<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) </p>
<p>If you read further, you will also see (if your tinfoil doesn’t block brainwaves) that Ms. Plame already had an agenda before she “suggested” her husband. Which puts a lie to Mr. Wilson’s repeated statements that his wife had nothing to do with it. Funny that Sen. Daschle, et al. would allow their names to be ttached to a report prepared by Republican staff members. Guess those dems are dumber than even I thought.</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>They would be fools to file such a thing because they would be trashed in discovery. I’d also like to know what you see are the grounds for filing such a lawsuit (this should be good!). The facts simply don’t support any wrongdoing by the administration.</p>
<p>What did Bush say about ANYONE who was involved? It was a leak the, yet when his little friend turns out to be “involved”, well, gee, suddenly its not a leak…</p>
<p>What did Bush say about ANYONE who was involved? It was a leak the, yet when his little friend turns out to be “involved”, well, gee, suddenly its not a leak…</p>
<p>Yeah - Bush’s statement was as carefully crafted to ensure weaseling-out room as the “16 words” were. Makes “the meaning of ‘is’” sound as straightforward as Forrest Gump.</p>
<p>Zooserman, the Dem’s have no choice in a Congress controlled by the Republicans. You do what you can, and the report has some legitimate function. (Although I seem to remember that there was supposed to be a part 2 coming out - haven’t heard much about that lately.) They don’t have the option of hiring the staff, they don’t have the option of fighting over every sentence - particularly the spectacularly insignificant BS the righties have seized on to try to throw mud at Wilson with. </p>
<p>A big part of the current Administration’s ability to shoot itself (and us) in the foot comes from the lack of any effective oversite from Congress, due to the Republican’s lock on both houses. I have read the report, like I read anything else - with a lawyer’s eye for when people are trying to make a mountian out of a molehill. Wilson is undoubtedly a flawed individual (as are we all) but the mouth-frothing, bile-dripping screeds the righties feel compelled to launch at the mention of his name don’t pass the substance test. Go back and read the report again, yourself, and see what actual objective evidence there is that Wilson “lied”. See what the substance of his statements was; check the facts behind them. And what conceivable “agenda” are you talking about that Ms. Plame allegedly had?</p>
<p>On the other hand, if you actually believe that “there’s no question that Iraq was seeking yellowcake in Niger” - a statement you don’t even try to support, because you can’t - I have to assume you’re simply repeating what you’ve heard over and over.</p>
<p>A quick outline: Iraq had no nuclear program to use uranium in; the amount of low-grade ore needed for any useful nuclear purpose is huge - tons and tons - which would have to be acquired from the French consortium which had a monopoly on the yellowcake mining in Niger and then transported in truck convoys through other countries to go anywhere, let alone Iraq. The two “smoking guns” of the yellowcake story were a set of demonstrably phony documents and the report that an Iraqi “delegation” had sought out a meeting with a Niger official to “encourage commercial relations” between the country. The “Iraqi delegation” turned out to be Iraq’s Ambassador to the Pope who extended invitations to officials from five African nations to come to Iraq for a conference (which was never held.) There is no evidence that any discussions regarding yellowcake ever occurred between Iraq and the Nigeriens. </p>
<p>What’s your basis for the bald assertion that “Iraq was seeking yellowcake in Niger”? Repeated blogger statements that it’s true? The “16 words”?</p>
<p>Kluge, you and I could argue the minutiae of this issue all day long. While I do not share your point of view, I do respect it. There is plenty of evidence in the public record about Ms. Plame’s opinions and statements before and after her husband’s trip to make clear that she and her husband were interested in undermining the administration. As far as the yellowcake, I find the Butler report credible in stating that President Bush’s statement (the 16 words) were well founded.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that you and I will never agree and the debate can only degenerate from here. You are clearly a smart, well-informed individual – as am I. I very much enjoy your posts and will continue to do so. The cornerstone of my dealings with people with whom I disagree is that intelligent people of good will can disagree while remaining intelligent people of good will. So there you are. Take care!</p>
<p>Who is being brutal to Joe Lieberman? He has a primary challenger, who has stated that he will support the winner of the primary in the general election. Democracy in action. Lieberman has started his own party (tellingly, “Connecticut for Lieberman” - not “Lieberman for Connecticut”), and is collecting signatures so that he can run as an independent if he loses the primary. </p>
<p>We don’t like Lieberman (I made a financial contribution to Lamont months ago) not because he supports the Iraq war - plenty of other Dems do and they don’t have primary challengers - but because he publicly criticizes other Democrats who speak out against the war, supports the worst policies of the Bush administration, and is generally a sanctimonious hypocrite. (E.g.: he claims to have voted against Alito’s confirmation, as he did in the vote that didn’t count, when he voted for it in the vote that did count (cloture).)</p>
<p>Lieberman is angry that he is being challenged. He considers the Senate seat his personal property. Did you see watch the Lieberman/Lamont debate last week? I did. Lieberman stormed off afterward in a fit of petulance, barely shaking Lamont’s hand, ignoring the moderator, and shocking the press in attendance. </p>
<p>zoosermom, as far as I know Valerie Plame has made no public statements at all. Can you point me to any evidence that she was intent on undermining the administration?</p>
<p>Who is being brutal to Joe Lieberman? He has a primary challenger, who has stated that he will support the winner of the primary in the general election. Democracy in action. Lieberman has started his own party (tellingly, “Connecticut for Lieberman” - not “Lieberman for Connecticut”), and is collecting signatures so that he can run as an independent if he loses the primary. </p>
<p>Did you check out the link posted? That’s what Ro was referring to.</p>
<p>I did check out the link; rorosen had quoted that one as her favorite, so clearly she agrees with it. I question the attitude that a primary challenge constitutes brutality.</p>
<p>I did check out the link; rorosen had quoted that one as her favorite, so clearly she agrees with it. I question the attitude that a primary challenge constitutes brutality.</p>
<p>I think it was more lighthearted than that and I think it more referred to the fact that some of the hard left are just out and out mean toward Lieberman.</p>
<p>I know that the list is meant to be funny, but there is a prevailing attitude, that I am questioning, that you display above: “… some of the hard left are just out and out mean toward Lieberman.” David Brooks, in a column on the subject last week, used the term “inquisition.” I’m asking you and rorosen for some justification of this attitude.</p>
<p>know that the list is meant to be funny, but there is a prevailing attitude, that I am questioning, that you display above: “… some of the hard left are just out and out mean toward Lieberman.” David Brooks, in a column on the subject last week, used the term “inquisition.” I’m asking you and rorosen for some justification of this attitude.</p>
<p>Did you find the post about republicans on the DHS thread funny? Just curious.</p>
<p>For justification: do you read things like Huffingtonpost, Democratic Underground, etc.? Those were my specific justifications. I won’t speak for Ro.</p>
<p>Do you mean that you’ve read critical comments about Lieberman on those blogs? I read Huffingtonpost occasionally, DU never, and firedoglake, thenexthurrah, and dailykos regularly. I’ve seen plenty of negative comments about Lieberman there, and have made a few myself. Criticism doesn’t constitute meanness or an “inquisition.” You’ve critized Bush yourself; do you call that being mean?</p>
<p>I didn’t see the post about republicans and don’t know what the DHS thread is. I thought the list about progressives was lame.</p>