Machiavelli Wrote:I believe you are mistaken on a couple of points Niner.
1st. President Bush DID say he would fire anyone associated with the leak. He then a couple of months later said he would only fire them if a crime was committed. Big Difference
Why would he fire someone when there was no crime? He modified his statement on it, as he should have. You'd don't stick to a committment to fire someone for doing nothing wrong.
Quote:2. Was Novak the first time Plame's name was used?
Yes. Novak's column is what triggered the investigation. Before that her name had not been published, other than by Joe Wilson himself in his who's who biography.
Quote:I know Armitage was not the source for Cooper and Miller and keep in mind, Libby is on trial for obstruction of justice.
I'm well aware of that. Obstruction of justice of a crime that wasn't a crime.
Quote:There definetly was a concerted effort by this administration to discredit Wilson. Why?
Because he was a liar Dogger. I've said that in two consecutive posts now. Wilson came back from Niger and started lying. You go after people that are lying. You don't let them be. You seek to discredit liars and that's what they did. That's "why."
Quote:3. Are you saying that Wilson lied about Saddam trying to get Yellow Cake from Niger? I think you may have a case of mistaken identity. Someone lied about YellowCake but I don't think it was Wilson.
I'm saying he lied about claiming he proved it false and he lied about who sent him. Below is what the Washington Post said about it, it sums it up quite well.
Quote:Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
As far as yellowcake, I've shown you in several convesations that no one lied about yellowcake.
Quote:Armitage maybe was Novak's source, but he wasn't Cooper's, Miller's or Russerts. That was Scooter per Cheney.
Maybe was? Dogger he admitted he was. Read the freakin article I posted.
And as has been pointed out, over and over and over again, if Libby was the source of her name,
it doen't matter because that's not a crime.
Quote:The thing that does bother me though is he said that British Sources part of that infamous 2003 SOTU should never of been there. Our own CIA said it never should of been there. This is a place where we part company, we were ram rodded into this war for dubious reasons.
See Dogger this is the difference between knowing the facts and understanding them. Two seperate investigations have said that there was no lie in the SOTU. The British,
to this day, stand by the report that Saddam sought yellow cake. Now you see a part, not the whole mind you, CIA say that the yellowcake shouldn't have been in the SOTU and immediately jump to someone lied so we'd go to war, despite the fact that all evidence shows that not to be the case. Same with Plamegate. I've illustrated already that there was no crime, there is no scandal, yet you are still claiming there is and trying to make something of it.
Quote:I'm going to research some of our past conversations Niner. We were both on top of this for a while. I'll bet we had some of these same discussions in 2004 and 2005.
We have.
lmfao