Bush told Cheney to discredit diplomat critical of Iraq policy (1 Viewer)

[Billo_Really]

Bush told Cheney to discredit diplomat critical of Iraq policy
· Vice-president told to put out classified information
· No instruction to out CIA agent, says president

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Thursday July 6, 2006
The Guardian


President George Bush directed his vice-president, Dick Cheney, to take personal charge of a campaign to discredit a former ambassador who had accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence on Iraq, it emerged yesterday.
The revelation by the National Journal, a respected weekly political magazine, that Mr Bush took a personal interest in countering damaging allegations by the former ambassador, Joe Wilson, reveals a White House that was extraordinarily sensitive to any criticism of its prewar planning. It also returns the focus of the criminal investigation into the outing of a CIA agent to the White House only weeks after the senior aide Karl Rove was told he would not face prosecution.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1813640,00.html?gusrc=rss

And to think, half this country used to like this guy!

 

[aps]

And to think, half this country used to like this guy!

Tell me something I don't know. Seriously, though, this is despicable! The similarities between this president and Nixon are both stunning and disgusting. I hope he leaves office with everyone knowing what a mean-spirited, intolerant of any criticism, and dishonest person he is.

 

[jfuh]

Tell me something I don't know. Seriously, though, this is despicable! The similarities between this president and Nixon are both stunning and disgusting. I hope he leaves office with everyone knowing what a mean-spirited, intolerant of any criticism, and dishonest person he is.

I strongly disagree with that. Bush is not even on par with Nixxon except for the wire tap portion where he goes above and beyond anything Nixon did.
Nixon was pro-environment, pro-choice, pro-secularism, the guy was in every way by today's definition a liberal, hardly the right that we see today.
I think as is reflective of his approval ratings today, very few ppl except for the far right actually trust him.

 

[ShamMol]

You know what, I will defend Bush here. If I were in politics, I woudl use similar tatics. I would say to my right hand man-go and do my will. I would not expect him to go and do something illegal in order to do it. It is not Bush's fault...[in Count Dracula voice...]BLAH!

 

[Stinger]

Tell me something I don't know. Seriously, though, this is despicable! The similarities between this president and Nixon are both stunning and disgusting. I hope he leaves office with everyone knowing what a mean-spirited, intolerant of any criticism, and dishonest person he is.

They discredited what he said, if that discredited him in the process so be it. Every commission that investigated did the same thing. The adminstration had a duty to let the American people know the truth and they did.

Copyright The Washington Post Company Apr 9, 2006

"PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do.........."
"..............as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."

So what was the dispicable part you were talking about?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
They discredited what he said, if that discredited him in the process so be it. Every commission that investigated did the same thing. The adminstration had a duty to let the American people know the truth and they did.

Copyright The Washington Post Company Apr 9, 2006

"PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do.........."

Problem is they didn't tell anybody they were declassified until after the fact.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ShamMol
You know what, I will defend Bush here. If I were in politics, I woudl use similar tatics. I would say to my right hand man-go and do my will. I would not expect him to go and do something illegal in order to do it. It is not Bush's fault...[in Count Dracula voice...]BLAH!

If that's the case, then what the hell was he doing when he said to the nation he would "...fire the person responsible" when he knew all along who it was..........him!

Why didn't he come out a year earlier and say, "It was me!"

Why the ruse?

 

[Binary_Digit]

If that's the case, then what the hell was he doing when he said to the nation he would "...fire the person responsible" when he knew all along who it was..........him!

Why didn't he come out a year earlier and say, "It was me!"

Why the ruse?

Good question. And also, why didn't Bush just come out in the first place and say that the Ni ger reports Wilson investigated were not the only basis for believing Iraq tried to acquire uranium? If that were the case all along, then that's all he would need to defend against what Wilson was saying, so why have Cheney waste time on a "campaign" to discredit him? And why retract the infamous 16 words from the 2003 SoTU address? That just smells rotten and makes me wonder if there actually is another source.

 

[bizznych]

Hitler made the film about the sudatenland,pure propaganda to justify his invasion of czechaslovakia.Cheney had his "energy summit" at which maps of Iraq were passed out to the big oil attendees.It seems that he does'nt want to release the minutes either,this is because we would see that Iraq was in the plans before 911.And 911 was an excuse to execute the already drawn up plans to seize a fifth of known oil reserves.It now turns out that Kenneth Lay,one of Cheney's esteemed guests, was in the process of looting his employees 401k plans and putting the money into 900 offshore accounts.This shows the "morality" of these corporate raider types.
Bush tried to stop the investigation of 911 and halted an fbi probe into terrorist financing because it would also expose ken Lay and his other supporter's uses of the same offshore banks.So the war was planned ahead of time,and later blamed on"bad intelligence".This is the CIA report that is titled"BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO USE AIRLINERS TO ATTACK THE US";does that sound like bad intelligence to you?Well they ignored this,(see ****aleeza Rice's testimony before congress) and then had the gall to blame the 911 attack on the cia.And some of you bought it;hook, line and sinker.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Binary_Digit:
Good question. And also, why didn't Bush just come out in the first place and say that the Ni ger reports Wilson investigated were not the only basis for believing Iraq tried to acquire uranium? If that were the case all along, then that's all he would need to defend against what Wilson was saying, so why have Cheney waste time on a "campaign" to discredit him? And why retract the infamous 16 words from the 2003 SoTU address? That just smells rotten and makes me wonder if there actually is another source.

See-ins how we haven't seen that other source, nor has he retracted the above-referenced "16 words", I guess we'll just have to go with what we know...

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Re: Bush told Cheney to discremdit diplomat critical of Iraq policy

If that's the case, then what the hell was he doing when he said to the nation he would "...fire the person responsible" when he knew all along who it was..........him!

Why didn't he come out a year earlier and say, "It was me!"

Why the ruse?

The article you posted made no mention of Plame, and for the record Wilson is a proven lier.

 

[Stinger]

Good question. And also, why didn't Bush just come out in the first place and say that the Ni ger reports Wilson investigated were not the only basis for believing Iraq tried to acquire uranium?

They never said they were the basis in the first place and Wilson never saw the documents in the first place.

If that were the case all along, then that's all he would need to defend against what Wilson was saying, so why have Cheney waste time on a "campaign" to discredit him? And why retract the infamous 16 words from the 2003 SoTU address? That just smells rotten and makes me wonder if there actually is another source.

All they needed was the information they released which debunked what Wilson was saying. They did exactly as they should have.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
All they needed was the information they released which debunked what Wilson was saying. They did exactly as they should have.

You cannot "debunk" something with forged evidence!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
The article you posted made no mention of Plame, and for the record Wilson is a proven lier.

Why don't you read the article instead of guessing?

Portion of article billo posted:
The Journal said Mr Bush made the admission in a July 24 2004 interview in the Oval Office with the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, who is leading the investigation into the outing of the CIA agent, Valerie Plame. Ms Plame is married to Mr Wilson, who says her cover was broken in retaliation after he accused the administration of knowingly using false information on Saddam Hussein's weapons programme.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Why don't you read the article instead of guessing?

prove it. Again the Wilson's are proven liars your article is about discrediting Wilson not outting Plame.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
prove it.

I just did!

Originally posted by TOT:
Again the Wilson's are proven liars your article is about discrediting Wilson not outting Plame.

Just like our President, you try to change the reason you went into this arguement.

Prove he lied!

Where's the yellowcake, Essaaaaaaaaaay?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I just did!

You proved nothing.

Just like our President, you try to change the reason you went into this arguement.

Prove he lied!

Where's the yellowcake, Essaaaaaaaaaay?

Right here:

Friday, Oct. 8, 2004 11:16 a.m. EDT

No WMD Stockpiles in Iraq? Not Exactly ... Is it really true that Saddam Hussein had no "stockpiles" of weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invaded in March 2003?

Not exactly - at least not if one counts the 500 tons of uranium that the Iraqi dictator kept stored at his al Tuwaitha nuclear weapons development plant.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/8/112447.shtml

 

[aps]

First it's:

The article you posted made no mention of Plame, and for the record Wilson is a proven lier.

Then Trajan changes it to:

prove it. Again the Wilson's are proven liars your article is about discrediting Wilson not outting Plame.

I would love to see your proof that Valerie Plame is a liar, except, of course, if you say that she was telling people she worked for a fake company instead of telling people she was a CIA operative agent. Then, yes, she would be deemed a liar in that particular instance.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

First it's:



Then Trajan changes it to:



I would love to see your proof that Valerie Plame is a liar, except, of course, if you say that she was telling people she worked for a fake company instead of telling people she was a CIA operative agent. Then, yes, she would be deemed a liar in that particular instance.

Well she lied when she said that she didn't send Wilson to Niger.

 

[aps]

Well she lied when she said that she didn't send Wilson to Niger.

She didn't send Wilson to Niger--she recommended that Wilson go because of his contacts and experience.

Nevertheless, can you provide me evidence that she specifically denied having any part in Wilson going to Niger?

 

[jfuh]

You proved nothing.


Right here:
[/size]

News max again? When are you going to learn tot, Newsmax is NOT by anymeans a credible source. Nor is any media that praises the likes of Coulter as a near immortal.
Example being truth out.
You've participipated in the true debates, you should know better. For shame.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

News max again? When are you going to learn tot, Newsmax is NOT by anymeans a credible source. Nor is any media that praises the likes of Coulter as a near immortal.
Example being truth out.
You've participipated in the true debates, you should know better. For shame.

Don't like that one here's another:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4661

 

[Stinger]

News max again? When are you going to learn tot, Newsmax is NOT by anymeans a credible source.

It is as crediable as any source you cite, but the fact is that is your first line of defense when you can't rebut what they report. It is noted in this case.

And a hint, you might want to start reading them since quite often it is their reporting which rebuts your cites. Save yourself some time and effort.

 

[Stinger]

She didn't send Wilson to Niger--she recommended that Wilson go because of his contacts and experience.

A distinction without merit.

Nevertheless, can you provide me evidence that she specifically denied having any part in Wilson going to Niger?

HE stated she had nothing to do with it, her refusal to set the record straight is a de facto lie on her part.

Together they tried to pull a fraud on you, when will you accept that fact which has been confirmed to you over and over and over?

 

[aps]

Originally Posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
Well she lied when she said that she didn't send Wilson to Niger.

She didn't send Wilson to Niger--she recommended that Wilson go because of his contacts and experience.

Nevertheless, can you provide me evidence that she specifically denied having any part in Wilson going to Niger?

Trajan, I am waiting for this evidence. Where is it? If you are incapable of substantiating your allegation, I would recommend you retract it.