So Cheney made repeated visits to the CIA, yet did not know...

[Brotherjohn]

of the results of a trip the CIA initiated at the suggestion of his office. I find that extremely odd.

JanMichael points this out in an earlier thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=8130&mesg_id=8130&page=

Although denying Cheney pressured the CIA to cook the books, the WH does not deny that he made repeated visits to the CIA "to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs" (according to the Washington Post : http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A15019-2003Jun4). This stands as unchallenged fact.

So let's get this straight: Dick Cheney repeatedly visited the CIA specifically because he was so interested in intelligence regarding Iraq's WMDs, yet we are to believe that he never asked about the results of Ambassador Wilson's visit to Niger? We are to believe that he never asked about a visit the CIA initiated at the suggestion of the HIS office to assess the validity of the Niger/Iraq uranium deal?

We are to believe that he never asked (or was told by the CIA) at the very least general questions about the evidence regarding the alleged nuclear threat from Iraq?! It is simply incomprehensible to ask us to believe this. We know that he took an unusually hands-on approach with "multiple" visits to the CIA specifically for this purpose! Even if he did not ask specifically about the Niger deal, it is simply not believable that it would not have come up at some point during these visits. Even if he did not know about the trip, the CIA did, and they knew that they initiated it in response to questions by Cheney's office.

The earlier Washington Post report (whether or not there was pressure; in fact, especially if there was NOT) does not jibe with the current denials. It is not plausible that he did not know about the Niger trip and its conclusion. How long before even the somnambulist mainstream media pick up on this?

A question for the White House: "If there was NOT pressure by Cheney on the CIA to present evidence backing up the case for war, then why did the CIA NOT tell Cheney about the Niger deal being false, especially when his multiple visits to the CIA were made to "question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs"? For that matter, if he was there to get information about Iraq's WMD programs, why did he NOT ask specifically about the Niger uranium deal?" (I personally would add "Is he incompetent or is he lying?")

[Jacobin]

1. No one but the 25% True Believer supporters are buying this load

of dung.

[librechik]

2. yesterday Ari denied Joseph Wilson was sent at Cheney's request

that's where the he-said-he-said investigation must begin. My guess is Wilson has shaky documentation of the Cheney order, but Cheney will refuse to show any docs that he has and force a court confrontation, then use exec privilege to wiggle out. In the confusion the fox will get away. Sigh.

[AngryWhiteDemocrat]

3. Ah, but.....

...wasn't it ruled during the Clinton years that the VP does not have Executive Priv????

[lanlady]

4. that much may be true

Didn't Wilson say that he went at the CIA's request? Granted, the CIA was acting on Cheney's orders to do a fact-finding mission. But technically Ari could be right: there may not have been a direct request.

[Brotherjohn]

5. Even taking Ari's word as fact (ugghhh!), it doesn't wash.

So Cheney didn't specifically order the trip. Wilson never says he did, only that the trip was initiated by the CIA in response to questioning by Cheney's office regarding the validity of the Niger evidence. If this is the case, it would certainly have come up during one of Cheney's multiple visits to the CIA which, again, were for the express purpose of questioning CIA analysts on Iraq WMD evidence.

EVEN IF the CIA did NOT order the trip specifically in response to Cheney's office's questions, nevertheless, the trip occurred and the conclusion was that the Niger deal never happened. Again, Cheney was visiting the CIA to question analysts regarding the intelligence gathered on Iraqi WMDs. He would have either asked or been told about the CIA's conclusion regarding the Iraq/Niger deal.

This was not some incidental issue. The administration repeatedly promoted two and only two pieces of actual evidence regarding alleged an Iraqi nuclear program (not just the "failed to account for", "proving a negative" kind). One was the aluminum tubes, which were at the time the subject of much debate and generally not thought by anyone but the administration to be for nuclear use. The other was the alleged Niger uranium deal.

This was not something that could have been lost in the "bowels of the agency", as Condi Rice put it. Especially since Cheney himself was visiting the CIA regularly looking for just this kind of information. Don't forget also that multiple intelligence sources (named and unnamed) have already been reported as saying that the Niger deal was widely known to be false long before the SOTU address. As more reports come out, it will be harder and harder for them to deny that they knew this evidence was false as they repeatedly used it to incite war.

[indepat]

6. I repeat, I would never say liar, liar, pants on

fire.

[JanMichael]

7. It is almost inconceivable that a piece of "evidence", used as often...

...as the Niger docs were, would go unnoticed as fakesafter Wilson's trip.

It's complete bullshit that Cheney, who was having CIA sleepovers in his Spidey pj's, did not know about the findings.

Not a freakin' chance in hell.

The ONLY way that Bush gets missed by the scandal bullet here is if they sacrifice Cheney.

[LondonReign2]

9. Don't they want to off Cheney anyway?

I mean, Cheney isn't going to run in 2008 anyway, so wouldn't they want to add someone that would? (Jebby?? Eck!)

[MissMillie]

8. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that these guys lied.

The fact of the matter is, people don't care. And yes, that's just a terrible thing to say, but it's absolutely true.

I was accused this weekend of hating * so much that I can't see the good that this "war" accomplished.

When I argued that thousands were dead, I was told "Saddam killed thousands in 1984 alone."

Of course, I can argue (until I'm blue in the face) that the U.N. had a presence in Iraq, that the microscope that Saddam was under was enough to keep him in check and that, like us, the Iraqi people were in no immediate threat from Saddam.

People aren't buying it.

However, the lie may be enough to cause serious damage to Bush's credibility. People may be OK with the invasion, but that doesn't mean that they're automatically going to be voting for * in 2004.

I guess that is my only consolation.

[Brotherjohn]

10. If they lose faith in his credibility and vote him out, same result.

I don't necessarily think he'll ever be impeached with the current Congress, no matter WHAT kind of smoking gun turns up against him.

But if this episode shakes people's confidence in him enough for him to lose in 2004, the end result will be the same.

It will also indicate that, as a nation, no matter what the people you are talking to say, deep down inside, they were not "okay" with this invasion. It is hard to admit, as a nation, that you were wrong and thousands died because of it. We are still having a problem admitting that re Vietnam.

[Trajan]

11. Democrats, liberals and progressives NEED to learn how to argue ...

and they NEED to get the ammo they need HERE at DU ! ....

First: .... The FACT that 'good' has transpired due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq is beside the point: ... the REASON we invaded were clearly spelt out by this administration, and that reasoning is now unravaling, revealing the FACT that this administration knowingly LIED to the world .... and to the american citizens: ....

Hitler invading Poland MAY have made the trains run on schedule, but THAT doesnt justify the invasion .....

Second: .... Yes: .. thousands died then .... and thousands are dying now ...... and THAT is unfortunate .... nevertheless: .. that was NOT the reason we attacked and invaded a sovereign nation: ... we were told this was due to an 'imminent threat' of a WMD attack by Iraq against the US or its allies: ... THIS was a lie, and THAT is the point .....

It also should be noted that those THOUSANDS killed in the 80's were killed by a Saddam Hussien who was allied with Reagan/Bush, who was armed by Reagan/Bush, and who was AIDED in those attacks by information gathered by US intelligence data obtained from : ..... Reagan/Bush ....

One MIGHT ask: ... "WHY do we have to constantly war against former friends of the GOP who turn out to be murderous thugs ? ...

WHY do the GOP make friends with Stalinist dictators who kill their own people ? ...... and THEN demand our nation spend EVERYTHING it has, including the health care and education that OUR OWN CHILDREN NEED, fighting wars against dictators who were supported by GOP presidents ?

IF we argue correctly: .... we win: .... the public hectoring of liberals MUST be met head on, and with a decent supply of facts ......

The GOP are wrong: ... its our job to make others realize that ....