Mobile WMD Labs a Farce

[RickSp]

Anyone who believes Sean Insanity would believe anything, I guess.

I guess you didn't bother reading the previous article I quoted from, so you probably won't read this one from Time in 2003.

NOC, NOC. Who's There? A Special Kind of Agent

Some Bush partisans have suggested that the outing of Plame is no big deal, that she was "just an analyst" or maybe, as a G.O.P. Congressman told CNN, "a glorified secretary." But the facts tell otherwise. Plame was, for starters, a former NOC — that is, a spy with nonofficial cover who worked overseas as a private individual with no apparent connection to the U.S. government. NOCs are among the government's most closely guarded secrets, because they often work for real or fictive private companies overseas and are set loose to spy solo. NOCs are harder to train, more expensive to place and can remain undercover longer than conventional spooks. They can also go places and see people whom those under official cover cannot. They are in some ways the most vulnerable of all clandestine officers, since they have no claim to diplomatic immunity if they get caught.

So, sure Fox and the and the rest of the Bushbot chorus can claim that outing an ex-NOC is no big deal, but lying is what they do, so I guess we should not be too surprised.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I don't know the Wilson guy, but they say he was the wrong choice to go to Niger, and his wife was the one who got him to go, so I don't know.

Which is a nice opinion, but doesn't matter one iota, since both the CIA and INR (State Department intelligence) confirmed that Wilson's report was correct, that Hussein had not come even close to acquiring uranium from Niger, and which they dutifully reported to Dick Cheney and Congress.

Meaning at the very least, Darth Cheney knew Bush's statement was false when he passed it on to the American people.

Which goes for the Mobile Weapons Labs, as well. This bit of intel came from yet another Ahmed Chalabi connection, an Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball", who the CIA knew well in advance was unreliable, and whose reports were later proven completely wrong.

At least according to Tyler Drumheller, former chief of the CIA European Division, who was issuing warnings in late 2002...

--"Everyone in the chain of command knew exactly what was happening," said Drumheller, who retired in November after 25 years at the CIA. He said he never met personally with Tenet, but "did talk to McLaughlin and everybody else."

Drumheller scoffed at claims by Tenet and McLauglin that they were unaware of concerns about Curveball's credibility. He said he was disappointed that the two former CIA leaders would resort to a "bureaucratic defense" that they never got a formal memo expressing doubts about the defector.

"They can say whatever they want," Drumheller said. "They know what the truth is …. I did not lie." Drumheller said the CIA had "lots of documentation" to show suspicions about Curveball were disseminated widely within the agency. He said they included warnings to McLaughlin's office and to the Weapons Intelligence Non Proliferation and Arms Control Center, known as WINPAC, the group responsible for many of the flawed prewar assessments on Iraq.

"Believe me, there are literally inches and inches of documentation" including "dozens and dozens of e-mails and memos and things like that detailing meetings" where officials sharply questioned Curveball's credibility, Drumheller said."--


.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Just in:

State Department Memo: '16 Words' Were False By Jason Leopold t r u t h o u t | Report Monday 17 April 2006 Eleven days before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa - an explosive claim that helped pave the way to war - the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries, according to a newly declassified State Department memo. More... Click here to view a digitized copy of the memo. (pdf)

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel When providing sources we like to see unbiased, mainstream media. Not partisan talking heads. If you are volunteering info, rather than providing a requested source you may be granted leniency. But if someone says "Prove it!", dont offer Limbaugh or Hannity. They are more opinionated than factual.

And you are saying because Hannity is conservative, and I don't watch him, he can't ever tell the truth? Hocky Puck!

There are all sorts of commentators out there, and we shouldn't pick and choose on these forums who we accept as being less unbiased.They all have biases and you have to sort it. I believe some good points were brought up in that interview.

The conservatives were merely saying that this whole Plame deal was blown out of porportion, and I believe it was.

I believe Scribbler wanted a source because he thought I might be making up the makeout session, and so forth. It's on the internet just do a google, or whoever. Plame must have told someone about that, or Wilson. Ears are everywhere. You have to watch what you tell.

[bishop]

sure, because it's all fine and dandy to punish an innocent woman because her husband had intelligence running contrary to bush's war plans..

we all know how to search for our sources, and most of us are very well-versed in the facts - so when you come here spewing what looks to be ignorant partisan nonsense, you will be challenged to support your assertions with facts.. i also noticed that you haven't retorted any of the substantive sources that you've been presented thus far, from sonart and gr8fuldaniel.. what is it that you came here to do exactly? debate or cheerlead?

pundit commentary is insufficient as far as sources go - especially since it merely serves to make opinions for people incapable of learning the facts for themselves and forming their own opinions.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe And you are saying because Hannity is conservative, and I don't watch him, he can't ever tell the truth? Hocky Puck!

The problem might be just that, you DON'T watch him (Or listen either, I assume. He has a radio show too.). He is like Limbaugh, Gallagher and the rest of the right wing talkers. Their business is opinion, sometimes BASED on news, not REPEATING the news. Their audience is right wing, and a lot of THEM are sheep who parrot what they say as fact. It would be suicide (and a BIG hit to the paycheck) for these guys to say anything complimentary about the left. They SAY what they think their fans want to hear and they invite GUESTS who do the same thing. When was the last time an invited guest on a political talk show called the host a bullshit artist or words to that effect. They have guys like the ex-CIA employee there for one reason, to REINFORCE what the host says.
Unless you are a blind partisan sheep you can see how they spin the news to make their side look good.

There are all sorts of commentators out there, and we shouldn't pick and choose on these forums who we accept as being less unbiased.They all have biases and you have to sort it. I believe some good points were brought up in that interview.

But were those "good points" FACTS, or did you just assume they were the truth based on the believability of the guest? Di you research any facts to back up Hannity's claims? Did you research the background of the GUEST? Probably not. Most people don't do that and just figure these people know something when they could just as easily be spinning it themselves, or even making it all up.

The conservatives were merely saying that this whole Plame deal was blown out of porportion, and I believe it was.

Emphasis on the word "BELIEVE", of course. That feeble excuse comes from the Bush side of this argument. They apparently blew the cover of a CIA agent, which is treason, plain and simple. Of COURSE they would say it's no big deal, just as the opposition would say it IS one. This time, however, the opposition is right. If you don't think deliberately exposing the identity of an American intelligence agent is a serious crime, no matter WHO does it then there isn't much sense in talking to you. Just TRY to explain how outing a CIA agent is not potentially compromising national security.

I believe Scribbler wanted a source because he thought I might be making up the makeout session, and so forth. It's on the internet just do a google, or whoever. Plame must have told someone about that, or Wilson. Ears are everywhere. You have to watch what you tell.

And you have to watch how you support an argument, especially an unpopular argument. Posting vague assumptions such as "Plame must have..." or using ANY talk show as a source will get you jumped on every time.
A talk show, ANYONE'S talk show , no matter which political side the host is on, as well as guests on those shows are unacceptable sources. And telling people to "Google" something if they challenge your information is also unacceptable. If you don't have a valid source to back up what you say it's best not to say it or someone will challenge you at every turn. That of course is your call.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: bishop sure, because it's all fine and dandy to punish an innocent woman because her husband had intelligence running contrary to bush's war plans.. we all know how to search for our sources, and most of us are very well-versed in the facts - so when you come here spewing what looks to be ignorant partisan nonsense, you will be challenged to support your assertions with facts.. i also noticed that you haven't retorted any of the substantive sources that you've been presented thus far, from sonart and gr8fuldaniel.. what is it that you came here to do exactly? debate or cheerlead? pundit commentary is insufficient as far as sources go - especially since it merely serves to make opinions for people incapable of learning the facts for themselves and forming their own opinions.

I'm glad that you are very well versed. Good for you.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Scribbler1 The problem might be just that, you DON'T watch him (Or listen either, I assume. He has a radio show too.). He is like Limbaugh, Gallagher and the rest of the right wing talkers. Their business is opinion, sometimes BASED on news, not REPEATING the news. Their audience is right wing, and a lot of THEM are sheep who parrot what they say as fact. It would be suicide (and a BIG hit to the paycheck) for these guys to say anything complimentary about the left. They SAY what they think their fans want to hear and they invite GUESTS who do the same thing. When was the last time an invited guest on a political talk show called the host a bullshit artist or words to that effect. They have guys like the ex-CIA employee there for one reason, to REINFORCE what the host says. Unless you are a blind partisan sheep you can see how they spin the news to make their side look good. But were those "good points" FACTS, or did you just assume they were the truth based on the believability of the guest? Di you research any facts to back up Hannity's claims? Did you research the background of the GUEST? Probably not. Most people don't do that and just figure these people know something when they could just as easily be spinning it themselves, or even making it all up. Emphasis on the word "BELIEVE", of course. That feeble excuse comes from the Bush side of this argument. They apparently blew the cover of a CIA agent, which is treason, plain and simple. Of COURSE they would say it's no big deal, just as the opposition would say it IS one. This time, however, the opposition is right. If you don't think deliberately exposing the identity of an American intelligence agent is a serious crime, no matter WHO does it then there isn't much sense in talking to you. Just TRY to explain how outing a CIA agent is not potentially compromising national security. And you have to watch how you support an argument, especially an unpopular argument. Posting vague assumptions such as "Plame must have..." or using ANY talk show as a source will get you jumped on every time. A talk show, ANYONE'S talk show , no matter which political side the host is on, as well as guests on those shows are unacceptable sources. And telling people to "Google" something if they challenge your information is also unacceptable. If you don't have a valid source to back up what you say it's best not to say it or someone will challenge you at every turn. That of course is your call.

What a lot of preaching. I'm not liking it here. I'll go to another thread cause you guys are going overboard.

My point was she had been outted since 1997. I realize that you are saying since she was an agent this could jeopardize other agents, but that man that was being interviewed explained some of that away, so it's really not going anywhere. You believe it's huge, and some don't. That's it.

You were being very agressive about "sources" so I said I did a google, and you could do the same, and should be looking for the same evidence. Not looking for your side, but the other side. You need to know both sides in a debate. Instead of saying sources, you should have said I looked it up and couldn't find anything that led in that direction.

I'll try to avoid you and great daniel or whatever his name is, and do the same for me, unless you want to tone it down a tad.

I think you guys get way too personal for this to be considered a real debate.

Plus, you type way too much stuff. I don't want to read all that crap.

[Scribbler1]

It's a real debate when you have something to back up your opinions. You apparently have ZERO to back you up so you criticize the response and offer nothing. You ran out of bullshit and gave up. That's okay.

"Plus, you type way too much stuff. I don't want to read all that crap."LOL! That's the first time someone used THAT to avoid responding. Thanks for the laugh.


And the "preachy" stuff at the end was actually some friendly advice about being prepared to argue the facts. Feel free to ignore it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

BTW,
My post #83 (above) is a perfect response to mr vicchio's post #13 (see underlined):

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio May 27,2003 Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement. May 28, 2003: A day after the team's report was transmitted to Washington -- May 28, 2003 -- the CIA publicly released its first formal assessment of the trailers, reflecting the views of its Washington analysts. That white paper, which also bore the DIA seal, contended that U.S. officials were "confident" that the trailers were used for "mobile biological weapons production." Timeline > Your assumption Bush is all powerful. ACtually, I have a question for you, can you prove Bush or anyone in the adminstration even SAW the report? Do you know where the report was filed too? No, of course not, but that's just logic and common sense ruining a perfectly good bumper sticker moment. Carry on.

......because it shows that the State Dept. (WH), had IN FACT read and knew the Niger Yellow Cake document was a FRAUD before bush uttered his 16 words of infamy in the SOTUA.

Take note MM, I am backing up my debate with actual documents/memos (pdf)submitted to the CIA, by the (Whitehouse) State Dept.

Now its Vics turn to make me prove Powell told bush, or has ever even spoken to bush in the first place. He may ask for photographic proof that Colin Powell and Dumbya were ever even in the same room together.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Plus, you type way too much stuff. I don't want to read all that crap.

I know you're joking but please, either debate properly or not at all.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: MM My point was she had been outted since 1997

It sure would be helpful to your argument if you could just offer one valid link to verify that. There have been assumptions made that, because "Plame worked in the Langley, Virginia, CIA headquarters since 1997" (link) that she couldnt drive to work every day and still be covert. That is presumptuous. Because she had worked overseas gathering info and managing agents in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Her cover should be respected for 5 years after working overseas. She was outted in 2003 by the president.

But you may not even read this because you are off trying to find a thread where they will drink your Kool Aid. There are republitard forums where you can worship bush unquestioned. This is a debate forum. Not just this thread, the whole forum. Be prepared to back up your claims

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Scribbler1 It's a real debate when you have something to back up your opinions. You apparently have ZERO to back you up so you criticize the response and offer nothing. You ran out of bullshit and gave up. That's okay. QUOTE]"Plus, you type way too much stuff. I don't want to read all that crap."LOL! That's the first time someone used THAT to avoid responding. Thanks for the laugh.

]

I didn't have anything to add, it would just be redundant crap just like what you are dishing out. All I had was that Plame had outted herself pretty much, which doesn't take a 1,000 word essay to produce or dispute.

And the "preachy" stuff at the end was actually some friendly advice about being prepared to argue the facts. Feel free to ignore it.

[quote]

I don't want to argue the facts. That's not debating. I just had a bit of info that apparently you weren't aware of, and I stated it.

You asked for a source which I didn't rememeber where I had gotten it, and I didn't have time at that moment to look up again, so I told you I did a Google. I was telling the truth. Most of the well-versed stuff are Google searches.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel It sure would be helpful to your argument if you could just offer one valid link to verify that. There have been assumptions made that, because "Plame worked in the Langley, Virginia, CIA headquarters since 1997" (link) that she couldnt drive to work every day and still be covert. That is presumptuous. Because she had worked overseas gathering info and managing agents in 2001, 2002 and 2003. Her cover should be respected for 5 years after working overseas. She was outted in 2003 by the president. But you may not even read this because you are off trying to find a thread where they will drink your Kool Aid. There are republitard forums where you can worship bush unquestioned. This is a debate forum. Not just this thread, the whole forum. Be prepared to back up your claims

Actually I did read what you have written. Maybe they didn't respect her cover.

They say though that because she was married to Wilson, that right there blew her cover. They were married in 1998. People might be suspicious of her is my guess.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: MM They say though that because she was married to Wilson, that right there blew her cover. They were married in 1998. People might be suspicious of her is my guess

Joe Wilson was an Ambassador, he had official clearance.

[bishop]

why would they be suspicious of her???

they obviously trusted her enough to give her one of the most dangerous covert assignments possible...

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe They say though that because she was married to Wilson, that right there blew her cover. They were married in 1998. People might be suspicious of her is my guess.

Why would that be? Ambassadors don't get married to ordinary people????



.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Scribbler1[QUOTE ]The problem might be just that, you DON'T watch him (Or listen either, I assume.

Sometrimes he's ok, sometimes not. I sort it out. I don't watch these guys cause they get on my nerves. I like John Gibson, though.

Unless you are a blind partisan sheep you can see how they spin the news to make their side look good.

Pretty harsh being you don't know me.

But were those "good points" FACTS, or did you just assume they were the truth based on the believability of the guest? Di you research any facts to back up Hannity's claims? Did you research the background of the GUEST? Probably not. Most people don't do that and just figure these people know something when they could just as easily be spinning it themselves, or even making it all up. Emphasis on the word "BELIEVE", of course. That feeble excuse comes from the Bush side of this argument. They apparently blew the cover of a CIA agent, which is treason, plain and simple.

Treason is really hard to prove.

And you have to watch how you support an argument, especially an unpopular argument. Posting vague assumptions such as "Plame must have..." or using ANY talk show as a source will get you jumped on every time. A talk show, ANYONE'S talk show , no matter which political side the host is on, as well as guests on those shows are unacceptable sources. And telling people to "Google" something if they challenge your information is also unacceptable. If you don't have a valid source to back up what you say it's best not to say it or someone will challenge you at every turn. That of course is your call.

I know this is supposed to be a debate forum, but it depends on who's doing the debating obviously, on what is believable, and what isn't, and even who gets outted. This is unpopular to whom? Seems like I was getting jumped pretty much, and no new info was being brought forth, just assumptions. I saw no new info from anyone.

I brought Hannity's interview in because I found it, and it was there. It wasn't meant to be the only source, just a source that backed up what I had read elsewhere. I probably would never find my original source.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: bishop why would they be suspicious of her??? they obviously trusted her enough to give her one of the most dangerous covert assignments possible...

I was thinking because she would have to be out and about with her Ambassador husband it might be conflicting for her, and put her in situations where someone might say something that would compromise her position. Spying is dangerous, and you have to be careful, and have eyes all over.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Sometrimes he's ok, sometimes not. I sort it out. I don't watch these guys cause they get on my nerves. I like John Gibson, though.

Sometimes I have been known to agree with Limbaugh, Hannity and even Michael Savage. This is like a broken clock being right twice a day but when you listen to them they wouldn't even say the liberals are even right THAT often. I hear too much radical right spin and outright lies to ever trust them as sources of facts. These guys are the epitome of the boy who cried wolf.

Pretty harsh being you don't know me.

I said "UNLESS you are a...". I didn't say YOU were.

Treason is really hard to prove.

Not really. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=treason

# a crime that undermines the offender's government # disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior # treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal

Outing an intelligence agent working for the United States government fits those definitions quite nicely.

I know this is supposed to be a debate forum, but it depends on who's doing the debating obviously, on what is believable, and what isn't, and even who gets outted. This is unpopular to whom? Seems like I was getting jumped pretty much, and no new info was being brought forth, just assumptions. I saw no new info from anyone.

You read the sources (and there are plenty of them) and you base your judgement on the validity of these sources. The information was there, it was from solid sources but you didn't bother to read them.

I'll stop here as I wouldn't want to burden you with 1000 words of redundant crap. Have a nice day.