Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Joe Wilson sets the record straight. Yet again.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 04:02 AM
Original message
Joe Wilson sets the record straight. Yet again.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-wilson21jul21,1,4953471.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

A Right-Wing Smear Is Gathering Steam

Ex-envoy says the GOP has targeted him and his wife.

By Joseph C. Wilson IV

For the last two weeks, I have been subjected — along with my wife, Valerie Plame — to a partisan Republican smear campaign. In right-wing blogs and on the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, I've been accused of being a liar and, worse, a traitor.

This is the latest chapter in a saga that began in 2002 when I was asked by the CIA to investigate a report that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase several hundred tons of uranium yellowcake from the West African country of Niger in order to reconstruct Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

I went to Niger, investigated and told the CIA that the report was unfounded. Then, in July 2003, I revealed some details of my investigation in a New York Times Op-Ed article. I did that because President Bush had used the Niger claim to support going to war in Iraq — to support his contention that we could not wait "for the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud" — even though the administration knew that evidence for it was all but nonexistent. Shortly after that article was published, the attacks began: Administration sources leaked to the media that my wife was an undercover CIA operative — an unprecedented betrayal of national security and a possible felony.

In the last two weeks, since the Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on intelligence failures, the smear attacks have intensified. Based on distortions in the report, they appear to have three purposes: to sow confusion; to distract attention from the fact that the White House used the Niger claim even after CIA Director George Tenet told Bush that "the reporting was weak"; and to protect whoever it was who told the press about Valerie.

more ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 04:09 AM
Response to Original message
1. The Star Tribune weighs in.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/4885821.html

From loud -- and erroneous -- claims that a link finally had been established between Niger and Iraq, you'd think the entire case for invading Iraq had finally been validated. That's hogwash.

Everyone recalls the issue: Prior to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration claimed -- most famously in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech -- that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium ore from Niger. Later, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times saying Bush was wrong and that the CIA knew it. The basis for Wilson's claim: He had traveled to Niger at the CIA's behest to investigate the claims and found them baseless.

Wilson was immediately smeared by members of the Bush administration, who leaked information that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative and that she had nominated him for the trip to Niger. Leaking her name was a serious violation of federal law, and the claim that she nominated him for the trip -- no plum assignment at that -- is untrue. Wilson makes that clear in excerpts from a letter he sent the Senate Intelligence Committee, printed on the opposite page. He is supported by the CIA, which to this day insists that sending Wilson was not Plame's idea.

What Plame did do was tell her superiors that her husband had many contacts in Niger. That led to subsequent discussions with Wilson -- not involving Plame -- during which the idea of his travel was broached. This entire issue of who nominated whom is inconsequential, except that it goes to the issue of Wilson's credibility, and thus to the substance of his Niger report.

The whole Niger discussion is being used to obscure a larger truth: that the entire central case for going to war -- the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction -- has proven baseless. Saddam had no program for building nuclear weapons, though he perhaps wanted his internal and external enemies to believe he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium ore from Niger?
The piece starts out wrong... In the SOTU speech Bush said Africa...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. And where else did Iraq try to purchase uranium from Africa?
Seriously.

Where else if not Niger?

Based on what evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. The UK Butler report claims:
There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached. (paragraph 494).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. The UK Butler report is full of shit. What is the "some evidence"?
Hint: It's more bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trumad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. Hey I'm with you
but the quote was wrong in the paper.. He said Africa.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kiahzero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #5
15. He was talking about the Niger claim
It was predicated on "The British have learned," but, as we know, the British claim was also about Niger, and was based on different intelligence services' summaries of the forged documents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 04:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. USA Today tries to hew "the middle path"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-07-21-uranium_x.htm

• Why would Iraq try to buy uranium from Niger when it already had uranium of its own?

Iraq had 550 tons of partially processed uranium ore, or yellowcake, that it had mined and processed itself or imported in the 1980s from Niger. But the material was subject to United Nations inspections, and Iraq's uranium mining and processing facilities had been destroyed in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. British intelligence believed Iraq wanted a secret source of uranium to evade U.N. inspections. U.S. intelligence said Iraq was unlikely to risk exposure in an international uranium deal and would more likely divert its own stockpile because the U.N. inspections occurred only once a year.

• What was Wilson's role?

Wilson had been an ambassador to Gabon and was posted to Niger earlier in his career. In 1999, he had gone to Niger to gather information about rumors of uranium sales to Iraq. The CIA sent Wilson back to Niger in February 2002 to check on unconfirmed reports about an Iraqi contract to buy uranium. Wilson reported that he found no evidence of a contract and that Niger's uranium was under French control and could not be diverted to Iraq.

He said Niger's former prime minister, Ibrahim Mayaki, had told him that in 1999 he had been approached by a businessman who urged him to meet with an Iraqi delegation. Mayaki said he assumed the meeting would be about uranium, but uranium never came up.

• What did the Senate Intelligence Committee report say about Wilson, and how does he respond?

The committee reported that CIA analysts believe Mayaki's comments about the meeting, while inconclusive, tended to support allegations that Iraq was at least trying to buy uranium. Wilson says the Mayaki information was thin and notes that the CIA did not deem it important enough to report to the White House.

The committee reported that Wilson conceded he may have "misspoken" when he told a reporter last year that documents purporting to confirm an Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries when, in fact, he had no access to those documents and could not have known they were forgeries. Wilson says he never claimed to have known about the forged documents.

The committee also questioned Wilson's repeated denials that his wife had "anything to do" with his selection by the CIA to go to Niger. It quoted from a memo by Plame that lays out Wilson's qualifications for the assignment. Wilson and the CIA confirm that the agency, not Plame, selected him for the mission. He says the memo merely laid out his qualifications after he was picked.

• 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
July Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. And think about what that last sentence implies.
LITTLE IF ANY evidence. So, although the CIA didn't reach its conclusion until after the war (convenient), the charge was basically unsupported all along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #2
13. stickdog
Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 06:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. Well look at what they did to the women that hardly did a thing
Her name has left my mind but she could not get a job and she is ill. MS. Went to Brown I think. She just gave out E-mail to prove a point she had made. She was a lawyer under Ashcroft.It was in with "THe Am Talban" thing.This is par for GOP as they have always done this. It is like Dem do not fight that way. We tend to say "Your program stinks" and the GOP say" YOU Stink".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. kick (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
7. Amen!
This is crazy. And you see how the media just run with this bullshit. And other people like Bob Somerby pick up the trail and follow along. Can't you just see Karl Rove rubbing his hands together "yes, it's all going just according to my plan". We need to demand that the people involved in the outing of Plame be indicted and tried in the most public way. As Josh Marshall said just a few weeks ago, there are people who are going to do their very best to muddy the waters. That is exactly what is going on here. Rove doesn't want to be "frogmarched out of the White House". He's a cornered animal who is going to do every despicable thing possible to survive. I think the Sandy Berger mess is part of it too. And the media just laps it up along with some people who should know better. Do not be fooled by this bullshit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HootieMcBoob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 08:28 AM
Response to Original message
9. Re-Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 09:04 AM
Response to Original message
12. Too wordy, Joe..
Just hammer your point home over and over again...

...THEY OUTED A CIA COVERT OPERATIVE WHICH IS AN ACT OF TREASON!

adding:

...NOW, WHO IN THE WH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR GIVING THE ORDER AND CARRYING IT OUT?

ask every reporter and interviewer the same question, until you get an answer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 10:02 AM
Response to Original message
14. CSPAN2 is having a discussion...
rather a hatefest once again. Pubs are trying to kill two birds with one stone by once again placing the blame on Plame for sending him (calling her a liar) and saying he lied in his testimony blah blah blah.

Of all the important things that need to be discussed in Congress, they're once again spinning and spewing on things they should not be discussing and putting on such arguments on the record. Why? Because it is an ongoing investigation!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-21-04 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Yes, a grand jury is meeting about the Plame outing. Meanwhile,
Edited on Wed Jul-21-04 03:16 PM by stickdog
they keep piling the red paint on the completely bogus "Wilson's a liar" herring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC