JayB Posted September 1, 2006 Author Share Posted September 1, 2006 "Liar" would be closer to the mark than "apologist." Wilson did pretty much debunk the Niger Uranium story and, although his report may not have been circulated to the Whitehouse, they received a phone call and a memo from Tenet, the Director of the CIA, asking them to remove the matter from the President's speeches because it was probably false. Our man Bush continued to make the charge. The OpEd is not apologizing for anything, it is actively trying to deceive the reader. Were you, Jay, actually convinced - at any time - that Wilson should not have brought his knowledge that the President lied about the Uranium to the public eye? The fundamental claim, "Plame was outed by the administration in an act of political retribution" was not correct. With respect to Wilson's role, I'm sure that the record is consistent with your understanding of the events, Matt. Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee Report Link Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly. Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House. Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said. The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him. Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer. Administration officials told columnist Robert D. Novak then that Wilson, a partisan critic of Bush's foreign policy, was sent to Niger at the suggestion of Plame, who worked in the nonproliferation unit at CIA. The disclosure of Plame's identity, which was classified, led to an investigation into who leaked her name. The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional. The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said. Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion. The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." "Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. 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. Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said. Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq." According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998. Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin. The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Mattp - I remaqined convinced you are incorrect in your assertion thatWilson debunked anything. Please layout the facts (simply) regarding what Bush asserted and how Wilson debunkned the claim. Please stick the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Dodge and weave. HELLO! Jay,Puget. Consider this: Nobody is saying that Wilson was incorrect. Nobody. There never was any attempted Uranium purchase. And this: Wilson says he concluded that there had been no Uranium purchase. We haven't read the report, but apparently it has been dissected and misrepresented a bit. For example, it was reported in the Post that it said the Iraqi's tried to purchase uraniium in 1998, but it actually said it had been the Iranians. If the conclusions or teh specific words of that report are important in this debate why isn't it published? And this: The White House has acknowedged that the President continued to make the charges about the Uranium purchase after they were told it was, at best, questionnable. Remember their rationale: it was ONLY 16 words? And this: In all of the smoke, even your fantastic editorial admists that the Valerie Plame leak, whether first published by Armitage or not, actually originated in the White house at a time when they were in fact talking about how to discredit Wilson. Remember the Memo? I ask again: do you think Wilson should not have spoken out? And I'll ask: Do you think his wife deserved to be outed? Do you think the White House had nothing to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Dodge and weave. HELLO! Jay, consider this: Nobody is saying that Wilson was incorrect. Nobody. There never was any attempted Uranium purchase. And this: Wilson says he concluded that there had been no Uranium purchase. We haven't read the report, but apparently it has been dissected and misrepresented a bit. For example, it was reported in the Post that it said the Iraqi's tried to purchase uraniium in 1998, but it actually said it had been the Iranians. If the conclusions or teh specific words of that report are important in this debate why isn't it published? And this: The White House has acknowedged that the President continued to make the charges about the Uranium purchase after being told it was, at best, questionnable. Remember their rationale: it was ONLY 16 words? And this: In all of the smoke, even your fantastic editorial admists that the Valerie Plame leak, whether first published by Armitage or not, actually originated in the White house at a time when they were in fact talking about how to discredit Wilson. Remember the Memo? I ask again: do you think Wilson should not have spoken out? And I'll ask: Do you think his wife deserved to be outed? Do you think the White House had nothing to do with it? MAtt - Is everyone who disagrees with you a "dodge and weaver"? Perhaps we are simply confused as to what you are actually claiming. See the Bold section in the quote above. In the first paragraph you seem to say that Wilson claimed that there never was an attempt at a purchase. In the second that there no simply no purchase. Please be consistent. Again if you are so convinced Wilson proved something, just clearly state what Bush asserted and how Wilson debunked it. state the facts clearly and with out reference to other issues. Why do you believe the way you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 i'm still glad wilson made the stink he did. his detractors seem to be focusing on details more worthy of a criminal investigation - trying to flesh out a 'who read what brief when' rube goldberg device of decision making. from a political perspective wilson merely presented a perspective that the president started a war based on the thinnest of evidense at a time when the white house was saying 'trust us, we know things you don't know'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Pardon my error, Peter. As you and I and everybody else who has been paying attention knows, we are talking about a reported attempt to purchase Uranium. That is the allegation that the President made more than once. It was untrue. The White House had been told to take it out of his speeches. They did not. That is what this whole debate is about. Not whether Wilson was recommended by his wife, or whether his report was tanked or whether he conclusively proved anything. At least as early as January, the White House has acknowledged that they had been told to take it out of the State of the Union Speech and they have apologized for "those sixteen words." Any attempt to focus on whether Wilson was inaccurate, or whatever other smoke you are trying to blow is just that: dodge and weave. Have a nice day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 (edited) Pardon my error, Peter. As you and I and everybody else who has been paying attention knows, we are talking about a reported attempt to purchase Uranium. That is the allegation that the President made more than once. It was untrue. The White House had been told to take it out of his speeches. They did not. That is what this whole debate is about. Not whether Wilson was recommended by his wife, or whether his report was tanked or whether he conclusively proved anything. …snip… Any attempt to focus on whether Wilson was inaccurate, or whatever other smoke you are trying to blow is just that: dodge and weave. Have a nice day. Smoke and mirrors…Dodge and weave… mantras for modern debate! I wonder how seriously I am to take anything you write. For, example it seems quite clear that in a discussion regarding “Plamegate” Wilson’s report and its merits are important considerations. You seemed to agree a post or two above when after your initial recitation of your mantra you wrote: HELLO! Jay, consider this: Nobody is saying that Wilson was incorrect. I merely asked that you state clearly the assertion he was debunking and how he debunked it. Earlier in this thread you wrote: Wilson did pretty much debunk the Niger Uranium story and,…. For some reason I cannot discern when I ask for a simple explanation on how Wilson’s debunked of Bush’s assertion you suggest I am “blowing smoke”. I am not “dodging & weaving” or “blowing smoke.” I am just chasing after a moving goalpost. Byu the way it does seem that you are ready to toss Wilson overboard regarding how accurate his report was. So let's forget Wilson and why don't you just layout the facts that support your contention that Bush's assertion was incorrect. Wasn't the assertion something like: “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Hey maybe it was exactly like that! Edited September 1, 2006 by Peter_Puget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Dodge and weave. HELLO! Jay,Puget. Consider this: Nobody is saying that Wilson was incorrect. Nobody. There never was any attempted Uranium purchase. And this: Wilson says he concluded that there had been no Uranium purchase. We haven't read the report, but apparently it has been dissected and misrepresented a bit. For example, it was reported in the Post that it said the Iraqi's tried to purchase uraniium in 1998, but it actually said it had been the Iranians. If the conclusions or teh specific words of that report are important in this debate why isn't it published? And this: The White House has acknowedged that the President continued to make the charges about the Uranium purchase after they were told it was, at best, questionnable. Remember their rationale: it was ONLY 16 words? And this: In all of the smoke, even your fantastic editorial admists that the Valerie Plame leak, whether first published by Armitage or not, actually originated in the White house at a time when they were in fact talking about how to discredit Wilson. Remember the Memo? I ask again: do you think Wilson should not have spoken out? And I'll ask: Do you think his wife deserved to be outed? Do you think the White House had nothing to do with it? Dodge and Weave? Really, Matt, the real issue here is not whether the White House tried to manipulate intelligence - no doubt they did. The point of the thread, as I read it, is your past - somewhat hysterical - conviction of Rove, even despite a grand jury's reluctance to go forward. You were so blinded by your politics that you assumed a lot. Turns out you and others here would have had an innocent man 'led out of the white house in handcuffs' and sent to prison. This is especially shocking given your law background and your oft-stated belief in due process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Again, maybe you and I are not reading the same newspapers, Fairweather, but the book referred to at the start of this thread says it and the Washington Post editorial so proudly cited by JayB even admits the fact that the ultimate source of the Plame leak was the White House. As far as I've seen, nobody is debating why the famous memo was circulated in the White House, either. Maybe you are confused but you shouldn't be. Not just because of this affair, but due to their consistent lies, self-dealing that boggles the imagination, getting us into a disastrous war, doing all they can do to shred the Constitution, and just the fact that the whole dam lot of them are a bunch of crooks and liars -- they SHOULD be led off to prison in handcuffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 "The White House" = Bush. You would have sent Rove to prison for a crime he did not commit. The world as you see it, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 is mattp paranoid? perhaps. is peter puget paranoid? he has no reason to be; he isn't contradicting the president. is mattp being persecuted? well, not that we know of. although his views are being openly criticized somewhat doggedly by peter puget. armitage was just grossman's dupe. grossman was working for libby. libby is cheney's lapdog. see the pattern? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whidbey Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Sorry... flame suit on.. But Mattp is one of the most rational people on this forum. If you think Bush is great and never tells a lie... great on ya. In years to come we can all have a laugh about how fucking great this administration has been...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfCI4bbL8ws Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whidbey Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfCI4bbL8ws Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whidbey Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I'm not a far right democrat or a left wing wacko.. Have it be known I bothered sending money to John McCain six plus years ago.... God hoping to keep this dipshit out of office.... I wasted my money but McCain continues to be a pain in the ass of the far right.... What the fuck is wrong with not saying yes to every fucking thing that the right has to offer.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted September 7, 2006 Share Posted September 7, 2006 After letting the dust settle on this one I find it curious why the conservative commentators are linking the Armitage confession with abosolution to the administration. Below is from the author of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. Another book regarding the administrations lies. *At the time of her outing, Valerie Wilson was an undercover officer in the CIA whose mission had been to gather intelligence about WMDs in Iraq. She was the operations manager of the Joint Task Force on Iraq, a unit in the clandestine service of the CIA. This unit desperately tried to obtain evidence to back up the Bush administration's assertions about Saddam's WMDs, yet it found no such evidence. * Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, was the original leaker in the CIA leak case. But as he was disclosing information to columnist Robert Novak. Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other top White House aides were engaged in a fierce campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson. Rove even told MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews that the Wilsons "were trying to screw the White House so the White House was going to screw them back." I heard the author on the radio and he says (and wrote with sources) that yes the administration was out to squash and critical assessment, including Joseph Wilson. It was ironic that VPlane was actually head of a CIA group trying to find evidence to back up the president's claims regarding WMDs. See davidcorn.com for some book exerpts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Who The Fuck Cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted September 8, 2006 Share Posted September 8, 2006 Is this "Who The Fuck" character the asian uncle of Wendy Who? Or, is it the Grinch's secret alias? ...and does this mean the Grinch is a Republican? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.