Posted on 07/17/2004 8:12:44 AM PDT by Gothmog
Let's see what Wilson and the wifey have to say UNDER OATH.
Wilson lies again. He just wrote to the Committee that she didn't attend the meeting and only escorted him there. How do you "avoid the appearance of conflict of interest" when your wife is the one introducing you to the individuals considering you for the trip? Why, if she wasn't recommending him for the position, was she even introducing him? Why was she even there?
Does Wilson actually believe that his wife's memo didn't have anything to do with his being considered for the job? Who the hell
Well of course none with logic would believe it!
Wilsons' letter, and with reference to his wife Palme (SECRET AGENT MAN!) not recomending him for the job, saying ...
"The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife, sent to her superiors that says, "My husband has good relations with 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." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] reports officer stated that "the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State Department intelligence and research officer stated that the "meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."
Lies indeed, I posted this on another FR thread about Wilson's 7/17/04 letter to the WPost complaining about their coverage:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1173199/posts?page=1
More Wilson lies. From Wilson's letter to the WPost:
"In fact, with 2-year-old twins at home, Valerie did not relish my absence for a two-week period. But she acquiesced because, in the zeal to be responsive to the legitimate concerns raised by the vice president, officials of her agency turned to a known functionary who had previously checked out uranium-related questions for them."
Yet, we know that Plame thought the request to check out the Niger uranium story was "crazy." How could she consider Cheney's request to be "legitimate" while at the same time saying the request was "crazy."
All this putz had to do was request the committe to provide him with the documents he was "confused" about before he made any statements to them. I'm sure he had a lawyer with him. Does anybody know who represents this jerk? His statement of "not being afforded" leads one to believe that he was denied the opportunity. He probably never even asked.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Wilson IV, DNC Headquarters
And the Nazis before them.
Thanks for suffering in order the post this ....I still cant read it though ....Its making me sick
I know you want to see Wilson prosecuted, so here is something I noticed from David Corn's defense of Wilson in The Nation, 7/16/04:
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1558
"What Wilson told his CIA contacts, what he told reporters, what he said in public--accurate or not--did not justify disclosing Valerie Wilson's identity. Nor did it justify the subsequent White House effort to encourage other reporters to pursue the Valerie Wilson story. The leak was thuggish and possibly felonious. And the Wilsons and others are waiting to see what comes from Fitzgerald's investigation. (NBC News reported recently that the probe had expanded to examine possible acts of perjury and lying to investigators.) There is no telling if the investigation will end with indictments or whitewashing. It has been a mostly leak-free probe, and even senior people at the Justice Department say they have no idea where Fitzgerald is heading--if anywhere."
Hopefully the expansion of the investigation into lying and perjury means the FBI is pursuing Wilson, but I think that's just wishful thinking.
INTREP - Wilsom and Plame and the Never-ending Blame Game
There was some careful crafting behind this letter. For example, his wife might not have attended the interview meeting (but as someone mentioned above, her introduction of him had an implicit endorsement), but he doesn't explain why he was at the meeting to begin with. It wasn't a show-and-tell meeting where analysts were told to bring in a secret agent and they would pick one! Obviously there was some "selling" of the idea to send Wilson beforehand.
Whole lotta parsing goin on. Somebody indict his sorry old white arse.
This just isn't enough. I want to hear about how Wilson became a paid Kerry stooge. When, in what capacity, and how much.
Freeper Eva on another Wilson thread this morning posted this link to a 2003 FR thread with a Boston Herald editorial describing the timing of Wilson's hiring by the Kerry campaign and his lies about Bush.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007776/posts
Some "correction". He has dug his hole and is burying himself.
Thanks---His "logic" continues to give me headaches.
LOL
Plus his representation that she was reluctant to have him gone for two weeks leaving her alone with two young children is not the portrait of a covert agent. Yet more evidence to add to the heap that Plame was not in that role at this time, at the very least.
(All evidence is that she was indeed undercover years ago but had long since moved onto other duties.)
Thanks for enduring Salon. Be sure to scrub your hard drive of viruses and spyware after visiting.
So now Wilson claims he never said in 30-someodd interviews that Bush lied? That should be easy enough to prove or disprove in a Lexis-Nexis search.
Does everyone forget that Bush sourced "British intelligence" before uttering the Niger claim in the SOTU address and that British intelligence has never, for a day, backtracked from that assessment?
Even if British intelligence was flat-out wrong (which it wasn't), Bush still did not lie. Nor was it an attempt to deceive Congress (to quote Wilson's charge). To say later that it didn't "rise to the level" of SOTU material only means it should have been better sourced or substantiated through American intelligence before coming out of the President's mouth in such an historic speech, not whether the statement was false. It wasn't adequately sourced for a major presidential speech. There is no admission of falsehood, as Mr. Wilson would like to portray.
If I were generous, I would say that Wilson severely misunderstood Washington's interpretation of his comments but I doubt I have need to be so sporting.
Wilson's claim is now refuted from both shores and it's up to Republicans to make this case known to the American people who were sold 30-someodd interviews of intentional deceit on the part of Mr. Wilson.
Wilson likes to intertwine the forgeries with his trip when his trip was February 2002 and the forgeries don't appear on the scene until October 2002.
You're right--his wording "not afforded" was stated to convey a picture of Joe Wilson under a glaring light being interrogated and denied access to documents to refresh his memory. Of course he didn't need them so didn't ask for them, and the committee was pointing out that he deliberatly left false impressions about the matter in his press interviews.
He is trying to justify referring to them in a deceptive fashion as saying he is merely buttressing his "findings" (ha) with the forged document that appeared later, but the fact remains--he tries to leave a false impression.
Oh, I hope and pray he and his wife are held to account for this outrageous treachery.
I cannot believe that there would be nepotism or conflict of interest within the gubmint. Say it ain't so!
Thank you very much for highlighting Corn's comments.
I still say keep hope alive. Remember, if it was easily determined Plame wasn't undercover and hadn't been for awhile, then it seems reasonable that the investigation is going in a different direction, since a crime hadn't been committed regarding her name being given out.
(I can't resist adding that despite Corn's assertion that the "leak" was thuggish, all available evidence to date is her role in his trip was disclosed by way of justification and/or explanation, not retaliation.)
I shouldn't get my hopes up too high, but I do have hope.
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.