Maguire Makes Kristof Squirm
This is a very entertaining post by Tom Maguire, about Nick Kristof’s airbrushing errors and making implausible excuses for Lyin’ Joe Wilson. Read it and chuckle.
This is a very entertaining post by Tom Maguire, about Nick Kristof’s airbrushing errors and making implausible excuses for Lyin’ Joe Wilson. Read it and chuckle.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
28 | 29 | 30 |
Powered by WordPress.
In the preface of his book, Joe Wilson claims that Kristoff was wrong when he wrote that Wilson had seen the infamous forged documents. Also, Wilson talks of the smear campaign waged on him and his wife in the book’s preface here: http://www.politicsoftruth.com/documents/preface.pdf.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/9/2005 @ 8:46 pmIn the preface of his book, Joe Wilson claims that Kristoff was wrong when he wrote that Wilson had seen the infamous forged documents.
Kristof was wrong — but that’s what Wilson had told him and at least two other journalists.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 11/9/2005 @ 9:07 pmBut that’s not what Kristoff is saying now according to the article that you link to. He claims that Wilson never told him that.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/9/2005 @ 9:17 pm“But that’s not what Kristoff is saying now according to the article that you link to. He claims that Wilson never told him that.”
No he doesn’t. From his original column:
From the new column:
He never says Wilson didn’t say it. He artfully dances around the fact that Wilson lied to him.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:43 amYou are right Dwilkers; I misread a quote in the article last night. (It was getting late – 11:17 my time – but that’s really no excuse.)
According to Wilson’s preface, however, Kristof admitted that he was wrong and that Wilson didn’t make the claim about the forgeries.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 8:04 amNBD. I’m afraid I am a reader of the Just One Minute group that daily cogitates and parses this (Plame) stuff to the nth degree. Its better than a Tom Clancey novel at this point.
This thing is so convoluted its difficult (actually I’d say impossible) to keep a grip on who said what and when they said it.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 8:48 amI agree Dwilkers, this gets complicated. But Kevin Drum has a condensed timeline here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007408.php .
What catches my attention (per Drum) is this item:
So the INR new they were forged way back in 2002. And Bush still used the bogus intel.
Now of course Wilson is well connected and his wife is in the CIA. So could it be that Wilson knew about the INR conclusion about the Niger Documents and talked about it with reporters? Could talking to reporters about the INR findings get Wilson in trouble?
I admit that this is sheer speculation, but maybe Kristof wanted to report the forged Niger information but new he couldn’t source the INR, but could source Wilson (or at least a generic “government official”).
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 9:16 amWho knows man. I certainly don’t.
As far as “And Bush still used the bogus intel.” though, all Bush did was say that British Intelligence has learned blah blah. From my understanding of it they had that information independant of the forged docs – the docs were just determined to be irrelevant.
In other words, although people seem to be tying the docs to Bush’s statement, as far as I can tell they were unrelated to one another. The existance of the forged docs only goes to whatever the docs said, not to whatever else they had intelligence-wise, and from what the investigations into it (SSCI, Butler) have indicated they had reasons to believe it was true.
But whatever. This has gotten so far afield its degraded into examining the bark on a tree with a microscope and missing the forest. Whether or not Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger wasn’t the be all and end all of the case for the war.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 9:39 amSo, Dwilkers, the White House’s position is that the documents were “fake but accurate” and the Dems are howling about it?
So, that’s where Rove got the blueprint for Operation Rather. Brilliant!
I suppose it matters more than a little bit that the “accurate” part in the Niger story is supported by actual evidence.
TNugent (6128b4) — 11/10/2005 @ 9:50 amThe Straight Skinny:
Lyin’ Joe is only Mary Mapes with a better haircut.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/10/2005 @ 11:07 amThe basis of the 16 words was from the forged documents, according to this site: http://truthout.org/docs_03/071203B.shtml. In Wilson’s explosive op-ed, he implies the British “white paper”, referenced in the SOTU speech, was based upon the forgeries too.
Here is a quote from the article:
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 11:54 amHmm. I don’t see it Tillman.
Nothing there about the documents.
“[P]roblems with the Niger information” is what you are referring to? Fair enough. However you missed this part from your link:
“There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,” Powell said. “There was sufficient evidence floating around at that time that such a statement was not totally outrageous or not to be believed or not to be appropriately used.”
That is, the docs were not the case against Iraq.
March. As in, after the SOTU in January. And in any case, it wasn’t about the documents.
May I say though, this whole line of reasoning is flatly dumb and illogical. Here’s a link to someone else who has helpfully explained it for people that don’t get it: “Bush Lied” – A Mindless Rant.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 1:51 pmDwilkers, I believe that when members of the WH started talking about mushroom clouds, it really raised some eyebrows. The nuclear threat may not have been the only reason for us invading Iraq, but it was certainly a major reason. So it is important. But in a way, since the WH did admit that it was wrong – and George Tenant took the bullet for it – it is a moot point since they in effect admitted it was mistaken. Good thing Wilson spoke up though or I doubt seriously that the WH would have ever fessed up. It was less than a week after Wilson’s op-ed appeared that Tenet admitted that the 16 words shouldn’t have been there.
All I was trying to show is that the British intelligence was based upon the forged documents. The forged documents were known to be forged in October 2002 – well before the SOTU speech. If you read the article in context, the last sentence I quoted is actually referring to the British intelligence, which was based on the forgeries.
But to be honest, the more I look into this, the less clear it becomes since you can find conflicting accounts about the British intelligence. So now I’m not convinced that I know what evidence the Brits had.
One thing is for sure: with an issue this intricate and politicized, it would be easy to argue that Wilson doesn’t tell the truth. In the end, it just depends on who you want to believe.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 3:47 pmWell, I was with you right up until you started talking about Wilson.
Washington Post
I’ll save you looking, here’s the point:
“Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV…was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.“
That’s 1.
“Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.”
That’s 2.
“The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts.”
That’s 3.
“And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms…”
That’s 4.
“The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.”
That’s 5.
“The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June.”
That’s 6.
“Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the ‘dates were wrong and the names were wrong’ when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” the Senate panel said.
That’s 7.
I’ll stop there, that’s about 3/4 way through the article and that bastion of the VRWC has just called His Excellency The Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV a liar 7 times just about as plainly as it can be done. I can understand someone being upset with Bush about the war, but I cannot understand anyone defending the self-important lying bag o crap that is Joe Wilson.
So yes, “it would be easy to argue that Wilson doesn’t tell the truth”. It is very easy indeed to make that argument.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/10/2005 @ 4:56 pmWell, according to the other side, that Senate report which accused Wilson of lying was not accurate. So as I said, it depends on who you want to listen to. For me, I’m suspending judgment until more information is available.
Also, you have to admit that the WH has a huge motive to do everything they can to discredit him.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/10/2005 @ 5:23 pmUPDATE: According to Kevin Drum in a comment,
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php#751850 )
So it looks like my suspicion was right – the key evidence that the British had on Iraq buying uranium from “Africa” was the poorly forged documents.
I can’t believe that Bush actually wants to have a fight on prewar intelligence. But, to be fair, maybe Bush knows that he doesn’t have a choice abut this anyway. The democrats are coming after him on it, so he might as well go ahead and defend his position. In my not so humble opinion however, this is an argument that he will surely lose. Drum has a summary of some of the selective intelligence used to sell the war in his main post here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007556.php
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/14/2005 @ 7:50 am