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

Skip to comments.

Joe Wilson In A Bind
American Spectator ^ | 10-31-05 | Clinton W. Taylor

Posted on 10/30/2005 9:25:14 PM PST by smoothsailing

   

Joe Wilson in a Bind

By Clinton W. Taylor

Published 10/31/2005 12:07:45 AM

Last week I had the privilege of being lied to personally by Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who spoke here at Stanford last Monday.

The fact that Joe Wilson is economical with the truth probably won't surprise many Spectator readers.

Nonetheless I assure you the horse I am beating, although it may be lying in the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times, is far from dead.

But this week there's new evidence of his lies to flog him with. When the indictment of Scooter Libby was unsealed on Friday, it finally placed one of Wilson's oft-repeated fabrications beyond the most hopeful partisan's credibility.

First the lie: In the Q&A after his talk last Monday, Wilson answered a question of mine with essentially the same statement about the origin of his mission to Niger that he relates in his L.A. Times op-ed:

Valerie was an innocent in this whole affair. Although there were suggestions that she was behind the decision to send me to Niger, the CIA told Newsday just a week after the Novak article appeared that "she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment." The CIA repeated the same statement to every reporter thereafter.

The Newsday article he refers to notes:

A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.

But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be."

This has been Wilson's story ever since the issue came up: he maintains his wife had nothing to do the CIA's decision to send him. It's important to his narrative that "outing" his wife was a bolt from the blue designed to intimidate and punish him.

The more plausible explanation is that the information came out because it cast Wilson's mission and his credibility in a new light. Evidence supports this interpretation. While the CIA may back Wilson's account to reporters, it has now twice contradicted him when the chips were down and the threat of perjury loomed.

The first contradiction, of course, occurred back in July 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence devoted a few pages of its report on WMD intelligence failures to point out that Valerie Plame came up with the idea of sending her husband to Niger. Both a memorandum Plame wrote and the testimony of a CIA officer show that Wilson's trip was her idea. (The report can be downloaded here, and the relevant sections are on page 39, 40, and 72.)

That should have put an end to Joe Wilson's credibility, but it wasn't good enough for the diehard Wilson fans, like most of the audience at Stanford last week, or the editorial staff of the L.A. Times. But now the indictment of Scooter Libby has proved yet again that Wilson is full of it.

In order to claim that Libby had perjured himself and obstructed justice, the grand jury goes to great lengths to show how and when he had actually learned about the origin of Wilson's trip. To do so, they refer on page 4 of the indictment to a conversation between Libby and a "senior officer of the CIA" on June 11, 2003:

[Libby] was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

And again on page 12 of the indictment:

[Libby] was informed by a senior CIA officer that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA and that the idea of sending him to Niger originated with her.

This puts Wilson's fan club in a bind: either Wilson is lying, or the indictment is. Which is it? If it's the latter, then perhaps Scooter Libby didn't know what the indictment said he knew, and the indictment ought to be thrown out or at least amended.

Alas, most of the world sees it's the former. Wilson's lie, of course, wouldn't excuse any crime Libby might have committed, but it ought to be enough to prevent Wilson from ever being taken seriously again.

Clinton W. Taylor (clinton_w_taylor@hotmail.com) is a lawyer and a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at Stanford.  


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: antiamerican; bushhaters; cia; cialeak; domesticcoldwar; fifthcolumn; jcwilsoninternl; joewilson; joewilsonslies; kayak; lyingliars; plamegate; plamewilson; tas; unamerican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-224 next last

1 posted on 10/30/2005 9:25:15 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Wilson's lie, of course, wouldn't excuse any crime Libby might have committed, but it ought to be enough to prevent Wilson from ever being taken seriously again.

The only ones who have ever taken him serious will always take him serious. The rest of us just think of him as a dingleberry.

2 posted on 10/30/2005 9:36:03 PM PST by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

He's a Fop.


3 posted on 10/30/2005 9:39:54 PM PST by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

BUMP!


4 posted on 10/30/2005 9:41:44 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Yep. A 250 pound dingleberry.
5 posted on 10/30/2005 9:43:10 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Spank-a-jaweea!

Now I have believed that Joe was lying his arse off for a long time. I have had a lot of difficulty trying to figure out where these charges from Fitz' have come from. Perhaps Fitz didn't get the memo on this?? Or did he just feel that much pressure to indict someone or what? How could he have passed on this information??? Which of his staffers hid this little gem?

Joe was lying his arse off. How do you indite some one for outing someone already out and surfing a desk? The CIA hung Plame out to dry by involving Joe - a security unknown regardless of the fact he had been an Ambassador!!!!

Joe not only fried himself, he fried the CIA and the rest of what we see is the CIA CYA. I want to know why the CIA was out to nail the Administration!!! Thank God Porter is there, perhaps we can yet take it back!!!
6 posted on 10/30/2005 9:43:37 PM PST by Danae (Most Liberals don't drink the Kool-aide, they are licking the powder right out of the packet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Geeeez .. somebody with a brain is teaching political science at Stanford!!


7 posted on 10/30/2005 9:46:55 PM PST by CyberAnt (I BELIEVE CONGRESSMAN WELDON!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing; jan in Colorado

Thanks for posting.

You mustn't miss this.


8 posted on 10/30/2005 9:52:34 PM PST by Fred Nerks (See my bio page for link to pdf download; THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Well by Golly, he was all over CBS and NBC tonight just lyin his aging A$$ off!!! What a gold plated prick!!!


9 posted on 10/30/2005 9:57:24 PM PST by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

bookmark for later


10 posted on 10/30/2005 9:57:41 PM PST by centexan (Houston Astros 2005 National League Champions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
LOL!
11 posted on 10/30/2005 10:02:05 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
Wilson might be a dingleberry (he's certainly a liar), but he's a very useful stooge. The rogue units in the CIA together with Big Media have succeeded in painting a picture of Wilson and Plame as heroic patriots battling the nefarious Bushites who "hijacked" the foreign policy. It was exceptionally irritating to hear Fitzgerald go on and on about protecting the nation's security and individual agents without ever mentioning or considering that maybe certain people, Plame, Wilson, and rogue CIA agents should be investigated.

It's not very encouraging, and I did not come off with a real high opinion of Fitzgerald's integrity or intelligence. It looks like he was strictly going after admin people and the possibilities of wrongdoing by liberals and the CIA be damned. If they would indict Wilson for his lies, I'd feel a little better. That doesn't look like it's going to happen.

12 posted on 10/30/2005 10:04:02 PM PST by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Danae
You thick headed Conservatives aren`t giving Wilson the proper credit. You all say that you are for capitalism and personal responsibility, but when a man like Wilson, comes up with a great, new idea, you attack him. SHAMEFUL Joe Wilson is a GREAT AMERICAN HERO. WHY YOU ASK. Millions of Americans are over weight. While most of you just ignore this national disaster, MR Wilson acted. He, against all odds, demonstrated that anybody can lose unwanted pounds...
ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS LIE YOUR ASS OFF
13 posted on 10/30/2005 10:04:05 PM PST by bybybill (remember, the fish come first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
I heard he was on 60 Minutes, I bet that was a hoot!
14 posted on 10/30/2005 10:04:05 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Bump for Later.....


15 posted on 10/30/2005 10:11:52 PM PST by Sonar5 (62 Million+ have Spoken Clearly - "We Want Our Country Back")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless
Bet you a nickle that, it goes to trial, Libby wins. At the worst, he will get a nothing verdict. Defensive attorneys will expose the huge holes in his case.
16 posted on 10/30/2005 10:13:32 PM PST by bybybill (remember, the fish come first)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Question: Didn't Wilson testify to the grand jury? And if he testified to these likely lies, why isn't he and other CIA personnel being charged with perjury?


17 posted on 10/30/2005 10:18:17 PM PST by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks
..either Wilson is lying, or the indictment is..

I wonder if it even dawned on Fitzhooey that he was setting a perjury trap for someone other than Scooter (maybe even himself!).

18 posted on 10/30/2005 10:21:31 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Wilson did testify, and Plame was interviewed!

Why wasn't he charged? That is a huge question.

19 posted on 10/30/2005 10:24:39 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

GET SMART AND HIS AGENT 99!

20 posted on 10/30/2005 10:25:45 PM PST by Fred Nerks (See my bio page for link to pdf download; THE LIFE OF MUHAMMAD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; Boazo
LOL!

(BOAZO, are you around?)

21 posted on 10/30/2005 10:28:51 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Will be interested to hear wilson and Plame's testimonies under oath at any trial of Libby, especially the cross examination. It's going to make them look very bad and may even set themselves up for perjury.


22 posted on 10/30/2005 10:39:40 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CyberAnt
Geeeez .. somebody with a brain is teaching political science at Stanford!!

He's a PhD candidate, not a professor. However, Condi Rice is still listed among the Poly Sci faculty, and don't forget Thomas Sowell in the Hoover Institution.

23 posted on 10/30/2005 10:39:44 PM PST by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: driftless

Grand juries are never to bring charges against liberals. Only conservatives are targets. Consider the grand jury against Clinton. Who really was made to look bad? It was the consevatives who the media attacked as witch hunters and to top it off Ken Starr was there just to provide protection for the liberals. And it goes on and on until some conservative can be muddied. The best thing that could happen to Libby is for Bush to pardon him. However, this will never happen. If it does, it will be a parting shot from Bush in 2008. Grand jury has might as well be called "Trash Hunter" because they dig to the bottom of the pile and come out smelling like it too.


24 posted on 10/30/2005 10:42:42 PM PST by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever

Because the liberal minions in the press spin it that way.


25 posted on 10/30/2005 10:47:02 PM PST by Beckwith (The liberal press has picked sides ... and they have sided with the Islamofascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp
he was all over CBS and NBC tonight just lyin his aging A$$ off!!!

And I'm sure they are eating it up. I guarantee there won't be any rebuttal to his lies either. That would take "courage" to put on both sides.

I absolutely refuse to watch his arrogant lying butt.

26 posted on 10/30/2005 10:56:26 PM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Since it says that he lied to the select Senate committee on Intelligence and he went in an official compacity, isn't that breaking some laws?


27 posted on 10/30/2005 10:58:02 PM PST by ONETWOONE (onetwoone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ONETWOONE

You know how laws protect the perpetrator? Consider Wilson a perpetrator.


28 posted on 10/30/2005 11:02:34 PM PST by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kcvl
I absolutely refuse to watch Wilson or 60 Minutes.
29 posted on 10/30/2005 11:10:03 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Read the Senate Report carefully (the section on Niger).

First, it's clear that memories aren't very good about how Wilson was selected and what Plame's role was. The memorandum could indicate that she "offered up his name" or that she was responding to previous questions about him. That the report focused on this question indicates the extreme political sensistivity surrounding it. But the CIA wanted to send someone to answer Cheney's questions.

Second, the report does not identify the foreign source of the information that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake from Niger. More politics. Recent reports, and circumstantial evidence, indicate that it was SISMI distributing the forged documents.

Third, Plame is clearly identified as a covert officer of the Counter-Proliferation section of the DO.

30 posted on 10/30/2005 11:28:29 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
This whole Niger Uranium affairs stinks. Niger is one of the top uranium mining countries of the world. Does the CIA expect us to believe they have no operatives in that country who can tell us where their uranium exports are going? That the British and Israeli intelligence agencies can't tell us what's going on?

They want us to believe there is so little information about uranium exports from Niger, that the CIA sends the HUSBAND of one of their cubicle dwelling analysts to find out whats going on? Someone with no expertise in this area? Someone who does not even sign a confidentiality agreement? In my non-defense line of work you don't get a contract to CLEAN TOILETS without signing a confidentiality/nondisclosure agreement. What the hell is going on at the CIA?

What if this amateur tipped off the wrong people while stumbling around overseas? What if he published an article about this covert work in the NY Times (whoops, he already did that).

Who hired this loose cannon? How much did Wilson get paid? What damage did he do to our wartime anti-terror operations by revealing his mission? These are the important questions that no one in the MSM is asking.
31 posted on 10/30/2005 11:33:38 PM PST by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Thanks for the headsup. My system can't access the pdf file. I'll check it again tommorrow.
32 posted on 10/30/2005 11:38:57 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

PING


33 posted on 10/30/2005 11:50:45 PM PST by AnimalLover ( ((Are there special rules and regulations for the big guys?)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Just download the section on Niger. Otherwise you'll end up with a huge file.

Also, an article appeared yesterday in the NY Times or the Washington Post - about 7 pages long - outlining all the relevant facts. The authors claimed that the report Cheney's office wanted investigated was the forged one sent by SISMI. I can't find the article. I wanted to re-read it and check the facts and assertions.

34 posted on 10/30/2005 11:51:22 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Got it.Thanks larry! G'night.
35 posted on 10/30/2005 11:58:20 PM PST by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: BigBobber
Does the CIA expect us to believe they have no operatives in that country who can tell us where their uranium exports are going?

We have an ambassador to Niger who submitted a report. The CIA also sent Gen. Fulford of the Southern command (?) who submitted a report. Who knows what their operatives did? The French companies and the U.N. regularly submit reports. Your problem is not the lack of reports but rather the content; you don't like their conclusions.

They want us to believe there is so little information about uranium exports from Niger, that the CIA sends the HUSBAND of one of their cubicle dwelling analysts to find out whats going on? Someone with no expertise in this area? Someone who does not even sign a confidentiality agreement?

More ignorant bias. Wilson knows a great deal about what's going on and had been to Niger most recently in 1999 at the request of the CIA. That his wife was a CIA analyst and covert operative was a plus, not a negative.

These are the important questions that no one in the MSM is asking.

You ought to be asking yourself about your objectivity.

36 posted on 10/30/2005 11:59:34 PM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing
Someone needs to throw a net over Larry Johnson. Not only did he get terrorists attacking the United States wrong he can't even get the indictments (with his super secret sources) right...


Oct 18th 2005

A New Tidbit on the Plame Affair
by Larry C. Johnson

Had lunch today with a person who has a direct tie to one of the folks facing indictment in the Plame affair. There are 22 files that Fitzgerald is looking at for potential indictment . These include Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, and Mary Matalin (there are others of course). Hadley has told friends he expects to be indicted. No wonder folks are nervous at the White House.



Why anyone would believe this LYING KOOK is beyond me! No wonder CIA couldn't find WMDs if most in CIA are anything like this IDIOT!
37 posted on 10/31/2005 12:41:44 AM PST by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

bttt


38 posted on 10/31/2005 12:47:40 AM PST by nopardons (Today is my FR 7 year anniversary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

39 posted on 10/31/2005 12:51:32 AM PST by JennysCool (Non-Y2K-Compliant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

No, you and everyone who reads your posts, should question YOUR objectivity! You aren't a Conservative; you aren't even a GOPer. You and MurrayMom are LIBERAL DEMS and why you are allowed to post to FR, with your biased views,is beyond me.


40 posted on 10/31/2005 12:58:20 AM PST by nopardons (Today is my FR 7 year anniversary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
You aren't a Conservative; you aren't even a GOPer.

Correct.

You...are [a]LIBERAL DEM...

Wrong. For example, I hold the position that the Administration was right to go to war against Iraq whether or not they manipulated the evidence on its possession of WMD. This is the position of George Friedman, founder of Stratfor.

...why you are allowed to post to FR, with your biased views, is beyond me.

They best way to arrive at truth is to examine all the biased views - including your own. The best way to combat your enemies is to know their positions well. One or both of those reasons is why I'm allowed to post.

41 posted on 10/31/2005 1:36:51 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

I think Robert D. Kaplan also holds my position.


42 posted on 10/31/2005 1:41:14 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
Agreeing with the president on sending troops to Iraq, doesn't take away the fact that you are still a LIBERAL DEM.

We know what Dems' positions are. Ergo, your posts don't reveal what our enemy thinks; we know that already.

43 posted on 10/31/2005 1:47:41 AM PST by nopardons (Today is my FR 7 year anniversary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Agreeing with the president on sending troops to Iraq, doesn't take away the fact that you are still a LIBERAL DEM.

I know my own position. I don't need you to tell me. You might try being a little more modest, a little less rude.

We know what Dems' positions are. Ergo, your posts don't reveal what our enemy thinks; we know that already

Nobody's forcing you to read my posts.

44 posted on 10/31/2005 1:50:43 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
I'm posting about you, so that newbies and lurkers, who are not familiar with your nic, know that you really aren't one of us.

I wasn't being rude at all. Neither was I being immodest. I merely stated facts.

45 posted on 10/31/2005 1:54:22 AM PST by nopardons (Today is my FR 7 year anniversary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

By the way, this thread is not about me.


46 posted on 10/31/2005 1:58:24 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I'm posting about you, so that newbies and lurkers

Newbies and lurkers - if they've got any brains - should be examining the facts, assertions, and conclusions of the article's author and various posters...and not worrying about whether or not I belong to the right tribe, have passed a loyalty test, and know the secret handshake.

47 posted on 10/31/2005 2:01:11 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

...and with the screenname of liberallarry why would anyone need your help in determining that it's unlikely that I'm a conservative or GOPer?


48 posted on 10/31/2005 2:03:52 AM PST by liberallarry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry
But you're doing your damnedest to make it be all about you, you, YOU!
49 posted on 10/31/2005 2:13:50 AM PST by nopardons (Today is my FR 7 year anniversary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: liberallarry

You, you, youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu....it's still all about yoooooooooooooooou.


50 posted on 10/31/2005 2:15:00 AM PST by nopardons (Today is my FR 7 year anniversary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-224 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