Our 27 Months of Hell Brought to Us By Lyin’ Joe Wilson
Lyin’ Joe Wilson lies again in this morning’s Los Angeles Times, in a piece titled Our 27 months of hell:
I knew that the statement in Bush’s speech — that Iraq had attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium in Africa — was not true. I knew it was false from my own investigative trip to Africa (at the request of the CIA) and from two other similar intelligence reports. And I knew that the White House knew it.
No, lyin’ Joe, you did not know any such thing. What you knew, my dishonest friend, was that you had uncovered evidence that Iraq had indeed sought uranium from Niger. That is what the CIA initially concluded from what you brought them.
Lyin’ Joe, it is highly ironic that a liar like you would accuse the White House of lying. You lied about whether you had debunked the “sixteen words” claim. You lied about whether the White House was told about your findings. You lied about whether your wife recommended you for the trip. And you lied to various journalists about having determined that the relevant documents were forged — seeing as how you had never seen these documents at the time you talked to those journalists.
Full details here and here and in the links cited therein; I’m getting tired of repeating myself.
Of course, the news media almost never tells us any of this.
Lyin’ Joe, I’ve said that I’m not going to let the news media get away with this — and I’m certainly not going to let you get away with it. You are an opportunist and a serial liar. This is only one in a series of lies you have told people, starting with Nick Kristof (at least) and moving forward from there. And every time I see this lie repeated, I’m going to refute it.
Scanning over your analysis, it seems that you have a central point, but I just can’t put my finger on it.
Are you saying perhaps that Wilson is not truthful?Paul Deignan (b2e499) — 10/29/2005 @ 10:14 am
No, I think Patterico’s central point is that notwithstanding Wilson’s dishonesty, he and Patterico are still friends.Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/29/2005 @ 10:33 am
And every time I see this lie repeated, I’m going to refute it.
There aren’t enough hours in the day.Christopher Cross (63a945) — 10/29/2005 @ 10:55 am
Here’s two more which, while not lies, are certainly dishonest:
The Political Teen had video yesterday of Wilson’s lawyer reading a statement from Wilson that his family has wanted nothing but their privacy, and in the video the Vanity Fair photo op is cropped into the picture while the lawyer says that.
What the Political Teen didn’t point out was how Wilson said that no American could take joy in indictments being delivered to the steps of the White House. Contrast that with him saying he wanted to see Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.jc (7e6cc1) — 10/29/2005 @ 11:04 am
But…but…but Wilson couldn’t have lied. He’s a Democrat and a liberal, and we all know how virtuous they are! And that UK report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report showing Joe to be a liar — they were all forgeries by the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy(tm)! This was all a clever plot by Karl Rove to destroy a great public servant! And…and….
Nah. I don’t believe it either. 🙂Anthony (Los Angeles) (467776) — 10/29/2005 @ 11:10 am
David Kay was tasked with exploring this issue:
“More recently, the Iraq Survey Group looking into weapons activities in that country under the direction of David Kay reported in October (2003) that it found no support for the report that Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa. In fact, Kay said, the group found that the Iraqis had turned down an offer of uranium from a still-unidentified country.”
Charles Duelfer’s final ISG report mentions the same failed offer and further undermines the Niger scenario:
“ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material — ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991, an approach Iraq appears to have turned down – As a result of Desert Storm and IAEA inspection efforts, Iraq’s indigenous yellowcake production capability appears to have been eliminated”
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html#sect4Ed (24fb2c) — 10/29/2005 @ 11:36 am
You didn’t mention the Butler report, I notice.
I don’t know whether Iraq sought uranium from Niger or not. But I do know that Joe Wilson didn’t know either — and also that he found evidence supporting the allegation.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 11:54 am
Joe Wilson’s lies, obvious as they are, will be repeated in the MSM so often it will become the new Lefty mantra. They’ve got their hooks set deep into this gambit, and they aren’t about to let go, or let facts disrupt the production. The repetition will be like a broken record, over and over.
The Dems, MSM, Hollywood, all the usual suspects will raise their voices and sing in unison. It will seem like the good old days are back again. John Kerry might even march down to the White House and throw his magic hat over the fence. Oh happy day, it’s party time in moonbat land.
Joe Wilson, center stage, will be portrayed as a brave and honest public servant, while Valerie Plame, silent for dramatic effect, will be shown as innocent as Billy Budd. Joe’s lies will be all the talk, examined in every minute detail, discussed and analyzed everywhere. Yet, there’s one little bit of information you won’t see.
You won’t see mention of Mandy Grundwald, NY Times reporter Matt Cooper’s wife. Mandy, you may recall was one of the big three in the Clinton War Room. Mandy, James Carvil, and Paul Begala were in charge of dirty tricks and bimbo suppression. They worked with Hillary to trash the poor women Bill Clinton abused if they so much as raised an objection, much less tried to come forward.
Mandy’s well back, whispering in the shadows these days, keeping a very low profile. But, I just can’t help but wonder if the Coopers know the Wilsons. Could it be Mandy might know Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame and where she works at CIA. Mandy and Val might even be gal pals for all I know. But, I doubt you’ll see anything about it in the MSM.Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:03 pm
It took me a bit to figure out why Fitzgerald doesn’t want to admit that Plame was not a covert agent. See I’m A Little Slowpbswatcher (c67a2b) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:11 pm
Black Jack, the left doesn’t like Valerie Plame either since she wrote all those bogus WMD articles in the NYT.Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:20 pm
can we get an iraqi tribunal to try wilson for perjury after their done with saddam?reliapundit (5deaa4) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:23 pm
You all can drag Wilson’s name through the mud all you want. That won’t change the fact that Lying Libby’s gone and Rove’s on a rack. Wilson may have gotten the ball rolling all right, but he has nothing to do with the White House’s real problem – the cover-up.
pbswatcher, Fitzgerald is a smart man. He didn’t bring up whether Plame was covert or not because he didn’t have to. It was immaterial to his case. So he simply avoided the controversy. Shrewd move.Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:31 pm
“It was immaterial to his case. So he simply avoided the controversy.”
Sure Tillman, just what we need. “Shrewd” prosecuters running around bringing charges even if the alleged crime is “immaterial.”
No thanks pal, America doesn’t need that type of justice.Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:39 pm
Black Jack, you missed the point. Libby’s charges had nothing to do with outing Plame per se. Lying about what happened is what got Libby in trouble.Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:43 pm
So Wilson’s a liar, according to one “bipartisan” Senate report! Well, that’s enough for me–it certainly justifies Libby’s obstructionist behavior with regards to Plame’s outing as a CIA agent.
Because, as you know, the important thing here is to still argue about the validity of Wilson’s claims, ad naseum, instead of focusing at all on Libby’s embarrassing perjury and indictment or Rove’s initial involvement.
Thanks for clearing the air instead of deliberately obfuscating the issue!Tom (eb6b88) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:47 pm
“Libby’s charges had nothing to do with outing Plame per se.”
Isn’t that what Fitzgerald was supposed to investigate in the first place?
PS: Judy Miller writes (or did write) for the NY Times, not Valerie Plame.Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 12:58 pm
Black Jack, you say:
Sure Tillman, just what we need. “Shrewd” prosecuters running around bringing charges even if the alleged crime is “immaterial.”
The actual alleged crimes are far from immaterial. They include lying to a grand jury. And it looks like Fitzgerald’s got a pretty good case. That’s a very serious charge.
Tom, you say:
Thanks for clearing the air instead of deliberately obfuscating the issue!
Thanks. I know you didn’t mean it as a compliment, but that is nevertheless precisely what I’m doing. What you appear to be doing is excusing serial lying and distortion by both Wilson and the press.
The central story is indeed Libby and his apparent perjury. Unlike you, I’m not going to excuse my guy’s lies just because someone else lied too. The story of Libby’s perjury is a story that the LAT could tell without distorting the facts. But evidently they have the same regard for accuracy as you seem to, i.e., not much.
To you and to the LAT, if it’s not the central point, accuracy and truth are unimportant and not worth discussing. That’s what I get from your comment.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:06 pm
Isn’t that what Fitzgerald was supposed to investigate in the first place?
Yes, but he requested permission to expand his investigation, just as another honorable special prosecutor (Ken Starr) did.
It seems to me both men did their jobs properly. But you’ll never find a lefty willing to be consistent on this point and admit that Starr was honorable just like Fitzgerald seems to be.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:07 pm
nice postWill Franklin (c2f6fe) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:08 pm
Wilson bashers..Charlie (8ea405) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:13 pm
This attack on Joe Wilson is just a disgusting red herring to take our minds of the fact that an arrogant, ignorant President led this county into war for what has proven to be false reasons. FALSE REASONS. GET IT!!! People are dying? Understand? That is important and someone must be held accountable. Can you understand that?
Its incredible to think that rather than hold Bush accountable for this, after all his is the President, you choose instead to focus on Wilson, a man receiving the greatest of praise from G Bush Sr. You express no regret about Valorie Plame being outed even though that means a real program to find real WMDs has been destroyed and God only knows how many other agents are now in jeopardy oR what WMDs may turn up in the USA. No with you it is all about defending Bush so you attack Wilson, claim Plame was not a secret agent, attack the prosecutor and smear and defame anyone who dares point out Bush was wrong and in the end Wilson was right. But instead of admitting the disaster Bush represents you make excuse after excuse and blame the media, blame other nations, blame Democrats, attack the prosecutor, try to minimize the importance of the crime and in general do what ever you can to defend the indefensible. What is next? Blame it on the Martians? Blame it on the gays? Hillery Clinton?
I just can not understand your thinking and your total hypocricy. What in hell kind of values do you have???
1. Iraq sought but did not purchase uranium from Niger.Shredstar (532850) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:16 pm
2. Bush said we should not wait until the Iraq threat was imminent.
It looks like the Op-Ed heads are taking Paul Krugman’s advice from a couple weeks ago, and coming up with clever ways to imply 1 & 2 are false, but in ways that do not require formal corrections.
You didn’t mention the Butler report, I notice.
The Butler Report, p. 122:Ed (24fb2c) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:18 pm
Did Joe Wilson actually report to the CIA that Hussein’s agents HAD talked to the Nigerien gov’t about buying uranium, yes or no?
Did Joe Wilson claim that he’d debunked a forgery eight months before it existed, yes or no?
I am lost to understand why you think he should be listened to at all.Bostonian (163833) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:22 pm
Oh PBS watcher.. why dont you go and tell the CIA Vallory Plame was not a secret agent as you say. They seem to think otherwise. Maybe you could enlighten them? Oh@!! thats right I forgot about the secret cabal of CIA agents out to get the honorable G Bush along with all the other nasty anti Americans. Well that explains it all!!Charlie (8ea405) — 10/29/2005 @ 1:25 pm
One question If what you say is true and that Plame was not operating undercover. Why did neither Bush nor Cheney ever say so? Dont let the facts get in the way of your prejudices..
Anyone seen any good analysis of Fitzgerald’s allegations of the extensive damage to our National Security he says resulted from the outing of Plame?
Why, I wonder, if it isn’t material to the charges against Libby, did Fitzgerald address that point so prominently and in such detail.Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 10/29/2005 @ 2:07 pm
“Why, I wonder, if it isn’t material to the charges against Libby, did Fitzgerald address that point so prominently and in such detail.”
Exactly the point that has had my brow furrowed since I woke up this morning having slept on it overnight.Dwilkers (a1687a) — 10/29/2005 @ 2:28 pm
If only Joe Wilson were on the stand with his statements
Then we could get a perjury and false statements indictment on him, too. Oh the joy that would bring. Patterico has the lowdown on the latest lie the media (in particular, the LA Times) has let serial liar Joe Wilson get away with.Sister Toldjah (a936fc) — 10/29/2005 @ 3:05 pm
Bostonian..Let me do my best to answer your thoughtful questions..
Lets first examine this matter in context
Wilson said that he found no evidence to support the claim that Sadam Hussein had sought to obtain uranium from Niger. Bush made that claim, in his State of the Union address and later repeated it parsing his words saying “British intelligence said..” Not mentioning his own CIA had grave doubts. Because of Bush’s errors or lies..depending on what you believe.. we are now at war for false reasons.
This attack on Wilson and the outing of his wife is an attempt to deflect attention from that simple fact. Can you honestly doubt that?
As for your specific questions, Wilson did not debunk a forgery eight months before it was released. I can absolutely tell you that was more spin trying to discredit him and was probably broadcast by Rush Limbaugh and God knows where he got it. Wilson has dealt with that question before but of course it does no good to mention this to his detractors because they will only insist he is lying. Knock down one accusation and they will only come up with another. Dont even bother trying to answer them. They have an agenda which is to sidetrack the discussion by smearing Wilson. Kind of like in the OJ Simpson case when the defense smeared Mark Furman as racist so the jury would ignore the blood all over the place. Remember that?
Know this.. Wilson has received very high praise from Bush’s father on several occasions and I know what this adminstrations supporters are capable of when it comes to smear.
These questions are really irrelevant..they are thrown up to confuse the issue.. the focus should be on Bush and this adminstration. They are the ones that opted for war, not Joseph Wilson and if there is any focus on Wilson it ought to be noted that in the end, this highly valued man of G Bush Sr, was right and Bush Junior was wrong.
Its real simple. There were no WMDs in Iraq and there was no attempt to buy uranium from Niger. Production was tightly regulated. Wilson said so. Bush said otherwise. Bush could have held off this war. He could have checked conflicing accounts further but he attacked. Bush started a war based on what is now shown to be plainly false reasons.
Now numerous individuals with otherwise excellent reputations have come for to say the evidence was hyped and each in his turn has been slimed by the Bush slime machine.
This is not about Wilson. Its not about Liberal vs Conservatives or Republicans vs Democrats. This is about a man who has been obviously negligent in his Presidential duties and some dont want him held accountable. They fear the Democrats might win…(as if Democrats had enough conviction to run any kind of real campaign!! Never fear for that!! ha!! ha!!) Thus the attack on Wilson. Check out the postings of those attacking Wilson. Do they ever have equal criticisms of Bush? None that I have seen. Why not? Because the goal is to defend Bush at all costs national blood and treasure be damned.
I have answered your question the best I can. Hope this helps. Please think about it.Charlie (8ea405) — 10/29/2005 @ 3:07 pm
Wilson said that he found no evidence to support the claim that Sadam [sic] Hussein had sought to obtain uranium from Niger.
Which we know to be untrue — the CIA took his report as evidence that Saddam tried to buy it. That’s what the Senate Intelligence Cmte found — Reps and Dems alike.
As for Wilson’s claim about debunking the forgeries, that was also addressed by the Senate, with the relevant excerpts here. Again, the bipartisan Senate Intell Cmte, not Rush Limbaugh. Nice to see someone complaining about distractions and smears while engaging in them, Charlie.
The attack on Wilson is not intended as a distraction — it is intended for context. Do you think that Fitz would not have indicted Libby for the actual link if he could prove that it was the sort of punitive measure Wilson claims it is? Fitz obviously was not willing to go to trial on the leak itself because Libby would have made the case that he was attempting to warn reporters from taking Wilson’s lies seriously, and stood a very good chance of acquittal on the ground that he lacked the necessary intent.
Nor are we at war for false reasons. Try reading the Congressional authorization. There are many reasons listed. Present WMD was not the only reason. Indeed, the fact that Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire agreement many times over would have sufficed to resume hostilities against his regime. The fact that Saddam’s Iraq had a cooperative program with al Qaeda, harbored terrorists, and had used WMDs in the past all combined to make his regime a threat that could not be permitted to continue, especially with the sanctions regime crumbling (thanks to corruption at the UN,in France, Russia, China, etc).
Could Bush have waited? He did spend months at the Un, Charlie. We now know that he could have longer, but hindsight is very convenient, Charlie. BTW, if you know what was in all those trucks that went from Iraq to Syria while Bush waited at the UN, please let us know.Karl (f0edff) — 10/29/2005 @ 3:36 pm
I Have a few simple questions, I think.
Do we know who told Novak? If so, who?
If we know who told Novak, why isn’t this person facing an indictment for disclosure of a covert CIA agent? That is, if indeed her status made it illegal to do so.
Is PLAME a covert agent?
If Scooter is simply in trouble because his testimony contradicts others (reporters) as to the times of his knowledge of who PLAME is, why on earth would he knowingly lie about it?
Frankly, i’m confused.
Also, is it ethical or legal for the SP to hold a news conference saying Scooter IS GUILTY. Should’nt he have simply stuck with the charges as they exist in his report. Was it ethical for him to do all sorts of extrapolations about “endangering” the country?
Did anyone ever ask Fitzgerald if he is going to investigate all the leaks out of his own GJ?alexandra morris (a9eb8b) — 10/29/2005 @ 3:48 pm
Patterico you might think it a bit strange that this serial liar…you know the one G Bush Sr praised so much…chose to tell one story to the CIA and another to the press about the WMDs. If he was as reprehensible as you seem..and out to destroy our beloved President.. why would he do that..??
and I wonder why Bush Sr trusted aide has turned so nasty?
You might ask youself why the Senate committee investigating this did not come to the conclusions that Wilson was lying and you might tell your readers that those allegatons were made only in an addendum attached at the end by the Republicans on he committee including such luminaries as Sam Brownback of Kansas and Orin Hatch of Utah…big Bush supporters.
Well in any event isnt is strange how things work out? Wilson the liar ..according to you..is right and Bush, the truthteller, is wrong. No uranium and no WMDs. What a twist!Charlie (8ea405) — 10/29/2005 @ 3:49 pm
What do you tell to the mothers of those soldiers that died thinking that they were out to destroy WMDs held by an evil dictator? Opps?? Bush is only human..Sorry mom..
karl It is you that has the facts wrong. Wilson concluded that there was no evidence of the sort you insist was there and the committee did not conclude as you say, but that conclusion is found only in the addendum added by Republican supporters. Orrin Hatch, Sam Brownback and other Bush supporters.
Furthermore as far as the “other reasons” for this war like “Iraq was cooperating with Al Quida”…how many times does that have to be said that is not true? No Proof of that whatsoever. Harboring terrorists, you say? Ok lets invade every nation harboring terrorists of one sort or another. Why not attack Saudi Arabia?
As far as those trucks moving into Syria..nice try..maybe maybe maybe. ..Is that your justification? They MIGHT have contained WMDs?
.Maybe we should invade Syria?? Hell why not invade Pakistan. We know they are involved.
Heres a bit of news that Limbaugh or Hannity wont repeat day after day after day. The CIA has concluded there No WMDs were being made at the time of the invasion and both the IAEC and the UN said they were allowed to inspect all the areas the US insisted they inspect and nothing was everfound. So why the invasion?
WMDs might have been hidden but you are suggesting they also could hide all the means to produce them and all this massive program could all be hidden without a trace and not a single person to verify it all..just maybe this and maybe that to explain Bush failure…
Face it Karl you been hoodwinked..You and I both know that this war was a needless mistake that is badly backfiring on this country. Why dont you just admit you were wrong?Charlie (8ea405) — 10/29/2005 @ 4:40 pm
Final words… Folks we are at war for reasons proven false…thousand are dying,.deficits out of control …no end in sight…doesnt that bother anyone on this board? “nuff for today!Charlie (8ea405) — 10/29/2005 @ 4:49 pm
The facts underlying my accusations that Wilson is a liar are in the report itself. You’re just wrong about that, and you keep saying it. Cut it out.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 5:23 pm
can anyone answer my questions or direct me to an
honest conservative blog where I may find the answers.
Also Charlie………I think Air America is looking for a new host………however, the job may be only temporary……..unless they find some new children’s charity to raid.alexandra morris (a9eb8b) — 10/29/2005 @ 5:31 pm
Oh yeah? Well I'M so tired of repeating myself that I'm just going to cut and paste somebody ELSE's outrage
In the LA Times today, Joe Wilson once again tries to turn his shopworn lies into truths by sheer force of will and repetition -- and with the help of legacy media editors who are so committed to the tolerance of alternate "truths" th…protein wisdom (c0db44) — 10/29/2005 @ 6:23 pm
Keep up the good work!Roscoe K (3b73f0) — 10/29/2005 @ 6:50 pm
Thanks for being so kind and responding to my questions…………you all are great…..alexandra morris (a071ac) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:11 pm
I’ll try to when I can.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:19 pm
Charlie: “Wilson said that he found no evidence to support the claim that Sadam Hussein had sought to obtain uranium from Niger. ”
Well that is what he said in the NYT but it is not what he reported officially when he returned from Niger. READ THE SENATE REPORT: http://intelligence.senate.gov/. Right-click the report to download it. It’s much too large to open.
Wilson did report that “Nigerien officials had admitted that the Iraq delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.” See page 46.
And that’s just *one* of his public lies.Bostonian (163833) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:30 pm
And Charlie, please think about it.Bostonian (163833) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:31 pm
[…] Patterico gives old Lyin’ Joe the shredding he deserves here. Have a look. […]The Unalienable Right » Valerie Plame leaked classified information, according to Joe Wilson (7a057a) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:32 pm
Charlie could also check out pg. 43 of the Senate report discussing Wilson’s talk with the former Prime Minister. “The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium sales. The intelligence report said that ‘although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.'” But in the topsy-turvy world of the left, attempts to “discuss uranium sales” is somehow not “seeking uranium”.
This is in the body of the report, not an addendum.dorkafork (548e0c) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:49 pm
Well, technically that’s right. After all, in this here thread we’re all discussing uranium sales, but none of us (I hope) are seeking uranium.
[ducking]Xrlq (428dfd) — 10/29/2005 @ 7:59 pm
The Butler Report:
The purpose of the visit was not immediately known. But uranium ore accounts for almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports.
. . . unconﬁrmed intelligence indicates Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium.
I’m glad you quoted this because I didn’t realize it was full of weasel words. The purpose of the vist was not immediately known? Unconfirmed intelligence?
This is supposed to prove what Joe Wilson said isn’t true? Weak case, fellas.Pug (d96e82) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:09 pm
I tell you what Paternico and crew…lets just agree to disagree on Wilson …..apparently the vast majority of the media worldwide are involved in a conspiracy to protect Wilson and attack our god fearing beloved President.. cant figure out why that is or why Wilson suddenly changed from being such a great guy as Bush Sr said he was …into some kind of hateful liar..just like Paul O Neil, Brent Scocroft, Richard Clarke, and so many others.
What is it with these anti American Bush Sr administration officials??
Must be the same group that leaked the memo saying British sources said the evidence was being “fixed” or those that told us the neo cons planned this war back in the late 1990s. Does the Project for a new American Century ring a bell? Know what they wanted and who were members of it? Does it matter to you?? Its all a bunch of liberal lies against our President, isnt it?
Joe Wilson is certainly not a man we can trust Not like the President who told the Poles we actually found the WMDs!! ha ha or like Dick Cheney who said on August 26, 02..”simply stated there can be no doubt that Sadam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction” and who continued to claim a connection between Iraq and Al Quida long after it was discredited. Donald Rumsfield is certainly one we can put our faith in. He who assured us on Feb 2 03 “It is not knowable how long the conflict will last. You know maybe six days six weeks, I doubt six months” and on the 30th of that month told us “We know where the weapons are. In the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east west, north or south somewhat.” (???!!)
Or Condelesa Rice who told us on Sept 10 ,02 ” we know Sadam Hussein is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon” Then there was that bit about her never having heard of anyone planning to use planes to attack buildings..
We can all snicker at Bush who assured us on 5/1/03 that “major combat operations were over” No sense of course but a great photo ops. Or Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz who told us on 3/27/03 “we are dealing with a country that can finance its own reconstruction very soon”
Or those that assured us this war would cost less than 50 billion dollars and be paid for in Iraqi oil revenues.
But how about Bush telling everone at the Republican convention..you know the one where they showed up with bandages mocking Senator Kerry.. “Sadam had a choice of compliance or defiance and he chose defiance” Something which is contradicted by the UN and the IAEC and by members of the reality based community.
Right on their game, arent they? Great team this adminstration has assembled, isnt it??. Bet you would like to hire them to run your business.
Ya mistakes are made but of course they cant be blamed. Nothing is ever their fault..its all Hillery Clintons fault…she and the damn liberal news media. Bush is the war hero. Kerry the coward. Bush the man of integrity Wilson the liar.Charlie (8ea405) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:09 pm
But more than anything else this is a “faith based” administration. Facts be damned we just have faith in Bush after he has certainly earned it..
I ask only one favor of posters. Please Please dont refer to this administration as Conservative. That is a horrible bastardization of the word and even former officials of the Bush and Reagan adminstration will agree. I think the proper term is fascist..
Well, technically that’s right. After all, in this here thread we’re all discussing uranium sales, but none of us (I hope) are seeking uranium.
Or selling it.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:18 pm
This is supposed to prove what Joe Wilson said isn’t true?
That he *knew* Bush’s statements weren’t true? Yes, it does. It doesn’t prove that Iraq *was* seeking uranium, but it *does* prove Wilson didn’t know they *weren’t*.
I have evidence that Charlie is a wacky leftist — his wacky leftist posts. Now, he could be a conservative pretending to be a wacky leftist. But if you said that the evidence indicates that he is a wacky leftist, I’d be lying if I said I know he isn’t — even if I don’t know for a fact that he is.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:21 pm
Well said Charlie! You’ve exposed The Emperor in his full nakedness.Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:23 pm
Let’s not agree to disagree on Wilson. Read pages 44-46 of the Cmte report (not the addendum), then come back to ‘fess up to not knowing what you are writing about.Karl (f0edff) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:44 pm
These things you commenters are citing *are* referenced in the links to my post, btw. At least some of them are. Click ’em and see!Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:48 pm
Patterico, Dorkafork, karl et al, you are mere pawns in Dubya’s character assassination machine to try to discredit Wilson.
Are you certain that Wilson approved of the language in those reports? I’m not convinced.Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:56 pm
Yes, I know — for example, Patterico linked this WaPo article cataloging Wilson’s many lies, which he will be repeating on CBS and NBC Sunday.Karl (f0edff) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:58 pm
Read the Cmte report — its bipartisan and catches Wilson lying several times over.Karl (f0edff) — 10/29/2005 @ 8:59 pm
Karl, if there was credible evidence that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, why did the White House rely on “British” sources to bolster their claim rather than our own intelligence in the State of the Union Address? It makes no sense.Tillman (1cf529) — 10/29/2005 @ 9:20 pm
Libby, Libby, Libby, Miers, and Anybody’s Guess
Col. Austin Bay’s Post-Indictment Pre-Mortems post is the best round-up of well thought out reactions to the Libby indictment I’ve seen anywhere. Read it, and don’t overlook Uncle Jimbo’s comment explaining why we can be certain that Lyin’ Joe Wil…Small Town Veteran (af7df9) — 10/30/2005 @ 2:05 am
For those wanting a rehash of the actual background to Wilson they are these:
1. Cheney’s office asked the CIA to investigate the Niger Uranium rumors.
2. Valerie Plame talked to her boss about sending her husband, wrote a memo urging that; and attended a meeting with an interagency task force focusing on the issue all of whom but her boss opposing sending Wilson (State had it’s own initiative). Wilson was chosen according to the SSCI over some other asset in Niger already in place.
3. Wilson when arriving in Niger was told specifically by the Ambassador NOT to talk to anyone in the Government for fear of upsetting in-place diplomatic efforts to find out the issue.
4. Wilson DID talk with ex-PM Mayaki who said that he met briefly with an Iraqi delegation, and understood they wanted to purchase uranium. Due to Mayaki’s fear as he expressed it to Wilson of sanctions and implicitly angering the US he did not pursue the matter with the Iraqis.
5. Wilson returned home and made NO ZERO ZILCH NADA written report. Instead in a move I find baffling he made a verbal report to two CIA analysts while his wife played hostess … AT THEIR HOME.
6. Wilson said in print and interviews he “debunked” a forged document of Italian Intelligence origin alleging Uranium sales to Iraq by Niger. He later admitted to the SSCI UNDER OATH that he “misspoke” on that issue, considering the document in question did NOT come into US possession 8 MONTHS after his Niger trip and Wilson had no further consulting with the CIA. Given that Wilson specifically cited “the names and dates were wrong” and that he Joe Wilson did not officially see the document nor had access to it when it came into US possession that is very suspicious.
7. Wilson’s debrief was circulated amongst people in the CIA, but did not make it to the WH until after Bush’s speech, mostly out of CIA inertia.
8. Larry Wilkerson, no friend of the Bush Admin (“secret cabal” Larry) argued that he and the CIA and everyone else believed that Saddam had WMDs, based on satellite imagery showing the Iraqis trucking everything away including bare earth before inspection, and having been caught wrong on Saddam several times before. Duelfer Report concluded Saddam wanted to hide WMD capability and had plans as soon as sanctions were lifted to prepare a massive, much larger than 1991 WMD capacity, with Chemical weapons being the centerpiece and nuclear being a more distant goal.
9. For reasons that remain unexplained to this day Wilson did not sign the standard Non Disclosure agreement with the CIA freeing him to do and say whatever he wanted about his government financed trip.
Plame appears in violation of Federal anti-Nepotism laws and regulations, expect that to be raised at trial; Wilson made no written report at all which is … VERY odd and suggestive that he did not wish to go on record in his own words directly. Wilson correctly identified forged documents flaws at a time when he could not have seen the document; and has admitted he has NEVER seen the document.
What the larger question is about really is re-fighting the Cold War; if we are just nice to the Soviets (jihadis) and don’t act aggressively we will have a shiny-happy unicorn friendly rainbow of happiness (and like Joe Wilson collect the Saudi dinar). Or we can fight now to avoid a massive WWII style bloodbath or worse later. Those two worldviews (Dems/Media/old Elites vs. Bush and the Neocons) are incompatible. However it won’t be broken by a piddling issue of perjury but most likely by an Iranian Nuclear attack on the US and Israel; and a WWIV style strategic nuclear and conventional response. Sad enough to say.Jim Rockford (e09923) — 10/30/2005 @ 2:54 am
Tillman — that Fitz won’t say if Plame was/is covert is a warning sign. That any document that the CIA puts together would be ripped apart in court by a Mesereau or even a Geragos; therefore the CIA dares NOT to make a determination.
Expect the Defense to raise this issue quite anyway, and with it tar the Wilsons. Among them being Wilson’s being paid by the Saudis, on the Saudi Dinar, while his wife still works at the CIA. Add to the nepotism and it’s a big scandal that could at trial overwhelm whatever evidence Fitz has. Joe Wilson on the stand is a target rich environment for any Defense lawyer, his wife Valerie even more so (she said in Vanity Fair she outed herself to Wilson on the third date). Both Wilsons supposedly socialized with the Press (which is not itself surprising, DC being a small place). If they did so with Russert, expect problems.
Expect Mr. Mandy Grunewald (Matt Cooper) and Tim Russert and Judy Miller (Dowd attacked her in interviews for not being rough enough on Republicans) to be ripped up too, along with the NYT Bill Keller (surely Wilson had to use his wife to get his Op-Ed, or just as badly for the Prosecution, used Mandy Grunewald). Robert Blake was a SLAM DUNK and the DA lost because the jury did not believe the sleazy stunt men.
Note please that Fitz REFUSED to identify the original leaker (it was not apparently Rove aka Official A) to Novak, but does supposedly know who it was. Which will come out in discovery. Suppose the original leaker is George Tenet, former CIA head (he and Novak go way back) or even Wilson himself, what then? THAT coupled with any decent attack on the various witnesses can get you a Michael Jackson trial result. The DA there had a strong case but lousy witnesses.
Final thought; Fitz was careful to paint the issue NOT about the Iraq War. Because if it becomes about the Iraq War it’s very dangerous to his case; making his key witnesses have VERY good reasons to lie about their conversations with Libby and likely conspirators with Wilson/Plame. Rest assured that the Defense Attorneys will raise this repeatedly as motive to impeach credibility of witnesses. Fitz could not cite any real damage to National Security and was jury pool poisoning. Expect THAT issue to get the case moved to Boondock Idaho or some such. And yes the Defense will tear that to shreds too; Fitz has IMHO a very weak case with almost no corroborating physical evidence unlike Martha with partisan Media Dems that have strong cultural, ideological, and career reasons to lie.
I think Fitz gambled (press Libby to plea out) and lost; losing at trial will be worse for him and make the Press in particular look like the enemy to every Republican official. Net of that is the cone of silence for reporters among Republicans.Jim Rockford (e09923) — 10/30/2005 @ 2:59 am
Who told Novak?
If Fitzgerald knows, which he should know as Novak cooperated, why isn’t that person charged with outing a “covert” agent?
If it was legal to give her name then why would Libby lie?
Does anyone know if outing her was legal or illegal….Did Fitzgerald ever answer her exact status and if it was illegal to out her?
Is it a possibility that Judith Miller told Novak because she did’nt want to be in trouble with the NY Times yet wanted the truth out there?
If that were so then she would’nt be in trouble for telling Novak….but I’m not sure it fits the timeline.
Yet, everyone was wondering why she would have to go to jail for not revealing a source for a story she never wrote.
Why would’nt she have written a story? Again, the NYT’s maybe would’nt publish it so she slipped it to Novak?
Could it be that since Novak said it was Miller that told him..Fitzgerald simply wanted to know if that were true and if so, who told Miller?
I know that Novak credited a Senior Official or something to that effect–can’t recall right now the exact wording.but since Miller told NOvak the source, he just skipped the part about it being 2nd hand?
HELP????????alexandra morris (a071ac) — 10/30/2005 @ 6:57 am
Hey jim.you have your sources I have mine… believe what you will..I could dig up information to post contrary to that but we both know that is a waste of time.. Funny how you attack a prosecutor who was apppointed by a Republican attorney general..john ashcroft.. and now you accuse him of presenting a weak case and simply gambling. And its nice that you are able to tell in advance that any document presented by the CIA will be ripped appart by the defense. I guess you are suggesting the CIA is in league with the media to destroy your poor Bushies??! So many people around the world pick on this man!! Wonder why? Guess they envy our freedoms…??
Look.. none of us that I know was privy to any of the secret meetings that went on regarding this war but given the Bush administration record of misinformation ( putting it politely) can you believe anything they or their supporters say? I guess the answer is Yes for many of you and that brings me to the next part of this post.
Fact is Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center in a dire moment and gave a wonderfully inspiring speech and follow up. You may not believe it but I nominated him as Man of the Year in a local contest here. He was great in a moment of crisis.
He used that trust and faith to attack Afghanistan which I supported and then arrogantly misused it in Iraq and elsewhere. But for many Bush is a father symbol… A symbol of security and saftey in a freightening world. He has encouraged that belief and buttressed it with well planned photo ops, staged town hall meetings, that fly-in stunt on the aircraft carrier, the fake turkey in Baghdad and many many other well planned incidents.
Additionally he has led people to believe that he some how represents values and that he is going to bring about the restablishment of some kind of moral order which we all know is sadly lacking in the country.
Of course this is all untrue. He is nothing of the sort and is now fighting a loosing, dangerous and unnecessary war, but dreams die hard and he has plenty of support for continuing the myth. Super wealthy people looking for tax breaks. Religious fanatics who want the government to enforce their version of morality,talk show hosts who gain ratings by inflammatory speech and so on.
So when folks like me point out his obvious deeply flawed character and his ruinious policies or when the press or guys like Scocroft, Wilson, Fitzpatrick, Clark or anyone else does the same, we are not just attacking a man or his policies but attacking a symbol of security and moral order that you see him as. Its like me attacking your loving and protective father. Its exactly like the blacks with OJ Simpson. And that explains why he can say the most incredible things and get away with it. People want to believe!
Its a common emotion and you can see it all over the world ..follow the leader because he seems so strong and wise.. never mind he is just like the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz.
But the Bible says “By their fruits yee shall know them” and while I am not a religious person I do believe there is great wisdom in that book and we can all see the fruits of Bush handiwork….endless war, much less security for us, military being stretched to breaking, thousands dying, Americas image in tatters, massive deficits, class divisions deliberately created, religious fanaticism..quite unlike the teachings of Jesus IMO…its very clear to those that want to seek the truth and are able to read the handwritting on the wall.. but its also clear that many, just like in the Simpson trial and in the Nixon thing and yes even in the Clinton episode, just refuse to see what is really happening here in America.
Bush started a useless war for no justifiable reason and its turning into a disaster. Even a victory will not guarantee that Iraq will not link up with Iran in a giant Sheite state. Even Michael Savage worries about that! Hardly a liberal!
Some folks are slowly catching on.. When will you?Charlie (8ea405) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:07 am
Alexndra.. I am not going to attempt to answer all your questions but the outing of Plame was illegal. The CIA brought the case and asked for an investigation, John Ashcroft agreed and not a single administration official including Bush and Cheney have ever said otherwise. If her identity was known they could have saved a lot of trouble by just saying “No crime was commited because her name was known” But they let the investigation continue and the only ones to dispute her secret status are the usual cast of talking head right wing spinmeisters.Charlie (8ea405) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:13 am
On the compliance or defiance issue wrt to Saddam. Remember that he had actually KICKED inspectors out of the country. He was playing cat and mouse and a waiting game. Also remember that the Senate Democrats (44 of them) voted against the 1991 war. So even with Kuwait invaded and Oraqi troops 5 miles into Saudi Arabia, they did not want to take Saddam on.
But they’re patriots. Right.TCO (5e2e67) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:26 am
I still think you would be a great host for Air Americaalexandra morris (a071ac) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:27 am
I want to thank you for that summary and I hope that Libby goes to full attack mode to get the truth out. However, could the judge rule that much of it is not relevant to the charges and limit much of the testimony?
Charlie, Michael Savage is NOT a conservative; he is a total nut case……..alexandra morris (a071ac) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:31 am
Charlie – No sense in rehashing all the points made bu other posters debunking your contentons. Just a question – is your tin foil hat for Halloween or everyday wear?eddie haskell (7727cd) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:33 am
Alexandra I would love to have that job.. actually I think America is really bad.. Mark Marin and Reiley are not funny at all and are very insulting and Al Frankin is a bore. Randy Rhodes is great..funny, clever and full of personality and truth. She is clearly the best. I would love to do a shift on that net. Would you listen to me and call in? I promise not to cut you off..
TCO you are both right and wrong. Sadam did kick inspectors out and when Bush started his campaign against him he played a dangerous game. But in the end, both the UN and the International Atomic Energy commission got full access to whereever they wanted to go with no notice. Both agencies said that and if Bush had let it go at that sooner or later the weapons, if they existed, along with the means of production would have been found. It would have been a great victory at a minimal cost. Bush had him in a box with inspectors everywhere. But inspections was not the goal of the neo cons. That was just a pretext for war so even though they got what whey wanted they invaded anyway…which they planned to do all along.Charlie (8ea405) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:54 am
Hey Eddie did you find the WMds yet? Let me know when you doCharlie (8ea405) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:55 am
Final remark.. Patterico I do have a complement for you.. you at least allow dissent. I got kicked off Free Republic for similar postings.. thanks
Ya I know its a kiss ass post but what the hell!!!Charlie (8ea405) — 10/30/2005 @ 7:58 am
atleast you have a sense of humor …and trying to listen to a little truth..alexandra morris (a071ac) — 10/30/2005 @ 8:13 am
Hold on – I think we are missing the big the picture here.
If Plame was not a covert agent, then why did Libby lie about bringing her name up and exposing the fact that she worked for the CIA? Of course you can’t “out” a CIA agent if they’re not covert. But if he now knows that she wasn’t covert anyway (and no crime was committed in making her association with the CIA known), then Libby’s got to feel like a big fool right now. If Plame wasn’t covert, then there would be no reason to lie. As it stands now, the only crime Libby is charged with is denying that he was the Plame source (which has nothing to do with Wilson really).Tillman (1cf529) — 10/30/2005 @ 8:14 am
I like dissent. It keeps your arguments strong. Or at least it does when the dissenting arguments are themselves strong. In your case, Charlie, they aren’t.
For one thing, you haven’t acknowledged that the Senate Report — not just the addendum — collected lots of evidence of Wilson lies. Also:
Bush had him in a box with inspectors everywhere.
Except that Saddam was playing games with them, as he had with Clinton. Under Clinton, it was so bad that inspectors would sit there and watch as Iraqis carried boxes out the back door of a facility to be inspected, while the inspectors waited outside the locked front gates, powerless to do anything but watch. Bush wasn’t going to let that happen again, and good for him.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/30/2005 @ 8:14 am
Is there an indictment pending against Wilson for “lying”, or is it just HERE, on another right-wing-nut, in-denial Blog?
Sounds like a juvenile contest of “my liar is bigger than your liar”.
How about this, let’s list all the investigations, and include all the indictments currently in place, around the country, involving both elected officials, and lobbyists, from both parties, and see which list is the longer of the two, k?
Then lets assemble a second list, using the first as our basis, to list just those indicted, and separate them into two columns. Column one, is for indicted folks who have chosen lawyers to represent them, and cloumn two would be for all those politicians who have chosen to represent themselves because of their public and fundamental opposition to frivolous law suits, and lawyers in general … and who campaigned so strongly for tort reform. I mean c’mon now, it would be hypocritical for THOSE politicians to employ the services of the very profession they have been politically attacking these past 5+ years, now wouldn’t it? So, “who ya gonna call”, ghost busters?
And, to those whiners whose opinions fully sanctioned 8 years of legal-beagle snooping into the sexual, right down to bathroom habits of Bill Clintion, right down to what color ass-wipe he might have used, by applying the services of an “INDEPENDENT” prosecuter … you should realize that Fitz ain’t “INDEPENDENT”. Fitz is just a “SPECIAL” prosecuter, and your favorite Prez Bush can FIRE Fitz anytime he wants. So, if you’re unhappy with Fitz and his processes, call the White House, and tell ’em what ya think. Nobody else cares.
DADA (c3f188) — 10/30/2005 @ 8:14 am
If you have detailed questions about the Plame case, Tom Maguire is your man. If he can’t answer the questions, there’s no way I’ll be able to.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/30/2005 @ 8:15 am
I’m not criticizing the prosecutor.
But if we’re going to make lists, the only fair comparison is to include all Republicans and Democrats from Clinton’s two terms, as well as from Bush’s presidency so far.
It’s well-known that every two-term President ends up with a scandal in his second term. Limiting it to the present would be like limiting it to the period of time covering Clinton’s two terms — and I guarantee you that indictments of Democrats would preponderate if you did it that way.
So I’m all for your experiment, as long as I don’t have to take the time to do it myself. You do it, publish your results here, and commenters will tell you what you missed, if anything. But do it fairly, and include the Clinton years.Patterico (4e4b70) — 10/30/2005 @ 8:20 am
Nice opening, DA. Real strong point there.
Wilson made several clearly false statements in his famous op-ed and has continued to do so since. This is a fact, and facts are, as they say, stubborn things.
Did Wilson’s lies get us to this point, as Paterico opines? Arguably yes. Wilson deliberately dissembled for clearly partisan purposes. He has been an administration critic and a partisan supporter of the political opposition. That fact doesn’t make him a liar. These do.
Had Wilson been more honest, it is rather unlikely that the dubious events surrounding his trip would have been revealed. When he published his op-ed, trading on an intelligence trip he took to Niger, he contradicted his own oral report to the CIA.
Therefore, Wilson shares a good portion of the blame for the “outing” of his wife. It is unreasonable to expect the administration, who was making the case for war, not to try to discredit someone who was falsely reporting his mission results, a mission for which his qualifications were dubious and his wife partially responsible.Glenn (300ef3) — 10/30/2005 @ 8:50 am
Patterico, Glen and others at some point when I have the mental energy and feel like wasting a lot of time, I might present the contrary arguement about Wilson. I know damn well you will not accept it no matter what, as you are convinced its all the liberal news media against Bush in some gigantic vendetta. Frankly, nothing is going to change my mind either so I am not going to fight about this any more. What’s the sense??
But here is my real point. You are so concerned and so full of venum over the supposed lies of Wilson. Lets say that everything he said was a lie, for the sake of arguement, where is your outrage over the false information given by Bush and crew which got us into this endless and unwinnable war? Nowhere to be found and it never will be either since you are intent on giving him a pass on this war no matter what and that is the truth. You may not admit it to even yourself but its obvious.
In the end, regardless of what Wilson did or did not say, your pal Bush was dead wrong..there were no wmds in Iraq and that all the reality based world knows that. Inspections were working and the entire world, with the exception of the Bushmen now realize that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfield wanted this war and what they thought would be an easy victory. They threw their fingers at those that opposed them and the Democrats had not the information or the guts to stand up to them.
Except for Bush These were all members of the Project for the New American Century which wanted war with Iraq in the 1990s.
Well got what they wanted but it hasnt turned out to be quite the cake walk they thought, has it?
Finally when you say you “good for him” meaning good for Bush that he attacked. ..Well I ask you “what do you tell the mothers of those that died thinking their offspring were on the trail of WMds as Bush said” Sorry we made a mistake? Or maybe you tell them about mysterious boxes being shuffled around or trucks that MAY have been moving to Syria and MAY have contained something we have no evidence Iraq could have produced?
What do you say to that mother who reads UN and the IAEC inspectors saying that said it was Bush that decided to go to war and that Sadam was in compliance with the inspectors in the end? Do you smear them too because they dont fit your preconceived notion that Bush is a man of peace and honor? What do you say about the officials like Paul O Neil and Richard Clark, and Brent Scocroft who served this nation well and are now under attack because they dared challenge Bush? Are they all liars too? Same for Colin Powell’s aide ( forgot his name) that just came out and said basically the same thing. This policy is wrong and the war needless.
Do you tell these mothers not to be angry its just the media is against him? The UN hates US?. The French and Germans are cowards? Those memos about “fixing intelligence” are biased?? It never occurs to you that maybe Bush is wrong? Do you point to photo of Bush praying and insist he is a good Christian man following the lead of his heavenly Father as he claims?
You have a lot of explaing to do and we both know it cant be done. That is the real motive behind the attack on Wilson. When you cant justify what yo have done, change the subject.Charlie (8ea405) — 10/30/2005 @ 10:08 am
You really ought to consider putting America ahead of Bush. Amen..Thanks for your courtesy in allowing these posts.
Charlie, read the report, signed by a bi-partisan panel of Congressman (including Tom Daschle), before you bore us with further rantings.
Snooze.Bostonian (163833) — 10/30/2005 @ 10:11 am
Rip & Read #152 – 2005-10-30
Here’s what I Ripped and Read in my Podcast today:
What has Wilson to say today? In the LA Times he offers some ideas, which Patterico’s Pontification read and commented on:
Lyin Joe Wilson lies again in this mornings Los Angeles Times,…Rip & Read Blogger Podcast (59ce3a) — 10/30/2005 @ 10:40 am
I guess my response to you is this, Charlie – It is fine for you to take the position that the Iraq war was a bad decision for the country. Many people feel the same way.
Unfortunately for you, there is no real evidence that the Administration was deliberately deceptive in making its case for war, and the American public by and large accepts that fact. There may have been errors made, but none of them rose to the level of a lie, despite what many on the left preach daily to those who want that to be true.
I am fine with the war, I am glad we are fighting it, and I know we will win. The war was worth fighting for no other reason than to remove a monstrous dictator who had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people and was defying UN sanctions to the very day of the invasion. The fact that the UN is replete with self-serving corrupt nations, even on the Security Council, is no excuse for us to ignore the danger that Saddam Hussein presented to the world and to his own people.
Wilson attempted to discredit the administration by trading on the credibility he obtained in a questionable manner from the CIA. In the process, he contradicted his own report to the CIA and impinged upon the Iraq war debate with lies supported by credibility he didn’t deserve. The American people had a right to know: a) his credibility problem and b) the suspicious nature of his trip to Niger.
Given all these facts, whether you accept them as such or not, the decision to go to war was justified and right regardless of whether WMD’s were ever found. Wilson’s falsehoods unfairly impugned the Administration’s motives and provoked a response that in turn provoked an investigation. That is my opinion. Your milage may vary.Glenn (300ef3) — 10/30/2005 @ 12:04 pm
If we could have kept him contained with inspectors that would have been fine. But we only got them in there when we raised the specter of going in in force. That was the cat and mouse that Saddam played. He would play the waiting game. Democracies have a hard time dealing with that and staying vigilant. I mean France was trying to take the sanctions OFF and make things easier on Saddam.TCO (dc7251) — 10/30/2005 @ 6:06 pm
The WaPo spreading the same Lyin’ Joe BS:The Editors, American Federalist Journal (e71dfb) — 10/30/2005 @ 6:10 pm
Why didn’t the UN force the inspectors in several years before? They lacked will. They didn’t evTCO (dc7251) — 10/30/2005 @ 6:11 pm
[…] This may come as a surprise to Patterico, but Clinton Watson Taylor just caught Joe Wilson in a lie. […]damnum absque injuria » News Flash (38c04c) — 10/30/2005 @ 10:09 pm
Charlie – Your retreat from “Wilson is not a liar!” to “I could prove he isn’t a liar but I don’t have the time or energy and you guys won’t believe me anyway and besides whether Wilson is a liar or not is beside the point because WHERE ARE THE WMDs?!?” tells me the tinfoil hat is for year round wear.eddie haskell (8fd1a1) — 10/31/2005 @ 10:42 am
You people really are brainwashed! Stop SMOKING your crack and wake up! Libby, Rove, Bush AND Cheney are GOING DOWN!
Clinton may have lied, but over 2,000 did not DIE!LibMommy (89774a) — 10/31/2005 @ 6:35 pm
[…] The LA Times agenda driven coverage is not confined to Iraq alone. They continue to deceive and report half-truths in their coverage of the NSA wiretap scandal, in coverage of domestic oppoenents of the war, and in the debate over pre-war intelligence. […]Pundit Review » Blog Archive » LA Times Keeps Up Anti-Military Campaign: This time going after Michael Yon (698efa) — 2/12/2006 @ 5:36 am