Personally, Tenet did fail in many aspects but was also a scapegoat!! The real liars who hyped intelligence, cherry picked, and used the likes of Chalabi to dupe the American public into beleiving this bull shit are still in positions of power unscathed.
Not for long though because the 2nd phase of the congressional investigation will specifically focus on how the Bush admin used the intelligence.
Target # 1 is Doug Feith. Is congress suddenly growing some balls??? My oh my, although these balls are seen as very tiny and most likely only temporary, this certainly is a positive development!! Feith, Perle, Wolfowitz and the rest of the corrupt cronies need to be fully exposed, discredited, and literally send into exile!!
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/11/wsept11.xml
You're absolutely right, Toomuchvodka!! They cannot run from the truth forever!!
RLTW!!
!!! ??? !!! ??? ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That article is a bunch of crap. Wilson did not address the GLOBAL issue of whether Saddam was having other dealings in Africa. He was tasked with vetting a SPECIFIC intelligence claim, and he contradicted a SPECIFIC lie in the State of the Union Address. Bush didn't make the GLOBAL claim in that speech, he made the SPECIFIC, FALSE one that Wilson contradicted. And because of that, someone in the Bush Administration DID commit treason in outing Valerie Plame.
At the end of the day, someone in this Administration DID commit treason to try to strengthen their case. And the Bush administration has done nothing to help bring the Traitor to justice (perhaps because it's Cheney himself? or Karl Rove?, or Scooter Libbey, Cheney's chief of staff?)
How can you justify re-electing an administration that is harboring someone who has committed Treason, for mere political gain?
You're still full of shit and still posting "knowing misrepresentations" of the truth. The fun part is that you're almost as bad a partisan hack as Joe Wilson himself, and easy to dismiss after a little fact checking.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373634954&p=1012571727088
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html
http://nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/426.html
RLTW
Isn't it sort of intellectually lazy to call sdstud's posting shit, when all you're doing is just listing some websites?
Surely you can do better than that. At least sdstud's "message" was in his own words, which is more than I can say of yours.
On the other hand, maybe RTLW is on to a new conservative tactic. Maybe when confronted in the debates by Kerry, George W. will reply in URL's instead of complete sentences.
-- Modified on 7/13/2004 8:46:49 PM
-- Modified on 7/13/2004 8:49:45 PM
None of your links alter the fundamental facts here: The Bush 2003 State of the Union Message still contained a false, and entirely un-vetted claim that Saddam presented a Nuclear threat to the U.S. The Bush Administration has subsequently admitted that this claim was not ever vetted to the level that it was appropriate for inclusion in the speech. Why was it in the speech? Clearly because Bush wanted to justify attacking Saddam, the facts be-damned. And Dick Cheney is, to this day, sticking to the lie that Saddam and Al Qaida had a collaborative relationship, a claim that is completely at odds with the evidence.
It's a completely immaterial detail if Valerie Plame did or did not recommend Joseph Wilson for the Niger mission. And if she did, and Wilson subsequently lied about that, the fact is, he was LEGALLY BOUND TO maintain her cover in the CIA, which would be a perfectly reasonable justification for that lie. This is the same duty that the Bush Administration breached when it committed treason by outing her.
At the end of the day, whether or not some OTHER Iraqi was in OTHER parts of Africa asking about Uranium is NOT the claim that the Bush Administration put in the speech. What they DID put in the speech had no basis in fact, but rather, was based on a motivation to hoodwink the public into supporting a war. And this war, which events on the ground have shown was not necessary in protecting homeland security, has had tragic consequences for many thousands of American families, gutted our international prestige, and wasted close to $200 Billion dollars. Bush gets to be judged on that record in November, and we will make it clear that everyone knows about that record.
We're not voting for or against Joseph Wilson, nor Michael Moore in November. We're voting for or against an incumbent administration that has no qualms about lying to justify a war, and committing treason against it's own intelligence operatives for mere political expediency, and then turns around and blames the inadequacy of those same operatives for the fiasco that the war they misleadingly sold us turned out to be.
I'd prefer that we only arrest the bastards that outer her in the first place. Like maybe Karl Rove, maybe Scooter Libbey, maybe the fellow who's their boss: Dick Cheney. Whichever of them is guilty, that would be sufficient as far as whom to arrest.
Why doesn't Novak as a patriotic citizen voluntarily tell the proper authorities the name of this traitor? Why doesn't Ashcroft put some pressure on Novak to reveal the name? Why aren't Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, etc. screaming for the name of the traitor? Why isn't Bush demanding that the person responsible come forward?
Novak stated that a senior Bush Administration official gave him the information about Valerie Plame that she worked for the CIA, and Novak published it. Novak has claimed that he did not know that she was a deep cover CIA operative, but the person who gave Novak the information that she was a CIA employee, was in fact committing an act of treason.
A CIA agent was outed during "wartime", therefore the person that outed the agent could be considered to have committed treason.
Frankly, it's astonishing to me that the Justice Department didn't get a subpoena requiring Novak to divulge the source of this leak.
Of course, then Novak would claim that he has a right to protect his source, but legally, that is not the case. He'd be found in contempt, and be sitting in a jail cell for not divulging the source.
The fact that this has never happened tells us all we need to know about how earnestly the Justice Dept. is pursuing the source of this leak.
"For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on official British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for Intelligence Committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the earth.
Because a U.S. Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating whether any crime was committed when my column first identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, on advice of counsel I have not written on the subject since last October. However, I feel constrained to describe how the Intelligence Committee report treats the Niger-Wilson affair because it has received scant coverage except in The Washington Post, Knight-Ridder newspapers, briefly and belatedly in The New York Times and few other media outlets.
The unanimously approved report said, "interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD (CIA counterproliferation division) employee, suggested his name for the trip." That's what I reported, and what Wilson flatly denied and still does.
Plame sent out an internal CIA memo saying that "my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee about an inter-agency meeting in 2002 that was "apparently convened by [Wilson's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."
The unanimous Intelligence Committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings. That report "did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium." As far as his statement to The Washington Post about "forged documents" involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have "misspoken." In fact, the intelligence community agreed that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.""
RLTW
Whomever was Novak's source was outing a deep cover CIA operative, Valerie Plame. Novak claims he had no knowledge that he was a deep cover operative. But his source undoubtedly did. His source committed an act of treason in giving him the story. Which, BTW, is otherwise irrelevant. It's immaterial if Valerie Plame recommended Wilson for the mission or not. If Wilson lied about that irrelevant detail, he did so with the understanding that HE had a statutory duty to maintain Plame's cover - The same duty, BTW, that Novak's source breached, and thus violated a Federal law, punishable by up to 10 years in a Federal Penitentiary for someone with a security clearance divulging the identity of a covert CIA operative.
Unfortunately, the American voter has an attention span somewhere between a hummingbird and a mosquito.
In their indictment of Bin Laden in 1998, Janet Reno/Clinton administration specifically listed links to Iraq/Saddam's regime in their indictment of Bin Laden. Don't think this link (real or imagined) started with the Bush administration.
So do you still think Bush made this up, or was it inherited from the previous administration?
Even if it's a misguided or poorly executed surgical strike. It is almost the polar opposite of an actual invasion, in that its goal, fundamentally, is to eliminate the justification for or need for an invasion.
Yet now you want it both ways. When Clinton DID try to get Al Qaida, he was attacked for trying to distract the public. And now, he's being attacked for not getting Bin Laden. Well, the folks who made the claim YOU made in the prior post certainly must take some credit for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and helping to insure that Bin Laden lived to carry out 9/11.