• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

So Libby learned of Plame through none other than Cheney

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Interesting. Didn't Libby say that he learned of Plame from journalists? Riiiiiiiiiight. I think Libby may have perjured himself. No surprise there.

On the NYT web site:

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/p...&en=56e9496be92c9d2a&ei=5094&partner=homepage
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Interesting. Didn't Libby say that he learned of Plame from journalists? Riiiiiiiiiight. I think Libby may have perjured himself. No surprise there.

On the NYT web site:

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.





I thought CNN news said that the prosecutor was being very tight lipped; ..& you seem to have all this new news of Cheney being involved now!

Does wishing so, make it so..? huh huh:smile:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stu Ghatze said:
aps said:
Interesting. Didn't Libby say that he learned of Plame from journalists? Riiiiiiiiiight. I think Libby may have perjured himself. No surprise there.

On the NYT web site:

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.





I thought CNN news said that the prosecutor was being very tight lipped; ..& you seem to have all this new news of Cheney being involved now!

Does wishing so, make it so..? huh huh:smile:
Ahhhh, defensive there, huh, Stu? Did you not read the website I posted? I watched Joe Scarborough tonight. They have no idea how this information was leaked. It was not done by Fitzgerald. There was talk that perhaps an attorney for Libby may have done it to soften the blow from the possible impending indictment by the end of this week.

I have been away from DC for two weeks on vacation. I am soooooo glad to be back for all of this!

So, Stu, if Libby and Rove are indicted, will you keep up this attitude of yours? You know, wishful thinking that your party has any morals??? Of course you will. I am sure you are awaiting Ken Melhman's talking points on how to handle all this negativity. ;)
 

Stu Ghatze

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
531
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Stu Ghatze said:
Ahhhh, defensive there, huh, Stu? Did you not read the website I posted? I watched Joe Scarborough tonight. They have no idea how this information was leaked. It was not done by Fitzgerald. There was talk that perhaps an attorney for Libby may have done it to soften the blow from the possible impending indictment by the end of this week.

I have been away from DC for two weeks on vacation. I am soooooo glad to be back for all of this!

So, Stu, if Libby and Rove are indicted, will you keep up this attitude of yours? You know, wishful thinking that your party has any morals??? Of course you will. I am sure you are awaiting Ken Melhman's talking points on how to handle all this negativity. ;)




What attitude..? I see it for what it really is, & that it is nothing short of having democratic political hacks well placed as prosecutors to help destroy a republican presidency, & all for a witch hunt.

Plame was NEVER a CIA covert agent, a mere desk jockey anaylist at best, & her husband was nothing more than a mouthpiece & disingenuine in his report as to that that Niger trip investigation.

Why did Plame & Wilson lie, & say that CHeney sent Wilson on that trip to Niger? Why did Plame lie about saying she had nothing to do with Wilson being sent to Niger?

Hell, it was Plame herself proven by documents that the cIA should hire her husband, ..he has no foreign intel experience; nor was he ever qualified to know about weapons of mass destruction, & certainly no expert on hardly anything!

What IS known is that both Plame & Wilson were ardent Kerry supporters, & campaign contributers to Kerry, & washinton beltway media lovers, & jet setters who loved being the talk of the cocktail party circuit, & other elitist trendy people; & God knows they certainly loved the adoration heaped upon them from the Vanity Fair magazine spread, & photo ops people.

Even British intel said Sadaam DID try to get uranium, but Niger officials refused to sell any to Iraq.

Intent is everything, ..but why did Joe Wilson conveniently leave that tidbit out; The fact that Sadaam DID try to obtain uranium?

We KNOW why, it was to portray Bush as a liar..& to help destroy support for the Iraqi war which would benefit the democrats!

This whole Plame thing is NOT just about protecting Plame, nor looking for a law that was broken. Oh No, ..it is NOW being used as a "CATALYST" to help bring down the whole Bush administration by alleging that the whole point of the war in iraq was based on a lie. (What the democrats always had hoped for, a co-incidence,.. hardly!)

Of course the left will conveniently forget the fact that Israel blew up Iraq's NUCLEAR facility in 1981 that France built for SAdaam, & the democrats will also forget the shell game of U. N. inspectors being told they could not inspect this site, or that site, & the fact that they were THROWN out on numerous occassions....a DIRECT violation to the terms of the first Iraqi gulf war, & the fact that SAdaam was shooting at American aircraft in the no fly zone, ..yet another violation, & the slaughter of thousands of Kurds by horrific poison gases from Sadaam's stockpile that DID exist!

Do YOU really believe that Rove leaked Plame's name out first, ...WHICH IS EXACTLY what the investigation is SUPPOSED to be about?

Somebody KNEW long before Rove knew, & even some reporters knew well before Rove knew! Who told the reporter's????????????????

It is nothing but politics now, & trying to legitimize the prosecution of the whole bush administration for something OTHER than an outing of Valeri Plame's identity, & search for truth!

It will fail in the end, & the media's complicity in this whole filthy PHONEY search for so called "justice" is already being seen for what it REALLY is; which is nothing short of an attempt to destroy a presidency by over the top partisan prosecutors drunk on having prosecutoral powers that are out of control.

The media lOVES the indictments, & the charges....because accusations are BIGGER than any proofs that the prosecutor even possesses; but it is hoped the media can help find guilt through accusation, & charges thus hoping to snowball bUsh's predidency. (The typical democratic party operating procedure).. which is funny actualy:smile: because everybody already knows how they operate when they cannot win elections, & do not control the majority in Congress anymore!

It is almost hilarious, even Chuckie Schumer, the pathetic whimp he really is, ..has a confident smerk on his homely face these days!:2razz:
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'll write more later, Stu. I gotta get ready for work. But let me say this--you clearly have not read up on the facts in this case. Do you really think that Bush would refer this issue for investigation if Plame was NOT a covert CIA agent? Do you really believe that? Because if you do, then I won't even bother addressing your other claims because I won't waste time addressing your arguments if you don't know the real facts in this case. Bush REFERRED this issue for investigation. Why would you say it is the democrats who are trying to destroy this presidency? It's Bush's own administration that is destroying this presidency. Lastly, Fitzgerald is a REPUBLICAN--just FYI.

I would highly recommend that you read up on the facts in this case before you spew the horse$hit you did above.
 

python416

Active member
Joined
Aug 29, 2005
Messages
484
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Oh Stu, please. Fitzgerald is not a partisan.

Cheney and co. got the intel, twisted for maximum fear, took the worst possible outcome and ignored its lack of crediability and stuck it in the state of union speech. Someone ratted them out for twisting the facts. They got pissed off and did a classic smear campaign against Wilson, but made a mistake and used his wifes name when they shouldn't have (and probably didn't even intend to), and now they are going down for it.

The information they used for the "Uranium from Africa" bit was weak, but they used it anyway. It didn't meet the standard required for a speech like that, but they needed to get the war going on their timetable.

They screwed up! Not Clinton, Dean, Sharpton, Fitzgerald, Tenet, the KBG, or anyone else.

They duped the American public and now they are getting what they deserve - Stop deflecting blame for them.




Stu Ghatze said:
aps said:
What attitude..? I see it for what it really is, & that it is nothing short of having democratic political hacks well placed as prosecutors to help destroy a republican presidency, & all for a witch hunt.

Plame was NEVER a CIA covert agent, a mere desk jockey anaylist at best, & her husband was nothing more than a mouthpiece & disingenuine in his report as to that that Niger trip investigation.

Why did Plame & Wilson lie, & say that CHeney sent Wilson on that trip to Niger? Why did Plame lie about saying she had nothing to do with Wilson being sent to Niger?

Hell, it was Plame herself proven by documents that the cIA should hire her husband, ..he has no foreign intel experience; nor was he ever qualified to know about weapons of mass destruction, & certainly no expert on hardly anything!

What IS known is that both Plame & Wilson were ardent Kerry supporters, & campaign contributers to Kerry, & washinton beltway media lovers, & jet setters who loved being the talk of the cocktail party circuit, & other elitist trendy people; & God knows they certainly loved the adoration heaped upon them from the Vanity Fair magazine spread, & photo ops people.

Even British intel said Sadaam DID try to get uranium, but Niger officials refused to sell any to Iraq.

Intent is everything, ..but why did Joe Wilson conveniently leave that tidbit out; The fact that Sadaam DID try to obtain uranium?

We KNOW why, it was to portray Bush as a liar..& to help destroy support for the Iraqi war which would benefit the democrats!

This whole Plame thing is NOT just about protecting Plame, nor looking for a law that was broken. Oh No, ..it is NOW being used as a "CATALYST" to help bring down the whole Bush administration by alleging that the whole point of the war in iraq was based on a lie. (What the democrats always had hoped for, a co-incidence,.. hardly!)

Of course the left will conveniently forget the fact that Israel blew up Iraq's NUCLEAR facility in 1981 that France built for SAdaam, & the democrats will also forget the shell game of U. N. inspectors being told they could not inspect this site, or that site, & the fact that they were THROWN out on numerous occassions....a DIRECT violation to the terms of the first Iraqi gulf war, & the fact that SAdaam was shooting at American aircraft in the no fly zone, ..yet another violation, & the slaughter of thousands of Kurds by horrific poison gases from Sadaam's stockpile that DID exist!

Do YOU really believe that Rove leaked Plame's name out first, ...WHICH IS EXACTLY what the investigation is SUPPOSED to be about?

Somebody KNEW long before Rove knew, & even some reporters knew well before Rove knew! Who told the reporter's????????????????

It is nothing but politics now, & trying to legitimize the prosecution of the whole bush administration for something OTHER than an outing of Valeri Plame's identity, & search for truth!

It will fail in the end, & the media's complicity in this whole filthy PHONEY search for so called "justice" is already being seen for what it REALLY is; which is nothing short of an attempt to destroy a presidency by over the top partisan prosecutors drunk on having prosecutoral powers that are out of control.

The media lOVES the indictments, & the charges....because accusations are BIGGER than any proofs that the prosecutor even possesses; but it is hoped the media can help find guilt through accusation, & charges thus hoping to snowball bUsh's predidency. (The typical democratic party operating procedure).. which is funny actualy:smile: because everybody already knows how they operate when they cannot win elections, & do not control the majority in Congress anymore!

It is almost hilarious, even Chuckie Schumer, the pathetic whimp he really is, ..has a confident smerk on his homely face these days!:2razz:
 

tryreading

Steve
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
4,809
Reaction score
764
Location
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
aps said:
Interesting. Didn't Libby say that he learned of Plame from journalists? Riiiiiiiiiight. I think Libby may have perjured himself. No surprise there.

On the NYT web site:

Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24 - I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, first learned about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak investigation in a conversation with Mr. Cheney weeks before her identity became public in 2003, lawyers involved in the case said Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/p...&en=56e9496be92c9d2a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

What causes the big problem in these high-level investigations is any hint of a cover-up. I am not saying that is what is going on in this case. But I predict that if this thing gets to the indictment level, it will be because somebody said something (or didn't say something) to hide something.

Politicians, and the rest of us, don't learn from history. Watergate was a bungled attempt at subversion. The cover-up caused a national scandalous televised public disaster which ruined many people and shamed a country. Lewinsky (gate?) was a soiled dress and a wet cigar mixed with some private adultery. A lie about it in a courtroom caused a national scandalous televised public disas...

Someday a high profile politician in our country, upon being asked once, will admit to a recent adulterous affair, or having done cocaine for a few years, or maybe to an unavoidable accidental kill in Grenada, and we'll elect him to the Presidency without worry of voter's remorse, because he's (or she's) an honest man.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
tryreading said:
What causes the big problem in these high-level investigations is any hint of a cover-up. I am not saying that is what is going on in this case. But I predict that if this thing gets to the indictment level, it will be because somebody said something (or didn't say something) to hide something.

Politicians, and the rest of us, don't learn from history. Watergate was a bungled attempt at subversion. The cover-up caused a national scandalous televised public disaster which ruined many people and shamed a country. Lewinsky (gate?) was a soiled dress and a wet cigar mixed with some private adultery. A lie about it in a courtroom caused a national scandalous televised public disas...

Someday a high profile politician in our country, upon being asked once, will admit to a recent adulterous affair, or having done cocaine for a few years, or maybe to an unavoidable accidental kill in Grenada, and we'll elect him to the Presidency without worry of voter's remorse, because he's (or she's) an honest man.
tryreading, I totally agree. I just don't get why politicians do not just admit to past mistakes. I would have much more respect for a politician that admitted a mistake and said he/she learned from it.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Cheney and co. got the intel, twisted for maximum fear, took the worst possible outcome and ignored its lack of crediability and stuck it in the state of union speech.
It was true, it wasn't exaggerated, there was no lack of crediabilty.

Someone ratted them out for twisting the facts.
Someone, Joe Wilson, lied about it and his role in a CIA trip to Africa. The White House was full intitled to let reporters know that Wilson was lying.

They got pissed off and did a classic smear campaign against Wilson,
The smearing was coming from a group at the CIA and Wilson, the White House was entitled to fight back and they did.

but made a mistake and used his wifes name when they shouldn't have (and probably didn't even intend to), and now they are going down for it.
So far this morning there is no talk that exposing the lie Wilson was telling, that he wife had nothing to do with his trip and in fact he was there because the VP sent him has not produced an indictment.

The information they used for the "Uranium from Africa" bit was weak, but they used it anyway.
No it wasn't and in Wilson's verbal report to the CIA he bolstered the already know evidence that Iraq had tried to get more urainium from Africa, he lied when he went public and in the book he wrote.

It didn't meet the standard required for a speech like that, but they needed to get the war going on their timetable.
Yes it did and we now know for sure it was true.


They duped the American public and now they are getting what they deserve - Stop deflecting blame for them.
The duping came from Wilson and his wife, I hope THEY get indicted for trying to pull this sham on the public, fortuniately the White House was able to expose the little lie they and perhaps some others tried to put on the public.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
It was true, it wasn't exaggerated, there was no lack of crediabilty.



Someone, Joe Wilson, lied about it and his role in a CIA trip to Africa. The White House was full intitled to let reporters know that Wilson was lying.



The smearing was coming from a group at the CIA and Wilson, the White House was entitled to fight back and they did.



So far this morning there is no talk that exposing the lie Wilson was telling, that he wife had nothing to do with his trip and in fact he was there because the VP sent him has not produced an indictment.



No it wasn't and in Wilson's verbal report to the CIA he bolstered the already know evidence that Iraq had tried to get more urainium from Africa, he lied when he went public and in the book he wrote.



Yes it did and we now know for sure it was true.




The duping came from Wilson and his wife, I hope THEY get indicted for trying to pull this sham on the public, fortuniately the White House was able to expose the little lie they and perhaps some others tried to put on the public.
Stinger, is your real name one of the following:

(a) Karl Rove
(b) Ken Mehlman
(c) Bill O'Reilly
(d) Sean Hannity
(e) Dick Cheney

Yeah, the duping came from Wilson and his wife. Okay. You'd have a lot more credibility if you could admit some mistakes that the Bush Administration has made, but since you can't, you have ZERO credibility, as it's unrealistic.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Stinger, is your real name ...............
Hmmmm instead of rebuttle you offer childish games.

aps said:
Yeah, the duping came from Wilson and his wife. Okay.
Yep it did, as the Senate Committed found out he is a patent liar.

aps said:
You'd have a lot more credibility if ..............................
My credibility has nothing to do with "mistakes that the Bush.............." and the other weave and dodges you posted. It appears you can't rebut the facts that I posted. Hope you don't repeat the misinformation you are posting now that the facts have been exposed to you.
 
Last edited:

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Stinger said:
Hmmmm instead of rebuttle you offer childish games.



Yep it did, as the Senate Committed found out he is a patent liar.



My credibility has nothing to do with "mistakes that the Bush.............." and the other weave and dodges you posted. It appears you can't rebut the facts that I posted. Hope you don't repeat the misinformation you are posting now that the facts have been exposed to you.
Honestly, I am so tired of giving the same rebuttal over and over again. I really just wanted to express my disappointment how all of you Fox viewers have the exact same arguments. It's pathetic.

I will agree that Wilson misrepresented some of the facts, but I would not call him a "patent liar." Can you provide me documentation that Iraq was attempting to get uranium from Niger? If so, please please please share them with me.

When I was talking about your credibility, I was addressing how the inaccurate facts you lay out above show that you have none. It's my opinion, and it is relevant.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Honestly, I am so tired of giving the same rebuttal over and over again. I really just wanted to express my disappointment how all of you Fox viewers have the exact same arguments. It's pathetic.
Well since you have yet to rebut anything..............

I will agree that Wilson misrepresented some of the facts, but I would not call him a "patent liar." Can you provide me documentation that Iraq was attempting to get uranium from Niger? If so, please please please share them with me.
some of the fact? He out right lied in his editorial piece. And his claim that he debunked the Niger documents flys in the face of the fact that they didn't even come to light until 8 MONTHS AFTER his trip. As far as documentation, which I have posted several times, it is clearly documented in the many hearings that have been held and especially the Senate Hearings. Have you not bother to read thier findings?

When I was talking about your credibility, I was addressing how the inaccurate facts you lay out above show that you have none. It's my opinion, and it is relevant.
List the specific facts I have laid out that you claim are false and provide the evidence that they are. I get tired of you and others who make phoney claims and then when presented with the facts dismiss them without rebuttle and try to run away with the lines you posted at the top. Put up or shut up, where is YOUR proof that Wilson is an honest man who told the truth?
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Stinger said:
And his claim that he debunked the Niger documents flys in the face of the fact that they didn't even come to light until 8 MONTHS AFTER his trip.
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Wilson debunked the Niger reports that he was sent to investigate. To this day, nobody refutes this. I don't know where you got that "8 months after" crap, but it's bullshit.

Stinger said:
As far as documentation, which I have posted several times, it is clearly documented in the many hearings that have been held and especially the Senate Hearings. Have you not bother to read thier findings?
The Senate Intelligence Committee did not debunk Wilson's conclusions in Niger. Iraq did not buy uranium and that is undisputed. But they did debunk Wilson's claims that Bush lied about it. British intelligence and even Wilson provided evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium. Now, I hope you don't repeat the misinformation you are posting now that the facts have been exposed to you. :2razz:
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Let me ask you this Stinger. Why is Wilson's credibility so important to you? Why are you on a campaign to discredit him? Wait, I know. It's because he went public about Bush's rationale for war, right? Ok, I can help with that. See, you don't need to point to Wilson lying about who sent him or about names and dates. What he said about those things is irrelavent. The only thing that is important is what Bush said in his doomed 2003 speech:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

There is absolutely, positively, nothing at all wrong or untrue about these 16 words. But they are what compelled Wilson to go public saying he had debunked allegations that Iraq actually purchased uranium. See how he screwed up and misinterpreted Bush's words? :3oops:
 

teacher

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
30
Location
Nomad.Got a couch,beer,meat,cute daughters,Batman
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Let me see if I got this right. Wilson got caught lying. Rove spanked him with dirty tricks just short of breaking the law. When this first came up I had to inform this site about the 5 year rule. I Spanked Ivaulefreedom with it. Simon Moon (is that his name or what he does) backed me up. I think that was low of Rove and he should quit. Take one for the team. Ed Meese resigned over the "appearance of impropriety". If Rove had done long ago this W. wouldn't have to deal with this. Rove is the same kind of guy as Carvell. Let the left have those folks. I want these guys to be better than that. A higher standard must be kept. Traditionally when Republicans get caught they go away. Like Livingston or the gay gov up north. Even if what they did is legal. If you keep your nose clean nobody can point fingers and you are more successful with your agenda. Logic.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
teacher said:
Let me see if I got this right. Wilson got caught lying. Rove spanked him with dirty tricks just short of breaking the law.
Not exactly, but close. It actually happened like this:

Late 2001 and early 2002: U.S. gets fragmentory evidence that Iraq bought uranium from Niger.
February 2002: Wilson sent by CIA to investigate, found that no uranium was purchased, but did learn that Iraq had approached Nigerian officials to consider expanding commercial relations. Since 3/4 of Niger's exports are uranium, Nigerian officials believed this was an attempt to buy uranium, but they refused because of UN sanctions on Iraq. Wilson reported to the CIA, and the CIA suspects the same thing as Nigerian officials, that Iraq tried buy uranium. British intelligence concurs.
January 2003: Bush gives his State of the Union Speech in which he says Iraq sought uranium from Africa.
March 2003: Bush orders the invasion of Iraq.
May 2003: Wilson, believing he laid to rest any allegation involving Iraq and uranium, goes public and accuses Bush of twisting intelligence and lying about the uranium threat.
July 2003: Robert Novak publishes newspaper article saying that two senior administration officials told him Wilson's trip was the result of a suggestion by his wife, Valerie Plame. Four days later, British WMD expert David Kelly commits suicide.
September 2003: Justice Department officially launches its full criminal investigation into the leak.
December 2003: Fitzgerald appointed as special prosecutor.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Wilson debunked the Niger reports that he was sent to investigate. To this day, nobody refutes this. I don't know where you got that "8 months after" crap, but it's bullshit.
Wilson debunked nothing, especially the forged documents that we didn't even have until 8 months after his trip. And as the CIA stated his trip actually made the case stronger that Saddam WAS trying to purchase yellow-cake in Africa.


The Senate Intelligence Committee did not debunk Wilson's conclusions in Niger.
They debunked his statement about the forged documents, who sent him and who he gave a report to and showed that he did prove Saddam had not and was not trying to get yellow-cake.

Iraq did not buy uranium and that is undisputed.

We have the yellow cake he did buy and it is undisputed that he was trying to get more.


But they did debunk Wilson's claims that Bush lied about it. British intelligence and even Wilson provided evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium. Now, I hope you don't repeat the misinformation you are posting now that the facts have been exposed to you. :2razz:
Sorry but you are factually wrong. The British have never backed off the evidence and their own investigation afterwards again confirmed it along with our own Senate Intelligence hearings. Now I hope you won't continue to post the lies that Wilson told and will instead brief yourself on what the investigations really showed.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
Let me ask you this Stinger. Why is Wilson's credibility so important to you? Why are you on a campaign to discredit him?
Let me ask you this, why do you try to frame it as something personal rather than something factual. Let's just deal with facts and leave your emotions out of it. The Senate Intelligence Committe hearing prove Wilson lied about who sent him, what he did, what he found, who he reported to and just about everything else. His mission was a government sanctioned mission, he was on the government payroll and if he lied and he went public with those lies, yes that's important. The fact that he did so to try and discredit our government, and do so about a matter of national security is even more important. So his credibility is very important to our country and the war effort.

That you can't see that is very telling.

Wait, I know. It's because he went public about Bush's rationale for war, right?
Yes and told lies about what he knew.


Ok, I can help with that. See, you don't need to point to Wilson lying about who sent him or about names and dates.
The are key points.

What he said about those things is irrelavent. The only thing that is important is what Bush said in his doomed 2003 speech:
What he said and the circumstances of his trip go to the heart of the matter.

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
And that is true, was then and still is today.

There is absolutely, positively, nothing at all wrong or untrue about these 16 words. But they are what compelled Wilson to go public saying he had debunked allegations that Iraq actually purchased uranium. See how he screwed up and misinterpreted Bush's words?
Or sought to.
 
Top Bottom