Partisan Clash, Senate Closed Session, Right Now!

[chomerics]

Maybe, kind of funny that this was hatched the previous night...after Senator Roberts and co. decided earlier (maybe in secret) that they would go to phase 2 next week. At least that is their story....

Another interesting thing is that on CNN they were getting inside info from the Democrats and their aides saying that this was done also to position themselves for the Alito fight and to re-set the nation's agenda (I suppose away from Bush's Bird flu speech and Alito's nomination for the time being).

Actually, this is why they pulled the doors shut. . .

For more than two years, Senate Democrats have pressed Republicans to address the misuse of intelligence. At every turn, Republicans have blocked efforts to investigate how intelligence was used in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Below details the long record established by Democrats to investigate this matter.

March 14, 2003 - Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Mueller requesting an investigation into the origin of the Niger documents.

May 23, 2003 - Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to the CIA and State Department Inspectors General to review issues related to the Niger documents.

June 2, 2003 - Senator Rockefeller issued a press release endorsing a statement made of the previous weekend by Senator Warner calling for a joint SSCI/SASC investigation.

June 4, 2003 - Senator Rockefeller issued a press release saying he would push for an investigation. Senator Roberts issued a press release saying calls for an investigation are premature.

June 10, 2003 - Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts asking for an investigation.

June 11, 2003 - All Committee Democrats signed a letter to Senator Roberts asking for a meeting of the Committee to discuss the question of authorizing an inquiry into the intelligence that formed the basis for going to war.

June 11, 2003 - Senator Roberts issued a press release saying this is routine committee oversight, and that criticism of the intelligence community is unwarranted. Senator Rockefeller issued a press release calling the ongoing review inadequate.

June 20, 2003 - Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release laying out the scope of the inquiry.

August 13, 2003 - Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts making 14 points about the investigation, asking to expand the inquiry to address the "use of intelligence by policy makers" and asking for several other actions.

September 9, 2003 - After press reports quoting Senator Roberts as saying the investigation was almost over, Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts urging him not to rush to complete the investigation prematurely.

October 29, 2003 - Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet expressing in strong terms that he should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available.

October 30, 2003 - Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent letters to Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice expressing in strong terms that they should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available.

October 31, 2003 - Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for documents related to the interaction between intelligence and policy makers, including the documents from the Vice President's office related to the Powell speech.

November 2, 2003 - Senator Roberts made statements during a joint television appearance with Senator Rockefeller claiming that the White house would provide all documents they jointly requested.

December 5, 2003 - Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to National Security Advisor Rice asking for her help getting documents and access to individuals.

January 22, 2004 - Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents.

February 12, 2004 - Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release announcing the Committee's unanimous approval of the expansion of the Iraq review, to include use of intelligence in the form of public statements, and listing other aspects of what became Phase II.

March 23, 2004 - Senator Rockefeller sent yet another letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents.

June 17, 2004 - Senators Roberts and Rockefeller joint press release announcing the unanimous approval of the report.

July 16, 2004 - Committee Democrats sent a letter to Bush asking for the one page summary of the NIE prepared for Bush. The Committee staff had been allowed to review it but could not take notes and the Committee was never given a copy.

February 3, 2005 - Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts outlining Committee priorities for the coming year and encouraging completion of Phase II.

August 5, 2005 - Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts expressing concern over the lack of progress on Phase II and calling for a draft to be presented to the Committee at a business meeting in September.

September 29, 2005 - All Committee Democrats joined in additional views to the annual Intelligence Authorization Bill criticizing the lack of progress on Phase II.

They've been stonewalled for far to long, and they out politicked the Repubs. It looks like the dems have their backbone and this is going to get real nasty.

[visionary]

Bear there is ABSOLUTELY nothing that states Iraq was looking for Uranium!!!!!

QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that Wilson said on Larry King's show tonight that Iraq was interesting in obtaining Uranium and even tried to get some on a few occasions.

[chomerics]

Bear there is ABSOLUTELY nothing that states Iraq was looking for Uranium!!!!!

QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that Wilson said on Larry King's show tonight that Iraq was interesting in obtaining Uranium and even tried to get some on a few occasions.

I just read his book and saw him on 60min. last night and nothing like that was said. He has stated emphatically that every allegation was false.

I'm not saying nobody said it, somebody probably said something like that, but it wasn't Wilson. Maybe somebody else was on after him and stated it, you know like how they give the rebuttal guests or something like that. He's pretty set in his ways, and I can not see him saying something like that.

[visionary]

What did they say?

Frist said that the Democrats have no decency, no plan,, no convictions, no morals, and a whole bunch of other stuff. He stated that he will never ever again trust Haery Reid and then of course later on during the after session hearings, he reminds everyone to keep from getting political or personal. LOL He said a lot of other stuff too, soem of it worse than what I posted, maybe he shoudl be reprimanded or anything but it sounded pretty outrageous and insulting at the time.

Reid said that the Republicans have never done any oversight on Bush and they have never opposed him on anything and all they ever do is try to keep from getting things passed and he pretty much accused them of colluding with the White House on ever single issue that has ever come before the Senate since Bush got in town. He said a bunch of other stuff too, and all in all he kept making it sound as if the Republicans were all vile criminals who do everythign that Bush wants them to and he was fighting for the American people against them every step of the way.

(though that may not seem all that harsh to you ;-)

Actually now that I think about it it seems a lot more amusing than anything else at the moment, or at least it does, if one takes it out of the context of what a mess this is all going to make of the Legislature and them actually getting anything done.

I have to wonder what the moderates on both sides were thinking during all this, I didn't see a single one of them on tv today.

[visionary]

I just read his book and saw him on 60min. last night and nothing like that was said. He has stated emphatically that every allegation was false.

I'm not saying nobody said it, somebody probably said something like that, but it wasn't Wilson. Maybe somebody else was on after him and stated it, you know like how they give the rebuttal guests or something like that. He's pretty set in his ways, and I can not see him saying something like that.

No it was Wilson, but maybe I just misinterpreted what he said.

He also said that he did the right thing in going to Niger in the first place and that he still thought the war was justified on the basis of other wmds and such when the War began. But then he went on to say that after learning that the forgeries were the documents that he heard Bush give as evidence that he realized that the war was probably not justified. So maybe when he was talking about that Iraq went after Uranium he was telling what he had thought, before learning the truth about the forgeries.

[Zen-like Todd]

So in your version of the world Zen, even though a person can agree 100% with a viewpoint of a neoconservative, they can't possibly be a neo-con because the are not Jewish. . . Got it

Wrong again, as usual. Standard message board trolling tactic, eh, try to misconstrue the other person's post, and try to shift the debate.

No, I was actually willing to debate you on the topic Zen, yet you FAILED to prove your point. I asked you for a single post by ND where he goes against the neo-conservative agenda, and you decided to instead attack. He has over 10,000 posts, you should OBVIOUSLY be able to find a post or two by ND where he is not sprouting off the party line right? You can OBVIOUSLY find somewhere he has diverted from the neo-conservative agenda driven by the Bush Administration right?

Honestly chom, stop embarassing yourself. ND is so obviously, and so publically opposed to social welfare systems, and so clearly not intellectually grounded in neoconservatism that its not even worth my time to hit the search button. It's like asking someone to find a picture of a whale in the water. The fact that you have a mental block regarding the acceptance of your incorrect usage of the term doesnt indicate the necessity for others to run around on silly errands for you.

I actually don't disagree that ND is a evangelical republican, but the neoconservative ideology has BECOME evangelical with Bush.

And here again, you admit that you don't know what a neoconservative is, and are simply using it as a substitution for any policy of the current administration, regardless of the philiosophy. Its fairly insane to try to apply evangelical philosophy to neoconservatism when, as far as his policies overlap those, they are largely driven by the input of the true neoconservatives in his administration, such as former Asst. Sec Def Wolfowitz.

You do believe that people can change the platform of the party don't you? Or are you still under the impression that a republican is for a fiscally sound government?

Republican is a party, not a political philosophy. Terrible analogy.

You see Zen, the advent of neoconservatism is nothing like the neo-cons running the office now.

Not remotely true. You're just frantically backpedaling, attempting to find cause for the inaccurate use of a term.

Already established as ridiculous. The truth is, you were being intellectually lazy in your attempt to use a perjorative term to attack conservatives on the board. Called out for it, you have no defense other than to pretend you live on a different planet.

You were right before, the neo-cons alligned themselves with the christian right, the melding of the two had already been completed

And here again, simplistically trying to transform political alignment on a particular issue to a melding of philosophies, again, patently absurd, as illustrated by the notion that one could just as easily align neoconservative with liberals.

but you have failed to notice a change.

More like I use my brain before going around casting incorrect aspersions.

You still invision the neoconservative platform as 70's libralism not 00's neoconservatism.

How cute. The actual truth, as opposed to chomerics' la la land, is that I, unlike you, am capable of thoughtful consideration and analysis, and rather than the simpleminded stereotypical labelling of the typical tailgate troll, I actually assign labels correctly.

It now IS the party of the christian right. You may say that is wasn't born under the guise of christianity, but there is no denying that it IS the party of christianity right now.

Seriously, how much can one person embarass himself? You finally come out and clarify your desperate interpretation, your last stand if you will. In chomerics' mind, neoconservatism = evangelical conservatism. Pray tell chomerics, how does that equate with the raft of traditional conservatives, "paleocons" if you will, that are quite religiously conservative, and yet diverge 180 degrees from neoconservative foreign policy agendas?

You're sitting here, wasting everyone's time on this board because you think you can defend the position of calling a dog a rabbit. Its nonsensical. Seriously, grow up and move on. Your flawed understanding of politics and economics are really holding you back, due solely to your pathological inability to learn from those with a better understanding of the situation.

[Larry]

He arrived on Feb 26th.. feb 27, feb 28th.. Mar 1.. done! thats one heck of an investigation... 4 days including travel...

Aparantly four days including travel was all it took for him to come to the correct conclusion. (A conclusion that George Bush aparantly still refuses to believe (or at least, admit) after four years.)

[@DCGoldPants]

It only took 4 days to nominate somebody else for the Supreme Court also. Somebody who wasn't the best man for the job, the 1st time around.

So, I guess a lot can get done in 4 days.

[wskin44]

NavyDave writes "I don't ignore I just don't trust liberals with an anti war anti america agenda"

If that's all it is then you are A-OK with me. Do you just distrust liberals that are anti-war, or liberals that are anti-war AND anti-American? Or do you just distrust liberals period? In your experience are anti-war, anti-American and anti-Republican all the same thing?

I just wish that everyone had to wear a uniform, like in the NFL, so it would be easy to know who to hate.

[wskin44]

if what comes of this is a deeper understand for everybody on the pre-war information that we used.

Isn't that a good thing? Its either going to be.

#1. Yeah, the info was bad. But nobody twisted it to fit a plan already in place.

or

#2. Yeah, the info was bad. But what's worse is that we knew it was shady and still went at it to fit a plan already in place.

What's the harm in being honestly and truthful about what happened? Shouldn't every member of the Senate and Congress want to be honest with the folks from their state? Look, I even saw Trent Lott tonight of all people say that he based his beliefs on the intell that turned out to be wrong. He didn't say he wasn't supporting the war or the president or whatever. But, amazingly enough. He basically said "Hey, we blew it on the intell"

I'll like to see a few more folks do that.

:applause:

Exactly. Just having identified that our intel was wrong isn't enough.

Why did it happen?

What are we doing to ensure that it won't happen again?

Were there dissenting voices that were buried when information was passed up the line?

Did the CIA ever conclude that there was validity to the Niger yellowcake story?

Or did the President only hear the Pentagon assessment?

Is the conflict/competition between the CIA and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) undermining the ability of our leadership to make informed decisions?

The Senate completed its initial study that concluded that our intel was wrong in July of 2004. It agreed to investigate the possibility that information presented to the President was somehow distorted to support a pre-ordained conclusion. Why hasn't that investigation started 15 months later?

In fact why didn't that investigation get going full force last August? I can only assume that it wasn't politically convienient. Meanwhile 7 more soldiers died yesterday and 2 more today.

Why doesn't everyone want to get to the bottom of how we came to invade Iraq?

This isn't a party thing. The apparatus and procedures that allow this country to go to war malfunctioned. It needs to be straightened out before it happens again.

[Hooper]

What a sad state of affairs. Democrat or Republican, it would be so nice to have an administration that was at least competent and confidence-inspiring.

[wskin44]

What a sad state of affairs. Democrat or Republican, it would be so nice to have an administration that was at least competent and confidence-inspiring.

It wouldn't work. If there was a competent administration the other side would undermine them.

The Founding Fathers hated political parties and many of them wanted the government to be free of that disease. With all of the "Originalists" getting put on the Supreme Court maybe they will honor the intentions of the FF's and outlaw political parties.

never happen but I can dream.

[Duncan]

Show me where he LIED about his wife recommending the trip. I am caling you out on it because it is not true.

Prove it Duncan. Show me EXACTLY where he LIED.

:laugh: Yep, no problem

My pleasure Mike....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955

"Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know."

Any questions?

[Duncan]

Here is another denial:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html

"In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME. "I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job."

Need any more proof?

[Thiebear]

I thought Chomerics agreed that he was wrong on the Valerie Plame sending her husband to Niger... Then correctly said what does that have to do with the investigation?

[Duncan]

I thought Chomerics agreed that he was wrong on the Valerie Plame sending her husband to Niger... Then correctly said what does that have to do with the investigation?

He "called me out" to prove where the man lied and I just did.

[Duncan]

Don't mind chom, he uses "neocon" in the same way that people use "left", or "liberal", either failing to realize, or completely ignoring the fact that it has a particular meaning. ND isn't exactly a neocon.

The problem with chom is that his posts seem to be pre-written to counter “neocon” arguments. I engaged him in a debate about tax cuts a while ago and he probably called me a neocon 20 times despite the fact that I’m neither a neocon nor Bush supporter.

Libertarians, evangelicals, moderates, classical liberals or anyone that disagrees with his far left views morph into neocons.

That being said, it is sometimes fun to read.

[visionary]

It only took 4 days to nominate somebody else for the Supreme Court also. Somebody who wasn't the best man for the job, the 1st time around.

So, I guess a lot can get done in 4 days.

You can't prove that he wasn't the best MAN for the job...

[chomerics]

My pleasure Mike....

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006955

"Mr. Wilson also vehemently denied it when columnist Robert Novak first reported that his wife had played a role in selecting him for the Niger mission. He promptly signed up as adviser to the Kerry campaign and was feted almost everywhere in the media, including repeat appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press" and a photo spread (with Valerie) in Vanity Fair.

But his day in the political sun was short-lived. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report last July cited the note that Ms. Plame had sent recommending her husband for the Niger mission. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report.

The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger.

In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know."

Any questions?

Yet, the CIA claims the senate intel report is wrong. They have stated that the person, a state department official who claims to have witnessed her telling her supervisor, could not have witnessed the meeting because the person was somewhere else at the time the alleged meeting took place.

Claim: Plame suggested Wilson for the trip

White House defenders have also persisted in asserting that Plame suggested Wilson for the trip to the Niger. The October 24 Journal editorial claimed that Plame "had been instrumental in getting [Wilson] the CIA consulting job ... as a bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee documented in 2004" [excerpt]. In fact, the degree to which Plame was responsible for Wilson's selection by the CIA is still a matter of dispute. Moreover, the Senate Intelligence Committee reached no official conclusion regarding her involvement.

On the October 23 broadcast of NBC's syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, New York Times columnist David Brooks further suggested that the entire investigation was the result of inevitable questions that would arise because Wilson's connection to the CIA through his wife would be the only way someone with his background could have gotten the job to begin with: "And why it all started, is because why is this guy who writes for The Nation magazine being sent out by the Bush administration to do an investigation? That was the original question," Brooks said. "So I suspect, you know, people will call around, why is this guy who's an unlikely Bushie working for the Bush administration, and somebody said, 'Well, his wife works at the CIA, got him the job, blah blah blah,' and I think that was the real kernel" [transcript].

Conservatives in the media have also repeated what is essentially a "he-asked-for-it" mantra -- that in writing his July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, Wilson was guaranteeing that his wife would be outed. Former Speaker of the House and Fox News analyst Newt Gingrich suggested this during the October 19 broadcast of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes; however, the argument not only rests on the uncertain claim that Plame did suggest him for the trip, it also relies on an erroneous ordering of events.

On the October 23 Fox News Sunday, Kristol said, "Maybe they were a little too obsessed with discrediting Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson writes an op-ed, which, in effect, ensures that his wife's covert career is over, since ... it was going to be investigated why he was on this trip to Niger" [transcript]. The October 24 Journal editorial stated, "Ms. Plame was surely not undercover, and her own husband had essentially made her 'outing' inevitable when he exploited his former CIA consultant status (that she had helped him obtain) to inject himself in the middle of a Presidential campaign" [excerpt].

Wilson's op-ed, of course, makes no mention of Valerie Plame; further, efforts by Bush administration officials to discredit Wilson, which include leaking the name of his wife to members of the press, began well ahead of its July 6, 2003, publication. In her own account of her testimony before the grand jury, New York Times reporter Judith Miller stated that "well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. [i. Lewis "Scooter"] Libby [chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney] told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A."

source

[chomerics]

Here is another denial:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html

"In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME. "I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job."

Need any more proof?

Yes, he absolutely denied that she sent him, and he was right. Read the above post.

[Duncan]

Yet, the CIA claims the senate intel report is wrong. They have stated that the person, a state department official who claims to have witnessed her telling her supervisor, could not have witnessed the meeting because the person was somewhere else at the time the alleged meeting took place.

source

So the bi partisan commission reviewed the documents and agree his wife wrote a memo recommending him for the trip, but you post proof from a liberal hack website. You are too much Mike.

[chomerics]

I thought Chomerics agreed that he was wrong on the Valerie Plame sending her husband to Niger... Then correctly said what does that have to do with the investigation?

I re-edited the post bear after I found out some more information. It appears that the state department official who claimed that Wilson's wife sent him was not at the meeting when the alleged conversation took place.

As I understand it, Plame's boss wanted Wilson to go on the trip, so he had Plame act as the mediator and asked her to run it buy him. It was not Plame's decision to send him, and she did not even bring up his name, her boss brought it to her attention, and the official word from the CIA states that the department official who caimed to witness the meeting was not at the meeting. THe person was somewhere else when the conversation took place. In other words, the CIA claims that the validity of the intel report in regards to Plame sending him is not valid.

[chomerics]

So the bi partisan commission reviewed the documents and agree his wife wrote a memo recommending him for the trip, but you post proof from a liberal hack website. You are too much Mike.

Well, I am not just going by what the website says, but everything else taken in context.

Wilson denies that she sent him, the CIA says the meeting never took place, you know her employer.

But sources said the CIA believes that people in the administration continue to release classified information to damage the figures at the center of the controversy, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame, who was exposed as a CIA officer by unidentified senior administration officials for a July 14 column by Robert D. Novak.

Wilson, a prominent critic of the administration over Iraq, has said that was done to retaliate against him for continuing to publicize his conclusion, after a 2002 mission for the CIA, that there was little evidence Iraq had sought uranium in Africa to develop nuclear weapons.

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.

source

So how could the officer who talked about Plames roll NOT be at the meeting and have witnessed what the conversation was???

You see, you THINK it is a liberal hack website, yet they use sources to back up every single one of their claims. Yet, you think it is perfectally acceptible to use an op-ed piece in the WSJ to bolster your credibility.

Articles on State Dept. memo on Plame ignored that CIA officials have challenged its claim that Plame suggested Wilson for Niger trip

In the last four days, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times and Time magazine have all reported on a classified State Department memo that may have been where White House officials first learned the identity of then-covert CIA operative Valerie Plame before that information was leaked to syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, Time correspondent Matthew Cooper, and possibly others. While all these articles reported that the memo and/or its accompanying materials mention that it was Plame who recommended her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, all failed to note that CIA officials reportedly dispute this part of the document.

The memo, written by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), contained an intelligence assessment disputing the allegation that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger, as well as an attachment with an INR analyst's notes from a February 19, 2002, meeting where the CIA discussed sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the allegation. The notes reported that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip. (It's not clear whether the claim that Plame suggested her husband for the trip was also included in the memo itself, or only in the accompanying notes.) But CIA officials reportedly dispute this part of the document because, they claim, the CIA agent whom the notes record as describing Plame's role at the 2002 meeting could not have attended it.

While reporting on the central role that the classified memo may have played in Plame's exposure, all the articles have noted its claim that Plame recommended her husband for the Niger trip:

* The Washington Post: "The memo 'identifies her as having selected or recommended her husband' for the Niger assignment, according to a person who has seen it." [ 7/16/05]

* The New York Times "The memorandum was prepared at the State Department, relying on notes by an analyst who was involved in meetings in early 2002 to discuss whether to send someone to Africa to investigate allegations that Iraq was pursuing uranium purchases. ... The notes, which did not identify Ms. Wilson or her husband by name, said the meeting was 'apparently convened by' the wife of a former ambassador 'who had the idea to dispatch' him to Niger because of his contacts in the region." [7/16/05]

* The Los Angeles Times: "The memo was written by the State Department's intelligence and research bureau. It outlined the history of the Niger uranium controversy and emphasized the bureau's view that there was no substance to reports that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger. A State Department analyst who had attended the meeting at which the CIA decided to dispatch Wilson to Africa to check out the story kept the notes from that session, the former [state Department] official ["who because of the sensitive nature of the case asked not to be named"] said. The notes mentioned that Wilson's wife had suggested sending Wilson. After getting [former Deputy Secretary of State Richard] Armitage's request, the State Department's then-intelligence chief, Carl Ford, ordered the original memo -- along with the analyst's notes about that meeting -- to be sent to [former Secretary of State Colin L.] Powell, the former official said." [7/17/05]

* The Wall Street Journal: "[The memo] details a meeting in early 2002 in which CIA officials discussed how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium ore from Niger. Ms. Wilson, an agent working on issues related to weapons of mass destruction, recommended her husband, an expert on Africa, to travel to Niger to investigate the matter." [7/19/05]

* Time: "The memo, originally dated June 10, 2003, identified Plame and discussed her role in recommending her husband for the mission to Niger." [7/17/05]

All these articles, however, failed to mention that CIA officials have reportedly disputed the memo's accuracy on this point. The Washington Post reported on December 26, 2003:

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed, said a senior administration official who has seen it.

CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.

In addition, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, other intelligence officials have told Newsday and the Los Angeles Times that Plame did not suggest Wilson for the trip.

source

http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf#page=451

You should also scroll down to the addendum in the senate intelligence report which states that the democrats do not agree with the assesment that his wife sent him. You see, it is yet another lie meant just to smear his character, and it adds absolutely nothing to the case.

So, in conclusion, the CIA objects to it, Wilson objects to it and the Senate democrats object to the entire part about Plame in the report. Saying that it is "fact" is not correct.

[chomerics]

The problem with chom is that his posts seem to be pre-written to counter “neocon” arguments. I engaged him in a debate about tax cuts a while ago and he probably called me a neocon 20 times despite the fact that I’m neither a neocon nor Bush supporter.

Libertarians, evangelicals, moderates, classical liberals or anyone that disagrees with his far left views morph into neocons.

That being said, it is sometimes fun to read.

So your point? Is this ANY different from saying I have Far Left views, something that is emphatically and catagorically wrong?

That is unless these are far left viewpoints, pro guns, free trade, capitol punishment, fiscal responsibility, lower taxed with targeted cuts in spending, smaller government. . . yea, these are all from the Far Left point of view :doh:

As for the argument well over a year ago, you were taking the moronic neoconservative view that supply side cuts without spending cuts work. You also previously stated that an agressive forign policy is good for America, and a number of other areas where you agreed with the Bush agenda, in my eyes you WERE espounsing a neo-con point of view. I have use that on three people I believe here, yourself, Navy Dave and Mad Mike. Three radical extremists who have marched in lock step with the Bush administration and their beliefs. Like I said to Zen previously, if you disagree with it, then bring up an old post and show me where you disagree with the viewpoint, it's not that hard to get me to change my mind, you just need to be convincing in your argument and actually come up with proof instead of BS rhetoric.

[Duncan]

So your point? Is this ANY different from saying I have Far Left views, something that is emphatically and catagorically wrong?

That is unless these are far left viewpoints, pro guns, free trade, capitol punishment, fiscal responsibility, lower taxed with targeted cuts in spending, smaller government. . . yea, these are all from the Far Left point of view :doh:

As for the argument well over a year ago, you were taking the moronic neoconservative view that supply side cuts without spending cuts work. You also previously stated that an agressive forign policy is good for America, and a number of other areas where you agreed with the Bush agenda, in my eyes you WERE espounsing a neo-con point of view. I have use that on three people I believe here, yourself, Navy Dave and Mad Mike. Three radical extremists who have marched in lock step with the Bush administration and their beliefs. Like I said to Zen previously, if you disagree with it, then bring up an old post and show me where you disagree with the viewpoint, it's not that hard to get me to change my mind, you just need to be convincing in your argument and actually come up with proof instead of BS rhetoric.

To say you don’t have a far left viewpoint is laughable Mike.

“Three radical extremists who have marched in lock step with the Bush administration and their beliefs.”

Maybe if I voted for Bush you would have a point.

You are such a pathetic liar there really is no reason to continue this discussion.