|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| contrarian wrote: |
| Slick willy was not punished criminally for anything. |
Although he most certainly did commit at least one crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role
By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.
Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.
Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.
Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name.
The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her 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." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.
"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."
Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."
The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly 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," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."
According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.
Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.
The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."
� 2004 The Washington Post Company |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Imbroglio

Joined: 23 Jan 2003 Location: Behind the wheel of a large automobile
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cranura wrote: |
I have no problem with the provision of pardoning granted to the President of the United States.
I do, however, have a problem with people not remembering that this is politics as usual, regardless of who is running the White House or, for that matter, the legislature. The system continues. |
Exactly. Whiners and bedwetters take note.
| Quote: |
| So Bush now has destroyed any checks and balances that existed prior to his presidency--formerly three branches of government, but now only one with any power. And he's managed to garner the lowest approval rating of any president in US history. Not bad for a good ol' boy from Texas. |
Destoyed? I don't think so. The whole world was laughing at America long before Bush entered office. The laughter started about the time Clinton got caught with those lips wrapped around his pole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer

Joined: 04 May 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| YoshaMazov wrote: |
If we're going to go all the way back to the founding fathers to justify Bush's actions, shouldn't we also note that the likes of Madison, Jefferson and Adams argued for a relatively weak president compared to congress? Seems to stand in stark contradiction to Bush's Imperial Presidency.
Does anyone else find it the slightest bit odd that Bush -and his Justice Department - routinely argue for criminals to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, yet the president believed Libby's sentence to be "excessive?"
And while we're on the subject of leniency, here's what Guiliani said about perjury in 1987:
"The United States Attorney in Manhattan, Rudolph W. Giuliani, declared yesterday that the one-year prison sentence that a Queens judge received for perjury was "somewhat shocking."
"A sentence of one year seemed to me to be very lenient," Mr. Giuliani said, when asked to comment on the sentence imposed Wednesday on Justice Francis X. Smith, the former Queens administrative judge."
And yet today he applauded the commuting of the sentence. Dare I say...yet another Guiliani flip-flop?
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/03/giuliani_as_prosecutor_one_year_for_perjury_very_lenient |
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.libby04jul04,0,1607593.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines
| Quote: |
Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice - one of four crimes for which Libby was found guilty by a jury last March - got some jail time. According to federal sentencing data, the average sentence the defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months.
Just last week the Supreme Court upheld a 33-month prison sentence for a decorated Army veteran who was convicted of lying to a federal agent about a machine gun he had purchased.
The vet had no criminal record, but Justice Department lawyers argued that his prison term should stand because it fit within the federal sentencing guidelines. |
The GI lied about a machine gun. Clinton about a blowjob. Libby about federal crimes committed by this administration.
Nah... no jail time needed...
This is simple: He was pardoned now because if he hadn't been, Libby would have sung like a bird. Bush considered this seriously? Sure. He decided a looong time ago Libby would never go to jail. How much "consideration" does it take to avoid having yourself and your VP impeached and/or prosecuted for federal crimes?
It's called obstruction of justice. This is an ONGOING case. To involve himself at this point, before all appeals are done, is nothing but obstruction. How could this not be considered a very real interference in the system? What? Judges and juries aren't going to react to a commutation with a, "What the frick's the point now?"
Please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
KOREAN_MAN
Joined: 01 Oct 2006
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| This is simple: He was pardoned now because if he hadn't been, Libby would have sung like a bird. Bush considered this seriously? Sure. He decided a looong time ago Libby would never go to jail. How much "consideration" does it take to avoid having yourself and your VP impeached and/or prosecuted for federal crimes? |
I keep getting a feeling that Bush's life after presidency wouldn't be so pleasant after all. Has a U.S. president ever been in prison? (Korean presidents have, BTW.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee"]Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role
By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 10, 2004; Page A09
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.
Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
[This part is misleading since the White House was told earlier that Tenet had problems with the Niger story. So this author is not really telling it like it is. The government can do its homework, but it was only interested in selling a war while telling people war was the last resort.
Essentially, the government lied through its teeth and so did Libby and Bush is covering up for him, because he lied. Too bad all of these guys didn't go under oath including Cheney and Bush. Bush's popularity is at around 30% which is higher than what Nixon was at. What Nixon did was minor compared to Bush when it comes to harming America. However,
too many people are focused on things like gay marriage and abortion, so they can't see the forest for the trees.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
This part is misleading since the White House was told earlier that Tenet had problems with the Niger story. So this author is not really telling it like it is. The government can do its homework, but it was only interested in selling a war while telling people war was the last resort.
Essentially, the government lied through its teeth and so did Libby and Bush is covering up for him, because he lied. Too bad all of these guys didn't go under oath including Cheney and Bush. Bush's popularity is at around 30% which is higher than what Nixon was at. What Nixon did was minor compared to Bush when it comes to harming America. However,
too many people are focused on things like gay marriage and abortion, so they can't see the forest for the trees.. |
British intel still says that Saddam tried to buy Uraniam from Africa
| Quote: |
fighting words
Plame's Lame Game
What Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife forgot to tell us about the yellow-cake scandal.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, July 13, 2004, at 12:27 PM ET
Two recent reports allow us to revisit one of the great non-stories, and one of the great missed stories, of the Iraq war argument. The non-story is the alleged martyrdom of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Wilson, supposed by many to have suffered cruel exposure for their commitment to the truth. The missed story is the increasing evidence that Niger, in West Africa, was indeed the locus of an illegal trade in uranium ore for rogue states including Iraq.
The Senate's report on intelligence failures would appear to confirm that Valerie Plame did recommend her husband Joseph Wilson for the mission to Niger. In a memo written to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations, she asserted that Wilson had "good relations with both the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Mines [of Niger], not to mention lots of French contacts." This makes a poor fit with Wilson's claim, in a recent book, that "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." (It incidentally seems that she was able to recommend him for the trip because of the contacts he'd made on an earlier trip, for which she had also proposed him.)
Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this. (See Susan Schmidt's article in the July 10 Washington Post.)
| Quote: |
Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent,[i] Mark Huband. He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. The bogus document produced by an Italian con man in October 2002, which has caused such embarrassment, was therefore more like a forgery than a fake: It was a fabricated version of a true bill.
Given the CIA's institutional hostility to the "regime change" case, the blatantly partisan line taken in public by Wilson himself, and the high probability that an Iraqi delegation had at least met with suppliers from Niger, how wrong was it of Robert Novak to draw attention to the connection between Plame and Wilson's trip? Or of someone who knew of it to tell Novak? |
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/ |
So Joe Wilson is a liar.
and many in Europe did also think that Saddam was trying to get nuclear stuff from Africa.
and no one has yet challenged the British intellegence that Bush based his claim on.
oh there is more
| Quote: |
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, April 17, 2006, at 3:14 PM ET
Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
Nobody appears to dispute what I wrote in last week's Slate to the effect that in February 1999, Saddam Hussein dispatched his former envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and former delegate to non-proliferation conferences at the United Nations, to Niger. Wissam al-Zahawie was, at the time of his visit, the accredited ambassador of Iraq to the Vatican: a more senior post than it may sound, given that the Vatican was almost the only full European embassy that Iraq then possessed. And nobody has proposed an answer to my question: Given the fact that Niger is synonymous with uranium (and was Iraq's source of "yellowcake" in 1981), and given that Zahawie had been Iraq's main man in nuclear diplomacy, what innocent explanation can be found for his trip? |
So Saddam sent his top nuclear guy to Niger. Why would he do that?
http://www.slate.com/id/2140058/
But you are right about one think WMDs was not the real reason for the war. It was just the easiest way to sell the war.The real reason for the war was that the mideast the way it was was a threat to the US . Something needed to be done Iraq is not the end of this and at some point the mideast will be taken care of one way or another.
Soon the US will probably have a military base in the Kurdish areas.
and if the the US invests in new weapons systems then the US will be more than up to matching Iran's nuclear program. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and if the the US invests in new weapons systems then the US will be more than up to matching Iran's nuclear program. |
You're so spot on. It's really sad to see the US falling behind Iran in the arms race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Location: you boys like mexico?
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and if the the US invests in new weapons systems then the US will be more than up to matching Iran's nuclear program. |
You're so spot on. It's really sad to see the US falling behind Iran in the arms race. |
Seeing as how our annual military expenditure is 100x (650 billion to 6.6) what Iran's is, I find this implausible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and if the the US invests in new weapons systems then the US will be more than up to matching Iran's nuclear program. |
You're so spot on. It's really sad to see the US falling behind Iran in the arms race. |
Unfortunately that is so. Iran with nuclear weapons would be to improve its strategic position in comparison to the US.
The US needs a way to reverse that.
What the has now hasn't been enough to scare Iran into giving up its war. It needs something a lot more powerful and usable.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:35 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and if the the US invests in new weapons systems then the US will be more than up to matching Iran's nuclear program. |
You're so spot on. It's really sad to see the US falling behind Iran in the arms race. |
Seeing as how our annual military expenditure is 100x (650 billion to 6.6) what Iran's is, I find this implausible. |
Iran spends much more than they report.
Half of what the US spends on the miltary is a social program.
but lets put it another way
South Korea spends about 4x what North Korea does on defense.
Yet South Korea is still afraid of North Korea. Care to explain that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| huffdaddy wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| and if the the US invests in new weapons systems then the US will be more than up to matching Iran's nuclear program. |
You're so spot on. It's really sad to see the US falling behind Iran in the arms race. |
Unfortunately that is so. Iran with nuclear weapons would be to improve its strategic position in comparison to the US. |
Because there's a big difference between being able to blow them into a million pieces and being able to blow them into a million pieces from space?
| Quote: |
| What the has now hasn't been enough to scare Iran into giving up its war. It needs something a lot more powerful and usable. |
We have the necessary fire power. Just not the justification to use it. Why would using even more fire power be justified?
Developing said weapons will only exasperate the militarization of space. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Because there's a big difference between being able to blow them into a million pieces and being able to blow them into a million pieces from space? |
Yes nuclear weapons have fall out and they are a political problem. Iran like North Vietnam and North Korea knows the US is not going to use them.
However with ROG they can't be so sure.
If the US has the right weapons then why does the US military want nuke lite - small low yield nuclear weapons to destroy hardened targets.
Nuclear deterrence hasn't stopped North Korea from getting tons of concessions from both the US and South Korea.
You recommend the same failed policy with a far more powerful and strategic nation who is actually behind attacks against the US?
| Quote: |
We have the necessary fire power. Just not the justification to use it. Why would using even more fire power be justified? |
The US does not have the fire power to destroy Iran's nuclear program and their government and their army in a few hours w/o the use of nuclear weapons.
| Quote: |
Developing said weapons will only exasperate the militarization of space. |
It will also cancel out Iran's nuclear program and any strategic advantage they get from it.
Look at how North Korea can use nuclear weapons to extract concessions and Iran is far more powerful and is in a much weaker neighborhood than North Korea.
Right now Iran can hide stuff in bunkers that might not be able to be destroyed by conventional bombing, but there is no hiding from ROG since it would be impossible build such a bunker or go deep enough underground to be safe from it.
With such a system then the US can neutralize any advantage that not only Iran but also North Korea get from nuclear weapons. The US would be foolish not to seize the opportunity.
Iran is an enemy and they are behind attacks against the US with the right stuff the US can put a stake in their heart once and for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
huffdaddy
Joined: 25 Nov 2005
|
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Quote: |
Because there's a big difference between being able to blow them into a million pieces and being able to blow them into a million pieces from space? |
Yes nuclear weapons have fall out and they are a political problem. Iran like North Vietnam and North Korea knows the US is not going to use them. |
ALL weapons have political problems. The reason the US hasn't gone after North Korea is because of China. The reason they can't go after Iran is because of China and Russia.
| Quote: |
| However with ROG they can't be so sure. |
Same political problems.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| Developing said weapons will only exasperate the militarization of space. |
It will also cancel out Iran's nuclear program and any strategic advantage they get from it. |
Temporarily. Counter measures will be developed.
| Quote: |
| Right now Iran can hide stuff in bunkers that might not be able to be destroyed by conventional bombing, but there is no hiding from ROG since it would be impossible build such a bunker or go deep enough underground to be safe from it. |
That's only if we know where it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ALL weapons have political problems. The reason the US hasn't gone after North Korea is because of China. The reason they can't go after Iran is because of China and Russia. |
No the reason the US can't go after NK is cause they would kill 10 million South Koreans in a fight.
The US can go after Iran and more importantly impose the most favorable conditions of war for the US if the US has the right stuff.
| Quote: |
| Same political problems. |
With that the US can just deal with Iran the same way it dealt with Saddam during the first gulf war . Or threaten to do so.
Except that ROG will make it look like Saddam got off easy.
| Quote: |
| Temporarily. Counter measures will be developed. |
what ? There is no counter measure .
20 tons falling at 3,200 meters a second. What kind of explosion would that make?
| Quote: |
That's only if we know where it is. |
The US will only needs to get close the explosion will do the rest .
Going a little off topic
You know North Korea has lots of big guys focused on Seoul , the US can't take them all out except with nuclear weapons. But the US can't use nuclear weapons cause of the radiation. However if the US had ROG different story.
Same goes for Iran.
If the US has ROG Iran's nuclear program as a strategic threat is neutralized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|