How Low Can They Go; Pt. Duex!
Published July 14, 2004
Did Bush lie to send this country to war? Many of our far-left friends think so, including one man, Joe Wilson, who first claimed in a July, 2003, New York Times column that the President's 2003 State of The Union speech contained one lie in particular (Saddam's attempt to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger) that he could personally refute.
The controversy ballooned when Robert Novak wrote a column entitled Mission to Niger, in which he claimed that two "senior administration officials" had informed him of the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, an operative in the CIA's WMD section, had recommended him for the assignment. Mr. Wilson claimed outrage that his wife had been "outed" by the Bush Administration, an act of revenge, he claimed, for embarrasing the President by refuting the President's use of the intelligence in his speech.
Mr. Wilson repeatedly denied that his wife had recommended him for the assignment, claiming rather, that he had been contacted by CIA officials seperately. An interview with Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has Wilson asserting that his wife, pregnant with twins at the time, would not have wanted him to go.
Now, fast-forward to April of 2004. This is month in which Mr. Wilson published his book, The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir, which claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident. Indeed, Saddam had attempted to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger, just as UK intelligence sources had claimed and just as the President had reiterated in his speech.
This startling revelation, of course, was left virtually untouched by the liberal media. Apparently, it wasn't quite as newsworthy as a potential Bush intelligence scandal... Go figure!
But Mr. Wilson went on to insist again that he had not been recommended by his wife for the Niger assignment and that the administration officials had outed Ms. Plame as revenge, not simply to question Mr. Wilson's claims.
Fast-forward again to the recent release of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report, which asserts that Mr. Wilson was indeed recommended for the Niger assignment by his wife, just as the administration officials claimed. The significance of this finding cannot be underestimated because, not only does it show conclusively who the real liar is, it literally ends any claims that Mr. Wilson ever made that the Bush Administration broke any laws.
- How Low Can They Go; Pt. Duex!
- Published: July 14, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: David Flanagan
- David Flanagan's BC Writer page
- David Flanagan's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
JR,
If we want to defeat terrorism, people like Joe Wilson should stop undermining our national efforts against them. By recklessly calling the President a "liar," and then lying to the world to support his claim, he gives comfort to our enemies and, by the way, makes it go out to the international community to gain their support.
When people overseas see Joe Wilson and others making stuff up about the President so that they can score political points, sell books, etc., don't you think it gives them pause? I realize that conservatives did this to some extent with Clinton and shame on them, but we are in a war at this point, are we willing to put the lives of people we love on the line just to sell books and score political points?
David
I haven't read the book, so I'd appreciate your posting the passage from it where Wilson specifically says what you claim:
[Flanagan] amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident.
In everything else I've seen and read, Wilson maintains that Bush lied. Below, for instance, is part of the book description from the Amazon site. Here's a link to "What I Didn't Find In Africa," and New York Times editorial in which he again states that Bush lied.
Is your source material the Heritage Foundation?
(From Amazon Site:)
When President George W. Bush claimed in the now notorious sixteen words in his 2003 State of the Union address that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," Wilson could not stand by silently. For at the request of the CIA he himself had traveled to Niger the previous year and found no evidence to support the rumor of a uranium deal. In a New York Times op-ed, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," he told the nation about that trip and his findings. The White House retaliated viciously. Seeking revenge against Wilson and trying to intimidate intelligence professionals who had begun telling reporters of prewar pressure to skew their analyses of the threat posed by Iraq, senior administration officials did the unthinkable: They disclosed the undercover status of Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, to members of the press. Columnist Robert Novak then published the leak, blew Plame's cover, and abetted the administration's possible violation of federal law.
But Wilson still wouldn't back down. He withstood the personal attacks and called on the White House to acknowledge the truth about the sixteen words. In televised interviews and newspaper commentaries he argued that the administration had fabricated much more than the uranium claim, indeed had manipulated intelligence to bolster its case for invading Iraq.
Apparently the link did not come through, so here's another attempt:
What I Didn't Find In Africa
I've noticed a change in tactic here by the right-wingers over the last several days (on several different threads) and I wonder if it is indicative of the thoughts of right-wingers overall. Can somebody explain this to me:
When Bush went to war in Iraq, he basically snubbed the U.N. because he didn't get the response he wanted. America snubbed France by renaming greasy fried potato strips. Bush went against the majority opinion of the world, creating the largest anti-war, anti-American demonstrations in the world so he could catch Saddam in the manner that he did.
The mentality of Bush and the neo-cons, not even one year ago, was 'screw world opinion'.
Now.....what we have are threads where conservatives are concerned about world opinion being influenced by Michael Moores movie. We have conservatives making comments like 'When people overseas see Joe Wilson and others making stuff up...'
Can somebody explain to me where this sudden concern for world opinion from the conservatives comes from? Too bad we didn't have it a year and a half ago.
and what's really cool is that rush limbaugh's show is carried on armed forces radio...so his made up stuff is spread all around the world.
i wish he would stop because he's hurtin' our national security.
The mentality of Bush and the neo-cons, not even one year ago, was 'screw world opinion'.
Incidentally, that was John Edward's opinion too. He believed that, if the UN did not give final authorization, he would have gone to war as well.
David
oh, well that excuses the leader of the most powerful country in the free world for his continual flip flops and continual change of reasoning for going to war then.
So what was your source, David, for the lie that Wilson recanted on his claim that Bush lied?
Man, I love those little Jack Chick comics, especially where he has the sinners roasting in the fires of H-E-Double Hockey Sticks, though I think he is too lax on the worldwide conspiracy of the Papist Whore of Babylon.
I really wonder at these type of posts, since they aren't intended to put forward information or present an argument. They seem to be nothing more than rantings from the USA version of Pravda, denouncing dissent and progressive thought.
Throwing around terms like "radical" and "far left" to describe, what, internationally, are politicians and apparatchiks who could be best described as moderate right-wingers, just strikes me as nothing more than desperate ravings from those who seek power at any cost from other people.
I thought Mao's Cultural Revolution was discredited years ago, but it lives on in a new century, on a new continent. How strange that the realpolitik and tactics of Communist Eastern Europe and China should be eagerly taken and dressed up with a happy face and shouty bits by the foot-troops of the Folks Republicans of Amerika and their Dear Leader.
Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post regarding the recent revelation of Joe Wilson's lies:
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.
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.
Also, here is an interesting quote from a Washington Post book review of Wilson's book:
In The Politics of Truth, he refers to his new friends in the media by their first names ("Tim," "Chris," "Ted," "Andrea"). He is embraced by the "progressive left," allowing him to go the West Coast to stay in Norman Lear's guest house and eat lunch with, inevitably, Warren Beatty. Wilson's eagerness, his enjoyment of the melodrama, undermines his portrayal of the sinister White House. Wilson never does figure out who leaked the story to Novak (a grand jury is still out on that). But he has an awfully good time telling us about it all. "Wouldn't it be fun to see Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs?" he crowed to a crowd in Seattle. His wife Valerie, the one person in this story who really did suffer, at least had the good sense to tell her husband that he had "gone too far."
Finally, here is a source for my assertion above that Wilson later admitted in his book to being "wrong" (that is, he LIED!) about his Niger story. In the story, Wilson says that:
It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.
That's according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.
While President Bush never mentioned Niger during his speech, Wilson does confirm here that Saddam did indeed attempt to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger, just as British Intelligence has consistently stated. Questions?
David
Questions? Yes, what does any of this spew of assertions mean. As far as I can see, it is meaningless propaganda. The politico equivalent of saying "I know what I am, but what are you?"
Again, some disclosure on what master you serve would be appreciated. Because you obviously aren't in this for the civil polity or the public good.
You might as well be debating why Gephart won't make a good veep because you can quote the front page of the New York Post.
Your link to the Post for your last quote doesn't work, but nothing you posted shows Wilson confirming that "Saddam did indeed attempt to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger."
Nor do I see any substantiation for your initial claim:
[Flanagan] This is month in which Mr. Wilson published his book, The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir, which claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident.
While I think about it, doesn't embracing claims by Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, also known as "Comical Ali" and a compulsive liar, the "We Love the Iraqi Information Minster" guy really undermine your propaganda effort?
But, if you believe anything he says, can I fix you up with a friend in Nigeria WHO NEEDS YOUR ASSISTANCE TO GET MILLIONS and MAKE MONEY FAST WHILE YOUR PENIS GROWS!
I'm sure these friends of mine can help you out.
I found the Washington Post story you were quoting from, David, and see that it says:
In his book, Wilson recounts his encounter with the unnamed Niger official in 2002, saying, he "hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might have wanted to talk about uranium." Wilson did not get the Iraqi's name in 2002, but he writes that he talked to his source again four months ago, and that the former official said he saw Sahhaf on television before the start of the war and recognized him as the person he talked to in 1999.
Is that the part of the book where Wilson is supposed to be saying that Bush did not lie?
How on earth can anyone put that construction on it?
what does any of this spew of assertions mean?
Jim,
Normally, laying out the facts in defense of my point that Joe Wilson is a big ol' liar would be called, "making my case." In the forum here, we like to have what we call "debates." You read what I wrote, think about what is said, and then come up with your own opinion!
Isn't that cool? Personally, I love it! ;-)
David
Sorry about the bad link. Try this link.
As for Joe Wilson, he lied about his Niger mission, he lied about the British intelligence used by the President, he lied about his wife not volunteering him for the assignment, and he lied about his wife being "outed."
CNN's Wolf Blitzer reported just yesterday that Wilson refused to come on camera to answer questions. The guy is running as fast as he can and the only person I found still trying to defend him is Josh Marshall.
Thanks
David
David (if that is your real name) assertions are not facts, neither are opinions.
So where is the uranium, if that is what the case hinges about? And your claim is founded on the allegations of a compulsive liar.
[edited]
Obviously an agent from Castro's COINTELPRO team has hacked the site, and is posting under the secret identity of Flannelman.
And don't believe his denials, because that is exactly what he wants you to think. You'd think you could recognize those grey undies anywhere, but check for the union-suit label first! Excelsior!
In the least, David's reporting casts doubt on Wilson's integrity, his motivations, his reliability, and should raise questions for those who have reached the conclusion that everything the Bush administration has said and done is false.
Not to be overly picky, but shouldn't "reporting" involve, y'know, actual reporting. Asking questions, and recording answers and stuff, rather than selecting stuff from the funny pages.
This is like a record review from someone who has never listened to a record.
"Well, it was a disk, and it spun, somebody told me I would wind up worshipping Satan if I actually heard what was in the grooves, so I can say that all LPs come from Satan, or Stan, or something like that".
there is certainly value in picking and choosing information from the press, attempting to verify via other sources, and then drawing conclusions based upon that information, which is what David did here.
There is also nothing wrong with asking for clarification, direct qutes from sources named, questioning the conclusions drawn, etc, which was also done here.
So where is the uranium, if that is what the case hinges about?
I'm glad you asked. Here is at least some of it.
Thanks.
David
uhm, yeah, that's already existed for decades, and registered with the UN. At least until the US allowed it to be looted.
So, the point is, what Fidel? (because I can't really believe a native USAian english speaker could be that obtuse) This is really a prank call from Cuba, right? Or the Kennedy conspiracy in Miami? Or is it the Colombian-Bush Cocaine Cartel? This has those sniffling basitds snot marks all over it.
shouldn't "reporting" involve, y'know, actual reporting. Asking questions, and recording answers and stuff, rather than selecting stuff from the funny pages.
Are you all REALLY saying that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Washington Post are unreliable? Those are just two of several sources that I used, but probably the two most creditable sources you could find.
Really, if you want to question their credibility, then you are truly in denial. Contrary to claims made by Mr. Wilson, the only one who has been "outed" is Mr. Wilson himself.
Thanks.
David
thanks for all the information David
And besides, whatever uranium might have been in Iraq before, if nothing compared to what USAInc brought to the party.
This story is about American weapons built with depleted uranium components for the business end of things. Just about all American bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000-pound bombs, cruise missiles, and anything else engineered to help our side in the war of us against them has depleted uranium in it. Lots of depleted uranium.
In the case of a cruise missile, as much as 800 pounds of the stuff. This article is about how much radioactive depleted uranium our guys, representing us, the citizens of the United States, let fly in Iraq. Turns out they used about 4,000,000 pounds of the stuff, give or take, according to the Pentagon and the United Nations. That is a bunch.
uhm, yeah, that's already existed for decades, and registered with the UN. At least until the US allowed it to be looted.
And YOUR evidence of this is? Actually, this USATODAY article doesn't support your claim.
Thanks
David
And this, according to the funny pages (your own WashPost link) is the conclusion:
Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
So, what's your point? Who are you working for? Libya? China? Cuba? Russia?
Jim,
Thanks, the link to your story was a hoot. Complete bunk, but a hoot. :-D
David
So, what's your point? Who are you working for? Libya? China? Cuba? Russia?
Conspiracy theorists unite! ;-)
David
Holy Crap! A USAToday article! So it must be true, all of it! I can't not think untruth in the face of such a double-plus onslaught of truth-goodness.
How could I ever un-not-think that such a thing could be not in the interests of Airstrip One.
I need another shot of Victory Gin.
Hey, "David", if it's North Korea you're shilling for, don't worry, I can probably get you an undercover gig slinging kim chi and dumplings up at Bloor and Christie where you can safely go underground without retribution. Plus, the Canadian government will probably protect you from charges of being a traitor to the USA. Don't worry, nobody in Canada will really care that David Flanagan is a traitor to the USA. In fact you could probably get your charges of being David Flanagan, traitor, cleared in a couple of decades. And you could probably publicly display your medal from Kim Il Jung in public.
"David", while I think about it, why don't you play some solitaire? Look for the Queen of Hearts, why dontcha?
Jim,
I think it's time you got off the sauce, or the caffeine, or whatever that is thats talking for you. ;-)
David
Your assertions are still unsubstantiated hard right rhetoric, David, and your initial claim that in his book, Joe Wilson
claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident
still looks like a bald-faced lie to me. I'll be glad to say "Sorry" if you can show me where exactly in the book he does what the far right claims.
As for Wilson declining to appear on the Wolf Blitzer show, what sort of malfeasance or moral turpitude is that supposed to represent? Please explain.
In the least, David's reporting casts doubt on
I don't see that David has done any reporting.
He has made some unsubstantiated assertions, parroting the far right party line. Quoting right wing sources making the same unsubstantiated assertions is not substantiation.
Hal,
Again, I ask, how is it that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Washington Post constitute "right wing sources?"
Read the committees report (linked above) and decide for yourself. Or is that too difficult?
David
Solitaire, "David", Mother asks you nicely.
What is it that you can't declare openly who you are carrying water for? Will it make you shrivel up like the Wicked Witch of the West if you say who work for?
What's the big secret who you are working for?
Who are your puppet-masters, we won't think any less of you if you tell us (well, we can't think any less of you, but that's beside the point).
C'mom, tell us who you work for! Are you ashamed of working for the kin of Roy Coen?
After all these years, there's no shame in being a lying weasel. Look at how far lying weasels have gotten in government. It's practically a prerogative. I'll bet Al can sell you some Kentucky bred blue-tip lying weasels from his farm as cover. Even a breeding pair, so you can carry on a tradition of being a home to lying weasels.
Oh, by the way, is that a error in Deux, or an incompletion of Durex, and signifier of premature ejaculation?
By the way, I live in a foreign country, so I give the credence to reports from aliens what they deserve, ie, none. Maybe if your country started with some reciprocity, we'd consider it.
So, while it makes for a nice fiction, it doesn't count as fact.
So go throw some snowballs in Edmonton., eh (and if you knew that meant, and broadcast it, you'd be in for a huge FCC fine).
I would have to agree that calling the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Washington Post "right wing sources" is stretching the definition of "right wing sources" beyond the breaking point: Washington Times - okay, Fox News - sometimes not always, Washington Post - maybe an occasional editorial?, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - no
David,
"Again, I ask" was your original claim the lie it appears to be?
If it was not a lie, please show me the page and citation from Wilson's book where Wilson:
[Flanagan said:] "claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident."
Eric: While I wasn't talking about all his quoted sources, I may have been a bit loose in the use of "right wing sources" but you're far too broad in characterizing sources, particularly media.
You can't just say that a particular newspaper is such-and-such politically and subsume the specific content under that label. The L. A. Times, for instance, is generally liberal but this morning it has an article by Max Boot, a neoconservative whose writings appear there regularly. Similarly with the New York Times, who now have neocon David Brooks as a regular columnist. Even the Wall Street Journal lets Al Hunt have the occasional word.
The Washington Post article had a rightward slant, and the Senate Committee's report was controlled by the Republicans - there's definitely more to come.
Besides, those weren't the only sources David used in his post so I'll stand by what I said.
And I would STILL like David to explain the apparent lie in his original post.
David asks: "...are we willing to put the lives of people we love on the line just to sell books and score political points?"
Valerie Plame might argue that the President and his Junta are perfectly willing to sacrifice a CIA agent and her international contacts to score political points.
You'll agree that Robert Novak and whomever gave him the name should be tried for treason?
I knew you'd a agree, David.
BTW: So far in the political battle between left and right, the most blatanly unpatriotic act in recent history was committed by Right-Wing windbag Robert Novak.
How ironic.
Speaking of Novak, since he is still under investigation, should he really be talking about this?
I suspect by the weekend, Bush and B.Liar are going to figure out how to blame this whole mess on Courtney Love.
So far the only liars here are Democrats. Everything Wilson said is an out and out lie. Nothing can chenge that anymore. He lied. He may continue to lie. His lies are available in book form for those who believe anything in book form. But the Senate committee has produced the several memos where Plame recommends her husband for the appointment. And there is indisputable evidence that has since surfaced that proves that Saddam did seek uranium in Africa generally and Niger specifically. You loony tunes better learn how to recognize truth when you see it. Oh! Wait... you leftists say there are no moral absolutes. You have no morals at all which explains why you continue to lie and decieve...
Praised by faint damnation.
You'll agree that Robert Novak and whomever gave him the name should be tried for treason?
I don't agree. You see, whoever revealed that Valerie Plame was the one who recommended her husband for the trip did so because nepotism is illegal and it cast doubt upon Joe Wilson's credibility as a source.
Besides, what of the legality regarding Joe Wilson outing himself in Vanity Fair? Wasn't he obligated to guard this intelligence rather then reveal it?
David
Phillip,
Thanks for the link. Novak is NOT under investigation, though, he does know the source, which he is, of course, not obligated to reveal since there is such a thing as "freedom of the press."
Thanks.
David
Hal,
Please see comment 11. The question was asked and answered when Joe Wilson admitted that he was wrong about Iraq's attempted uranium purchases in Niger.
Thanks.
David
Here is a NY Times link that affirms at least some of the details of what I've said above.
Instead of assigning a trained intelligence officer to the Niger case, though, the C.I.A. sent a former American ambassador, Joseph Wilson, to talk to former Niger officials. His wife, Valerie Plame, was an officer in the counterproliferation division, and she had suggested that he be sent to Niger, according to the Senate report.
That finding contradicts previous statements by Mr. Wilson, who publicly criticized the Bush administration last year for using the Niger evidence to help justify the war in Iraq.
As we all know, the New York Times is a radical right-wing rag...
Thanks
David
You see, whoever revealed that Valerie Plame was the one who recommended her husband for the trip did so because nepotism is illegal and it cast doubt upon Joe Wilson's credibility as a source.
How do you know why the person who revealed her did so? I thought that question was at the core of the whole scandal. And if they did so to expose nepotism, surely it would have been more appropriate to go through legal channels rather than shop the story around to political pundits.
Besides, what of the legality regarding Joe Wilson outing himself in Vanity Fair? Wasn't he obligated to guard this intelligence rather then reveal it?
You mean outing his wife; Joe Wilson was not the CIA agent.
First of all, she was already outed; second, she was semi-disguised in the photo. I'm not saying the Vanity Fair cover wasn't a questionable attempt to get attention, but I don't think there was anything illegal there.
David (#52), I suppose you can quibble about whether the words "under investigation" have a special meaning beyond the obvious, but I based that statement on this sentence from the link I posted:
Because a U.S. Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating whether any crime was committed when my column first identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, on advice of counsel I have not written on the subject since last October.
If a special prosecutor was investigating whether any crime was committed when I wrote something, and my lawyer had advised me to keep quiet on the subject, I think that the phrase "under investigation" would be appropriate, but I'm funny that way.
Sure, it could be that Novak meant to say "when my source gave me the information which my column later revealed," but what he wrote more explicitly puts the investigation on his column.
You mean outing his wife; Joe Wilson was not the CIA agent.
No, Wilson outed himself in a sense because, while on assignment, he WORKED for the CIA. Furthermore, he was recommended by his wife, which is certainly not a normal occurrence that someone would recommend a spouse who has never acted in a covert role.
Its strange and it gives credibility to Novak's sources, especially in light of the fact that Wilson has repeatedly and adamantly denied that his wife recommended him. He's said this on TV, on the radio, and in print, yet now we find out that their are memos in which Valerie Plame recommended her husband for the role.
The real question here is, why did Joe Wilson lie about this if there wasn't something wrong with it?
David
No, David, #11 doesn't cut it. The article (not Wilson) says:
It was Saddam Hussein's information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as "Baghdad Bob," who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade -- an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.
That's according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched "yellowcake" uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.
If you look at the actual passage from the book, Wilson says that the Nigerian official:
"hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might have wanted to talk about uranium."
That speculation by the official does not support your initial claim that Wilson himself, in his book, recanted about Bush lying.
Based on what you've provided so far, I'm afraid I'd have to rank your post on a scale of 1 to 10 as:
Credibilty: minus 4
Credulity: plus 10
But that's just me, of course - YMMV.
Hal,
Have you read the book or are you asking me to give you the specific page number and section? The NY Times reviewer reported, as did several other news sources, that in the book Wilson later learned that "Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source."
Furthermore, the Butler Report, which came out just a day or two ago, affirms the intelligence originally given to Bush regarding Saddam's attempts to buy uranium in Africa, including Niger. As you probably know, President Bush cited that intelligence during his speech, not US intelligence.
David
The real question here is, why did Joe Wilson lie about this if there wasn't something wrong with it?
Good question. By the same token, why haven't the two "senior administration officials" come forward if there wasn't something wrong with leaking Valerie Plame's identity?
Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source."
So what?
How does that support your first assertion that in his book, Wilson
"claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident"
And yes, I would like you to give me chapter and verse from the book showing excatly where it, as you asserted,
"claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident."
Your central claim was so groundless, David, that I took a moment to check another of your sources, the link to the right-wing OpinionJournal. There I found the following:
"When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the '16 words' or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger Uranium reporting," the report says. In short, Joe Wilson is a partisan fraud whose trip disproved nothing, and what CIA doubts there were on Niger weren't shared with the White House.
The leap of logic required to draw that conclusion is breath-taking, but invalid (and not surprising on that site).
There is no possible way to conclude that "Joe Wilson is a partisan fraud" from that Senate report excerpt. Wilson made his report to his minders but he was not responsible for and had no control over whether anyone from the CIA told the NSC what to do with the 16 words.
Also, note the weasel: this was only "when coordinating the State of the Union."
The NSC was told to remove the claim at other times, as seen in the following further excerpts from the same Senate report:
- "On Oct. 5, 2002, ... the ADDI [associate deputy director for Intelligence] said an Iraqi nuclear analyst -- he could not remember who -- raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq." (Page 55)
- "Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI faxed a memo to the deputy national security advisor that said, 'Remove the sentence ... " (Page 56)
- "On Oct. 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House that said, 'More on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points ... " (Page 56)
Debate is fine, but let's stick with all the facts rather than weaseling our way through this.
Given that Wilson has sent a public letter to the committee correcting errors and distortions (after all, he's a diplomat, he wouldn't call them lying sacks of shit, not like this guy), what really puzzles me is why the dude they know at keggers as Flannelman, the Flannel-meister, el Flannorolla-o-rock-a-rolla, der Flannelstein, the Little Pink Flannel Bunny, etc. (at least that's what some people say, according to Faux Newz), hasn't linked to his real blog site? No doubt the real source of his "information".
Il y en a qui indiquent que le David qui porte le pantalon minuscule de coton est plein de la merde. Mais je dis le non! Il souffre seulement d'un manque de stimulation anale et étant raillé par le sien améliore.
Évidemment le petit camarade est frustré dans ses efforts de devenir un lutteur miniature professionnel. Et ses pairs raillent son masculinity faible.
D'ailleurs, quel est français pour votre père était un hamster, et votre mère a-t-elle senti des baies de sureau, et je suis du petomme dans votre direction générale?
Lancez la vache!
Now is ze part where you, and the rest of your rrr-o-gant cow-ards run away like leetle gurls, while I taunt you once more, you pees-pour impérsonation of a civilizé being.
Launch the cow?
I get french translated at http://babelfish.altavista.com/.
It isn't perfect. So far, I've gotten the gist of a hamster, elderberries and tiny white cotton trousers. (overlooking some more graphic descriptions that were translated).
If I just stick with those though, (as well as 'launch the cow') I see the beginnings of a great naptime story for my daughter, reminiscent of Mr. Toad's Wild Ride. Thanks for the spark.
Make sure you include the part where the father (or as he's known in his household, the King) says gesturing to the window, "someday, my son, all this will be yours", and his idiot son says, "wot, the curtains?"
Jeeeeezus Christmas, get some real jokes
there Carruthers.Ripping off 30 year old
dialogue from Monty Python movies is old
hat and unoriginal no matter WHAT f***in
language it's in, C'est Ne Pas?
eh, yer just jealous you didn't think of it first you old queen, living in yer cave with yer young "ward".
After all, when one is discussing international diplomacy, shouldn't one use the lingua franca?
(For those tuning in from 'murrica, that is the language used by Ben Franklin and Tommy-boy Jefferson, and sometimes by Dick Cheney, but only when he remembers to say "pardon my french")
Pathetique!!!
David, could you give me the exact quotes and page numbers from the Franks book where this happens:
In his book, "American Soldier," Tommy Franks confirms even further that belief in that he discusses how he was warned by nearly every one of Iraq's neighbors that Saddam had the weapons and had every intention of using them against the US.
It may be true, but in your How Low Can They Go; Pt. Duex! post you claimed:
"This is [the] month in which Mr. Wilson published his book, The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir, which claimed, amazingly that the President had not lied about the Niger incident."
I just finished reading the Wilson book yesterday and I didn't find it doing any such thing.
Thanks.
Thanks so very much for taking your time to create this very useful and informative site. I have learned a lot from your site. Thanks!! I think you have done an excellent job with your site. I will return in the near future.
Far too late to be relevant to this thread, but I just wanted to point out a teeny little omission in the "Amazon Site" (whatever that is... do you mean amazon.com ?) quote cited in Hal Pawluk's post (#3, above).
(From Amazon Site:)
[...]
When President George W. Bush claimed in the now
notorious sixteen words in his 2003 State of the
Union address that "Saddam Hussein recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa," Wilson could not stand by silently.
[...]
The phrase quoted has ten words, not sixteen. The missing six words? From the actual text of the speech, that quote was preceded by "The British Government has learned that". Seems a bit too convenient to the left-leaning argument that the quote is truncated up front by the word 'that', conveniently omitting a non-trivial bit of context.
Those six words of context make the assertion that the President flatly lied, and the putative belligerence of this quote (as widely reported on TV and in the papers), a whole lot weaker. How come no one ever points that out?
Because it's a bogus argument. "...has learned that..." implies the reality of the assertion - it's the same as saying that it's true. For the sentence to be honest, Bush would have to say, "The British government has evidence that..." or "The British Government believes that...".
Although in hindsight, even those might be questionable. Perhaps he should have said, "I believe that..."
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/17424)
Unfortunately, people like Mr. Wilson are so reckless, they are even willing to endanger our national security efforts in their blind attempt to hurt the man they hate. Who cares if these "nuances" hurt the country's credibility in the international community?
Ah, so Bush's lack of credibility is not his fault, it's his critics' fault.
Who cares if this makes us less effective in protecting the homeland, or in removing terrorists and terrorist supporters across the world? As long as it hurts President Bush, its okay with the left!
So it's not Bush's fault that bin Laden is still at large, it's the his critics' fault.
Hmmm, maybe if we want to defeat deadly terrorists, we should get a President who isn't so easily tripped up by mere criticism.