Our 27 months of hell (Joe Wilson, need I say more?)

What planet are you on?? Nearly everything about Wilson's account has been exposed as fraudulent, from his account of how the trip came about to what he "didn't find" there to what he said about it afterwards. Far from acting as any brave whistleblower, he has badly distorted our politics with lies and defamed many people who are far better human beings than frauds like Joe Wilson and Valerie Pflame. Libby will have to deal with any legal jeopardy he has incurred, but Libby was simply trying to answer the lies of a pompous gasbag - the problem was that Wilson's wife was involved from before the Niger trip even took place, and it was impossible to explain the true story without reference to her. What Libby should have done is leaned on Tenet to produce the fullest possible public statement - a version of which occurred right after the Novak article appeared.

"No it hasn't. In fact, many government officials have backed away from the yellowcake/Niger story, including Condaleeza Rice."

Joe Wilson is a liar and propogandist. He lied (or at least mislead) about Cheney being directly involved in his trip to Niger. Cheney's office may have made the initial inquiry about Niger to CIA, but was not involved in Wilson's selection and never obtained any written report from Wilson about his trip to Niger.

Wison also lied about his wife's involvement in his selection to go to Niger. He stated publically that she was not involved. Later, a memo from his wife recommending him for the trip was made public. The memo clearly undermined his public statements.

And finally, the Senate Intelligence committee report concluded that Wilson's trip debriefing actually confirmed Iraqi interest in African uranium. British Intel also stands by the Niger yellowcake story to this day. These facts conflict with Wilson's public statements about his Niger trip.

Given that Wilson has proven his strong allegience to the DIM party (e.g. working for the Kerry campaign), it is clear that he was and remains a partisan. His lies and fabrications have destroyed his credibility with objective journalists (e.g. Bob Woodward). Only those souls truly blinded by their partisan hatred for Bush still cling to Wilson's propaganda and lies.

He lied (or at least mislead) about Cheney being directly involved in his trip to Niger. Cheney's office may have made the initial inquiry about Niger to CIA, but was not involved in Wilson's selection and never obtained any written report from Wilson about his trip to Niger.

I don't believe that Mr. Wilson claimed that Mr. Cheney was directly involved in his selection to travel to Niger. Strawman.

Wison also lied about his wife's involvement in his selection to go to Niger. He stated publically that she was not involved. Later, a memo from his wife recommending him for the trip was made public. The memo clearly undermined his public statements.

No, the memo makes no mention of a trip, just lists his credentials as someone the interested parties could consult.

And finally, the Senate Intelligence committee report concluded that Wilson's trip debriefing actually confirmed Iraqi interest in African uranium. British Intel also stands by the Niger yellowcake story to this day. These facts conflict with Wilson's public statements about his Niger trip.

The Senate Intelligence report does the exact opposite. It cites agency after agency unwilling to back up the contention that there was some kind of Niger/Iraq deal. That is why it was necessary for the president to ultimately depend on a British source to make the claim that is now universally accepted as being bunk by American intelligence and highly placed government officials.

Only those souls truly blinded by their partisan hatred for Bush still cling to Wilson's propaganda and lies.

There was a pattern of completely false claims that were a pretext for war, including drones, mobile biological weapons labs, and aluminum tubes for use in nuclear weapon production. One needn't be a partisan to appreciate the propaganda that was foisted on the American people, and see that the yellowcake was part of that pattern. As well, the defamation of anyone that would question the government's veracity or contradict their claims, such as Richard Clark or Paul O'Neil, is also an established pattern used by this administration and its backers, and Mr. Wilson just another example.

Again, here are some facts...

1. Wilson gave the strong impression publically that Cheney was responsible for his trip. Disingenuous at best.

2. The internal CIA memo from Valarie Wilson recommended her husband as someone who might consult because he had contacts in Niger. It has also been reported that she participated in a meeting about the Niger trip and recommended her husband. While she did not make the final decision, she was clearly involved and influenced CIA management. This contrasts with Wilson's public statements that his wife was "not involved" in his selection for the Niger trip.

3. The Senate Intel committee report suggests that Wilson's debrief actually strengthened the notion that Iraq had made contacts in Africa with an interest in obtaining uranium. It was not clear that an actual transaction with Niger had occurred. There is a difference.

4. There were historical facts known and believed by previous administrations that justified the war. Saddam was known to have developed WMD (chemical, biological, and fledgling nuclear) capability before the first gulf war. There were multiple UN resolutions defied by Saddam. Aside from some of the controversial issues around the Niger connection, there were plently of reason to justify the war. And these were well communicated by the Bush administration. The truth and the facts do not seem to matter to those blinded by their emotional hatred for Bush.

Here you go St. Chuck, more information for you to refute. You should consider changing your moniker to ST. CHUCKLEHEAD!

Scooter and Joe: If only both had been under oath
Manchester Union Leader ^ | November 1, 2005 | Editorial

Posted on 11/01/2005 4:32:06 AM PST by billorites

LYING TO a grand jury to protect your own skin is never acceptable. If the charges against Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby are true — that he is guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice, and false statement — then he should be dealt with accordingly. Funny, though, that Libby is charged with lying in an attempt to cover up an attempt to expose the lies of former ambassador Joe Wilson.

Wilson wrote in his memoir that his wife, Valerie Wilson, aka Valerie Plame, "had nothing to do with" sending him to Niger. Yet the Senate Intelligence Committee found that Plame suggested her husband for the trip.

In June 2003, Wilson claimed he knew that documents claiming that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium in Niger were false because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." But the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered that Wilson had never seen the documents. He later admitted this.

Wilson also claimed that his trip to Niger proved that Iraq never sought nuclear material from that country. But the Senate Intelligence Committee found that the CIA had concluded that Wilson's trip did not disprove the charge.

We find it interesting that so many press reports about this saga never mention Wilson's series of falsehoods.

The charges against Libby are serious. So were the charges Wilson made against the Bush administration. It's a shame Wilson wasn't under oath when he made them.

Again, here are some facts...

....the first three of which I addressed in post # 67.

4. There were historical facts known and believed by previous administrations that justified the war. Saddam was known to have developed WMD (chemical, biological, and fledgling nuclear) capability before the first gulf war. There were multiple UN resolutions defied by Saddam. Aside from some of the controversial issues around the Niger connection, there were plently of reason to justify the war. And these were well communicated by the Bush administration. The truth and the facts do not seem to matter to those blinded by their emotional hatred for Bush.

I agree that there were many reasons to justify the war, but the Bush administration apparently didn't find them compelling enough. To persuade the American public, they thought it imperative to provide a vision of a mushroom cloud by including the now much regretted 16 words in a speech on the biggest stage the president would have. Creating that mental image was the ultimate closer. Even Paul Wolfowitz attested to the fact that they decided to market the war by focusing on WMD's because that would be the best way to garner public support. Of course, biological and chemical weapons aren't nearly as tangible as a nuke. Now there's something you can wrap your arms around. Everybody understands the terror that a mushroom cloud represents.

The only problem was that Saddam didn't have, nor was he even close to having that kind of capability. So the inclusion of the yellowcake in the state of the union speech was thought to be the best way to create the mass illusion that this war was necessary and justified.

Mr. Wilson's contribution was to expose the overreach of the administration by publicizing the practical impossibility of obtaining uranium from Niger, and the administration's knowlege of that fact. Most government officials acknowleged and regretted this misstep, but those "blinded by their emotional hatred" brought us "Plamegate".

Why did I write the article? Because I believe that citizens in a democracy are responsible for what government does and says in their name. I knew that the statement in Bush's speech — that Iraq had attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium in Africa — was not true. I knew it was false from my own investigative trip to Africa (at the request of the CIA)(changed his story again!!!) and from two other similar intelligence reports. And I knew that the White House knew it.

What a liar!

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.

July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.

The Wall Street Journal, October 17, 2003
Memo May Aid Leak Probe

Document Details Intelligence Meeting On Iraq-Niger Reports

By DAVID S. CLOUD
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

WASHINGTON -- An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Ms. Plame, a member of the agency's clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested at the meeting that her husband, Africa expert and former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, could be sent to Niger to investigate the reports, according to current and former government officials familiar with the meeting at the CIA's Virginia headquarters. Soon after, midlevel CIA officials decided to send him, say intelligence officials.

Classified memos, like the one describing Ms. Plame's role, have limited circulation and investigators are likely to question all those known to have received it. Intelligence officials haven't denied Ms. Plame was involved in the decision to send Mr. Wilson, but they have said she was not "responsible" for the decision.

snip

Mr. Wilson has told reporters repeatedly that his wife wasn't involved in his selection, and accused the White House of leaking his wife's name to punish him by ending her career as a clandestine operative. He said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal Thursday that he is unaware of any role played by his wife. "My wife knows of my particular experience with Niger. If there was such a meeting, I have no knowledge of it. It would be perfectly appropriate, though." He said that he hasn't asked his wife if she did suggest him for the mission because of the restrictions imposed by her job at the CIA.

Funny, though, that Libby is charged with lying in an attempt to cover up an attempt to expose the lies of former ambassador Joe Wilson.

Mr. Wilson did not tell any lies in his July 6, 2003 essay that asked whether the Bush administration had purposefully overlooked the intelligence acquired by his trip to Niger. Yet a week later Mr. Novak wrote about his wife. Obviously, certain white house officials were concerned enough about the contents of Mr. Wilson's essay to spend some time looking into his background. It begs the question as to why they would be concerned by what is really an innocuous episode that most government officals were willing to admit pointed to an error in their justification for the case to invade Iraq. Yet, as we know now, at least a couple of white house figures were interested enough in Mr. Wilson to discover the identity of his wife and chat about him with reporters. They seemed to be concerned about something, and describing Mrs. Wilson as "fair game", as attributed to Karl Rove by Chris Matthews seems quite extraordinary. Why would anyone be game? Was this just business as usual with this bunch? That anyone that contradicted or opposed the administration's policies was to be trashed?

The outing of Valarie Plame, I believe, may have just been an incidental and nonintentional consequence of some kind of overzealous concern or possible damage control on the part of the politicos in the white house. But it does raise the question about what they may have been so concerned about, and now, if the indictment of Mr. Libby has any basis in truth, begs the question: what was he covering up that he needed to lie about it?

All this other stuff about possible inconsistencies in later publications of Mr. Wilson are really collateral issues and have nothing to do with the events that occurred in early July of 2003. It doesn't serve conservatives well to focus on the man and build an army of strawmen when the issue is really simple and straightforward.

My wife sometimes comes to see what I am doing. She was quite amused by your chucklehead quip.

St. Chuck said..."All this other stuff about possible inconsistencies in later publications of Mr. Wilson are really collateral issues and have nothing to do with the events that occurred in early July of 2003. It doesn't serve conservatives well to focus on the man and build an army of strawmen when the issue is really simple and straightforward."

So, St. Chucklehead, you basically are sugarcoating all the lies of Joe Wilson as "collateral issues". These are not strawmen arguments. On the contrary, they directly undermine the credibility of this witness, Joe Wilson. Unfortunately, this includes his conclusion, that the Bush administration manipulated WMD information, in the July article published in the NYT.

It's not just me and thousands of other blogger types who are questioning Joe Wilson's credibility. The list includes journalists such as Bob Woodward, who has pointed out many of the inconsistencies (i.e. lies) in the Wilson narrative. For the most recent exposure, please read the Op-Ed from Max Boot that appeared yesterday in the LA Times. He slams your boy big time for his consistent pattern of lies and wonders if Wilson lying to the media is a crime!

Libby may very well have lied about his conversations with reporters. But, he has not been indicted for outing the so-called "covert" CIA agent, Valerie Plame. And, despite the Lib mantra, he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

The problem with you and the Libs is that you all seem to be operating in another realm of reality. Facts really don't matter. The only thing that matters is regaining political power, truth and decency be damned. The continual barrage of anti-Bush garbage from the Dim party and its legions are quickly making the Dims even more inconsequential.

Sleep well!

For the most recent exposure, please read the Op-Ed from Max Boot that appeared yesterday in the LA Times. He slams your boy big time for his consistent pattern of lies and wonders if Wilson lying to the media is a crime!

Max Boot! Max Boot? The torture advocating uberimperialist neo con who thinks not enough American blood was spilt in Afghanistan, who thinks that the armed forces should recruit foreigners to fill its ranks. The arm-chair militarist who wants America to rule the world wearing pith helmets like the 19th century British and that believes third world countries would welcome the benevolence of American rule? That Max Boot?

I'll take an egotistical Joe Wilson any day over Max Boot. At least Mr. Wilson actually served his country and in the most backwater places in the world, even in Iraq where prior to Desert Shield he was responsible for the lives of some 800 Americans and described as a hero for his work there. Max Boot is a dangerous imperialist apologist who actually serves as a buttress of support for Mr. Wilson's credibility by merely adding his voice to the chorus of calumnious critics of Mr. Wilson.

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.