It was not Cheney who leaked Plame

[barrons]

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/politics/15leak.html?ei=5090&en=9c7b0d243e8843be&ex=1300078800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/politics/15leak.html?ei=5090&en=9c7b0d243e8843be&ex=1300078800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[rorosen]

<p>though both are Dicks, Armitage looks like Cheney in a dark alley, brawny, bald, with a single tooth,…Cheney who always seems so mild and civilized you have to wonder how he got so hated as a person. Maybe it was a trick of the light,…</p>

[system]

<p>“Likely” source, it says. I’m just going to wait until all the facts are out before making any assertions on this. Also, do we know there was only one source?</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>That doesn’t mean the Cheney still didn’t leak the name to others…your title is once again misleading</p>

<p>Cheney may not have been the leak to Woodward or he may have…as suggested before, it has appeared all along that more than one person leaked the information to discredit someone who, gee, was telling the truth</p>

<p>With this administration who knows what is truth anymore, they hide and twist things so much</p>

<p>So much for openess in government</p>

[driver]

<p>If Cheney wasn’t the one who leaked about soccermom/secret agent Plame, it was only because he was busy doing something even more nefarious. Everyone knows this. C’mon.</p>

<p>But seriously…the only people who are going to go down for CIA leaking are a U.S. senator or two. Rockefeller will resign, and if luck holds, Durbin will follow.</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>Do not play down Plame’s job. Her name was leaked to make her husband look bad, and omgish HE WAS RIGHT</p>

<p>Driver, once again, a diversion try, because you can’t deal with the fact that this administration is corrupt and just plain liars</p>

<p>But if you like that kind of thing, you must have liked Saddam, like Bush Sr. did</p>

[driver]

<p>Actually, her husband wasn’t right, he was completely discredited. But you knew that already…or should have.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>

omgish HE WAS RIGHT

You must be reading your lefty blogs and listening to Air America again. He was probably right when he gave his initial assesment which coroborated the liklihood that Saddam was trying to get yellow cake from Niger, but after that his story has been one big lie. The Senate Intelligence committee outed his lies long ago.</p>

[barrons]

<p>Bush Sr. liked him so much he went to war with him. Hmmmmm.
Well he did decide not to level the country so maybe that was showing his love.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>You mean, there are intelligent people on this forum in the 18% who support Cheney? Who’da thunk it?</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>Whose’s lies? Huh? You need to work on your pronouns subjects and objects a bit.</p>

<p>Lefty Blogs? Air America? My my my</p>

<p>And Rush, OReilly, and the righties tell the truth…HAAHAHHAHAHA</p>

<p>Its okay, fundingfather, I understand what being brainwashed must be like and not looking for truth, that would be too hard for the righties</p>

[Strick11]

<p>

Whose’s lies? Huh? You need to work on your pronouns subjects and objects a bit.

</p>

<p>Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, IV</p>

<p>Actually, what Wilson said in his NY Times op-ed was pretty measured and reasonable – except his conclusion, that if his report was ignored, the Administration was picking and choosing it’s intelligence, turned out to be totally unsupported by the facts. The Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA decided Wilson’s verbal report didn’t add any value (which the State Department had already concluded) and spiked their notes on it. Never made it into any intelligence assessment nor was it ever forwarded to anyone within the Administartion. It was pure hubris on Wilson’s part to think that his opinion had to have been seen by Cheney. The Senate Intelligence Committee caught in a couple of fibs, too.</p>

<p>After that Wilson the op-ed, though, Wilson goes completely political and starts making reckless accusations that have not be substantiated by what we already know about the facts of the leak. And, of course, while he was supposed to be so damaging to the Bush Administration, the Kerry Campaign quitely fired him well before the last election. Difficult man to control, so it seems, and he is a bit loose with the truth.</p>

<p>The key thing about the existance of a third, original source on Plame, whether it’s Armitage or someone else, is that it supports what Rove, Libby and the reporters they spoke to have said over the last year or so. That, 1. Unlike Wilson’s version, neither Rover nor Libby were phoning reporters in some nefarious scheme to “out” anyone, the reporters called them, 2. They were not the real leakers, at most they replied, in effect, “Oh, you’ve heard about that, too?” when the reporters brought the subject up, and 3. The original leaker was not a partisan “gunslinger” outting anyone for political revenge, but someone complaining about how the whole Wilson trip was a boondoggle, a waste of time.</p>

<p>That’s so far from what has been represented in most of the press that it will probably surprise most folks. The part that’s still willing to believe the truth rather than swallow the myth whole hog, of course.</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>Sorry CGM, my sources are original - not filtered through anyone’s prism. How about yours?</p>

<p>As to the pronouns, one would think that it would be easy to follow since I quoted you and your use of “HE” directly in my post. Most people would know that my use of the third person would be the same as yours, but in your case, I’ll spell it out - in all cases the “he” and “his” apply to your hero Joe Wilson - the person that the Senate Intelligence committe discredited.</p>

[RugBurn]

<p>That there were multiple leak sources from the adminstration is not a new development. Cheney is under suspicion because one of the sources happened to be his chief of staff, and Cheney just happens to be one of the few people who can declassify things at whim, thanks to Executive Order such-and-such, quite timely issued in 2003.</p>

<p>Hmmm…</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>Oh yeah, the fair intelligence committee, that group, me bad</p>

<p>And your hero relied on forged documents, and fed us lies</p>

<p>And he is the President… Even Powell was angry he was misled</p>

<p>But back to Cheney…the leaks came from mutiple sources, and who told who on the feeding chain to get the info out there</p>

<p>If they had to do that, then why? If Wilson was in error, why have to out a CIA agent, whom the Intelligence Committee says was one, and undercover at that</p>

<p>Whatever your God Bush does, you follow like lemmings, that is darn scary</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Oh, the God Bless America crowd! Here on CC! The GWB lovers and fawners and sychophants!</p>

<p>Anyone who thinks Cheney isn’t neck deep is deep doo doo isn’t paying the slightest bit of attention. I want him to be hung out to dry more than Bush, because Bush is stupid and Cheney is infinitely more cunning and dangerous. I hope Fitzgerald nails him to the wall.</p>

[kluge]

<p>Fundingfather:

He was probably right when he gave his initial assesment which coroborated the liklihood that Saddam was trying to get yellow cake from Niger, but after that his story has been one big lie. The Senate Intelligence committee outed his lies long ago.

</p>

<p>Senate Report:

At the end of his visit, he debriefed Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick (identity of other person blacked out) He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S. officials he thought there was “nothing to the story.” Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador [Wilson] saying 'he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy staff had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on."

</p>

<p>FF - I know you and your right wing blog buddies have decided that Ambassador Wilson actually corroborated the existence of nuclear WMD’s in Iraq, and then changed his story (or something) and that the Senate Report somehow says that. But I’ve read the report, and while it tried very hard to find some fault with Wilson (who is in charge of the Senate these days? Oh, yeah…) the fact remains that he said the Nigerien yellowcake uranium to Iraq story was bunk at the time, and he has corroboration for the fact that he said exactly that.</p>

<p>Just more character assassination from the devotees of the politics of personal destruction…</p>

[citygirlsmom]

<p>Please show us where Wilson said after he came back from Niger that there was yellowcake urnanium</p>

<p><a href=“http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/niger_2.htm[/url]”>http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq/a/niger_2.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>interesting timeline</p>

[fundingfather]

<p>kluge, please get your facts straight. I never said that Wilson corroborated the existence of nuclear WMD, I said that he corroborated the thesis that Iraq had sought yellowcake from Niger, which his report did do (if you read just a little further in the Senate Intelligence Committe report):

The 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). Mavaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have</p>

<p>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 intelligencereport said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.

</p>

<p>and then it goes on to say:

,The CIA’s DO gave the former ambassador’s infomation a grade of “good,” which means that it added to the IC’s body of understanding on the issue, 31-1. The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory,good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective.
“good” grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

</p>

<p>Another one of Wilson’s lies was exposed in this part of the report:

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12,2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”’ Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports.

</p>

<p>Sorry to disillusion you, kluge, but your left wing blog buddies have let you down by not showing you all of the pertinent information.</p>

[Allmusic]

<p>Since when would I believe anything in the Intelligence Committee report? It holds about as much weight as the “Official 9/11 Commission Report”, which is next to nada. Zilch.</p>

<p>That’s what happens when you fill the offices of the government with liars and thieves. After awhile, no one believes you.</p>