PDA

View Full Version : Here Is The Law...Dick Cheney Broke...



Gayle in MD
01-26-2007, 10:40 AM
Article in today's Washington Post...
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> Grenier testified that he did surmise that White House officials were pointing a finger at the CIA for not alerting them about Wilson's findings.

"The administration was trying to suggest that had they only known about the eminent Ambassador Wilson's [information] . . . it would have somehow stopped the White House from continuing on its errant path to war," Grenier said. "I think they were trying to avoid blame for not providing [the truth] about whether or not Iraq had attempted to buy uranium." [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>






It's not enough that Cheney calls all of the vast information proving his completely incccurate statements on WMD's, the "Progress" in Bush's so called "War on Terror" and his consistantly wrong predictions throughout his tenure, as "Hogwash" but he does so after blatantly breaking Federal Laws, as was proven by the recent testimony of a number of both White House aides, and CIA Officials this week in the Scooter Libby trial. New facts from testimony prove that he also lied in a number of televisions interviews, stating the he did not know anything about Joe Wilson, or Valarie Plame, and failed to acknowledge that in fact, He (Cheney) was the orchestrator of the entire campaign to discredit Mr. Wilson, and his Wife, all along. We may soon be rid of the only obsticle that we, as a nation, face as regards impeaching a President for lying to the world about the necessity of invading a foreign country, against all international treaty agreements, and Constitutional requirements for launching war, or invading and occupying a foreign country for the purpose of Regime Change.


[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert
agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified
information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.




Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert
agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified
information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment. [ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012400944.html
Also, despite the false Faux News/White House Cable Network's lies about Valarie Plame, her idenity WAS Secret and Classified at the time VP Cheney broke Federal Law.


Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
01-26-2007, 05:29 PM
Talk about cherry picking. Here is an article with a sligtly different take and a few more detailed quotes web page (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjZhNDA4MGY3NmMwNjdkMjEzNjQ0MzE4ODg4MzA3YWY=)
Seems a few stories have changed

Plame had been living in Washington for six plus years when the July 2003 column was published, and she had been working at a desk job in Langley (no a need for cover there.) Plame did not, and does not qualify as "covert."
Deputy Sec of State Richard Armitage publicly admitted that he was the one who mentioned to Novak that Plame worked for the CIA. She was not a covert agent and therefore her identity was not protected by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Armitage also explained that there was no malice involved and he had not been told to do so by anyone. The only person lieing in this witch hunt is Wilson.

Sid_Vicious
01-26-2007, 06:29 PM
But Gayle you forget, Bill Clinton got a bj and stained a dress! How can you not get the seriousness of this and the need to shut down the government to pursue that deadly crime! Oh I forgot...it didn't kill anyone nor mire our country into world-wide distain and continue to kill, my bad /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif ...sid~~~would much rather to hit the town with Bill C to party a hellova lot more than the chimp, yet a bannana instead of a cigar tweaks the interest /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

wolfdancer
01-26-2007, 06:57 PM
According to the other poster....sounds like she was just a file clerk.I'm kind of surprised that the NY Times choose to run such a nothing story about a nobody??
I think exposing the wife of an Ambassador as an Agent of the CIA.....covert, or not...
was just intended to discredit Mr. Wilson, especially since he was dissing the Prez.. It also effectively ruined any chances of her being upgraded to covert from "office gofer".
but no harm, no foul...just a little practical joke.Maybe the CIA will publish a list of their non-covert agents for all to see?

pooltchr
01-26-2007, 07:49 PM
Sid,
I couldn't agree more. If I wanted someone to party with, Bill would be the obvious choice. Now tell me, when was being a party animal one of the qualifications for the office of President of the United States?
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-27-2007, 08:30 AM
The National REview???? BWA HA HA HA..go to the Special Prosecutors web site. There you will find the facts regarding Valarie Plame's official status. Had she not been protected, the special prosecutor would never have launched an investigation, which was requested by the C.I.A. in the first place. BTW, other than right wing cable, and right wing rags, have you read anything about Valarie Plame? I'm quite sure of the answer.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-27-2007, 08:33 AM
When coke-head/alcoholic George Bush was elected.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-27-2007, 10:21 AM
From this week's Newsweek Magazine....

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> Moreover, Rove is likely not eager to recount the story either. The reason? He would have to acknowledge that shortly after he had the chat with Libby, he went back to his office and had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper in which he also disclosed the fact that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. The disclosure was potentially illegal since, at the time, Plame was employed in the Directorate of Operations, the agency’s covert arm. (There is no evidence that Rove or anybody else knew Plame’s status at the time—and Rove has never been charged with any crime—but the possibility that White House officials were leaking classified information in an effort to discredit Wilson is what triggered the probe in the first place.)

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>


Tell me, how many more lies are you going to post on here???? Fact is, YOU are the cherry picker!

Not only was she secret, she was a NOC, which means that she worked in foreign countries, without the protection of any international amnesty, and worked under covert status, in a manufactured business roll, with other secret covert operatives. Exposing her, had the potential to expose other operatives still over seas.

If you're going to post information from right wing neocon rags, atleast check the government websites before you do so. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
01-27-2007, 11:34 PM
The only quote you posted from the trial was:
Grenier testified that he did surmise that White House officials were pointing a finger at the CIA for not alerting them about Wilson's findings.

"The administration was trying to suggest that had they only known about the eminent Ambassador Wilson's [information] . . . it would have somehow stopped the White House from continuing on its errant path to war," Grenier said. "I think they were trying to avoid blame for not providing [the truth] about whether or not Iraq had attempted to buy uranium."

I simply posted a web site that had further quotes that showed both Grenier and Grossman had changed their stories since they were first interviewed. You got your info from the Washington Post and I got mine from the National Review. Left wing rag vs right wing rag. I didn't say your quote was inaccurate just that you didn't mention the part about the memory lapses of the two key witnesses. Do you deny the quotes on the link from the trial are accurate or not?

Bobbyrx
01-28-2007, 12:10 AM
Washington Post???? BWA HA HA HA..
How about 'Hubris' by two well known lefties Corn and Isakoff. According to Hubris, Colin Powell had been told by Richard Armitage that he leaked the identity of Valerie Plame to Robert Novak. Why was he not indicted instead of Libby. This is cherry picking because it's about the only thing in the the book I believe.

Gayle in MD
01-28-2007, 03:35 AM
What I think is that you are creating an accusation, over nothing. Obviously, the man's memory improves when he knows he's going to go to jail if he continues to lie to cover up for the White House!

Here is what you wrote...and it's not true.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> July 2003 column was published, and she had been working at a desk job in Langley (no a need for cover there.) Plame did not, and does not qualify as "covert."
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Do you deny that Valarie Plame was "Classified" and "Secret" and was as such, protected under the law? That was my point. Your info suggests that she wasn't. The Special Prosecutor says that she was. The CIA requested the investigation into the outing of Valarie Plame. Dick Cheney suggested that Libby use the "Oh, his wife sent him" bash, to try to dilute his findings. Didn't fly, he had been the Ambassador, and was very in the loop with the Niger officials. Other CIA officials have stated that Cheney, Libby, and whole bunch, were off their rockers over the Wilson op-ed, digging to find out who Wilson was, but they all stated they didn't even know of Wilson, or Valarie, lies.

There is no question that Cheney intended to smear Joe Wilson in an effort to squelch any information contrary to their cherry picked Yellow Cake BS they used to launch this war. Wilson was far from the only one in the CIA who told this administration that the supposed Saddam Yellow Cake purchase was based on phoney documents, and not true. Do you deny that? Do you deny the administration hard armed intelligence people to justify this war, cherry picked and created false intelligence, and then lied about the conditions on the ground for years?

BTW, Hubris is a very good book, well documented. Have you read it? Cobra II, and Fiasco,and Jawbreaker three more well documented books. Have you read them? Are you suggesting that the "Review, isn't a right wing conservative publication?

What's your point, anyway. Do you think launching this war was in our best interests, and that the administration has been honest and forthright, and used good judgement, since? Are you suggesting they didn't cherry pick intelligence? Do you think we're better off now for having invaded Iraq, thanks to George Bush's policies?

There is a huge difference between reading the work of respected reporters/journalists, and getting your information from a right wing rag.
You wrote....
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> The only quote you posted from the trial was:
Grenier testified that he did surmise that White House officials were pointing a finger at the CIA for not alerting them about Wilson's findings.

"The administration was trying to suggest that had they only known about the eminent Ambassador Wilson's [information] . . . it would have somehow stopped the White House from continuing on its errant path to war," Grenier said. "I think they were trying to avoid blame for not providing [the truth] about whether or not Iraq had attempted to buy uranium."
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

FYI, the "They" he is referring to, is the administration.

The point is, these quotes I gave were made under oath, in a federal court, but I'm sure that you, as a righty in complete denial of the devastation caused by George Bush, and his overall deceit and incompetence, would much prefer to get your scant and twisted information from the same right wing rag that assisted this administration in launching this ill conceived war, which has now created the very thing that Bush SAID he was trying to thwart, Iraq is now hooked up with Shiite Iran, with access to WMD's from Iran, which Iraq didn't have before Bush went in there, and al Qaeda, which in fact had no pre war link to Saddam, is now present in Iraq, thanks to your boy George, and his idiot policies. Do you deny that?

Do you deny that this administration used a sixteen word outrageous statement in Bush's SOTU Address, knowing full well that it wasn't true, and did so even after intelligence experts told them it was not reliable info, and told them not to use that information?

Don't jump on here using right wing BS to support your ill informed "opinions" derived from the very same bunch of publications, owned by the very same bunch of neocons who assisted Bush in lying to America, and expect to dispell information from the United States Special Prosecutors Office, and statements made under oath in a federal court.


Mary in Ga. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
01-28-2007, 05:03 AM
Your quoted statements are completly untrue....from now on, I suggest you use other sources than your preferred right wing rag.



Here is what you posted...



Plame had been living in Washington for six plus years when the July 2003 column was published, and she had been working at a desk job in Langley (no a need for cover there.) Plame did not, and does not qualify as "covert."
Deputy Sec of State Richard Armitage publicly admitted that he was the one who mentioned to Novak that Plame worked for the CIA. She was not a covert agent and therefore her identity was not protected by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Armitage also explained that there was no malice involved and he had not been told to do so by anyone. The only person lieing in this witch hunt is Wilson.




Here is the truth...
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote> The disclosure was potentially illegal since, at the time, Plame was employed in the Directorate of Operations, the agency’s covert arm.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Care to apologize for posting BS and cherry picking yourself, then accusing me of doing so? My info comes from Government documents. The issue of Armitege has absolutely no bearing on what others have done, anyway. The issue is.... did the Administration out a covert operative in an effort to justify putting inaccurate information into the State Of The Union Address, which Joe Wilson had proven to be inaccurate, and had reported to the CIA that it was inaccurate, to build a false case for going to war, and did they follow up by trying to discredit Joe Wilson, even if it required outing a covert CIA operative to do so. If the information on the Yellow Cake, Saddam supposedly had purchased from Niger, had been accurate, the administration wouldn't have had to withdraw their statements after the fact. More testimoney, from other CIA operatives, will prove that Joe Wilson, wasn't the only person in the intelligence community that warned the Administration about using the Yellow Cake BS in the SOTU address. Dick Cheney was the archetect of this shady, smutty exercise in slander. Dick Cheney went on every sunday morning show with this yellow cake BS, knowing that is wasn't true. He then went back after the truth came out, and lied and said he didn't even know Joe Wilson and Valarie. He was lying! The prosecutor has a news article on which he wrote his suggested course of action. Others in the White House have already come forward and stated that all this came out of the Vice President's office. He lied, once again, on National Television.

And in Court, Martin, White House Press and pr aid....

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
At length, Martin explained how she, Libby and deputy national security adviser Steve Hadley worked late into the night writing a statement to be issued by George Tenet in 2004 in which the CIA boss would take blame for the bogus claim in Bush's State of the Union address that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Africa.


After "delicate" talks, Tenet agreed to say the CIA "approved" the claim and "I am responsible" -- but even that disappointed Martin, who had wanted Tenet to say that "we did not express any doubt about Niger."
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Hence, Tenet gets a medal, for taking the fall.




Anyway, regardless of legal iomplications, this case certainly show's us what a dirty common bunch of lying SOB's we have running this country. Cheney, Bush, Libby and Rove were all involved. They lied to all of us so they could send our troops into harms way, where they remein today, not that I think you'd give a damn about that! AND, Valarie WAS covert, and classified as such. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
01-28-2007, 06:23 AM
Gayle,
Do you believe that anything someone says "Under Oath" is automatically true???????????????????
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-28-2007, 06:35 AM
No, and that wasn't the point anyway. Do you think people are more likely to tell the truth when they can go to jail for lying than when they're just being asked questions and not under oath?
Also, why bother with such a question when the thread is about the administration's attack on people who proved that Bush lied in his address to the Nation, even at the risk of our covert agents in other countries? Do you support what they did? Remember, a lie is a lie, according to you. I never hear any complaints from you about Bush's many many lies which un-necessarily put our troops in harms way, and for nothing.
G.

pooltchr
01-28-2007, 03:16 PM
Please forgive me for getting off track from the subject of the thread. I know you would never do anything like that. I humbly apologize.
Steve

Gayle in MD
01-29-2007, 06:48 AM
Steve,
No problem...just don't let it happen again! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I always answer your questions. It seems you never answer mine.

Gayle

eg8r
01-29-2007, 09:06 AM
She believe Clinton. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
01-29-2007, 09:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What I think is that you are creating an accusation, over nothing. Obviously, the man's memory improves when he knows he's going to go to jail if he continues to lie to cover up for the White House! <hr /></blockquote> What a goofball. His memory improved when he found out he might go to jail? HILARIOUS! I guess it is OK to tell something other than the truth until there is a chance you might go to jail. Everytime you blast someone you turn around and insert your foot in your mouth.

Keep em coming Bobby, I enjoy the show.

eg8r

wolfdancer
01-29-2007, 11:27 AM
Disregarding Ed's trite comments,where he thinks ...xx is doing so well debating you....I have you way ahead on points on my scorecard.
Interesting though "you get your news from the Washington Post, and he gets his from the National Review"....one source is slanted and the other completely biased.
These same people that believe the cast and crew from the "White House" situational comedy/drama...didn't out Valerie in an attempt to impugn Mr. Wilson....would also have believed the Reagan/GB WH had no knowledge of "Iran/Contra"

Gayle in MD
01-30-2007, 06:02 AM
How true, they also think that we found WMD's in Iraq, and that Bush's Iraq plan wasn't really about Cheney's secret deals behind closed doors with American Oil for drilling rights in Iraq. If they didn't know there were no WMD's in Iraq, they were the only Government people with full access to foreign intelligence who didn't. Without the blank check Republican Congress, and the right-wing press, they could have never pulled it off. The Neocons and their corporate fascist friends were planning this occupation long before Bush was appointed president.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
01-30-2007, 11:15 AM
So you really think everyone in the Bush administration, let's take Colin Powell and Codelleza Rice for example, knew that everything that they said about Iraq was a lie and that everything they have done and said and the thousands of people killed and maimed was to cover for Cheney and his already rich oil buddies to get more oil.

DickLeonard
01-30-2007, 11:41 AM
Gayle the thing I find unbelievable is that Cheney still has stock in Haliburton a company that is getting no-bid contracs in Iraq. There must be some law against that.####

Bobbyrx
01-30-2007, 12:26 PM
What company was and is used in Bosnia and Kosovo? and who was president at that time? omg conspiracy!

Gayle in MD
01-31-2007, 07:00 AM
No question in my mind! Not just for Halliburton, but for many many other Corporate Fascist Pigs, which are part of the Think/Tank/Corporate/Imperialsitic/Bush/Cheney Project for the New AMerican Century Neocon axis of EVIL.

You are naive'...Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-31-2007, 07:20 AM
Dick,
When Eisenhower warned us of the huge Industrialized Military Complex, even HE, couldn't have imagined the Rise of the Vulcans, the Project for A New American Century and their expanded use of unauthorized power. The vast corruption and greed, Without Conscience, without any integrity or concern for human life, or the survival of the world, and the continuing and expanded war between Capitalism and Democracy which has emerged. The collusion of a Congress, owned by this vast American Corporate Axis of Evil which is destroying democracy, and all that it stands for, and enhanced by the failure of Americans to exercise eternal vigilance, on behalf of liberty and justice, here and around the world.

Anyone who thinks that we went into Iraq to liberate Iraqis, and then leave, is certainly living in a dream world. We are building fourteen to sixteen military bases there. Is there any wonder why this administration had no exit plan? Our young people are dying for the sake of the neocon imperial agenda, on behalf of many many Dick Cheneys and many Halliburtons, although they are definately scooping up the biggest part of the pie. Americans need to wake up.

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
01-31-2007, 07:37 AM
You know something, Bobby, your continuing efforts to paint me with a partisan brush are absurd. Perhaps you should go back a few years and read all of my posts. The last honest presidents we had in this country were Jimmy Carter and Jerry Ford, a Republican and a Democrat, and I voted for both of them, and no wonder they shared such a mutual respect. I have no blind respect for Clinton, Reagan, or any other president in recent years. As far as I'm concerned, our problems go way beyond who sits at that desk. I do, however, maintain, that of all the recent crooks who have sat there, this one is the worst. And also, the last Republican majority Congress, was the worst, ever, because they took part in the biggest and most premeditated lie that has ever been prosecuted against our country, which will have the most devastating consequences of any other lie that we have ever been told thus far in our history, and because it was prosecuted against us through the exploitation of our genuine patriotism after the most vicious attack ever, against our country, the mastermind of which is still at large.

If you think we went into Iraq to liberate Iraqis, or for any humanitarian purposes, you have a lot of studying to do before you can call yourself unbiased, or patriotic.

Gayle in Md.

"God help us when someone sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do."

Dwight David Eisenhower

pooltchr
01-31-2007, 09:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Corporate Fascist Pigs, which are part of the Think/Tank/Corporate/Imperialsitic/Bush/Cheney Project for the New AMerican Century Neocon axis of EVIL.

You are naive'...Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

Gosh, Gayle...why don't you tell us what you REALLY think???!!!!!!
Steve

moblsv
01-31-2007, 10:44 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maxedaperture/371555241/

Gayle in MD
01-31-2007, 12:33 PM
BWA ha ha ha...

Thanks, needed a laugh today!

Gayle in MD
01-31-2007, 01:00 PM
Please state the lie which you accuse Mr. Wilson of telling.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
01-31-2007, 01:30 PM
Wow, I didn't realize Monica Lewisky's mom was so young...

Bobbyrx
01-31-2007, 02:22 PM
What he told the CIA vs what he wrote in his op/ed piece and that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger.
Factcheck.org web page (http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html)

Qtec
01-31-2007, 08:39 PM
[ QUOTE ]
What he told the CIA <font color="blue"> ?????????????? </font color> vs what he wrote in his op/ed piece and that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger <hr /></blockquote>

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Gayle in MD
01-31-2007, 09:17 PM
It has been proven that the Vice President's inquiries into the Yellow Cake claim, (which, BTW were based upon phoney documents which people in the CIA considered laughable) was the reason why the CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger. While his wife may have suggested him for the trip, since he had experience in the area, given he had been a U.S. Ambassador in Africa at one time, the trip, itself, was not Valarie Plame's idea, as was spread by Cheney, Rove and Libby in an effort to discredit Joe Wilson's editorial. Hence, the administration had to take back their State Of The Union Address claim that Saddam had bought Yellow Cake from Niger. Where is there a lie by Mr. Wilson?

This story was also documented by Tyler Drumheller, former CIA Director Of Operations in Europe, in his book, On The Brink and also in Hubris and a number of other books. Apparently you refuse to acknowledge that the Niger Yellow Cake claim was false? Or that Valarie Plame was a covert CIA operative?

This entire Niger calim has been investigated by many, and it is a fact that the Niger Embassy in France was broken into, and their official stationary and mailing stamp, were the only things stolen. There was a shady group in Italy whose business was selling fake documents to countries who needed them for the creation of false intelligence. A certain man, named Ledeem, was one one their under cover contractors. He ended up with a big corner office in the Neocon think tank on K Street, (the same one of which Wolfowitz, Lynn cheney, and the other Bush Administration insider neocons belong to) after a stint at the White House.

You are either leaving out, or forgetting that Cheney planted several dozen loyalists of his own, in the CIA, just for the purpose of receiving his desired intelligence. This, too, is documented by many of the people who resigned from the CIA in protest, Drumheller among them. There is no doubt that Dick Cheney created a cabal within the Central Intelligence Agency, after strong arming many there for months. He made six trips there himself, arguing for the intelligence he wanted. Many of the agents have testified to this in the Senate, and I have watched the proceedings live, on C-Span. Cheney, created his own intelligence using his own planted loyalists, then blamed the CIA for giving the administration faulty information. The statements that Bush made in the address, were scratched out by the Central Intelligence Agency for a reason, they were not true. Drumheller gives a vrey thorough account of this in his book. this is the systemic Modus Operendi of this administration regarding everything they do, including appointing former Oil company lobbyists for director of Environmental Protection Agency, and cherry picking intelligence to justify a war against a country that is economically in shambles, with no weaponry beyond battleground rockets.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
From his sixty minutes interview....
Drumheller: I had assured my German friends that ["Curveball's" claims] wouldn't be in the speech. I really thought that I had put it to bed. I had warned the CIA deputy John McLaughlin that this case could be fabricated. The night before the speech, then CIA director George Tenet called me at home. I said: "Hey Boss, be careful with that German report. It's supposed to be taken out. There are a lot of problems with that." He said: "Yeah, yeah. Right. Dont worry about that."

SPIEGEL: But it turned out to be the centerpiece in Powell's presentation — and nobody had told him about the doubts.

Drumheller: I turned on the TV in my office, and there it was. So the first thing I thought, having worked in the government all my life, was that we probably gave Powell the wrong speech. We checked our files and found out that they had just ignored it.

SPIEGEL: So the White House just ignored the fact that the whole story might have been untrue?

Drumheller: The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462782,00.html




If you are unaware of this, and the Senate Intelligence committee's recent investigations into these matters, you are not very well informed. Why do you think the Democrats and Republicans alike admit that if they knew then, what they know now, they would never have voted to give Bush any power to go to war, To Go After terrorists, and bin Laden In Afghanistan, NOT IRAQ, BTW which, BTW, he bastardized, in that the approval was to be used only as a last resort, not in a rush to go to war on trumped up intelligence against the wrong country.

Also, this website of yours....may I ask, do you know who Walter Annenberg is? Viveca Novak?

Dream on Brother! You are just one more rightie living in a State Of Denial

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
01-31-2007, 10:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>
Also, this website of yours....may I ask, do you know who Walter Annenberg is? Viveca Novak? <font color="blue"> web page (http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports70.html) </font color>

Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

Bobbyrx
01-31-2007, 10:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
What he told the CIA <font color="blue"> ?????????????? </font color> vs what he wrote in his op/ed piece <font color="blue"> Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
</font color> and that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger <font color="blue"> she suggested that he make the trip </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> </font color>

Bobbyrx
01-31-2007, 10:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> You know something, Bobby, your continuing efforts to paint me with a partisan brush are absurd. <font color="blue"> I don't have to paint anything. If you really believe that C. Powell and C. Rice were covering for Cheney and "Not just for Halliburton, but for many many other Corporate Fascist Pigs, which are part of the Think/Tank/Corporate/Imperialsitic/Bush/Cheney Project for the New American Century Neocon axis of EVIL." you are painting yourself. And especially to say this about Condoleezza Rice who is one of finest and brightest human beings this country has ever produced and was as Joe Biden says "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," way before Obama
</font color>

Gayle in MD
01-31-2007, 11:01 PM
[url=http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2004/01/plame200401?currentPage=1]


But, on his trip, Wilson had found no evidence to substantiate the president's assertion. His New York Times piece was titled "What I Didn't Find in Africa." Had he been wrong?, he wondered in the article. Or had his information been ignored because it did not fit with the government's preconceptions about Iraq? On the Sunday his piece ran in the Times, Wilson appeared on NBC's Meet the Press to discuss it.

The article and the television appearance had two results. Officially, National-Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice admitted that the sentence should not have been in the president's speech, because the intelligence on which it was based was not good enough, and C.I.A. director George Tenet took the blame, saying that he was "responsible for the approval process in my agency." But then he added that the C.I.A. had warned the National Security Council that the intelligence was dubious, and some days later Stephen Hadley, the N.S.C. deputy, admitted he'd "forgotten" about seeing two memos from the agency debating the veracity of the intelligence. Still, the administration could argue—and did—that, technically, none of the words in the speech were actually inaccurate, because it cited British intelligence as the source.

In fact, a tug-of-war had been building for months between the C.I.A. and the Bush administration. The latter, it was felt at C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Virginia, had been cherry-picking intelligence to suit its own purposes and, even worse, essentially cutting the C.I.A. and other agencies out of the general vetting of raw intelligence. By early summer the rope between the White House and Langley was stretched to the snapping point.
The Administration's spin
Then it did snap, catching Wilson and Plame with its frayed ends. On July 14, Novak wrote that Wilson's investigation was a "low level" C.I.A. project and that agency higher-ups had considered its conclusion "less than definitive." Wilson, after all, was merely a retired ambassador who had worked in Iraq just before the Gulf War. He currently operated as a business consultant in Washington, D.C. Novak wrote that the "two senior administration officials" told him that Wilson had been sent to Africa only because his wife of five years—Valerie Plame—an "agency operative on weapons of mass destruction," had suggested to her bosses that he go.

To most readers this information might have seemed harmless, but on July 22 Newsday's Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps reported that, according to their intelligence sources, Plame was an "undercover officer." In fact, she had NOC status, that is, nonofficial cover. NOCs are not ordinarily deskbound intelligence analysts who work inside C.I.A. headquarters. Mostly they operate abroad, frequently using fake job descriptions and sometimes fake names. According to a former senior C.I.A. officer, to blend in they often have to work two jobs: that of their "cover" and that involving their C.I.A. duties, which usually consists of handling foreign agents in the field, but can also involve recruiting them. NOCs have no diplomatic protection and so are vulnerable to hostile regimes that can imprison or execute them without official repercussions. A NOC's only real defense is his or her cover, which can take years to build. Because of this vulnerability, a NOC's identity is considered within the C.I.A. to be, as former C.I.A. analyst Kenneth Pollack has put it, "the holiest of holies."


Phelps and Royce also cited a "senior intelligence official" who said that Plame did not recommend her husband for the Niger job, adding, "There are people elsewhere in the government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason. I can't figure out what it could be. We paid his [Wilson's] airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there." Wilson said he was reimbursed only for expenses.
On Wilson's CIA REquest...
At the meeting Wilson was told that the office of Vice President Dick Cheney had asked for further information about a document that was a "purported memorandum of agreement or a contract covering the sale of 'yellowcake' uranium by Niger to Iraq." Wilson never saw the document, and he did not know if anyone in the room had, either.

On Wilson's meeting with CIA Officials, who reqauested that he go to Niger
"I went through what I knew about … uranium. I went through what I knew about the personalities.… People chimed in, and I answered them as best I could. It was a kind of free-for-all, and at the end they sort of asked, 'Well, would you be able to clear your schedule and go out there if we wanted?' and I said, 'Sure.'"



In the last week of September, Novak modified his story. In an appearance on CNN's Crossfire, he said, "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," and also that, "according to a confidential source at the C.I.A., Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative, and not in charge of undercover operatives."

In fact, in the spring, Plame was in the process of moving from NOC status to State Department cover. Wilson speculates that "if more people knew than should have, then somebody over at the White House talked earlier than they should have been talking."

It did not, in his mind —or in the opinion of his wife—excuse what had happened. Plame herself thought instantly that the leak was illegal. Even members of her family did not know what she did.

Before Wilson's trip
By this point members of the intelligence community were complaining behind the scenes about pressure from the administration to find evidence of links between Saddam and international terrorism, and also between Saddam and weapons of mass destruction. According to an October 27, 2003, story by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker, there seemed to be a tendency by Cheney's office, among others, to bypass the analysts and use raw intelligence given directly to the administration. There was also increased reliance on intelligence provided by Ahmad Chalabi, the charismatic head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress, from Iraqi defectors. They gave a grisly picture of secret nuclear facilities, terrorist training camps, and chemical- and biological-weapons factories spread throughout Iraq, which the C.I.A. and the International Atomic Energy Agency—which had monitored Iraq until its inspectors left the country in 1998—could neither corroborate nor refute outright. The C.I.A. did not trust Chalabi or his men. Cheney and the Pentagon, on the other hand, stood firmly behind him.

Cheney and his chief of staff, Lewis Libby, visited the C.I.A. several times at Langley and told the staff to make more of an effort to find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and to uncover Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear capabilities. One of the people who objected most fervently to what he saw as "intimidation," according to one former C.I.A. case officer, was Alan Foley, then the head of the Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center. He was Valerie Plame's boss. (Foley could not be reached for comment.)

Before the SOTU Address...
In October 2002 additional documents relating to an alleged uranium sale in Niger surfaced in Italy, according to the Hersh article, where they were obtained by a journalist, Elisabetta Burba, at Panorama magazine. Burba took them to the American Embassy and made her own fact-finding trip to Niger, where she concluded the documents were not reliable. She did not even bother to write a story. Yet the documents apparently were given credence by the administration. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell started to talk and write publicly about Iraq's attempts to procure uranium.



/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Also, Please, name one single accomplishment by Condoleeza Rice in six years? Her greatest asset is lying for Bush in front of the Senate Investigation Committee, and on news programs. Even the Republcian Senators are tired of her lies.

Also, you obviously have not been following the revelations from the Libby trial.

Just a bit of advice. A Story isn't true unless a reporter has three reliable sources. Finding the truth, requires study.

Bobbyrx
01-31-2007, 11:18 PM
Again if Cheney orchestrated the entire war so his already rich buddies could get richer and there is all this "proof" from all of these 'objective' books, why is still in office and where are all the thousands of people who would have to be in on such a scheme to create a war for oil based on what EVERYBODY knew were lies. And IF Cheney planted his own agents in the CIA how did he plant agents in the intelligence agencies of all these other countries who were saying the same things about Iraq. I guess they all went along because they are also part of the Think/Tank/Corporate/Imperialsitic/Bush/Cheney Project for the New American Century Neocon axis of EVIL (from here on known as the TTCIBCPNACNAE. They have a great web site!!)
And being able to do all this with the IQ of a grape. It's amazing. I may be naive but I'm not that paranoid.

Gayle in MD
02-01-2007, 07:57 AM
Bobby Writes...
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Again if Cheney orchestrated the entire war so his already rich buddies could get richer and there is all this "proof" from all of these 'objective' books, why is still in office and where are all the thousands of people who would have to be in on such a scheme to create a war for oil based on what EVERYBODY knew were lies.
It doesn't take thousands of people, just a few dozen supporting a handful of those in power. Part of why this administration got away with their incompetence and lies is a result of the former Republican majoirty in Congress, and their use of fear mongering after 9/11.



And IF Cheney planted his own agents in the CIA how did he plant agents in the intelligence agencies of all these other countries who were saying the same things about Iraq.
All what other countries? Bush launched this war against international agreements, and against U.N. approval.

I guess they all went along because they are also part of the Think/Tank/Corporate/Imperialsitic/Bush/Cheney Project for the New American Century Neocon axis of EVIL (from here on known as the TTCIBCPNACNAE. They have a great web site!!)
And being able to do all this with the IQ of a grape. It's amazing. I may be naive but I'm not that paranoid.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

Interesting that you mention paranoia, paranoia is just the tool used by terrorists, and Bush's entire agenda has been to increase the effectivness of the very tools used by terrorists, Fear and Paranoia. He quotes them in every speech, building their power, and using their own tactics and not in the interest of the American spirit, to silence dissent. He has played into their hands, with the help of Rice, and everytime she says, "No one knew, no one ever imagined, ..." She is lying. They were warned, we had hard working good solid intelligence people, many forced out by this administration, or resigned in protest to the Administration's lies, and pressure to fix intelligence. Even the British memo, stated they were fixing intelligence to fit their agenda. A much more documented exposure factual information, is now emerging every day in the investigative meetings on the Hill. At last we will have a shot at learning about, and taking action against incompetence, lies and unamerican activities.

Bobbyrx
02-01-2007, 05:22 PM
First Grossman and Grenier, now Miller and Cooper. Seems no one can remember who said what to whom and when. web page (http://http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/31/D8N0DDNO1.html)

Bobbyrx
02-01-2007, 05:29 PM
He said his wife had nothng to do with his being sent to Niger. See page 39 web page (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf)

Gayle in MD
02-02-2007, 02:24 PM
And she didn't. He was sent at the request of the CIA, in response to pressure from Dick Cheney to find proof of the Niger claim, in order to continue to glue together some intelligable reason for the War in Iraq. No proof was found, and instead, more proof surfaced which proved the claim to be false. The Intelligence community informed Cheney and Bush that the story of the incident was not reliable, should not be in the State Of The Union address, and even scratch it out of the Speech, and the administration put it back in anyway. The Central Intelligence Agency has already provided a statement that they sent Mr. Wilson, to seek factual information for the Vice President, period. Valarie Plame does not have the authority to send people on fact finding trips. Only those at high levels of the agency do. It is truly absurd for you to question statements already in print, Proven by existing video, and/or made under oath, and accepted as fact by reasonalbe professional people, and endeavor to shoot them down with snipets of speculation, or spin. Spin this as you may, the rest of the world has gotten the proof they never had before, but thought from the start, about what Dick Cheney did, why he did it, whom else took part, and all those who lied about it, bdfore and after, and tried to cover it up, including Bush, Rice, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Snow, and the right wing pundits of la la land, where you obviously reside.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
02-03-2007, 08:57 AM
She suggested to her higher ups (which was about anyone else in the C.I.A.) that he would be a good person to send. He said she knew nothing about his being picked for the trip. Since Cheney has all these "plants" in the C.I.A. how could they have missed this chance to send "one of their own" to Niger and not have to worry that someone would say what they didn't want to hear. They knew it was a lie all along didn't they. It makes no since to send someone who didn't know the lie.....

Bobbyrx
02-03-2007, 09:01 AM
and to go back to your original post....Why is Cheney not being prosecuted by special prosecutor Fitzgerald any why is Libby not being procecuted for outing a covert agent??

Gayle in MD
02-03-2007, 09:26 AM
Why don't I just give you a book list, so you can learn about the answers to all these questions of yours. You, Eg8r and Steve are very long on opinions, and extremely short on knowledge. You have to learn the chronology of events, and read the documentation of many people in many books, and without that, no one could educate you about the overall vast web of deceit which this administration has inflicted on Americans, and the Middle East. George Bush abruptly de-classified the information after the leaks, in an unprecedented fashion, I might add. Getting the dates of events, is the process which is unfolding daily in the Special Prosecutors trial of Scooter Libby. As in all things this decietful Administration does, screwing with the law is their shining forte. Also one reason why our country is now known as torturers. Known as a trecherous country that stops at nothing, thumbs it's nose at international agreements when it suits, occupies other countries, when it has no right to do so, and lies about why they occupy, and generally goes off half cocked without doing its homework, and doing so in a hurry before exhausting all methods of diplomacy, and using common sense.

George Bush went into Iraq, when he couldn't even find it on a map. Like a kid in a China Shop, he runs in with a club, smashes everything in the shop, and then looks around at his critics, and says, fix it, or shut up. He is able to do so because we live in the greatest country in the world, yet most Americans don't give a hoot enough about what their own country does, to expend any more effort to find out than to turn on their favortie right wing nut, and take it all to heart, and whatever they WANT to hear, they can find it on Fox, or in some other right wing rag. And all you have to do to get them to go along with killing a half million Iraqis, and sacrificing the lives of thousands of young troops, is offer them a measley extra fifteen percent off on their taxes on investiments. No group is as easily bought for a buck, than the right wing religious nuts right here on our shores. You won't see them out in the cold, demanding the end of this unwinnable, immoral war, that's for sure.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
02-03-2007, 10:26 AM
that's all real interesting again and I can give you a list of right wing books as long as your list of left wing books but I repeat: Why is Cheney not being prosecuted by special prosecutor Fitzgerald any why is Libby not being procecuted for outing a covert agent and why send Wilson when you could send one of your "plants" ???

Gayle in MD
02-03-2007, 10:55 AM
I've already answered your questions. You're knit picking semantics. The CIA has acknowledged that they, not Valarie, but the CIA sent Joe Wilson, and his statements were correct, if his wife recommended him, that does not qualify as "His wife sent him." Which is what Cheney hoped to spread around. The answers to your questions are on the Special Prosecutor's web site. Bush' declassification of the information regarding Valarie Plame got his lying SOB's on his staff, off the hook, including Rove, Libby and Cheney. He even initiated a new law, giving Cheney the power to declassify. Also unprecedented. If you can't read, or figure this out for your self, it's not my problem, it's your problem. Why do you think the CIA requested an investigation into the declassification of a covert, CIA Operative? Do you think you know more than he does? It would be obvious to anyone who had half a brain, that Cheney's pushing and shoving at the CIA to come up with intel to justify this illegal war, led to Mr. Wilson's trip. Therefore, indirectly, Cheney did send Wilson, unless you want to deny what is as plain as Dick Cheney's ugly twisted scowling crooked face.

You belong in Woodward's book, State Of Denial along with the rest of the Bush supporters, and right wing press.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
What the Libby Trial Is Revealing

By David Ignatius
Friday, February 2, 2007; A15



Why was the White House so nervous in the summer of 2003 about the CIA's reporting on alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Niger to build a nuclear bomb? That's the big question that runs through the many little details that have emerged in the perjury trial of Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The trial record suggests a simple answer: The White House was worried that the CIA would reveal that it had been pressured in 2002 and early 2003 to support administration claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and that in the Niger case, the CIA had tried hard to resist this pressure. The machinations of Cheney, Libby and others were an attempt to weave an alternative narrative that blamed the CIA.

The truth began to emerge on July 11, 2003, when CIA Director George Tenet issued a public statement disclosing that the agency had tried to warn the White House off the Niger allegations. In that sense, the Libby trial is about a cover-up that failed.

What helped start the whole brouhaha was a 2003 op-ed article by former ambassador Joseph Wilson, disclosing that his fact-finding trip to Niger the previous year had yielded no evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases. His piece opened with a devastating question: "Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?" A frantic White House tried to rebut Wilson's criticism by leaking the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the CIA and had suggested sending him to Niger -- as if the CIA connection somehow contaminated Wilson's allegations and made the White House less culpable.

To understand the Libby case, it's important to look at the documentary evidence, which has been usefully compiled by washingtonpost.com.

The record begins with a Feb. 13, 2002, memo from a CIA briefer who had been "tasked" by Cheney on the uranium issue: "The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from DIA) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq's nuclear program." The CIA briefer responded the next day with a comment that should have aroused skepticism on whether Iraq needed to buy any more uranium: Iraq already had 550 tons of "yellowcake" ore -- 200 tons of it from Niger. But the CIA, eager to please, asked Wilson a few days later to go to Niger to investigate the claim.

A glimpse of the pressure coming from the vice president's office emerges from a memo from CIA briefer Craig R. Schmall, after he was interviewed in January 2004 by FBI agents investigating the leak of Plame's covert identity: "I mentioned also to the agents that Libby was in charge within the administration (or at least the White House side) for producing papers arguing the case for Iraqi WMD and ties between Iraq and al Qaeda, which explains Libby's and the Vice President's interest in the Iraq/Niger/Uranium case."

CIA and State Department documents show that analysts at both agencies became increasingly skeptical about the Niger allegation and tried to warn the White House. A memo from Schmall to Eric Edelman, then Cheney's national security adviser, recalled: "CIA on several occasions has cautioned . . . that available information on this issue was fragmentary and unconfirmed." A memo from Carl W. Ford Jr., then head of the State Department's intelligence bureau, noted that his analysts had found the Niger claims "highly dubious."

The Niger issue wasn't included in Secretary of State Colin Powell's famous U.N. speech on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, according to Ford, "due to CIA concerns raised during the coordination regarding the veracity of the information on the alleged Iraq-Niger agreement." But despite CIA warnings, Bush referred to uranium purchases from Africa in his January 2003 State of the Union address, attributing it to British sources.

So we begin to understand why the White House was worried about the CIA in the summer of 2003: It feared the agency would breach the wall of silence about the claims regarding weapons of mass destruction. Robert Grenier, a CIA official who was the agency's Iraq mission manager, told colleagues that he remembered "a series of insistent phone calls" that month from Libby, who wanted the CIA to tell reporters that "other community elements such as State and DOD" had encouraged Wilson's Niger trip, not just Cheney.

The bottom line? Grenier was asked in court last week to explain the White House's 2003 machinations. Here's what he said: "I think they were trying to avoid blame for not providing [the truth] about whether or not Iraq had attempted to buy uranium." Let me say it again: This trial is about a cover-up that failed.
[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>

There is an entire list of official documents regarding the Administration's efforts to disprove the factual intelligence, and to cover up their attack against the wilsons, including George Tenets official statements about the CIA sending Wilson. You can access them all on the Washington Posts website. In fact, if you check most of what is written in the right wing magazines, you will find that they use precisely the same tactics used by the white House, knit picking and semantics to cloud the facts regarding the breaking of laws.


Also, the trial isn't over yet, so no one can say whom else may be indicted, can they, but the world now knows what kind of man Dick Cheney is, of course it's no surprise to most, and how this White House, George Bush, operates when someone proves one of their many many lies. Hence, seventy percent in our country say they can't wait until Bush is out of there. Now, why don't you try and explain that, ?

Gayle in Md.

Condoleeza Rice, to the Republican Senator, Chuck Hagle...

"WE don't have Shiia killing shiia, or Sunni Killing Sunni, Iraqi's killing Iraqis...."

Hagle,

"Madam Secretary, just's just not true!"

eg8r
02-03-2007, 07:30 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The CIA has acknowledged that they, not Valarie, but the CIA sent Joe Wilson, and his statements were correct, if his wife recommended him, that does not qualify as "His wife sent him." <hr /></blockquote> You are right, her opinion did not matter anyways. She was just some secretary doing a non-covert desk job here in the states for the past few years.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
02-03-2007, 07:31 PM
OIC, so it's lies you're interested in...well, here you go, just for you...


"You know, I welcome debate in a time of war and I hope you know that." --GW Bush...Liar Of The Century!

If his lips move he's lying ... like "we never said 'stay the course,' 'Rumsfeld will be Sec. of Defense as long as I'm president,' 'you're doing a heck of a job, Brownie,' 'no one could have anticipated the levees being topped,' 'we'll do whatever it takes to rebuild New Orleans,' 'no one in my administration was involved in betraying the identity of a CIA agent,' 'anyone involved in the Plame scandal will be fired,' 'Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger,' 'Saddam is developing nuclear weapons,' 'We're winning the war in Iraq.' 'I always listen to the commanders on the ground.' 'If I'm elected President, the United States will not be involved in Nation Building.' 'I will bring honour back to the Oval Office.' 'Iraq is the central campaign of the war on terror.' etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

If his brains were as big as his balls, he might get somewhere...well, maybe not!

How's that for you, you Neoconned?

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
02-04-2007, 08:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
She was just some secretary doing a non-covert desk job here in the states for the past few years.

<hr /></blockquote>

Is that just your opinion based on a rumour spread around by Rush/ Bill O'/ Fox / Drudge etc??
or do you have anything factual to back it up?
How about what the CIA said about her! Did they say she was a WMD specialist or a scretary?

Q......typical Ed /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Bobbyrx
02-08-2007, 02:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Please state the lie which you accuse Mr. Wilson of telling.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> another: Wilson never saw the forged documents.
The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report notes that Wilson was asked how he "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." Indeed, the United States didn't even receive the "obviously forged" documents until eight months after Wilson's trip to Niger.Wilson admitted to the committee that he had "misspoken" to reporters about having seen the forged documents.

</font color>

Gayle in MD
02-08-2007, 02:28 PM
Hey, you can cloud the issues all you want. Bottom line, Wilson was right, Bush was wrong. If you had REALLY read Hubris, which I seriously doubt, you'd know all about the forged documents, and the trail that led straight to the White House. The entire story has been published in more than one publication. The break in at the Embassy, the missing stationary, and official mailing stamp, and the conncetion to Ledeem.

The Scooter Libby Trial proves that the Whiate House was out to get anyone and everyone who exposed their lies.

Bottom line, no WMD's no connection to 9/11, no ties with alQaeda, no reason to occupy iraq.

No "last throes" no "We're winning the war in Iraq" no reason to out Valarie, except to discredit Wilson, who told the world about the administration's lies.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-10-2007, 12:16 PM
team
Intelligence agencies disagreed with many of its prewar findings.
By Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writers
February 10, 2007



Douglas J. Feith
click to enlargeWASHINGTON — As the Bush administration began assembling its case for war, analysts across the U.S. intelligence community were disturbed by the report of a secretive Pentagon team that concluded Iraq had significant ties to Al Qaeda.

Analysts from the CIA and other agencies "disagreed with more than 50%" of 26 findings the Pentagon team laid out in a controversial paper, according to testimony Friday from Thomas F. Gimble, acting inspector general of the Pentagon.

The dueling groups sat down at CIA headquarters in late August 2002 to try to work out their differences. But while the CIA agreed to minor modifications in some of its own reports, Gimble said, the Pentagon unit was utterly unbowed.

"They didn't make the changes that were talked about in that August 20th meeting," Gimble said, and instead went on to present their deeply flawed findings to senior officials at the White House.

The work of that special Pentagon unit — which was run by former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith — is one of the lingering symbols of the intelligence failures leading up to the war in Iraq.

The Bush administration's primary justification for invading Iraq was always its assertion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But Iraq's supposed ties to Al Qaeda — and therefore its connection to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — were an important secondary argument, and one that resonated with many Americans in the lead-up to the war with Iraq.

The CIA and many other intelligence agencies were wrong in their assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. But the agency was always deeply skeptical about the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Most of the evidence that Feith's Office of Special Plans cited in making its case for significant collaboration between Baghdad and Al Qaeda has crumbled under postwar scrutiny. The Senate Intelligence Committee has concluded that Saddam Hussein was so wary of the terrorist network that he barred anyone in his government from dealing with Al Qaeda.

www.latimes.com (http://www.latimes.com)

Since I'm sure you will question anything printed in the LA Times, you might want to tune in to the repeats of this weeks Foreign Relations Committee hearings, and thier questions of Rice, who still cannot articulate a diplomacy strategy, or the truth about anything, and Doug Feith, one of Cheney's planted neocons who helped to glue together false information from questionable, laughable sources used in the now famous lies, and false assertions, fake intelligence, told by Cheney, Rice and Bush, in the shameful lead up to Bush's War.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
02-13-2007, 10:46 AM
June 13th 2003...

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
I had no idea that she was covert. I don't think anybody in my department did.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>


Richard Armatege

Again, you're full of it, as usual. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
02-13-2007, 11:39 AM
If everything was a clear cut and dried as you wish to mislead us in believing then this would all be over by now. The truth of the matter is that it is not and no matter how many times you throw someone's quote out there I am forced to remind myself of a statement you made some time ago when your guy was caught in a lie. You said something along the lines of, "well his memory probably got a lot better when he noticed he might go to jail". No matter what Libby or anyone else ever said in the past, you want to stick them to it and send them to jail.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
02-13-2007, 02:20 PM
Interesting:
WALTER PINCUS: The veteran Washington Post reporter testified that Fleischer told him that Plame worked at the CIA. He said the topic never came up in discussions with Libby.

BOB WOODWARD: An assistant managing editor at the Post and an author, Woodward testified that in June 2003, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told him that Plame worked at the CIA. Woodward did not recall the topic coming up in discussions with Libby.

DAVID SANGER: A New York Times reporter, Sanger testified that he talked to Libby in July 2003 and Libby did not bring up Plame.

ROBERT NOVAK: The columnist who identified Plame on July 14, 2003, Novak testified that he had two sources: Armitage and White House aide Karl Rove. He testified that Libby was not a source.

GLENN KESSLER: A Washington Post reporter, Kessler testified that he interviewed Libby on the same day as Cooper but said Libby never brought up Plame.

EVAN THOMAS: A Newsweek magazine reporter, Thomas said he's sure Libby never told him Plame worked for the CIA.

CARL W. FORD JR.: The former assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, Ford testified for just minutes. He said he prepared a memo on Wilson for Grossman but his dates conflicted with Grossman's.

JILL ABRAMSON: The New York Times managing editor, Abramson said she did not recall Miller ever telling her to pursue a story on Plame. Miller had said she told Abramson that after her conversation with Libby.

Gayle in MD
02-14-2007, 04:06 AM
GFYSAH.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Gayle in MD
02-14-2007, 04:09 AM
Another pointless post? /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Cheney can't even be called to the stand on behalf of his "You do the dirty work" former aid, I'm sure Little Scooter's attorney's know what they're doing. But, you go ahead and think what you must, the rest of the world has enough sense to see what kind of man is Vice President, hence, he has the lowest approval rating for a Vice President that I've ever heard of, and has caused the most devastation. Cheney asks for information, and like Bush, if he doesn't get the info he wants, he cuts off the messenger's head, and puts a parrot on the job, and tries to cover up the fact that he asked for the info in the first place.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-14-2007, 08:37 AM
Can you spell out your acronym. I don't know what you are trying to say.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-14-2007, 01:15 PM
you be trash-talking, woman?
The thread has gotten warped as usual......but the facts are still the same....somebody broke the law,...and that somebody is.....?

Bobbyrx
02-14-2007, 05:18 PM
Pointless to you because these facts don't fit in your little Oliver Stone conspiracy theory. If Cheney were out to get Wilson why would he not get Libby to "out Plame" to all of these people who he spoke to also. Why is he not on trial for outing Plame? Why is Cheney not on trial or Rove? He's only on trial for lying about remembering a conversation he had 31/2 years ago which NO ONE could do. Who did you speak to on July 13, 2003 and if you're wrong lets get Fitzgerald to come after you...what a joke and a waste of money. If Hubris is your guide where's the proof and where are the indictments. Again if there is such a big conspiracy why did Cheney send Wilson to Niger and not one of his CIA "plants" who would report what he wanted to hear. If as you say Cheney already knew Iraq didn't inquire about the uranium, why send ANYONE. Who posted Wilson and Plame in Who's Who in America if it was such a secret. Why did they pose as The Avengers on the cover of Vanity Fair if their's is such a noble cause....because of the BOOK DEAL...now there is finally a motive that can be believed

Gayle in MD
02-15-2007, 12:23 AM
It's pointless because the FBI doesn't even begin to investigate the crime of leaking classified information unless it positively answers twelve questions. I suppose you think you know more than the FBI? Have you ever read the Special Prosecutor's web site? For someone so concerned, you certainly have not made any effort to educate yourself on this matter.

This crime is notoriously hard to prove because you can't prove that the leaker knew the information was secret when they leaked it. Intent to knowingly leak classified information must be shown.

No list of others who leaked the information is relative, since Novak is the only one who printed the leak in a publication.

In the special prosecutors statement he clealy states that Valarie Plame was covert.

Dick Cheney's instructions to Libby prove that his intention was to bash someone who exposed their lies about the Niger yellow cake story. It is obviously how this White House works. They leak information to the press, then use the same leaks to support their own BS.

[ QUOTE ]
<hr /></blockquote>
Carl Bernstein, from the Frontline documentary...

Frontline is showing a three part documentary on this White House and their press methods, including information about Valarie, and their BS stories about Saddam. Since you know so little about it, you might want to watch.

BTW, the right wingnuts spent 70 or 80 million dollars on Clinton's personal sex life. Was that a waste of tax payers money?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
02-15-2007, 09:11 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This crime is notoriously hard to prove because you can't prove that the leaker knew the information was secret when they leaked it. Intent to knowingly leak classified information must be shown.
<hr /></blockquote> This last part is what separates our great country and you. You see our great country and justice system requires the guy pointing his finger to have proof, this is miles from what you require. You only care if the person is a Republican. Thank goodness you and Dick chickened out on running for office.

eg8r

eg8r
02-15-2007, 09:16 AM
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, the right wingnuts spent 70 or 80 million dollars on Clinton's personal sex life. Was that a waste of tax payers money?
<hr /></blockquote> I agree it was a waste and it was also proof that Clinton did not care about the US or wasting tax payers money. If he did care then he would not have lied to the grand jury. Just like you, Clinton thought he was "god". It is a shame it took that much money and time before the fool fessed up. I bet if Clinton knew in the beginning his lie would cost him an impeachment he might have had a better recollection. At least that is how you have told us a lying Dem acts when they have an ultimatum thrown on them.

eg8r

Qtec
02-15-2007, 10:29 AM
Are you telling us that the people who were conducting the persecution of the POTUS were doing it in the best interests of the country and that it was really all Bill's fault??
Where was 'their'/your loyalty when they were trying to bring down the President away way they could.
In other countries Monica would get a medal for services to the nation. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
........and BTW, BC did not lie. Check it out.

Q

wolfdancer
02-15-2007, 11:35 AM
Gayle, when I think about Bush/Cheney.....the words "criminal enterprise" come to mind.
We may never know how many laws were broken by these two??

Gayle in MD
02-15-2007, 12:02 PM
That is so true, Jack, and the former federal prosecutor who wrote the book, The United States VS George W. Bush, lists according to the dates, and statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, and what can be proven that they knew, and what they were up to at the time, and what they were being told by our intelligence community, that they have committed many many impeachable offenses, and also, that Clinton's Impeachment, was illegal, which was not only proven by the result, in which it was found that it did not rise to the level of requirements for impaeachment, but also, was Constitutionally Illegal.

Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfel;d, on the other hand, have all committed high crimes an misdemeanors, of the worst kind. This stated not only by a Federal Judge, but also by John Dean, who was Nixon's former White House Legal advisor, and knows plenty about what High Crimes are.

It is truly unfortunate, that people, like you, and I are personally attacked for writing the truth. It surely seems that the more evidence which is unfolding daily, which proves this administration's lies, failures, sneaky underhanded unamerican Activities, and their complete lack of integrity, the angrier the militant right becomes. They are getting more dictatorial, more insulting, and more embedded in on-going psychological pledges to fantasy, and denial. Unfortunately, people are dying because of it, and our country and democratic principles, freedoms, and constitutionally protected way of life, are being threatened by their lunacy, and their imagined right to dictate, and change reality around to their liking. I've never seen anything like it, and it originates in the white House, and is quickly spread by the right wing press, and the Republican wing-nuts.

Gayle in Md.

wolfdancer
02-15-2007, 01:22 PM
While this may throw the thread off course....I'm glad to hear that the Clinton impeachment was illegal......a private affair between two consenting adults, the subject of a Congressional inquiry????? only the pretentious Christian right, could dream that one up.....Presidents been screwing around from Jefferson( a Republican) and Sally Hemmings.....to JFK and anything with a skirt.
Bill was just reviving an old WH tradition, that had been on hold since Nixon.
He should have told congress:
"Stop and think it over,
Try and put yourself in my unique position
If I get stoned and *** all night long, its a WH tradition!"

Bobbyrx
02-15-2007, 02:36 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> That is so true, Jack, and the former federal prosecutor who wrote the book, The United States VS George W. Bush, lists according to the dates, and statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld, and what can be proven that they knew, and what they were up to at the time, and what they were being told by our intelligence community, that they have committed many many impeachable offenses, <font color="blue">then prove it and impeach him </font color> and also, that Clinton's Impeachment, was illegal, which was not only proven by the result, in which it was found that it did not rise to the level of requirements for impaeachment, but also, was Constitutionally Illegal. <font color="blue">then why was he impeached if it was illegal? </font color>

Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfel;d, on the other hand, have all committed high crimes an misdemeanors, of the worst kind. This stated not only by a Federal Judge, but also by John Dean, who was Nixon's former White House Legal advisor, and knows plenty about what High Crimes are. <font color="blue"> Why are they still in office? If the Dems had this proof you speak of they would be drooling all over themselves to impeach him </font color>

It is truly unfortunate, that people, like you, and I are personally attacked for writing the truth. <font color="blue"> I dare say that more personal attacks on this forum have been made by you than at you </font color> It surely seems that the more evidence which is unfolding daily, which proves this administration's lies, failures, sneaky underhanded unamerican Activities, and their complete lack of integrity, the angrier the militant right becomes. They are getting more dictatorial, more insulting, and more embedded in on-going psychological pledges to fantasy, and denial. Unfortunately, people are dying because of it, and our country and democratic principles, freedoms, and constitutionally protected way of life, are being threatened by their lunacy, and their imagined right to dictate, and change reality around to their liking. I've never seen anything like it, and it originates in the white House, and is quickly spread by the right wing press, and the Republican wing-nuts. <font color="blue"> Kind of like John Edwards bloggers I guess. Quoting from Amanda Marcotte: "One thing I vow here and now–you motherfuckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will [censored] without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherfuckers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now."
This is the new public face of John Edwards’s campaign blog.
Republican wing-nuts don't hold a candle to these idiots and she was HIRED by John Edwards showing the type people the left is catering to
</font color>

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> </font color>

Gayle in MD
02-15-2007, 02:53 PM
How old are you anyway? LMAO...well, atleast whomever this woman is, she didn't say "Go F. Yourself" right on the floor of the house, like our illustrious Vice President.

Have a twinkie, and take a nap... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

pooltchr
02-15-2007, 04:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I bet if Clinton knew in the beginning his lie would cost him an impeachment he might have had a better recollection. At least that is how you have told us a lying Dem acts when they have an ultimatum thrown on them.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

We here in North Carolina (Bubba land to those above the Mason-Dixon line) are dealing with this same kind of thing in our state legislature. The speaker of the NC house (Jim Black - D) had to resign yesterday after several of his cronies have been found guilty of bribery and corruption charges in the past few months. The ex-speaker went to court today and admitted to federal bribery and corruption charges, and is now facing 10 years in prison. This only happened when he knew the net was closing in on him. He spent the past two years denying he had been involved in anything illegal. That's how they do it. Deny it as long as they can.
I'm still waiting for someone to start investigating John Edwards! Corruption exists in both parties.
Steve

Bobbyrx
02-16-2007, 02:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> How old are you anyway? LMAO... <font color="blue">Is that the best you can do? You can LYAO all you want but you can't seem to answer why if all these illegal activities are going on why no one is being prosecuted </font color> well, atleast whomever this woman is, <font color="blue"> she was John Edwards official blogger as if you didn't know or didn't they mention this at Daily Kos today </font color> she didn't say "Go F. Yourself" right on the floor of the house, like our illustrious Vice President. <font color="blue"> At least Cheney told the guy face to face what he thought about him off the record where as your candidate John Kerry dropped the F bomb in an interview with Rolling Stone on the record knowing he would be quoted but then as he let everyone know...he likes rap</font color>

Have a twinkie, and take a nap... /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
<font color="blue"> I will...but maybe you should get off the couch and quit flipping from C span to C span 2...zzzzzzzzzzzzz</font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
02-16-2007, 03:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
well, atleast whomever this woman is, she didn't say "Go F. Yourself" <hr /></blockquote> You are right. This must put her one rung up above you on the gutter trash mouth ladder.

eg8r

eg8r
02-16-2007, 03:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You can LYAO all you want but you can't seem to answer why if all these illegal activities are going on why no one is being prosecuted <hr /></blockquote> We have been asking her this for a few years. She spouts all her "facts" but the truth is, if they really had all this "proof" they would be frothing at the mouth to pounce on the Reps.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-16-2007, 04:48 PM
Is that what you are offerring as "proof" that Gayle's facts are erroneous, a pack of lies?....the fact that no one is being prosecuted....?
How about this as a rebuttal....how come no one putting all this damaging info out, is not being sued for slander, or libel??????????????????????????
Why would someone pardon himself for crimes they didn't commit?
Maybe GWB can get a similar book deal to the one O.J. had.
Titled something in the order of "This is how I would have screwed up the middle east, lied and involved us in an unwinnable war,ruined our economy, etc....if I did it"

eg8r
02-16-2007, 05:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Is that what you are offerring as "proof" that Gayle's facts are erroneous, a pack of lies?....the fact that no one is being prosecuted....? <hr /></blockquote> Basically, if everything was a clear cut and dried as you would like us to believe, the Reps would all be in jail.

eg8r

wolfdancer
02-16-2007, 05:12 PM
......the Reps would all be in jail.
We finally agree on something!!!
Have a good weekend!!!
ooops! thought you wrote "should" /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Bobbyrx
02-17-2007, 09:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Is that what you are offerring as "proof" that Gayle's facts are erroneous, a pack of lies?....the fact that no one is being prosecuted....? <font color="blue"> sounds pretty good </font color>
How about this as a rebuttal....how come no one putting all this damaging info out, is not being sued for slander, or libel?????????????????????????? <font color="blue"> I assume the same reason Clinton didn't sue over 'Unlimited Access' by Gary Aldrich or any of another dozen of so books by people with an agenda or wanting to make money showing all the illegal, immoral things Clinton did yada, yada, yada. I guess it's only true if its in a book telling of a Bush conspiracy </font color>
Why would someone pardon himself for crimes they didn't commit?
Maybe GWB can get a similar book deal to the one O.J. had.
Titled something in the order of "This is how I would have screwed up the middle east, lied and involved us in an unwinnable war,ruined our economy, <font color="blue"> ruined our economy?????? now that's a new one </font color> etc....if I did it" <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> </font color>