Because he discredited the Administration of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
Printable View
Because he discredited the Administration of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
ok, so i've been reading about Fitzgerald...
given that he seems to be a fair, hard inquisitor, what are the avenues of attack that those opposed to the indictments can use to smear him?
about the only thing i've seen so far has been the charge of overzealousness.
Wow still in full spin mode. Could it be because the mans a liar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Germaanse Strijder
I've been following this thread with some interest. However could someone enlighten me as to why this Wilson fellow is considered a liar?
Because he discredited the Administration of course.
He lied about what he found in Niger and he lied saying it was the VP who sent him and not his wife. But as I said the senate intelligence comittee is a rightwing blog.Quote:
Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.
Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.
LINK
If you read the actual report you get a different take on the matter:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
1. Who ordered up the trip...there isn't anything there that really says who first decided the trip was needed. There was an effort underway to seek confirmation. A State Dept. analyst wrote a report during the same timeframe in response to a Cheney request for info on the same matter.
2. As to substance of what Wilson said in his verbal report, we are again getting this through a suspect filter--apparently one with a view about yellowcake than has been proven to be the case. That part hits you in the face when you read it.
3. The "expanding commercial relations" part is fun because it is 3rd hand hearsay that never even got to 1st base. Reporting it is the proper thing to do, doesn't mean you actually put much creedence in it.
4. If you actually attempt to read the 521 page pdf of the report (the declassified portions,) you find that the Yellowcake sales reports were already discredited as of Nov. 20, 2001, but just wouldn't die.
5. The Yellowcake sales report was repeated in more detail, and again doubted by portions of the intelligence community. Cheney asked for more info. The info he got says that parts are still in doubt. The report does not address specifically if further follow up was requested by Cheney, Tenet, etc. Only that the Counterproliferation group was seeking confirmation. In this atmosphere there is one who claims Plame "offered up" her husband's name--a logical choice considering his background. It clearly does NOT say she concocted the whole thing, or who actually decided this should be checked out. Whoever made the initial request for follow up is NOT part of the document (at least not in the visible portions.) The request for concurrence on the idea to send him by her boss to someone is blanked out, so I don't know who that is.
6. The Dept. of State doubted the intelligence and at least one of them wrote a report with the understanding it was at Cheney's request. Since he was aware of parallel work by Wilson, it is also reasonable for Wilson to conclude exactly the same thing in his own trip. What Wilson could not have known is that his info was not relayed by the CIA Director of Operations.
7. Did Wilson believe he contributed more than he actually did? Quite possibly. It is very probable that he would have been left with an erroneous impression of how his information was interpreted. The CIA person in the middle seems to have had a different agenda (an erroneous one as it turned out.)
8. Was Wilson sent because of Cheney's request for info? Most likely, whether Cheney knew so or not.
9. Despite what is being claimed, Wilson's statements actually reinforce the same conclusion as others at Dept. of State were getting--that the source (later proven to be a forgery) was wrong.
10. There are noteworthy parts that tell of dissent in the CIA on this matter, with individuals not agreeing with management on this. In light of this Wilson's claims seem reasonable.
11. As to the forged document part of Wilson's comments, they appear dubious.
At any rate, there is 100% certainty that at least one member of the Administration, and possibly more, tried to settle a score by outing Plame. Her view appears to have been that the yellow cake claim was nonsense. And she turned out to be right. Her critics on the other hand, turned out to be wrong.
Most importantly, I remember concurring with several conservative friends when the "evidence" of WMD was rolled out prior to the invasion. Our unanimous response was, "That's it???" We were not comfortable with the paucity of any hard information. While we agreed that Iraq needed to be concluded and originally expected confirmation of WMD's, the "evidence" left us underwhelmed. Why didn't the Administration have any reasonable amount of skepticism? WMD was the wrong reason to go to war with Iraq, and we are paying the price for that now.
So your denying that she recomended he went on the trip? LOLQuote:
Who ordered up the trip...there isn't anything there that really says who first decided the trip was needed. There was an effort underway to seek confirmation. A State Dept. analyst wrote a report during the same timeframe in response to a Cheney request for info on the same matter.
As to the reast of your post.What part of this dont you understand
From what I read theres no doubt they tried to get it from Niger. Thats not what Wilson said. He lied and theres no way around it.Quote:
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.
Here debate this
LINK
Jeeeebus.
One last attempt.
I don't think you understand just how difficult it is to prosecute under the "Covert Agent Identity Protection Act". You don't have to just prove that somebody outed a covert agent. You have to prove that they knew that they were outing a covert agent, and that they knew that the US was taking "affirmative measures" to keep the identity of that agent hidden. LINKQuote:
Do you read what you post?
Quote:
into POSSIBLE violations of federal criminal laws, including: Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel)
You do know what possible means do you not?...
Again if she were covert Libby would have been charged with more than he has...
No its because she was not covert and in no way vcould he be charged under that statute. If so he would have prosecuted him under that statute. - Gawain
In essence, it is like trying to prosecute someone for Murder 1 instead of Murder 2 or Manslaughter. To prosecute someone under Murder 1 you have to prove premeditation, which indicates intent. To successfully prosecute someone under the Covert Agent Identity Protection Act you have to prove both knowledge and intent.. which is not easy.
In the Plame case, that means that in order to indict Libby under the Act, the prosecutor would have to have been able to come up with hard evidence to prove that not only did Libby disclose Plame's identity, but that he also had known Plame's status, and that he knew that the government was taking "affirmative measures" to keep her identity hidden.
Now, there was a lot of evidence indicating that Libby knew that Plame worked for the CIA, and there was even evidence indicating that he should have known that she was likely a covert agent. However, proving that he did know isn't very easy. You'd almost need a confession from a co-conspirator, or a written document from Libby exposing his knowledge in order to prove intent in this case. Apparently neither showed up. That allows plenty of room for reasonable doubt in a jury. As such, Fitzgerald went for the indictments he knew he could successfully prosecute, and left out the charge that would have been difficult to prove... and distracting for a jury.
The evidence that Libby should have known there was a strong possibility that she was a covert agent was this item from the indictment:
"On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA." (Page 5, Item 9)
Now, as Josh Marshall put it the other day: "The Counterproliferation Division (CPD) is part of the CIA's Directorate of Operations, i.e., not the Directorate of Intelligence, the branch of the CIA where 'analysts' come from, but the DO, where the spies, the 'operatives', come from... Libby's a long time national security hand. He knows exactly what CPD is and where it is. So does Cheney. They both knew. It's right there in the indictment." LINK
So, it seems that you could prove that Libby and Cheney would both have had a strong reason to suspect that Plame might be a covert agent, but without further evidence you'd have a hard time proving that they knew beyond a reasonable doubt.
So when you say that Fitzgerald WOULD HAVE charged Libby under the statute if Plame had been covert... it's just not true. The prosecutor and the grand jury are only going to go for those indictments that look viable; and without evidence of those key pieces of knowledge on Libby's part it would be impossible to prove that a violation of the act had occurred.
Now, what they may be doing is setting up an ironclad case against Libby on perjury and obstruction of justice... so that they can try to get him to turn on Rove and Cheney... but that's a separate issue.
Well they could easily have started with confirming that she was indeed a covert agent. What was there to be lost from the CIA rleasing such information? Also your illustrating my point. It was obvious right from the start that this investigation was going no where.Quote:
don't think you understand just how difficult it is to prosecute under the "Covert Agent Identity Protection Act". You don't have to just prove that somebody outed a covert agent. You have to prove that they knew that they were outing a covert agent, and that they knew that the US was taking "affirmative measures" to keep the identity of that agent hidden. LINK
Turn on them for what? Your now trying to claim that even though she wasnt a covert agent they knew she was and intentionaly outed her? Once more the first question to be asked is was she a covert agent. If the answer to that is no and as far as anyone has said thats the answer, thenn this investigation was waste of time and taxpayer money. I now demand that the CIA answers this question as it would tell us whats really going on here. ~DQuote:
Now, what they may be doing is setting up an ironclad case against Libby on perjury and obstruction of justice... so that they can try to get him to turn on Rove and Cheney... but that's a separate issue.
Also the statute requires you to have served overseas within the last 5 years. Another criteria she does not meet.Quote:
.
A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.
"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times. . . . In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.
Do I need to speak more S-L-O-W-L-Y for you? It is not clear who decided a trip was needed according to the report. The report says the VP had asked for more info--but apparently without a specific request. Her group was considering how to address it. She kicked out his name as a natural choice for checking it out. She didn't have authorization power, and apparently the general request didn't come from her. (Got it now, or am I going to have to go through this a 3rd time?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I get the opposite impression from the Senate Intelligence Report. The article is drawing an erroneous conclusion.Quote:
As to the reast of your post.What part of this dont you understand
Then you should try reading something more balanced, even the Senate report. The yellow cake claim has been debunked, and folks were skeptical of it at the time. There is no evidence to support the claim. That came out in the report as well--although the forgery parts appear to be blacked out. The quantity reported as attempted was for *IRAN*, not Iraq. Wilson reported what he heard, the CIA didn't pass it on (something he wouldn't have known most likely.) The other was extremely vague 3rd party hearsay, that never even broached the subject. What he heard supported the prior assessment--and was in contrast to the claim being pushed repeatedly and more forcefully by a foreign intelligence source--apparently the forgery by the Italians. That is what was driving this. Hence, the retraction of the claim by the Administration, CIA, etc.Quote:
From what I read theres no doubt they tried to get it from Niger. Thats not what Wilson said. He lied and theres no way around it.
And I'll remind you...that isn't what the Fitzgerald investigation is about either. So you can try to sidetrack and spin all you want, but this is about illegal actions and abuse of power by the Bush Administration. Such abuse of power would concern a true libertarian for example. ~;p
From: "Justice launches probe into CIA leak"
Knight Ridder News, October 1st 2003
Quote:
The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence.
"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. LINK
Aurelian,
Isn't if fun watching a "Libertarian" defend fascist tactics? ~D
I didnt say she authorised it I said she recomended it. Would you like to see her memo on the matter? Now is that clear enough for you? Your parsing things here. Do you really think the VP would send Wilson there and not have him sign the standard secrecy agreement and then let him gome back and lie to the press about it? Something really stinks here.Quote:
Do I need to speak more S-L-O-W-L-Y for you? It is not clear who decided a trip was needed according to the report. The report says the VP had asked for more info--but apparently without a specific request. Her group was considering how to address it. She kicked out his name as a natural choice for checking it out. She didn't have authorization power, and apparently the general request didn't come from her. (Got it now, or am I going to have to go through this a 3rd time?)
I dont see how. The report practiaclly came right out and called wilson a liar.Quote:
I get the opposite impression from the Senate Intelligence Report. The article is drawing an erroneous conclusion
Thas a bunch of Bunk~:joker:Quote:
The yellow cake claim has been debunked
Thats not what its about. Its supposed to be about whether anyone outed a covert CIA agent. Again if you could prove this , this Libertarian would be all for impeaching Bush. Where you get this idea I see the man as being capable of doing no wrong is beyond me.Quote:
And I'll remind you...that isn't what the Fitzgerald investigation is about either. So you can try to sidetrack and spin all you want, but this is about illegal actions and abuse of power by the Bush Administration. Such abuse of power would concern a true libertarian for example.
Isnt that what I said ? Again if she were a covert operative ahy doesnt the CIA say so. It has nothing to loose by it ? I also qutoed a CIA operative who claims theres no way she was covert. On top of that you havent addressed the 5 year limit on being out of the country.Quote:
"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. LINK
Ive made my own list of things I think hes botched. That I fail to accept yours and others accusations as gospel is where we have our differences.Quote:
Where you fail to acknowledge the multitudes of misdeeds done by his administration, is where the idea comes from.
What a moronic statement that is. I dont defend any fascist tactics. Again prove that what you claim is true and Ill lead the pack in impeaching him. The funniest thing on these boards is your trying to claim not to be a liberal but a moderate independent.Quote:
Aurelian,
Isn't if fun watching a "Libertarian" defend fascist tactics
Yes. Because he doesn't make the request directly. He asks a question, the bureaucracy tries to figure out how to address it, someone gets and assignment. Wilson's mistake is in believing his role was central to confirming or rejecting the yellow cake story. It wasn't. (Having delusions of grandeur isn't criminal.) Those wanting to believe it (like you) read his findings one way; those who didn't believe it, like the Intelligence and Research staffer read it the other way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Like going to war under false pretenses? Losing our international credibility, 2,000 Amercan lives (and counting), 100+ billion dollars (and counting), and losing our initiative on the war on terror?Quote:
Something really stinks here.
Yeah, a whole lot of things stink about this, but Joe Wilson isn't a big enough fish to account for all that stink.
Have you actually read it? It rightly goes after inconsistencies, but even reading from the other side what he apparently conveyed is essentially the same failure to confirm the story as before. Hence, it wasn't considered with reporting to the VP according to the DO. What he actually reported to the CIA hasn't been shown to be materially incorrect.Quote:
I dont see how. The report practiaclly came right out and called wilson a liar.
Realizing that the committees are controlled by the GOP, it is exactly the sort of tone I would expect in the report.
Is that why everyone has disavowed it? Bush, Powell, Tenet, Blair...everyone involved.Quote:
Thas a bunch of Bunk~:joker:
Unless all those statements in the indictment prove to be false, Libby did knowingly out a covert agent. I hope he gets charged with it eventually, despite the rather rigorous limitations of the statute.Quote:
Thats not what its about. Its supposed to be about whether anyone outed a covert CIA agent.
So he picked wilson but didnt know it. Come on at least come up with something that makes ali ttle sense.Quote:
Yes. Because he doesn't make the request directly. He asks a question, the bureaucracy tries to figure out how to address it, someone gets and assignment.
If he did I hope he goes to jail. Again you have to prove she was a covert agent and again if they could do that why didnt the prosecutorindicte him on those charges? Its been established by him that indeed it was Libby who outed her. Even though in reality she was outed before this . So all he need do then is prove she was covert . That would seem to me to be pretty simple.Quote:
Unless all those statements in the indictment prove to be false, Libby did knowingly out a covert agent. I hope he gets charged with it eventually, despite the rather rigorous limitations of the statute.
You are in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Yeah, right. I'll get my skates ready.Quote:
Again prove that what you claim is true and Ill lead the pack in impeaching him.
You haven't been paying attention have you? I don't claim to be a moderate--except when it represents the only applicable "other" category. I have views on various ends and sometimes moderate views, but I am independent. Federalist independent, would be closer.Quote:
The funniest thing on these boards is your trying to claim not to be a liberal but a moderate independent.
Makes a lot of sense. I didn't say that he picked Wilson, just that he asked for more info and the wheel churned. Pretty common when working for a big company or other bureaucracy. Some exec asks for info, you get a cascade of notes until somebody gets an assignment (and often a lot of help and reviews before you give them an answer that gets passed back up and sanitized to fit their own view.) Whether or not she recommended him for that assignment still doesn't alter the fact that a request for info was perceived, and apparently there were folks who believed their audience was the VP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I'm tired of the discussion with you, Gawain. The appropriate smiley is always this one when conversing with you: :wall:
Yeah, exactly. If she hadn't been covert there would have been no crime to investigate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurelian
Fitzgerald would simply have shut the inquiry down.
My guess is that he hasn't been charged with outing a CIA agent because it might be hard to prove that (a) he was the source, and (b) that he knowingly outed a covert agent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
However, what Fitzgerald does have is a strong case that Libby perjured himself repeatedly. They are very serious charges that carry up to thirty years in jail. It will be interesting to see if he squeals to get a mitigated sentence.
:laugh: Only if you're smoking crack while you're reading it. :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Harvest
But seriously, anyone who takes the time to read even the conclusions at the end of the report would see how badly you're spinning the text of the report with your little list.
And your full of shite. I said if they if use these tactics then they should go to jail. Talk about someone being a LIAR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I dont defend any fascist tactics.
You are in this thread.
He asked for more information on what Niger? Again his wife wrote a memo asking he be sent. The VP had bothing to do with it. He stated his wife had NOTHING to do with it. Now thats a lie and you know it.Quote:
Makes a lot of sense. I didn't say that he picked Wilson, just that he asked for more info and the wheel churned
Well it seems thats what he should have done then. The original investigation was launced because classified material had been leaked not because a covert agent had been outed Again if they could prove she was covert than Libby should be facing far worse charges. He seems to already believe it was he who outed her. It was clear from the very start that they could never prove this as she again doesnt meet the 5 year requirement of the staute and Ill remind you all once more the person who drafted the statute says theres no way it was meant to apply in such a case.Quote:
Yeah, exactly. If she hadn't been covert there would have been no crime to investigate.
Fitzgerald would simply have shut the inquiry down.
What you say you would do does not at all match with the views you have been expressing. I do not believe you for a second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
If it has to be proven to you without a shadow of a doubt, then you will be anything but leading the pack. Instead, you will be last man on the defensive ramparts and the last to surrender. ~;)
I don't know what Wilson actually knew, neither do you, nor do I have full record of everything he has ever said. Considering his wife was a covert agent, there are some limitations to what he could say. I do know from reading the report that several analysts at the same time were also looking to provide more info to Cheney on the forgery related claims. So the wheels were in motion, and as the result of Cheney's questions. Doesn't mean Cheney lied about sending Wilson, etc. or that Wilson lied about Cheney.Quote:
He asked for more information on what Niger? Again his wife wrote a memo asking he be sent. The VP had bothing to do with it. He stated his wife had NOTHING to do with it. Now thats a lie and you know it.
That's the really pretty funny looking at it. You have one person who thought they had a larger role than they did. The CIA decided not to forward on his limited info. He got upset believing it had been sent to the VP, went public (since he was not restricted on the matter.) The Administration then panicked. As a result Libby was at the center of trying to discredit Wilson and the CIA any way he could, including illegal means. He was discussing parts of this with Rove, Fleischer, Cheney, etc. The Whitehouse then later denied that they had a role in this, when it would be clear that they did--since they were all involved in various fashions.
Plame is not allowed to speak out on the matter. The CIA have her gagged.
On a fundamental basis, what Libby did (outing an agent) was wrong and he knew it. It was an abuse of power and bad for national security as well. The Administration knew he and Rove had been telling lies about this months ago (since they had both lied about not being involved in the first place), yet they were left in their jobs. Spin, spin, spin all you like, but this is why you have no credibility in my eyes: a "Libertarian" defending clear abuse of power = not credible. You are relying on the "go after the rape victim" legal tactic.
Ive said from the start that if the alligations are true he should go to jail. Do you really think I give two craps if you believe me or not?Quote:
What you say you would do does not at all match with the views you have been expressing. I do not believe you for a second.
Is nice to know that you know me better than I do myself. Ive never wittnessed such arrogance on these boards.Quote:
If it has to be proven to you without a shadow of a doubt, then you will be anything but leading the pack. Instead, you will be last man on the defensive ramparts and the last to surrender.
You mean like outing her long before Novack wrote the column. If he was so worried about his wifes cover why did he write those lies. Did he think the administration just sit back and take it? Again he started it and then when he was shown to be a liar and a partisan hack tried to hide behind the CIA and his wife.Quote:
don't know what Wilson actually knew, neither do you, nor do I have full record of everything he has ever said. Considering his wife was a covert agent, there are some limitations to what he could say.
And what happened to this?
Is that what you always do when you lose? :stupido3:Quote:
I'm tired of the discussion with you, Gawain. The appropriate smiley is always this one when conversing with you:
Yes, you are giving me the impression that it concerns you. Claiming you will "lead the pack" doesn't mesh with dragging your feet clinging to any defense claim that comes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I know little about you other than your political views expressed here, but you've been as close to a 100 percenter as I have found for conservative GOP politics. Doesn't really matter to me how you claim to vote, as I'm basing it on the opinions you express. Hint: being so fond of calling folks liberals really hurts your libertarian claim.Quote:
Is nice to know that you know me better than I do myself. Ive never wittnessed such arrogance on these boards.
Perhaps he wrote the story because he believed the law would protect his wife's status? Both of them appear to have believed (rightly or wrongly) that the CIA analysis was ignored--and parts of it certainly were, but the problem was internal to the CIA. Was it naive to think she could remain undercover with that story about? Probably. That isn't outing her though. It takes someone else to do that. Whether or not he writes a story does not give the Admin cart blanche to commit a crime. He didn't out his wife, Libby and company did. Keep repeating the lie, Gawain. It is the same lie Libby is using, and it looks like you are cut from the same cloth as him since you are propagating the same laughable lie. (Laughable since Libby couldn't seem to find anyone that knew she was a spy until he planted the info, and that included people some people in the Administration!) Time to put that lie to bed. I've yet to hear anything that supports the claim that she was effectively outed until Dubya's team set to work outing here.Quote:
You mean like outing her long before Novack wrote the column. If he was so worried about his wifes cover why did he write those lies. Did he think the administration just sit back and take it? Again he started it and then when he was shown to be a liar and a partisan hack tried to hide behind the CIA and his wife.
Lose? Hardly. But I don't expect anymore reason from you than the wall would provide.Quote:
Is that what you always do when you lose? :stupido3:
No, it's really to the point that replying to you is a snoozefest. :dozey: You grab the latest "talking points" (in this case the same tired lines that Libby has been using from the outset) and repeat them. I would prefer something a bit more intellectually stimulating as this is just tedious. ~:rolleyes:
It's amazing that even today, Wilson is still peddling his lies. He still claims his wife didn't recommend him for the trip to Niger and claims that he disproved attempts by Iraq to buy uranium when the opposite are true in both cases.