Good Reading
Florida Flag Fellow FL Folks
Buttons & Such

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Monday, October 06, 2003

A very good point by Rep. Peter King in the New York Post, about the CIA's appearant anti-Bush stance:
  • In the spring of 2002, when the CIA was coming under increasing scrutiny for its pre 9/11 failures, a memo was leaked suggesting the CIA had warned President Bush of the terrorist attacks more than a month prior to 9/11 and that he failed to take any action.
  • In July of this year, Wilson charged in print and in repeated TV appearances that President Bush had lied... Wilson claimed he was basing his allegations on a secret mission to Niger he had carried out for the CIA last year.

    The Wilson incident raises troubling issues and serious concerns. Why did the CIA entrust a non-CIA man with such a sensitive assignment? Wasn't the CIA aware that Wilson opposed the Bush policy in Iraq? How extensive was Wilson's investigation? Why didn't the CIA take action against Wilson when he went public against Bush and revealed the details of his mission?

    Why didn't the CIA point out that Wilson's investigation never addressed what the president said in his State of the Union speech, that the British source was separate from the CIA's and that the British stand by their finding to this day. In other words, that despite Wilson's posturing and outrage, everything the president said about Niger was true.

I'm still waiting to see is Wilson signed a security agreement with the Agency...(should be a very long wait indeed.)
(via Power Line)