|
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 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject: End of the Valarie Plame affair |
 |
|
End of an Affair
It turns out that the person who exposed CIA agent Valerie Plame was not out to punish her husband.
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
WE'RE RELUCTANT to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.
Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him. Unaware that Ms. Plame's identity was classified information, Mr. Armitage reportedly passed it along to columnist Robert D. Novak "in an offhand manner, virtually as gossip," according to a story this week by the Post's R. Jeffrey
Smith, who quoted a former colleague of Mr. Armitage.
It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue. The partisan clamor that followed the raising of that allegation by Mr. Wilson in the summer of 2003 led to the appointment of a special prosecutor, a costly and prolonged investigation, and the indictment of Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on charges of perjury. All of that might have been avoided had Mr. Armitage's identity been known three years ago.
That's not to say that Mr. Libby and other White House officials are blameless. As prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has reported, when Mr. Wilson charged that intelligence about Iraq had been twisted to make a case for war, Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney reacted by inquiring about Ms. Plame's role in recommending Mr. Wilson for a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, where he investigated reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium. Mr. Libby then allegedly disclosed Ms. Plame's identity to journalists and lied to a grand jury when he said he had learned of her identity from one of those reporters. Mr. Libby and his boss, Mr. Cheney, were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson; if Mr. Fitzgerald's account is correct, they were careless about handling information that was classified.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
� 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2006 8:54 pm Post subject: Re: End of the Valarie Plame affair |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee's WaPo Article wrote: |
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.
|
I never liked that guy. Now I know why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously. |
Politicians, journalists, and academics have been more or less hyperpoliticized and polarized since the 1960s (with high and low points). Oppositionists, from the left and right, know that everything they hear from Washington that they do not like must be part of a lie. Moreover, they believe many things without thinking about their (hidden) assumptions or asking for independent, confirmatory evidence -- and I do not refer only to those in the W. Bush Administration who felt so confident on "the slam dunk" issue of Iraqi weapons programs, either.
Take former Ambassador Nathaniel Davis, whom I have cited before, on his testimony on the Chilean affair. He claims in his memoirs that his testimony was dismissed by cynical, oppositionist critics as a lie because he did not fully confess to extreme, malicious government wrongdoing (i.e., that the U.S. had its own citizens disappeared, tortured, and executed in Chile without trial; that the U.S. masterminded, directed, and executed every detail of the coup d'etat; and that Washington then placed Augusto Pinochet in power, ordering him to disappear, torture, and execute all Chilean leftists...).
What are the centerpieces of evidence for these assertions? A Hollywood film called Missing and several rather sensational allegations made by Seymour Hersh in the New York Times.
So cynical, opposition-minded critics are simply predisposed to take anything that confirms their worldview ("Washington is doing something evil and wrong," for example) at face value and dismiss everything else as "a lie." As historian Irwin Unger wrote in the American Historical Review, these critics, in academia at least, were united in their "conviction of America's total depravity." (See Unger, "'The New Left' and American History: Some Recent Trends in United States Historiography," AHR 72.) One Chilean historian also commented that this was a bitter trend, starting at least as early as Vietnam but perhaps earlier, of people who saw nothing good in U.S. foreign relations, for example, only greed, malice, and wanton destruction of innocents.
In any case, if what this article claims is true, that Wilson tried to work this dynamic in his favor, as someone opposed to the W. Bush Administration (and I think the proper course for ambassadors and other high-ranking officials is to quietly resign in protest a la Powell, not actively work to undermine the govt) and it somehow turned on his wife, then it fits into this larger pattern in post-1960s U.S. political discourse.
It is as if people have forgotten Sir Francis Bacon's wise advice given four hundred years ago...
| Bacon wrote: |
| Another error is an impatience of doubt, and haste to assertion without due and mature suspension of judgement... |
Anyone interested in one narrative on how this happened and unfolded in the U.S. would be well advised to check out Novick's That Noble Dream, esp. pp. 415-629, "Objectivity in Crisis."
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Modern Bacon:
| Bacon wrote: |
| Try the search function before posting. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gardimus
Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Location: Formerly Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
He only outed her to Novak.
Charges are still being pressed against Libby. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gardimus wrote: |
| ...Charges are still being pressed against Libby. |
Notwithstanding what I said above about many Americans' (and others') tendencies to instantly believe the worst about govt, and notwithstanding Wilson's now apparent involvement in the unintended destruction of his own wife's career, I still agree that something unethical and perhaps even illegal probably went on in the White House -- under Cheney's initiative and with W. Bush's at least tacit approval.
Just a gut feeling. (And, the truth be told, I just do not like or trust Cheney at all, and that goes for Rumsfeld, too.)
My point is that we should recognize that there are many strands in this tangled web. And we should untangle each and every one of them, then reconstruct the web and understand exactly what happened, chronologically and otherwise, before hanging anyone. And I am not sure that prosecutors or the press are following Bacon's four-hundred-year-old advice on looking before you leap... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gardimus
Joined: 23 Feb 2006
Location: Formerly Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I think Americans are right to be suspicious of this issue, since the Libby/Cheney/Bush connection is still in play. As for the Novak source, I do find it a little odd that it has taken this long for his identity to be made public and I think there is more to the story than this anti-climactic end.
Furthermore, what is with the ongoing smear campaign still being played out against Wilson? The man was 100% correct in saying that the Nigerian yellow cake being sold to Iraq was bunk. Regardless of the methods he used to come to this conclusion, he was right. Rove must really hate Wilson. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gardimus wrote: |
Well, I think Americans are right to be suspicious of this issue, since the Libby/Cheney/Bush connection is still in play. As for the Novak source, I do find it a little odd that it has taken this long for his identity to be made public and I think there is more to the story than this anti-climactic end.
Furthermore, what is with the ongoing smear campaign still being played out against Wilson? The man was 100% correct in saying that the Nigerian yellow cake being sold to Iraq was bunk. Regardless of the methods he used to come to this conclusion, he was right. Rove must really hate Wilson. |
Saddam did try to get that stuff from Africa.
Joe Wilson is a liar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a load of crap. God damn, the Republicans sure know how to spin a story.
We're focused on the outing of an intelligence agent, when we shoud instead be discussing the outright lies that were being preached before the invasion in order to obtain the public's suppot for the war.
And conviently Joe Wilson is made out to be the bad guy.
And Jip, where's your proof that (a) Wilson is a liar and (b) that Sadaam tried to obtain yellow cake from Africa.
Wilson, a trained agent with knowledge of the suject that you Jip will never have, went down to Africa and couldn't find any evidence. He never said that Sadam never tried to obtain uranium, but he did say that he didn't find any evidence.
You following me Jip?
But then the Bush administration goes on and says that they have absolute proof that Sadam tried to obtain uranium when they did not have this proof.
Joe Wilson simply called them out for the liars that they are. The Bush administration clearly "fudged" the evidence in order to support their case to the American public.
Joe Wilson didn't have the agenda, the Bush administration did.
For heavens sakes Jip, try to be critical for once in your life. Any person in power should be treated with scepticism. Faith should not determine your politics, because then it becomes a relgion and you become a sheep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| We're focused on the outing of an intelligence agent, when we shoud instead be discussing the outright lies that were being preached before the invasion in order to obtain the public's suppot for the war. |
who did it?
| Quote: |
| And conviently Joe Wilson is made out to be the bad guy. |
He is
| Quote: |
| And Jip, where's your proof that (a) Wilson is a liar and (b) that Sadaam tried to obtain yellow cake from Africa. |
Just you wait
| Quote: |
| Wilson, a trained agent with knowledge of the suject that you Jip will never have, went down to Africa and couldn't find any evidence. He never said that Sadam never tried to obtain uranium, but he did say that he didn't find any evidence |
.
He has knowlege of the subject?
You following me Jip?
| Quote: |
| But then the Bush administration goes on and says that they have absolute proof that Sadam tried to obtain uranium when they did not have this proof. |
British intel
| Quote: |
Joe Wilson didn't have the agenda, the Bush administration did. |
Oh yes Wilson did.
You asked for proof well see below:
| Quote: |
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.)
Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent, 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?
The Intelligence Identities Protection Act, notionally violated by this disclosure, is a ridiculous piece of legislation to begin with. It relies in practice on a high standard of proof, effectively requiring that the government demonstrate that someone knowingly intended to divulge the identity of an American secret agent operating under cover, with the intention of harming that agent. The United States managed to get through World War II and most of the Cold War without such an act on its books. The obvious disadvantage of the law, apart from its opacity, is that it could be used to stifle legitimate inquiry about what the CIA was up to. Indeed, that was its original intent. It was put forward by right-wingers who wanted to stifle and if possible arrest Philip Agee, a defector from the 1970s whose whistle-blowing book Inside The Company had exposed much CIA wrongdoing. The act is now being piously cited by liberals to criminalize the disclosure that someone who shuttles dangerously "under cover" between Georgetown and Virginia and takes a surreptitious part in an open public debate, works for the agency and has a track record on a major issue.
To say this is not to defend the Bush administration, which typically managed to flourish the only allegation made about Niger that had been faked, and which did not have the courage to confront Mr. and Mrs. Wilson in public with their covert political agenda. But it does draw attention to an interesting aspect of this whole debate: the increasing solidarity of the left with the CIA. The agency disliked Ahmad Chalabi and was institutionally committed to the view that the Saddam regime in Iraq was a) secular and b) rationally interested in self-preservation. It repeatedly overlooked important evidence to the contrary, even as it failed entirely to infiltrate jihadist groups or to act upon FBI field reports about their activity within our borders. Bob Woodward has a marvelous encapsulating anecdote in his recent book: George Tenet on Sept. 11 saying that he sure hopes this isn't anything to do with those people acting suspiciously in the flight schools. ... The case for closing the CIA and starting again has been overwhelming for some time. But many liberals lately prefer, for reasons of opportunism, to take CIA evidence at face value.
I prefer the good old days. It was always alleged against Philip Agee, quite falsely, that he had identified Richard Welch, the CIA station chief in Athens who was gunned down by Greek anarchists in 1975. In fact, Agee had never mentioned his name in any connection. This did not inhibit the authors of the Protection Act from going ahead, or Barbara Bush from saying in her memoirs that Agee had fingered Welch. I actually contacted Agee at that time, pointing out that the book was being published in London and suggesting that he sue. He successfully got Mrs. Bush to change the wording of her paperback version. But we are still stuck with the gag law that resulted from the original defamation, and it is still being invoked to prevent us from discovering what our single worst federal agency is really up to. |
http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/
| Quote: |
fighting words
Clueless Joe Wilson
How did the CIA's special envoy miss Zahawie's trip to Niger?
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, April 17, 2006, at 3:14 PM ET
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?
The person whose response I most wanted is Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who has claimed to discover that Saddam was guiltless on the charge of seeking uranium from Niger, and has further claimed to be the object, along with his CIA wife, of a campaign of government persecution. On Keith Olbermann's show on April 10, Wilson was asked about my article and about Zahawie. He replied that Zahawie:
is a man that I know from my time as acting ambassador in Baghdad during the first Gulf War. ... He was ambassador to the Vatican, and he made a trip in 1999 to several West and Central African countries for the express purpose of inviting chiefs of state to violate the ban on travel to Iraq. He has said repeatedly to the press, he's now in retirement, and also to the International Atomic Energy Agency, to their satisfaction, that uranium was not on his agenda.
Once again, the details and implications of Zahawie's own IAEA background are ignored (as they were in the IAEA's own report to the United Nations about the forged Italian documents that were later circulated about Zahawie's visit). In the same press interviews to which Wilson alludes (and which I cited last week), Zahawie went a bit further than saying that uranium was "not on his agenda." He claimed not to know that Niger produced uranium at all! You may if you wish choose to take that at face value�along with his story that all he was trying to do was violate sanctions on flights to Iraq. Joseph Wilson appears to be, as they say, "comfortable" with that explanation.
And it's true that the two men knew each other during the Gulf crisis of 1990-1991. Indeed, in his book The Politics of Truth, Wilson records Zahawie as having been in the room, as under-secretary for foreign affairs, during his last meeting with Saddam Hussein. (Quite a senior guy for a humble mission like violating flight-bans from distant Niger and Burkina Faso.) I cite this because it is the only mention of Zahawie that Wilson makes in his entire narrative.
In other words (I am prepared to keep on repeating this until at least one cow comes home), Joseph Wilson went to Niger in 2002 to investigate whether or not the country had renewed its uranium-based relationship with Iraq, spent a few days (by his own account) sipping mint tea with officials of that country who were (by his wife's account) already friendly to him, and came back with the news that all was above-board. Again to repeat myself, this must mean either that A) he did not know that Zahawie had come calling or B) that he did know but didn't think it worth mentioning that one of Saddam's point men on nukes had been in town. In neither case, it seems to me, should he be trusted with another mission that requires any sort of curiosity.
Wilson has had to alter his story so many times�he first denied that the CIA had anything to do with selecting him for the Niger mission and later claimed that he had exposed a forgery that wasn't disclosed until after he returned�that the mind reels at having to reread his conceited book. However, dear reader, on your behalf I was prepared to do it. The closest Wilson ever comes to a notional Iraq-Niger contact is at second hand, when one of his government sources tells of an approach, through a Niger businessman, to meet an Iraqi official at a conference of the Organization of African Unity in Algiers in 1999. Looking back on this event, his source now thinks that he recognizes the Iraqi as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Wilson likes this story enough to tell it twice (on Pages 28 and 424 of his book). And it's a jolly good story, too, since Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf is more widely known as "Baghdad Bob," the information minister who furnished some low comic relief during the last days of the regime in 2003. Relieved laughter all around. Nothing to worry about after all. As Wilson asks with triumphant sarcasm: "Was that the smoking gun that could supposedly have become a mushroom cloud?"
Take that permanent smirk off your face, Ambassador (and the look of martyrdom as well, while you are at it). It seems that your contacts in the Niger Ministry of Mines�the ones that your wife told the CIA made you such a good choice for the trip�didn't rate you highly enough to tell you about the Zahawie visit. It would, interestingly, have been a name you already knew. But you didn't even get as far as having to explain it away�or not until last week�because you were that far in the dark. It was left to Italian, French, and British intelligence to discover the suggestive fact and transmit it to Washington. And it's been left to someone else, most probably in the Niger embassy in Rome, to produce a much later fabrication, either for gain or in order to discredit a true story. The forged account has no bearing at all on the authentic one: It bears the same relationship as a fake $100 bill does to a genuine bill. The rip-off remake movie, "Mr. Wilson Goes to Niger," now playing to packed houses of the credulous everywhere, has precisely the same relationship to its own original.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2140058/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To be honest, I don't give a flying fck about Vaerie Plane!
That's not the story i'm interested in. What gets me is how the intelligence was molded to fit the cause.
And what gets me even more is how bad this administration has messed up Iraq and the people living there.
I do believe that Sadam was trying to obtain weapons. No doubt. Any practical leader in his situation would be doing so.
But Bush shouldn't be quoting British intelligence.
And the Bush administration was in such a hurry to get underway with the Iraq invasion that any dissention what's so ever was shut down.
Yes there were mass protests by the public, but the media and more importantly the congress took a "well it's inevitable" approach and followed the drum beat to war with little or no critical analysis on the strategy.
As a result, Iraq is completely messed up right now.
Not only did Bush go into the fine china store and break the $300 vase, but he also tok out thr $700 dish set, the $250 plates, ect..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
That's not the story i'm interested in. What gets me is how the intelligence was molded to fit the cause. |
well if Bush said the real reason it would have made the war even more difficult
| Quote: |
And what gets me even more is how bad this administration has messed up Iraq and the people living there. |
Oh really and what was it like under Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein killed 300,000 in his 30 years in power. He would have killed many more than that were he not contained. What was he going to do in the next 30 years and lets remember his sons were coming up next.
and Saddam was after more than just Iraqi's.
The US could not contain Saddam forever.
Anyone who claims to oppose the US action in Iraq is either ignorant or disingenious. There is no humanitarian case against the Iraq war.
| Quote: |
| I do believe that Sadam was trying to obtain weapons. No doubt. Any practical leader in his situation would be doing so. |
why would any practical leader be trying to get such weapons.
I got another solution why not Saddam just give up his war.
But Bush shouldn't be quoting British intelligence.
| Quote: |
| And the Bush administration was in such a hurry to get underway with the Iraq invasion that any dissention what's so ever was shut down. |
Yep
| Quote: |
| Yes there were mass protests by the public, but the media and more importantly the congress took a "well it's inevitable" approach and followed the drum beat to war with little or no critical analysis on the strategy. |
Mass protests by many who wanted Saddam around not cause they liked him but they did not want to see an enemy of the US gone cause that might have led to the US to being better off
| Quote: |
| As a result, Iraq is completely messed up right now. |
and was was it like under Saddam?
| Quote: |
Not only did Bush go into the fine china store and break the $300 vase, but he also tok out thr $700 dish set, the $250 plates, ect.....[ |
Well if Saddam had given up his war then there would have been no war.
See Libya . Khaddafy gave up his war - more or less and now the US is falling all over itself to invest in Libya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
canuckistan
Mod Team
Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Location: Training future GS competitors.....
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/13/cia.leak/index.html
| Quote: |
In July, Novak said that Rove was the source who confirmed Armitage's disclosure. On Wednesday, Novak said Armitage mischaracterized his own actions during the CBS interview, particularly when he asserted the disclosure was unintentional.
"First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so," wrote Novak, a former CNN commentator.
Rather, Novak wrote, Armitage identified the CIA division where Plame worked and said "flatly" that Plame recommended her husband for the fact-finding mission to Niger.
"Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column," Novak wrote. "Armitage's tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive."
The White House declined comment on the matter, citing the ongoing investigation.
|
|
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
