GOP Rove talking points, courtesy of "The Raw Story"

[Penndems]

Exclusive: GOP talking points on Rove seek to discredit Wilson

RAW STORY


RAW STORY has obtained an exclusive copy of Republican talking points on Bush adviser Karl Rove's leaking the name of a CIA agent to a reporter, circulated by the Republican National Committee to "D.C. Talkers" in Washington.

The document, emblazoned with the words "Special Edition" and dated Tuesday, seeks to discredit claims put forth by Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whose wife was 'outed' as a covert operative by a conservative columnist. After obtaining copies of emails sent from a Time reporter to his editor, Newsweek fingered Rove as a source for the leak which disclosed the agent's identity.

The talking points mirror a release by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman earlier Tuesday, in which he declared the attacks on Rove were spawned by the 'MoveOn' wing of the Democratic Party. MoveOn later accused the White House of a 'cover up.'

The talking points, acquired by RAW STORY, follow.

Link:
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html
**********************************************************************
These dirty crooks never cease to amaze me. :grr: :eyes:

[Diane R]

1. And, they are following them.

I just watched Hardball, and the bush spokesman hit every point. Of course, he was allowed to talk on and on until he had said everything he wanted to say. Dee Dee Meyers was given a fraction of the time, and cut off after one or two sentences.

I would love to see a breakdown of how much time each side is given. From my observation, the RNC talking points got 80% of the air time.

[maddezmom]

2. and so far today, I've seen Melman, Eskew, etc follow them all the way

what disgusting pigs :mad: Wonder if Scotty will answer questions about this tomorrow? Refused today...said to ask the RNC.

[OKNancy]

3. They showed this on the news

I believe CBS. So this memo is out there. They showed an actual copy of the same thing on the rawstory site.

[msongs]

25. Is this what the talking points are? - >

today I heard a big shot from the wall street journal being interviewd on the cbs news station knx in los angeles. Before I read the official talking points linked article, here is what mr wall street said:

1) Its summer in washington, everyone is bored and this is all there is to gossip about.
2) since washington is slow this story is getting coverage it would not deserve or get other times of the year
3) its just a bunch of silly people acting immature and getting their undies in a bunch over nothing.
4) nobody will be talking about this in a few weeks as it is all overblown.
and finally...

5)there is really nothing to this story, its just democrats hype.

now I can go read raw story :-)

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Zorra]

4. They almost make me believe that there really is a Satan, an evil prince

of darkness, that is trying to destroy everything that is good in the universe.

Because every single one of their actions is based on lies and deception, and, respectively, results in death, or destruction, or misery, or poverty, or pollution, or ignorance, or sickness, or repression, or whatever negative consequences can be had by the evil actions of human beings.

What good, decent, positive and constructive things do any of them ever do? Nada, zilch, zero.

Nothing that these people ever do is done in the light, it is all done in the dark, it is all spin and spun, born of lies and corruption.

Supposedly, according to the Christian bible, the devil is the father of lies.

Well, if that is true, then, judging from their words and actions, Bu*h, the neocons, and the entire republican party are undeniably his obedient and beloved children.

Sorry to get all mystical here but these people are literally straight out some demonic Machiavellian nightmare and things have gone way beyond any semblance of common human decency, logic, and reason.

I wonder if the liberals in 1933 Germany felt like many of we liberals do right now, right before they were totally overwhelmed and imprisoned by their evil countrymen - Hitler and the Nazis.

[Im_Your_Huckleberry]

7. but they have god on thier side.

don't they?

[gtar100]

67. It boggles the sane mind to see all that these people do

Lie after lie. Like greedy, starving animals around the kill. They are human, but they are missing parts of a sound psychological element in their minds, such as an understanding of the interdependence of all life on earth that the welfare of others profoundly effects personal welfare.

They obviously know somewhere in their heads that what they are doing is wrong. Otherwise, they'd just say "So what? Piss off, I'll do what I want!" to anyone who disagreed with them. Instead, they try to justify themselves with their twisted "logic" and "reason" based on fantasies.

I share your perspective. It's easy to see the devil behind all this. But it could also be viewed as a disease of mind that life hasn't yet learned how to cure. It's been here on this earth for a long time.

What we call neo-con or right-wing, is just an aberration of a sound mind. Their point of view and logic is a destructive disease of the brain caused by missing linkages. The proof is in the destructiveness of the results. They are no less a problem than the terrorists; they and the terrorists suffer the same disease. One is cultured in affluence, the other in poverty.

And because we are all part and parcel of organic life here, we all will suffer if we don't cure ourselves of it.

[iam]

69. It takes an understanding of just what conservatism is

Conservatism is evil, Liberalism is good, and I can prove it.

[Bumblebee]

5. The doc itself makes it clear that his wife did not "authorize" him to go

just may have mentioned him as a potential candidate. Her higher-ups sent him, so the whole thing about Plame sending him/authorizing him to go was -- and still is -- a total lie. This was done in response to Cheney's request -- whether he authorized it directly or not. What a bunch of absolute bastards!

[Merlot]

13. She didn't mention him as a potential candidate

They went to her and asked her if he was interested and she passed the info to him. It's in his book which is a very good read.

[Mythsaje]

6. Doesn't matter...

I don't think Wilson's the real story. I think Plame is.

[CantGetFooledAgain]

9. I agree. I think the largest part of this story is yet to be told

She (and her work) were irreparably damaged. Wilson was not in the least "discredited" or embarrassed. The organized leaking campaign carried with it a huge risk for very highly placed people.

Why did they do it?

[Bumblebee]

11. Hope you are right

Trying to expose this administration is like attempting to slay a many-headed dragon. One head -- even if it contains Bush's brain -- isn't going to be enough.

[Mythsaje]

17. I really think they wanted to shut up

the CIA divisions who were countering their spin on Iraq and WMDs. Plame knew all too well that it was bullshit, and I don't know how many times I heard a squeaky back-room voice saying "stop saying that" every time Bush or one of his cabal made noises about Iraq and WMDs.

It's about "fixing the intelligence around the policy." All part of the same damn story.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

29. Bingo. After Plame's organization was exposed, the only remaining...

...group that stood in the NeoCons' way was the UN weapons inspectors, and the NeoCons ordered them out of Iraq before they began the invasion.

[Penndems]

31. And look how they smeared Scott Ritter

by making him out to be some kind of pervert who likes teenage girls.

[dchill]

34. As opposed to ...

teenage boys.

[Penndems]

41. They're saving that smear for the next whistle-blower

who brings to light more of their dirty deeds.

[NeoConsSuck]

46. They smeared more than Ritter...

they smeared everyone who protested against the imminent "blood for oil" occupation. And the media (CNN.COM especially) was more than willing to do their dirtywork, branding every protester as anti-American Saddamn sympathizers.

And if you are a CNN.COM troll, and DU has a few of them, be forewarned: I have all your neocon webpages on my hardrive, ready to go back into cyberspace.

[iam]

72. dammit!

don't call these devils "neocons". They are conservatives. If we label them neocons, conservatives can still practice their dark ways. Did conservatives create a special category of liberals called "neolibs"? Hell no! they attacked ALL of Liberalism sinking the whole ship of Liberty not just a dingy full of extremists. Am I the only person who understands that words matter?

[Justice]

20. I think you two have hit the nail on the head.

[dchill]

35. "the largest part"

like the real reason Tenet and Pavitt quit the CIA.

[Carla in Ca]

59. Read this article. This CIA agent describes

just how big a risk it was

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=139106>

I saw this on Kos and was going to post it but it is already in the editorials forum. I hope enough people see it there.

[dchill]

36. Bingo!

[bettyellen]

8. kicked....

i posted a link in the acivist's thread so people could keep it in mind for their Rove LTTEs.
thanks for the great post.

[Booster]

10. I wonder who gave this to Rawstory - smells to me like someone

on the other side is just a tad tired of defending this bunch. As Martha would say "it's a good thing".

[thinkingwoman]

12. the entire spin

revolves around protecting Cheney.

Many posters have suspected Cheney is behind it all and reading through the talking points it seems clear. The spin is heavy on the "Cheney didn't send Wilson" angle.

With Bush and Friends, projection and denial are the weapons of choice. Whatever they accuse Democrats of doing is what they're doing -- smear campaign. Whatever they deny the most stringently is the truth of what actually occurred -- Cheney not involved means Cheney deeply involved.

Bet on it.

[Tesla]

14. I'll take that bet.....

and take more ......

[krkaufman]

21. Cheney may well be the main figure...

... who leaked to Rove. (As Rove may not have had the security clearance to know about Plame, and so would have had to have been tipped by someone else ==> Cheney.)

[thinkingwoman]

23. that's what I'm thinking...

and not ruling out Scooter Libby as a middle man.

Basically, my gut tells me they all talked about it well before any reporters were contacted--or before they were contacted by reporters (which happens at least once a week no doubt).

[krkaufman]

24. Agreed.

con-spir-a-cy

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. Don't forget that back when this story first became public, both Bush....

...and Cheney retained lawyers.

IMHO, that was the first sign that what we're seeing now is a desperate bid by the NeoCons to save Cheney AND Bush.

[krkaufman]

32. Good point

Obviously, they knew *something*, otherwise they wouldn't have required lawyers.

[Bumblebee]

37. This supports the "wider" theory -- WP

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/

Posted at 04:43 PM ET, 07/12/2005
How'd the White House Know?

I know, the blog used to be fun when it was all about stogies on the porch and the Meaning of Life and my inexorable psychological breakdown. But I have to post on Rove -- we have to go All Rove All The Time, at least until tomorrow morning -- because I need to drive up the page views and the comments to prove, after last week's hijacking of the blog, that I'm still Top Dawg around here. So here's one last Rove observation, from a pal who knows a thing or two:

"I think there's a piece just waiting to be written on HOW THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF FOUND OUT SHE WAS A SPOOK. Which WH staff have access to that kind of info, whether there could have been any legitimate reason for them to be informed of it, (unlikely), etc. What probably happened is someone sought or passed along the info for the exact purposes Joe Wilson alleges. If Rove asked for the info, then he spied on a US citizen for political purposes (AND endangered national security)....This chain-of-information part of the story inside the WH stinks to high heaven but hasn't been touched because everyone has been too busy writing about who struck John."

[dchill]

52. Agreed...

It's been Cheney all along who - despite all evidence to the contrary - has belligerently maintained that Saddam has reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, and had strong ties to Osama bin Laden/Al Qaeda.

He is the one who personally visited CIA headquarters in search of "intelligence" friendly to his ideas. He is the one who requested the CIA mission to Niger that Joseph Wilson eventually took on.

He is the one who insinuated - nay, claimed outright - that America would be in for more 9/11s if John Kerry was elected.

HE is the one who HAD to be re-elected, by hook or by crook - to save himself from criminal charges, and to make sure Halliburton stayed in the war-for-cash scheme we call "The War On Terror."

He might wish for Joe Wilson to be discredited, but Wilson was right - as was Plame - and he was wrong. And he knew it.

[LizW]

15. The whole point of this is to shield Cheney

The main gist of the smear is the claim that Wilson's wife sent him to Africa. The talking points and the right wing echo chamber STILL keep saying, Cheney didn't send him, Cheney didn't send him! Which is crazy because Wilson's article never said Cheney sent him. It said the CIA decided on their on to send him because Cheney kept asking about the Niger uranium issue.

It's clear what happened. Cheney latched onto the uranium claim like a bulldog and kept asking the CIA about it. They didn't think it was true, but because Cheney wouldn't leave it alone, they decided to send someone to get to the bottom of it.

The whole smear is to protect Cheney because he lied when he claimed that the CIA never produced a report debunking the uranium claim which ultimately became the 16 words. Cheney saw the report. He knew the uranium thing was bogus, but he wanted to use it anyway. It was in the State of the Union because he wanted it there.

The WHIG tried like crazy to get the Africa uranium claim into Powell's UN presentation. In James Bamford's "Pretext for War", it is described how a "script" was written for Powell, but Powell wouldn't follow it. He started writing his own presentation, and several members of the WHIG, plus George Tenet, came to the CIA to observe his preparations. During the days of rehearsal, Powell kept taking the uranium claim out, and Stephen Hadley kept putting it back in, until Powell finally yelled at him to keep it out for good.

Those people were there to strong arm Powell at the insistence of Cheney, in my opinion. Cheney wanted the nuclear imagery in. He had been the ringleader in pounding the "mushroom cloud" phrase since Judith Miller first published the words on September 8 of the previous year. It was no coincidence that those words were in the NYT on Sunday morning and Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld all appeared on the morning talk shows that same day parroting the words.

[many a good man]

44. Great analysis!

You make a lot of sense!

[alarcojon]

66. I have Bamford's book but have yet to read it

but your comments might be the additional incentive I need....

[LizW]

81. As a DUer, you'll already know most of what's in it

But it is good to see it all laid out in one source.

The stuff that was new to me, though, was the history of the neocons and how they tried to get Netanyahu to depose Saddam way back even before they tried to get Clinton to do it.

Thre frustrating thing is realizing that Congress had all this information at their disposal, and they still rolled over for Bush.

[alarcojon]

83. Wasn't Bibi a CNN analyst during Gulf War I?

I seem to recall his snide mug before he became PM. I'm sure he has quite a history with AMerican foreign policy people.

[Cocoa]

16. Bush said he'd fire anyone involved in the leak

can't blame MoveOn.org for that.

[Bumblebee]

18. Paula Zahn

was actually good just now. She basically immediately told the token GOP apologist that she read the Talking Points, so he does not have to repeat them but should answer her direct questions instead. Plus he was no match to Katrina! If the MSM can "recover" so quickly, maybe, just maybe, not all is lost -- yet.

[Bumblebee]

19. PS -- and even Bill Schneider

who did an overview prior to the duel, was actually very, very decent, esp. by his standards.

[krkaufman]

22. Wow. Pretty startling behavior for Zahn. n/t

[Media_Lies_Daily]

26. Zahn destroyed that guy....and I was pleasantly shocked!....

IMHO, this means that the major conservative owners of the mainstream press have decided to back away from the NeoCons.

This is EXCELLENT news!

[Bumblebee]

30. According to Tom Raum (AP)

The Talking Points have failed to convince even some people who created them :)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Rove-Under-Siege.html

Some White House officials and Bush advisers are privately expressing doubts about whether Rove can survive the latest flap.

[dooner]

49. Yes, Paula was good

She seemed pretty fed up with the GOP spokeszombie.

[msongs]

28. correct response to these so called talking points might be:

here's a quote from the comments section on this rawstory article.
The gist is that the talking points are an attempt to control the conversation about the whole subject by confusing the matter:

"the rnc is focused on the "wrong" points because that's what they always do when the shit hits the fan. it's a distraction technique and it's worked very well. the democrats fall for it when they engage the republicans on the "wrong" points, thus letting the republicans determine the parameters of the discussion, the msm buys it, and consequently, the american people buy it.

the democrats (and the great minds in the msm) need to stop falling for this pathetically transparent practice and re-direct the discussion."

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Francine Frensky]

64. You are right. We have a ONE WORD talking point:

Treason. Uncovering an undercover agent in a time of war. That trumps all this nonsense about he said-she said who sent who where and when.... I don't care WHY Rove felt he had to out a secret agent, I care because MY SECURITY WAS COMPROMISED and I'm mad as h@## about it.

[dchill]

33. I have never heard of "talking points"

working in a court of law.

Go for it, you bunch of traitorous numbnuts.

[Roland99]

38. Total diversion. Wilson's not being investigated. Why's that?

Because he isn't part of this investigation!

It's those in the White House that leaked Plame's name!


Gee..."honesty and integrity"



Whuzzat?

[1democracy]

39. Cheney never met Wilson???

According to the talking points, Cheney says several times he never met Wilson, doesn't know who he is, etc. This is similar to the VP debate where Cheney said he'd never seen Edwards, never met him before, and it turned out they'd sat together at some breakfast where I think Edwards even spoke...(please correct this if wrong)

[Roland99]

40. And that doesn't matter!

Wilson was told he was going to Niger to respond to requests from the office of the V.P. He never said Cheney told him to go. Wilson said, "it was probably Cheney".


ooooo....big bad liar Wilson is.

:eyes:

[Kool Kitty]

53. Wasn't Wilson the Ambassador to Iraq

during the first Bush administration? Wasn't Cheney the Secretary of Defense? Wouldn't they have met then? (Or am I mistaken about this?)

[othermeans]

55. Ambassador to Gabon In 1990 chargé d'affaires in Baghdad n/t

[Kool Kitty]

56. Thanks. Dang. I was way off.

[othermeans]

54. Remeber he said he never met Edwards either I think his heart condition

is cutting off blood flow to his brain.

[wschalle]

42. Whoever wrote that document did so without an education.

Most of the words are capitalized.

[Miss Chybil]

43. Who cares who sent him to Niger the documents were FORGERIES.

FORGERIES. Want to nitpick, Bushbots? FORGERIES! Who forged them? Where'd they come from? I don't care if Joe Wilson went to Niger on his own dime. The documents used to support 16 words in Bush's State of the Union speech claiming Saddam had sought to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger were FORGERIES and Joseph Wilson proved it.

Where'd they come from? Who forged them? Who knew they were forgeries before using them to scare the American people into a war? Who FORGED those documents and why was Rove so upset they were proven to be FORGERIES? Upset enough to jeapardize our national security by outing an undercover CIA agent working on tracking WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! You Republicans are toast! Tough on National Security my ass. Culture of Life my ass. The ONLY thing you care about are your own asses. How about you plant them in Iraq? Our guys need a little help over there fighting a war based on FORGERIES!

[Zan_of_Texas]

45. Right.

Here are our "talking points" --

Where is the story and investigation on how those documents were forged? WHO is investigating that?

Where is the story and investigation on who had access to the information that Plame was an undercover operative? This is not the sort of thing "everybody" knew?

And, yeah, these are the people spending all of our government resources DEFENDING us and keeping us SAFE from nuclear proliferation??

By outing someone who had years of experience trying to prevent same?

[Miss Chybil]

47. Got it. Now I just have to wait for CNN to call...

:)

Nah, I think I'll go stand on the corner and start screaming this stuff!

[dooner]

50. Yeah! n/t

[Virginian]

48. Wilson donated to John Kerry's campaign...

Does anyone remember the webpage that shows what everyone donates to political candidates?

I think I remember hearing that Wilson was a life long Republican. I would like to look his previous donations, but I can't remember the name of the website.
Of course he donated to Kerry's campaign after the White House attacked him.

Is there any possibility that the Rove thing is covering up something really sinister the administration might be doing?

[jbnow]

58. I don't know the page but he is very open

about his support for Kerry, though I don't know if al;l the details the points supply are correct.

Wilson says he use to be more of an independent, worked closely with bush Sr, but after this administration would never vote republican again.

If they followed all the steps and links of course this leads to more sinister things, at the very least the intentional deceptions to lead us into war...and if they kept going there would be a web of vile deceptions that are damaging to America.

[drm604]

63. opensecrets.org

The web page is opensecrets.org. Unfortunately a search for Joseph Wilson turns up a lot of Joseph Wilsons. You would need to know his address, or at the very least his city and state, to narrow it down. (Please don't post his full address.)

[Virginian]

70. He donated to both 2000 candidates.

??? But that was back in the summer of 1999 before we knew who the candidates would be.

I guess he was showing some support for dubya based on he was poppy's son. Wilson didn't contribute to jeb, though.

[drm604]

51. Conspiracy to commit treason.

"RAW STORY has obtained an exclusive copy of Republican talking points on Bush adviser Karl Rove's leaking the name of a CIA agent to a reporter, circulated by the Republican National Committee to "D.C. Talkers" in Washington." :grr:

The whole damn RNC ought to be charged with conspiracy to commit treason.

Okay, maybe the RNC hasn't itself committed treason but they do appear to be giving aid and comfort to a traitor. This is no joking matter, this is beyond politicking. I'll repeat what I just said: GIVING AID AND COMFORT TO A TRAITOR!!! Maybe some enterprising prosecutor can try to use the RICO Act against them or something.

Maybe the various pundits and reporters should consult with their attorneys before they start rattling off these "talking points".:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[drm604]

61. Kick for morning crowd.

:kick:

[Jack Rabbit]

57. I saw some of those talking points today on another site

This is going to be what they go with for a while.

Remember, all we have to do is stick with the truth.

Here are a couple of my resonses to the new talking points posted on The Nation:

What Rove apparently leaked to reporters was that Ms. Plame was responsible for sending Wilson to Niger (not Nigeria; that's neighboring country) and that his report said something different than he reported in The New York Times.

I don't believe either of these allegations. It also seems that some on the right are now trying to assert that Ms. Plame was no one important whose exposure was of any significance, but this also seems unlikely.

The assignment was requested by Mr. Cheney's office. They had some information about Saddam attempting to purchase yellowcake from Niger that they wanted investigated. The truth about Ms. Plame appears to be that she was neither a low-level munchkin nor a top-level administrator at the CIA. Perhaps the reason Wilson was chosen for the assignment has less to do with the fact his wife worked in the agency than the following: Wilson was once acting ambassador to Iraq (1990-91); Wilson was once ambassador to Gabon (1993-95); Wilson is considered an expert in African uranium mining industries.

In short, Wilson was more than qualified for the assignment. It couldn't be regarded as a junket, because he took the assignment without pay.

Perhaps to their disappointment of whoever in Mr. Cheney's office requested the report, Ambassador Wilson came back reporting that the information was false. That didn't fit into the regime's program of fixing facts and intelligence around the pre-determined policy of invading Iraq.

As for the charge that Wilson's report was something different than he said in The Times, the fact is that what Wilson wrote in The Times has become accepted fact: that Saddam was not attempting to purchase yellowcake. Wilson's story is simply more credible than Rove's.

As for whether Ms. Plame was undercover, it might depend on what definition of undercover or covert is being used. What we can say is that if at that time one were to have asked Ms. Plame what she did for a living, she would have told one that she was an energy analyst for Brewster Jennings and Associates. As it turns out, Brewster Jennings is a not-very-well-disguised CIA front.

Personally, I think Mr. Rove knew that he was exposing Ms. Plame, but that will be hard to prove in court. All Mr. Rove had to tell a few good reporters is that Joseph Wilson's wife works for the CIA tracking WMDs and then let them do the leg work. It wouldn't have been too difficult for a good reporter to find out that Ambassador Wilson was married to a lady named Valerie Plame, that she worked for Brewster Jennings and that Brewster Jennings was a CIA front. In this theory, Rove was hoping at least one of them would run with the story. Robert Novak did.

However, it also seems unlikely that Karl Rove, who is really little more than a glorified political hatchet man, would normally concern himself in his day-to-day duties with who's who in Langley or which diplomat is sent on a special assignment to Niger. Thus, it seems very likely that he was not acting alone in this caper.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 07/12/2005 @ 8:34pm

Is this the new talking point? It needs some work.

According to Wilson:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office . . . .

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq -- and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired . . . .

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff.

If Wilson overlooked something, perhaps Bush's own ambassador overlooked the same thing. It sounds that way.

Now, Wilson's report was delivered, as he said, to the ambassador and members of the embassy staff.

Why should we not believe Wilson? It's not like it was unusual for intelligence concerning a proposed Nigeran sale of yellowcake to Iraq to be based on false documents. One given by the US to the IAEA was pronounced a fake by Dr. ElBaradei before the UN Security Council in March 2003, when the council was debating the resolution, eventually withdrawn, which would have authorized force against Iraq. As pretains specifically to Ambassador Wilson's mission in Iraq, DCI George Tenet admitted in the wake Wilson's New York Times piece: "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President."

Of course, it was those sixteen words that alerted Wilson to something being amiss. That is the first problem with the conspiracy theory now be advanced by the right: Are we supposed to believe that Wilson went to Niger, overlooked evidence of uranium deals between Niger and Iraq in order to embarrass Mr. Bush after Mr. Bush contradicted his findings ten months later? And if Mr. Wilson's motive for this whole charade was to embarrass Bush, then why did he wait another six months to do so? Why didn't Wilson just jump all over Bush immediately after the SOTU and before the invasion?

Wilson answers the question himself:

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

In other words, Wilson, a perfectly reasonable man, assumed that he didn't have all the answers. But then he found out that the State Department knew of his work and published them in a fact sheet.

So, Wilson would like to know if his work was found to be inaccurate, and therefore ignored. In that event, he says it would be understandable that his work was discarded, but he would like to know what was wrong with his findings. He also raises the possibility that the work was ignored because " it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq", in which case, Wilson adds, "a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

It would appear that Wilson's second possibility is the one better taken. People who are confident in the argument they are presenting and the evidence to support would never dream of constructing of something like the Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon. What were Dick Cheney and Lewis Libby doing taking so many trips to Langley? The fact is that, as the Downing Street document reveals, Bush and his people first decided to go to war, but found their case "thin" and therefore set about fixing intelligence and facts around the policy, that is, fabricating facts and dissembling intelligence reports.

That is a fantastic scenario. It is one which one such as I, being the sort who normally scoffs at conspiracy theories, would usually find difficult to swallow. However, the reasons given for going to war against Iraq weren't just wrong, they were wildly wrong. If somebody scored that poorly on an exam, it would be easy to suspect he was trying to flunk.

Mr. Bush and his people were lying and knew they were lying. There was nothing wrong with what Ambassador Wilson found in Niger, except that "it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq" that had to be maintained to justify what turned out to be an unnecessary invasion.

That is the other thing wrong with the new set of right wing talking points. The evidence still points to Bush and his people deliberately leading the American people into war by false pretenses.

Which brings us to why Rove gave these stories to about half a dozen reporters. Wilson had to be discredited because he could testify to intelligence being discarded or dissembled if the facts didn't fit the neocons' plans of invading Iraq. I don't know whether Valerie Plame really was a covert agent by some legal definition, or whether, if she was, Rove knew it, or whether Rove knew that he was in any way compromising national security by exposing Valerie Plame (or, to use the denoting phrase, Joseph Wilson's wife) as a CIA agent. He should have known at least that last part. That is why he should lose his job, at a minimum.

Posted by JACK RABBIT 07/12/2005 @ 11:26pm

[WhiteTara]

60. That's right! This is all Move On's fault

I get it. KKKarl didn't reveal the identity of a CIA agent, Move On did. Damn those nasty liberals.

[Roland99]

62. Newt Gingrich just went down the list of Talking Points on NBC's Today!!

He literally was touching on every major point in that memo including the support of Kerry's campaign (like that has anything to do with the price of eggs in Denmark)

[drm604]

65. Everyone needs to contact NBC NOW

Contact them and give them a link to Rawstory's copy of the talking points or email them the images of the document. Ask them to mention that Gingrich was obviously using the list. Ask them to question people who use these points as to where they got them. Mention that the RNC seems to be involved in an organized effort, possibly a conspiracy, to protect a person or persons who were involved in an act of treason. Mention that if NBC knowingly allows them to do this on their network without challenging them then they may be involving themselves in that same conspiracy. Also contact other media with these same points and mention that Gingrich did this ON NBC. Hold NBC's (and anyone else who allows it) feet to the fire for allowing people to parrot these talking points without challenge!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

68. "Pissing into the wind" but I took my shot at the spineless bastards

Copy of e-mail send to [e-mail]:

The Today Show is an enabler of the Republican spin machine, devoid of mores

It is an embarrassment to NBC News to allow a spokesman for the Republican Party to use your airways to disseminate known “talking points” in an effort to manipulate public opinion without any counterpoint or questioning. Katy Couric is an entertainer and should never be presented or cast in a position of discussing or interviewing anyone connected with vital and significant news stories. She is not knowledgeable or competent enough to do serious news stories only inconsequential fluff pieces that represent the heart of the Today Show. This is another reason you are losing viewers to Good Morning America by violating the trust of the American people that expects to be presented with both sides of critical news stories. Please refer to the following source, a copy of the Republican Party talking point that you allowed to be propagated today without reference to source or a challenge to the validity of the content. Sadly, this is why NBC will now be referred to as "corporate media whores.” NBC News sells out our basic democratic principle of a free and open media by allowing itself to be shamelessly suborned by the power of a sitting president and his political agenda. SELLOUT!


http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Exclusive_GOP_talking_points_on_Rove_seek_to_discre_0712.html

[Virginian]

74. I think Katie was trying not to seem partisan.

Maybe Matt should have covered it and challenged the allegations. Or a better way to handle it would have been to have a representative of the other side there to dispute the talking points.

Katie is a Dem and might have been accused of "slanting the news" if she had been too tough on Newt.
There is a brain behind those good looks. She wouldn't be where she is at her age if there wasn't. Fluff, entertainer anchors peak in their 20's and are out of a job by age 30 or 35.

Katie went head to head with Ann Coulter when one of her hate books came out. Katie was logical, Ann was not. The show even showed clips of the examples Ann gave in her book of how the press is liberal. It looked impartial to me. In that case, Katie was representing her profession, Ann was representing hatred and divisiveness.

[drm604]

76. Sounds good,

but I think that maybe we should emphasize the idea that, by disseminating and encouraging the use of these disingenuous "talking points", the RNC may be engaging in a conspiracy to offer aid and comfort to a traitor or traitors, and that anyone who knowingly and without challenge cooperates in this may be directly involving themselves in the conspiracy. They may, at the very least, be cooperating in a traitorous conspiracy. They may even be risking some kind of criminal conspiracy charge. I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong about that, but it can't hurt to have the media questioning the possible legal ramifications of cooperating in this.

[maddezmom]

71. Check this out: Leak Was Politically Motivated, NBC Says

CNSNews.com) - NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams told viewers Tuesday night that the leak of a CIA agent's name was "politically motivated."

Introducing a report by NBC Correspondent David Gregory, Williams said, "In Washington today, more fireworks in the White House daily briefing over the role of one of the president's very top advisers in the politically motivated leak of a CIA agent's identity."

A grand jury is still investigating the leak to find out if it rises to the level of a criminal offense; and so far, it's not at all clear if the leak was politically motivated, although Bush administration critics insist that it was.



It's also not clear if anyone other than Karl Rove mentioned "Wilson's wife" (CIA agent Valerie Plame) to reporters.
more:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1340148.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

looks like the conservatives can't take the truth. :D

[Roland99]

73. The Today Show *DID* show the Talking Points...just moments before Newt

[Virginian]

77. That's great!

I wasn't watching, but if they showed the talking points and then let Newt follow them, it was demonstrating to all that someone tells all the Republicans what to say, and like puppets, they do as they are told.

[Roland99]

80. I was LMAO when Newt started into his spewing!

[freedom_to_read]

75. What A Craptacular Load of Crapulousness

And Why Must They Capitalize Every Word In Each Sentence Like This?

[The Stranger]

78. Has Dick Durbin apologized again yet?

[maquisard]

79. No surprise there...

Surely none of us expected the GOP to acknowledge any accountability for wrong-doing? When have they ever? They're certainly not going to let the man who stole two elections for them go down in flames. Face it, Karl Rove could devour live children on national television and they'd still make him out to be a saint.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

82. Howard Kurtz pulls together "what tack the conservatives" are taking on.

this story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html

SNIP:
"..I tuned into O'Reilly and Hannity on Monday night, but there was no mention, none, of the Rove/Plame affair. Imagine if an e-mail had surfaced showing that a top aide to Clinton--say, Sid Blumenthal--had told a reporter about a covert CIA agent. Would those Fox shows have given the controversy a bit of air time? (Last night, O'Reilly said "some in the media are foaming" over the story but did call on Rove to "clear the air," then hosted Newt Gingrich, who attacked Joe Wilson. Hannity said Rove "wasn't on a witchhunt" because Matt Cooper called him , and guest G. Gordon Liddy ripped Cooper and said Valerie Plame wasn't really undercover. At least the show had a liberal guest, Bill Press, who got overheated in accusing Rove of "treason" and saying he "should be marched off to prison." No trial, Bill?)"