A third leaker?

[golddustdragon]

Okay, Karl Rove is a Machiavellan SOB and that could go for Scooter Libby too. However, just because of what Newsweek is exposing, it doesn't mean there is not another side to this story. Here's another interesting perspective: http://www.counterpunch.org/morris07272005.html

May seem like a conspiracy theory, but anyone can throw around that term to discredit something. In the meantime, the mainstream media peddles bulls*** that is less truthful than "conspiracy theories". Right now, they're doing a sufficient job covering this scandal (though with those London bombings, I don't know) but still, they are just doing enough to get the critics off their backs. Happy reading.

[gldstwmn]

Muahahahahaaha.http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif
No wonder they want to investigate Fitzgerald. This isn't turning out as they planned at all. It sure is going to be fun to watch.

[estranged4life]

I just looked at this website and one of the editors last name is "Cockburn"...

Man, Dude...That sounds very painful, I hope ya have icewater near by!

[gldstwmn]

Okay, Karl Rove is a Machiavellan SOB and that could go for Scooter Libby too. However, just because of what Newsweek is exposing, it doesn't mean there is not another side to this story. Here's another interesting perspective: http://www.counterpunch.org/morris07272005.html

May seem like a conspiracy theory, but anyone can throw around that term to discredit something. In the meantime, the mainstream media peddles bulls*** that is less truthful than "conspiracy theories". Right now, they're doing a sufficient job covering this scandal (though with those London bombings, I don't know) but still, they are just doing enough to get the critics off their backs. Happy reading.

This might interest you. It's from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/politics/28leak.html?
Case of C.I.A. Officer's Leaked Identity Takes New Turn
By DOUGLAS JEHL
Published: July 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, July 26 - In the same week in July 2003 in which Bush administration officials told a syndicated columnist and a Time magazine reporter that a C.I.A. officer had initiated her husband's mission to Niger, an administration official provided a Washington Post reporter with a similar account.

The first two episodes, involving the columnist Robert D. Novak and the reporter Matthew Cooper, have become the subjects of intense scrutiny in recent weeks. But little attention has been paid to what The Post reporter, Walter Pincus, has recently described as a separate exchange on July 12, 2003.

In that exchange, Mr. Pincus says, "an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention" to the trip to Niger by Joseph C. Wilson IV "because it was a boondoggle arranged by his wife, an analyst with the agency who was working on weapons of mass destruction

Click the link for the full article.

[irishgrl]

ARRGH! What a PAIN! First ya gotta register (done) and then (THEN) my dang browser keeps crashing every time I click on the NYTIMES link.......How freakin frustrating! I dont suppose you'd be willing to post the entire article? pretty pleez?

re: the Counterpunch article:
February 2002: Vice President Cheney hears "about the possibility of Iraq trying to acquire uranium from Niger," according to what his chief of staff Libby later tells Time. In his daily intelligence briefing by the CIA, as Libby relates, Cheney asks about "the implication of the [Niger] report." CIA briefing officers tell Cheney and Libby of the documents passed on months before by the Italians, including the State and Energy Department judgment that the papers are probable forgeries.

A few days later, with the routine concurrence of Rice and her staff, Cheney through Libby asks the CIA to look into the matter further. The Agency has no ready experts in Niger suitable to assign the Vice President's requested inquiry. After routinely canvassing the relevant offices and relatively brief discussion, they seize on the suggestion of one of their operatives working on nuclear proliferation issues, a mid-level CIA veteran named Valerie Plame who has worked abroad and in Washington under "NOC" *non-official cover in private business in contact with several foreign sources. Her pertinent if personal recommendation for the assignment is her husband, then-fifty-three year-old Joseph Wilson IV, a retired Foreign Service Officer who has served briefly as Charge d'Affairs in Baghdad in 1990 and then from 1992-1993 as US Ambassador to Gabon, a seasoned diplomat with experience in both Iraq and West Africa, and even some specialization in African strategic minerals.

February 19, 2002: A meeting at the CIA discusses sending Wilson to Niger. Attending is an analyst from the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research who says the trip is unnecessary, since the US embassy in Niger and European intelligence agencies have already disproved the story of an Iraqi purchase-and whose notes of the meeting, including the facts of Valerie Plame's CIA identity as an NOC operative on WMD and her role in recommending her husband, will be the basis for later crucial memos in the scandal.

And there ya have it Jason.......PROOF in 2002that WMD were a fiction promoted to futher an agenda.....but HEY why let a pesky thing like the TRUTH get in the way eh? :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

ARRGH! What a PAIN! First ya gotta register (done) and then (THEN) my dang browser keeps crashing every time I click on the NYTIMES link.......How freakin frustrating! I dont suppose you'd be willing to post the entire article? pretty pleez?

re: the Counterpunch article:


And there ya have it Jason.......PROOF in 2002that WMD were a fiction promoted to futher an agenda.....but HEY why let a pesky thing like the TRUTH get in the way eh? :rolleyes:

Well, I agree that was bogus. But, it is not germain to my only point which is that the D's will never impeach W on Iraq because they killed in the name of the vast majority of the info. on WMD (the stuff they gave W and some of the stuff after) - and they still stand behind that evidence. That is my point. Please try to stay on topic.

[gldstwmn]

ARRGH! What a PAIN! First ya gotta register (done) and then (THEN) my dang browser keeps crashing every time I click on the NYTIMES link.......How freakin frustrating! I dont suppose you'd be willing to post the entire article? pretty pleez?



It's two pages long. :o Try this site in the future so you odn't have to go through all of the rigmarole to register: www.bugmenot.com