<p>There are conspiracy theories aplenty when it comes to this administration. I don’t subscribe to most of them. I am a realist, not a tin foil hattie.</p>
<p>However, this isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s fact. Take a look at the original signers of the PNAC: it includes all of the favorites, like Rummy, Cheney, etc.</p>
<p>You can disagree, as is your right. But, when ideas are recorded, and signed, it simply isn’t conspiracy, since the facts are there to back it up.</p>
<p>So go on, believe Iraq is a just cause if you must, but not because the invasion protected us from their WMDs. To say so trivializes the concept and causes us to miss the threats that DO exist, the risk from countries that do have them, such as Pakistan, N. Korea etc.</p>
<p>I wonder what Saddam would be doing today if still in power.</p>
<p>However, this isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s fact. Take a look at the original signers of the PNAC: it includes all of the favorites, like Rummy, Cheney, etc.</p>
<p>I’m already familiar with PNAC.</p>
<p>The Clinton perjury was the thing that kept the Starr investigation going. Starr himself was ready to pack it in and had accepted a position at Pepperdine(?).</p>
<p>PJ had been built up a lot by the Right to the extent she was hobnobbing with a lot of famous people. Maybe it was that she settled out of court, but she eventually lost the political support and has since stated she has felt she was just being used. The Penthouse spread and the boxing match was just her cashing in on her infamy.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about the Jones case is that it established that a sitting President could be sued, so if Plame felt she really had a case, maybe…</p>
<p>zoosermom, </p>
<p>If you’ve followed the real story w/r/t Iraq, not the bush PR line, you would know that Saddam would be doing now the same thing he was doing before the invasion: BSing the world into thinking he had something he did not. </p>
<p>There are two in my mind, fascinating bits that came out of the invasion: (1) the UN sanctions worked and (2) the UN teams were right. I suspect our govt knew this. Either they knew and lied or they were so inept in their intelligence that they should be held accountable. </p>
<p>No, the only ones accountable here are the families of the over 2,500 servicemembers that have died for this fiasco and the many thousands more of disabled that have come back.</p>
<p>So go tell these families that Bush’s misleading, dishonest, misguided (take your pick) activities leading to the war were not as bad as Clinton. </p>
<p>Yea, right.</p>
<p>Uh, Zoosermom - did you bother to actually read the report? And if so, where did you read the part that said “Joe Wilson is a liar?”</p>
<p>“I wonder what Saddam would be doing today if still in power.”</p>
<p>Probably destroying WMD, as he had been doing, according to current American intelligence, previously. And doing a pretty good job of it, it should be noted.</p>
<p>PJ had been built up a lot by the Right to the extent she was hobnobbing with a lot of famous people. Maybe it was that she settled out of court, but she eventually lost the political support and has since stated she has felt she was just being used. The Penthouse spread and the boxing match was just her cashing in on her infamy.</p>
<p>I actually think she WAS used, but I also think that what Clinton did was appalling. I sincerely and truly do believe that.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about the Jones case is that it established that a sitting President could be sued, so if Plame felt she really had a case, maybe…</p>
<p>Sue Bush over Plamegate? I’ve never heard his name mentioned as a potential source. Cheney I’ve heard, but never Bush. But that’s just me.</p>
<p>Uh, Zoosermom - did you bother to actually read the report? And if so, where did you read the part that said “Joe Wilson is a liar?”</p>
<p>You’re right, that was literary license on my part, but when read side by side with the OpEd, that is clearly the conclusion. The report states very clearly that Mr. Wilson’s wife was the guiding force behind his trip. Did YOU actually read the report? Again, start at page 39.</p>
<p>Beats the centerfold option :D</p>
<p>Beats the centerfold option </p>
<p>You are WICKED!</p>
<p>Yes, Zoosermom, I’ve read the report, starting at page 39. Other parts, too. There’s nothing in there that says that “Joe Wilson is a liar.” What actually infuriates the right about Wilson is that he was right. And the reason that Plame was “outed” - whether it was criminal, or treasonous, or not - was the simple, sleazy desire to smear Wilson with the slimy whisper campaign of "Oh, you can ignore him because he was just sent by his wife. If you can’t attack the message, you attack the messenger. That’s what is so distasteful about the whole Plame thing - how juvenile the attack on him was. This is the kind of men we have running the country - back porch gossips.</p>
<p>The report mentions that, when the CIA was looking for someone to send, Plame suggested her husband, listing his excellent qualifications for the job. She was not the one who sent him; she did not have that authority.</p>
<p>As far as it just being an intelligence failure… well, I remember when the UN inspectors were over there, and Bush and his subordinates kept saying, “We KNOW they have WMD’s, and we know where they are.” The UN officials, naturally, asked them to share that helpful information, and they said they did. However, when the UN inspectors visited those sites, they found nothing. Now, maybe it’s just me, but if I had given what I believed to be accurate information, and then found out it was wrong, I might have wanted to recheck the rest of my intelligence… that is, unless I was just using that intelligence as an excuse and didn’t really CARE if it was accurate…</p>
<p>Joe Wilson is a liar." What actually infuriates the right about Wilson is that he was right. And the reason that Plame was “outed” - whether it was criminal, or treasonous, or not - was the simple, sleazy desire to smear Wilson with the slimy whisper campaign of "Oh, you can ignore him because he was just sent by his wife. If you can’t attack the message, you attack the messenger. That’s what is so distasteful about the whole Plame thing - how juvenile the attack on him was. This is the kind of men we have running the country - back porch gossips.</p>
<p>You seem to have missed my entire point many posts ago, which was that Joe Wilson put his wife in the public eye by stating something in a NY Times OpEd that was demonstrably false. Now, how juvenile is THAT? Please don’t project beyond that because it was my point and I can speak very well to the fact that this was it. I think the report also makes clear that Iraq was seeking yellowcake in Niger, despite Mr. Wilson’s claims to the contrary.</p>
<p>To Allmusic: Here’s an article that might interest you. Enjoy!</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060619roco01[/url]”>http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/060619roco01</a></p>
<p>I’m sorry, Zoosermom - what was it that Joe Wilson stated in his OpEd that was “demonstrably false” so as to justify trying to smear him with gossip about his— wife?</p>
<p>And read the report again. There was absolutely no serious evidence that Iraq was “seeking yellowcake in Niger”. The Ambassador to Niger agreed with Wislon about that at the time, and later evidence makes it painfully clear that “Iraq seeking uranium in Niger” was little more than a paranoid fantasy - or wishful thinking. Only the most demented bloggers are able to construct a tinfoil hat theory that lets them continue to believe that.</p>
<p>Joe Wilson is one of the biggest liars in Washington. Here is just a taste:</p>
<p>
</code></pre>
<p>Wilson is schrewd. He has converted his many lies into books sold to suckers of the left-wing.
Wilson has defamed Karl Rove by claiming Rove leaked his wife’s name to Novak. Today Novak reported his original source was not Rove.
<a href=“http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5630[/url]”>http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5630</a></p>
<p>Whoa, there’s a smoking gun for you! Wilson says they asked his wife about him, some unnamed other guy says she “offered up” his name. After all, the Senate report (prepared by Republican staff members) has this clear-cut and damning evidence: Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] 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." Wow!! What a scandal! An unspecified “indication”!!! Somebody must be lying!!! And it must be Wilson!!! Because, after all - he was the one guy who wasn’t present at whatever low-level conversation resulted in his being considered for the trip. Or when the actual decision was made by higher-ups to send him to Niger. Like they did three years before in 1999. Because he was the most obviously qualified guy for the job, having been a U.S Director of African Affairs and having worked with the Niger govenrment. Oh no, it must be because his wife “suggested” his name!!!</p>
<p>The exact significance of which, even if true, is------ exacty zero. What if his wife did suggest his name? The tut-tutting and snarky whispering about that is based on – what? The inherent belief that if a man is recommended by a job by a former co-worker that’s OK, but if he’s recommended by his *wife<a href=“a%20qualified%20CIA%20agent”>/i</a> he must be… well, what? Not qualified? It’s hard to make that claim, based on his resume. </p>
<p>And then there’s that small, annoying detail.</p>
<p>Wilson was right. </p>
<p>Wilson was right, and the “16 words” misled the American people. And if the Administration had paid attention to Wilson’s report, the American people might not have been led to believe, entirely falsely, that Iraq had anything remotely resembling a nuclear weapons capability.</p>
<p>Which has nothing to do with whatever interpretation you want to put on the conversation(s) which nobody actually remembers clearly (understandably) which led to Wilson’s wife preparing a memo with his qualifications for the job and sending up the line to whoever actuaklly decided to send him to Niger. Because frothing at the mouth over that is the clearest sign of a desperate need to find something - anything - to use to throw dirt on the guy who was right - his one truly unforgivable sin.</p>
<p>The administration’s attempts to discredit Wilson by claiming that his wife arranged the trip to Niger as a “boondoggle” are truly pathetic. First, Niger is hardly Club Med and, furthermore, Wilson was paid only expenses. Second, Wilson was very well qualified to investigate the possibility that Saddam had obtained uranium from Niger. He had lived in both countries and knew many Nigerian government officials well. He was acting ambassador in Iraq in 1990. sheltering over 100 Americans in the embassy, when Saddam threatened to execute anyone who was protecting foreigners. Wilson appeared at a press conference with a noose around his neck instead of a necktie, and announced that if Saddam wanted to execute him he’d provide his own rope. Saddam backed down. Pres. G. H. W. Bush said in a telegram: “It is relatively easy to speak out from the safety and comfort of Washington; what you are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is truly inspiring. Keep fighting the good fight; you and your stalwart colleagues are always in our thoughts and prayers.”</p>
<p>Is anyone else curious about whether the Wilsons will file a civil suit? I believe that the statue of limitations runs out tomorrow.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, Zoosermom - what was it that Joe Wilson stated in his OpEd that was “demonstrably false” so as to justify trying to smear him with gossip about his— wife?</p>
<p>And read the report again. There was absolutely no serious evidence that Iraq was “seeking yellowcake in Niger”. The Ambassador to Niger agreed with Wislon about that at the time, and later evidence makes it painfully clear that “Iraq seeking uranium in Niger” was little more than a paranoid fantasy - or wishful thinking. Only the most demented bloggers are able to construct a tinfoil hat theory that lets them continue to believe that.</p>
<p>Go back and read both together and if you are not then able to see that Joe Wilson lied, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. There is also no question that Iraq was seeking yellowcake in Niger. Are you sure you aren’t wearing your tinfoil hat today?</p>