Skip to comments.FLASHBACK: July 16, 2004--Joe Wilson Was 'Inaccurate, Unsubstantiated and Misleading'
Posted on 07/13/2005 10:50:08 AM PDT by hinterlander
Senate Intelligence Chairman Rakes Democratic Darling on Iraq-Niger Story
In the main body of its unanimous report on pre-war intelligence on Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence made a startling statement about former Amb. Joe Wilson--whom the CIA sent on a brief trip to Niger in February 2002, and who accused President Bush of lying when the President said in his 2003 State of the Union address that British intelligence indicated Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. The unanimous report states:
"The former ambassador also told the committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ('CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,' June 12, 2003) which said, 'among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong"' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have 'misspoken' to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were 'forged.' He also said he may have become confused about his own recollections after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself."
Six days after the committee released this report, the British determined in their own investigation of pre-war intelligence that their conclusion that Saddam was seeking uranium in Niger was credible. Their intelligence, it turns out, was not based on the forged documents cited by Wilson that purported to show an Iraq-Niger uranium deal. More interestingly, those forged documents, the Senate Intelligence Committee reported, did not even
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
"when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."
And that's the whole crux of the matter.
Joe Wilson never filed a report with the CIA,and the MSM just took his word as credible.
And still do.
Joe Wilson is a proven LIAR and the original source of the whole media concocted fiasco.
When this was brought up the other night on TV Matthews and Isikoff dismissed it out of hand with "This isn't about Joe Wilson!"
YOU WATCH CHRIS MATHEWS? I do not hate myself that much. :)
Joe Wilson was, is, and always will be a lier! In fact the British MI-6 stands behind their intelligence that Iraq was attempting to obtain "yellow-cake urainium" for a nuclear weapon! Wilson intended to embarrass President Bush, and instead exposed his wife as a CIA agent, and then planted the false story that the Bush administration was out to get him and his wife, and that is the reason his wife was disclosed publically.
Wilson supported John F-ing Kerry for President, and gives money to the Liberals and moveon.org, need I say anymore?
The truth will come out in talk radio, freerepublic.com, and other news sources, and certainly NOT in the MSM.
"whom the CIA sent on a brief trip to Niger in February 2002."
That is an outright lie! Wilson's wife sent him to Niger in an attempt to undermine President Bush!
"Joe Wilson, "I was sent on a special mission to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney." "
Lie. Wilson has stated publically that Cheney did NOT know of his trip.
The Senate Committee Report also stated that Wilson reached exactly the same conclusion as the US Ambassador to Niger.
""whom the CIA sent on a brief trip to Niger in February 2002."
That is an outright lie! Wilson's wife sent him to Niger in an attempt to undermine President Bush!"
Odd - since Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and recommended him for the trip to her superiors. Of course, Plame didn't have the authority to send WIlson herself - the decision was made by HER SUPERIORS - i.e., by the CIA. SO you are, in fact, WRONG.
Don't forget the real facts here:
For partisan political reasons, Karl Rove and/or other senior White House personnel KNOWINGLY exposed a NOC. They exposed one of the deepest cover agents the US has - just to play "hard ball" with a critic. They blew her cover - and possibly the cover of other agents as well (she might not be the only one at the same fake 'front' firm).
It's illegal - and it ought to be treason.
Bull. She was an analyst, not a field agent. She was reportedly compromised while in the field by Aldrich Ames, so she had to move to desk work at Langley.
Not Undercover == No Crime.
"Bull. She was an analyst, not a field agent. She was reportedly compromised while in the field by Aldrich Ames, so she had to move to desk work at Langley.
Not Undercover == No Crime."
1. The CIA asked DOJ to open a criminal investigation.
2. If Plame was not undercover, no crime was committed.
3. Presumably, the CIA would know if one of their employees was undercover.
4. Ergo, Plame was still undercover. QED
I can't help myself, but I limit my viewing to no more than 3-4 minutes once or twice a week. Then I get infuriated, finish dinner and shut off the tube.
If there was a crime, where are the indictments? There aren't any because it hasn't been determined that a crime occured.
Indictments? There's still an investigation going on. Bush said so this morning - that's the only reason Karl still has a job.
A breach of security was made by Rove or someone working with him. Agents who risked their lives for the country were abused and thrown aside for crass politics. This is a dark day, when simpering MSM gadflies are more worried about their illusory privileges than about the safety of our most valuable intelligence assets.
Some secret agent if most of the DC chattering class invite her to their parties and as Andrea Mitchell exclaimed, knew she worked at the CIA.
Are you prepared to eat crow? If not you had better get prepared.
If you are being sarcastic forgive my being dense.