Will President Bush Fire Himself?

[Lanshark]

Will President Bush Fire Himself?

Oops...Wait a minute... I misread the word Fire...

Nevermind

 

[Teejay32]

salmoneous: the article was just a media bombshell that raised questions. I was here for that, Bet was here...information was being released to answer the nine thousand other suggestions being brought up, like the VP himself office sent Wilson (false), that those documents he mentions were ignored (they don't exist), etc. At some point during this George Tenet issued a statement that said while they (CIA) didn't formally judge that Saddam was buying uranium in Africa, Wilson himself reported hearing something like that - he just didn't bring it up for some reason.

IMO if Wilson hadn't created the impression that Cheney was responsible for his trip, this would have been forgotten.

 

[bsnyder]

Thanks, Teejay, for continuing the discussion in my absence. We assess the situatuion pretty much the same.

salmoneous, you obviously have a very different read on Mr. Wilson's op-ed. Perhaps it would be helpful if you shared your view of the facts with us and we can see where it is we differ.

 

[salmoneous]

Teejay,

Sorry - you are losing me. I wasn't here when these 9,000 suggestions were made so I can't really respond. What I do know is that the President leaked information from an NIE. In *this* thread, Bet made a very clear defense of that leak. The leak was necessary because, specifically,

1) Wilson wrote an op-ed in which he called the President a liar
2) Wilson lied
3) It was necessary to leak the information in the NIE because it contained information that proved Wilson was a liar.

I'm just trying to see where all that comes from. I don't see where Wilson called the President a liar. Do you? I don't see the lie Wilson tells in the op-ed. Do you? I am not aware of any information from a leaked NIE that proves Wilson was a liar. Are you? If so, could you point me to it, because I would love to understand.

 

[Teejay32]

Wilson says in his op-ed that the administration twisted the intelligence on Iraq; some factoids in the National Intelligence Estimate were released to the press soon after, and then some kind of "key judgements" report was released after that. Specifics are eluding me, I want to say that it had much to do with Saddam reconstituting his nuclear program - which would relate to both Wilson's article and the NIE - but that's just one example, and I'm not sure that satisfies your question.

 

[bsnyder]

Teejay,

Sorry - you are losing me. I wasn't here when these 9,000 suggestions were made so I can't really respond. What I do know is that the President leaked information from an NIE. In *this* thread, Bet made a very clear defense of that leak. The leak was necessary because, specifically,

1) Wilson wrote an op-ed in which he called the President a liar
2) Wilson lied
3) It was necessary to leak the information in the NIE because it contained information that proved Wilson was a liar.

I'm just trying to see where all that comes from. I don't see where Wilson called the President a liar. Do you? I don't see the lie Wilson tells in the op-ed. Do you? I am not aware of any information from a leaked NIE that proves Wilson was a liar. Are you? If so, could you point me to it, because I would love to understand.

You can call someone a liar without specifically using the word. He didn't use it because he didn't have to. Witness the distorted press accounts of his words, and the chorus of voices screaming "Bush Lied' dating from the publication of that op-ed.

It's ironic, isn't it? Wilson did what the Bush-Haters accuse Bush of doing - twisting, manipulating and leaving out key facts. If that = Bush LIED then it certainly = Wilson lied.

 

[salmoneous]

Bet -

Thanks, but I'm still not seeing your whole picture. Let's put aside your claim that Wilson called the President a liar without ever saying the Preside lied for a minute. That's just an aside to the issue of this thread - the NIE leaks. You claim the President needed to leak information from the NIE in order to prove that Wilson had lied about him.

What lie did Wilson make, and what information was in the NIE was necessary for the Preside to leak in order to prove that Wilson was a liar?

Teejay - be happy to discuss this more if you ever remember the details.

 

[bsnyder]

Bet -

Thanks, but I'm still not seeing your whole picture. Let's put aside your claim that Wilson called the President a liar without ever saying the Preside lied for a minute. That's just an aside to the issue of this thread - the NIE leaks. You claim the President needed to leak information from the NIE in order to prove that Wilson had lied about him.

What lie did Wilson make, and what information was in the NIE was necessary for the Preside to leak in order to prove that Wilson was a liar?

Teejay - be happy to discuss this more if you ever remember the details.

His first two sentences are:

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

He then goes on to (selectively) relate his "experience", implying that because he found nothing that indicated the sale of yellowcake from Niger was consumated, the Bush Administration must have used the claim that it actually was consumated to make the case for war.

The NEI shows the Administration didn't rely on a consumated sale as its' rationale for the war.

I'm really curious now, what, in your opinion, was the gist of Wilson's op-ed,

 

[dwbakerjr]

With all the swarms of reporters looking for a niche to report on (from both sides of the aisle), how come we don't ever hear any quotes from Ambassador Owens (in Niger) about all this hoo-hah...

I would think that both sides of this discussion would have an interest in what her perceptions were (since she supposedly was a part of the Wilson trip and the interviews in Niger).


jus wondering....

 

[Puffy2]

In the summer of 2003, the public was being fed a steady stream of distorted and inaccurate information by those who opposed the war, including Joe Wilson and insiders at CIA and State, in an effort to discredit the Bush Administration. The Administration had every right to set the record straight

Yes, by going through officals channels, declassifying the information by notifiying the head of the CIA and making it public, but Bush didn't do that because that wasn't his aim, his aim was to discredit someone who had the nerve to speak out against him and his phony "weapons of mass destruction intelligence" ploy so he feed intelligence to a REPORTER behind the CIA's back (and the American people) and then had the nerve to be all up in arms about leaks in his own administration.

Some of you can continue to defend this man and his corrupt administration if you want, but the rest of us recognize the "pyramid of oppression" for what it is.

 

[bsnyder]

Yes, by going through officals channels, declassifying the information by notifiying the head of the CIA and making it public, but Bush didn't do that because that wasn't his aim, his aim was to discredit someone who had the nerve to speak out against him and his phony "weapons of mass destruction intelligence" ploy so he feed intelligence to a REPORTER behind the CIA's back (and the American people) and then had the nerve to be all up in arms about leaks in his own administration.

Some of you can continue to defend this man and his corrupt administration if you want, but the rest of us recognize the "pyramid of oppression" for what it is.

And some of you can continue to pretend to be outraged by what is a fairly routine occurance in modern Presidential administrations. The rest of us recognize the political opportunism that motivates the pretense.

 

[eclectics]

And some of you can continue to pretend to be outraged by what is a fairly routine occurance in modern Presidential administrations. The rest of us recognize the political opportunism that motivates the pretense.

Routine or not routine debate aside, if the man hadn't made such a public stink about the outrage of leaks, this probably would have gone quietly to page 3. The uproar is his own fault.

 

[bsnyder]

Routine or not routine debate aside, if the man hadn't made such a public stink about the outrage of leaks, this probably would have gone quietly to page 3. The uproar is his own fault.

Look at the facts.

He declassified and released the pre-war intelligence five months after that war started, and after Saddam had been overthrown.

He made a "public stink" as you call it, about the leaking of classified information about an ONGOING national security program that the Administration believes is vital to protect us against FUTURE threats.

Setting aside any argument about whether that program is vital in protecting us, surely you don't claim the two situations are equivalent?

 

[Teejay32]

Teejay - be happy to discuss this more if you ever remember the details.

been there done that. the finer details don't matter, not here anyway. You can't see a lie in that op-ed, but you haven't said if you see a truth - plenty of people did. Bush wasn't defending his administration, he was trying to discredit Joe Wilson, their national hero.

 

[eclectics]

Look at the facts.

He declassified and released the pre-war intelligence five months after that war started, and after Saddam had been overthrown.

He made a "public stink" as you call it, about the leaking of classified information about an ONGOING national security program that the Administration believes is vital to protect us against FUTURE threats.

Setting aside any argument about whether that program is vital in protecting us, surely you don't claim the two situations are equivalent?

Not that I accuse him of doing this all the time but the 'National Security' explanation of deeds done seems just a bit too convenient for me sometimes.

 

[TCPluto]

The president endangered a CIA agent overseas for no good reason, and all the righty's think it's ok?

Not at all. And I don't think it happened that way.

 

[bsnyder]

Not that I accuse him of doing this all the time but the 'National Security' explanation of deeds done seems just a bit too convenient for me sometimes.

Fine, I guess.

But why not just stick to debating the examples I gave and saying whether or not you think they're equivalent?

 

[TCPluto]

The FACTS are as I stated them. I can't help it that they don't support your argument or fit your version of spin control.

I did not know you were the depository of all things right and correct. I am so sorry for ever having a thought of my own, and everyone with an opinion different from you should feel humbled and pledge their allegiance to you.

Or, we could continue to evalute the information on our own, from many sources and continue to come to our own conclusion.

I think I'll go with that.

 

[eclectics]

Fine, I guess.

But why not just stick to debating the examples I gave and saying whether or not you think they're equivalent?

Equivalent in what specific sense? I'm afraid I'm not getting your point.

 

[bsnyder]

Equivalent in what specific sense? I'm afraid I'm not getting your point.

Okay, let's try it this way...

Do you believe there's ANY government information that the media and/or a political opponent or critic might leak to the public that would gravely damage our national security? If so, and if it actually happened, what should President Bush's response be?