July 11, 2004


Joseph Wilson is a liar. I wish the President would be more pro-active in pointing out stuff like this.

Posted by Sarah at July 11, 2004 07:55 AM

I don't think he ever will, dear. It's foreign to his character. He's a gentleman, and the Gentleman's Code forbids us ever to give offense intentionally. Whether one deserves to be offended is no part of the equation.

Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at July 11, 2004 04:36 PM

Gentlemen have no home in politics. My mother and I were talking about whether President Bush will retain VP Cheney, and my mom correctly noted that the President would not dump anyone just to get re-elected. I know she's right, and I respect that. But I fear his opponents are not nearly as honorable.

Posted by: Sarah at July 11, 2004 05:02 PM

Riiiiight Joe Wilson a liar, a man appointed by REAGAN, who served Poppy Bush so well that Poppy called him and I quote: "A true American hero", for the work he did in Iraq during Gulf War 1. Yeah I am likely to believe a bunch of partisan rebublican senators more concerned with loyalty to the party than the fucking truth. Said it before and I'll reiterate: "All politicians are self-serving scum".

PS to Jeremiah form a previous thread, ever hear of typos assclown?

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 11, 2004 05:26 PM

Bubba, if you've got so many opinions of your own that you have to add a comment to nearly every one of my posts, then maybe it's time for you to start your own blog.

Posted by: Sarah at July 11, 2004 05:46 PM

Or maybe you need to turn comments off if you don't like what you hear...Then you could be like:

"LALALALALALA I can't hear you! We are at WAR, WAR I say!"

Oh, wait, you are already like that.

That's right Bubba, with Moveable Type you too can have your very own Echo Chamber!

Posted by: rfidtag at July 11, 2004 07:02 PM

Hey Sarah you should see my output over @ Eschaton, I post about the same amount as I do here, but he has so many more threads my comments get lost. I am referring of course to the quantity of posting, not a percentage, it I were to post the same percentage there as here I'd be @ the computer typing for far too many hours. I offer my opinions in order to offer a different voice. It is only last couple days you have had several posts I feel the urge to comment about. I wish I had the time to blog. I would need to do this full time though; as it would require me to read nearly every news story on the web. I read entirely too many blogs as is.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 11, 2004 07:30 PM

Who appointed him, and who praised him are irrelevant to whether he is a liar or not.

Beyond the Senate's report, there were several a few months back on this very issue which drew the same conclusion. During the "wife kerfuffle" it actually came out that there were, in fact, connections and negotiations betwen Iraq and Niger on the transfer of some yellow cake. I believe it was determined that the amount was considered too small to be of interest to folks in the Beltway. I'm sure this is the same information the committee used in building its report.

Posted by: Mike at July 11, 2004 08:07 PM

Did either of you two even bother to read what was linked?

Are you just automatically rejecting everything Sarah posts as crap? If so, why do you read it? Nothing in your comments even remotely refers to the information presented, yet you dismiss it all out of hand without a moments consideration.

Your comments are a waste of space, pointless ad hominems with no bearing on the subject matter. You denigrate blogs, but at the same time say you read to many, but don't have the time to run your own. Frankly, have you tried it? It takes less time to post to your own blog than it does to fill out a NYTimes registration page.

Show some cajones and start your own site. Is your opinion not worth being presented in your own forum?

Posted by: John at July 11, 2004 08:12 PM

ummmmm John I read the article, and they missed a crucial point. In the addendums to the senate report was the fact that Wilson had said that a delegation from IRAN had been to Niger to inquire about 400 metric tons of yellowcake. IRAN-IRAQ easy to see how the CIA could screw that up as "N" and "Q" are so close in the alphabet, not to mention on a keyboard.

Posted by: Bubba Bo Bob Brain at July 11, 2004 10:55 PM

Does anything justify outing a CIA operative?

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."
-- George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999

If we're going to put anyone's word up against Bush's, well...anyone else deserves the benefit of the doubt against the Joe Isuzu of the Oval Office.

Sarah, you seem like a nice, sincere person but you're on the wrong side of history. Best of luck.

Posted by: Buffalo Bill at July 11, 2004 11:13 PM

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

Can someone tell me what on earth one has to do with the other? Wilson's 'bona fides' couldn't be established without breaking the law? They didn't establish his 'bona fides ' before sending him to Niger? He didn't establish his 'bona fides' as charge d'affairs in Iraq, defying Saddam Hussein with a rope around his neck? His wife's cover had to be blown to show that he wasn't professional? Sarah, if your husband was undercover in Iraq, and you said something the government didn't like, would you like your husband's cover to be blown to discredit you? Especially when it was illegal to blow his cover?

Posted by: Coriolanus at July 13, 2004 05:44 AM

And I have yet to see anyone even attempt to counter the senate intelligence reports stating that Wilson is the liar here. Just a bunch of irrelevant information tangential to the topic at hand trying to distract away from the truth.

Posted by: John at July 13, 2004 09:46 AM



2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll."

Posted by: John at July 13, 2004 09:51 AM

Sorry, this whole crock has been discredited, and the website you link to repeats a glaring error in the original news article, which actually wrote "Iraq" when it should have been "Iran". The Senate report says that Wilson found that Iran had tried to purchase uranium, not Iraq. The Wash.Post already ran a correction, and so should you.

Also many of the points in the Senate report that are being quoted were not endorsed by all the authors of the report. The Democrats basically refused to play politics on this smear campaign.

Shame on those who are participating in this smear campaign and the revealing of a covert agent serving America.

Posted by: ABB at July 16, 2004 12:09 PM