Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Spouse of outed CIA officer signs on with Kerry
Washington Times ^ | 2/14/04 | Joseph Curl

Posted on 02/13/2004 9:49:49 PM PST by kattracks

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:13:22 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Joseph C. Wilson, a former Clinton appointee whose unsubstantiated charge that senior White House officials leaked the identity of his CIA officer wife and prompted a grand jury probe, has taken a prominent role in the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; cialeak; clintonholdover; endorsement; josephwilson; kerry; plame; plamegate; valerieplame
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

1 posted on 02/13/2004 9:49:49 PM PST by kattracks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This is going to get VERY UGLY!!!!
2 posted on 02/13/2004 9:50:52 PM PST by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
The Africa dude....hmmmm maybe he told Kerrys girl where to sip tea.
3 posted on 02/13/2004 9:51:53 PM PST by icwhatudo (The rino borg...is resistance futile?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
" Don't leave it to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians," Mr. Wilson said. "

if any Gop'er ever said that about Jews or Unitarians, we would never hear the end of it...

does everybody see now what we are up against?

all that will make my day is one more "don't vote for Bush" thread....

4 posted on 02/13/2004 9:54:49 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks; okie01; seamole; HAL9000; gaspar
Addressing Kerry supporters in an Iowa rally in December, Mr. Wilson called Vice President Dick Cheney a "lying son of a bitch"

This is getting good...

for what he said was indifference to his report that intelligence on a Niger-Iraq uranium connection referenced by Mr. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address was erroneous.

Bush cited "British Intelligence" and did not say "Niger" but Africa.

5 posted on 02/13/2004 9:55:21 PM PST by Shermy (Saddam loved my fish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Here we go again. I heard Mr. Wilson say I do not know who sent me, I would not know them if I met them on the street.

This article says that VPCheney sent him.

Wilson gave the Kerry Kampaign money before he ever came out in public to support him.

Mr. Wilson did not submit a written report to CIA but to the NYTimes.

Mr. Wilson is a liar and this was a well planned operation by somebody.
6 posted on 02/13/2004 9:56:52 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This is why ALL CLINTON APPOINTEES should be fired, no matter what their post. What is the use of winning an election if you can't even appoint people who agree with you during your term?
7 posted on 02/13/2004 9:58:30 PM PST by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts; okie01; gaspar
A week after the Times piece ran, a conservative columnist wrote on July 14 that White House officials had leaked the name of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as retribution.

This journalist is saying that Novak said that? Quite a bit of disinformation here. Probably will become a Kerry mantra.

8 posted on 02/13/2004 10:00:23 PM PST by Shermy (Saddam loved my fish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Don't leave it to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians," Mr. Wilson said.

Hate speech from the Left again.

9 posted on 02/13/2004 10:08:17 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
The NYTimes is looking more and more like a branch of the BBC.

I do wonder if anyone if following the "JOE Wilson" trail, who actually sent him. The day I heard him say he did not know who sent him sealed his status for me.

One can only imagine what is really going on in the covert world of these liberals.

There leake memo was a road map of what they were after "INTEL" and Edwards recently said that while he saw the "INTEL" he did not know everything President Bush knew.

That is why he could claim that President Bush mislead the nation about WMD.

Now we have Dr. Kay, who cut and ran as lead investigator, come back, declare no WMD's, but President was right to remove Saddam. Then today I read he says the President should apologize.

Back a few year Scott Ritter an INSPECTOR testify before congress, gets ripped a new one by a liberal senator, about just who he was, then Ritter flips out and says no WMD's.

What the .ell is really going on I have not clue but these liberals are playing to win and they don't care who gets destroyed along their "FIGHT" to regain power.
10 posted on 02/13/2004 10:11:00 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
"   Mr. Wilson originally said reporters told him that White House political adviser Karl Rove told them his wife was "fair game," a statement he later retracted."

Ah, but this doesn't make Mr. Wilson a liar does it?

11 posted on 02/13/2004 10:39:22 PM PST by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lainde

Very ugly indeed!

12 posted on 02/13/2004 10:43:10 PM PST by jwalburg (We CAN Question their Patriotism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Here's a clip from an old thread on that I remember from a while back:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007156/posts

'CIA LEAK' ENVOY BACKS DEM KERRY (Advising Kerry For Months)
New York Post ^ | 10/24/03 | Deborah Orin


Posted on 10/24/2003 12:37 AM PDT by kattracks



October 24, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who
charged that President Bush "twisted" intelligence on Iraq to exaggerate the
threat, yesterday endorsed Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 race.
Wilson said he has been advising Kerry for five months, which means he was
advising Kerry at the time he wrote a New York Times op-ed piece blasting
Bush last July and revealed his CIA mission to Niger to determine if Iraq
was trying to buy uranium.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said, "As
we've been saying all along, Joseph Wilson has a partisan political
perspective and he's demonstrated that once again today."

Wilson claims the White House retaliated for his attack on Bush by
deliberately leaking the name of his wife, a CIA operative.

Wilson sought to portray himself as a profile in courage for standing up
to Bush, and suggested Kerry did the same by coming out against the Vietnam
War after serving there.
13 posted on 02/13/2004 10:43:16 PM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Mr. Wilson is a liar and this was a well planned operation by somebody."

I was thinking that perhaps Chris LeHane got the ball rolling. He resigned from Kerry's campaign around September 15th of last year. The Wilson story broke around the 27th or 28th of September 2003. No proof, but it sounds like something LeHane would do.

14 posted on 02/13/2004 10:47:28 PM PST by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
Wasn't Wilson sent to snoop out "yellowcake" much earlier?

15 posted on 02/13/2004 10:50:07 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Wasn't Wilson sent to snoop out "yellowcake" much earlier?"

Yeah, he did go earlier, in 2002.

The Wilson story about the leak of his wife's name to the Press was made around the 27th or 28th of September of 2003. I was contemplating the possibility of LeHane, who left the Kerry campaign on Sept. 15th, of possibly being behind, or at least setting the whole leak thing in motion sometime before he resigned. He left the campaign in a huff. It wasn't something that was planned.

16 posted on 02/13/2004 11:02:30 PM PST by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
> >"Mr. Wilson is a liar and this was a well planned operation by somebody."
>
> I was thinking that perhaps Chris LeHane got the ball rolling. He resigned from Kerry's campaign around September 15th of last year. The Wilson story broke around the 27th or 28th of September 2003. No proof, but it sounds like something LeHane would do.

I'm trying to reconstruct how the Democrats must've concocted this operation. At what point did they conceive the idea to undermine the credibility of Bush's intelligence on Iraq? The plot must've been in place by the time that leaked memo describing the Democrats' plans was published in November 2003 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014682/posts
), so we can take the date of that memo as a terminus ad quem starting point. I'd infer the plot must've emerged out of the UN debate over the WMD back around September 2002 at which time the US and UK's case for war was being undermined by Tariq Aziz, Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, etc. Here's one old article I just dug out of my archives which tends to support that:

---
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944219/posts



The TRUE Capitol Hill Blue story the PRESS IGNORED:'Dems plan to undermine
America to beat Bush'
FR - thru Capitol Hill Blue ^ | January 6, 2003 | DOUG THOMPSON


Posted on 07/11/2003 6:02 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl



Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush
CapitolHillBlue ^ | January 6, 2003 | By DOUG THOMPSON


Posted on 01/28/2003 2:07 AM EST by JohnHuang2


Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by
challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within
the party tell Capitol Hill Blue.

A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not
only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about
how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of
Bush and his party.

The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party
leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by
Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt.

In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President's
intentions on the pending war with Iraq. Writers and broadcasters friendly
to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points suggesting
the war is about oil, not terrorism. "The talking points were developed
before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media,"
one Democratic consultant confided. "No Democratic member of Congress will
question the President's patriotism openly but we will use the media and
other surrogates to raise doubts."

Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic
National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHB's
parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts
of the President's real intentions, including: --Saying the war is about oil
and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush
and the Republican party;

--Claiming the Bush administration has "manufactured" evidence against
Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies
to join the American fight against Iraq;

--Suggesting a wartime economy is the only way the administration can revive
the country's lagging economic situation.

"It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are
tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values," the
talking points say. "To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America's
true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush
administration in waging war."

Some Democrats admit privately they are uneasy with the party strategy to
undermine American values in an attempt to get Bush.

"My boss doesn't want anything to do with it," one senior Senate aide told
Capitol Hill Blue on Monday. "You don't undermine this country to win
elections." Others, however, are willing to try anything to put the White
House and Congress back under Democratic control. "The real war isn't in
Iraq," one Democratic consultant said. "It's right here at home, at the
ballot box in 2004."

Among the other points Democrats hope to make in the coming weeks:

--Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are controlled by oil
and defense industry special interest groups.

--The war on terrorism is a failure because Osama bin Laden is still at
large.

--America is unprepared for another terrorist attack because of White House
preoccupation with Iraq. --War will increase the country's economic
woes. --Bush will be forced to raise taxes to finance the war.

"It's time to take the battle to the people and make them understand just
how dangerous George W. Bush's policies are to the future of America," the
talking points conclude.

Democratic sources say the talking points were developed by Democratic
Chairman Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville,
Senate Majority Leader Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Gephardt.

"This is a classic, Jim Carville, scorched earth campaign," crows one DNC
staffer. "Take no prisoners. That's how you win elections." Democratic party
spokesmen would not return phone calls seeking comment on this report.

© Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Blue
---

Given that time frame of late 2002/early 2003 as the origin of the plot, does this imply that the Democrats originally got the idea to attack Bush's intelligence claims from one of the foreign intelligence agencies seeking to undermine Bush and Blair's case for war at that time? If so, it seems to me like the source of the idea must've been closely linked to whoever Scott Ritter and Hans Blix were/are working for. That's my current line of thought. Anyone else have any theories?
17 posted on 02/13/2004 11:27:16 PM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
Until it is revealed exactly who sent "Wilson" to search for Intel on "yellowcake" "key" players are AWOL.

Now if the CIA did in fact send this guy then the liberals have a justifiable complaint about "bad" intel. Somebody sure knows who sent him whether "WILSON" would recognize them on the street or not. That is unless he was sent as a diversion, and he didn't know it, or maybe he was a mole.

That is the big question for me "origins" of Wilson/Africa/intel gathering, answering that question will help explain what followed.

Based upon the "fingerprints" left by LeHane he really doesn't fit the type on gathering intel. However, he would be useful in a smear campaign if the original plan went sour.

Now it is evident that the liberals were opposed in removing Saddam from the get go. They tried to boost "Respect" for North Korea as a worse threat, sucked up the the UN etc. "Wilson" looks more like an attempt by somebody to derail President Bush in taking military action against Saddam long ago.

The alliance of the liberals with the UN - France/Germany/Russia/ etc.... surely had to be trading secrets. How could so many of them been so quick to know immediately a document to be a fraud?

There is no way to connect the dots with liberals and they know that. However there are some "KEY" questions if answered would expose much.
18 posted on 02/13/2004 11:36:24 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
Your posting shows that they were planning on starting their crap in early 2003, before the war even started, and right around the time of the President's SOTU speech. And when their plans went awry and they discovered the people here supported the President overwhelmingly on going into Iraq, they must have decided then, that they would start a campaign to try to turn the people against the way Bush handled the war's aftermath. It will be interesting to see if there is anything about any of this in those computer memos that Frist's aide (Miranda) discovered.
19 posted on 02/13/2004 11:41:20 PM PST by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"Until it is revealed exactly who sent "Wilson" to search for Intel on "yellowcake" "key" players are AWOL. "

Nobody seems to want to accept responsibility for sending him, and apparently his trip wasn't all that important since he wasn't required to submit an official report on it, or any of his findings. If I recollect correctly, Wilson said that he didn't write a report because there really wasn't anything of importance to report. He spent a week sipping green tea with his poolside buddies and came home. The next thing we know, he's writing an angry op-ed page about a supposedly CIA/V.P. generated trip, spilling information to the press and public that he probably shouldn't have, and then complaining because someone outed his wife's name. The whole thing smelled then and the aroma hasn't improved over time.

20 posted on 02/13/2004 11:52:07 PM PST by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
Exactly. The liberals know to just keep muddying the water so they can change the topic of conversation.

This is what I think about JFKerry and his "sex" life stories.

President Bush has turned over his Vietnam Service files and before the media could turn and ask JFKerry where are yours we get a "SEX" story. They are cons.
21 posted on 02/14/2004 12:04:39 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
> Your posting shows that they were planning on starting their crap in early 2003, before the war even started, and right around the time of the President's SOTU speech. And when their plans went awry and they discovered the people here supported the President overwhelmingly on going into Iraq, they must have decided then, that they would start a campaign to try to turn the people against the way Bush handled the war's aftermath. It will be interesting to see if there is anything about any of this in those computer memos that Frist's aide (Miranda) discovered.

What you say makes sense. It'd also be interesting if there's anything about it in files recovered from Saddam Hussein's regime or from Al Qaeda arrests. If the Democrats had a contingency plan for what to do in case the war effort went forward despite the UN, by a similar line of thought it'd make sense Saddam and Al Qaeda had contingency plans as well. I recall that Saddam expressed a desire to turn Iraq into another Vietnam "quagmire", and I think I've also seen articles about a recovered file describing Al Qaeda collaborating with him on this. This reminds me of Peter Arnett (then working for "National Geographic" under NBC/MSNBC; and after they fired him wasn't he immediately hired by some left-wing paper in another country?) going over there a few days into the war and announcing, "Clearly, the war plan has failed. . ." Was that a contingency Plan B hatched between Iraq and the antiwar movement: in case the effort to stop the war in the UN Security Council fails, then turn Iraq into a quagmire? Is what we're seeing now with the attack on Bush's Iraq intelligence a later phase of the same plan? The more I think about it, the more this seems like the Democrats replaying the strategy they used to undermine the Vietnam War during the Nixon administration.
22 posted on 02/14/2004 12:18:18 AM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
Mentioning Peter Arnett in my last post got me wondering about another liberal reporter who tends to turn up around this type of story, Seymour Hersh. Hersh wrote some early attacks on the Afghanistan operation but then dropped off the radar for a while, so I thought I'd check what he's been up to during the recent Iraq debate. Here's one thing that turned up which seems relevant to what we're discussing:

---
http://www.liberalslant.com/dh110303.htm

Seymour Hersh’s Pipedream:
Niger-forgeries scoop in New Yorker article “The Stovepipe” merits a pooper scooper





By: Dennis Hans - 11/03/03



Seymour Hersh has been had by a CIA has-been. A “former senior CIA officer” has gotten him to credit and peddle a preposterous tale about the Niger-uranium forgeries.

Much of Hersh’s latest New Yorker article, “The Stovepipe”
(http://newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031027fa_fact), is a first-rate explication of how the Bush administration politicized and at times circumvented established intelligence processes to create an alarmist picture of the purported Iraqi “threat,” so as to win public support for an invasion President Bush had all but decided on more than a year before he launched the war.

But the big “revelation,” the bombshell that makes the story special, is Hersh’s account of the forging of Nigerien and Iraqi documents that purportedly proved that Iraq and Niger had agreed on the sale of as much as 500 tons of yellowcake uranium. Here’s Hersh:


He [the former senior CIA officer] had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents
themselves.

“The agency guys were so pissed at Cheney,” the former officer said. “They said, ‘O.K, we’re going to put the bite on these guys.’” My source said that he was first told of the fabrication late last year, at one of the many holiday gatherings in the Washington area of past and present C.I.A. officials. “Everyone was bragging about it — ‘Here’s what we did. It was cool, cool, cool.’” These retirees, he said, had superb contacts among current officers in the agency and were informed in detail of the SISMI intelligence. [SISMI is Italy’s military-intelligence agency.]

“They thought that, with this crowd, it was the only way to go — to nail these guys who were not practicing good tradecraft and vetting intelligence,” my source said. “They thought it’d be bought at lower levels — a big bluff.” The thinking, he said, was that the documents would be endorsed by Iraq hawks at the top of the Bush Administration, who would be unable to resist flaunting them at a press conference or an interagency government meeting. They would then look foolish when intelligence officials pointed out that they were obvious fakes. But the tactic backfired, he said, when the papers won widespread acceptance within the Administration. “It got out of control.”


Why This Tale Sounds Tall

In an online companion piece to the article, the New Yorker presents a conversation with Hersh
(http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?online/031027on_onlineonly01), where he describes his source’s story as “one of the most compelling theories” as to how, why and by whom the documents were fabricated.

Alas, what the article reveals is that Hersh is as prone to believing absurd, illogical tales as Cheney himself (assuming Cheney actually believes the stuff he says he believes). I cannot say with 100 percent certainty that Hersh was sold a bill of goods, but I’ll lay out some of the reasons why I’m 99.99 percent sure.

Hersh, in my view, is guilty of the same poor tradecraft and failure to vet intelligence as the villains of his story. His vulnerability stems from his seeming unfamiliarity with much of the public record, a vulnerability that is compounded because it afflicts the New Yorker editors and fact checkers who round out his vetting team.

Consider the alleged date of the forging: “late summer” 2002.

A report published in September 2003 by Britain’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), based on extensive interviews with senior Brit intelligence officials and a careful review of intelligence assessments on Iraq, revealed that Brit intelligence had two sources for the African-uranium claim in the dossier. Information from the first source was acquired in June 2002 and, unlike the second source, was “based on documentary evidence.” The ISC report does not go into details, nor does it name the provider, but this almost certainly refers to “summaries” provided by the Italians of the information contained in the forged documents (which in June 2002 the Italians may or may not have known were forgeries). The point is that the Brits received summaries of the info in the forged documents well before Hersh’s source says the documents were forged! (The ISC report is available in PDF format via this link: http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/reports/isc/. You can avoid the PDF hassle by reading my October 20 essay “Recent Dossier-Related Revelations Blow Up in Faces of Blair and Bush” — http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00168.htm — where I reproduce the ISC section on “Uranium from Africa” and present a great deal of additional evidence bearing on the present discussion.)

Or consider the U.S. investigations completed several months before the Brits received their summaries, conducted by Joe Wilson and, before him, the U.S. Ambassador to Niger and a four-star general. They were investigating reports of a sale, laid out in a “memorandum of agreement” that U.S. officials had not seen but had reporting on. That is, the Italians, in late 2001 or early 2002, passed along to U.S. intelligence not the documents themselves, but information about the transaction laid out in documents that the Italians possessed but which they were not, at that time, sharing with anyone.

Is it possible the Italians were merely pretending to have documents when all they really had was hearsay intelligence about documents they themselves hadn’t seen and had no way of knowing even existed? Yes, it is extremely, remotely possible. One-in-ten-thousand possible. If true, it would contradict what has already been widely reported about the Italians acquiring those documents in late 2001. See, for example, the fine reports by Michael Duffy and James Carney in Time (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030721-464405,00.html)
and Brian Ross on ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/US/uranium030714_docs.html).

I’m the first to acknowledge that just because something appears in our mainstream news media doesn’t make it true. And certainly much remains unclear about those documents. Did the underpaid Nigerien diplomat in Rome who allegedly sold them to SISMI also produce them? Or was he merely the middle man for the actual forgers? If not produced by the Nigerien, were the documents the work of a con man? An intelligence service? Italian and U.S. intelligence working together? An independent forger in the direct or indirect pay of an intelligence agency, a faction thereof, or a neocon cabal? There are all sorts of juicy possibilities, but the remotest by far is the notion that the forgeries weren’t forged until late summer 2002 — and then bydisgruntled retired American spooks.

I’ll also grant that it is widely assumed, but not proved, that Italian intelligence had physical possession in 2001 and 2002 of the documents the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would expose as forgeries in March 2003. But for me to believe that that assumption is false will require far more than an unsupported and illogical story that made the rounds at CIA holiday parties and wound up in the October 27, 2003 New Yorker.

Hersh’s Dossier Confusion

As we know, the State of the Union brouhaha was over a single sentence, where Bush relayed what the “British government has learned” about Iraq’s alleged pursuit of uranium from Africa.

Hersh writes that “the British government issued a dossier dramatizing the W.M.D. threat posed by Iraq. . . . The dossier noted that intelligence — based, again, largely on the SISMI report — showed that Iraq had ‘sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’ A subsequent parliamentary inquiry determined that the published statement had been significantly toned down after the C.I.A. warned its British counterpart not to include the claim in the dossier, and in the final version Niger was not named, nor was SISMI.”

Among the problems with that passage is that it leaves a clear impression that an earlier version of the dossier named both Niger and SISMI. But the first draft, dated “10/11 September,” and each subsequent draft right through to the published dossier, used the term “Africa,” and none of the drafts identified the provider of the “intelligence.”

Also, Hersh’s account of the toning down is (unintentionally) misleading. He’s right that the statement was toned down, but he leaves out the most important point, which is what was toned down: The first draft twice stated that Iraq had recently “purchased” uranium from Africa. That was based on the Brits’ reading of the documentary-based summaries they received from the Italians in June 2002. (Again, that’s before the forgeries had, in Hersh’s account, even been forged.) The “purchased” statement is presumably what the CIA objected to, though the agency didn’t explain to the Brits why it objected.

I say “presumedly” because CIA director George Tenet, in his July 11 statement
(http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr07112003.html), indicates that the agency told the Brits that it didn’t have confidence even in the assertion that Iraq had recently sought, let alone bought, African uranium. I say “indicates” because Tenet likes to write sentences that are open to interpretation.

By the time of the next draft, September 16, the Brits had removed all references to a purchase, but it’s not clear what role, if any, the CIA warning played. It’s possible the CIA warning led the Brits to contact the Italians, but the Brits may have already done so, given that a third reference to uranium in the 10/11 September draft employs the toned-down language: “there is compelling evidence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Alastair Campbell, Blair’s director of communications and strategy, noticed that the “purchased” assertion had been abandoned. He commented on the change in a September 17 memo to John Scarlett, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which was responsible for compiling and writing the dossier. “Can we say he has secured uranium from Africa,” asked Campbell, underlining the word “secured” for emphasis and leaving off the question mark in his question.

Scarlett wrote back the next day with bad news: “on the uranium from Africa, the agreed interpretation of the intelligence, brokered with some difficulty with the originators and owners of the reporting) allows us only to say that he has ‘sought’ uranium from Africa.” (Single parenthesis in the original. To read the exchange, first click here: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence_260803.htm. The actual memos, in PDF format, are numbered CAB/11/0067 and CAB/11/0071. To follow the twists and turns in the dossier lingo, see my essay “African Uranium and the Scarlett Dossier” here: http://democraticunderground.com/articles/03/08/26_uranium.html. To read the different dossier drafts in PDF format, follow the links from here: http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence_dos.htm.)

So there you have it. The wording wasn’t brokered with the CIA. It wasn’t fine-tuned over tea by senior British spies. Rather, Italian intelligence, the “originators and owners of the reporting,” essentially said “We’ll let you say this, but you can’t say that.”

The Greatest Flaw of All

As was widely reported this summer (see, for example, this Washington Post story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17407-2003Jul19?language=printer ), in October 2002 the State Department obtained copies of the dubious documents and promptly distributed copies to various national-security bureaucracies. The department’s spokesman, Richard Boucher, said “they were shared widely within the U.S. government, with all the appropriate agencies.” One such agency, the CIA, reportedly declined initially to accept them, presumably because it had long ago discounted the allegations stemming from the unseen documents and thus had no reason to think they might be authentic. The CIA apparently didn’t obtain copies until February 2003.

The State Department had received its copies from the U.S. Embassy in Rome, which received them from an Italian journalist, who got them from, in Hersh’s words, “an Italian businessman and security consultant whom she [the journalist] believed to have once been connected to Italian intelligence.” Her editor had told her, Hersh reports, “to turn the documents over to the American Embassy for authentication.”

So far, so good. But here’s where Hersh’s story turns ludicrous: According to the former senior CIA officer (as paraphrased by Hersh), “the papers won widespread acceptance within the Administration.” But if that was the case, the subsequent behavior of administration hawks defies common sense and everything we know about them. Here they were in the fall of 2002, with the pro-war marketing campaign in full swing, and no one was doing a thing with those damning documents.

In late November — mere weeks after the documents had supposedly won “widespread acceptance” among the Bushies — the U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq and immediately undermined much of the U.S.-British case.

Inspectors visited a host of sites that supposedly were humming with proscribed WMD activity and found long-abandoned buildings at some sites and legitimate activity at others. This was widely reported in the media. For the Bushies, what better way to wipe the egg off their faces and nail the “cheat and retreat” Iraqis to the wall than by presenting to the world incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has been doing something it swears it hasn’t — seeking and buying uranium like it was going out of style?

For goodness sake, the Bushies had documents — official Iraqi and Nigerien documents — about uranium. Uranium! Sure, it’s not yet enriched to weapons-grade, but a little detail like that wouldn’t stand in the way of a frighteningly successful propaganda-and-scare campaign. If those documents had been widely or even narrowly perceived within the administration as genuine, the whole world would have seen those documents. Repeatedly. In every venue imaginable. Instead, the documents were kept under lock and key. Heck, they weren’t even leaked to the two most gullible or pretend-gullible reporters in the world: Jeffrey Goldberg of the New Yorker and Judith Miller of the New York Times, who along with their editors stood ready, willing and able to spread most any preposterous story that would build public support for war. (I just realized I may have offended the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward. He, too, would be near the top of the list for such a leak.)

Instead, U.S. officials very gingerly exploited the documents — or I should say the “information” in the documents. Rather than a concerted campaign we had occasional statements — a State Department “fact sheet,” a Powell speech overseas, a Condi Rice op ed in the “liberal” New York Times — none of which cited, let alone presented, supporting documentation in the form of official Iraqi and Nigerien papers. From what we know of the deliberations preceding Bush’s State of the Union address, not one single soul suggested that Bush buttress the uranium claim by citing or brandishing those documents.

If the documents had been believed in October, why weren’t the Pentagon, DIA, NSC, State Department and Cheney’s staff in a mad dash to see who would be first to present the documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency? Imagine the propaganda value in having the IAEA — widely respected and trusted throughout the world, particularly among populations most inclined to distrust Bush — evaluate and publicly confirm the authenticity of the documents. Instead, it took several months for the IAEA to pry the documents from the State Department, which sheepishly included a cover letter saying it really wasn’t all that sure about their authenticity.

What Hersh Needs To Do

It’s good that Hersh has scores of sources who work or formerly worked in the national-security bureaucracies. But Hersh needs a little bit more of the I.F. Stone approach — a willingness to put on his glasses and read, read, read. The more Hersh knows, the less likely he’ll be spun, whether by a deliberate spinner or an old coot who believes the fairy tale he’s passing along. One or the other seems to have happened here, though it bears repeating that most of the article is solid and contributes to our understanding of the cynical machinations of the Bush administration.

Hersh also needs a far better support team at the New Yorker. If he was unearthing the hidden truth about baseball, he could, prior to publication, run his findings by the very knowledgeable Roger Angell. But when it comes to foreign policy, covert operations and disinformation campaigns, who does Hersh turn to? Top dog David Remnick? Veteran editor Hendrick Hertzberg? Neither seems up to the
task.

I don’t know who reviews and edits Hersh’s copy, but it could well be the same staffers who reviewed and green-lighted Jeffrey Goldberg’s pre-war writings, which exhibited the very problem Hersh describes in the sane portions of his article: non-vetting of dubious sources who tell stories that they think their listener would love to hear. The dubious sources count on their listener to be too ignorant, too gullible, or too willing to knowingly participate in the hoodwinking of the American people to see the obvious holes and ask the obvious questions.

So my advice to Hersh is to get a new pair of reading glasses, retract those portions of the article that require retraction, tell the New Yorker publisher to hire competent vetters and editors, and get back to doing what you generally do so well: exposing the seamier aspects of U.S. government actions and policies.



Dennis Hans is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, National Post (Canada) and online at TomPaine.com, Slate and The Black World Today (tbwt.com), among other outlets. He has taught courses in mass communications and American foreign policy at the University of South Florida-St. Petersburg. Dennis is a contributing writer for Liberal Slant and can be reached at HANS_D@popmail.firn.edu



You can read his stunning essay “Lying Us Into War: Exposing Bush and His ‘Techniques of Deceit’” — published several weeks before the start of the recent war — at http://www.yourmailinglistprovider.com/pubarchive.php?haney+1557



Find more articles by Dennis Hans in the Liberal Slant Archives
23 posted on 02/14/2004 12:43:38 AM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Not only is Mr. Wilson tied to the Kerry Campaign .. but he is also tied to Moveon.org and a documentary he was in of theirs

Gee I wounder of Soros paid for that???

24 posted on 02/14/2004 12:47:56 AM PST by Mo1 (" Do you want a president who injects poison into his skull for vanity?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Here we go again. I heard Mr. Wilson say I do not know who sent me, I would not know them if I met them on the street.

I wonder .. does Mr. Wilson have a habit of going on trips asked by people he doesn't know?

25 posted on 02/14/2004 12:54:25 AM PST by Mo1 (" Do you want a president who injects poison into his skull for vanity?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Wilson is an idiot! Period.
26 posted on 02/14/2004 12:57:29 AM PST by Fledermaus (Be careful who you are posting to...I could be a Moby tweaking you with lies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kattracks

Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame
27 posted on 02/14/2004 1:03:15 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
and a fraud
28 posted on 02/14/2004 1:04:17 AM PST by Mo1 (" Do you want a president who injects poison into his skull for vanity?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
LOL

I think it is a liberal thing. We find that answer and a whole lot of questions will be answered.
29 posted on 02/14/2004 1:04:29 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
This is Mr Wilson's political contributions over the last several campaigns.

14 records found in 0.2031 seconds.
 

Search Criteria:
Donor name: wilson, joseph
Donor State: DC
Cycle(s) selected: 2004, 2002, 2000

Start another search

Sort by Name
Sort by Date
Sort by Amount

Total for this search: $10,750

Contributor

Occupation

Date

Amount

Recipient

WILSON, JOSEPH
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

JC WILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURES C

9/20/2002

$500

Blinken, Alan John

WILSON, JOSEPH
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

J C WILSON INT'L VEND

2/10/2000

$500

Rangel, Charles B

WILSON, JOSEPH C
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

JC WILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURES/BU

5/23/2003

$1,000

Kerry, John

WILSON, JOSEPH C
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

JC WILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURES/CE

9/4/2003

$1,000

Kerry, John

WILSON, JOSEPH C
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

J. C. WILSON INTL. VENTURES/STRATEG

3/26/1999

$2,000

Gore, Al

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

JC WILSON INT. VENTURE/FINANCE

2/13/2002

$1,000

HILLPAC

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

J C WILSON INTERNATIONAL

5/13/1999

$1,000

Kennedy, Edward M

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

SELF/CONSULTANT

9/25/2002

$250

Rahall, Nick

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

CONSULTANT

6/25/2000

$500

Royce, Ed

WILSON, JOSEPH C IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

JCWILSON INTERNATIONAL VENTURE

5/20/1999

$1,000

Bush, George W

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

SELF/CONSULTANT

6/12/2002

$500

Royce, Ed

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

J. C. WILSON INTL. VENTURES/STRATEG

4/22/1999

($1,000)

Gore, Al

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

SELF/CONSULTANT

6/28/2001

$500

Royce, Ed

WILSON, JOSEPH C MR IV
WASHINGTON,DC 20007

J. C. WILSON INTL. VENTURES/STRATEG

3/26/1999

$2,000

Gore, Al


30 posted on 02/14/2004 1:04:49 AM PST by Straight Vermonter (06/07/04 - 1000 days since 09/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry
" Don't leave it to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians," Mr. Wilson said. "

bttt - let's keep this handy when Kerry tries to get these votes. There are more of us than he thinks. He has NO IDEA how many people are working to make sure he is NOT elected. The same people who are going to make PASSION a hit for Mel Gibson will also be voting. It is NOT a antisemitic film. It is a film that blames each of us INDIVIDUALS (sinners) for the death of Jesus.

31 posted on 02/14/2004 1:11:13 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
"This article says that VPCheney sent him."

Cheney said that he didn't send him. Who do I believe? Mmmmmmm...okay, I believe Cheney!

32 posted on 02/14/2004 1:13:53 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
"Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America"
33 posted on 02/14/2004 1:19:03 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
These people don't care what they do to our country as long as they win an election!!! They keep bringing up how many of our soldiers die everyday but everything they do and say is putting them in harm's way. They could care less about them as long as they win an election and power they lost during the Clinton years. They still don't get it. They are making me sick of them every time they open their mouths. It only makes me more determined to work harder to see that they will never be in power again. They are really a sick bunch of people.
34 posted on 02/14/2004 1:26:00 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
"I’ll also grant that it is widely assumed, but not proved, that Italian intelligence had physical possession in 2001 and 2002 of the documents the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would expose as forgeries in March 2003."

Don't you think it's rather interesting that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger (Jan. of 2002) coicides with the Italian's alleged possession of these documents. Maybe Mr. Wilson was brewing more than just green tea during his Niger visit. Do you by chance know who that four-star General was who preceded Wilson on the Niger investigation?

35 posted on 02/14/2004 1:27:21 AM PST by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Shortly after the Wilson story broke last fall, Plame's immediate superior resigned suddenly and unexpectedly.

The smart money is that he made the decision to send Wilson in conjuction with Plame, probably to specifically damage the President and the case for the war. At the time Wilson was already a vocal war opponent and had close ties to Democrat party.

His story never made it to the VP, or even upper levels in the CIA because they didn't think he had made anything approaching a reasonably competent investigation, as he basically admitted himself.

Oh, and though the press refuses to mention it, Wilson works for a Saudi front organization. I wrote up an article about it on FR a while back. Wilson even lists his wife's name on their website.

As for Ritter, about the time of his Iraq about he face he was arrested for trying to have sex with a minor. Shortly after his about face, he ended up on the payroll of Saddam Hussein. I think the cause of his...change of heart...is rather obvious.
36 posted on 02/14/2004 1:27:41 AM PST by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
Win Without War


http://www.winwithoutwarus.org/
37 posted on 02/14/2004 1:28:56 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
I like WIN WITHOUT WILSON better.
38 posted on 02/14/2004 1:31:30 AM PST by mass55th
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Wilson, wife have tight ties to Democrats


By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man accusing the White House of a vendetta against him and his wife, is an ex-diplomat turned Democratic partisan.
President Bush, he wrote in an article in the far-left Nation magazine that was published before the Iraq war began, is not interested in democracy in the Middle East but "this new American imperialism."
"The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our world view are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme."
Like Mr. Bush, he said Saddam Hussein's forces possessed weapons of mass destruction.
"They would use a biological weapon in a battle that we might have," he told ABC in November about Saddam's counterattack. He now criticizes Mr. Bush for relying on the same intelligence. No such weapons have been found, but the search goes on.
His wife is Valerie Plame Wilson, who works for the CIA's directorate of operations, a clandestine service. Her name and spy job, revealed in syndicated columnist Robert Novak's column in July, has become a Democratic campaign issue and triggered a Justice Department investigation of who at the White House leaked that fact, if anyone at the White House did. Federal law prohibits government officials from identifying clandestine CIA employees publicly; it does not prohibit journalists from publishing such information.
Mr. Novak yesterday detailed in his syndicated column the history of how the story came about. "I did not receive a planned leak," he wrote. "Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret."
The White House yesterday continued to deny its people were responsible for the leak and said it is cooperating fully with the Justice Department.
"There has been no specific information that has come to our attention to suggest — beyond media reports — to suggest that someone in the White House was involved in leaking classified information," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Mr. Wilson told The Washington Post he and his wife are already discussing who will play them in a movie.
He contributed to Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign and is aiding Democratic candidates. Yesterday, Mr. Wilson, a lover of the limelight, was to brief the House Democratic Caucus. But Democrats called off the session for fear they would make the investigation a partisan affair, which Republicans say it already is.
"My political leanings are left of center," Mr. Wilson said on C-SPAN this week.
A person in Mr. Wilson's office yesterday told a reporter that he was in the midst of a press interview, that his voice mail was full, so "call back later."
Mr. Wilson now works at the Middle East Institute as a scholar and frequent Bush critic. He also runs JC Wilson International Ventures. A Senate Republican staffer jokes that he is already on the short list for secretary of state, no matter who the Democratic nominee is.
There was a time when the Bush family thought highly of him. As charge d'affaires at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the buildup to the 1991 Gulf war, he acted heroically to protect American citizens and keep Saddam's thugs at bay. The first President Bush rewarded the cigar-chomping Wilson with his first ambassadorship: the tiny African country of Gabon.
During the 1990 crisis leading up the Gulf war, he told the Los Angeles Times: "This is what I spent all those years clinging to the vines of small African countries learning, studying, preparing and waiting for. I've always dreamed of covering a war as a diplomat, and now that I'm here in the middle of it, it's absolutely fascinating."
Mr. Wilson joined President Clinton's National Security Council staff as an African specialist, then retired in 1998. He never reclaimed the national prominence of the Gulf war until his antiwar campaign earlier this year.
This prompted columnist Novak to try to answer the question of why the CIA would pick an ardent Bush knocker as the man to travel to Niger to investigate whether Iraq attempted to buy yellowcake uranium for a nuclear weapons program. The issue of weapons of mass destruction was so central to Mr. Bush's rationale for war that it strikes Republicans as odd that an administration critic would be sent on such a pivotal mission. A CIA spokesman declined to comment.
Mr. Novak wrote that Mrs. Wilson, as a CIA weapons expert, made the recommendation.
While that is in dispute, there is no argument that Mr. Wilson returned from Africa in 2002 and told the CIA that, based on his interviews with Niger officials, he doubted the uranium contact took place.
Mr. Bush still included the charge in his State of the Union address, citing British, not U.S., intelligence. After the war, an irked Mr. Wilson went public by disclosing his secret mission and his findings.
Without much proof, he later named Mr. Novak's leaker as White House political adviser Karl Rove — a charge sure to bring even more media attention. He backed off, then raised the issue again by telling The Post that an unnamed reporter told him that Mr. Rove once said, "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game." The White House calls the accusation "ridiculous."
The 40-year-old Mrs. Wilson is a member of the CIA's clandestine service. As such, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a federal crime for a government official to reveal her identity publicly.
After her name appeared in Mr. Novak's column, the CIA was obligated under the law to request an investigation by the Justice Department. In late July, it sent what is called a "crime report" to Justice on the possible violation of federal criminal law concerning an unauthorized disclosure — in this case Mrs. Wilson's name and occupation.
The CIA sends about 50 such referrals per year. Few, if any, such probes ever identify the leaker in a way that results in public criminal charges. The Wilson referral was sent by the CIA's general counsel, not by agency Director George J. Tenet.
The CIA follows up such referrals with a second letter to Justice answering 11 standard questions, such as what damage was none to national security and who in government knew of the information. The CIA sent this letter in mid-September.
Some Democrats in Congress, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, called for a criminal probe soon after the Novak column. But the story only grew legs — it did not get picked up by other newspapers or magazines — when someone leaked the news of the CIA referral to the Justice Department last week.
Mrs. Wilson, who has worked overseas, is now assigned to CIA headquarters at Langley as an undercover officer working on issues related to weapons of mass destruction. Her husband says the Bush administration leaked her name as retaliation for his Iraq war criticisms.
Days after he wrote about his secret mission to Niger and his findings, in an op-ed commentary in the New York Times, the Novak column appeared.
Mr. Wilson's official biography at the Middle East Institute in Washington lists Valerie Plame, but does not provide her occupation.


http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:g-I__j7F0uYJ:www.washtimes.com/national/20031002-122228-5129r.htm+JC+WILSON+INTERNATIONAL+VENTURES&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

39 posted on 02/14/2004 1:34:40 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, claims someone at the White House sought to destroy his wife's career because of the report he filed after his mission to Africa in 2002. Wilson disputed the administration's statements about Saddam Hussein's efforts to buy uranium from Niger to advance his WMD programs.

The Washington Post cites an unnamed source who says, "The CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets." They point to a memo referenced in a Talon News interview of Wilson that suggests his wife was instrumental in his selection for the fact-finding trip to Africa.

Talon News was the only service identified by the Washington Post as having knowledge of the memo's existence. The newspaper goes on to say that CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the document purportedly written by a State Department official who works for the Bureau of Intelligence and Research.

Jeff Gannon, the White House correspondent and Washington Bureau Chief for Talon News declined to reveal whether he had seen the memo or had its contents described to him.

While he would not disclose his source, Gannon said, "I will tell you that the information did not come from inside the administration."

"For something that is supposed to be classified, it seems that this document is easily accessible," Gannon added. "Washington is leaking like a cheap umbrella. Just look at what's happening over on Capitol Hill."

Gannon was referring to private Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committee memos that have been leaked to various media outlets in the last few months.

Gannon's exclusive interview with Wilson focused on the many unanswered questions about the "outing" of his wife.

Gannon points out that other possibilities exist which might explain how Plame's name was revealed without the malice that Wilson believes was retribution for his decision to go public with criticism of the White House.

"When Bob Novak asked why a known partisan like Wilson would be sent on a critical mission to help the administration build its case to go to war with Iraq, the answer might have been that his wife got him the job, not realizing her identity was classified," Gannon said. "It's not as if nepotism is unheard of in Washington."

The Talon News reporter added, "Some people out there see a clandestine war going on between the White House and the CIA. It is generally perceived that a substantial amount of blame for intelligence failures that otherwise might have prevented the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 has been laid at the agency's doorstep by the administration. They suggest the agency is fighting back with an allegation of a wrongdoing in the Plame matter."




http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:BA1EL-mDr4EJ:209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1049592/posts+Plame

40 posted on 02/14/2004 1:40:56 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Well Ritter's sex arrest was strange, cause he should have been given the public label of "sex offender". The guy supposedly did it two times and not a day in jail and no press.

I am not saying he did not do what is claimed. I just do not believe that is the whole story. Mainly because of how secret the whole thing was until someone leaked it. That is just not typical for "sex offenders". Except for liberal elected officials, bjclinton etc....

Because of vagueness of that whole thing and not being given the label of "sex offender" allowed him to keep credibilty in some circles. That just does not add up.

Yes I believe he was turned, maybe even set up.

Because of the Ritter story and his unexplained turn, "Joe Wilson's" own words made him suspect in my mind. Yes I remember his website, and wife's name on it. Sure looks like a cover for someone.

I would like the whole story but not holding my breath it will come out.
41 posted on 02/14/2004 1:42:20 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kcvl; All
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/994666/posts
--

So we all know Joe Wilson is a former Ambassador. We all, at least here at Free Republic, know he is a left wing war opponent with ties to a number of high ranking Democrats.

Some people in reference to the public revelation of his wife's name have pointed out that she is mentioned in his biography for the Middle East Institute.

http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html

I think a far more important point is being missed here in reference to the MEI, however. They are, at least in part, a Saudi Arabian funded front group;

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:IRKdQ1Ptv7sJ:www.iht.com/articles/56717.htm+%22Middle+East+Institute%22+saudi+arabia+espionage&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The institute also receives funds from Saudi Arabia, which opposes the INC specifically and Bush's approach to regime change in Iraq in general.

The Saudis, for their part, have even admitted to trying to keep former diplomats on their payroll to keep said officials' "friendship"

http://www.la.utexas.edu/chenry/oil/press02/Oil%20for%20Security%20Fueled%20Close%20Ties%20(washingtonpost_com).htm

Walker, the former assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, is president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, which promotes understanding with the Arab world. Its board chairman is former senator Wyche Fowler, ambassador to Riyadh in the second Clinton administration. Saudi contributions covered $200,000 of the institute's $1.5 million budget last year, Walker said.

[Saudia Arabian Prince] Bandar has told associates that he makes a point of staying close to officials who have worked with Saudi Arabia after they leave government service. "If the reputation then builds that the Saudis take care of friends when they leave office," Bandar once observed, according to a knowledgeable source, "you'd be surprised how much better friends you have who are just coming into office."

I think with this information it is high time to see what role the Saudis have played in this whole affair. And it is time for the media to consider the far bigger scandal here.

There have been numerous demands outside of beltway and the mainstream media for just how the seemingly unqualified diplomat was chosen for an important investigative mission. Some have windered what role his wife played exactly in choosing Wilson.

The far more important question now before us, though, is what if any role a foreign government may have played in choosing Wilson, or in coloring Wilson flawed investigation. Certainly, the choice and results of this trip could not have worked out better for the government of Saudi Arabia.

42 posted on 02/14/2004 1:46:39 AM PST by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Just FYI for those interested in Plamegate. From an on-line discussion with WPost rumor reporter Richard Leiby on Friday afternoon:

Excerpt

"Socialite in Recovery: Just to give us a flavor of your town, and off the top of your head -- what were the top three 'hot ticket' parties/events during the past week in D.C.?

"Richard Leiby: Dear Socialite. Okay, let's a assume for a moment that I if get invited, it's a 'hot ticket.' So here's how the week went for Quidnunc:

"1. Monday. Attended quiet private dinner that included the Ambassador of Jordan, his wife, some important charitable types, a couple media people, and Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson."

Excerpt
43 posted on 02/14/2004 6:05:10 AM PST by Gothmog (The 2004 election won't be about what one did in the military, but on how one would use it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
The article states that his wife, "originally proposed him for the Niger mission." Now the person inside the CIA who then authorized the mission should be fired.

I have never understood the Bush (father and son) love affair with Tenet. Shortly after 9/11 Rudi Giuliani was rumored to be ready to lead the CIA. Had the change been made, the Bush administration would be far better served than it is now.
44 posted on 02/14/2004 6:17:22 AM PST by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: mass55th
> Don't you think it's rather interesting that Joe Wilson's trip to Niger (Jan. of 2002) coicides with the Italian's alleged possession of these documents.


Good observation. Any other Italian angles to this that have come up?

> Maybe Mr. Wilson was brewing more than just green tea during his Niger visit. Do you by chance know who that four-star General was who preceded Wilson on the Niger investigation?

Just found it: Carlton W. Fulford, Jr.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002551/2003/07/15.html

It's Not Just Joe Wilson's Word Anymore


Four-star general Carlton W. Fulford, Jr., went to Niger to check up on the country's uranium supply. And guess what? "Fulford's impressions, while not conclusive, were similar to those of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who traveled to Niger for the CIA in February 2002 to interview Niger officials about the uranium claim and came away convinced it was not true."

I wonder if he's the same 4-star general referenced here?

http://www.youvebeenleft.com/journal.html

Novak said his sources were 2 members of the administration. Doesn't this REEK of Karl Rove's underhanded revenge tactics? Well, the CIA isn't playing Bush's little game and is looking for an investigation of the White House. Finally, maybe we can get some of these people under oath... so they'll either be forced to TELL THE TRUTH, or they'll LIE and we can lock them up. I bet an investigation will turn up more than just blow jobs in the Oval Office.

# posted by max : 1:15 PM
Even a FOUR STAR GENERAL is critical of Bush's Iraq "plan".

There's an embedded link there, but unfortunately it leads nowhere. At any rate, here's some more on Fulford:

http://www.usmc.mil/genbios2.nsf/0/9d5b147b7e874ef98525680b000df4d7?OpenDocument&Click=

United States Marine Corps (Ret.)

General
Carlton W. Fulford Jr.
Deputy Commander in Chief, United States European Command





General Fulford received his commission in June 1966, following graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy. He also holds an M.S. degree from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (1973). Following completion of The Basic School, Quantico, Va., and the Vietnamese Language School, he was assigned as a platoon commander with Company D, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines in the Republic of Vietnam. He was promoted to first lieutenant in October 1967, and subsequently reassigned as Commanding Officer, Company F, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines until his return from Vietnam
in June 1968.

His other FMF assignments include: Commanding Officer, Company E, 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines (1971-1972); Executive Officer, 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines (1979-1980); G-3 Training Officer for the 2nd Marine Division (1980-1981); Commanding Officer, 1st Battalion, 8th Marines (1981-1982); Assistant Chief of Staff G-3 for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade (1987-1989); Commanding Officer, 7th Marines (1989-1991); Commanding Officer,Task Force Ripper during Operation Desert Shield and Desert Storm; Commanding General,4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade (1991-1992), Commanding General, III Marine Expeditionary Force (1994-1995), and Commanding General,I Marine Expeditionary Force (1996-1998); Commander,U.S. Marine Corps Forces Pacific /Commanding General, Fleet Marine Force, Pacific/Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Bases, Pacific headquartered at Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii (1998-1999).

His non-FMF assignments include: Company Commander, Naval Academy Preparatory School (1968-1969); Management Engineer, MCAS Yuma, Ariz.(1973-1976); Economics Instructor, U.S. Naval Academy (1977-1978); Branch Head, Training Department, HQMC (1982-1984); Strategy Planner, Forces and Strategy Branch, U.S. Pacific Command (1985-1987); Commanding General, Landing Force Training Command, Atlantic (1991-1992); Director, Training and Education Division, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (1992-1994); Commanding General Marine Corps Bases, Japan (1994-1995); Vice Director, The Joint Staff (1995-1996); Director, The Joint Staff (1999-2000); and Deputy Commander in Chief, United States European Command (2000-2002).

In addition to The Basic School, General Fulford graduated from the Infantry Officers Advanced Course; Command and Staff College; and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.

His personal decorations include: the Defense Distinguished Service Medal with bronze oak leaf cluster in lieu of a second award, Silver Star Medal; Legion of Merit with Combat "V" and gold star in lieu of a second award; Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V"; Purple Heart Medal with gold star in lieu of a second award; Joint Service Commendation Medal; Meritorious Service Medal; Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal; Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with gold star in lieu of a second award; Combat Action Ribbon with gold star in lieu of a second award; and the Presidential Unit Citation.

(Updated 23 January 2003, HQMC)

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May1996/b052896_bt308-96.html

May 28, 1996

IMMEDIATE RELEASE




GENERAL OFFICER ANNOUNCEMENT
Secretary of Defense William J. Perry announced today that the President has nominated Major General Carlton W. Fulford, Jr., United States Marine Corps, for appointment to the grade of lieutenant general and assignment as Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force. Since June 1995, he has served as the Vice Director, Joint Staff.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May1999/b05141999_bt236-99.html

May 14, 1999

GENERAL OFFICER ANNOUNCEMENT
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen announced today that the President has nominated Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr., for reappointment to the grade of lieutenant general with assignment as the director, Joint Staff. Fulford is currently serving as the commander, U.S. Marine Forces Pacific; commanding general, Fleet Marine Forces Pacific and commander, Marine Corps bases Pacific.

http://www.africanfront.com/2003-b.php

Almost a year ago, in July 2002, another four-star US General, Carlton Fulford, Deputy Commander of the United States European Command, made a controversial visit to Sao Tome. Following the visit Fulford said that the US would be training the armed forces of Soa Tome. Later the Pentagon played-down his remarks and their implications. However, the new president of Sao Tome, Fradique de Menezes made capital of the fact that General Carlton Fulford had proposed to turn Sao Tome into a US naval base.


http://www.usembkigali.net/pas/press/2002/oct_Gen.html

OCTOBER 28, 2002


Travel of General Carlton Fulford, Deputy Commander in Chief. U.S. European Command


General Carlton Fulford, Deputy Commander in Chief of the U.S. European Command, will be visiting the Great Lakes region and South Africa between October 27-31.


General Fulford will have meetings with heads of state and senior defense representatives in Dar-Es-Salaam and Dodoma, Tanzania; Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo; Kampala, Uganda; Kigali, Rwanda; Bujumbura, Burundi; and Pretoria, South Africa.


During this trip, General Fulford will be assessing regional security relationships in light of the recent withdrawal of foreign forces from the Democratic Republic of Congo. He will also raise U.S. concerns about the Burundi cease-fire negotiations and reassure the regional states of U.S. support for efforts to bring peace to Burundi.

http://www.allaboutliberia.com/june2003/230628n1.htm

With War Crimes Charges Removed:
Taylor Might Yield Power
-EX US Marine General
By T. Lawrence Randall
June 28, 2003


An Ex US Marine General says President Charles Taylor might step down when pressed by West African leaders and guarantee immunity from prosecution for the war crimes charges he faces.

Retired US General Carlton Fulford, a recently retired former deputy commander of US European Command, told The Boston Globe it was unlikely that the Liberian President could step down with war crimes charges looming.

Also see:

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/marine/marn_ref/n06en007/hearing1.htm

armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/1999/990421cf.pdf
45 posted on 02/14/2004 9:22:02 AM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
> Oh, and though the press refuses to mention it, Wilson works for a Saudi front organization. I wrote up an article about it on FR a while back. Wilson even lists his wife's name on their website.

I'd like to read that. Do you have the link/title?
46 posted on 02/14/2004 10:37:13 AM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
Doh!--should've scrolled farther before my last post :) Your article is the one in Post #42, right? Interesting. . .
47 posted on 02/14/2004 10:45:09 AM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
I read this a while back but I'm just now connecting it with what we're discussing here:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/10/11/230706.shtml

"The C.I.A. suspected that Aldrich Ames had given Mrs. Wilson's name (along with those of other spies) to the Russians before his espionage arrest in 1994," revealed the New York Times on Saturday.

In a column revealing the critical information for the first time since the Leakgate scandal exploded two weeks ago, Times columnist Nicholas Kristof explained that the Ames tip compromised Valerie Plame's undercover secrecy so thoroughly that "she was brought back to Washington for safety reasons."

At the time, he noted, Mrs. Wilson "was already in transition away from undercover work to management, and to liaison roles with other intelligence agencies. So this year, even before she was outed, she was moving away from 'noc' – which means non-official cover."

48 posted on 02/14/2004 11:02:46 AM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: gaspar
Got to get back to you about the "sending" of "Mr. Wilson".

I have read he doesn't know who sent him, VP Cheney sent him, his wife sent him. However, it is what "Mr. Wilson" did upon his return, no report submitted to VP Cheney or CIA or WIFE but NYTimes.

So maybe the NYTimes sent him.

49 posted on 02/14/2004 11:14:41 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
> So maybe the NYTimes sent him.

If so, that might connect with the Seymour Hersh question I raise above, as well as Jayson Blair. When Hersh was at the "Times" he cultivated a lot of contacts in the CIA, one of which, Bill Colby, played a role in dismantling the Counterintelligence department by removing James Angleton. Colby was part of a faction in the CIA that wanted to move the Agency away from Angelton's anti-Communist emphasis towards a more "liberal" approach in keeping with the new detente policy and the post-60s spirit of "diversity". To accomplish this he would leak info to Hersh about sensitive CIA operations, then use the resulting controversy as a pretext to replace Angleton's staff with his own personnel. (There's some info on this in Mark Riebling, "Wedge", Chapter 16.) As I'm working through this I'm starting to suspect some of Hersh's allies at the NYT are using Plame and Wilson for similar purposes.
50 posted on 02/14/2004 12:20:28 PM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson