Karl Rove: Traitor?

I’m not very clear on this. Rove didn't name Plame to Cooper but does appear to be the source for the Cooper article. Is Rove the source for the Novak article? After all, it was the Novak article that outed Plame. Has it been shown that Plame is a covert CIA agent or was she a CIA analyst whose employer and job description was widely known inside the beltway? Wouldn’t that make a difference as to whether there was a crime?

I agree with your assessment, although it seems doubtful that Rove will be prosecuted according to Lanny Davis. Lanny was a special counsel that helped Clnton through his debacles. He said Monday that to violate the law, Rove would have had to know Plame was a covert officer; intentionally disclose that fact; and know that the CIA wanted her covert status kept secret. It's extremely difficult to violate that law and to prove a violation, Davis said. Source Still, there will be mounting pressure to do something about this and given Bush's repeated comments over the last two years about seeing to it that the perp(s) will be dealt with. He may have to serve up Rove on a platter and fire him. (Actually if it came to that, Rove would resign). This would prompt as much celebration among Dems as a Hilary victory in '08.As far as McClellan, well, the little guy seems to be in a tight spot. His "no comment at this time because of the ongoing investigation" is lame.

Well, the comparisons are weak. Watergate was the cover-up of a crime, albeit a low level burglary. In this case, a crime has yet to be proven. I’m sure Bush is well aware of Nixon’s mistakes and will not repeat them. He has gone out of his way to say that the perp(s) will be brought to justice, IF there is a crime. There doesn’t seem to be any sort of obstruction of the investigation by the White House as was the case with Watergate.They seem to be going out of their way to avoid the perception of a cover-up. Rove signed a waiver in January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion with, which included Cooper.

The CIA employs thousands of civilians, many of them are analysts who are not classified as covert operatives. Only a small percentage of the CIA's employees (perhaps less than 10 percent of the agency's estimated 10,000 to 20,000 workers) are clandestine officers involved in operationsthe traditional spy stuff that includes recruiting sources, executing covert missions, and gathering intelligence.The remaining 90 percent are analysts, managers, scientists, and support staff that are not under cover and are publicly acknowledged CIA employees. (the Agency has room for artists, too, according to the CIA kids' page ). I don’t think it’s ludicrous at all given the above paragraphs. Also, if you look at the context of the conversation between Rove and Cooper. The Plame subject enters at the end of a long conversation Cooper and Rove were having on a variety of other issues. It didn’t seem to be the focus. No, I don’t agree with this. Tenet cleared the Niger story and paid the price. I’m confused here. When did Rove say anything about not authorizing an investigation?

Just because Watergate involved slush funds and a whole host of other illegal activities doesn’t mean the same is true for the Bush Admin. It’s wishful thinking on the part of Dems. I’m sure the media will play up this angle, though, and fabricate all sorts of illegal activities based on nothing but speculation, innuendo, and in some cases outright lies. No, there is a big difference between a mistake and an outright crime and it hasn’t been shown that a covert operative has had her identity blown. Dems can only hope, but so far it’s just speculation.

You are really butchering my post. Actually, I quoted Lanny Davis who said that one of the conditions to proving a crime is the condition that the CIA must have wanted to keep a CIA employees status covert to be considered a crime. Davis said this is one of three conditions why it is difficult to prove a crime in this case. But where did Rove say to the press that they didn't authorize an investigation into the accuracy of that data There could be any number of legitimate reasons why the trip was not sanctioned. That doesn’t lead to or imply criminal behavior. Well, there is reason to take a close look at that report. Joe Wilson was a former high ranking official in Clinton’s National Security Council and advisor to the Kerry campaign. He has a track record of strong dislike of the Bush Admin. This is what he said during a Washington Post interview in 2003:

quote:

---

Wouldn’t it be fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words. - Joseph Wilson August 21, 2003 Source

---

So it’s obvious that Wilson is a bitter partisan who hates Rove and the Bush Admin. Shouldn’t this factor into the credibility of the report?

I never said this nor did I imply it as you well know. Where did Bush admit this? Source please?

Very true. But I don't see a cover-up with Bush. At least not yet anyway

Sure, it's reasonable to ask. But I don't think it's reasonable to expand the authority of the special prosecutor to launch an open ended investigation of the administration without evidence of "something" illegal other than the potential crime of having Plame outed. I'm not even sure if it has been shown that Rove is the focus of the investigation. He is merely one of several potential sources, but he is certainly the focus of media attention.

No, Holmes, Lanny was not using lawyer speak and it’s not ridiculous. Lanny was correctly noting the requirements under law which would be necessary to obtain a conviction.You said in Message 53There is no question that a covert agent had her identity blown. Even Bush has admitted thisWhere is the source that Bush admitted this? or were you just blowing smoke?In Message 52 you said:That Rove would say to the press that they didn't authorize an investigation into the accuracy of that data and people who were interested in doing so should be considered suspect.I asked you where Rove said this, where was your source? Your response was:‘If Rove was saying that they did not authorize that investigation then by necessity of reality they didn't authorize any..Is there anything here that you are quoting Rove as saying or is it all just made up? So credibility factors in with Rove and Bush because they hate Wilson, but it doesn’t factor in with Wilson who hates Rove and Bush. I’m confused?

Actually, you said Bush admitted that an agent had her identity blown, a declarative statement. Now you change it to say that Bush was discussing the blowing of an agents cover.Bush said IF an administration official broke the law by leaking a covert officer's identity, THEN they would be prosecuted and fired. There is a big difference between admitting that an event occurred verses stating appropriate punishments IF that event occurred. Now you’re on the right track. Bush has discussed the seriousness of the investigation, that’s different than declaring a secret agent had her identity blown. No, it’s still debatable whether Plame was covert. If she wasn’t covert, then she couldn’t have gotten her identity blown. Actually, I do because you are in the habit of posting long, posts filled with numerous points without source links that often conflict with previous statements made by you and are in many cases either off topic or just plain wrong. When questioned, you tend to rephrase the context of the point as you did above in the Bush discussion. No. Let’s get the facts straight before we begin. Wilson was biased against Bush and Rove not because he was screwed as you put it. But because Wilson is a long time Democratic partisan who worked in the Clinton administration long before Bush and Rove entered the national scene.He contributed to and actively supported Kerry’s campaign. It was Wilson who launched the media blitz criticizing Bush in the run up to the election campaign by writing several articles critical of the Bush administration. This was long before Rove was involved in anything. Further, Wilson didn’t deliver a review of certain intel different from that supplied by B&R as you suggest.Let’s look at the intel information supplied by the former ambassador. Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were proven false in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report dated (July 10, 2004).The Senate panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, actually bolstered the case. Contrary to Wilson's assertions, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.The Senate report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post in June 2003. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."Senate Committee staffers asked how Wilson could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said.Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.Another bald faced lie on the part of Wilson. Well, is it any wonder that nobody wants to look at what Wilson says? He lies so much! I just listed two examples, but there’s more:Wilson said his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

quote:

---

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published in 2004. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

---

The bipartisan Senate intelligience report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.Wilson repeated the lie again in the Washington Post article dated July 17, 2004 when he again denied his wife was involved in his Niger trip:

quote:

---

For the second time in a year, your paper has published an article [news story, July 10] falsely suggesting that my wife, Valerie Plame, was responsible for the trip I took to Niger on behalf of the U.S. government said Wilson

---

It just keeps going, another lie published in his New York Times article , Wilson writes:

quote:

---

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report.

---

Of course it wasn’t Cheney’s office that had questions. The only CIA official he was contacted by was his wife, Plame.Wilson actually corroborated the intel that Iraq wanted to buy uranium in Niger. Not that Iraq succeded, just that they wanted to.Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was approached in June 1999 by a businessman that insisted he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.Let me repeat that. Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.Wilson said this to his CIA contacts. Did any of this make its way into the numerous articles written by Wilson in the New York Times and other media outlets? Of course not. Wrong again Holmes. A neutral person would conclude that Wilson is a Democratic partisan idealogue who eagerly wanted to get Kerry elected and saw trashing Bush by lying as the easiest way to do it. Then there's the money and fame. Wilson did NOT have more facts on his side and he was NOT backed by all world intel sources.And I make you laugh?Aside from the flat out lying, I find Wilson’s motives additionally clouded by his eager pursuit of the money angle in all of this. Wilson claims that the White House leaked his wife's identity for political reasons. Yet he's using the incident to greedily line his pockets. There was talk of a movie deal from Wilson himself, who revealed to the Washington Post in August 2003 that the couple had discussed who would play her should a suitable screenplay materialize.Then there was the book deal inked in October 2003 for an undisclosed sum. "We made an offer, and he was happy with that," said Karen Auerbach, spokeswoman for Carroll & Graf Publishers.Wilson and Plume are simply cashing in using lies as the vehicle to generate a sensational story. And they'll laugh all the way to the bank.I find it ironic that Wilson criticizes the administration for inappropriately revealing intelligence operatives when he himself fails to treat the matter with discretion.In a Washington Post article in December 2003, Wilson seemed very concerned about his wife’s identity saying:

quote:

---

"My wife has made it very clear that -- she has authorized me to say this -- she would rather chop off her right arm than say anything to the press and she will not allow herself to be photographed," he declared in October 2003 on "Meet the Press."

---

Yet in January 2004, less than four months after his concerned plea in Meet the Press, Wilson and Plame pose for Vanity Fair: It would have been understandable for photo’s to be taken while the couple was out on the town and a photographer happened to take a snap shot, but it is quite another to do a photo op in a national magazine. Even though Plame is disguised . It smacks of sleaze. Source Why should we believe anything these two say? Why should we believe she was involved in covert operations? Because she says so? Becasue that's what all the media is saying? The word gets repeated, "covert agent", or "CIA spy" and its taken for granted that's what she was instead of one of thousands of analyst employed as a civilian by the CIA. It's taken for granted that Valerie Plume was a covert CIA operative whose outing would cause loss of life. But it's not true.They're simply cashing in and making the story more interesting. And it has worked.Abe: formattingThis message has been edited by Monk, Wed, 07-13-2005 12:03 AM

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

Care to elaborate on that?

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

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.