CIA Rove

Strick11 · July 17, 2005, 11:01pm

“StrickII: This is incorrect, Plames Neighbors contradict his statements, saying no, they did not know. Get your facts straight.”

Quoting a wiki next and trusting it over the Times? REALLY?

And you think that kind of information refutes anything? So if you find some of my neighbors who don’t know what I do for a living, none of my neighbors do? And what of the reporters who say they knew what Plame did before all this because it was common knowledge. Is that a not a fact because of this, too?

Note that Dean’s case for a crime sort of comes apart if neither Rove nor Libby learned about Plame from official sources, much less classified ones.

“Because they want to ascertain ‘What did he know, and when did he know it.’”

Which matters how if there’s clear evidence that Plame doesn’t qualify as a covert operative under the definition of the law? I posted that definition on another thread. Wanna see it again?

sweetkidsmom · July 17, 2005, 11:03pm

Reality Check! No WMD, no yellow cake found in Iraq. Wilson’s report coincides with the facts. The CIA was arguing against the line of reasoning put forward by the defense department neocons Bush and Cheney admin, which was that ‘the mushroom cloud’ theory was their ticket to a war they wanted before 9/11. They spiked it because it did not fit their preset policy. <a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4706139[/url]”>Slate's War Stories: Reading the 'Downing St. Memo' : NPR;

sweetkidsmom · July 17, 2005, 11:07pm

Wilson himself says his neighbors did not know. Remember Bush has a credibility rating iin the low 40’s. Do you believe him?

Plames lawyer didn’t know. That is hardly just anyone in her circle.

Tierney’s peice in the NYTimes, was opinion not news, not fact.

mini · July 17, 2005, 11:10pm

"“Because they want to ascertain ‘What did he know, and when did he know it.’”

Which matters how if there’s clear evidence that Plame doesn’t qualify as a covert operative under the definition of the law? I posted that definition on another thread. Wanna see it again?"

One word, and it has three syllables and begins with a “P”.

Strick11 · July 17, 2005, 11:22pm

“Reality Check! No WMD, no yellow cake found in Iraq.”

A stopped clock is right twice a day, too. The Administration didn’t say that Iraq succeeded in buying yellowcake, only that they tried. Even Wilson found evidence of that attempt, the only part of his report the CIA found useful. The Administration never even saw the report, at least to 3 Democratic and 3 Republican Senators. See pages 36-40. <a href=“http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html[/url]”>http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html</a>

What ever you want to believe about the rest of the evidence, Wilson was wrong about what he claimed to have found. Again, as Factcheck points out: <a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html[/url]”>http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html</a>

Ah, perjury. But there’s no evidence that Rove’s the target of any perjury charges yet, is there? It could just as easily be aimed at Tenet, who has been suggested as the original leaker, or Powell, who is said to have leaked the story about the leaks, a version that seems at odds with the facts we currently know. Of Libby or any other person who testified including Novak or Tim Russert.

sweetkidsmom · July 17, 2005, 11:26pm

Mini, Its far more damaging and extensive than just Plame, who I understand was an NOC until Novak released her name to the public.
To see its importance this best explains it.
"The difference is that, as Valerie Plame, Mrs. Wilson was affiliated with a CIA front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, engaged in tracking and stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. As soon as her name was made public, the implications for U.S. national security amounted to a grave breach far more of a crime than merely violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which has only had a single prosecution since its passage in 1982. As the Washington Post reported when the Plame scandal broke:

“A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame’s name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities. ‘That’s why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name,’ the former diplomat said.”

The publication of her maiden name not only endangered Valerie Wilson, but also blew the cover of a CIA front and imperiled anyone she might have come in contact with during her stint overseas. This isn’t just a matter of of violating a statute that, at most, entails a 10-year jail sentence and a fine this is a question of possible espionage."

Strick11 · July 17, 2005, 11:37pm

I should have read the Downing Street Memo earlier. It’s available at the link you offered, sweetkid’smom. I like these two paragraphs:

So the people in the room really believed that Saddam had WMDs. Interesting.

Oh, and this from an op-ed piece written by someone who considered himself an expert on Iraq:

Joe Wilson thought Saddam had WMDs, too.

If all these people, these people who had first hand access to information not controled by the Administration, thought that Saddam had WMDs before the war, are you so sure it wasn’t the right thing to think from the evidence, “fixed” (which in Britian means to set your mind to, not rig as it does here in the States) or not?

“Plame, who I understand was an NOC until Novak released her name to the public.”

Only because she hadn’t been reclassified. She hadn’t served as an operative since the CIA decided her cover had been blown in 1997 and brought her back to a desk job at Langley. If she hadn’t served as a covert operative outside the country (can’t have covert operations in the US, it’s against the law), by definition, she’s not a covert operative. It’s in the statute, plain as day.

That was the point I tried to make earlier. That and the obvious point that if you’re a real NOC, you don’t park your car at the Langley parking garage everyday for 6 years. Sort of gives the secret away.

sweetkidsmom · July 17, 2005, 11:53pm

My husband is a Lt. Colonel(ret), USNA’78, he didn’t buy the lies. Don’t think for a minute the military bought this hook line and sinker. Plenty of Gunny sargents, Lt.Cols and Lt’s, believed this was about oil and told their troops that as well.

Sadam used chemical weapons we gave him(Rumsfeld). Bush stopped the AIEA from completeing its mission, hurry up I can’t lie to the public much longer. Scott Ridder didn’t believe we needed to rush to war. And by the way, while chickenhawks are so ready to send my husband to war, where he could be blown to bits, none of them went to war or are sending their unemployed kids(Jenna and Barb have yet to join in their fathers war wet dream). Guess Bush isn’t so confident after all.

I hear the Army needs warriors, could you join up as my husband, brother and father have.

sweetkidsmom · July 18, 2005, 12:05am

“fixed” (which in Britian means to set your mind to, not rig as it does here in the States) or not?

Your definition doesn’t wash. “fixed” in the memo is used in Britain as well as America to mean ‘rigged’.

citygirlsmom · July 18, 2005, 12:10am

We all thought Saddam had WMD cause our Administration told us so…and for awhile we believed them…

citygirlsmom · July 18, 2005, 12:11am

So Strick, do you think Rove is an ethical man? And answer the question about him, please, don’t bring in Clinton, or Reagan, or Stalin, or Castro

sweetkidsmom · July 18, 2005, 12:19am

Stick, you have obviously gone to the GOP/USA school. Bush misled this nation to an unjust war, young boys my husband trained and worked along side are dead or disfigured for it, while boys like Corey Bray of the Whorton business school act like the ungrateful morans they are. War’s great as long as its someone elses kid who dies in it.
We are approaching 1800 dead soldiers and thousands injured and irreparibly maimed. Is it still worth the lies?

"We have to find out. America’s foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor “revisionist history,” as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant."

mini · July 18, 2005, 12:25am

“We all thought Saddam had WMD cause our Administration told us so…and for awhile we believed them…”

See, this is why I hope Rove stays for at least another three months. The whole policy, tainted from its beginning, will be seen in its neo-Rovian glory. But, sadly, I think most Republicans know that too, and will work hard for his departure in private even as they defend him in public. And I think the opposite is true for the Democrats, who will attack him in public, even as they privately hope he will stay on.

sweetkidsmom · July 18, 2005, 12:39am

"Only because she hadn’t been reclassified. She hadn’t served as an operative "

Strick you make my point so easily, the neocons and WHIGs were going after the old guard of the CIA, Wilson and Plame were casualties of Bush’s scorch and burn policy. Once Wilson went after Bush for lieing to Congress and the public(16 words) they went after him, but they were also going after the CIA’s old guard who was not willing to pick and choose the facts Bush wanted. In this is the conspiracy that hurt the CIA and CIA operations. Further if no laws were broken the justice depat would not have a complaint to investigate.

offline.

sweetkidsmom · July 18, 2005, 1:10am

<a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070001[/url]”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070001</a>
On the July 5 edition of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports, guest host John King left unchallenged former Attorney General Edwin Meese’s false claim that CIA officer Valerie Plame was not an undercover operative. In fact, multiple press accounts have confirmed that Plame’s status as a CIA officer was classified when her identity was revealed in a July 14, 2003, column by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak.

King asked Meese to comment on the possibility that New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper could be jailed for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating the leaking of Plame’s identity. Meese told King, “I’m surprised the case has even gone this far, because I don’t think this was really a covert agent. She was some sort of administrative person at the CIA, I think, at the time this occurred and I think, perhaps, this is an exaggerated case in its entirety.” King asked who Meese thought was exaggerating the case but did not inform viewers that the record strongly indicates Plame’s CIA status was classified at the time of Novak’s column.

Multiple press outlets reported that Plame was an undercover CIA operative at the time. Citing “intelligence officials,” Newsday first reported on July 22, 2003, that prior to her exposure, Plame worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues in an “undercover capacity.” An October 11, 2003, Knight Ridder article reported that Plame operated under “nonofficial cover,” posing as an analyst at a CIA-created shell company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates. An October 13, 2003, Time article confirmed that Plame was involved in tracking weapons of mass destruction.

An October 1, 2003, Washington Post article also quoted intelligence officials confirming Plame’s undercover status with the CIA:

<pre><code>Plame currently is an analyst at the CIA. But, intelligence officials said, she previously served overseas in a clandestine capacity, which means her name is kept classified to protect her previous contacts and operations, and her ability to work again undercover overseas.
</code></pre>

The Post article discussed the CIA’s request that the Justice Department investigate the leak, reporting that the classified status of Plame’s identity was part of the criteria weighed in the decision to move forward with the investigation:

<pre><code>Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said yesterday that career lawyers in the Justice Department’s counterespionage section opened a criminal investigation Friday, four days after receiving a memo from the CIA detailing a possible violation of federal law that prohibits unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

The decision to open the investigation was made by career counterespionage section chief John Dion, without the consultation of the attorney general, as is standard practice, the department said. The Justice Department asked the FBI and the CIA to preserve relevant records; requests were apparently not made of the Pentagon or the State Department.

[…]

Before opening a criminal investigation into leaks of classified material, the Justice Department asks the referring agency to answer 11 questions that department officials have said are akin to filing a police report; the CIA submitted the questionnaire last Tuesday.

Among the questions are “whether the classified data disclosed is accurate”; “the extent of official dissemination of the data”; “whether the data has been the subject of prior official releases”; what effect disclosure has on national security; and “whether the material or portions thereof or enough background data has been published officially or in the press to make an educated speculation on the matter possible.”
</code></pre>

In addition, Novak’s use of the term “operative” strongly suggests he was fully aware that Plame was an undercover CIA agent, as Media Matters for America has noted previously.

From the July 5 edition of CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Reports:

<pre><code>KING: General, thank you for joining us. Let me start with the CIA leak investigation and the prospect of putting two reporters in prison. Standard operating procedure for the Justice Department or is this an extraordinary case?

MEESE: I think it’s extraordinary. I can’t remember any situation during the time I was attorney general at the Department of Justice, in almost four years, put any reporters in jail. So, I think it is a rather unusual case.

KING: And can you see, if Mr. Fitzgerald is watching, is there some compromise that you would recommend or do you think in this case, because of the stakes, a covert CIA operative’s name’s being disclosed – although these two reporters were not the ones to do it initially – can you see a way out here?

MEESE: I don’t know. I think it’s a very difficult case. I’m surprised the case has even gone this far, because I don’t think this was really a covert agent. She was some sort of administrative person at the CIA, I think, at the time this occurred and I think, perhaps, this is an exaggerated case in its entirety.

KING: Exaggerated within the Justice Department or exaggerated because of the political ramifications?

MEESE: I think for all of those reasons. I have a hard time understanding why this much effort has gone into this particular case.
</code></pre>

J.B.

Posted to the web on Thursday July 7, 2005 at 12:47 PM EST

Repug talking points were sent out, Stick was just going by his copy. Spin is everything when your facing what Nixon faced.

mini · July 18, 2005, 11:00am

On September 30th, 2003, the Prez made clear he wanted to know who leaked the information, who was involved. Are we to believe that Rove and Libby betrayed his trust for the next 22 months, or that Bush was part of the coverup?

fundingfather · July 18, 2005, 12:13pm

This is just plain silly. Suppose you had heard through casual conversations that some politician in your town was having an affair. You never met this person before and didn’t know any of the parties directly involved, but you heard through the grapevine that an affair was going on. Now, suppose a reporter comes to you and says that he’s heard that the politician was having an affair. You respond , “I’ve heard that too.” So, later the reporter writes an article that mentions the affair at the bottom the piece. Then, months later someone asks you if you were the one who exposed the affair. Given that you were not the one to break it to the reporter, why would you say, “Yeah, it was me”?

citygirlsmom · July 18, 2005, 12:57pm

But you do not have special security clearance and special responsibilties…different very different.

Rove signed forms when he first got into office that he would not do what he did

He may have also told the FBI he had nothing to do with it

Very different kettle of fish

sweetkidsmom · July 18, 2005, 1:10pm

Whats silly is your lowering this to ‘an affair’. Where espionage is concerned 'I heard" is a clear breech of of security, especially coming from Libby.

The RNC is very worried about the damage this is doing to the Bush Pres. So worried they put out spin, likely to further drag this out, creating more confusion for you so you don’t know whats true and what isn’t. It’s been this way from the beginning. Bush can’t seem to recall ever making a mistake, getting into politics and joining forces with KRove, a guy his father FIRED TWICE, might be on his mind a lot lately as the biggest mistakes of his life.

The Repub.s ‘leaked’ talking points memo here, in two parts because of length.

"Cooper’s Own Email Claims Rove Warned Of Potential Inaccuracies In Wilson Information:
“[Time Reporter Matt] Cooper Wrote That Rove Offered Him A ‘Big Warning’ Not To ‘Get Too Far Out On Wilson.’ Rove Told Cooper That Wilson’s Trip Had Not Been Authorized By ‘DCIA’ - CIA Director George Tenet - Or Vice President Dick Cheney.” (Michael Isikoff, “Matt Cooper’s Source,” Newsweek, 7/18/05)

Wilson Falsely Claimed That It Was Vice President Cheney Who Sent Him To Niger, But The Vice President Has Said He Never Met Him And Didn’t Know Who Sent Him:

Wilson Says He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office. “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” (Joseph C. Wilson, The New York Times, 7/6/03)

Joe Wilson: “What They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself …” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03)

Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03) CIA Director George Tenet: “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.” (Central Intelligence Agency, 7/11/03)

Tenet: “Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet,” 7/11/03)

Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger, But Documentation Showed She Proposed His Name:

Wilson Claims His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA To Discuss Report. CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” JOE WILSON: “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s “Lade Edition,” 7/18/04)

But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip. “Some [CIA Counterproliferation Division, or CPD,] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘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.’” (“Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Wilson’s Report On Niger Had “Thin” Evidence And Did Not Change Conclusions Of Analysts And Other Reports:

Officials Said Evidence Was “Thin” And His “Homework Was Shoddy.” “In the days after Wilson’s essay appeared, government officials began to steer reporters away from Wilson’s conclusions, raising questions about his veracity and the agency’s reasons for sending him in the first place. They told reporters that Wilson’s evidence was thin, said his homework was shoddy and suggested that he had been sent to Niger by the CIA only because his wife had nominated him for the job.” (Michael Duffy, “Leaking With A Vengeance,” Time, 10/13/03) Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04)

“For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (IN) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04)

CIA Said Wilson’s Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. “Because [Wilson’s] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release 7/11/03) The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04) Sens. Roberts, Bond And Hatch All Dismissed Wilson’s Claims:

sweetkidsmom · July 18, 2005, 1:14pm

Part two of Repub. talking points memeo sent out by the RNC recently.
Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Kit Bond (R-MO) And Orrin Hatch (R-UT) All Stated, “On At Least Two Occasions [Wilson] Admitted That He Had No Direct Knowledge To Support Some Of His Claims And That He Was Drawing On Either Unrelated Past Experiences Or No Information At All.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Additional Views Of Chairman Pat Roberts, Joined By Senator Christopher S. Bond And Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

“The Former Ambassador, Either By Design Or Through Ignorance, Gave The American People And, For That Matter, The World A Version Of Events That Was Inaccurate, Unsubstantiated, And Misleading.” (“Additional Views Of Chairman Pat Roberts, Joined By Senator Christopher S. Bond And Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

“[J]oe Wilson Told Anyone Who Would Listen That The President Had Lied To The American People, That The Vice President Had Lied And That He Had ‘Debunked’ The Claim That Iraq Was Seeking Uranium From Africa … Not Only Did He NOT ‘Debunk’ The Claim, He Actually Gave Some Intelligence Analysts Even More Reason To Believe That It May Be True.” (“Additional Views Of Chairman Pat Roberts, Joined By Senator Christopher S. Bond And Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Wilson Tied To The 2004 Kerry Campaign For President:

<h2>Wilson Endorsed Kerry In October 2003. “Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq, endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president … In a conference call with New Hampshire reporters, Wilson said he and Kerry have shared the experience of challenging their government - Wilson when he questioned the ‘rush to war’ with Iraq, Kerry when he challenged America’s role in Vietnam.” (David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03) “Wilson … Said He Has Long Been A Kerry Supporter And Has Contributed $2,000 To The Campaign This Year. He Said He Has Been Advising Kerry On Foreign Policy For About Five Months And Will Campaign For Kerry, Including A Trip To New Hampshire …” (David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03) “In Mid-May, [Wilson] Began Talking To Kerry’s Advisers About Helping The Campaign; He Made His First Donation May 23. Kerry Himself Had Not Met Wilson Until Tuesday Night At A Campaign Fund-Raiser In Potomac, Md., A Kerry Aide Said …” (Patrick Healy and Wayne Washington, “In Probe Of CIA Leak, Two Sides See Politics,” The Boston Globe, 10/2/03) “[Kerry Advisor Rand] Beers Said Wilson Communicates With Campaign Advisers At Least Once A Week.” (Patrick Healy and Wayne Washington, “In Probe Of CIA Leak, Two Sides See Politics,” The Boston Globe, 10/2/03)</h2>

And if anyone believes Cheney never met Wilson, Cheney said the same thing about John Edwards whom he met at a prayer breakfast along with Elizabeth Edwards. ('04 campaign Cheny said this on air at a live debate, Edwards wife corrected him. Photos proved Cheney had lied, but hey it was only a little one about a prayer breakfast meeting. The neocons are all about throwing statements out there with no proof (WMD, Sadam did not have WMD, forged papers supposedly from the Italians but more likely from this administration through Cheney’s office).

CIA Rove

CONNECT WITH US