It's unpossible to leak declassified info.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Basic lessons for the fact-challenged libs on the board.

 

 

leaked, leak·ing, leaks

 

v.tr.

1. To permit (a substance) to escape or pass through a breach or flaw: a damaged reactor leaking radioactivity into the atmosphere.

2. Informal To disclose without authorization or official sanction: leaked classified information to a reporter.

[brinett9 0]

Let's just use a few dictionary definitions to cover up the months of lies.

 

Great idea.

[cmh6476 750]

It seems to me the president felt justified in his actions, but needed something more to make everyone believe what he was feeling. I dont think he was being deceitful, I really think he just wanted to show the american people what made him feel so strong in his convictions that going into Iraq was justified.

[davebg 0]

I am not a lib, but even I can see right through this.

 

Frankly, it reminds me of the time when Kerry was questioned about his SUV and he claimed that it wasn't his car, it was his family's car.

[parrot 789]

This needed it's own thread? Was there something wrong with the other two threads already in circulation on the subject?

[brinett9 0]

It seems to me the president felt justified in his actions, but needed something more to make everyone believe what he was feeling. I dont think he was being deceitful, I really think he just wanted to show the american people what made him feel so strong in his convictions that going into Iraq was justified.

But he also seems to have wanted to lie about how this helpful information got to the press.

[hoytdwow 202]

Isn't there more to the declassification process that the Prez just saying, "ok, this here is disclassifized."??

Seriously, doesn't it have to go through a committee or something?

 

I'm a GOP fundraiser

fixored

[cinciman7 2]

Impossible maybe but unpossible....never

[parrot 789]

It seems to me the president felt justified in his actions, but needed something more to make everyone believe what he was feeling. I dont think he was being deceitful, I really think he just wanted to show the american people what made him feel so strong in his convictions that going into Iraq was justified.

So he just kinda was "feeling" like we ought to invade Iraq. I feel so much better now.

 

Actually Chad, you summed up pretty nicely what happened right there. The President and his closest advisors decided early on that that they wanted to invade Iraq and set about fixing the intelligence around that decision so as to get more of us to buy in. I'm glad you can admit that.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Let's just use a few dictionary definitions to cover up the months of lies.

 

Great idea.

 

 

Care to list the "months of lies"?

[mighty_thor 115]

leak

Pronunciation: 'lEk

Function: verb

Etymology: Middle English leken, from Old Norse leka; akin to Old English leccan to moisten, Middle Irish legaid it melts

intransitive senses

1 a : to enter or escape through an opening usually by a fault or mistake <fumes leak in> b : to let a substance or light in or out through an opening

2 a : to become known despite efforts at concealment b : to be the source of an information leak

transitive senses

1 : to permit to enter or escape through or as if through a leak

2 : to give out (information) surreptitiously <leaked the story to the press>

 

looks like a leak to me.

[Q.Lazzarus 0]

Bush declassified the information 10 days after he allowed the leak to Libby. Clearly, the president has the authority to declassify information, but there are procedures in place that must be followed. Did CIA chief Tenant know of the declassification? NO. Did anyone know besides Cheney, and Libby? NO. It is clear what the intentions were. You can continue to be a Bush apologist all you want. The fact is, that this is the most corrupt administration in US history. The lies, deceipt, and hypocrisy continue to surface day after day. Bush has destroyed his legacy, and countless lives of others surrounding him.

[Uh-huh 0]

Bush has destroyed his legacy, and countless lives of others surrounding him.

 

Bush has a legacy?

[cmh6476 750]

don't worry, we'll find a better candidate to put up in '08

[Uh-huh 0]

don't worry, we'll find a better candidate to put up in '08

It would be pretty next to impossible to find a worse one.

 

You Republicans should just get together and drum W out of the GOP.

[kpbuckeye 2]

It would be pretty next to impossible to find a worse one.

 

You Republicans should just get together and drum W out of the GOP.

 

 

Good thing we have you democrats to equal out the ignorance.

 

Why one would want to be affiliated with either party is beyond me.

[parrot 789]

Bush has a legacy?

No, he is a legacy. Think Kent Dorfman here.

[torridjoe 0]

No, he is a legacy. Think Kent Dorfman here.

 

His brother DID have a cool car, though.

[parrot 789]

His brother DID have a cool car, though.

Yep, he was handed a cool car and focking trashed it. Seems like there might be another analogy or two happening here.

[torridjoe 0]

"he said legacies get asked to pledge automatically."

 

"Usually, unless the pledge in question is a total closet case...like Fred."

 

 

 

ergo, he deserved it.

[DanXIII 8]

RP, help me understand something:

 

If Bush declassified the intel in question, before the fact, then why the need for a special prosecutor? Indeed, why the need for an investigation at all?

 

I'm not trying to flame, I honestly would like your opinion on this matter. Would not Bush & Pals have been better served to simply inform Fitzgerald that the information was declassified so that Fitzgerald could go back to prosecuting drunk drivers and Bush & Pals could prosecute their war?

[torridjoe 0]

RP, help me understand something:

 

If Bush declassified the intel in question, before the fact, then why the need for a special prosecutor? Indeed, why the need for an investigation at all?

 

I'm not trying to flame, I honestly would like your opinion on this matter. Would not Bush & Pals have been better served to simply inform Fitzgerald that the information was declassified so that Fitzgerald could go back to prosecuting drunk drivers and Bush & Pals could prosecute their war?

 

And in any case, assuming for the moment that Plame's undercover status was part of the carrot Libby was to pass on to Miller and Woodward, on what possible basis did he think outing a covert agent was good for anything but preserving himself?

[DanXIII 8]

I guess my point is that, if Plame's identity was declassified BEFORE the fact, then why go to the trouble of hiring a special prosecutor and setting McClellan (not to mention Bush himself) to be forced to answer all sorts of embarassing questions? Why not just nip it in the bud, so to speak, and simply point out the obvious: The President of the United States, under his own authority, declassified Plame's identity, so it's a non-story?

 

If one can logically conclude that there was some merit in the investigation moving forward (to the point of empaneling a grand jury, no less) then it is illogical (and highly improbable) that Bush "declassified" the intel in question beforehand.

[TyCobb 0]

And in any case, assuming for the moment that Plame's undercover status was part of the carrot Libby was to pass on to Miller and Woodward, on what possible basis did he think outing a covert agent was good for anything but preserving himself?

 

Agreed. Luckily there was no covert agent involved.

[gocolts 300]

Agreed. Luckily there was no covert agent involved.

 

YES I informed everyone on this board that Plame was NOT "covert" when this story first came out.

[TyCobb 0]

YES I informed everyone on this board that Plame was NOT "covert" when this story first came out.

 

That's correct. It's a non-story. Well, except in the media's little "get Bush at all costs" bubble.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

RP, help me understand something:

 

If Bush declassified the intel in question, before the fact, then why the need for a special prosecutor? Indeed, why the need for an investigation at all?

 

I'm not trying to flame, I honestly would like your opinion on this matter. Would not Bush & Pals have been better served to simply inform Fitzgerald that the information was declassified so that Fitzgerald could go back to prosecuting drunk drivers and Bush & Pals could prosecute their war?

 

 

Because what people were whining about was the supposed "outing" of a covert agent (see torrid's post full of assumptions just below yours). Bush approved of the SC because he didn't out Plame, and he wanted the SC to look into that issue. Why? I have no idea since she clearly was not covert and therefore not covered by the statute.

 

Fitz found nothing there, so he is going after Libby with other charges.

 

Point being, if Bush hadn't gone that direction Uncle Teddy and the rest of the lib whine brigade would be screaming "Cover Up" until '08.

[paulinstl 295]

YES I informed everyone on this board that Plame was NOT "covert" when this story first came out.

 

Yeah, that it's it exactly. Why did they reveal her name in the first place? It was for one reason and one reason only. Her husband publicly stated(and was proven right) that Bush used a bogus report about Iraq and it's trying to attain uranium from Niger. The same report he was told months earlier to not use because of the shakiness of the source. The revelataion of Plame as his husband was done in an attempt to discredit Wilson and his findings on a CIA fact finding trip. The administration wanted to draw a picture of his trip as a "Junket" ordered by his wife. The only reason they had to discredit Wilson was to deflect some of the political backlash they were getting for citing false information in their rush to the justification of war.

 

In other words, and I'll go slowly here for you, whether she was "covert" at the time or not is completely irrelevant. The revelation of her name and that she was Wilson's wife was done for nothing more than political gain.

 

That's leadership with integrity.

[TyCobb 0]

In other words, and I'll go slowly here for you, whether she was "covert" at the time or not is completely irrelevant.

 

Hmmmmm.....Well, I guess the law wasn't broken then, right? Okay, I can live with that.

 

But discrediting Joe Wilson wasn't hard, since his "findings" never actually made their way into an official report. In fact, the truth is Wilson's trip initially supported the notion that Iraq sought the yellowcake.

 

It wasn't until Wilson chose to prostitute himself to the New York Times and turn into a political shrill that the President even needed to defend himself. But when someone calls you on the carpet as a liar, there's nothing wrong with responding with the facts. Which is what the President did.

 

Little Joe's wife got him the gig, he bungled it, and the President responded with the facts. And no laws were broken because there was no "covert agent" in the first place. Yep, that about sums it up.

[Franknbeans 46]

It seems to me the president felt justified in his actions, but needed something more to make everyone believe what he was feeling. I dont think he was being deceitful, I really think he just wanted to show the american people what made him feel so strong in his convictions that going into Iraq was justified.

and he'd still be wrong

[paulinstl 295]

Hmmmmm.....Well, I guess the law wasn't broken then, right? Okay, I can live with that.

 

But discrediting Joe Wilson wasn't hard, since his "findings" never actually made their way into an official report. In fact, the truth is Wilson's trip initially supported the notion that Iraq sought the yellowcake.

 

It wasn't until Wilson chose to prostitute himself to the New York Times and turn into a political shrill that the President even needed to defend himself. But when someone calls you on the carpet as a liar, there's nothing wrong with responding with the facts. Which is what the President did.

 

Little Joe's wife got him the gig, he bungled it, and the President responded with the facts. And no laws were broken because there was no "covert agent" in the first place. Yep, that about sums it up.

 

 

And that is the Newsmax response. None of which is correct. The CIA requested the Niger trip. Wilson was the logical choice. His wife did nothing more than mention that her husband had some deep connections to the leaders of Niger from his past Ambassador days. Wilson's findings clearly showed that the reports were unreliable at best, forgeries at worst. The only source to ever claim that Wilson's findings lent credit to the story was in the Senate Intel. Report under the "Additional Comments" section written by GOP senators and were not part of the bipartisan official findings.

 

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. Those are laws that were broken. Perjury was so serious a crime 8 years ago that your party deemed it an impeachable offense.

 

As far as your claim that Bush had to respond to the facts, why did he use the Niger story in the first place when he had been warned previously that the source was weak and the CIA couldn't verify the story? The administration has since come out and admitted that it should never have been used and that is false. That alone proves Wilson right.

 

They went after Wilson for revenge and political gain. In doing they threw his wife under the bus. Whether she was covert at the time, I don't know, but her employment was classified.

 

Like I said before, the actions from this administration were never about getting the truth out, they were about discrediting an informed critic in any way they could, including throwing his wife and her job under the bus. Disgusting!

[Uh-huh 0]

Bush Ordered Declassification, Official Says

By DAVID E. SANGER and DAVID JOHNSTON

Published: April 10, 2006

 

WASHINGTON, April 9 — A senior administration official confirmed for the first time on Sunday that President Bush had ordered the declassification of parts of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in an effort to rebut critics who said the administration had exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

 

But the official said that Mr. Bush did not designate Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., or anyone else, to release the information to reporters.

 

...

 

The disclosure on Sunday appeared intended to bolster the White House argument that Mr. Bush was acting well within his legal authority when he ordered that key conclusions of the classified intelligence estimate should be revealed to make clear that intelligence agencies believed Mr. Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa.

 

Moreover, the disclosure seemed intended to suggest that Mr. Bush might have played only a peripheral role in the release of the classified material and was uninformed about the specifics — like the effort to dispatch Mr. Libby to discuss the estimate with reporters.

 

The explanation offered Sunday left open several questions, including when Mr. Bush acted and whether he did so on the advice or at the request of Mr. Cheney. Still unclear is the nature of the communication between Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. Also unknown is whether Mr. Bush fully realized what information Mr. Cheney planned to disclose through Mr. Libby or was aware of the precise use that Mr. Cheney intended to make of the material.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/washingt...serland&emc=rss

 

Time to toss Cheney to the wolves...

 

Countdown to Cheney's resignation for "personal reasons"?

[D'ohmer Simpson 0]

The fact is, that this is the most corrupt administration in US history. The lies, deceipt, and hypocrisy continue to surface day after day. Bush has destroyed his legacy, and countless lives of others surrounding him.

Worst.And.Most.Corrupt.Presidency.Evah!

[TyCobb 0]

The CIA requested the Niger trip. Wilson was the logical choice. His wife did nothing more than mention that her husband had some deep connections to the leaders of Niger from his past Ambassador days.

 

That was Wilson's line too. Until the Senate committee showed him the memo his wife filed recommending him for the job.

 

Then I think his line became "Doh!", or something like that.

[paulinstl 295]

That was Wilson's line too. Until the Senate committee showed him the memo his wife filed recommending him for the job.

 

Then I think his line became "Doh!", or something like that.

 

 

So she recommended him for the job. He was an obvious choice because of his conections. Because she suggested his name, does that mean his findings were unusable? How do you get to that point?

 

As far as the Senate Intel Committee:

 

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

 

However, several CIA officials have since stated that the person who wrote this memo was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen.

 

So a former ambassador that knew, and had working relationships with two very high ranking ministers in Niger's government, wasn't trustworthy because his wife merely suggested his name? Can you say grasping at straws?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Once info is declassified it is a mute point how it was released, why it was released, or who released it.

[jerryskids 5,192]

Once info is declassified it is a mute point how it was released, why it was released, or who released it.

Interesting choice of grammatical errors.

[TyCobb 0]

Sixteen Words, Again

The myth of a great sin lives on.

 

 

In Sunday’s Washington Post Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman provide their gullible readers with a reprise of one of the great myths of the runup to the Iraq war: that President Bush used blatantly false information to justify the war.

 

The story revolves around various claims by several intelligence services that Saddam’s agents were trying to buy uranium in Africa. At least three European services — the French, the Italian, and the British — told Washington about the reported Iraqi efforts. Some of the reports were carefully described as "unconfirmed." Others were based on documents that were given to the American embassy in Rome by Italian journalists, some of which subsequently turned out to be forgeries. Still other reports were highly regarded by the Europeans, especially the British, which led President Bush to say, in his State of the Union speech (January 28, 2003): "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

 

The consensus at CIA was highly critical of these reports (most CIA officials were against the war and didn’t want to be blamed for it), but the White House, understandably very suspicious of the quality of CIA’s information and analysis, had pushed hard to get more information. Ambassador Joe Wilson had been sent by CIA to Niger in 2002 to snoop around, at least in part because he came highly recommended by his wife, Valerie Plame, herself a CIA officer, and opposed to the war.

 

After Bush’s State of the Union, Wilson claimed publicly that his trip had convinced him that the intelligence reports were groundless. However, he had reported privately — oddly enough in a verbal, not written, report to CIA — that a former high Nigerien official had said that the Iraqis had wanted high-level discussions about "increasing trade," which either meant uranium or goats.

 

Nonetheless, after the war began, Wilson’s public remarks earned him celebrity status in New York and Washington, and the White House decided to try to discredit him. Accordingly, Scooter Libby was authorized to talk to select journalists (which the Washington Post editorially described as a "good leak") about some of the information that suggested Saddam was trying to get uranium in Africa. Libby’s actions just showed up in a filing by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and prompted the Linzer-Gellman story.

 

Linzer and Gellman say, referring to the phony documents, that "the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before." And they add, in a triumphant tone reserved for the announcement of a knockout punch, that "the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story."

 

But Linzer and Gellman are wrong, indeed so clearly wrong that it takes one’s breath away. The British government did indeed have information about Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium in Africa, and it wasn’t connected to the forgeries. And the definitive British parliamentary inquiry — the Butler Commission Report of July, 2004 — not only did not deliver "a scathing critique," but totally endorsed the position of British intelligence.

 

The key paragraph in the Butler Report is this:

 

We conclude that...the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded. (Page 123, Paragraph 499)

 

The British Intelligence Service, MI6, still stands by that story, as does the French service, the DGSE. And the two agencies did not base their assessments on the phony documents (indeed, the DGSE knew all about those documents, which were peddled and probably drafted by one or two Italian agents of theirs). According to London Sunday Times reporter Mick Smith — an outspoken critic of the American/British use of intelligence to justify the war, and an outspoken critic of Bush — the Franco/British analysis is based in part on a letter from Iraq’s Ambassador to the Vatican, that specifically discussed uranium from Niger. Smith also adds the delicious tidbit that the pile of forgeries actually contained an accurate document about the visit of Saddam’s man in the Vatican to Niger in 1999.

 

So Linzer and Gellman are entirely wrong. Bush’s statement was true, and an extensive British parliamentary inquiry concluded that there was good reason for him, and Blair, to say so. Nonetheless, it is now part of the conventional wisdom to say that "the sixteen words" were a lie. How can that be? It’s not as if Bush’s critics need that detail in order to tear apart the bad intelligence work leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. There are enough errors to fill several volumes, as they have.

 

Part of the answer — the other part being the malevolence and sloppiness of the press — is that the White House made a total hash of the whole thing, as is their wont. Indeed, if you go back and read the painful statements regarding "the sixteen words," you will find at least one in which Steven Hadley, then deputy national-security adviser, took full "responsibility" for the sin of including those words in the State of the Union. Incredibly for the fine lawyer he is, Hadley seems to have confessed to a crime he didn’t commit.

 

Moreover, the entire Libby operation was misconceived. The White House was reacting to Wilson’s writings (and an earlier leak of his own to a New York Times columnist). Didn’t they know that Wilson’s actual report actually supported the president’s 16 words? If they did, they should have hung him with his own two-faced actions. If they did not, it was either because they didn’t press CIA for the whole story, or because CIA didn’t provide it, knowing it would have helped the White House to which they were legally obliged to tell the whole truth (maybe Fitzgerald, in his poor imitation of Savanarola, might like to look into that).

 

Once again, when it comes to telling their own story, this administration has few peers in its ability to make a mess. Maybe they caught a bug from the Washington Post?

[Badmojo1006 0]

Sixteen Words, Again

The myth of a great sin lives on.

In Sunday’s Washington Post Dafna Linzer and Barton Gellman provide their gullible readers with a reprise of one of the great myths of the runup to the Iraq war: that President Bush used blatantly false information to justify the war.

 

The story revolves around various claims by several intelligence services that Saddam’s agents were trying to buy uranium in Africa. At least three European services — the French, the Italian, and the British — told Washington about the reported Iraqi efforts. Some of the reports were carefully described as "unconfirmed." Others were based on documents that were given to the American embassy in Rome by Italian journalists, some of which subsequently turned out to be forgeries. Still other reports were highly regarded by the Europeans, especially the British, which led President Bush to say, in his State of the Union speech (January 28, 2003): "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

 

The consensus at CIA was highly critical of these reports (most CIA officials were against the war and didn’t want to be blamed for it), but the White House, understandably very suspicious of the quality of CIA’s information and analysis, had pushed hard to get more information. Ambassador Joe Wilson had been sent by CIA to Niger in 2002 to snoop around, at least in part because he came highly recommended by his wife, Valerie Plame, herself a CIA officer, and opposed to the war.

 

After Bush’s State of the Union, Wilson claimed publicly that his trip had convinced him that the intelligence reports were groundless. However, he had reported privately — oddly enough in a verbal, not written, report to CIA — that a former high Nigerien official had said that the Iraqis had wanted high-level discussions about "increasing trade," which either meant uranium or goats.

 

Nonetheless, after the war began, Wilson’s public remarks earned him celebrity status in New York and Washington, and the White House decided to try to discredit him. Accordingly, Scooter Libby was authorized to talk to select journalists (which the Washington Post editorially described as a "good leak") about some of the information that suggested Saddam was trying to get uranium in Africa. Libby’s actions just showed up in a filing by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, and prompted the Linzer-Gellman story.

 

Linzer and Gellman say, referring to the phony documents, that "the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before." And they add, in a triumphant tone reserved for the announcement of a knockout punch, that "the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story."

 

But Linzer and Gellman are wrong, indeed so clearly wrong that it takes one’s breath away. The British government did indeed have information about Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium in Africa, and it wasn’t connected to the forgeries. And the definitive British parliamentary inquiry — the Butler Commission Report of July, 2004 — not only did not deliver "a scathing critique," but totally endorsed the position of British intelligence.

 

The key paragraph in the Butler Report is this:

 

We conclude that...the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded. (Page 123, Paragraph 499)

 

The British Intelligence Service, MI6, still stands by that story, as does the French service, the DGSE. And the two agencies did not base their assessments on the phony documents (indeed, the DGSE knew all about those documents, which were peddled and probably drafted by one or two Italian agents of theirs). According to London Sunday Times reporter Mick Smith — an outspoken critic of the American/British use of intelligence to justify the war, and an outspoken critic of Bush — the Franco/British analysis is based in part on a letter from Iraq’s Ambassador to the Vatican, that specifically discussed uranium from Niger. Smith also adds the delicious tidbit that the pile of forgeries actually contained an accurate document about the visit of Saddam’s man in the Vatican to Niger in 1999.

 

So Linzer and Gellman are entirely wrong. Bush’s statement was true, and an extensive British parliamentary inquiry concluded that there was good reason for him, and Blair, to say so. Nonetheless, it is now part of the conventional wisdom to say that "the sixteen words" were a lie. How can that be? It’s not as if Bush’s critics need that detail in order to tear apart the bad intelligence work leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. There are enough errors to fill several volumes, as they have.

 

Part of the answer — the other part being the malevolence and sloppiness of the press — is that the White House made a total hash of the whole thing, as is their wont. Indeed, if you go back and read the painful statements regarding "the sixteen words," you will find at least one in which Steven Hadley, then deputy national-security adviser, took full "responsibility" for the sin of including those words in the State of the Union. Incredibly for the fine lawyer he is, Hadley seems to have confessed to a crime he didn’t commit.

 

Moreover, the entire Libby operation was misconceived. The White House was reacting to Wilson’s writings (and an earlier leak of his own to a New York Times columnist). Didn’t they know that Wilson’s actual report actually supported the president’s 16 words? If they did, they should have hung him with his own two-faced actions. If they did not, it was either because they didn’t press CIA for the whole story, or because CIA didn’t provide it, knowing it would have helped the White House to which they were legally obliged to tell the whole truth (maybe Fitzgerald, in his poor imitation of Savanarola, might like to look into that).

 

Once again, when it comes to telling their own story, this administration has few peers in its ability to make a mess. Maybe they caught a bug from the Washington Post?

 

 

Where did you get this steaming pile of poo? Surely not the Washington Post...

[paulinstl 295]

Where did you get this steaming pile of poo? Surely not the Washington Post...

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200604100726.asp

 

Wanna know about the author of this article?

 

Michael Ledeen was a major figure in the biggest foreign policy scandal of the Ronald Reagan administration. As a consultant of National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, Ledeen vouched for Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar, and met with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and officials of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and the CIA to arrange meetings with high-ranking Iranian officials and the much-criticized weapons-for-hostages deal with Iran that would become known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

 

 

Regarding regime change in the Middle East, in 2002 Ledeen criticized the views of former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, writing:

 

He fears that if we attack Iraq "I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror." One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists. That's our mission in the war against terror.

 

 

In a 2003 column entitled "A Theory," Ledeen outlined a possibility that France and Germany, both NATO allies of the United States, "struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs" to use "extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice" to bring down a potential American Empire. He stated, "It sounds fanciful, to be sure," but that, "If this is correct, we will have to pursue the war against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, into the heart of Western Europe. And there, as in the Middle East, our greatest weapons are political: the demonstrated desire for freedom of the peoples of the countries that oppose us.

 

Like I said, it's no wonder this article was unattributed. This guy is a freak. It would be hard to keep a straight face posting this stuff.