Bad news for rove

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jul 12 2005, 08:15 PM']Thanks Homer, the other thing that bothers me is that the reporter should and probably does know better than to give that info out, you can do a story without telling the name of a CIA person. I don't know what the laws are but it's at the very least irresponsible and the reporter should be held to what the same thing Rove gets. I used to work in the NBC office up here so I have an appreciation for their desire to break a story and how one can get caught up in the excitement of that, but this is inexcusable. Every party responsible for putting that name out there should be punished.
[right][post="113713"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Well, Novak has been a hatchet-man for a long time. It'll be interesting to see where he falls out in this process. Apparently, he is not as exposed as some other reporters, though that seems strange.

Reporters have to protect their sources. In this case, it is entirely possible that the "leaker" may not have broken the law as it is written, as foreknowledge of the covert status of an agent is required. Politically, it is yet another smear attack on an opponent.

At least Rove isn't whispering that Wilson is a pedophile (Something he did during a campaign in Alabama some years ago.

BTW, as your sig reminds me: I was flipping through the channels a few weeks ago and came across a half hour of Hedberg's standup. Pretty damn funny. I wondered, did people ever compare him to Steven Wright, who had/has a similar modus operandus?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jul 13 2005, 09:13 AM']Well, Novak has been a hatchet-man for a long time. It'll be interesting to see where he falls out in this process. Apparently, he is not as exposed as some other reporters, though that seems strange.

Reporters have to protect their sources. In this case, it is entirely possible that the "leaker" may not have broken the law as it is written, as foreknowledge of the covert status of an agent is required. Politically, it is yet another smear attack on an opponent.

At least Rove isn't whispering that Wilson is a pedophile (Something he did during a campaign in Alabama some years ago.

BTW, as your sig reminds me: I was flipping through the channels a few weeks ago and came across a half hour of Hedberg's standup. Pretty damn funny. I wondered, did people ever compare him to Steven Wright, who had/has a similar modus operandus?
[right][post="113796"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I understand the need to protect the source, I’m just concerned that putting the name out there undermines the ability to do her job and exposes her to terrorists should she ever decided to leave to country on vacation, hell even if she stayed in the country potently. Like I said he could have done the story without releasing the name.

Actually the only comparison I saw concerning Hedberg is Seinfeld.

[jza10304]

[quote name='Jamie_B' date='Jul 13 2005, 09:15 AM']I understand the need to protect the source, I’m just concerned that putting the name out there undermines the ability to do her job and exposes her to terrorists should she ever decided to leave to country on vacation, hell even if she stayed in the country potently. Like I said he could have done the story without releasing the name.

Actually the only comparison I saw concerning Hedberg is Seinfeld.
[right][post="113804"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Not just her but anyone else who may be "associated" with her (agents and non agents whom she introduced into circles). Many people in her network will now be looked at with a suspicious eye.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='jza10304' date='Jul 13 2005, 11:01 AM']Not just her but anyone else who may be "associated" with her (agents and non agents whom she introduced into circles).  Many people in her network will now be looked at with a suspicious eye.
[right][post="113818"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Agreed, it's just a bad situation for anyone who works in that kind of field to be exposed like that, CIA, FBI, State Department ect...

[jza10304]

[img]http://i1.neilrogers.com/images/news/stt050713.gif.jpg[/img]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='jza10304' date='Jul 14 2005, 11:45 AM'][img]http://i1.neilrogers.com/images/news/stt050713.gif.jpg[/img]
[right][post="114378"][/post][/right][/quote]


and what "is" is.

[Guest bengalrick]

[url="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050715/D8BBQEVO0.html"]click here[/url]

[quote][b]Rove Learned CIA Agent's Name From Novak[/b]


WASHINGTON (AP) - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that [b]Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.[/b]

[b]Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.[/b]

The conversation eventually turned to Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source.

Novak's column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said.

When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony.

Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and - in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations - informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said.

An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson's wife in a confidential conversation as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA.

Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.

"Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago," Luskin said. "And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation."

In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity.

Rove's conversations with Novak and Cooper took place just days after Wilson suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Democrats continued this week to sharpen their attacks, accusing Rove of compromising a CIA operative's identity just to discredit the political criticism of her husband.

On Thursday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada pressed for legislation to strip Rove of his clearance for classified information, which he said President Bush should have done already. Instead, Reid said, the Bush administration has attacked its critics: "This is what is known as a cover-up. This is an abuse of power."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Democrats were resorting to "partisan war chants."

Across the Capitol, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., introduced legislation for an investigation that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the Plame disclosure.

Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn't involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.

"If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.[/quote]

rumor is, the big leaker is [b]ARI FLEISCHER[/b]...

[jza10304]

It's gonna be fun to see who they throw under the bus on this one. It's obvious that Rove will never go down. The same way that when a big athlete gets pulled over, his cousin or childhood friend takes the rap for the pound of weed. I hope you people who keep defending this administration are at least aware of the way that they operate, divisive issues, partisan attacks, smear campaigns. I know that the way politics work (both parties do this), but they have truly taken it up a notch.

[Guest bengalrick]

pretty sad, that somebody can get such a bad name, just b/c of a false allegation... sorry you can't see that, but everything isn't a consperacy... novak asked rove if the story was true (he leaked it to rove!!) and you are still putting the ultimate blame on him... unbelievable...

here is the difference between me and you... if this story would have shown rove did something that was legally wrong or morally wrong, or if we find out that this report is wrong, then i will turn on rove in a heart beat... anyone that leaks info that could get people hurt is a traitor... but now that the story is turning away from the real story (bring rove down) now it still has to be his fault, but someone else will take the fall... hypocracy bull shit...

this has little to do w/ partisanship on my side... sure i dont' want rove to be fired, but if he wrong, he better get fired... liberals are one sided... if you can't see that, after reading jza's post, then your blind... not to say that he is definately wrong, but i leave myself open for either way... jza, bj, and others have pretty much fired him and locked him up in their head... its gets old...

[Guest bengalrick]

here is the real story of this... its so obvious to me that this was an election trick, that went further b/c rove's name was part of it...

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/14/AR2005071401735.html"]washingtonpost.com[/url]

[quote]Mr. Rove's Leak


Friday, July 15, 2005; Page A22

THE UPROAR over Karl Rove's involvement in the leak of a CIA agent's identity makes this the third consecutive Washington summer to feature a tempest over what should have been a long-forgotten visit to the African nation of Niger by retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. There are serious questions about Mr. Rove's behavior, as well as his misleading public accounting for it during the past two years. Certainly, the revelation that Mr. Rove discussed Mr. Wilson's wife with at least one reporter undermines the White House's highhanded pronouncements that it was "just totally ridiculous" to think that Mr. Rove had anything to do with the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.

But much is still unknown, and Democratic demands that Mr. Rove be fired immediately seem premature given the murky state of the evidence. While we await more facts, it's worth remembering some from the previous episodes of this strange story -- including a few that have been mangled or forgotten.

 
Mr. Wilson made his trip in 2002 to look into reports that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger. A year later, he publicly surfaced and loudly proclaimed that the Bush administration should have known that its conclusion that Iraq had sought such supplies, included in the president's 2003 State of the Union address, was wrong. He said he had debunked that theory and that his report had circulated at the highest levels of government.

One year after that, reports by two official investigations -- Britain's Butler Commission and the Senate intelligence committee -- demonstrated that Mr. Wilson's portrayal of himself as a whistle-blower was unwarranted. It turned out his report to the CIA had not altered, and may even have strengthened, the agency's conclusion that Iraq had explored uranium purchases from Niger. Moreover, his account had not reached Vice President Cheney or any other senior official. According to the Butler Commission, led by an independent jurist, the assertion about African uranium included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech was "well-founded."

That brings us to this year's dust-up, which concerns whether Mr. Rove or other administration officials should be held culpable for leaking to journalists the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. Reporters were told that Ms. Plame recommended Mr. Wilson for the Niger trip -- a fact denied by Mr. Wilson but subsequently confirmed by the Senate investigation. A federal prosecutor is conducting a criminal probe that has, among other things, unearthed an e-mail from Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper revealing that Mr. Rove told him about Ms. Plame's role in her husband's trip.

This gives the lie to White House denials that Mr. Rove was involved in the leak. Mr. Rove and White House spokesman Scott McClellan can fairly be accused, at the very least, of responding to questions about the affair with the sort of misleading legalisms and evasions that Republicans once rightly condemned President Bill Clinton for employing. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Mr. Rove told CNN last year. Technically true, perhaps, but hardly a model of straightforwardness and probity. Asked about the leak, Mr. McClellan waxed indignant: "That is not the way this White House operates," he said. Or is it?

At the same time, Mr. Rove and other administration officials had a legitimate interest in rebutting Mr. Wilson's inflated claims -- including the notion that he had been dispatched to Niger at Mr. Cheney's behest. It's in that context, judging from Mr. Cooper's e-mail, that Mr. Rove appears to have brought up Ms. Plame's role. Whether Mr. Rove or others behaved in a way that amounted to criminal, malicious or even merely sleazy behavior will turn on what they knew about Ms. Plame's employment. Were they aware she was a covert agent? Did they recklessly fail to consider that before revealing her involvement? How they learned about Ms. Plame also will matter: Did the information come from government sources or outside parties?

It may be that Mr. Rove, or someone else, will turn out to be guilty of deliberately leaking Ms. Plame's identity, knowing that it would blow her cover. Or officials may have conspired to cover up a leak or lied about it under oath. For now, however, it remains to be established that such misconduct occurred.[/quote]

now who is the real criminal, wilson or rove??

[Jamie_B]

Whoever is responsible, I dont care who it was their head needs to roll.

[jza10304]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jul 15 2005, 10:45 AM']pretty sad, that somebody can get such a bad name, just b/c of a false allegation... sorry you can't see that, but everything isn't a consperacy... novak asked rove if the story was true (he leaked it to rove!!) and you are still putting the ultimate blame on him... unbelievable...

here is the difference between me and you... if this story would have shown rove did something that was legally wrong or morally wrong, or if we find out that this report is wrong, then i will turn on rove in a heart beat... anyone that leaks info that could get people hurt is a traitor... but now that the story is turning away from the real story (bring rove down) now it still has to be his fault, but someone else will take the fall... hypocracy bull shit...

this has little to do w/ partisanship on my side... sure i dont' want rove to be fired, but if he wrong, he better get fired... liberals are one sided... if you can't see that, after reading jza's post, then your blind... not to say that he is definately wrong, but i leave myself open for either way... jza, bj, and others have pretty much fired him and locked him up in their head... its gets old...
[right][post="114880"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Why did it take him so long to say anything? Why did he claim to not know anything about it? Why did the president say that anyone who was "INVOLVED" in the leak (not just the leaker) from his administration would be fired?

You are right Rick, this administration is made up of wholesome individuals who are held to the highest standards in ethics. Can't you see that this was a partisan attack to get revenge on someone who didn't tow the party line. It is meant as intimidation to anyone else who might want to speak up. This is how things are being run and I can't see how you don't even acknowledge that.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='jza10304' date='Jul 15 2005, 11:11 AM']Why did it take him so long to say anything?  Why did he claim to not know anything about it?  Why did the president say that anyone who was "INVOLVED" in the leak (not just the leaker) from his administration would be fired?
[right][post="114897"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

why did it take so long? i'm not him, so i can't answer, but since he had nothing to do w/ the actual leak, it doesn't really matter... maybe he likes to see the dem's make fools of themselves, i don't know... why did he claim to not know anything about it? not sure when he said that (i assume you mean scott mccllean)... i'd have to go through the quotes, but to say rove had something to do w/ it (w/ the evidence we know so far) is a far fetch... novak called him and told him her name and that she worked for the cia... and about bush saying that anyone would be fired that was involved... come one jza, he did nothing...

[quote name='jza10304' date='Jul 15 2005, 11:11 AM']You are right Rick, this administration is made up of wholesome individuals who are held to the highest standards in ethics.  Can't you see that this was a partisan attack to get revenge on someone who didn't tow the party line.  It is meant as intimidation to anyone else who might want to speak up.  This is how things are being run and I can't see how you don't even acknowledge that.[right][post="114897"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

[i]It is meant as intimidation to anyone else who might want to speak up.[/i]

there not supposed to leak info about the administration... things are being ran tightly b/c we're at war... i can't believe YOU don't see that... this is only about karl rove... if ari fleicher would have been the only link (if he is) this wouldn't be a story...

don't confuss me for an id1ot, i know they aren't perfect but they are no where near the perception you, bj, and other liberals have on him...


btw jaime, agreed if someone broke the law... but if she wasn't in the cia for the last 10 years out of the country, it isn't breaking any laws... IF the law was broken, then heads better roll...

[jza10304]

So if I tell you something that is secret and you go and repeat it, then you are not at fault. The point is that Rove should have known better than to talk about a CIA agent. There is no getting around that.

To clear things up, I think she was under classified status.

[Homer_Rice]

Rick, a couple of points regarding your posts today:

1) You need to read up on Rove's career. Really.
2) Before Wilson's op-ed piece a few years ago, there was at least one meeting in the Veep's office to put together a counterattack. Wilson had previously spoken out in a speech or on radio, I forget which.
3) What is going on now is classic politics, but, as jza said,. it's stepped up a notch. That's primarily due to Rove and his compadres method of doing things. Don't fall for the party line, look at both sides and make your own judgement.
4) You may well be right about Ari F. Scooter Libby is involved, too. In fact, lots of folks are involved and Fitzgerald will sort it out.

Finally, let me put the basic moral question to you in a different context. After examining Rove's character and activities over the past couple of decades, ask yourself whether or not you would want to call this man your friend, or if you would work with him, or have him work for you.

You don't have to defend scumbuckets to be a good conservative!

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jul 15 2005, 12:52 PM']Rick, a couple of points regarding your posts today:

1) You need to read up on Rove's career. Really.   [b][i]your right, i don't roves career, but this about one case, not his life story...[/i][/b]
2) Before Wilson's op-ed piece a few years ago, there was at least one meeting in the Veep's office to put together a counterattack. Wilson had previously spoken out in a speech or on radio, I forget which.who said this, wilson? [b][i]i have zero confidence in wilson telling the truth at this point... he wrote in his book that cheney and tenet directly sent him, and he found nothing... the investigation came back saying he lied and cheney and tenet had nothing to do w/ wilson, and the evidence wilson brought back from niger actually helped the case, not hurt it... hes a partisan, kerry voting, liar[/i][/b]
3) What is going on now is classic politics, but, as jza said,. it's stepped up a notch. That's primarily due to Rove and his compadres method of doing things. Don't fall for the party line, look at both sides and make your own judgement. [b][i]if you read my posts man, you will see that i am worried about our troops... screw whos a dem and whos a rep... they don't mean much to me... i care about the soldiers and spies that are fighting for us... if rove, bush, cheney, ronald mcdonald leaked a name, broke the law, or even said something that directly leads to a position (of a spy) being figured out by our enemy, they need to be punished fully... i just don't see how rove made a mistake, if he got a call from novak and navak asked him if wilson's wife was the one that sent him to niger, and rove says yes, how is that exposing a cia spy?[/i][/b]
4) You may well be right about Ari F. Scooter Libby is involved, too. In fact, lots of folks are involved and Fitzgerald will sort it out. [b][i]agreed.. we must get to the bottom of all of this[/i][/b]

Finally, let me put the basic moral question to you in a different context. After examining Rove's character and activities over the past couple of decades, ask yourself whether or not you would want to call this man your friend, or if you would work with him, or have him work for you.

You don't have to defend scumbuckets to be a good conservative!
[right][post="114935"][/post][/right][/quote]


would i want to call him a friend?? since i will never be running for office, NO!! if i were running for office, i want the best... and he is that...

i like the last comment though... i am only defending someone that appears to be innocent... if it turns out otherwise, i'll be w/ you and others calling for hell to be paid... but it appears to me that he didn't do anything... we'll see though... i will not back off my word if he is guilty (or even outed someone, but still wasn't technically guilty) if he put people in danger, i'll be pissed...

[Guest bengalrick]

why was this never talked about or investigated???

[url="http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/04/11/national/w172934D43.DTL"]click here[/url]

[quote][b]Senators May Have Blown Cover of CIA Agent[/b]
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer

Monday, April 11, 2005



(04-11) 17:29 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --


Mr. Smith came to Washington again Monday, as an alias for a Central Intelligence Agency officer who works covertly. Senators, however, may have blown his cover.


During questioning on John R. Bolton's nomination to be President Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, Bolton and members of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee referred to "Mr. Smith" as one official among several who were involved in a dispute over what Democrats asserted was Bolton's inappropriate treatment of an intelligence analyst who disagreed with him.


"We referred to this other analyst at the CIA, whom I'll try and call Mr. Smith here, I hope I can keep that straight," Bolton said at one point.


Committee Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., both mentioned a name, [b]Fulton Armstrong[/b], that had not previously come up in public accounts of the intelligence flap.


[b]It is not clear whether Armstrong is the undercover officer, but an exchange between Kerry and Bolton suggests that he may be.[/b]


[b]In questioning Bolton, Kerry read from a transcript of closed-door interviews that committee staffers conducted with State Department officials prior to Monday's hearing.[/b]


"Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed from his position? The answer is yes," Kerry said, characterizing one interview. "Did John Bolton share that view?" Kerry said, and then said the answer again was yes.


[b]"As I said, I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that," Bolton replied evenly. "I thought that was the honest thing to do."[/b][/quote]

why was this looked over... lets be real here... if kerry was president, this would be the story right now... i for one, am tired of partisan bull shit too...

[Guest bengalrick]

some interesting tid bits and links, to the rove case to:

[url="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050715-121257-9887r.htm"]washtimes.com[/url]

[quote]"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."[/quote]

[url="http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-cia-leak-rove,0,4798469,print.story?coll=nyc-nationhome-headlines"]nynewsday.com[/url]

[quote]But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.[/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img]

[Homer_Rice]

I read his book shortly after it came out and I do not think he claimed any direct connection to Cheney or Tenet. Whether or not Wilson's character is perfectly clean is not the issue here (and as I read the book I couldn't help but think that he was cashing in by writing a memoir based on the notoriety of the Plame case; the book was mostly about his career and didn't focus solely on the case.)

The bottom line here, Rick, is that some folks in key positions attacked an opponent by outing his wife, a WMD specialist, in order to make the case for a war purportedly based on a WMD argument. Wilson was right, the admin took his allegations seriously enough to smear him in a rather nasty way. Now that they have been "caught," they are doing a limited hangout and another smear. If you knew much about Rove's career and tactics, you'd recognize his fingerprints all over this, even if he manages to avoid the principal charge that people have been talking about. John Dean, who knows something about this sort of thing, has written an interesting take on the legal ramifications: [url="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html"]worth a look[/url].

And let's not forget this: the [b]real crime[/b] was in taking this country to war in Iraq on the basis of spurious arguments to fulfill a previously conceived (1991) geopolitical strategy. Not only was our population deceived, but the geopolitical strategy is flawed and harmful to our interests as a country. I know you and many others disagree with this assessment; just don't forget that a growing number of our citizenry is concluding otherwise because the evidence just keeps on accumulating. At some point enough people will come over to the "light" and we'll begin to correct our mistakes.

<edit--fixing more typos edit>

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jul 15 2005, 04:29 PM']And let's not forget this: the [b]real crime[/b] was in taking this country to war in Iraq on the basis of spurious arguments to fulfill a previously conceived (1991) geopolitical strategy. Not only was our population deceived, but the geopolitical strategy is flawed and harmful to our interests as a country. I know you and many others disagree with this assessment; just don't forget that a growing number of our citizenry is concluding otherwise because the evidence just keeps on accumulating. At some point enough people will come over to the "light" and we'll begin to correct our mistakes.

<edit--fixing more typos edit>
[right][post="115025"][/post][/right][/quote]

have you read this [url="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=2"]article from the weekly standard?[/url] very interesting stuff there... for all that say there was no iraqi connection, the evidence is there to show you, you are wrong... second, i can quote you a thousand democrats that talked about how big of a threat saddam was and that he either had them or wanted them... they all said it, b/c it was true... you read the niger report you said homer... i find it ironic you didn't see that a delegate from iraq supposidly approached niger for "yellow cake"... here is the [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3051709.stm"]timeline for all the events[/url]

[quote][b]Timeline: 'Niger uranium' row[/b]


BBC News Online charts the escalation of arguments in a row over Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger.

----------------------------------------------

[i]24 September 2002[/i]

"There is intelligence that [b]Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa.[/b] Iraq has no active civilian nuclear power programme or nuclear power plants and therefore has no legitimate reason to acquire uranium."

-Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The assessment of the British Government


[i]28 January 2003[/i]

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

-US President George W Bush's State of the Union address


[i]7 March 2003[/i]

"Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic.

We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded."

-UN nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei's report to the UN Security Council


[i]3 July 2003[/i]

"It is very odd indeed that the Government asserts that it was not relying on the evidence which has since been shown to have been forged but that eight months later it is still reviewing the other evidence... We recommend that the Government explain on what evidence it relied for its judgement in September that Iraq had recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. We further recommend that in its response to this Report the Government set out whether it still considers the September dossier to be accurate in what it states about Iraq's attempts to procure uranium from Africa in the light of subsequent events."

-House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report


[i]6 July 2003[/i]

"It was highly doubtful that any such (Niger-Iraq) transaction had ever taken place."

-Former US diplomat [b]Joseph Wilson[/b]   writing in the New York Times about his fact-finding visit to Niger in February 2002


[i]8 July 2003[/i]

"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger.

So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."

-White House spokesman [b]Ari Fleischer[/b]  


[i]8 July 2003[/i]

[b]"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called "forged" documents, they came from separate intelligence."[/b]

-British Prime Minister Tony Blair testimony to the House of Commons Liaison Committee.


[i]11 July 2003[/i]

"The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety... Some specifics about amount and place were taken out. With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared. The agency did not say they wanted that sentence out.

If the CIA - the director of central intelligence - had said "Take this out of the speech," it would have been gone. We have a high standard for the president's speeches."

-National security adviser Condoleezza Rice on US President George W Bush's State of the Union address


[i]11 July 2003[/i]

"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president. The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. I am responsible for the approval process in my agency."

-CIA Director George Tenet


[i]12 July 2003[/i]

"The CIA expressed reservations to us about this element of the September dossier... However, the US comment was unsupported by explanation and UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the US... A judgement was therefore made to retain it."

-UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in a letter to Donald Anderson MP, Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee[/quote]

so we were right on that one... we did think and they probably were trying to get uranium...

here is an article from [url="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1161490/posts"]financial times[/url]

[b][i]
Until now, the only evidence of Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger had turned out to be a forgery.[/i][/b] - by joseph wilson...

[b][i]
When the US State Department later passed the documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, they were found to be fake. US officials have subsequently distanced themselves from the entire notion that Iraq was seeking buy uranium from Niger.[/i][/b] - thanks wilson

[b][i]However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.[/i][/b] - shhh [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//32.gif[/img]

[b][i]The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001.

Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq.

This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programmes. Niger officials were also discussing sales to North Korea and China of uranium ore or the "yellow cake" refined from it: the raw materials that can be progressively enriched to make nuclear bombs.

The raw intelligence on the negotiations included indications that Libya was investing in Niger's uranium industry to prop it up at a time when demand had fallen, and that sales to Iraq were just a part of the clandestine export plan.

These secret exports would allow countries with undeclared nuclear programmes to build up uranium stockpiles.

One nuclear counter-proliferation expert told the FT: "If I am going to make a bomb, I am not going to use the uranium that I have declared. I am going to use what I acquire clandestinely, if I am going to keep the programme hidden."[/i][/b] - this doesn't scare you guys, that niger is doing this?? and IRAQ was one of the countries, along w/ iran... before 9/11?????????? and then 9/11 happens, and we gather this intel and we find this out... what the fuck do you think we'd think... they DID want nukes and who knows what he'd do w/ them... we did the right thing... period... and nobody will ever tell me differently... if we lose, if we win, it WAS the right thing to do... if there is a threat, you don't wait to try to catch them here... you go there... you think that its a coincidence that we haven't had an attack since 9/11?? hell no... it doesn't take long to train someone to strap a back pack on my back, and blow up a subway or bus... you don't have to be very talented to do that... they are more worried about protecting their own ass... like you guys always say, why would they come to america or britain to attack right now, when they all go to iraq and fight... the thing that nobody considers about them getting better, is so are we... we were in unchartered territory before this war started... we have learned a whole bunch about how to beat these guys and we have the best military and best fighters in the world... we WILL win, b/c we will not give in... the day that i give in (even if i'm not fighitng in it) is the day that we lost the war... if we lose the homefront, we lose everything... you guys have to understand why i am passionate about it, b/c that is the truth and the consiquences of losing would mean that we retreat and then wait to get attacked... bad way to go...

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050714/cagle00.gif[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[img]http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/050714/nick.jpg[/img]

[Homer_Rice]

You can read the report at the Senate Intel commitee page. I hit the Weekly Standard about once a week; gotta keep up on the neocons.

I know this is a tough pill to swallow. The real crime is as I stated.

[Guest bengalrick]

i'm reading the report, and it is very damaging stuff.. but this is my question to you... how is this the bush administration's fault?? seriously, hear me out... this report is extremely damaging to the CIA and IC in general, but how is it "bush lied" if we are relying on the CIA for the information... if you go past all the failures at the beginning, you find some very important information... starting at page 9, of this [url="http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf"]summarized intel report[/url]: from 1991-1998, the IC relied too heavily on the UN weapons inspectors for the intel we got... we weren't positioning human intellegence people in iraq for ourselves, which is obviously the best way to get true intellegence... then we got kicked out in 1998, and we were left w/ no intel at all... so we had to to go off what we knew at 1998, and assume that it was getting worse b/c we did get kicked out... the underlining problem here is using the "layering" tactic, which is essentionally guessing from previous information you had, what they would do w/ it... this is obviously a very bad way to do intel... it goes on to say that b/c we had no intel agents in iraq, we depended on former gov't guys and defectors... they knew of previous things (which was bad) but not of current things...

it goes on to say that after the UN inspectors were kicked out in 1998, getting human intel wasn't a high priority for the IC... it says there wasn't a single HUMINT source collecting intel after 1998... the CIA blamed this on risk and how hard it is... thats no reason to not do it imo...

then it says an important line to the rove case: (i'll quote this one) "The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access enjoyed by the spouse of a FBI employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortinate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available. Given the nature of rapidly evolving global threats such as terrorism and the proliferation of weapons and weapons technology, the Intellegence Community must develop means to quickly respond to fleeting collection opportunities outside the Communities established operating areas. The Committee also found other problems with the IC's follow up on the Iraq-Niger uranium issue, including a half-hearted investigation of the reported storage of uranium in Benin, and a failure, to this day, to call a telephone number, provided by the Navy, of an indivual who claimed to have information about Iraq's alleged efforts to acquire uranium from Niger."

on July 6, 2003 Wilson wrote the article [url="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm"]"What I didn't find in Africa"[/url]... [i]"It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me."[/i]) He implys that cheney had something to do w/ sending him (to hurt his name i guess): [i]"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. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."[/i]

[url="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml"]Novak[/url] shot back, and said that "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report." One appears to be Rove, and the other isn't known... all he was doing was SPEAKING THE TRUTH!!! this has nothing to do w/ outing an agent, it has to do w/ the truth being stated correctly... then it turns out that she was an operative in the past... as long as they didnt' know that (if they did, i doubt they would risk jail time for this) then they broke no rules...

the underlining problem here is so obvious it knocks you down... i'm not calling for a conspiracy theory bullshit, but the CIA is the problem... our president, and senate can only go off what they gather and put together, and its obvious that there are major flaws in the CIA and the way things are done... why was Wilson (w/ no experience) sent to Niger in the first place... they were [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3064441.stm"]forged document[/url]... then, Joseph Wilson reported that "The CIA sent fomer US diplomat Joseph Wilson to Niger, where he had once been based. He spoke to Niger officials who were in government when the deal allegedly took place. One said that he had been approached in June 1999 by a unnamed businessman about expanding trade between Niger and Iraq. There was an Iraqi delegation in Niger. This raised a suspicion that Iraq wanted to buy uranium ore since Niger has little else to offer" which is a good reason to keep checking it out, right? then he writes (shortly after) that [i]"It was highly doubtful that any such transaction had taken place."[/i] we need to look at the real problem in this case, the CIA and the lack of HUMINT, which is why we were "misled"... but it wasn't by the president... i rest my case

[|Lucid|]

BengalRick..

I love how you use generic statements like... (para) "Intelligence agents BELIEVED 5 nations, 1 of which is BELIEVED to be IRAQ..." as ABSOLUTE PROOF that they did attempt to purchase uranium... Especially when the only solid evidence produced has been found to be fake.. There is far more in the post you made that would point to this NOT haven taken place.

I am a conservative independent. I have voted Republican, Democrat, and Independent.. I evaluate the man and vote accordingly. I also originally believed Iraq had WMD's and supported the war. And from this independents point of view, this administration stinks.

Furthermore, the CIA has repeatedly denied that Wilson's wife recommended that he go investigate the uranium story.

Furthermore Wilson is not a partisan. He Voted for Bush Sr and NOT Clinton, and he contributed money to W's campaign (because he said he preferred him over McCainn, but finally voted for Gore).

3rdly if you read his op-ed piece you will find that he never claimed that Cheney sent him to Niger...

He stated -

"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's[b] office [/b]had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. [b]The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office"[/b] [url="http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm"]http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm[/url]

Where in that statement do you see anything that says that Dick Cheney told him to go to Niger? It says the Office of the the Vice President requested that the CIA send someone to check it out.

Finally, the transcripts of Roves testimony show that while he may not have been the original source of the leak, he confirmed it.. Which by itself is wrong.

I just don't see how people don't see this for what it is.. An obvious political power play that went too far.