Posted on 07/17/2004 4:30:30 PM PDT by Shermy
And you done good.
However,
1) Summation is; Wilson is a liar, a big far liar, not as big as Michael Moore, but a big...etc.
2) Just try getting quoted anywhere other than FR [FOX might plagiarize, go ahead and let 'em do it]. And,
3) The 48+/- percent who supported Wilson then, support Wilson now, and will support Wilson tomorrow.
Thanks, you did a lot more than I'd have attempted.
No better proven than by this:
"I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney's original question that led to my trip."
"Those documents", of course, being the "forged documents" which purportedly discredited any uranium deal between Niger and Iraq.
However, we know "those documents" had nothing to do with Bush's assertion in the SOTU -- he specifically cited "British intelligence".
And, we know "those documents" couldn't have "sparked" Cheney's original request that led to Wilson's trip -- because nobody knew they existed in March, 2002. They didn't come to light until that summer, as I recall.
There is an almost juvenile insistence, by Wilson and the Democrats, to continue to cite the "forged documents" even though we now know they played no role in any critical decision. They keep clinging to this "stalking horse" because, as the truth becomes known, they have no leg left to stand on.
Which leads me to believe that the "forged documents" were created as "disinformation" in the first place -- in order to be discredited and, thus, mask any transaction(s) which might really be taking place.
In fact, I now wonder if the Democrat faction in the CIA may have created and planted them with the Italians...
We need to keep Wilson talking. Thanks to his bigmouth syndrome, we learned his 1999 trip had something to do with uranium, too. Why would the Clinton administration have suspected such a thing, I wonder...???
The more he talks, the less credibility he has, the more he damages the Kerry foreign policy.
Helluva job, Shermy. Helluva job!
ROFL!
(NOTE: for those who haven't been following this story all that closely, with the very first reports in Novak's column it was clear there was something very fishy going on ~ some of us even then suspected purposeful sabotage of our intelligence apparatus. And, as it turns out, that's what it was ~ and apparantly under the direction of the very same forces who are now foisting John Kerry off on the unsuspecting Democrats.)
Actually, he may be right..to a degree. The Senate Report is heavily redacted, but it does seem that 2 or 3 "reports" from a "foreign intelligence service", probably France, were partially or totally related to the forged documents. The forgeries themselves were only turned over to the U.S. in late 2002.
And reading between the lines, there's some tantalizing matters. The French only "initially" relied on the documents. And if the forgeries actually have wrong dates and names, this would not comport with the reports supposedly about them - which only have one date wrong.
The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and the West African state of Niger, were forgeries.
How would he know the British received the report? He's publicly criticized the Brits for not turning over there intelligence. (They might have more recently - there's big sections about it redacted in the Senate Report.) Also, this statment seems to say Wilson told the British newspaper that his memo revealed the documents were forgeries. How could he know that?
When he saw similar claims in Britain's dossier on Iraq last September, he even went as far as telling CIA officials that they needed to alert their British counterparts to his investigation. ...
I never read elsewhere that the September 2002 British Dossier spurred Joe Wilson to act. Only that the January 2003 SOTU speech did.
During eight days in Niger, he discovered it was impossible for Iraq to have been buying the quantities of uranium alleged. "My report was very unequivocal," he said. He also learnt that the signatures of officials vital to any transaction were missing from the documents. On his return, he was debriefed by the CIA.
Again, he couldn't have known about the forgery issue at that time, non?
SO WILSON WENT NIGER TO FIND OUT IF SADDAM PURCHASED URANIUM,
No. Wilson went to Niger because some individuals in the CIA, acting on their own initiative, arranged for him to go at the suggestion of his wife. What their real motives are is not known for certain, but it is presumed that he was sent to talk to some former officials in Niger to see if he could learn anything new to add to what reports the CIA had already obtained and what it had been given by other intelligence services, among them Italy and the UK, which indicated that Iraq was SEEKING to purchase uranium in Africa. It didn't matter if it had succeeded in buying uranium, the interest was in whether or not Iraq was still interested, still motivated to pursue a nuclear program. Obviously if it wasn't, it would not be seeking uranium much less buying it. Iraq claimed it quit its nuke program in its dossier- if it was seeking uranium then its claim to the UN is false, and is a violation justifying keeping sanctions in place.
It wasn't Wilson's job to analyze his info. It was his 'job' to make inquiries, not judgements. I put 'job' in quotes because he is not to our knowledge an employee of the CIA. His only current job description seems to be 'self employed' and "Kerry advisor.'
HE FOUND NOTHING TO PROVE SUCH ALLIGATIONS.
He wasn't trying to find evidence to prove Iraq bought uranium. He was sent to find out if Iraq TRIED to purchase uranium. There is a big difference between the two though apparently you don't see it. He did indeed find evidence of the latter- but chose to obscure his findings because he either knew very well what it meant and feared that others would come to the inevitable conclusion, or he wss a complete moron. It meant that Iraq had no intention of ending its quest for a nuclear weapon. He should know that, married as he is to a WMD expert.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S ATTACK DOGS WENT AFTER HIM.
There is no evidence to support that theory.
HE SHOULD HAVE LIED
He should not have lied. That's the problem with Wilson- he lies like an arthritic dog with only one leg. He lies even when he doesn't have to.
Wilson shouldn't have been selected to go to Niger in the first place. He should have declined to go to Niger because of his conflict of interest when asked. since he went anyway, he should have had the balls to put his name on his report and submit it on paper. He should have known that his intel on Niger was not all intel on Niger instead of assuming that HE was the first and last word on the matter. He should have known that others were better judges of his intel than he because others had access to more info on which to base a judgement. He should not have written an op ed full of BS designed to undermine not merely his own findings in Niger but also to undermine the position of the US and UK, to undermine our personnel, and to undermine others unknown who had done their jobs without fanfare. He should have kept the confidence of others intead of seeking face time and profit for himself. He should not have knowingly made accusations against those with whom he disagreed when he had no evidence, not one shred to support his claims.
He should not have permitted himself to be cast as a conservative when his record spoke otherwise.
AND SAID YES SADDAM PURCHASED ENOUGH URANIUM TO MAKE A THOUSAND BOMBS SO MAY BE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROMOTED TO SECRETARY OF STATE?
He would not have been promoted by this administration to Secretary of State in payment for a lie and you know it. He appears to be banking on getting a reward of some form from a wannabe President Kerry or some other individual or group in exchange for a series of lies.
tHIS WILSON AFFAIR IS TAKING TOO MUCH INC AS IT IS. THEY SHOULD GIVE IT A REST.
No, it should not be given a rest. Wilson is not only working for Kerry but he deserves exposure for his dishonesty and his motivations. He has some questions to answer for his other connections to Rock Creek Co. And he and his wife have things to answer for in regard to the exposure of the front company- unless she lied about her employer on an FEC form without a go-ahead from the CIA. She could have just written US Government down as her employer- why did she lie or why did she expose the front company if it was such a thing?
Those who selected and sent Wilson to Niger have some things to answer for. The Kerry campaign has some things to answer for, and the book publisher has some things to answer for, and the CIA has to answer for not investigating the Navy's report on Niger uranium in Benin.
the Navy's report on Niger uranium in Benin.
What's that about?
Want to put this Link here before I lose track of it:
Report on Prewar Iraq Intelligence
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
A PDF document , 500 + pages
When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rogue nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Secon, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should of appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The onlyh mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Miyaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the informatino was the (..redeacted..) intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from (..redacted..) intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report (..redacted..).Which leaves us with the question - who are Wilson's "CIA contacts" that gave him this information? And when did it happen?
See pages 59 and 68, right after this comment:
On November 22, 2002, during a meeting with State Department officials, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director for Nonproliferation said that France had information on an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger. He said athat no uranium had been shipped, but France believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger.
Watch for this expression to be used on tomorrow's talking head shows. The defense attorney style questioners will give him a chance to defend himself and lie in any way he wants.
Let me guess.
The lovely and gracious Ms. Valerie?
And when did it happen?
Another wild guess.
Within twelve hours after Ms. Valerie herself was briefed?
***************************
Ol' Joe protesteth far too much regarding Ms. Secret Agent's role in his hiring or regarding any "intelligence sharing" that may have gone on.
Yes and what the Heck was this game all about?
Since Kerry was on the Senate oversight committee maybe he felt that any information counter to the conclusion that Wilson was endeavoring to construct would be very harmful ??
It might also mean he had information direct from someone in the CIA that the rest of the committee did not have.
We're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Plame!
Well, his wife is a natural subject. And looking back at all his verbal dodges, is his purpose to create a plausible scenario that it wasn't his wife? I assume his wife was not permitted to tell him anything.
BTW, it could be other contacts. He was a member of the National Security Council for a brief period. He could be described as a "Senior Intelligence Official" - though not temporally accurate since 1998.
Ping.
"The lovely and gracious Ms. Valerie?"
My first guess, too. . .
.
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.