JOE WILSON’S CREATIVE FICTIONOn CNN, Wilson Continues To Spin
False Tales With “Literary Flair”
________________________________________________
Posted on 07/18/2004 3:38:32 PM PDT by RWR8189
JOE WILSON’S CREATIVE FICTION
On CNN, Wilson Continues To Spin
False Tales With “Literary Flair”
________________________________________________
JOE WILSON: “Well, I don't know. Obviously, there's been this orchestrated campaign, this smear campaign. I happen to think that it's because the RNC, the Republican National Committee's been involved in this in a big way …” CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “But they weren't involved in the Senate Intelligence Committee report.” WILSON: “No, they weren't.” (CNN’s “Lade Edition,” 7/18/04)
»»»»
WILSON’S FALSE CLAIM
Wilson Claims His Wife Did Not Suggest He Travel To Niger To Investigate Reports Of Uranium Deal; Instead, Wilson Claims It Came Out Of Meeting With CIA To Discuss Report. CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. … Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?” JOE WILSON: “No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq.” (CNN’s “Lade Edition,” 7/18/04)
THE FACTS
In Fact, Senate Intelligence Committee Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson’s Wife Proposed Him For Trip. “Some [CIA Counterproliferation Division, or CPD,] officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’ and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, ‘my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.’” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
And Trip To Niger Did Not Come Out Of Meeting With CIA But Was The Purpose Of The Meeting To Begin With. “On February 19, 2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador [Wilson], intelligence analysts from both the CIA and [State Dept. Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR], and several individuals from the [CIA Directorate of Operations’] Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR analyst’s notes indicate 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.’ The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
»»»»
WILSON’S FALSE CLAIM
Wilson Claims CIA Thought To Ask Him To Make Trip Because He Had Previously Made Trip For Them In 1999, Not Because Of His Wife’s Suggestion. CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “Who first raised your name, then, based on what you know? Who came up with the idea to send you there?” JOE WILSON: “The CIA knew my name from a trip, and it's in the report, that I had taken in 1999 related to uranium activities but not related to Iraq. I had served for 23 years in government including as Bill Clinton's Senior Director for African Affairs at the National Security Council. I had done a lot of work with the Niger government during a period punctuated by a military coup and a subsequent assassination of a president. So I knew all the people there.” (CNN’s “Lade Edition,” 7/18/04)
THE FACTS
In Fact, His Wife Suggested Him For 1999 Trip As Well. “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf … The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region …” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
»»»»
WILSON’S FALSE CLAIM
Wilson Claims It’s “Wrong” To Say He Misspoke To Washington Post Reporter. CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “At issue here, an article in The Washington Post in which you were the source, you acknowledged being the source, you spoke of forged documents long before anyone ever knew that there were forged documents.” JOE WILSON: “No, that's wrong. First of all, I was one of several sources. Secondly, that article appeared in June, and in fact on March 7th of that year Dr. El Baradei had described to the U.N. that these documents were forgeries. In addition to that, on March 24th, I think, for the March 30th issue of New Yorker, Seymour Hersh wrote a long article about it …” (CNN’s “Lade Edition,” 7/18/04)
THE FACTS
In Fact, Washington Post Story Makes Clear Wilson Is The Source And That He Claimed To Have Seen Forged Documents Before Making Trip. “During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents. After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong,’ the former U.S. government official said.” (Walter Pincus, “CIA Did Not Share Doubt On Iraq Data,” The Washington Post, 6/12/03)
But Forged Documents Did Not Come To Light Until Eight Months After Wilson’s Trip. “On February 26, 2002, the former ambassador [Wilson] arrived in Niger. … [T]here were no ‘documents’ circulating in the [Intelligence Community] at the time of the former ambassador’s trip, only intelligence reports from [foreign] intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium. … On October 9 2002, an Italian journalist from the magazine Panorama provided U.S. Embassy Rome with copies of documents pertaining to the aleeged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
And Wilson’s Report Of His Trip Actually Reinforced Previous Intelligence For Some Analysts. “[CIA’s Deputy Chief of Counterproliferation Division] said he judged that the most important fact in [Wilson’s] report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” (Select Committee On Intelligence, “Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate, 7/7/04)
bump
The democrat political machine is based on this ahole's lies. Even with documented proof, he can only continue to lie to toe the party line. How pathetic.
Agree with you, and the whole thing stinks as much as Whitewater did.
Wilson forged the documents to hide the fact that he was the conduit for the uranium to leave Niger and arrive in Iraq?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/18/le.00.html
CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER
Interview With King Abdullah of Jordan; Interview With Joseph Wilson; Interview With Carmen bin Ladin
Aired July 18, 2004 - 12:00 ET
Ok, fine! Is Baradei's "desciption" of the FORGE documents on public record, and what about that New Yorker article?
Can someone find it, I've looked and I can't.
The RNC has a second release on this. The FR thread commenting on it is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1173837/posts?page=1
I pointed this out on the Live Sunday Talk Show Thread. Pity Wolf Blitzer isn't as aware of the facts as an all-American housewife. But I will say Blitzer was pretty good in this interview.
I am most pleased to see the RNC hammering Wilson's sleight of hand over the forged document issue. There are several interviews from Wilson when he first came on the scene (both anonymously before his NY Times op-ed and after) where he states he was sent to Niger in Feb. 2002 because the VP had seen this document that he wanted investigated. The fact is, the document Wilson is referring to was not in U.S. hands until October of that year.
This all raises the intriguing question of what does Wilson know about the forgery and when did he know it?
I haven't dared to think that big, but impossible? No, sad to say, it is very possible that was the reason the Wilsons wanted to give Wilson cover for a trip to Niger, both in 1999 and 2002. What was he REALLY doing over there?
Joe Wilson cites Seymour Hersh. Just perfect.
:)
Just kidding...but it gives me heart that the RNC is already all over the Blitzer-Wilson interview. I'll watch Blitzer this afternoon to see if he has Ed Gillespie on to respond ON CAMERA, IN FRONT OF GOD AND VOTERS, to his Sunday "chat" with Wilson.
What I found laughable from the interview...when Blitzer told Wilson about the British Butler Report, which confirms Britain too concluded Iraq had tried to purchase Niger yellow cake, Wilson evaded answering by shrugging off the question with, "I haven't seen it". Reminded me of Butterfly McQueen..."I don't know nutin bout no British Butler".
From yesterday's transcript:
. "BLITZER: Is there anything you want to take back right now? Any statements you made based on current information that if you had had, you would have phrased differently?
WILSON: Well, I'll tell you, I'm surprised one of the things that I've always said is that I believe the vice president himself would have been briefed on this. And in fact, on March 5th, I believe...
BLITZER: Because the report says he was never briefed on...
WILSON: That's correct. On March 5, apparently he asked for an update. My own report on this was circulated a couple of days later. But he was never specifically briefed on it.
BLITZER: And when you said he was, that was based on your previous government experience?
WILSON: Well, I have always said that the way the government works -- and I've always tried to articulate, separate out the difference between the vice president himself and the office of the vice president -- but I did believe, and I think I have said, that I believe that he was briefed. And frankly, I'm surprised that he wasn't."
Maddening isn't it? The BIGGEST lie Wilson told, the lie that formed the premise for his accusation against Bush's 16 words in the State of the Union speech, was Wilson's accusation against Cheney has been exposed.
So what happens? Wolf Blitzer gives Wilson the opportunity to weasel out of the bogus charge with that slicker than snot explanation. GRRRRR
Blitzer is a secular Jew, which means he opposes the traditional morality (Commandments) shared by Orthodox Jews and Christians. To a secular Jew, lying is acceptable. So is "Bearing False Witness".
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.