Posted on 09/28/2003 4:39:01 PM PDT by J_Bravo
what the hell do you mean by that? I'm not making a moral relativism argument. I'm stating, flat out, that the charges against this White House are lies. I'm stating, flat out, that those pushing these charges, including those repeatedly re-posting these hit piece articles ad nauseum, are either being duped or are acting in the interests of the opposition. I'm stating flat out that Daniel Ellsberg was/is a traitor and was lionized for doing it while this woman is not a patriot, but instead a political appointee of the Clintons, and if anyone "outed" her they didn't break any law, intentionally or not. She isn't an "agent" in any sense of the word.
Ignorance is not an excuse. High dudgeon isn't a moral postion but a refuge for the ignorant. You serve your masters by your actions, not your intentions. You aren't serving the forces of good by your actions. I have to questoiin your intentions.
as Maxwell Smart was famous for saying, "sorry about that, chief."
humble apologies.
No one knows yet whether such intimidation will work, but recently retired intelligence and foreign service officials and military officers, and a growing number of anonymous active-duty officials, have indeed been talking to the media about the shenanigans within the administration..." http://www.thetip.org/art_We_Wondered_What_They_Were_Up_TO____472_icle.html
But then again consider the source/messenger..Doesn't anyone report the FACTS ANYMORE?? (sifts and grumbles..grumbles and sifts thru the silt!)
By his own admission he first consulted with our ambassador to Niger, who felt "she had already debunked" the report of Niger's attempted sale. Mr. Wilson then spent eight days "drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people." His conclusion: "It did not take long to conclude it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."
Because Mr. Wilson, by his own admission, never wrote a report, we only have his self-serving op-ed article in the New York Times to go by. He also noted that "Niger formally denied the charges." He said there "should be" documents reporting on his unwritten briefings and that there should be a written summary of his views to the vice president ("which may have been delivered orally"), but that he has never seen any of these reports.
If we are to rely on this kind of sloppy tea-drinking "investigation" from a CIA-chosen investigator--a retired ambassador with a less than stellar record--then I would say that the CIA deserves some of the criticism it normally receives.--CASPAR W. WEINBERGER
Friday, July 18, 2003 12:01 a.m.
OJ
Just some background you know but others may not...and a good blog rundown as well.
Not exactly.
Wilson was busy writing for "The Nation" on the eve of war. His piece was written after the SOTU speech. See? He had gone to Niger on his tea-sipping "mission" and heard the president's speech and then writes an anti-war column but does not make his later accusation that the president was presenting a false basis for war.
Republic or Empire? February 13 2003
Then Wilson appears on tv with Bill Moyers. In fact, Wilson agrees Saddam has WMD:
In Depth — Transcript, February 28, 2003, Bill Moyers talks with Joseph C. Wilson, IV
It is clear to me that his editorial, published I believe at the beginning of July, was belated spin meant to undermine the Bush administration.
What kind of loyalty does a CIA "operative" (was she covert or undercover, or is that being thrown into the pot to raise the level of the charge?) have whose spouse is engaging in such behavior, some of it most definitely deceptive?
Care to expound on your "thought?
It's rather silly and the original post is spot on.
You should be concerned that each and every story, that I've read today at least, has misrepresented what President Bush said in his SOTU speech. He did not mention Niger and he did not rely on Wilson, he specifically said that British Intelligence has information that Iraq has been attempting to obtain uranium from Africa.
Now, did you know that Joseph Wilson knew that just a few years ago that Iraq was in fact attempting to open trade relations with Niger? Do you know what Niger's #1 export is?
Just guess.
(I hope you guessed uranium)
Oh, and Wilson omitted that little factoid in his little op-ed last July.
Yes, I find it curious and you can be sure that this administration's boat is not sinking.
They most definitely did not. Cheney, nor anyone in the WH, was even apprised of what Wilson had to say upon his return. He had no idea the man had even been sent.
I'll just add that I've seen Ari a couple times since he left and he was effusive in his praise of President Bush. Clearly he respects him very much.
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.