Libby: Bush authorized the Plame leak
- Thread starter Beren
- Start date
- Status
Kodiaz
member
If he serves the last minute af the last day of the last year of his full term. Then next Dem. president will serve theirs no matter what they do.
Do you really want that?
Do you really want that?
seeker_two
Member
R.H. Lee said:
Agreed. Besides, there is SO MUCH MORE to impeach Bush over...
Kodiaz
member
Lee PM me so I can give you my dad's number and you 2 can talk about George W. the greatest president ever.
So when Hillary says she's going to use domestic spying to register guns that will be ok because like Bush said it's just a piece of paper.
So when Hillary let's in 30 million more socialists and makes them citizens that's ok.
So when Hillary pulls out national healthcare and pays for it with more deficit spending hey that's cool because G W was into funny money as well.
So when Hillary says no more Bill of Rights that's ok because she has super war powers.
Come on Bush is a liberal stop cheerleading. Every abuse of power that Bush has done will be done when the next Pres is elected and Repubs have screwed the pooch so bad that they have no chance now.
The next Pres will be a dem and the house and senate will be dem too.
So when Hillary says she's going to use domestic spying to register guns that will be ok because like Bush said it's just a piece of paper.
So when Hillary let's in 30 million more socialists and makes them citizens that's ok.
So when Hillary pulls out national healthcare and pays for it with more deficit spending hey that's cool because G W was into funny money as well.
So when Hillary says no more Bill of Rights that's ok because she has super war powers.
Come on Bush is a liberal stop cheerleading. Every abuse of power that Bush has done will be done when the next Pres is elected and Repubs have screwed the pooch so bad that they have no chance now.
The next Pres will be a dem and the house and senate will be dem too.
jfruser,
I would take anything rubber stamped by people like Pat Roberts and John D Rockefeller with even less than a pinch of salt. A pinch of sand would do. Some of the hingepins of the Bush administration's position have been crooks like Mr Chalabi and national security risks like Douglas Feith.
And none of this addresses or justifies why Plame's status was "leaked".
----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
I would take anything rubber stamped by people like Pat Roberts and John D Rockefeller with even less than a pinch of salt. A pinch of sand would do. Some of the hingepins of the Bush administration's position have been crooks like Mr Chalabi and national security risks like Douglas Feith.
And none of this addresses or justifies why Plame's status was "leaked".
----------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Here's a story written by "we-hate-Bush-liberal-lefty" Ray McGovern; who just happened to have been a senior CIA analyst under "we-hate-Bush-liberal-lefty" President Ronald Reagan among others.
Despite the fact that the "we-hate-Bush-liberal-lefty" media have been begging Ray McGovern to appear on their news shows and write editorials for them, he has been "way too busy and had to turn them all down for many years".
So instead we just have to settle for his writings in Counterpunch ......
-------------------------
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06272003.html
June 27, 2003
Cheney, Forgery and the CIA
Not Business as Usual
By RAY McGOVERN
former CIA Analyst
As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.
During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush and other very senior policy-makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.
The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy-makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy-makers at the table.
Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested--until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.
Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, claimed that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons."
At the time, CIA analysts were involved in a knock-down, drag-out argument with the Pentagon on this very point. Most of the nuclear engineers at the CIA, and virtually all scientists at U.S. government laboratories and the International Atomic Energy Agency, found no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program.
But the vice president had spoken. Sad to say, those in charge of the draft National Intelligence Estimate took their cue and stated, falsely, that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
Smoke was blown about aluminum tubes sought by Iraq that, it turns out, were for conventional weapons programs. The rest amounted to things like Hussein's frequent meetings with nuclear scientists and Iraq's foot-dragging in providing information to U.N. inspectors.
Not much heed was paid to the fact that Hussein's son-in-law, who supervised Iraq's nuclear program before he defected in 1995, had told interrogators that Iraq's nuclear capability--save the blueprints--had been destroyed in 1991 at his order. (Documents given to the United States this week confirm that. The Iraqi scientists who provided them added that, even though the blueprints would have given Iraq a head start, no order was given to restart the program; and even had such an order been given, Iraq would still have been years away from producing a nuclear weapon.)
In sum, the evidence presented in last September's intelligence estimate fell far short of what was required to support Cheney's claim that Iraq was on the road to a nuclear weapon. Something scarier had to be produced, and quickly, if Congress was to be persuaded to authorize war. And so the decision was made to dust off the uranium-from-Niger canard.
The White House calculated--correctly--that before anyone would make an issue of the fact that this key piece of "intelligence" was based on a forgery, Congress would vote yes. The war could then be waged and won. In recent weeks, administration officials have begun spreading the word that Cheney was never told the Iraq-Niger story was based on a forgery. I asked a senior official who recently served at the National Security Council if he thought that was possible. He pointed out that rigorous NSC procedures call for a very specific response to all vice presidential questions and added that "the fact that Cheney's office had originally asked that the Iraq-Niger report be checked out makes it inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results."
Did the president himself know that the information used to secure congressional approval for war was based on a forgery? We don't know. But which would be worse--that he knew or that he didn't?
----------
Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst from 1964 to 1990, regularly reported to the vice president and senior policy-makers on the President's Daily Brief from 1981 to 1985. He now is co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington. He can be reached at: [email protected].
------------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Despite the fact that the "we-hate-Bush-liberal-lefty" media have been begging Ray McGovern to appear on their news shows and write editorials for them, he has been "way too busy and had to turn them all down for many years".
So instead we just have to settle for his writings in Counterpunch ......
-------------------------
http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern06272003.html
June 27, 2003
Cheney, Forgery and the CIA
Not Business as Usual
By RAY McGOVERN
former CIA Analyst
As though this were normal! I mean the repeated visits Vice President Dick Cheney made to the CIA before the war in Iraq. The visits were, in fact, unprecedented. During my 27-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, no vice president ever came to us for a working visit.
During the '80s, it was my privilege to brief Vice President George H.W. Bush and other very senior policy-makers every other morning. I went either to the vice president's office or (on weekends) to his home. I am sure it never occurred to him to come to CIA headquarters.
The morning briefings gave us an excellent window on what was uppermost in the minds of those senior officials and helped us refine our tasks of collection and analysis. Thus, there was never any need for policy-makers to visit us. And the very thought of a vice president dropping by to help us with our analysis is extraordinary. We preferred to do that work without the pressure that inevitably comes from policy-makers at the table.
Cheney got into the operational side of intelligence as well. Reports in late 2001 that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger stirred such intense interest that his office let it be known he wanted them checked out. So, with the CIA as facilitator, a retired U.S. ambassador was dispatched to Niger in February 2002 to investigate. He found nothing to substantiate the report and lots to call it into question. There the matter rested--until last summer, after the Bush administration made the decision for war in Iraq.
Cheney, in a speech on Aug. 26, 2002, claimed that Saddam Hussein had "resumed his effort to acquire nuclear weapons."
At the time, CIA analysts were involved in a knock-down, drag-out argument with the Pentagon on this very point. Most of the nuclear engineers at the CIA, and virtually all scientists at U.S. government laboratories and the International Atomic Energy Agency, found no reliable evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program.
But the vice president had spoken. Sad to say, those in charge of the draft National Intelligence Estimate took their cue and stated, falsely, that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."
Smoke was blown about aluminum tubes sought by Iraq that, it turns out, were for conventional weapons programs. The rest amounted to things like Hussein's frequent meetings with nuclear scientists and Iraq's foot-dragging in providing information to U.N. inspectors.
Not much heed was paid to the fact that Hussein's son-in-law, who supervised Iraq's nuclear program before he defected in 1995, had told interrogators that Iraq's nuclear capability--save the blueprints--had been destroyed in 1991 at his order. (Documents given to the United States this week confirm that. The Iraqi scientists who provided them added that, even though the blueprints would have given Iraq a head start, no order was given to restart the program; and even had such an order been given, Iraq would still have been years away from producing a nuclear weapon.)
In sum, the evidence presented in last September's intelligence estimate fell far short of what was required to support Cheney's claim that Iraq was on the road to a nuclear weapon. Something scarier had to be produced, and quickly, if Congress was to be persuaded to authorize war. And so the decision was made to dust off the uranium-from-Niger canard.
The White House calculated--correctly--that before anyone would make an issue of the fact that this key piece of "intelligence" was based on a forgery, Congress would vote yes. The war could then be waged and won. In recent weeks, administration officials have begun spreading the word that Cheney was never told the Iraq-Niger story was based on a forgery. I asked a senior official who recently served at the National Security Council if he thought that was possible. He pointed out that rigorous NSC procedures call for a very specific response to all vice presidential questions and added that "the fact that Cheney's office had originally asked that the Iraq-Niger report be checked out makes it inconceivable that his office would not have been informed of the results."
Did the president himself know that the information used to secure congressional approval for war was based on a forgery? We don't know. But which would be worse--that he knew or that he didn't?
----------
Ray McGovern, a CIA analyst from 1964 to 1990, regularly reported to the vice president and senior policy-makers on the President's Daily Brief from 1981 to 1985. He now is co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington. He can be reached at: [email protected].
------------------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
Clearly this McGovern dude is a deranged Bush hater. He's probably a cross-dressing Commie, too. After all, how could any reasonable person despise this morally glowing administration?
LAK:
So, you did not read any of the report on the role of intel failures leading to the decision to go to war in Iraq? Or you do not find the report believeable? If the latter, I would kindly appreciate it if you & yours would refrain from quoting the portions that are damning WRT GWB & his administration as a geture of intellectual consistency & honesty.
I guess you also are not impressed with documentary evidence to include internal CIA memos written by Valerie Plame herself that contradicts her husband's writings and statements? Or statements by Joe Wilson himself that he had misspoken about some of his bogus claims?
One wonders just what evidence you would find acceptable.
As to the reason why JW's wife's occupation was an issue, the third paragraph below is as good an explanation as any:
So, you did not read any of the report on the role of intel failures leading to the decision to go to war in Iraq? Or you do not find the report believeable? If the latter, I would kindly appreciate it if you & yours would refrain from quoting the portions that are damning WRT GWB & his administration as a geture of intellectual consistency & honesty.
I guess you also are not impressed with documentary evidence to include internal CIA memos written by Valerie Plame herself that contradicts her husband's writings and statements? Or statements by Joe Wilson himself that he had misspoken about some of his bogus claims?
One wonders just what evidence you would find acceptable.
As to the reason why JW's wife's occupation was an issue, the third paragraph below is as good an explanation as any:
http://www.slate.com/id/2122963/ said:
RealGun
Member
Those who suffer from BDS never let go and are oblivious to counter arguments.
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
The answer, as always, is in the question. In fact, no reasonable person can despise this administration. George W. Bush is the greatest president of this millenium. The barking moonbats who refuse to recognize reality are the ones who are full of hatred and anger.
I'm sorta curious as to what makes George W. Bush the "greatest president of the Millinium."
Is it his ability to take a large national budget surplus and turn it into a record debt and create a nation financed by former enemies?
Is it his ability to create a situation where the cost of oil has created havoc on the entire world.
Or maybe its his expertise in appointing "responsibility ignorant" croonies which have led us into a no win war which has cost this country over 2000 US military lives. Those who have forced the retirement of many of this countries best military leaders and those who bang their heads on the wall trying to communicate with other egotistical idiots while a major American city floods.
Could be its his charismatic personality which has demoralized the american public to the point that very few have any confidence in his ability to govern.
And certainly one would have to consider his proven abiiltiy to isolate the United States from most of the world to the point that it is dangerous for an American citizen to travel, anyplace in the world.
Thats the great GWB:banghead:
Is it his ability to take a large national budget surplus and turn it into a record debt and create a nation financed by former enemies?
Is it his ability to create a situation where the cost of oil has created havoc on the entire world.
Or maybe its his expertise in appointing "responsibility ignorant" croonies which have led us into a no win war which has cost this country over 2000 US military lives. Those who have forced the retirement of many of this countries best military leaders and those who bang their heads on the wall trying to communicate with other egotistical idiots while a major American city floods.
Could be its his charismatic personality which has demoralized the american public to the point that very few have any confidence in his ability to govern.
And certainly one would have to consider his proven abiiltiy to isolate the United States from most of the world to the point that it is dangerous for an American citizen to travel, anyplace in the world.
Thats the great GWB:banghead:
robertbank
Member
Camp David
member
Who is saying that or is that your strawman you created? :banghead:BIGJACK said:
Combination of war, recession, and retooling America's security apparatus proved expensive. Perhaps you would prefer a balanced budget and more planes flying into your neighborhood buildings?BIGJACK said:
Not sure what you meant here? Perhaps you could elaborate...BIGJACK said:
The president does not control wholesale oil prices; it is managed and set by a cartel.BIGJACK said:
Lincoln's war in 1860 cost this nation 600,000 lives and they later built a monument to him on the National Mall. Lives lost in the pursuit of freedom do not detract from the validity of the mission.BIGJACK said:
Who retired?BIGJACK said:
Actually Governor Babco did nothing at all, Mayor Chocolate did nothing except take firearms from law abiding citizens, and the Federal Government was ill-prepared to assist. You should however apportion some blame to the hurricane as I understand it was partly responsible!BIGJACK said:
Actually his polls reflect normally for a second-term president fighting an overseas war. Nationally, his economic policies have done well for the economy, yet the ongoing war drag down his numbers in polling. Insofar as his "charismatic personality" which you sarcastically cite, I would far rather have Bush than Clinton anyday!BIGJACK said:
Two words: Leon Klinghoffer. It has always been dangerous for Americans to travel abroad, no more so now than ever before. Seems a good reason to be patriotic and save your travel/vacation money for domestic travel to our great National Parks and keep money in this nation, rather than giving it to foreigners!!!BIGJACK said:
Lobotomy Boy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2004
- Messages
- 2,449
CD, Bigjack's "strawman" was Shermacman, whom he was directly quoting.
I agree with some of what you are saying, but I think that the following statement:
is getting mighty hard to back up. The Bush administration is compiling such an incredible record of incompetence that it seems more and more likely that the only reason we haven't been attacked again is dumb luck. The fear card is starting to wear thin, and only works for those who are so timid that they have to wear disposable undergarments when driving in heavy traffic.
I agree with some of what you are saying, but I think that the following statement:
is getting mighty hard to back up. The Bush administration is compiling such an incredible record of incompetence that it seems more and more likely that the only reason we haven't been attacked again is dumb luck. The fear card is starting to wear thin, and only works for those who are so timid that they have to wear disposable undergarments when driving in heavy traffic.
Camp David
member
Lobotomy Boy said:
I suppose that is your opinion but I don't share it. Too many people, in government within Homeland Security, in intelligence within the CIA and FBI, and at DoD within the Armed Services, are working hard to prevent further acts of domestic terrorism for it to be prevented by simply "dumb luck" in my opinion.
RecoilRob
Member
Clinton NEVER had a surplus..
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
Could any of the 'Bush squandered the surplus' people please explain where the previous administration actually HAD a surplus?
They PROJECTED a surplus based on a gross overestimation (read lie) of the US economy but never, never actually paid down the debt.
Yes, they had much publicised "we paid down the debt" news conferences, but didn't bother to say that the debt went back up the next day. It goes up and down daily and the Bush Administration could have had dozens of PR events saying that the debt went down millions, even billions on this or that day. But, they are honest and would not stoop that far trying to dupe the dupeable.
Sorry, there never was a Clinton 'surplus'.
Oh, if you want to see the figures, go to Debt Clock. Remember it was always featured at the end of the Nightly News with about 15 seconds of "the Debt is STILL RISING". Once Clinton was elected, the Debt Clock was banished from the News. Not needed any more because the smear campaign was finished.
But, happily, the Debt Clock people are still there watching over every penny. Good read if you are brave enough to admit the truth.
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
Could any of the 'Bush squandered the surplus' people please explain where the previous administration actually HAD a surplus?
They PROJECTED a surplus based on a gross overestimation (read lie) of the US economy but never, never actually paid down the debt.
Yes, they had much publicised "we paid down the debt" news conferences, but didn't bother to say that the debt went back up the next day. It goes up and down daily and the Bush Administration could have had dozens of PR events saying that the debt went down millions, even billions on this or that day. But, they are honest and would not stoop that far trying to dupe the dupeable.
Sorry, there never was a Clinton 'surplus'.
Oh, if you want to see the figures, go to Debt Clock. Remember it was always featured at the end of the Nightly News with about 15 seconds of "the Debt is STILL RISING". Once Clinton was elected, the Debt Clock was banished from the News. Not needed any more because the smear campaign was finished.
But, happily, the Debt Clock people are still there watching over every penny. Good read if you are brave enough to admit the truth.
gc70
Member
Wow, that is incredible; I had no idea that GWB was single-handedly responsible for China's recent boom in economic activity.
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
RecoilBob
Please, in the future do not post facts. It disturbs those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Makes 'em think strange thoughts.
But for those who do not yet suffer from BDS, look at this little graph of National Debt, especially compare it to the Clinton years:
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DebtAsPercentofGDP1940-2009.gif
Please, in the future do not post facts. It disturbs those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome. Makes 'em think strange thoughts.
But for those who do not yet suffer from BDS, look at this little graph of National Debt, especially compare it to the Clinton years:
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/DebtAsPercentofGDP1940-2009.gif
robertbank
Member
The graph you posted is not the national debt but rather the national debt as a percentage of GDP. They are not the same thing.
Take Care
Take Care
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
Well, RobertBank, what would you think is the correct format for 60 years of economic analysis? Post a better comparison.
robertbank
Member
Debt as a percentage of GDP is an important measurement to be sure but debt is debt. If government income ever reaches the point where income just meets or fails to meet interest totals a country is effectively bankrupt. It reached that point in New Zealand a number of years ago and Canada came very close to it over a decade ago.
If the numbers posted in Recoilrobs post are correct, then post the resultant graph that would reflect the annual debt - not the total debt but the annual debt. A simple search on google should give you the total annual accumulated debt for each year, graph those totals and you have a graphic display of the growth of the US National Debt which is what I think you were trying to convey. If you want a simple example of the effects of deficits then look no further than the US dollars value against other currencies or somewhat more simple what the dollar will buy. Deficit financing works as long as you can convince somebody to buy your bonds. What scares me is that the third largest holder of US debt is China - if it scares me - it ought to frighten the hell out of Americans.
ps Recoil please find me a government in the western world that does not overestimate income and underestimate expenses when they present their budgets. You can call it a lie, I suspect it is no more than one can expect from the idiots we elect. Predicting a deficit of 10 and achieving a deficit of 20 is no less a "lie" just numbers and for you and I unimaginable numbers - unless you can imagine a trillion....I can't.
Take Care
Take Care
If the numbers posted in Recoilrobs post are correct, then post the resultant graph that would reflect the annual debt - not the total debt but the annual debt. A simple search on google should give you the total annual accumulated debt for each year, graph those totals and you have a graphic display of the growth of the US National Debt which is what I think you were trying to convey. If you want a simple example of the effects of deficits then look no further than the US dollars value against other currencies or somewhat more simple what the dollar will buy. Deficit financing works as long as you can convince somebody to buy your bonds. What scares me is that the third largest holder of US debt is China - if it scares me - it ought to frighten the hell out of Americans.
ps Recoil please find me a government in the western world that does not overestimate income and underestimate expenses when they present their budgets. You can call it a lie, I suspect it is no more than one can expect from the idiots we elect. Predicting a deficit of 10 and achieving a deficit of 20 is no less a "lie" just numbers and for you and I unimaginable numbers - unless you can imagine a trillion....I can't.
Take Care
Take Care
CAnnoneer
Member
When people talk about Clinton's surplus, they mean surplus in the yearly budget and thus a shrinking national debt, rather than an overall surplus of national credit. Maybe some get it all mixed up, but it remains undeniable that Slick Billy did balance the budget and generate a surplus towards paying the debt.
It amazes me that after all the damage this gangster administration has done in virtually all aspects of government, there are still people that staunchly support and defend it.
It amazes me that after all the damage this gangster administration has done in virtually all aspects of government, there are still people that staunchly support and defend it.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
jfruser:
Oh, and I hope you don't think that I am swayed by what "the bigwigs of both parties thought." Surely, you're aware that "the bigwigs of both parties" believe in "reasonable" gun control.
There's a "Bush derangement syndrome" around here, all right.
OK, I "perused" the pages. I don't see the "evisceration" you claimed. Some differences of opinion, that's all. I see some other sources agree with your assessment. Maybe they're right. It doesn't matter, though. Wilson could have been completely wrong in his assessment and what he wrote later. His wife was still an undercover CIA agent, and someone in the administration outed her. That looks to me like a "high crime or misdemeanor."
Oh, and I hope you don't think that I am swayed by what "the bigwigs of both parties thought." Surely, you're aware that "the bigwigs of both parties" believe in "reasonable" gun control.
There's a "Bush derangement syndrome" around here, all right.
jfruser
Let's talk about intellectual consistancy and honesty, and take just one example in the form of Douglas Feith. If George W Bush can claim ignorance to Feith's background, and then subsequent activities and conduct in the WH, he can not claim to be ignorant after the fact of the implications over the whole Iraq picture.
Neither can he absolve himself of the responsibility of using the Iraq-Niger issue as one of the pretexts for the invasion of a sovereign nation. Instead of pushing Stephen Hadley front and center to be the fall guy later, why did he not simply take responsibility and step down?
British intelligence is not something I would take even with the proverbial pinch of sand either, as they have the greatest interest in the region at stake than anyone else in this picture. Chalabi was a good example of what we could have expected from them and the unhealthy relationship between the WH and London.
I have seen a filmed interview with Wilson, and it is obvious that he has been under immense pressure - with practically no allies within the "Republican" party nor the "Democratic" party. For him to have concocted the main substance of his views over the invasion and war to place himself precisely in this position of political and occupational isolation makes no sense at all.
Whether Plame and Wilson had different views over some of the minutae concerning how important Plame was in Wilson investigating the Niger issue is a rather trivial issue.
An analogy applied between a phoney document used as a pretext for war and counterfeit currency is absurd. And when it comes down to brass tacks; if Niger was truly attempting to deal in dangerous substances to North Korea, Libya, Iraq and Iran - and possibly others - why not invade Niger?
--------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
"Intel failures"? That's a cute understatement; more like fraudulent intelligence and gross misrepresentations on the part of the WH.
Let's talk about intellectual consistancy and honesty, and take just one example in the form of Douglas Feith. If George W Bush can claim ignorance to Feith's background, and then subsequent activities and conduct in the WH, he can not claim to be ignorant after the fact of the implications over the whole Iraq picture.
Neither can he absolve himself of the responsibility of using the Iraq-Niger issue as one of the pretexts for the invasion of a sovereign nation. Instead of pushing Stephen Hadley front and center to be the fall guy later, why did he not simply take responsibility and step down?
British intelligence is not something I would take even with the proverbial pinch of sand either, as they have the greatest interest in the region at stake than anyone else in this picture. Chalabi was a good example of what we could have expected from them and the unhealthy relationship between the WH and London.
I would find it more suspect if Plame's and Wilson's stories and opinions matched in every detail. But in an age when fake documents are so routine, why should anyone be impressed anymore?
I have seen a filmed interview with Wilson, and it is obvious that he has been under immense pressure - with practically no allies within the "Republican" party nor the "Democratic" party. For him to have concocted the main substance of his views over the invasion and war to place himself precisely in this position of political and occupational isolation makes no sense at all.
Whether Plame and Wilson had different views over some of the minutae concerning how important Plame was in Wilson investigating the Niger issue is a rather trivial issue.
An analogy applied between a phoney document used as a pretext for war and counterfeit currency is absurd. And when it comes down to brass tacks; if Niger was truly attempting to deal in dangerous substances to North Korea, Libya, Iraq and Iran - and possibly others - why not invade Niger?
--------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
- Status
