I thought it WAS his area of expertise, that Wilson had considerable
experience in that area of intelligence or at least that his connections
were in that part of the world.
And, who can account for Cheney's motives anyway? They were turning
over every rock they could trying to find SOMETHING to support their
rush to war.
Dave in Houston
He had considerable experience in that part of the world.
I don't know about his expertise in proliferation issues, but
the question being investigated was not technological.
I had always read that Wilson was sent in response to a
request by Cheney to send someone to Niger. I have
never before heard that Cheney denied making that request.
I'd like to know if any EVER suggested to them that the Iraq-
Niger yellowcake documents were legitimate.
That seems to be unlikely.
On Mar 7, 11:29 pm, tough guy or gal Mark or Juanita
Just like you knew exactly what I was asking and so changed
How many of those sources testified under oath?
Even if it is true, do you see the difference between telling
a friend or family member and publishing the information
in the NYT?
What evidence is there that he 'had an agenda'?
Which is exactly true.
If they did, they lied. I wasn't aware that it was ever disputed.
Since she didn't reccomend him, no.
Perhaps you never read Novak's op ed piece.
!) He never suggested
or implied that Wilson was unqualified or had an agenda.
2) The statement that his wife worded for the CIA was a
sentence by itself that was not even apparently relevent to
the rest of the article.
3) Nova could just as well have identified her employer as
her cover instead of the CIA. That would not have compromised
herself or the other agents.
Again, why would Armitage need to know that Plame w
orked for the CIA? What was the reason fo giving him that
information in the first place? Why did Cheney's people
circulate that information among people who had no need
IOW, you don't want to address the issue.
That's rich. The DOD and VP spent the first four years of the
administration marginalizing and undermining the State Department.
Unless of course you thing it is proper for the Secretary of Defense
and VP to set foreign policy without so much as consultation with
the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor.
It, like the Linda Tripp persecution was a direct attack on
a rank and file person in the national security apparatus
of our country. These people deserve respect and protection.
It is a gross abuse to use them as political pawns. The two
jerks who released Tripp's records instead of passing the
request to the FOIA officer should have done time. Same
for Berger and Libby.
Those are not OK and are indeed a serious matter.
In the Congressional hearings a chart was produced that showed
how the information regarding Plame's identity was circulated
through the administration. There were two primary sources
at the top of the chart who were responsible for every one
else (pretty much none of whom had a need to know) knowing
it. One of those was LIbby. The other was never identified.
Rove was not on the chart.
There was a conspiracy to circulate information so that
it would leak out.
The motivation was revenge against Wilson. They attacked
his wife, in order to get at him, and didn't consider the danger
to other agents in the field to be as important.
Have you looked at the issues with wait times, the people who are dying
because they can't get the medical care they need because the system
doesn't have the doctors or funds available when they are needed? I guess
that's OK since everybody has to play in the same lottery.
You do realize that this has a detrimental effect on the economy, right?
Increasing taxes, especially on the most productive citizens tends to make
those productive citizens less productive because at some point, the reward
of the extra work is not worth the cost in terms of lost family time or
time away from doing things they like because taxes are taking too much to
make it worthwhile. So, the result is actually less tax revenue rather than
more tax revenue and a declining economy as well.
Yes, in this case I fear change in the same way I would fear someone
lighting a match in a dark explosives locker. Yes, they are *doing*
something, the only problem is that what they are doing is going to lead to
disastrous results. Not all change is good change. Other countries have
tried it and have a trail of problems in their wake, why would this attempt
be any different?
Secondary question, just exactly how big is this problem you are trying to
solve relative to the cost you are looking at incurring to solve it?
Especially when one examines the demographics of those not covered by
insurance, a significant portion are those in the younger age brackets who
are generally quite healthy and are taking a risk (yes, there is a gamble)
that they will stay that way until they reach an age they think they will
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
True. On a provincial level, there has been a lot of 'adjustment'.
Locally, the CEO has been blown out of his job and ran out of town.
Serious cut-backs have increased the workload of many health
2 for 2. We have the same predators looking to get their hands even
deeper into our pockets. There has to be some sense to the monopolies
who serve up energy to our citizens. We have enormous amounts of oil
and natural gas reserves and that stuff is selling well on world
markets. Why can't the Canadian people get a break from that? In a
country which has the second largest land mass in the world, the most
lumber and land per capita. a lot of Canadians can't afford their own
homes. Many of the large corporations are cross-border units. If
Hillary starts appropriating profits from those guys, we're going to
get screwed too.
I can't comment on that. But sounds like business as usual in the
I don't think The Clintons have an exclusive on that style. The fact
that during an interview Bill Clinton said that he'd love to have Rove
on his team, proves that.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.