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

Skip to comments.

Times Trashfest: The Trashing of Judith Miller
New York Post ^ | 10/25/2005 | John Podhoretz

Posted on 10/25/2005 9:26:05 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

TIMES TRASHFEST

IN the past few days, writers and editors of The New York Times have taken turns trashing the talent, integrity, skills and character of their colleague, Judith Miller — a reporter who had just spent nearly three months in jail defending the paper's journalistic rights against a hard-charging special prosecutor whose appointment the Times had demanded two years before.

It's fair to say that nothing like this has ever happened before in the annals of American journalism. No one contemporaneously employed by a newspaper has ever been assailed by a colleague in its pages the way Maureen Dowd assailed Miller on Saturday.

Dowd had the gall to say she "liked" Miller even as she calmly dumped a bucket of slime over Miller's "tropism toward powerful men, her frantic intensity and her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur."

SNIP

THE issue that has ostensibly caused this unprecedented character assas sination is Miller's involvement in the public exposure of CIA operative Valerie Plame. And in this case, no one at the paper is accusing Miller of making anything up — because she never published anything on the subject. Nor can anyone accuse Judith Miller of harming the reputation of an innocent —

SNIP

The outraged prose on this matter from writers outside the Times — like Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher and the just-out-of-the-nuthouse cases populating the Huffington Post on the Web — suggests that if only the Times had published nothing articles more skeptical of the WMD claims, it could have kept the war from happening.

Because, you know, the world revolves around the Times. The world spins on its axis around a liberal newspaper of declining influence . . . whose most famous and powerful staffers now think there's great merit in devouring their own.

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


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: beltwaywarzone; cialeak; dowd; judithmiller; miller; nyt; plamegame; plamegate; podhoretz; times
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 10/25/2005 9:26:05 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Why is the NYT(wyt)imes sliming their martyr?.........
2 posted on 10/25/2005 9:28:39 AM PDT by Red Badger (In life, you don't get what you deserve. You get what you settle for...........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Maybe Dowd thought Miller's incarceration was a drum roll to the release of something that would bring the Bush administration crashing down, only to find out that Miller was just actually protecting a source!


3 posted on 10/25/2005 9:29:22 AM PDT by Spok (Est omnis de civilitate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spok

The only thing I like about Maureen Dowd is that the mention of her name here brings forth pictures of Catherine Zeta Jones.


4 posted on 10/25/2005 9:32:50 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Catfight!!!


5 posted on 10/25/2005 9:34:02 AM PDT by mewzilla (Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

bttt


6 posted on 10/25/2005 9:36:52 AM PDT by Christian4Bush ("A gov't big enough to give you all you want is a gov' big enough to take all you have." G.Ford)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot



Mrs. Miller has dared to tell the truth and she is taking a beating for it. If she would only spew some baseless venom in the direction of the White House, all would be forgiven.


7 posted on 10/25/2005 9:37:39 AM PDT by NavVet (“Benedict Arnold was wounded in battle fighting for America, but no one remembers him for that.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

She has embarrassed them. they all thought she would be instrumental in hanging Rove and she wasnt.

If you think she is being slimed wait until you see what they do to the prosecutor if he doesnt indict someone. They have already hanged Rove and Libby. If the prosecutor doesnt charge them they will hang him.


8 posted on 10/25/2005 9:40:07 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Judy Miller refused to accept the Times party line which INSISTS that Bush and Cheney FABRICATED data in order to go to war with Iraq.

It is looking more and more like the CIA actually delivered poor intelligent data that everyone from the executive branch ( both Clinton and Bush administration) and Congress ( witness the speeches made by every single Senator and Congressman from Kerry, to Gore to Waxman ) thought was evidence that Saddam had WMDs.

We need to remind ourselves that NOT ONLY Bush but also, the Senate Intelligence Committee of which John Kerry himself was a mmeber and privy to intel info, ALL believed the information the CIA gave to them.

The CIA overestimated Saddam's WMD capabilities and of course, our leaders both in the White House and in Congress interpreted intel data TAKEN TOGETHER Pessimistically.

The NY TIMES however, wants to make you and I believe that ONLY Bush, acting with malice and mis-interpreting and deliberately lying, interpreted the intel data provided by the CIA, to mean that Saddam had WMDs. The fact is, the CIA provided poor information which was interpreted in the same way by almost everyone who had access to the info.

Since Miller refused to toe the NY TIMES line ( i.e., Bush is SOLELY to blame and acted with Malice ), she is being ostracized for this.

At least thats the way I see it.


9 posted on 10/25/2005 9:41:06 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Well met, sir knight; this is a fine post you have laid before us this morning.

I recommend that folks read it all. Personally I don't share Podhoretz's sympathy for Miller -- a squamous, legless creature who typifies the Times staff even as her former peers reject her.

But disorder in the house of mine enemy -- I'll take it. For the nation, having the Times eating itself is as good as a falling out between bin Laden and Zarkawi.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F


10 posted on 10/25/2005 9:41:36 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

Why are they trashing Miller? Is it because they think she's the one in trouble? If she had the goods on Rove and Libby they wouldn't be doing this. I say stay tuned.


11 posted on 10/25/2005 9:42:12 AM PDT by feyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

It may be suggesting that Fitzgerald's Rove/Libbey gun is all smoke.


12 posted on 10/25/2005 9:42:28 AM PDT by Reaganghost (Democrats are living proof that you can fool some of the people all of the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
It's somewhat interesting to me that MoDo thinks having Judith Miller come back to the Times would be bad for the paper, when the reason I don't read the Times is because of people like MoDo. I suspect I'm not alone judging from their lasted drop.
13 posted on 10/25/2005 9:46:46 AM PDT by jennyjenny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: feyler; NavVet
Why are they trashing Miller? Is it because they think she's the one in trouble? If she had the goods on Rove and Libby they wouldn't be doing this. I say stay tuned.

11 posted on 10/25/2005 10:42:12 AM MDT by feyler

I think she is going to indited and they want to distance themselves from her!

14 posted on 10/25/2005 9:47:16 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
It's hard to think of anythng exposing the siliness of the left, and the NYT in particular, more clearly than this attack on Judith Miller. I keep reading the stories and still don't know what they are trying to say.

This is based on a left wing reality disconnect. Saw Howard Fineman this morning saying it's all about the war not being justified and the Bush administration "stopping at nothing" to trash the people who tried to expose it. That just is not reality, but they believe it.

15 posted on 10/25/2005 9:55:13 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
indited ===>>>indicted
16 posted on 10/25/2005 9:58:10 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Y'shua <==> YHvH is my Salvation (Psalm 118-14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
suggests that if only the Times had published nothing articles more skeptical of the WMD claims, it could have kept the war from happening.

Instead the Old Grey Whore became butt boy for Clinton in 1998 slavishly passing along Clintonista's stories of Iraqi, Chemical, Biological and Nuclear weapons and programs. In this respect the NYT is culpable for the invasion of Iraq.

IMHO: there probably would not have been an attack on Iraq but not for 9-11 and in this the NYT miscalculated the end game in their attempts to change the subject on Clinton.

As for Miller, she will become the NYT's worst nightmare.

17 posted on 10/25/2005 10:01:49 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

18 posted on 10/25/2005 10:02:44 AM PDT by Enterprise (The modern Democrat Party - a toxic stew of mental illness, cultism, and organized crime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: feyler; xsmommy
Why are they trashing Miller? Is it because they think she's the one in trouble? If she had the goods on Rove and Libby they wouldn't be doing this. I say stay tuned.

If she had the goods on Rove and Libby they wouldn't be doing this.

This bears repeating. Certainly the NY Times would not be trashing the "star witness for the prosecution" in an upcoming trial of Rove or Libby. Something else is going on here. It will be fun to see all the disappointed Kos kids and DUmmies.

19 posted on 10/25/2005 10:04:10 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (In DC, Pork is what's for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

thank you....


20 posted on 10/25/2005 10:04:59 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

"her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur." - Maureen Dowd

At least Miller works hard. All Dowd has is the hauteur.


21 posted on 10/25/2005 10:05:51 AM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Thank you!


22 posted on 10/25/2005 10:13:05 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (In DC, Pork is what's for dinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
We need to remind ourselves that NOT ONLY Bush but also, the Senate Intelligence Committee of which John Kerry himself was a mmeber and privy to intel info, ALL believed the information the CIA gave to them.

I have to say that I believed that Saddam had such weapons, and I spent much of the time leading up to the Iraqi phase of the war in an HQ where I had access not only to CIA and DIA assessments but on the raw intelligence which underlay them. I can't go into detail about what it all was, but it was very broad-based and utterly convincing.

My tentative conclusion is that Saddam or his generals mounted the second largest deception plan in history (after Operation Fortitude in 1944) in order to create the impression he had WMDs, particularly chemical agents.

Why? I don't know. Maybe Saddam thought that it would scare us off an attack. Maybe Saddam thought he had the arms too, and his generals and/or sons were deceiving him.

I can say categorically that if anyone in the intelligence community believed that Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical weapons and active laboratories working nuclear and biological arms, that person did not write or disseminate his opinions.

CIA National Intelligence Estimates are normally so weasel-worded to be utterly effing useless. Only when they are certain do they take any position at all. The position they took has been widely reported.

We were had, all up and down the line.

That said, the war was, and is, not about WMDs in stockpiles. (WMDs were one of nine (IIRC) issues of concern to us -- the asshat, Saddam, was firiong at our recon planes daily).

Iraq was different. France has WMDs. So does Israel, South Africa, Russia, Pakistan, England and China, and nobody is talking about invading those places even though some are allies and some not. The missing ingredient in those nations that are not trusted with WMDs is adult leadership. Even a nation that longs for a new Napoleon, or a dictatorship half-full of crazies (Pak) or a brutal oligharchy hooked on the crack of slave labour (China) has the sense to give grown-ups the keys to the magic toybox.

So we wrestled the keys away and found out most of the toys were gone. It doesn't matter, Saddam stil has to sit in the corner till his people do him justice, which I presume to be hanging, although it's their call.

Twenty-five million people are free of an appalling, odious dictatorship, and in the ozone generated by all that neon, it was a mistake. To the people of the Times, all those weeping women digging with their hands in the sand of the mass graves for lost sons and husbands, well they don't count: why, they're not our kind, don't you know.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

23 posted on 10/25/2005 10:13:14 AM PDT by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

This is an excellent demonstration of the bias of the idiots at the New York Times. Not that further demonstrations are necessary. They are outraged that Miller is unwilling to become an instrument in bringing down Bush. Why was Wilson's article published in the first place? Why did the Times demand the appointment of a special prosecutor? Why did Miller's editor, Abramson, tell Miller not to investigate the Plame/Wilson connection?


24 posted on 10/25/2005 10:13:15 AM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

> Catfight!!!

MROW!

PFFTHT!


25 posted on 10/25/2005 10:18:05 AM PDT by cloud8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

He gives an impassioned defense of Judith Miller and on the previous articles she wrote about WMD, that defense is great.

But, in the case of the going to jail to protect a source she deserves no defense at all.

Her source gave her the waiver to talk to the grand jury, no where did I read that her source gave her the right to publish his name.

Grand jury proceedings are secret and Judith Miller and Matt Cooper both publicized the names of their sources after saying how they had to protect those very sources. They did not have to release those source names to the public because their testimony was secret.

Would you be a source in the future to either one of those reporters?

Who is Robert Novak's source? He either talked to Fitzgerald or testified and yet we still do not know who talked to him.

Miller and Cooper burned their sources after promising to protect them.


26 posted on 10/25/2005 10:21:45 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

I don't know. It might be wishful thinking to believe that the chatter on this is because there won't be indictments (and the libs want to try to pile on to get as much of an appearance of guilt as possible) or that Miller or Cooper will be indicted (not likely because she wasn't the focus). But I just don't see how Fitz can justify an indictment on (we are presuming) flimsy memory in a case with no underlying crime.


27 posted on 10/25/2005 10:34:47 AM PDT by AmishDude (If Miers isn't qualified, neither are you and you have no right to complain about any SC decision.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident

My guess is Miller and someone from the CIA is in trouble here. A New York Times reporter would never go to jail to protect a republican source. President Bush had Karl Rove with him yesterday and I don't see them worried about it.


28 posted on 10/25/2005 10:37:57 AM PDT by feyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

I believe that Judith Miller may have told The New York Times everything and they didn't like it.


29 posted on 10/25/2005 10:40:24 AM PDT by feyler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Not gonna take it anymore; feyler
The Tenet/Cheney conversation brought up an interesting scenario, at least for me. I remembered that Novak said his first source was "no partisan gunslinger". That would accurately describe Tenet, since he was a hold-over. Normally, we would discount journalists such as Seymour Hersch, Wayne Madsen and Michael Ruppert...but check this out...

Why did DCI George Tenet suddenly resign on June 3rd, only to be followed a day later by James Pavitt, the CIA's Deputy Director of Operations (DDO)?

The real reasons, contrary to the saturation spin being put out by major news outlets, have nothing to do with Tenet's role as taking the fall for alleged 9/11 and Iraqi intelligence “failures” before the upcoming presidential election.

Both resignations, perhaps soon to be followed by resignations from Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage, are about the imminent and extremely messy demise of George W. Bush and his Neocon administration in a coup d'etat being executed by the Central Intelligence Agency. The coup, in the planning for at least two years, has apparently become an urgent priority as a number of deepening crises threaten a global meltdown.

Shortly after the “surprise” Tenet-Pavitt resignations, current and former senior members of the U.S. intelligence community and the Justice Department told journalist Wayne Madsen, a former Naval intelligence officer, that they were directly connected to the criminal investigation of a 2003 White House leak that openly exposed Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA officer.

Seymour Hersh dropped a major bombshell that went virtually unnoticed, 54 paragraphs deep into an October 27, 2003 story for the New Yorker titled “The Stovepipe.”

“Who produced the fake Niger papers? There is nothing approaching a consensus on this question within the intelligence community. There has been published speculation about the intelligence services of several different countries. One theory, favored by some journalists in Rome, is that [the Italian intelligence service] Sismi produced the false documents and passed them to Panorama for publication. “Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He 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.”

Source

The interesting part is that more respected people, such as Joe diGenova also believe it was a CIA plot.

30 posted on 10/25/2005 10:54:25 AM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
IN the past few days, writers and editors of The New York Times have taken turns trashing the talent, integrity, skills and character of their colleague, Judith Miller — a reporter who had just spent nearly three months in jail defending the paper's journalistic rights against a hard-charging special prosecutor whose appointment the Times had demanded two years before.

No loyalty among thieves.

31 posted on 10/25/2005 10:57:04 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
"her peculiar mixture of hard work and hauteur." - Maureen Dowd

When I read that, I couldn't help thinking how very much Dowdy wanted to use the word "hauteur." It works on so many levels. It may or may not apply to Miller.

32 posted on 10/25/2005 10:58:28 AM PDT by Bahbah (Tony Schaffer is a hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. He used them several times in the past, once to gas a whole city full of his own people.

He also had a nuclear plant earlier, courtesy of Chirac and the French, which the Israelis thankfully bombed.

He was trying to assemble more nuclear materials, although evidently he hadn't gotten as far as the CIA thought, or said they thought.

We still don't know how many MSDs the Russians took with them out the back door, into Syria or other parts further east.

But the one point Podhoretz neglects to make in this otherwise excellent article is that there were four or five other NY Times reporters who repeatedly wrote stories about Saddam's WMDs during the clinton years, and that the Sacred Editorial Board editorialized in favor of Clinton's bombing campaigns in Iraq for precisely that reason.

The only things that have changed since then is that the president is now a Republican and Saddam managed to ease his WMDs out the back door.

Another factor in this is Maureen Dowd's personal history. She is very, very jealous of Miller because of her own frustrated sex life. Dowd fought earlier with A. M. Rosenthal, who told the editor back then (who was having an affair with Dowd) that he should fire Dowd because her columns were putting the NYT to shame. Instead, Rosenthal was fired for criticizing Dowd. That little episode must make Maureen imagine that she can get anyone fired just for the asking. The evidence suggests that she is right.


33 posted on 10/25/2005 11:19:10 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

<<<<
Who produced the fake Niger papers?
>>>>>

We now know the answer to this one.

Apparently, an Italian Agent working for the French government did that. His name is Rocco Martino and the details are published by the London Telegraph.

See here :

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/09/19/wniger19.xml





The Italian businessman at the centre of a furious row between France and Italy over whose intelligence service was to blame for bogus documents suggesting Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy material for nuclear bombs has admitted that he was in the pay of France.

The man, identified by an Italian news agency as Rocco Martino, was the subject of a Telegraph article earlier this month in which he was referred to by his intelligence codename, "Giacomo".

His admission to investigating magistrates in Rome on Friday apparently confirms suggestions that - by commissioning "Giacomo" to procure and circulate documents - France was responsible for some of the information later used by Britain and the United States to promote the case for war with Iraq.

Italian diplomats have claimed that, by disseminating bogus documents stating that Iraq was trying to buy low-grade "yellowcake" uranium from Niger, France was trying to "set up" Britain and America in the hope that when the mistake was revealed it would undermine the case for war, which it wanted to prevent.



34 posted on 10/25/2005 11:54:21 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

I fully expect that Dowd will get what's coming to her eventually.


35 posted on 10/25/2005 12:07:06 PM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

The NYT are disgusting liars in their own right. They are trying to pretend that Judith Miller and the so-called liars in the Bush admin were the only people in the world who believed that Iraq had WMD's, and that the whole case for war hinged upon the Niger yellow-cake story. It's a flat-out lie. I've long known that that the NYT editorial board were morons; now I know they are also unprincipled scum.


36 posted on 10/25/2005 12:26:57 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

Has this story gotten any play in the American press? Has it been on the front page of the NYT? Has it been mentioned on the CBS Evening News?


37 posted on 10/25/2005 12:28:57 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly; Criminal Number 18F; SirLinksalot
Some history the Times would like everyone to forget.

March To War Had More Than Miller For A Drumbeat

38 posted on 10/25/2005 12:30:30 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (History is soon Forgotten,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
"At least Miller works hard. All Dowd has is the hauteur."

Bingo. A well-intentioned Miller may have gotten some facts wrong, but Dowd doesn't even care about facts anymore. She's all sneer and arrogance and innuendo, playing to a crowd of scum.
39 posted on 10/25/2005 12:31:55 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Judith Miller, Mary Mapes, Ronnie Earle, Bill Burkett, Sandy Burger, etc. remind me of the Japanese towards the end of WWII. They knew they were losing the war so volunteers were rounded up to become Kamikaze's.

I can just see Ted Kennedy or Howard Dean telling them what a great sacrifice they're making for the party before handing out suicide missions to the volunteers. lol
40 posted on 10/25/2005 12:40:48 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

Yep, and you now have to pay NYT for the "privilege" of reading that harlot.


41 posted on 10/25/2005 12:55:22 PM PDT by nuclady (( Nagin, Blanko and Landrieu: Wynkin', Blynkin', and Nod ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Depends on what you mean by "produced"...Rocco just received the documents, he did not forge them. Read on:

Jacqueline, (Wilson's second wife), was a French diplomat and may have provided the connections for Wilson to see the forged documents that were supplied by the French through the Italians. It has been reported that she was a "cultural counselor" for the French Embassy, which some say is code for she was doing undercover work.

In other words it is possible that Wilson knew that the docs were forged because he was privy to the information that French wanted to discredit the British info on Saddam shopping for yellowcake and that Wilson's objective was the same. The French just happen to manage the yellowcake production in Niger.

IOW, he didn't lie in his first statement...he saw the documents.

And Fedora has contributed this:

French intelligence soon began a campaign to discredit the US case for war against Iraq. In 1999, French intelligence had begun investigating the security of uranium supplies in Niger, where uranium production was controlled by a consortium led by the French mining company COGEMA, a division of the French state-owned nuclear energy firm AREVA. At that time, Italian businessman Rocco Martino provided French intelligence with genuine documents revealing that Iraq was planning to expand trade with Niger. French intelligence took an interest in the documents and asked Martino to provide more information. In 2000 he used a contact in the Niger embassy in Rome to provide French intelligence with documents purporting that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger. These documents were later exposed as forgeries;

< snip >

Since it is now also known that French intelligence was trying to push Martino’s forgeries on US and British intelligence, as simultaneously the Democratic National Committee was planning to discredit President Bush’s Iraq policy by accusing his administration of manufacturing evidence against Hussein’s regime, heightened suspicion is cast on Wilson’s use of the Niger investigation to discredit the Bush administration’s case for war.

What Wilson Didn’t Say About Africa

Wuli also just posted a timeline thread asking the question about how Joe Wilson saw the documents before they were turned over to the CIA and other questions. It also validates the theory that he saw them in advance:

Joe Wilson's Lies, A Timeline - Who Forged the Documents?

Then if you connect the dots between the article,Was the Joe Wilson Valerie Plame Affair a CIA Plot?and the article New York Times: CIA Leaked Plame's Name, you come away with all the makings of French/CIA coup attempt. George Tenet was Novak's first source, he was the administration official that was described as "no partisan gunslinger" by Novak.

It also validates the article by Seymour Hersch (who we normally dismiss as a leftie moonbat):

“Who produced the fake Niger papers? There is nothing approaching a consensus on this question within the intelligence community. There has been published speculation about the intelligence services of several different countries. One theory, favored by some journalists in Rome, is that [the Italian intelligence service] Sismi produced the false documents and passed them to Panorama for publication.

“Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He 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.”

Source

The stranger that approached Novak? Larry Johnson, Ex-CIA. And if my theory is correct, Vincent Cannistraro, another ex-CIA agent, who is a security consultant to the Vatican in Rome, engineered the break-in at the Niger Embassy there, where the letterhead and seals were stolen for the forgeries.

I just hope Fitzgerald is following the path. The final nail...it was kind of funny that I have been "warned" that I should not pursue this research by someone in a private freepmail. Too bad...I ain't skeered... : )

42 posted on 10/25/2005 1:07:33 PM PDT by ravingnutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Fascinating.

I'm sure others have said it, but this explanation also explains why so many leaks have occured to the press.

Nobody in the Whitehouse would dare, or need to leak now.


43 posted on 10/25/2005 1:16:51 PM PDT by crazycat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: holdonnow

see post #42


44 posted on 10/25/2005 2:54:08 PM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Tell me I've fallen too far into the coup de taut(sp?) territory but, has there ever been the slightest connection between the Able Danger story and this one? Or are they two separate stories? What government organizations are involved in both stories?
45 posted on 10/25/2005 3:01:37 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia; Velveeta; LibertyRocks; Alabama MOM; DAVEY CROCKETT; Rushmore Rocks; WestCoastGal; ...

See post 42.


46 posted on 10/25/2005 3:03:02 PM PDT by nw_arizona_granny (For better health, plant a few winter greens in a pot,put in a sunny window,Oriental greens do well)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
The final nail...it was kind of funny that I have been "warned" that I should not pursue this research by someone in a private freepmail. Too bad...I ain't skeered... : )

Who on here would try and persuade you from following a lead? Do they know something you don't know and don't want you to find out? How intriguing.......

47 posted on 10/25/2005 3:08:14 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot
Since Miller refused to toe the NY TIMES line ( i.e., Bush is SOLELY to blame and acted with Malice ), she is being ostracized for this.
At least thats the way I see it.

You have excellent eyesight.

48 posted on 10/25/2005 3:08:33 PM PDT by harrowup (almost NEVER GUILTY OF lugubrious THUGGERY while still being naturally PERFECT and HUMBLE of course.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
Here's something to kick around...

We know that Cooper has been questioned about the plame/Rove leak before the GJ. Cooper is married to Mandy Grunwald, who worked for Hillary.

We know Tenet of the CIA was hired by Bill, before Porter Goss got his job.

One story is about Plame/Rove, the other is Able Danger. What family name do we see connected to both stories?????

49 posted on 10/25/2005 3:25:00 PM PDT by processing please hold (Islam and Christianity do not mix ----9-11 taught us that)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter

Outstanding collection of info, thank you. Have to read later.


50 posted on 10/25/2005 4:43:53 PM PDT by SueRae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 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