(What they do)
(They smile in your face)
All the time they want to take your place
The back stabbers (back stabbers)
(They smile in your face)
All the time they want to take your place
The back stabbers (back stabbers)
Posted on 09/03/2006 1:13:42 PM PDT by Laverne
I guess I don't understand your point or your question.
I said that FREEPERS understood about the diversion early on. (Or at minimum, suspected it.) Same for the blogosphere.
I also said the media, who is in control of how much "follow up" is presented about Mary McCarthy and OFF, has been a willing partner in Wilson's theatre of drama, pushing the story for all it's worth. The Democrats were also happy to play their supporting roles.
The blogosphere has been right on top of any information that has come out subsequently about OFF etc. Check powerline blog or michellemalkin.com for instance.
Thanks for the ping!
In addition, his silence provided the most damaging of vile ammunition to the Democrats, their lickspittles in the mainstream "press," the empty talking heads limning the Democratic echoes found on the likes of CNN, and for the professional baiters and road weary hucksters like Bob Beckel, James Carville, and Eleanor Clift."
You would think a former General that had men under his command has some self-respect about him? He is dipping very low and for a long time now.
I agree that Rocky is at the bottom of all of this; we need to reread that memo just to put things in context. In fact, I'm quite surrised we haven't seen Team Libby bring up that memo, because it is the roadmap, it discusses Niger, and the leaking of itelligence. I still stand by my speculation that that secret indictment that Jason Leopold swears is an indictment of Rove, is really an indictment of Rockerfeller.
Yes, I recall Rocky's trip...I first learned about it on FNC when he stated he went (I thought he said by himself) to Syria and other places and told the leaders that the President was going to invade Iraq regardless of any findings. Rocky's big mouth got him in trouble. I think Rocky is also the source for the NYTimes article on NSA eavesdropping on terrorists.
Powell will soon join the democratic party...he is now as "loved" in the GOP as McCain.
Here is a link to the leaked memo....
still looking for the Syrian trip...
http://www.intelmemo.com/
ping
I followed your link, and am posting the memo here....it is so revealing. Dems documented roadmap to use intelligence to UNDERMINE the War on Terror. This is the memo, whose substance, got little or no attention from the old media:
Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq.
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard. For example, in addition to the president's State of the Union speech, the chairman has agreed to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and co-signs our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don't know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. (Note: we can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.)
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic "additional views" to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it. In that regard, we have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims and contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry. The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an independent commission (i.e. the Corzine amendment).
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation at any time-- but we can only do so once. The best time to do so will probably be next year either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report -- thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public: 1) additional views on the interim report; 2) announcement of our independent investigation; and 3) additional views on the final investigation; or
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue. We could attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the "use" of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter foot-dragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman; we have independently submitted written questions to DoD; and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
Summary
Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet, we have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war. The approach outline above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration's dubious motives and methods.
And by the way: a long time ago, I called into cspan when Senator Allard was the guest. I specifically asked him about the Rocky memo and asked if any investigation was underway regarding its contents. Senator Allard said that the memo had been referred to the Senate Ethics committee (yes, I know, big whup). However, perhaps the Ethics committee then referred it on to DOJ and there is a continuing investigation underway regarding its contents.
"Transcript of a memo written by a Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee staff suggesting how to make the greatest gain off of intelligence data leading to the war against Iraq."
Wonder if there was a 'roving' staffer that penned this memo, could it have been a floater from the Armed Services to the Intel committee?
Actually, long ago, Contenetti of the Weekly Standard suggested long ago that the Plame farce was cooked up at the May 2003 Senate Dem Policy Committee Meeting where Wilson was a witness and he was introduced to Kristof. Minutes of that meeting have gone mysteriously missing. Before this meeting, Wilson said nothing about the Mission , admitted Saddam might have WMDs, but simply took Scowcroft's line that sanctions and containment policies whould be continued.
bump
Another interesting factoid....too bad Fitzy didn't follow the real conspiracy and indict Wilson, et al. Truth will out eventually, it always does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.