Free Republic

I figured it was time once again for someone to say what it is that the Democrats have really been up to.

I hope you don't mind.

I completely agree with all your statements.

If ever there was a need for a special prosecutor, the time is now!

Ping

You've all been a lot of help in guiding my thoughts. I hope you enjoy this.

I hope you enjoy my work on the CIA leak case, the Oil-For-Food scandal, and the efforts by France to outright hurt America and our economy.

I know it's a little long but the story is a hell of a thing.

Paperjam

Honestly, the thought hadn't really occured to me but it sure is entirely plausible. I wish we could all know without a doubt. I guess looking at the British White Paper would be too much to ask for, huh? LOL

I think one thing we all can agree on is that Wilson is no innocent bystander in any of this. This guy is as dirty as the day is long. His biggest problem now is not that his wife was outed but that we're onto him and one of us will figure it out soon enough.

It'll be his worst day when we do.

Wow,

This fills in the blanks nicely for his second wife Jacqueline Wilson. It's a long read but a great one for anyone looking to get to the bottom of it all. Fedora put together an excellent piece.

With the thanks going to the Moderators, the research I posted above in reply #192 is being moved to a thread of its own. Please go here to view it.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515785/posts


Thank you all for your hard work in making this thread such a great one. We can continue to flush this story out in both places.

Paperjam

Thanks for finding that, I have no idea how that happened. Here is the link from Fox.

"Conflict of Interest Seen in Oil-for-Food Investigation"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174458,00.html

The Moderators are allowing me to repost this story on it's own and for that I am very grateful. As the information expands so does the depth of the story.

I will complete all my research here and post all new findings under this thread.

Check out the dates of this trip. I just ran across it about the same time I looked in on the thread so I haven't tracked down the full page yet.

http://www.ttc.org/cgi-binloc/searchTTC.cgi?displayZop+1664

I have not been posting for the past day or so as I've been following the money. You are not going to believe what I'm finding...okay, maybe you will but the rabbit hole is very, very deep.

Bush didn't, he used the information from the British White Papers they wrote up on their own.

The CIA couldn't refute them because the information came from the Brittons so they left the 16 words in the State of The Union Address.

The British sources were completely different and they still stand by them today.

That's what I think as well and is what put me on his trail. The big problem is trying to see the forest among all the trees.

Paperjam? Get Pam!

Sorry, ADAF guy.

You’re right about the timeline and the uncovering of the documents. He’s been fully discredited in the congressional reports and in the news articles concerning his involvement with the documents.

You wrote: “Most likely possibility, IMHO? Wilson is a pathological liar and mixed what was common knowledge, (the existence of forged documents) with a distorted version of what he actually told the CIA a year earlier in order to puff up his resume. The other possibility, that Wilson saw the documents before he made his report and failed to mention them, makes him part of the forgery scheme -- i.e. working for the French.

While I think everyone who reads up on him will agree with your first sentence, it is the second one that inspired me to begin this journey.

Thanks to the great work of ravingnutter and kcvl. The two of you have done much to flesh this issue out!

A Big Thumbs Up for IVote2 for providing the STATEMENT BY GEORGE J. TENET from 11 July, 2003

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030711-cia01.htm

There is a sentence in the second paragraph that makes Wilson out to be suspect about his statement of seeing the forged documents.

"There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all."

It's a good read of the CIA taking the blame for getting the 16 words wrong in the SOTU Address 2003 or a refresher of the events if you've seen this before. The published date was 11 July 2003.

In case you’d like to read the State of The Union Address for yourself, please go here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Wilson’s original article in NYT is here: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

He had this to say; (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.)

Here's Novak's original article in Townhall: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2003/07/14/160881.html

In it, he says this: "Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man."

He outed Valerie in this statement here; Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

He goes further to say this: All this was forgotten until reporter Walter Pincus revealed in the Washington Post June 12 that an unnamed retired diplomat had given the CIA a negative report.

Here is the original post by Walter Pincus: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A46957-2003Jun11&notFound=true

Pincus had this to say: After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the [envoy's conclusions] was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.my emphasis added (did Walter intend to say this of the envoy or was he overreaching?)

continues…However, the CIA did not include details of the former ambassador's report and his identity as the source, which would have added to the credibility of his findings, in its intelligence reports that were shared with other government agencies. Instead, the CIA only said that Niger government officials had denied the attempted deal had taken place, a senior administration said.

Novak then comes back with another article addressing his first one and the furor it caused here: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/robertnovak/2003/10/01/168398.html

Novak goes on to say this: The leak now under Justice Department investigation is described by former Ambassador Wilson and critics of President Bush's Iraq policy as a reprehensible effort to silence them. To protect my own integrity and credibility, I would like to stress three points. First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.

He goes on to say this: During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, [who is no partisan gunslinger.]

my emphasis added (many take this statement to mean George Tenet) continues... When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

On July 12, 2004, Clifford D. May wrote a nice piece titled: Our Man in Niger seen here: http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp In it, he writes this gem: The Senate report says fairly bluntly that Wilson lied to the media. Schmidt notes that the panel found that, "Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'"

The problem is Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel discovered. Schmidt notes: "The documents — purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq — were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

How the hell did Wilson know anything about any documents?

If I were really to indulge myself into a complete conspiracy theory I'd say "Could be" Or better yet, maybe Jacqueline and Valerie are one and the same person! If she outed herself to him she may have needed to end Jacqueline's "life" and begin a new one as Valerie.

It would be a hell of a stretch but aren't the CIA supposed to be able to do stuff like this?

Jacqueline doesn't seem to exist anywhere so maybe she was wiped clean except for a few seemingly minor places.

Of course I'd just be gussing at wind directions here and I really don't want to turn this into something like that.

I'd rather just vet out what we have here to ensure it's correct and true.

They did, that's why nothing he did fits. Either he's lying or he's part of the plan.

If you can help figure it out, we might break this thing.

What you write is true.

That is why I'm seeking the help of Freepers everywhere. I can't track her down at all. Her last known location was Gabon in 2000 where she was paid $60,000 for four months work (to write letters). Seems like a lot to me for a few letters. She must know some folks in really high places to charge that much.

We know she's a former "French" Diplomat. Isn't it odd that a former diplomat married to a former US ambassador is no where to be found on the web? If she were dead, we'd know for sure. I think she's a true deep cover spy. Maybe a double agent. I think she got to Wilson, I just can't prove it. That's why I've asked for help in proofing out my line of research.

You state with clarity what I wish I had written but only thought. I think you accurately lay out the cause for Frances role and their position in this whole thing.

They are as dirty as the day is long and here we (the USA) are accused of going to Iraq 'for' oil and all along France wanted to keep us out 'for' oil.