BREAKING: Conned big time "CIA Witness" to White House Lying about Intel story found to be FRAUD

Capitol Hill Blue ^ | July 9, 2003 | Doug Thompson

[Lauratealeaf]

Not ONE reporter has asked thequeston to or about Joseph Wilson...."Why didn't you come out with your story the DAY after the President's State of the Union speech instead of 6 months later????" What LAZY reporting.

Do you remember that sitdown dinner sometime before the 2000 President election between executives of either CBS, NBC or ABC and Al Gore and his aparachiks? They were discussing how they could help defeat George W. Bush. I would not for one moment doubt that this has been in the works for quite some time.

[Miss Marple]

One interesting thing we should look for is if Pitt's organization gets funding from the NEA.

[PhiKapMom]

I second reading this thread in its entirety as one of the most important threads ever on here. It has opened up the possibility of anonymous sources that quote the Administration in other news outlets as being plants IMHO!

[Radix]

The Republican Party was formed to prevent the expansion of slavery into the west before the Civil War. Republicans went south to help free the slaves, and they were lynched along with the slaves they helped free - by the DEM. Ku Klux Klan. Dred Scott was a Dem. response to the GOP fight against slavery. This is all documented in spades. Yet, our press, our schools, our entertainment establishment has the power to keep the myth of Republican racism alive for all these decades. It started with the Communist Party.

Yeah! Well said.

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you now -- she has to take down Pres Bush to run and believe we are seeing it going on right now. First the "socialist" being used for Bush and now Bush Lies.

All clintonite tactics IMO!

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Or as anonymous sources being figments of the writer's imagination.

[Radix]

He could have said it all in less than 50 words. But, you know how those Long in the tooth ones are. Why use 50 words when you can use 500?

[Miss Marple]

Truthout.org is listed as a media resource at the University of Buffalo. If you wish to see it, click

here

and scroll down to the bottom of the page.

If I remember correctly, there was a terrorist cell in Buffalo.

[Lauratealeaf]

If I remember correctly, there was a terrorist cell in Buffalo.

You remember correctly.

[piasa]

BUFFALO CELL

[PhiKapMom]

You remember correctly! They were arrested several months ago.

[Miss Marple]

Sending you a freepmail.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thanks, Radix. As for the casualties - our troops are kicking bad guy derriere DAILY in Iraq. We've lost 17 to hostile fire in the past 31 days across a nation the size of Germany, with over 24 million newly free Iraqis (the vast majority who are grateful and working with us to take out the Rats) and over 146,000 US troops - with three major aggressive operations taking place.

Our press is failing the troops.

---

Best of the Web Today - July 3, 2003

By JAMES TARANTO

Homer Nods
In yesterday's item on nonsensical claims of a "quagmire" in Afghanistan, we got the ratio of soldiers killed in Afghanistan to Sept. 11 casualties wrong. It was 1/50th, not 1/20th; we've corrected the error.

Here are some more numbers to put things in perspective. The Des Moines Register dubs Afghanistan a "quagmire" because more than 60 U.S. servicemen have died there. The U.S. Army Web site reports that in that branch of the military alone, 178 people died in accidents in fiscal 2003. The Office of the Secretary of Defense links to a chart (PDF form) of total U.S. mliitary casualties world-wide. In 2000--before the intervention in Afghanistan--they numbered 774, of which more than half were accidental. In 2002, the total casualty figure was up to 1,007, again more than half accidental.

NJLawman.com reports that as of today, 71 American law-enforcement officers have lost their lives in the line of duty. For all of 2002, the figure was 152. Would the Register recommend giving up on law enforcement because it's a "quagmire"?

---

On June 10 - Saddam's bad guys killed one of our brave soldiers and wounded another.

On June 10 - their fellow Soldiers, Airmen, Marines and Guard - men and women in uniform -did this to Saddam's bad guys:  ONE DAY IN IRAQ

[EllaMinnow]

I'm posting the original Joseph Wilson column for a refresher. There should be a lot more in here to be picked apart.


If You Don't Want To Know, Then Don't Ask
By Joseph C. Wilson IV

WASHINGTON - Did the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear-weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as charge d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last U.S. diplomat to meet with Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George Bush's ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional-weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the CIA that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake, a form of lightly processed ore, by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the U.S. ambassador to Niger, I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the CIA paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the U.S. government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-'70s and visited as a National Security Council official in the late '90s. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River over the John F. Kennedy bridge, the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors - they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government - and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the CIA. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in U.S.-government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a CIA report summing up my trip and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President George W. Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that, in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand - though I would be very interested to know why. If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Cheney said that Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological-weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear-research program - all of which were in violation of UN resolutions. Having encountered Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the Bush administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson IV, U.S. ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant. He contributed this comment to The New York Times.


NOTE: Where is Wilson? I've just gone through 12 pages of google news results - and every story about him springs from this column. Why hasn't he been on the Today Show, or CNN, or Dan Rather if he has such a tale to tell?

[FairOpinion]

I'll scan the thread -- over 1000 posts!

I did have the idea that there was more to the story.

That is why I suggested that he has reasons to atone, because when it was something that embarrassed President Bush, he just jumped and printed it, instead of checking it out.

At the same time, I was trying to point out that if he is serious, he should do more than just write this one article and consider the matter closed, he should do what you suggested to find out who that guy really was and become an activist for truth and accurate reporting in the media, of which there seems to be less and less of.

I liked your suggestion of finding out who that guy really is and what his real connections are to those who may have political motives to plant certain fraudulent information in the press. This could just be the tip of the iceberg.

I hope he follows up on it.

He should also print a correction for every single article which was based on this fraudulent unnamed source, instead of just removing them from the archives, he owes that to all who were maligned by those previous various allegations printed as facts.

[FairOpinion]

"if I should take down my posts to this blog which express skepticism."
----

Why should you? YOU WERE RIGHT! He is guilty of shoddy reporting for not having checked his sources.

His admission and regret (hopefully) doesn't change those facts.

You should leave your comments up, because you questioned the very points, that later were found out to be fraudulent and wrong. You have good logic, thought processes and instinct -- except now when you are trying to be overly generous. ;)

[FairOpinion]

"I am in awe that Mr. Thompson so quickly worked to set the record straight."
---

So quickly?! He swallowed some guy's lies hook, line, and sinker, never checking him out properly, FOR 20 YEARS!!!

[Radix]

Pardon me RTC, for being selfish in my thinking and posting. I just want my boy home. Each and every death of an American trooper causes my heart to sink a bit more. I cannot express in words my anguish for those fallen troops and for their families.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thank you for posting this.

[piasa]

In 1990, as charge d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last U.S. diplomat to meet with Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George Bush's ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

Hmmm. He goes out of his way to say he was "George Bush's Ambassador" to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe. But according to this:

Joseph C. Wilson IV, U.S. ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant. He contributed this comment to The New York Times.

...he didn't even assume that obscure, out of the way position until 1992. Bush was LEAVING office then. Did Bush appoint him at the incoming Clinton's request, as a courtesy since there was so little time left? Did Bush send him to the proverbial corners of the earth for a reason? appoint him at all? Either way, he was really BILL CLINTON'S ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe, for it was in Clinton's State Department that he served from 92 to 95. And if I remember right, this guy has lib connections, not conservative ones. He only uses Bush's name just to try to make himself sound like an impartial observer.