The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

CIA-Wilson-Dems-Media need to come clean

Sometimes there is a situation that eludes you until suddenly somebody asks the right question and it all becomes clear. Scott Johnson of Power Line blog asks several key questions that really pierce the fog. As you read them you begin to get the overwhelming notion that there cannot be an innocuous answer to them. Here they are:

(1) Why wasn't Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger made subject to a confidentiality agreement?

(2) Did the Agency contemplate that Wilson would publicly discuss the trip at will upon his return?

(3) Did the agency anticipate that if he did so, it would attract attention to the employment of his wife by the agency?

(4) Why did the Agency select Wilson for the mission to Niger to check out such an important and sensitive matter given his lack of experience in intelligence or investigation?

(5) Was the Agency aware when it selected him for the mission of his hostility to the Bush administration?

So either the folks at the CIA are stupid or there is something sinister going on there. Such bumbling of covert missions just don't happen. I have read that a lack of signing a confidentiality agreement either rarely or never happens, yet in this case nobody stopped to think about it? It is beginning to remind me of the State Department under FDR with communist spy Alger Hiss and others infiltrating the highest levels of trust.

With such serious national security breaches that looks like outright attempted sabotage of presidency on faulty information from several fronts, the Democrats and the media are not at luxury of playing politics as usual. Between this Niger CIA initiative and the PlameGate leak that is looking more and more like Wilson himself is the culprit the CIA, Wilson, Dems and media need to come clean and put the safety and well being of the country first.


  • At 10:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You're so concerned about national security and getting to the bottom of this, aren't you? You and your posse would melt under the light of the actual truth and real scrutiny. You loved Ken Starr but can't stand Patrick Fitzgerald. Instead of welcoming investigations into the important issues of 9/11, the war and the leak, you duck and change venues and stonewall and create straw men of the media and Dems who have finally found some spine to stop giving Bush a free pass. If they had real spine, the Bush team would be up for impeachment and war crimes charges, but so far they're still being too polite. This is a great country that is poisoned by the Bush clan and all of you who pretend to care about liberty and freedom and justice and truth. All the facts in the world mean nothing to you and your bunch unless they suit your needs. Face it, the wheels are coming of your boy's wagon and all they and you can do is grab at staws. You and your blog boys love this war so much, so why the hell aren't you over there fighting it? Send your lame excuses to some grunt in the sand over there, some National Guard guy whose wife and kid are home struggling to get by without him. You're a big strong American man, aren't you? The Army would take you no matter how old you are. Obviously you can type, so you can still go and work there despite any disability. Are you ready to be anything other than an armchair warmonger and apologist?

  • At 11:34 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anon, I have no fear of truth. The problem with liberals is that they always only want to reveal truth about conservatives and hide the truth about themselves.

    I think if they announced that the entire truth of the war and Wilson matter were going to be completely unclassified it would be libs who would be soiling their pants.

    Any problem I have with Fitzgerald is that he did not investigate far enough. There is so much that he could have fully investigated Wilson, the CIA, Tim Russert and the whole list of characters. Instead he only focuses on what he thinks would make a big name for himself - bringing down Bush.

    I think the libs should be shaking in their boots at the information that Libby is going to subpeona at the trial.

    Mark it down, more truth makes libs look bad. More truth makes conservatives look good

    When you take 1 point out of 1000 that happens to cast a bad light on Bush's decision making process without fairly showing the other 999 points that make his decisions the obvious right thing to do, it does nothing to serve truth and justice.

    I'll put Bush's spine against anyone's linguini anyday. It is really a lame argument to state that all who recognize that war is the right thing to do must therefore go themselves. As for support, why do you think support for the war and finishing the job is so high among our troops?

  • At 1:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    That's funny. I'll mark it down. More truth makes conservatives look good. Lemme pen a note to the Reagan and Nixon clan. Iran-Contra and Watergate were such glowing examples of Republicanism at its best. I welcome throwing open all the doors and let light hit every corner. Go ahead. I want them all on the stand. Bring Plame and Wilson and Daschle and Kennedy and Dean and Novak and Rove and Addington and Hannah and Russert and Bolton and Bush and Cheney and Rumsefld to the stand, but don't tell me that anyone should stay off it or that they get to say anything while not under oath. That's cowardly and also happens to be the only way Bush and Cheney would say anything to the 9/11 comission. By the way, you seen Cheney lately? Me neither. Oh wait, he's meeting with Chalabi. What a lovely pair.

    31 Democrats voted for the resolution of inquiry into Clinton, including that lefty poster child Kucinich. Yep, Democrats run screaming from the truth. Tell me how many Republicans have voted for full inquiry into the Plame affair. Or 9/11. Or the Niger forgeries. Or KBR. Tell me the Republicans who are calling for an open full timely investigations into Delay and Frist and Abramoff. I'm waiting. I only hear crickets chirping. If the truth is going to make your boys look so damn good, then why haven't they been the ones calling for this to get blown wide open for all to see? They're so interested in getting to the bottom of this that I'm betting that they'll invoke executive privelege to prevent information from getting out and do all they can to keep this off the front page until after the 2006 elections. I'm willing to bet that their stonewalling won't bother you a bit. It certainly hasn't so far. Fitzgerald said we could have been where we are today back in October 2004 if he hadn't been stonewalled. Your boys wasted a whole year trying to keep from getting to the bottom of this. How does that fit your idea that more truth will make them look good? It doesn't.

    And gee, if I was a grunt in the sand with no way out except for death or severe injury (but ooops, they get sent back too), then I'd support the mission too. Have you seen what happens to the grunts who speak out against the war? They can't leave without court martial. They serve multiple tours under stop loss. You're willing to put their lives on the line for this war but not your own.

    It's a lame excuse that anyone who supports the war and is of able service does not go when it is well known and stated by the generals on the ground that we need fresh troops. But gosh, recruiting is way way down so our kids have to keep doing multiple tours and forced to remain under stop-loss. It's shameful and you who cheer on this president from your armchairs are just as guilty for each and every military death. Sent with insufficient armor, in insufficient numbers, under the guise of an imminent threat which was nothing more than an elaborate sham. You listen with glee as Bush says things are going great in Iraq while the ticker runs on the screen saying 5 more have just been killed. Freedom is on the march he says while the looming Shia theorcracy is ready to send a previously secular society back to the stone ages. Hussein was a tyrant, but he was our tyrant. We sold him weapons to fight Iran. We sold Iran weapons to fight him. My my how the money rolls in.

    Our boys and girls were sent there under false pretenses. It's disgusting that you suggest that Congress and these soldiers would have put their lives on the line for the new tag line of Iraqi freedom. Why did we go there? Why do we say we're there now?

  • At 6:52 PM, Blogger LASunsett said…

    That last over-inflated and over-heated gust of hot air, was sponsored by:


    Also known as the outfit that encourages its members to think for themselves, by copying and pasting form letters and sending them to the editors of newspapers, with clearcut leftist agendas.

    Good job on telling us what everyone else in your camp has been saying over and over and over, again, for the last four years. Don't bother coming up with anything new, just keep recycling the same old tired worn arguments that have been refuted time and time again.

  • At 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    But Popeye, how can liberals put aside their self-interests in favor of the greater good? The point is that those on the left do not believe American citizens or property is worth protecting, nor do they believe that American cultural values are worth preserving. They do not think that a government that governs least governs best, and they do not subscribe to the idea that free men can be trusted to make their own decisions. The fallacy of their view is that somehow, “more government” will make fewer mistakes, when in reality more government only makes more government.

    The “Bush lied, troops died” argument lacks more than backbone; it lacks honesty. I just recently reviewed a 2002 tape in which Hillary Clinton made a convincing argument in favor of war against Iraq; and of course, this dishonesty extends to ignoring the fact that many people died when Clinton was president because he refused to address terrorism head-on.

    This entire affair is much ado about nothing. The rhetoric has little to do with any wrongdoing by Lewis Libby, and more to do with bashing Bush. I just wish the liberals would for once be honest about it. Remember, Libby hasn’t been charged with publishing secret information. He is only accused of lying to a Grand Jury; his guilt should be established in a court of law, not over cocktails or in a biased press.

  • At 8:14 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Mustang, welcome and Lasunsett your return is welcome.

    The Libby/Wilson issue underlines my point as you allude to that more truth favors conservatives. It is liberals that always attempt to hide the truth.

    It is only in recent years that conservatives can book speaking engagements on college campuses. Even now they risk at least getting a pie in the face and physical threats at worst.

    It is the liberal newspapers that hide truth by either not publishing it, or burying it. When they are forced to publish a positive fact about Bush they MUST add a negative fact or quote along with it. No, they don't pursue truth, they pursue their agenda.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home