The Wilson's

And that's what you read when your source is wikpedia.

 

Carpro wrote
"The truth is that it was common knowledge in DC circle that Plame was MRS. Wilson's maiden name and that she worked for the CIA. She was not undercover at the time and not likely to be since everyone knew who she was. Ergo the CIA could have cared less about Novaks story.

It is the truth that Rove broke no laws so technically, who cares?"


Ok, so I see now the idea is to cling to the spirit of the law. It was the argument before that Rove had to name a name but now we know he needs only IDENTIFY the agent. The use of technicality then failed so I see you are going to refute technicality now for a "different take" on another angle.
Wilson's wife had been undercover and "not likely to be" is not good enough. Common knowledge often does not know what is covert and we better hope Rove was not operating according to that. Rove has a lot of explaining to do to justify identifying anyone publicly that ever was covert. I hardly think agents want to put up with going around wondering what date they are considered officialy covert and what dates their identities can float around. Rove knew better and I think his desire to take a jab back at the Wilson's overroad his commonsense. One things for sure, Wilson's wife can never be used covert again even if they had planned to. In the end it will be no less than a matter of incompetence for Rove.

 

The law is clearly written and there is no need for "technicalities". He either broke the law or he didn't. Right now the preponderance of the evidence points to didn't. If it turns out he did break the law, I'm sure Fitzpatrick will seek prosecution.

You would not want him to be put on trial if he did not break the law, would you?

 

No, not at all. Wilson's investigation was found credible - Iraq had not entered into any agreement to buy yellowcake and the documents which said otherwise were fakes.

However, the 911 commission reported that the White House claimed not to be relying on the forged documents but on Brittish intelligence
when it claimed that Saddam Hussein had restarted his nuclear weapons programme. As for that, see the Downing Street Memos. </font>[/QUOTE]Speaking of forged documents, we've heard of quite a few in the last few years. I'd like to know where they are coming from has there even been an investigation to find out?

 

No, not at all. Wilson's investigation was found credible - Iraq had not entered into any agreement to buy yellowcake and the documents which said otherwise were fakes.

However, the 911 commission reported that the White House claimed not to be relying on the forged documents but on Brittish intelligence
when it claimed that Saddam Hussein had restarted his nuclear weapons programme. As for that, see the Downing Street Memos. </font>[/QUOTE]Speaking of forged documents, we've heard of quite a few in the last few years. I'd like to know where they are coming from has there even been an investigation to find out? </font>[/QUOTE]As a well established conspiracy theorist(but not as bad as Pn), you should know that "Rove did it".

 

Is this just your way of saying you haven't got a clue Carpro and can't answer the question? And lookie here, when it comes to theories I play second fiddle to no one. Got it?

Now can you answer the question or no? Better yet just fagitabotit I'll do my own search for the answer. I wouldn't expect a sheople to do anything I wouldn't do.

 

Let's try this again, in a more simplified manner:

Did they ever find ANY evidence of yellowcake uranium in Iraq?
Yes or No

 

Let's try this again, in a more simplified manner:

Did they ever find ANY evidence of yellowcake uranium in Iraq?
Yes or No </font>[/QUOTE]Your question is not relevant to the subject.

Wilson was sent to Niger to find out if Iraq attempted to buy yellow cake. No one I know of ever said they were successful in their attempt.
If you know otherwise , please share it with me.

But to answer your question...I don't know. I haven't researched it. Why? Because it doesn't matter.

 

No. I don't know the answer. I just thought that , since Rove gets blamed for everything else , he might as well get the blame for whatever it is you're talking about.

You and Pn are close, but I really think he's more off the wall than you are. You better get busy .

 

All that drama about Rove is the least of my concerns at the moment, just todays entertainment to keep our focus off something else I reckon. It is interesting that there isn't any mention of the origin of all these forged documents that keep turning up in the mainstream press, I would think congress would like to know where they come from. I mean at least they could appoint a few CFR members to look into them and make a show of concern.

I didn't know PN and I were in a contest to be the most off the wall. I thought we were just trying to compare notes with all you on the wall guys.

So far I think He and I are way ahead of the on the wall gang what with records evidence and documents and all. We're alittle short on rhetoric, worn out cliches and overused propaganda but that's not exactly our department or expertise, you guys are way ahead in that area I'll have to confess.

 

What I'm really short of is typing speed. It's painful to go into detail about my thoughts when I'm such a slow typist. Rhetoric and cliches are the stock and trade of a slow typist.

Maybe I should keep them on notepad and just pull one up when I need it. Why didn't I think of that sooner?

 

That's really a diversion from the point. Both the British and American governments found that the yellowcake claim from Bush's address did have basis in fact. Don't try to change the subject.

 

Exactly, Pastor Larry. Joe Wilson didn't have a clue about anything. The Butler Commission said that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium.

John Kerry abandoned Joe Wilson a long time ago.

 

Thank you for demonstrating your lack of understanding of the subject.

It goes much further than that, carpro. The whole premise for going to war was the WMD's. They didn't find a single WMD, did they?

You don't know?
I see.........

 

BiR, you should have remembered about the yellowcake--I have linked the article about the Butler Commission to you at least once and maybe twice.

Here is a statement and the link from the British report:

The British commission, chaired by Lord Butler, suggests that there is more substance to the story of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa than has hitherto been suggested. The British report says evidence "was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium." But it documents visits by Iraqi officials to the uranium-exporting nation of Niger, and says that British intelligence from several sources indicating that the purpose was to acquire uranium "was credible."

This conclusion has political implications. On Sept. 24, 2002, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons that "Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium from Africa, although we do not know whether he has been successful." On Jan. 28, 2003, in his State of the Union speech, President Bush said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The Butler commission concludes that both statements were "well-founded."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0721/p09s01-cojh.htm

 

And you opportunistically think of that as a "good thing"?

The UN inspectors said that there were weapons in Iraq... and no one has accounted for them.

Buddy, that is NOT a good thing nor is it a credible basis for the "Bush lied" line of argument.

If they existed then they are somewhere and since our friends haven't coughed them up....

 

That brings up another point. As far as I know, Karl Rove never called the reporters in question. They called him.