quote:
originally posted by Matter eater Man:
The Wall Street Journal's editorial doesn't sight any source does it? It just says she's an analyst with no source mentioned. So they know this how? Also not sure how Wilson slandered the President.
It slandered Bush's motivations for invading Iraq, and has yet to be proven.
Iraq previously pursued purchase of yellow-cake uranium from Niger, attempted to develop weapons grade plutonium from a nuclear facility that Israel bombed to the ground to prevent, in 1981, and on and on.

And Britain and a considerable portion of the intelligence community says that Wilson is wrong, and the Niger intelligence is not incorrect, just not documented enought to warrant its inclusion in Bush's 1/28/2003 speech.

It slanders Bush as "lying" when Wilson's allegations can no more be proven than Bush's intelligence on Niger can be DISproven.

And then when it's disclosed who contracted Wilson by the CIA to check it out (his wife) then THAT (simply reporting the basis for Wilson's allegations, as opposed to Wilson's speculatively accusing the Bush administration of fabricating evidence to go to war, a notion which the Democrat-leaning media is eager to perpetuate, without evidence) is reported as treasonous betrayal of the intelligence community.

It may be a betrayal of intelligence, and it may not.

But since both sides of the story have not been told, I'm skeptical. And I think it's likely just another anti-Bush slander campaign, the latest in a three-year stream of such allegations.

The Wall Street Journal doesn't have to list a source, any more than other articles that don't name names, and simply report from unrevealed sources.
Funny how you feel that anti-Bush articles don't need sources and conservative articles do. We're not talking about the Bloom County Picayune, this is the very respectable Wall Street Journal.

quote:
originally posted by Matter eater Man:

The info Wilson came out with has embarrassed the administration but it's info that seems to be true.
By your account, not mine.

There are too many questions that aren't asked, about Wilson's motivations, about the CIA agents bashing Bush and their motivations, and just how compromised Wilson's wife was by his OWN disclosure, before her name was revealed.
And also, Robert Novak, in confirming his story, could have chosen not to print her name.

And as public as Wilson's trip to Niger is, I question whether his wife's name would not have been revealed anyway.

quote:
originally posted by Matter eater Man:
Even they said [presumably you mean the Bush administration] that bit referencing it shouldn't have been in the State of the Union address.
That is, once again, a misleading half-truth.
There was --and is-- abundant circumstantial evidence that the Niger uranium purchase attempt is true.
(Once again, British intelligence stands by the Niger uranium purchase attempt by Iraq as absolutely true. And that Iraq had previous uranium dealings with Niger in the 1980's.)

The Bush administration only says there was not enough CONFIRMATION to warrant its inclusion in Bush's 1/28/2003 address.

That is a far cry from saying that the Iraq/Niger/uranium intelligence was wrong, and that it is UNtrue.
quote:
originally posted by Matter eater Man:
Can't really slander somebody if they end up agreeing with you.
As I just pointed out, that is a misleading statement of yours.

The Bush administration DIDN'T agree with Wilson.

Wilson says the Niger uranium purchase claim is dead wrong.
The Bush administration says the Niger claim is absolutely right, they just needed more confirmation to put it in Bush's State of the Union address.

quote:
originally posted by Matter eater Man:

This weekend on Meet the Press, Wilson said he was a Democrat. Nothing too ambiguous there.
Many interviews I've seen of Wilson try to paint him as a non-partisan diplomat, and don't ask the hard questions about his long history with the Democrat party, including working for several years directly for Al Gore.

I saw Wilson interviewed on Nightline where Koppel said Wilson gave a campaign contribution to the Republican party. But his long history with the Democrat party is much more partisan than that.
Again, looking at former Ambassador Wilson's biographical summary (from the website for his own consulting firm) sure doesn't make him sound like a Republican. He's spent most of his career serving under high-level Democrats:
http://www.cpsag.com/our_team/wilson.html

quote:
originally posted by Matter eater Man:

According to Novak, 2 Senior White House officials gave him Wilson's wife['s] name. It doesn't look like they're coming forward despite it becoming a criminal matter. This is not honorable or noble behavior.

It would have been one thing if a reporter had dug out her identity but quite another for the government to give out a covert operative name.
I still see a possibility that the person who disclosed her name didn't know that she was a field agent (if that is even a true allegation. I hear plenty of dispute over whether she's an analyst, or whether she is, or was at any time, a field agent.)
The person who disclosed may have already thought her name was a matter of public record, because of Joseph Wilson's editorial and public disclosure.
And the person who disclosed, and may have thought there was no wrongdoing in the disclosure, is probably not eager to come forward now and face criminal charges.
And I think if reporter Robert Novak thought his source was truly guilty of a crime, instead of the focal point of political posturing in (yet another) slander campaign against Bush, he'd reveal his source.

quote:
originally posted by Matter eater Man:
For somebody who likes to shout treason at the liberal boogie men I would think it would deeply disturb you too that this administration would resort to such dirty tactics.
This, from a guy who jumps on every last suggestion of wrongdoing against Bush, verbatim, before any investigation or further disclosure is made.
And again I refer you to the "Liberal Media" topic, for some hard stats on the ratio of conservative and liberal reporters. The statistics are in my favor, regarding liberal bias.

http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000801

Again, it's been three years of relentless weekly slander campaigns against Bush, and I've yet to see anything proveable to date. That makes me much less likely to suck up the latest allegations as absolute gospel of Bush's guilt of anything, or even guilt of anyone in his administration.

As I said earlier, there MAY be some truth to the allegations, and the fact that some retired CIA agents appeared on ABC's Nightline last Thursday and Friday does give me some pause.

But as I said, these were four agents, out of the thousands who work for the CIA, NSA and other intelligence branches. I'm not satisfied that the hard questions have been asked about Wilson's motivations for the disclosure, or what a majority of the intelligence community thinks, or whether it's just another attempt to trash Bush.

And again, Bush has been one of the boldest Presidents ever in taking initiative for our national security.
Bush's first action as President was to give significant raises to military personnel.

And conversely, Bush's accusers are largely people who have spent several decades displaying a contempt for the military and national defense.
Forgive me if I don't take the word of Bush's accusers, right from the starting gate.

Democrats have been bitterly crying wolf for three years now. And I've yet to see a valid allegation yet.