Karl Rove: Traitor?

Then according to you, the statement reduces to if someone broke the law, they should be punished. Big deal. That isn’t news. You want to emphasize broke the law. But that emphasis doesn’t change the meaning at all. That emphasis doesn’t do anything. But with the emphasis on IF then the meaning of the statement changes. That is what I was pointing out. Fitzgerald, like all special prosecutors is looking at anything and everything related to the case. You don’t know the areas that are being examined. I posed the question about whether Plame was covert because it has been speculated in various media sources and in the original article. Novak didn’t believe she was covert which is why he used her name. The question remains and I’m sure Fitzgerald isn’t going to overlook it.I’ll say it again. The investigation will determine whether a crime was committed and also whether Plame was covert at the time such that outing her by Rove was a crime. There are several pieces of evidence that Fitzgerald will no doubt explore including a memo written by an INR (Intelligence and Research) analyst who made notes of the meeting with Plame at which it was discussed that Wilson go to Niger.The analyst seemed to sense that something fishy was going on and the report made it to the outside world courtesy of some whistleblower in the CIA that realized something wasn’t right about Plames recommendation.Novak’s column was written 15 months after this CIA memo was leaked and only confirmed what many inside the beltway already knew: Valerie Plame, a CIA employee had actively promoted Wilson for the trip to Niger.The memo which was leaked 15 months before Novak’s article might end up going a long way to show that Plame had already been outed and that Rove was correct when he characterized Plame as fair game because it was already public knowledge.It looks like Plame was exposed by the leaked CIA memo and not the Novak article or by Rove. This outing occurred far sooner than the timeline Wilson suggests. The classified document that slipped out sometime after the meeting put her name before the public, albeit a small group of inside-the-beltway types, but it effectively ended the notion that she was still covert.This is why the CIA asked DOJ for an investigation. One of their own had leaked the memo. This memo along with other info needs to be investigated to determine when Plame was outed.If it occurred long before the Novak article and long before Rove had any discussions with journalist about the matter, wouldn’t that exonerate Rove? The article is timely coming after Novak and Wilson had published articles. You believe the issue is settled and that she was a covert agent who was outed by Rove. It's certainly true that you can find tons of media reports saying that she was covert at the time of Novak’s articles, but that doesn’t make it true.At the end of the article is the story you referenced about starting an investigation. Having the DOJ start an investigation does not automatically make the case that she was covert. It simply means just what it means, that an investigation has started in part to determine if she was truely covert at the time or if she had been outed long before Rove ever got involved.There are numerous blogs suggesting that Novak was contacted by a CIA delegate that told him Plame was a CIA agent. But here is what Novak said about the CIA discussion:

quote:

---

He [the CIA contact] never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

---

Like I said previously, just because everyone says covert operative doesn’t make it so. Here is more from Novak: :

quote:

---

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

---

If she was such a big covert spy, why did her full name appear in Who’s Who in America as working for the CIA long before Novak wrote the article that supposedly outed her? Wouldn’t this suggest that she not covert? I understand your position on this. Without supporting your assertions, it’s easy to make up or twist the facts anyway you choose and if anyone questions your so called quotes all you need say is go look it up.I thought forum guidelines required support for your assertions, yet I have never seen an admin call you on it. I shouldn’t be surprised given the political climate on this forum and the length of some of your post. Would it be Ok if I simply stop sourcing my assertions and just say to anyone who asks, Don’t bother me with such trivia, it’s easily obtainable, go look it up yourself. Now here a perfect case in point about sources. I could say to you as you say to me, I don’t have the time to cut and paste easily obtainable info, go look it up yourself. But because I tend to follow forum guidelines, I’ll post some support for my assertion that Wilson was a partisan hack long before this whole affair with Plame.Wilson was good friends with Al Gore and actively worked for his campaign during the 2000 election. Wilson and Gore have maintained their friendship for many years. Here is an excerpt from Wilson’s book

quote:

---

I had remained in regular contact with my friends Al Gore and Tom Foley, now Speaker of the House, since the invasion. Gore had been the first person outside the State Department to be in touch with me. Though he had been in the midst of his Senate reelection campaign, he took time out of his schedule to reach out to me and offer his support. It was a gesture I have never forgotten.
He also asked me to keep him informed about the situation as it evolved. I telephoned him, and later Foley, regularly throughout the crisis, from an open line in my office, hopeful that Iraqi intelligence was listening in on my tough talk with two of my country’s elected leaders. I wanted Saddam to know that the United States was deadly serious about the liberation of Kuwait and was willing to use force if necessary.

---

Joe Wilson worked for Al Gore and Tom Foley and was a known opponent of the plan to invade Iraq. This should have disqualified him for a trip to find evidence in support of the invasion of Iraq, but the CIA missed it in large part because his wife pushed his recommendation through CIA channels and no one questioned it.Wilson firmly believed that the Iraq invasion was a bad idea, so he would not have had much interest in turning up evidence that supported the invasion. He would have wanted to corroborate his position that the invasion was a bad idea.Can you now admit that Wilson was a Democratic partisan long before his run in with Bush and Rove? But it wasn’t good service Holmes, Wilson is a liar and it has been proven to be the case in the Senate Intelligience Commitee reports that he was a liar. He worked on both the Gore campaign and the Kerry campaigns and did not have an interest in seriously investigating the situation in Niger. He was and is a partisan hack. No Holmes, the administration only claimed that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium and that is what Wilson was supposed to investigate.Wilson admitted that it was true that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger. They didn’t actually proceed with the sale and the uranium was never transferred to iraq, but Iraq sure was trying to get their hands on it.Doesn’t it bother you to know that here is proof that in 1998 Iraq was trying desperately to get their hands on this uranium to make a nuke. They didn’t succeed but they sure did try. It was Wilson himself who told his CIA contacts that Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.This shows that Iraq was not going to be deterred with regards to WMD’s and that despite sanctions, UN mandates, no fly zones, and all the rest, they were actively seeking uranium for their nukes as late as 1998. In fact, they were seeking nuclear material at the same time that Clinton was bombing them with cruise missles.I noticed you skipped over all of the other cases where it has been proven that Joe Wilson is a liar. Here is a brief synopsis;

• Wilson lied when he said the CIA told the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
  ​
• Wilson lied when he said his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger
  ​
• Wilson lied when he said the Niger intelligence documents had dates and names wrong.
  ​
• Wilson lied when he reported to the Senate Intel Commitee that Iraq had not made inquiries into the purchase of urnium from Niger. They did so in 1998-1999
  ​
• Wilson lied in the Washington Post article dated July 17, 2004 when he again repeated that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger.

The Senate Intelligience Comittee report gives a scathing rebuke of Wilson’s shoddy reporting. Do you deny that the Intelligience Committe had serious issues with the information provided by Wilson?Is the Senate Committee lying or is it Wilson?You summed up your points as follows: Regarding point 1),
Yes, Wilson was right about Niger. It is true, as Wilson said, that the Iraqis had tried to purchase uranium from Niger. So when the President said that the Iraqi tried to purchase uranium from Niger in his State of the Union address 2003, the President was telling the truth. He wasn’t lying to the American people. The sale did not go through, but the attempt to purchase was made. The problem is that Wilson twists this fact. Wilson claims feigned shock that the President used the Niger connection. He went to Niger to investigate whether the sale had actually occurred and he correctly reported that it hadn’t. Yet Wilson has been on talk shows saying that it wasn’t true that Iraq made inquiries to purchase the Niger uranium. They didn’t purchase it, but they sure did try and this is the point that Wilson denies.Regarding point 2)
Wilson was right on Rove in that Rove discussed Wilson’s trip and mentioned his wife to Cooper, although not by name. But that doesn’t mean that Rove was the one that outed Plame. If Rove didn’t out Plame then he is not guilty of any crimes. The investigation is continuing including the investigation into whether Plame was outed by a CIA leak 15 months before the Novak article.Regarding point 3)
Was she a covert agent? That remains to be proven at the time of the Novak article. At one time perhaps she was but there is increasing evidence to suggest that she had already been outed and that this fact was common knowledge among Washington insiders.This message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 07-13-2005 03:39 PM

I'm going to be as nonsarcastic as I can. You attempted to rip apart a career US civil servant, who up until Bush and Co decided to go after him for disagreeing with their intel, was highly regarded by both sides. You attempted to paint him as a biased partisan hack whose only interest is self interest. You also attempted to smear him as a liar due to some apparently conflicting statements, which he had described as misstatements.What you also did was pretend that you were using actual info from/about a Senate Report which unfortunately for you is publicly available.Interestingly enough you cited the source from which you took all this errant info on the report. Yet you did not cite it with your section on the Senate Report and instead cited it down at the bottom about a vanity fair article and how Wilson is making money off the whole issue. Here is your cite: Was this an honest mistake on your part? If I was to not believe Wilson, why is anyone supposed to believe you. I want you to think about that as almost your entire argument was that mistakes should be read as lies.I will now move through the points you made (taken almost entirely from the noted article)... This seems contradictory to everything I am now learning about Wilson Here is a brief bio listed at CBS. From it you will note... and This is in addition to my mentioning in a post to Tal he had been hailed by former president Bush, for being heroic in his work in Iraq.Where am I supposed to get the idea that he is overtly partisan in his behavior, and not a fantastic career civil servant, serving both republicans and democrats equally? Do you have something else besides commentary he made after Rove and Bush attempted to dismiss his statements? I have now provided you links directly to the report. I even provided you with a link that has the report broken into convenient sections so you can focus entirely on the Niger issue. You will find there are no statements indicating that the committee proved his statements false at all. While it was certainly trying to downplay Wilson, more specifically the comments he made in his 2003 article, it was actually more corroborative than anything else. This is from Schmidt's article and not the senate report. You can find a pretty good tear down of Schmidt's article on this claim at this link, though you should scroll down to the section on Schmidt. In it you'll see an excellent analysis which you can compare to the actual report. I could not state it better so here are the highlights... Next you stated the following... Which I'll start by noting is almost directly lifted from the schmidt article. Despite your and her attempt to make his excuse look empty and lame, the committee report allows him to explain himself and it sounds genuine to me. Indeed I have already noted that what Wilson stated in his article was already public knowledge from the UN, so why could this not be true? It appears that he is forthright in admitting his error and with a reasonable explanation of how it could have occured.I did not see any commentary which suggested the senate concluded he was anything other than forthright in that matter and had given misleading information. Can you find it? This is in direct conflict with the senate report... Thus the following is made clear: The Vice President had questions regarding Niger that the CIA was attempting to answer through CPD. Head of CPD took a suggestion from Plame based on Wilson's previous contacts in Niger as well as his work for CIA in Niger. They agreed to a meeting where many intelligence people met with Wilson to discuss the possibility and which Plame had no control over. The CPD heads agreed to give it a shot and supplied Wilson with his agenda.Thus Schmidt's, and your, representation of the facts are completely rebutted by the report itself. As was seen this contention has already been rebutted above. The focus was not just whether Iraq had interest, but whether it was possible to have happened (a specific incident). The following Report passage, confirms this idea... They go on to conclude and blame the CIA (page 74) for not telling Cheney that Wilson had been sent to investigate the incident and what he found, as well as for discussing credibility of Niger sources at the meeting with Wilson and analysts (which would naturally bias them toward scepticism of any disconfirming info).So again it is clear. The CIA, which was already working with errant assumptions, saw no new info or disconfirming info and read into a potential meeting which might have shown interest of confirmation of their theory. The INR saw Wilson's info as making the possible sale much less likely to have happened. It is abundantly evident which position Wilson agreed with, and which ultimately ended up to be true. This had caveats. It was not Wilson who reported the Mayaki interpretation though it was in the intel report disseminated after his trip. Wilson in Committee said Mayaki "never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations"." The report also mentioned that although the meeting happened, Mayaki dropped the issue of expansion because of UN sanctions. Finally, there was also information on the impossibility of such sales to occur from Niger mines, regardless of whether Iraq had expressed interest or Niger wanted to transact such a sale. This "fact" did not appear anywhere except for Schmidt's errant article which you decided to use as a primary source for the Senate Report. It certainly did not appear anywhere in any respectable author's writings nor the Senate report itself.Indeed if you look carefully at Schmidt's outdated article... look to the right side of the page... you will discover a correction, which reads: What are we to make of these incorrect statements you have supplied, tarring an otherwise successful lifelong career civil servant?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It was Ambassador April Glaspie who gave Saddam the go ahead to invade Kuwait and then left Wilson to deal with the consequences.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Care to elaborate on that?

On what, the career of April Glaspie? If you aren't aware of her you certainly should be. Try following her postings and you'll get a tour of US troubles. LOLLook up the available transcripts (there are several, with slight differences between them) and the US State Department has not taken a position so far on their accuracy, specifically they have not denied their general authenticity.The first was published in the Times IIRC around Fall of 1993. The conversation took place in 1990 during the period when Saddam was massing troups on the border with Kuwait.There are several key things.

• the US at the time was supporting Saddam.
• She asked why Iraq was massing troops on the border with Kuwait (duh, Saddam had already claimed Kuwait was part of Iraq).
• Ambassador Glaspie told Saddam that the "US had no interest in Inter-Arab disputes."
  

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I really should let this slide till you have finished reading my last post, and said "thank you sir may I have another", but I figure I might as well get it out of the way now. Are you trying to say it depends on what the meaning of "if" is? I want to know where you got this information. Source please. Not that I doubt it but I am quite interested in following it up. Also, what was so fishy about someone who had worked for the CIA in Niger before and had contacts in Niger, going to Niger again for the CIA to find out info regarding Niger? Because he happened to be married to someone at the meeting? She couldn't decide who would go, and didn't decide that, so what's wrong?What seems fishy is to call a good potential source for info, and indeed who had provided good info, doing something fishy when he is at a meeting to see if he can get that info. How would that exonerate Rove? If it was public knowledge then I guess it might exonerate him of some criminal charges, yet not clear him at all of incredible misconduct using his office. Unless you're going to argue it is correct for politicians to expand the damage done by further disseminating classified info?If it was public knowledge why did the CIA wait until after Novak's article to call the DOJ? And if Rove and Bush knew about it, why did they not begin investigations immediately, instead of using it as "cover" to release details on Plame's connection to Wilson, and discredit him for telling the truth? The CIA told him not to mention her. The idea of her being a covert op ends when the CIA says, hey don't mention her because she's a spy. The same goes if they say, hey don't mention her because that could get a lot of people killed. They told him not to mention her... end of story. You are fumbling your reading. He said her name was known because it was in the book, not that she was listed in it as a spy. He is reaching for an argument that she was already known "name" in general, and also publicly known (in nongovernment circles) as working for the CIA, thus he had a valid reason to think she wasn't a spy and couldn't hurt her by disclosing her identity. Maybe because every time I've been called on it, or when there was a real need to post it in the original argument (I do that sometimes when items may be more esoteric or a particular article must be discussed) I have done so.There is a difference between a person who is reserved with linking to other articles, and yet has them when needed, and those who link to articles with every post and which consistently do not support the argument their supposed to.As it stands, I had already given you a citation. And in the post before this one, I have given you quite a bit of citation. I did look it up by myself, and you seem to have little credibility on this subject. Here is a bio again. It shows a man who has worked for both parties equally well. The idea that his being against Iraq, makes him partisan, only points out your own failings. He also supported a Republican congressman along with Gore during 2000. That is not partisan. Your accusations of his wife pushing anything has already been refuted, but I find this whole argument comical. He was not sent to support the war in Iraq, at least he could not know that. At that time we had no public statements that that is what we were going to do.He was sent on a mission dealing with proliferation, especially that to Iraq which he was a vocal defender regarding keeping in check. How could he know exactly how it would be used and so be biased?In any case you are now recommending retroactively that he should have been "caught" by the CIA as biased due to his political affiliation, despite knowing full well that his information was accurate and at least partially useful. That it never fit in with Bush's line on intel does not make it flawed in any possible way.I want to ask, are you seriously suggesting the CIA is supposed to flush all agents and sources of info based on opposing party affiliation? Or that they are supposed to flush them if they are likely not to bring back data that will fit a preordained conclusion? I submit that the Senate Intelligence Committee report appears to have proven someone a liar, but it is not Wilson. Why on earth didn't you wait until I posted my full rebuttal on this topic? I told you I had already found inconsistencies with your (I mean Schmidt's) claims.Oh you will be smarting tomorrow. I will await your citation of their scathing rebuke. I did not see it, though maybe it was somewhere I missed in the 400 page report.The Senate had some issues with everyone, including Wilson, but nothing that you said they had problems with. The closest was the "names and dates" issue on the forgery. They called him on it, and he said he was wrong and probably misremembered having seen it himself as it was still in his mind from the recent revelation of them as forgeries by the UN.He was not wrong though that they were forgeries and that it was due to what he said, he simply wasn't the one who had done the identification.I might add that was not in his report, and so not a problem with the data he obtained for the CIA. This was an additional line of questioning regarding an article on data which he wrote after the invasion. 1) It really is humiliating when you claim to have read something when you haven't, isn't it? 2) So if someone commits a crime, it was okay for Rove to increase the damage, or at the very least take advantage of a legal loophole made by a criminal in order to smear someone who actually spoke the truth? 3) So it was common knowledge that a crime had been commited against a covert CIA agent and no one did anything? Especially in the administration? And you are serious arguing that means that member's of this administration shouldn't be held to account (politically if not legally)? I remember an impeachment over a blowjob denial.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Monk hadn't blamed Wilson for that yet, so it is a side issue. I am content to have rebutted his points using the Senate report as well as a correction he didn't notice on the outdated source of his opinions.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Except that the Senate Intelligence Comitte exposed him as a fraud.

---

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrongDo you know what your DNC stands for?

Can you point me to where this happens? In other words, can you provide support for this assertion? If it has already been brought up in the thread, can you direct me to it please?

Washington PostThis message has been edited by Tal, 07-14-2005 12:49 PM

---

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrongDo you know what your DNC stands for?

Well that’s good to know that you don’t think I’m a liar. Generally the same is true of my opinion of you except when you intentionally give false information to prove your point. With regards to Wilson, I have shown in several references with links to several different sources where and when Wilson has lied. He has done it repeatedly and often over the past several years in an ever increasing attempt to publicize the whole affair for the financial benefit of himself and his wife. The more publicity there is, the greater interest in his book and the more money he can reap.And as he and Plame have publicily announced, their hope is that the whole mess turns into a made for TV movie or maybe even a major motion picture in which case Wilson and wife would hit the jackpot. They have publicly speculated on who might be a good candidate to play the role of Plame. The same thing that happens when I disprove your arguments except that I don’t ignore it as you repeatedly do. Good! Glad you could do a little research and cite actual sources as the basis of your arguments instead of just making its up as you go along. I’m also glad you feel the need to personally let others know what you are doing. Since those others can’t read. In the world of Holmes, those "others" need their fearless leader to help them understand what the bad man is saying. You seem to want to maintain a running dialog or progress report with your avid fans on this forum by letting them know how you are doing, how you perceive yourself to be winning, and how you’re really going to give it to me. You do this by simply saying it. You use terms like thank you sir may I have another,. In essence you are saying just wait till I go through the Senate report Monk, boy you’re in trouble now. ---sigh--- Don’t you think this approach is a little childish?Why do you do this? Why post these kinds of statements? This entire post is advertising for you about what your are going to say instead of just saying it. Readers on this forum are intelligent enough to follow a debate. They don’t need an update from you. I’ve said this on numerous occasions, you must be insecure to have to tell people about what you are saying in the discussion as if they can’t read it for themselves. Your entire post here and my rebuttal is a waste of time, and I apologize to the Admins for this but you force me to address it because you posted it. That brings up another point.You seem to believe that quantity over quality wins debates. You post volumes Holmes. If nothing else, you are a prolific writer. But being prolific doesn’t say anything at all about the validity or truthfulness of your posts. I sometimes think your main strategy is simply to throw everything but the kitchen sink at your debates in the hope that your opponent will be overwhelmed at the sheer volume of the text and will simply give up and walk away. Just look at my post in Message 66 You replied not once, not twice, but in three separate posts before I’ve had a chance to rebut the first reply. Forgive me if I’m a little slow with replies, but you force me to be slow.If you had posted one reply and waited for a response, you would have had it before now. But with three separate posts, I need to go though all three to ensure that I’m consistent in my responses. The other problem this creates is past posting. In this environment, the debate dissolves into confusion with each of us posting past the other.The sad truth is that more often than not, your strategy works. But don’t you think it’s a shallow victory? Do you draw satisfaction by declaring yourself a debate winner not because of the quality of your arguments but because of the disgust and abject resignation of your opponent? This doesn’t seem to bother you because when that happens, hooray! You declare yourself the winner! Now you can point out that your opponent couldn’t measure up to your arguments and ran away. The truth is that few legitimate posters have the time or the inclination to sort through all of the unsubstantiated and unsourced tripe that you throw into your posts. I’ve been involved in several of these and have read others debate you and noticed the same thing.Aside from the sheer volume of info you throw it out. You seem to think that no matter how badly you are losing the debate and no matter how much nonsense you post, you will run that thread to 300 posts no matter what.Your strategy goes like this. Post as much info and as often as possible. Don’t bother with facts or with source links because as you have said on many occasions, I don’t have time to cite sources, it’s common knowledge, go look it up yourself. Without the time consuming effort to cite sources, you have more free time to expand the volume of your posts in an effort to overwhelm your opponent. If they don’t give up because of the sheer volume of info you dump, then you will be sure to be the last poster in an argument. Never let your opponent have the last word until the 300 post witching hour. Never mind that the point has already been made or that the thread has become meaningless, by God, be the last poster in a debate at all costs.Ok, now that I’ve gotten that out of my system I would ask you to consider some of these issues because I believe most folks here understand what I’m talking about. The tactics I outlined above are as transparent to others as they are to me. Trust me when I say this. You will earn more respect by postitioning concise arguments and allowing time for responses. Don't waste everyones time with "Holmes advertisements". Patting yourself on the back and saying I win! is a shallow victory. Yea Holmes, thanks for the update

All I can say is holy F'n shit. You dare reply to my post and claim that the senate discredited Wilson, and use as your source the very one I just got done debunking in my post on the senate report????Hey Tal, read my posts befor replying. You will notice that I referenced that article and in addition to tearing it apart using the report she was misrepresenting, I pointed out that there is a CORRECTION NOTICE on the the very source you have cited. See she got it wrong, and the Post corrected itself at least with respect to one of her major errors.Good luck back at the think tank.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No need to hold your sarcasm, it has served you well before when your argument fails. I didn’t attempt to discredit Wilson, I did it based on facts. Wilson is a liar who began his hatred for Bush after Gore lost the election in 2000. Wilson worked for Gore and is a long time personal friend. He also worked for the Kerry campaign. Those are two frustrating losing efforts for Wilson. So it is no surprise that his reporting is biased.You can call his lies misstatements if that’s what you need to do to convince yourself your arguments are valid. I suppose in a way you are correct in the same way that Clinton misspoke when he said, I never had sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky. It’s just like that. Clinton didn’t lie. It was just a misstatement. Wilson had other misstatements though, like the one where he denied his wife was ever involved in his Niger trip. I know, I know, it’s not a lie, it’s just a misstatement. I didn’t pretend Holmes, I accurately quoted from the Senate Intelligience Report. I know the results are difficult for you to accept but the facts are what they are Holmes. I don’t understand your point. You seem to be upset that the source link I provided supported several points I was making in the post and rather than repeat the same source info multiple times, I simply added it once at the end of the post. The fact that it happened to appear near the Vanity Fair photo op of Wilson and Plame basking in their new found (and lucrative) fame is merely convenience.You go further with your fallacious point when you say: Is that all you have Holmes? I thought you were so proud of patting yourself on the back for defeating all my points yet all we have here is that you didn’t like how I arranged my source links. You are debating forum guidelines instead of the substance of my posts. I shouldn’t be surprised at this, you’ve done it before and you will do it again.From this point in your post you go on to give a complete run down of Joe Wilson’s career as if that’s supposed to supersede his lies. You know Holmes, Nixon also had a distinguished career before corruption and lies sank his presidency. It means nothing to the topic at hand, it’s past history. But I would like a response in particular to one of Wilson’s lies where he said his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger despite proof to the contrary in the Senate report.Do you believe Wilson here? Do you believe Plame had absolutely nothing to do with his trip to Niger? Can you at least be honest for one minute and look at the facts. He lied about this. He did so publicly in several interviews and news op-eds. Plame was involved, Wilson new it, Wilson lied about it. It is from the Senate report, Part II — Niger, pages 43-44. The following quote mentions intelligience report. This report was developed based on conversations between Wilson and his CIA contacts which occurred at his home.

quote:

---

The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mavaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have [blacked out] been aware’of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [black out] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss expanding commercial relations between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted expanding commercial relations to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.

---

There was no sale of uranium to Iraq, but the inquiry was made. I have asked you before if this bothered you and you haven’t responded. In 1999, a full 6 years after the end of the Gulf War, Iraqi’s were looking for yellowcake uranium in Niger. It has also been shown in the Senate report that Iraq had no peaceful purpose for this uranium but it certainly could have been used for weapons development.In subsequent articles and television interviews, Wilson denied the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq, which was true, but he also denied that Iraq ever made an attempt at purchasing uranium from Niger which is false. Wilson, in his book, reported that the attempt was made in 1999. It wasn’t rebutted at all and I have just quoted the section of the Senate report that shows the Iraqi’s did indeed have interest in 1998-1999 as noted by Wilson. I have never said that the uranium deal went through. I have consistently said the deal was never made and Wilson was correct in reporting that the deal was never made.
You seem to discount that the Iraqi’s made inquiries. I don’t.It shows that despite 7 years of sanctions, no fly zones, containment, etc. Sadaam was still trying to figure out ways to get his hands on WMD’s and in particular material for nukes. I find that very troubling and something that shouldn’t be ignored. The same thing again about the Iraqi inquiries. This is a classic case where you like to throw volumes of information without saying much and rehashing previous points. It WAS Wilson who reported the Mayaki interpretation. Did you notice that Wilson was not mentioned by name at all in this section of the report? He is referred to as the former ambassador does that mean is wasn’t Wilson? The intel report was Wilson’s and based on his report to CIA contacts in a meeting that occurred in his home. I have already said this.I never said the sale of uranium went through. The sale never went through. You continue to rebut the same point in a variety of different ways. BUT the Iraqi’s wanted a sale, they wanted to purchase uranium in 1998-1999. I noticed that although you reproduced my quote entirely in your rebuttal, you didn’t dispute it. You say Wilson misspoke and he had a good explanation for his memory lapse, but I say he lied about. You believe his explanation for the misstatements, I don’t. But my quote is accurate, he did not have access to the reports in question, he simply lied about it. Wilson says he was confused. Ok, call it confusion on his part if that makes you feel better.You supported my quote when you posted the following:

quote:

---

(pg45) He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the... (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had..

---

This only shows that the Schmidt article I cited is consistent with what the Senate report said on page 45 of the Niger section of the Senate report.

There was a reason. First I answered your post, but did not read the Senate report yet. Then I posted the second when I had begun reading the report, and wanted to simply let you and others know I was reading it and not simply dodging that report.In fact I wanted to make sure YOU knew I was already preparing a rebuttal based on the report itself. It would have been easy for someone else to post a rebuttal based on it before I did, and then if I had said "yeah that's what I was going to say", you could right it off as BS. The third was my reply to the report itself.Thus, the first was a general rebuttal without addressing the report, then a note I would be returning with a rebuttal regarding the report, and the third was that rebuttal.In essence only two replies, one a general one, and the other very specific. Hey, if its all crappy info, it would be really easy to deal with wouldn't it? And I already said if you ask for it I'll give it. There are very few circumstances where I won't when asked, and it usually has to do with my dislike of a poster's neglect of dealing with other info I have given. In your case, I made an exception and supplied cites.Your continued whining as if I haven't is really getting strained. There are many threads I am on where I am not the last poster. I myself cannot drive a thread over 300 anyway, so obviously someone else is continuing to discuss the subject too. If they are exasperated, perhaps I am as well. That doesn't make either right or wrong.If you want to forget all of my other posts, that is fine. Answer post 77. It is the only one of major importance to the subthread on Wilson and the Senate report.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Right on cue Holmes. When you sense the argument slipping away, you always revert to name calling and sarcasm. You really seem insecure. Why can’t you let the arguments present themselves and let the readers make-up their own minds? I’ve noticed that about you. When you sense a loss of the debate you revert to self congratulatory comments as if by merely saying I won that it makes it so.Your phrases like the one above really serve no purpose other than to show you simply do not have confidence in your arguments and you must remind folks who haven’t been tracking the thread that See I’m winning, I’m beating Monk, oh boy, trust me it’s true.It’s like the references I made to your lack of source links. You seem to say trust me, it’s true, I don’t have time to look up source links, if you want info to support my blind assertions, then go look them up for yourself. I’m Holmes dammit, that should be enough for you. It’s laughable.You ask the readers to just trust you that you are winning the argument. You seem to be saying Please trust me, I’m winning, I promise, I’m kicking Monk’s ass, it’s true Instead of just letting your arguments stand on their own legs like I do. You’re really sad Holmes.But I know you have a lot blind followers here that support your posts regardless of their validity and you need to feed them some red meat from time to time to make them feel better when your arguments are slipping away. You need to give encouragement to the troops, I understand that, it’s Ok, but sad. Not at all. I was saying that Bush would prosecute whoever broke the law but was waiting for the results of the investigation before doing anything. You know, the whole innocent before proven guilty thing that you advidly champion unless the accused is a conservative. Unlike you, Bush wants to deal with facts and if Rove is guilty of something he will be dealt with. You already have him condemned and locked up in prison before all the facts are in.Let me ask you something before I go down all of your points and refute them one by one. Do you accept special prosecutor Fitzgerald as an independent and unbiased investigator into this whole mess? He has a distinguished career. I’d like to hear your opinion now so that if Rove is exonerated we don’t begin all the calls to lynch Fitzgerald for his bias because he was appointed by Bush. Dems will undoubtedly do that anyway, but in light of our conversations, I’d like to hear your opinion.So will you abide by the results of grand jury investigation regardless of the outcome? I will. If it is proven that Rove outed Plame and that Plame was covert at the time, then I believe Rove should be fired and if need be prosecuted. I don’t think this will happen but I’ll accept it if it does.If Rove is proven innocent will you acknowledge that and admit this has all been a democratic witch hunt aimed to sink Rove whom Dems hate more than anyone, or will you begin a long winded condemnation of Fitzgerald?Ok, on to the rebuttals: Reference to the memo first appeared in a Wall Street Journal article dated October 17, 2003 by reporter David Cloud. In the article Cloud writes:

quote:

---

An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

​

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

---

So the question is. Who leaked this memo and how did Cloud get a hold of it? Cloud wasn’t the only journalist to reference the 2002 CIA memo. If you look around the net, you’ll see that it has appeared in several news outlets and blogs over the last couple of years.Here is a reference to it in DailyKos .Further, in the Senate report, subparagraph Former Ambassador, page 39, there is reference to INR analyst’s notes that describe the CIA meeting with Plame. It has been widely speculated that this INR analyst notes are from the same memo referenced by Cloud’s article.

quote:

---

An INR analyst’s notes indicate that the meeting was apparently convened by [the former ambassador’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue. The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

---

I'm not saying this memo is the smoking gun. But it sure looks that way. I'm sure Fitzgerald will get to the bottom of it. Let's wait and see.