|
does that mean they will use it?
There are many questions surrounding the issue of who blew CIA agent Valerie Plame’s cover in retaliation for her husband, Ambassador Wilson, revealing as forgeries the Niger yellowcake uranium documents that provided "proof" for pushing forward with the Iraq war.
For example, are these forgeries what was meant by the Downing Street memo which stated that the “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" of going to war in Iraq?
Who authorized the revelation of Ambassador Wilson’s wife as an undercover weapons of mass destruction operative for the CIA, thus putting her mission and dozens of other operatives at risk?
Why did former Attorney General Ashcroft remove himself from the leak investigation?
If the leak indeed came from a member or members of his staff will President Bush, who promised honor and integrity in the White House, stand by his word and “deal” with the person who created the leak as he promised way back in 2003?
And why is the White House changing its story from “it’s ridiculous” to think that Karl Rove is involved in the leak, that they’ve “made it very clear, he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was” to “This is an ongoing investigation at this point. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, that means we're not going to be commenting on it while it is ongoing.” Have they been hiding something for two years, or does President Bush have so little control over what his staff does, including Karl Rove, a man his own father once fired for leaking a negative story about Bush supporter Robert Mosbacher to none other than columnist Bob Novak, who features in the Plame story as well?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
