Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

Page 32 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


Seems some people can't differentiate between adhering to the actual facts behind this case and diving headlong into the hysterical BS of the left.

OK TLC, lets see how you adhere to the actual facts behind this case.
Earlier, in response to the question "what was the purpose of outing Plame," you said:
The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway.
The "facts" you're asserting in this statment are: (and please correct me if I misrepresent you)
A. Wilson is a partisan who engaged in a partisan attack.
B. Plame herself sent Wilson on the Niger trip for partisan purposes.
C. Plame wasn't under cover anyway.
This also just happens to be the same story told by the GOP talking points on the subject. Funny how it turns out that way.
So, do you really think the facts of the case are that Rove was calling reporters to warn them of Wilson and, oops, he just happens to mention Plame and it got pubished?
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Thank you Harvey. I have been at work and unable to get unbiased truth of this matter. I implicitely trust Danial Schoor for his commentary and candor in this link.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
jahawkin posted:
do you really think the facts of the case are that Rove was calling reporters to warn them of Wilson

From what I've read Cooper contacted Rove about other matters and Cooper is the one who brought up Wilson or WMDs.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey
jahawkin posted:
do you really think the facts of the case are that Rove was calling reporters to warn them of Wilson

From what I've read Cooper contacted Rove about other matters and Cooper is the one who brought up Wilson or WMDs.

That doesn't make much sense as its been reported that multiple reporters were given this information(re: plame). Did all these reporters just happen to initiate a conversation with Rove (or other senior admin officials) where this rather insignificant piece of information came out??
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: jahawkin
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken


Seems some people can't differentiate between adhering to the actual facts behind this case and diving headlong into the hysterical BS of the left.

OK TLC, lets see how you adhere to the actual facts behind this case.
Earlier, in response to the question "what was the purpose of outing Plame," you said:
The purpose was not to out Wilson's wife. The purpose was to demonstrate the partisan motivation of Wilson's op-ed in the NY Times and the partisan participation of Wilson's wife in arranging the trip. I don't think Rove or Novak had any concern about Plame being outed when it supposedly wasn't any big secret anyway.
The "facts" you're asserting in this statment are: (and please correct me if I misrepresent you)
A. Wilson is a partisan who engaged in a partisan attack.
Yes.

B. Plame herself sent Wilson on the Niger trip for partisan purposes.
No. That statement confuses two seperate issues. Did Plame herself authorize the trip? I doubt thaqt seriously. Did Plame recommend her husband and did she do so for partisan purposes? imo, absolutely.

C. Plame wasn't under cover anyway.
No. That's not what I've been saying either. However, she WAS a desk jockey, and with two young, twin children was likely to remain that way.

This also just happens to be the same story told by the GOP talking points on the subject. Funny how it turns out that way.
Funny how I don't agree with those points. Way to assume things though.

So, do you really think the facts of the case are that Rove was calling reporters to warn them of Wilson and, oops, he just happens to mention Plame and it got pubished?
Are you sure Rove contacted Cooper? Do you have any proof?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
So, do you really think the facts of the case are that Rove was calling reporters to warn them of Wilson and, oops, he just happens to mention Plame and it got pubished?
Are you sure Rove contacted Cooper? Do you have any proof?

I'm not fully up to speed on this, but wasn't it in Cooper's emails? I thought the big defense was that Rove didn't actually name Plame by name, but rather, said "Wilson's wife."
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: loki8481
So, do you really think the facts of the case are that Rove was calling reporters to warn them of Wilson and, oops, he just happens to mention Plame and it got pubished?
Are you sure Rove contacted Cooper? Do you have any proof?

I'm not fully up to speed on this, but wasn't it in Cooper's emails? I thought the big defense was that Rove didn't actually name Plame by name, but rather, said "Wilson's wife."
What does that have to do with who contacted who?

 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: loki8481
So, do you really think the facts of the case are that Rove was calling reporters to warn them of Wilson and, oops, he just happens to mention Plame and it got pubished?
Are you sure Rove contacted Cooper? Do you have any proof?

I'm not fully up to speed on this, but wasn't it in Cooper's emails? I thought the big defense was that Rove didn't actually name Plame by name, but rather, said "Wilson's wife."
What does that have to do with who contacted who?

it = Rove contacting Cooper
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
30
86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jahawkin
OK TLC, lets see how you adhere to the actual facts behind this case.
Earlier, in response to the question "what was the purpose of outing Plame," you said:
The "facts" you're asserting in this statment are: (and please correct me if I misrepresent you)
A. Wilson is a partisan who engaged in a partisan attack.
Yes.
You're so tightly on the neocon talking point line, maybe you should change your name to TastesLikeParrot. I'm out of crackers. Here's a cookie.
Did Plame recommend her husband and did she do so for partisan purposes? imo, absolutely.
If you have good documentation for that, you could have posted it. Got any?
Are you sure Rove contacted Cooper? Do you have any proof?
I know you'd doubt any source I'd trust, but you could always try Fox < barf > News:
Cooper Details Rove Conversations About Plame
Wednesday, July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON ? Journalist Matt Cooper on Wednesday confirmed to a grand jury that White House aide Karl Rove was his source for a story about a CIA operative that has investigators deciding whether any laws were broken by the leak of the/ agent's identity.

.
.
.
Cooper confirmed that his source on the leak was Deputy Chief of Staff Rove, one of President Bush's most trusted advisers and the man credited with Bush's four consecutive campaign victories.
If Cooper lied to the grand jury, we can all watch him being marched off to prison for perjury. What do you think are the odds of that?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Just for the record, Rove didn't have to speak Plame's name. He only had to provide information that could identify her as an agent. And Plame didn't have to be an agent currently working overseas. The law covers former agents as well to protect everyone who worked with them and any front companies they used because of situations exactly like this one. And what difference does it make who initiated the call? Rove had classified information he wanted leaked through the press and he made sure his contacts received it.

Rove is a fvcking traitor and the people who defend him are no better.

Can you just IMAGINE what they'd be doing with this if the shoe was on the other foot???!
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jahawkin

A. Wilson is a partisan who engaged in a partisan attack.
Yes.

Wilson was a career diplomat. Nothing he said before this incident would indicate him as being a partisan or someone who would take a trip to Niger so he can politically attack the president a year later.
Here's an interview Wilson gave before the war. You care to point out where he is being a partisan. Does he sound opposed to the war??
Then Wilson wrote the NYTimes piece which called out the Bush admin lies on intelligence. Novak outs his wife (comprimising her career). It is at this point that Wilson became partisan, and rightfully so as he and his family were attacked by the Bush admin.

When I said "B. Plame herself sent Wilson on the Niger trip for partisan purposes."
you reply,
No. That statement confuses two seperate issues. Did Plame herself authorize the trip? I doubt thaqt seriously. Did Plame recommend her husband and did she do so for partisan purposes? imo, absolutely.
Did it ever occur to you that Plame recommended Wilson because he is qualified for the job?? Do you think he would go if they had someone better?? I don't understand how politics enters into the equation when talking about who to send on this fact-finding trip to Niger.
This whole story that the GOP and you are concocting is absurd. Here's how the WSJ editoral board put it:
In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.
Scary how similar that rhetoric is to yours TLC. But I forgot, you don't agree with the GOP's talking points. How dare I assume that when your posts and the WSJ editoral board sound exactly alike.
Back to this story that you and WSJ are peddling. So Rove is talking to these reporters, warning them that Wilson is on a partisan attack, and he mentions that his wife got him the gig (or "important background info" as WSJ put it. lol). So what?? Its so insignificant to Wilson's credibility on this story. The story doesn't make sense and reeks of a post hoc cover up.

On the issue of covert status you say:
No. That's not what I've been saying either. However, she WAS a desk jockey, and with two young, twin children was likely to remain that way.
The CIA certainly is convinced that there was a crime committed and assets comprimised. Why else would they refer this to the DOJ??? Let me guess, more partisan hijinks.

Are you sure Rove contacted Cooper? Do you have any proof?
I don't know who contacted who, but I do know multiple other reporters were told this same information. Just a coincidence though, I'm sure. Novak was given this information from 2 people in the white house (we don't know whom). That sure looks like an organized effort to get this information public.
 

ShadesOfGrey

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2005
1,523
0
0
jahawkin -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/07/10/AR2005071001000.html
Instead, Luskin said, Rove discussed the matter -- under the cloak of secrecy -- with Cooper at the tail end of a conversation about a different issue. Cooper had called Rove to discuss other matters on a Friday before deadline, and the topic of Wilson came up briefly. Luskin said Cooper raised the question.
The other issue seems to be welfare.

Also a source of multiple reporters is not necessarily Rove. It could be, but it is premature to say that Rove is the only source, especially since one reporter is in jail and Rove has give blanket permission for any reporter he talked with to disclose their conversations.

IF Rove broke the law then I hope he is charged with a crime. I have faith ithat Fitzgerald will prosecute anyone who commited a crime regarding this situation.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp...cle_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1991338
Published: October 02, 2003
In April, Miller interviewed an expert from the Henry L. Stimson Center in Washington on background, then made up a quote and attributed it to the person, who she then named.

It infuriated colleagues and a senior editor, but it only merited a small editors' note on April 9: "An article on Saturday about the search by United States forces for chemical, biological and radiation weapons in Iraq included a comment attributed to Amy Smithson, a chemical weapons expert at the Center, a research institute in Washington. Ms. Smithson was depicted as suggesting that Bush administration officials might be less certain of finding such weapons now than before the war. She was quoted as saying that 'they may be trying to dampen expectations because they are worried they won't find anything significant.' In fact the comments were paraphrases of a remark Ms. Smithson made in an e-mail exchange for the Times's background information, on the condition that she would not be quoted by name. Attempts to reach her before publication were unsuccessful. Thus the comments should not have been treated as quotations or attributed to her."

This is actually what Miller did: the interview was conducted by e-mail, Miller added that "if I don't hear back from you I'll assume it's OK to use." Not hearing back, she used it. But the scientist didn't check her e-mail further that day.

Even though her reporting frequently does not meet published Times standards, there have yet to be any direct sanctions by the Times imposed on Miller. What has happened is that she has been put on a tighter leash, and her copy is carefully edited through the investigative desk by a new editor.
But now she's holding out for some sort of perceived ethical standard?


:roll:



Transcript of Remarks by Matt Cooper and Attorney After Testifying Today
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/art..._display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000978837
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: jahawkin
As I posted in another thread, here's Bob Novak a week after his column was published.
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

In case this isn't obvious to everyone, note the "They gave me the name." That's pretty specific. Novak didn't say, "They gave me the person" or "They told me it was Wilson't wife". Novak specifically uses the term "name".

So someone in the White House was providing Plame's name. It may not have been Rove, but there CLEARLY was an effort underway among White House staff to "out" Plame.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: jahawkin
OK TLC, lets see how you adhere to the actual facts behind this case.
Earlier, in response to the question "what was the purpose of outing Plame," you said:
The "facts" you're asserting in this statment are: (and please correct me if I misrepresent you)
A. Wilson is a partisan who engaged in a partisan attack.
Yes.
You're so tightly on the neocon talking point line, maybe you should change your name to TastesLikeParrot. I'm out of crackers. Here's a cookie.
[/quote]
Responses like the above are what make you so worthless, Harvey. It's 100% content free and contains nothing to refute my point whatsoever. Yet you claim I'm the one diverting with no content? LOL.

Like I keep saying - You're your own worse enema.

Did Plame recommend her husband and did she do so for partisan purposes? imo, absolutely.
If you have good documentation for that, you could have posted it. Got any?
If I had doumentation that proved it was for partisan purposes (because we already know his wife recommended him), it wouldn't be my opinion, now would it?

Are you sure Rove contacted Cooper? Do you have any proof?
I know you'd doubt any source I'd trust, but you could always try Fox < barf > News
Wow! You can hyperlink. It's a shame your < barf > link doesn't answer the question I asked. But this one does:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/07/10/AR2005071001000.html

Instead, Luskin said, Rove discussed the matter -- under the cloak of secrecy -- with Cooper at the tail end of a conversation about a different issue. Cooper had called Rove to discuss other matters on a Friday before deadline, and the topic of Wilson came up briefly. Luskin said Cooper raised the question.
D'oh!

If Cooper lied to the grand jury, we can all watch him being marched off to prison for perjury. What do you think are the odds of that?
If Cooper lied to the grand jury then he deserves his fate.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:

WSJ op/ed? Might as well be something from Spewsmax.

STFU that proves how blind you are. WSJ isn't newsmax by a long shot. And hmm and it is definitely not CBS and Dan Rather either.

Hell the BI-partisan sub-committee said Wilson's findings were not credible, and that just as the Brits have said all along their intelligence was correct.

OK who to believe here a man that was selected to go to Africa that was selected wholly on his wife?s word and w/o any knowledge of the CIA director. Then the guy comes back said he was sent by the Vice president, which isn?t true. Wonder what else he is fibbing about? Then he is joins the Kerry campaign and they trot him around like a show pony to all the media outlets like a hero cause his wife?s name is used to correct the record about Wilson?s flat lie the VP sending him. Later after the Senate discredit?s Wilson?s BS report the Kerry supporters drop him like Rossman drops us Hot Deals on this site every day.

What is the major point of interest here?

Some lady sort-of-outed who is already know to many as CIA analyst and works mostly at a desk?

OR

Intelligence that plays a part in leading us into war that was later to thought to have been false reported by a guy who shouldn?t have been there, sent on a recommendation by his wife, which later on looks as if his report was incorrect and not the intelligence agencies from other countries including the UK which never wavered from its findings. Do we want partisan (either side) subversives with questionable orders, expertise and motives doing this kind of work writing biased reports on such sensitive issues? It?s freakin Un-American to sink to a level of writing a half-assed report to further your own political agenda.

Which one of these affects you?
 

galperi1

Senior member
Oct 18, 2001
523
0
0
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:

WSJ op/ed? Might as well be something from Spewsmax.

STFU that proves how blind you are. WSJ isn't newsmax by a long shot. And hmm and it is definitely not CBS and Dan Rather either.

Hell the BI-partisan sub-committee said Wilson's findings were not credible, and that just as the Brits have said all along their intelligence was correct.

OK who to believe here a man that was selected to go to Africa that was selected wholly on his wife?s word and w/o any knowledge of the CIA director. Then the guy comes back said he was sent by the Vice president, which isn?t true. Wonder what else he is fibbing about? Then he is joins the Kerry campaign and they trot him around like a show pony to all the media outlets like a hero cause his wife?s name is used to correct the record about Wilson?s flat lie the VP sending him. Later after the Senate discredit?s Wilson?s BS report the Kerry supporters drop him like Rossman drops us Hot Deals on this site every day.

What is the major point of interest here?

Some lady sort-of-outed who is already know to many as CIA analyst and works mostly at a desk?

OR

Intelligence that plays a part in leading us into war that was later to thought to have been false reported by a guy who shouldn?t have been there, sent on a recommendation by his wife, which later on looks as if his report was incorrect and not the intelligence agencies from other countries including the UK which never wavered from its findings. Do we want partisan (either side) subversives with questionable orders, expertise and motives doing this kind of work writing biased reports on such sensitive issues? It?s freakin Un-American to sink to a level of writing a half-assed report to further your own political agenda.

Which one of these affects you?


LOL, it's nice to see that someone has read the RNC talking points!

:roll:
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: galperi1
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:

WSJ op/ed? Might as well be something from Spewsmax.

STFU that proves how blind you are. WSJ isn't newsmax by a long shot. And hmm and it is definitely not CBS and Dan Rather either.

Hell the BI-partisan sub-committee said Wilson's findings were not credible, and that just as the Brits have said all along their intelligence was correct.

OK who to believe here a man that was selected to go to Africa that was selected wholly on his wife?s word and w/o any knowledge of the CIA director. Then the guy comes back said he was sent by the Vice president, which isn?t true. Wonder what else he is fibbing about? Then he is joins the Kerry campaign and they trot him around like a show pony to all the media outlets like a hero cause his wife?s name is used to correct the record about Wilson?s flat lie the VP sending him. Later after the Senate discredit?s Wilson?s BS report the Kerry supporters drop him like Rossman drops us Hot Deals on this site every day.

What is the major point of interest here?

Some lady sort-of-outed who is already know to many as CIA analyst and works mostly at a desk?

OR

Intelligence that plays a part in leading us into war that was later to thought to have been false reported by a guy who shouldn?t have been there, sent on a recommendation by his wife, which later on looks as if his report was incorrect and not the intelligence agencies from other countries including the UK which never wavered from its findings. Do we want partisan (either side) subversives with questionable orders, expertise and motives doing this kind of work writing biased reports on such sensitive issues? It?s freakin Un-American to sink to a level of writing a half-assed report to further your own political agenda.

Which one of these affects you?


LOL, it's nice to see that someone has read the RNC talking points!

:roll:


Yea we have to read ours. Yours are all over the TV passed as journalism.





What are we all after here the truth?
Or just to be RIGHT?
Smart money the truth is a distant second.

These goobers here on P & N don't give a rip about the truth or the big picture, it is all about counting political points in some neo town hall PTA meeting.

Honestly it scares me to think you all take this forum seriously. It is funny as Hell please keep posting I'll come look every few months for a laugh.

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: galperi1
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:

WSJ op/ed? Might as well be something from Spewsmax.

STFU that proves how blind you are. WSJ isn't newsmax by a long shot. And hmm and it is definitely not CBS and Dan Rather either.

Hell the BI-partisan sub-committee said Wilson's findings were not credible, and that just as the Brits have said all along their intelligence was correct.

OK who to believe here a man that was selected to go to Africa that was selected wholly on his wife?s word and w/o any knowledge of the CIA director. Then the guy comes back said he was sent by the Vice president, which isn?t true. Wonder what else he is fibbing about? Then he is joins the Kerry campaign and they trot him around like a show pony to all the media outlets like a hero cause his wife?s name is used to correct the record about Wilson?s flat lie the VP sending him. Later after the Senate discredit?s Wilson?s BS report the Kerry supporters drop him like Rossman drops us Hot Deals on this site every day.

What is the major point of interest here?

Some lady sort-of-outed who is already know to many as CIA analyst and works mostly at a desk?

OR

Intelligence that plays a part in leading us into war that was later to thought to have been false reported by a guy who shouldn?t have been there, sent on a recommendation by his wife, which later on looks as if his report was incorrect and not the intelligence agencies from other countries including the UK which never wavered from its findings. Do we want partisan (either side) subversives with questionable orders, expertise and motives doing this kind of work writing biased reports on such sensitive issues? It?s freakin Un-American to sink to a level of writing a half-assed report to further your own political agenda.

Which one of these affects you?


LOL, it's nice to see that someone has read the RNC talking points!

:roll:


Yea we have to read ours. Yours are all over the TV passed as journalism.





What are we all after here the truth?
Or just to be RIGHT?
Smart money the truth is a distant second.

These goobers here on P & N don't give a rip about the truth or the big picture, it is all about counting political points in some neo town hall PTA meeting.

Honestly it scares me to think you all take this forum seriously. It is funny as Hell please keep posting I'll come look every few months for a laugh.

Please keep it to every few months like you have been. We all appreciate your absence from these forums. Buh bye now.
 

montanafan

Diamond Member
Nov 7, 1999
3,551
2
71
I just don't see how George W. can say he has so much confidence in Karl Rove. Especially not after Rove was fired by George Sr. in '92 for pulling a very similar stunt with Novak back then involving Robert Mosbacher.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Saturday, October 4, 2003

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

Nuff said. Hang the traitor.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:

WSJ op/ed? Might as well be something from Spewsmax.
STFU that proves how blind you are. WSJ isn't newsmax by a long shot. And hmm and it is definitely not CBS and Dan Rather either.
Long time, no trolling. Got bored, eh?

BTW, where did I say the WSJ was Newsmax? I didn't. I said the WSJ Op/Ed page. That's been known for quite some time to be very far off to the right.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Talking points....schmalking points.

Bloomberg Article

Wilson's Iraq Assertions Hold Up Under Fire From Rove Backers

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove.

Rove is a subject of a special prosecutor's investigation into how the name of the agent, who is Wilson's wife, was leaked to journalists. There has been no evidence made public that Rove identified the agent to reporters. Rove's allies are arguing that he was in fact trying to steer journalists away from taking too seriously Wilson's criticism of President George W. Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq in 2003.

The agent, Valerie Plame, was publicly identified July 14, 2003, a week after Wilson wrote an article for the New York Times about an investigative trip he took in 2002 at the behest of the Central Intelligence Agency. Wilson wrote that the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein's regime tried to buy uranium in Africa for nuclear weapons was wrong.

The main points of Wilson's article have largely been substantiated by a Senate committee as well as U.S. and United Nations weapons inspectors. A day after Wilson's piece was published, the White House acknowledged that a claim Bush made in his January 2003 state of the union address that Iraq tried to buy ``significant quantities of uranium from Africa'' could not be verified and shouldn't have been included in the speech.

While the administration was justified at the time in being concerned that Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons, ``on the specifics of this I think Joe Wilson was right,'' said Michael O'Hanlon, a scholar of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Criticism of Wilson

Republicans are attempting to defend Rove by discrediting Wilson, saying the former ambassador misled the public about why he was sent to Niger and what he found there.

Bush supporters such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich contend that Wilson lied in claiming that Vice President Dick Cheney dispatched him on the mission to Niger. That echoes a Republican National Committee talking-points memo sent to party officials.

Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president's office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney's questions.

``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,'' Wilson wrote.


Senate Report

The ``Wilson/Rove Research & Talking Points'' memo distributed by RNC Director of Television Carolyn Weyforth contends, ``Both the Senate Committee on Intelligence and the CIA found assessments Wilson made in his report were wrong.''

Yet the Senate panel conclusions didn't discredit Wilson. The committee concluded that the Niger intelligence information wasn't solid enough to be included in the State of the Union speech. It added that Wilson's report didn't change the minds of analysts on either side of the issue, while also concluding that an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate ``overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.''

Vulnerable

Wilson is vulnerable to some criticisms. The Republican talking points say Wilson has lied about the role his wife played in his trip. In his memoir, ``The Politics of Truth,'' Wilson asserted his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. ``Valerie had nothing to do with the matter,'' he wrote. ``She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.''

The Senate Intelligence Committee report states that a CIA official told the panel that Plame ``offered up'' Wilson's name for the Niger trip and later sent a memo to a CIA official saying her husband had good relations with leaders in Niger.

Republicans also dismiss Wilson as a partisan because of his ties to the 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat John Kerry, the four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts. He advised the Kerry campaign for several months on foreign policy and donated money to his race.

The crux of Wilson's argument in his New York Times article was that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program -- a central part of the Bush administration's justification for invading Iraq -- ``was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.''

Backing Away

Well before Wilson's article was published -- though after Bush's State of the Union address -- administration officials were backing off the contention that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa.

On Feb. 4, 2003, State Department officials gave the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency information it requested about Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Niger. It told the agency that it could not confirm the reports and had questions about specific claims.

The next day, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence, based on U.S. intelligence, about Iraq's prohibited weapons program to the UN Security Council. He didn't mention Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Africa.

On March 7, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told the UN Security Council that the documents that detailed uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger were ``not authentic'' and ``these specific allegations are unfounded.'' On March 9, Powell acknowledged that the documents were false. The U.S. launched the invasion of Iraq on March 19.

A White House Concession

Finally, in July 2003, after Wilson's piece was published, the White House conceded that the uranium assertion should not have been included in the president's speech. Several administration officials have accepted responsibility for allowing it into the speech, including Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser and now secretary of state; Stephen Hadley, then Rice's deputy and now the national security adviser; and then-CIA Director George Tenet.

In October 2002, as the White House was reviewing drafts of a speech Bush would give in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, the allegation that Iraq sought ``substantial amounts of uranium oxide'' from Africa was removed after Tenet called Hadley to raise doubts about the information. On Oct. 5 and 6, the CIA sent memorandums to the White House expressing concerns about the Niger intelligence and differences on it between the U.S. and British spy agencies.

Novak's Column

Plame's identity was first revealed July 14, 2003, by syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified administration officials as his sources for the information.

Knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert agent is a federal crime, and that is the subject of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. Part of that probe is seeking information about confidential sources from reporters.

Rove's name surfaced in a July 11, 2003, e-mail from a Time magazine reporter to his editor that was disclosed this week by Newsweek magazine. The memo says Rove gave a ``big warning'' about pursuing Wilson's claims and said it was ``Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues who authorized'' Wilson's trip to Niger, according to Newsweek.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said yesterday that Rove has done ``nothing to expose him to any legal liability.''
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: EXman
Originally posted by: conjur
:roll:

WSJ op/ed? Might as well be something from Spewsmax.

STFU that proves how blind you are. WSJ isn't newsmax by a long shot. And hmm and it is definitely not CBS and Dan Rather either.

Hell the BI-partisan sub-committee said Wilson's findings were not credible, and that just as the Brits have said all along their intelligence was correct.

OK who to believe here a man that was selected to go to Africa that was selected wholly on his wife?s word and w/o any knowledge of the CIA director. Then the guy comes back said he was sent by the Vice president, which isn?t true. Wonder what else he is fibbing about? Then he is joins the Kerry campaign and they trot him around like a show pony to all the media outlets like a hero cause his wife?s name is used to correct the record about Wilson?s flat lie the VP sending him. Later after the Senate discredit?s Wilson?s BS report the Kerry supporters drop him like Rossman drops us Hot Deals on this site every day.

What is the major point of interest here?

Some lady sort-of-outed who is already know to many as CIA analyst and works mostly at a desk?

OR

Intelligence that plays a part in leading us into war that was later to thought to have been false reported by a guy who shouldn?t have been there, sent on a recommendation by his wife, which later on looks as if his report was incorrect and not the intelligence agencies from other countries including the UK which never wavered from its findings. Do we want partisan (either side) subversives with questionable orders, expertise and motives doing this kind of work writing biased reports on such sensitive issues? It?s freakin Un-American to sink to a level of writing a half-assed report to further your own political agenda.

Which one of these affects you?
I don't have time to check your post word by word, but other than a couple of names, I don't think you got a single fact correct. You might want to read something other than the talking points next time, e.g., the many articles linked in this thread, before reinforcing your ignorant partisanship further.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |