Did Joseph Wilson lie? NEED HELP!!!!!!!

[truebrit71]

Both the Senate report/ 9-11 committee and the Butler report seems to say that Iraq WAS looking for yellow-cake, and therefore Wilson is lying when he said he could find no proof/validation....

I know that there are a couple of million other threads ongoing about Wilson/Yellow-cake/Plame-gate etc, I just need some links to shut a freeper up on another board....

The whole fuss us about the 16 words in Bunnypants' SOTU and it's accuracy right? Didn't Tenent say that they should NOT have been included?

I just want a straight answer....Did he lie?

Thanks.

[Caution]

1. no

go read his rebuttal on salon.com

[Zeke]

3. Kitty. Kitty.

I love that cat pic!

I'm voting for the cat.

[papau]

2. NO - see his response letter via google - or check threads at DU

via search.

GOP lies - spining - is never ending.

And media reprinting/re-telling of those lies is bought and paid for via the cost of ownership of media - meaning the GOP appears to own the US media.

[NewJeffCT]

4. how about the White House's own words

Didn't Condi Rice, the unsticker herself, say that those 16 words should not have been in there?

[Qutzupalotl]

6. Yes.

The White House has admitted that they were referring to Niger, specifically to the forged document, in the State of the Union address to congress.

Even though they knew it was wrong. Lying to congress is a felony!

[Gman]

9. Lying to congress is a felony? Why isn't Ted Olsen in prison???

Sorry, just had to throw that totally irrelevant to this thread item into the mix. It just is so meaningless to talk about lying to congress since it really doesn't matter any more.

[Qutzupalotl]

15. It matters.

We went to war for a lie.

I know he won't be impeached, but this is the clearest crime I know of that he's committed, Plame case notwithstanding.

[NewJeffCT]

5. and, a link to the Salon rebuttal

From Ambassador Wilson himself.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/index_np.html

And, a bunch of quotes in here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030709-rfel-151703.htm

[VolcanoJen]

7. Tell the freeper to read Wilson's rebuttal and get back to you.

Here's a link to the point-by-point six-page rebuttal Wilson sent to Senators Roberts and Rockefeller. If you are not a Salon member, you will probably need to view some advertisements in order to get a day-pass:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/

[a_random_joel]

8. I am having a similar debate. It is merely a distraction.

There seem to be two points to this:

1. Question whether or not Wilson lied about the ATTEMPT. (The only other source besides the forged docs is the British claim. They have not revealed any sources or other documentation at this point)

2. Question whether or not Wilson lied about his wife recommending him.(A moot point. FIrst of all, it doesn't really matter. Secondly, Plame's status as a clandestine officer allows Wilson an easy out as to whether or not he should or should not provide any further details on that claim.)


The first thing you need to do is get the other side to admit that the VERY intelligence report they are using CLEARLY states that there were NO WMDS. NO ACTIVE WMD Programs. And a thorough debunking of all the other claims (the tubes, the mobile labs, etc.)

Once you get them to admit that, the Wilson thing is actually a non-starter.

That said, you may want to point them to www.talkingpointsmemo.com which does a pretty thorough job of analysing all of this.

Here is my reply at another board:

I get it now. THis is much better logic.

1. The Brits found out that Iraq ATTEMPTED (but never actually acquired) to buy uranium form Niger in 1999. But they refuse to disclose their sources.

2. Other than this vague "intelligence", the only other thing confirming such an attempt was a set of badly forged documents.

3. As we now know by the very Senate Report you are citing here - there was NO active nuclear program in place during this time.

So undocumented and forged reports claiming that Saddam sought, but never aquired, material for an inactive nuclear program constituted an imminent threat.

Which is really a cherry on top of all the other claims which have been thoroughly debunked: the aluminum tubes, the mobile labs, the UAV, the ties to Al Queda.

And a quick reminder, in case you forgot. No WMDs have been found.

And I'm the "moronic" liberal who keeps repeating "mantras."

Give it up guys. The jig is up...

Which I followed up with this:

I can't even believe you guys are using this report as a means to bolster your argument.

In case you hadn't noticed, this very report admits that:

1. There were no WMDs
2. There were no active WMD programs
3. The intelligence behind all of the WMD claims was wrong


Using this report to back up your arguments is kind of like John Wayne Gacy using his clown costume as an alibi.

You guys crack me up.

[WilliamPitt]

10. He responded on Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/index.html

Get yourself a day pass and read it.

[mememe]

11. no and yes

1. Wilson did not necessarily lie when he said that he could find no verification that a procurement or attempt at procurement of yellowcake was made. He did not say that the procurement or attempt never happened, just that he was unable to find evidence of it. Thus unless he actually DID find evidence and reported to the contrary that statement was not a lie.

Similarly, Bush did not state that an attempt to procure yellowcake in Niger had been made by Iraq. Rather, he cited reports by British intelligence that such an attempt was made. The Butler report has confirmed that British intelligence had reasonable grounds to make the claim and that they still stand by it.

Did Wilson lie about his finding? No.

2. Wilson claimed that his wife had no role in recommending him for the mission to Niger. The SSCI findings directly refute this claim and provide background evidence to support the refutation, including emails Plame send recommending Wilson.

Did Wilson lie about his wife's recommendation? Yes.

[shraby]

12. Sorry bout that, if you read Salon's

rebuttal by Wilson you'll have the story. The main point that is being obfuscated here is the fact that Valerie Plame's work on tracking WMDs was put to an abrupt halt by naming her in the newspaper and the people who gave her name to Novak are a treasonous bunch. By deflecting the story to Wilson they are hoping that Plame will be a side issue and forgotten.

[mememe]

16. Haven't read the Salon article, have read the SSCI report

I'll confess that I haven't read the Salon article in question; however I have read the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report. You can download it at <http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf>.

Look at Section II. "Niger", part B, "Former Ambassador", page 38. It reads in part, "his wife ... suggested his name for the trip." And that she (Plame) sent a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the Counterproliferation Division where she said, "my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts) ..."

It is hard to reconcile the existence of a paper trail showing that Ms. Plame recommended Mr. Wilson for the trip with Mr. Wilson's prior claim that she did no such thing. I'm sorry if it seems that I'm a victim of evil obsfucators but it appears to me that on this point Mr. Wilson has been caught in a bald-faced lie.

Whether or not that detracts from his credibility on other issues is up for each individual to decide. His credibility does nothing to alter the basic facts of Ms. Plame being "outed" as a CIA employee by Mr. Novak. I'm able to hold both thing in my head simultaneously. However; it appears now that the assertion in Mr. Novak's original article are basically correct; to wit, Mr. Wilson got the assignment as a result of lobbying by his wife, Ms. Plame.

[ieoeja]

22. So what?

What the heck does his wife recommending him for the job have to do with anything?

[truebrit71]

23. Please read Ambassador Wilson's rebuttal. Your assertion is wrong.

She did not "lobby" for him. In fact she excused herself from the meeting specifically to avoid an appearance of conflict if interest.

[mememe]

24. I beg to differ

Read the SSCI report. I posted the link earlier. She definitely did, according to that report, recommend him and list his qualifications for the mission. That, to my way of thinking, constitutes "lobbying" for him.

Also, he directly denied that she had any involvement whatsoever in his selection in an interview with Josh Marshall <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/old/sept0304.html#092203920pm>.

In a long answer about the allegations in the Novak article he says, "The idea that--first of all, irrespective of whether my wife is or is not what Novak alleged, therefore, there was no personal involvement."

And later he says, "For the purposes of the trip out there--irrespective of whether she is or she isn't--the decisions on the trip were made by people I didn't know, as I told you earlier. For those who would assert that somehow she was involved in this, it just defies logic."

The clear meaning of his statements, in context, what that his wife had no involvement in his selection. It's kind of hard to square that statement with the evidence that she was recommending him as the one to go.

Now admittedly this is a small matter in the grand scheme of things. But if we are not willing to acknowledge the truth in small things why should we be taken seriously about larger things?

[Green Mountain Dem]

13. "The Butler Report".......

BWAHAHAHA!!!!! Ask some Brits about THE Butler Report.

[durutti]

20. He didn't say that his wife didn't recommend him.

He said that she didn't play a substantive role in choosing him, a statement that he bosses back up.

[oasis]

14. No. But don't let that stop you in your futile quest to convert Freepers.

:evilgrin:

[Jack Rabbit]

17. No, he did not lie

Wilson's mission was to report on the authenticity of a specific document. The Bushies had used this particular document above others to support their case Saddam.

Wilson reported it was a fake. So did Mohammed ElBaradei, chairman of the IAEA, when he testified before the UN Security Council just prior to the invasion. We may be satisfied that the Niger document, as it has come to be known, was a a fake. It was an extremely crude forgery.

If the Bushies had better evidence to support their case, they didn't use it prior ot the war. Moreover, whether Saddam's attempt to buy yellow-cake by itself justified the invasion would be another question, especially assuming that his attempts got nowhere.

In any case, the fact that there may be some evidence to show that Saddam was attempting to buy yellow-cake uranium in no way makes a forgery genuine; nor could it justify blowing the cover of Ms. Plame.

[skypilot]

18. Wait a minute.

Didn't I read in one of the threads on this yesterday that the Washington Post had printed a correction saying that it was Iran and NOT Iraq that was trying to get nuclear material from Niger--or was that related to something else? I'm getting confused.

[truebrit71]

19. Excellent! Thanks everyone!

ANOTHER freeper lie de-bunked...!!!

[durutti]

21. Iraq was *not* seeking yellowcake, and that's *not* what the reports say.

That's just the spin. See: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/