1 posted on
10/15/2005 6:03:14 AM PDT by
Pokey78
To: Pokey78
Where's the discussion of whether or not Plame was covert at the time?
2 posted on
10/15/2005 6:09:25 AM PDT by
Paladin2
(MSM rioted over Katrina and looted the truth)
To: Pokey78
Still sounds like Wilson and others were involved in a conspiracy to harm the Vice President of the United States, and to commit espionage against them.
Now, is Fitzgerald smart, or is he a hack? We'll find out shortly.
3 posted on
10/15/2005 6:18:08 AM PDT by
muawiyah
(/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
To: Pokey78
6 posted on
10/15/2005 6:24:21 AM PDT by
Ben Hecks
To: Pokey78
meanwhile at club Fed, Ames tidies up is cell.
10 posted on
10/15/2005 6:45:40 AM PDT by
Waco
To: Perdogg; cyncooper
This whole Rove/Libby leak thing seems like a side show compared to the bigger story. Unfortunately, I think the MSM and GJ is focused on the side show.
11 posted on
10/15/2005 6:47:02 AM PDT by
frankjr
To: Pokey78
14 posted on
10/15/2005 7:16:06 AM PDT by
maica
(We are fighting the War for the Free World --Frank Gaffney)
To: Pokey78
It would be nice to see Fitz indict Wilson.
16 posted on
10/15/2005 7:31:33 AM PDT by
hershey
To: Pokey78
Plame is a side show. The issue is Niger Yellowcake. It seems that if it was believed that Wilson was wrong in his report, another investigator would have been sent to refute. The fact that the messenger was attacked instead of the message is the story, perhaps a crime.
18 posted on
10/15/2005 7:41:44 AM PDT by
ex-snook
(Vote gridlock for the most conservative government)
To: Pokey78
The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) was more dubious. INR thought it unlikely that the government of Niger would take the substantial risks involved in doing illicit business with a rogue regime. INR analysts also expressed doubt that the transaction could have taken place because the uranium mines in Niger are controlled by a French consortium, which would be reluctant to work with Saddam Hussein--an objection that seems naive with the benefit of hindsight. This part bothers me. Naive or giving cover?
19 posted on
10/15/2005 7:45:38 AM PDT by
gov_bean_ counter
(It is easy to call for a pi$$ing contest when you aren't going to be in the line of fire.)
To: Pokey78
1) Plume was not a covert agent, no crime committed!
2) Plume was not overseas in 6 years so even if she was covert, theres no crime committed
3) Plume was already outted in "Who's Who back in 2000
4) Judy Miller went to jail, and it wasn't to protect anyone from the Bush administration! NYT loves to stab them in th eback
%) Wilson is a proven liar, and more than likely leaked his own wifes identity, hyped it up her identity to more than shes worth with Democraps to embarass the Bush Administration!
21 posted on
10/15/2005 7:59:11 AM PDT by
Bommer
To: Pokey78
It's not clear whether Fitzgerald is still following up the charge that someone leaked the name of a covert agent, or whether he may have uncovered other wrongdoing involving the violation of completely different statutes.
This account makes it clear enough that Wilson deliberately lied, and also that Plame set the whole thing up, either on her own hook or at Wilson's instigation.
Well, there was one somewhat peripheral point which I think needs some attention:
"INR analysts also expressed doubt that the transaction could have taken place because the uranium mines in Niger are controlled by a French consortium, which would be reluctant to work with Saddam Hussein--an objection that seems naive with the benefit of hindsight."
In point of fact, "naive" seems too weak a word to describe this evaluation. It was surely known at the time that it was FRANCE that built Saddam's nuclear plant in the first place--the one that was bombed by Israel--and that Chirac was the point man in charge of setting it up. It was also known that Chirac was Saddam's bosom buddy. If us unlookers knew all this at the time, surely our intelligence agencies knew it.
It has also been suggested that French intelligence was responsible for planting the forged yellowcake documents, possibly in an effort to discredit the real story.
Another story recently posted here, conjectural at this point, says that CIA agents forged the yellowcake documents, with the intention of showing up the Bush administration which was refusing their "expert" advice.
Doesn't all this deserve further investigation?
24 posted on
10/15/2005 8:50:10 AM PDT by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: Pokey78
Thanks for this post. Bump for later.
25 posted on
10/15/2005 8:51:13 AM PDT by
Bernard Marx
(Don't make the mistake of interpreting my Civility as Servility)
To: Pokey78
cronyism.......plame gets wilson a job..
To: Pokey78
Two events in the fall of 2002 seemed to enhance the credibility of the initial reporting on an Iraq-Niger deal. First, a French diplomat told the State Department that his government had received additional, credible reporting on the transaction and had concluded that the earlier reports were true. A second report, this one from the U.S. Navy, suggested that uranium being transferred from Niger to Iraq had been discovered in a warehouse in Cotonou, Benin. Although that report indicated that the broker for the deal was willing to talk about it, he was never contacted by the CIA or military intelligence. This reflects badly on the competence of our intelligence services. What else are they missing?
To: Pokey78
Another recommendation that came out of the Senate Select Committee was that, if the Vice President asks you to investigate something, you should give him an answer. Yes the CIA jumped right on giving Wilson his boondoggle but they never reported back to the VP.
This was another of Wilson's claims that was flat out wrong. He assumed the VP had been briefed on the findings of his "research". This was key in that Wilson claimed the White House ignored his results when, in fact, they weren't even sent.
Wilson has been positively Clintonian in his ability to string falsehoods together. It can take a full hour to document the lies he packs into one paragraph.
If you need a "slam-dunk" argument on Wilson's credibility, look to the Kerry campaign. Wilson was one of Kerry's advisors. The Kerry campaign website linked to Wilson's. Then the Senate report came out and Pal Joey was unplugged. No longer a campaign advisor. No longer linked. Telling.
To: Pokey78
32 posted on
10/15/2005 5:07:11 PM PDT by
CGVet58
(God has granted us Liberty, and we owe Him Courage in return)
To: Pokey78; potlatch; devolve; PhilDragoo; bitt; Smartass; Zacs Mom
But there is one curious omission: July 7, 2004. On that date, the bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committee released a 511-page report on the intelligence that served as the foundation for the Bush administration's case for war in Iraq. The Senate report includes a 48-page section on Wilson that demonstrates, in painstaking detail, that virtually everything Joseph Wilson said publicly about his trip, from its origins to his conclusions, was false.Gee, wonder why the New York times left this out?
33 posted on
10/15/2005 10:12:29 PM PDT by
ntnychik
To: Pokey78
The truth is - it was probably Dennis that gave away the Wilson's. After all he lived next door to them for a number of seasons and was always snooping on them. That darn kid just can't keep from stirring up trouble!
Yes - we learned a lot about Mr. Wilson - but ever notice how little we actually know about Mrs. Wilson? Coincidence? I think not.
To: Pokey78
40 posted on
10/16/2005 7:48:43 AM PDT by
bitt
(THE PRESIDENT: "Ask the pollsters. My job is to lead and to solve problems. ")
To: Pokey78
42 posted on
10/16/2005 1:46:14 PM PDT by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson