Joseph Wilson Prevaricated

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Mike Sigman]

Er, Neil... out of respect for the other thread, I'm going to pull your post over here.

Mike,

Take a look at the thread-title: it's called "Where is the Respect?" For this reason, I am assuming that the topic is a tone of respect, within forum-threads.

In the few times I bother to read your posts, you have taken time out to insult me on everything from my veracity, to my mental-state. And so, I put you on ignore. Your response, of course, has been to troll my posts, doggedly using your usual tactics of smear, mislabeling, and personal assaults.

And, as you know, I have several times offered you the opportunity to clear the bad-books by PM'ing me, and agreeing to conduct a polite discussion, free of personal assault.

My inbox remains empty, and (going by your last, successful attempt to shut down a thread) you persist in similar attacks. But, here we are in a thread entitled "respect," and so I will remove the ignore feature, for now, to address you directly.

Frankly, Mike: your sources are laughable. Newsmax and Frontpagemagazine are hardly the heights of journalistic endeavors. More to the point, the few times you DO link a source, it is either based upon a whole lot of misinformation, often repeated (as a lie repeated many times, becomes the truth); or simply a hit-piece that spends the bulk of its pixils attacking the character of a person, without exploring whether or not the veracity, of the author.

Much, in the same way, as you do, here.

I believe I understand why you do this: on some level, you know that most of your arguments would not hold up under a reasonable debate mindful of courtesy, and so you go for the low-blow. I've seen it before, many times: and I am sure that I'll have the misfortune of seeing it again, after you tire of this immaturity, and move on to better things.

But, just for our reading audience (as, I am positive that showing you your error will prove NOTHING to you...how could it? You're still stuck back in 2003, beliebing that wmd's exist, when most of the world...Bush included...has moved on) , I am going to show you how easy it is to dismantle your weak little strawmen.



Yes, and if you'd bothered to read out the full transcript when he said that he "misspoke," he was hardly admitting to lying. Your assumption that he was covering himself is simply that...an assumption.





Again, another oft-repeated lie. "Liberal media?" Where were the "Liberal" media, in 2003, when we were treated to a parade of military on the mainstream news? Almost no anti-war ppl were interviewed.

The studies showing just how "liberal" the mainstream media is (not) are easy to find. But, never mind, you know it all, Mike...you're sharp, and know when ppl are lying.... :rolleyes: uh huh.



Or, perhaps, it has no basis in fact, and was merely a canard for the bloggers and pundits to jump on, and to be echoed by the online Bush-faithful choir.



I am really laughing at this statement here, Mike. Isn't the Washington Post part of the "liberal media?" So which is it? The mainstream, Liberal media covered up this little "charade" of Wilson's, or it's easy to find, and all on record? You can't have it both ways.

But, OK, let's just be objective media-watchdogs for a second, and do Mike's job for him. Let's go find the source and see if he's right.

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle)



I've read through this article twice, Mike: and nowhere does it state that Wilson lied to protect himself from going to jail. Also, as we all know from Judith Miller's shoddy work at the NYT, one has to take these kinds of hit-articles with a grain of salt. Judith Miller, for her part, parroted whatever Achmed Chalabi wanted her to hear; who parroted what info he received from the Pentagon, as a justification to go to war; whereupon the Pentagon THEN offered up Miller's articles as justification of their own conclusions. In short, an echo-chamber was set up.

But, of course, you don't really care about hearing all sides of a discussion, do you? You'd rather listen to the sweet sound of damage-control--the cacophonous noise of a horde of pundits throwing mud in the face of investigators in the hopes that the stink of outing Valerie Plame will fade in the minds of the readers (the fact that Joe Wilson joined the Kerry team during an election year had NOTHING to do with it, either, I'm sure).

A good media-watchdog listens to all quarters, and so let's hear it,straight from the dog's mouth:



So, let's construct a simple timeline, to show the turn of events:

1. Joe Wilson appears before a Committee filled with Republican loyalists. Not liking Wilson's findings, they question how he could know the reports were faked.

2. Not having seen the documents but having interviewed just about everyone who could have possibly been involved with the matter, Wilson makes the simple statement that the empirical facts speak for themselves.

3. Susan Schmidt writes her hitpiece; not having read it, Wilson is questioned about it, on CNN. Wilson says yeah, I'm 50 and human...it's possible I misspoke.

4. Rather than face the plain and obvious fact that the President knowingly lied about the yellowcake fiasco and the illegal outing a CIA operative as a personal vendetta, the Rightwing paparazzi go on the offensive as a form of damage-control.

5. Rather than see all sides of a debate, Mikey parrots what facts he likes, and ignores the rest.



And here's the difference btw you and me, Mike. You like to suggest that I'm a liar, deranged, et al. I don't need to stoop so low, to make my point.

I figure that you do such a good job hanging yourself, with your own disrespect (I've even had ppl who normally disagree with me, PM me and grouse about your sliming tactics).



No, not at all. As I did above, let's see what Wilson had to say. But, let's hear the WHOLE truth, not some half-truth, desperate attempt at spindoctoring.

And now, we'll be treated to a healthy round of more spin, with a healthy side of invective. I hope not...I just took this opportunity to show how EASY it is to deconstruct your strawmen.

P.S. I am hoping that you take this opportunity to obey forum guidelines and employ etiquette in your posts. Enough of the personal attacks. I really couldn't care less what you say about my favorite writers, leaders, et al...as public figures are fair game...but personal slurs only bring the debate down.

If you persist, I can, of course, put you on ignore (which I will), but henceforth I am taking a zero-tolerance to the slurs, and I will duly note them to Jun.
Regards,



For now, the ignore is off. The next step is up to you.

[Mike Sigman]

Here's probably the best breakdown (by several trial lawyers) I can find of what actually happened with Wilson, his editorial to the New York Times, and the actual report he submitted to the CIA.

Wilson's public assertions in the NYTimes editorial were contradicted by his own report, which he insisted be *verbal* so he couldn't hang himself, BTW.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php

[Neil Mick]

Mike,

I'm not sure where you want to take the discussion, from here. I think I pretty much laid out the case against Wilson lying in the OP quote. The link you provided does not provided anything new...even the links are the same as the ones you posted, earlier.

IMO, the whole thing smells of damage-control by the Repub hacks on the Committee. Again, which is more important: a President who presents false testimony in his SoTA and punishes his naysayer by outing his CIA operative wife; or the question of whether or not said naysayer lied about evidence that has later proven to be true?

In my mind, there's no question, at all. And, whether or not Valerie Plame recommended her husband (or not) is another canard, IMO. I don't see the issue.

Bush would have been much better off, if he had simply accepted that he made a mistake in his SoTA. But, Bush seems averse to admitting mistakes: which will probably be his ultimate undoing.

[Mike Sigman]

I'm not sure where you want to take the discussion, from here. I think I pretty much laid out the case against Wilson lying in the OP quote. No, Neil, you're missing the point. Wilson got sent to Africa by his wife's department in an effort to discredit the president the CIA supposedly works for. Wilson came back and wrote an OpEd for the New York Times. What he said in that OpEd is not what he reported, in a "verbal only" report, to the CIA. He admitted that before the Senate Intelligence Committee, but he would only say he "misspoke". I.e., he lied in the New York Times OpEd that he used to smear Bush. The reason he had to admit the lie in the New York Times was because they knew what he had really reported.... so if he stuck with the story he wrote for the New York Times (which was the lie), he could go to jail. The fact that he lied in the New Yort Times article is indisputable and has been reported by a few sources, including the Washington Post. What do you want to do, continue to say he didn't lie in the NYTimes OpEd when it's right there in black and white? Or are you going to dissemble and say that Wilson didn't knowingly write those assertions in the NYTimes and that he simply "misspoke". Please. The link you provided does not provided anything new...even the links are the same as the ones you posted, earlier.

IMO, the whole thing smells of damage-control by the Repub hacks on the Committee. Again, which is more important: a President who presents false testimony in his SoTA and punishes his naysayer by outing his CIA operative wife; or the question of whether or not said naysayer lied about evidence that has later proven to be true?

In my mind, there's no question, at all. And, whether or not Valerie Plame recommended her husband (or not) is another canard, IMO. I don't see the issue. Except all of this is BS. It's in black and white that Wilson lied in the New Yort Times OpEd. Are you saying that if someone deliberately lies about Bush, that the Bush admin should not set the record straight?

And BTW.... Scooter Libby's trial comes up next week. He got Nifonged by yet another Democrat prosecutor on a power trip. It seems to be going around. It should be fun to watch what happens to Fitzpatrick's career after this.

Mike

[Neil Mick]

No, Neil, you're missing the point. Wilson got sent to Africa by his wife's department in an effort to discredit the president the CIA supposedly works for.

Oh, please. This notion belies common sense. You're going to tell me that the whole trip was planned just to discredit Bush?

Of course you are, because even tho it's borderline nonsense: it still fits nicely into the schema of damage-control.

But, for our more objective readers, let's pull out one of my more favored measuring-sticks for media-veracity...Occam's Razor, which stats that "all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the most likely to be true."

OK, so we have a theory postulating that a career diplomat who was given his first post during G.H.W. Bush's Admin, retires with honors and is brought out of retirement, is put on a hatchet-job assignment by his wife's department to discredit the President;

or, in short, she was there at the meeting for a few minutes and offered his name up because she obviously knew of his expertise?

Bashing Joe Wilson (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=1558)
The report also notes, "On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR [the State Department's intelligence unit], and several individuals from the [Directorate of Operations'] Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of [Wilson] traveling to Niger. An INR analyst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [Wilson's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes."

This is not what ex-CIA chief George Tenet would call a slam-dunk case against Wilson. Sure, some of the evidence seems to contradict his account. But Valerie Wilson could have "offered up" his name as a handy person to contact about allegations concerning Niger's uranium trade without suggesting he get on a plane to Niger. And it is certainly imaginable that an INR analyst sitting in a meeting in which there is talk of dispatching a CIA officer's husband to Africa could have received the impression that his wife had initiated the mission. But if that was the case, why did Valerie Wilson attend for only a few minutes? If Valerie Wilson's account of this meeting is not accurate, where are the contradicting accounts from the other participants? Why does the report not quote them on this topic? Since only a week elapsed between the time Valerie Wilson "offered up" her husband and a meeting was held to consider sending him to Niger, it is possible that someone participating in the matter might have thought that Valerie Wilson's original advice--talk to my husband--was related to question of sending an unofficial envoy to Niger to seek out additional information.

When Wilson returned from Niger two CIA officers debriefed him. "The debriefing," the Senate report says, "took place in the former ambassador's home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief." If Valerie Wilson had played a key role in sending Joseph Wilson to Niger, would she have skipped out on this debriefing? Perhaps. But this scene reinforces Wilson's claim that she was not deeply involved in his Niger trip.

See Mike, Occam's Razor would suggest that the simpler explanation--that Valerie Plame suggested her husband out of note for his expertise--is far more likely a summation, than from some eevel plot, in which you have no proof, no other evidence, other than your own ditto-talk, from Rightwing damage-control.

Wilson came back and wrote an OpEd for the New York Times. What he said in that OpEd is not what he reported, in a "verbal only" report, to the CIA. He admitted that before the Senate Intelligence Committee, but he would only say he "misspoke". I.e., he lied in the New York Times OpEd that he used to smear Bush.

No, no, no.

Fess up, Mike: you didn't read all of my post you quoted, did you? I covered this point very well. You're just repeating yourself.

The reason he had to admit the lie in the New York Times was because they knew what he had really reported.... so if he stuck with the story he wrote for the New York Times (which was the lie), he could go to jail. The fact that he lied in the New Yort Times article is indisputable and has been reported by a few sources, including the Washington Post.

You can mouth words like "indisputable" and "absolutely" until the cows come home, but it doesn't make it any more true.

OK, you like to repeat yourself: so I'll repeat MYself:

I've read through this article twice, Mike: and nowhere does it state that Wilson lied to protect himself from going to jail. Also, as we all know from Judith Miller's shoddy work at the NYT, one has to take these kinds of hit-articles with a grain of salt. Judith Miller, for her part, parroted whatever Achmed Chalabi wanted her to hear; who parroted what info he received from the Pentagon, as a justification to go to war; whereupon the Pentagon THEN offered up Miller's articles as justification of their own conclusions. In short, an echo-chamber was set up.

But, of course, you don't really care about hearing all sides of a discussion, do you? You'd rather listen to the sweet sound of damage-control--the cacophonous noise of a horde of pundits throwing mud in the face of investigators in the hopes that the stink of outing Valerie Plame will fade in the minds of the readers (the fact that Joe Wilson joined the Kerry team during an election year had NOTHING to do with it, either, I'm sure).

A good media-watchdog listens to all quarters, and so let's hear it,straight from the dog's mouth:

Second conclusion: "Rather that speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided."

This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I "may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct." At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.
On March 7, 2003 the Director General of the IAEA reported to the United Nations Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were "not authentic". His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries "We fell for it." From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was.

The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the US government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.

My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the President's State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

(NOT, "because I have an axe to grind against W." Remember Occam's Razor, Mike...it's far simpler rationale for a career diplomat to write an article exposing the truth, than it is for a career diplomat to be sent on a mission to dig up some fake news (which, I again point out, and you again choose to ignore), wasn't really fake, after all)

I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the US government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and is not quoted in the "additional comments." In that article, I state clearly that "As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors - they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government - and were probably forged. (And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"

This part is important, Mike. Pls read carefully (this time), before you answer. Joe Wilson is accused of lying about documents that he's never seen."

The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.
The text of the "additional comments" also asserts that "during Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."

So, let's construct a simple timeline, to show the turn of events:

1. Joe Wilson appears before a Committee filled with Republican loyalists. Not liking Wilson's findings, they question how he could know the reports were faked.

2. Not having seen the documents but having interviewed just about everyone who could have possibly been involved with the matter, Wilson makes the simple statement that the empirical facts speak for themselves.

3. Susan Schmidt writes her hitpiece; not having read it, Wilson is questioned about it, on CNN. Wilson says yeah, I'm 50 and human...it's possible I misspoke.

4. Rather than face the plain and obvious fact that the President knowingly lied about the yellowcake fiasco and the illegal outing a CIA operative as a personal vendetta, the Rightwing paparazzi go on the offensive as a form of damage-control.

5. Rather than see all sides of a debate, Mikey parrots what facts he likes, and ignores the rest.

What do you want to do, continue to say he didn't lie in the NYTimes OpEd when it's right there in black and white?

But it's not, Mike: and all your attempts to repeat a lie does not make it the truth.

Or are you going to dissemble and say that Wilson didn't knowingly write those assertions in the NYTimes and that he simply "misspoke".

No, Mike. ONE. MORE. TIME. I am saying that Wilson said he might have misspoken, but to date: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE TO DISPROVE HIS NYT EDITORIAL. The Senate For. Rel. Committee's findings were partisan slime-tactics aimed to move the public's eye off the obvious fact that Bush was making a false case to go to war.

And in your case, I see that they worked, like a charm.

Please. Except all of this is BS.

Well, we agree on one thing, at least... :crazy:

It's in black and white that Wilson lied in the New Yort Times OpEd.

A lie, oft-repeated, becomes the truth.
A lie, oft-repeated, becomes the truth.
A lie, oft-repeated, becomes the truth.
A lie, oft-repeated, becomes the truth.
A lie, oft-repeated, becomes the truth.
A lie, oft-repeated, becomes the truth.
A lie, oft-repeated, becomes the truth.
A lie, oft-repeated, becomes the truth.

Are you saying that if someone deliberately lies about Bush, that the Bush admin should not set the record straight?

Are you saying that if someone deliberately lies about a diplomatic mission in a shady effort at damage control: we should simply ignore the "damage," and focus solely on the "control?"

And BTW.... Scooter Libby's trial comes up next week. He got Nifonged by yet another Democrat prosecutor on a power trip. It seems to be going around. It should be fun to watch what happens to Fitzpatrick's career after this.

Mike

Yeah, those poor, poor, influence-peddling Republican's,,,what's a corrupt, out-of-power GOP going to do, now that all their fave funding-boys are lining up in front of judges? :crazy:

[Mike Sigman]

But it's not, Mike: and all your attempts to repeat a lie does not make it the truth. I'm afraid you have the Washington Post and a number of other liberal sources (not to mention the conservative sources) saying that Wilson lied... or, as he called it, "misspoke". You keep trying to spin it.

And your idea that the CIA hasn't been overrun with Dem appointees is charming, but you need to read a little more. Why do you think there is leak after leak from the CIA during Republican admins, but nothing under Dem admins? Actually, there is a guy (retired... not blabbing while on the job) who has been writing and testifying about what they were ordered to do by Clinton in regard to Al Qaeda and China.... Dem's will not call him as a witness anymore.

But if you want to pretend that Wilson wasn't outted as a liar and Clinton didn't commit perjury or any other fairy tales, you need to debate someone else.

Mike

[Neil Mick]

I'm afraid you have the Washington Post and a number of other liberal sources (not to mention the conservative sources) saying that Wilson lied... or, as he called it, "misspoke". You keep trying to spin it.

No spin all, Mike...just one guy trying to show the other guy that this is all smoke and mirrors, and the other guy continuing to believe in Oz, and Santa Claus.

And your idea that the CIA hasn't been overrun with Dem appointees is charming, but you need to read a little more.

Sorry, Mike: but I'm not in the business of proving a negative.

How about YOU prove YOUR claim?

Why do you think there is leak after leak from the CIA during Republican admins, but nothing under Dem admins?

Got a (reliable) source to back this claim? Or even (assuming such nonsense is generally true) that THIS CIA is like OTHER CIA's in the past?

Got any data to prove that in 2003-4 the CIA was riddled with Dem's?

No? Thought not. :dead:

But if you want to pretend that Wilson wasn't outted as a liar...you need to debate someone else.

Mike

"Pretend?" Oh, Mike, you poor man.

Face it: you just had your little strawman's head, handed back to you. In fact, the battle was pretty much over, from the first post. I gave a whole lotta evidence why Wilson wasn't lying, and what I get back from you was a repeat of links, followed by a lot of splutter.

You don't even bother to read all of my posts, and so let's just say that I'm taking your admonition with a few tons of NaCl. :p

But, let's just say that he DID lie about whether or not he knew the documents were forgeries, or not.

Or, let's say, just for the sake of argument: that Valerie Plame DID get her husband recommended, out of some Machiavellian scheme to discredit the W (funny, how you're so ready to ascribe near genius, spy-novel stunts for the Dem's: while out the other side of your mouth, you're declaiming their hypocrisy and stupidity).

OK. But all that doesn't even hold a candle, not a matchstick, to a President knowingly putting 16 words into the SoTA that were outright fabrications designed to bolster his cause to war.

And then, when the damage was done: breaking the law to out an active CIA operative, as a form of personal vendetta.

I'm sorry, Mike: but I'm afraid that your outrage seems a tad misplaced. You SHOULD be outraged at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that seemed to spend its time killing the messenger, instead of dealing with the message.

Your partisan slip is showing! :D

[Mike Sigman]

The interesting part that continues to amuse about you, Neil, is that even when someone lays the facts out, everyone reads them, you're wrong, you will still pretend that you are right... is it the idea that if you keep insisting up until the moment people get disgusted and walk away that you have "won"?

Here's a list of Wilson's lies, with sources:

1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President’s Office Sent Him To Niger:

Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President’s Office. “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.” (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, “What I Didn’t Find In Africa,” The New York Times, 7/6/03)

Joe Wilson: “[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ...” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03)
Vice President Cheney: “I Don’t Know Joe Wilson. I’ve Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don’t [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 9/14/03)

CIA Director George Tenet: “In An Effort To Inquire About Certain Reports Involving Niger, CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Experts, On Their Own Initiative, Asked An Individual With Ties To The Region To Make A Visit To See What He Could Learn.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:

“[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson’s Report. “Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador’s findings.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

CIA Director George Tenet: “Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release, 7/11/03)

3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant

Wilson Claims His Trip Proved There Was Nothing To The Uranium “Allegations.” “I knew that [Dr. Rice] had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. … This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations.” (NBC’s, “Meet The Press,” 5/2/04)

Officials Said Evidence In Wilson’s Niger Report Was “Thin” And His “Homework Was Shoddy.” (Michael Duffy, “Leaking With A Vengeance,” Time, 10/13/03)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador’s Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts’ Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)
“For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)
CIA Said Wilson’s Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. “Because [Wilson’s] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.” (Central Intelligence Agency, “Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence,” Press Release 7/11/03)

The Butler Report Claimed That The President’s State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, “Was Well-Founded.” “We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ was well-founded.” (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, “Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction,” 7/14/04)

4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002:

Wilson Claimed His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” Joe Wilson: “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip. “Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
5.) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife:

Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife’s Suggestion. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “Who first raised your name, then, based on what you know? Who came up with the idea to send you there?” Joe Wilson: “The CIA knew my name from a trip, and it’s in the report, that I had taken in 1999 related to uranium activities but not related to Iraq. I had served for 23 years in government including as Bill Clinton’s Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. I had done a lot of work with the Niger government during a period punctuated by a military coup and a subsequent assassination of a president. So I knew all the people there.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

In Fact, His Wife Suggested Him For 1999 Trip, As Well. “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf … The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region …” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

Joe Wilson: “Well, I Don’t Know. Obviously, There’s Been This Orchestrated Campaign, This Smear Campaign. I Happen To Think That It’s Because The RNC, The Republican National Committee’s Been Involved In This In A Big Way …” CNN’s Wolf Blitzer: “But They Weren’t Involved In The Senate Intelligence Committee Report.” Wilson: “No, They Weren’t.” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 7/18/04)

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concluded That Wilson’s Report “Lent More Credibility” For Most Analysts “To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports.” “Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Members Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence That Wrote The Unanimous “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq”:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

(Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents:

In June Of 2003, Wilson Told The Washington Post “The Niger Intelligence Was Based On Documents That Had Clearly Been Forged Because ‘The Dates Were Wrong And The Names Were Wrong.’” (Susan Schmidt, “Plame’s Input Is Cited On Niger Mission,” The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

However, “The [Senate Select Committee On Intelligence] Report … Said Wilson Provided Misleading Information To The Washington Post Last June [12th, 2003].” (Susan Schmidt, “Plame’s Input Is Cited On Niger Mission,” The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: “The Former Ambassador Said That He May Have ‘Misspoken’ To The Reporter When He Said He Concluded The Documents Were ‘Forged.’” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)
8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate:

NBC’s Katie Couric: “What Do You Hope The Whole Point Of This Book Will Be? Joe Wilson: “Well, I - I Hope, One, It Will Tell - It Tries To Tell An Interesting Story. Two, I Hope That It Enriches The Debate In A Year In Which We Are All Called Upon As Americans To Elect Our Leaders. And Three, … That [It] Says That This Is A Great Democracy That Is Worthy Of Our Taking Our Responsibilities As Stewards Seriously.” (NBC’s “Today Show,” 5/3/04)

Wilson Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In “A Little Literary Flair” When Talking To Reporters. “[Wilson] wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved ‘a little literary flair.’” (Matthew Continetti, “‘A Little Literary Flair’” The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

Wilson’s Book The Politics Of Truth: Inside The Lies That Put The White House On Trial And Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity Has Been Panned In Numerous Reviews For Its Inaccuracies:

“On Page One Of Chapter One, He Quotes NBC Talk Show Host Chris Matthews, Who Told Him That, After Mr. Wilson Chose To Go Public: ‘Wilson’s Wife Is Fair Game.’ Later, He Bases His List Of Suspect Leakers On Conversations With Members Of The News Media And A ‘Source Close To The House Judiciary Committee.’” (Eli Lake, Op-Ed, “Don’t Quit Your Day Job, Mr. Wilson,” New York Post, 5/4/04)

“For Example, When Asked How He ‘Knew’ That The Intelligence Community Had Rejected The Possibility Of A Niger-Iraq Uranium Deal, As He Wrote In His Book, He Told [Senate Intelligence] Committee Staff That His Assertion May Have Involved ‘A Little Literary Flair.’” (Matthew Continetti, “‘A Little Literary Flair,’” The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

The Boston Globe: “In Essence, Much Of Wilson’s Book Is An Attempt To Portray The Bush Administration As A Ministry Of Fear Whose Mission In Pursuing War In Iraq Required It To Proclaim A Lie As Truth.” (Michael D. Langan, Op-Ed, “‘Truth’ Makes Much Of Bush Controversy,” The Boston Globe, 5/4/04)

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas Wrote In The Washington Post: “[W]ilson’s Claims And Conclusions Are Either Long Hashed Over Or Based On What The Intelligence Business Describes As ‘Rumint,’ Or Rumor Intelligence.” (Evan Thomas, Op-Ed, “Indecent Exposure,” The Washington Post, 5/16/04)
9.) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction:

“The Former Ambassador Noted That His CIA Contacts Told Him There Were Documents Pertaining To The Alleged Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction And That The Source Of The Information Was The [Redacted] Intelligence Service.” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)

However, “The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details …” (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessments On Iraq,” 7/7/04)
10.) Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan “Centrist”:
Recently, Joe Wilson Refused To Admit He Is A Registered Democrat. NBC’s Jamie Gangel: “You are a Democrat?” Joe Wilson: “I exercise my rights as a citizen of this country to participate in the selection of my leaders and I am proud to do so. I did so in the election in 2000 by contributing not just to Al Gore's campaign, but also to the Bush-Cheney campaign.” (NBC’s “Today Show,” 7/14/05)

“[Wilson] Insist[s] He Remained A Centrist At Heart.” (Scott Shane, “Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case,” The New York Times, 7/5/05)

Joe Wilson Is A Registered Democrat. (District Of Columbia Voter Registrations, Accessed 7/14/05)

Joseph Wilson Has Donated Over $8,000 To Democrats Including $2,000 To John Kerry For President In 2003, $1,000 To Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) HILLPAC In 2002 And $3,000 To Al Gore In 1999. (The Center For Responsive Politics Website, www.opensecrets.org, Accessed 7/12/05)

Wilson Endorsed John Kerry For President In October 2003 And Advised The Kerry Campaign. (David Tirrell-Wysocki, “Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03)

“[Wilson] Admits ‘It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before I Vote For A Republican, Even For Dog Catcher.’” (Scott Shane, “Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case,” The New York Times, 7/5/05)

[Neil Mick]

The interesting part that continues to amuse about you, Neil, is that even when someone lays the facts out, everyone reads them, you're wrong, you will still pretend that you are right...

Funny, but at least ONE post'er over in the other thread posted his opinions on how I basically knocked your silly strawman into the dirt...but of course, your famed mindreading skill trumps anyone else's testimony, right? :rolleyes:

Uh huh.

is it the idea that if you keep insisting up until the moment people get disgusted and walk away that you have "won"?

Nah. Here's how it works, at least, so far (since, you seem uncapable of reading completely through one of my posts in its entirety, without bothering even to follow up, with credible sources):

1. You make silly, half-baked claims strongly based on partisan Rightwing hit-sites, blogs, and pseudo-news, dressing this dirt up in pseudo-rational clothing (commonly called a "strawman");

2. I explain how most of your claims are specious, backing my assertions with secondary and primary sources (Joe Wilson, et al);

3. Not bothering to read my post completely, you come back and splutter how its "obvious," and "well-documented," that you're right, and I'm wrong.

4. I (and the readers) have a really good laugh at your expence.

5. You follow up with the same pathetic links you provided in the first place;

6. I laugh a little harder (and with a somewhat pitying tone), and round up my debate by putting the whole thing in context. In this case, the context is the election-year machinations, and the Presidential damage-control, that spews forthwith.

7. Ignoring the broken strawman lying at your virtual feet, you start up the whole process, again, as if it never happened. See #1. And round and round we go...


But you must be some sort of political online masochist, or something. So, line up dos' strawmen, Mike! Let's knock 'em down, once more!

Here's a list of Wilson's lies, with sources:

1.) Wilson Insisted That The Vice President's Office Sent Him To Niger:

Wilson Said He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President's Office. "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. … The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office." (Joseph C. Wilson, Op-Ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," The New York Times, 7/6/03)

Joe Wilson: "[W]hat They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby's Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself ..." (CNN's "Late Edition," 8/3/03)
Vice President Cheney: "I Don't Know Joe Wilson. I've Never Met Joe Wilson. … And Joe Wilson - I Don't [Know] Who Sent Joe Wilson. He Never Submitted A Report That I Ever Saw When He Came Back." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/14/03)

Again...AHAHAHAHAHA! That partisan slip is practically becoming a dress for you, Mike.

Please. One one side of your mouth you trumpet how Wilson is "lying," based on some sources you find that pertains to the Niger documents, while on the other side you parrot (in other places) how Bush "didn't lie." :rolleyes:

NOW, you're saying that he's lying about whether or not Cheney's office, sent him.

Hey, waitaminute! Do ya think that perhaps CHENEY could be lying?? Nah, that couldn't be...Republicans in office NEVER lie. :rolleyes: And, I'm so sure that Scooter Libby outed Plame at Armitage's nudging, because he just hates ppl who denigrate his bosses, and it had NOTHING to do with where he worked, right?

Uh huh.

But in actuality, Wilson never said that "Cheney sent him," personally. And, by your own quote, Wilson said that he was sent "Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report..." not "that he was sent by the Vice President's office." Nor, did he ever claim that he was sent by Cheney, personally. Besides, why lie about something so clearly easy to check? :rolleyes:

Slight difference, Mike. Next.

2.) Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:

"[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Reported That The Vice President Was Not Briefed On Wilson's Report. "Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and it should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

CIA Director George Tenet: "Because This Report, In Our View, Did Not Resolve Whether Iraq Was Or Was Not Seeking Uranium From Abroad, It Was Given A Normal And Wide Distribution, But We Did Not Brief It To The President, Vice-President Or Other Senior Administration Officials." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release, 7/11/03)

You lost me (and likely, the few objective readers still following this).

HOW is

Wilson Claimed The Vice President And Other Senior White House Officials Were Briefed On His Niger Report:

the same thing as

"[Wilson] Believed That [His Report] Would Have Been Distributed To The White House And That The Vice President Received A Direct Response To His Question About The Possible Uranium Deal."

A lie does not =, a belief, Mike.

NEXT!

3.) Wilson Has Claimed His Niger Report Was Conclusive And Significant

Wilson Claims His Trip Proved There Was Nothing To The Uranium "Allegations." "I knew that [Dr. Rice] had fundamentally misstated the facts. In fact, she had lied about it. I had gone out and I had undertaken this study. I had come back and said that this was not feasible. … This government knew that there was nothing to these allegations." (NBC's, "Meet The Press," 5/2/04)

Another "claim," where you provide nothing, to show where, or how, he lied. Next!

Officials Said Evidence In Wilson's Niger Report Was "Thin" And His "Homework Was Shoddy." (Michael Duffy, "Leaking With A Vengeance," Time, 10/13/03)

Love to know the names of those "officials." Unbiased, neutral parties such as yourself, no doubt. :rolleyes:

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: "Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador's Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts' Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)
"For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (INR) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)
CIA Said Wilson's Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. "Because [Wilson's] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said." (Central Intelligence Agency, "Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence," Press Release 7/11/03)

The Butler Report Claimed That The President's State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, "Was Well-Founded." "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' was well-founded." (The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, "Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," 7/14/04)

Lalala. Again, he-said, she-said, and damage-control. And, of course, ignoring that Wilson was hardly a lone voice in doubting the documents' authenticity.

The classified documents appearing to depict an Iraqi attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger had allegedly been suspected to be fraudulent by some individuals in U.S. intelligence, according to news reports. According to further news accounts of the situation, by early 2002 investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council. A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into the origin of these documents has been reopened.

Yeah, those allegations SURE cast doubt as to whether or not those documents were forgeries, all right...unless, of course, an accomplice comes forward and admits his complicity...

Italian spies ‘faked documents' on Saddam nuclear purchase (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2763-1198188,00.html)

THE Sunday Times has tracked down a mysterious middleman who was a key figure in the notorious Niger uranium hoax before the Iraq war, writes Nicholas Rufford.

Speaking to a reporter in a cafe in Brussels last week, he claimed he had been an unwitting dupe in the scam, which embarrassed both Tony Blair and George W Bush over Saddam Hussein's phantom weapons of mass destruction.

The middleman, an Italian who uses the name Giacomo, is a small-time tipster said to have worked for Italy's armed forces and intelligence services. He says Sismi, the Italian foreign intelligence service, used him to disseminate fake documents purporting to show Saddam had tried to buy uranium for nuclear bombs from Niger.

"I received a call from a former colleague in Sismi," Giacomo said. "I was told a woman in the Niger embassy in Rome had a gift for me. I met her and she gave me documents. Sismi wanted me to pass on the documents but they didn't want anyone to know they had been involved."

He came into possession of a bundle of telexes, letters and contracts that appeared to show Saddam had struck a deal with Niger for 500 tons of uranium ore, enough when refined to make several weapons.

Giacomo said he regretted the hoax but had believed the documents were genuine when he passed them to intelligence contacts and a journalist. The hoax had far-reaching effects. Presenting his dossier on Iraq's weapons in September 2002, Blair accused Saddam of seeking "significant quantities of uranium from Africa".

When Giacomo's documents were discredited by the International Atomic Energy Agency last year, George Tenet, then director of the CIA, apologised.

4.) Wilson Denied His Wife Suggested He Travel To Niger In 2002:

Wilson Claimed His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?" Joe Wilson: "No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson's Wife Proposed Him For Trip. "Some CPD, [CIA Counterproliferation Division] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife ‘offered up his name' and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'" (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
5.) Wilson Has Claimed His 1999 Trip To Niger Was Not Suggested By His Wife:

Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife's Suggestion. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "Who first raised your name, then, based on what you know? Who came up with the idea to send you there?" Joe Wilson: "The CIA knew my name from a trip, and it's in the report, that I had taken in 1999 related to uranium activities but not related to Iraq. I had served for 23 years in government including as Bill Clinton's Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. I had done a lot of work with the Niger government during a period punctuated by a military coup and a subsequent assassination of a president. So I knew all the people there." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

In Fact, His Wife Suggested Him For 1999 Trip, As Well. "The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf … The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region …" (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)


I already went over this, earlier. Plame was at the initial meeting for a few minutes. To claim that she was a major actor in suggesting her husband is, IMO, the nature of a pissing contest, or kicking up dirt, trying to prove that Wilson lied about something.

Weaker, and weaker, became the strawman, gasping for air and frantically trying to re-stuff his vest... :dead:

[Neil Mick]

6.) Wilson Claimed He Was A Victim Of A Partisan Smear Campaign

Well, DUH! The name"Valerie Plame" DOES ring a bell, right?

Joe Wilson: "Well, I Don't Know. Obviously, There's Been This Orchestrated Campaign, This Smear Campaign. I Happen To Think That It's Because The RNC, The Republican National Committee's Been Involved In This In A Big Way …" CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "But They Weren't Involved In The Senate Intelligence Committee Report." Wilson: "No, They Weren't." (CNN's "Late Edition," 7/18/04)

Senate Intelligence Committee Unanimously Concluded That Wilson's Report "Lent More Credibility" For Most Analysts "To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Reports." "Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but the State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." (Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Members Of The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence That Wrote The Unanimous "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq":

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH)

Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO)

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE)

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Sen. John Warner (R-VA)

(Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq," U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)

Names on a list, doth not the breakdown of power in that committee, make.

7.) A Month Before The Bob Novak And Matthew Cooper Articles Ever Came Out, Wilson Told The Washington Post That Previous Intelligence Reports About Niger Were Based On Forged Documents:

In June Of 2003, Wilson Told The Washington Post "The Niger Intelligence Was Based On Documents That Had Clearly Been Forged Because ‘The Dates Were Wrong And The Names Were Wrong.'" (Susan Schmidt, "Plame's Input Is Cited On Niger Mission," The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

However, "The [Senate Select Committee On Intelligence] Report … Said Wilson Provided Misleading Information To The Washington Post Last June [12th, 2003]." (Susan Schmidt, "Plame's Input Is Cited On Niger Mission," The Washington Post, 7/10/04)

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: "The Former Ambassador Said That He May Have ‘Misspoken' To The Reporter When He Said He Concluded The Documents Were ‘Forged.'" (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

Again, all covered earlier. You're repeating yourself (again), without providing any new evidence.

8.) Wilson Claimed His Book Would Enrich Debate:

Whoah! Let's put the guy in the stocks for this one!

NBC's Katie Couric: "What Do You Hope The Whole Point Of This Book Will Be? Joe Wilson: "Well, I - I Hope, One, It Will Tell - It Tries To Tell An Interesting Story. Two, I Hope That It Enriches The Debate In A Year In Which We Are All Called Upon As Americans To Elect Our Leaders. And Three, … That [It] Says That This Is A Great Democracy That Is Worthy Of Our Taking Our Responsibilities As Stewards Seriously." (NBC's "Today Show," 5/3/04)

Wilson Admits In His Book That He Had Been Involved In "A Little Literary Flair" When Talking To Reporters. "[Wilson] wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved ‘a little literary flair.'" (Matthew Continetti, "‘A Little Literary Flair'" The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

Wilson's Book The Politics Of Truth: Inside The Lies That Put The White House On Trial And Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity Has Been Panned In Numerous Reviews For Its Inaccuracies:

"On Page One Of Chapter One, He Quotes NBC Talk Show Host Chris Matthews,

Chris Matthews??? You're using Chris Matthews as some sort of standard for inaccuracies???? AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

Who Told Him That, After Mr. Wilson Chose To Go Public: ‘Wilson's Wife Is Fair Game.' Later, He Bases His List Of Suspect Leakers On Conversations With Members Of The News Media And A ‘Source Close To The House Judiciary Committee.'" (Eli Lake, Op-Ed, "Don't Quit Your Day Job, Mr. Wilson," New York Post, 5/4/04)

"For Example, When Asked How He ‘Knew' That The Intelligence Community Had Rejected The Possibility Of A Niger-Iraq Uranium Deal, As He Wrote In His Book, He Told [Senate Intelligence] Committee Staff That His Assertion May Have Involved ‘A Little Literary Flair.'" (Matthew Continetti, "‘A Little Literary Flair,'" The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

The Boston Globe: "In Essence, Much Of Wilson's Book Is An Attempt To Portray The Bush Administration As A Ministry Of Fear Whose Mission In Pursuing War In Iraq Required It To Proclaim A Lie As Truth." (Michael D. Langan, Op-Ed, "‘Truth' Makes Much Of Bush Controversy," The Boston Globe, 5/4/04)

Newsweek's Evan Thomas


Ah. Another totally objective source, who eagerly admits his mistakes about going to war with Iraq.

Uh huh.

Wrote In The Washington Post: "[W]ilson's Claims And Conclusions Are Either Long Hashed Over Or Based On What The Intelligence Business Describes As ‘Rumint,' Or Rumor Intelligence." (Evan Thomas, Op-Ed, "Indecent Exposure," The Washington Post, 5/16/04)

So far, most of #8 is the nature of summations, editorial, opinion. Not exactly "lying" material, Mike. Next.

9.) Wilson Claimed The CIA Provided Him With Information Related To The Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction:

"The Former Ambassador Noted That His CIA Contacts Told Him There Were Documents Pertaining To The Alleged Iraq-Niger Uranium Transaction And That The Source Of The Information Was The [Redacted] Intelligence Service." (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

However, "The DO [Director Of Operations At The CIA] Reports Officer Told Committee Staff That He Did Not Provide The Former Ambassador With Any Information About The Source Or Details …" (Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, "Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq," 7/7/04)

Again...is the CIA riddled with Dem-supporters, or is the DO objectively doing his job? Again, you cannot have it both ways, Mike.

And, this is again, he-said/she-said stuff. While sketchy, it's not very strong in the way of damning proof of lying.

Employ common sense, for once, Mike. WHY would a career diplomat go to Niger to investigate the veracity of a yellowcake sale, and NOT check in with the CIA?

It makes no sense: goes beyond reason. But then again, so does about 80% of your argument.

10.) Wilson Claimed He Is A Non-Partisan "Centrist":
Recently, Joe Wilson Refused To Admit He Is A Registered Democrat. NBC's Jamie Gangel: "You are a Democrat?" Joe Wilson: "I exercise my rights as a citizen of this country to participate in the selection of my leaders and I am proud to do so. I did so in the election in 2000 by contributing not just to Al Gore's campaign, but also to the Bush-Cheney campaign." (NBC's "Today Show," 7/14/05)

"[Wilson] Insist[s] He Remained A Centrist At Heart." (Scott Shane, "Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case," The New York Times, 7/5/05)

Joe Wilson Is A Registered Democrat. (District Of Columbia Voter Registrations, Accessed 7/14/05)

Oh, yeah, I suppose you're right, Mike. Let's call up the lynch-mobs and knot the hanging rope: Democrat centrists simply do not exist, and therefore Wilson is clearly lying.

Oh, brother!


"[Wilson] Admits ‘It Will Be A Cold Day In Hell Before I Vote For A Republican, Even For Dog Catcher.'" (Scott Shane, "Private Spy And Public Spouse Live At Center Of Leak Case," The New York Times, 7/5/05)

After all he went through: I'd be tempted to put a brick through the local Republican HQ window, if I were he. Personally, I think the man deserves the awards and accolades he got for being a good patriot, instead of the perfidious re-echoing of the Rightwing blogosphere echo-chamber you've put forth.

So, now I think I'm done. I've addressed nearly all your points and issues, and found most to be sorely lacking. Of course, I cannot DISprove everything you claim, as it is impossible to prove a negative ("prove that Wilson is NOT a liar").

You, OTOH, have nicely dodged most of my responses and failed to address even the central core of my OP. Most important, you fail to address the context of these accusations. I'll repost them again, but no doubt you'll just duck and go on believing the hogwash, as you're wont to do.

Bon chance!

But, let's just say that he DID lie about whether or not he knew the documents were forgeries, or not.

Or, let's say, just for the sake of argument: that Valerie Plame DID get her husband recommended, out of some Machiavellian scheme to discredit the W (funny, how you're so ready to ascribe near genius, spy-novel stunts for the Dem's: while out the other side of your mouth, you're declaiming their hypocrisy and stupidity).

OK. But all that doesn't even hold a candle, not a matchstick, to a President knowingly putting 16 words into the SoTA that were outright fabrications designed to bolster his cause to war.

And then, when the damage was done: breaking the law to out an active CIA operative, as a form of personal vendetta.

I'm sorry, Mike: but I'm afraid that your outrage seems a tad misplaced. You SHOULD be outraged at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee that seemed to spend its time killing the messenger, instead of dealing with the message.

Your partisan slip is showing!

And what about the aftermath? We have Joe Wilson, STILL uncharged for allegedly lying before a Senate Committee (that's called "perjury," Mike. A serious crime); we have a CIA operative who's career is effectively over; we have a President whose spokesman promised that anyone implicated would be handed his walking papers (another lie, that you seem to blithely ignore); we have Scooter Libby, of course...and we have an informant who came clean and admitted his role in the affair.

I gotta say: the empirical evidence doesn't seem to support your nonsen..err, claims, Mike. :hypno:

[Mike Sigman]

Yeah, well, unless you think everyone reading this list is some sort of dummy, you just got your head handed to you. Even your last piece of BS about "sixteen words" was answered by the Butler Commission. Your whole argument is gone. You didn't even have the balls to address the part about Wilson lying that Cheney had sent him.

Insofar as Valerie Plame, I don't know what your point is, unless you're going to pretend that it wasn't all over the news that Valerie Plame's name was first mentioned to the press by Armitage, thus throwing the whole debate about Plame out the window. Why Scooter Libby is still being prosecuted is something even the Washington Post has asked. It's a joke. Both the WaPo and the New York Times have pointed out that Plame was NOT an undercover CIA agent at the time this supposed "smear campaign" was supposed to take place. Instead of demanding to know why Fitzpatrick is continuing with the charade, why are you still hoping some Republican goes to jail?

Remember what I said.... Libby is getting Nifonged. Fitzpatrick would love to find a way out of this one, but he can't. Dem's have gone mum on this one, which shows they know it's wrong but they can't bring themselves to admit it. Typical lib ethics.... just like yours. ;)

Mike

[Neil Mick]

I don't need to trumpet my victory, Mike. It's obvious.

I can just sit back and let the reader make his/her own conclusions.

The results of the aftermath, speaks more for itself, than anything you or I could claim here, in any case.

But if it makes you feel better: go on and pretend that you "won..." Those of us with more maturity can just nod, smile, and move on. ;)

[Mike Sigman]

Those of us with more maturity can just nod, smile, and move on. ;)Don't forget to mention your keen self-perception, too, Neil.

Mike ;)

[Neil Mick]

Both the WaPo and the New York Times have pointed out that Plame was NOT an undercover CIA agent at the time this supposed "smear campaign" was supposed to take place.
...
Remember what I said.... Libby is getting Nifonged.
Mike

So many easily disproven strawmen...so little time. :dead: