Rove was Time reporter's source.....Follow

How exactly is that relevant? Look. You can claim you were mislead by Bush all you want. That's a different topic. How about we discuss *this* topic without you spinning off into random ad-hominum attacks whenever you feel like it.

Wilson posted an article in which he questioned the Bush administration's choice to add the "16 words" into the SOTU speech in 2003. His purpose for doing so was clearly to "attack" the administration on that issue. Have you read the article? He puts out some pretty strong innuendo about why his report was allegedgly "ignored", and makes some pretty strong allegations. By most definitions, that's an "attack".

What's the point of getting hung up on a word? Sheesh! Talk about missing the forest for the trees...



Sigh. You don't even get how I'm using the word. I'm not talking about whether Bush or Wilson mislead anyone. I'm talking about how when you write something negative about someone else, that's often referred to as an "attack". The statement has nothing to do with who is right, who is wrong, who is involved, what is said, or anything else. If I call you a dodo head, I'm "attacking" you. Get it?





Do you actually know *anything* about this topic? That's not what happened. No one is actually claiming that happened. You're just terribly confused.

Cheney's office asked the CIA to look into the reports of an alleged sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq. The CIA then contacted Wilson and had him go investigate (and his was not the only avenue of investigation btw). While Wilson may very well have been told that he was being sent "at the request of the WhiteHouse", no one who worked at the whitehouse was involved in choosing Wilson for the trip, assigning him the task, briefing him beforehand, debriefing him afterwards, or even knew that he was being sent. This was entirely done internally within the CIA and the state department. The whitehouse ultimately recieved reports that were based on the information gained by Wilson, but they did *not* ask him to go, nor where then involved in anyway in actually sending him.

You are correct about *why* he was sent though. He was sent to look into a British report of a possible uranium sale to Iraq in Niger. Note, that we didn't just read a report from the UK and send him off though. The CIA and State did investigate several other leads involved as well. Wilson's trip was only a small part of the investigation involved here.



No. Actually, he had nothing to do with the forged documents. If you are referring to the Italian documentation of the sale that is. That was part of the other investigation, which had *nothing* to do with Wilson's trip. You are aware that intelligence agencies investigate multiple things in parallel, right?

Um. I'd also like to add that in the article I quoted, it stated clearly that the CIA's final assessment took into account the forged documentation. They ignored it since it was forged. They looked only at the facts that could be verified. Did you even bother to read what I posted? The forged Italian docs are a total red herring to this issue. They were debunked, but the conclusions made by the UK and US were *not* based on them at all. Thus, proving them wrong does not disprove the conclusions of the CIA, the state department, nor the later statements made by the White House that was based on them. Try to keep up, will you?



Again. Do you just make this up as you go along? That's totally incorrect. First off, Wilson at no time made any report to the Whitehouse. Not once. He briefed the same people who sent him. That would be members of the CIA, and the state department. Those people in turn took his report, analysed the data within, and made a report to the Whitehouse.

Interestingly enougb, Wilson's trip was part of the evidence that both the CIA and State used to conclude that Saddam had attempted to obtain uranium from Niger.

What's funny is that you say all this garbage and yet miss the point.

- Wilson's report only stated that Iraq failed to obtain any uranium from Niger. It actually confirmed to most analysts that Iraq had made an attempt to purchase uranium though.

- Bush did not say that Iraq succeeded in getting uranium. His statement was that Iraq sought to obtain uranium from Africa (Niger). That statement is absolutely true. Wilson's report gives strong evidence that this is in fact what happened. That, in conjuction with other intelligence is what Bush based his statement on. The Butler report (an independant evaluation of the issue) concluded that Bush's statement was "well founded".


Get it? You're wrong. Wilson is arguing a pure strawman. He's trying to say that Bush's statement was wrong because Iraq didn't buy any uranium. But Bush didn't say that at all. How can you not see that Wilson' is arguing an irrelevant point? Are you that blind?



I don't know or care who leaked it. He confirmed that he was the one who wrote it. That's when all of this started. When did I ever say he "called a press conference"? You're making that up in your own head. I said that he wrote an article that was negatively slanted about the Bush administration. I linked that article. Did you bother to read it?



First off. Stop calling him a "staunch republican". The guy was a diplomat. He worked for both parties at various times. He recieved appointments during Clinton's administration. He contributed to a number of political campaigns on both sides of the fence. I love how since the Libs dug up the fact that he contributed to Bush's campaign, he must be a "staunch republican", while ignoring the fact that he also contributed to Kerry's campaign. It would be more correct to say that he was "involved" in politics, and contributing to campaigns is how you get invited to the parties where the movers and shakers of politics are. That's probably the end of his motivation in the regard.

Secondly, while he did indeed technically "tell the truth", he told an irrelevant truth. That's what I've been saying all along. Bush says that Iraq attempted to purchas uranium. Wilson writes this article in which he says "that's not true! I went to Niger and discovered that he never bought any uranium". That's a true statement, but it does not counter what Bush said. What is false about his article is the stated implication that Bush is misleading people about this issue. The fact is that Wilson's report did not debunk what Bush said, and was in fact part of the evidence used to support it. But Wilson, instead of realizing that Bush was focusing on the *attempt* to purchase uranium, went off on a strawman argument attacking the validity of Bush's "16 words" based on a totally bogus argument.

The saddest part is that in a sane world, most people would read Wilson's article and report and come to the conclusion that they don't actually debunk a single word said by Bush. Unfortunately, we don't live in that sane world. We live in a world filled with people like you who leap at the slightest implication that the "other guy" did something wrong, regardless of how illogical, or in this case just plain "wrong".

Nothing in Wilsons' article or report debunk Bush's 16 words. Heck. Read them and find where he debunks the assumption that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. You can't do it, because it's not there. Why then use that trip, and the information he gained there as a counter to Bush's 16 words? He uses it because he knows that the vast majority of the public are too dumb to actually read what he wrote and understand what it means. He knows that he could write *anything*, say that it counters what Bush said, and a good percentage of people will believe him and demand that the president admit he mislead the people.

Yet you say I'm part of the sleeping masses? You're kidding!




That's funny, because I could say the exact same thing about what your trying to argue. That's exactly what Wilson was doing. I can't guess his motives, but he clearly decided he would debunk something said by Bush based on pure innuendo and rhetoric. He's doing the epitomy of "my team is better then your's". He's playing right to the die-hard Liberals, who don't care how flimsy the story is as long as it's anti-Bush. You guys eat this stuff up. You create news cycles about absolutely nothing. And when the real truth finally comes out, you just kinds ignore it and move on to the next thing you can make up.

I've been watching this go on for the last few years constantly. It's one bizarre argument after another. You guys wouldn't know "the truth" if it came up and bit you on the butt. But you insist that every rummor that comes along is "the truth", every time, no matter how ridiculous it is, or how thin the evidence, or how questionable the source.

And you're doing it again here. You want people to stop falling prey to partisan politics, I suggest you look no further then the nutball Left and their continuous "anything that attacks Bush" methodology. They're the ones devolving political debate in this country down to a seemingly neverending stream of bogus claims and insistence that the "other guys" are responsible for every single negative thing that comes along, and quite a few things that are just made up out of thin air.



Yes. Wrong is wrong. And tryinkg to argue that Iraq didn't attempt to obtain uranium from Niger purely because a sale never occured is wrong. Get it? Wilson is wrong. His article is wrong. His conclusions about the validity of Bush's statement is wrong. If all you care about is right and wrong, why are you bashing Bush who told a truthful statement, and defending Wilson who tried to claim that Bush was lying?

You're on the "wrong" side here...

Gbaji, the former CIA and defense speakers at this forum identifed themselves as being from both political parties.

In reading the whole transcript, I found the main point being made by the democrats who gave this forum, is that the Pubbies are preventing any proper investigation by one arm of goverment into the actions of another arm. With out the check and balances created by our consitution, we are no better then so many countries we constantly point out as Undemocratic.

The focus of the witinesses at the hearing was in the fact that by conferring that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative, Rove and Libby destroys any trust forgin operatives will have in getting the HUMINT we need to fight the war in Iraq and the War against Terrorism.

Even if it turns out not to be criminal actions on their part, Rove and Libby have done more to prevent the gathering of HUMINT, that could and can save the countless lives of inocent people.

Even as you continue to defend this adminstration, how can you defend the lost of our intelligent agencies to gather the information the Adminstration need to win in Iraq and the War on Terrorism.

Yes. But here's my issue. There's a lot of talk about what effect their actions have *if* they actually did what some think they did.

That's great. That's like a group of lawyers and judges talking about the penalty for commiting a particular crime and the reasons for having that penalty.

My issue comes in when people link to that discussion, or quote from it, and try to argue that that's why Rove and Libby are guilty. The arguement that at least a few people in this thread have put forward is essentially that Rove is guilty because what we are saying he did was really really bad...


Where's the evidence? Where's the proof? Yes. I agree there needs to be an investigation. And there *is* an investigation. But it seems like for some, if the investigation does anything other then just focus on Rove, it's somehow not doing what it's supposed to do. Sure. If you think the point of an investigation is to find Rove guilty of something, then you'd be correct. But if the point of the investigation is to actually determine how this woman's status at the CIA was leaked, then that's *not* the best way to go.

Everything I've seen and read on this says the "the leak" happened long before Rove or Libby found out. The best we can possibly do is determine that they were one of many people leaked *to*. That makes them no more guilty of a crime then Novak for writing the story.




Wait! How does that make any sense? So you're saying that no one is allowed to mention the employment status of someone on the off chance that their actually a NOC, and by pointing them out, you're outting her? That's a ludicrous position to take. It's a criminal act if and only if they knew she was a NOC, and knew that her employment at the CIA was a matter of national security, and told people who were not cleared to know that anyway. If they did not know she was a NOC, then by definition, someone else leaked it to them. If knowing she was in the CIA was "outting a NOC", then anyone who knew that she worked at the CIA, but did not know she was a NOC, and was not cleared to know she was a NOC, cannot possibly have done anything to damage or not damage the HUMINT resources of the CIA.

If anything Rove and Libby's actions may have saved many lives in the long run. If Plames employment at the CIA had leaked outside of the "need to know" crowd, and people who did not know she was a NOC knew she worked at the CIA, then everything she worked on and everyone she worked with was in jeapardy. As long as the CIA people running those front companies did not know that her employment was "out", they may have continued using them. Future NOCs might have worked out of them, and anyone who'd connected the dots would then know that they were NOCs.

I'm pretty sure that would have been much much worse. I just think that everyone is looking at the very tail end of the leak, and trying to point the finger of blame. It's very apparent that the leak occured much earlier. Novak obviously made the connections, and I don't think it had anything to do with the memo.

Let me reiterate. The state department memo which was transmitted to Air Force 1 the day before Novak talked to Rove referred to her as "Valerie Wilson", not "Valerie Plame". If the source of Novak's knowledge was this memo (through say Libby and/or Rove), then why did he call her by her maiden name? Clearly, while the memo was one tail of the leak, there were others as well. Novak got his information from another source, and that source must have called her by the name Plame.


That's why I think it's silly to toss Rove and Libby into the mix. Yes. It's "bad" to out a NOC. It's against the law. It's damaging to our HUMINT around the world. But there's literally zero evidence that either one of those two actually did that. Only by kinda ignoring half the facts, turning your head sideways, and maybe squinting really hard can you twist things up enough to confidentally blame those two.



I'm not defending the loss of our intelligence assests at all. Why do you think that? I'm simply suggesting that if we focus on how those intelligence assest were *actually lost* instead of conducting a witch hunt against political enemies, we might end up better off.

I'm also personally of the opinion that Valerie Plame outted herself when she walked into a meeting with a group of people from State, presumably IDed as a CIA employee, but as far as we know did not make clear that her status itself was top secret. If that ends up being the case, then she is directly responsible for those lost intelligence assets. If it turns out that I'm right, will you condemn her as much as everyone's been trying to condemn Rove?

I just have this funny feeling that all the trails of leaks are going to lead right to that meeting in Feb 2002. Given that every single "source" leads through the state department's bureau of Intelligence and Research, and that's exactly the group that was sitting in that meeting, it seems like way to big of a coincidence to not be the most likely source of the leak. They were the source of the memo sent to AF1. They are also a likely group to have figured out that the agent that introduced them to Joe Wilson was actually his wife. Since they're not in the CIA, they would have no way to know that the woman who spent a total of 3 minutes with them in the room before the meeting was a NOC. All it would take is one guy at State to be in that meeting, and see a picture of Wilson and his wife together (or witness them first hand at any point in time), and every single piece of information known to Novak, Rove, and Libby can be pieced together without ever having to be told a single "classified" thing about her.


That's just my theory, but I think it's the most likely. Funny that no one's debunked it. No one's commented on it. But some people seem to just ignore it and continue to push at Rove. How can I *not* assume that it's about targetting Rove far more then actually trying to figure out who's responsible?

Wilson posted an article in which he questioned the Bush administration's choice to add the "16 words" into the SOTU speech in 2003. His purpose for doing so was clearly to "attack" the administration on that issue.
--------------------------------------------------

ahhh, the right wing spinn doctors. what? didnt want to hear that? discredit him, claim he is out "to get" the president.

its getting old....and kind of useless now.

first, Wilson didnt hold a press conferance ot "attack" the president.

second, the press went to him to VERIFY a document he wrote to the whitehouse which discredited the niger report the whitehouse was waiving like a recruitment flag.

wilson wrote the article in response to LEAKED information in which the press was hounding him to answer.

all wilson did was stand behind his report, and "question", not attak, but "question why the niger incident was used in the state of the union address,

wilson is a republican. always has been. he is just not a LYING republican. and for that, he is getting his just reward from this addministraition.

1. no attack.
2. no disgruntled emploee...untill they outed his wife for not playing ball.

just the simple truth. a truth the whitehouse did not want YOU to hear.

only an idiot would not recognize hard ball politics in this case. an idiot and someone with BLIND FAITH. kind of the same thing.

they outed her. pure and simple. all that is in question is the legal details.

law or no law, it was wrong. stand up and support this action if you want, what the hell, people stil support torturing prisoners BEFORE they are found guilty of anything too.

all par for the coarse with this addministraition. the moral majority at work.