posted on October 1, 2003 06:30:51 AM new
On a more serious note....
July 22, Newsday reported: "Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. 'I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' he said. 'They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.' "
This week, Novak said "I did not receive a planned leak" and called the information "an offhand revelation." He also wrote that an "unofficial source" at the CIA said Plame "has been an analyst, not in covert operations."
...
Wilson, on ABC's "Nightline" last night, said that if investigators ask, "I will be revealing the names of everybody who called me," before or after the disclosure of his wife's identity. He said those reporters said White House sources or specific individuals had knowledge of the leak.
posted on October 1, 2003 08:15:08 AM new
Rarely is there a time when I agree with the 'take' of those who write for the NYT. But yesterday in an op-ed column, David Brooks wrote an article that I agreed with: The Presidency Wars.
Helen....imo, you're one of the 'new warriors' Mr. Brooks speaks of in his column. lol
The quintessential new warrior scans the Web for confirmation of the president's villainy. He avoids facts that might complicate his hatred. He doesn't weigh the sins of his friends against the sins of his enemies. But about the president he will believe anything. He believes Ted Kennedy when he says the Iraq war was a fraud cooked up in Texas to benefit the Republicans politically. It feels so delicious to believe it, and even if somewhere in his mind he knows it doesn't quite square with the evidence, it's important to believe it because the other side is vicious, so he must be too.
The fundamental argument in the presidency wars is not that the president is wrong, or is driven by a misguided ideology. That's so 1980's. The fundamental argument now is that he is illegitimate. He is so ruthless, dishonest and corrupt, he undermines the very rules of civilized society. Many conservatives believed this about Clinton.
Teddy Kennedy obviously believes it about Bush. Howard Dean declares, "What's at stake in this election is democracy itself."
The warrior goes out looking for leaders strong enough to crush the devil. Wesley Clark appeals to the warrior mentality when he declares: "This is war. It's a culture war, and I am their greatest threat. They are doing everything they can to destroy me right now." It doesn't matter that Clark doesn't yet have policies. This isn't about policies. So far the campaign has not been shaped by how much of the Bush tax cut this or that Democratic candidate wants to roll back. It's about who can stand up to the other side[/b].
To the warrior, politics is no longer a clash of value systems, each of which is in some way valid. It's not a competition between basically well-intentioned people who see the world differently. It's not even a conflict of interests. Instead, it's the Florida post-election fight over and over, a brutal struggle for office in which each side believes the other is behaving despicably. The culture wars produced some intellectually serious books because there were principles involved. The presidency wars produce mostly terrible ones because the hatreds have left the animating ideas far behind and now romp about on their own.
The warriors have one other feature: ignorance. They have as much firsthand knowledge of their enemies as members of the K.K.K. had of the N.A.A.C.P. In fact, most people in the last two administrations were well-intentioned patriots doing the best they could. The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 1, 2003 08:19 AM ]
posted on October 1, 2003 08:42:01 AM new
The warrior is in the war zone.
And the spinners are hiding in their web.
Linda does not want “confirmation of the president's villainy” under any circumstances.
She “avoids facts that might complicate”.
She is self righteous; “doesn't weigh the sins of … friends against the sins of .. enemies”, but about Muslims “will believe anything”.
“It feels so delicious to believe it, and even if somewhere in” ..her… “mind .. knows it doesn't quite square with the evidence, it's important to believe it because the other side is vicious”.
They are “so ruthless, dishonest and corrupt”….that.. “undermines the very rules of civilized society.”
“That's so” (cold war period)
blah blah blah
“The core threat to democracy is not in the White House”
No he’s taken the day off at camp david.
posted on October 1, 2003 09:05:22 AM new
"Linda does not want “confirmation of the president's villainy” under any circumstances.
She “avoids facts that might complicate”.
She is self righteous; “doesn't weigh the sins of … friends against the sins of .. enemies”, but about Muslims “will believe anything”.
“It feels so delicious to believe it, and even if somewhere in” ..her… “mind .. knows it doesn't quite square with the evidence, it's important to believe it because the other side is vicious”.
Amen to that.
At least she is reading the New York Times. That's a baby step in the right direction.
Gee he sounds like he can answer some questions when he ‘knows what he believes’!!
Sounds like they mean to be even tougher on the ‘leaker’ than they were on Poindexter. LOL
But is this a defence in the making.
C. Boyden Gray, who was the White House counsel for the first President Bush, said he did not believe there was any criminal violation at play in this case.
"The whole thing has been overblown," he said, adding that Wilson's wife was an analyst and not an undercover agent at the time her name was published.
We've been knocking our heads trying to figure out how a minor and well-known story about an alleged CIA "outing" has suddenly blossomed into a Beltway scandal-ette.
[i]The light bulb went off reading Monday's White House press briefing. Right out of the box, Helen Thomas asked if "the President tried to find out who outed the CIA agent? And has he fired anyone in the White House yet?" OK, the point of this exercise is to get President Bush to fire someone. But whom? That answer became clear when the press corps quickly uttered, and kept uttering for nearly an hour, the name "Karl Rove."
Of course! The reason this is suddenly a story is because Mr. Rove, the President's political strategist and confidant from Texas, has become the main target. Joseph Wilson, the CIA consultant at the center of this mini-tempest, had recently fingered Mr. Rove as the official who leaked to columnist Robert Novak that Mr. Wilson's wife works for the CIA. [b]Mr. Wilson has offered no evidence for this, *****and he's since retreated**** to say only that he now believes Mr. Rove had "condoned it." The White House has replied that the charge is "simply not true." But no matter, the scandal game is afoot[/i].
posted on October 1, 2003 10:52:24 AM new
McClellan said of Rove. "The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true."
That’s good enough for me!!!
And besides, IT’S COOL B’COZ FOX says it’s normal.
“The investigation stems from a CIA complaint two months ago that the identity of one of its agents had been disclosed. Justice gets about 50 such complaints from the CIA each year about leaks of classified information. Few ever get beyond a preliminary investigation.”
And this is your favourite ‘informative’ news/entertainment source Linda?
FURTHER
“Gray acknowledged that revealing her name was "not a nice thing to do" but suggested that instead of a criminal investigation, what should happen is that the source of the leak should come forward and apologize.
"I don't think this is a criminal matter ... This thing could get out of control and get really goofy."
posted on October 1, 2003 10:58:01 AM new
First, Linda...This is not "suddenly a story" as the Wall St. journalist states. It's been a story since Wilson returned from Africa in Feb., 2003.
Secondly, the CIA promoted this investigation, not Wilson. Regardless of how the Wall St. Journal chooses to spin their tale, the facts have been clearly stated and checked out. You should read a factual account before you become snowed by spin.
The point of this investigation is to find out who in the White House leaked information that could possibly endanger the life of Wilson's wife and
place her job and associates in jeopardy along with the National Security of this country. As I said before, it's unconscionable to try to denigrate Wilson in order to take the heat off the guilty party which is someone in the White House. You are absolutely blinded by your unquestioning allegiance to George Bush.
This leak represents a dangerous and reckless effort on the part of a political operation to cower and intimidate. If Karl Rove, who runs the operation is innocent, he should, like the president, want to know exactly who in the White House is responsible for leaks, especially serious leaks like this one that could breach National Security. Don't you agree?
posted on October 1, 2003 11:29:47 AM new
Dear warriors - Maybe you should try reading some moderate news instead of the far left cra$ you read. Many are beginning to see this for what it is.
And while you both continue to work at putting words in my mouth....you are wrong. The Bush administration has been quoted SEVERAL times as being open to a full investigation on this issue. It's the DEMS that are beginning to back off. Could that be because they're hearing Wilson retracting his original accusation? Could it be they see this for what it is?
"WHITE HOUSE press secretary Scott McClellan said he had no knowledge about anyone going to the Justice Department with any information about the case, as Bush has urged. Similarly, he said he did not know of anyone's hiring legal counsel.
McClellan indicated that the White House would consent, if asked, to polygraph tests for staff. "We will cooperate fully, at the direction of the president. ... Full cooperation is full cooperation."
One day after the probe was announced, there was no sign of FBI investigators at the White House, McClellan said. "At this point, all the Department of Justice has asked us to do is preserve any and all information that could be related," McClellan said.
DEMOCRATS CANCEL BRIEFING Congressional Democrats, meanwhile, canceled a briefing from Wilson. House Democratic aides cited scheduling conflicts but acknowledged that the political firestorm had gotten too hot.
"I don't think Democrats want to fuel the partisan fire," an aide told NBC News' Norah O'Donnell. "Why undermine his credibility and give the Republicans more fuel for the fodder? Why give them ammunition?"
Democrats want an independent investigation, not the criminal inquiry started within the administration. Republicans, for their part, accuse Democrats of playing politics.
posted on October 1, 2003 11:45:36 AM new
While Wilson wonders out loud to the press who will play his wife's role in the 'movie' about this story.....
others are beginning to see Wilson's real motivies.
"By Helle Dale
"Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both." Those are the words of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who will certainly be a household name for weeks to come.
Chances are very good that we will never know who from the White House leaked the information about Mr. Wilson and his wife to members of the press. For one thing, that's the nature of leak investigations. Journalists don't reveal their sources, and sources have a way of disappearing into the mahogany paneling in the halls of power here in Washington. Most of such investigations end inconclusively.
What we do know is that damage is being done to the reputation of the Bush White House by the controversy over the leak. President Bush came into office with the promise to bring honor and integrity to the office of the presidency after the Clinton impeachment trial, and here we are now with calls for independent prosecutors coming fast and furious from Democrats, who hated the idea when Bill Clinton was the target.
In a politically sound move, and as soon as the CIA reported that "two senior administration officials" had given the name of an agent (i.e. Mr. Wilson's wife) to journalists, the White House lost no time facilitating the leak investigation. It was referred to the Justice Department on Sept. 27. So far, we have seen none of the Clinton-era, Janet Reno-style stone-walling in evidence.
Still, looking at the main players in this case and their statements, there is a sliding scale of truth, which, in the end, will prevent us from knowing what actually happened. Statements shift from moment to moment, and each has his interests to protect. Administration officials obviously do. So do members of the media, especially, columnist Robert Novak, whose article on July 14 caused the initial furor.
Take Mr. Wilson himself, who has been much in evidence on national television screens since this weekend. Could he have an agenda beyond demanding justice?
Well, what would you think of someone who tells people around Washington as Mr. Wilson did last week "Neo-conservatives and religious conservatives have hijacked this administration, and I consider myself on a personal mission to destroy both."
That sounds pretty ugly, doesn't it? It is in fact quite a bit at odds with the reasonable image that Mr. Wilson has been projecting on our television screens in recent days. Mr. Wilson also saw fit back in August to aaccuse presidential adviser Karl Rove of having orchestrated the White House leak. He swore he would see Mr. Rove led out of there "in handcuffs." Now, he says he got carried away by passion and is in possession of no evidence that Mr. Rove was involved.
That Mr. Wilson holds such views in no way excuses the injustice that was done him and his wife Valerie Plame, when a leak to the media identified her as a CIA officer involved in analysis of information regarding weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Wilson who had been sent to the African country of Niger by the CIA to investigate claims that uranium "yellowcake" had been sold to Iraqi agent emerged last summer as a severe critic of the Bush administration. He accused the White House of "misrepresenting facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war."
It is for this criticism that Mr. Wilson claims he and his family are being punished. Which may well be true. That would be both illegal and unethical. As Mr. Wilson stated at the time, "Whoever leaked that comment about my wife did it very clearly to smear my good name and my wife's good name." He has not himself, however, had any compunction about smearing Mr. Rove's good name without any evidence.
Now, Mr. Bush might well be able to get this whole affair behind him by finding a scapegoat to fire had it not been that revealing the identity of a CIA officer is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. A simple dismissal would not put an end to the matter.
So, here is another suggestion to get to the bottom of this mess before our policy in Iraq becomes a victim of Washington's politics of long knives. Let's polygraph the whole bunch ?White House officials, media types, CIA officials. At the CIA, they at least allow agents who have been accused an "exculpatory polygraph test." In the Washington political jungle, that may be the only way of getting at the facts.
Just a suggestion...You have a tendency to respond with bolded cut and paste snippets that have no relevance to the previous remark and it's not clear how you feel about the comment. For example, you post McClellan's response to a reporter about cooperating. No one here suggested that the White House was not cooperating. Democrats do want an independent investigation because an investigation by Ashcroft will represent conflicted interests. Rove, for example helpled Ashcroft campaign in the past.
Wish you would respond sometimes in your own words so that your point would be clear.
posted on October 1, 2003 12:22:25 PM new
Sure helen - You want the copy and pastes to end? You try not posting them yourself....then maybe others will choose to follow your lead.
I've been very clear on my position. Taken from one of your earlier comments on this thread:
[i]posted on September 29, 2003 10:32:17 AM
An administration that promised to restore honesty and integrity to the White House will go down in history as the most seriously corrupt and dishonest[/i].
You make statements like that, can't provide the *proof* to back those statements up, but then find and post all the copy and pastes that agree with your position. Then you question/take issue with me doing the same thing? LOL
My position is NO ONE has proven anything about **who** has leaked this CIAs maiden name. For all we know, in Wilson's hatred and quoted statements he's made, HE could have been the one that did this.
He is enjoying the thought of this being made into a movie. LOL
My position is that this administration IS NOT STONEWALLING any investigation into this issue. The president has made statements that this would be illegal and agrees it should be investigated. They appear to be very open to having anyone with information that will settle this matter to come forward and speak.
Your side wants an 'independent' investigation....is that what the dems did when the republicans were asking for the same thing [repeatedly during clinton's administration] and the left fought it tooth and nail? It sure was. But now it's somehow different in your eyes. LOL right.
And you 'new warrior's' seem to be overlooking the FACT that at first Wilson's claim against Rove has now changed quite a bit from what he first said when he started all this up all over again.
posted on October 1, 2003 01:22:21 PM newYou cite my quote from another thread
....
I've been very clear on my position. Taken from one of your earlier comments on this thread:
posted on September 29, 2003 10:32:17 AM An administration that promised to restore honesty and integrity to the White House will go down in history as the most seriously corrupt and dishonest.
Yes, I said,
An administration that promised to restore honesty and integrity to the White House will go down in history as the most seriously corrupt and dishonest.
That is my opinion, Linda.This administration has made lying a method of operation. George Bush made the statement that he would restore honesty and integrity to the White House. Now, after the overwhelming number of lies how can anyone believe that statement or in fact, any other statement that he makes. He lied about the war, the justification for war, the weapons of mass destruction, He lied about the economy. Remember the tax-cut whopper from the presidential campaign, "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." Another..."the greatest percentage of tax relief goes to the people at the bottom end of the ladder." He lied about the environment...
Remember the Kyoto ruse....and he lied and withheld information about 9/11.
You say...
My position is NO ONE has proven anything about **who** has leaked this CIAs maiden name. For all we know, in Wilson's hatred and quoted statements he's made, HE could have been the one that did this.
This statement shows an ignorance of basic information that has been so well publicized in the last few days. To suggest that Wilson leaked the information that put his wife in jeopardy is scandalous and really just stupid.
You say...
My position is that this administration IS NOT STONEWALLING any investigation into this issue. The president has made statements that this would be illegal and agrees it should be investigated. They appear to be very open to having anyone with information that will settle this matter to come forward and speak.
Linda, nobody here has mentioned the word stonewalling but you. The Democrats simply want an independent investigation. It's not right that an Attorney General appointed by the president will investigate the president.
You say...
And you 'new warrior's' seem to be overlooking the FACT that at first Wilson's claim against Rove has now changed quite a bit from what he first said when he started all this up all over again.
Whatever Wilson said, the fact remains that the leak has been traced directly to the White House. The leak could possibly endanger lives and the security of the country. You want to ignore that fact by focusing on one statement which was made in anger by Wilson. . Your president's stated commitment to national security has been threatened by this revelation and as such a strong supporter of his regime and more importantly as an American, you should want to know the identity of the culprit.
posted on October 1, 2003 01:34:58 PM new
Helen, you said: You cite my quote from another thread. And I'll ask you to go to page one in THIS thread..about the 8th post down and tell me if you didn't say exactly that same thing. You DID. I was NOT aware you were repeating yourself in different threads.
An administration that promised to restore honesty and integrity to the White House will go down in history as the most seriously corrupt and dishonest.
posted on October 1, 2003 02:11:54 PM newThis administration has made lying a method of operation.
I don't see it the same way, nor do millions of other American's. They see this as the left doing there best to win the next election. I see he's been continually ACCUSED of lying, but no one has been able to PROVE anything. It's an opinion only, not based in fact.
He lied about the war, the justification for war, the weapons of mass destruction.
He has not lied and I've pointed out several times that all presidents go on our intelligence and the intelligence of those our nation trusts. All intelligence in Bush 1, clintons and this administration, the UN and many other countries believed the same information. But you don't accuse them all of having lied. No, you're a true 'new warrior' helen. Even gave you Hillary's recent quote. Because YOU say something is a lie, doesn't make that the truth.
He lied about the economy. Remember the tax-cut whopper from the presidential campaign, "The vast majority of my [proposed] tax cuts go to the bottom end of the spectrum." And a lot of middle income families are enjoying a larger 'take home' paycheck than they did before.
He lied about the environment... I've seen no LIES. I've seen differences in policies as to what restrictions our economy can currently afford to make at this time.
Remember the Kyoto ruse.... Yes, and I also remember that his reason was he felt it would be unfair to American industries while other nations weren't heald to the same limitations we would be held to. I think that's fair and in our nations best interest. AND if you've read recently, Russia is also NOT sure it is willing to sign this agreement, for exactly the same reasons Bush has stated.
he lied and withheld information about 9/11. Again...more accusations from the far left. Nothing has been proven. He'd be impeached if what you far-lefties are saying were true.
CIAs maiden name. lol....I could say the same for you helen. It's that I, and others, have formed an opinion that is different from yours helen. Doesn't make one stupid or anything else. I could say you refuse to read and accept the facts as they are, and focus only only on the accusations in this case. There has been no hearing. There has been no trial. There have been no convictions. You're jumping the gun in glee again....hoping...hoping...hoping Rove is found to be the 'inside source'. But, I always thought you believe in the concept 'innocent UNTIL proven guilty'. Guess I was wrong. Only when it suits you.
I've twice posted Wilson's retraction....from his own mouth about his accusation to Rove. You don't want to hear it. And my suggestion that Wilson's hatred for this administration, could have caused him to do anything that he said in his OWN quote.
You say...
The Democrats simply want an independent investigation. It's not right that an Attorney General appointed by the president will investigate the president. But my point is the dems thought and fought for exactly the same thing during the investigations during clintons administration.
Whats right under a democratic administration is NOT right under a republican one, huh? LOL Remember the name Janet Reno? lol
So what do you think of the dems deciding NOT to meet with Wilson and hear his statements?
Whatever Wilson said, oh, but one can't dismiss the original CHARGES/statements of the person who started this whole complaint s easily helen. You do, but most don't/aren't.
The leak could possibly endanger lives and the security of the country. Then why in the world would Wilson and the CIA even commented on it. I've read several online articles that state MANY in Washington *knew* she had worked for the CIA...it was no secret.
You want to ignore that fact by focusing on one statement which was made in anger by Wilson. No, I don't. But your willingness to just brush aside the fact that he's now retracted what started all this is laughable. It would have remained on the underground lefties websites had Wilson not brought it into the news. He's trying to smear Rove...and now he's backing down.
Your president's stated commitment to national security has been.....Yes, and as I've said....you can read his statements. And that's exactly what's beginning to happen.
posted on October 1, 2003 02:55:05 PM new"My position is NO ONE has proven anything about **who** has leaked this CIAs maiden name. For all we know, in Wilson's hatred and quoted statements he's made, HE could have been the one that did this." "I've twice posted Wilson's retraction....from his own mouth about his accusation to Rove. You don't want to hear it. And my suggestion that Wilson's hatred for this administration, could have caused him to do anything that he said in his OWN quote."
Linda,
Do you really believe that the CIA would make a spurious charge? Robert Novak, who has 46 years experience, said that his sources were two senior administration sources. The other reporters also said that they were contacted by senior administration sources. How can you say, in spite of all this evidence that Novak was NOT contacted by two senior administration sources and the reporters were NOT contacted by two senior administration sources and how can you continue to believe that the CIA is out of line in proposing an investigation???
"The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.
"The current Justice investigation stems from a routine, mandated probe of all CIA leaks, but follows weeks of agitation. Wilson, after telling me in July that he would say nothing about his wife, has made investigation of the leak his life's work -- aided by the relentless Sen. Charles Schumer of New York.
"These efforts cannot be separated from the massive political assault on President Bush."
This story began July 6 when Wilson went public and identified himself as the retired diplomat who had reported negatively to the CIA in 2002 on alleged Iraq efforts to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger. I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one.
"During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger.
"When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.
"At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He 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.
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.
"A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.
"The Justice Department investigation was not requested by CIA Director George Tenet. Any leak of classified information is routinely passed by the Agency to Justice, averaging one a week. This investigative request was made in July shortly after the column was published. Reported only last weekend, the request ignited anti-Bush furor.
posted on October 1, 2003 03:54:22 PM new
Linda, that copy and paste doesn't answer the question about your comment...Since your position is unique, it will not be answered by a cut and paste. So I'll repost your comment and the question below. If you choose not to answer that's ok.
No need to bury the question in reams of bolded cut and paste...
You stated,
"My position is NO ONE has proven anything about **who** has leaked this CIAs maiden name. For all we know, in Wilson's hatred and quoted statements he's made, HE could have been the one that did this." "I've twice posted Wilson's retraction....from his own mouth about his accusation to Rove. You don't want to hear it. And my suggestion that Wilson's hatred for this administration, could have caused him to do anything that he said in his OWN quote."
Question about your comment...
Do you really believe that the CIA would make a spurious charge? Robert Novak, who has 46 years experience, said that his sources were two senior administration sources. The other reporters also said that they were contacted by senior administration sources. How can you say, in spite of all this evidence that Novak was NOT contacted by two senior administration sources and the reporters were NOT contacted by two senior administration sources and how can you continue to believe that the CIA is out of line in proposing an investigation???
posted on October 1, 2003 08:39:07 PM new
Trying to debate anything with Linda and other Staunch neo-con supporters seems as futile a task as banging ones head on a wall.
Any claim/assertion/theory/belief, which she perceives to come from the ‘right’, is right and anything from the ‘left’ is just left aside.
Leading up to the war most on the ‘left’ put up reasons for scepticism of valid justification;
which is after all the ‘scientific method’, but she just insisted it was ‘right’, without reservation.
Now as more info comes to light, I am only more than ever convinced that the move to war was wrong,
but somehow her position has not wavered.
In spite of new contradictory information her position has not changed, I doubt very much that she has ever employed scepticism in assessing the neo-con motive.
That’s called blind faith or dogma.
Her strongest argument is (my words) ‘that it is a patriot’s duty to be blind’.
Imagine a nation full of blind, ignorant, ‘patriots’; what a great future of dim minds she wants for her nation.
What a patriot.
Those vultures that wait and hope for the next generation of dim witted Americans to exploit thank you.
posted on October 2, 2003 07:02:56 AM new
Since February when Wilson returned from Africa with results unfavorable to the administration there has been a concerted effort by the White House to smear Wilson. This article published by Time describes the conflict in July.
A War on Wilson
Inside the Bush Administration's feud with the diplomat who poured cold water on the Iraq-uranium connection
Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Perhaps.
Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson raised the Administration's ire with an op-ed piece in The New York Times on July 6 saying that the Administration had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate" the Iraqi threat. Since then Administration officials have taken public and private whacks at Wilson, charging that his 2002 report, made at the behest of U.S. intelligence, was faulty and that his mission was a scheme cooked up by mid-level operatives. George Tenet, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, took a shot at Wilson last week as did ex-White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Both contended that Wilson's report on an alleged Iraqi effort to purchase uranium from Niger, far from undermining the president's claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq sought uranium in Africa, as Wilson had said, actually strengthened it. And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.
Cont...
And after July, the Bush administration war to smear Wilson became lethal with leaks...
posted on October 2, 2003 08:12:24 AM new
It's a Republican war, twelvepole, to seek revenge, cower and intimidate those who might question or oppose their agenda.
A substantial majority, 72 percent, said it's likely that someone in the White House leaked the classified information, but only 34 percent think it's likely Bush knew about the leak beforehand.
Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe a special prosecutor should be named to investigate allegations that Bush administration officials illegally leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to journalists, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll... Washington Post
posted on October 2, 2003 08:39:45 AM new
Rove, Bush and Ashcroft have over two decades of close association with each other. An investigation conducted by Ashcroft against his friends, Rove and Bush cannot be fair and thorough.
posted on October 2, 2003 01:24:28 PM new
Linda, there is no such thing as "honor" and "integrity" in politics. I dont care what party is involved, those words are all smoke.
Helen, I fail to believe 7 in 10 americans even care about this issue that much. (I'd bet the ratio is more like 2 of out 10.)
JMHO
posted on October 2, 2003 01:57:40 PM new
That number is being reported by The New York Times and The Washington Post. I do understand your disbelief, however...especially when as many as 50 % believe that Bush is doing a good job.
It's clear that honor and integrity will not be found in the Bush administration. That's true!
