NYT Gets it wrong. Rove's cover-up of Bush's sixteen words is working!

[gulliver]

Here is what the New York Times had to say today.

"The White House went on the defensive today amid a barrage of questions from Democrats and reporters about the presidential adviser Karl Rove and whether he had disclosed the name of a covert intelligence operative in retaliation for criticism of the administration's Iraq policy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/11cnd-rove.html?hp&ex=1121140800&en=5040c3f3cc9a86d2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

That is plain wrong. The retaliation against Wilson wasn't "for criticism of the administration's Iraq policy." The retaliation was because Wilson's article in the NY Times (how soon they forget!) forced the Administration to retract the scary war claim Bush had so soberly and ominously made in the State of the Union. Namely, the sixteen words that should live in infamy but which have been forgotten:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Has any president ever uttered false words (that he was forced to retract) about nuclear weapons in a matter of war in the State of the Union -- before Bush?

Let's not forget it! It ties in to the DSM, but let's not forget the sixteen words! No one ever asked Bush who insisted on putting those false words in the State of the Union. Very few people even remember the depth of the disgrace Bush deserves to suffer over them.

The administration outed Plame, and that may have helped stifle the justified furor over Bush's sixteen words.

Here is the timeline. Remember July 7-14, 2003.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline

[lancdem]

1. I'm not sure it matters if the Times got that part wrong

It still looks bad for Rove.

[Webster Green]

2. The New York Times is disfunctional and obsolete.....

Just like Rove and BushCo Inc.

Who gives a fuck what they think?

:grr:

[Peace Patriot]

3. I think we need to ask deeper questions about this. How did those

16 words get into Bush's speech and why? Was it merely a lie, or did it have another purpose? Why did Cheney send Wilson to Niger to track down info on what Cheney almost surely already knew was a bogus claim of Iraq nukes? Why would the outing of Plame discredit Wilson in any way? (--she was a CIA WMD expert; wouldn't this tend to enhance rather than discredit Wilson?). Why would Cheney and assorted Bushites risk charges of treason for this purpose--political punishment of Wilson? Surely Rove has other tricks up his sleeve to ruin peoples' lives. Was the REAL purpose of the whole affair to out Plame and her extensive network of covert WMD contacts around the world? What were/are they hiding that they didn't/don't want CIA eyes and ears to pick up on? (Candidate answers: a plot to plant WMDs in Iraq--the thing they most needed in summer '03; Cheney covert arms profiteering.)

See this thread on Cheney arms dealing:

Plame...the tip of the iceberg... (Plame maybe investigating Cheney arms deals when they busted her CIA weapons op)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2178477#2180220

And this one on Plame/Judith Miller/David Kelley:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/3/17138/30618

(Kelly was the Brit chief weapons expert who was suicided in the same time period, summer '03. He was whistleblowing on "sexed up" Brit intel on WMDs. His last email was to...Judith Miller! And in it he warned of "dark actors playing games.")
-------

The answer to the stink in Washington DC is state/local election reform. We must restore our right to vote, by throwing Diebold, ES&S and brethren out of the election business NOW--or at the least achieve some measure of election transparency with paper ballot backups, no secret programming code and strict auditing. The only place where we can get that done is in state/local jurisdictions, where the authority over election systems still resides, and where ordinary people still have some say. Don't let the powers-that-be silence our voices on election reform! See the DU Forum "2004 Election Results and Discussion" for information and action ideas:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

[silvershadow]

4. Because of those 16 words were in the State of the Union

I see only 2 possible explanations. Either they were knowingly false and were used on purpose anyway, in which case shouldn't Shrub be held accountable (maybe to Congress? I don't know how that works, but seems to me it was a false declaration to congress and should be punishible). OR, they were false but Shrub didn't know, in which case he was put in a bad position, and someone should have gotten fired (which didn't happen). Therefore, I conclude that either he knew, but liked it, and was so arrogant as to utter them, OR he was clueless and is being controlled by the grand puppetmaster (a perfectly plausible explanation, based on what I have seen over the last several years).