Cheney told FBI he had no idea about leak - Page 3

hairballxavier · #21 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

Just face the fact that Cheney was trying to discredit Wilson. We all know Wilson was right. ...)[i]blah blah...

Can you give a specific example of Cheney trying to "discredit" Wilson?

Wilson reported to the CIA that the former PM of Niger told Wilson that an Iraqi delegation tried to make a deal to buy uranium. I don't remember Cheney trying discredit Wilson for reporting that.

Billo_Really · #22 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Can you give a specific example of Cheney trying to "discredit" Wilson?

I can give you several.

Example #1 (Libby's Grand Jury testimony):

Quote:

Libby...testified before a federal grand jury that he was told by Cheney that Bush had approved a plan in which Libby would brief a specific New York Times reporter about portions of a top-secret National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD.

On July 8, Libby spoke again with Times reporter Judith Miller about the NIE and about the Wilsons. In a two-hour interview over breakfast at the elegant St. Regis Hotel near the White House, Libby told Miller that Wilson’s wife worked at a CIA unit responsible for weapons intelligence and non-proliferation.

So Libby was directed to discuss a CIA covert agent with someone from the media, which is illegal.

Example #2 (not just a coincedence):

Quote:

That same day, Novak had his interview with Armitage. Novak later recalled that Armitage divulged Plame’s identity toward the end of an hour-long interview.

Armitage “told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA’s Counter-proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband’s mission,” Novak wrote, adding that Armitage seemed to want the information published.

Feeling encouraged by Armitage to disclose the Plame connection to Wilson’s trip, Novak contacted Bush’s chief political adviser Karl Rove, who confirmed the story as Novak’s second source.

“I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me,” Novak later told Newsday, adding that Bush administration officials “thought it was significant, they gave me the name.”

Interesting how two different members of the media were briefed on the same person, on the same day, from two different Administration officials, who volunteered this information. They really wanted this information to get out. It is even more suspicous in light of Novak's comment regarding how little Armitage would give him the time of day for 2-1/2 years, then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, he gets a message saying Armitage would meet with him.

Quote:

“During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview,” Novak wrote later. “I tried to see him in the first 2 ½ years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me – summarily and with disdain, I thought. Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage’s office said the deputy secretary would see me.”

That's a little strange, don't ya think?

Example #3 (testimony from WH staff):

Quote:

A month before Valerie Plame Wilson's covert status as a CIA operative was revealed, Vice President Dick Cheney told his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and his press secretary, Cathie Martin, that Plame Wilson worked at the spy agency.

"Cheney has no recollection of Cathie Martin entering his office at some point while Scooter Libby was present and advising both of them that [Plame Wilson] was employed by the CIA,"

This also fits the WH MO of attacking and smearing anyone who doubted their bull****.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Wilson reported to the CIA that the former PM of Niger told Wilson that an Iraqi delegation tried to make a deal to buy uranium. I don't remember Cheney trying discredit Wilson for reporting that.

That was cherry-picked and didn't show the rest of the report which concluded the opposite.

Quote:

In his oral report to the CIA, Wilson said he found no evidence that Iraq had sought yellowcake and – considering the international controls governing shipments of uranium – most of his sources doubted that a sale would even be possible.

Wilson did add a caveat, that one senior Nigerien, former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, said he had suspected that an Iraqi commercial delegation to Niger in 1999 might be interested in buying yellowcake, but the uranium topic never came up at the meeting and nothing was sold to Iraq.

Wilson was the first government official to come out and state Bush was FOS about Iraq. And he did it at a time when Bush's bull**** was starting to come to light. They were not finding any WMD's and everything Bush said before the invasion was starting to unravel. Plus the fact that Bush considered himself a unitary executive and didn't appreciate anyone challenging his decisions.

Mikeyy · #23 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

I can give you several.

Example #1 (Libby's Grand Jury testimony):
So Libby was directed to discuss a CIA covert agent with someone from the media, which is illegal.

Example #2 (not just a coincedence):
Interesting how two different members of the media were briefed on the same person, on the same day, from two different Administration officials, who volunteered this information. They really wanted this information to get out. It is even more suspicous in light of Novak's comment regarding how little Armitage would give him the time of day for 2-1/2 years, then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, he gets a message saying Armitage would meet with him.

That's a little strange, don't ya think?

Example #3 (testimony from WH staff):
This also fits the WH MO of attacking and smearing anyone who doubted their bull****.

That was cherry-picked and didn't show the rest of the report which concluded the opposite.

Wilson was the first government official to come out and state Bush was FOS about Iraq. And he did it at a time when Bush's bull**** was starting to come to light. They were not finding any WMD's and everything Bush said before the invasion was starting to unravel. Plus the fact that Bush considered himself a unitary executive and didn't appreciate anyone challenging his decisions.

Thanks Billo. I was busy shaking my head and rolling my eyes.

mlurp · #24 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 11:57 AM

Yea Billo is this persons match... I mean that in a very nice way Billo... Most of us older members don't care to go round and round in circles.

Not thaty Billo does. But he has the snap to keep the mind of others busy.

Gee hairball that is 3 older members that have told you the same thing I have told you...

This just isn't the time period I care to play games... Next month if your still around.. By then I hope you have settled in and mellowed out some.

Billo_Really · #25 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

The first thing I noticed is that you refused directly quote Bush in your post. To me this indicates an attempt to decieve.

If you wanted quotes, all you had to do was ask.

Quote:

ABC News anchor Charles Gibson...asked Bush, “If the [U.S.] intelligence had been right [and revealed no Iraq WMD], would there have been an Iraq War?”

Bush answered, “Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld.”

Saying such an obvious lie is out there. What's even more surprizing, is no one from the MSM called the SOB on it. Inspectors were in Iraq do their job per 1441 and didn't leave until Bush told them he couldn't guarantee their safety.

So when he said they [UN inspectors] were not allowed into Iraq, when they were already in Iraq, that is a lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

And wow you are making some pretty outrageous claims there Billo. And you provided absolutely nothing to back them up, so they are nothing but unsupported assertions. You are simply regurgitating well-worn anti-USA propaganda.

Let's take a look at a couple of the bullet points in your laughable "recall of history".

Billo's bullet point #1 -- Iraq had WMD's, which they did not.

Lets look at the historical record.

Iraq did have WMD.

At the hearings, while under oath Col. Chu, Gen. Maples, and two former UN weapons inspectors testified that WMD were recovered in Iraq.

Decaying forgotten cans of sarin buried in the Iraq desert does not constitute "weapons of mass destruction". Even your own link states the chemical agents cannot be used in their current state. If you can't use a weapon, it certainly won't kill masses, let alone destroy anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Bullet point #3 -- "he would exhaust all diplomatic avenues, when in fact, he had started the war in the spring of 2002 under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement."

Again, let's factcheck your "recall of history", shall we...

Source

Notice the dates of the above engagements in 2001. January 1, January 15 and January 20.

Fact = GWB did not assume office until January 21, 2001. And at that time the war was already escalating.

Obviously we were still at war with the Republic of Iraq when GWB took office. Yet you claim that Bush started the war against the Republic of Iraq in the spring of 2002.

I fully realize that regime change in Iraq started in 1998 with our American terrorist group (PNAC) pressuring Bill Clinton to invade. And I also realize that there was military operations in Iraq that preceded Bush. But that is not what I was talking about. What I'm talking about is the US saying we're just doing no-fly zone enforcement, when the reality is that we're bombing the **** out of Iraq. In fact, we've been bombing Iraq for the last 15 years. We have dropped more ordinance on Iraq than all the bombs of all the country's that were dropped in WWII combined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Billo, the historical timeline simply does not jibe with your jive-talk. You are obviously trying to rewrite history.

No, your spin on my historical record doesn't jive. I didn't say anything about pre-Bush operations. My historical record starts in the spring of 2002 when Bush ordered the sorties.

Quote:

long before the ground invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The "Downing Street Memos" -- top-level British government documents whose authenticity has been confirmed by Blair's own office -- show clearly that Bush and Blair began a ferocious air war against Iraq in May 2002

This was a full 9 months prior to HR114. And if you know your Constitution, only Congress can declare war. The President cannot start a war. Only Congress.

But in the spring of 2002, we have a different story.

Quote:

The Iraq war began in mid-2002 with intensive air strikes under the guise of enforcing the southern no-fly zone over the country, a senior US officer admitted in remarks published yesterday.

BTW, the no-fly zone areas were not authorized by the UN. How would you like to be a country that couldn't even fly over its own capitol?

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Billo, you say that Bush lied, but obviously you can't quote any particular lie and prove that it was, in fact, a lie. You have obviously fallen hook, line and sinker for the enemy's crude propaganda.

What ****in' enemy and what propaganda are you ****in' talkin' about? Stop being so god-damn vauge! State what was said and who said it. Because if you can't, this is just another smear campaign to avoid the truth.

If you want my take on Bush lies, go to this thread and you will see four full posts, spanning 60 days, in chronological order, lie-by-lie.

http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/war...r-lie-lie.html

Billo_Really · #26 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlurp

Yea Billo is this persons match... I mean that in a very nice way Billo... Most of us older members don't care to go round and round in circles.

Not thaty Billo does. But he has the snap to keep the mind of others busy.

Gee hairball that is 3 older members that have told you the same thing I have told you...

This just isn't the time period I care to play games... Next month if your still around.. By then I hope you have settled in and mellowed out some.

All my friends have told me I love to argue. But I had to correct them. For the record, I don't love to argue...

...it's my Disneyland!

hairballxavier · #27 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

Decaying forgotten cans of sarin buried in the Iraq desert does not constitute "weapons of mass destruction".

I see, so then you wouldn't mind having a little bit of harmless Sarin mixed in with your grape kool-aid?

Billo_Really · #28 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

I see, so then you wouldn't mind having a little bit of harmless Sarin mixed in with your grape kool-aid?

I didn't say it wasn't toxic.

Would you say those decaying cans are as destructive as a nuclear bomb?

Because I think we can both agree that a nuclear bomb is a bonefide WMD.

off the porch · #29 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

I didn't say it wasn't toxic.

Would you say those decaying cans are as destructive as a nuclear bomb?

Because I think we can both agree that a nuclear bomb is a bonefide WMD.

The inspectors at the time said the decayed material was about as toxic as things we all have under our kitchen sinks.

hairballxavier · #30 (**permalink**) 11-01-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

BTW, the no-fly zone areas were not authorized by the UN.

Again you are trying to re-write history.

ALL of the facts are on my side.

The fact of the matter is that the UN Security Council banned Iraq from flying combat aircraft anywhere at all.

United Nations Security Council Resulution 686

Quote:

Originally Posted by UNSCR 686

3. Further demands that Iraq:

(a) Cease hostile or provocative actions by its forces against all Member States including missile attacks and flights of combat aircraft;

The fact that Iraq violated that resolution is something that anti-USA zealots and Saddam Hussein apologists/worshippers continue to purposefully overlook to this day.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/news-current-events/9640-cheney-told-fbi-he-had-no-idea-about-leak.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
404 Not Found	This thread	Refback	12-01-2009 02:39 AM
404 Not Found	This thread	Refback	12-01-2009 02:28 AM
404 Not Found	This thread	Refback	11-14-2009 07:24 PM
404 Not Found	This thread	Refback	11-13-2009 05:59 PM

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Billo_Really For This Useful Post:
DownSouth, Mikeyy, mlurp

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Billo_Really For This Useful Post:
DownSouth, off the porch

The Following User Says Thank You to off the porch For This Useful Post:
Mikeyy