Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Those crazy dems

  1. Sep 2, 2006 #1

    Seems they owe the Bush & Co. a little something.....

    The overly politicized subject of "Plamegate" now has the truth. The funny thing is that I don't hear any republicans taking this oppertunity to bash the Dems (save for a very few like me).......how odd.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 2, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The logic doesn't follow. Libby, Rove, et al weren't the first to leak Plame's name, so that means their motivation in leaking her name disappear's up in smoke, as well?

    The whole intent of leaking Plame's name to the press was to give the impression Plame and Wilson were abusing Plame's job in the CIA by using it to obtain free trips for Joe Wilson. The White House wanted to portray Wilson as someone who had no qualifications for investigating transactions involving nuclear material and that any investigating he did was merely a cursory going through the motions to ensure he stayed on the proper side of the law on government paid travel in letter, if not in spirit. If they had been successful in that portrayal, how would that not have hurt Plame's career.

    In any event, it's not a matter of which government official leaked the info first. Even if classified information is in the press, it's still a crime for someone with access to the info to verify the accuracy or inaccuracies in the story. If White House staff aren't guilty of leaking classified information, then it's because it couldn't be proven that they knew Plame was a covert agent or because the info was hastily declassified by the White House once they realized what they'd done.
  4. Sep 2, 2006 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You must see something I don't see. How do either one of those relate to why White House staff talked to the press about Plame?

    There's two issues: legality and motive. The original article suggests that if Armitage's identity had been known, it could have saved a long investigation. That refers to the legal side of the mess, but Armitage isn't the only piece of the puzzle in the legal issues.

    Motive is a different issue. The article doesn't provide any support one way or the other as to the motivation for Libby and Rove discussing Plame with the press. The legality of Rove's and Libby's comments or whether they even knew Plame was a covert agent is irrelevant to their motivation. They intended to discredit Wilson, even if that meant hurting his wife's career. Having an image in the press as abusing her official government position to provide boondoggles for her husband certainly wasn't going to help her career.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 3, 2006
  5. Sep 2, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You may have an interest in the conversations; I could care less because the prosecutor has found that no crimes have been committed.
    What legal mess? There is no mess nor, obviously, did Armitage commit a crime.
    You have absolutely no idea of the intent of Rove and others except that which exists in your imagination.

    Posts like this are the reason that few on the right side of the political aisle participate in these political forums. It is impossible to counter emotional grievance with fact.
  6. Sep 3, 2006 #5
    How utterly brilliant of you to omit the following paragraph from your quote:

    "That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified."

    I'm sure it was an honest mistake.
  7. Sep 3, 2006 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Do you have a source for this finding?
  8. Sep 3, 2006 #7
    Speaking of sources and citations, I wonder where the author found a source to verify this statement:

    Since the only credible sources I can find on the internet are similar to this one, I suspect that you are getting all excited about an op-ed that has no basis in reality.

    And Geniere, making ad-hominem attacks against imaginary liberals is counterproductive. If you have some facts to present please do so, and include citations.
  9. Sep 3, 2006 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The summary is reasonably fair, plus it does have links and references for the things it says: http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html
  10. Sep 3, 2006 #9
    Since the leak can be traced to Armitage. Libbly's motive for liyng before a grand jury would not make sense unless there was a second leak by someone close to him. It is the lie that has become the charge.

    And it was the CIA who requested the investigation, not the Democrats.:rolleyes:

    BTW in case anyone missed it in the other thread. Plame was working classified information involving the IRAN nuclear situation.

    There is a video in the link below that sums up the entire situation. The video origianally aired on MSNBC.

    And most importantly, Wilson was Right about the yellow cake. Some people just can't seem to accept that fact.
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2006
  11. Sep 4, 2006 #10
    Yes and no.

    There is one extremely important distinction that has to be made here.

    Bush's claim: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

    Wilson's finding: that no uranium deal had ever been reached

    In other words, the fact that no deal was reached means that "Bush lied" when he said that Saddam Hussein had only sought uranium.

    Using this logic, if my wife tells somebody that I went to Sears to look at vacuum cleaners, she is a liar if I come home without having purchased one.

    This article clears it all up.
  12. Sep 4, 2006 #11
    You are wordsmithing. Like Bushco have been doing with the reasons for invading Iraq in the first place.

    That article does not present any evidence, other than highly circumstantial, ie one 2-day visit by Wissam al-Zahawie, to Niger in February 1999. Even if he did inquire about acquiring yellow cake, not that there is any evidence he did, nothing ever came of it.

    Bush's claim that Iraq sought Uranium has never been demonstrated to be true. On the contrary, the fact that the documents and intelligence that the British claim was based on have been demonstrated, quite convincingly to be false.


    Bush lied, he knew the claim was highly dubious, and Wilsons findings were part of the doubt, but he had a war to sell and was not going to let facts or truth stop his war. Why some people insist on defending the guy is beyond me. When someone lies to me I stop trusting or believing them.

    I like many, perhaps even a majority of Americans, don't believe or trust the President and that is a sad state of our union.

    Like the president, I believe that failure in Iraq is a disaster. Failure in Iraq is what we are currently witnessing. Unlike Bush, I don't believe that the man most responsible for the failure in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld, can succeed. Nor do I believe that Bush can remedy the disaster which is his ME policy and his handling of the fight against terrorists. The right thing for Bush to do would be to replace Cheney with Colin Powell (if he would accept) and then resign in disgrace. It is the least he could do to repay the loyalty Powell gave him to help sell the war. Powell may not be the best choice, but I think that he would enjoy popular support from Americans, and he still has prestige internationally. I think many nations would be willing to forgive his UN speech and work with him to achieve a stable Iraq.

    Another choice that might be acceptable is John McCain.

    This article is far more detailed and includes more information than the one you linked.
  13. Sep 4, 2006 #12
  14. Sep 4, 2006 #13
    I tend to, if possible, use the most credible sources possible. And I find the one below to be much more credible than the soap opera version contained in the SLATE.


    This reprot was as of 2004. If the CIA has anything more recent on this issue , I'd be glad to read it.

    There was no yellow cake sought There were no viable WMD found.
  15. Sep 4, 2006 #14
    How can you claim that Bush lied about the Niger uranium issue when the factcheck site (which you say is 'a very good source') makes the important distinction between the interest in uranium by the 1999 Iraqi delegation and the uranium deal which never materialized?

    George Bush echoed the British intelligence finding that Iraq was seeking uranium - a point which is verified by your 'very good source.'

    Joseph Wilson concluded that Iraq had never managed to purchase uranium from Niger - a point which also is verified by your 'very good source.'

    Bush never claimed that a sale had taken place, but the fact that some documents were fake was used to shoot down the legitimate reports that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger.

    seek v.

    1. to go in search or quest of
    3. to try to obtain

    purchase v.

    1. to acquire by the payment of money or its equivalent; buy

    Two very different words.

    Wilson may have debunked the false reports of a uranium purchase but it still escapes me how this was interpreted as proof that "Bush lied" about Iraq's seeking of uranium.
  16. Sep 4, 2006 #15
    The fact that fake reports were used to ultimately mislead the public undermines any credibility, obviously.
  17. Sep 4, 2006 #16
    This is the greatest extent of Bush's claim regarding the Niger uranium issue:
    If, at any point, the Bush administration trusted the fake documents which "showed" an actual transaction, it is not borne out in any statement or claim that I can find.

    Stop pretending that Bush claimed a transaction had taken place.

    He never did so.
  18. Sep 4, 2006 #17
    You are desperately spliting verbal hairs. I don't think anyone has suggested that a transaction took place. But the Administration did falsely and repeatedly insist that Iraq had sought a transaction.
    Bushco used those 16 words and a lot of other totally untrue tripe about WMD to mislead the American people. None of them were true.

    Whether Bush trusted words provided by the British, or Curveball's description of imaginary mobile bioweapons labs is not relevant. They were not true, they were cherry picked , fictionalized, and enhanced. Yet Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice knowingly used them to instill fear in the American people.
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2006
  19. Sep 4, 2006 #18
    Read my post again.

    He knew the claim was dubious, unless he either never read or was never briefed on the October 2002 NIE. (which is plausible since he is IMO an idiot) Even though the claim was doubtful he went ahead and included the assertion in his SOTU address in January 2001. Add this to the statements by other administration officials about the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud and it becomes obvious that they were manipulating the intelligence to exploit our fear after 9-11 in order to sell a war. Anyone who cannot see this is either intellectually challenged, self-deluded, or complicit.

    Bush lied to sell the war. It doesn't matter if technically he didn't lie because he never said there was a connection, he deliberately misled the American people, by misrepresenting the facts.

    [edit] BTW the factcheck site does not offer any evidence that the Iraqi delegation sought uranium. Read it again.

    Mayaki interprets, that means he thinks they want to discuss uranium but they did not actually discuss uranium. Is that all the evidence you have that they were trying to acquire uranium? Is that all the evidence you need to justify the consequences of the invasion?
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2006
  20. Sep 4, 2006 #19
    Well, Skyhunter, your stance is directly contrary to the findings of the Butler Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee Report.
  21. Sep 5, 2006 #20
    The Butler report was meaningless fim flam. It wasn't even mentioned in the ISG report. Click the link below and do a word search of the document for Niger or any other term you wish. . You will not find anything to supports your claims.

    Last edited: Sep 5, 2006
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Those crazy dems
  1. Those Godless Communists (Replies: 35)