[BRussell]

So Newsweek is reporting that Rove was Cooper's source:

Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published. Fitzgerald has been looking for evidence that Rove spoke to other reporters as well.

[Stegabot]

But,in that same paragraph that you posted,you noticed that the DCI did not sanctioned any mission,so in effect,the supposed spy trip was a rogue one.Two,even if is sanctioned,why would I as a DCI would put an accredited diplomat on a spying mission ran by the latter's wife when said wife was already compromised by a mole years earlier.Three,why would Wilson at the end of his supposed mission went to the press and wrote an opinion piece about it? Isn't it strange that if you add it all up,the Wilson mission was never about the the Uranium in Niger,but the removal of President Bush from office.
So in effect,everyone from the White House and the CIA as well as the FBI already knew what the hell happenned when Wison penned his article at the NYT.So when people from the New York Times started talking to White House officials like Karl Rove to verify the story,they already had an idea that Valerie Plame was the one who send Wilson to Niger and they just wanted someone to confirm it .And having the couple's picture in Vanity Fair at the same time frame does not help Wilson or Valerie Plame's cause either.
In conclusion ,there was a no harm no foul situation here because Karl Rove just voiced out what people in the Washington press and politicians already knew at that time,the Valerie Plame was Ambassador Wilson's wife and she worked for the CIA as an analyst that especialized on WMD .

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Stegabot

But,in that same paragraph that you posted,you noticed that the DCI did not sanctioned any mission,so in effect,the supposed spy trip was a rogue one.Two,even if is sanctioned,why would I as a DCI would put an accredited diplomat on a spying mission ran by the latter's wife when said wife was already compromised by a mole years earlier.Three,why would Wilson at the end of his supposed mission went to the press and wrote an opinion piece about it? Isn't it strange that if you add it all up,the Wilson mission was never about the the Uranium in Niger,but the removal of President Bush from office.
So in effect,everyone from the White House and the CIA as well as the FBI already knew what the hell happenned when Wison penned his article at the NYT.So when people from the New York Times started talking to White House officials like Karl Rove to verify the story,they already had an idea that Valerie Plame was the one who send Wilson to Niger and they just wanted someone to confirm it .And having the couple's picture in Vanity Fair at the same time frame does not help Wilson or Valerie Plame's cause either.
In conclusion ,there was a no harm no foul situation here because Karl Rove just voiced out what people in the Washington press and politicians already knew at that time,the Valerie Plame was Ambassador Wilson's wife and she worked for the CIA as an analyst that especialized on WMD .

1)That rougue spy trip part was according to Rove. We have no idea what was true and what wasn't.

2)Calling it a spy mission is kinda misleading I think. He wasn't really doing anything secret. He was meeting with former, current government officials and other people close to the trade. I am not sure that even if his wife had been outed before that, that it would have hurt his mission at all.

3)He argues that he went to the press because his finding were disregarded by the current administration in order to go to war. its called being a whistle blower.

[Stegabot]

What he was doing in NIger can still be classified as an intelligence gathering operation,but did he really do a good job while he was there looking for the info needed by POTUS or did he talked only to a few contacts and made a decision fully aware the there were covert teams that his CIA wife does not know about made a different conclusion that did not jive to his findings that he went straight to the media after the CiNC,the CIA director and others questioned him on how he got around to his conclusions.Unfortunately,unless we can get a time machine and see what really happenned,it's going to be the he said,she said affair.

[TheMosco]

Right, he said, she said. Thats why I said things like "We have no idea whats true and what wasn't" and "He argues".

If you read his original article and some followups, he goes into detail about who he talked to, and how can he claim to his conclusion etc. Apparently he went to someone at the state department after Bush made the claims. His friend suggested that maybe they weren't talk about Niger. It wasn't until 7 months later that he wrote the article.

[mr. natural]

Regarding BRussel's post/linkage to a Newsweek article, Stegabot writes:

Posted by Stegabot:
But,in that same paragraph that you posted,you noticed that the DCI did not sanctioned any mission,so in effect,the supposed spy trip was a rogue one.

This wasn't a "spy trip." Who or what was there to "spy" on? Had there been anything or anybody worth *spying* on then you might have reason to think that the DCIA would have cause of responsibility to *sanction* or otherwise *authorize* a "spy trip."

What it was was just one more effort to ascertain if there was any plausibility to an allegation that Iraq had bought low-grade 'yellow cake' uranium from Niger -- a claim that already had been thoroughly investigated by the the then-Ambassador to Niger (and one would assume by any covert agents at her disposal), another by a four-star Marine General, as well as analysis by the State Department's intelligence bureau (INR), all of which were on file before Wilson's expedition, and all of which found the claim lacking in substance.

As far as the DCIA's involvement goes, it is quite possible that George Tenet, the Director of the CIA at the time, was probably informed by those who were in position to know that this claim had been looked into already and that it didn't qualify as legitimate; at which point the whole matter was probably left to be dealt with at the discretion of the dept. whose specialty business it was look into this sort of stuff.

(And short of a meaculpa by someone in the CIA, we'll never know exactly how Wilson got hired. But I think it worth pointing out again that the CIA has publicly denied that his wife made this happen; as if she arranged this without input and consideration by others of who to send. The fact remains he was deemed qualified to investigate it, accepted when offered, and off he went. Furthermore, neither have his or the same but separately gathered conclusions proved wrong; yet what has proven wrong is all the WMD bluster that was peddled by the White House to justify the Iraq war.

(Still, this aspect of Wilsongate is all sideshow to a real national security question that is being investigated, apparently with utmost seriousness too, by a Special Prosecutor armed with a very powerful grand jury status. Hell, even Bush has retained the services of a lawyer unaffiliated with the White House just in case he is compelled to testify before this grand jury. No one affiliated with this case is immune. As one of the circuit judges -- who ruled against the reporters, thus compelling them to testify or face contempt charges -- wrote, he "might have" let Cooper and Miller off the hook "[w]ere the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security." Mind you, it is pretty inconceivable Fitzgerald has anything to find just cause to compel Bush to testify, but the point is that evidence has been shown to judges which they concluded damaging to national security. This case is serious stuff.)

I'd also like to remind Stegabot that a group by the name of Al Qaeda had just recently pulled off the greatest terrorist attack on the US, and I'd say that the DCIA was probably rather busy with matters that related to this group and the war in Afghanistan than some new cockamamy claim about Iraq having actually bought yellow cake uranium as alleged.

See, the problem here was not that capable intelligence agents had already gone over this and vetted that this alleged claim wasn't plausible. The problem was that in the run-up to our war in Iraq, the White House decided to lead the charge -- and recklessly so it turns out -- on intelligence matters; and in so doing, cut out the very analysts whose job it is to verify and vouch for the plausible veracity of all the so-called intelligence gathered claims, rumors, gossip, etc. that spills across their desks. (And it is worth mentioning in this regard that Condi Rice miserably failed her position as the president's National Security advisor -- for it this individual to whom the task is laid to ensure that of all the national security intelligence information coming into the White House and presented to the president, that it has been found sound.) In essence, the analysis filters were removed and "raw" intelligence was, as the saying goes, stovepiped into the WH. And just like another saying goes: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Two,even if is sanctioned,why would I as a DCI would put an accredited diplomat on a spying mission ran by the latter's wife when said wife was already compromised by a mole years earlier.

Again, this wasn't a "spying mission". It was a non-covert information/fact gathering mission in an obscure African country about questionable "intelligence," and it wasn't "ran" by the "wife." I know some of you think "nepotism" is a rampant disease here, but for crying out loud...

Secondly, one would think that a really good "mole" would of compromised someone of real covert importance, and not just some *nepotistic analyst with a desk job,* as alleged by some. Yet in answer your question, it is highly unlikely anyone in the CIA would have done such a thing as you suppose.

Three,why would Wilson at the end of his supposed mission went to the press and wrote an opinion piece about it?

"supposed mission"? Are you suggesting no such mission happened?

Nonetheless, we do know that Wilson wrote about it publicly, but only some fifteen months after it occurred. This doesn't exactly qualify as you -- so ineloquently -- put it: "at the end of his supposed mission". (Can no one here do the math or actually read the articles in question -- the dating of his mission is spelled out in his own op-ed! Let me make it clear -- 15 months after his mission.)

Ultimately, and most tellingly too, the day after Wilson wrote his op-ed piece, the White House acknowledged publicly: "this information should not have risen to the level of a Presidential speech."

Well, golly gee, I wonder how this was ever possible, eh, Condi.

You can probably bet that as soon as Bush spoke the infamous sixteen words in his SotU speech, phones were ringing in intelligence offices here and in England. Having elevated this bit of raw intelligence to a pronouncement of fact, folks who thought they knew otherwise would of been scrambling to understand where and how this came to be. One can also believe that soon thereafter, the White House would of been and was in fact* informed: Sorry, but it ain't so. Yet it still took Wilson's piece to retract it. Not that it mattered by then either -- the war in Iraq was already well underway by then. (* see the 18th paragraph in this article for a credible confirmation of this fact.)

As for why Wilson wrote what he did, you can read his closing argument here. You may not think it reasonable or compelling, but I do.

As I wrote elsewhere recently: I believe that it is entirely reasonable and proper that those entrusted with public office should intend to be accountable and they should be held accountable by an alert citizenry that demands authenticity, honesty, and transparency in the conduct of public business; especially about matters as serious as sending us to war and why it is absolutely necessary.

As to the rest of your post:

Isn't it strange that if you add it all up,the Wilson mission was never about the the Uranium in Niger,but the removal of President Bush from office.
So in effect,everyone from the White House and the CIA as well as the FBI already knew what the hell happenned when Wison penned his article at the NYT.So when people from the New York Times started talking to White House officials like Karl Rove to verify the story,they already had an idea that Valerie Plame was the one who send Wilson to Niger and they just wanted someone to confirm it .And having the couple's picture in Vanity Fair at the same time frame does not help Wilson or Valerie Plame's cause either.
In conclusion ,there was a no harm no foul situation here because Karl Rove just voiced out what people in the Washington press and politicians already knew at that time,the Valerie Plame was Ambassador Wilson's wife and she worked for the CIA as an analyst that especialized on WMD .

Strange, you ask?

Indeed, your analysis is so strange as to make me wonder why I bother.

Your own words speak for them self as to the utter mystery of such thinking.

[mr. natural]

BRussell, you broke the pol/war rule #8.

Cat got your tongue?

[Moderator]

apparently Novak isn't in jail because he has cooperated....he just won't talk about it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Moderator

apparently Novak isn't in jail because he has cooperated....he just won't talk about it.

Novak reported on unfair nepotism and political dirty play in the CIA. Wouldn't that be cover under some kind of "whistleblower" law? Are people doing dishonest things protected, just because they work for the CIA? I'd always thought that it was the job of the press to keep the powerful in check. Are there no such checks on the stuff that Plame was doing in order to hurt others politicly and help herself and her husband?

[Moderator]

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I'd always thought that it was the job of the press to keep the powerful in check

awww...that's so cute.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

The information I have seen indicates that her identity was well known.

That's the way I remember it, too. I thought her identity was common knowledge at the time he was sent, at least in Washington. Heck, I even knew who she was, and I wasn't an insider by any stretch of the imagination.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by finboy

That's the way I remember it, too. I thought her identity was common knowledge at the time he was sent, at least in Washington. Heck, I even knew who she was, and I wasn't an insider by any stretch of the imagination.

Are you talking aout "her identity" as Joseph Wilson's wife or "her identity" as a covert CIA operative?

[mr. natural]

Posted by finboy:
That's the way I remember it, too. I thought her identity was common knowledge at the time he was sent, at least in Washington. Heck, I even knew who she was, and I wasn't an insider by any stretch of the imagination.

Apparently, we are to believe that you actually "knew" who Valerie Plame was... and yet Carl Rove didn't?




oh, wait a minute... i get it now. finboy, you ol' rascal, you almost had me fooled.



yep, you can always count on finboy for a good ol' joke.

BTW, how's that sign coming?

You remember, the one that reads: This home protected by guns -- locked in a secure place.



Can't wait to see it.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by mr. natural

BRussell, you broke the pol/war rule #8.

Cat got your tongue?

I broke a rule? Oh ****.

Well, we know Rove talked about Wilson's wife in order to discredit information inconsistent with the Bush's war hype.

We know Rove lied when he claimed he had nothing to do with it.

We know Bush said he'd fire anyone involved, and we know Rove hasn't been fired, nor has anyone else.

We know the media is playing this as to whether Rove technically violated a law, rather than any of the above issues.

So, Rove lied, Bush lied, they were dishonest about going to war, and the media don't care. I guess it's just not all that surprising to me.

[tie]

Sounds like it was definitely Rove.

President Bush's chief spokesman, Scott McClellan, declined to repeat his earlier assertions that Mr. Rove, the deputy White House chief of staff, had nothing to do with leaking the name of the operative, Valerie Plame of the Central Intelligence Agency, to get back at her husband, a former United States ambassador who had publicly challenged Bush administration policy.

Nor would Mr. McClellan repeat his earlier statements that any White House staff person who had leaked the name should be fired.

Meanwhile, Rove hasn't even had his security clearances revoked. Any wonder we haven't found Osama Bin Laden?

[mr. natural]

Posted by BRussell:
I broke a rule? Oh ****.

Well, we know Rove talked about Wilson's wife in order to discredit information inconsistent with the Bush's war hype.

We know Rove lied when he claimed he had nothing to do with it.

We know Bush said he'd fire anyone involved, and we know Rove hasn't been fired, nor has anyone else.

We know the media is playing this as to whether Rove technically violated a law, rather than any of the above issues.

So, Rove lied, Bush lied, they were dishonest about going to war, and the media don't care. I guess it's just not all that surprising to me.

What, no mention of how this all a conspiracy of the damned weenie liberals and how the real story here is about the god forsaken sin of nepotism!

Bro, you are slipping.

[Spliffdaddy]

Suck it up liberals.

You still have 3 1/2 more years of Rove and Dubya to suffer through.

It doesn't matter how much of a fit you throw - it doesn't matter how low Dubya's approval ratings decline.

Nothing you do or say really matters. So find a hobby that can keep your interest for the next four years or so.

heh.

Until we can get Jeb elected.

[Moderator]

Odd how they can lie abou Dubya MD, directly cause the deaths of tens of thousands, and get away with it....but then this silly thing blows up into a genuine controversy.

Oh and Clinton gets his knob waxed and gets impeached....strange world boy.

[Spliffdaddy]

Clinton lied under oath, actually.

[zizban]

Looks liike indeed Rove is the source of the leak. The question remains whether he named the agent or simply pointed the reporter in the right direction and whether he knowingly revealed the name of an undercover agent (remember at the time the agent was working a desk job).

[Mithras]

The real pickle is how Bush via McClellan said that if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.. And how McClellan said it was "totally ridiculous" to suggest that Rove was involved.

And now that it's clear that Rove was involved, they have to do Clintonesque parsing to wiggle out of their own past words...

[Moderator]

I think its a riot how all of these Bush supporters are bitching about nepotism..HA!. George Bush supporters complaining about nepotism..too funny.

[tie]

It is amazing how freely the administration lied when this affair came out. It seems like nothing they said to the press was true at all. I wonder if they were also lying to investigators.

n September 2003, Mr. McClellan said flatly that Mr. Rove had not been involved in disclosing Ms. Plame's name. Asked about the issue on Sept. 29, 2003, Mr. McClellan said he had "spoken with Karl Rove," and that it was "simply not true" that Mr. Rove had a role in the disclosure of her identity. Two weeks earlier, he had called suggestions that Mr. Rove had been involved "totally ridiculous." On Oct. 10, 2003, after the Justice Department opened its investigation, Mr. McClellan told reporters that Mr. Rove, Mr. Abrams and Mr. Libby had nothing to do with the leak.

Mr. McClellan and Mr. Bush have both made clear that leaking Ms. Plame's identity would be considered a firing offense by the White House. Mr. Bush was asked about that position most recently a little over a year ago, when he was asked whether he stood by his pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked the officer's name. "Yes," he replied, on June 10, 2004.

Was this an organized effort to retaliate against Wilson, or was Rove going it alone? It isn't clear what Bush knew, and how far he is willing to lie in this matter.

[Moderator]

The other interesting thing is that Novak..this big right winger...apparently rolled over without a fight in order to save his own ass.

Then the guy from NewsWeek, which right wingers just finished abusing after the Quran story broke, is willing to go to jail to protect Rove's ass.

[Y3a]

Without a CLEARANCE you should NOT HAVE the information AT ALL. SOMEONE WITH A CLEARANCE could have told Rove, who implied some parts of the story. Rove is a political consultant. I don't see HOW he has a right to know any CIA business at that level.

[pman68]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Without a CLEARANCE you should NOT HAVE the information AT ALL. SOMEONE WITH A CLEARANCE could have told Rove, who implied some parts of the story. Rove is a political consultant. I don't see HOW he has a right to know any CIA business at that level.

"Rove is a political consultant."



That is the most naive statement yet.

[Y3a]

So you say HE DOES HAVE a CIA Clearance? And he has access to the covert activity info?

That is the most naive statement yet!!!!

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So you say HE DOES HAVE a CIA Clearance? And he has access to the covert activity info?

That is the most naive statement yet!!!!

Seems kinda hard to find that info. I can't if he really did or if it was just a choice of words by the author.

Although Mr Rove has now been named as identifying Mr Wilson's wife as a CIA official, it is unclear if he faces prosecution. It is illegal for someone with a security clearance to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

http://smh.com.au/news/world/bushs-a...?oneclick=true

WASHINGTON, July 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter today to President George Bush requesting that he immediately direct Karl Rove's security clearances be suspended pending the outcome of the government's investigation into the leak of Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover agent for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=50176

RNC spokesman Brian Jones said the committee decided to issue the talking points after Democrats on Capitol Hill began attacking Rove, some calling for his resignation and others saying that his security clearance should be revoked.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Search google for more. There are tons of articles mentioning it. Not exactly definite proof that he has clearance, but I wouldn't be suprised if he did.

[zizban]

Isn't his "official" title Deputy White House Chief of Staff? Maybe they get clearence. I dunno.

[Moderator]

they do on West Wing

[TheMosco]

Originally Posted by zizban

Isn't his "official" title Deputy White House Chief of Staff? Maybe they get clearence. I dunno.

I am not sure he had that title when the leak was made.

[stupendousman]

Apparently, I'm not the only one who sees the "whistleblower" angle, as I'd mentioned a couple of days ago. I'll call for Rove to resign and go to jail when Mark Felt, Jim McDermott or even Wilson himself are put in handcuffs for either breaking laws in order to leak to the press or in the case of Wilson, being a part of a political plot to defame the President, using taxpayer dollars.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110006955

"For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

.....

Media chants aside, there's no evidence that Mr. Rove broke any laws in telling reporters that Ms. Plame may have played a role in her husband's selection for a 2002 mission to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Niger. ... But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists.

.......

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Are you talking aout "her identity" as Joseph Wilson's wife or "her identity" as a covert CIA operative?

The fact that Joe Wilson's wife was an analyst for CIA (not an "operative" = spy) was common knowledge in Washington, as I recall. I'd assume that Rove was too busy conspiring to lie about WMDs to pay attention to who was who on the party circuit (as in "Hey, who's that chick with Wilson?").

[pman68]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So you say HE DOES HAVE a CIA Clearance? And he has access to the covert activity info?

That is the most naive statement yet!!!!

Dude, he runs the friggin' country!!!

wake up ...

[finboy]

Originally Posted by mr. natural

BTW, how's that sign coming?

You remember, the one that reads: This home protected by guns -- locked in a secure place.

Actually, I ended up making a few for my neighbors, too, even though they don't own guns. They've worked so far - no break ins, or, at least none that we'll report. Less paperwork that way.

[Y3a]

Posted by pman68:
===================================
"Dude, he runs the friggin' country!!!

wake up ..."
===================================
I guess all your education is as faulty as this???

[pman68]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Posted by pman68:
===================================
"Dude, he runs the friggin' country!!!

wake up ..."
===================================
I guess all your education is as faulty as this???

What, did I spell something wrong?

[pman68]

From cabinet meeting today:



Looks like Rove is in charge to me...

[Y3a]

So now you are taking pictures out of context and pawning IT off as fact? LOL

[pman68]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So now you are taking pictures out of context and pawning IT off as fact? LOL

explain how it is out of context. pic was from TODAY.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Y3a

So now you are taking pictures out of context and pawning IT off as fact? LOL

Not out of context if the picture is from today. Bush obviously hasn't yet carried out his promise to fire Rove.

[Y3a]

<< Bush obviously hasn't yet carried out his promise to fire Rove. >>

I guess it's more important to the libs to fire him than to find out the TRUTH FIRST???

Whats the real story with that times reporter???

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by pman68

From cabinet meeting today:



Looks like Rove is in charge to me...

That's just being stupid. Rove sits up against the wall in cabinet meetings because he isn't a cabinet officer, he is just a staffer. He literally doesn't have a place at that table. Your "point" is undermined by your "evidence."

[tie]

Originally Posted by Y3a

<< Bush obviously hasn't yet carried out his promise to fire Rove. >>

I guess it's more important to the libs to fire him than to find out the TRUTH FIRST???

Whats the real story with that times reporter???

You don't think Bush knows the truth yet? I find that hard to believe. He must know the truth by now.

Are you trying to play the old, "Bush is innocent because he's incompetent" argument? Or are you serious?

If Bush really doesn't know the truth yet, why isn't he defending Rove? Either Rove did it or not. Either he should or shouldn't have his security clearance, either he should or shouldn't be fired, be put on trial or not. By now, Bush either knows for sure that Rove did it, or he knows for sure that Rove didn't do it (in which case he might not know who did). The fact that Bush refuses to defend Rove any more indicates to me which is the case; if Rove were innocent, there would be no reason to hold back*.

And yes, if Bush knows that Rove did it, Rove should be fired and proceedings started against him. There's no reason Bush needs to wait for Newsweek to figure everything out before acting.

* Well, the most truly brainwashed Republicans might counter me, "Bush is holding back in order to embarrass the Democrats who pounce prematurely." I remember spacefreak arguing for a while that this kind of conspiracy theory was why we hadn't found any WMD in Iraq.

[pman68]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That's just being stupid. Rove sits up against the wall in cabinet meetings because he isn't a cabinet officer, he is just a staffer. He literally doesn't have a place at that table. Your "point" is undermined by your "evidence."

No need to call people stupid.

But if you think Rove "Is just a staffer," you're seriously delusional.

[MindFad]

[Moderator]

How can people debate this...??

The White House wanted the Niger assertion in Bush's speech, they knew it was dubious. They wanted people to support thier bogus cause...and when Wilson didn't they attacked him...just like the others. How he got his job is irrelevant..he was right. When you're right you've earned the benefit of the doubt.

Are people in denial or what? ..the country was intentionally mislead into war...accept it..this is fact....most of the world resisted but as Americans, we put faith in our leaders...so we bit. Those who didn't were punished. They were right, we were wrong.....is that so hard to say?

Hell, I bought it for a while..I remember being in Zurich trying to convince Theolin why we needed to do this. I'm embarrassed and ashamed...and I'm pissed.

Say it with me...W E W E R E W R O N G

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Moderator

How can people debate this...??

The White House wanted the Niger assertion in Bush's speech, they knew it was dubious. They wanted people to support thier bogus cause...and when Wilson didn't they attacked him...just like the others. How he got his job is irrelevant..he was right. When you're right you've earned the benefit of the doubt.

How he got his job was relevant. He wasn't really qualified, and he and his wife were big Kerry supporters with an agenda. Wilson was pretty much discredited as a liar and a hack in the end, and even Kerry's people wanted little to do with him. Rove warned the press that this was the case. Wilson WASN"T right that Bush lied about the yellow cake uranium attempt despite the fact that there were attempt to forge documents in this regards. The foreign intelligence sources still maintain that there was ample evidence that Iraq was attempting to purchase the urainim. The British still maintain this after an internal investigation, two former Nigerian officials told Wilson Iraqis had attempted to set up what he believed was a uranium trade - at one point 400 tons. The bottom line is regardless of whether there was a sale or attempt, there was credible reason to believe that such a thing was likely in the works.

Did we have some wrong intelligence and make some wrong assumptions in some areas? Yep. That doesn't make Wilson's claims true though.

[Y3a]

Moderator posted:

"country was intentionally mislead into war...accept it..this is fact"

Our leaders were mislead by an Intel community and Department of Snake who were inept at finding out the truth and reporting it accurately to the President and staff. WHO is responsible for the quality of those organizations? CONGRESS. Wo overses them CONGRESS. THOSE are the "Leaders" who let you down. WHO ELECTED THEM??? WE DID. We only get the government we deserve!

You assume that the rest of the countries on the planet have no agenda? Did Wilson Lie about everything YES. Thats why nobody even listened to him but those with an agenda themselves.

You sure don't have any long term memory.

[spacefreak]

Amazing. They're still scraping flesh, blood, and guts from the walls in London, and the #1 priority of the the liberals is to bitch and whine about Karl Rove. If that doesn't tell you where their priorities are, nothing else woll.

The fact remains - everybody in Washington DC knew who Plame and Wilson were. Wilson even had his wife and her name highlighted on his personal website at the time (though it has been since "removed". This entire episode is much ado about nothing, other than a bunch of weenie liberals and Democrats trying to further their only agenda... utilizing their surrogates in the media to convince the general population to hate Bush.

It's going to be another rout for the Republicans in 2006.