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.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - JR
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.
2 - David Flanagan
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
3 - Hal Pawluk
I haven't read the book, so I'd appreciate your posting the passage from it where Wilson specifically says what you claim:
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.
4 - Hal Pawluk
Apparently the link did not come through, so here's another attempt:
What I Didn't Find In Africa
5 - boomcrashbaby
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.
6 - Mark Saleski
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.
7 - David Flanagan
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
8 - boomcrashbaby
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.
9 - Hal Pawluk
So what was your source, David, for the lie that Wilson recanted on his claim that Bush lied?
10 - Jim Carruthers
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.
11 - David Flanagan
Here is an excerpt from the Washington Post regarding the recent revelation of Joe Wilson's lies:
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:
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:
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
12 - Jim Carruthers
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.
13 - Hal Pawluk
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.
14 - Jim Carruthers
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.
15 - Hal Pawluk
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?
16 - David Flanagan
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
17 - David Flanagan
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
18 - Jim Carruthers
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]
19 - Jim Carruthers
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!
20 - Eric Olsen
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.
21 - Jim Carruthers
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".
22 - Eric Olsen
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.
23 - David Flanagan
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
24 - Jim Carruthers
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.
25 - David Flanagan
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