Investigate the CIA

Wall Street Journal ^ | November 2 | Toensing

[KFAT2]

In a surprise, closed-door debate, Senate Democrats demanded an investigation of pre-Iraq War intelligence. Here's an issue for them: Assess the validity of the claim that Valerie Plame's status was "covert," or even properly classified, given the wretched tradecraft by the Central Intelligence Agency throughout the entire episode. It was, after all, the CIA that requested the "leak" investigation, alleging that one of its agents had been outed in Bob Novak's July 14, 2003, column. Yet it was the CIA's bizarre conduct that led inexorably to Ms. Plame's unveiling.

[nopardons]

bttt

[A CA Guy]

I agree with your points and find the CIA disturbing at this point.

[Patriot from Philly]

Presdient BUsh is afraid to pick a fight with the media. The media tried to defeat him in 2004 and have now decided to destroy him and he just lets it happen.

What I think the media strategy is to make it irrelevant and put it in a bubble with the Democrats so that they are surprised again and again when they lose elections.

However, the Bush people need tactics because the collaboration between the media and the left is hurting his administration and its policies on a day by day basis.

[devolve]

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Dismantle the CIA.

[ricoshea]

I think Bushs problem is he has no PR team.
Whenever the media was after Clinton, which was not often,he sent out Carville,Bagalla,Lanny Davis ,Stephouplous and all the others to all the MSM stations to try to squash it or at least attempt to get out the other side.Mostly they lied but that is not my point.They got out there and did not let a story grow legs for months without a defense of Clinton.
Bush lets the media say whatever they want about his administration and he rarely sends someone out to give the WH side of things.
The media keeps saying how low his rating are and asks kith a straight face why?
It is their constant negative reporting and it is Bushs lack of a decent Pr group defending him .

[Bob from De]

Fall of 2002, sometime after October 9 - A report from the U.S. Navy suggests that uranium being transferred from Niger to Iraq was discovered in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin. The report indicates that the broker for the deal is willing to talk about it, but, mysteriously he is never contacted by the CIA or military intelligence.

The above is from "Joe Wilson's Lies,A Timeline" poster by Wuli.
Also, a posting of page 59 of the Senate Report, which I can't find right now, states that the DO at CIA said that nobody at CIA thought to check out the Navy"s report

UNBELIEVABLE!

Who authorized Yellowcake Joe's trip?
Who decided that a signed security agreement was unnessessary?
Who decided a written report was unnessessary?
Who at CIA received the Navy"s report?
Who at CIA-WMD deep sixed the Navy's report?
What supervisor at CIA was responsible at that time?

This Navy report, if proven true, would destroy Joe Wilson's story.

The Senate Report also stated that the name and phone numbers of the "broker" were in the Navy"s report.

HELLO!

[popdonnelly]

Most of Joe Wilson's story was created in May, 2003, when he joined the Kerry campaign. It was an intentional effort to make Bush look like a liar. Some Democrats are still playing this game, for example, Waxman, Hinchey, and Conyers.

[Dems_R_Losers]

This was indeed an orchestrated effort by the Kerry campaign, and I think all these leading Democrats knew about it from the get-go, just like they all knew about the forged memos before Dan Rather went on the air with them. They keep harping on it now because it was their "silver bullet" to bring down Bush and they can't let it go.

[Bob from De]

Agreed, but it just seems so easy for the President,Goss or Mueller to investigate the Navy"s report and expose the rats nest at CIA along with Yellowcake Joe.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Bush lets the media say whatever they want about his administration and he rarely sends someone out to give the WH side of things."

And even then, the MSM and Dems accuse the administration of "trashing" and "smearing" its critics. ANY response by the WH to ANY critic is described as a smear.

[Bob from De]

In addition to Wilson going to work for Kerry in May of 2003, the January 2004 edition of Vanity Fair(Mrs. Russert)quotes the Wilsons as saying that "in the spring" of 2003, Valerie was moving from "non-official" to "official" at CIA.
Was this an attempt to "cover" her covert cover?
Perhaps this is one reason why Fitz couldn't say anything other than she was classified.

[neverdem]

Do you have a source for your comment?

[demkicker]

I'll try to locate it, but I'm on my way out of town. It was from a post on FR. I heard Sean Hannity and/or Rush talking about it also.