Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on January 30, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics



The testimony in the Libby Trial is producing a picture of a White House that will go to extreme measures to try and stop or spin information that did not support the Bush claim that we were in danger from Saddam.

The claim that Saddam tried to purchase uranium in Africa was questioned by the intelligence community. At the same time this issue was being questioned by VP Cheney. The testimony shows that Cheney did not specifically ask that Ambassador Wilson be sent to investigate the supposed attempt of Saddam to purchase Yellow Cake. However the questions asked by Cheney along with the questioning at the CIA caused the agency to investigate this issue. When Valerie Plame learned that the CIA was planning to investigate this issue she told her superior that her husband had experience and knowledge about that area in Africa. CIA officials ABOVE Mrs. Wilson made the choice to send Wilson on this mission.

The result of the Wilson investigation is well known—it contradicted the claims of Bush that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. That finding by Ambassador Wilson did not fit with what Bush and Cheney wanted since it was intelligence that did not support the contention that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons. It disproved the scare tactic of the mushroom clouds that Bush and Cheney used to convince Congress to allow Bush to invade Iraq.

The testimony shows a White House that did everything possible to discredit and punish Ambassador Wilson for his report. There is NO evidence that Wilson went to Africa to embarrass Bush. He went to get the facts on an important question. It is clear that the task of attacking Wilson was an obsession of Cheney, Libby and Rove. They in fact did reveal to reporters that Wilson’s wife was a CIA Operative as part of their campaign to punish Wilson for his report. The White House placed CIA Agents that worked with Valarie Plame in danger by revealing her position at the CIA. This case clearly shows that all this was done to discredit a man that did nothing more then the job he was given by the CIA. The real shame is that Cheney, Rove and Libby are not on trial for endangering our CIA agents and harming future efforts to secure intelligence information!

Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Feb 02, 2007
Paladin 77


FACT

Libby admitted under OATH yesterday that Cheney and he talked about outing Mrs. Wilson as part of their efforts to punish Ambassador Wilson for his report that showed the documents Bush used to justify Saddam's attempt to purchase Uranium were FAKE!

There is little question that when Libby said that he first learned from the press that Mrs. Wilson was a CIA Agent was a LIE. That is why he is on trial. However the larger issue is that Cheney, Rove and Libby were part of an attempt to punish and discredit Ambassador Wilson for his report. Wilson reported what he learned and that did not agree with what Bush and Cheney was telling Congress and the American People!


Bullshit col! Read and learn!

Link
on Feb 02, 2007
Bullshit col! Read and learn!


Thank you my friend for pointing out the obvious to the political hack. I did not believe that Mr. Libby took the stand because the proicution was still presenting the case. The defence goes last. One more thing that the col did not know know about American justice system.
on Feb 03, 2007
What's the matter col? Don't like being proven wrong yet again? And by an enlisted man to boot.
on Feb 03, 2007
(funny how the topic drifted out of topic in the first 10 posts..)

anyway. If there was no crime commited, what Scooter is being tried for?
on Feb 03, 2007
anyway. If there was no crime commited, what Scooter is being tried for?


This is what they call a process crime. The charge is lying to the police during their investigation. The lie is what day did he tell someone who said something who did not print what he said. It is already proven that Mr. Libby was not the source of the leak. So that was not the crime. After the investigation started he found out that he made a mistake and took proof of his error to the investigators. The prosecutor says he was lying to cover up something and charged him.
on Feb 06, 2007
The real question here is why would Bushco attempt to discredit a man telling the truth.

Answer: Because they were lying to start the war.

If you have a different answer I'd love to hear the response of a republican who supports Bushcos attempt to destroy Wilsons credibility. '


Why attempt to destroy the credibility of a man telling the truth.

Bushco did not call Wilson a liar.

I have yet to have a republican who supports this admin answer that question.

The last person I would expect to do something like this is the President of the US>

I'm glad to see you hold Bush to the same level of accountability as Clinton.

Not.





on Feb 06, 2007

The real question here is why would Bushco attempt to discredit a man telling the truth.

They're not.

Answer: Because they were lying to start the war.

Just more unsubstantiated rumors and lies.

If you have a different answer I'd love to hear the response of a republican who supports Bush cos attempt to destroy Wilsons credibility. '


Why attempt to destroy the credibility of a man telling the truth.

He has already been discredited by many other besides Bushco.

Bushco did not call Wilson a liar.

We didn't have to.

I have yet to have a republican who supports this admin answer that question.

The last person I would expect to do something like this is the President of the US>

I'm glad to see you hold Bush to the same level of accountability as Clinton.

Not.


Just do a "little" googling and you'll find other answers from "credible" sources that are saying the "same" thing I am!
on Feb 06, 2007
The real question here is why would Bushco attempt to discredit a man telling the truth.


Another person that does not do research but seems to know it all. Setting the record straght is not a bad thing. Mr. Wilson discreditied himself. He was the one that told the world that he was sent on the mission by the Vice-President. In reality he was chosen by his wife. Saying that is not an attempt to smear the man but to clear up a lie he told.

Answer: Because they were lying to start the war.


You don't do much reading, studying or research, or you would know that this is not true.

If you have a different answer I'd love to hear the response of a republican who supports Bushcos attempt to destroy Wilsons credibility. '


I did that already with the posting of the declassified report that Mr. Wilson made. You have not read it because you go to hate sites instead of looking for the truth. As with col Gene facts just get in the way of your religion of hate.

Bushco did not call Wilson a liar.


I don't know who this bushco is. Wilson told some lies and the story was corrected and once that was done the new hate story was how people were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson ignoring the facts that he lied. So in truth he was called a liar but that was ignored for a better story.

I have yet to have a republican who supports this admin answer that question.

The last person I would expect to do something like this is the President of the US>


right, I am glad you feel that way because the President did not do such a vile thing.

I'm glad to see you hold Bush to the same level of accountability as Clinton.

Not.


You are wrong, When a President lies to the people they shold be held accountable. I just have not found any lies told by Mr. Bush. Mr. Clinton only made one mistake he Lied under oath the rest was politics that I did not get involved in.
2 Pages1 2