Security Leaks

[volinbham]

Wrong, Cheney was the one who pushed the CIA into sending someone to Africa.

If you read the Senate report you'll see that Cheney asked to know more about the Niger/Iraq connection.

He did not request that they send anyone, let alone Joe Wilson.

The CIA finally decided it might be useful to send someone.

As the report clearly shows - Wilson's wife was instrumental in getting him chosen. She reportedly told him that he was to go investigate some "crazy report" that Iraq was trying to secure uranium (note she had already made up her mind). Findings from the report also suggest that prior to meeting with the former Nigerian officials, Wilson made statements to the ambassador to Niger that he didn't believe the reports either.

The CIA never presented the results of Wilson's trip to Cheney (eventhough Wilson claimed the Cheney and Bush saw it). They felt Wilson's finding added very little and if anything SUPPORTED the notion that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium.

According to the Senate report, Wilson also "misrepresented" what the CIA told him prior to the report. He included items that would have required some additional security clearance (security clearance that he didn't have).

Wilson was on the Kerry payroll when he went public. His wife had been giving money to the DNC. Neither issues are an indictment but they might make one question the veracity of Wilson's claims especially given the number of mischaracterizations uncovered regarding his trip and its origins.

By the way, you can read the Senate report for yourself on the Senate website. There is a section on Niger and a subsection on Wilson.

 

[OWB]

Well if Cheney wanted to know more about the alleged Iraq/Niger situation, you can't really say that he had NOTHING to do with it.

Them saying that his wife sent him there was just another attempt at undermining Wilson and what he found out....or didn't find out in this case.

Regardless, if Cheney didn't have anything to do with the start of it, it's starting to look as if he had a big part to do with the leak itself.

"I think it's really confirming evidence of what Scooter Libby said to the grand jury, which was that he first heard the name of Valerie Plame from the vice president of the United States," CBS News national political correspondent Gloria Borger said. "You could see in those little scribbles that the vice president was pretty upset."

Oh and CBS isn't the only one reporting this...

 

[volinbham]

Well if Cheney wanted to know more about the alleged Iraq/Niger situation, you can't really say that he had NOTHING to do with it.

Them saying that his wife sent him there was just another attempt at undermining what Wilson found out....or didn't find out in this case.

Regardless, if Cheney didn't have anything to do with the start of it, it's starting to look as if he had a big part to do with the leak itself.

How about Cheney had very little to do with it, knew nothing of the trip and never saw Wilson's report? (Of course Joe Wilson led everyone to believe that Cheney was instrumental in his trip.)

Who is "them" saying his wife... That's what happened! That is the conclusion of the investigation.

My point all along is that Wilson's story should be questioned. Why shouldn't we scrutinize both sides of the intelligence (or claims thereof)?

 

[volinbham]

Well if Cheney wanted to know more about the alleged Iraq/Niger situation, you can't really say that he had NOTHING to do with it.

Them saying that his wife sent him there was just another attempt at undermining Wilson and what he found out....or didn't find out in this case.

Regardless, if Cheney didn't have anything to do with the start of it, it's starting to look as if he had a big part to do with the leak itself.
Oh and CBS isn't the only one reporting this...

I haven't been disputing Cheney's role in mentioning Wilson's wife had anything to do with it.

Just asking why Wilson's distortions are evidence of "civic-duty" while statements made by the administration are lies. :dunno:

 

[volinbham]

I feel sad for you volinbham. I see that they have already gotten to you. I'm still amazed by how they get that chip in your head while you sleep, and they must be pretty good at it since you don't remember anything. :shakehead: Don't say that I never tried to save you. :cry:

:lol:

Just asking you to apply your skepticism to both sides of the issue, not just to W.

 

[OWB]

Just asking why Wilson's distortions are evidence of "civic-duty" while statements made by the administration are lies. :dunno:

Umm, I'm basing it on the fact that Iraq was not bidding on uranium from Niger therefore making Wilson's report a little more believable than what the administration told us before we invaded Iraq.

Don't you remember Bush and Cheney telling everyone that Iraq had uranium and they were making WMD's that could fall into the hands of the wrong people?

 

[volinbham]

Umm, I'm basing it on the fact that Iraq was not bidding on uranium from Niger therefore making Wilson's report a little more believable than what the administration told us before we invaded Iraq.

Don't you remember Bush and Cheney telling everyone that Iraq had uranium and they were making WMD's that could fall into the hands of the wrong people?

I remember them saying the Iraq was "seeking" uranium rather than "had" uranium.

Given our literal interpretation of words (e.g. can't say he had "nothing" to do with it), it's quite feasible to say Iraq was "seeking" even if it was just a little dream Saddam had
:biggrin2:

 

[volinbham]

Bottomline - just a little devil's advocacy here. (before you say it - I don't mean I'm advocating for Bush a.k.a Satan )

Wilson had an a agenda with his public statements just as the White House did. Condemn them both for this or excuse it as politics for both.

 

[OWB]

I don't know. If the CIA sent me down to Africa to look into it and I obliged and didn't find anything, I'd probably be worried about the Administration doing what they did. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one that got blamed for the travesty we call Iraq and be the fall guy when no WMD's were found.

In other words, I'd let the Nation know about my journey and make sure that everyone knew who was doing what. Wouldn't you?

 

[volinbham]

I don't know. If the CIA sent me down to Africa to look into it and I obliged and didn't find anything, I'd probably be worried about the Administration doing what they did. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one that got blamed for the travesty we call Iraq and be the fall guy when no WMD's were found.

In other words, I'd let the Nation know about my journey and make sure that everyone knew who was doing what. Wouldn't you?

Sure - but I would tell the entire story.

I wouldn't leave out key parts (e.g. the part about the trade delegation from Iraq which the Prime Minister of Niger concluded was there to seek uranium -- the part of his report that the CIA considered the most useful)

I wouldn't add information that I didn't find (e.g. parts about names being wrong on documents I saw but didn't really see),

I wouldn't adamantly say that the president and vice president saw my report and completely ignored it (they never saw it),

I wouldn't continually suggest that the vice president sent me on the trip when in reality he had no knowledge of the trip or me as the one who went on the trip and finally,

I wouldn't continually deny that my wife was the one that got me the job.


Wilson did more than go public with his information. He made a concerted effort to convince us that the administration was flat out lying as opposed to being wrong about what they were reporting. To make his case, he used half-truths and misleading statements.

Is it okay since he was against the war?

I'm just saying that he is guilty of so many of the "misleading actions" that the administration is accused of yet he gets a pass. Why the double standard? Is because what he's saying suits the ear better?

I've got no problem with his going public - just the manner in which he did it and why people on one-side of the issue give him a complete pass and a "truth-teller" award when clearly his agenda was to discredit the administration and he was willing to bend the truth to achieve his agenda.

 

[CSpindizzy]

:lol:

Just asking you to apply your skepticism to both sides of the issue, not just to W.

Well since Wilson isn't running the most powerful nation on earth, I think there is a weighted factor against W. Wilson's not sending men and women around the world to fight and overturn regimes based on faulty and skimpy intel.

 

[volinbham]

Well since Wilson isn't running the most powerful nation on earth, I think there is a weighted factor against W. Wilson's not sending men and women around the world to fight and overturn regimes based on faulty and skimpy intel.

So you don't think you should know the facts before making up your mind?

We were ultimately in a debate about action in Iraq. Wilson provides "evidence" (I use the term loosely) that the administration isn't just wrong about Iraq seeking uranium but is lying (knows there is no evidence but saying it anyway).

Shouldn't we know the whole story on both sides to make a rational decision?

 

[OWB]

So you don't think you should know the facts before making up your mind?

We were ultimately in a debate about action in Iraq. Wilson provides "evidence" (I use the term loosely) that the administration isn't just wrong about Iraq seeking uranium but is lying (knows there is no evidence but saying it anyway).

Shouldn't we know the whole story on both sides to make a rational decision?

In his debriefing with the CIA, Wilson reported that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him that in 1999 he had been asked to meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. Mayaki said he assumed the delegation wanted to discuss uranium sales. But he said that although he had met with the delegation he had not been interested in pursuing any commercial dealings with Iraq. The intelligence report based on Wilson's debriefing also noted that the former minister of mines explained to Wilson that given the tight controls maintained by the French consortium in charge of uranium mining in Niger, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a shipment of uranium to a pariah state.

 

[volinbham]

In his debriefing with the CIA, Wilson reported that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him that in 1999 he had been asked to meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. Mayaki said he assumed the delegation wanted to discuss uranium sales. But he said that although he had met with the delegation he had not been interested in pursuing any commercial dealings with Iraq. The intelligence report based on Wilson's debriefing also noted that the former minister of mines explained to Wilson that given the tight controls maintained by the French consortium in charge of uranium mining in Niger, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a shipment of uranium to a pariah state.

Glad to see you went to the report.

Wilson claimed he "debunked" the Iraq/Niger link. The CIA concluded otherwise. Their interpretation of the above was that if anything, it supported the link along with the other evidence they had. Further, Wilson's findings were not sufficient to merit further analytical action nor were they highlighted for decision makers.

My point? Wilson didn't just say what I found doesn't support what the administration is saying. Wilson built a case with omitted and leading information that his information "proved" there was no connection and that the administration knew this and lied about it. This is a big difference.

Go back to your original post about this where you say Cheney sent him and Bush/Cheney ignored his findings. Wilson led everyone (including you to believe that) but its just not true.

It would have been nice if Wilson would have been upfront about all this.

 

[OWB]

I'll admit that both Wilson and the Bush Administration have been shady about all of this. Fact of the matter is, we shouldn't have ever gone to Iraq after 9/11 and had very little that justified it. If we were so concerned with "nucular" material falling into the hands of the wrong people, why start with Iraq? Iran and North Korea would have been obvious choices over Iraq.

We haven't found anything in Iraq while Iran and North Korea are talking openly about their nuclear aspirations. Why go after the most questionable of them all? You know why and you know it wasn't about WMD's.

Fact is, the Bush Administration was talking about Iraq long before 9/11...

 

[volinbham]

It would be nice if we could just be presented with facts (by both sides) be left to decide. However, it is the nature of politics to persuade.

I agree that the administration felt transformation in Iraq (regime change if you will - hmmm I wonder when that became US policy ) was a key part of a larger Middle East stability strategy. Once Afghanistan provided the reason to go there, Iraq likely became a more favorable target for this strategy since a democratic Afghanistan and Iraq would flank that old trouble maker Iran.

As for the nuke stuff, I think that was a small (albeit persuasive) part of the argument to go to Iraq. In my view, it was a chain of events that locked us into the Iraq strategy including UN violations ultimately resulting in 1441 (where countries like France royaly jacked us). The Iraq strategy (which may still work) would not work in either Iran or N. Korea.

I understood why we went. I always saw it as more than the WMD thing (and believe it or not the admin. also positioned it as more than the WMD thing but the critics solely focused on WMD). Given the series of events leading to the invasion, I just didn't see that we had much choice and the consequences of not going could be just as disasterous as going.

I think the biggest failing of this administration (and its been a big one) is the post-war planning. Hopefully things will stabilize in Iraq.

 

[OWB]

I agree that the administration felt transformation in Iraq (regime change if you will - hmmm I wonder when that became US policy ) was a key part of a larger Middle East stability strategy. Once Afghanistan provided the reason to go there, Iraq likely became a more favorable target for this strategy since a democratic Afghanistan and Iraq would flank that old trouble maker Iran.

The Middle East has always been unstable and will continue to be. When it's all said and done, do you really think that a democracy will work in Afghanistan or Iraq? I understand flanking Iran from the Middle East perspective, but we certainly don't need to flank them. We could take it to them whenever we wanted. Saddam wasn't going anywhere or doing anything. You would think that we could have focused all of our resources towards Al Queada and Bin Laden since they were the ones who attacked us in the first place.

As for the nuke stuff, I think that was a small (albeit persuasive) part of the argument to go to Iraq. In my view, it was a chain of events that locked us into the Iraq strategy including UN violations ultimately resulting in 1441 (where countries like France royaly jacked us). The Iraq strategy (which may still work) would not work in either Iran or N. Korea.

But I thought it was about defending American lives and a matter of National security. If it was mostly all about UN violations and such, why was the Bush administration telling the nation that Al Queada and Saddam were linked? Which was another obvious lie considering that today Bush denies having ever said such a thing. He seems to forget that News stations record such statements.

I understood why we went. I always saw it as more than the WMD thing (and believe it or not the admin. also positioned it as more than the WMD thing but the critics solely focused on WMD). Given the series of events leading to the invasion, I just didn't see that we had much choice and the consequences of not going could be just as disasterous as going.

Given the series of events leading to the invasion, we shouldn't have gone after Saddam at all. He wasn't a major threat to us. Al Queada was. I think that it is disasterous that we're using up all of our resources and money to occupy and fix Iraq instead of focus on the task at hand. Oh yeah, they're watching who calls who, that's something I guess.

I think the biggest failing of this administration (and its been a big one) is the post-war planning. Hopefully things will stabilize in Iraq.

Or lack thereof...

 

[OWB]

I guess that by now you've realized that I want more focus on Al Queada and think that Iraq is seriously hurting our chances of ever finding Bin Laden.

If the Bush Administration is going to use Al Quaeda, terror and scaring some Americans into voting for him, the least he could do is go after them full throttle. Especially now that he has been re-elected and doesn't have to use it in his campaigns anymore.

I would like him to either make a real commitment to pursuing the bad guys or stop using the terror card as a warrant to do whatever he wants.

 

[volinbham]

Unfortunately message boards are not the best place to discuss these big issues but just a few comments:

WMD - It wasn't just us that thought Iraq had them. Additionally, there was increasing pressure to ease the sanctions against Saddam (no surprise this was coming from the Oil for Food beneficiaries France and Russia). If we knew he didn't have WMD then the issue would be different.

UN - the UN went on record saying this guy is not complying and there will be serious consequences (1441 was unanimous - no abstentions). There was a credibility issue for the UN. The ability to enforce future UN sanctions was dependent on this credibility.

The vast majority of Bush/Cheney statements do not say Iraq was connected to 9/11. Just as they didn't claim Iraq was an imminent threat. In fact most statements were more along the line "we need to do something BEFORE the threat becomes imminent.

I do think Afghanistan has an excellent chance to remain a democracy.

I agree that the Middle East has been volatile. The strategy (whether or not you think its a good one and I'm not sure myself) is an attempt to change that. Will it/could it work? Time will tell.

 

[volinbham]

I would like him to either make a real commitment to pursuing the bad guys or stop using the terror card as a warrant to do whatever he wants.

But he's criticized for going after them via NSA programs. If these actions are illegal, he risks serious consequences. Isn't that making a commitment? Isn't he risking quite a bit to pursue the bad guys?

The 9/11 commission showed that our intelligence suffered from not connecting the dots. The NSA programs are attempts to do so.

 

[OWB]

The vast majority of Bush/Cheney statements do not say Iraq was connected to 9/11. Just as they didn't claim Iraq was an imminent threat. In fact most statements were more along the line "we need to do something BEFORE the threat becomes imminent.

I knew that you were going to say something like that and make me go on a video hunt. I'll look around and see if I can find the old videos of both Bush and Cheney standing there and saying that Saddam has links to Al Queada.

I'll be back. :matrix:

 

[OWB]

But he's criticized for going after them via NSA programs. If these actions are illegal, he risks serious consequences. Isn't that making a commitment? Isn't he risking quite a bit to pursue the bad guys?

The 9/11 commission showed that our intelligence suffered from not connecting the dots. The NSA programs are attempts to do so.

Sorry, but I don't think that spying on 100 million Americans is the best we can do. Like I've said before, we've already lost the war on terror if it has to come to this.

 

[volinbham]

I knew that you were going to say something like that and make me go on a video hunt. I'll look around and see if I can find the old videos of both Bush and Cheney standing there and saying that Saddam has links to Al Queada.

I'll be back. :matrix:

While you're out - remember what I said - they weren't making the claim he was directly linked to the 9/11 attacks.

They did say he had links to terrorism and that Al Quaeda had been in Iraq.

 

[OWB]

While you're out - remember what I said - they weren't making the claim he was directly linked to the 9/11 attacks.

They did say he had links to terrorism and that Al Quaeda had been in Iraq.

I never made the accusation that Bush and company said that they were directly linked to 9/11. I'm simply saying that Bush and Cheney and others have said many times that Iraq and Al Quaeda were allies and involved with each other. That's just not true and even they are backtracking on such statements now.

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror," he said. "We have removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

From his "mission accomplished" speech.

 

[volinbham]

I never made the accusation that Bush and company said that they were directly linked to 9/11. I'm simply saying that Bush and Cheney and others have said many times that Iraq and Al Quaeda were allies and involved with each other. That's just not true and even they are backtracking on such statements now.
From his "mission accomplished" speech.

Nor did I claim that they never suggested there was some connection between Iraq and Al Quaeda (the 9/11 report concluded there was not an "operational" linkage - in short, they weren't co-planning/executing activities). However, the same report did detail connections such as Al Quaeda conducting training operations in Iraq.

However, over and over critics have claimed that Bush/Cheney said Saddam had something to do with 9/11.