There is no confirmation that Saddam tried to purchase Yellow cake in Niger. Even the Bush administration withdrew that claim. Years of searching Iraq has proven there was no active nuclear program that threatened the US or for that matter anyone else. The BS from Bush and Cheney about the mushroom clouds were a lie. They could have allowed the weapons inspectors to learn what we have finally found out that there were no WMD in Iraq. All the rhetoric about the Iraq war being part of the war of the war on terrorism is so much baloney. Anyone that believes we have resolved or for that matter made ourselves materially safer from the radical Moslem extremists need only look at what is taking place in London. If anything, we have enraged the radical elements that hate us and given the amunition to recruit many more people that will kill themselves in order to harm us. We have given them a new training ground called Iraq. There was no major terrorist operation in Iraq before we invaded. Days turn into the weeks turn in the months and are now turning into years and the violence continues. When we leave it is very likely that country will disintegrate and we will have done absolutely nothing for either the Iraq people or to help secure the United States.

The CIA had said the outing of Mrs Plame WAS A SERIOUS MATTER. Thery know far better then anyone on JoeUser as the seriousness of this matter.

There is no confirmation that Saddam tried to purchase Yellow cake in Niger. Even the Bush administration withdrew that claim. Years of searching Iraq has proven there was no active nuclear program that threatened the US or for that matter anyone else. The BS from Bush and Cheney about the mushroom clouds were a lie. They could have allowed the weapons inspectors to learn what we have finally found out that there were no WMD in Iraq. All the rhetoric about the Iraq war being part of the war of the war on terrorism is so much baloney. Anyone that believes we have resolved or for that matter made ourselves materially safer from the radical Moslem extremists need only look at what is taking place in London. If anything, we have enraged the radical elements that hate us and given the amunition to recruit many more people that will kill themselves in order to harm us. We have given them a new training ground called Iraq. There was no major terrorist operation in Iraq before we invaded. Days turn into the weeks turn in the months and are now turning into years and the violence continues. When we leave it is very likely that country will disintegrate and we will have done absolutely nothing for either the Iraq people or to help secure the United States.

And just what the hell does "this" have to do with the topic at hand? Or are you changing topics again because you know your fighting a losing battle?

Gene, George Tenet is the Director of the CIA. He works for the CIA. As far as I know, he is not an undercover agent.

Have I violated his undercover agent status by reporting this information to you?

In the same manner, Rove didn't out Plame unless he knew she was a secret agent, and then identified her as a secret agent to somebody else.

Since we know he didn't tell anybody that she was a secret agent, and since it looks like he didn't know she was a secret agent, I'm having trouble figuring out how he managed to reveal that she was a secret agent.

---

But okay, let's say you're right: by identifying Valerie Plame as a CIA employee, Rove threatened national security and "outed" her as a secret agent.

So where's your outrage for Joe Wilson, who was the first and most prominent person to say, in public, explicitly, that his wife wasn't just an emloyee, but a secret agent?

Not only does Wilson seem to have a better idea of his wife's actual role in the CIA than Rove did (as you say, Rove had no need to know she was a secret agent--which would explain why he never actually gave out that she was a secret agent), but he also revealed more than Rove did.

After all, it wasn't Rove on the cover of Vanity Fair, saying "yes, Valerie Plame is a secret agent"--it was Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame.

Please help me understand why what Rove did is worse than what Plame herself did.

Rove was the person who identified Plame as a CIA Agent.

Identified to whom? And do NOT say Cooper as that has already been proven to be false!

That was classified and Rove having a clearence broke the security law by giving classified information when the person has a secutity clearence.

This I believe to also be false. If it was true in "any" sense Rove would most assuredly be the target of the special prosecutor's investigation! Which has proven that he is not.

Wasn't Wilson claiming that Bush's SOU statement that British intelligence had information suggesting Iraq had sought nuclear materials from Niger was a lie and that his report proved it?

you said wilson blatantly misrepresented his original report. if you're referring to his new york times article entitled "what i didn't find in africa", wilson's summary of what he reported is in complete agreement with the reports generated by the agencies which debriefed him as reported by the senate committee's report.

what he said about the 'state of the union' speech is this:

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses

The Senate committee concluded that his report actually buttressed the suspicion that Iraq had sought to obtain such materials from Niger

there's no question iraq sent a trade delegation to niger in 1999. former niger prime minister mayaki said, according to wilson, he was contacted by someone who told mayaki the iraqis wanted to meet with him to discuss 'expanding commercial relations.' mayaki told wilson he interpreted that phrase to mean they wanted to buy uranium. that interpretation was never tested because, mayaki told wilson, nobody discussed uranium sales during the meeting.

how anyone--other than a psychic detective--could conclude anything on the basis of that anecdote is beyond me. before arriving at that conclusion, however, the committee notes: "because cia and dia analysts did not believe (wilson's) report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers."

it's gotta be one or the other right?

Jeez Miler, do you have to always result to petty name calling when you're out of ammo?

I've been saying this over and over. If a rightie like drmiler resorts to name calling, he's patted on the back. A lefty like dabe gets booted off the forums. A freakin' disgusting double standard here at ju.

Back to the issue at hand, I do think that Rove and Libby will eventually be indicted. As much as dubya is trying to backtrack and flip flop on his rationale for keeping those two dogs, he'll evenutally have to back off. When they do get indicted, I wonder what the righties here will think. Oh, I know........ an indictment is not tantamount to a conviction. Uh oh, here's that double standard thing again. Clinton was indicted for lying to Congress about getting a blow job from his pet intern. But, he wasn't convicted. Hey, does that stop anyone from thinking he's guilty of errrr............ high crimes and misdeameaners? Nah, cuz lying about a blow job is NOT committing high crimes. Divulging a CIA operative's identity to the press is definitely a traitorous act. Double freaking standards.

Cooper did testify that Rove was the FIRST person to identify Plame as a CIA Agent. That was in the Time Article and he said so on NATIONAL TV! drmiler you are DEAD WRONG!!!!! Read the TIME article!!!!!

I DID! you ignorant jerk! What the hell do you think I quoted to you? You know something...you're just not worth it! Your incipient arrogance is only matched by your over-bearing ignorance. And quite frankly you bore me to tears with it.

kingbee -

"Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in
March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For
most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of
Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their
assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq."

That's hardly what Wilson has been publicly braying ever since. He also claimed in his book that his wife had "nothing to do" with his getting the Niger job. Using the logic the left is applying to Rove, that's a hanging offense, since we now know she did have "something" to do with it. As Podesta claims about Rove, Wilson's credibility should be considered in tatters. Rove had no more role in "outting" Wilson's wife than Plame had in getting Wilson the job by that standard, so they should be leaving Rove as alone as they are leaving Wilson & his wife.

Cheers,
Daiwa

That's hardly what Wilson has been publicly braying ever since

just so we're both on the same page, to which statement or statements are you referring?

as to the senate committee's conclusion that wilson's report lent additional credibility to the original reports, one has to wonder what the hell they were thinking...and why, if they were correct, the person or persons who found the original reports more credible after reading the wilson debriefing reports is/are still collecting a government paycheck.

the most important fact that can be ascertained by the committee's report about niger is the inr was right. not only was it right in this case...it has a much better record than the cia or any other intelligence agency overall.

what the committee report doesn't state outright--although it is readily apparent even on the first read--is there were people in the cia who were determined to make facts fit their opinions. how else to explain the persistence with which credibilty kept being reinvested in a document that is indisputably a very sloppy hoax?

if anything they provide the best argument i've seen to date for employing only women as analysts in the intelligence community because no woman i know woulda had even the slightest problem getting this one right.

let's look at the situation:

a. niger is the 2nd poorest country in the world. b. niger's major export is uranium. c. niger knew the us has plenty of money to buy uranium. d. niger also knew the us does not want its uranium getting into the hands of its enemies.

considering all of the above, if you were an official in the government of niger, what would you say in hopes of getting the us to commit to buying all of it's uranium?

'hey the iraqis might wanna buy some uranium from us. better you should buy it to keep it off the market.'

which is pretty much what wilson reported he was told according to the senate committee report.

Jesus - we're back to the "not a good student" rant? Leave history to time and the historians, Gene, and get a grip.

Cheers,
Daiwa

The experience and knowledge a person brings to a job has a grest deal to do with how successful they will be. My point is very basic- Bush came to the White House with NO segnificant knowledge or experience with ANYTHING! His performance is totally in line with his resume!

INR was of the opinion that Niger would be unwilling/unable to sell uranium to Iraq. The point of contention was whether Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from countries in Africa, including Niger. Two different things.

certainly are two different things. check out page 36 of the senate committee report (the beginning of the niger section). this all started because of the fraudulent report which purported to reveal a deal between iraq and niger by which iraq obtained or was obtaining uranium from niger.

everything that followed was a result of attempts to determine the veracity or accuracy of that report.

wilson could find no indication of any such transaction or any transfer of uranium from niger to iraq. nor could the bush administration's ambassador to niger at that time (i'm not sure if she is still posted there).

no one who checked into the matter found anything to support the fraudulent claim.

i think it's fairly safe to say iraq wished to obtain materials with which to create nuclear weapons and may even have attempted to do so. it's even more safe to say that's hardly earthshaking news, but when did that become a reason to invade a sovereign nation?

and if that's the standard, why the hell did we not start with north korea or iran?

i wish i'd find a million bucks when i'm walking to the grocery store tonite. when i used to regularly stop by my local bank branch, i'd frequently speak with the manager. during at least a few of those conversations, i expressed an interest in expanding my commercial interests with the bank. it has occured to me at various times that one of those managers might be the key to some sorta scheme to obtain a large sum of money (both licit and illicit schemes ). despite our congenial relationship, i'm guessing bank managers secretly figure everyone who enters their business wants to acquire some of its money. why don't they just arrest us at the door?