Daily Howler's Somerby totally takes apart Joe Wilson

[ProfessorPlum]

It would seem the Dems will be hurt much more by their association with the seemingly mendacious Wilson than will the GOP by Wilson's claims. It's too bad, too. I liked the way Wilson wasn't afraid to go up against these guys, but Somerby picks through the rhetoric to the heart of the matter: Wilson did not/does not have the goods on them.

Be careful when citing yellowcake in your anti-Bush discussions. This (rather minor) talking point should be taken off the table.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072004.shtml


"In our view, Wilson’s letters to the Committee and the Post are fake, evasive, insincere, misleading. Correctly, Getler burned Wilson’s Straw Men in his ombudsman column, and similar Straw Men littered the letter Wilson sent to the Committee itself. But here is the most amazing thing Wilson says in his “rebuttal” to the Committee. Take a seat. Strap yourselves in. Try to believe that he said it:

WILSON (letter to the Intelligence Committee): My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself “a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs.”...I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur.

Amazing, isn’t it? I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa! Readers, what has the last year been about if Wilson didn’t claim to debunk Bush’s claim? (Think hard—we know you’ll come up with something.) Let’s compare two important statements—Bush’s famous 16 words, and Wilson’s amazing new admission:

BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

WILSON: I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

Finally! This is what we’ve always told you—Wilson had no way of knowing if the 16-word statement was right or wrong. He had no way to debunk it! But throughout his thrilling and best-selling book, he calls this statement a “lie-lie-lie-lie,” over and over and over again. But then, grinding overstatement like that has been the problem with Wilson all along (as the three senators correctly note). And now, alas, Dems will start to pay a price for investing so much in his presentations."

[kaitykaity]

1. What the Thugs did to Wilson's wife trumps

anything the Thugs can throw at Wilson now AFAIC.
If Wilson was not a threat, why take out his wife?

[ProfessorPlum]

4. Oh yeah

several people should go to jail over the Plame thing. That has nothing to do with this. It's just that Wilson's other complaints against the administration don't hold water.

[kaitykaity]

6. Well, Rove throws mud against the wall until something

sticks. That's the way this game works now.
(Why after a year or more Joe himself is now the
issue? I'm not buying it.)

[stickdog]

111. Which of Wilson's claims against Bush don't hold water?

Please list them right here.

In other words, put up or shut up.

[sadiesworld]

2. OUCH!

[stickdog]

110. OUCH what?

:wtf:

[sadiesworld]

136. I respect Wilson. I respect the Daily Howler.

It pains me to see the Daily Howler criticizing Wilson.

:shrug:

[stickdog]

159. But Somerby doesn't present an argument. He just says, "AHA! I never

believed that guy!"

Meanwhile, there is exactly ZERO evidence that anything Wilson said is false.

[sadiesworld]

193. Shame on Somerby (ouch).

Whatever.

[trumad]

3. Bob has been dead wrong on this

and for a guy who hates parsing media types, he's doing exactly that. Read Josh Marshalls latest about Wilson... Plame did not offer up her husband for the gig but Somerby just can't get past that.

[trumad]

Oh and one more thing...

they say that cheney didn't read the report...er OK...Like we're supposed to believe whatever Cheney and gang says...

Josh Marshalls take:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_18.php#003174

[ProfessorPlum]

26. The point is Wilson can't prove anything

and he should keep his mouth shut about what he can't prove. The alternative doesn't help us. Certainly, nail them on everything you can prove. But don't make declarative statements about what you know if you don't actually know it.

I'm sure Cheney is lying, but Wilson is a bad messenger for us. He's too loose in what he states as fact instead of what are his conclusions.

[HootieMcBoob]

32. Then why did the Bush people say after the SOU

That the uranium from Africa thing should not have been included in the speech? Also, as it turns out that all of the other independent sources point back to the same forged document!!! I think Sommerby is barking up the wrong tree with this. He should stick to parsing the words of pundits. I have a feeling he's going to end up looking pretty foolish when this thing plays out.

[ProfessorPlum]

37. Exactly

They said it shouldn't have been included - because the media decided to make a case about that particular line, out of the hundreds of misleading and erroneous things he had said leading up to the war. Who knows why?

They never said it was a lie, because the way it was formulated, it wasn't!

Somerby IS parsing pundits here. Wilson happens to be one of them in this case. I think Wilson is a good guy, and I think the Plame thing stinks, but Somerby is right to point out when our side is playing fast and loose with the truth. That doesn't help us.

In what scenario would Somerby end up looking foolish?

[redqueen]

41. No

Did they come out immediately and say, 'That's not what we were talking about, we meant the British intel'? No, they didn't.

Something stinks.

[ProfessorPlum]

52. Here is what Bush said:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Disprove that. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can disprove it. Even the implication, that Saddam would have liked to get some uranium, is ironclad, unless you can read minds.

Wilson can be rightfully pissed about all of this innuendo, but no one can prove that this line is a lie.

I'm royally POd about all of the lying that was done before the war. This line is not something we can hang on Bush. He's too weaselly a liar for that one.

[HootieMcBoob]

58. Then why did the CIA send Wilson to Nigeria?

They sent him there because that is what Cheney asked the CIA to check out. When he said Africa he said it because of the forged documents. It wasn't only Wilson though, there was another ambassador and a Marine four star general who all made the same reports. They said Africa in the SOTU because they knew they could get away with that lie of omission. Somerby's pounding away at this is crazy.

[ProfessorPlum]

65. Jesus, does nobody get this?

Wilson cannot say for sure whether the British government actually thought that had learned that.

Wilson cannot say for sure whether "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" - and in fact, what Wilson found out actually backs up this claim.

What Wilson could find out is that Saddam's efforts, if there were any, to get uranium from Niger were futile. That's what he can limit his claims to.

It doesn't make Bush's SOTU statement false, however. That doesn't mean Bush isn't a forked-tongue a**hole. But it does mean that Wilson hasn't caught him in a lie, no matter how angry he is.

[buycitgo]

82. again, did you read the article linked in post 55?

why did the WH go NUTS in response to Wilson's public statements last July?

huh?

did you read all the contradictory, weasely answers?

nothing evidentiary has changed since then

nothing

if anything, it's become clear that the Brits/French relied on the forged documents as part of their circular reinforcement of bogus info

AND, they STILL refuse to give up their sourcing

you know if it wasn't bogus, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops

give me a break

[HootieMcBoob]

83. That's my point!

The CIA sent Wilson to Nigeria because that is the part of of AFRICA that Cheney was interested in due to the forged documents. If he was interested in finding out about uranium being purchased from someplace else in Africa the CIA would have sent people to someplace else instead of three people to Nigeria. Nigeria was the country in Africa that Cheney and the administration were concerned about. Bush chose to say Africa in the state of the union precisely because it could not be disproved. Wilson writes about it because he knows that it was a lie of omission. Everybody knows it was a lie of omission! My point is that Somerby going on about this is playing into the hands of the GOP's character assassination of Wilson! He's following the Republican's deliberately laid red herring! And, at the same time helping to take down the one man who had the balls to literally stand up to Hussein while he was still in power in Iraq. Somerby is doing a grave disservice to his country and to a real patriot in Wilson.

Now I have to go to a class. I can't wait to read more of this thread later tonight! :)

[Brotherjohn]

88. Read my posts below. Intentional deception is a lie by definition.

Wilson was sent to check out the specific alleged deal for uranium between Niger and Iraq. He was briefed on with a summary of the (no known forged) documents provided by Italian intelligence.

He came back saying this specific deal (and likely any uranium deal with Iraq) could not have taken place.

The White House proceeded to include this claim in speeches and statements. In the SOTU, it was changed to read "British intelligence" had found... British intelligence was relying largely on the same forged documents.

This change was admittedly made by WH personnel to render the statement technically true, while they knew its basis was dubious at best. Someone below posts the pertinent link (a WashPost story, I think). This is nothing short of an admission that they intentionally misled. The definition of a lie includes to make a statement with the intention of misleading.

As I post below, whether or not Bush himself actually knew the process that resulted in this statement being put into the SOTU may allow you to argue he did not himself "lie" here. But he read a WH-penned lie. If he is so out of the loop as to not know the source of one of the two major claims that Iraq is a nuclear threat (that and the aluminum tubes), one that he held over our heads as a "mushroom cloud" threat, then he is incompetent.

But in any case, the White House did LIE. You are parsing words to say that "Bush" himself didn't. It misses the whole point. We KNOW the statement was intentionally deceptive and we know the White House knew this. He read this lie to the nation as justification for a war. The statement is a lie by the White House. If the WH wants to start making the argument that he didn't KNOW it was a lie and therefore didn't lie himself, then they are going to have to make the argument that their president is incompetent.

[KoKo]

172. Great Post here. The issue isn't about Wilson's Qualifications to go to

Niger...but what he thought he was going for (which I believe) and what was his WIFE's connections to WMD being sold througout the ME...that's what's lost in this argument over why Wilson was send and who he reported to..whether Cheney or whatever.

[stickdog]

115. Bush AND Downing Street both lied.

Where is the evidence that Iraq even ever tried to obtain uranium from Africa?

Show us the evidence that you claim Wilson lied about or give us the quotes in which Wilson lied.

Put up or shut up.

[KoKo]

164. Professor Plum and Somersby drink the Fascist Kool Aid...oh...no..maybe

Saddam DID BUY YELLOW CAKE! OMG! IRAQ INVASION really IS JUSTIFIED!

WOW EEE! Wilson is just a F**ed up guy looking for glory here, whose story is just his piple dream??

[redqueen]

74. No, no one can prove that that line is a lie

However, and this is the important point -- the administration was falling all over themselves trying to explain it. See post #39 for the evidence that somehow has escaped Mr. Somerby and others intent on helping the Bu$h crime family to keep the public biased against the entire Plame affair.

Now anytime anyone hears 'Plame' they'll think 'Wilson's a liar' instead of 'the Bu$h administration is complicit in treason'.

[ProfessorPlum]

81. If Wilson had been more careful about what he said

we could ram "Wilson's a liar" right down their twisted throats. But Wilson has not assisted us in that.

And I agree, the administration couldn't explain itself. There were a lot of untenable claims on both side of that argument.

[redqueen]

86. Why are Wilson's immaterial alleged 'lies'

more important than getting to the bottom of whether the British intel was in fact actually based on the same discredited information?

Why is it more important than determining why the administration has contradicted itself ten times as often as Wilson has?

Yes, if people were pefect, life would be easier. Nobody's arguing that.

[ProfessorPlum]

91. Because otherwise, we'd just have two people making

unprovable claims at each other. There actually is a truth here, if our side, Wilson included, can stick to things we actually can know with some degree of certainty. We can't prove them wrong all the time if we fudge the truth ourselves.

[redqueen]

95. There is a truth regardless of what Wilson says

THAT'S the fact, smears aside.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

128. So, Wilson actually experienced the events, but you and Big Bob...

...think you know the truth?

Interesting. Sad, but interesting nonetheless.

[stickdog]

118. List Wilson's supposed lies. Come on & list them. Put up or shut up, man!

[SemperEadem]

263. to post 81--and please, no FUX speak of "some people say....."

[gpandas]

104. "has learned", by definition, means the sayer

has accepted this to be true.

[leftofthedial]

106. yellowcake or no, lies in the SOTU or no

someone at the White House deliberately blew the cover of a covert CIA operative and needs to be brought to justice.

This entire attack on Wilson is a straw man and ad hominem attack that has nothing to do with the exposure of Plame.

[NashVegas]

149. Burdon of Proof Is on Bush to Prove It

and they never did.

[rustydad]

221. Parsing bullshit

Look we all know that the bush gang told a thousand almost lies to get us into a war of occupation that only benifits a select few including those interests of a small ME country (non Arab) that I won't name. So the question is do two half lies add up to a whole lie? Get real people, bush lied to convince us to shed our blood, their blood. He and his handlers are a bunch of evil blood thirsty bastards whose souls are already in hell. bob

[stickdog]

113. How, when and where did Wilson play "fast and loose" with the truth?

You make claims, but you don't present any evidence.

[Hoping4Change]

66. May any transgression be chalked up to him having been a

registered Republican? Personnally I think I'll side with Wilson till he is proven guilty. Wasn't it the Italians who originally raised serious doubts about yellowcake?

[stickdog]

112. Which of Wilson's claims were false?

Please list them here.

Put up or shut up.

[ProfessorPlum]

191. Dude, read the article

I told you below that I had to go. You're fighting with the air.

[stickdog]

194. Funny, that's EXACTLY what the right wingers using this very article to

discredit Wilson said when I challenged them to list Wilson's supposed lies!

Funny, but the article is big on AIR on short on evidence of Wilson's supposedly dishonest claims. In fact, NONE of the claims in the article stand up to even a rudimentary critical inspection.

[jab105]

50. I think the point about Cheney not reading the memo...

is the weakest point against Wilson...I mean, he was instructed to give it to the vp office, and he did...so, logic goes that Cheney would read it from there...

But the talking points memo is pretty weak also, what about the memo by Plame?? She certainly was involved in getting her husbands name out there...it isn't a big point, but if you are going to knock it down, then make sure to take in all the evidence...

The major concern is that if Wilson didn't see the forged documents, then he couldn't say exclusively that it was a fake...and he did openly say that Iraq hadn't tried to buy uranium from Niger...

I'd like to know answers, I've put a lot of merit into Wilson, and if that is gone, it is not a good thing, even if the claim itself is false...

[stickdog]

120. But who gives a shit whether or not he saw the obvious forgery?

IT WAS OBVIOUSLY FAKE! IT'S BEEN PROVEN FAKE!

So how are any of Wilson's arguments compromised?

[jab105]

180. Because he was presented, and presented himself as an authority on...

the subject...

Because his NYT op-ed really started the questioning of the Bush administration...

Because I PERONALLY have used Wilson's statements in arguments against rightwingers...
Because John Kerry has Wilson on as an adviser...
Because many people will doubt the entire argument against the war because of this exaggeration...

It makes MY arguments less valid, this is all I've heard on the local radio talk show, because if they can get that one lie, then EVERYTHING will be questioned...

It really concerns me...it pisses me off...

[stickdog]

182. But he took great pains to point out that this forgery was NOT part of his

investigation.

You are accusing the man of lying, but you don't present his supposed lies.

Why are you drinking the Kool-Aid? What are his supposed lies?

[ProfessorPlum]

Is Marshall saying Plame's memo doesn't exist?

Or that it didn't have an effect on their choice of delegate?

I think the more important issue is that Wilson has been going on about Bush's yellowcake statement in the SOTU, which was phrased in such a way as to make it impossible to refute. And even if you take it in the most generous sense (that Iraq tried to get uranium ore), how could Wilson know whether that was true or not?

[trumad]

16. Because Wilson knew what these guys were up toooo

he ain't stupid and either are the rest of us... Like I said, Bob's parsing a bit for purity...

[stickdog]

121. 1) His wife said he was qualified for the job. That's not the same as

getting him the job.

2) So Bush may not have technically LIED. But the statement was misleading and -- unless there's some evidence (WHERE IS IT?) to say such a thing, including that statement in the SOTU address was at least HIGHLY MISLEADING.

[bagnana]

228. ARGGGH!

(1) Wilson's wife did not "suggest" him for any trip to Africa. It is perfectly logical and acceptable that she, as an WMD specialist, had both a duty and desire to get to the bottom of the issue. The issue had come up about Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger and the CIA, per Cheney's request, was looking into it. She pointed out that her husband knew people there. A meeting then took place, and he was asked, not to call his people, but to actually go there and investigate. So fucking what???

(2) Wilson did not know about the forgeries at the time he debunked the uranium claim and did not report on them when he returned from Africa. He did, however, know about the debunked forgeries by the time the SOTU came about. So, judging from the fact that (1) he had told the CIA there was nothing to the story; and (2) the only other evidence of the claim was based upon a forged document, he knew Bush was FUCKING LYING when Bush included the 16 words in his SOTU address. What does that make him a liar? What about anything he said is a lie?????

[hughee99]

27. It looks like the commission disagrees with that.

I've read several articles on this on "freeper" websites that state that Wilson was suggested for the job by his wife, according to the 9/11 commission report that will be released. It even seems like David Corn (and I don't think anyone would consider him a freeper), is ready, but not yet willing to concede that Plame helped her husband get the job. I suppose that he'll wait for the report to be released just like the rest of us. I won't link to the "freeper" related sites here, but if you search on Plame + Wilson + Commission Report, you'll have no trouble finding them.

See Corn's piece on
http://www.bushlies.com/blog/

Clearly the issue is who outed Plame, but the veracity of Wilson's statements is also in question, and that should not be overlooked given the information above. The repukes are going to try to show him as someone who lies to advance an agenda, and if his statements contradict the evidence, that's going to make their job a lot easier.

[ProfessorPlum]

40. Correct

The issue is Plame, of course. The GOP's transparent efforts to discredit Wilson are not helped by the fact he keeps making claims that he cannot back up.

[redqueen]

43. If the issue is Plame, what difference does it make

if Wilson chose his words poorly in regards to immaterial, unrelated issues?!

[ProfessorPlum]

56. The issue is, the GOP is going to say

Wilson is a liar. And Wilson is. What I'm saying, is don't waste your energy trying to defend Wilson. He has said things which he cannot back up. He has played fast and loose with the truth.

What Somerby is saying is that the GOP may have some grounds upon which to discredit the claims Wilson has made about uranium ore in Africa.

None of that has anything to do with Plame, of course. To go from "Wilson makes claims he can't back up" to "No one should be punished for outing Plame" is the next step that the GOP can't be allowed to make.

But don't waste your time trying to prove everything Wilson has ever claimed is true. Somerby has shown that that will get you burned.

[redqueen]

77. I'm not wasting my time.

Wilson's status as an alleged liar is IMMATERIAL.

The bush crime family is trying to ensure that when the Plame indictments come out, that all any of the loyal consumers of Pravda media think about is what a 'liar' Wilson is. I'm doing my best to try to keep that from being as successful as some seem to insist it should be.

[stickdog]

124. You keep calling the man a liar. SO LIST HIS LIES ALREADY!

Put up or shut up.

[hughee99]

62. The reason Wilson's name became so prominent

In the first place was for the claims he made. He claimed that Iraq was not seeking yellow cake from Niger as the president had stated. If the evidence shows that he overstated or lied about his findings, then that is still a big issue. We have all been citing Wilson as evidence that Iraq was not seeking to rebuild a nuclear program for the last few months, and I for one will be a little pissed if this too was based on a lie. To claim that * lied about this, and our evidence is also based on lies certainly hurts our case, and it scores political points for * in an election year. The best way to make a case is to have a persuasive argument with the facts on your side, for respected democrats who have been touting this information for the last 6 months to have the rug pulled out from under them would hurt our cause even more if Wilson had not said anything in the first place. This doesn't really have any bearing on the Plame issue itself, but it is also a significant matter.

[redqueen]

78. Here's the telling point

If anyone REALLY gave two shits about whether or not Iraq was rebuilding their nuclear capabilities, there are many, many sources from all over the world to prove it is not so.

However, some, including Bob, seem to want to ravage Wilson. As if his word were the only thing keeping the administration honest.

Hmmmmmmmm......

[ProfessorPlum]

84. I think Bob, like myself, doesn't want people on

our side playing fast and loose with the truth. In this media climate, we can't afford to do that.

Bob would appreciate honesty from all sides, including our own. Wilson is a flawed vessel about the administration's dishonesty if he cannot be scrupulously honest himself.

[redqueen]

87. Bob is doing the RNC's dirty work

Wilson didn't play 'fast and loose' with the truth. He knew the inside info... Bob didn't.

[stickdog]

127. You and Bob are both 100% full of shit on this issue.

Both of you call Wilson a liar without stating his lies.

Your argument is basically that he's a liar because he can't prove a negative. It's a shitty, moronic argument, and you both should be ashamed of yourselves for advancing it!

[StandUpGuy]

218. I think the point is....

If you are going to regurgitate repub talking points about fast and loose and lies you really need to list them.

I've listened to several Wilson speeches and interviews and have never herd him claim to be the "debunker" of anything. I've herd him carefully chose words like "concern about the voracity" of the 16 words in the SOTU.

So you reference "lie lie lie" from Wilson's book in several parts or "throughout" it.

Please list page specifics where he said lie lie lie
and please list the things you think he is lying about or facts he played fast and loose with.


or SU

[hughee99]

98. Several of the foreign intelligence agencies

have not backed off of these claims, though they admitted that it was partly based on forged docs. Besides, how can you really prove the negative in this case. Anyone who truly doesn't give two shits about this didn't really care if Iraq was working on a nuclear program in the first place, and didn't care if Iraq was working on WMDs. That being the case, they probably aren't posting on this thread, since it would hold no interest for them.

[stickdog]

130. BULLSHIT! Downing Street is LYING.

Besides, how can you really prove the negative in this case.

That's the point. You are convicting Wilson for not being able to do the impossible. It's a BULLSHIT "argument." When and where did Wilson claim he could prove a negative?

[hughee99]

151. That's my point...

I'm not "convicting" Wilson of anything. Wilson conducted an investigation into the forged documents on the yellow-cake and concluded that they were false. That's fine, but he went on to conclude that since he didn't find evidence, there was no evidence. This is basically claiming that he proved a negative. The big advantage that the * adminstration has is that they don't have to show their data, and thus it can't be debunked. Wilson debunked one claim, but was this the only one? And now Wilson has opened the door, apparently, for his integrity to be questioned.

[stickdog]

156. You, Plum and Somerby make charges, but you never present evidence.

That's fine, but he went on to conclude that since he didn't find evidence, there was no evidence.

When and where did Wilson say he could prove a negative? No one can prove a negative, and Wilson certainly never claimed he could do the impossible.

[hughee99]

186. Present evidence for what?

Where did I claim that Iraq was seeking yellow cake? I have seen no evidence of this. Wilson claimed that * lied in the state of the union address. If *'s claim was solely based on the evidence that Wilson debunked, then Wilson is correct. * claims that there is other evidence from foreign intelligence sources. Could this be a lie? Sure. If Wilson didn't have all the information, he was not in a position to state that this was a lie, only that his investigation concluded that the evidence he saw was false.

Basically, Wilson claimed that Iraq was not seeking yellow cake. This is essentially a claim that he has proved a negative, and as you have said several times, no one can prove a negative.

[stickdog]

188. Show us where Wilson claimed what you state he claimed.

Where and when did Wilson claim he could prove a negative? Please direct us to these supposed statements. They are no more than a figment of your right wing talking points.

[hughee99]

197. Wilson never claimed he could prove a negative,

He claims he DID prove a negative. I've taken a couple of stabs at this, but you don't seem to be adding anything here other than to copy and past your previous posts. This will be my last attempt.

* claims that Iraq was trying to acquire yellow cake.

Since Wilson had debunked the evidence given to him, WILSON CLAIMED THAT IRAQ WAS NOT TRYING TO ACQUIRE YELLOW CAKE, and therefore, * is lying. You see the word NOT in there? That's what we call a negative.

* claims that he had other evidence that Wilson was not asked to investigate.

I have not anywhere in here claimed that Wilson lied about what he found. Nor have I claimed that Iraq was trying to acquire yellow cake. I believe that the lead he followed up on was bogus, and he proved it. But since neither I nor Wilson was given all the "other" information the pResident claims to have had, neither one can say that * definately lied, though I suspect that he did.

I also suspect that the 9/11 commission will not find any evidence that * LIHOP or MIHOP. Because the 9/11 found no evidence to implicate *, does that prove that * had nothing to do with it? In the future if someone believes LIHOP or MIHOP, am I correct in calling them a liar?

[stickdog]

198. You parse his words to say he lied. Meanwhile, YOU make up his words

yourself.

[hughee99]

202. Where have I lied?

or what have I made up?

[stickdog]

211. You say "Wilson said X & Y." I'm asking you to present his exact

quotes that you have a problem with -- in context -- so we can all play along with your parse-fest.

Why is that too much to ask you and Plum? You call the man a liar. I ask you to list exactly where and when he lied. What's so difficult about this?

[hughee99]

220. Here ya go!

Here's * SOTU quote...
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. "

Here's Wilson's investigation (from the NYT article written by him)

"The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerien interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired."

I admit that I do not have my copy of "The Politics of Truth" with me at the moment, I've lent it out, and since the excerpts on his page deal mostly with his wife, I do not have an exact quote where Wilson says that bush lied.

Do you dispute that Wilson said that Bush lied when he said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"?

Given his description of his investigation, do you believe that he can prove that * lied?

The information above can all be found above at
http://www.politicsoftruth.com/default.htm
which is the official webside for his book

[stickdog]

229. Dude, WHERE & WHEN did Wilson SAY he could PROVE Bush lied?

What is so fucking hard about this for you?

Link or post the quotes where Wilson actually lied. Put up or shut up.

[hughee99]

236. Okay then, How about this.

Wilson said that * lied and he can't prove it.

That's what I've been saying all along. Is this an accurate statement?

[stickdog]

240. No. It's complete and utter bullshit.

1) You have yet to supply a quote from Wilson that says he can prove that Bush lied.

2) Bush obviously lied about any Niger/Iraq uranium connection. He (and the Brits) had no evidence other than lame and obviously false assumptions (that both the CIA & the Senate agree are false) and a forgery circle jerk. If you feel otherwise, please present the evidence that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Niger.

[hughee99]

241. We both agree that

Wilson said * lied in the SOTU. Is this correct?

* claimed in that speech "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"

EITHER, Wilson can prove that Hussein DID NOT seek significant quantities of uranium from Africa. In which case, he can prove that * lied, but as you've said several times, and I agree, it is impossible to prove a negative.

OR Wilson cannot prove this, in which case, his claim is based on speculation, and the information that he has available to him, which may or may not be all the information collected by the CIA and the brits. The brits have admitted that the documents are forged, but still maintain their claim. So they either have other evidence, or they are full of shit. I, personally, don't have access to their intelligence, so I can't say which is the case.

Wilson definately investigated the Niger accusation, and I believe he disproved it. I DO NOT have to prove that Iraq tried to obtain uranium to make this argument, I just have to demonstrate that Wilson didn't PROVE that Iraq DID NOT seek to obtain Uranium.

You state with certainty that * and the brits had no other evidence other than lame and false assumptions that both the CIA and the Senate agree are false. If this is true, then show me!

[stickdog]

253. No, it is NOT correct. You are putting words in Wilson's mouth.

That's been the fucking point all along.

Document Wilson's supposed misstatements and THEN AND ONLY THEN can we begin to discuss them.

You haven't documented Wilson's supposed misstatements in context. You merely PARAPHRASED them to your liking. Therefore, your "argument" (if you can even it call it that) is completely full of shit.

[hughee99]

254. What words have I put into wilson's mouth?

That Wilson claimed * was lying in the SOTU? Do you dispute that Wilson said this?

That Wilson's claim that evidence that Iraq sought to obtain uranium in Africa doesn't exist? Do you dispute that Wilson said this?

If it's not one of these, what have I claimed that Wilson said that is false, inaccurate, or out of context?

[stickdog]

264. Yes, I dispute both of those. Let's see Wilson's exact quotes in context.

Document EXACTLY what Wilson has said that you have a problem with.

THEN AND ONLY THEN can we begin to legitimately discuss it.

I repeat, why is this simple concept so hard for you to grasp? Is this some sort of absurd game you are playing?

[hughee99]

269. Okay then

You do not believe that Wilson claimed * LIED or MISLEAD the public in the SOTU.

I will admit that the title of Wilson's Book, "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir". A book which is primarily about *'s reasons for going to war and particularly his comments from the SOTU, and the outing of his wife is the best example I can point to, with the resources currently available.

But more to the point...

You are saying that you do not believe that Wilson claimed that evidence that Iraq sought to obtain uranium in Africa doesn't exist?

In YOUR post #125
"Show us the evidence that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Africa. Show us the fucking evidence. Just as Wilson said, it DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST!!!"

JUST AS WILSON SAID, IT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST. That's YOUR quote right there. This sounds to me A LOT like you agree with my second assertion.

Yet you just claimed to dispute it... As I suspected, all along. Your not arguing in good faith, in fact, you're not really arguing at all. Any claim that I make will be "suspect" in your eyes. Any further quotes I will provide will be from "suspect" sources, out of context, or inaccurate and we'll just go around again without getting anywhere.

[stickdog]

270. I'm sick of playing these semantical games with you.

See:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=2028672&mesg_id=2045981&page=

for your answer.

[ProfessorPlum]

205. thanks, I'm glad someone else can reason with their head

instead of just their heart. Wilson, like me and everyone else, believes Bush lied. But when he goes on talk shows and says "Bush lied" and then the GOP asks him for proof and he says "Iraq could never have acquired uranium from Niger", that just doesn't cut it to prove that Bush was lying . . . because that isn't what Bush claimed.

I believe that Bush, and especially Cheney, started the war in Iraq despite having essentially no causus belli primarily because they will both get personally very rich from the war profiteering they and their families are doing. I think I am totally right about that. But I can't go on TV, as a representative of the Democratic party or as an anti-Bush force, state that as a fact, and then get upset when the GOP calls me a liar when I can't prove what I just said.

Wilson was careless about what his findings actually proved. I applaud his loud efforts to make everyone realize that Bush's implications smelled to high heaven. But he can't say that Bush lied in the SOTU. I just want people to be careful about using Wilson's various claims in their arguments. He has said some things which turned out not to be true, and that hasn't helped us.

[hughee99]

209. Exactly!

[stickdog]

212. How about reasoning with EVIDENCE instead of right wing talking points?

I've asked you about 10 times to put up or shut up.

You've done neither.

You call Wilson a liar. I've asked you to document his lies. Now put up or shut up.

[hughee99]

223. Who's putting words into who's mouth now?

I NEVER said Wilson was a liar. MY WHOLE ARGUMENT has been that Wilson called * a liar, when he didn't have enough information to prove it. I think Wilson was telling the truth about his investigation, and believe he's also telling the truth about a lot of other things. But he has called the pResident a liar, and that is not a claim that he has enough proof to back up.

[stickdog]

231. Bush is unequivocally a liar. That fact is certainly NOT in dispute.

Please link or post Wilson's quotes in which he said something that he can't back up.

Stop just paraphrasing what YOU have determined Wilson said, and find his supposed lies THEMSELVES and post them here.

In other words, put up or shut up.

Is the concept of backing up YOUR OWN argument really so foreign to you? Is this some sort of a game to see how much you can smear someone simply by POSITING that he lied without ever DEMONSTRATING it?

[hughee99]

237. Aaarrrg!

Wilson said that * lied in the SOTU. Can we agree on this?

In YOUR post #130, you said...

"That's the point. You are convicting Wilson for not being able to do the impossible. It's a BULLSHIT "argument."

If proving this negative is impossible, and that would be the only way to prove that * lied, then Wilson has made a statement that he can't back up.

In YOUR post #125
"Show us the evidence that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from Africa. Show us the fucking evidence. Just as Wilson said, it DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST!!!"

I never said that Wilson lied. I said he didn't have enough information to say, as you claim Wilson did, that the evidence DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST!!!

I mentioned the foreign intelligence that * cited, which may be bullshit, but I don't know, I haven't seen it. You seem to be more informed on this part than me.

In YOUR post #139.
I know for a FACT that British intelligence is completely FULL OF SHIT on this.

PROVE THIS TO ME... PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!

[bagnana]

232. No, Wilson did not investigate the forged documents.

As someone has pointed out here, he did not make a determination about the forgery and didn't know about it until after he issued his own report that there was no truth to the uranium rumor. THEN, the facts about the forgery emerged. THEN, White House issues SOTU address, which parses language and still includes the uranium claim, but now is based upon "British Intelligence." And THEN Wilson speaks up and says this is bullshit. WH knows it is which is why they are parsing language and instead of just admitting that American Intelligence doesn't believe the uranium story, they claim that British Intelligence does??? THEN, British Intelligence proves to have been relying largely upon the forgery! And out of this we are supposed to think that Wilson is the liar??

[durutti]

203. Wrong.

Read Marshall.

[buycitgo]

89. what crap. it's based on stuff like THIS:

from the Wash Post of a year ago

Also, Bartlett, discussing the State of the Union address, said last week that "there was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on." But on Friday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said there was "discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought." Rice said "some specifics about amount and place were taken out." Tenet said Friday that CIA officials objected, and "the language was changed."

Fleischer said yesterday Rice was not referring to the State of the Union reference but to Bush's October speech given in Cincinnati -- even though Rice was not asked about that speech. Fleischer said that while the line cut from the October speech was based on the Niger allegations, he said the State of the Union claim was based on "additional reporting from the CIA, separate and apart from Niger, naming other countries where they believed it was possible that Saddam was seeking uranium."

But Fleischer's words yesterday contradicted his assertion a week earlier that the State of the Union charge was "based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger." Rice was asked a month ago about Bush's State of the Union uranium claim on ABC's "This Week" and replied: "The intelligence community did not know at the time or at levels that got to us that there was serious questions about this report." But senior administration officials acknowledged over the weekend that Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used in the October speech, four months before the State of the Union address.

how do they explain these direct contradictions of each OTHER?

what does Wilson have to do with any of this?

did he say any of the words above?

where's the outrage over lies like these being told?

[stickdog]

125. Show us the evidence that Iraq was trying to get yellowcake from

Africa.

Show us the fucking evidence. Just as Wilson said, it DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST!!!

[bagnana]

230. WHAT LIES??

What seems to be getting lost in all of this is the fact that even the British now admit that Iraq didn't get or try to get uranium. All the British report claims is that while this may be true, they at least had a good basis for believing it was true at the time they said it.

[stickdog]

123. She said he was qualified for the job. Which he was. All in the chain of

command agree that she didn't get him the job. Which she most obviously didn't.

So what is your point? Are you really falling for this Repuke character assassination like Somerby?

[redqueen]

5. Is Somerby being short-sighted?

Wilson was specific about his claims re: Niger... why is Somerby only referring to Africa?

[stickdog]

131. He's being a RW tool --

as he often is on issues of major importance.

[Robbien]

7. Another thread whose sole purpose is the spread of RW talking points

not buying.

[trumad]

9. No...this thread is to talk about what Somerby wrote today...

Somerby is one of my heros on the web... But he's wrong about this....

[ProfessorPlum]

10. Do not dismiss Somerby so lightly

He is a national treasure and one of the very best media critics we have. He cuts through right-wing media bullshit like a knife.

Just because we don't like Bush and like what Wilson has to say, doesn't make it true. We've got to be careful - sometimes people on our side are talking out of their asses as well.

[trumad]

13. I'd never dismiss Bob...

He is a treasure but even treasures get a bit tarnished... I have had several back and forth emails with Bob about this and he won't budge... Even though there's respected guys like Marshall and Dave Corn backing up Wilson.... Bob's wrong ...

[ProfessorPlum]

18. Sorry, that response was not for you

Which of Wilson's claims that Bob says are wrong are in fact accuarate? Thanks,

[stickdog]

132. He's often a tool of the elite on issues of major importance.

And he just completely blew yet another one.

[TruthIsAll]

181. um...may I say something please, ProfessorPlum....

YOU HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO STICKDOGS QUESTION.

SO I WILL ASK IT AGAIN, SINCE YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE IGNORING STICKDOG:

WHERE IS THE FUCKING PROOF WILSON LIED?

[gratuitous]

8. I saw that, and I'm a little confused

Somerby makes much of Wilson's rather disingenuous claim that his wife Valerie Plame didn't get him the Niger assignment, though she may have been instrumental in opening the door for him.

Yet, Wilson formerly claimed that the vice president had read his report. Wilson now says that he assumed Cheney had read his report because he delivered the report to Cheney's office.

Somerby makes much of this "backtrack," and seems particularly hard on the "my wife didn't get me this assignment" tack, both of which seem rather irrelevant to me. But Somerby and other analysts seem perfectly content to accept that though Wilson delivered his report to Cheney's office, Cheney is cleared of all responsibility for not having read the report because (apparently) Wilson didn't hand his report to Cheney personally.

Can someone clear this up? Or have I gotten hopelessly muddled?

[trumad]

12. Read my Marshall link above...

I am 100 percent convinced that Plame did not offer up Wilson for the Gig...

Wilson said that he was sure that Cheney read the report... The commission came out and said he didn't... Wilson said he's surprised by this and assumed that Cheney read the report...Somerby's saying that because of that Wilson's being diengenuous... I don't but that... So just because the commission and Cheney says he didn't read the report we're supposed to believe that he didn't?

[ProfessorPlum]

20. That's just the point

Wilson keeps making claims that he is "sure" of. Of course it makes no logical sense that Cheney didn't read the report. I'm sure that's a lie. But Wilson doesn't have the goods. He makes statements that he can't back up with provable facts. What he's saying is probably true in many instances, but if he is such a savvy player of the game, he has to stop making statements that he can't back up. That doesn't help our side at all.

[trumad]

22. true in many instances...exactly

which makes the parsing of trivial shit, bullshit!

[ProfessorPlum]

28. I agree, none of it has to do with who should go to jail for outing Plame

it is trivial bullshit. But when Wilson says "Cheney read the report" and the GOP says "prove it" and Wilson says "Well, gee, I THOUGHT he must have read it" - that's no good. Wilson is not careful enough in the way he throws allegations around. I can understand he is rightfully pissed about his wife's situation. But none of us should get ticked off when the GOP catches someone on our side in a lie. We should rather double our efforts not to tell lies.

The truth is so much more damaging, in any case.

[RebelYell]

173. Wilson said on CNN Sunday

that Cheney read it, because Cheney asked for updates

[msmcghee]

61. When you say you are sure of something . .

. . you are implying that you personally can't believe otherwise.

That is different from saying that it is objective fact that can be proven. If that's what he meant to say - then he would have said it that way - followed by presenting the proof.

i.e. you are making a personal statement about your belief - not a statement of fact.

Bush* and Cheney* can lie through their teeth to create the false impression that SH had WMD and close working ties to al Queda - but because he didn't actually say those specific words, many mainstream journalists give them the benefit of the doubt.

But let someone on the left utter a non-specific phrase and it is suddenly OK to ascribe whatever meaning you like, especially if it's an interpretation that can't be outright proven.

[stickdog]

138. What are these claims? Why are you practicing Repuke sophistry?

Can anybody be "sure" of anything with the sophistry you are pulling here?

[KoKo]

187. Yes, Trumad, and Josh warned us "they" would focus on who

recommended Wilson and not on what the report was, and who forged it.

Josh was very careful warning those of us who read his column. This is a "sidetrack" issue. Who forged the Niger Documents and who outed Plame is the REAL story, the rest is disinformation, misinformation and psy ops focus to get folks off the REAL story.

[ProfessorPlum]

14. It's hopelessly muddled because Wilson keeps changing his story

First he said Cheney had definitely read the report, when he had no way of knowing that for sure.

Then he said his wife had nothing to do with getting him the assignment, when it is clear she wrote a memo recommending him and was actually at the meeting where he was given the assignment (though not in the interview part of the meeting where Wilson was interviewed solo). This has nothing to do with anything, seeing as how I don't care who was responsible for sending him.

Finally, he kept claiming that Saddam didn't get yellowcake from Niger. Which is true to the extent of his expertise. But WILSON was the one who kept furthering that statement to a refutation of Bush's claim that the British claimed that Saddam had tried to get uranium ore in Africa. Who the hell knows if that is true or not? Certainly not Wilson, and certainly not anyone else. British intelligence might know.

You're right, the first two points are trivial, but as Wilson keeps changing his story, they speak to his ability to limit his statements to what he knows for sure. He is a ruined source, not that we can't share his disgust for the Bush administration and cheer right along with him when they frogmarch the perpetrators of the Plame scandal into squad cars.

[trumad]

19. Point one...

he said Cheney read the report..so what? He may have heard he did and said so,,, Now Cheney says he didn't ... Who ya gonna believe?

Point 2....

The CIA said they wanted Wilson for the mission and Plame simply filled them in on his qualifications... So fucking what.

I don't think he's changing his story at all..... I think the media and Somerby are being ridiculous about this....

[ProfessorPlum]

23. All's I'm saying . ..

is that Somerby is right that Wilson keeps making declarative statements about things he cannot be sure of. He said Cheney read the report, but he can't prove that. He said Bush lied in his SOTU, but he can't prove that either.

I think Wilson is correct about a lot of the things he says, but when the wingers turn around and ask him to prove the allegations, he'd better have a lot more than having to go back on his previous statements.

It doesn't mean I don't think he's an honorable guy or has his heart in the right place, or that the Plame investigation shouldn't bring down Bush's house of cards. It does mean he isn't scrupulous about what he says he "knows" and doens't know, and that makes him a bad representative for us. He should keep quiet and let the Plame investigation go where it leads.

[stickdog]

148. You and Somerby are both completely full of shit on this.

Past your ears and up to your eyes.

[stickdog]

139. Put up or shut up.

First he said Cheney had definitely read the report, when he had no way of knowing that for sure.

1) When and where did he say this?

2) What difference does it make? Cheney either read it or else Cheney is a complete incompetent.

Then he said his wife had nothing to do with getting him the assignment, when it is clear she wrote a memo recommending him and was actually at the meeting where he was given the assignment (though not in the interview part of the meeting where Wilson was interviewed solo). This has nothing to do with anything, seeing as how I don't care who was responsible for sending him.

1) Where and when did he say his wife had nothing to do with getting him the assignment?

Finally, he kept claiming that Saddam didn't get yellowcake from Niger. Which is true to the extent of his expertise. But WILSON was the one who kept furthering that statement to a refutation of Bush's claim that the British claimed that Saddam had tried to get uranium ore in Africa. Who the hell knows if that is true or not?

I know. I know for a FACT that British intelligence is completely FULL OF SHIT on this. If they have evidence, WHAT AND WHERE THE FUCK IS IT?

Why do Wilson and I have to PROVE this evidence doesn't exist? It's US and British intel that made these claims SANS a shred of reliable evidence. Just saying the statement was "well founded" doesn't make it so. WHAT AND WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

[HootieMcBoob]

36. Why would Wilson have wanted to go to Niger?

It's not like it was some kind of plum assignment. He didn't get paid for it other than having his expenses reimbursed. This is ridiculous! It's a red herring! He was the best person for the job based on his past work in both Africa and Iraq! Sommerby is helping the neo-cons to muddy the water! He's being used.

[KittyWampus]

80. Funny, I Commented Too, That This Wasn't A Plum Assignment

this is what's so freaking stupid about the NeoCon spin.

He WAS ONE OF THE MOST QUALIFIED. His resume makes this quite clear.

And to suggest that Wilson shouldn't make "declaritive statements" is bullshit.

Opposition to the Far Right Fascists HAVE TO STAND UP TO THESE THUGS.

[gratuitous]

114. I appreciate the elucidation from Trumad and the Professor

I think I've got it more or less straight, at least in my own mind (whether I can communicate that to someone else is another matter).

It does seem that some people are unnecessarily picayune about such things as whether Plame got Wilson the assignment or not. I don't think it's relevant, but as we all know, any discrepancy will be seized upon by the Mighty Republican Wurlitzer to justify discounting someone. Wilson has surely not helped himself on this point, but it's distressing to me to see Bob Somerby participating in the dog pile.

The delivery of the report to the vice president's office seems to suffer the exact opposite problem. Yes, Wilson said that Cheney had seen his report. But he based that on the bona fide assumption that by delivering it to the man's office, the man himself would read it. And since the administration was basing part of its decision to launch an invasion on that report, it seems a reasonable assumption.

I still don't understand why Wilson is subjected to so much scrutiny, when Cheney claims not to have read the report before the decision was made to invade Iraq, and yet there is reference to some of its findings in the run-up to the invasion. Surely there is enough dissembling to go around, but Cheney's certainly appears to be by far the more reprehensible of the two.

[DeadHead67]

11. This DOES NOT excuse Cheney's boys from 'outing' Valerie Plame:

No matter what Wilson did or did not do, blowing an agents cover is A FELONY!!!!!

[ProfessorPlum]

15. Of course, no one is saying it does

But it would be good for Wilson to stop making claims about yellowcake.

[leesa]

51. Why? Because he can't PROVE Cheney didn't read a report??

How do you prove someone read something or not?? Does he accompany him at all times to catch him reading it? And who CARES if his wife recommended him for the job? These are entirely bogus, nonsensical arguements. These are RW talking points and yet again we fall for them. These issues are not important.

[ProfessorPlum]

57. The point is, if your GOP friends say to you

"Wilson has lied", don't say, "No he hasn't". Instead say, "Someone is going to jail for outing Plame". Don't waste your breath defending Wilson - he has made claims that he cannot back up. I think he's a great American and I'm glad he wants to stand up against these guys. He just isn't holding the cards to prove what he is saying, and that doesn't help us.

[buycitgo]

64. did you see post 55?

this puts the lie to everything the pugs have been saying

they twisted themselves into knots over a year ago, trying to justify those sixteen words, and were clearly unable to get their stories straight

too bad the media didn't do their job on this, not to mention the dems

they should have beaten all those contradictions to death, and this wouldn't be an issue today

they can't get around their OWN statements on this, and the CIA stands by its assessment of the Africa connection as untenable, sts

[ProfessorPlum]

70. clearly Bush was trying to mislead and scare

But all he needs is one member of the British government to back him up, and his SOTU statement becomes not a lie, but the truth. The way he phrased it can never be disproven.

Wilson can be right about Bush trying to mislead based on very flimsy evidence, but he can't catch Bush in a "lie" over that statement, and he should not phrase it that way.

[stickdog]

144. Bush has lied 10,000 times. Why can't Wilson call a liar a liar?

Why does he become a liar just because he calls a liar a liar?

Seriously. Please explain your "logic" to me.

[stickdog]

142. What claims did he make that are false? WHAT??

Are you and Somerby REALLY arguing that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger?

If so, WHERE AND WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR EVIDENCE???

[Brotherjohn]

17. I like Daily Howler, but I also think he's dead wrong on this.

Yes, read http:/www.talkingpointsmemo.com as someone else suggests.

I have read the accusations, the articles, and Wilson's rebuttal. This seems to me nothing but a lame attempt at smearing Wilson.

The only evidence we have is an unsubstantiated claim by the British government to have another report of such a deal (the first report being the now known forgeries). The evidence was, and still is weak, and Wilson has always been right to point this out. His trip cast great doubt on the evidence which led to it, the charge he was checking out (he was briefed on these specific documents detailing the alleged transaction via a summary of them provided by Italian intelligence).

As to who recommended him for the trip, well that is irrelevant. But it seems the facts are on his side, as CIA officials back him up, and it is only three Republican senators' interpretation of testimony that think otherwise. That he may have implied he knew the documents were forgeries earlier than he could have is also irrelevant. He is very clearly on the record as stating that he DID NOT see the documents at the time of his trip. He spoke about them hundreds of times after, and almost always took great pains to clarify that he had not seen them at the time (I personally heard this on more than one talk show). They are parsing his words and trying to damage his credibility.

This is hardly a minor issue. It was the first chink in the armor of what the Bush administration was presenting as ironclad evidence of Iraq being an imminent threat via their alleged WMDs. Every other word in that paragraph of the SOTU (on alleged Iraqi WMDs) was also highly questionable, and this was also known at the time. This is just the first time someone called Bush on his claims so vociferously.

[trumad]

21. Good post Brother

I sit here stunned at what this has become... Somerby obviously has a hard on for Wilson and IO'm shocked that he's delved into this matter. Look at how long his page was today regarding this... Bob is getting hammered for this and he's trying awful hard to fight back...

[Robbien]

34. There could be some ego protecting going on with Somerby

In Somerby's archives he has been saying for a long time there is a problem with Wilson's statements and in his notice last week Somerby repeats his reservations and urges everyone to check his archives about the Wilson issue.

So Somerby has a vested interest in this.

[ProfessorPlum]

60. Yes, he said that Wilson keeps making claims he can't back up

And that continues to be true. Don't expect Somerby to just up and act like someone hasn't been playing fast and loose with the truth. He is logical and honest. Just because Wilson is on "our side" doesn't mean I want him making claims he can't back up. That just gives the GOP a foothold in their efforts to discredit him.

None of that has anything to do with who should do a perp walk for outing Plame. But Wilson, and all of our spokespeople, need to be scrupulously honest in what they say.

[Robbien]

72. Yes and the RW has shouted that from the rooftops the last two weeks

Story after story after story in the RW spin machine saying Wilson is wrong and the 16 words are right.

Somerby said the same thing in his July 12th Howler just eight days ago. He made his point, but guess he felt he didn't get the respect he felt he deserved. So he repeats himself again today. Should we be expecting to get a Howler from him weekly on this issue until we all cry "uncle"?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

85. Whereas normally the Howler criticizes people for being dishonest.

Not for simply not being able to 'prove' their case.

:wtf:

[stickdog]

146. No, you and the RW talking points keep saying this.

What claims has Wilson made that he can't back up?

List them here. Put up or shut up!

[featherman]

24. Gotta side with Wilson on this

I love the Howler and read it daily but have not read the relevant Senate Report text. Like Wilson, I would assume that an important report submitted to Cheney's office would have been read by Cheney and/or the aide that is supposed to read such things and report to the boss. I am a little confused why "Cheney" is now assume to not have "read" the report. Didn't his office receive the report? At this level of government isn't that one and the same?
I.E. if your office receives and accepts the report, you (the boss) are responsible to the information and the action taken or not taken.

[redqueen]

29. I used to read it daily

This nitpicking in a time of crisis, though... I'm just about completely turned off... :(

[Generator]

25. I'm sorry but I wouldn't "love" any site that took as it's major

priority shinning up the trashing one of the few that dares to take on the mighty Bush cabal.

The whole thing is filled with lies and counter lies, and Wilson has been lied to has much as every American.

Has Mr. H20 said in the Plame threads, the real question is Why?

Why is this need to trash Wilson coming out now, when it's already a fricking fait acompli that the Weapons weren't there? Who's behind this?

And that quote is exactly what the Bushies are masters of-messing with words. Wilson can't know for a fact that Iraq didn't do anything. He can't prove a negative. He only gave the knowledge that he had at the time.(and if you say ha-ha, great there you have the Bush's whole rationale for WAR-he COULD have weapons, Saddam COULD try to by uranium, how do we know he hasn't?) Who's really on your side?

Well, I trust Wilson before I trust anyone who bashes him. Sorry. Can't WAIT until your site trashes Berger.

[On the Road]

30. I'm Not Sure I Agree with Bob Somerby on This One

much as I respect The Daily Howler. Somerby had a column last year, I believe, in which he defended Bush's claim by saying that Bush didn't specify Niger as the source.

As I understand it, Wilson's debunking was based on the premise, which the Bush administration confirmed, that the uranium in Africa charge WAS specifically based on the Niger overtures as confirmed by the forged document. If true, that forms a pretty good basis for charging Bush with lying.

I think the Bush administration changed its own position when they finally realized it was untenable. Wilson was hit with something out of left field that he thought was already settled, and started to backpedal.

Personally, I would trust Josh Marshall on this one. He's the journalist with the expertise on the intricacies of the story. Maybe it's worth writing to him.

[ProfessorPlum]

33. But think about what Bush SAID

He said British intelligence thinks Saddam has tried to get uranium ore from Africa. How are you going to disprove that?

Yes, the Bushies backed off after the media (strangely) picked up on that one line out of many dozens of other such lies and implications, but the way Bush phrased it, it could never be technically called a lie.

I agree that Wilson's heart is in the right place, and that Bush is a lying thug. But Somerby points out that Wilson is a flawed vessel for this message. He keeps making claims about things which he doesn't actually know for sure, or cannot prove. He's got to stop that.

[On the Road]

44. Yes, I Read Somerby's Original Article

and have kept it in mind ever since.

Originally, it seemed he was correct, and that Bush's statement was not disproven. However, if I recall correctly, Wilson's position was that the Bush administration had specifically pointed to the forged document as their proof. In this event, I think Wilson is correct. I also don't blame him for backpedaling after getting blinsided.

I'm writing Josh Marshall now to see if he cares to address it. Before a hero of the anti-Bush forces goes down in flames, I want to hear both sides before reaching a conclusion. Let you know if I hear something.

[sandnsea]

49. Sticking to facts

A little detail the left has a hard time with. Although it never stops the right, the Berger sock-stuffing story is a prime example. But this lie is much more serious and if those 16 words end up being from British reports that aren't based on the Niger documents, then we've got nothing. Except a year of using that as the primary basis for Bush lies when it's not true. Very, very bad.

[buycitgo]

69. that sock stuffing is PURE right wing BS, too

even Novak was very careful, just minutes ago, to say that Berger put papers in his PANTS POCKETS. do you think for one moment, if somebody had seen him stuff things in his pants/socks, that he'd have put it any other way?

this is just more twisting of reality by the FASCISTS to turn the bright light of truth away from themselves

so far, they're doing a great job, aided and abetted, as always, by their corporate media underlings

[sandnsea]

71. Agreed

That's what I said. Facts and distorting facts never bothers them. Sock stuffing being an example.

[Brotherjohn]

63. Bush SAID that "British intelligence" has found that Iraq recently tried..

... to obtain uranium from Africa.

It is on the record now (from conversations between the relevant CIA personnel and WH staff, published in Newseek, I believe) that the WH changed the language in the State of the Union to read "British intelligence" had found this rather than reading that "we" have found this. This was done so specifically to render the statement "technically" true. It should be noted that it is known that British intelligence was basing their conclusion largely on the same faulty evidence.

This is nothing short of an admission by the WH that they intentionally misled. They have not challenged this account (in fact I think some have backed it up in an attempt to show that the 16-words were "true").

A lie can be defined as a statement with the intention of misleading (look it up). The White House LIED. As to whether Bush knew this statement, as he read it, was a lie is subject to question. If he did, then he lied. If he didn't, then he is incompetent.

[Justice]

177. That Is Exactly Right

And then later, we heard these reports from Britain that they had the forged document story, but also had another source for the information (which they to this day refuse to reveal).

[Mountainman]

31. They don't like Wilson they smear his wife, they don't get away with it

they smear Wilson.

[dennis4868]

35. WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL HERE....

What is the damn difference if Wilson's wife reccomended him or not....you think going to Niger is a pleasure trip....sheeesh....Wilson is a patriot for doing what he did. Also, the god damn CIA agreed with Wilson and told Bush before his Cinncinatti speech to leave out the uranium from Niger claim because they thought the evidence backing it up was very weak.....SO WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL HERE....Bush lied about the Niger claim....leave Wilson alone!

[redqueen]

38. They said to leave out the weak claim

so apparently he switched to laying it on the MI-6.

Why was it so weak that they'd recommend against using it if it was backed up by British intel?

Something stinks, and Bob's not helping to figure out what it is - he seems to have his mind made up.

[Robbien]

42. That is why I called the thread RW troll bait

Somerby is going along with the RWers by attacking Wilson. Wilson is not the story but Somerby is helping the RW make it the story.

[ProfessorPlum]

45. Bush phrased his statement so that it never could be a lie

technically. Wilson kept claiming that it was, but will never be able to prove it. He is a patriot, I agree, and Bush is a lying worm. But he keeps shooting his mouth off about things which he cannot prove - or worse - in which he is demonstrably incorrect. The Plame indictments will come down regardless of whether Wilson gets overexcited and makes claims he cannot back up - but I'm saying, be careful when citing him as a source for information. You'll get burned by the facts if you do.

[dennis4868]

54. What is wrong using Wilson as a source....

he was right on about the Niger claim...CIA agreed with him so much that they took it out of the Cinncinnati speech and after the SOTU speech Tenet said it should have never made it in the final draft of the speech....again, why should I not use Wilson as a source when proving to people that Bush is a god damn liair?

[buycitgo]

75. what about Fulford and Owens-Kirkpatrick?

isn't everybody forgetting their role in this, and how Wilson specifically mentioned that his info is just a tile in the mosaic?

Fulford's assurance to Gen. Meyers, re: French control over the uranium in question, was either ignored or "forgotten" by Meyers, depending on which explanation you care to believe

and you'll recall that condi also "forgot" about the October removal of African uraniuim reference by Tenet, when dealing with why she allowed its inclusion in the SOTU

[redqueen]

94. All other relevant info is being ignored in the effort to smear Wilson

*sigh*

[HootieMcBoob]

53. You're right.

I sent Somerby an email about this months ago when he first started saying this kind of thing. He's parsing details that are helping the Republican's to defend Bush's lies. And yes they are lies! They're lies of omission. He deliberately led this country into a fucking war for Christ's sake!! Somerby has got a bug up his ass about this for some unknown reason. It's not helpful.

[stickdog]

154. Somerby is a tool of certain elites. When something important is at stake

he constantly stabs the populist, truth seeking left in the back.

[buycitgo]

39. this whole thing is complete bullshit

remember the WH reaction to Wilson's statement last July?'

HOW LONG did it take them to say they shouldn't have put those sixteen words in the SOTU?

have they EVER pulled back so quickly on anything they've said/done? you know they almost never give an inch on even the most minor points.

this incident is REVELATORY of how badly the Wilson story screwed things up for them: they didn't know how to react and NEVER got their stories straight. if the media had done their job, following this article in the WashPost, none of this crap would be at issue today.

look at how many times these creeps contradict each other in the following few paragraphs. could it be ANY clearer just how much they shat themselves over this, and how transparently they're LYING?

Since last Monday, the administration has offered changing explanations for that statement. (the sixteen words) At first, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the statement was simply wrong because it "was based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger."

On Friday, Bush and top aides said the CIA approved the inclusion of those words, and CIA Director George J. Tenet took responsibility. Yet Bush aides have argued in recent days that the statement may, in fact, prove to be correct. Officials said Sunday the British had sources other than the forged documents, but they have declined to reveal them.

Yesterday Bush defended the charge as he fielded questions after a meeting in the Oval Office with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. "I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence," he said. "And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence. And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision."

The president again noted that his speech was approved by the CIA and suggested that any doubts about the charge came after the speech. "The thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data," he said. "Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech."

Bush's remarks added to contradictions that have been presented by administration officials as they have sought to explain the use of the uranium charge in the State of the Union speech.

Bush's communications director, Dan Bartlett, said last week that Bush was not angry to learn the charge was based on flawed information. Bush himself has voiced no regret or irritation in public.

But at his briefing yesterday, Fleischer described a displeased Bush. "I assure you, the president is not pleased," he said. "The president, of course, would not be pleased if he said something in the State of the Union that may or may not have been true and should not have risen to his level."

Also, Bartlett, discussing the State of the Union address, said last week that "there was no debate or questions with regard to that line when it was signed off on." But on Friday, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said there was "discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought." Rice said "some specifics about amount and place were taken out." Tenet said Friday that CIA officials objected, and "the language was changed."

Fleischer said yesterday Rice was not referring to the State of the Union reference but to Bush's October speech given in Cincinnati -- even though Rice was not asked about that speech. Fleischer said that while the line cut from the October speech was based on the Niger allegations, he said the State of the Union claim was based on "additional reporting from the CIA, separate and apart from Niger, naming other countries where they believed it was possible that Saddam was seeking uranium."

But Fleischer's words yesterday contradicted his assertion a week earlier that the State of the Union charge was "based and predicated on the yellowcake from Niger." Rice was asked a month ago about Bush's State of the Union uranium claim on ABC's "This Week" and replied: "The intelligence community did not know at the time or at levels that got to us that there was serious questions about this report." But senior administration officials acknowledged over the weekend that Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used in the October speech, four months before the State of the Union address.

CIA officials raised doubts about the Niger claims, as Tenet outlined Friday. The last time was when "CIA officials reviewing the draft remarks" of the State of the Union "raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet's statement said. "Some of the language was changed."

The change included using British intelligence as the source of the information. The CIA, however, continued to doubt the reliability of the British claim.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A56336-2003Jul14¬Found=true

[redqueen]

46. Thank you!

:yourock:

Now why the Cheney can't Bob grok this?

[buycitgo]

55. did you note the date of this story? it's a year old

I stumbled upon it while looking for evidence of dumbo's lie about
Saddam not letting the inspectors in. I remember almost hurling when he said that last year after the WH meet with Kofi. I was watching when he said it, and couldn't believe he said it. what was even more stunning--shouldn't have been, I realize--was that the media ignored this huge lie, especially since the junta made GREAT FUN of the fecklessness of the inspectors, subsequent to their return, and used that as a MAJOR reason for invading!

maybe Somerby isn't aware of the mealymouth, mendacious responses by so many principals involved in the SOTU fiasco

doesn't he consider any of their attempts at putting things back in order to be of major significance in backing up Wilson's version of events?

it's crystal clear that if the WH was so sure of the genuine nature of the uranium purchase attempts by Saddam, they WOULD NOT have reacted the way they did, as presented in this most important story by Priest and Milbank

[ProfessorPlum]

79. People on "our side" should not make claims they cannot back up

That is Somerby's point, and I agree with it. Otherwise, we lose the truth as our ally. Wilson should not make claims he cannot back up. If Wilson says "Saddam never tried to obtain uranium in Africa", how could he prove that negative? All it would take would be for one Iraqi agent to make some inquiries.

I think there are enough other lies that Bush and Cheney spun to make harping on this one, which is unprovable, fruitless.

[stickdog]

157. Where and when did Wilson make untrue claims?

List them here, Plum.

It's time to put up or shut up.

[buycitgo]

48. oh, and as long as we're talking lies, what about this?

included in the above link is this gem, repeated at least once, maybe more, by the chimp:

''The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective. ''

notice how carefully the paper couches this LIE told by Bush, and repeated over and over and over by his minions, and almost never refuted by the Achordate Ones

[Cocoa]

47. I agree with him somewhat

when Wilson started appearing a lot on TV, I found most of what he said to be not quite worth paying too much attention to, just because it was outside of what he knew for sure.

But I disagree with him about dems "paying a price." Bush has paid the price, big time. He ended up backing away from the claim in the SOTU, and now that there's supposedly new evidence supporting the claim, it doesn't do him much good. It will be a flip-flop-flip.

Then there's the leak investigation, which was precipitated by all this.

[buycitgo]

59. did you read the story I just linked

and there is NO new evidence supporting this claim, just reference to specious 'evidence', circle-jerked around between the French, Brits, Italians, and US, which the CIA has said again, was NOT believable

JM Marshall does an excellent job of putting this in perspective

and, as I type, some lying pug shill just talked about the lies Wilson told, then resurrected the further BS that the yellowcake story is TRUE, based on new evidence!

and the dems there just let it go, WITHOUT demurral!!!!!

I can't tell you how disgusted this makes me

[dennis4868]

68. Dems always just....

let it go....every night I watch cable news shows and you have Repubs lieing their asses off and the dems just sit there and LET IT GO.....

:-(

[Disturbed]

92. I don't understand

why Wilson keeps going public with this. I can only guess at the reasons. I won't state the guess here because in my view the important matter is the outing of his wife's CIA status. Everything else seems to be subtrafuge. Two high level officials of the Bush Admin. called at least six journalists to reveal V. Plame's CIA status. Who were these officials and why were they so intent upon revealing her role in the CIA?

[stickdog]

167. Once again, why is it that Bush can take the country to WAR based on

stuff that nobody "knew for sure" but anybody taking issue with Bush can't say a word against his horrible decision making without "knowing for sure"?

[Rebellious Republican]

67. This is irrelevant, It will have 0 impact on anything! Treason is

however a different story. Why they committed treason does not matter(political revenge), yellow cake and Niger has nothing to do with anything. Its just fodder to take the focus off of the traitors that gave Bob Novak and others Ultra Secret information that has damaged national security in ways we will never be privy to! Who cares about Yellow cake and Niger, lets get on with the real story, TREASON at the Highest Levels of the White House!

:puffpiece:

[KittyWampus]

73. The Gross STUPIDITY Here Is The Notion Wilson GAVE A SHIT

about going to Niger.

Every pundit who tries to spin it that he lied and that Valerie "got him the job" make it sound like this was some kind of plum assignment.

He was the MOST QUALIFIED. Have you read his resume?

Valerie Plame was in NO POSITION to order or ask him to go.

Furthermore, there has been no factual CREDIBAL EVIDENCE given by the Far Right Neo Cons to prove the assertion that Plame suggested him for the job.

Finally, if Wilson HAD, at the time the charge made against him, acertained that his wife DID recommend him.. he'd have been admitting SHE WAS A CIA AGENT.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

76. I never thought I would see the Daily Howler attempting to create a....

...smokescreen for the NeoCons, but here it is in front of my very own eyes.

Amazing....and very sad.

[ProfessorPlum]

90. If Wilson had been scrupulously honest

Somerby would be blowing the smoke away. Wilson has damaged his message by making claims he couldn't back up.

The point is, Wilson has said things he couldn't back up. The Plame investigation will continue regardless of what Wilson said or didn't say. But I'm saying, don't base your arguments on things Wilson cannot back up. Be careful with him as a source. He may have let his anger with the administration go a little far, and he may claim his suspicions as things he "knows". That's an important thing to keep in mind about some people.

[trumad]

99. It 's like you and Somerby want 100 percent perfection from this guy

The statement, "How do you prove a Negative" has popped up in this thread several times... I agree but you guys want him to do just that.

Number one: Plame did not push Wilson for the Gig.. So is that talking point shot down?

Number two: When Bush said Africa everyone knows damn well that meant Niger. It was a bald faced lie...

I just don't get this parsing of such an important matter.

[trumad]

93. This is one of the emails I received from Somerby today:

I believe I said I was doing this topic tomorrow. Or do you want a private
consultation?

I don't "side with" people. I'm a big boy--I tell you what I think. I don't
need to count up heads and see who I should hold hands with. In the case of
Wilson, I think he's one of the most disingenuous characters to come down
the pike in a long time, and Dems are, sadly, going to pay for their
foolishness in following such a piper.

As you can see, Bob has it out for this guy... :shrug:

[ProfessorPlum]

100. That's cause he keeps getting caught in claims he can't back up!

Bob is right to be wary of him and the things he says - he's been caught out. Just take Wilson's claims with a grain of salt. It doesn't mean there hasn't been treason committed.

[trumad]

102. So you actually beleive this statement?

"disingenuous characters to come down
the pike in a long time, and Dems are, sadly, going to pay for their
foolishness in following such a piper".

If Wilson was a flat out Cheney-Bush-Rove type liar then ya, I'd go with that..But he's not even close.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

126. IMHO, Wilson hasn't been "caught" in anything....

...but I'll leave it to you and Big Bob to parse out the tiny details with which you want to argue.

To be real honest, I'm thinking that outside of yourself, Somerby is the only person's whose credibility has been damaged by his attack on Wilson.

[buycitgo]

101. gee, I wonder where he ranks with just about everybody

in the junta who's ever opened their piehole, not to mention all the wingnut gasbags, or 'journalists' who've been actively propping up this sorry group of creeps for the last four plus years

that statement really tells a lot about how badly Somerby has been turned

I'm starting to wonder if they have something on him, now

it'll be very interesting to see how his column swings in the future

is he going for 'balance' now, or what?

[redqueen]

103. What is Wilson's record

How can Bob talk about him like that? Most disengenuous? He's comparing Wilson to ... the bush administration? What ... because he insisted that the SOTU was really based on Niger, and not the ass-covering crap they stuck in at the last minute?

I can't believe my eyes...

:wow:

[stickdog]

158. Bob's a tool, plain and simple.

It's EXACTLY the same thing we saw with Dean.

[BurtWorm]

248. I wish you'd cut it out with that kind of crap.

I agree with you that Somerby was way the fuck off-base about Dean, and he made clear it was because he just didn't like him. But anyone who has done so much to blow wide open the gasbags of the media as Somerby has is not a tool.

[madfloridian]

162. I got one equally insulting when I wrote him last year.

Something about Dean in the same terms as the one you got. He was very rude to me.

[BurtWorm]

249. His pieces on Dean pissed me off, too.

He's a bit of a crackpot at times. And maybe he's being a crackpot about Wilson as well. That doesn't mean he's all crackpot all the time, as stickdog is now implying. Nor is he someone whose words must always be taken for gospel truth, clearly. But I have to admit, he's been so courageous on so many other subjects, and his anlayses are so painstakingly laid out, I have to respect him, even when I disagree with him.

[KoKo]

168. Pretty "creepy" reply.....sheesh,sounds like he has a "dog in this fight"

I would wonder about that his calling Wilson a "Pied Piper."

[BurtWorm]

247. To be fair, what did you write to him?

Without that context, I'd have to say I agree with you. Somerby has it in for Wilson, as he did for Dean. No accounting for taste. :shrug:

[On the Road]

96. No, I Think Bob Somerby is A Straight-Up Nitpicker

That's his job. And he does it well. The press has probably done a sloppy job with the facts in this case, and that set Somerby off. It doesn't mean the press was wrong.

Personally I think there's more to the story. Such as: Bush decided to attribute the Niger claim on British intelligence because the proof was not credible, neglecting to mention that the British claim was based on the same source. That makes Wilson's statement look a whole lot better.

[Hoping4Change]

108. **CORN'S EXCELLECT REBUTTAL TO ATTCKS ON WILSON*******

Crusade against Wilson overstates and manipulates the material in the Senate report. Written by David Corn.




This is a must read.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/20/opinion/main630711.shtml

[redqueen]

116. This really deserves its own thread

Hope you don't mind I took the liberty of starting one. :)

[Hoping4Change]

122. Please do, or should I say please DU. I too think it

important. I think Somerby is almost traitorous for ripping into Wilson.

[Karenina]

105. It doesn't matter anymore

The Mighty Wurlitzer has a brand new tune. "WAIL ON WILSON" (6 sharps 1 flat). Thanks Bob. Anyone and everyone with the eier to stand up to the fascists who are taking their best shot at destroying civilization WORLDWIDE better be a perfect crystal. :eyes:

[donkeyotay]

119. Me neither

This did clear up something for me. I had wondered why ANYONE was sent to Niger since pretzel lies so professionally by putting in wiggle words like "Britain" said... Furthermore, the UN said it was a CRUDE FORGERY, easily proven so, why send people looking for proof you don't expect to find? Well I guess the answer is because Britain couldn't/wouldn't share their other, real proof with us. Surely our president isn't relying on foreign intelligence when we pay so dearly for ours??? If the pretzel wanted to put in a line about al-Qaeda supplying Iran with WMDs based on Bulgarian intelligence, our intelligence would want to follow up, yes?... preferably before we bombed? Or are we not only bypassing the Congress but our entire intelligence apparatus, too?

[ProfessorPlum]

97. Gotta go

look, everybody, I think Wilson has his heart in the right place, but I was horrified to see that he keeps saying things of questionable veracity. I trust Somerby in his pursuit of accurately recording what has been said, and his logic about what conclusions can be drawn from that.

This is a smokescreen by the GOP, mad that Wilson caught them out in such a twisted implication, and that the Plame turkeys are coming home to roost.

But we need to be honest with ourselves about the people on our side, as well. When they make statements which they can't back up, we shouldn't put our fingers in our ears and say "la la la" like the Republicans do.

[buycitgo]

107. uhhh, ''can't back '' up is different than lying

and that's been discussed here ad nauseum

who CARES if he said he was SURE Cheney read the report?

who ISN'T sure Cheney read--or had a complete summary given to him--Wilson's report?

jesus

AFA as Plame, again, who CARES about the parsing? it's pretty clear through all this that she was in no position to give him the assignment, or have much influence in his being given the NONPAYING job. why would it be important for him to do this, anyway? pad his resume? puhlease

and, judging from this thread, the pugs are doing a great job of tossing out the red herrings for consumption by even those who support Wilson's COURAGEOUS, though belated, revelations

next on the plate, the Sandy Berger horrorshow

I caught Leslie going after Berger's attorney as I read this thread

what a joke. had he gone after the junta with one hundredth the facts at his disposal, one hundredth the intensity, during the war run up, and had ANY of his colleagues done likewise, we'd never have invaded in the first place

[Robbien]

117. It is people like you and Somerby

who make the Democrats lose.

Your egos make you hold the LW feet to the fire and you give the RW more logs to make sure that fire keeps burning. When the RW tells a dozen lies before breakfast, you look at them and smirk out "oh well, what can we do?".

[stickdog]

160. I'm sorry, Plum, but Somerby IS the fucking smoke here. (nt)

[KoKo]

165. Agree! Maybe Somersby's daughter or wife got a "call from Rove" or

whatever...

[stickdog]

109. You and Somerby are completely full of shit on this.

Wilson NEVER claimed to prove a negative.

Why? Because it's impossible.

The LIE was that any evidence existed. It didn't. The burden of proof is on the White House. They made the claim, but they never presented a shred of evidence.

If you have any evidence Iraq tried to obtain Niger uranium, present it. Otherwise, your "argument" is full of shit.

[Generator]

176. Aw c'mon on.

Who the hell does Wilson think he is to challenge our mighty emperor in chief?

I mean how can he possibly claim for certain that any Iraqi-hell it could be an Iraqi by Marriage even, or an ex-Iraqi, or even an Iraqi wanna be, didn't want some uranium?

I bet the Bush cabal/CIA nexus can find us one.

But wait he was asked to check it out by the CIA themselves! (okay it was just a favor to his wife, she wanted some Niger diamonds) He actually checked with those in the country-but wait-he didn't check with everyone ALIVE in that country, so he didn't check for EVERY possible Iraqi connection.

Therefore as always our Emperor is always right. Jeez...

Nevermind that said Emperor admited said speech was incorrect, said Emperor's ally now has PROOF (that they can't let us silly dangerous commoners see) that shows what Emperor said was true.

Besides, said Emperor was just messing with you. It wasn't Niger, anyway, silly. That was just a ruse. It was AFRICA. It's a whole continent. That Iraqi looking for uranium could be anywhere. Those Niger documents were just to mess with those that dare to question the Emperor.

The emperor loves his court jestors and he especially loves those that think the joke is real.

[madfloridian]

129. When Somerby went after Dean, he was fine with folks here.

Many of us tried to speak up, and I even wrote him. I got a rude email back that had no merit at all.

He is like all journalists or op ed writers....some of his positions are good and some are very poor. In this case he is out of line.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

134. Just call it the "Daily Whorerler"

[Robbien]

135. Some folks

Not fine with all the folks here. Just some, but there sure were plenty of them.

Now looking through Somerby's archives it is noticeable he is a lot harder on Democratic slips and he hits the LW on all of them. Many big important errors of the RW just do not get on his radar.

[Cha]

140. What was sommerby's big claim on Dean?

Thanks for this, mf.

[madfloridian]

143. In his mail to me he sort of said he was crazy.

And implied I was as well. I wrote him a nice letter, so there was no excuse. I would have to do a search at his site.

[Cha]

219. That's okay...But anyone who thought Dean is crazy is

to be taken with 10 grains of salt in my view.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

133. "The DailyWhorerler" can go "Cheney" Itself.

:puke:

[Hoping4Change]

137. He's sctratched off my list of intersting blogs.

[trumad]

141. I'll never scratch Bob off

Bob is invaluable to our education toward the press... He's taught me more about the Media Ho's than anyone.... I just think he's dead wrong on this...

[Hoping4Change]

145. This is when Democrats need to stand proud and not turn on their

own at the drop of a hat. The Repuke assault on the Democratic Party is in full throttle and the crusade against Wilson and Berger is just part of carefully laid plans to besmirch the intregity of Democrats. This is when commentators are needed to defend Repuke targets, not go after them.

Philip Dick author of Total Recall, Minority Report and Blade Runner wrote:

"So I ask, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudorealities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind. "

[madfloridian]

153. You got it! We are turning on our own on the word of the GOP.

We have to get people who speak as reps very well informed, work with those accused, and then present a solid front.

[Robbien]

152. Once upon a time his essays were useful

But have felt for the last year or so that that was a mistaken belief. Now that mediamatters takes on the RW media spin and puts their lies under a spotlight on a daily basis, it shows that Bob skips many important issues because he is too busy taking the LW to task.

The LW doesn't need more attackers. We already have an overwhelming amount. And what is even more infuriating is that Bob says he is doing this for our own good.

Yeah, right.

[KoKo]

166. Somersby was "warned." Don't go in tall buildings, take planes or jog

alone at night. If you do...well....we know where you are.

[BurtWorm]

246. What are you saying?

Warned by whom?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

147. DAMN!

Where is the "steaming pile of shit" smiley when you need one???

[kiahzero]

150. This guy is drinking the Kool-Aid

Josh Marshall knows what he's talking about:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_18.php#003170

[bpilgrim]

155. Gilligan's report 'unfounded'

Key allegations about the government's Iraq dossier reported by the BBC's Andrew Gilligan were "unfounded", Lord Hutton has said.

more...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3437471.stm

is wilson going to be 'gilligan'd'?

peace

[KoKo]

161. Shocking! Who knew Somersby was the GOOD GUY! & the rest were

all Repugs in Sheeps Clothing, like Josh Marshall and the reporters we here on DU have looked to for years to support us.

Yeah...Right...Right...Right.

[Uzybone]

163. LOL

Somerby is a tool of the RW ONLY because he thinks Wilson is lying about Bush's lies? All his other articles make it pretty clear what side he is on. I think he is wrong about Wilson but calling him a RW tool is ridiculous. The irony of hearing this on DU where Dem bashing is routine is funny.

[stickdog]

169. I take that back. He's more of a tool of elite interests than a RW tool.

I've been reading him a long time.

He's quite quick to stick the knife into ANYONE or ANYTHING that promises real change.

For instance, when Dean came out against media consolidation, where was Bob? Attacking Dean, IIRC ...

[TheWatcher]

171. This whole thread is a waste of time.

It's like Stickdog said COUNTLESS times in this thread.

List Wilson's supposed lies. Put up or shut up.

And now the original Poster is gone like a thief in the night, never addressing that key point.

Because he has nothing.

Personally, I think Bob is wrong.

And you Professor Plum, have nothing to back him or your claim that Wilson lied.

NOTHING.

I guess he Shut Up because he certainly cannot Put Up.

[DrBB]

170. Sorry to find out that Somersby can be full of shit

...but I guess anyone is capable of that.

A) Who needs Somersby to start up a left-wing circular firing squad? Because,

B) Bush HIMSELF (or at least, his official spokespeople) admitted that the Niger Yellowcake story should not have appeared in the goddamn SOTU speech. And this whole TOPIC of Wilson's supposed credibility is irrelevant. The documents WERE fraudulent, and where there is fact, fraud is not needed. And the ONLY piece of evidence here that doesn't go back to the FRAUDULENT documents is the bit Blair claims isn't based on those documents but won't disclose. I.e., bullshit. And none of THAT, one way or the other, has any bearing on the FACT that Wilson's wife was outed, and that's a crime bordering on treason, and ISN'T excused by political vengeance irrespective of Wilson's motivations even if you DO accept the reichPublicans' view of same. Which there is no reason to do.

All of which means,

C) Bob Somersby is full of SHIT on this issue and all the more so not just for being WRONG but for provoking internecine conflicts and discussions such as the present one that distract from the ACTUAL SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN THE CASE. and goddamit I thought he was better than this.

D) SHIT.

[Hoping4Change]

178. You're right, he bought into the repukes distraction tactics.

He should have been focusing all attention on the 911 report.

[stickdog]

184. He didn't just buy into it. He's hawking it like the worst used car

salesman.

He's completely full of shit on this issue and he should be ashamed of himself for advancing the reddest of herrings.

[quaker bill]

174. Whatever. Wilson was right there was no deal for yellow cake

Isn't that the essence of the thing? No WMD's or "reconstituted nukes", no evidence presented to the contrary? The details may be a bit fuzzy, but he seems to have gotten the big picture.

[Hoping4Change]

179. The details aren't fuzzy. David Corn slams assaults on Wilson.

In his debriefing Wilson reported that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him that in 1999 he had been asked to meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq.

Mayaki said not been interested in pursuing any commercial dealings with Iraq. The intelligence report based on Wilson's debriefing also noted that the former minister of mines explained to Wilson that given the tight controls maintained by the French consortium in charge of uranium mining in Niger, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a shipment of uranium to a pariah state.

What did this report mean to the intelligence community? A CIA reports officer told the Senate intelligence committee that he took it as indirect confirmation of the allegation...

BUT an INR analyst said that he considered the report to be corroboration of INR's position, which was that the allegation was "highly suspect" because Niger would be unlikely to engage in such a transaction and unable to transfer uranium to Iraq due to the strict controls maintained by the French consortium. But the INR analyst added, the "report could be read in different ways."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/20/opinion/main6...

[stickdog]

185. Any report can "be read in different ways" if you are trying to cover

your Party's leader's ass for misleading the American public with bullshit, discredited intellingence in the SOTU address.

[RebelYell]

175. Joe Wilson said

CNN - Sunday - He knows Cheney read it, because Cheney asked for updates.

He said that Valerie excused herself from the meeting where they chose him to go to Niger. He said the CIA asked Valerie IF Joe was qualified to go. She said yes. She didn't make the decision, and excused herself from the decision.

[Cha]

222. Well, there ya go! It's the

updates, "stupid"! }(

[kohodog]

183. Another Shadow Crosses

Some of you understand this.

Plum, God Bless you, but I don't know you. But surely you realize that your arguments sound like Republican talking points. The parsing of words to make the claim about the yellowcake was a thin veil and the admin admitted that foreign intel should not be the source for statements in the SOU.

The gloves are coming off. The lies of this admin must be brought to light, and you are at best an apologist.

The issue is the outing of a CIA agent involved in a sting operation to regarding the trafficking of WMD components. Her operation was busted by Novak"s column, and I'd like to know if that makes us safer or if you really care.

We need to ask why. Why would Iraq try to get yellowcake if their entire nuclear program was hidden under a rose bush? Why does the attack on Wilson come when a Grand Jury may be within days of indicting officials high up in the administration?

I have yet to hear any real facts come out from the Butler report or anyone else for that matter that debunk Wilson's position. This (the attack on Wilson) is a spin campaign to distract and deny, nothing more.

More is coming, but the spin is a ploy to distract until this issue comes to a head and most of the people will have no interest because the spin campaign has made this treasonous Action a non issue.

[wabeewoman]

189. Kohodog, you've hit the nail on the head!

As I was reading these posts I was going to post that it looked to me that Karl Rove had succeeded in discrediting Wilson if DU was arguing about Wilson's honesty. IMHO, I have seen nothing that discredits Wilson and its all smoke and mirrors to take attention away from the real issue. Who cares if Plame recommended Wilson? The issue here folks is that this administration send a diplomat on a pro bono mission to gather facts. They didn't like his facts and when he spoke out, they proceeded to 'out' a CIA agent. THAT is the issue. Don't get sidetracked. The liars are in the White House!

[durutti]

190. It's Spinsanity syndrome.

Trying to find equivalence where there is none.

The bloggers'll be on it tomorrow.

[ProfessorPlum]

192. Look, everybody

I've read Corn's defense of Wilson and Marshall's defense of Wilson, and in the end, they come to the same conclusions: Wilson's public statements don't always line up with the truth. This has been in cases of triviality. But Corn's defense comes down to, "Well, even if he didn't tell the truth, what does it matter?" (The exact quote is

So what if she had? A week in Niamey for no pay was hardly a junket. What would have been wrong with a CIA officer telling another CIA officer, hey my husband, a former ambassador, is an Africa expert with experience in Niger, perhaps you should send him to Niger to see what he can learn? But because Wilson is on record saying it did not happen this way, the question is whether he has been truthful. )

I agree, they are just trivialities, not important to the greater debate. But when the GOP says "Wilson lied about his wife's involvement", we have to say "It doesn't matter", NOT "No he didn't." That is all that I'm saying. It's an important distinction.

Somerby is an honest stickler for actually finding and recording what people say. To hear him described here as a "tool of the elites" is laughable on its face. Please do continue to read Daily Howler, you will learn a lot.

Everyone is having a visceral reaction here. It is unpleasant to learn that Wilson, when faced with dumb counter-punches from the GOP, instead of making fun and belittling them, instead just chose to deny them. That has focused the attention on his statements, unfortunately. He could have said, "yes, my wife wrote a memo listing my qualifications. So what?" and the issue would have died. But instead he said "My wife had nothing whatsoever with my being chosen for this mission", which is clearly untrue, and has allowed the GOP to divert attention from the real problems with this whole story. That's all that Somerby is saying. I agree it doesn't matter very much if Wilson is not scrupulously honest in small details - except to the extent that it allows the GOP to create this smokescreen, and that is truly unfortunate. Lay off of Bob - he is the best media commentator we have. But he doesn't shy away from unpleasant truths.

There are a million other lies to hang Bush and Cheney on. And let us continue to do so.

[stickdog]

195. You are still full of shit. Wilson's wife DID NOT get him the job.

What was she supposed to say, that he wasn't qualified for a job that he was perhaps uniquely qualified for?

Meanwhile, Corn's defense of "what does it matter?" doesn't mean he concedes that Wilson lied. It means only, "What does it matter?"

Because "what does it matter?"

Anybody can be proven less than 100% honest if we parse every one of his or her utterances in the manner Somerby is parsing Wilson's. Every word BushCo utters is a lie by this standard. Every fucking word. So what the fuck is the point of Somerby's continued crucifixion of Wilson?

[trumad]

196. "Anybody can be proven less than 100% honest

if we parse every one of his or her utterances"

I couldn't agree more.... Look... The Professor up above and Somerby are looking for 100 percent purity and they're looking mighty hard for it. AND while doing so they continue to not look at the other side of the coin. They have bought into the GOP fed fact that Plame pimped Wilson for the Niger job.

The CIA was considering Wilson for the gig and his wife, (who happened to be an expert on WMD's and er happened to work at the CIA, and happened to be his Wife, and who knows about Joe more than anyone, chimed in with a letter documenting his qualifications.

What the parsers up above continue to do is avoid the fact that the top honchos at the CIA were looking at Joe and that THEY decided to send Joe. When Joe say's that his wife had nothing to do with his going to Niger, she didn't. It was decided by management. But that's where the parsers come into play. A letter of qualifications to them means that Plame was involved in the decision making and that she was the deciding factor.

Have you ever gone for a job interview and the interviewer ask for references from past jobs? The interviewer then calls those references and the references say that yes indeed, he's qualified and would make a great canidate..... Does those recommendations help? Sure! But who makes the ultimate decision to hire you? THE management from that company.

In looking for a rep to go to Niger the CIA vetted Wilson the way they should have. They asked for qualifications from folks who knew him and then THEY decided to send him. Like I said, this is parsing at it's finest and it's all fed by the GOP! 3 Democrats on the panel did not sign off on this because they knew it was parsing bullshit.. BUT yet the Professor up above and Somerby have no problem signing off on it.... Go figure.

[stickdog]

199. Exactly.

Go figure.

[BurtWorm]

201. I don't see the professor saying Plame pimped her husband.

I didn't see Somerby saying that either. What the professor did say was that Wilson ought not to have denied that his wife had anything to do with his appointment to check out the Niger story, because she did have something to do with it.

[ProfessorPlum]

204. Thanks BurtWorm

That IS what I'm saying. For the record, I think Wilson is one helluva guy for doing all that he has done, and especially for his bravery against this crew.

[stickdog]

213. What I don't see is a quote from Wilson that says, "My wife never

told anyone I was qualified for the job."

What I see instead is somebody claiming Wilson said something he didn't say so he can parse his PARAPHRASE of what Wilson actually said into some sort of dishonesty.

It's complete and utter bullshit. Wislon is being raked over the coals for something he NEVER said.

[trumad]

225. Ahhh but that's the parse of parses... Ya think...

[ProfessorPlum]

206. I would be full of shit if I had said Wilson's wife got him the job

But that isn't what I said. I said that Wilson said she had absolutely nothing to do with it, and that is clearly not true. That was a mistake on Wilson's part, and one we have to be aware of, so that we can cut through the GOP rhetoric. We can live with it, of course, but first we have to be honest and recognize it for what it is.

[stickdog]

214. You are still 100% full of shit!!! When and where did Wilson say,

"My wife had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with me getting this job. She didn't even say I was qualified for it."

Wilson NEVER said such a thing. If you claim he did, let's see the quote in context.

You paraphrase Wilson dishonestly and then claim this proves that he was dishonest. How brilliantly Rovian!

[redqueen]

255. Wow... I just assumed that Somerby at least had a direct quote

Which if he did you would think the Prof would have responded with it by now...

*sigh*

How very sad.

[BurtWorm]

200. Professor, you're a brave guy.

I salute you! :toast: You and Bob Somerby make a lot of sense to me. I can understand why people are upset about this critique of Wilson's truthfulness, having invested a year's worth of belief that he is a pure victim of a right-wing smear. I think he and his wife--and her contacts--were indeed the victims of a right-wing smear, but he's clearly not "pure."

[ProfessorPlum]

207. It seems to me he just isn't very careful

and that is an issue for people who want to use him as a source for God's honest truth. He isn't - and it only helps us to be aware of that. Wilson is correct, I believe, that the whole uranium thing was way overblown, that this administration lied to start a war, and that his wife was targeted in retaliation. He just has to be more careful with his statements.

[stickdog]

216. Like Dean needs to be careful? Like Cynthia McKinney needs to be careful?

Like Bill Maher needs to "watch what he says"?

Like the Dixie Chicks need to be careful?

Like Linda Ronstandt needs to be careful?

Like Garry Trudeau needs to be careful?

Like Michael Moore needs to be careful?

Notice any trend here, Perfessor?

[wtmusic]

235. You're 100% wrong on this one Prof.

One of the 17 words is "learned"--not "has evidence of", but "learned". This is, in fact, a lie, as Joe Wilson has so bravely and repeatedly pointed out.

[redqueen]

208. Is ANYONE "pure"?

And at this time, in this election, how much sense does it make to harp on this insignificant crap?

:grr:

[BurtWorm]

210. If we could tolerate criticism of our own

would this thread have mushroomed to more than 200 posts in 24 hours?

:shrug:

[stickdog]

234. Dude, we CONSTANTLY criticize "our own." But this is NOT legitimate.

This is bullshit, Rovian, right wing talking points meme-mantra character assassination nonsense with NO BASIS in reality.

NONE.

ZERO.

ZILCH.

NADA.

Somerby should be ashamed of himself, and anyone buying his bullshit is either ignorant or a shill.

[BurtWorm]

242. That post adds a lot to the discussion.

:eyes:

("Anyone who disagrees with me is either ignorant or a shill.")

[redqueen]

256. We can tolerate criticism, when it's founded

Where are the quotes?

No one has yet provided them.

Why would that be? Why is every request to be shown the evidence of his lies met with silence...

This thread is old now... and still no quotes... still nothing to substantiate this reich-wing smear which Bob participated in and others have bought into...

nothing...

This is really Cheneying sad.

[BurtWorm]

257. See post #244

Reproduced below without the formatting. For what it's worth, my position in defense of Somerby's Wilson-skepticism has softened. I don't know why he has a bug up his ass about Wilson. I suspect it's a matter of taste. But you asked for quotes and, voila:



OVERSTATEMENT CENTRAL:"I never claimed to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa," Wilson says. But he calls the allegation a "lie" all through his overstated book. Here's one example of his overstatements?the first one that we turn to:

WILSON (page 337): Had I been the chief executive of this operation, as President Bush likes to say that he is, I would have been furious that a member of my staff had inserted such an obviously false claim in the most important speech I might ever make.

Was Bush's claim false? We still don't know?and neither does Wilson! But then, he overstates wildly all through his book. Sadly, Dems are now going to pay a price for accepting his loud overstatements.

ILLOGIC CENTRAL: Wilson has long been a fount of illogic. Here?s one instant example:

WILSON (page 334): The path to writing the op-ed piece had always been clear in my mind. My government had refused to address the fundamental question of how the lie regarding Saddam's supposed attempt to purchase African uranium had found its way into the State of the Union address... I had to raise it, publicly and in my own words. I realized that my credibility would be called into question, and I was steeled for that. But whatever one might say about me--and there is a lot--the truth remained: There was never any evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases from Niger. <Wilson's emphasis>

Within one paragraph, Wilson floats from an alleged "attempt" to purchase uranium to the claim that there was never any evidence of such purchases. But Bush didn't claim there had been any purchases--only that there had been an attempt. Wilson's illogic has been endless, but so what? He calls Bush's statement a "lie" all the same, even though he doesn't know, even today, if the statement was true or false. Sadly, Dems are now starting to pay a price for buying this blatant illogic.

[redqueen]

261. Oh I saw it...

read down the thread earlier and noticed the nitpicking that he somehow finds to be such a majorly Cheneying big deal.

Sad... I respected him.

I said this in another post but it warrants repeating... he feigns sadness for the Democratic party, since now all this is 'backfiring' on us... however - his piling on would seem to betray such sentiments, IMO...

In fact... I can almost imagine him writing a piece 180 degrees different... in which he points out how the reich-wing smear is immaterial to the real issue... which is bush's mendacity in his rush to war...

So sad... so sad.

[BurtWorm]

262. And you're going to disprespect him because he disagrees with

you about one thing? That is sad! :eyes:

[redqueen]

271. It's not "one thing" to me.

It's a sign he's really not concerned with what's happening in this country.

He's only interested in nitpicking...

No comment on the alternate piece? Remember how he's admitted in other articles that comments could be interpreted in different ways, but the context shows the clowning of the media?

Seems to me he's now clowning with the rest of them, ignoring the context of this story (the US waging a war of aggression on the basis of EXAGGERATIONS - don't want to be attacked for being less than 100% accurate - so he can instead harp on Wilson's tendency to play loose with his facts/choose his words poorly.

[stickdog]

266. Finally we can BEGIN to discuss Somerby's ridiculous nitpicking.

WILSON (page 337): Had I been the chief executive of this operation, as President Bush likes to say that he is, I would have been furious that a member of my staff had inserted such an obviously false claim in the most important speech I might ever make.

The claim was false because there was and is no backing evidence to make the claim. You just can't make any claim in the SOTU and say it's true unless it can be PROVEN otherwise. A claim delivered by the POTUS to Congress needs to have a valid basis -- otherwise it is a FALSE claim.

So where is BUSH'S EVIDENCE that this claim has a VALID BASIS? Isn't this the REAL question that Somerby is conveniently ignoring?

Note that, in the context that Wilson made this statement, he's clearly PRESUMING the lack of any and all evidence. Given the FACT that no evidence has ever been presented and that no reason has been given for the refusal to present such evidence, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH WILSON'S PRESUMPTION???


WILSON (page 334): The path to writing the op-ed piece had always been clear in my mind. My government had refused to address the fundamental question of how the lie regarding Saddam's supposed attempt to purchase African uranium had found its way into the State of the Union address... I had to raise it, publicly and in my own words. I realized that my credibility would be called into question, and I was steeled for that. But whatever one might say about me--and there is a lot--the truth remained: There was never any evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases from Niger.

To dispute this passage is to claim that there is in fact some actual evidence that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger. So WHERE THE FUCK IS THIS EVIDENCE? If it exists, WHY CAN'T WE SEE IT???

[stickdog]

215. BurtWorm, try firing up a few brain cells here. Where is the EVIDENCE

that Wilson ever lied?

Let's see the direct Wilson quotes -- in context -- in which he supposedly lied. Put up or shut up.

[TheWatcher]

224. What astounds me is that this thread has gotten up to 225 Posts

WITHOUT Stickdogs simple question even being remotely addressed.

This is PATHETIC.

ADDRESS THE DAMN QUESTION ALREADY.

WHERE.

IS.

THE.

EVIDENCE.

THAT.

WILSON.

LIED?

How hard is it to answer the question if the informationis readily avialable, linkable, with quotes in context with said assertion?

ANSWER.

THE.

QUESTION.

[TacticalPeek]

226. Agreed. No cites so far of 'Wilson lies'. And the Howler stretches/strains

I'll leave the wife/trip thing until I find and see more record and context, but going back to Wilson's original appearance on Meet the Appearance of the Press, the day his July, 2003 NYT op-ed ran, with Andrea Mitchell subbing, he seems on target and within bounds, and particularly fair, about Cheney "reading", and "Africa debunking" vs "Niger debunking", making Somerby's "FINALLY! 'I never claimed'" horseshit particularly onerous as his own straw man. The reason "Niger" debunks "Africa" is caused by Bush's reliance on claims with no foundation, a familiar pattern with this gang's lust to re-implant the mushroom cloud atop the public's list of fears.

---------------

(my emphasis)

MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Ambassador Wilson, welcome. Thanks for coming in.


AMB. JOSEPH WILSON: Good morning, Andrea.

MS. MITCHELL: Let's put this in context for our viewers. Let's take a look at what the president said about this issue in the State of the Union address:

(Videotape, January 28):

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

(End videotape)

MS. MITCHELL: Now, we only learned later when U.N. inspectors first looked at the documents, this was a year later, that, in fact, these documents were fraudulent, a year after your first trip. What did you think when you first saw the president making that comment in the State of the Union?

AMB. WILSON: Well, first of all, Andrea, when the president made the comment, he was referring to a British White Paper Report that came out in September of the previous year, September 2002; again, referring to uranium sales from an African country to Iraq. Now, there are four African countries that produce uranium or have uranium stockpiles: South Africa, Namibia, Gabon and Niger. So throughout this, whenever the British and then the president were mentioning Africa, I assumed that they were talking about one of the other countries and not Niger since we had, I believed, at the time effectively debunked the Niger arms uranium sale.

MS. MITCHELL: But, in fact, many officials, including the president, the vice president, Donald Rumsfeld, were referring to the Niger issue as though it were fact, as though it were true and they were told by the CIA, this information was passed on in the national intelligence estimate, I've been told, with a caveat from the State Department that it was highly dubious based on your trip but that that caveat was buried in a footnote, in the appendix. So was the White House misled? Were they not properly briefed on the fact that you had the previous February been there and that it wasn't true?

AMB. WILSON: No. No. In actual fact, in my judgment, I have not seen the estimate either, but there were reports based upon my trip that were submitted to the appropriate officials. The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there.

MS. MITCHELL: So they knew months and months before they passed on these allegations that, in fact, that particular charge was not true. Do you think, based on all of this, that the intelligence was hyped?

AMB. WILSON: My judgment on this is that if they were referring to Niger when they were referring to uranium sales from Africa to Iraq, that information was erroneous and that they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the British White Paper and the president's State of the Union address.

MS. MITCHELL: What do you think was going on here? Was this the politicization of intelligence in order to justify a war?

AMB. WILSON: Well, I think there's two things. One, either the administration has some information that it has not shared with the public or, yes, they were using the selective use of facts and intelligence to bolster a decision in the case that had already been made, a decision that had been made to go war.

MS. MITCHELL: Now, you write that you "have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government." Yet there are people still in the White House who were saying months and months later that it was not circulated. Last month Tim Russert had national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on this program, and asked her point blank about how that line got into the State of the Union address. Let's take a look at what she said to Tim:

(Videotape, June 8):

DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time, no one knew at the time in our circles, maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.

(End videotape)

MS. MITCHELL: "The bowels of the agency"? You've just said that, in fact, it was passed along to the vice president's office.

AMB. WILSON: Andrea, when I was in the National Security Council, I was senior director for African affairs, and subsequent to that, when I wrote this article, I checked with members of the then-vice president's staff, senior members, as well as other senior members of the NSC staff, to refresh my own memory. And standard operating procedure has always been if you are senior enough to ask the question, you will get a very specific response. And if you are in the vice president's office, or you're a senior director at the National Security Council, you are senior enough to ask the question, you will get a specific response, unless the operating procedures have changed, which would be a shame.

MS. MITCHELL: One the things that a lot of people don't understand is why did it take more than a year for someone to even look for the documentation? Because a year later, after the - a month after the State of the Union address, finally somebody turned this issue over to the U.N. inspectors. They looked at the documents, and noticed right away on the face of it that they were frauds.

AMB. WILSON: I can't answer that except I would fully suspect that if there was any importance attached to the documentation that there would have been a serious effort to get ahold of it. When I came back from Niger, and debriefed, I had not, of course, seen the documents, but one of the points that I made was if these documents did not contain certain signatures - specifically, the signature of the Minister of Energy and mine and the prime minister - then they could not be authentic.

more
http://www.johnkerry.com/honesty/Meet_The_Press.html

----------------


Looks to me as if Joe is more fair to aWol and Pork Chop Boy than Bob is to Joe, or the facts.

And to make reasonable judgements about the Howler's other points, we will need access to more info than the Senate committee wishes to make available at this point. They've got several 'partitions' in there about what and when info is available, it seems, but I guess that's not really strange, is it?

[stickdog]

233. Exactly. We have almost 250 posts and all we have is baseless RW

talking points.

As if simply repeating something actually makes it so.

WHERE ARE WILSON'S SUPPOSED LIES?

[BurtWorm]

245. Excellent post!

Yours and brotherjohn's are two of the rare pro-Wilson posts in this thread of any use! Thank you. :toast:

[BurtWorm]

244. Somerby has not used the word "lie" or "liar" in connection with Wilson.

(Neither have or do I.) His words are (according to Somerby) "disingenuous," "evasive," 'misleading," "overstated," "insincere," "illogical." And here is Somerby's final words on Wilson in Tuesday's column (the answer to your question is here):

OVERSTATEMENT CENTRAL:"I never claimed to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa," Wilson says. But he calls the allegation a "lie" all through his overstated book. Here's one example of his overstatements?the first one that we turn to:

WILSON (page 337): Had I been the chief executive of this operation, as President Bush likes to say that he is, I would have been furious that a member of my staff had inserted such an obviously false claim in the most important speech I might ever make.

Was Bush's claim false? We still don't know?and neither does Wilson! But then, he overstates wildly all through his book. Sadly, Dems are now going to pay a price for accepting his loud overstatements.

ILLOGIC CENTRAL: Wilson has long been a fount of illogic. Here?s one instant example:

WILSON (page 334): The path to writing the op-ed piece had always been clear in my mind. My government had refused to address the fundamental question of how the lie regarding Saddam's supposed attempt to purchase African uranium had found its way into the State of the Union address... I had to raise it, publicly and in my own words. I realized that my credibility would be called into question, and I was steeled for that. But whatever one might say about me--and there is a lot--the truth remained: There was never any evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases from Niger. <Wilson's emphasis>

Within one paragraph, Wilson floats from an alleged "attempt" to purchase uranium to the claim that there was never any evidence of such purchases. But Bush didn't claim there had been any purchases--only that there had been an attempt. Wilson's illogic has been endless, but so what? He calls Bush's statement a "lie" all the same, even though he doesn't know, even today, if the statement was true or false. Sadly, Dems are now starting to pay a price for buying this blatant illogic.

[stickdog]

267. Somerby's 'analysis': Claims require NO evidence, but calling a baseless

claim false requires absolute proof. That is his "argument" distilled.

So I can call Somerby a child molester with impunity. But he can't call my claim a lie -- because how can he PROVE that he's not a child molester? I mean, he might have molested children while sleep walking or something, right? So if he called my claim false, then HE'D be the liar, not me! Isn't that how "logic" works in Somerby's la la land?

WILSON (page 337): Had I been the chief executive of this operation, as President Bush likes to say that he is, I would have been furious that a member of my staff had inserted such an obviously false claim in the most important speech I might ever make.

The claim was false because there was and is no backing evidence to make the claim. You just can't make any claim in the SOTU and say it's true unless it can be PROVEN otherwise. A claim delivered by the POTUS to Congress needs to have a valid basis -- otherwise it is a FALSE claim.

So where is BUSH'S EVIDENCE that this claim has a VALID BASIS? Isn't this the REAL question that Somerby is conveniently ignoring?

Note that, in the context that Wilson made this statement, he's clearly PRESUMING the lack of any and all evidence. Given the FACT that no evidence has ever been presented and that no reason has been given for the refusal to present such evidence, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH WILSON'S PRESUMPTION???

[BurtWorm]

243. Did you read Somerby's analysis?

Then you'd have the answer to your question.

[stickdog]

265. What? That Somerby's analysis is full of shit?

Because that's been my point here from the beginning. His "analysis" is full of shit. He puts words in Wilson's mouth, then he proceeds to parse HIS OWN WORDS (not Wilson's) and proclaims them less then honest. It's utter tripe.

[TexasSissy]

217. I see nothing erroneous about Wilson's statements.

I'd have to look up his prior statements to make sure, but I don't recall him ever saying that he looked at ALL sources regarding the African uranium deal and concluded that it had never taken place. I recall him saying that HIS INVESTIGATION resulted in his conclusion that it had not taken place. Big difference. How would Wilson know of each and every source of information gathered by the CIA and Britain and possibly other countries?

People took Wilson's statements to mean something in particular, but that's not his fault.

And all of this has nothing to do with whether, and who, outed his wife in retaliation for whatever statements he made.

Even if Wilson is shown to have lied (but I don't believe that, since I've seen and heard his explanations and clarifications, and they are very sound), it has nothing to do with the Plame outing.

[trumad]

227. Here's Kevin Drums take:

JOE WAS RIGHT....For all the frothing and fulminating about the minutiae of Joe Wilson's op-eds, speeches, and books over the past year, it's worth remembering that his central claim continues to be supported by everyone who looks into it. At the tail end of a USA Today column on the subject, John Diamond remembers to mention this:

Did Iraq, in fact, try to buy uranium in Niger? The Senate Intelligence Committee report accepted the CIA's ultimate assessment — not reached until after the war — that there was little if any credible evidence available to U.S. intelligence to support the charge that Iraq sought, let alone bought, uranium from Niger.

Has the White House changed its position on Bush's January 2003 charge? The White House has not withdrawn or amended its statement last July that the intelligence behind the charge "did not rise to the level of inclusion in a presidential speech."

Wilson's central claim was that there was virtually no evidence to back up the idea that Saddam had sought uranium from Niger. The CIA agreed with that assessment before the war, it agreed with it after the war, and it still agrees with it — and the Senate Intelligence report backs them up.

Bottom line: on his primary point, the one he's been flogging for over a year now, Wilson has been vindicated.

Of course, the British continue to stand behind their contention that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africa, but they refuse to explain why they think this. And since British intelligence on Iraq hasn't been notably more accurate than American intelligence, it's hard to think of any good reason to believe them unless they provide us all with a little more evidence.

Wilson may be guilty of overembellishing his case on several minor points, but on the central question he brought up — should the president have made those claims about African uranium in his State of the Union address? — he was right. The CIA admits it, the White House admits it, and the Senate Intelligence committee admits it. Republicans ought to keep this in mind.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004347.php

[redqueen]

259. SO sorry, that's not good enough for Bob Somerby and the RW media

Nitpicking is far more important, you see, than even bothering to wonder for one second what was in the british intel (has anyone even asked?)... also it's far more important than wondering why the bu$hgang would confirm their own doubt of their own claim.

[enki23]

238. load of shit.

bush said they had reliable information that saddam had sought uranium from africa. they did not have such information, and it was well known at the time that they did not have that information. therefore, bush (the bush administration) lied. that is true even if, tomorrow, somebody discovered incontrovertible proof that saddam had, in fact, sought uranium from africa.

period.

anyone who doesn't understand that oh-so-complex line of reasoning...

[TacticalPeek]

239. "Significant quantities" of shit, according to the neocon bill of goods.

bill of goods

NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. bills of goods

1. A consignment of items for sale. 2. Informal A plan, promise, or offer, especially one that is dishonest or misleading: "The salesman himself . . . is often depicted as the ultimate sucker, who has fallen for his own cheesy bill of goods" (Walter Goodman)

http://www.bartleby.com/61/16/B0251600.html

[Swamp Rat]

250. "Where's the Beef?"

[Jim Sagle]

251. I like Somerby, usually. But he's been known to give w an undeserved

break.

Take Harken Energy. Please. Somerby wrote that the SEC really DID exonerate w on the insider trading charge. He was obviously wrong, and I think his motive was just to show he could slam both sides.

When it comes to Somerby, trust - but verify.

[BurtWorm]

252. That was the other issue that stuck in Somerby's craw!

Harken. I wrote to him about that and he sent back a reply that made clear he wasn't going to budge on the issue. Then came Dean. Now Wilson. He's got his quirks, that's for sure. I think of him as a close reader, a logic head. He's not into nuance. He's into what words say, not what's between the lines.

[bobbieinok]

258. START A NEW THREAD ... THIS IS WAY TOO LONG

[vincent_vega_lives]

260. This Iraq /Uranium issue Is not dead by far

and may come back like some kind of zombie.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20040718/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_uranium

Though Wilson reported to U.S. officials there was "nothing to the story" that Niger sold uranium to Iraq, the CIA and DIA were intrigued by one element of his trip. Wilson had said a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, mentioned a visit from an Iraqi delegation in 1999 that expressed interest in expanding commercial ties with Niger, the world's third largest producer of mined uranium. Mayaki believed this meant they were interested in buying uranium.

The British inquiry said it was generally accepted that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999, and there was intelligence from several sources that the visit was to acquire uranium. "Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible," the report said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5458642/

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/19/iraq.uranium.ap/

[stickdog]

268. Mayaki now denies this meeting ever took place.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3891503.stm