Plame's accounts not adding up

[Gan]

WASHINGTON — Former CIA officer Valerie Plame should explain "differences" in her various accounts of how her husband was sent to the African nation of Niger in 2002 to investigate reports Iraq was trying to buy uranium there, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said.

Plame's differing versions have furthered "misinformation" about the origins of the case that roiled Washington beginning in July 2003, said Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo. Plame gave those accounts to the CIA's inspector general, Senate investigators and a House committee in March.

A February 2002 CIA memo released last week as part of a study of pre-Iraq-war intelligence shows that Plame suggested her husband, former State Department official Joseph Wilson, for the Niger trip, Bond said. That "doesn't square" with Plame's March testimony in which she said an unnamed CIA colleague raised her husband's name, Bond told USA TODAY.

Here are Plame's three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, according to Bond:

•She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.

•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson.

•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.

CIA officials have been unable to verify Plame's March version, Bond said. Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said the "public record on the matter is extensive, and, at this point, I can't add anything to it."

Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative was revealed after Wilson accused the Bush administration of ignoring his Africa findings. The disclosure of Plame's status led to a federal investigation that culminated in former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby's conviction on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Libby is scheduled to be sentenced next Tuesday. In court papers made public last weekend, prosecutors recommended he be sentenced to 30 to 37 months in prison.

A spokeswoman for Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she's not sure whether Rockefeller would support having committee investigators interview Plame. The priority for Rockefeller, D-W.Va., is finishing the committee's investigation into Iraq war intelligence, Wendy Morigi said.

Bond said he has written to the CIA for permission to re-interview Plame.
Plame has "always been very consistent that she is not the person responsible for sending Joe Wilson" to Africa, said Melanie Sloan, Plame's attorney.

Questioning Plame's truthfulness now, she said, is an attempt to draw attention from the "real wrong here — a White House that outed a covert operative and undermined national security."

Wilson, a former ambassador to Gabon, said later that he had found nothing to support the report that Iraq was trying to buy uranium for a secret nuclear program from Niger.

In July 2003, Wilson wrote a column in The New York Times accusing the Bush administration of twisting prewar intelligence by including the erroneous report in the president's State of the Union address the previous January — two months before the war began.

Days later, Plame's CIA employment was revealed by syndicated columnist Robert Novak. Plame and Wilson said the implication that she had used her CIA status to arrange her husband's Niger trip was false. The disclosure, they argued, was meant to discredit Wilson and his findings by suggesting that the trip was merely a junket.

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com&expire=&urlID=22512034&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fprintedition%2 Fnews%2F20070530%2Fa_plame30.art.htm&partnerID=1660
_________________________________________________

Interesting, very interesting...

[Ilvane]

How does it change what happened to her, exactly?


Give me a break.

Angela

[Stanley Burrell]

Honestly, she should seriously take the podium and talk about other things.

It's so hilariously ballsy to use this as an inverse distraction method. I honestly think she should just go along with it and speak about nothing except her criminally exposed identity whenever anyone brings any concocted argument into focus. Prolly be doing more for international security anyway. That and gay marriage. Or stem cells.

It's almost as if the Alberto Gonzalez thinktank were still in existence.

[Gan]

Not that it pertains to her credibility or anything...

[Ilvane]

Credibility for what aside from what she remembers about whether she said her husband would be good for the job, or what?

It doesn't change that she was a CIA agent outed by the administration.

:shrug:

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Angela

[Parkbandit]

Credibility for what aside from what she remembers about whether she said her husband would be good for the job, or what?

It doesn't change that she was a CIA agent outed by the administration.

:shrug:

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Angela

So Libby being found guilty of basically doing the same thing Plume did and got away with is fine with you.

Surprise, surprise, surprise.

[Gan]

Especially since it wasnt Libby who outed her...

[Gan]

I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Angela

Take a look at the political affiliations of Joseph Wilson (motive).

Now we're seeing the possiblity of Valerie being the influence of Joseph going on the Niger trip (means and opportunity)

Do you honestly think his assessment was accurate? Do you honestly think he was the best person for the job?

Come on now, be honest.

[Ilvane]

Questioning Plame's truthfulness now, she said, is an attempt to draw attention from the "real wrong here — a White House that outed a covert operative and undermined national security."
~~~
I agree with her lawyer.

And a key point here: CIA officials have been unable to verify Plame's March version, Bond said. Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said the "public record on the matter is extensive, and, at this point, I can't add anything to it."

You have to also consider the source, a Republican.

I tend to think it's more likely that the Bush administration including Karl Rove and Dick Cheney had a hand in releasing the information about Valerie Plame, and Scooter Libby was a scapegoat for the two of them.

Angela

[Parkbandit]

Take a look at the political affiliations of Joseph Wilson (motive).

Now we're seeing the possiblity of Valerie being the influence of Joseph going on the Niger trip (means and opportunity)

Do you honestly think his assessment was accurate? Do you honestly think he was the best person for the job?

Come on now, be honest.

Asking Ilvane to take an honest and unbiased view of anything political is like asking Backlash to stop being a hypocrite.

Both are highly unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.

[Gan]

Well, with in politics as in life, we should just take everyone's testimony at face value without asking questions. If the Plame's say it isnt so, then it isnt so!

-Not.

[Parkbandit]

Well, with in politics as in life, we should just take everyone's testimony at face value without asking questions. If the Plame's say it isnt so, then it isnt so!


This rule should only apply to Democrats, since they have all of our best interest at heart at all times

[Ilvane]

Take a look at the political affiliations of Joseph Wilson (motive).

Now we're seeing the possiblity of Valerie being the influence of Joseph going on the Niger trip (means and opportunity)

Do you honestly think his assessment was accurate? Do you honestly think he was the best person for the job?

Come on now, be honest.

~~~~~~

So you want me to see a conspiracy between Valerie Plame to out herself as a CIA operative just so her husband could tell the country what turned out to be the truth about the uranium in Niger, and that Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were all innocent pawns in Joe Wilsons conspiracy to get back at Bush?

Aha.

That's about as easy to believe as we didn't know Iraq didn't have WMD's.

[Kembal]

Credibility or not regarding this minor detail doesn't matter in this case. Whether she suggested her husband, or whether it came from some other channel, his information was correct. The Niger documents were forgeries, and Iraq was never involved in trying to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger.

The White House sufficiently believed that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger so hurt them that it started pushing the idea that Wilson's trip was a "junket" suggested by his wife, and in the process outed her while she was a covert CIA agent.

Libby commits obstruction of justice and perjury, and thus Fitzgerald cannot find out who ordered the outing. Though his most recent filing indicates that he believes Dick Cheney was the one behind it.

If there's any fact you'd like to dispute, please do so. Otherwise, stop the smoke and mirrors act.

[Gan]

So its ok that she appears to be lying but not ok that Libby did.

Gotcha. ;)

[Kembal]

In this case, what's the consequence of the lie, presuming she is?

In Libby's case, it's pretty clear. His perjury and obstruction of justice stops a special prosecutor from finding out who broke the law and outed a covert CIA agent.

In her case, assuming she lied to the House about who sent Joe Wilson, does it stop anything? Does it put anything in doubt? Does it prevent the investigation of any criminal acts? Does it suddenly prove the White House correct about the Niger claim?

But a further question: considering the source of the allegation is a senator with partisan interests, and it does not appear the paper has any original reporting on whether his version is correct, are we certain that Plame told the CIA Inspector General that she did suggest Wilson? That's the statement in conflict with the House testimony.

[Back]

So you want me to see a conspiracy between Valerie Plame to out herself as a CIA operative just so her husband could tell the country what turned out to be the truth about the uranium in Niger, and that Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby were all innocent pawns in Joe Wilsons conspiracy to get back at Bush?

:rofl: Holy hell its plain as day now! It suddenly all makes sense!

[Gan]

Credibility or not regarding this minor detail doesn't matter in this case. Whether she suggested her husband, or whether it came from some other channel, his information was correct. The Niger documents were forgeries, and Iraq was never involved in trying to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger.
Even the Senate Select Comittee on Intelligence said that Plame's evidence could be interpreted differently. So its not as simply put as you would like to believe, or have everyone else to believe.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm
[Wilson's] intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, (REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."


The White House sufficiently believed that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger so hurt them that it started pushing the idea that Wilson's trip was a "junket" suggested by his wife, and in the process outed her while she was a covert CIA agent.
What a great soundbite for moveon.org...


Libby commits obstruction of justice and perjury, and thus Fitzgerald cannot find out who ordered the outing. Though his most recent filing indicates that he believes Dick Cheney was the one behind it.
Funny how it wasnt Libby's testimony, false or otherwise, that was holding back the investigation as much as it was the reporter refusing to give up her source.


If there's any fact you'd like to dispute, please do so. Otherwise, stop the smoke and mirrors act.
Facts indeed. Try not to be so high on yourself of what are the 'facts'.

[Kembal]

Even the Senate Select Comittee on Intelligence said that Plame's evidence could be interpreted differently. So its not as simply put as you would like to believe, or have everyone else to believe.

Uhh, the Niger documents are still forgeries. What are you trying to prove? That Iraq somehow did buy uranium yellowcake from Niger, as the President suggested?

As to the rest:




The White House sufficiently believed that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger so hurt them that it started pushing the idea that Wilson's trip was a "junket" suggested by his wife, and in the process outed her while she was a covert CIA agent.


What a great soundbite for moveon.org...

Wonderful quip. Now, is any part of what I said in that paragraph false? Didn't Administration officials reveal her name to reporters?


Funny how it wasnt Libby's testimony, false or otherwise, that was holding back the investigation as much as it was the reporter refusing to give up her source.

Judith Miller is an asshat. That nonwithstanding, by "holdback" you are referring to something different than I am. Yes, the investigation was slowed by the fact that Miller didn't reveal her source. However, the investigation was fatally impeded by Libby's false testimony. Fitzgerald made that fairly clear that he could not determine if a violation of IIPA took place because Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice.



Facts indeed. Try not to be so high on yourself of what are the 'facts'.

Heh. You're still continuing with the smoke and mirrors act.

[Latrinsorm]

As near as I can tell perjury is lying under oath, regardless of the consequences of the lies.

That said... who seriously cares?

[Parkbandit]

That's about as easy to believe as we didn't know Iraq didn't have WMD's.


Indeed!! It amazes me how keen your 20/20 hindsite vision is! If only you had spoken up.. given your intimate knowledge of the Iraqii programs! YOU COULD HAVE STOPPED EVERYTHING!

Oh.. by the way.. wall of text says you are a stupid bitch:



"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

[Daniel]

Are we seriously arguing about credibility for someone who exposed something that turned out to be 100% true?

Even if the guy is a complete douche bag who likes milk in his tea, it doesn't change the fact that Uranium didn't go from Niger to Iraq.

Seriously, you guys are ridiculous.

[Latrinsorm]

Actually the argument appears to be about Plame's credibility rather than Wilson's. I think the idea is that perjury should be equally prosecuted or something? It's kind of hazy.

[Gan]

I have more thoughts on this, in light of some additional reading, which will yield to some of the prevalent opinions posted herein as well as reinforce some questions already asked. I just dont have time for the protracted post I want to make with the office in such a hectic end of month state, so it will have to wait until later on when I have more time to expound.

[Gan]

With regards to Plame's testimony, and the basis for the thread, there appear to be three versions to her testimony as to her involvement in Wilson going to Niger.

•She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.

•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson.

•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.

One one of those it could be assumed that she was under oath (the last one). The question I have is, which version is true, and if its not the one possibly taken under oath, then isnt she guilty of perjury much similarly as Libby was and if so why shouldnt she face consequences of the similar effect?

Why is it a big deal? Its not a 'big' deal, but its still pertinent to the political scandal thats already sentenced one party to jail time. In the fairness of law (justice), if she broke one, she should be liable for it.

On the yellowcake/Wilson matter:
OK, after some exhaustive reading I've determined that doubting Wilson's credibility, especially considering his 14 years experience as former Ambassador to Niger, does not stack up. Especially after learning that there were also 2 others who performed similar investigations (Marine General Carlton Fulford and current Ambassador Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick).

With that said, I still wonder why Wilson was so quick to publish an op-ed without reporting back through the channels he was supposed to report back to; OR why he chose to use the experience to go on a book tour (two actually) rather than treat this as a professional consult, make his writeup, and then move on. These actions definately do not lend credibility to his motives, which in turn makes some question his efforts and results.

None the less, you still can not disprove the possible intent of Saddam's trade delegation visit to Niger in 1999 to entertain trade possibilities and since Niger's primary export is uranium (~75%), its an obvious conclusion to reach what the intent of the delegation was. This was also evidenced in the Butler report from Britian yet actual sourcing of the report was either withheld purposefully or simply lacking.

With that said, I think the intent to acquire uranium by Iraq existed, there was just no credible proof that it was acquired if the testimony of the existing Nigerian prime minister is to be taken into account by the 3 investigators from the US is factual.

[DeV]

Until it's determined that she lied while under oath or lied while not under order why should we continue to grasp at straws.

As it stands, the series of events leading up to her being disclosed as a CIA agent were still pretty fucked. And there's been no evidence uncovered to date that contradict her husband's findings.

[TheEschaton]

I believe he only wrote the op-ed, and went on the book tour, when, within a week of his writing the report, the White House outed his wife as a CIA operative.

-TheE-

[Gan]

Until it's determined that she lied while under oath or lied while not under order why should we continue to grasp at straws.
We're not grasping at straws, we're asking questions. Surely you're not implying that questioning things is bad?



As it stands, the series of events leading up to her being disclosed as a CIA agent were still pretty fucked. And there's been no evidence uncovered to date that contradict her husband's findings.
/Agreed.

[DeV]

We're not grasping at straws, we're asking questions. Surely you're not implying that questioning things is bad?
Of course not. But to suggest she was lying while under oath is hearsay for the time being. It may be found to be true later on, but I think we need more information to really determine this or we can keep questioning and playing the guessing game until then. In no way did I intend to imply that asking questions is bad.

[Kembal]

Actually, TheE, the op-ed was written before Plame's outing. Timeline of events:

- Wilson does his trip and submits report to CIA
- President includes the false info that Iraq bought uranium yellowcake from Niger in the SOTU
- Wilson gets pissed, writes op-ed about his trip and how he determined that wasn't the case
- Plame gets outed by WH

I believe the book was written in response to Plame's outing.

[Gan]

Timeline:


Feb, 2002: Wilson's trip to Niger.
March 1, 2002: CIA publishes assessment of Niger investigations.
Jan 28, 2003: SOTU "16 words".
July 6, 2003: Op Ed in NYT: "What I Didnt Find In Africa
July 14, 2003: Novak outs Plame in his column.
2004: book - The Politics of Truth

[Back]

2007: Rehashing the obvious to take attention away from the present.

[Parkbandit]

2007: Rehashing the obvious to take attention away from the present.


2007a - using "Oh that is in the past, let's just forget it" as a possible end debate maneuver.

Since this is a thread about Plume and her changing story, your response could be considered retarded.

[Back]

2007a - using "Oh that is in the past, let's just forget it" as a possible end debate maneuver.

Since this is a thread about Plume and her changing story, your response could be considered retarded.

rofl. I wonder who will be the next White House staffer to resign and write a book? There aren’t many left.

[Gan]

rofl. I wonder who will be the next White House staffer to resign and write a book? There aren’t many left.


Especially when book deals are in the millions right now...