88 Comments

1. thedragonflies:

I am concluding that the CIA itself has been a major opponent of Bush in Iraq. It seems they had become politically correct Clintonites who lean toward the State Department’s view of maintaining “stability” and avoiding the chaos of substantive change. Plame and the CIA seem to be the ones who set up Bush with the Wilson trip.

Jul 18, 2004 - 8:35 am 2. David Thomson:

ìIf this proves to be a rumor, McGeough has called a man a murderer in a major publication without anything but a wisp of proof and deserves to go to journalism jail.î

The liberal media practice the deplorable tactic of headlining questionable news stories—and then later posting a correction in the back pages. Needless to add, the victims of their smear job are severely damaged. One, for instance, merely needs to point out President Bushís low poll numbers. There currently is no justification whatsoever for a news organization to run a story on Dr. Ayad Allawi. Journalism 101 mandates that substantial evidence is required.

The liberal media are very upset that Iraq is getting on its feet. Iraq is suppose to fail and prove that the West is incapable of successfully reforming the reactionary status quo of the Arab world. They will now highlight every alleged act of wrong doing to delegitimize the new government. And letís get something straight right here and now: human rights abuses will occur! However, we must deal with them in a mature and balanced manner. Jeanne Kilpatrick long ago warned that the United States often jeopardizes the weak institutions of a fledging democracy by demanding that it always acts flawlessly. Letís learn from our past mistakes.

Jul 18, 2004 - 8:57 am 3. Charlie (Colorado):

It’s really not fair to either CIA or the Clintons (depending on who you think would be insulted) to ascribe the desire for stability above all to Clinton PC: that’s been the primary diplomatic urge at least since Queen Victoria died. (If not longer; as I recall from Kim, Kipling wasn’t all that well impressed with the pukka diplomats.)

One of the underlying axes of thought that we’ve been arguing about in this blog and elsewhere is between “stability at any cost” and “freedom for others means safety for ourselves.” CIA and State have been on the “stability” side since Truman.

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:02 am 4. Pat Curley:

On the whole, I rather like the fact that the liberal media are attempting to defend the indefensible instead of their prior practice of forgetting it a la Duranty, because it keeps the story alive. Wilson serves them no purpose today and they would be better off relying on the lame “there’s no sense changing history” excuse they use for not returning Duranty’s prize than trying to prop Wilson up. He’s had his 15 minutes of fame.

I wonder if the Times and other papers are forced to do this by the rise of online competition. They can no longer control the information that gets through to the public because there are cracks in the wall.

We can now read hundreds of newspaper columnists online, not just the four that the Times happens to publish that day. Online media critics like Mickey Kaus, Oh That Liberal Media and Howard Kurtz make it harder to sweep things under the rug, and the rise of cable news networks has created a need for more topics, and of course there is nothing that the media like to discuss more than themselves–which means that stories don’t die, they are continually picked over in the light of new information.

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:11 am 5. Captain_Overkill:

I too have been curious as to why the media hasn’t started blaring the accusations about Allawi and the rumor about US troops sexually assaulting teenage boys in Abu Ghraib. My guess is that given the recent wave of debunkings that have been hammering them from their previous rounds of “scandalmania,” they’re going to be a bit more cautious for a little while.

I’m a little surprised though, I would have thought they’d seize upon these unconfirmed reports to distract their readers from the Wilson debunking.

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:19 am 6. Fausta:

It’s not just the sins of commission, such as the NYT defending Wilson & his lies, it’s also the sins of ommission, such as not publishing stories that are not convenient to their POV.

Which is why the internet’s having — and will continue to have — such an impact.

(Yes, I went to Catholic school, with all that talk of “sins”)

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:23 am 7. richard mcenroe:

You mean we haven’t been talking about the guy who sang “Ink a-Dink A-Dzerzhinsky?”

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:36 am 8. PeterUK:

It would be interesting to know why the NYT feels it needs to defend Joseph C Wilson,is there something nasty under that rock which could damage the Democrats?

I find McGeoughs casual accusations concerning Dr Allawi somewhat racist,if this had been an Australian politician,would he have dared,would his editor have let him,would it have got past the Herald’s lawyers?

The other strand of new leftism is that it is patronising and imperialist,Iraq has a government,laws, why does Robin Cook feel the need for the Red Cross to investigate,it wouldn’t be because he doesn’t think that the Iraqis are capable?

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:41 am 9. chuck:

“…rumor about US troops sexually assaulting teenage boys in Abu Ghraib.” I would be suspicious of that one too, Sounds too much like a porn fantasy, and I suspect that it actually comes from a porn site like the other “rape” photos.

The accusations about Allawi strike me as urban legends. Just wishful thinking on the part of Iraqis tired of crime and terrorism whose previous model of a forceful leader was Saddam. Saddam, of course, did do such things.

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:42 am 10. Tano:

“everyone knows the Senate Intelligence Committee Report was bi-partisan”

Oh, I see.

Does this mean that you are now willing to acknowledge that the 9/11 commission is also (actually, even more so) bipartisan? Or would that be, only to the extent that they say things you agree with?

re. McGeough “If this proves to be a rumor…”

As an exercise in free thinking fairness, how ’bout letting us know what you thoughts would be if it turns out to be true?

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:54 am 11. chuck:

PeterUK

“The other strand of new leftism is that it is patronising and imperialist.”

Well, I am always suspicious of folks that base their lives on doing good for “other” folks. Especially, poor, exploited, whatever, other folks. I mean, the downtrodden surely need the guidance of their betters, no? And the doers of good must feel the warmth of knowing that the Gods of History are smiling upon them, or so they suppose.

It’s just a childish conceit some never grow out of.

Jul 18, 2004 - 9:58 am 12. chuck:

Tano,

“… how ’bout letting us know what you thoughts would be if it turns out to be true?”

Eh, Tano. And what should I think if the rumor that you beat your wife turns out to be true?

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:02 am 13. Roger:

Very simple, Tano. If it turns out to be true, I will say we made a huge mistake. It will even hurt my support for the war.

Now how about you? How about something simple? If it turns out to be another lie, will you admit who you are or will you remain an anonymous coward? That shouldn’t hard, should it, for a friend of the truth like you?

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:09 am 14. rgvdh:

“The on-going Plame Wilson Wars are making me think that no one stands for anything substantive anymore, only the preservation of their own power.”

Only on the Left, Roger, only on the Left.

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:21 am 15. Tano:

geez Roger,

Isnt it usually the case that the guy who runs the blog is the one trying to keep the standards up?

anonymous coward? Kinda harsh isnt it? As I count it, this thread has 7 commenters using pseudonyms or just first names, and 3 using what we might presume to be their full names. And that is probably a rough approximation of what usually happens on this site. Do you consider 70% of your community to be cowards, or do you reserve that only for those who think independently of the consensus?

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:29 am 16. Roger:

No, Tano, you come on here impugning my integrity and I don’t know who you are. That’s not harsh at all from where I sit. Why would I respect that?

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:32 am 17. richard mcenroe:

So we’re not talking about the one who sang “Ink-a Dink-a Dzherzinsky?”

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:35 am 18. Tano:

dragonflies writes,

“I am concluding that the CIA itself has been a major opponent of Bush in Iraq. ”

gee, this is so confusing. I thought that the meme of the week was that the CIA is the guilty party for giving Bush all that lousy intel about wmd etc., and assuring him that it was a slam dunk that we would find it (when even Bush expressed some skepticism about the evidence).

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:41 am 19. Tano:

Roger,

I wasnt particularly targeting your integrity – I have just noticed you often making reference to the partisanship of the 9/11 commision – something I find kinda strange, given its makeup. I seem to recall asking you about that before. And your reference to its partisanship usually accompanies a dismissal of some preliminary finding that has come out.

Now, when some on the other side do the same thing – blame a panel for partisanship as a means of dismissing its finding, you criticize that.

So I just find the juxtaposition of those two attitudes to reflect partisanship, rather than fair-mindedness on your part. I dont necessarily equate that to a lack of integrity.

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:53 am 20. rgvdh:

tano sez:

“gee, this is so confusing. I thought that the meme of the week was that …”

I could understand how that could be confusing from your point of view. We here can hold conflicting ideas and theories and still have respectful discussions about their relative merits. Some of us can even entertain multiple mutually-inconsistent hypotheses in our minds simultaneously, holding them all in a state of “truth value unknown” while we continue to collect data. But that’s because we’re not a herd of group-thinking, talking-points-spouting leftist kool-aid drinkers.

Which is why I don’t expect *you* to ever understand.

Jul 18, 2004 - 10:56 am 21. Tano:

rgvdh,

Well, thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate that you acknowledge the mutually-inconsistent nature of the hypotheses. I thought it was just me…

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:00 am 22. Charlie (Colorado):

“gee, [sic] this is so confusing. I thought that the meme of the week was that the CIA is the guilty party for giving Bush all that lousy intel about wmd etc.,….”

Tano, the confusion would lessen considerably if you’d give up the underlying assumption (”meme of the week”) that we’re mind-controlled robotically by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

For that matter, the very question assumes that CIA is some vast group-mind with only one opinion and no internal opposition or dissent.

Of course, the simplest explanation may be just that you’re another troll, uninterested in anything except taking pot-shots.

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:03 am 23. Tano:

FWIW – Wilson is going to be on the NewsHour with someone from the Intel Committee tomorrow – should be interesting….

Following all this discussion, I just feel the need to keep a few little facts in mind. Irresepctive of the extent to which Wilson may have lied, it seems pretty clearly to be the case that:

Iraq was not purchasing yellowcake

Iraq did not have a nuclear program capable of doing anything with yellowcake

Iraq was not producing nuclear weapons that could be passed to al-Q

Iraq therefore, did not pose either an imminent or a gathering threat, on this issue, that necessitated going to war

And so I certainly still feel that Bush’s SOTU – using the yellowcake issue as part of an argument for war – was deeply deceptive.

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:07 am 24. Charlie (Colorado):

“I wasnt particularly targeting your integrity – I have just noticed you often making reference to the partisanship of the 9/11 commision – something I find kinda strange, given its makeup.”

Hmmm. It’s probably false to assume that the Commission is partisan, but as I recall, the issue has been that the members of the Commission — and, even more, the staff reports — seem to have been exceedingly partisan in their comments and television appearances.

You appear to be confusing the unanimous conclusions of a bi=partisan commission with the specific opinions of individuals.

Confusion between a collective and the individual motivations of members of the collective. That seems familiar. I wonder if there isn’t a deeper insight here?

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:08 am 25. Rick Ballard:

Tano,

I find your arguments shallowly deceptive and misleading. You’re a thread thief, a light weight troll and a waste of time. You have the obfuscating talent of Joe Wilson and obviously share his lack of values.

Replying to your spurious assertions is not worth the waste of pixels but noting your lack of veracity and identifying you as the JohnJohn’s lackey is fun.

I hope DtP stops by for a little moderate troll tossing – you’re not quite as pathetic as Mork so he might take a little pleasure in it.

Oh, and I do sign my name, so I can safely call you a chickentroll.

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:26 am 26. PeterUK:

“Irresepctive of the extent to which Wilson may have lied, it seems pretty clearly to be the case that:

Iraq was not purchasing yellowcake.”

No it it isn’t!

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:29 am 27. Charlie (Colorado):

“Irresepctive of the extent to which Wilson may have lied, it seems pretty clearly to be the case that:

- Iraq was not purchasing yellowcake

- Iraq did not have a nuclear program capable of doing anything with yellowcake

- Iraq was not producing nuclear weapons that could be passed to al-Q

Iraq therefore, did not pose either an imminent or a gathering threat, on this issue, that necessitated going to war.

And so I certainly still feel that Bush’s SOTU – using the yellowcake issue as part of an argument for war – was deeply deceptive.

[I added some bullets and paragraph breaks for clarity.]

This is a truly curious (read: “crazy”) conclusion.

If Iraq wasn’t purchasing yellowcake, where did the recent pile of yellowcake come from? So far as I know there’s no Iraqi deposits of refined UO6.

If nuclear weapons are the only WMD issue, why was there such a fuss about the missing chem/bio weapons? (Wouldn’t be moving the goalposts, now that sarin and cyclosarin have been found, would we?)

And given that there are now two independent — and by your argument, bipartisan — commissions that say Bush and Blair were justified to believe that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake, how can you logically conclude mentioning it was deceptive?

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:29 am 28. flenser:

Tano

You bring up a series of strawmen arguments and knock them down again. What is that supposed to prove?

The Bush claim was that Iraq was trying to purchase yellocake. That claim seems likely to be true. It was even backed up by Wilsons own report. What specifically do you find “decpetive” about the SOTU address?

To say that Iraq “was not purchasing yellowcake” marks you as a fool or a liar. Nobody has said that Iraq ever consumated the transaction. You are implying that Bush claimed that they did. What grounds do you have for saying so?

Flenser

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:35 am 29. Fresh Air:

Tano–

Read the Butler Report. Iraq certainly sought to purchase yellowcake in the past. (Joe Wilson’s own notes indicated Iraqi agents tried to buy yellowcake from Niger in 1999.) Enrichment is beyond my area of expertise, but presumably unless he was confused and thought his agents were meeting with Betty Crocker, Saddam had a method in mind for enriching the yellowcake.

Wielding or passing nuclear weapons, as you know, is not the only form of danger Saddam could conceivably pose to other nations. It also flies in the face of Saddam’s posession of long-range missiles that served no purpose except for delivering warheads of mass destruction.

Tano, your logic, quite frankly, wouldn’t pass muster in a high school debate club. I used to think you had something, however odd, to add to these discussion boards, but I increasingly believe you are only interested in being disagreeable. Prove me wrong by conceding Joseph Wilson was a liar.

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:42 am 30. Roberts:

It is always amusing to see what lies and misrepresentations Tano labels as “facts”. I find it fascinating that if Bush is the “liar”, that his critics must lie so much and so often to establish that.

The “16 words” in the SOTU address had one theme – to emphasize that Saddam Hussein did not intend to abide by the Gulf War agreements. What we are learning is that there have been liars in this debate, and that President Bush isn’t among them. Joe Wilson and his friends here remain among them.

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:44 am 31. Syl:

back to the MSM.

I’m really getting the impression that, yes, some of the reporters are definitely biased and approach the story with their bubble view intact. However, the difficulty they’re having in sorting out the facts simply shows massive incompetence rather than willful bias.

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:50 am 32. Rick Ballard:

For those wanting a few more fact nuggets on Wilson, this bio on the Saudi funded MEI site has a couple of note widely noted tidbits:

“He was one of the principal architects of President Clinton¬ís historic trip to Africa in March 1998.”

“In 1985-1986, he served in the offices of Senator Albert Gore and the House Majority Whip, Representative Thomas Foley…”

Given this background one might legitimately wonder what plums were dangled before him and what assurances of “complete support” he received prior to his NYT harikiri piece.

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:54 am 33. richard mcenroe:

Roger _ You write, “no one stands for anything substantive anymore, only the preservation of their own power.”

On the contrary, Little Pinch Sulzberger and the Times, as well as those who read it and stand for what it stands for (you really have to come up with a term for them you find acceptable; I’m going to start using “70’s reactionaries”) are fighting for their entire world view, hence their venom and the neurotic denial of everything that doesn’t fit. There can’t be sarin shells. Wilson can’t have lied. We can’t be establishing democracy by military action. The Iraqis and Afghans must be writhing in a Bush-induced Gehenna, not slowly taking charge of their own lives for the first time in decades. If any of these claims are false, then the whole world they’ve constructed for themselves in the coffeehouses of New York and San Francisco, around the pools of LA, and in faculty lounges across the nation is a sham, and a fiction. It reminds me of Wellington, in his post-Napoleon years as Prime Minister, listening to the angry mobs in the street smashing his windows… with the difference that none of the 70’s reactionaries have ever done for this country a fraction of what Wellington did for Britain.

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:56 am 34. Tano:

You guys,,,,

Strawman argumentation and insults.

Lets take ‘em one at a time.

Charlie raises the VRWC strawman. I did not say that. I think all politicos, and most commentators latch onto ‘memes of the week’. It means ‘that which certain groups are arguing’. No implication of mind control, or any specific charge against the ‘right’.

Charlie once again accuses me of thinking of the CIA as some single-minded entity. I would just point out that I didnt even make a single statement about the CIA. Dragonflies, in his orginal post, spoke of the CIA as an enemy of Bush in Iraq. And I merely reported that others speak of the CIA as having pushed Bush in the direction of war. How is it fair to blame me originating the notion of the CIA as a singular entity?

Seems like Charlie really wishes I were someone who I am not.

Rick – well what to say. String of insults. Very convincing and impressive.

PeterUK – To support your response to me, perhaps you could point to the evidence that Iraq was, in fact, purchasing yellowcake.

Flenser – “To say that Iraq “was not purchasing yellowcake” marks you as a fool or a liar. Nobody has said that Iraq ever consumated the transaction.”

Huh? As you say, the transaction was not consumated. And so how is it a lie or foolish to say that they were not purchasing? In fact, not only was the transaction not consumated, there seems not to have been any transaction at all. What is there? One minister making one comment that we might be interested in expanding commercial relations? Even if that was about uranium – an unsupported guess, even if plausible – it is a hell of a long way from a transaction. Especially since nothing ever came from that one comment.

As for Bush – I did not say that he claimed they bought it. But he did mention the possibility in the course of making a case for war. And there was nothing in fact there that could possibly justify a war.

Or is one completely ambiguous comment by one minister, never followed up, a casus belli?

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:56 am 35. PeterUK:

Rick,

I suppose Tom Hagen visited him and told him his family would be looked after.

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:01 pm 36. PeterUK:

Tano – To support your response to me, perhaps you could point to the evidence that Iraq wasn’t, in fact, purchasing yellowcake.

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:03 pm 37. JohnM:

In a simpler time not so long ago Wilson would have equated to this:

Joe Wilson = Benedict Arnold

The ‘crime’ he has committed is not a matter of misassessment or bad assumptions made. His bigger crime is one against his fellow Americans who handed him a position of trust, he then turns upon us for his own gain. May he rot in the nether regions.

As to the journalists, I can only attribute their errors to the desire of getting a byline at the expense of performing the first rule of reporting — validate the source. The veracity of mainstream journalists has been eroding for years but seems to have crested here in the last 2-3 to the point that the public is starting to notice the problem.

Fact is I would wax poetic for Woodward and Bernstein again. At least when they busted open the Watergate affair they broke all sorts of sweat to validate their sources. Sourcing does not even get a second glance today.

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:05 pm 38. sammy small:

Joe Wilson evidently believes that a little literary license is ok when reporting on an official mission to gather intelligence data. I presume he has lied in an attempt to help unseat the current administration. Maybe Congress should investigate whether this falls under the definition of treason. Giving him a pass will only invite others to try.

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:19 pm 39. chuck:

Re Tano,

I don’t get the impression that Tano is trolling, rather that it is an inadvertant side effect. I think that he truly wants a discussion, but we don’t accept his premisses. What he find indubitably the case and a suitable basis for argument, most of us find questionable. Must be frustrating as hell.

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:21 pm 40. flenser:

Tano;

Lets assume that you are not a liar, and simply do not understand.

You claim that you were deceived by the “sixteen words’ in the SOTU.

These words were;

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

All the evidence available to us, including Wilsons report on his findings, indcate that this is correct.

According to the Butler report in Britain;

“We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both

Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy

uranium from Africa in the Governmentís dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House

of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in

President Bushís State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought

significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.”

Given that all the evidence is that Iraq was in fact trying to acquire uranium, let me ask you again; what basis do you have for saying that Bush engaged in deception?

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:28 pm 41. PeterUK:

Chuck,

No Tano regards himself as a missionary amongst the barbarians.

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:31 pm 42. Fresh Air:

PeterUK–

I guess we all know the old logic game about the missionaries and the cannibals. Tano Stew, anyone?

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:35 pm 43. Assistant Village Idiot:

If you had put a character in a book who won a truth-telling award, wrote a book about how he’d told the truth, and had a website called restorehonesty.com, wouldn’t all of your readers know by Chapter 2, “Hey, I bet this guy turns out to be a liar?”

I hope the guys at the NYT shop for their cars at Honest John’s Used Cars.

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:58 pm 44. TmjUtah:

Pardon me while I mark this day in red on my calendar.

Tano has used the word “lied” in a sentence that didn’t contain “Bush”.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

The 9/11 commission was composed of elder statesmen and variously qualified former beauracrats. It was bipartisan in composition as far as the two main parties chose their own representatives and the numbers balanced.

None of those sitting members were sworn to uphold any particular duty, just to investigate and interview all the parties and policies leading up to 9/11. None of those commission members worries about elections.

The Senate Intelligence committee, on the other hand, is composed of the most powerful men in Washington, D.C., who are seated by election and have taken oaths. It is much harder for them to misrepresent or ’spin’ the text of reports or testimony submitted to them. That doesn’t mean they can’t try, of course. I liked the trial balloon that was floated the very day the official, UNANIMOUSLY accepted report and conclusions was released (grammar…?) that the Dems were going to publish their OWN opinions in an unofficial addendum, as a matter of course.

The Senate report contradicts Wilson’s spiel only where it counts – that his wife was in fact the reason he got tapped, that Iraq did in fact have contacts and demonstrated intent to buy yellowcake, and that the CIA viewed his tea-drinking interviews as bolstering that conclusion, vice the exact opposite version Wilson presented.

Strip away the partisan crap for just a moment. Really. We have tens of thousands of men, thousands of KIA/WIA citizens and allies,and hundreds of billions of dollars all committed to a published doctrine and strategy aimed at ending the cancer that is Islamofascism.

The “Sixteen Words” were siezed upon as a trope to discredit removing Hussein because the other reasons like U.N. non-compliance, non-compliance with the Gulf War resolutions of 1991, support of terror, and the collapsing sanctions regime were undeniabling valid – especially in light of the realities post 9/11. GATHERING threat that we could not abide in addition to dealing with al Qaeda…never, ever called ‘imminent’ except by partisan hacks and their toadies in the press pool.

The Sixteen Words were based on intelligence reports of an ally…and noted as such because our data wasn’t good enough, but they stood by theirs. Having Joe Wilson to hand, with what is increasingly apparent as a premeditated, scripted bunch of lies was the weapon of the moment available for use…

and he’s a stone liar, caught in his own testimony, editorial, and book statement conflicts with source documents and sworn testimony.

“…may have lied.”? Bullshit. Where’s YOUR outrage, pardner? I thought the meme from the Enlightened Left was ‘a lie invalidates EVERYTHING’ when applied to Bush…and it is tacitly agreed that mistakes/setbacks/unknowables are assumed to be lies, of course, because BUSH is the president?

‘…may have lied.’? Last time I waste any of Roger’s bandwidth on you. Period.

I don’t think the Republicans are above reproach. i don’t assign the power of governance based on a label. I am trying to sift through the bullshit and see what my government is doing to protect my family and as the election draws near it becomes crystal clear that the loyal opposition ended in November of 2002 and has morphed into something not short of an enemy asset by July 2004.

My email is on my signature. My name is A.R. Jones, and I live in Orem, Utah, and I’m in the book…which facts have always been available to anyone who emailed me.

I apologize for the blue language. There are times when there is nothing for it but to put the right word where it belongs.

Jul 18, 2004 - 12:59 pm 45. ronnor246@yahoo.com:

Martha Stewart for a lot less is doing time. Mr. Wilson has put his county in distress through his misrepresentations. He has apparently lied while under oath and might possibly have entered into a conspiracy with others to unseat the President. He has made money with his lies, he has sold a book and movie rights. In a time of stress, when 3000 of our fellow citizens have been incinerated, when there is a very real threat to our lives Mr. Wilson has executed his scheme for money apparently and a position in Mr. Kerry’s administration if he is elected. Mr. Wilson should be adjudicated in a court of law for his onerous prevarication’s and if true, let him spend some time in a federal depository for liars, 5 years seems about right. In time of war this should be made an example of so that others won’t be so quick to take advantage of their position in government for their 13 pieces of silver.

Jul 18, 2004 - 1:07 pm 46. PeterUK:

National Lampoons Mission to Niger by the Man With No Shame has left a stain on democratic politics the world over.Joseph C Wilson has dragged your country’s name through the mud and has inflicted treasonous calumny on you CIC and you armed forces.Surely the must be a reckoning?

Jul 18, 2004 - 1:22 pm 47. Syl:

Anger, outrage, even a bit of blue language…all are IMHO justified when directed at Wilson…by Democrats.

The Dems were snookered and fell for it. They should be angry as hell that they look like treasonous fools for using Wilson’s lies to attempt to discredit Bush.

I just saw Tammy Bruce (speaking on a different subject) and she said what worked for the Democrats with Clinton won’t work now because times have changed and we need to be truly serious after 9/11. She said many Democrats, such as her, are voting either Bush or Nader because of it.

Jul 18, 2004 - 1:51 pm 48. Kevin P:

Tano:

Regarding President Bush and Joe Wilson. The 16 words did not say that we have evidence that Iraq bought yellowcake. It said according to British intel they were attempting to purchase so we don’t have to prove that he bought it , only that he was trying to buy it.Yoe have accused president Bush of being deceptive, Answer these questions. Did British intel say that they had evidence that iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake. If Bush made up the story of British intel then you have a point. But it is a fact that british intel did make that claim.You also have to deal with the fact 2 independent panels, one British, one American have both concluded that the Iraq Niger yelowcake were plausable. Both of them. So the Bush lied story is crap. British intel did make that claim, and 2 independent panels back them up. If you are going to claim that the 16 words are false you have to prove that there was no British intel report and that it did not make that claim. As far as a cause for war Bush made it clear that this was a “preemptive war”. Preemptive-”marked by the seizing of the initiative, initiated by oneself”. Or in other words Bush wasn’t going to wait till he had causus belli. He found that after 9-11 to wait until a group of madmen attack you is stupid so he got rid of Saddam before he could do anything to the US. Saddam record of invading Iran, invading Iraq, using WMD on his own people, paying terrorist in palestine $25,000 a family to use their children as nail bombs,trying to assasinate a former president of our country was reason enough to get rid of him. All Bush did was carry out the 1998 regime change wish of the congress. Oh, and there is the 7 million Iraqi’s thatwere killed during Saddam’s regime according to the national geographic. Bu7sh never claimed that there was a “imminent” threat so quit saying he did you are lying.

As far as Wilson goes, he claimed his wife had nothing to do with his getting the job. Please explain what his wifes memo recommending him for the job was. He said he knew that the VP got his report. The commision said no and Wilson has offered no proof otherwise.And how do you explain his TV talk about the forgeries.The government did not have them for 8 months and Wilson did not see them at the time of his report. Wilson’s claims said he did.

Jul 18, 2004 - 1:52 pm 49. Rick Ballard:

“Surely there must be a reckoning?

Well, Joe thought he was gonna be a contender. He listened to the media and he listened to the political scum that promised him undying support if he’d just stand up and make a bit of noise. Didn’t they all shower him with love for 8-10 months while he spread his malicious crap? Wasn’t he the darling of the hour as the trope was developed and spread? He provided just the right amount of legitimacy (and his 007 wife was a definite bonus).

If the stuborn truth had not come out you might have been stuck with him at the Court of St. James. Kerry still thinks so much of him that he’s funding his website and lists him as one of his foreign policy advisors.

Actually, his day of reckoning has come. The political/media flacks that made the Tom Hagen promises aren’t returning his calls. The WaPo didn’t exactly go with a 64pt four column wide support story on his rebuttal letter did they? I didn’t see him on any Sunday morning lineups today.

He’s just Joe “the liar” Wilson now and that’s good enough for me. At least he’s achieved his ignominy honestly.

The current question that needs to be asked until answered is “Mr. Kerry, are any of your other advisors as big a liar as Joe Wilson?”

Jul 18, 2004 - 2:05 pm 50. PeterUK:

I suppose in the new climate everybody gets their fifteen minutes of infamy.Which is Joe’s new line “Infam,Infamy,they’ve all got it Infamy”

Instapundit has a transcription of Wilson’s CNN performance.

“Wilson essentially recycled the defense presented in the Washington Post and Salon. However, new ground was broken when Wolf Blitzer asked him about the misleading information given by Wilson to the Washington Post. Wilson’s explanation to the Senate staff was that he “mis-spoke”. His new explanation to Wolf Blitzer is that he had not read the stories the staffers were asking about; he see now that they have several sources, so he actually mis-spoke to the Senate staff – he should have said that he was “misattributed”.”

Cue the Everly Brothers “When Will I Be Loved”

Jul 18, 2004 - 2:20 pm 51. Fresh Air:

PeterUK–

If we’re going to use the Everly Brothers, I prefer “Wake Up Little Susie”:

Wake up Little Valerie. Wake Up Little Valerie. Wake Up!

Wake up Little Valerie and weep.

My interview’s over, it’s five o’clock

and I’m in trouble–deep!

Wake up Little Valerie, Wake Up Little Valerie. Wake Up!

My story wasn’t so hot.

It didn’t have much of a plot.

I lied like a creep,

my goose is cooked,

my reputation is shot.

Wake up Little Valerie!

etc.

Jul 18, 2004 - 2:56 pm 52. thedragonflies:

It seems to me that the Bush strategy is very clearly to change the Middle East, not keep it stable. Democracy isn’t coming to Iraq by keeping Iraq stable, but by the chaos of war and regime change.

It seems to me that having people in the State Department and the CIA obstructing that mission and trying to maintain the 9/10 policies of Middle Eastern stability are a big problem for the Bush policy of establishing a beach-head of democracy in the Muslim world.

I don’t know who sent Wilson on his mission of deceit, but his CIA wife is now named as one of those who did so, and I wonder if there isn’t a faction in the oldboy CIA who were and are opposing the Bush policy of establishing democracy in Iraq?

Jul 18, 2004 - 3:10 pm 53. Sandy P:

Boy, am I out of the loop. I thought Allawi was chosen by the Iraqis, not us.

If he did this a few days before, maybe the Iraqis knew and that was one of the reasons he was chosen?

(This is in response to Roger’s comment if we

knew if might lessen his support of the war.)

Am I missing something? Wouldn’t be the first time.

Jul 18, 2004 - 3:21 pm 54. PeterUK:

Fresh Air

LOL,the song will never be the same,I thought on the lines of

“Been misquoted,been mis-spoken etc.

BTW If his wife was in the CIA couldn’t she have tipped him off that he was lying?

Jul 18, 2004 - 3:40 pm 55. Fresh Air:

Peter–

If his wife was in the CIA couldn’t she have tipped him off that he was lying?

Only the Wilson’s pillows know…

One more riff:

I told McCauliffe that Kerry’d be up by 10.

Well, Valerie baby looks like we goofed again…

What’re we gonna tell McCauliffe?

What’re we gonna tell John-John…

etc.

I’ll never get this bloody song out of my head now.

Jul 18, 2004 - 3:44 pm 56. PeterUK:

Sandy P,

There are supposed to have been 12 Iraqis and 4 USA security present.I can see at least some of them reporting back on Dr Allawi as a matter of course,all sounds like porcine aviation to me.

Jul 18, 2004 - 3:45 pm 57. Sandy P:

Via Tim Blair:

Has Iyad Allawi gamed Paul McGeough? Newsweek reports:

U.S. officials say privately he may actually have planted the stories about summary executions as part of a psychological smoke-and-mirrors game. “He wants to project that dual role — to the West as a committed democrat, and to the Iraqis as a tough guy who got things done,” says one diplomat.

Via Professor Bunyip, who had this to say earlier, and who points to this time and motion study of Allawiís alleged execution schedule.

Jul 18, 2004 - 3:51 pm 58. PeterUK:

Fresh Air,

From another thread but thats the “Elevator pitch”, get the words going round their heads,subliminal indoctrination,worked in the sixties.

Jul 18, 2004 - 3:53 pm 59. Mork:

I’m wondering about the curious silence regarding hugely inflammatory reports being bandied about by Paul McGeough in the Sydney Morning Herald and elsewhere that Dr. Ayad Allawi shot six people in cold blood days before becoming the Iraqi Prime Minister.

I’m wondering about that, too. No doubt all the major newspapers are doing their best to verfiy the story as we speak. But one thing strikes me. McGeough says that there were four U.S. military personnel who saw this. Those individuals should not be hard to identify. Surely, if this is not true, the U.S. command should be able to say specifically that they have checked with those personnel and the story is not true.

I wonder, then, why the only official response has been the initial non-denial denial from the U.S. Embassy.

If this proves to be a rumor, McGeough has called a man a murderer in a major publication without anything but a wisp of proof and deserves to go to journalism jail.

And what if he’s right, Roger? Will you be apologising for your slurs?

In regard to which, I see you still haven’t retracted your lie about McGeough’s being a member of Media Workers Against War.

Jul 18, 2004 - 3:55 pm 60. TmjUtah:

Syl -

“The Dems were snookered and fell for it. They should be angry as hell that they look like treasonous fools for using Wilson’s lies to attempt to discredit Bush.”

No, they got caught out for what they ARE, not what they look like. They fell for nothing – think of Hillary’s ‘gasping for breath’ and if you buy that episode I can get you a sweet deal on bridge in Brooklyn.

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:12 pm 61. PeterUK:

My hope now is that Senator Kerry will do the honourable thing and stick by Joseph C Wilson ,provide funding for his website and share a platform with him.One can expect nothing less from a war hero.

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:31 pm 62. Syl:

TmjUtah

“No, they got caught out for what they ARE, not what they look like.”

Certainly true. But I was giving individual Dems an out. A way to save face. If you know what I mean.

—————–

PeterUK

“BTW If his wife was in the CIA couldn’t she have tipped him off that he was lying?”

ROTF!

——————

The NYTimes is not averse to printing rumors above the fold on the front page (Cheney,draft) so the only reason they haven’t run the Allawi story is that they don’t have photos.

If one of those supposedly executed by Allawi had a panty on his head, well….

BTW, nice little piece in the Australian on NYTimes coverage of a couple of rumors.

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:37 pm 63. Charlie (Colorado):

Well, you can’t say he’s not game.

“Charlie raises the VRWC strawman. I did not say that. I think all politicos, and most commentators latch onto ‘memes of the week’. It means ‘that which certain groups are arguing’. No implication of mind control, or any specific charge against the ‘right’.”

Okay, then you were being a little too subtle here. Why don’t you tell us what you meant to imply by bringing it up? Or why you were “confused” when you found we weren’t following the meme of the week?

“How is it fair to blame me originating the notion of the CIA as a singular entity?”

It wouldn’t be … but then I didn’t do so. (Speaking of straw men.) I did suggest that you were presupposing that the CIA was a single monolithic entity by the way you phrased the qeustion. So, either you were serious, in which case your fallacious inference remains fallacious, or you weren’t sufficiently competent to phrase your hypothetical in the hypothetical. This seems unlikely, but I’m okay with either conclusion, so you pick.

Or is it that you’re really wishing you were someone else at this point?

The whole discussion about “purchasing yellowcake” is arising from (yet another) strawman, the assertion that Bush and Blair said Iraq was purchasing yellowcake, when in fact they said Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake. You wrote, quote:

it seems pretty clearly to be the case that: Iraq was not purchasing yellowcake….

… but that is, in itself, a strawman: as noted, the claim was always “attempting to purchase”, and both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report say this belief was justified.

So either you intended to write “purchased” rather than “intended to purchase” and did so knowingly — which is false — or did so ignorantly — which is foolish. Again, I don’t care which one: you pick.

And I’m still curious as to your logical justification for the assertion that Bush was intentionally deceptive, given that the SIC and Butler reports both conclude the statement was justified?

(Sorry for the slow reply, my internet was down for a couple of hours.)

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:40 pm 64. Charlie (Colorado):

SandyP, were either of those “this”’s supposed to be links?

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:44 pm 65. Erik:

Maybe I’m the last one to know this:

Paul McGeough has this passage in his article, that’s basically the only named source he uses to confirm his story:

“A former CIA officer, Vincent Cannisatraro, recently told The New Yorker: “If you’re asking me if Allawi has blood on his hands from his days in London, the answer is yes, he does. He was a paid Mukhabarat [intelligence] agent for the Iraqis, and he was involved in dirty stuff.” “

Googling that name, I found out that the name is spelled wrong, his real name is “Vincent Cannistraro”.

So I wondered who this Cannistraro was? Well, he’s the former Director of Operations for the CIA’s counterterrorism group. If it sounds, familiar, it’s apparently because that’s where Valerie Plame was.

Cannistraro was the one that claimed that the leaking of Plame was aimed at discrediting CIA:

http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/hearings/hearing5/cannistraro.pdf

Cannistraro is now a consultant on international security affairs, and also comments on Chalabi…

This guy really gets around… wow…

Oh, and Mork: Nanoo, Nanoo!

Jul 18, 2004 - 4:55 pm 66. Sandy P:

Charlie, ????

I didn’t provide the links, just visit Tim Blair.

Jul 18, 2004 - 5:09 pm 67. Charlie (Colorado):

Okay, Sandy, thanks. The phrasing just sounded like there were links there.

Jul 18, 2004 - 5:41 pm 68. Charlie (Colorado):

Just an amusing aside, by the way: I just noticed the other day that there was at least one DC politician calling Saddam’s Iraq an “imminent threat”: John Edwards.

Not that this is very meaningful. After all, if Bush never said “imminent” and so meant imminent, it makes perfect sense that John Edwards could say “imminent” and mean something else.

You do have to feel a certain sympathy for Tano’s confusion, however.

Jul 18, 2004 - 6:00 pm 69. Roberts:

Unfortunately, Charlie, I’m not sympathetic since I believe that the only “confusion” Tano has is in keeping all of his strawmen straight.

Jul 18, 2004 - 6:20 pm 70. Erik:

I found some interesting Cannistraro quotes, if anyone is interested:

Since RAF bombers took part in air raids on Iraq in December, Bin Laden declared that he considered British citizens to be justifiable targets. Vincent Cannistraro, former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said: “Hijazi went to Afghanistan in December and met with Osama, with the knowledge of the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. We are sure about that. What is the source of some speculation is what transpired.”

["Saddam link to Bin Laden", Guardian, February 6, 1999]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.

Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey … known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama’s entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.

[National Public Radio, MORNING EDITION, Feb. 18, 1999]

Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated in bombing USS Cole?

“The Iraqis have wanted to be able to carry out terrorism for some time now,” Mr Cannistraro said. “Their military people have had liaison with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and could well have supplied the training.”

["Iraq-Bin Laden boat bomb link " Guardian, Thursday October 19, 2000]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798284,00.html

quote: Is there any confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism? No,”

[Washington Post 9/10/02]

quote: “The hawks are not getting evidence of al-Qaeda/Iraq ties from the CIA because the CIA, to its credit, is telling it the way they see it, which is what they should be doing, describing the world as it is, not as policy-makers wish it to be, or hope it to be, but as it is.”

[CBC News,11/1/02]

Notice the timeframe when he changed his opinion…

Jul 18, 2004 - 6:23 pm 71. Charlie (Colorado):

“Unfortunately, Charlie, I’m not sympathetic since I believe that the only ‘confusion’ Tano has is in keeping all of his strawmen straight.”

Damn, I’ve got to download that irony font.

Jul 18, 2004 - 6:35 pm 72. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, PS: I still want to know if you’re the famous Dread Pirate Roberts.

Jul 18, 2004 - 6:35 pm 73. Syl:

Erik

Good catch! That timeline speaks volumes.

Find a leaker, you find a liar. ‘Leaks’ are not given as a public service, there is always a motive behind them.

Jul 18, 2004 - 6:36 pm 74. Knucklehead:

It is OT for this thread, but for those who haven’t seen Wretchard’s post (and the David Warren article he links to) from yesterday, “The Man With No Name”, you might find it interesting.

http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/

Jul 18, 2004 - 7:41 pm 75. Sandy P:

Cannistraro – is this the guy who poo-poohs Laurie Mylroie and/or Jayna Davis’ theory on Iraq involvement in either WTC#1 or Oklahoma City???

Jul 18, 2004 - 11:27 pm 76. Tom Grey:

Lots of Leftists believe that “Bush lied” because the Leftists lie, and other Lefties believe the lies, and spread the lies.

This is how PC thought police crap works. Have conculsion, deny any opposing evidence, spread rumors to support your conclusion, lie to support your conclusion, accuse the opponents of lying.

It’s disgusting. The Left is not directly allied with the terrorists, but the Left is the enemy of Bush, of American power, of American goodness.

Instead of constructive criticism, it’s mostly angry rants.

Here’s an example of constructive criticism: Bush & Bremer should not support proportional representation in Iraq; it leads to an independent Kurdistan (with or without violence). [They should have supported local districts.]

Destructive criticism: Bremer doesn’t know Iraq, doesn’t know Iraqis, he has no idea how to do anything good in Iraq, Iraq will either have a strongman Saddam substitute or a Yugoslavia like war, or both.

Similar critiques, though the second is mere destructive (and still better than what the Left offers — the Iraqi Freedom war was “illegal” yechh).

Jul 19, 2004 - 1:07 am 77. Erik:

Sandy P,

Yes, that’s the same guy.

In 2000, he gave this review of her book “Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America”:

“One of the most brilliant pieces of research and scholarship I have ever read.”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0844741698/ref=sib_rdr_bc/104-7751466-4528751?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S09U#reader-link

In december 2003, he said:

“My view is that Laurie has an obsession with Iraq and trying to link Saddam to global terrorism. Years of strenuous effort to prove the case have been unavailing.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html

He sounds like a real authority…

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:30 am 78. DennisThePeasant:

Lots of Leftists believe that “Bush lied” because the Leftists lie, and other Lefties believe the lies, and spread the lies.

Tom Grey-

I think you’re being way too hard on the vast majority of Lefties in that you fail to acknowledge just how much of their behavior is a product of sheer intellectual helplessness. You can’t explain a Tano simply by ascribing dishonesty…I mean, look at the way the boy argues.

Your explanation overlooks the obvious fact that he’s dumber than a box of dead crabs. When you are moderately intelligent and somewhat well informed, and you have a position worth arguing for, you don’t end up sounding like Tano.

And why is it that the half of them that aren’t busy sounding stupid sound like they are trapped in a girdle that’s two sizes too small (a la Mork)?

Jul 19, 2004 - 4:26 am 79. Pixy Misa:

What’re we gonna tell McCauliffe?

What’re we gonna tell John-John…

What’re we gonna tell the French

When they say Ooh, non, non!

Meanwhile, in answer to Roger’s question: I wonder if the Sydney Morning Herald will have the morals to let him go.

Have the whats? This is the Sydney Morning Herald we’re talking about here, not, say, the National Enquirer. Yes, there was once a newspaper with the same name, but those days are long gone. These past few years the SMH hasn’t been fit to line the budgie’s cage.

Jul 19, 2004 - 6:20 am 80. Matt Evans:

Didn’t Wilson win 10 grand for receiving a “Truth Telling” award a few months back. Did he give the money back ?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Jul 19, 2004 - 6:55 am 81. Matt Evans:

*When you are moderately intelligent and somewhat well informed, and you have a position worth arguing for, you don’t end up sounding like Tano.*

I’m sure you’re being sarcastic with this comment but I am absolutely astounded as to the way the past two years has brought out the absolute worst in liberal associates of mine. I have lost friends over politics – I have listened to the F9-11/LLL drone from one formerly close friend and business associate of mine that I literally cannot stand to listen to him anymore- he follows the moveon talking points lockstep and while he’s always been very left, we used to be able to find common ground. Now we can’t- because every issue that comes up, he somehow relates to Bush. Two examples came up last week – the Sy Hersch story on child rape, which was accepted as gospel before its even published and immediately attributed to the administrations lack of oversight and denial of the former problems at Abu Ghiraib (I refuse to use the buzzword “attrocities” – Hussein’s mass graves were attrocities- panties on somebody’s head and humiliating photos, while wrong, do not rise to the level of attrocities). The other was the situation with Allawi, which was also blamed on the administration, as they were apparently propping up a “violent madman”. Both of these stories are unsubstantiated and vague at best and at worst, are outright lies- but my formerly rationale associate asserts them as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

It is incredibly disheartening to see that the LLL has literally lost tough with reality in order to undermine the sitting president. But if you accuse them of doing so, you have Teddy Roosevelt quotes thrown in your face, about how the president should be questioned and the failure to do so is treason.

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:04 am 82. Roberts:

Unfortunately Charlie, my wife can only wish that I resembled Cary Elwes.

Jul 19, 2004 - 7:41 am 83. Knucklehead:

Matt Evans,

If there was a cash prize you can be sure the fine print was that it was for “Speaking Higher Truths to Power”.

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:36 am 84. RogerA:

It seems to me that Tano only has one real position, the strawmen not withstanding: He dissapproves of the Iraq war–that’s fine–just say so and let it go. Parsing (and erroneously so) the arguments leading up to the war reflects at most a willingness to argue fine points.

We rid the world of a nasty regime, and have also exposed the terrorists for the murdering lot they are: Killers of other muslims and supporters of regimes like Iraq.

Jul 19, 2004 - 8:55 am 85. Fresh Air:

Pixy Misa–

Nice addition from the French. Any chance Paul Simon will sing it at the Democratic convention?

Matt–

You are correct. Wilson did win $10,000 for supposed truth-telling (it’s mentioned in Matt Continetti’s article in the Weekly Standard). And no, he has not given it back.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:10 am 86. Silicon valley Jim:

Very good piece by Mark Steyn at

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn18.html

By “very good piece” I mean substantially better than Mark’s usual excellence.

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:26 am 87. ronnor246@yahoo.com:

What $10,000 prize is this that Mr. Wilson won for truth telling? Not the prestigious New York Times “Duranty” truth prize surely? Will he have to give it back if he is incarcerated for bamboozling the Democrats and making them look complicit in a perjurous type felony? Is Mr. Wilson still going to be one of the speakers at the Democratic Convention, will he still give the same old speech that “Bush Lied.” Wouldn’t that be fun if he was arrested right at the podium and dragged away like the clown that he has morphed into at the consternation of the Kerry Campaign?

Jul 19, 2004 - 9:59 am 88. clarice:

A list of the disinformation about Wilson peddled by unnamed CIA informants on the Wilson matter. http://junkyardblog.transfinitum.net/archives/week_2004_07_18.html#003295

Outside of Wilson–there are many more examples. On July 16 the NYT admitted in its corrections that three stories it wrote beginning on June 2 charging that Chalabi’s INC had provided US intel with the false informant “Curveball” had come from “an unnamed CIA official”, and that, in fact, German intel had provided him to us.

Is the CIA berserk. If not, why are so many “unnamed CIA officials” consistently peddling false information to credulous reporters to hurt the WOT and the Administration?

Jul 19, 2004 - 3:41 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: