To: geode00 who wrote (176296 ) 11/29/2005 8:16:06 PM From: Hawkmoon Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500 Geode.. Don't call me a liar.. I'm just the messenger.. And I sorry if you didn't like the message. If you want to call someone a liar, call that Washington Post writer a liar. And he was QUOTING a BI-PARTISAN Senatorial report with regard to Plames's role in recommending her husband for this mission. So you have to call that both the Democratic and Republican members of that committee "liars". But I have to ask.. did you even bother to read the full article at the link I presented, or are you merely trying to engage in a fruitless case of "damage control" because the story effectively makes YOU out to be the liar? Here's an interesting snippet I thought I would share with the thread (since you've obviously "tuned out" anything resembling facts). This story is from July 10th, 2004washingtonpost.com Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report . The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. Hmmm... So why is Wilson engaging in his own parochial analysis? If he was sent as a "fact finder", why hasn't he reclused himself from discussing the classified nature of his assignment in Niger, rather than engaging in unauthorized analysis? On what authority has he made claims that apparently are UNTRUE and not substantiated by a BI-PARTISAN Senate Intelligence committee?? What if he didn't possess all of the available facts, but only those that he personally obtained? Here's some more from the BI-PARTISAN Senate report:The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger. Hmmm... once again we have to ask "who's the liar"?? Did Joe Wilson LIE?? Or did he merely have a lapse of recollection?? Btw, I guess you don't understand how DC politics work. Everyone at the CIA obviously KNEW who Plame was married to. So what her boss supposed to do? Tell the wife of a Former US Ambassador that sending her husband would create both a conflict of interest, lack of objectivity (given his public statements against the Bush administration), as well as creating SERIOUS issues about maintaining her cover as a NOC? Wilson obviously was/is a very powerful individual. And his wife's supervisors knew this.. So one question.. What am I supposed to do with YOU when I catch you lying? Hawk