Carol Platt Liebau: What's the "Debate"?

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

What's the "Debate"?

Today, a Washington Post story is headlined: "Wilson's Credibility Debated as Charges In Probe Considered."

Really? What's the debate -- especially in instances like some of those laid out in the story:

Wilson told The Washington Post anonymouslyin June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.

That's a delicate way to put it. Where I come from, that's called "lying." Same goes for his assertion that his wife had nothing to do with sending him to Niger.

Any claims made on Wilson or Plame's behalf by the CIA are completely unconvincing. It's long been clear that the agency is nothing more than an anti-Bush outfit, and it's long past time for a little investigating on what seem suspiciously like partisan political activities, agendas, and leaks emanating from the CIA.

15 Comments:

Blogger Draino said...

Why don't you just publish the entire Bush adminstration "talking points" memo that you are working off of Carol. It would save you and us a lot of time. How do I get on that mailing list along with you and Kay Bailey Hutchinson anyway?

What I have so far is:

1.) Attack Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as "overzealous" "partisan" and "politically motivated". Also mention he is trying to indict on "technicalities"

(hmm. Haven't even heard a peep from the prosecutor yet so that is a stretch. Besides which, when is lying to a Grand Jury or engaging in a cover-up a "technicality"???)

2.) Attack Joe Wilson (again). Ax to grind, donated to Kerry's campaign, blah blah blah...

Well, these are smokescreens and besides the point. If Rove and Libby broke laws they should be charged. If they didn't they shouldn't. It is that simple. This talk about the prosectuor, the diplomat and "the butler did it" is a desparate attempt at spin.

Why don't you mention the other WP article called "let the rule of law prevail." Why are republicans so distrustful of the courts? They're all full of Bush nominees now so you should be all set.

Bottom line: Republican's don't take responsiblity for anything. The environment, the budget, the economy, gas prices, foreign affairs, ethical lapses, cronyism, corporate favoritism. They have been in control of at least 2.5 out of 3 branches of government for 5 years. When are they going to start taking credit for the current state of affairs in this country??

1:23 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

If any indictments come, Fitzgerald is going to be pretty sure there was a criminal intent behind some wrong statement before the grand jury.

The investigation is highly likely to show that no law was broken since no one knew anything about Plame's prior status.

1:40 PM  
Blogger eLarson said...

Allow me to amend my comment:

Fitzgerald is going to be pretty sure that he can prove that there was a criminal intent behind some wrong statement before the grand jury.

As to point #2 of "draino's", what's wrong with attacking Joe Wilson's credibility?

1:42 PM  
Blogger Draino said...

I forgot to mention the other news today. Apparently Libby's notes reveal that his original source of Valerie Plame's identity was none other than Dick Cheney himself.

Now I'm sure Libby will fall on the sword to protect his boss but if the Veep is indicted he won't be using his once close friend and colleague Brent Scowcroft as a character witness. Mr. Scowcroft was recently quoted as saying: "Dick Cheney I don't know anymore".

Wish I could say the same.

1:42 PM  
Blogger LB said...

Off-tpoic: That's a great picture of you, Carol. :D

La Shawn

2:05 PM  
Blogger Roy Lofquist said...

The intelligence committee concluded that Wilson had not seen the document. Maybe he did! We'll know soonest.

2:47 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

eLarson asked, As to point #2 of "draino's", what's wrong with attacking Joe Wilson's credibility?

Because Real Republicans (tm) prefer to go after women and children. Much more manly doncha know.

4:26 PM  
Blogger cookie jill said...

Carol -

wilson's credibility is far higher than Bush, Cheney, Libby, etc. who have lied and brought 2,000 Americans to their deaths because of those lies.

If the Republicans are so concerned over "safety" from "terrorists" why then are they so quick to discredit ANY information from those agencies developed to obtain information on those terrorists.

This Adminstration is the real terrorist threat to our Country. They have taken it down the path of ruin, and they are trying to blame everyone who tried to stop them from pursueing their dreams of empire.

4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents ... Wilson had to admit he had misspoken."

Damn liberal claiming those documents were forged: not only was he lying, he was right.

5:47 PM  
Blogger Draino said...

VERY good point anonymous.

Carol and other conservatives would be wise not to even mention the infamous Niger "documents". These dorcs should get thrown in the can just for being so sloppy!!

The "documents" regarding the Niger uranium "purchases" were practically written in crayon. They even used the names and signatures of officials who were out of office at they time they were "written".

have a look-see:
http://cryptome.org/niger-docs.htm

wonder if they can trace the typewriter to 1600 Penn Ave. haha...

6:42 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

I personally think you need to cut Joseph Wilson a little slack. After all, he is countering a vicious attack not against him, but against his family. A man defending the honor of his wife is worth 20 additional approval percentage points in the red states.

On the other hand, Joe Wilson said that Saddam Hussein did not seek yellow cake uranium from Niger. Despite being told this was a bogus claim by the CIA, President Bush repeated it in the State of the Union and used it to push the nation towards a war of choice.

All in all, credibility--Joe Wilson +1,000,000. Just my opinion, btw.

7:44 PM  
Blogger Roy Lofquist said...

Yup, the document. Latest is that an Italian gentleman who gave the document to the Italian intelligence service now claims he was payed to do so by the French. The head of Italian intelligence is scheduled to appear before a commission next week. I'm not making this up. Check Lucianne.com.

This I'm making up: Wilson knew about the document, including the wrong names and dates, before its existence became public. The Senate let him off easy. He "misspoke". Misspoke my tush. That document came out of the CIA and the Italian gentleman is a CIA agent. Let's see what happens.

7:48 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

it's long past time for a little investigating on what seem suspiciously like partisan political activities, agendas, and leaks emanating from the CIA.

This just in from the big kahuna...

Yeh, Poppy said leaking a agent's name was traitorous, but if Poppy's so tough why didn't he go after Saddam? Cause he's a scairty cat wuss--that's why. Heh heh.

This is how it went down, see? Me and Dick we had Scooter and Turd Blossom leak the identity of the CIA chick. Heh heh. After that no one dared to tell us Saddam wasn't one dangerous hombre.

Now we got the CIA turning on us like we was desparadoes. Need to smoke them out.

7:51 PM  
Blogger Mr. Twister said...

Carol wrote, "Any claims made on Wilson or Plame's behalf by the CIA are completely unconvincing."

That's not what Judge Sentelle said in his majority opinion on the Judith Miller case. Writing for the court, Judge Sentelle denied Miller's claim of a common law press shield, noting,

All further believe, for the reasons set forth in the separate opinion of Judge Tatel, that if such a privilege applies here, it has been overcome. Therefore, the common law privilege, even if one exists, does not warrant reversal.

Judge Tatel's concurrence contained 8 blank pages that were redacted for National Security reasons. According to Judge Sentelle, he, Judge Tatel, and Judge Henderson all felt that the redacted material was sufficient proof of crimes of such seriousness that even had a press immunity existed, it would have been overcome.

Carol, what do you know that Judges Sentelle, Tatel, and Henderson should have been privy to? Or is your mentor Judge Sentelle just engaging in "partisan political activities?"

8:12 PM  
Blogger Pineda said...

Your site is too interesting! We hope you visit http://gonzalopineda.blogspot.com and leave a comment! Thanks Carla

6:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google