Full Version: A Similarity in RatherGate and IraqGate?
Since another thread running slightly off-topic by mixing the supposed similarities between the CBS false document fiasco and the WMD document fiasco, I thought we could debate that very issue.
My question for debate:
Express the similarities or lack thereof between RatherGate and the Iraq War's WMDGate. Please document sources. I have listed additional sources and sidebars to the stories.
Here are some questions and sources to explore in your research:
On Iraq/WMD'S: Woodward says he was told Tommy Franks needed around $700 Million to build pipelines and airfields months before the Iraq invasion. True or False? Did the U.S. spend $700 Million of appropriations for Afghanistan without Congressional approval of its alleged diversion to Kuwait. He also says Colin Powell was disturbed by the prevailing attitude that war on Iraq was just a matter of time and used many trips to the U.N. to try diplomatic resolutions.
Tenet was also the author of the "Slam Dunk" quote according to Woodward. Did that misrepresentation color undeniably weak satellite photo evidence?
Sources: Pro Woodward LINK 1
Pro White House Link 2
Some even think Woodward was too 'easy' on the administration Link 3
Besides those sources, books by Richard Clarke and former Bush appointee, Paul O'Neill, also make strong cases for false documentation and abuse of certain intelligence conclusions.
On Dan Rather/CBS: Dan Rather claims he did not know the documents were forged in advance. This has a similar ring to the supposed lack of knowledge by the administration about Tenet's "Slam Dunk" statement. Rather ignored other sources who disagreed with his primary source's conclusions much the same as the administration's not listening to other countries who had also dismissed the now known to be false information supporting evidence of attempt to buy enriched uranium and centrifuges. Copies of Burkett's documents were shown to the 86 year-old former National Guard secretary who agreed that the documents seemed to be forgeries but she then dropped the bombshell that they were a fair representation of the circumstances that had occurred at the time. Somehow, THAT statement is ignored in the race to condemn the story solely on the merits of the documents.
That is not a partisan statement but one that parallels the JUSTIFICATIONS used by each side to vouch for the reasons for underlying story.
Example: On one hand we have person denying that the WMD documents were valid with even most admitting they were not ever a "Slam Dunk" by saying that Saddam used WMD'S on his own people. On the other hand, we have apologists for Dan Rather saying that even though the documents were faked, the basic story was a fair representation of what happened when Bush supposedly missed his flight physicals and had to serve 6 additional months.
Edited to fix links & formatting - Jaime
My question for debate:
Express the similarities or lack thereof between RatherGate and the Iraq War's WMDGate. Please document sources. I have listed additional sources and sidebars to the stories.
Here are some questions and sources to explore in your research:
On Iraq/WMD'S: Woodward says he was told Tommy Franks needed around $700 Million to build pipelines and airfields months before the Iraq invasion. True or False? Did the U.S. spend $700 Million of appropriations for Afghanistan without Congressional approval of its alleged diversion to Kuwait. He also says Colin Powell was disturbed by the prevailing attitude that war on Iraq was just a matter of time and used many trips to the U.N. to try diplomatic resolutions.
Tenet was also the author of the "Slam Dunk" quote according to Woodward. Did that misrepresentation color undeniably weak satellite photo evidence?
Sources: Pro Woodward LINK 1
Pro White House Link 2
Some even think Woodward was too 'easy' on the administration Link 3
Besides those sources, books by Richard Clarke and former Bush appointee, Paul O'Neill, also make strong cases for false documentation and abuse of certain intelligence conclusions.
On Dan Rather/CBS: Dan Rather claims he did not know the documents were forged in advance. This has a similar ring to the supposed lack of knowledge by the administration about Tenet's "Slam Dunk" statement. Rather ignored other sources who disagreed with his primary source's conclusions much the same as the administration's not listening to other countries who had also dismissed the now known to be false information supporting evidence of attempt to buy enriched uranium and centrifuges. Copies of Burkett's documents were shown to the 86 year-old former National Guard secretary who agreed that the documents seemed to be forgeries but she then dropped the bombshell that they were a fair representation of the circumstances that had occurred at the time. Somehow, THAT statement is ignored in the race to condemn the story solely on the merits of the documents.
That is not a partisan statement but one that parallels the JUSTIFICATIONS used by each side to vouch for the reasons for underlying story.
Example: On one hand we have person denying that the WMD documents were valid with even most admitting they were not ever a "Slam Dunk" by saying that Saddam used WMD'S on his own people. On the other hand, we have apologists for Dan Rather saying that even though the documents were faked, the basic story was a fair representation of what happened when Bush supposedly missed his flight physicals and had to serve 6 additional months.
QUOTE
From USA Today (source http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselect...forgeries_x.htm ):
The former secretary to a Texas Air National Guard officer who purportedly wrote memos critical of President Bush's pilot service said Tuesday that the documents are forgeries but they appear to reflect memos her boss wrote and kept in a locked desk drawer.
<snip>
Another former Texas National Guard officer, Richard Via, also said that the documents were fakes but that their content reflected questions about Bush that were discussed at the time in the hangar at Ellington Air Force Base, where he had a desk next to Killian's.
The former secretary to a Texas Air National Guard officer who purportedly wrote memos critical of President Bush's pilot service said Tuesday that the documents are forgeries but they appear to reflect memos her boss wrote and kept in a locked desk drawer.
<snip>
Another former Texas National Guard officer, Richard Via, also said that the documents were fakes but that their content reflected questions about Bush that were discussed at the time in the hangar at Ellington Air Force Base, where he had a desk next to Killian's.
Edited to fix links & formatting - Jaime
My question for debate:
Express the similarities or lack thereof between RatherGate and the Iraq War's WMDGate. Please document sources. I have listed additional sources and sidebars to the stories.
There are no similarities. Rather used a phony document (and IMO he knew it was a forgery) and Iraq had WMD. The fact that we have such poor intel that we cannot find said WMD does not mean they were not there. The folks in the Clinton Administration had no doubt they were there in 1998 when the inspectors pulled out and there is little doubt Saddam did not decide later to just pour the chem./bio WMD into the ground.
As said in 1998:
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
Express the similarities or lack thereof between RatherGate and the Iraq War's WMDGate. Please document sources. I have listed additional sources and sidebars to the stories.
There are no similarities. Rather used a phony document (and IMO he knew it was a forgery) and Iraq had WMD. The fact that we have such poor intel that we cannot find said WMD does not mean they were not there. The folks in the Clinton Administration had no doubt they were there in 1998 when the inspectors pulled out and there is little doubt Saddam did not decide later to just pour the chem./bio WMD into the ground.
As said in 1998:
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
[quote=Ted,Sep 29 2004, 12:56 PM]
My question for debate:
Express the similarities or lack thereof between RatherGate and the Iraq War's WMDGate. Please document sources. I have listed additional sources and sidebars to the stories.
There are no similarities. Rather used a phony document (and IMO he knew it was a forgery) and Iraq had WMD. The fact that we have such poor intel that we cannot find said WMD does not mean they were not there. The folks in the Clinton Administration had no doubt they were there in 1998 when the inspectors pulled out and there is little doubt Saddam did not decide later to just pour the chem./bio WMD into the ground.
Actually- we are speaking of the forged Nigerian Yellowcake memo- that was a very poorly done and obviously forged to anyone document- as opposed to needing an expert on fonts like Rather.
The forged Nigerian document absolutely had to be known to be a forgery by the GW regime- it is just TOO amatuerish- I mean, they didn't have the right minister on it etc etc,
You have got the e-mail on the nigerian check scam right? DID YOU fall for it?
Believe it or not, the Nigerian document was not as sophisticated as the internet scam!
Here is the timeline:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/U...4_timeline.html
A partison site- but gives some basic facts about the forged yellow cake documents:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0306/S00270.htm
My question for debate:
Express the similarities or lack thereof between RatherGate and the Iraq War's WMDGate. Please document sources. I have listed additional sources and sidebars to the stories.
There are no similarities. Rather used a phony document (and IMO he knew it was a forgery) and Iraq had WMD. The fact that we have such poor intel that we cannot find said WMD does not mean they were not there. The folks in the Clinton Administration had no doubt they were there in 1998 when the inspectors pulled out and there is little doubt Saddam did not decide later to just pour the chem./bio WMD into the ground.
Actually- we are speaking of the forged Nigerian Yellowcake memo- that was a very poorly done and obviously forged to anyone document- as opposed to needing an expert on fonts like Rather.
The forged Nigerian document absolutely had to be known to be a forgery by the GW regime- it is just TOO amatuerish- I mean, they didn't have the right minister on it etc etc,
You have got the e-mail on the nigerian check scam right? DID YOU fall for it?
Believe it or not, the Nigerian document was not as sophisticated as the internet scam!
Here is the timeline:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/U...4_timeline.html
A partison site- but gives some basic facts about the forged yellow cake documents:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0306/S00270.htm
I see CrusingRam that you only discuss the “yellow cake” memo when actually the WMD issue is much larger and includes things like 8,500 liters of anthrax and tons of VX nerve gas (the deadliest chemical in the world). We did NOT go to war over the yellowcake memo we did over 29 unfulfilled UN resolutions including 1441 that demanded Iraq produce the chem./bio WMD they ADMITTED to producing or prove they were destroyed. They did neither as you know.
IMO we could have waited a few more months for Iraq to not produce what had been demanded for years but the end result would have been the same. They had no intension of giving up the WMD or the programs to develop and produce more. That was the issue and still is.
IMO we could have waited a few more months for Iraq to not produce what had been demanded for years but the end result would have been the same. They had no intension of giving up the WMD or the programs to develop and produce more. That was the issue and still is.
QUOTE(Ted @ Sep 30 2004, 01:21 PM)
I see CrusingRam that you only discuss the “yellow cake” memo when actually the WMD issue is much larger and includes things like 8,500 liters of anthrax and tons of VX nerve gas (the deadliest chemical in the world). We did NOT go to war over the yellowcake memo we did over 29 unfulfilled UN resolutions including 1441 that demanded Iraq produce the chem./bio WMD they ADMITTED to producing or prove they were destroyed. They did neither as you know.
IMO we could have waited a few more months for Iraq to not produce what had been demanded for years but the end result would have been the same. They had no intension of giving up the WMD or the programs to develop and produce more. That was the issue and still is.
IMO we could have waited a few more months for Iraq to not produce what had been demanded for years but the end result would have been the same. They had no intension of giving up the WMD or the programs to develop and produce more. That was the issue and still is.
Ah- but once again, this makes it MORE similar, not less- the overall message of Rather- that GW was avoiding service- was true and well laid out- but we focus on the memo-
same thing with the Yellowcake memo- of course- we have not found ANY WMD-
I don't want to get into the reason over war in Iraq- this has been the topic of many threads-
But here is the similarity-
You want to fire RAther over a false memo
You don't want to fire GW over a false memo
The debate question is about WMD in Iraq and not about the yellowcake memo. By the way the brits still say there was some truth to the story. The Rather memo was a clear forgery and NBC should have known better.
No one who inspected in Iraq has said they feel Iraq did not have WMD. Where they were hidden or moved to is a intelligence failure of major proportions but the fact is they had the weapons and dozens of active programs to develop and produce more of them.
No one who inspected in Iraq has said they feel Iraq did not have WMD. Where they were hidden or moved to is a intelligence failure of major proportions but the fact is they had the weapons and dozens of active programs to develop and produce more of them.
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 1 2004, 11:50 AM)
The debate question is about WMD in Iraq and not about the yellowcake memo. By the way the brits still say there was some truth to the story. The Rather memo was a clear forgery and NBC should have known better.
No one who inspected in Iraq has said they feel Iraq did not have WMD. Where they were hidden or moved to is a intelligence failure of major proportions but the fact is they had the weapons and dozens of active programs to develop and produce more of them.
No one who inspected in Iraq has said they feel Iraq did not have WMD. Where they were hidden or moved to is a intelligence failure of major proportions but the fact is they had the weapons and dozens of active programs to develop and produce more of them.
Actually, Ted, the DEBATE question I posed was to express the similarities or lack thereof concerning RatherGate and WMDGate. The forged documents were even brought up in my premise to the debate. The yellowcake memo is certainly germane to what the President knew and when he knew it. I would like to hear your sources on Hans Blix's comments and those of the 9-11 Commission concerning the authenticity of the evidence used to make the case for the War on Iraq.
CruisingRam's link of the timeline is quite enlightening and that article coupled with the debate last night probably has me leaning toward Kerry's take on what really should have been done. This is the link:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/U...4_timeline.html
I will comment on that reasoning in the appropriate thread.
The term WMDGate as I used it in this question for debate, includes ALL pertinent documentation and opinions concerning information that was offered by the administration to try to prove that Iraq had WMD'S and that those WMD'S posed an imminent threat to the U.S. and not just Iraqis.
To anyone who has not read Cruising Ram's linked article on the timeline, it is very much worth the read. Scrutiny of timelines is an effective tool in ferreting out misleading information. Read it and judge for yourself.
QUOTE(Ted @ Oct 1 2004, 03:50 AM)
The debate question is about WMD in Iraq and not about the yellowcake memo. By the way the brits still say there was some truth to the story. The Rather memo was a clear forgery and NBC should have known better.
No one who inspected in Iraq has said they feel Iraq did not have WMD. Where they were hidden or moved to is a intelligence failure of major proportions but the fact is they had the weapons and dozens of active programs to develop and produce more of them.
No one who inspected in Iraq has said they feel Iraq did not have WMD. Where they were hidden or moved to is a intelligence failure of major proportions but the fact is they had the weapons and dozens of active programs to develop and produce more of them.
How can you say that? The Yellow cake memo was a completely amatuerish forged memo- obvious to even non-experts= this, in fact, is what this entire thread is about- the hypocrisy of the right wing in this country- the chest beating over the rather memo but the ability to gloss over the far more serious issue of the current Regime using clearly forged documents to justify war.
It is funny in the "Fallout of Rathergate" thread if not very hypocritical from the right especially how the House Republicans are pushing for congressional investigations immediately on Rathergate, but when someone from the left tries to show them were there hypocrisies are by following partisanship lines everything goes out the window.
From yehoshua post in thread "Fallout of Rathergate"
Fallout of Rathergate
From yehoshua second link in quote.
It is really funny yehoshua that you are using this kind of logic but only when it pertains to Kerry and not on Dubya.
Because that is exactly happening with 3 cases I can show you were this is very partisanship hypocrisy. All which won't be concluded until sometime after the elections if ever. You tell me are these just Coincidences?
Case 1 Transcript: Senate Intelligence Committee Report Released Friday, July 9, 2004; 12:07 PM
The second phase of the Intelligence investigation looking into what the Administration did when it comes to if they sexed up the intelligence as well as Feith intelligence cell in the DOD won't happen until after the elections it has not even started.
Case 2 Novak: 'No great crime' with leak Wednesday, October 1, 2003 Posted: 5:38 PM EDT
This was back in the summer of 2003 and we still have not gotten an answer to who the 2 individuals that leaked the CIA Plame name to Novak and won't know until some time after the elections.
Case 3 This little gem got past me with all the Swift boat thing happening
Investigators Concluded Shelby Leaked Message-Justice Dept. Declined To Prosecute Case- Thursday, August 5, 2004; Page A17
Excuse me but what Sen. Shelby did is against the law by releasing classified information to the media. Sort of like what Robert Novak and 2 Senior Administration Officials did. Yes this does happen from time to time but they know who exactly did it and yet he is not going on trail for this. Instead it is turned over to the Senate Ethics Committee. 
This is the hypocrisy some on the left are talking about when it comes to wanting to do an immediate congressional investigation into Rathergate before the elections, while the 3 cases I have sited are either just coasting by or won't come to any conclusions until sometime after the elections. Even though it has been more then a year since the Novak CIA leak thing happened. Where's the outrage that 2 administration sources gave Novak and other reporters classified information and are still somewhere hiding in the administration.
From yehoshua post in thread "Fallout of Rathergate"
Fallout of Rathergate
QUOTE(yehoshua @ Oct 6 2004, 02:46 PM)
CBS Says Probe Results Unlikely Until After Election
Okay, so if it is was the Kerry Camp who gave it to CBS and people would think that Kerry is no good, this would interfere with the election?
Edwards said last night we, the American people, need to hear the truth. What is the truth? Is this a Rathergate or a Memogate?
Response:
Authorities consider probing National Guard memos given to CBS
May not have to wait until after election.
QUOTE
An external review of how CBS News came to use disputed documents in a report on President Bush military record will probably not be concluded until after the November election so as not to interfere with the presidential race, a top executive said on Tuesday.
Okay, so if it is was the Kerry Camp who gave it to CBS and people would think that Kerry is no good, this would interfere with the election?
Edwards said last night we, the American people, need to hear the truth. What is the truth? Is this a Rathergate or a Memogate?
Response:
Authorities consider probing National Guard memos given to CBS
QUOTE
"A crime may have been committed to influence the outcome of a presidential election while our commander in chief leads the war on terror," Smith wrote.
"This is a grave offense that demands the attention of the appropriate law enforcement and investigative authorities."
"This is a grave offense that demands the attention of the appropriate law enforcement and investigative authorities."
May not have to wait until after election.
From yehoshua second link in quote.
QUOTE
Fifty-one members of Congress have requested an investigation into the suspected forgery of memos used by CBS to report on President Bush's service in the National Guard.
snipet
The Texas Rangers, meanwhile, have also been asked to look into the matter by U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, in a letter signed by him and other Republicans in Congress.
snipet
U.S. Rep. Kay Granger of Texas said Tuesday that she joined other Republican members of Congress in calling for the investigation to determine whether the report was anything more than a case of sloppy journalism.
"I believed it needed to be looked into," Granger said. "It just seemed like more than just a mistake."
snipet
The Texas Rangers, meanwhile, have also been asked to look into the matter by U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, in a letter signed by him and other Republicans in Congress.
snipet
U.S. Rep. Kay Granger of Texas said Tuesday that she joined other Republican members of Congress in calling for the investigation to determine whether the report was anything more than a case of sloppy journalism.
"I believed it needed to be looked into," Granger said. "It just seemed like more than just a mistake."
It is really funny yehoshua that you are using this kind of logic but only when it pertains to Kerry and not on Dubya.
QUOTE
Okay, so if it is was the Kerry Camp who gave it to CBS and people would think that Kerry is no good, this would interfere with the election?
Because that is exactly happening with 3 cases I can show you were this is very partisanship hypocrisy. All which won't be concluded until sometime after the elections if ever. You tell me are these just Coincidences?
Case 1 Transcript: Senate Intelligence Committee Report Released Friday, July 9, 2004; 12:07 PM
QUOTE
(middle of page 4)
QUESTION: Given the 800 American G.I.s who have lost their lives so far, thousands have had serious injuries, lost limbs, all on the basis of false claims, as much as the American taxpayers have had to kick in almost $200 billion, doesn’t the American public and the relatives of people who lost their lives have a right to know before the next election whether this administration handled intelligence matters adequately and made statements that were justified -- before the election, not after the election?
ROBERTS: Well, as Senator Rockefeller has alluded to, this is in phase two of our efforts. We simply couldn’t get that done with the work product that we put out. And he has pointed out that that has a top priority. It is one of my top priorities. It’s his top priority, along with the reform effort.
snipet
Secondly is the situation with the assistant secretary of defense, Douglas Feith, and his activity in regards to material that he provided with a so-called intelligence planning cell to the Department of Defense and to the CIA.
QUESTION: Given the 800 American G.I.s who have lost their lives so far, thousands have had serious injuries, lost limbs, all on the basis of false claims, as much as the American taxpayers have had to kick in almost $200 billion, doesn’t the American public and the relatives of people who lost their lives have a right to know before the next election whether this administration handled intelligence matters adequately and made statements that were justified -- before the election, not after the election?
ROBERTS: Well, as Senator Rockefeller has alluded to, this is in phase two of our efforts. We simply couldn’t get that done with the work product that we put out. And he has pointed out that that has a top priority. It is one of my top priorities. It’s his top priority, along with the reform effort.
snipet
Secondly is the situation with the assistant secretary of defense, Douglas Feith, and his activity in regards to material that he provided with a so-called intelligence planning cell to the Department of Defense and to the CIA.
The second phase of the Intelligence investigation looking into what the Administration did when it comes to if they sexed up the intelligence as well as Feith intelligence cell in the DOD won't happen until after the elections it has not even started.
Case 2 Novak: 'No great crime' with leak Wednesday, October 1, 2003 Posted: 5:38 PM EDT
QUOTE
Novak said Monday that he was working on the column when a senior administration official told him the CIA asked Wilson to go to Niger in early 2002 at the suggestion of his wife, whom the source described as "a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction."
Another senior administration official gave him the same information, Novak said, and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission.
In his column, Novak attributed the information about Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip to Africa to two unnamed senior administration officials.
"They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.
Another senior administration official gave him the same information, Novak said, and the CIA confirmed her involvement in her husband's mission.
In his column, Novak attributed the information about Plame's involvement in Wilson's trip to Africa to two unnamed senior administration officials.
"They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else.
This was back in the summer of 2003 and we still have not gotten an answer to who the 2 individuals that leaked the CIA Plame name to Novak and won't know until some time after the elections.
Case 3 This little gem got past me with all the Swift boat thing happening
Investigators Concluded Shelby Leaked Message-Justice Dept. Declined To Prosecute Case- Thursday, August 5, 2004; Page A17
QUOTE
Federal investigators concluded that Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) divulged classified intercepted messages to the media when he was on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, according to sources familiar with the probe.
Specifically, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron confirmed to FBI investigators that Shelby verbally divulged the information to him during a June 19, 2002, interview, minutes after Shelby's committee had been given the information in a classified briefing, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Cameron did not air the material. Moments after Shelby spoke with Cameron, he met with CNN reporter Dana Bash, and about half an hour after that, CNN broadcast the material, the sources said. CNN cited "two congressional sources" in its report.
The FBI and the U.S. attorney's office pursued the case, and a grand jury was empaneled, but nobody has been charged with any crime. Last month it was revealed that the Justice Department had decided to forgo a criminal prosecution, at least for now, and turned the matter over to the Senate Ethics Committee.
Specifically, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron confirmed to FBI investigators that Shelby verbally divulged the information to him during a June 19, 2002, interview, minutes after Shelby's committee had been given the information in a classified briefing, according to the sources, who declined to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Cameron did not air the material. Moments after Shelby spoke with Cameron, he met with CNN reporter Dana Bash, and about half an hour after that, CNN broadcast the material, the sources said. CNN cited "two congressional sources" in its report.
The FBI and the U.S. attorney's office pursued the case, and a grand jury was empaneled, but nobody has been charged with any crime. Last month it was revealed that the Justice Department had decided to forgo a criminal prosecution, at least for now, and turned the matter over to the Senate Ethics Committee.
Excuse me but what Sen. Shelby did is against the law by releasing classified information to the media.
Sort of like what Robert Novak and 2 Senior Administration Officials did. Yes this does happen from time to time but they know who exactly did it and yet he is not going on trail for this. Instead it is turned over to the Senate Ethics Committee. This is the hypocrisy some on the left are talking about when it comes to wanting to do an immediate congressional investigation into Rathergate before the elections, while the 3 cases I have sited are either just coasting by or won't come to any conclusions until sometime after the elections. Even though it has been more then a year since the Novak CIA leak thing happened. Where's the outrage that 2 administration sources gave Novak and other reporters classified information and are still somewhere hiding in the administration.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.