Wilson: A Right-Wing Smear is Gathering Steam

[Q]

Published on Wednesday, July 21, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times

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.

The primary new charge from the Republicans is that I lied when I said Valerie had nothing to do with my being assigned to go to Niger. That's important to the administration because there's a criminal investigation underway, and if she did play a role, divulging her CIA status may be defendable. In fact, though the Senate committee cites a CIA source saying Valerie had a role in the assignment, it ignores what the agency told Newsday reporters as early as July 2003, long before I ever acknowledged Valerie's CIA employment. --- http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0721-06.htm

[Frodo]

1. "In right-wing blogs, the Wall Street Journal, and National Review"

And those right wing rags the NEw York Times and the Boston Herald.

Along with a unanimous Senate report and the parallel British document.

And the copy of his wife's memo proposing him,

And the text of his own report

etc. etc. etc.

[sadiesworld]

3. Do you have links for these items?

[Frodo]

7. A couple.

http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=36030

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/opinion/19SAFI.html


They both quote from the goernment findings.

[bobbyboucher]

9. Much of the "government" that you use

to substantiate your horse shit, are trying desperately to save their asses.

About that water?

[KAZ]

4. And folks on this board.

"unanimous Senate report"?

"Indeed, as the Republicans themselves (specifically Sens. Roberts, Bond and Hatch) complained in their 'additional views' (p. 442) section, "Despite our hard and successful work to deliver a unanimous report ... there were two issues on which the Republicans and Democrats could not agree: 1) whether the Committee should conclude that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's public statements were not based on knowledge he actually possessed, and 2) whether the Committee should conclude that it was the former ambassador's wife who recommended him for his trip to Niger."
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_18.php#003170

[Frodo]

10. Yes.

Parts of the report were unanimous, parts had dissenters. A disagreement whether (on that one point) he was lying or simply wrong is not much of a defense.

[sadiesworld]

11. Thanks.

That is one of Frodo's talking points debunked.

[Frodo]

13. How?

They disagreed on whether he was simply wrong or lying intentionally on ONE point?

And he didn't say his wife was not the driving force behind his selection. He said "she had nothing to do with it". The senate report includes copies of a memo she wrote contradicting that.

[sadiesworld]

19. Marshall says that the idea to send Wilson was not Plame's (per

her CIA bosses). I don't have a particularly hard time reconciling that w/ Wilson's statements.

You state that the Senate conclusions were unanimous. But, on the issues being discussed here, they were not.

One of the links you gave me was from an Editorial. (I did not look at the NYT piece, can't find my info and don't want to re register). I want facts.

Why do you like the interpretations least favorable to the good guys?

:shrug:

[Frodo]

24. I'm a skeptic.

I take the interpretations least favorable to the bad guys as well - when THEY are the ones who may have done something wrong.


Note I believe Berger DID do something wrong AND someone on the other side leaked it.

I believe Ahnold is a serial groper AND I believe the LA Times carried out an intentional hit-job on him.

"good guys" or "bad guys" is not proof against corruption or seeking the limelight.

You're like the Redskins fan who want Michael Irvin to be suspended for drug possession (or whoever it was), but thinks it's all a police setup when the 'Skins star running back gets arrested.

[sadiesworld]

29. "I take the interpretations least favorable to the bad guys as well-

when THEY are the ones who may have done something wrong."

Try this one on for size: The WH blew the cover of a deep cover CIA agent and are now trying to muddy the waters in an attempt to deflect attention away from their own criminal behavior.

And please, don't EVEN put me in some ditto head category. My question is why you ALWAYS look for the explanation most beneficial to republicans. Sorry, I'm not buying your "I'm just being evenhanded" meme.

[Frodo]

34. I don't

You're just ticked we don't agree here.

I have no idea how or why they outed her (though it's the first time I've hear the term "deep cover" applied, that seems to lay it on a bit thick). I've said before that someone should go to jail for it.

I understand the defense that if they were "outing" her nepotism that it was not an infraction of the law, but I don't see HOW that can be. I'm alowed to "out" an operative if I think (s)he's doing something wrong?

I wan't trying to put you in some right-wing camp. I'm pointing out that home-team fans often see things differently than reality. Our guys can do no wrong and the other guys are cheating. I've followed politics long enough to know that both teams have a few dirty tricks they play.

[KAZ]

40. NOC is "deep" cover. Nothing thick about it.

And your third paragraph on nepotism, and "doing something wrong" is, with all due respect, delusional.

[Frodo]

54. Yeah, but it wasn't MY delusion.

I'm just stating what they are claiming. I've said I don't agree with it.

And as I undestand it, "deep cover" is when even other agents don't know your identity or when you assume a permanent identity (like a double agent), not when you go in and out of various roles.

But I have no ideaa what she did - or even what NOC is supposed to be?

[bobbyboucher]

5. Not to mention your posts.

How much does a gallon of water weigh?

[Frodo]

12. That would be eight pounds

"A pint's a pound the world around"

[bobbyboucher]

14. Now, how many gallons

do you usually carry?

[Frodo]

17. Ahhh! I get it.

Very good :-)
I was wondering where that was going.

Nope. Exactly what they are hoping for if for people (like you) to jump to his defense when it seems he is lying. It paints us all with the same brush and all they have to go after is HIM (and they get you for free).

I'm just incredibly sensitive to corruption and dishonesty in politics. It all boiled down to whether Bush's 16 words were a lie or not. Wilson insisted they were and Bush should have known it. It now appears that the words were correct. And his own report gives two anecdotal hearsay points of evidence saying the Iraqis WERE there trying to buy Uranium.

[sadiesworld]

20. The Iranis?

[Frodo]

27. I don't see that?

I used to live in Iran and often DO type one for the other when posting quickly... but I see "Iraqis" in my post and it wasn't edited.

What are you refering to?


Or do you think this will be the new excuse to go to war in Iran?
"Hey, we've already got troops and bases on both sides of them (AND in the Persian Gulf). It will be so much cheaper to get them now!"

[sadiesworld]

33. Josh Marshall discusses a Post piece which referred to

a report by Wilson that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from Niger in 1998. It was IRAN!!!!!! Gee, the Post got it wrong and had to go back and make a correction. Is this one of Wilson's anecdotal reports you refer to??????

[Frodo]

35. No.

But thanks for the clarification.

[sadiesworld]

38. Which ones do you refer to?

Link?

[sadiesworld]

44. Dammit, I want my links.

[Frodo]

53. I was in a birthday party

and it was mine...


Now I have a meeting to go to.

I'll get back to you when I can google it.

[redqueen]

30. Most of us didn't have to wonder. n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

22. 8.33 Pounds

Your pithiness, notwithstanding, you are, once again, wrong!
The Professor

[Frodo]

25. First thing I've agreed with you on in some time!

Your nit-picking aside. lol

:-)

[dave29]

32. Wait, which planet are we on?

;)

[denverbill]

8. You're using the same tactic Republicans do.

He didn't call the WSJ and NR 'right wing blogs'. He said 'in right wing blogs AND on the editorial pages of WSJ, etc.'

And he is absolutely right. There is a propaganda blitz on against him. A few right wing sources start it, then other most mainstream press repeats the allegations made by the rw press, because the rw press is 'making' news by making the allegations.

[Frodo]

15. Ever heard of a "comma"?

I didn't call them right wing blogs either.

Yes, there's a propaganda blits against him - Just as there is one against Berger.

Doesn't mean Berger didn't do something wrong and it doesn't mean Wilson didn't lie.


"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you" lol.


Exactly what the RW wants is for people to jump to his defense (hopefully Kerry). It's kryptonite and he needs to stay clear.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Look Up The Word Semantics

Wilson was clearly, for those not trapped in literal translations, stating that his wife was not responsible for him going, because she had neither the authority to approve that mission, nor the influence to insist he be given the assignment.

Read more carefully, and try to absorb. It's a skill.
The Professor

[Frodo]

28. That's a nice theory

But his own book says "my wife had nothing to do with the matter"

That's obviously untrue, isn't it?

She doesn't have to be shown to be the "one and only decision maker behind his trip" for it to be a falsehood.


He also denied her "involvement" in an angry response to TIME.

[yodermon]

39. Here is that quote in context

Since you quoted it, ahem, out of context.

Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter. Though she worked on weapons of mass destruction issues, she was not at the meeting I attended where the subject of Niger's uranium was discussed, when the possibility of my actually traveling to the country was broached. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27%257E2163873,00.html

See, when you, and the other Wilson-attackers say
'But his own book says "my wife had nothing to do with the matter". That's obviously untrue, isn't it?' you are wrong, since he clearly qualified this statement.

Do you really think you are doing the Democrats a favor by picking nits like this?

Do you not see that you are acting as a dupe for the RW?

They are trying to divide us, and as you demonstrate, they are succeeding. Karl Rove himself couldn't have scripted you better.

[Frodo]

55. His qualifying statement does not cover the facts either.

And he now says she WAS in the room, just not for the whole time. And they have copies of memo(s) she wrote supporting OR proposing him. That's not just a "conduit" for asking him if he would do it.

And YES I think I'm doing us a favor. Chasing this rabbit down the hole will cause us problems.

And they're not "trying to divide us", they're hoping we will all jump to his defense (especially Kerry). We're blindly assuming he's targeted because he showed Bush to be a liar on sixteen words. But regardless of how we spin these arguments, the 16 words (though they still should not have been used) were true. The british government HAD learned what he claimed they had, and they support that finding today. Wilson became our hero on the issue and now we know he was either wrong or lying. Either way makes us look bad if we jump to his defense.

[Sideways]

31. Read more carefully, and try to absorb. It's a skill.

I LOVE you ProfessorGAC.:loveya: Ba Da Bing Ba Da Boom!

[tandot]

2. Smearing Wilson, Berger, Clarke...who is next?

The right-wing machine is extremely effective in their smear campaign. And the media is so easy to manipulate.

Why can't we organize in the same way? I know we shouldn't stoop down to their level, but we have to do something about it. All those lies take away the attention from what is really important: The official 9/11 report and the Plame investigation.

Democrats need to be more aggressive and start to fight back hard... :mad:

[Kanary]

16. Why can't we?

Well, I think maybe at least part of the answer to that is actually in the conflict right in your post.

We're so concerned about "being nice" that we have successfully handcuffed ourselves for a lot of years now, and we're to the point of being so far behind the 8ball that catchup is rather......dicey.

Yes, it would be great if we could go back to the days of politics being mutually respectful. I would welcome that, too. But, do you honestly see that happening?

When DUers talk about war, the consensus is that if the nation is attacked, we have to use all methods of defending ourselves. Strange that when our PARTY is attacked to the point of being wiped off the map, we're still debating about "not stooping to their level".

This is a true moral dilemma, and so far, I don't think I'm seeing much in the way of real progress with it.

To me, it looks like the choices are for all of us to immediately take crash courses in Very Effective Non-Violence, or make up our minds to fight fire with fire. IN the end, the second method won't make the heart and soul changes that are needed in this country, but seems to me it would give us some breathing room so that we could regain what we have given away, THEN learn new ways of cooperation.

That's how it looks to me........ what's your vision.....?

Kanary

[tandot]

50. I am for fighting back, but this requires ALL of the Democrats

in the House and Senate to organize, unite, and speak up.

The GOP is better in doing that. The minute something negative about Bush comes up you can see a bunch of them in interviews across all news channels, all regurgitating the same talking points.

I don't know if we'd ever able to pull this off. :shrug:

[Kanary]

51. That's part of it.......

The other part is what WE have control of......... yelling at each other because someone perceives us as "not being nice anymore".

I've seen so many threads now, telling DEMs to be nice, and not "stoop to their level".

I don't see that we can have it both ways.

Yes, we have a lot of our self-image tied up in being "the good guys". It's difficult to let that go. But, if Byrd can do it, then, by god, so can the rest of us.

We can at least let each other rage, and speak up, and find ways to fight back.

The guilt just isn't accomplishing anything.

Kanary

[Kanary]

6. What concerns me is if the smear fails......

I do hope Joe and Valerie are staying out of small planes.

Kanary

[Media_Lies_Daily]

18. If the smear fails, some NeoCons in high places are going to jail.

[Q]

21. Justice Department looking for excuse to back off indictments

POLITICS AND POLICY

Senate Report Clouds
Leak Investigation
Sparring Over Veracity
Of CIA Operative's Husband
Could Delay Indictments Past Election

By DAVID S. CLOUD and GARY FIELDS
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
July 19, 2004; Page A4


WASHINGTON -- A long-running Justice Department investigation into which Bush-administration official leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name is back where it started: Her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson, is finding his credibility under severe assault. And that could have implications for how the leak case is resolved.

A Senate Intelligence Committee report released this month, citing internal Central Intelligence Agency e-mails and interviews, says Ms. Plame suggested that her CIA superiors use Mr. Wilson for a 2002 mission to Niger to investigate now-discredited reports about prewar attempts by Iraq to purchase uranium "yellowcake." That contradicts Mr. Wilson's repeated claim that his wife played no part in the decision to send him on the trip. The report also portrayed Mr. Wilson as embellishing the role he played in investigating the Niger story. Mr. Wilson hit back on Friday with a six-page rebuttal, accusing the committee of "errors and distortions."

Yet the sparring about Mr. Wilson's veracity could give the Justice Department an excuse to back away from indictments, at least until after the November presidential election. Even if charges are brought, the details in the Senate report about Mr. Wilson give the White House more ammunition to use against him, blunting the blow if someone in the administration is accused of being behind the leak..."

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB109018701348766800-H9jeoNolaZ3oJytbYGHbK6Dm4,00.html

[sadiesworld]

26. Grrrrrrrrr

WTF do Wilson's statements (no matter WHAT they were) have to do with finding the persons responsible for Plame's cover being blown?!
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Frodo]

36. Here's the theory

I don't buy it, but it may be what the law says.

The MOTIVATION behind releasing an operatives name is supposedly important. IF her name was released to disclose that she had some involvment in the selection of her husband to investigate the Iraqi-Niger suposed link then it wouldn't be a criminal act.

I don't get it. If it isn't criminal then it sure OUGHT to be criminal.

But it would be something other than "they don't like my report so they go after my wife".

[LeftHander]

42. It would still be stupid and irresponsible.

To put people's live in danger even if a agent used her highly qualified spouse to do some high profile investigations.

If the argument is used in court it will still not fly.

The administration is clutching at straws here. They are sinking and sinking fast. This is the only viable option for them that's left.

It is just simple desperate stupidity.

[sadiesworld]

43. The "motivation" is irrelevant.

The element of intent goes to whether they KNEW she was an agent.

Gee, maybe they were THAT stupid, or just maybe this lame ass distraction will work w/ enough people to blunt or postpone any indictments.

[KAZ]

45. I'm not getting you.

"IF her name was released to disclose that she had some involvment in the selection of her husband to investigate the Iraqi-Niger suposed link then it wouldn't be a criminal act."

Are you saying that their ONLY motivation, and knowledge, was her involvement in the selection, and they knew nothing of her NOC status? That's about the only way your statement would fly.

[yodermon]

47. That is a distinction

That would be brought up at a TRIAL.
Here is what the law says:

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1586

Those who spout: "IF her name was released to disclose that she had some involvment in the selection of her husband to investigate the Iraqi-Niger suposed link then it wouldn't be a criminal act." are completely, 100%, totally WRONG.

The simple reponse to such a bald-faced assertion is, of course WHY wouldn't it be a criminal act? Where in the wording of the law is there any provision for INTENT?

Really, it'a a pathetic attempt at deflection.

[sadiesworld]

49. Thanks for posting the statute!

This "motivation" crap is just that. The only INTENT that matters is whether the leaker intentionally, i.e., knowing the agent IS an agent, discloses his/her identity.

Welcome to DU, yodermon! :hi:

[yodermon]

57. Thanks!

:hi:

ps I should have posted a link to the actual law, and not a op-ed piece quoting the law.

Here:
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html

[Frodo]

56. Thanks for the citation!

As I said, I don't understand WHY the argument is valid. I can't imagine a statute that says "you can't out an undercover operative unless you have a good reason for it"

But it isn't 100% wrong. If they were spinning on the nepotism line, they may not have known her role (she wasn't undercover at the time in question if she worked in that office, right?).

But as you say - I would expect such arguments to come up at trial unless the prosecutor was CERTAIN they didn't know.

[Toby109]

41. Exactly. The whole story, it seems to me, is

not what Wilson wrote in the initial NYT op-ed piece which started all this but the over-reaction of the White House. I've read many articles discussing Wilson's veracity, or lack thereof, but they miss the whole point: Someone with access to some of the most sensitive information our government possesses outed a covert CIA agent not once, but at least 6 times in an attempt to cover their ass politically. And I don't care if Shamu the killer whale suggested Wilson for the Niger trip. It's simply not relevant.

[bossfish]

46. Another point that has been overlooked...

What is Joe Wilson's motivation to lie about this stuff? He's a career diplomat who has served the country for over 20 years. Has he suddenly become subversive?

[kaitykaity]

37. You should have seen him on tne NewsHour last night.

Senator Bond is very lucky he was not in the studio with Amb.
Wilson. The look on Wilson's face, he looked like if he could
have reached through the camera and strangled Sen. Bond he would
have. He's deep down blood boiling angry.

It was a sight to behold. You go, Joe. Get these bastards.

[Joanne98]

48. Why do we even bother debating this anymore

We're fighting pure evil folks. Bushco has broken every LAW ON EARTH. I'm supporting Wilson, Berger, Whoopi, Moore, Ronstat, and anybody else on earth they attack. Bushco is a criminal organization. A network of global evil. Bush may even be the Beast in Revelations. Some Cardinals in Rome seem to think so. You can't be a puritan when your fighting Satan. Get over it. Wilson is a true American hero and I support him 100%.

[Danieljay]

52. Oneill, Berger, Clark, Wilson, McCain (if he had any self respect)

and all the other victims of this right wing smear campaign would do themselves and this country a huge favor by getting together and holding a press conference declaring "no more!" and standing up for true ethics and values in government.

Just a fantasy of mine...

[dryan]

58. Wilson is a class act

I have seen him on MVP and other shows and read about him in Vanity Fair. His book is riveting reading. As far as I am concerned he is a husband and among other things is trying to protect his wife. If she ever goes abroad on CIA business her life is in danger because of this leak.