Say it ain't so Joe.... Wilson. What say you?

[lendaddy]

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

Seems the lefts darling has been discredited by another darling, the 9/11 commission. Don't ***** about the source, the facts are in the actual report. In my opinion, the left has so convinced itself that the right is using underhanded operations, that they have taken to them themselves. I wonder why Joe is not being charged? Perhaps he will be.

[Mulholland]

Say it aint so Joe...So, this whistler blowing do-gooder is a lying sack of clinton huh?...Go figure...And his wife was complicit in his treachery, beautiful.

[Mulholland]

"In particular he said that President Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

We now know for certain that Wilson was wrong and that Bush's statement was entirely accurate."

But the mainstream media isn't covering this, it cannot be true.

[lendaddy]

Even I am shocked that this hasn't made any media waves. Ask anyone remotely informed about yellow cake and they'll say "that's the false statement Bush made in the state of the union address". No that we find it is fact, we hear nothing. Sad, really enforces my theories on media.

[Mulholland]

A lie told frequently enough (or the truth omitted) will become perceived as the truth.

Why should it surprise you?...The media, pre-9/11, pronounced multiple times the connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda, but the moment the hacks at the discredited 9/11 Commission offer red meat of "no connection" to the media they run with it.

No wonder the ultra-leftists want to silence political dissent, take Rush off of Armed Forces Radio, reinstitute the "Fairness doctrine" (euphemism for censorship), prevent political adds attacking incumbents (CFR), destroy FoxNews, and control the internet (see Hitlery Clinton)...The truth and access to it is rendering impotent their previous methodology of public manipulation.

[Mulholland]

"For starters, he has insisted that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, was not the one who came up with the brilliant idea that the agency send him to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had been attempting to acquire uranium. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson says in his book. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

In fact, the Senate panel found, she was the one who got him that assignment. The panel even found a memo by her. (She should have thought to use disappearing ink.) -- {he he he he}

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

According to the Financial Times: "European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq."

There's still more: As Susan Schmidt reported — back on page A9 of Saturday's Washington Post: "Contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Ironically, Senate investigators found that at least some of what Wilson told his CIA briefer not only failed to persuade the agency that there was nothing to reports of Niger-Iraq link — his information actually created additional suspicion.


Democrat mole...LIAR!

[techweenie]

Hmmm. So let's parse this out:

The white house 'outs' a CIA undercover agent via Robert Novak.

In response, the Neocons don't criticize the white house or Novak, but instead, attack the husband of the agent. And they attack him on the basis of statements he made that were proven correct.

Does that about sum it up?

[lendaddy]

No, His statements were lies, that is the whole point. It appears she was outed by someone on the inside who wanted to expose his actions.

[techweenie]

Well, not as I read it. He said (about the documents) that the names were wrong and the dates were wrong.

And they were.

[cmccuist]

This whole sad tale hinges on whether Valerie Plame was a secret agent or not and whether she recommended that Joe Wilson be sent to Niger to investigate Saddam and the yellowcake.

According to the commision, she DID recommend that Joe Wilson go to Niger. He did a poor job of looking for the link. I suspect he wasn't looking too hard.

I also suspect he was hoping that Kerry would give him a nice assignment for his non-verification of the Saddam/uranium link.

Also, why isn't anybody being prosecuting for blowing Valerie Plame's cover? I suspect she was just an employee working at Langley and wasn't undercover at all.

Basically Joe Wilson was a paper pusher who's wife got him a once in a lifetime assignment. He overplayed his hand trying to drop W in the grease and now his 15 minutes are up. Kerry wont have anything to do with him. Everyone's trying to distance themselves from this guy.

What he should have done was his real job. If he did find the verification, W would have praised him just like Bush 41 did and he could have had a plum assignment. Or if he could have proven that there was no link, Kerry would have fixed him up. Now he's got nothing.

Craig

[techweenie]

cmccuist: "Also, why isn't anybody being prosecuting for blowing Valerie Plame's cover?"

Because the Administration isn't pushing very hard. The investigation is 'ongoing.'

FBI suspicion is focused on Dick Cheney's office as the source of the leak, specifically, John Hannah and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Plame was not an 'employee working at Langley' she was an undercover officer working for the CIA overseas -- including in Iraq.

Not sure how you can say 'Wilson did a poor job looking for the link' since he didn't find what wasn't there...

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by techweenie


Not sure how you can say 'Wilson did a poor job looking for the link' since he didn't find what wasn't there...

I'm just saying he wasn't very convincing when he says there was no link. Where's the credibility when he says that he was drinking mint tea and talking to dozens of people? That didn't strike me as a thourough investigation. At least not enough to dispute the British report.

As far as whether Valerie Plame was undercover or not, if she was indeed undercover, then a crime was committed. Novak didn't think she was, that's why he reported her name.

Craig

[techweenie]

It's always hard to prove a negative.

Drinking mint tea and talking to dozens of people might not be the stuff that Ian Fleming and Robert Ludlum fans get excited about, but if it's a real-world means to get information, more power to him.

I'm not aware that anyone has disputed 'outing' Wilson's wife was a crime, so I'm surprised it's even an issue.

[cmccuist]

I'm just going by the Clifford May article.

Granted, it's hard to prove a negative, but the British intelligence is standing by their report. Wilson, who is not a trained field intelligence guy, but is more of a support type, had a rather cavalier attitude about the investigation - until he became a celebrity.

I thought what he had to say was given more weight than it deserved considering his politics and his investigation methods.

To base the whole "Bush LIED!!!" argument on this guy...

I would have been skeptical if the tables were turned and a Republican accused Clinton of fabricating reasons to invade a country. I never did believe the wag-the-dog/tomahawk launch when Monica was testifying. No one could be that ruthless.

Craig

[techweenie]

cmccuitst: "I would have been skeptical if the tables were turned and a Republican accused Clinton of fabricating reasons to invade a country. I never did believe the wag-the-dog/tomahawk launch when Monica was testifying. No one could be that ruthless."

True.

What frustrated me at the time was that Clinton got slammed for whacking an 'aspirin factory' which was (of course) misidentified as WMD plant by our own sterling intelligence folks. Why Clinton (or later, Bush) didn't fire these folks for making the US look bad is beyond me.

The funny thing is that the 'Monica's Missiles' attack might be the most concerted effort to date to get OBL launched by the US to date. While the Repubs and right-biased media laughed it off, it was a BIG attack.

As for the Bush LIED argument, well, time will tell...

My view is that Bush and his Administration pushed their sources toward rationalizing an attack on Iraq. Disingenous or evil? your call. But I find there is a lot of congruity between Woodward's account, O'Neill's account, et. al.

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by techweenie
What frustrated me at the time was that Clinton got slammed for whacking an 'aspirin factory' which was (of course) misidentified as WMD plant by our own sterling intelligence folks. Why Clinton (or later, Bush) didn't fire these folks for making the US look bad is beyond me.

The funny thing is that the 'Monica's Missiles' attack might be the most concerted effort to date to get OBL launched by the US to date. While the Repubs and right-biased media laughed it off, it was a BIG attack.

I truly wish that Clinton had succeeded in getting OBL. We wouldn't even be having this conversation. The difference that we are having right now is by degrees. Clinton didn't roll on into the Sudan to destroy WMD's. Even though that country is 99% Muslim they don't really pose much of a threat so why go? Hit the WMD factory and you're done.

Bush did roll into Afghanistan and then Iraq. Now he's in troubel for not finding anything significant. I believe there were WMD's there - Saddam was that ruthless. I still believe they are out there - maybe in Syria or Iran.

And Tech I ask myself that same question - What is so sacred about these intelligence folks anyway? How can they keep screwing up time and time again and still be pulling a paycheck??!? These guys could conceivably have been responsible for two presidents losing their jobs - Clinton if he would have been more aggressive and W if he does in fact lose in November.

Craig

[techweenie]

Well, as I suspected, we're more in agreement than not...

We disagree on WMDs, but even the Administration backed off of that claim months ago. Now what they're cliaming is that Saddam had *programs for making WMDs* which is hard to argue with, since there clearly were labs in Iraq. The Administration floated a balloon last year suggesting that Saddam *thought* he had WMDs but that all his people were lying to him. That didn't go over at all. So now it's programs vs. actual WMDs.

One big problem I have is that we didn't 'finish' with Afghanistan and OBL before going to Iraq. Afghanistan is big a mess, with Taliban and warlords controlling the majority of the countryside, according to many accounts. And I don't know where we are in regard to OBL.

On the quality of 'intelligence' sources, we can agree. Generally in private businesses, people who screw up that badly and often are fired. I've worked in companies whose m.o. was 'reward the guilty and punish the innocent' but I'd like to expect more from people our lives may depend on.

------------edit-----------
One thing GWB deserves credit for is the Libyan turn over of weapons. All done quietly; backchannel and in concert with other countries.

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by techweenie
Well, as I suspected, we're more in agreement than not...

------------edit-----------
One thing GWB deserves credit for is the Libyan turn over of weapons. All done quietly; backchannel and in concert with other countries.

Well there it is then! I think Bush/Cheney can count on your vote! Or does that mean Kerry/Edwards can count on my vote??

More likely nothing's changed except we both agree that "intelligence" can get you into trouble.

That's why we in the GOP never use it! (Couldn't resist - preemptive joke)

Craig

[techweenie]

Good one!

Hey, just found this little addendum to the thread topic leading to an attempt to diminish the 'outing.'

----------------------------------
This not an alleged abuse. This is a confirmed abuse. I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades. She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she works with overseas could be compromised...

For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...

I say this as a registered Republican. I am on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear, of an individual who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest taht there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly what was a false policy of suggesting that there was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words.

I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this.

-Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department.

[lendaddy]

Who was defending her being"outed"? What does this have to do with Wilson lying?