Harry Reid Unhinged–Preferring Political Theater to Public Policy
Apparently, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid wasn’t paying any attention to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald when he announced the indictment of Vice President Dick Cheney’s then-chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby last Friday. As I noted at the time, Mr. Fizgerald stated clearly, “This indictment is not about the war.”
Today, when breaking Senate precedent by calling for a Secret Session under Senate Rule 21 without informing the leadership of the other party (in this case the Senate’s majority party), Reid acted as if Fitzgerald never spoke those words:
The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.
He must have read a different indictment than I did–indeed, different from the one everyone to the right of moveon.org has read. (Or just read a speech he had written long before the indictment was handed down.)
Paul at Powerline thinks Reid needed this special secret session “to prevent the public from witnessing the spectacle of Democrats making fools out of themselves trying to explain the connection between that indictment and pre-war intelligence on Iraq.” Reid’s antics are nothing more than a stunt, really just a temper tantrum — or perhaps a bone to the party’s left-wing activists — to deflect attention from the president’s rebound in the past few days. And from the failure of the special prosecutor to find what they wanted him to find when he investigated the “leak” of Valerie Plame’s name.
In part, Democrats are still mad that Fizgerald didn’t prove their crazy conspiracy theory about Karl Rove. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts called the Minority Leader’s stunt an “unfortunate event” which resulted in Republicans agreeing “to do what we already agreed to do.”
Democrats aren’t just upset over the non-indictment of Rove and the likelihood of Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, they’re furious that the president they revile has once again seized the offensive. They must now be realizing how they failed to take advantage of the president’s late misfortune, his “past two months of much bad news and many missteps.
If Democrats had spent less time staging such media stunts as that today of Senator Reid, spent less time calling the president (& his allies) names, spent less time misrepresenting his record and put more effort into articulating their ideas and putting forward policies to address the problems facing the nation, they might have kept the president on defense. But, as Mr. Reid’s behavior today shows, they’re more interested in political theater than in public policy.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
59 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Sucks when you get suckerpunched huh?
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 1, 2005 @ 8:30 pm - November 1, 2005
BTW, despite all your pretentious suppositions, mostly the Democrats are pissed that Senator Pat Roberts has chosen politics over doing his job.
[Of course they're pissed that he's doing his job. He's not finding what Democrats want him to find. --Ed.]
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 1, 2005 @ 8:37 pm - November 1, 2005
I think you nailed it, Dan. The Democrats are furious that Bush went off-script. After Harriet Miers went down in flames, he was either supposed to appoint an inoffensive squish, or an easy-to-demonize conservative. Instead, he chose a strong conservative with impeccable credentials.
Also, the spoiled brat Democrats didn’t get what they wanted for Fitzmas, so they threw a temper tantrum. And while Harry Reid and Dick Durbin were banging with their spoons on their high chairs, thousands of illegals snuck over the border and the deficit continued expanding.
This is why people hold politicians in contempt. The game the Democrats were playing was so very transparent.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2005 @ 8:38 pm - November 1, 2005
But, hey, why argue politics when you can watch the Star Wars: ROTS trailer recut as a gay romance?
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2682141?htv=12&htv=12&htv=12&htv=12
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2005 @ 9:03 pm - November 1, 2005
It was once said of a certain administration that “there is a cancer on the presidency”. I would venture that this presidency IS a cancer.
I actually get to vote fro Harry Reid.
As minority leader he makes the majority Republicans look like the cronie pikers they are.
It is all bread and circus.
Circus round 1, Roberts, Bush.
Circus round 2, Miers, not Bush.
Circus round 3, Fitzgerald investigation, not Bush
Circus round 4, Alito, TBD
Bread, huge deficit, not Bush.
And the band played on..
Comment by Chandler in Hollywood — November 1, 2005 @ 9:04 pm - November 1, 2005
Transparent to us.
Not transparent to all the voters. The Republicans have to do a better job of defending themselves.
The new bipartisan committee to look into the Iraq intelligence is a joke. We already had at least 3 such committees. They all found that the Iraq intelligence was in no way mis-used.
But only political junkies know that.
The Democrats are obviously going to try to hijack the new commission to fuel their false narrative. They’re trying to strike a knockout for the 2006 elections.
The Republicans, and Bush most of all, have got to start believing in themselves and aggressively presenting the truth again.
Joe Wilson is a liar and a fraud. His report, if anything, supported the idea that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. He outed his wife himself. It’s all tricks to take attention away from Able Danger and decades of massive CIA incompetence.
But all that’s missing, hidden or suppressed in the current MSM “narrative”.
Because the Republicans have been a bunch of pussies!
Comment by Calarato — November 1, 2005 @ 9:08 pm - November 1, 2005
P.S. I would love to see the Democrats get their act together and present some constructive ideas for reforming the CIA and the Iraq War and helping America win the War on Terror.
They haven’t been. They haven’t had a single realistic, constructive and pro-American idea on national security since Sam Nunn left the scene.
Comment by Calarato — November 1, 2005 @ 9:22 pm - November 1, 2005
Harry who??? Oh, is that mummy still hanging around? Somebody must’ve told him he was in danger of becoming invisible if he didn’t do something to get attention. Apparently this laughable tantrum was the result.
For the sake of Nevada, I hope this man isn’t considering running for another term. I don’t think its citizens are served well by having him hung around their necks. Vermont it isn’t and he’s a walking attack ad just waiting to happen. I see him going by the way of…what was his name again? Oh yeah. Daschle.
Comment by glisteny — November 1, 2005 @ 10:02 pm - November 1, 2005
#6 — I wouldn’t be so sure. This reminds me of the stunt the Democrats in Texas pulled a few years ago… leaving the state so they could shut down the legislature. They thought they were being clever, but the public was unimpressed.
They may think they’re sitting in a meadow eating smart-berries, but they’re actually just shoving their mouths full of rabbit turds.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2005 @ 10:28 pm - November 1, 2005
Calarato in #6, well said. Republicans do need to do a better job of defending themselves. And the president can start by overhauling his Communications offices and looking for a new press secretary. Or maybe bring Ari Fleischer back.
And yes, Joe Wilson is a liar and a fraud.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 1, 2005 @ 10:32 pm - November 1, 2005
What proof do you have?
Comment by monty — November 1, 2005 @ 10:54 pm - November 1, 2005
GP/W have posted on it several times now, Monty. You can read their earlier posts.
Comment by Calarato — November 1, 2005 @ 11:09 pm - November 1, 2005
#7
That was the whole purpose of The Department of Homeland Security.
Break down the barriers of communication, streamline the process, invest in anti terrorism, roll FEMA into it.
If you have to ask this question at all, the Republicans in charge have FAILED us.
But we knew this because of NOLA.
Comment by Chandler in Hollywood — November 1, 2005 @ 11:10 pm - November 1, 2005
You’ve gotta give the Dem’s SOME credit.
However fleeting and at least for one day they STOLE the spotlight.
Talk radio and Fox news were ONLY about this stunt all day today.
Comment by MarkP — November 1, 2005 @ 11:11 pm - November 1, 2005
Calarato -
The Democrats couldn’t even bring themselves to address the most important reason Al Gore lost five years ago – the existance of the Electoral College.
Comment by Frank IBC — November 1, 2005 @ 11:35 pm - November 1, 2005
Accountability.
It’s all about accountability.
For Republican plutocrats, acountability is a bitch.
Comment by Chandler in Hollywood — November 1, 2005 @ 11:51 pm - November 1, 2005
Furious? I love it when Bush goes off-script. He really shows how he is a man of low intelligence, how he is truly incapable of even completing a coherent sentence and how is just a puppet of all those other people around him.
Comment by Kevin — November 2, 2005 @ 12:13 am - November 2, 2005
So why couldn’t the Democrats beat him, if he is that stupid?
Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 12:17 am - November 2, 2005
#1 – Amen! Boy, Frist was just fuming on the news tonight, but the Democrats did get soemthing out of it: A bi-partisan panel of senators to look at what’s going on with the investigation and get real answers if people at the top fo the administration were involved in lying about intelligence data that brought us into war.
I think it’s appropriate to give the republicans a little slap in the face at this point. It’s clear our government was set up for the majority to rule in this country. Let’s not forget, though, that it was also set up to be sure that the majority doesn’t run over, stomp or pound the minority.
Just a separate thought: I sometimes wonder how many gay/lesbian/bi conversatives there would be in this country if we all had some kind of visible, physical feature that identified all of us as being in this minority.
Comment by Kevin — November 2, 2005 @ 12:37 am - November 2, 2005
#17
how he is truly incapable of even completing a coherent sentence and how is just a puppet of all those other people around him.
Oh. Sorta like the cadaver he beat in ’04 who made complete sentences, and then turn it 180 degrees in the next sentence? Actually, Bush makes complete sentences. But since it’s not loaded with liberal elitism, bloviating and hatred, I could see how you couldn’t possibly comprehend.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 2, 2005 @ 12:57 am - November 2, 2005
#1
You’re right. The people sure as hell souldn’t expect better of the liberals.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 2, 2005 @ 12:58 am - November 2, 2005
I actually get to vote fro Harry Reid.
Oh. Have you gotten federal grants too? Or are you working for his sons developing federal land?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 2, 2005 @ 1:05 am - November 2, 2005
Just a separate thought: I sometimes wonder how many gay/lesbian/bi conversatives there would be in this country if we all had some kind of visible, physical feature that identified all of us as being in this minority.
Are you implying that black conservatives, women conservatives and hispanic conservatives, all of whom have physical features which easily identify them as black, women or hispanic, are betraying their race/gender/ethnicity? Talk about stereotyping.
Comment by John — November 2, 2005 @ 1:06 am - November 2, 2005
But we knew this because of NOLA.
Actually, what we found out because of NOLA is that not even Homeland Security can help the corrupt and incompetent Democrats who leave thousands of people stranded and let convenient, available transportation that could have carried them out of the city and away from the danger zone stay flooded in city parking lots.
I love it when Bush goes off-script. He really shows how he is a man of low intelligence, how he is truly incapable of even completing a coherent sentence and how is just a puppet of all those other people around him.
And to echo Frank, he’s whipped your butt for two elections in a row. Maybe that’s because “incoherent” is in the eyes of the beholder, and the beholder in this case is a hateful antireligious partisan Democrat who runs around screaming about how he’s being “exterminated”.
Just a separate thought: I sometimes wonder how many gay/lesbian/bi conversatives there would be in this country if we all had some kind of visible, physical feature that identified all of us as being in this minority.
The same or more.
Since we’re speculating, I sometimes wonder why gay liberals like yourself, Kevin, support as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” and give millions of dollars to those who would strip people of rights based on their being born gay.
Perhaps that’s because gay liberals are cowards who prefer to accuse other people of not standing up for gay rights rather than confront their own support of antigay bigots.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 1:12 am - November 2, 2005
#22
No, GayCon, just a grass roots volunteer who went door to door campaigning.
And unlike most Republicans, he’s a vertibrate.
Comment by Chandler in Hollywood — November 2, 2005 @ 1:53 am - November 2, 2005
#25
So you scored some NAACP crack then?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 2, 2005 @ 2:02 am - November 2, 2005
Yup, I can see Chandler now….”I’m a gay man, and I support Harry Reid’s opposition to gay marriage. That’s pro-gay and gay-supportive.”
And why again does Reid oppose gay marriage? Oh yeah, that’s right….he’s a Mormon, which normally would qualify him as a religious fanatic in the eyes of Chandler…..moreover, he’s anti-abortion, which means he opposes gay rights on every level, according to Chandler.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 2:15 am - November 2, 2005
Harry keeps his personal opinions separate from the opinions he has representing his constituents.
No matter what you say about Harry, he is worth a dozen Bushes when it comes to Gay rights, women’s rights and civil rights.
I took this off some Repuglican site just so you would have some genuine cunservative opinions about Harry:
Reid Opposes Federal Marriage Amendment:
Reid Received 100% Rating From Human Rights Campaign (HRC) For 107th Congress. (Human Rights Campaign, “Presidential Candidates,” Human Rights Campaign Website, http://www.hrc.org , Accessed 12/2/04)
HRC Endorsed Reid During 2004 Election Calling Him “A Leader We Can Count On.” (Human Rights Campaign, “Candidate Profile: Harry Reid,” Human Rights Campaign Website, http://www.hrc.org , Accessed 12/2/04)
“The Human Rights Campaign, The Largest National Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual And Transgender Advocacy Organization, Envisions An America Where GLBT People Are Ensured Of Their Basic Equal Rights, And Can Be Open, Honest And Safe At Home, At Work And In The Community.” (Human Rights Campaign Website, http://www.hrc.org /, Accessed 1/31/05)
Nuff said. Harry is more gay-proactive than any, ANY of the Gay Patriot Repuglican posters here.
Comment by Chandler in Hollywood — November 2, 2005 @ 4:24 am - November 2, 2005
No. 6 says “The new bipartisan committee to look into the Iraq intelligence is a joke. We already had at least 3 such committees. They all found that the Iraq intelligence was in no way mis-used.” That is a FALSE statement. NO committee anywhere has yet investigated possible “mis-use” of CIA data. Three U.S. committees (the 9/11 Commission, the President’s own Robb-Silberman Commission, and the SSCI) HAVE investigated whether pre-war intelligence was faulty, but that was as far as any of them would go — NONE of those three dared go into the possible “mis-use” of the data. One of them — the SSCI — promised to do exactly that in its “Phase 2″ 18 months ago (and I could give you the report page stating as much, but I want you to actually work and do a little original research). However, Sen. Roberts has since refused to convene on that issue. Which is exactly what led to Senator Reid’s closed-door session yesterday. Don’t you guys, who always claim to know so much about everything, ever read anything other than your daily RNC talking points?
And, by the way, if any of you professors here want to try to prove otherwise on my unmasking of No. 6′s lie, you’re always welcome to post chapter and verse showing exactly where, as No. 6 mis-states, that “ALL found that the Iraq intelligence was in no way mis-used”. Come on, double dare you — especially you, Gay Patriot West, who tried the same ruse as No.6 unsuccessfully just 2 weeks back (and here you are rah-rah-ing No. 6 as if he’s speaking truth, which shows you to be intellectually dishonest whenever it suits you).
And, Chandler (No. 28), thank you for the links on Senator Reid’s record on Bush’s anti-gay Federal amendment. Unfortunately, it’s just something else that Thirty can ignore as he prisses about talking about how good Bush is for gays and how bad the Dems are. Must be something about his proclaimed bi-sexuality that keeps him eternally confused about which party best represents his interests.
Comment by Queer Patriot — November 2, 2005 @ 9:21 am - November 2, 2005
Somehow I don’t think there is going to be any “Another Bottom For The Democrats” bumper sticker anytime soon.
Comment by Frank IBC — November 2, 2005 @ 9:57 am - November 2, 2005
“Harry is more gay-proactive than any, ANY of the Gay Patriot Repuglican posters here.”
CH shows his superior omniscience of everything and everyone here. (or is that his ignorance?)
“Joe Wilson is a fraud and liar” – Comment 12 of Monty – As it happens, here is a neat launchpad for you in this morning’s blogs: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012126.php
Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 10:10 am - November 2, 2005
Chandler, thanks for pointing out the continuing problem with the HRC and it’s blind loyalty to anti-gay, anti-black, anti-American Senators like HReid. HRC never met a Democrat they didn’t like ’cause the HRC leaders love sipping cosmos with HowieDean at DNC World Hdqtrs. Whores hoisting our future on a petard for nothing more than a seat at one table.
For the record, HReid will not hire gays to work in any of his Nevada constitutent offices, there are only 2 black staffers on his staffs in DC and Nevada, and he refuses to distance himself from the hate-filled, anti-gay, anti-black, Morman Church. I’m surprised you didn’t know that –or was it the lust to be close to someone with power that allowed you to let that fact become an oversight?
Good God, Chandler, those people are worse Pope Bene16′s most violent hatchetmen. Where is your finely tuned sense of brotherhood with the gay cause??? Lost in the hero worship of an anti-gay Senator? And YOU campaigned for him? And you admit it! Shame, shame, shame on you.
If you had a gay card, I’d see that it was pulled and torn up. You’re as bad as the HRC leaders.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 2, 2005 @ 10:30 am - November 2, 2005
Harry Reid publicly opposes gay marriage and supports state laws stripping gays of rights. Once again, HRC, Queer Patriot, and Chandler show that they support antigay bigotry when Democrats practice it.
As for your attempts to bash Calarato, Queer Patriot, intelligence “mis-use” as defined by Democrats is telling people that the CIA thought there was a very real possibility that Saddam had and was investigating getting more WMDs.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 11:13 am - November 2, 2005
And yes, Joe Wilson is a liar and a fraud.
And yet somehow not under suspicion for conspiracy or libel while Libby has five indictments against him. My bet still stands if you’ve finally gotten bitter enough to take it…
And where’s my $200?
[But, remember, Wilson lied, but not under oath. That's the difference here. Ed.]
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 2, 2005 @ 1:13 pm - November 2, 2005
“Joe Wilson is a fraud and liar” – Comment 12 of Monty – As it happens, here is a neat launchpad for you in this morning’s blogs: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012126.php
The first problem with this is the editorial Poweline references says:
But with his investigation all but over, prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has found no criminal conspiracy and no violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
Fitzgerald made it quite clear in his statement that these possible charges were not followed up on because they couldn’t be followed up on. When someone is obstructing justice, they are making it impossible for the prosecutor to do his job, namely charge him of other crimes like conspiracy and violations of the Intelligence Act. So we basically do not know if Libby is further guilty of these acts because he’s made it impossible for the prosecution to make those distinctions. You may want to review the indictment press release to clarify that.
The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium.
This has been gone over so many times it’s pathetic. The Vice President wanted more info about Niger selling yellowcake to Iraq. Mid-level staffers from the Vice President’s office contacted mid-level staffers at the CIA to assign someone to the mission. Valerie Plame, an operative on WMDs was asked for suggestions to which she of course offered up her husband, a respected foreign service official having worked in both African countries and the Middle East including a tenure as ambassador under the first Bush administration. He was knowledgeable about the issues and entirely qualified to take on the mission. He was confirmed by Plame’s superiors and sent on the mission. Plame had no power to make the decision on her own, nor was Wilson anything less than qualified to take on the mission. It was the Republicans on the intelligence committee that attempted to force Democrats to concur that Plame’s memo detailing Wilson’s qualifications for the mission were indicative of conspiracy. The minority Democrats flatly denied this position and therefore the Republicans forced the issue further signing off on additional personally written statements to attempt to discredit Wilson’s findings. However, they never addressed two central questions to the debate about Wilson and Plame, namely: Was Wilson qualified to take on the mission (yes), and did Plame act inappropriately by suggesting her husband (who was entirely qualified and someone they could trust on such a delicate issue – no).
There is a huge difference between suggesting and making the decision to send Wilson. Republicans know that it’s the only crack left to discredit Wilson/Plame and it simply doesn’t wash.
Wilson gave the impression that his eight-day jaunt proved that Iraq was not trying to acquire uranium in Africa.
He said that there was no evidence of Iraq purchasing yellowcake from Niger. It was intelligence officials who then interpolated his findings to show that Hussein was trying to buy the stuff. The administration’s assertion was that yellowcake had been purchased and was in posession of Iraq, which was wrong. Hussein may or may not eventually have gotten his hands on it but the administration was pre-emptively asserting this as fact when it wasn’t.
In fact, the British government, in its own post-invasion review of intelligence, found that this claim was “well founded.”
Which relied heavily on Italian documents that proved to be forgeries. They continually say that there is significant other evidence, but they not been forthcoming on what that is or how it uniquely confirms previous suspicions.
The French, of all people, even offered “proof positive” that Hussein was buying aluminum tubes “for centrifuges.”
The same ones proven to be… just aluminum tubes?
Let’s face it, intelligence on the entire affair was pathetic at least, downright fixed at worst. Joe Wilson, with a previously unblemished and distinguished foreign service record, offered up the truth only to be dismissed while the administration depended on other, now discredited, intelligence that served their interests more.
[Intelligence services concluded that, if anything, Wilson's report confirmed the president's sixteen words, that Saddam had "sought" uranium from Niger. Moreover, Wilson was not a significant player in gathering intelligence on this topic. Indeed, he himself acknowledges that others were looking into the Niger uranium angle. He is only a significant figure because the New York Times editorial page (not its news pages) decided to highlight his claims. So, you miss the point when you assert the Administration "dismissed" his claims. Indeed, the intelligence is those sixteen words has not yet been discredited--and was not contradicted by Wilson's report. --Ed.]
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 2, 2005 @ 2:39 pm - November 2, 2005
By the by, from the esteemed Weekly Standard:
But Mayaki added one tantalizing detail, also included in the CIA report that resulted from Wilson’s trip. An Iraqi delegation had visited Niger in 1999 to explore “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. Mayaki had met with the Iraqis and later concluded that their request for enhanced trade meant they wanted to discuss purchasing uranium. Mayaki said he had not pursued the matter because such deals were prohibited under U.N. sanctions.
This is what everyone, including the CIA, is basing their asserion that Wilson’s report confirmed it was likely yellowcake had been sold. the Nigerians entertaining an Iraqi delegation to “expand commercial relations” must be code for “we’ll sell you some yellowcake” even though the former Prime Minister stated outright that they didn’t. This plus the CIA has to deny the fact of how difficult it would be to sell the yellowcake covertly because of how many official channels it has to go through and also the danger Niger would be putting itself in with UN regulators.
If the CIA has substantive proof, let’s see it. If they don’t, then I suggest they go back and find some.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 2, 2005 @ 2:55 pm - November 2, 2005
The problem is that the Democrats don’t seem to realize that most Americans already know, or they believe they know that the pre-war intelligence was manipulated and faked. But they also don’t care. Bush’s numbers are already in the toilet, so he doesn’t need the Democrats to put him there. His own actions and performance have already done that.
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 2, 2005 @ 3:19 pm - November 2, 2005
Bob smokin’ crack.
Was Wilson qualified for his mission?
No. It was a CIA, intelligence gathering, arms control mission. None of which Wilson, a diplomat, had any real training or qualifcations for. Unless we’re talking about the Harriet Miers kind of “qualifications” (scare quotes required).
Was Plame wrong to recommend him?
Yes. Not only because of the above, but because IF SHE IS SO UNDERCOVER (which she actually was not) AND SO CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING HER IDENTITY, WHAT IS SHE DOING SENDING HER PUBLICLY KNOWN HUSBAND ON PUBLICLY CIA-LINKED MISSIONS?
World intelligence agencies already knew about Valerie Plame from the Aldrich Ames scandal, of course, and from years of Joe Wilson going around mentioning “my CIA wife”.
That’s the point. She did it because she didn’t have cover. And that’s why no crime was committed or charged under IIPA.
And also why Wilson’s recent boo-hoo-hooing about the “ruin” of her career is only further cynical spin, fitting his pattern of lies (below).
Did Wilson later lie to the American people about his wife recommending him for the mission, attempting to strongly imply to us that Cheney or Cheney’s office had picked him?
Yes…proven fact from the public record.
“[Wilson] said that there was no evidence of Iraq purchasing yellowcake from Niger”
Wrong!
Per Senate Intelligence committee: Wilson’s report said there was INCONCLUSIVE evidence as to whether Iraq had ASKED Niger to sell them yellowcake, but on balance, Iraq most likely had asked them.
That’s Wilson’s original report, as recorded by both parties on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
In masterful Clinton style, Wilson then lied to the American people, attempting to give us all the exact opposite impression and falsely impugn a President in time of war.
“[The British intelligence] relied heavily on Italian documents that proved to be forgeries.”
Wrong!
The British kept their intelligence pointedly separate from anything to do with the forged Niger documents. They said over and over, “Our intelligence is not being sourced from anything Niger.”
And by the way, we know know they were FRENCH documents.
The Italian businessman involved in disseminating them recently confessed to being a longtime, paid French intelligence asset. Check your Telegraph for September 19.
World intelligence services knew from many sources that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger AND FROM OTHER African countries. Present facts indicate French action to “muddy the waters” with forgeries that would be exposed (though not traced to them), so as to weaken the case against Saddam.
It is a standard “dirty trick” of world intelligence services and one of the reasons intelligence is so difficult.
“Let’s face it, intelligence on the entire affair was pathetic at least, downright fixed at worst.”
Well, that is a concession, coming from you.
Allowing that it might not have been fixed, or that having been fixed is only the worst possible case. That’s something. It is not what the Democrats, Mama Moonbats, etc. are saying AT ALL.
“Wilson, with a previously unblemished and distinguished foreign service record…”
Hah hah hah hah hah.
You mean, “Wilson, with a proven longstanding record of partisan hatred of President Bush, and Israel…” See here: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/10/before-novak-joe-wilson-speech-that.html
Comment by Calarato — November 2, 2005 @ 3:24 pm - November 2, 2005
This plus the CIA has to deny the fact of how difficult it would be to sell the yellowcake covertly because of how many official channels it has to go through and also the danger Niger would be putting itself in with UN regulators.
What’s that, Bob? Niger officials would be putting themselves in enormous danger with everyone if it was found out that they were even thinking about selling uranium to Saddam?
So then along comes Joe Wilson, shrieking to every person and inanimate object he passes, “I’m working for the US government! I’m working for the US government!”
What do you think the officials in Niger that he drank tea with were going to tell him? “Yes, we sold Saddam uranium. Oh, and by the way, we did it with full approval from the consortium partially owned by the French”? They’d be putting themselves and their country in horrible danger if they did that.
As I’ve said before, what Joe Wilson did is the equivalent of an undercover cop coming into a drug sting and going, “Hey, I’m a cop! Anyone got drugs here?” The result is a foregone conclusion.
Of course….perhaps that’s what the CIA, or at least the partisan Democrats within the CIA wanted. They can say they sent someone to investigate….but they don’t reveal that they sent someone with orders that would in essence sabotage the mission and ensure that they only got the answer they wanted.
Either that or Joe Wilson has demonstrated that his definition of “covert” means “everybody and their dog knows”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 3:52 pm - November 2, 2005
No. It was a CIA, intelligence gathering, arms control mission. None of which Wilson, a diplomat, had any real training or qualifcations for. Unless we’re talking about the Harriet Miers kind of “qualifications” (scare quotes required).
“That’s where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein’s wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed “the stuff of heroism.” President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.” – Bob Novak
It seems he had an excellent working knowledge of both Middle East and African affairs. I’m somehow guessing that dinner time conversations gave him an amazing knowledge of WMD issues as well.
AND SO CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING HER IDENTITY, WHAT IS SHE DOING SENDING HER PUBLICLY KNOWN HUSBAND ON PUBLICLY CIA-LINKED MISSIONS?
Well I think, until Libby et al got involved, his relation to her and her official capacity was kept within the CIA. Perhaps he was publicly known, but she officially worked for an energy company.
World intelligence agencies already knew about Valerie Plame from the Aldrich Ames scandal
That’s inconclusive. We don’t know what the world intelligence agencies know or don’t know in that regards.
Yes…proven fact from the public record.
Show me.
Wilson’s report said there was INCONCLUSIVE evidence as to whether Iraq had ASKED Niger to sell them yellowcake, but on balance, Iraq most likely had asked them.
That’s Wilson’s original report, as recorded by both parties on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
And what did he say about Iraq actually being in posession of yellowcake as sold to them by the Nigerians?
Again, as I mentioned before, Republicans tried to steamroll this issue over the Democrats on the committee who did not concur with Republicans findings on this matter.
“Our intelligence is not being sourced from anything Niger.”
I know they SAY that, but where is the backup? They’ve yet to produce conclusive evidence except lip service. Knowing the Prime Minister’s office is in a similar circumstance with the Downing Street memo makes this all highly questionable. Show me some proof. That’s all I ask.
And by the way, we know know they were FRENCH documents.
Again, that’s incorrect. The Italians are currently investigating the original source of the documents with several interesting possibilities.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002588504_fake28.html
http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/1581
Allowing that it might not have been fixed, or that having been fixed is only the worst possible case. That’s something. It is not what the Democrats, Mama Moonbats, etc. are saying AT ALL.
We’re supposed to be proud that our intelligence services were stupid enough to rely on bogus information? Sad indeed.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 2, 2005 @ 5:52 pm - November 2, 2005
“Yes, we sold Saddam uranium. Oh, and by the way, we did it with full approval from the consortium partially owned by the French”? They’d be putting themselves and their country in horrible danger if they did that.
Did you find some evidence in the meantime proving the Nigerians DID sell yellowcake to Iraq?
As I’ve said before, what Joe Wilson did is the equivalent of an undercover cop coming into a drug sting and going, “Hey, I’m a cop! Anyone got drugs here?” The result is a foregone conclusion.
And yet he still came up with the right answer when the intelligence community and the administration proffered the wrong answer because of documents that could have been easily recognized as forgeries? Hmmm, perhaps he has psychic powers?
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 2, 2005 @ 5:55 pm - November 2, 2005
That’s inconclusive. We don’t know what the world intelligence agencies know or don’t know in that regards.
In the vast majority of cases, the CIA doesn’t pull back agents to the United States and forbid them from leaving the country because it thinks they’ll be captured or killed, as they did with Plame, unless they have solid information that said agent has been compromised.
Moreover, since Plame presumably taught Joe Wilson everything he knows about going on missions for the CIA, given his behavior in Niger, only the blind and the hard-of-hearing didn’t know she worked for the US government. If Joe Wilson’s modus operandi is indicative of the way the CIA normally operates, no wonder our intelligence-gathering system is screwed up.
And yet he still came up with the right answer when the intelligence community and the administration proffered the wrong answer because of documents that could have been easily recognized as forgeries? Hmmm, perhaps he has psychic powers?
Or perhaps the intelligence industry knows things he doesn’t. Wilson went on one mission to one country and, based on that, insisted that Iraq had NEVER sought or purchased uranium ore from any country.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 2, 2005 @ 6:51 pm - November 2, 2005
Thirty, you try to cover for Calarato’s Big Lie in No. 6, but you’re just not up to the challenge, are you? Have you actually read the 3 reports he referred to?
And No. 38 – the same Calarato I was talking about in No. 29 – comes back to change the subject from his Big Lie in No. 6, hoping a wordy quarrel with GCB will keep people from noticing how his Big Lie fell flat. Calarato, have you actually read the 3 reports you so confidently referred to?
And where is GayPatriotWest, who supported Calarato’s Big Lie and has even tried the same Big Lie on for size himself in the past? GayPatriotWest, what about you – have you tried to read the 3 reports you claim to know so much about?
Until you three charlatans go read the famous 3 reports, you might want avoid citing any of them as evidence that Bush has already been cleared of charges of mis-use of intelligence.
Comment by Queer Patriot — November 2, 2005 @ 11:10 pm - November 2, 2005
In the vast majority of cases, the CIA doesn’t pull back agents to the United States and forbid them from leaving the country because it thinks they’ll be captured or killed, as they did with Plame, unless they have solid information that said agent has been compromised.
She was brought back with dozens of other agents as a precaution. The CIA simply has no idea if her identity was passed on or not. Find me proof where they knew her identity was compromised.
They were however, confident to keep her in a covert role and to work on WMD issues which is a significant focus of the CIA these days. And she was officially still covert at the time her identity was blabbed about by Libby.
Or perhaps the intelligence industry knows things he doesn’t. Wilson went on one mission to one country and, based on that, insisted that Iraq had NEVER sought or purchased uranium ore from any country.
He spoke to and gained assurances from senior officials of Niger and the mining operations in detail – people he knew as colleagues and could trust to tell him the truth so much so that he staked his entire professional reputation on it, a reputation that spanned 15 years in senior foreign diplomatic service including the Bush I White House. He was no fan of Hussein’s after surviving what he did in Bahgdad. However the administration decided to rely on second-hand British intelligence that primarily focused on forged Italian documents provided to them by a shady two-bit mercenary.
We’ve been offered no other proof, except for British Intelligence bitterly proclaiming that their assessments were not solely based on the Italian documents but they’ve yet to produce that information. So is it reality? Do they really have other sources? Or were their actions so stupidly presumptious it’s the best they can do to save fave for action so pathetically researched.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 3, 2005 @ 12:15 am - November 3, 2005
And why is that, Queer Patriot? Is the assumption that, because they haven’t found any, they didn’t investigate?
Again, the strategy of the DNC-bots like yourself is simple — try to argue technicalities in an attempt to mislead the American people. However, when Saddam’s trial opens, what do you think the American people are going to believe — your attempts to spin that prewar intelligence was misused, or the clear videos of torture and mutilation that you and your fellow Democrats insisted weren’t happening?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2005 @ 12:18 am - November 3, 2005
She was brought back with dozens of other agents as a precaution. The CIA simply has no idea if her identity was passed on or not. Find me proof where they knew her identity was compromised.
JustOneMinute has an excellent synopsis. I particularly like the Boston Globe article he cites in which they point out that anyone with an Internet connection and half a brain could have figured out that there was something rather fishy about the mysterious “front company” for which Plame allegedly worked.
As for “covert”, if the CIA is using agents whose identity they admit has been compromised TWICE as “covert” and hiding them in fake companies that anyone can figure out are fake with just a few minutes’ research, we are thoroughly and completely screwed.
He spoke to and gained assurances from senior officials of Niger and the mining operations in detail – people he knew as colleagues and could trust to tell him the truth so much so that he staked his entire professional reputation on it, a reputation that spanned 15 years in senior foreign diplomatic service including the Bush I White House.
You have to be joking. You think these people were going to tell him the truth when they knew full well for whom he was working and what he would do with the information? You insist that the penalties were so severe that there was no way Niger would even consider selling uranium to Iraq, but blithely say that people would spill their guts if they had.
He was no fan of Hussein’s after surviving what he did in Bahgdad.
What — having to look out the window and see kite-flying children? Michael Moore and the DNC say Saddam was a benevolent dictator who would never hurt anyone. How could what Wilson did be “heroic” in that case?
We’ve been offered no other proof, except for British Intelligence bitterly proclaiming that their assessments were not solely based on the Italian documents but they’ve yet to produce that information. So is it reality? Do they really have other sources? Or were their actions so stupidly presumptious it’s the best they can do to save fave for action so pathetically researched.
One of the annoying things about the intelligence biz, Bob, is that revealing too much of your information compromises your sources. Unfortunately, that means one has to put up with abuses from people like you, who think that “covert action” means establishing laughably-fake companies to protect the identity of people whose name you’ve already given away — twice — and not be able to refute them publicly because maintaining the source is more important.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2005 @ 12:43 am - November 3, 2005
“Find me proof where they knew her identity was compromised.”
Hah hah hah hah hah!
That would be illlegal….Revealing classified information.
I’ll make you a trade, though. Why don’t you find me proof that Saddam Hussein didn’t have WMDs after all (as Kerry and Clinton said he did for sure) which were merely buried in Syria, in accordance with all those satellite photos they got of truck convoys taking stuff to Syria just before the war?
Comment by Calarato — November 3, 2005 @ 11:41 am - November 3, 2005
QP, how many times do I have myself when addressing your comments? It seems that you and certain other regular critics of this blog pay little attention to the arguments we make and the facts we present.
Three months ago, in this post, I noted how the Robb-Silberman report “found no evidence of political pressure” to alter intelligence findings. While I made the comment in an update to correct something I had originally said in the body of the post, it now appears that I had actually been correct in asserting that the Senate Intelligence Committee found no evidence of Administration manipulation. From its report, “The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”
Let me enhance my quotation from the Robb-Silberman report. That commission found “no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. . . .analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.”
As you repeatedly object to the points I have repeatedly made, you repeatedly make clear that you’re not interested in the facts of the case but in repeating a narrative which has no basis in fact. I have cited two of those reports and you continue to say that they don’t say what they say because their findings conflict with your theories.
If you’re going to use this blog to express your views, then please at least take the time to consider the arguments we make and the facts we present.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2005 @ 2:57 pm - November 3, 2005
I particularly like the Boston Globe article he cites in which they point out that anyone with an Internet connection and half a brain could have figured out that there was something rather fishy about the mysterious “front company” for which Plame allegedly worked.
So genius, what’s a typical setup for stateside covert CIA operatives? Do you know? Or are you assuming that Valerie Plame’s situation was atypical and that it’s her fault her cover was blown? Or maybe, if Libby et al weren’t blabbing it to the media in the first place, no one would be looking up her cover employer?
Have you ever seen the movie The Accused? Highly recommend it.
You have to be joking. You think these people were going to tell him the truth when they knew full well for whom he was working and what he would do with the information? You insist that the penalties were so severe that there was no way Niger would even consider selling uranium to Iraq, but blithely say that people would spill their guts if they had.
I’m saying that he was familiar enough with the situation, being a seasoned diplomat in African affairs, and knew the right people to ask questions that led him to the truth. Which, I’LL SAY IT AGAIN, was the right answer all along and the CIA and British Intelligence were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
[Please provide evidence to show that this intelligence is, as you put it, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG since even CIA analysts (who reviewed Mr. Wilson's findings) seem to think that, if anything, his trip substantiated claims that Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Niger. --Ed.]
“The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger’s uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.
…
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger’s uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there’s simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.”
[Remember, what the president said in his SOTUA speech, that Iraq had "sought" to get uranium for Niger. --Ed.]
What — having to look out the window and see kite-flying children? Michael Moore and the DNC say Saddam was a benevolent dictator who would never hurt anyone. How could what Wilson did be “heroic” in that case?
Umm he was the director of the effort to shelter 800 Americans, including himself, in the American Embassy during the Kuwait invasion conducting negotiations with Hussein himself. That’s pretty heroic, no?
One of the annoying things about the intelligence biz, Bob, is that revealing too much of your information compromises your sources. Unfortunately, that means one has to put up with abuses from people like you, who think that “covert action” means establishing laughably-fake companies to protect the identity of people whose name you’ve already given away — twice — and not be able to refute them publicly because maintaining the source is more important.
Your rhetoric is entirely past it’s prime and it’s time to get to the bottom of things. We are not in a position to be wink-wink nudge-nudge with our intelligence anymore because of how the administration has bungled this effort from the start. It’s time for Republicans to stop obfuscating the truth of the matter. No more games and some simple transparency is required because of the lack of trust generated from administration actions. Complain to your leaders, because they started this mess, f’ed it up in the meantime and are trying to sweep it up under the rug otherwise.
[And please show me where the Republicans are "obfuscating the truth." Mr. Fitzgerald notes how cooperative the White House was with his investigation. --Ed.]
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 3, 2005 @ 7:10 pm - November 3, 2005
So genius, what’s a typical setup for stateside covert CIA operatives? Do you know? Or are you assuming that Valerie Plame’s situation was atypical and that it’s her fault her cover was blown? Or maybe, if Libby et al weren’t blabbing it to the media in the first place, no one would be looking up her cover employer?
Did you even read the JustOneMinute post I cited, Bob?
Let me quote you the pertinent section:
Start with Joe Wilson, retired diplomat turned consultant. On July 6 he writes a column telling the world that he has done some consulting for the CIA. That might reasonably be expected to attract the attention of the spychasers of various foreign intelligence services.
As these spychasers study Joe Wilson, what do they learn? A few minutes on the internet would have turned up his on-line bio with his wife’s maiden name; a check of FEC records for campaign donations would have revealed that his wife, as “Valerie Wilson”, listed “Brewster-Jennings & Associates” as her employer. Elapsed time – ten minutes?
What would our spychasers learn about Brewster-Jennings? Within a week of the Bob Novak article mentioning Brewster-Jennings, the Boston Globe had done some research, sent a person to the Brewster-Jennings office in Boston, and reported that “Apparent CIA front didn’t offer much cover”.
There were no employees, the building managers knew nothing of the company, and typical state and local records had not been filed. Does that sound like a legitimate enterprise, or a possible front company? Might suspicions have been aroused?
What I find amusing is that Brewster-Jennings, as he points out, was set up in 1994 a few months after the Ames revelations. Yet these brilliant Democrats in charge didn’t even freaking set up public records for it, while letting their employees publicize for whom they worked?
You can go even farther than that. Wilson’s trip, per his own admittance, was NOT secret, and he TOLD everyone that he was working for the US government. Do you not think a prominent FORMER diplomat turning up somewhere, advertising that he was working for the US government, wouldn’t arouse suspicions?
To summarize, Bob, I’d better NOT know what a CIA front company looks like — I wouldn’t be able to recognize or distinguish it from a real one. But apparently Valerie Plame and her fellow Democratic “covert agents” thought setting up a fake company without ANY cover whatsoever in public records wouldn’t draw any suspicion. I honestly believe they think the rest of the world is as stupid as their public school system is trying to make us.
I’m saying that he was familiar enough with the situation, being a seasoned diplomat in African affairs, and knew the right people to ask questions that led him to the truth. Which, I’LL SAY IT AGAIN, was the right answer all along and the CIA and British Intelligence were WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
LOL……he asked questions for which the answer was a foregone conclusion unless the people who answered them wanted to destroy their lives, their careers, and their country’s economy. Explain why the officials he talked to would be that suicidal, Bob, especially when he announced left and right to every tree and fencepost that he worked for the US government.
Moreover, Bob, Wilson said that Iraq had never sought uranium. You said the CIA was “wrong”; therefore, you are saying that the CIA believed that Saddam had sought uranium.
We are not in a position to be wink-wink nudge-nudge with our intelligence anymore because of how the administration has bungled this effort from the start.
Says the Dembot whose “covert agents” have been twice compromised to foreign governments to the point where they can’t leave the country without fear of getting imprisoned or shot, work for a company that a ten-year-old could figure out doesn’t exist, and sends their spouses on missions with instructions to make it obvious that you are working for the CIA and want some information on illegal activities.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2005 @ 7:32 pm - November 3, 2005
ND30, believe what you want but the law is on the side of Wilson/Plame and the vice presidential administration did something underhanded at best and outright illegal at worst.
Justify that.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 3, 2005 @ 7:54 pm - November 3, 2005
GCB, did you pay any attention to Fitzgerald’s press conference? Did you read the indictment? Only one official in what you call “the vice presidential administration” has been accused (except by Democratic partisans and their allies on the left) of doing anything wrong — and that was in his handling the investigation, not in the underlying offenses.
Obviously, to you, the only investigations which matter are those who yield the results you want. Otherwise, facts be damned.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 3, 2005 @ 8:15 pm - November 3, 2005
ND30, believe what you want but the law is on the side of Wilson/Plame and the vice presidential administration did something underhanded at best and outright illegal at worst.
The court systemt will determine that, Bob. Meanwhile, Plame and Wilson are getting exactly what they deserve, which is that her misuse of her position has essentially destroyed her career and his.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 3, 2005 @ 9:08 pm - November 3, 2005
West, in No. 48, I think you simply mis-understood what the argument was all about. Let me review it for you: the subject was “mis-use of intelligence”, not “political pressure to alter intelligence”. They are two very different things. “Pressure to alter…” would occur between the WH and CIA; “mis-use” would be what the Administration did with the intelligence it received from the CIA — i.e., how accurately it portrayed that evidence to the American people (through Bush and Cheney statements) and to the world (via Colin Powell).
[Don't keep moving the bar, QP. The left has been claiming that "Bush Lied!" not that he mis-used intelligence. IT seems you'll keep moving the bar so that eventually you'll get a result you need. --Ed.]
And, I’ll repeat the essence of my comments above: we have not had a single commission/committee report that has dealt with the subject of “mis-use of intelligence”. But, after Senator Reid’s courageous stand yesterday, we may be about to have that investigation — assuming Frist and Roberts don’t figure out an end-run around their promise of Phase 2 of the SSCI hearings.
Comment by Queer Patriot — November 3, 2005 @ 11:23 pm - November 3, 2005
It is amazing that republicans feel indignant about the recent closed senate session for the purposes of discussing the reasons that the US went to war. The republicans had multiple closed sessions to discuss President Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. C’mon republicans, what is a worse crime, a relationship between two consenting adults? Or, fabricating reasons to have a war that has cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of deaths, tens of thousands of lost limbs? It is time that the US impeach Bush for war crimes and criminal conspiracy. When the fascist republicans have lost control of congress next year the stage will be set to get rid of the morons in the white house, can’t wait to see Bush ‘clearin brush’ on a chain gang. In the view of history Bush will be remembered along with the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler – the most notable thing about him will be that he was much much stupider than his fellow despots.
Comment by Fred — November 4, 2005 @ 5:47 pm - November 4, 2005
Really, Fred, did Republicans have closed sessions to discuss Miss Monica? I hadn’t heard that. Please provide links.
And if history will record Bush as all those nasty people, you would think that he would shut down DailyKos and The New York Times while jailing their editors and writers.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 4, 2005 @ 6:20 pm - November 4, 2005
Actually, those closed sessions were as part of the impeachment proceedings, and it was as much the Democrats requesting them as it was the Republicans. You see, the Dems weren’t wild about having the American public learn that their “one blowjob” theory actually was a several-months’ affair involving much more than that.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 4, 2005 @ 7:43 pm - November 4, 2005
Guess I wasn’t following impeachment too closely. I didn’t know that there had been closed sessions back then.
Did the GOP leadership at least inform the Democrats in advance and not surprise them by invoking Rule 21 as did the unfortunate Mr. Reid.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 4, 2005 @ 8:34 pm - November 4, 2005
Hi! This is a great blog I am creating a website based on add disaster link recovery.My website needs a blog. Do you have a website or just this blog?. Thanks for response, IAN disaster recovery and business continuity plan
Comment by business continuity and disaster recovery planning — February 6, 2006 @ 11:03 am - February 6, 2006