Is Rove It?

[mirror]

I think what the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald will be focusing on with his grand jury indictments will be the lies being told by Rove, Libby, & perhaps even Bush.

Wilson has inpeccible credentials and did his job reporting that Iraq was not involved in purchasing that Uranium from Niger. The Bush Administration from Bush on down have tried to discredit him to promote their illegal war in Iraq. Now all their lies and deceit are all coming back to bite them in the ass. It couldn't happen to nicer group of thugs.

[mirror]

The noose is tightening. Now even the third rankling House Republican is growing concerned:

Top Cheney Aide Among Sources in C.I.A. Story

Bush would be much better off to clean house but he won't. And because of that he is going to pay an enormous price before this is all over. It is obvious that the momentum has shifted drastically against the Republicans and Bush's popularity is now in the toilet.

Apart from the above, since the US invaded Iraq the world is much more dangerous place, with terrorism substantially on the rise.

[Guest eureka]

What intrigues me about this is what should be an even bigger story that is receiving no play at all.

It was reported a few days ago that some Congreemen have released the conclusions of studies on climate change that the White House had.

The studies were "doctored" before release to Congress to downplay the consequences and extent.

[mirror]

Good point.

These people that presently rule the White House just lie and deceive about almost everything it seems:

Cheney's office linked to Rove affair

U.S. Vice-President Richard Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with U.S. President George W. Bush's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims that neither aide was involved in the leak.

[BHS]

What intrigues me about this is what should be an even bigger story that is receiving no play at all.

It was reported a few days ago that some Congreemen have released the conclusions of studies on climate change that the White House had.

The studies were "doctored" before release to Congress to downplay the consequences and extent.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've grown to accept your abhorrence of linking to news articles that back up your story, but the least you could do was include the name Philip Cooney in your post so that others could Google with a little less work.

For posterity, here's an article about eureka's post (from the Golden State - motto: "Eureka" Lat. "I have discovered it"):

Modesto Bee

I don't know if altering reports on climate change to suit the Bush regime's message is going to gain any political traction, eureka. These guys seem to be more concerned with the fact that Philip's moved on to Exxon, which makes him a complete package as an environmental evildoer.

[BHS]

Good point.

These people that presently rule the White House just lie and deceive about almost everything it seems:

Cheney's office linked to Rove affair

U.S. Vice-President Richard Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with U.S. President George W. Bush's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims that neither aide was involved in the leak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's going to be so great when the Dems get back into the White House, so that I can take your place at blowing all of the fiddling, meaningless little deceptions that happen under every administration way out of proportion. I'm really going to enjoy stuffing all of this right back in your faces.

[mirror]

Good point.

These people that presently rule the White House just lie and deceive about almost everything it seems:

Cheney's office linked to Rove affair

U.S. Vice-President Richard Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was a source along with U.S. President George W. Bush's chief political adviser for a Time story that identified a CIA officer, the magazine reporter said Sunday, further countering White House claims that neither aide was involved in the leak.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's going to be so great when the Dems get back into the White House, so that I can take your place at blowing all of the fiddling, meaningless little deceptions that happen under every administration way out of proportion. I'm really going to enjoy stuffing all of this right back in your faces.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Declaring war under false pretenses is a meaningless, little deception. I think you are seriously missing the point here.

Second Bush official named in ‘leak' probe

The investigation has reopened the controversy over whether the administration misled the US public in the run-up to the Iraq war. It has also cast a rare light on the shadowy way in which both government officials and their critics use the media anonymously to tear down political opponents.

[Guest eureka]

Thanks for the confirmation that makes my point. There was no link just a 3 or 4 line snippett in a newspaper. For those who make such efforts to keep informed, I would have thought some would have read the significant parts of their news rather than spending their lives searching for opinion pieces that reinforce their prejudices.

[Shady]

I think what the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald will be focusing on with his grand jury indictments will be the lies being told by Rove, Libby, & perhaps even Bush

Well, in my opinion, Wilson's lies should be included in any investigation. He provided a number of inaccurate statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as to the news media.

Wilson's lies:

Lie #1: Implied that it was the Vice President's office which sent him on a fact finding mission to Niger.

"“The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer"

He also denied that his CIA employed wife had anything to do with the process.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter"

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly

The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion

Lie #2

His debunking of forged memos related to Iraq and Niger.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

I may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters"

The memos Joe Wilson was referring to hadn't been seen by him, and weren't in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Lie #3

Claimed his trip yielded information proving that Iraq never sought uranium from Niger.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998

One can obviously see that Joe Wilson has a major credibility problem.

Wilson has inpeccible credentials

Impeccible credentials? For what? Used-car salesman?

Declaring war under false pretenses is a meaningless, little deception

Declaring war under false pretenses is not meaningless little deception. Fortunately, that never happened.

[BHS]

Declaring war under false pretenses is a meaningless, little deception. I think you are seriously missing the point here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me? I thought we were discussing the topic of this thread, being Rove's supposed criminality in leaking info to reporters.

And to clarify a point, the US didn't declare war in the 2003 invasion. Or the 1991 invasion. Or Kosovo, or Panama, or Vietnam. They don't "declare war" anymore.

[BHS]

Thanks for the confirmation that makes my point. There was no link just a 3 or 4 line snippett in a newspaper. For those who make such efforts to keep informed, I would have thought some would have read the significant parts of their news rather than spending their lives searching for opinion pieces that reinforce their prejudices.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is incredibly rich, coming from you. I've read through a good portion of your posting history, and one of the comments I was going to make is that you appear to spend all of your time and energy looking for that one in a hundred news item that somehow backs up your pre-conceived notions, while ignoring the other 99 altogether.

FYI - I follow news stories from across the political spectrum, mostly on the web, but also in The Star, The Post, The CBC, CNN, Fox News, etc. You sit and read the Toronto Star but somehow, in your mind, you've got a broader view of news topics than I do. Whatever. You clearly have internet access, and there are a million search engines available on the web, not to mention a good deal of the Star's content. The least you could do is find the odd link to back up your posting.

[newbie]

And to clarify a point, the US didn't declare war in the 2003 invasion. Or the 1991 invasion. Or Kosovo, or Panama, or Vietnam. They don't "declare war" anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, dubya did declare a war on terror. From his state of the union, 2002:

"Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020129-11.html

[Guest eureka]

I spend very little time searching for anything and I certainly have better things to spend energy on.

I do manage to take in and understand what I do read or hear, though, and that is a great deal more than most people do either read or understand). I also have a strange obsession that makes me take time to think about the world and not to be swayed by hastily perused articles.

I would never have time to look over someone's posting history and, if you really looked over mine, then you also should take the time to try to let some of the information and thoughts sink into your consciousness.

[BHS]

And to clarify a point, the US didn't declare war in the 2003 invasion. Or the 1991 invasion. Or Kosovo, or Panama, or Vietnam. They don't "declare war" anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, dubya did declare a war on terror. From his state of the union, 2002:

"Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0020129-11.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not a formal declaration of war, as set out in the US Constitiution. They don't make those formal declarations anymore.

[BHS]

I spend very little time searching for anything and I certainly have better things to spend energy on.

I do manage to take in and understand what I do read or hear, though, and that is a great deal more than most people do either read or understand). I also have a strange obsession that makes me take time to think about the world and not to be swayed by hastily perused articles.

I would never have time to look over someone's posting history and, if you really looked over mine, then you also should take the time to try to let some of the information and thoughts sink into your consciousness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand your position. And I must add that though I disagree with most of what you've written, your posts have grown on me.

[mirror]

Declaring war under false pretenses is a meaningless, little deception. I think you are seriously missing the point here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excuse me? I thought we were discussing the topic of this thread, being Rove's supposed criminality in leaking info to reporters.

And to clarify a point, the US didn't declare war in the 2003 invasion. Or the 1991 invasion. Or Kosovo, or Panama, or Vietnam. They don't "declare war" anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think if you told Americans that they are not presently at war most would disagree with you, and especially the families of the 1,700 US soldiers that have died fighting in the war in Iraq.

There is a direct connection between Rove & Libby leaking information to attempt to discredit Wilson. Bush used the smear and lied to the American people to convince them they should support his wish to go to war. Or have you forgotten about the WMD that Saddam had? NOT!

[Argus]

I think what the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald will be focusing on with his grand jury indictments will be the lies being told by Rove, Libby, & perhaps even Bush

Well, in my opinion, Wilson's lies should be included in any investigation. He provided a number of inaccurate statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as to the news media.

If it were illegal to tell lies all politicians and most senior bureacrats would be in prison. Nobody cares about the he-says/she-says interpreations of what Wilson did or didn't say. The question is whether the White House deliberately leaked information about his wife being a CIA agent. In addition to being seriously sleazy that's a serious federal crime. If Rove, or Cheney himself was behind that then they need to spend some time in prison.

[Black Dog]

I'm aware that the Senate Intelligence Committee report is over a year old, however, I don't feel as though it makes Joe Wilson's lies any less relevant.

Dude, you should really read your own sources. If you'l look at the WaPo article again, you'll notice this little sidebar:

_____Correction_____

In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.

[BHS]

I think if you told Americans that they are not presently at war most would disagree with you, and especially the families of the 1,700 US soldiers that have died fighting in the war in Iraq.

There is a direct connection between Rove & Libby leaking information to attempt to discredit Wilson. Bush used the smear and lied to the American people to convince them they should support his wish to go to war. Or have you forgotten about the WMD that Saddam had? NOT!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The US is most assuredly at war. However, for technical reasons involving the constitutionally mandated seperation of powers the US no longer formally declares war before going into battle.

As to your second paragraph, it's a pity Rove went to the bother trying to discredit Wilson, as Wilson has done such an excellent job of discrediting himself.

[BHS]

I think what the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald will be focusing on with his grand jury indictments will be the lies being told by Rove, Libby, & perhaps even Bush

Well, in my opinion, Wilson's lies should be included in any investigation. He provided a number of inaccurate statements to the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as to the news media.

If it were illegal to tell lies all politicians and most senior bureacrats would be in prison. Nobody cares about the he-says/she-says interpreations of what Wilson did or didn't say. The question is whether the White House deliberately leaked information about his wife being a CIA agent. In addition to being seriously sleazy that's a serious federal crime. If Rove, or Cheney himself was behind that then they need to spend some time in prison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Again, under the very narrow conditions set out by the law you are referring to, no crime has been committed. It's not against the law to say that someone works for the CIA, unless that person is currently or has been recently under cover, which is not the case here. Furthermore you have to have gotten your information from a classified source, and the prosecution has to prove you knowingly intended to "out" a covert agent.

[mirror]

I think we can let the grand jury decide who's going to jail.

Guess who?

Guess who else?

It was fascinating to see Bush backtracking and sidstepping today at the White House. The fella is a compulsive liar.

[BHS]

Since this thread has degenerated into trolling tactics, I'm out. I'm leaving my subscription up in case anything new breaks in the story.

[Guest eureka]

Of course the US formally declares war before going into battle. There are no "Constitutional reasons relating to the separation of powers" to avoid that.

The President does need Congress's approval before a declaration. That is just one of the reasons for the illegitimacy of the war. Bush did not have that approval and he is actually guilty of sending his country into war in defiance of Congress as well as the UN.

[Shady]

Since this thread has degenerated into trolling tactics, I'm out. I'm leaving my subscription up in case anything new breaks in the story

I agree. There's nothing new to this story, except for the hyperbole throw around in this thread.

Bush did not have that approval and he is actually guilty of sending his country into war in defiance of Congress

Wrong. President Bush did have the approval of Congress. Unfortunately they handed over their Constitutional right by giving the authority to the President regarding the decision to declare war.

[BHS]

Of course the US formally declares war before going into battle. There are no "Constitutional reasons relating to the separation of powers" to avoid that.

The President does need Congress's approval before a declaration. That is just one of the reasons for the illegitimacy of the war. Bush did not have that approval and he is actually guilty of sending his country into war in defiance of Congress as well as the UN.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It does not declare war before going into battle, not since FDR. Here's an article from some peace outfit in the states that will fill in the details for you. Google around for more info, but trust me, I've looked at this a lot.

Veterans for Peace

As for defying the UN, find me another member of the UN who has ever gone to the Security Council for permission to go to war. And then think about all of the wars that have happened anyway. And while you're at it, take a look at the language of the seventeen resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire and explain to me how they don't mean that the US has the right to send troops back into Iraq to rectify the situation.