|
ScutMonkey
Ace
Posts: 7,449
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
 |
« Reply #75 on: November 09, 2005, 10:43:55 AM » |
|
Originally posted by: nemoComputing
Wilson didn't see the documents before or during his trip. There is no way that his report had anything to say about whether the documents were forged or not.
That being said, my understanding is that a rudimentary vetting of the document would show it to be suspicious. There were issues such as the names of the Niger government officials not being consistent with those who actually held their positions at the time the document was supposedly created. There is suspicious circumstantial evidence such as the Niger embassy being broken into and official seals stolen shortly before our government got the documents.
Technically, Wilson's report and the SOTU speech are not in disagreement. Wilson stated that the Iraqi's did't get any nuclear materials. The SOTU speech talked about Hussein trying to get those materials, it did not state that he succeeded.
Also, Bush spoke of British intelligence, not American intelligence.
All that being said, things still smell fishy and it would be nice if somehow or another we got to the bottom of this and the broader questions of whether the administration led us to war on flimsy evidence that they chose to put faith in because they had a desired outcome and whether there was pressure put on career intelligence analysts to come up with the right answer and so on. And there is also the question of why the CIA did not present a report to Cheney's office. Could it have been because the results weren't what Cheney wanted to see? I don't know, but as I said, it would be nice if we could find out. But that's what's bothering me. The 9/11 commissions went out of it's way (and outside of it's mandate) an investigation on all of this and found Tenet and the CIA to blame for the discrepancies. Why are we doing this yet again? I feel the answer to this is gamesmanship and grandstanding. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Babar
Sudhian Administrator
Posts: 5,470
Join Date: Jul, 2003
|
|
« Reply #76 on: November 09, 2005, 10:55:04 AM » |
|
And in related news, Press Secretary Scott McClellan recently announced that it is a serious crime to leak classified information (in reference to the Washington Post getting its hands on a list of CIA "black sites" or whatever)...
A serious CRIME TO LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION? Who wudda thot? The sky is falling, the sky is falling...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky
Ace
Posts: 7,349
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #77 on: November 09, 2005, 12:55:13 PM » |
|
"Now you're avoiding the point I made and are just trying to score comedy points."
Have you been watching the same administration as me? Not sure if its so much a comedy as its a tradegy, it is our country after all.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ScutMonkey
Ace
Posts: 7,449
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #78 on: November 09, 2005, 01:15:13 PM » |
|
Originally posted by: Babar
And in related news, Press Secretary Scott McClellan recently announced that it is a serious crime to leak classified information (in reference to the Washington Post getting its hands on a list of CIA "black sites" or whatever)...
A serious CRIME TO LEAK CLASSIFIED INFORMATION? Who wudda thot? The sky is falling, the sky is falling... Which is how the Bush Administration SHOULD have handled it in the first place. They should have gone to the Justice department and had Wilson brought up on charges when he wrote that NYT Op Ed. Instead they "leaked" his wife (I'm assuming - it had to come from somewhere). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Babar
Sudhian Administrator
Posts: 5,470
Join Date: Jul, 2003
|
|
« Reply #79 on: November 09, 2005, 01:58:59 PM » |
|
Devious. Jail people who come up with the truth and reveal administration lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky
Ace
Posts: 7,349
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #80 on: November 09, 2005, 07:12:04 PM » |
|
"They should have gone to the Justice department and had Wilson brought up on charges when he wrote that NYT Op Ed."
On what charges exactly Scut? You keep talking about it, but let me say again, Wilson was not required to file an NDA. He did nothing illegal, unlike the recourse he suffered.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ScutMonkey
Ace
Posts: 7,449
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #81 on: November 10, 2005, 10:45:19 AM » |
|
Originally posted by: Rocky
"They should have gone to the Justice department and had Wilson brought up on charges when he wrote that NYT Op Ed."
On what charges exactly Scut? You keep talking about it, but let me say again, Wilson was not required to file an NDA. He did nothing illegal, unlike the recourse he suffered. These sorts of things are not on a case by case basis. When you are given clearances with the government, you're required to keep information undisclosed PERIOD. That's how security clearance works. As an ambassador and a data collector for the CIA, he's required not to release information like this and so is his wife. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky
Ace
Posts: 7,349
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #82 on: November 10, 2005, 12:59:18 PM » |
|
"These sorts of things are not on a case by case basis. When you are given clearances with the government, you're required to keep information undisclosed PERIOD. That's how security clearance works. As an ambassador and a data collector for the CIA, he's required not to release information like this and so is his wife. "
Scut you can keep saying it, but in this case it isnt true. Wilson didnt leak anything and he didnt break the law. The CIA probably shouldve made him sign something liek they usually do, but they didnt. You may have no noticed nothing criminal has been brought against Wilson, wonder why? Or maybe you are going to blame the liberal justice system in this country? lol
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ScutMonkey
Ace
Posts: 7,449
Join Date: Dec, 2001
|
|
« Reply #83 on: November 14, 2005, 03:15:27 PM » |
|
Originally posted by: Rocky
Scut you can keep saying it, but in this case it isnt true. Wilson didnt leak anything and he didnt break the law. The CIA probably shouldve made him sign something liek they usually do, but they didnt. You may have no noticed nothing criminal has been brought against Wilson, wonder why? Or maybe you are going to blame the liberal justice system in this country? lol You're not getting my point and I don't think you really want to at this point. If you are granted security clearance by the Federal Government, you agree not to release certain pieces of information. Period. If you do, you can be brought up on charges. My old roommate from the military and several of my relatives all have Top Security clearance and cannot talk about anything they know. They signed nothing about specific pieces of information they were told or discovered. It's a blanket security measure. If a piece of information is classified, you cannot discuss it or release it. Why is Wilson not being charged? Good question, but I suspect since the very people using him as a showpiece are also high ranking members of Congress, there's no incentive to do so. Moreover, it's bad PR if the Republicans ask for an indictment now. "First they out his wife, now they're trying to throw him in jail to shut him up!" Whoever leaked Plame in the first place has pretty much guaranteed he'll never be charged. Because the Justice department is run by Bush appointees and isn't non-partisan, Wilson's going to walk on this one. Of course, this is all rather irrelevent now isn't it? Bush said it was British Intel in the SOTUA, the British Intel services still believe Saddam tried to buy Yellowcake, Wilson's report never said Saddam didn't try and came to no conclusions, plus Wilson has recanted on his key points of the NYT Op Ed. Still doesn't make what Libby did right, but it sure makes Wilson's involvement with Yellowcake irrelevent in this whole thing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky
Ace
Posts: 7,349
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #84 on: November 14, 2005, 03:52:53 PM » |
|
"Why is Wilson not being charged?"
Ill stick with that as my argument. Enforcing the law should be enough reason to do it, but I dont think he broke any law.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
crobs808
Ace
Posts: 1,452
Join Date: Dec, 2004
|
|
« Reply #85 on: November 19, 2005, 09:38:28 PM » |
|
Originally posted by: Rocky
Its really surprising too, I mean I always thought the Bush administration was so honest and put so much emphasis on national security. the Bush admin is honest. all this BS about Bush lying about the war is crap, and I am glad he spoke out about it recently (finally) ~ Connor |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rocky
Ace
Posts: 7,349
Join Date: Jun, 2002
|
|
« Reply #86 on: November 19, 2005, 11:47:51 PM » |
|
Oh wait, I forgot, its not bush lying, its him just being wrong, thats convienent for the worlds most powerful person
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
