Joshua Micah Marshall is unhappy with the Washington Post's Susan Schmidt:
Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: July 04, 2004 - July 10, 2004 Archives: I'll dispense with the literary prologue and get right to the point.
Susan Schmidt is known, happily among DC Republicans and not so happily among DC Democrats, as what you might call the "Mikey" (a la Life Cereal fame) of the DC press corps, especially when the cereal is coming from Republican staffers.
This morning she has an article on the Senate intel report and Joe Wilson, specifically focusing on the relevance of Wilson's reporting on Niger (the report says analysts did not see Wilson's findings as weakening claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger) and his wife's role in recommending him for the assignment.
We'll discuss the broader issues of Plame's role in Wilson's assignment and the underlying question of the alleged Iraq-Niger negotiations. A clearer-eyed take on Wilson and report can be found here in this story by Knight Ridder. But for now a few points on Schmidt's treatment.
In her fourth paragraph Schmidt writes that "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."
This is one of those cases in which it's helpful to actually read the report rather than just run with what you've got from the majority committee staffer who gave you the spin.
The claim with regards to the back-and-forth was always that the CIA struggled to get the uranium references out of the October 2002 Cincinnati speech and then failed to do so -- though why presicely is less clear -- when the same folks at the White House tried again to get it into the 2003 State of the Union address. And indeed on page 56 the report states that ...
Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy Natoinal Security Advisor and the speech writers. Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."
... Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa." Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.
... The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI. The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.
Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6th, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities. (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."
I find it difficult to square that with Schmidt's claim that the report states that the CIA "did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."
Then there's a point with regards to Plame's role in selecting Wilson for the mission. The report includes testimony from those involved saying that Plame did suggest Wilson for the mission -- a point we'll return to. Based on this Schmidt says ...
Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer....
The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.
Again, a conversation with a lawyer may have been more helpful than one with a staffer.
There's no 'challenging the bona fides of a political opponent' exception to the law in question. While Plame's alleged role may have some political traction, it's legally irrelevant. Government officials are not allowed to disclose the identity of covert intelligence agents, whether they feel like they have a good reason or not.
Finally, down toward the end of Schmidt's article she writes that: "According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."
I read the report's discussion of the whole Niger business. And I didn't see that reference. However, on page 44 there is a reference to Wilson reporting to the CIA that "an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998 [but that] no contract was ever signed with Iran." (emphasis added).
Perhaps I missed the reference that Schmidt is noting. But it seems awfully similar to the one the report notes about Iran -- same date, same tonnage. Presumably in this case, Schmidt innocently confused the two neighboring and similar-sounding countries, though it's a goof you'd think an editor would have caught.
UPDATE: Daniel Drezner comes to Schmidt's defense!
danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: Joseph Wilson's eroding credibility: Josh Marshall argues that Schmidt is just parroting Republican staffers -- as opposed to Josh, who would never just parrot Democratic staffers.
Back in the old days, my father brought me up to believe that "Tu Quoque" is not a substantive argument but an admission that one has no substantive arguments.
Posted by DeLong at July 12, 2004 08:05 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post
Sue Schmidt is notorious for her willingness to trade skepticism for access. She did precisely that with Ken Starr's office, so it should not be surprising now.
Gimme a break, Brad. If that was my only critique of Marshall, I'd concede your point. However, that clause was peripheral to my substantive point was that Marshall failed to address Schmidt's point that Wilson lied to the Washington Post back in June 2003.
Posted by: Daniel Drezner on July 12, 2004 08:24 AMBrad's partially correct about the tu quoque argument. "You guys whine about it but you do it too" is generally regarded as not being a legitmate rhetorical tactic.
But - remember! - it's OK if you're a Republican.
Posted by: e and e on July 12, 2004 08:50 AMAnd since Josh is an upholder of objective journalism....
Posted by: Rob on July 12, 2004 08:54 AM"It's just all too complicated for me to understand."
Posted by: Norbizness on July 12, 2004 08:55 AM
Bob Somerby hasn't exactly come to Schmidt's defense, but he has reiterated his longstanding doubts about Wilson, which he argued in detail when the story was hot.
Somerby on Wilson
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071204.shtml
I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like the Senate report's bluntness in calling Joseph Wilson a liar. Am I too big to say, "I told you so."
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on July 12, 2004 10:02 AMWhy Oh Why Do People Think That Josh Marshall Is the Last Word On the Press Corps? (He's At Least As Objective As FoxNews Edition)
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/001470.html
Posted by: jd on July 12, 2004 10:11 AMI have not read the report, can I get a link.
But in reading the various comments and article I seem to run in to one major factual problem.
Those defending Wilson say he reported that the Nigerian minister told him Iran had talked about buying ore in 1998.
Those against Wilson claim the minster told him Irag talked about buying ore in 1998.
Where can I find an original source that will make it clear if it was Iran or Iraq?
Kevin Drum, who I respect says that those opposing Wilson are clearly mistaking Iran for Iraq.
Posted by: spencer on July 12, 2004 10:12 AMDrezner's visits from Michael Ledeen have obviously led to his playing to the crowd. Actually, I now think that 'Daniel Drezner' is little more than a crude Italian forgery.
Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2004 10:18 AMThis guy has obviously read the report. Or at least the places Josh didn't:
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/001470.html
Posted by: jd on July 12, 2004 10:24 AMSchmidt:
"According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."
The report:
"The intelligence report also said that Niger's former Minister for Energy and Mines [REDACTED] Mai Manga, stated that there were no sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the mid1980s. He knew of no contracts signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of uranium. He said that an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998, but said that no contract was ever signed with Iran."
Page 54, if you're interested.
Your blogwhore revealed just how Belgravia you are, jd. As in 'up your own arse'.
Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2004 10:29 AMthat's all you have ahem? Nice try anyhow. What's the view like from Marshall's colon, anyway?
Posted by: jd on July 12, 2004 10:32 AM'I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like the Senate report's bluntness in calling Joseph Wilson a liar. '
That was in the 'individual views' section. If you think thats blunt, see how the 'individual views' put the Bush administration on the carpet.
'Meanwhile, the (apparent, unrefuted) fact that Joseph Wilson's credibility has been shot to hell, and that this whole Plame scandal, which has never made any sense '
Meanwhile, the apparent unrefuted fact that Iraq apparently never had a revived nuclear program, and that we still have no evidence that Iraq actually sought this uranium despite the fact that we have almsot all fot heir officials and scientists and documents in our custoy. That the alum tubes were actually for artillerty. That Iraq had no enriched uranium, no enrichment program.
Thats the key point.
Posted by: abk on July 12, 2004 11:27 AM'Well, sure, this (hugely complex, stretching over 12 years and involving countries and their "intel" from here to Russia) issue is a lot more important than the whole Plame/Wilson/16 words thing, but just as "ad hominem" betrays a weak argument, so does "changing the subject."'
Well, some of us happen to think the topic should be the whole report and what it reveals of the dubious nature of the scare tactics used by the Administrationt to stampede us into war.
I always thought the Wilson issue was a bit of a sideshow and not a particulary important one, too. Still it did serve one useful purpose -- it got other Washingto reporters to look into all the bogosities perpetuated by the administration, while prior to that, the admin was largely being treated like a Dresden china doll on Iraq.
Posted by: laika on July 12, 2004 11:53 AMLast I checked the scare tactics began with the previous administration. That they were picked up and carried with by Bush--and amplified by the terrorist attacks nine months into his term--is of considerable consequence but hardly irrational. That Laika and others continue to want to use this report as an anti-war banner and not a stark demand for systemic change in the intel community is a bit depressing.
Posted by: jd on July 12, 2004 12:02 PMPatrick Sullivan -- I just quickly scanned the Senate report and I sure can not find anything that confirms your point that it calls Wilson a liar. I can not even find anything that claims anything Wilson reported was incorrect. Maybe it is in the section that for a few paragraphs seems to mistakenly write about contacts between iran and Nigeria rather than Iraq and Nigeria and than goes back to writing about Iran. It certainly looks like there is a mistake in the senate report that just looks like a typo-- for some reason that write Iran when the apparently mean Iraq.
Could you tell me what page you are refering to
where the report calls Wilson a liar..
What I find of greatest interest in the report is the individual senators comments at the end that says, yes, the intelligence had problems, but it was not nearly as bad a problem as the admins misuse of the bad intelligence.
Moreover I found the section on presure on the analysis very carefully written. It says that the vice president and admin repeatedly comming back to the analysts and asking them to report again and again on the same point did not constitute "pressure". Right, and I have an investment on a bridge out of Manhatten you should be interested in.
There is not much need for "systemic change" in the intel community. They have done all along what they were supposed to do. (Although occasionally they don't like the requirement about taking the blame, such as in a disaster of this magnitude.) Reading the transcript of Lehrer's interview the other night with Senators Roberts and Rockefeller is illuminating.
As for this story, the Bushies are attempting to clean house for the election, and someone is using the willing Susan Schmidt as conduit for a first-rate piece of turgid obfuscation.
Disconnected facts, non sequitors, straw men.
Near the top of the piece: “...Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most analysts.” Let’s hear it for bolstering! (Will we hear from “most analysts”?) And was it bolstered pro or con, if the analysts already analyzed that there WAS NO connection? But then, near the bottom of the piece: “the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day...” There’s your answer. That’s exactly how it was bolstered! Wilson was debunking faked intel, not the real product.
But OF COURSE the CIA has not fully investigated to “this day” [I absolutely love that!]: We already know they’ve been falling down on the job, don’t we! Nice set-up to confuse the rubes!
Also, questioning the guy’s veracity because he didn’t want to name his already-compromised and endangered wife for recommending him (and a federal crime for so-naming her, probably...)--which is the lead paragraph and the silly hook for the whole argument--is just ridiculous. “The [Senate] report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering pre-war intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.” Most pointedly? Is that the whole harsh spotlight? It that IT?
“Committee staff asked” about Wilson’s access to the documents. Note also that nowhere does it say the Niger documents WEREN’T forged. But it’s clear that Wilson would have been in trouble for claiming to have seen them--or getting such information from his wife. So now he “lied” to the Washington Post in June 2003? And it would be interesting to know from Wilson whether he now thinks the CIA set him up.
I really love: “..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...” [my caps]
And I especially love: “The [Senate] report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information, not [A] to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but [B] to call into question Wilson’s bona fides as an investigator..” --Not even that the exposing would have ANYTHING TO DO with proving “B”, but hell, maybe we can explain our way out of “A”?
Also, notice, they have now admitted that ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS DID IN FACT PROVIDE PLAME’S NAME TO THE PRESS.
This whole thing needs to be re-abolstered...
Even the Knight-Ridder piece is a twist. What it actually says is, Wilson didn’t debunk anything, because the CIA already agreed there was nothing to the yellowcake story worth pursuing.
Posted by: Lee A. on July 12, 2004 12:18 PM"There is not much need for "systemic change" in the intel community."
Oh really? There is reams of testimony decrying the barriers between the CIA, FBI, and other departments that provide support information. Or maybe you're thinking of a different intel community than I am.
Posted by: jd on July 12, 2004 12:23 PMMost interesting side-track to this debacle is:
when will Novak be put in jail for not "giving up" his whitehouse.gov source.
According to report, this "leaker" inside the oval office or white house also called approximately 10 other journalists, all of whom (except Mr. Novak) refused to "out" a CIA agent.
It was only Novak who made this a political football.
When will the investigative arm who is seeking justice put Novak through the "hot coals" and make him walk a tough mile- either put him a D-block til he gives up the name. That is justice, and that is a journalism 101.
WHEN?
Can not the other 10 journalists whom were called also be put through the coals, although they do not deserve it because they showed prudent judgement in this debacle.
jd: I have no idea. Have you got some kneepads ready for when Sue Schmidt makes her annual trip over to London?
Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2004 12:51 PMjd--There are reams of testimony from highly-self-interested parties covering their own rear-ends, and who, by the way, do not intend to actually do anything. Except perhaps at the cosmetic margins. Reason? It really isn't necessary. For example, the White House just made it clear the other day--once again!--that they do not intend to call for anything like a new “Intelligence Czar” to do real coordinating.
The system we have is the one we want: intelligence comes in from several agencies and is coordinated IN the White House. That way we have elected officials in charge, not a Big Brother slowly taking over. Richard Clarke told in his testimony how it was done, in the Clinton White House and before. We still don't know exactly what the Bush White House process was before 9/11: it has never been clearly explicated.
But we DO know they want us to run around in circles, complaining about the wrong issues.
Posted by: Lee A. on July 12, 2004 12:55 PM'That Laika and others continue to want to use this report as an anti-war banner and not a stark demand for systemic change in the intel community is a bit depressing.'
That jd and others want to continue to deny that the hideous incompetence and mendacity of this administration that has caused us to spend $200 B plus, 900 American lives, several thousand injured, 140K troops bogged down. In return, we have no WMD stockpiles. no links to Al Qeada, troops more likely to face RPGs rather than flowers, our reputation and credibility in tatters.
Sure, the idea of restructuring the intelligence community is important, but I can do little about it directly. What I and others can do something about is to dispatch the scaremongers and liars from the Administration.
Posted by: laika on July 12, 2004 01:01 PM"That jd and others want to continue to deny that the hideous incompetence and mendacity of this administration..."
I have nothing against exposing the incompetence of this administration or any other. Or exposing the lack of communication between the CIA and FBI or more specifically, the lack of communication between FBI field office, which possibly could have averted the terrorist attacts. In fact, Lee, Clarke specifically discussed a need for restructuring in his testimony--how exactly is the White House at fault for the structure of intel?
Dispatching the current group of liars and scaremongers from office is a start, but only if you're willing to hold the next administration to the same standards.
Posted by: jd on July 12, 2004 01:20 PM'Dispatching the current group of liars and scaremongers from office is a start, but only if you're willing to hold the next administration to the same standards.'
Absolutely. I'm even willing to give this administration the benefit of the doubt over 9/11. However, the messup over Iraq is less forgiveable. Heck, I'd even vote for Bush (or not vote for anyone) if he dispatched the guilty parties among the political appointees.
Posted by: laika on July 12, 2004 01:30 PMDave S. --
I couldn't agree more.
The public policy behind shield laws for journalists is that the public has an interest in seeing wrongdoing/wrongdoers exposed and whistleblowers would not risk coming forward if journalists were compelled to reveal sources to grand juries.
but in novak's case, there's no public interest at stake. he damaged our national security by outing an intelligence asset (and for parisan political purposes)
why novak is not behind bars until he sings like a canary on a red hot stove is one of life's great mysteries.
Posted by: kit on July 12, 2004 01:53 PMjd--In his televised testimony to the 9/11 Commission on March 24, Richard Clarke specifically mentioned CIA's need for more humint assets, and made it clear that Tenet was doing a good job. Clarke expressed astonishment that the FBI did not relay the whereabouts of a couple of hijackers up the chain of command, even after they had been told to look. (We haven’t yet heard exactly who failed, there.) He thought we need a domestic intelligence service (the FBI of course is organized for crime-fighting) but did not know how to create one without an enormous danger to our freedoms. It seems more likely the the FBI might start an intel division--I suppose you could call that “systemic”.
Other than those points, he placed ALL the blame for the lack of intelligence coordination squarely on the Bush White House national security policymakers, and aspects of this criticism made up the bulk of his testimony. As he put it, the Clinton White House brought all the intelligence chiefs together regularly, and knocked their heads together, and it got results.
It’s curious that Bush didn’t know that method, his father being ex-head of CIA, and all... It's curious that anyone in Washington wouldn't know how it is done!
Considering the great urgency of the threat spikes in Summer 2001, and the facts that (1) the FBI was asking for more counterintelligence funding and operatives (Ashcroft denied it), (2) Tenet was telling anyone who would listen that something big was up, and (3) members of the (Democratic) Senate Intelligence Committee (Feinstein, for one) were imploring the Administration for for more counterterror measures immediately, it seems like the problem really WASN’T the intelligence community.
Although I'm all for giving the FBI and the CIA more resources...
Posted by: Lee A. on July 12, 2004 02:21 PMSpencer said, "I have not read the report, can I get a link."
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040709iraqreport2.pdf
Wilson is said to have claimed that iran wanted 400 tons of yellowcake but there was no deal.
Also a businessman got an appointment for some iraqi representatives, and the Niger guy thought they wanted to buy yellowcake but he said he refused to discuss business with them.
The pre-existing reports claimed there was a contract for 500 tons of yellowcake a year for iraq.
Wilson reported basicly that it was the common wisdom that niger could not export uranium, it was entirely controlled by the french. The Niger guys repeatedly claimed that. If true, the guys from iran and iraq should have not approached the GON but instead should have tried to buy it from the french who could actually deliver. Wilson apparently didn't ask the french anything.
So if there was a plot to get yellowcake from niger, either the nigeriens have dug their own mine and do their own refining all on the sly, or the french guys who control the two known mines are mining more than they admit and selling the excess secretly. In either case Wilson's contacts would not know or else would be in on it and wouldn't tell.
The report points out that the CIA assigned Wilson the equivalent of a Secret clearance and did not ask for any sort of nondisclosure agreement from him. Why no NDA? Did they intend him to make a public statement?
So he went to Niger and the US embassy there told him they were doing their own investigation and he shouldn't talk to any current officials there so he wouldn't interfere. He was a former official and he talked to former officials only. What happened to the embassy report? If it happened at all it was kept secret, as is proper.
The report claims that the CIA didn't get a copy of the forged documents until long after his trip. Why should we believe this? It's the CIA! Several foreign governments were making claims based on these documents, the CIA asked to interrogate the author under polygraph but it presumably didn't happen, the next sentence is marked out. Why would the CIA not get an unofficial copy very soon? Well, maybe they didn't. It's their competence that the report is supposed to be looking at, after all.
So OK, try to look at it through the eyes of a whitehouse staffer. Wilson is a weapon the CIA is aiming at Bush. He's gone public because the CIA wants him to. You can demand they fire his wife and what will happen? Will they tell you she's fired and then keep paying her from unvouchered funds? If they're aiming weapons at Bush will they actually follow his orders? Is this revolt coming from Tenet or is it from a rogue CIA conspiracy that doesn't follow his orders? What kind of defense can you make? How can you attack him, and particularly how can you attack the conspiracy behind him?
If Bush gets another term he has to purge the CIA. Get rid of everybody who might be disloyal and replace them with people who are on his side.
Is Sue Schmidt any kin to Steve Schmidt, quoted here as a spokesman for the Republicans?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/campaign/12conservative.html
Laika--I wouldn't vote for Bush if he fired a bunch of people who deserve it but might respect him more.
Lee-you and I agree that the CIA and FBI need more resources. But as to systemic problems of intel, Clarke and other committee members mention it specifically in transcripts from 3/24. Gorelick said "And we heard from George Tenet saying that they did the best they could, that they have to admit they didn't catch the right secret, they didn't recruit the right agent, that there were a lot of systemic problems, communication problems with the FBI and so forth that contributed to that...And you, above maybe anybody else, saw the systemic problems. I mean you have described, yourself, the problems with the FBI, the wall between the FBI and the CIA. We've heard about the disconnect between the State Department watch list and the FAA no-fly list. We've heard about really the inadequacy of our visa program and our consular effort." Clarke responds with, "...And I think some of systemic things that are obvious to you and -- I know they are -- were more practical after 9/11 than they were after the millennium..." I'm sure if I had more time I could come up with other examples of the committee discussing systemic problems. It's the reason Gorelick (and now, the Bushies) got into hot water over taking down "the wall" between the CIA and FBI.
'If Bush gets another term he has to purge the CIA. Get rid of everybody who might be disloyal and replace them with people who are on his side.'
Are you serious ? I can't make out for sure. The purpose of the CIA is to serve the country (that is us), not any particular President or party.
Laika, your purpose for the CIA is that it serve the country. My purpose for the CIA is that it serve the country. I believe that Bush's purpose for the CIA is that it serve him.
Joe Mealyus--I guess I don't know if it's wise to admit that a CIA agent by name recommended you for an intelligence mission--even if it's your wife, and even if the press already knows her name. Are you still liable for a crime?
It's also not clear to me how the White House figured that the outing of Plame would cast doubt on Wilson's bona fides as an investigator. What would be the connection? Or did they suppose he would be forced to lie about it, and so claim that he must also compulsively lie about everything?
But not even Bush's opponents think he's a COMPULSIVE liar.
Posted by: Lee A. on July 12, 2004 05:24 PMMarshall's resposne to Drezner ( http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_11.php#003150 ):
"Really, why argue? If there's no legal case and no political problem, why don't the senior administration officials who leaked her identity just come forward? If their rationale is a good one and they face no legal jeopardy, what's the problem? It seems like a great opportunity to clear the air, settle the story, ascertain the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
"Doing so will save much of the money being spent on the investigation Mr. Fitzgerald is running. They can save themselves a lot of attorneys' fees. And they can have a free opportunity to explain the rationale behind their decision and why they believed it was the right thing to do in the context.
"I can only assume by their silence that they're rather less confident about the quality of their explanation and the degree of their legal jeopardy than their many voluble defenders in the conservative press."
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw on July 12, 2004 08:06 PMJ Thomas wrote, "If Bush gets another term he has to purge the CIA. Get rid of everybody who might be disloyal and replace them with people who are on his side."
ROTFLOL!
It's not wanting to hear dissenting voices that's gotten Bush in so much trouble in Iraq to begin with.
Posted by: liberal on July 12, 2004 08:26 PM"Maybe it is in the section that for a few paragraphs seems to mistakenly write about contacts between iran and Nigeria rather than Iraq and Nigeria"
First, maybe you ought to scan a map of Africa, and see that Niger and Nigeria are two different countries.
Second, if this isn't calling Wilson a liar, I don't know what is:
"The former ambassador [Wilson] also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ... which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.’” Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken” to the reporter when he said he concluded that the documents were “forged.” "
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on July 13, 2004 08:27 AM1417 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 10:32 PM1789 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
8850 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: poker on August 15, 2004 04:42 PM6452 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: play blackjack on August 17, 2004 05:58 AM