hijackers, pre-9/11. Also the same was they obstructed the investigations into the Saudi and Paki money that was funding them.

It's all a joke as they're simply following their own agendas, not that which is actually best for our Country.

At least you seem to be picking up on a few of their clues. Hopefully this will spark some curiosity in others (who care.)

quote:

Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role July 10, 2004 Washington Post Susan Schmidt Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly. Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House. Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said. The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him. Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer. Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name. The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional. The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said. Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion. The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger. Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said. Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq." According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin. The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa." ? 2004 The Washington Post Company

i don't know man, there just doesn't seem much coherency towards Wilson's claim that someone in the administration wanted to deliberately embarass him by outing his wife when any intelligent insider would realize that eventually it they would be outed in a guaranteed grand jury investigation. unless the ultimate goal of this whole hullabaloo is to embarass the administration. i mean Wilson originally wanted to finger Cheney for gods sake!

Plame's cover was not that much of a cover to be blown in the first place. this whole thing just reeks of Bush-hating rhetoric. but i guess we'll see when when the Feds eventually indict someone...not the left wing press.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jul-12-2005 at 18:46

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Plame's cover was not that much of a cover to be blown in the first place. this whole thing just reeks of Bush-hating rhetoric. but i guess we'll see when when the Feds eventually indict someone...not the left wing press.

Well of course it does. They've been waiting for a slipup like this for a long time. There have already been a few, but nothing the Administration couldn't handle with it's war on terrorism free pass shield. Its amazing its taken this long. With support for the war slipping the old tricks aren't working like they used to. Bush was once able to silence a whole room of bickering by saying "The world is safer." over and over no matter what the issue was.

Democrats are clearly hoping this is the silver bullet they have been waiting for to get back at an already weakened Administration. Its been said before that the second-term has a curse for presidents (Iran-contra, Watergate, Lewinsky) and they want this one to be Bush's. I'll even go so far to say some want something that will taint Bush's image so he isn't immortalized as a great liberator even if the whole Iraq thing actually turns out for the better. I just say, whoa slow down, lets not jump the gun here. We can see how fired up Mr. Opus is getting, don't give yourself a heart attack. Shouldn't you be studying anyways?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Well of course it does. They've been waiting for a slipup like this for a long time. There have already been a few, but nothing the Administration couldn't handle with it's war on terrorism free pass shield. Its amazing its taken this long. With support for the war slipping the old tricks aren't working like they used to. Bush was once able to silence a whole room of bickering by saying "The world is safer." over and over no matter what the issue was. Democrats are clearly hoping this is the silver bullet they have been waiting for to get back at an already weakened Administration. Its been said before that the second-term has a curse for presidents (Iran-contra, Watergate, Lewinsky) and they want this one to be Bush's. I'll even go so far to say some want something that will taint Bush's image so he isn't immortalized as a great liberator even if the whole Iraq thing actually turns out for the better. I just say, whoa slow down, lets not jump the gun here. We can see how fired up Mr. Opus is getting, don't give yourself a heart attack. Shouldn't you be studying anyways?

Wilson was in Niger at the behest of his wife in 1999. which, for all intents and puposes, could have been public knowledge if someone really cared at that time.
there is more history to this than just your perception of the current administration.
given the facts right now. i see that a mistake was obviously made. at what level? don't know yet. was it a culpable mistake? sure. was it malicious like Wilson has been claiming? (where the hell is he BTW?) i don't think so.