home

Rep. Waxman to Hold PlameGate Hearing


Update: Valerie Plame will testify at the hearing.

*****

Via Tim Grieve at Salon's War Room:

House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman announced today that he will hold a hearing on March 16 to determine whether "White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding" Plame's identity.

Rep. Waxman's announcement is here.

Waxman also wrote this letter to Patrick Fitzgerald (pdf), inviting him to share his thoughts and perhaps testify.

More...

From the letter:

The identity of undercover CIA operatives is supposed to be one of the most closely guarded national security secrets. There are a host of administrative requirements designed to safeguard this type of information from disclosure. Yet the trial proceedings raise questions about whether senior White House officials, including the Vice President and Senior Advisor to the President Karl Rove, complied with the requirements governing the handling of classified information. They also raise questions about whether the White House took appropriate remedial action following the leak and whether the existing requirements are sufficient to protect against future leaks. Your perspective on these matters is important.

After the verdict was announced yesterday, one juror expressed the view that former Chief of Staff to the Vice President Lewis "Scooter" Libby was only a"fall guy." This juror's views encapsulated questions that many in Congress and the public have about whether the ultimate responsibility for the outing of Ms. Wilson rests with more senior officials in the White House. This is another area where you have a unique perspective.

I recognize that as a federal prosecutor, you are constrained by the rules of grand jury secrecy. But you undoubtedly recognize that Congress has a responsibility to examine the policy and accountability questions that your investigation has raised. As a result of your investigation, you have a singular understanding of the facts and their implications that bear directly on the issues before Congress.

< Senate Dems Step Up on Iraq | Dick Cheney On Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    that was one juicy letter. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Compound F on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:32:55 PM EST
    I am delighted by Waxman.

    This is going to be really worth watching (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:49:17 PM EST
    and, I think Fitz surely has a lot of ideas he can share with the Congress.

    Plame is scheduled to testify at the hearing (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:53:43 PM EST
    Per Kos and ABC, Valerie Plame is also scheduled to testify at these hearings.

    Parent
    ahh, time to head to the store... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Noor on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:50:42 PM EST
    ... gotta have sodas and popcorn for this show!

    Parent
    Yes Yes Yes (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:22:14 PM EST
    It is starting to look like clockwork. How utterly refreshing.

    the waxman letter is a thing of beauty. . . (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by the rainnn on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:25:19 PM EST
    last month, the senate
    armed services committee
    indicated that it would re-open
    hearings after a verdict in the
    libby prosecution -- and that it
    would seek to call libby.  it is
    time for levin to hop on it. . .

    on to the point of this post:

    i've uploaded a shiny .jpeg
    version of waxman's letter to
    fitz
    over at my blog -- a blog solely
    about bringing dick cheney -- widely
    regarded as the most powerful (and
    certainly the most secretive) vice-
    president in history -- to account.

    you see, i think mr. cheney owes us,
    the american people, some answers.

    scooter was never some "rogue" agent
    mr. cheney simply "cut loose". . .

    all the trial evidence points to
    scooter as an abidingly-loyal-even-if-
    blindly-so sort of hand-servant to the
    vice president.  so, it is high time we,
    the people, had some plain answers from
    mr. cheney.  in short sentences. in his
    own words. did he, in fact, orchestrate
    the outing of valerie plame?

    we are entitled to answers.

    This has been my point. (3.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 04:37:54 PM EST
    "By necessity, your investigation had a narrow legal focus: 'Were any federal criminal
    statutes violated by White House officials? Your investigation, however, has raised broader
    questions of national significance."

     The criminal investigation was not intended to be and should not have been a platform for political payback. I think Fitzgerald did a commendable job of keeping it focused where it should be. Now, it's up to Congress to do what needs to be done as far as shining a light on what was done, why it was done, by whom it was done and let the people decide what they think about it in moral and political terms. Things can be very "wrong" without being a crime.

       A huge mistake was made very early by making the criminal investigation out to be something it was not. That was a simply setting it up for people like jim to dismiss the imnportance of what was done merely because no one was convicted of violating a statute that was intentionally drafted to be very difficult to violate.

       Even if Plame was not "covert" and the leaks were not made with the necessary criminal intent, that type of no holds barred political infighting is reckless and can cause serious damage even if that was not the intent. It's that mindset that is very dangerous because the shoot first,  think later mentality is bound to misfire at least some of the time.

    Depends on the meaning of if, egh?? (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:34:32 PM EST
    Perhaps the Congressman from CA will also call Mrs. Wilson's husband, who certainly should explain a variety of things.

    He should also call the CIA management team who dispatched Mr. Wilson instead of a qualified agent for an explanation that includes why Wilson wasn't required to submit a written report.

    Perhaps Joe W can explain why he went to tell a friend at the State Dept that Bush was wrong the day after the 03 SOTU when all the information he has admitted to having is that no purchase had been made, and that and attempt had been made.

    Remember. Supposedly he was not privy to any of the other information brought out between 3/02 and the day of his meeting. And the IAEA report was still about 6 weeks in the future.

    Yes, Joe. Tell us what you knew, when you knew it and who told you.

    And I can think of several questions I would ask Fitzgerald.

    Everyone should be under oath, and an immediate investigation started to insure no one commits perjury.

    Perhaps we can let ex-Senator Santorum be the SP.

    Somehow I don't think that will happen. The last for sure. The first highly unlikely.

    BTW - I find it amusing that while the trial was going on, the emphasis was always on "let the system work, etc." As soon as the trial was over, you want to talk about the politics.

    That is, in my opinion, nonsense. If it is important now, it was important then.

    It probably isn't of any interest, but if you researched, I never had much to say about what Libby said to whom, etc. I always took it for granted that this was about politics, and saw no real problem in it because I recognized that it was a target of opportunity by the Left, and that Valerie Plame's value to the CIA was very low, a point proven by Novak's ease of getting her information and further confirmed when it became plain she wasn't covert.

    In otherwords, I didn't, and don't, care whether Libby lied, or not. And when I find Defense Attorneys agreeing with the Feds that the standrad isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, my giggle factor kicks in.

    So just put me down as saying there was no underlying crime, and the investigation was pure politics. As for Libby, this says it all.

    Parent

    another defining moment (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:44:55 AM EST
    In otherwords, I didn't, and don't, care whether Libby lied, or not.

    Valerie Plame's value to the CIA was very low
    No, her value to bush was very low because bush doesn't care about real WMDs, just imaginary ones. Good thing the CIA and the FBI disagreed.

    Now maybe with these hearings we'll find out how bush and checney engaged in a conspiracy to out a covert agent for political purposes, thereby endangering our nation even more than their previous actions.

    Parent

    Do I care? (1.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 12:44:36 PM EST
    Why should I care about what was a political attack by the Left in which the Repubs were dumb enough to apppoint a SP??

    Was Libby lying?? I don't know. Do I care? No.

    After all, haven't we been told that politics is a "Blood Sport?"

    I do care about the actions of the CIA in sending a non-agent to do an agent's job.

    I do care about the differences in Wilson's stories.

    And I do care that people got hurt over this political pis*ing contest.

    BTW - Plame was brought home for her safety after it was believed that she had been outed by Gary Ames. At that point her value as a covert agents was made very low.

    Link

    Parent

    self defining (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Sailor on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    Was Libby lying?? I don't know. Do I care? No.
    perjury, obstruction of justice, lying ... we always knew this about you, but it's nice to have it confirmed from the horse's ... uhh, mouth.

    A how funny, first a link to a screed, now a link to the WashTimes, mothpiece for rev moonie himself. No wonder you don't care about truth, justice and the American Way!

    Parent

    Sailor, watch my lips (try 2) (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:19:32 PM EST
    Complex subjects and actions may be very difficult for you, but I will do my best to enlighten you.
    It is my solemn belief that this was a political pis* fight between the Demos and the Repubs.

    I think the Demos started it by Wilson using the President's statement about Iraq/Saddam trying to purchase yellowcake almost 6 months after he had made it.

    He didn't plot to do this, it was merely a target of opportunity to attack the war and the administration only months into the war.

    To do so he wrote an article published in the NYT on 7/6/03 in which he claimed to have done something. To have gone to a friend in the DOS the day after Bush's '03 SOTU and claim that Bush was wrong in the SOTU.

    Link  NYT editorial

    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

    Now the problem with this statement is two fold.
    First, Bush was speaking of attempt not purchase. If we read his article, Wilson was asked to:

    While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

    I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.

    it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

    I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life....In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

    Note something here. No place does he say that he didn't believe that an attempt to purchase had taken place. All he says is that no sale took place.

    I find that strange, because he then says:

    Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

    What was he basing this on? No place in his article do we find him denying the attempt to purchase prior to this point in the article. Why does he write that here? He has offered no proof, just a claim that he told someone in the DOS that Bush was wrong.

    He then says:

    The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses

    What answer is he speaking of? For that we need to go to the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, and see what the CIA had to say about Wilson's "answer."

    Link Senate

    (CIA Reports Officer)He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    So we know that as of 3/02 he told the CIA there had been no sales, but there had been an attempt.

    Now, what changed his mind between 3/02 and 1/29/03?? We have nothing to show us what he based his claim on.

    And having none, the question as to why he made the claim  Bush was wrong on 1/28/03 has to be examined.  Let us return to the Senate's report:

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have 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 former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents

    The above was at the end of 2004. Now, let's see what he wrote on 7/6/03:

    As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

    So what do we have. He makes a claim on 7/6/03 that he had claimed that Bush was wrong about "attempt." Something he claims to have known on 1/29/03, yet has now admitted that he misspoke because he couldn't have seen the report because the IAEA report didn't come out until March 03.

    Libby was prosecuted, tried and convicted on things more confusing than that.

    So, dear Sailor, I repeat. This was, and is all politics. I truly hope that Wilson is questioned under oath about these points.

    So I don't know, nor do I care if Libby lied. As was said about Bill Clinton, any man will lie to protect his marriage. Any man will lie to protect his job and fight back against a political attack.

    Please feel free to quote me. But if you do, be assured I will have this comment available so that the readers can have full context.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Sailor. Watch my lips. (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    Complex subjects and actions may be very difficult for you, but I will do my best to enlighten you.

    It is my solemn belief that this was a political pis* fight between the Demos and the Repubs.

    I think the Demos started it by Wilson using the President's statement about Iraq/Saddam trying to puchase yellowcake almost 6 months after he had made it.

    He didn't plot to do this, it was merely a target of opportunity to attack the war and the administration only months into the war.

    To do so he wrote an article published in the NYT on 7/6/03 in which he claimed to have done something. To have gone to a friend in the DOS the day after Bush's '03 SOTU and claim that Bush was wrong in the SOTU.

    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

    To have done what he claimed he would have had to change his belief in what he had previously told the CIA.

    I have read nothing in which Wilson has stated that he didn't tell the CIA in his trip debrief in 3/02 what is included in the Senate Intelligence report

    The attempt to purchase was real.

    We do know that when challenged about statements he made in 6/03 to a WaP reporter he claimed to have misspoke, saying that the IAEA report had confused him.

    Parent

    The above is a big ooops (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:04:12 AM EST
    I hit the post button in error. Corrected comment to follow.

    Parent
    Repeating falsehood does not make them true (none / 0) (#55)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:30:35 AM EST
    Perhaps the Congressman from CA will also call Mrs. Wilson's husband, who certainly should explain a variety of things.
    Sure I have no problem with that.

    He should also call the CIA management team who dispatched Mr. Wilson instead of a qualified agent for an explanation that includes why Wilson wasn't required to submit a written report.
    Wrong.  Wilson was qualified for the job.  He was a former member of the National Security team.  He was a diplomat in the US Embassy in Baghdad during the first Gulf war.  He was formerly a diplomat in Niger, and an ambassador in Africa.  He had been sent by the CIA previously for a mission in Niger.  He had all the qualifications for the job.  Even some Republicans admit this.

    The reason why Wilson wasn't required to submit a written report was because he was debriefed by two CIA agents who wrote the written report.

    Perhaps Joe W can explain why he went to tell a friend at the State Dept that Bush was wrong the day after the 03 SOTU when all the information he has admitted to having is that no purchase had been made, and that and attempt had been made.
    You have the timeline wrong here.  Wilson initially thought that Bush's words were based on some other intelligence, so he did not say anything in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 SOTU speech.  But he later found that Bush's words were based on the Niger papers, and that is when he approached his contacts in the administration.  He even tried to approach Condi Rice, but was rebuffed by her.

    There was no attempt made by Iraq to purchase yellowcake.  In 1999 an Iraqi businessman (not an Iraqi official) approached a Nigerien official (outisde Niger) and asked if he would like to expand trade relations.  When the Iraqi officials met the Niger official there was no mention of yellocake.  Does this four year old incident prove that the Iraqis were seeking yellowcake?  It does not.

    Remember. Supposedly he was not privy to any of the other information brought out between 3/02 and the day of his meeting. And the IAEA report was still about 6 weeks in the future.
    But he did know based on his 2002 trip that the reports that Bush was basing his speech on were false.  I don't know what you mean by "not privy to other information", but he had contacts in the international diplomatic community from which he may have learned other things - but even if he did not he knew from his 2002 trip that Bush should not have been using the reports based on the Niger papers.

    Yes, Joe. Tell us what you knew, when you knew it and who told you.

    And I can think of several questions I would ask Fitzgerald.

    I am sure that there will be several Republican congressmen who be happy to field your questions, so you should forward your questions to them.

    It probably isn't of any interest, but if you researched, I never had much to say about what Libby said to whom, etc. I always took it for granted that this was about politics, and saw no real problem in it because I recognized that it was a target of opportunity by the Left, and that Valerie Plame's value to the CIA was very low, a point proven by Novak's ease of getting her information and further confirmed when it became plain she wasn't covert.
    So obstruction of justice and perjury is no problem in your book.  Thanks for letting us know.  Is there any reason why we should take you seriously, given your views?

    Novak said that he got his information from two senior asministration officials.  Both of whom violated their official agreements to not divulge confidentiality agreements.

    In otherwords, I didn't, and don't, care whether Libby lied, or not. And when I find Defense Attorneys agreeing with the Feds that the standrad isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, my giggle factor kicks in.
    Both the Feds and the Defense attorneys said that the standard was "beyond reasonable doubt".  

    So just put me down as saying there was no underlying crime, and the investigation was pure politics. As for Libby, this says it all.
    There was an underlying crime, but the coverup worked.  Libby was convicted of obstructing justice.


    Parent
    A couple of Qs for jimakaPPJ (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    Since you are fixated with Wilson's report - there was a report written by the CIA agents who debriefed Wilson.  According to Tenet - the report was given a normal and wide distribution

    How come Cheney (who knew even minor details of what other governments found out about Iraq's nuclear program) missed the report which was given a wide distribution?

    Why did the administration know everything that supported their drive for war, and yet knew nothing about things that did not support their drive for war?

    And finally - when Bush said that Iraq recently sought significant quantities of yellowcake, what does "recently" mean and how did he know that the quantities were "significant"?

    I look forward to your answers.

    Parent

    Neither do you. (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    If you expect me to tell you why something happened, or may not have happened, almost 5 years ago you will have to just expect.

    I have no idea as to if, or if not. Neither do you.

    What we do know is that the CIA's report, based on Wilson's debriefing, said:

    Purchase NO

    Attempt YES

    As to what the meaning of the word "significant" is to Bush when it comes to yellowcake, I do not know. Neither do you.

    The question, of course, is of the "Do you still beat your wife?" type.

    And it wasn't a "report."

    As to a fixation on an editorial/article it is easier, and better,  to do so at my age than have one on a beautiful blonde. If results are attained on the former they will be of interest for a long time, as compared to any results attained with the latter.

    The real answer is that the NYT article is the lynch pin of this whole affair. Nothing would have happened without it. The accuracy of it then becomes of extreme interest to anyone intersted in  how a political pis* fight put journalists in jail and an assistant to the VP in danger of prision.

    That you see it only as a political opportunity rather than a morality play writ across a huge screen is perfectably understandable.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    ppj's spin (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:45:05 PM EST
    What we do know is that the CIA's report, based on Wilson's debriefing, said:

    Purchase NO

    Attempt YES

    That is not what it said. What it said was that Malaki, thought that a delegation was seeking yellowcake.

    Far from proof of any attempt.

    Why do you continually spin this fact?

    Parent

    Squwaky avoids facts (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:25:25 AM EST
    Why do you not pay attention to what was in the Senate Intelligence Committe's report?

    Remember, the debriefing was March of 2003.


     The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, (                    ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective.                      SENTENCE DELETED                      The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    This clearly shows that Wilson believed that there was no sale, but that an attempt was made.

    You can try, but you can not wiggle out of that fact.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:47:08 PM EST
    This clearly shows that Wilson believed that there was no sale, but that an attempt was made.
    Wilson reported that the Nigerien minister believed the delegation was trying to buy yellow cake. Wilson never said that he believed the story.


    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#71)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:00:26 PM EST
    If you expect me to tell you why something happened, or may not have happened, almost 5 years ago you will have to just expect.
    I have no idea as to if, or if not. Neither do you.
    This is funny.  If you have no idea of things central to your claims then you should not be debating others.

    What we do know is that the CIA's report, based on Wilson's debriefing, said:

    Purchase NO

    Attempt YES

    Saying it over and over does not make it true.  This is incorrect.

    As to what the meaning of the word "significant" is to Bush when it comes to yellowcake, I do not know. Neither do you.
    I know what significant means.  And it means that whatever the Nigerien official thought about the overtures of the Iraqi businessman, there is nothing in that dialog that supports the conclusion that significant quantities of uranium were being sought.  So it follows that Wilson's trip does not substantiate what Bush said.

    And it wasn't a "report."
    Tenet said that there was a report which was given wide distribution within the administration.  So how come Cheney (who claims to be on top of intelligence reports related to Iraq) never saw it?  And not only did Cheney not see this report, he did not see the other reports from the embassy in Niger and the four star general.

    And it gets even better.

    Tenet interceded to keep the claim out of a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, but by Dec. 19 it reappeared in a State Department "fact sheet." After that, the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the U.S. intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.

    The council's reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.

    The real answer is that the NYT article is the lynch pin of this whole affair. Nothing would have happened without it. The accuracy of it then becomes of extreme interest to anyone intersted in  how a political pis* fight put journalists in jail and an assistant to the VP in danger of prision.
     There is nothing in that article that was inaccurate.

    If Libby is facing prison, it is because of his own attempt to lie and obstruct justice.

    Parent

    It said what everyone believed. (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:55:53 AM EST
    Perhaps I shall have to try harder to help you understand.

    I do not claim to know when every sparrow falls. That job is God's, and evidently you think, yours.

    I believe God does. I don't believe you do.

    Whether or not Cheney received and in what form is something I don't know. Since you like to ask questons, can you tell me why Wilson wasn't required to write a report.

    Now, shall we revisit the Senate's report? What does it say the CIA believed at the time of the debrief?

    It says:

    Purchase: NO

    Attempy to purchase: Yes.

    So let us assume that Cheney was given an engraved report, or better yet, etched in stone, saying that.

    Can you see that there was nothing there that changed anything at that point in time????
    Late Feb or early March 2003?

    Plainer: It said what everyone believed.

    The IAEA Report was weeks away, and what did it do?

    It said that the claim that Iraq had purchased was bogus. (Note the underlined word and try to remember the subject is "attempt."

    There is nothing in that article that was inaccurate.

    Oh really??

    He makes a claim on 7/6/03 article that he had claimed that Bush was wrong about "attempt." Something he claims to have known on 1/29/03, yet has now admitted that he misspoke because he couldn't have seen the report because the IAEA report didn't come out until March 03.

    From the article.

    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

    From the Senate Intelligence Committe's report:

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." C
    ommittee 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 former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself.
    The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents

    Now, since he had seen no reports, and we have seen no articles where he claims to have been told anything different, how could his article been accurate?

    Is he claiming to have just changed his mind?

    Is he claiming that someone told him?

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:58:16 AM EST
    In the interest of accuracy, let me note the typo of "late Feb or early March 2003" should have been

    late Feb  or early March 2002

    Parent

    It did not say what Bush claimed (none / 0) (#77)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:37:23 AM EST
    Whether or not Cheney received and in what form is something I don't know.
    This is the million dollar question.  The fact that Cheney did not read the report which the CIA gave a wide distribution within the administration means that in the best case Cheney is incompetent and in the worst case his behavior is malicious.  The fact that Cheney read no reports which did not support the push for war points to the latter conclusion.

    Since you like to ask questons, can you tell me why Wilson wasn't required to write a report.
    It does not matter since the CIA agents debriefed Wilson and wrote a report.

    Now, shall we revisit the Senate's report? What does it say the CIA believed at the time of the debrief?

    It says:

    Purchase: NO

    Attempy to purchase: Yes.

    Read the report carefully.  Our intelligence at no time concluded that any purchase was attempted.  You are taking what the report said about the conclusions that Mayaki reached, and somehow assuming that our intelligence reached the same conclusion.  They did not (as confirmed by Tenet later).

    If we are planning to wage a pre-emptive war then it better be on the solid conslusions reached by our intelligence.  Not on what someone else assumes (and the assumption reached by someone may very well be wrong, given that the actual event namely attempt to purchase did not happen).

    So let us assume that Cheney was given an engraved report, or better yet, etched in stone, saying that.

    Can you see that there was nothing there that changed anything at that point in time????
    Late Feb or early March 2003?

    Plainer: It said what everyone believed.

    Saying what?  The CIA sent a memo right before the 2003 SOTU speech telling the Bush administration clearly that the Niger story was baseless.

    The talking point that everyone believed is again false.  Most nations do not have the resources to spy on Iraq, and many simply took on faith what the Bush administration alleged.  But if you look at the United nations, they did not believe but were rather trying to find out

    The IAEA Report was weeks away, and what did it do?

    It said that the claim that Iraq had purchased was bogus. (Note the underlined word and try to remember the subject is "attempt."

    Our intelligence did not conclude that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium.


    There is nothing in that article that was inaccurate.
    Oh really??

    He makes a claim on 7/6/03 article that he had claimed that Bush was wrong about "attempt." Something he claims to have known on 1/29/03, yet has now admitted that he misspoke because he couldn't have seen the report because the IAEA report didn't come out until March 03.

    From the article.

    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.
    From the Senate Intelligence Committe's report:

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." C
    ommittee 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 former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself.
    The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents

    Now, since he had seen no reports, and we have seen no articles where he claims to have been told anything different, how could his article been accurate?

    Is he claiming to have just changed his mind?

    Is he claiming that someone told him?

    Wilson said nothing wrong in his NYT article.  He was clear to say that Bush's conclusions were not borne out by the facts as he understood them.  You yourself have quoted these words from Wilson and somehow make the leap that the words are wrong.  They are not.  Furthermore - Bush's words were based on the Niger forgeries whose unreliability they were warned on more than one occasion by the CIA.

    One gotcha that Wilson misspoke later on one occasion does not mean that the substance of what he said in his NYT article was incorrect.  (You yourself acknowledge that some of your dates were incorrect and should be 2002 and not 2003).  That does not rise to the gotcha standard that you subject Wilson to.  Wilson was correct.

    Andd you refer the Butler report elsewhere.  The Butler report is not our intelligence product and is full of holes.

    Parent

    I have a VERY (none / 0) (#56)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:44:04 AM EST
    difficult time believing that anyone here defending Wilson and the CIA's decision to send him would do so if everything about this affair had been precisely the same until the NYT column and then that NYT column supported Bush.

      I believe, people would rightfully had said Wilson was grossly underqualified and never would have risen in the career FS and it was only political connections and maneuvering for POLITICAL APPOINTMENT  that he got positions of higher rank and that even those were among the least desirable one can have and still be called "Mr. Ambassaror" at georgetown cocktail parties.

      It's only because in hindsight with the knowledge he opposed Bush that people choose to defend him and the CIA on this.

      That said, the tactics employed by the WH to discrtedit him remain open to very legitimate attack, regardless of illegality, and the actions to conceal those tactics was at least in part criminal and quite possibly in greater part than already established.

     

    Parent

    Facts please (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:15:54 PM EST
    I believe, people would rightfully had said Wilson was grossly underqualified and never would have risen in the career FS and it was only political connections and maneuvering for POLITICAL APPOINTMENT  that he got positions of higher rank and that even those were among the least desirable one can have and still be called "Mr. Ambassaror" at georgetown cocktail parties.
    Wilson had a personal relationship with the folks in Niger he needed to interview.

    And, no, I wouldn't have supported wilson if he'd lied about what he found IRT yellow cake. The whole point is that he saw his findings distorted in the STFU address, felt compelled to correct the record, the WH eventually conceded those '16 words' should have bneen included.

    And for that he, his wife and the nation have paid an incredible price.

    Parent

    You are nuts (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:01:25 PM EST
    everything about this affair had been precisely the same until the NYT column and then that NYT column supported Bush.

    Were that true there would have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Niger docs would not have been forgeries and Bush would have gone to war based on some truth rather than a pack of lies. My position would have been to find the weapons and destroy them, rather than just attack.    

    Why would anyone try to say Wilson was lying. Given all else was the same. Bush still would have had a nasty case of premature ejaculation, so to speak. And my position would be the same.

    Parent

    Your ignorance (none / 0) (#59)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:14:51 PM EST
     is expected as it is the most consistent thing about this place.

      Wilson's debriefing could not possibly have proven or disproven the existence of WMD in Iraq. Iraq could have WMD even if there had not been tentative attempts to procure yellowcake in Iraq, and it could have not had WMD even if it had been established that it completed transactions and did get it.

      The point is that based exactly on what Wilson and everyone else admits he did tell the CIA he could have wriiten a column saying that he believed the mere fact that there were some overtures from Iraq meant that Iraq was a threat. Had he done so everyone here would have sought to discredit him while the Administration would have defended him.  

       The sides lined up as they did only because of what he later said HE THOUGHT were the significance of his meager findings.

     

    Parent

    Ultimate reality check (none / 0) (#69)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:07:35 PM EST
    Wilson's debriefing could not possibly have proven or disproven the existence of WMD in Iraq. Iraq could have WMD even if there had not been tentative attempts to procure yellowcake in Iraq, and it could have not had WMD even if it had been established that it completed transactions and did get it.

      The point is that based exactly on what Wilson and everyone else admits he did tell the CIA he could have wriiten a column saying that he believed the mere fact that there were some overtures from Iraq meant that Iraq was a threat. Had he done so everyone here would have sought to discredit him while the Administration would have defended him.  

       The sides lined up as they did only because of what he later said HE THOUGHT were the significance of his meager findings.

    The problem with your binary "Democratic partisans hail Wilson" and "Republican partisans demounce Wilson" is that there was a reality that proved to be very hard to spin - WMDs were not found in Iraq.

    In addition to Wilson's report there were also the reports of the US Embassy in Niger and the report of a four star general - both of which corroborated Wilson.

    And the ultimate reality check was the reality of the situation in Iraq.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#68)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:37:13 PM EST
    I believe, people would rightfully had said Wilson was grossly underqualified and never would have risen in the career FS and it was only political connections and maneuvering for POLITICAL APPOINTMENT  that he got positions of higher rank and that even those were among the least desirable one can have and still be called "Mr. Ambassaror" at georgetown cocktail parties.
     This is demonstrably false as even some Republicans have conceded that Wilson was qualified for the mission.

    Listen to Libby's grand jury testimony and you'll find that even Libby said that a) Wilson was qualified for the job, and b) Cheney said that he was qualified for the job.

    Parent

    Oh really?? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:07:43 PM EST
    But he did know based on his 2002 trip that the reports that Bush was basing his speech on were false.

    That is incorrect.

    His March 2002 report to the CIA confirmed the belief Iraq:

    Had not puchased.

    Had attempted. This was Bush's claim, based on the Brits' report.

    There is no doubt on the above.

    His claim in his 7/6/03 article about the forgeries, etc., is shown to be a major "misspeak" because he admitted to doing the same thing in  the Senate committee. Essential he claims to have confused the information he later learned from the IAEA report. The IAEA report was AFTER his claim that Bush was wrong in 1/29.

    So his information to the WaP and in his NYT article is, shall we say, questionable.

    First of all, I don't believe Libby guilty. If he is, then I  hold him no more harshly than I did Clinton. Which is to say, "You shouldn't have."

    To steal a phrase from William S this is:

    A tale told by an idiot(s), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

    I invite all to include themselves in, or out, as desired. I am unsure of myself.

    For details, read my:

    Sailor, watch my lips (try 2) (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:19:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#70)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:16:24 PM EST
    His March 2002 report to the CIA confirmed the belief Iraq:

    Had not puchased.

    Had attempted. This was Bush's claim, based on the Brits' report.

    There is no doubt on the above.

    Wilson's report did not confirm that the Iraqis attempted to purchase.

    Bush's claim was even stronger.  He said that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".  1999 was not recent - it was several years ago.  And there is nothing in what the Iraqi businessman said to the Niger official which could lead one to say that significant quantities of uranium were being sought.

    Parent

    Wrong as usual. (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:05:25 PM EST
    Why not use the actual quote?

    The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

    Because the first sentence is accurate, and the Kay report confirmed it again. Now to the 16 famous words

    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

    First, if all you have to argue is the definition of "significant," then you have nothing. As I said, I don't know what "significant" means to Bush when he is talking about "yellowcake" and neither do you.

    We do know what the Butler Report had to say about the subject:

    British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim

    And the Brits haven't changed.


    Wilson's report did not confirm that the Iraqis attempted to purchase.

    Again. Wilson did not write a report, nor did he issue a report. He wrote this article that was published on 7/6/03 in the NYT.

    In the article he noted that he had concluded that Iraq had not purchased.

    He made no claim one way or other about the attempt to purchase.

    I speculate that he did not because it would have detracted from the message that he was trying to convey. That he knew that Bush was wrong. By the continued use of the "did not purchase" theme and by not referencing what Bush had actually said, the impression is created that Bush claimed purchase and that Wilson had told the CIA differently.

    But we now know that impression would have been false.

    We also know that his claim to have told someone at the DOS on 1/29/02 that Bush was wrong is highly suspect and his claim was wrong, unless he had received classified information that no one has yet seen.

    Do you remember the sin of omission??? Did anyone ever teach you about that?

    Wilson's report did not confirm that the Iraqis attempted to purchase.

    Now in the event your claim regards the Senate Intelligence Committe's report regarding what Wilson told the CIA when being debriefed, which Wilson admits happened in his article, we have repeatedly noted what the CIA said.

    .... The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake ....

    Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

    In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations."The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.

    ....The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue.... He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    Link

    You may continue to believe that your understanding of what the Iraq meant to the Nigerian PM who was there is better than what the Nigerian understood.

    I will accept the belief of an experienced politican who was there and who had no axe to grind.

    And thanks for:


    1999 was not recent

    We're not talking about from then until now, although I suspect you have a tendancy to relate everythinf to self and now:

    From June of '99 to Feb '02 is two and a half years.

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Bush was wrong (none / 0) (#78)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:07:38 AM EST
    First, if all you have to argue is the definition of "significant," then you have nothing. As I said, I don't know what "significant" means to Bush when he is talking about "yellowcake" and neither do you.
    Wrong.  I am not arguing the definition of significant.  I am saying that the only thing that Bush could have relied on to make his statement was the forged Niger papers - whose unreliability his administration was warned of on mutliple occasions by the CIA.

    Significant means significant.  And despite whatever Mayaki may have surmised about the fishing expedition of the Iraqi businessman, there is nothing there that corroborates that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of Uranium.

    Even if we assume that what Wilson said was entirely incorrect, that does not mean that Wilson's untruths proves Bush's truthfulness.  We have to take Bush's statements on their own merits, and the conclusion is that Bush relied on the Niger forgeries, when our intelligence was warning his administration on multiple occasions about them.

    We do know what the Butler Report had to say about the subject:
     We do know that the Butler report was not written by the US, and we do know that the Butler report is full of holes.

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue.... He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    The Nigerien PM believe that the Iraqis were interested in purchasing.  That does not mean that our intelligence concluded that Iraqis sought to purchase.


    Parent

    the what does it mean? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:14:49 AM EST
     -- That we think the Nigerian PM was too stupid to understand what the Iraqi envoys wanted?

     -- that we think the nigerina PM was lying to wilson and others about the meeting with the Iraqis?

     -- That Wilsom misunderstood the PM and he didn't really say he believed the purpose was to seek yellowcake?

     -- that wilson just made that up and the PM never said he believed the Iraqis wanted yellowcake.

      sometimes you have to learn to quit while you are ahead and resist the impulse to shoot yourself in the foot when no more shooting is needed.

      Stick to the winnable point that Bush greatly embellished the evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat justifying war. Don't make the incredibly silly argument that we had no reason to believe that Iraq had sought and was seeking the capability to be a threat.

     

    Parent

    not a matter of grave importance (none / 0) (#80)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:21:08 AM EST
      but is there an accepted adjective other than "Nigerian" to refer to people from Niger?

      Using the same term for people from Niger and Nigeria is confusing.

     

    Parent

    OK... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:24:32 AM EST
      According to the CIA factbook, people from Niger are "Nigerien."

      Still easily confused, i suppose, but better.

    Parent

    What do you call someone from Ghana? (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 03:00:26 PM EST
    A Ghanarian.

    Joke, of course, as told to us by our Ghanaian TA in college...

    Parent

    How does one measure threat? (none / 0) (#84)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    The whole area of how one measures "threat" is very nebulous, as this entire thread shows.

    Here is what Wilson said:

    Before I left Niger, I provided a member of the American Embassy staff with an extensive briefing....I described a conversation with one of my sources. He had mentioned to me that on the margins of a ministerial meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1999, a Nigerien businessman had asked him to meet with an Iraqi official to discuss trade. My contact said that alarm bells had immediately gone off in his mind. Well aware of United Nations sanctions on Iraq, he met with the Iraqi only briefly and avoided any substantive issues. As he told me this, he hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might [emphasis in original - ed.] have wanted to talk about uranium. But since there had been no discussion of uranium - my contact was idly speculating when he mentioned it - there was no story. [page 28]

    The basis for a pre-emptive war should be solid intelligence, not speculation.

    If that is the level of speculation that pre-emptive wars should be fought on, then countries will be forever fighting one another.

    I welcome discussion on whether Iraq really was a threat to us (and its not the "incredibly silly argument" that you make it out to be).  We had control over 2/3rd of Iraqi airspace.  Their army was in tatters and was no match for us.

    But I guess THE argument that the neocons sold a lot of people in the US was that Saddam would give his WMD to terrorists to use against us.  The Bush administration hid from us - our own intelligence had concluded that the only way Saddam would give his WMD (assuming he had them) to terrorists was if we cornered him and attacked him.

    There are still plenty of dictators around the world who do not like us.  The only way we can safeguard ourselves is not by attacking all of them, but rather telling them in advance and in no uncertain terms what the consequences of their actions would be.  Dictators are far more concerned about their self preservation than the neo-cons credit them.  Deterrence worked for us during the cold war and it still works today.

    Parent

    I'm NOT (none / 0) (#85)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:33:45 PM EST
      in any,way shape or manner excusing  the administrations justification for the war on this  or the cumulative total of all intelligence.

      I'm saying I think it is more accurate to view the Wilson mission as a part of the fundamental intelligence failure than to view his selection or his information as good intelligence work ignored. His findings strike me as essentially a worthless joke, and I think that reflects poorly on him, poorly on the CIA for selecting him, poorly on everyone for not digging further, and, certainly,  especially poorly on the Administration for exploiting such crappy work in furtherance of its ends.

      I see no reason to pin a medal on Wilson or the CIA in order to attack the Administration's jutification. In fact, I think portaying the mission as a symptom of the systemic failures--forwhich the Administration is responsibl--- is even a better political tactic in addition to just being a lot more accurate.

     

    Parent

    largely agree (none / 0) (#86)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:52:25 PM EST
    Lets end this on a note of agreement.

    Parent
    even SSCI included something wrong (none / 0) (#81)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:24:08 AM EST
    SSCI says
    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, (                    ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective.                      SENTENCE DELETED                      The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    Even though Amb. Wilson indicated that the meeting in question occurred in Algiers and even though the CIA DO reports officer's own report said nothing about Iraqi officials making a trip to Niger in mid-1999, the reports officer incorrectly asserted to the SSCI that Wilson somehow claimed that the Iraqi delegation visited Niger (as opposed to Algiers). WINPAC and DIA analysts, likewise, made wrong assertions to the SSCI, despite the contents of the CIA DO report.Link


    Parent

    which brings us back (none / 0) (#83)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:30:35 AM EST
     to my earlier point that EVERYTHING about this whole episode was screwed up badly and hearings should investigate the reasons for and results of the deficincies from top to bottom.

    Parent
    decon -- i am unsure. . . (none / 0) (#8)
    by the rainnn on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 08:46:30 PM EST
    you wrote:

    ". . . The criminal investigation was not intended to be and should not have been a platform for political payback. . ."

    isn't it your sense that conviction of
    the then-chief of staff for the vice president
    of the united states, on charges of obstruction
    of justice, necessarily involves immense
    political ramifications?

    that is to say, i think the cause-effect
    arrow points in the other direction now.

    one cannot now dismiss fitzgerlad's closing/
    summation: he simply pointed to "the
    cloud"
    cheney and libby, together, created.

    the decision to make the end of the
    criminal trial about cheney, as fitz
    said, was (cheney's and) libby's alone.

    they could have told the truth.

    i mean, how can it be that mr. cheney
    hasn't yet given an accounting of himself,
    after all, he serves us -- not the other way around. . .

    at least that's what my civics lessons said.

    Parent

    rain: (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:14:19 AM EST
    "isn't it your sense that conviction of
    the then-chief of staff for the vice president
    of the united states, on charges of obstruction
    of justice, necessarily involves immense
    political ramifications?"

      Not exactly. I actually don't think this conviction, standing alone will have significant, let alone immense, ratifications. It appears pretty clear that outside the  engaged activist relam this scase isn't exactly firing the public interest.

       I do think that the broader aspects of l'affaire de Plame should have serious political ramifications but I'm not convinced it will and I'm near certain I don't think they will be the ramifications I think are warranted. I suspect strongly that we will see more trivialization of it as Cheney/Rove v. Wilson/Plame with those interested picking sides based on partisan affilliation and most simply viewing it (not at all without justification) as a bunch of duplicitous political hacks stabbing at each other with sticks and writing it off as more of that Washington crowd playing their games.

      I don't like that but I do believe it to be far more likely than this episode serving as a catalyst for anything fundamentally important politically let alone meaningful change in the way our government operates.

    Parent

    Plame to testify (none / 0) (#5)
    by chew2 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    "Waxman said Plame has accepted the invitation and Fitzgerald has not responded. In a letter to the prosecutor, Waxman proposed a meeting with ranking Republican Tom Davis of Virginia to discuss the terms of any testimony."

    I'd like them to subpoena CIA officials to determine whether she was "covert" or just "classified".

    Probably couldn't find out whether revealing her identity injured CIA assets.  Too classified.

    chew2 (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 09:36:07 PM EST
    What is about you not understanding that the definition of who is, and is not, "covert" is specifically determined by law, and not by the CIA.

    Parent
    The weight of the evidence. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:03:05 PM EST
    Pro Covert
    1. Since the CIA referred the case for prosecution, they ought to know whether or not their agent, was classifed as a covert agent or not. After all, why bother if even that threshold wasn't met.
    2. Fitzgerald stated Plame was CIA and her status was classified. By itself this is not determinative. However, coupled with item 1 and items 3 and 4...
    3. Plame's CIA classmates (the retired ones) all say Plame was covert. They, of course, have personal knowledge of the issue. Some of them are card carrying Republicans.
    4. Plame maintains she was covert

    Anti-Covert
    The testimony of Jimakappj and Victoria Toensing is that Plame was not a covert agent. Neither  Jimakappj no Victoria Toensing have personal knoweldge of the issue. In fact neither appear to have a reasonable basis for the opinion other than faxed GOP talking points.

    Verdict
    As a member of the jury of the court of public opinion, I'd say the preponderence of evidence is Plame was covert. In fact I'd say it is beyond a reasonable doubt.



    Parent

    Silly trolls (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Mreddieb on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 07:56:10 AM EST
    PPj is the resident  schill for the repiglican spin machine. You could bet your life on PPj taking a completely opposit stance if this discussion were about Clinton and a Lie about a private matter between two adults! WE certainly don't want facts to get in the way now do we PPJ

    Parent
    eddie b, you need to read more (1.00 / 3) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:00:21 AM EST
    because this is just one of the many comments I have made saying that the BJ episode should have been, basically, ignore.

    et al - I have said time and again that the actions of the Repubs were wrong in regards to Clinton. And if I had a dollar for every comment made by Demos/Lefies that match Hutchinson's I would have my $10,000 buy-in for the WSOP.

    BTW - I got lots more for you. I'll bring'em up for view if you will contribute $20.00 for each I show.

    How many can you afford?

    Now. Will you apologize, or will you just pout and run off?

    BTW - I'm not a Repub, nor a Demo. I am a registered Independent and social liberal. (That means I support the WOT and the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

    Parent

    Touched a nerve didn't I (none / 0) (#25)
    by Mreddieb on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    I love debating in the morning!

    Parent
    Mr. Ed (1.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Peaches on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    You are not debating. You are stating your opinion and castigating your opponents. Whether or not you touched any nerves, I cannot say, because there are people here who are sensitive to insults. And, there are also people here who do not suffer ignorance very well. I am of the latter type.

    Please make an argument that is rational. One that breaks down the issue in a unique perspective and demonstrates your knowledge of what is being debated. Parroting opinions you have heard elsewhere will win you points in Edger's rating system, but it won't take you very far in the real world of debate, nor win you many admirers.

    Parent

    It is snarking. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:19:51 PM EST
    Making an outrageous comment, being proved wrong, failing to apologize is not debating.

    It is snarking.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#67)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:55:14 PM EST
    Huh???? (1.00 / 3) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:12:10 PM EST
    As a ROF I say that you are full of it.

    Have a nice day.

    And remember. It is the law that says whether you are covert, or not.

    You do believe in the law, don't you??

    (Don't forget to turn off the lights on the way out.)

    Parent

    Silly (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 09:20:28 AM EST
    I do believe in the law. I also believe in evidence. After "the law" defines what a covert agent, is, you have to examine the evidence to determine each particular case.

    There is no statute, rule or regulation that specifically says Valerie Plame was a covert agent. There are only legal definitions of what consitutes covert status. To prove or disprove covert status, you would need evidence to show a particular agent was or was not covert. YOU do believe in evidence don't you?

    I was being tongue in check here, but my basic point is correct. Those with personal knoweldge are stating Plame was covert. Those with out personal knowledge or any other evidentiary basis are making bald assertions Plame was not.

    I don't have personal knowledge of Plame's status. I can review the evidence and assign the weight or value to give to the witness testimony.

    Let see, we have eyewitness testimony from people with personal knowledge v. a GOP lawyer/strategist (Toesing) and an alleged independent voter who is socially liberal (10 degrees to the left on most issues, 10 degrees to the right on those which affect him personally - Phil Ochs).



    Parent

    Ho and Ha (1.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 06:22:40 PM EST
    Covert has certain requirements. She didn't meet them.

    Turn out the light on the way out.

    Parent

    Other than your opinion (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 07:07:39 PM EST
    Do you have any evidence to support this proposition? Any evidence from witnesses with personal knowledge?

    Bueller?.... Bueller?..... Bueller?



    Parent

    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Mreddieb on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:41:28 AM EST
    She was Covert accept it she was covert.

    Parent
    What?? (1.00 / 3) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    That makes no sense.

    Parent
    The CIA knows the facts (none / 0) (#14)
    by chew2 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:25:26 PM EST
    as to Plames activities and status within the agency.  That would determine whether she ws "covert" or "classified" under the law.  To my knowledge her exact status has not been revealed.  That is classified.

    She may well have been "covert" within the meaning of the relevant statue, but Fitz chose not to prosecute because of the difficulty of proving the required "knowledge" or "intent" on the part of Libby.

    Parent

    And of course (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by chew2 on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 10:53:07 PM EST
    it's pretty clear that she was a covert/secret CIA agent in the past.  Revealing her ID destroyed her usefulness and cover for any future assignments and endangered those she worked with in the past.  As I said, the CIA after-action assessment of that damage would be valuable, but may be too classified to release at the hearing.  Perhaps in closed session.

    Parent
    chew2 (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 07:31:18 AM EST
    One more time....

    1. The CIA initated the request for an investigation that claimed she was covert, and that she had been outed.

    That was the purpose of the investigation.

    1. The SP charged no one. Even though Richard Armitage admitted to leaking her name about three months before Fitzgerald started his investigation, and Fitzgerald knew that.

    2. Now here's the tricky part.

    If she was covert then Fitzgerald must have decided that Armitage did not break the law.

    Or, he decided that she wasn't covert.

    He specifically stated that Libby was not charged with outing a covert agent, he did say she her employment with the CIA was classified.

    He did not charge Libby or Armitage with violating any law regarding that.

    Since that would have been a real "anchor crime," that proves that neither Libby or Armitage violated that law.

    Now I will make my guess.

    It was claimed by many people, mostly on the right, that everyone in DC knew she worked for the CIA. Beautiful woman, DOS husband, letter perfect for gossip, etc.

    So that charge wouldn't have worked.

     

    Parent

    There is NO DOUBT (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Mreddieb on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 08:07:58 AM EST
    This woman was Covert.NO doubt, No question, No excuses, No exceptions! It is an established proven "Beyond any doubt" FACT. Only the wingnuts have a problem with facts that don't suit them, don't they. So if God came down and testified she WAS Covert you can be sure they would react by screaming "Crucify him" he's another damn liberal throwing his halo around!

    Parent
    Once Again (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:01:54 AM EST
    Just because you repeat things over and over, and over, will never make them true. Who do you think you are Goebbels?

    Your logic is full of holes as usual. Just because Fitzgerald did not prosecute Armitage, doesn't mean that Plame was not covert. Nice leap though, ppj.

    There are at least two other reasons that Armitage was not prosecuted. One is that Armitage did not know Plame's status which is essential. He may have also realized that the case would never fly because so many top secrets were involved ultimately costing the taxpayers tons of $$$ with no results due to greymail.

    It is entirely plausible that Fitzgerald sought justice, has sand thrown in his eye and realized that the crimes committed would be impossible to prosecute without the cooperation of the Republican controlled machine and executive branch.

    By indicating that there was a cloud over the vice president's office, he essentially passed the baton to Congress where it belongs.

    Parent

    squeaky (1.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 12:49:59 PM EST
    Got a reputable link that says Armitage didn't know her status??

    Do you realize what you are accusing Fitzgerald of when you wrote?

    It is entirely plausible that Fitzgerald sought justice, has sand thrown in his eye and realized that the crimes committed .....

    Wow.

    BTW - Why didn't he prosecute Libby for outing a covert agent??

    Parent

    There is this: (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:07:47 PM EST
    Armitage himself was aggressively investigated by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, but was never charged. Fitzgerald found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward.

    Isikoff

    Parent

    ahhhahahah (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:03:13 PM EST
    Like the sound of a penny dropped down a well.....

    Guess you got the answer you did not want to hear. Not that it makes any difference, same old ppj.

    Parent

    He did not need to (none / 0) (#36)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    --Michael Isikoff (4.66 / 3) (#37)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert
    Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion. (A CIA spokesman at the time is quoted as saying Plame was "unlikely" to take further trips overseas, though.) Fitzgerald concluded he could not charge Libby for violating a 1982 law banning the outing of a covert CIA agent; apparently he lacked proof Libby was aware of her covert status when he talked about her three times with New York Times reporter Judith Miller.


    Parent
    Get current. (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 04:33:59 PM EST
    That article is a year old.

    Since that time, the following has happened.

    The SP has not prosecuted anyone for outing a covert agent, which was what the investigation was all about.

    Therefore I say she was not.

    Pehaps Newsweek has her confused with the not flushing the Koran down the toliet.

    Parent

    That article is historical fact. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 04:40:08 PM EST
    Your opinion is exactly that. Your opinion... with no factual basis. But facts just cloud the issue for you, I know.

    Another fact. The SP has not prosecuted anyone for outing a covert agent... yet.

    Parent

    More historical facts to cloud the issue (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 04:58:11 PM EST
    Libby's guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for
    Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.


    Parent
    It is a historical fact that people though the (1.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:25:37 PM EST
    earth was flat.

    That doesn't make it true.

    Parent

    Then why do you insist that it is (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    in the face of overwhelming fact contradicting your fantasies?

    Parent
    answers (none / 0) (#16)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 07:14:27 AM EST
      I would ike all the answers not just about this but about the entire failure of intelligence from the lowest sourece level of information gathering to the mid-level of information organizing and analyzing to the higherlevels of information interpretation to the highest level of information  use and exploitation (although I accept that at some level back Congress will accede to national security interests and either not inquire or inquire in closed hearings).

      I would think that EVERYONE regardless of poltical bent has to be deeply concerned about what went wrong, why it went wrong and what we might do to improve.

      I want to hear from Administration officials and I want their duplicity (if not criminality) fully explored but the investigatins cannot be a made for TV parade of the "names" and be considered sufficient.

       NO ONE looks good here. There is simply no possibility anyone  on the Left would ever find anything redeeming about the performance of Wilson and Plame or make assertions supporting the CIA operatives involved if it were not for their opposition to Bush. The combination of incompetence and desire to direct policy through selective use of information is clearly not limited to the WH.

       We need to know about the WH and we need to hold the WH accountable, but there is much more to this.

      Bush will be gone soon the rest of the mess that allowed something like this to happen won't unless major changes are made.

     This was a breakdown at every level and much of it (not all) has to do with the culture, turf battles, lack of controls, lack, personal interests, career interests and, yes, partisan interests which permeate the intelligence community.

       

    You make good smoke (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Mreddieb on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 08:26:16 AM EST
    It's always easy to chatter nonsense that distracts from the FACTS. Wilson did NOTHING wrong. In an effort to smear him for the audacity  of challenging the presidents assertion in the SOTU address instead of openly refuting him. He was attacked via leaks to the press and in the process his wife was ILLEGALY outed as a COVERT CIA Operative. Libby was subsequesntly found Guilty of OBSTRUCTION of justice (1 count) and Perjury (3 counts). Now the Congress is, and RIGHTLY SO, taking up and continuing the investigation into this Serious Crime!  

    Parent
     then obviously there would be no purpose to any investigation. That people like you START from the conclusion you desire just illustrates an undying devotion to perpetuating what is wrong, that have no interest in the truth and care only about the partisan angle. That is wrong, uttlerly and completely, no matter from which side you approach.

      People who REALLY care about improving this country start with an open mind and want the information and then reach tentative conclusions-- still aware that there may be even more to learn.

      This kind of thinking mirrors what it appears the Administration did. It's no more justifiable coming from you.

    Parent

    Open minds (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by KM on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:28:54 AM EST
    NO ONE looks good here. There is simply no possibility anyone  on the Left would ever find anything redeeming about the performance of Wilson and Plame or make assertions supporting the CIA operatives involved if it were not for their opposition to Bush.

    ...

    We need to know about the WH and we need to hold the WH accountable, but there is much more to this.

    ...

    This was a breakdown at every level and much of it (not all) has to do with the culture, turf battles, lack of controls, lack, personal interests, career interests and, yes, partisan interests which permeate the intelligence community.

    Why does this strike me as apologism masquerading as high-minded nonpartisanship?

    I hope that you are not suggesting that the "intelligence community" (a conveniently undifferentiated term) -- as complicitous and incompetent as it was in this vast travesty -- shares anything close to the degree of responsibility that the WH and Administration do for the war and for the endless lies and misrepresentations about WMD.

    Of course there are redeeming things about Wilson's "performance", whatever you mean by this.  If you wish to compare his "performance" with respect to the Niger uranium question, warts and all, to that of any Administration official, I'd be happy to entertain you.

    "Much of" the "breakdown" with respect to WMD had to with "turf battles", "personal interests", "career interests" and "partisan interests" within the "intelligence community" (are we supposed to read CIA/INR here?)?  Poppycock.

    Parent

    Masquerade? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    Why does this strike me as apologism masquerading as high-minded nonpartisanship?

    Because that's what it is. Link.

    Parent

    Gobbly gook is they only (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Mreddieb on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    response one can make of what you just wrote. Gobbly gook.

    Parent
    Perhaps ... (1.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 11:11:40 AM EST
     it's the only response YOU can make. I'll let others decide what they think that means about our respective positions

      As for the other responses. I am not excusing or justifying ANYTHING about any part of anyone in the Administration's role, and I do agree that the higher you are the higher the acountability.

       That you read it differently simply illustrates that your minds are made up and you won't listen to anything that would force you to think deeper than the blame game. You can blame, and justly so, and still understand that there is much more that needs to be done.

    Parent

    I see no reason (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:14:45 PM EST
    to not have an investigation into the intelligence failures, but think that should be a separate subject from Plame to at least remove some of the politics.

    I would like to see an investigation into the Plame affair by Congress, but only if everyone is put under oath, and only if Mr. and Mrs. Wilson are called, and the others as I noted above.

    Parent

    Well, (3.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 01:53:30 PM EST
      I don't really see much difference in having a single broad or multiple hearings insofar as taking the politics out of it, but I'd be fine either way.

      I'm not sure, frankly, that Wilson or Plame really have anything relevant to the WH malfeasance involved and it would seem their testimony would serve little real purpose but to politicize and sensationalize.

      I also think it would fuzz the focus on the issue of what the folks in the WH did. The issue isn't really whether or not Wilson was a competent and honest person, whether he was handpicked by his wife because the CIA operates too much of a buddy system and whether wilson's report was any good. those issues more properly (if we are having multiple hearings) in the one pertaining to the intelligence failures and the reasons for them than the one dealing with WH shenanigans.

       Frankly, I start from the premise that the fact Wilson was sent indicates that the CIA was just going through the motions and sent hubby bon vivant because they lacked any good sources to get something done the WH (or OVP) asked about. That's a sad state of affairs, no doubt,  but it doesn't get to the real question of why did the folks in the WH lie, mislead and obsfucate once questions were asked about the source of Plame's identity? we all know the reason-- because Cheney could not believe the CIA would be stupid enought to send Wilson and pissed as hell Wilson was speaking  to the press.

       The WH could have done ts own inquiry laid its card on the table and said it went down this way because we were out to discredit someone we think needed discrediting and thats the way politics is.  That probably would have eneded the story in week. Instead we're still dealing with it 4 years later because they lied --repeatedly.

     

    Parent

    I'll trade you one good question for another. (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 09, 2007 at 05:23:46 PM EST
    When Wilson was debriefed in March of 02, he told the CIA two things.

    1. There had been no purchases.

    2. There had been attempts.

    The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, (                    ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective.                      SENTENCE DELETED                      The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He (CIA Reports offcier) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

    Then, in his own word from his 7/06/03 NYT article:

    I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life.

    Now, remember. No purchase. Yes attempt. That is what he had told the CIA. The next thing he says:

    In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

    This merely restates what he was told the CIA about attempts. But, what does he write?

    Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

    The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

    Now. Why did he change his mind? We have no evidence of him talking to anyone. Did he? And if  he did, did this conversation contain any classified information?? By then I believe he was out of government, and even if not, classified information is given on a need to know basis.

    Simply put, what brought forth this epiphany?
    Why did he change his find? Perhaps he didn't.
    I say this because he also had a meeting with a WaP reporter, and gave some information.

    Returning to the Senate Intelligence report:


    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have 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 former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

    Now, let's put some times down. He claims to have went to State and said Bush was wrong the day after Bush's 03 SOTU. That would have been 1/29/03.

    And he claims to have misspoke to the reporter about 15 months later, because he became confused over the what the IAEA report said.

    But wait. The IAEA report was two months, 3/03, after Wilson said he went to the State Dept and complained.

    What was his basis for complaint?

    Who did he speak to a State?

    Why had he changed his mind?

    I'd love to hear Wilson explain that. Under oath. With reminders of what happened to Libby.

    Because he has clearly changed his story. And that act is the cornerstone of all that followed. All of the attacks by the MSM on Bush, and all the attacks by the adminsitration, go back to that point.

    This was just politics. Pure and simple.

    Parent

    blablabla (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:30:54 PM EST
    How many times do you have to present the same drivel and have it refuted?

    There is hardly proof that anyone sought yellowcake. Malaki interpreted this fact, as you claim,  based on what,
    body language, winks?  

    Certainly not enough to include in a SOUT speech, and definitely not enough to invade a country, kill hundred of thousands, and billions in damage.

    Oh, and your continual reference to the State Intelligence Report shows how you have not been keeping up. That report has been debunked as pure political lies.

    Parent

    It's always "just politics" (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:04:31 PM EST
    anytime it detrimentally effects our resident waterboy's massas.