News High Crimes & Treason: Compiling a List

[Tide]

Senate Intelligence is an oxymoron (especially a Republican one). It was taking too long to download, so I'll have to fisk that in turn later. But the quote provided does not speak to Wilson's qualifications.

See the last paragraph of my previous post. It's no secret Joe was an ambassador, had no training as an investigator, was certainly no expert on WMD and definitely was not a spook. The Intelligence Committee report shows the result of sending an amateur to do a professional's job.

Oxymoron or not, it's the official fact based record which is a little more substantive than wild paranaoia and partisan spin.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Have you read the Senate Intelligence Report?
(http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf)
Check out their assessment of the talented Mr. Wilson's work product. To wit:
Mr. Wilson was neither an intelligence expert, investigator nor expert on WMDs. While Mrs. Wilson has those qualifications, they do not transfer to the ambassador by virtue of marriage or sharing residence.

Riiiight ... so you are taking actions 'after the fact' when he and his wife were under attack as has been done to several people connected to this administration ... when they went public to blow the whistle on an administration so full of it their eyes are brown and quote an intelligence report where the salient point starts with "I believed very strongly".

Now, how much intelligence does it take to read the document in question and compare the signatures to people actually working in the government at the time?

What YOU need to do is set your Bullsh!t detector a little more sensitively when you attack a scapegoat.

Now that you have trashed the reputation of the man named above even when I gave you a link to his http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html" and see if you can tell me why this individual deserves to be in the White House meddling in the workings of the CIA.

The primary difference you will see between the two is that Rumsfeld was one of the first to shake the hand of Saddam and Wilson was the last.

 

[Tide]

I think your spin actuator is overheating. I have trashed no one. Wilson was unqualified and his "report" was full of holes according the Senate Intelligence report. The issue here is crimes and treason both appear to be wishful thinking. Who's trashing whom?

One can cry high crimes and treason all day but without specific charges, indictments and convictions one is simply blowing political dust in the wind and probably contributing to global warming in the process. Innuendo, suspicion and smear do not constitute guilt or conviction.

I'll regard any players in the game to be guilty when I see convictions. In the meantime, when political hacks go after the big boys then the big boys respond. Is that such a surprise? Is that a crime?

BTW, what do they do with political dissidents in China?

 

[Anttech]

I'm fully aware of what MI5 wrote and this is the same intelligence ministry that got the yellow cake thing wrong. Tell me something new. Again, paranoia? Conspiracy? It looks like X-Files all over again.

LOL So beause the dowing street memo doesn't fit your agenda, you are trying to smear the the whole british inteligence agency? The ones who were actually saying there wasnt any wmd...

 

[Tide]

LOL So beause the dowing street memo doesn't fit your agenda, you are trying to smear the the whole british inteligence agency? The ones who were actually saying there wasnt any wmd...

It's nice to see how capable we are of keeping things in context! :)

The agenda was set in the OP. It looks like a high tech lynching, to coin a phrase, and the feeding frenzy is on. I want to see reasoned argument and proof and not baseless partisan charges. You call THAT an agenda? tsk tsk!

What do we have? Here it is: Perjury and obstruction of justice charges, a teary eyed prosecutor who has very deep feelings about protecting government agents but fails to indict for outing one such agent after two years of investigation. I'd gladly lock up any individual who committed such an atrocity and throw away the key. But "high crimes and treason" without a conviction let alone an indictment is seriously wanting.

 

[russ_watters]

What is required for investigation? Questionable activities? You don't have to be innocent until proven guilty to be investigated--just reasonable cause, and clearly we have that. Why no Senate investigation? Because of power held by one group. That should concern you.

A strong suspicion of illegal activity is required for an investigation. One of the problems with the type of crime people are looking for is there is not a clear-cut indication of a crime being committed. When an investigation starts with a dead body on the sidewalk with a bullet lodged in it's skull, that's a decent basis for investigating whether a crime was committed. But as Clinton showed us, your friends can drop like flies around you, with indictments, but no amount of investigation will pin that to a President.

One thing people need to understand is that there is a limit to what you are allowed to investigate. You can't supboena emails, for example, unless you have a good reason to believe there is evidence to be found in those emails.

There has always been a significant percentage of people against the invasion of Iraq. I would hardly call that "fringe."

That has nothing at all to do with what I said. I was quite specific.

edit: One thing liberals like to forget, here, is that there are investigations going on all the time. There are people looking into voting irregularities. There were investigations into torture. There are, at the very least, reporters digging into everything they can find about public officials. If anyone had found even a strong hint that they could pin something on Bush, more formal investigations would have been warranted. So far all we have is unsubstantiated, unconnected allegations. That isn't enough.

 

[Anttech]

So far all we have is unsubstantiated, unconnected allegations. That isn't enough.

Sounds like what Bush took You to war with, doesn't it?

 

[The Smoking Man]

I'm fully aware of what MI5 wrote and this is the same intelligence ministry that got the yellow cake thing wrong. Tell me something new. Again, paranoia? Conspiracy? It looks like X-Files all over again.

I'm interested in your response here Tide.

You mention MI5 here.

Are you actually aware of what the document is all about and who wrote it?

You seem to be attempting to sound much more intelligent than you are ... like you're 'in the know' ... Putting on aires.

They aren't 'spooks' they are agents and the Downing Street Memo is the minutes of a meeting held by the cabinet and penned by Mathew Rycroft, the Downing Street foreign policy aide.

It was addressed to Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan and Alastair Campbell.

This is like saying Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc.

As far as the Yellow Cake ... they provided you with the French Intel and when you checked with the French, they said it was no good and that is when you attacked the French since it was your last hope of justifying the invasion.

X-files? No, only when you let your spin take you away from reality.

You mention how the government attacked Wilson ... yes ... when he contradicted the government plan, he was attacked.

I love how when you find people who contradict you and who are correct, they become the idiots ... the ones with the failings.

Face it, you went to the UN with a cock and bull story and they saw though it. You knew the vote would not go in your favour so you invaded. Now you demonize anyone who says anything against you.

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds like what Bush took You to war with, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[SOS2008]

See the last paragraph of my previous post. It's no secret Joe was an ambassador, had no training as an investigator, was certainly no expert on WMD and definitely was not a spook.

You are ignoring his knowledge and connections there, and assuming he is an amateur because he is not a spook.

Wilson entered the Foreign Service in 1976, specializing in African affairs. He later served as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush. He then helped direct African policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. In 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein.

Accounts of Valerie Plame's involvement in her husband's selection differ significantly. Wilson has claimed that she simply contacted him on the agency's behalf and escorted him to the meeting before leaving. …In contrast, Matthew Cooper's e-mail records that Karl Rove told him that Plame had actually authorized the trip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

Yes, it does. What does that have to do with anything?

Okay, so:

… the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)." "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or is backed up by other evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause

There is certainly reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Several lists of laws broken have been supplied. Simply repeating your request is, well... :zzz:

 

[Tide]

You are ignoring his knowledge and connections there, and assuming he is an amateur because he is not a spook.

Not at all. Read the report!

 

[russ_watters]

There is certainly reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. Several lists of laws broken have been supplied. Simply repeating your request is, well... :zzz:

From your link:

...a prudent person's belief...

You could drive a truck through that hole, SOS! But I suppose federal prosecutors are not prudent people, but neo-hippie bloggers are?

 

[polyb]

As for charge #1, well let's see what the senate has to say:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/01/senate.iraq.ap/index.html"

Obviously they are trying to maximize the media exposure in the context of last week's indictment. Unfortunately for us spectators we'll only get 1/2 of the story at best.

As for the election problems of '00/'04, which was furiously dipsuted and refuted, has now been officiated by the GAO. Here is a link to that report:
http://searching.gao.gov/query.html?col=+&qt=GAO-05-956&charset=iso-8859-1&ql=&x=9&y=8So are there going to be any other charges?

 

[edward]

Not at all. Read the report!

Actually to coin an old prase: "the proof is in the pudding" The facts have born out that Wilson was absolutely correct about Niger. So was the International atomic energy commission when they told the Administration that even an amatuer could see that the alleged document linking Iraq to Niger was a fake.

CNN Presents: Dead Wrong: Transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/21/cp.01.html

Fake documents:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/sprj.irq.documents/

Reading the full Senate report you can find bit and pieces to support the possiblility of the existence of WMD in Iraq. Taking things out of context makes it even easier.
But as I stated above, the proof is in the pudding . And the pudding in this case is the Conclusions of the committee:

http://intelligence.senate.gov/conclusions.pdf

 

[SOS2008]

Not at all. Read the report!

Transcript from PBS NewsHour - July 20, 2004:

The Senate Intelligence Committee report has left open the question of whether Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Niger. Margaret Warner discusses Iraq's alleged desire for "yellowcake" uranium with former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo.

MARGARET WARNER: Ever since President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, these 16 words have been the fodder for fierce debate over the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

MARGARET WARNER: …Wilson said he spent eight days there meeting with current and former government officials and uranium business people Afterwards, he wrote, he reported to the CIA, "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

Three days after Wilson's article appeared, Secretary of State Colin Powell said President Bush should not have made the Iraq-Niger assertion.

COLIN POWELL: At the time it was put into the state of the union, my best understanding of this is that it had been seen by the intelligence community and vetted. But on subsequent examination, it didn't hold up, and we have acknowledged that.

MARGARET WARNER: …The Niger controversy re-erupted ten days ago with publication of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA's prewar intelligence on Iraq.

The unanimous report said different U.S. intelligence agencies had disagreed over whether Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Niger. On balance, the report concluded, "The October 2002 national intelligence estimate that 'Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellow cake' overstated what the intelligence community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts."

But three committee Republicans issued a separate statement attacking Wilson's credibility.

MARGARET WARNER: And we pick up the debate now with former Ambassador Joseph Wilson-- and Republican Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he was one of the Republicans who signed a supplementary statement questioning Wilson's credibility.

MARGARET WARNER: Do you agree with that, that there was adequate basis for the president to say that at least the British intelligence had concluded this?

JOSEPH WILSON: Sure. With all due respect to senator bond, the day after my opinion piece appeared in the New York Times, the president's spokesman came out and said that the 16 words did not merit inclusion in the state of the union.

The secretary of state said it should never have been in there, in addition to that in the body of the Senate report there are a number of references to differences between the U.S. and British intelligence on this specific issue-- in particular on Oct. 2, 2002, three months before the state of the union address, in which the assertion was made, the deputy director of central intelligence testified to the Senate Select Committee that one of the areas where we think that the British stretched beyond where we would stretch is on the points where Iraq is seeking uranium from various African locations.

In addition, on Oct. 6, George Tenet called the deputy national security advisor and said that he did not want the president to be a fact witness on this issue, because his analysts had told him the reporting was weak.

MARGARET WARNER: Let me just interrupt you. Your point is that because U.S. intelligence had doubts about the credibility, the president should not have been citing British intelligence?

JOSEPH WILSON: Well, absolutely. The U.S. intelligence budget is roughly 20 times the size of British intelligence. The British, at the very highest level of corporate intelligence community, the director of Central Intelligence, was clearly saying on several occasions, both in written form and by telephone, the president should not be a witness of fact on this particular assertion.
----------
MARGARET WARNER: All right. Let me ask you one final question, and then get Ambassador Wilson to respond. You also signed a separate statement that really questioned Ambassador Wilson's credibility. What was your evidence for that?

SEN. KIT BOND: The fact that he made a major... he made a major point of calling the president a liar when the CIA had approved the language which Ambassador Wilson claims at the time was a lie, and there was not such evidence.

The ambassador has said that his wife had nothing to do with recommending him. And when we interviewed... our committee interviewed his wife, she then... she was asked specifically if she had... who had recommended the ambassador go. And she said that "I can't remember exactly whether I recommended him or my boss did." And other people... other agents reported that it was on her recommendation that the ambassador was sent.[This part does not sound bias, or struggling to tell the truth at all. ]

MARGARET WARNER: And briefly, Ambassador Wilson, there was a memo cited by her or written by her in which she basically, to her boss, touted your contacts in Niger. …You don't consider that memo a suggestion?

JOSEPH WILSON: I have not seen the memo. I don't know what transpired, if her supervisor asked her to list my qualifications. My bona fides were well established, having made a trip out to Niger in 1999, in addition to 23 years service for my country, most of which was in Africa, including a stint at the National Security Council, where I helped the Niger government work through two military dictatorships back to civilian government.

MARGARET WARNER: All right. We have to leave it there. Ambassador Wilson, Sen. Bond, thank you both.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec04/yellowcake_7-20.html

There was a nice update this weekend on CNN Presents on October 31, 2005 in addition to the source by edward:

CNN Presents: Dead Wrong: Transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/21/cp.01.html

One of the points made this weekend is that the CIA did NOT approve President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. The CIA only later began to do so (hmm, I wonder why...maybe because of the speech made by Bush).

And then today,

Heated day in D.C. leads to more prewar probes
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 6:01 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2005

…In a speech on the Senate floor, Reid said the American people and U.S. troops deserved to know the details of how the United States became engaged in the war, particularly in light of the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

“Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) has been trying for a year to get the intelligence committee to keep its promise and investigate the misuse of intelligence information,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said shortly before the session ended. “We just thought we couldn't wait any longer for them to keep giving excuses. This is very serious.”
----------
Reid accused Republicans of playing upon post-9/11 fears as grounds for going to war.

“Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate,” he said. “But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.”

The Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., produced a 511-page report last summer on flaws of an Iraq intelligence estimate assembled by the country’s top analysts in October 2002, and he promised a second phase would look at issues that couldn’t be finalized in the first year of work.

The committee had started the second phase of the review, Roberts said, but it has not been completed. He said he had intended all along to work on the second phase beginning next week.
----------
…a closed session is appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons — the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9886959/

 

[Tide]

edward,

Actually, the statement is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

There is no dispute over whether WMDs were found in Iraq. And there is no dispute that the intelligence was flawed (on a global scale, I might add). But it's a precarious leap to high crimes and treason.

While I am at it, I still have not heard a reasonable explanation to fit these facts: (a) We know Saddam had WMDs (nerve/chem agents) at one time; (b) We know Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds and on Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war; (c) We know there is no record of those existing weapons ever having been destroyed; and (d) We know no such WMDs were found after the invasion.

Perhaps someone who is salivating to convict and lynch would care to fill in the logical gap for us?

 

[Tide]

SOS,

IOW - Joe Wilson is qualified because Joe Wilson says he is qualified! I guess I can't argue with that. :)

BTW - as far as I know and, according to Wilson himself, he never filed a report on his "trip." Since we're all so suspicious and raring to convict without a trial, doesn't it seem just a little odd that a career diplomat on assignment with the CIA with all that implies chooses to publish his "report" in the New York Times and the Washington Post? Not even a little odd?

 

[The Smoking Man]

edward,
Actually, the statement is "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."
There is no dispute over whether WMDs were found in Iraq. And there is no dispute that the intelligence was flawed (on a global scale, I might add). But it's a precarious leap to high crimes and treason.
While I am at it, I still have not heard a reasonable explanation to fit these facts: (a) We know Saddam had WMDs (nerve/chem agents) at one time; (b) We know Saddam used WMDs on the Kurds and on Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war; (c) We know there is no record of those existing weapons ever having been destroyed; and (d) We know no such WMDs were found after the invasion.
Perhaps someone who is salivating to convict and lynch would care to fill in the logical gap for us?

Well, maybe you could fill a logical gap for us.

How did we go from discussing if Wilson was qualified to judge if the signitories on the documents purportedly purchasing Yellowcake from Niger were not actually in the government for the previous 10 years to an examination of the failure of UNESCOM to verify the destruction of WMD?

A) is true.

B) is true ... in fact he used them 2 weeks before the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam and it wasn't even a speedbump at the time with regards to US/Iraqi relations ... so why now? Did you suddenly grow a conscience?

C) There are records of weapons being destroyed ... the primary concern was the loss of about 500 shells containing mustard gas that may or may not have been destroyed in an air strike and he finding of a lot of 'dual use' equipment and materials. I believe 'aluminum tubes' might ring a bell? (Centrifuge)

However there were also chemicals used for the production of fertilizers that were not properly documented. (They are not WMD)

D) You're right. Nothing was found.

Your characterization however that this was a global suspicion is also highly suspect since the French, the originators of a lot of the intel had refused to release the documents to the intelligence community re:Yellowcake because they did not believe it. It was pre-empted by the brits.

It was the ONLY evidence left for the justification since the french also revealed that the other parts of the excuses had been extracted from an on-line essay written by a student some 10 years before.

With regards to the suspicions that there were weapons and Iraq was guilty of not letting in the inspectors ... The USA had to wait for the evacuation of Hans Blix who hey had been directing from site to site with satellite intel.

Hans Blix was prety well ready to file a report clearing Iraq at the time but was not given the opportunity since Iraq was invaded almost as soon as he and his team cleared the border. Look at this http://www.slate.com/id/2074629" from 2002 appearing on Slate!

 

[The Smoking Man]

SOS,
IOW - Joe Wilson is qualified because Joe Wilson says he is qualified! I guess I can't argue with that. :)
BTW - as far as I know and, according to Wilson himself, he never filed a report on his "trip." Since we're all so suspicious and raring to convict without a trial, doesn't it seem just a little odd that a career diplomat on assignment with the CIA with all that implies chooses to publish his "report" in the New York Times and the Washington Post? Not even a little odd?

I'm sorry ... you're the secretary for Wilson then are you? You know just what it was, who he spoke to and who debriefed him on his return home? When did you become privy to this information.

All diplomats are debriefed when returning ... yes ... even ones who are not considered by you to be 'spook' material. It's The SOP.

 

[Informal Logic]

Has it dawned on anyone that the cover-up worked?

SOS,
IOW - Joe Wilson is qualified because Joe Wilson says he is qualified! I guess I can't argue with that. :)
BTW - as far as I know and, according to Wilson himself, he never filed a report on his "trip." Since we're all so suspicious and raring to convict without a trial, doesn't it seem just a little odd that a career diplomat on assignment with the CIA with all that implies chooses to publish his "report" in the New York Times and the Washington Post? Not even a little odd?

I'm sorry ... you're the secretary for Wilson then are you? You know just what it was, who he spoke to and who debriefed him on his return home? When did you become privy to this information.
All diplomats are debriefed when returning ... yes ... even ones who are not considered by you to be 'spook' material. It's The SOP.

Aside from wondering why it is necessary for someone to be in the CIA to go on a fact-finding mission, or that the trip was even considered a "CIA" activity, I do not understand the obsession with Wilson. We know the "mushroom cloud" claims were false, and we know there were other intelligence reports (in addition to Wilson) questioning this before the State of the Union speech. So who cares about Wilson - Once again, this is just the Republicans trying to muddy the waters. Also, when Republicans unite to make attacks against an individual I remain suspicious of their claims (or reports) - Just as many of us have been suspicious that the Senate Intelligence Committee has been dragging their feet on the second phase of the investigation--imagine that.

Which brings me to a point raised on the news last night – and the title of this post. It is believed that the reason a bright person like Libby would lie as he did, was to postpone indictments for as long as he could, and most importantly until after the 2004 election. If a cover-up allowed Bush to be reelected, then the pretender needs to be removed from the thrown immediately. Those who cannot see the importance and relevance of this have their heads…hehem…in the sand.

 

[edward]

cWe know there is no record of those existing weapons ever having been destroyed; and (d) We know no such WMDs were found after the invasion.
Perhaps someone who is salivating to convict and lynch would care to fill in the logical gap for us?

Actually the weapons of WMD that existed before during and after the first gulf war were destroyed. That was well documented at the time. WMD , but especially, A possible resergence of WMD production capability was what Blix was instructed to search for.

Blix found nothing. Blix was forced to leave by the upcoming US invasion.
Blix was right and so was Wilson, why is that so hard to accept?

The entire invasion was based on some inocuous aluminum tubes and a fake document from niger, either of which could have easily been proven to be benign had we chosen to do so. At the very least this was criminal negligence.

 

[edward]

SOS,
IOW - Joe Wilson is qualified because Joe Wilson says he is qualified! I guess I can't argue with that. :)
BTW - as far as I know and, according to Wilson himself, he never filed a report on his "trip." Since we're all so suspicious and raring to convict without a trial, doesn't it seem just a little odd that a career diplomat on assignment with the CIA with all that implies chooses to publish his "report" in the New York Times and the Washington Post? Not even a little odd?

Why would you have the idea that there was no report by Wilson?
He published the information in the press only after it was disregarded by irresponsible people. Of course they had to disregard his information because at this point it would have negated the backbone "16 words" of Bushes propagandist speech.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030711-cia01.htm

There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

 

[SOS2008]

A strong suspicion of illegal activity is required for an investigation. One of the problems with the type of crime people are looking for is there is not a clear-cut indication of a crime being committed.

Everyone is well aware of the difficulty, if not impossibility of proving the outing of Plame and/or treason. That is because of the law--not because of innocence. Libby was indicted for cover-up activity, which in itself provides reasonable cause for prudent people to believe a crime was committed.

edit: One thing liberals like to forget, here, is that there are investigations going on all the time. There are people looking into voting irregularities. There were investigations into torture. There are, at the very least, reporters digging into everything they can find about public officials. If anyone had found even a strong hint that they could pin something on Bush, more formal investigations would have been warranted. So far all we have is unsubstantiated, unconnected allegations. That isn't enough.

No it’s not enough because of the Republican majority in too many branches of government at this time.

 

[Skyhunter]

The contrary evidence is that Wilson was unqualified to make such an assessment. He was not the spook. His wife was. Moreover, he claimed to have been sent by Cheney. Cheney clumsily pointed out that he did not send Wilson and one should look at his contacts in the CIA for Wilson's invitation. And you think it is something new for politicians to discredit "the other side?"

Could you provide source for a quote from Wilson where he said Cheney sent him?

You cannot because Wilson never made such a claim.

Incidentally, doesn't it seem somewhat odd to anyone that Wilson filed his "report" in op-ed pieces in the NYT and Washington post? HINT: It's called POLITICS!

Read the indictment of Libby, Cheney told Libby about Wilson's wife weeks before he published his op-ed piece. It is called going public to defend yourself.

Everyone? LoL! Hey, who needs facts anyhow? They are such a petty nuisance! :)

Yes facts are a nuisance for you are they not?

Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999. On that trip, Plame, who worked in that division, had suggested him because he was planning to go there, according to Wilson and the Senate committee report.
The 2002 mission grew out of a request by Vice President Cheney on Feb. 12 for more information about a Defense Intelligence Agency report he had received that day, according to a 2004 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. An aide to Cheney would later say he did not realize at the time that this request would generate such a trip.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918.html

More Koolade anyone?