Dick Cheney Denies Joe Wilson Three Times How very strange: VP Dick Cheney denies knowing former ambassador to Africa Joseph Wilson
According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger." The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."
Today on 'Meet The Press': Vice President Cheney, when asked by Tim Russert what he knew about Joseph Wilson's findings, replied simply that he did not know Joseph Wilson and he did not know who hired Joseph Wilson.
CHENEY'S WORDS:"No. I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I'd heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, "What do we know about this?" They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, "This is all we know. There's a lot we don't know," end of statement. And Joe Wilson--I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back........I don't know what the truth is on the ground with respect to that, but I guess--like I say, I don't know Mr. Wilson... I probably shouldn't judge him... I have no idea who hired him and it never came... .."
Tim Russert: "The CIA did."
Cheney: "Who in the CIA, I don't know."
Later in the same 'Meet the Press' interview, Cheney prided himself on asking a "hell of a lot of questions" when it came to U.S. intelligence. After all, he said, "that's what he's paid for".
Cheney has avoided the questions as to who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report....(conveniently saying he doesn't know Wilson--he must think we're total idiots out here...)
Cheney has avoided the question as to what efforts were made by his office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense.....
..and whether or not his office regarded Ambassador Wilson's conclusions as accurate or inaccurate...
Let's face it, his reticence and usual cloak of secrecy and avoidance serve to make him appear to be hiding something from us. If it looks like a duck...walks like a duck...
We should remember to vote like ducks in November 2004.
These are just some thoughts from a post I recently wrote about conversations I'd read on my local Howard Dean Yahoo forum:
"...In a most practical sense, we need to back a candidate who has a damn good shot at actually beating George Bush in the next election...by a wide margin so there can be no doubt (no risk of cheating the American people out of another election)... even if it risks exclusion of some intellectual or idealistic aims.
I think we should be realistic for the health of our democracy.
A second Bush term may well decay democracy to a point of no return.
This may well be the most important American election in history.
We really do need to find a way to unite as Democrats, Greens, Progessives, Independents...the strength of the party of Karl Rove is unifying the base.
This next election will be war...let's be prepared for battle.
The American dream of our forefathers will never continue until we awaken from our current nightmare.
I deeply admire and appreciate candidate Kucinich's ideals. The hope for and the goal of progressive idealism will not ever be reached in this nation, however, by promoting a candidate who is not pragmatically electable in 2004.
I happen to think Dennis Kucinich is one of the most truly decent souls in the entire field of democratic candidates.
I have the utmost respect for his ideas.
But I'll tell you this..and I believe it's true.
Americans will not elect Dennis Kucinich.
I do not consider myself to be a shallow person, and some of you won't like what I'm going to say here.
But I must say it.
American voters tend to be very shallow. In all brutal honesty, America is not ready for a candidate with an elfin appearance who takes the far left pulpit.
I know America too, too well.
How I wish it could be different.
I saw what happened in the last election...I felt that Ralph Nader had fantastic ideas. So did many others.
Unfortunately, we saw what happened in Florida..which may well have been avoided had some of our idealistic voters chosen to consider the sheer pragmatism of the situation and the danger of the fast-encroaching radical right-wing...and voted for Gore rather than Nader.
I wonder, knowing what they know now, if many of the Nader voters would have changed their vote.
Idealism, Kate Harris, and five crooks on the US Supreme Court got us one "George W Bush" in 2000.
What a prize.
It's time for Americans to elect a new President.
I'm with Howard Dean all the way.
I believe in him.
I may not agree with him on every single issue, but he is the candidate I most closely match up with on the most important issues.. and also a candidate for whom I carry the belief in standing a decent chance against the Republican machinery.
I firmly believe he is electable.
I see that many, many other Americans are leaning the same way.
I think we should do all we can to promote it rather than fight one another on single issues.
If collective truth emerges as a practical consequence of belief, then Howard Dean will be our next President...because looking at current developments in the Dean campaign, I haven't seen this much belief in and hope for a candidate in a long time.
As for General Wesley Clark, I believe the fact that he came from a Military background will hurt his chances to be a front-runner, but I believe that most Americans will view him as a fitting running mate for Howard Dean. (since our mainstream journalists are beating the drums about Deans foreign policy inexperience)..."