One of the lowest points in American History. Nothing short of treason. Please read her book 'FAIR GAME'. Unbelievable!
Unbelievable indeed Joe Wilson, that is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460.html http://www.slate.com/id/2140058/ http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/ http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-and-why-joseph-c-wilson-iv-outed-valerie-plame http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1173183/posts http://www.slate.com/id/2148555/ What is most unbelievable is that Wilson was able to commit a hoax of such vast proportion -- and to some extent it continues. Even the Washington Post editorial board has decided his charges were bogus, but when the fictional motion picture comes out the Wilson myth will become even more ingrained. Unbelievable indeed.
I read all of your right wing links.Problems: They contradict the Presidents State of the Union address. They contradict The New York Times. FACT: Saddam Hussein Never tried to buy yellow cake from Niger! White House interpretation : " Faulty Intelligence". ( Source of faulty intelligence- 1600 Pennsylvania ave.) COME BACK!
Okay, I'll come back, but might not be able to get online again this weekend so I'll try to fit everything into this comment. About my "right wing links", would that include the right wing Washington Post? Or liberal Christopher Hitchens? At least be honest when characterizing them. You could not have read them all and still made the demonstrably false statement that those links contradict the President's SOTU address. As for contradicting the NYT, the truth does that all the time. For those who don't want to follow and read all those links above, here is the President's 16 word statement in it's entirety: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That is it. The British government did learn that Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Don't believe the Brits? Then what about the Annenburg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania? Read the whole thing, but particularly the bullet points they provide showing Bush had ample reason to say what he did in those 16 words: * A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.” * A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke. * Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger. * Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium. Don't believe the Washington Post, the Brits or Annenburg? Then what about this? The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(XXXXXXXXXXXX) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq." That is a description of what was contained in Joe Wilson's own report -- the one he said disproved that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. Wilson's report did not prove that Saddam sought uranium from Africa, but it certainly did not disprove it as he claimed. In fact, it gave an indication that in 1999 there was an attempt by Iraq to engage Niger about yellowcake. The President said Saddam sought to obtain uranium from Africa. He based this on the British report, not Joe Wilson's, but there was additional intelligence pointing to it as well. The statement was to let the American people know that Saddam was trying to obtain the materials for nuclear weapons. That his desire was to have nuclear weapons. Nothing in Joe Wilson's report disproved that and in fact Wilson made statements indicating he believed that himself. The following is part of the chronology from one of the links provided in my earlier comment: January 28, 2003: President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address. February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists. There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that. February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops. MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that? WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that? WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He’s coming to kill me. He doesn’t care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm. In other words, Joe Wilson was against going into Iraq, but not because Bush was lying about Saddam having WMD. Wilson thought we should not go into Iraq because there was a very real threat that Saddam would use those weapons against us if we provoked him by going into Iraq. Go on to read the rest of the chronology for a possible reason Wilson went from believing Saddam had WMD, to saying Bush lied in those 16 words. Bush and Wilson both believed Saddam had WMD that he would use against us. Wilson thought there was a greater threat that Saddam would use them if provoked by a US invasion. Bush believed Saddam had the intention of using them against us whether provoked or not. That is a real debate with pros and cons on both sides, but the attempt to paint those 16 words in the SOTU as proof that "Bush lied" was disingenuous, malicious and politically motivated. But it was also successful due to reporters who ignored, or were too lazy to uncover, the statements of Wilson himself that appear above. That does not even go to the big "outing" accusation Wilson made as he booked a Vanity Fair photo spread for he and Plame. If I had time I would post Bob Woodward's interview excerpt that is quoted in one of the links I provided earlier. Anyone interested should read it. Novak's description of how he learned Plame's name should have put the story to rest before it ever started, but since Joe Wilson wanted to see Karl Rove "frog march" and Novak would not release the name, the press went wild on little more than Wilson's word. Armitage finally coming forward should have put the silver bullet into that "outing" accusation, but Wilson's version will live on -- in film no less -- regardless of how many facts contradict it. Sad, but true.
Please, someone, explain how Plame’s book would be bogus. Times have sured changed when someone who worked for the CIA can write a book about the job because I was of the belief that they signed papers stating to never reveal. But, when the grand jury, judge, etc. found legal grounds to go after Libby, just like they did when the illegal Iran-Contra affair happened, I would tend to believe they had proof. I have yet to read the book but to dismiss it based on Wilson’s interviews is ludicrous. See below for GWB’s wonderful V.P.’s top aide and what Bush did with Poindexter makes it just even sweeter for those who don’t believe Bush is the second coming. Plame Affair and Libby: Libby resigned all three government positions held, immediately after he was indicted on federal obstruction and perjury charges resulting from the grand jury investigation into the CIA identity leak known as the Plame Affair, which led to his criminal trial in United States v. Libby. The day after his conviction in that trial, he resigned his later appointment as senior advisor at the Hudson Institute. In United States v. Libby, the jury convicted Libby on four of the five counts in the indictment: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and one count of making false statements to federal investigators. Libby is the “highest ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair two decades ago.” John Poindexter was Deputy National Security Advisor and National Security Advisor for the Reagan administration. He was convicted in April of 1990 of multiple felonies as a result of his actions in the Iran-Contra scandal. His convictions were eventually reversed on appeal in 1991, based on a legal technicality. More recently, he served a brief stint as the Director of the DARPA Information Awareness Office for the administration of George W. Bush. The presiding trial Judge, Reggie B. Walton, sentenced Libby to 30 months in federal prison, a fine of $250,000, and two years of supervised release, including 400 hours of community service, and then ordered Libby to begin his sentence immediately. When Libby's appeal of Judge Walton's order failed, President Bush commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence, leaving the other parts of his sentence intact. In commuting Libby's prison term, Bush stated: "I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison. ... My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged." After Libby paid his monetary fine and penalty totaling $250,400, Judge Walton queried aspects of the presidential commutation, and lawyers filed their briefs supporting Libby's serving supervised release, resolving the issue and thus clearing the way for Libby to begin the rest of his sentence, the two years of supervised release and 400 hours of community service. President Bush’s commutation of Libby’s prison sentence became the subject of a hearing on “The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials” held by the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative John Conyers, on July 11, 2007. On December 10, 2007, Libby’s lawyers announced that he would drop his appeal of his conviction in “the CIA leak case,” leaving intact his remaining sentence and fine and leaving on his record his felony convictions (unless he is granted a full pardon by President Bush). The next day, December 11, 2007, President Bush issued 29 pardons but did not include Libby among them.
The book had to be vetted by the CIA, and they took their time about it, causing a long delay in its release. If you see it in a book store or library, just pick it up and flip through it. Long passages, even whole chapters, are blacked out. Interestingly, some of the things that are blacked out in the body of the book appear in full in the last part of the book, which was written by somebody else. Anyone who is willing to read the book with an open mind will be amazed at what she had to go through, her training and all. It's a great read, although a little frustrating when you come to the blacked out parts.
It gets real interesting when you try to figure out why a lot of it was blacked out. Valerie was an undercover agent for the CIA and had a top secret security clearance. To publish a book it has to be cleared through a special agency within the CIA to be certain that she is not revealing anything that could be classified information. This is understandable. She objected to most of what was being blacked out saying that this is not classified information and you are violating my right to free speech. They went round 'n round about this for months delaying the publication of her book. Finally, they told her flat out "This is not coming from us, it is coming straight from the White House". There are things in there that the White House does not want you to publish. And I don't think this is over yet.
It's just one more case of the "White House Chicken Hawks" dragging people through the mud who have served their country honorably.
