Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: When Truth Tried to Stop War [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)3. Bush made wives 'fair game' in war on whistleblowers.
...was how Ray McGovern put it.
Behind L'Affaire Wilsons Wives are "Fair Game" in Bush's Preemptive Attack on Whistleblowers
Wives Are Now "Fair Game" in Bushs War on Whistleblowers
by RAY McGOVERN Former CIA Analyst
CounterPunch Oct. 3-5, 2003
What could have been going through the heads of senior White House officials when they decided to blow the cover of Valerie Plame, wife of former US ambassador Joseph Wilson? What did they find so compelling that they would burn her entire network of agents reporting on weapons of mass destruction, put those agents is serious jeopardy, and destroy her ability at the peak of her career to address this top-priority issue?
Was it another preemptive attack, whichlike the attack on Iraqseemed to the White House a good idea at the time? It certainly fits that pattern, inasmuch as little thought seems to have been given to the implications, consequences, and post-attack planning.
It is clear to me that the objective was to create strong disincentive for those who might be tempted to follow the courageous example set by Ambassador Wilson in citing the presidents own words to show that our country went to war on a lie.
After being sent to the African country of Niger in early 2002 at the behest of the Vice Presidents office, he reported back that the report that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for Baghdads putative (and, we now know, non-existent) nuclear weapons program was false on its face. As if further proof were needed, it was later learned that the report was based on forged documents.
When, despite all this, President Bush used this canard in his state-of-the-union address on January 28, 2003 Wilson faced a choice not unfamiliar to just-retired government officials. He could sit comfortably and smirk over brandy with friends in Georgetown parlors, or he could speak truth to power.
Conscience won. In a New York Times article on July 6, Wilson blew the whistle on the Iraq-Niger hoax, stating flatly what we all now knowthat some of the intelligence related to Iraqs nuclear program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.
The consummate diplomat, Ambassador Wilson chooses his words carefully. He was fed up, though, with the specious reasons adduced to justify the unprovoked US/UK attack on Iraqthe same reasons that prompted three courageous colleagues to leave their careers in the foreign service in protest. Wilson even permitted himself the comment to Washington Post reporters that the Iraq-Niger hoax begs the question as to what else they are lying about.
CONTINUED...
http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/10/03/wives-are-now-quot-fair-game-quot-in-bush-s-war-on-whistleblowers/
These gangsters have made a killing off Iraq. What's a top spy or a spy network stopping the spread of nukes to them? That they remain free shows who really runs America.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
82 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Joe Wilson also provided information their reasons for invafing Itaq was false and his reward
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#1
It was Geirge W Bush with the final decision, the ones you listed authorized action
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#5
Well of course it was shrub, that's not the point. Without these traitors siding with
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#10
I read the names, the point I was trying to make to you it would have happened without the support
Thinkingabout
Feb 2013
#11
That's simply not true. Go look at the records, there were quite a few republicans that opposed
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#12
There was nothing wrong with the Democratic vote on IWR. As I explain in my post below. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#14
Yes, there was. Apparently revising history is not the sole purview of the republicans. n/t
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#17
Go ahead and explain away my response then because you have to revise history to be correct. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#19
And here's another republican strategy, accuse your opponent of doing what you're doing.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#23
You just revised the Iraq War Resolution below. So I would say you just did the GOP tactic. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#24
Of course you would. It doesn't change the record. Without the votes of those DINOs the act
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#25
You keep trying to pretend facts away, it doesn't work. Deal with the facts or admit defeat.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#27
Every one of them shows that without the Senate vote the acts fails and the rest
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#34
It was a clear as day then what the IWR was about and no amount of obfuscation changes that.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#45
I am in favor of the OP, and as I said, cite something that disagrees with me and the article.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#39
Go push your blog somewhere else. You're not the first, nor will you be the
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#40
OpEdNews is not my blog. Let's count how many times you have been wrong or ignored facts
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#41
Think about how illogical that statement is. The provisions in the IWR were not met.
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#53
I stand on my previous call outs of your inaccuracies and bad faith efforts. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#54
Of course you do. But it still doesn't change the fact that Democratic Senators
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#64
The republicans were a foregone conclusion, only one of them voted against.
Egalitarian Thug
Feb 2013
#52
Fact matter, and they are not on your side. Here it is real easy and simple
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#18
Just as I thought, you are revising history to make your point. Exactly what you accused me of doing
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#22
Things were not clear to lots of folks including a majority of the UN Sec Council Nations
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#28
And as regards the bombing, there were many such escalations, like Operation Desert Fox and
stevenleser
Feb 2013
#58
It was clear at the time what the IWR was...a free ticket for Bush to go to war.
Comrade Grumpy
Feb 2013
#47
Political ambrition trumps the truth every time. Not to mention money.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2013
#31
The archive.org article did make a factual error. Prescott Bush was George H.W. daddy not....
LongTomH
Feb 2013
#80
The Lies that Led to the Iraq War and the Persistant Myth of 'Intelligence Failure'
Octafish
Feb 2013
#76