Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31
  1.    #1  
    "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'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. "
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html

    That article is from over a year ago, yet some on this board persist in perpetuating the "16 words" myth.

    Apparently the Lying Weasel was on the Today show this morning. This blogger asks a lot of questions that I suspect the Perky Katie Couric didn't broach:

    http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1121326634

    And as far as the liberal outrage at the "outing of a covert agent", I'm still waiting for you guys to chime in on what Sandy Berger is on the verge of getting away with.
  2. #2  
    Now you ought to know by now the truth has nothing to do with the conversation!!!
  3. #3  
    What is forgotten in all of this noise is that the Bush administration cooked the books to justify going after Saddam by invading Iraq. There have been false statements on both sides, but that doesn't change the fact that the American people were misled about the reasons for invading Iraq.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    "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'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. "
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jul9.html

    That article is from over a year ago, yet some on this board persist in perpetuating the "16 words" myth.

    Apparently the Lying Weasel was on the Today show this morning. This blogger asks a lot of questions that I suspect the Perky Katie Couric didn't broach:

    http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2...tml#1121326634

    And as far as the liberal outrage at the "outing of a covert agent", I'm still waiting for you guys to chime in on what Sandy Berger is on the verge of getting away with.
    Is Cheney a liar and should his word be dismissed?
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Is Cheney a liar and should his word be dismissed?
    Cheney maintains that he had nothing to do with the Lying Weasel Wilson. The Senate committee supports Cheney.

    Is this another Haliburton thing?
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    "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."
    This senate report does seem to discredit the 16 words myth.

    That being said, there are some other minor issues which dont seem as clear.
    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
    Isnt is possible that Wilson could have voiced his concerns and then his supervisors could have 'overuled' his recommendation? If that is the case, then that wouldnt make Wilson a lying weasel
    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.
    Again, isnt it possible that one group of people could see one thing in a certain amount of intel and another see something different? (just pointing out that many people disagreed from both sides on what we were looking at when it came to intelligence pre/post 9/11) And even if it did debunk what Wilson said, that doesnt mean he is a liar, just incompetent

    Now this is where he seems to be confused or lying:
    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."
    Here it seems that Wilson is mixing things up. He claims she had nothing to do with the matter but then admits she did something but that wasnt the reason why he was sent. I agree that it appears to be a pretty big discrepency.

    And as far as the liberal outrage at the "outing of a covert agent", I'm still waiting for you guys to chime in on what Sandy Berger is on the verge of getting away with.
    Fill me in please, what is Sandy Berger getting away with (or is about to.)?

    And finally, something that may be more important that you didnt mention but was in the article:
    Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
    This goes to the original issue of 'why' we went into Iraq (or at least what we were told).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  7. #7  
    Al Gore lost. Get over it.
  8.    #8  
    Wilson didn't mix things up. He and his wife are partisan Democrats that have been working to undercut this Administration's policies from day one. The Agency and Foggy Bottom are RIFE with scum like these two.

    Sandy Berger was caught lifting documents out of the National Archives....documents concerning how the Clinton administration dealt with terrorism. Highly classified documents, some of which he shredded. The Dems are shrieking about treason, and turning their usual blind eye to this.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Wilson didn't mix things up.
    He may or may not have...its still not that clear. The real issue (IMO), at least legally, was his intent. (And I would be willing to bet that it will also be the factor with Rove...what was his intent.)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    He and his wife are partisan Democrats that have been working to undercut this Administration's policies from day one. The Agency and Foggy Bottom are RIFE with scum like these two.
    I don't have a problem with someone being a part of a political party and I especially dont have an issue when someone undercuts the administrations policies if they reaonsably believe that those policies are flawed. (I think you could agree with that...where we probably disagree is if in fact the admin's policies were flawed or if he reasonably believed they were ).

    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever
    Sandy Berger was caught lifting documents out of the National Archives....documents concerning how the Clinton administration dealt with terrorism. Highly classified documents, some of which he shredded. The Dems are shrieking about treason, and turning their usual blind eye to this.
    Ok, I did hear about that. It is interesting that the MSM hasnt put too much out about this.

    When Berger lifted and shredded the documents, did he do it intentionally with the knowledge that they were classified? If he did, then light him up , and file charges on him. I have no issue with that. (See! That was easy.)
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHINMJ
    Al Gore lost. Get over it.
    LOL, Rich, I think if you actually think back, Bush didnt win the election...the courts decided

    And as a side note, I can understand why they could have ruled either way.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    LOL, Rich, I think if you actually think back, Bush didnt win the election...the courts decided

    And as a side note, I can understand why they could have ruled either way.

    I guess those were the last twelve votes counted
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    When Berger lifted and shredded the documents, did he do it intentionally with the knowledge that they were classified? If he did, then light him up , and file charges on him. I have no issue with that. (See! That was easy.)
    Did he do it intentionally? Of course not, the documents found their own way into his socks and underwear. He never intended to steal anything. The documents stowed away on his body without his knowledge. Classified or not, you dont steal documents from the National Archives. It's not Barnes and Noble.

    Sorry T2 but that was a stupid question.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    Ok, I did hear about that. It is interesting that the MSM hasnt put too much out about this.
    I think we covered that in:

    Is The Media Biased?
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=88924

  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    Did he do it intentionally? Of course not, the documents found their own way into his socks and underwear. He never intended to steal anything. The documents stowed away on his body without his knowledge. Classified or not, you dont steal documents from the National Archives. It's not Barnes and Noble.

    Sorry T2 but that was a stupid question.
    Well since you seem to have opened this up a little bit ...so if you can, please do tell the specifics of how he stole this information? I dont think its really a stupid question to ask versus assuming everything with what you said.

    In your statement, you assumed:

    -That he physically put the documents onto his person.
    -You also assume that whatever he carried into the Archives never left his sight.

    Now, do you have any information that could show why its reasonable to assume what you did? If the answer is no, then my question(s) dont seem all that stupid. Ask yourself, how did Sandy get the documents? Were they by themselves or were the documents mixed with other documents that werent as highly classified?

    Now that let me put forth a scenario in which it might be reasonable to think that stealing something could have been unintentional (remember, I stated that I didnt know about this incident to 1911.)

    Is it possible that he picked up documents that he did have permission to remove and destroy? If so, then I can see someone being careless (not criminal) and taking something that they shouldnt have. If you have ever worked with classified material (at least the lower secret level), its not like you dont have different documents in different dockets on your desk where you are looking at stuff at the same time.

    Now, why was he shredding them? Was there documents that were duplicates, or incidental documents that could be shredded? I don't know. Thats why I posed the question. I would much rather ask questions, get some information than post broad generalizations on assumptions that have not been supported by facts. If that is 'stupid' to you Woof...well, I guess you can figure out the rest with one of your assumptions.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    I think we covered that in:

    Is The Media Biased?
    http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=88924

    I know Hobbes. Thats why I wanted to be 'fair' and point out that fact (ok, at least the perception).
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by RICHINMJ
    I guess those were the last twelve votes counted
    9 votes
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    9 votes
    And actually only 5 of those really matter
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    LOL, Rich, I think if you actually think back, Bush didnt win the election...the courts decided
    It's funny...If the court would have ruled in favor of Gore.......I wonder how many Dems would have said "I think if you actually think back, Gore didnt win the election...the courts decided"

    (and yes I see that irony of me making this statement from a post from you )
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal
    It's funny...If the court would have ruled in favor of Gore.......I wonder how many Dems would have said "I think if you actually think back, Gore didnt win the election...the courts decided"

    (and yes I see that irony of me making this statement from a post from you )
    In all fairness, probably none (except the few Democrats who advocate judicial restraint or originalism).

    I am of the position that if its wrong, then its wrong whether a dem or rep does it.
    Palm III-->Palm IIIxe-->Palm 505-->Samsung i300-->Treo 600-->PPC 6600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700wx-->BB Pearl--> BB Curve

  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by t2gungho
    I am of the position that if its wrong, then its wrong whether a dem or rep does it.
    Agreed!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions