niger and nigeria are too seperate countries, niger is a saharan, mostly desert country next to mali, nigeria is an equatorial, mostly jungle country. wilsons trip to nigeria and finding nigerian officials didnt happen, his trip to niger and talks with nigerien officials did. it would help you be condascending if you got your facts straight.
wilsons point about the union address was that it was to make it sound like they were building a nuclear weapons program, they werent, or that they were seeking to restart it, they were not. in other words, they were not seeking, so they had not sought, so it was a lie. in other words wilsons claim was accurate. the bush administration also kept using the same sentence trick, where theyd talk about the terror of 9 11 then talk about how bad iraq and saddam were, they just kept mentioning them together until by 2003, the number of americans who believed saddam hussein was personally responsible for 9 11, was 53% in the new york times poll, 47% in the newsweek poll, 70% in the washington post poll, because the 2 were always talked about in the same breath, so people just started to think there must be a link. it was a deliberate long con, as a diplomat wilson could see the intention, that even if you dont technically say it exactly, the result is the same for a lot of people not being carefully analytical of what you are saying. even if the statement by bush was accurate it was said to be misleading, but in fact the statement was also a lie, US, british, german, israeli intelligence all said that the material being bought (the tubes) was not the sort that could be used for wmds.
according to novak his second source that he confirmed it with was karl rove, though karl rove claims that it was libby that told him who said reporters told him, so his version is they told him and then he told them back, and that the reporters used that as evidence. funny how it was an off hand comment by armitage, almost as if karl rove and dick cheney were not involved. oh, but wait, they were, so how is the statement that he was given the information in an off-hand comment by armitage correct?
you are quoting an article from july 15th 2005, karl rove was only revealed to be involved that exact same day, july 15th 2005 in the washington post. so you are quoting an article written before the author knew the facts, there is more recent and accurate information than this, why in 2011 would you go back to articles 6 years previously that have since been proven false? novak only confirmed rove was his second source in 2006, you really think things written in 2005 were definitive?
rove continued adding to his story and testifying again and again for years to come, denying any involvement or having spoken to matt cooper then coming clean after emails of him discussing his conversation with matt cooper about the niger controversy were found. part of roves defence was that when he told matt cooper at time magazine that he believed wilsons wife was in the cia, he did not use her name, as if her indentity was secret so long as no one could find out the name of wilsons wife. but of course according to you, rove wasnt involved, (though rove has had to admit he was) it was just an off hand comment. rove even said he had been trying to discredit some of wilsons allegations by talking to cooper, he admits the purpose was to damage his credibility, it didnt just 'slip out'. rove also reportedly called chris matthews to tell him that wilsons wife was 'fair game' which is why this movie was named that.
oh and remember that scooter libby was convicted for his involvemnent in the leak, but of course it was definitively just an off hand comment from armitage, not according to the evidence or the jury, but according to you. libby was told of plame by dick cheney, he then shared the information with other officials and then with reporters matt cooper and judith miller. it was just an off-hand comment by one guy though right? the fact that multiple people inside the administration had already leaked the information before the first novak article was published is just, what? libby was deliberatly trying to damage wilson in respone to wilsons article and then covered it up and claimed to not remember anything about it, this is why he was convicted on 4 out of 5 counts for his deliberate and malicious leaking of plames identity. but 'as we all now know there was no conspiracy'. based on?
i mean why did libby try to cover up knowing about plame or that he was told by cheney? why did he claim he was told by a journalist, russert, who says no they never even discussed plame? why did it later have to be discovered that in fact libby had already learnt the information from dick cheney? why was the fact dick cheney was the source who leaked to libby, after bush had told cheney to counter wilson, covered up? but of course after bush told cheney to counter wilson, and then cheney told libby that wilsons wife was cia, and then libby told the press, i mean come on, that was all totally innocent, i mean it was just an off-hand comment by armitage. seriously, do some research, start with the national journal, the new york times, the washington post, the associated press, they all completly discredit your assertions. the jury even said they thought libby was the fall guy and they should of been looking higher up, that libby was guilty but they felt it wasnt him who was behind it. not that libby was ever involved right? not that he was told 9 times right? not that he leaked it to the press right? not that he admits having a discussion with cheney about leaking wilsons wifes cia status to the press during a flight, right?
again why did you quote 2005 sources when much more came out in later years? a lot of what we know of who knew what, and most people including the jury dont believe it all came out, happened years later, so how can you smugly quote outdated articles? thats like proving man will never be able to walk on the moon by quoting an article from the 1950s. it might have been what we knew at the time, but im pretty sure, in light of new evidence, its not the case now.
oh and as for armitage, yes it was such a one off accidental off hand comment, that he also at the very least told bob woodward, over and over again. that stiff just slips out so easy right, accidentally, again, and again, and again, on several different days to several different people. woodward played the tape of armitage saying it over and over again, this was before armitage then also told novak, and libby told judith miller, and rove told matthew cooper (libby also told matthew cooper), and ari fleischer the white house press secrtary ''suddenly swerved off topic'' during a conversation to tell walter pincus, he just couldnt find a way to slip it in casually so just blurted it out, the only reason is fleischer wasnt charged is he got himself an immunity deal in return for testifying against libby. but it was just one slip of the tongue, by several different people at different times to every journalist who would listen, thats all. i mean jeez, why would you read into that?
reply
share