The Grand Jury CIA Leak Investigation

11/01/2005 05:47:13 PM · #126

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by RonB:
What, in your opinion, should the government DO, for you to consider it a major crackdown? Chemical castration?

Physical castration. Pieces of shit shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

I'm not surprised at your response, your Madness.

The original post was from Greatandsmall, and she said:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

The only way to change my mind about this would be a major crackdown on sex offenders

Notice that she did NOT say "child molesters" or "rapists" or any other specific type of "sex offender", just "sex offender".

I asked for some clarification on what she deemed an appropriate "crack down" because "sex offender" is a term which has changed its meaning over time ( though not without oppposition from conservatives :-) ). I even posted the caveat that in the not too distant past a person engaging in homosexual behaviour was considered to be a sex offender.
My purpose was to make the point that "crack down" is a rather general term, but doesn't come anywhere near proscibing actions to be taken, and wanted to open minds to the fact that some forms of "cracking down" might lead to irreversible actions that future generations would deem to be outrageous.
The type of harsh treatment you proscribe WOULD be a) irreversible if the act which was deemed offensive in today's society became acceptable in tomorrow's society ( as was homosexual activity ), and b) would be considered "torture" in ANY culture ( with or without UN CAT 1/16 ) - making the implementation of your proscription as egregious as that which you have been denouncing these many days.

I'm not surprised that you have demonstrated that you maintain a double standard.

11/01/2005 05:55:56 PM · #127

Interestingly, I just happened to finish reading a Washington Post article from July 10, 2004: Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission : Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role . Given the closeness of the dates, I assume this is refering to the same report Ron linked to. Among some of the more damning revelations:

"Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly."

"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."

"The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction."

"The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said."

"Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said."

"According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."

Understand this: Wilson told a CIA contact that Iraq tried to by 400 tons of uranium. Which is exactly the what Bush stated in the State of the Union address - "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - which Wilson later claimed was the basis for his coming out with this challenge of the case for war. This is even what he himself included in his infamous editorial: "Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. So his claim that "a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses" is contradicted by his own statements.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/01/2005 06:35:05 PM · #128

Originally posted by RonB:

Considering the records of government schools vis-a-vis physical and sexual abuse, I would say that one of the measures that many conservatives take to prove that they are interested in the safety of children is to put their own children in private schools and/or to home school them.

Considering the records of government schools regarding physical and sexual abuse it seems to me that there's clearly a greater problem in the private/parochial sector than the public schools.

You don't like "painting everyone with a broad brush" and yet you just insinuated (I know, you didn't "say") that sexual abuse is rampant in the public schools -- more so than in the Catholic Church (USA version).

Please document that insinuation ... on a per capita basis if you please, so it can be meaningful.

11/01/2005 06:40:02 PM · #129

My daughter and another girl were felt up by another student in the first grade. The school did nothing to address the problems that boy had, and made no promises to safeguard my daughter or others in the school. In the 7 years of home schooling since then, we never encountered this problem again.

While this is admittedly anectdotal, I'll take the safety record of home schools vs. the public school any day.

Edit: And since you are, validly so, demanding that Ron back up his statement, how about some supporting facts for this claim:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Considering the records of government schools regarding physical and sexual abuse it seems to me that there's clearly a greater problem in the private/parochial sector than the public schools.

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 18:45:40.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/01/2005 06:47:00 PM · #130

I wasn't commenting on home schooling. I'm truly sorry for you and your daughter's unfortunate experience. I think there's also a different issue when we're talking about the supposedly responsible adults doing the abusing, not another first-grader. Those Catholic kids were abused/raped by priests -- not by hormone-enraged alter-boys.

Note that a lot -- I'm pretty sure more than half -- of child sexual abuse is committed by a family member. We just had a case out this way where a veteran police officer was caught/convicted of molesting his toddler daughter.

11/01/2005 06:49:16 PM · #131

As additional background, "private schools and/or to home school" is a much broader spectrum than just parochial Catholic schools, which I assume bear the brunt of the accusation. According to this 2000 survey, Catholic schools make less than 30% of private schools, and I don't believe that survey covers home schooling, so that would make an even smaller percentage of the group Ron mentioned.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/01/2005 06:50:45 PM · #132

Originally posted by ScottK:

Edit: And since you are, validly so, demanding that Ron back up his statement, how about some supporting facts for this claim:

I make no claim -- I voiced an impression. They should be the same stats anyway: either per capita abuse is higher in public or private schools.

Anyway, we should get back to talking about slime at higher levels of government than the local classroom -- screwing 250 million people deserves as much attention as a single case of abuse.

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 18:51:52.

11/01/2005 06:53:50 PM · #133

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Where in the report does it say that Wilson made false statements? I can't find it, and I've read from the bottom of page 44 through page 50.

Transcribed from the Senat Report beginning on page 44 ( emphasis mine - I have underlined Mr. Wilsons accounts with some highligting in bold, and bolded the CIA's counter account with some highlighting underlined ):

What the former ambassador reported:

"When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of infromation provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium.

Why his description was false:

The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.

What the former ambassador reported:

Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction.

Why his statement was false:

In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayake.

What the former ambassador noted:

Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the {blacked-out} intelligence service.

Why his notation was false:

The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from {blacked-out} intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report {blacked-out}

What the former ambassador was quoted as saying:

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

Why what he was quoted as saying was false:

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 former ambassadors excuse:

The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents."

If only Mr. Libby had used those same arguments, he might not be under indictment today.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/01/2005 06:54:57 PM · #134

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I wasn't commenting on home schooling. I'm truly sorry for you and your daughter's unfortunate experience.

Thank you. I realize that as far as your comments were concerned, this experience could be outside the scope of what you were refering to. However, the original point of contention that Ron was responding to was "the measures that many conservatives take to prove that they are interested in the safety of children". From that standpoint, I think it is relevant, given that Judith (I think, correct me if I'm attributing wrongly) implied, whether intentionally or not, that conservatives don't care about the safety of children after they are born.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

11/01/2005 07:46:14 PM · #135

Originally posted by RonB:

I asked for some clarification on what she deemed an appropriate "crack down"

Ron,
I intend to respond to your post in a new thread; although I'm ashamed to be arguing these points with you on a photography website, and in a thread about the CIA leak. However, I've just had a plumbing leak and don't have time for this right now. Here's a heads-up for you to start researching information to prove me wrong when I say that sex offenders in this country are not monitored well, considered the high recidivism rate; and that there is no system in place that effectively protects this nation's vulnerable children.

See you in that thread later.
Roxanne

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 20:17:59.

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

11/01/2005 07:55:52 PM · #136

Originally posted by GeneralE:

We just had a case out this way where a veteran police officer was caught/convicted of molesting his toddler daughter.

There you have it. I'd be willing to bet he was educated in one of our public schools.

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Anyway, we should get back to talking about slime at higher levels of government than the local classroom -- screwing 250 million people deserves as much attention as a single case of abuse.

Lets see, 300 million minus 250 million equals....yeah, thats about right. I suppose there are about 50 million government workers if you count ALL branches including locals. Naturally I would not include any military. They get screwed worse than anybody.

11/01/2005 07:56:16 PM · #137

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Considering the records of government schools vis-a-vis physical and sexual abuse, I would say that one of the measures that many conservatives take to prove that they are interested in the safety of children is to put their own children in private schools and/or to home school them.

Considering the records of government schools regarding physical and sexual abuse it seems to me that there's clearly a greater problem in the private/parochial sector than the public schools.

You don't like "painting everyone with a broad brush" and yet you just insinuated (I know, you didn't "say") that sexual abuse is rampant in the public schools -- more so than in the Catholic Church (USA version).

Please document that insinuation ... on a per capita basis if you please, so it can be meaningful.

1) I used the conjunction "and" to connect physical "and" sexual abuse. That means that I maintain that statistics would indicate that government schools had a higher rate of incidences for "combined" physical "and" sexual abuse.
2) It cannot be documented on a per capita basis, since much of the abuse goes unreported. It can only be reported on a percentage basis of what IS reported and/or garnered through surveys.
2) accepting that premise, here are statistics for the 1999-2000 school year from the Cape ( Council for American Private Education ) Report

Percentage of teachers in 1999-00 who reported that a student...
*threatened them with injury:
--- Public 10% 100/1000
--- Private 4% 40/1000
*physically attacked them:
--- Public 4% 40/1000
--- Private 2% 20/1000
Percentage of students, age 12-18, who in 2001 reported...
*having experienced violent victimization at school:
--- Public 1.9% 19/1000
--- Private 1.0% 10/1000
*being bullied at school:
--- Public 8.0% 80/1000
--- Private 7.3% 73/1000
*fearing being attacked or harmed at school:
--- Public 6.6% 66/100
--- Private 4.6% 46/1000
*being targets of hate-related words at school:
--- Public 12.7% 127/1000
--- Private 8.2% 82/1000
*that they avoided certain places in school for fear of their own safety:
--- Public 4.9% 49/1000
--- Private 2.0% 2/1000
*that street gangs were present in school:
--- Public 21.6% 216/1000
--- Private 4.9% 49/1000

It should be noted that CASE "private schools" include Catholic, Nonsectarian, Conservative Christian, Baptist, Lutheran, Jewish, Episcopal, Seventh-day Adventist, Calvinist, and Friends ( Quaker ) schools. It does NOT include "home schools". Also note that in 2000 ( when this table was generated ) Private Schools accounted for a little over 11% of the student population.

Now, I fully expect you to counter that the study was published by a firm biased toward private schooling. And you would be correct. But if you want to refute their statistics, then feel free to post the stats from a site of your own choosing.

11/01/2005 08:32:36 PM · #138

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Originally posted by RonB:

I asked for some clarification on what she deemed an appropriate "crack down"

Ron,
I intend to respond to your post in a new thread; although I'm ashamed to be arguing these points with you on a photography website, and in a thread about the CIA leak. However, I've just had a plumbing leak and don't have time for this right now. Here's a heads-up for you to start researching information to prove me wrong when I say that sex offenders in this country are not monitored well, considered the high recitivism rate; and that there is no system in place that effectively protects this nation's vulnerable children.

See you in that thread later.
Roxanne

Roxanne,
I live in Florida - a state that I consider to be among the WORST in terms of preventing child abuse and /or monitoring sex offenders. I do NOT disagree with your assessment. The problem is a) there is no method short of violating a persons rights to gain foreknowledge of a first offense ( I do not know what percentage of offenses this represents ); b) upon a first offense, it is difficult to gain a conviction, since the laws are used to a far greater extent on behalf of the perpetrator than on behalf of the victim; c) even if convicted, many plead "mental illness", and end up in rehab rather than jail, only to be released when they can convince their therapist that they are "better" - many DO go on to become a repeat offender; d) those who do serve time are released when their sentences are completed - many DO go on to become a repeat offender; e) the sex-offender registry is a registry that depends upon voluntary compliance - if an offender moves and doesn't tell anyone, he/she becomes a "fugitive" problem, and most departments do not have the resources to track fugitives. For a perfect example, consider that over 3000 registered sex offenders fled New Orleans following hurricane Katrina and very few of them have been found or re-registered.
What CAN be done? Better sentencing, for one. Ankle braceletes with GPS tracking transmitters, for another. An Alcatraz type isolation area? Perhaps that will be needed at sometime in the future. Seminole County, Florida set up a sexual predator only emergency shelter during the last hurricane alert, to isolate sexual predators from the general population. Rhode Island, among other evacuee destinations was doing background checks on hurricane Katrina evacuees to ferret out sex offenders ( a good thing, right? ) and was criticized by the ACLU and others for intruding on people's rights. ( Don't believe it? see the first paragraph on the Rhode Island Chapter of the ACLU site here. So, you tell me, is it ONLY a "government" problem? Seems that whenever the government tries to "crack down" there are groups that will jump up and denounce their methods.
I'm not "arguing" with you - I agree with you. But there is far more to the problem than meets the eye.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/01/2005 08:33:35 PM · #139

Those stats are OK with me for now ... considering that private schools get to pick and choose who attends, while the public schools must take all-comers, the difference is -- as I suspected -- perhaps too small to draw a meaningful conclusion. In any case, except for bullying -- which I agree is a serious problem at any school -- the numbers are actually pretty low.

Thanks for tracking them down!

Message edited by author 2005-11-01 20:34:02.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/01/2005 08:48:07 PM · #140

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I agree that the difference is that public schools must take all-comers. And THAT is what I consider to be the biggest problem in the public schools today ( there are other problems, but even second place is way, way below first place ). If school authorities had more power to transfer troublemakers to their own schools ( or permanently expel the really bad apples ), and to expel those whose very presence DETRACTS from an environment conducive to learning, then we wouldn't need much to improve test scores across the board. Instead of a "NO" child left behind program, the fed should have instituted a "FOE" child left behind program, to enable those who are in school to learn move forward, and move forward faster.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

11/01/2005 11:52:34 PM · #141

I'm just going to post this link now without further comment because I'm working on a project and have a deadline to meet (tomorrow) and so don't have time to respond point by point, but it looks like the information contained in this link will respond point by point to the Senate's report:

Update on the Lies of Ambassador Wilson - Truthout

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

11/02/2005 02:19:07 AM · #142

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Mr. Wilson would not have found it necessary to set the record straight (in his article) had the intelligence not been misused and lied about by the Bush administration in the first place. So what you're essentially saying is that one should be prepared to have their reputation destroyed and perhaps their life put in jeopardy simply because they tell the truth, and that this expectation (to have one's life ruined) is perfectly logical and reasonable, yes? So it's okay for one's political opponents to lie and break the law in seeking retribution?

That's some set of ethical guidelines you've got there.

Actually Mr. Wilson effectively destroyed his own reputation. If he hadn't published the op-ed piece, no "retribution" would have occurred - namely his wife's name and occupation would not have been disclosed. If they had not been disclosed, then no investigation would have occurred. If no investigation had occurred, the false statements made by Mr. Wilson would not have come to light. He was, as the saying goes, hoist by his own petard. The irony is that his op-ed didn't jibe with what he told the CIA when he returned. ONE of his two reports contained false statements.

Oh, and to save my detractors the time and energy of challenging me to "prove" that Mr. Wilson made false statements, and is NOT having his "reputation destroyed" and perhaps having his "life put in jeopardy" simply because he told "the truth",( because he did NOT tell the "truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" ) - here is the link to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report from July, 2004. The report cites Mr. Wilson's false statements beginning with the last paragraph on page 44.

*****

So you're admitting that the Bush administration actually outed plame? And for the reason of retribution for Wilson's exercising his first amendment rights? That would imply intent on the perpetrator(s) and so would be a criminal action, no? And yet you attribute the whole Wilson/Plame debacle to Wilson's own doing because he dared speak truth to power.

Please explain in YOUR OWN words the significance of the discrepancies that have been found in the SSIC report. From the SSIC report:
"When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of infromation provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects.
This doesn't say "false statements." Wilson has already explained many of the discrepancies and they don't even come near to the "retribution" meted by those in the Bush administration to the Wilson's (as you seem to have stated above).

Originally posted by RonB: (From SSIC report)
First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium.

Why his description was false:

The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium."

My response:
This was in reference to a the Iraqi delegation who had approached the Nigerian prime minister about "expanding commercial interests." (I believe that was the wording in the report.) This is hardly a false statement...more like an ommission, especially since it was the PMs possible interpretation of "commercial interests."

***
Originally posted by RonB: (From the SSIC report)
"What the former ambassador was quoted as saying:

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

Why what he was quoted as saying was false:

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."

My response:
Wilson explained this as he got confused with the IAEA's report that they were forged documents.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/02/2005 02:28:39 AM · #143

Darn, I remember there was a really big brouhaha not too long ago over some forged documents -- Republicans really made hay about how stupid it was to base any policy or action on forgeries.

Wasn't that these ... oh, that's right -- that was something else.

Nobody seems to mention that these were forgeries, much less ask by whom they were prepared, or with what motive. Though it sure was handy for that WHIG marketing effort that they showed up when they did, mighty convenient indeed.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/02/2005 11:03:43 AM · #144

Ron, if the few discrepancies in Wilson's statements that you cite made any material difference to Wilson's conclusions, I'd say maybe they're worth examining further. But the fact is they're not meaningful, a distinction without a difference. (And I might add that it's misleading for you to call them "false statements" when the Senate committee itself made no such characterization.) Wilson's conclusions were:

1. There was no uranium sale to Iraq;
2. The documents were probably forgeries; and
3. Bush used the phony uranium-sale claim in his State of the Union speech having known for a considerable period of time that the intelligence was no good.

As it turns out, all of Wilson's conclusions were correct.

Additionally, we now know that Wilson's wife didn't send him on the Niger trip, or arrange for him to be sent, and Wilson didn't mischaracterize her role in the trip.

Even you, Ron, have admitted in this thread that Libby is probably guilty of perjury, and now you seem to be acknowledging that the leak of Plame's name occurred because the White House was seeking retribution against Wilson.

If you want to talk about the truth, the truth is that high-ranking Bush administration officials leaked an important national security secret, and did so to punish a critic who was revealing another uncomfortable truth, that the Bush administration misled the country into war based on phony intelligence.

And you're making an argument that the story really is about a few statements made by Wilson that don't amount to a hill of beans????

Really???