Posted on 07/19/2004 8:58:47 AM PDT by OESY
There are recent stories of the Defence Department moving a lot of uranium from Iraq to the U.S.
Where did that uranium come from if Iraq wasn't seeking it from abroad?
Anyone still have that link?
SECURITY ALERT!!!! Valerie Plame may be subject to getting caught in a classic honey trap!!
I believe that uranium load came from Libya. IIRC, GW was just in Tennessee at Oak Ridge, and was shown the stuff brought in.
"Plame's link to the CIA was one of the worst kept secrets in Washington. You didn't need a security clearance to know it, and revealing it had no bearing on national security."
Then why did Tenent and the CIA request the investigation?
"I would bet the ranch that this investigation will lead to NO indictments."
I agree, as does almost eveyone else - it's the usual outcome of this type investigation.
If Joe Wilson testified in this matter,he should be indicted.
Aldrich Ames, a decade earlier?
What this article doesn't mention is that there is no question that Iraq sent a "trade" delegation to Niger in I believe '99 - Wilson himself verified this point.
And since Niger's only export is uranium, it seems pretty obvious to all concerned exactly what it is the Iraqis were seeking.
To say this question is "murky" is disingenuous at best.
She did it herself by her listing in Who's Who.
If he and/or wifey was/were the Beeb's source for the yellowcake stories, the Feds ought to tack that on, too.
As I told you, I'm pretty sure the investigation is looking at other issues of this story, and the focus is the Wilsons. (so goes my theory, which the Senate Committee only helped to buttress)
BTW, not only is it my surmise about Plame's status, Cliff May (I know, I know, you disdain the source, but look at his reasoning) also suspects she was not working undercover:
Our Man in Niger (part 2 hit on Wilson/Plame)
excerpt:
Now that we know that Mrs. Wilson did recommend Mr. Wilson for the Niger assignment, can we not infer that she was working at CIA headquarters in Langley rather than as an undercover operative in some front business or organization somewhere?
~snip~
If Joe Wilson testified in this matter,he should be indicted.
as Martha Stewart has just found out, you don't have to testify under oath to be guilty of a crime. Merely lying to investigators is a felony, even if there is no underlying crime, the lie itself is a crime.
I think there should be, and will be, indictments coming out of this investigation. Joe Wilson will almost certainly be indicted for lying to the FBI, probably for lying to a grand jury and hopefully for lying to Congress.
Now, if I were the Federal Prosecutor working on this case, I'd offer Joey a deal. Flip on the dim operatives who staged this whole thing, particularly the ones planted by Clinton in the CIA and the State Department. Then we'll give him a reduced sentance and agree not to charge his wife (but she will have to resign and lose her security clearance).
It would be interesting to see how high the conspiracy goes inside the Democrat party? Little Tommy? McAwful? Date I say it? The Toons? Of course, Arkancide would happen long before anything like that came out. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Joey began taking long walks in Fort Marcy park to clear his head.
"It seems to me Val was not undercover, as I've opined to you even before the Senate Committee revealed the memo."
I thank you for your continued educational efforts.
From the WSJ "A long-running Justice Department investigation into which Bush-administration official leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name is back where it started:"
I beleive the WSJ more than I do your source, Cliff May.
I don't believe this representation of the report is accurate or correct. The report states the record accurately--that the documents were not analyzed by intelligence until after the speech. When that is clear, it is no mystery why they "failed" to "raise the issue".
The sequence (which is no "new news"):
Officials: Uranium Documents Not Scrutinized Until After Bush Speech
Thursday, July 17, 2003
The State Department (search) obtained the fraudulent documents alleging Iraq sought uranium in Africa months before President Bush made the claim, but U.S. intelligence analysts did not examine them closely enough to determine they were forgeries until after the president's disputed speech, U.S. officials say.
~snip~
"We acquired the documents in October 2002 and they were shared widely within the U.S. government, with all the appropriate agencies," said State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.
But an intelligence official said the CIA didn't obtain the documents from the State Department until February 2003. It was unclear why the CIA did not obtain the documents when the State Department said it had them available.
I'll offer a theory: The counter-proliferation arm of the CIA was involved in this Wilson scheme on their own iniative. I am getting more and more suspicious of the Wilsons' involvement in concocting the forged documents.
What the hell is wrong with reporters that they can't keep the facts straight. It is not complicated. I get easily confused, but these facts have been out there literally since the Wilson story began.
Now, the question is how the State Department might be involved. Note this interesting tidbit from the New York Times from last October:
Excerpt:
Second, as Mrs. Wilson rose in the agency, she was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from "noc" which means non-official cover, like pretending to be a business executive. After passing as an energy analyst for Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a C.I.A. front company, she was switching to a new cover as a State Department official, affording her diplomatic protection without having "C.I.A." stamped on her forehead.
So, how much influence did Mrs. Wilson wield over at State?
Not everything you read in the Journal is above suspicion:
after all, Al Hunt has a column there!
For those who may be puzzled at your observation, I refer them to my second link in post #17 for the sourcing on Ames.
Too bad this piece makes a bit of a mish mash of the factual record...I would be reluctant to form opinions based on such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.