« Aqua Net Offsets for All! | Main | Spend your way out of debt: it's the Massachusetts way! »

The Wilson-Plame Movie

That poor Valerie Plame and her bashful husband. They really just want to be left alone. I guess that is why they have now sold their "life rights" to Warner Brothers. The movie will depict the victimization of Plame by the evil Bush administration.

Jerry and Janet Zucker, who got to know Plame and Wilson because all four are involved in stem cell politics, said that the fate of the book won't determine the fate of the film.

"Almost everything that we need for the movie is available from print outlets, and obviously we haven't read the book yet because it hasn't been approved by the CIA," Jerry Zucker said. "Valerie has been incredibly careful with what she tells us, it's almost like she is still working for the CIA. The biggest element of the movie to us is the story of two people who spent their lives in service of their government, and were then betrayed by that government."

The Variety piece also says Plame's story was "illegally leaked by the White House." Maybe the movie will include the prosecution of that illegal leak we have yet to see.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Wilson-Plame Movie:

» Soccer Dad linked with Unfair plame

» Overtaken by Events linked with Wednesday Linkage - Vespas and Hermits

Comments (160)

Wilson/Plame are doing a gr... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Wilson/Plame are doing a great job of making lemonade, much to the chagrin of the right. A book -- a movie -- and let's not forget the civil trial, which will move forward now that the criminal trial is ending.

Lots more fun ahead as we approach the elections.

So what they are saying is ... (Below threshold)

So what they are saying is that this movie will be as dishonest and filled with fiction as "An Inconvenient Truth"? What - are they trying for an Oscar?

The fact that they are involved "stem cell politics" (medical research should NEVER EVER be considered a part of politics) tells me pretty much all I need to know.

Are they going to include the fact that Valerie's employment was shown in ole Joe's "Who's Who" entry LONG BEFORE the trip to Niger? Of course not, that wouldn't suit their agenda. It might reflect the TRUTH but since when does that matter!?

The mind reels.

Lee - Valerie Plame was NOT... (Below threshold)

Lee - Valerie Plame was NOT an undercover CIA operative - there was no violation of ANY law. It's just another symptom of BDS!

Gayle - I'd venture a guess... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Gayle - I'd venture a guess you've never seen "An Incoconvenient Truth." Prove me wrong.

Escapist fantasy films alwa... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Escapist fantasy films always have a market. If they time its release for Thanksgiving of 2008, they can market it as the "feel good movie for democrats" in which every day is Fitzmass. You know, to cheer up those who are blue.

Lee:<br ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lee:


Wilson/Plame are doing a great job of making lemonade

That's not lemonade. What the Wilson's are selling is made from horse apples. And the kook left is salivating over buying themselves a big slice ala mode. Of course, everyone else knows what their eating.

..they're eating.... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

..they're eating.

Lee, look for May 17 when r... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lee, look for May 17 when responses to the defendent's motion to quell the Wilsons' subpoenas are scheduled. I suspect Chemerinsky is not as keen to pursue this case as he once was, now that he has looked at it a little. I agree with the comment about lemonade, though considering the consumers of their evil brew, I'd have to say they are making Koolaid.

Isn't it Kool that the jury is actually trying to figure this Libby case out? As opposed to the Prosecutor, Fitzgerald, doing so?

Show me Val's book deal. Last I saw, nobody wanted to buy it, and the CIA suppression bit was their cover story.

By the way. Val is still covert. Do you know what she did at the CIA?

Niether did she.
=======

Mike, I've seen horseapples... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mike, I've seen horseapples keep really undiscriminating dogs alive for months. They're positively nutritious.
========================

Everybody but you, Lee, kno... (Below threshold)
kim:

Everybody but you, Lee, knows that Ambassador Munchausen and his faery bride are completely full of it. I've got a great idea. Why don't you buy her fantasy novel and promote it?

There is something very interesting, though, and that is that Joe's lying memes, that Bush Lied(about yellowcake), People Died, and that Cheney and Rove outed a CIA spy married to a whistleblower, have had persistence and penetrance entirely out of scale to their veracity. You know the one about Truth not getting out of bed, while Rumour circumnavigates the globe? That's the Joe and Val show in a nutshell. Well, the jury is getting out of bed, and it might not be the right side for Lee.
=================================

Lee, what you have to look ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lee, what you have to look forward to as the election looms is either the innocence of Libby or the hammering of Fitzgerald and Wilson on appeal. The dangerousness of Saddam and the perfidy of Democrats like Levin, Rockefeller, and Kerry will be placed on very public display. Get on the Mo Joe while you can.
===========================

Kim:I think you re... (Below threshold)
Linda:

Kim:

I think you really need to see a doctor about this obvious obsession of yours.

Joe Wilson is a liar. Valer... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Joe Wilson is a liar. Valerie Plame is pathetic. The only question I have regarding them is "Who were they working for?" They obviously attempted to influene the 2004 presidential election with lies and distortions. Was Wilson promised a cabinet post under a Kerry preidency? Plame?


No Fitzmas for you!!!

n, Val wants to be Ambassad... (Below threshold)
kim:

n, Val wants to be Ambassador to France, and Joe, King of Africa and Arabia.

They were working for Kerry. It was set up at the Democratic Senate Policy Committee meeting in May of '03, the minutes of which are not available, unusually.

Joe thought Saddam had WMD. Look at his 2/6/03 op-ed in the LATimes. He is a coward or a traitor, or both.
=====================

Linda, you can't talk to a ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Linda, you can't talk to a Plamisto like that!
==========================

I'm only here because the j... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'm only here because the jury is going home at 2:00 today without reaching a decision, so all I can do elsewhere is speculate endlessly about whispers and bicker with fellow Plamaniacs. So tell me what you want to know about "The YellowCake Affair".
=================================

At 4:00, at JustOneMinute, ... (Below threshold)
kim:

At 4:00, at JustOneMinute, there will be a meeting of the Plamaholics Unanimous.
==========================

Maybe she was covert, or ma... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Maybe she was covert, or maybe not. However the company she worked for, that is the company the CIA set up, was covert. Because someone leaked about her and her husband, they outed Brewster & Jennings.

How much of taxpayers money was used to set up this company, how much time spent, etc. How much information is now going to be lost because of this outing. How many people may have been killed because of their association with this company in foreign lands.

This story is bigger than a couple of people named Wilson or Libby or Fitz. I would like to know how much damage to our country has happened because of all of this.

...there was no violatio... (Below threshold)

...there was no violation of ANY law.

Gee, that's an awfully high moral standard you guys set for yourselves. Maybe you want to lower that a little bit. Maybe whatever they did should be okay as long as a capital offense wasn't committed.

Easy on the Koolaid, Allen.... (Below threshold)
kim:

Easy on the Koolaid, Allen. Brewster-Jennings was not undercover, nor was it even in use.

Let's see the letter from the CIA referring this matter to the DOJ. Let's see the damage assessment done by the CIA to evaluate any damage by this so-called 'outing' of Val Plame, who was not 'covert' by legal definition.
==================================

Larkin, the commonly expect... (Below threshold)
kim:

Larkin, the commonly expected moral standard, to not deliberately lie, has been violated by Joe Wilson repeatedly.

Also, do you know that the one spreading Val's name around the earliest anyone can find, besides her husband of course, was Dick Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy? And even he was not violating any law, because she was not covert.
================================

Also, do you know... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
Also, do you know that the one spreading Val's name around the earliest anyone can find, besides her husband of course, was Dick Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy? And even he was not violating any law, because she was not covert.

Worth repeating. If Plame was covert and it's now known that Aritage was the orginal source of the leak, Fitzpatrick is obligated to pursue charges against him. Given that Fitzpatrick hasn't, it tends to make one believe that Plame wasn't covert. Of course, this gets glossed over quickly in the media coverage.

Fitz probably gave Armitage... (Below threshold)
kim:

Fitz probably gave Armitage immunity, as well as gentle handling(remember the attempt to conceal his identity as UGO), but never bothered to ask him who besides Novak he had talked to. There is a wonderful audiotape, in evidence, of Armitage laughingly telling Woodward that the expletive deleted Wilson outed his own wife. This is in June of '03, a month before the events that Fitz, the Madman, has blindered himself with.
========================

"If Plame was covert..... (Below threshold)
2BrixShy:

"If Plame was covert..

She wasn't. Her cover had been blown in Cuba some years before.

Everything following that disclosure is sound and fury, signifying Fitznothing.

No crime was committed?... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

No crime was committed?

Well I guess if you spend most of the last 6-years defending the lies of this administration, obstruction of justice and perjury is just apart of "doing business" within the Republican party.

"Gayle - I'd venture a gues... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"Gayle - I'd venture a guess you've never seen "An Incoconvenient Truth." Prove me wrong.

Posted by: Hugh at March 2, 2007 10:45 AM "

Hugh, so you actually believe that water levels will rise 20ft as a short term possibilty (which is what Gore says in his movie), when even the most aggresive models touted by global warming advocates say 2-3ft. by 2100?! You are dumber than I thought, and I've always thought you pretty dumb.

The obstruction of justice ... (Below threshold)
kim:

The obstruction of justice and the perjury are figments of Fitzgerald's deranged imagination. Now, tell me about the lies. I know Joe Wilson lied mightily about the run-up to the war.
==========================

"An Incoconvenient Truth."... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"An Incoconvenient Truth."
Posted by: Hugh

Hugh's sputtering mad BDS even comes out in his typing!!

A crime was just as much co... (Below threshold)
Jo:

A crime was just as much committed here as was in the Duke rape case.

Oh wait......

lol.

Democrats are so pitiful. Fun to watch.

I couldn't decide if he mea... (Below threshold)
kim:

I couldn't decide if he meant inCOOCOOnvenient, or inCOCOONvenient.
============================

BarneyWhat obstruc... (Below threshold)
914:

Barney

What obstruction and perjury?? Were not talking the Clittons here..!

"Gayle - I'd venture a ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

"Gayle - I'd venture a guess you've never seen "An Incoconvenient Truth." Prove me wrong.

Hugh, I've never seen "An Incoconvenient Truth" either. Because the movie is indeed "coco" , although I prefer to spell it coo coo. Was that a freudian slip? Sure it was.
Propaganda is always a little coo coo.

Bwahahahahaha... you guys are pathetic.

Well gee, the spell checker... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well gee, the spell checkers/mockers are out and about and giggling about their collective superiority. I see Jo is vomiting all over herself once again. And, as usual, you folks just pop a vein and start spewing without stopping to read comments.

Let me it clear even for the more challenged of you. A poster, Gayle, made a comment about a documentary. I commented that I imagined he hadn't even seen it. He has not responded yet. Jo, your response proves without any doubt how ignorant you are. Kim shows his/her (lack of) intelligence and DHoggs makes no sense. Go figure. And you wonder why thew country has gone middle/left?

Kim,Bush: "We'll g... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Kim,

Bush: "We'll get him (OBL) dead or alive"
Bush: "Honestly, I don't think about him much"

Scott McClellan: Libby and Rove had nothing to do with the leaking of V.P. identity.

Bush: If anyone is involved with the leak, I want to know. There is no place in my administration for leakers. Libby, Rove, Cheney, McCellan, Fleischer and Armatage all had a role in the leaking or cover-up and none of them lost their job (Fleischer had left by then)

Now Kim, tell me one lie that was in Wilson's OpEd.

I make no sense hugh? I thi... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

I make no sense hugh? I think I was quite clear yet you are ignoring my question. You obviously take issue with Gayle saying gore's movie is full of lies, so I ask you again, do you really believe what gore says, which is that a realistic short term possibility is a 20ft. rise in the sea level?! When even the most aggresive models touted by global warming advocates say it is only 2-3ft by 2100? Because either you believe that, proving you are a total idiot, or gore is lying, proving that you are lying as well by supporting his movie. I anxiously await your answer, yet somehow I think you'll weasel out of or around it.

By the way, your spelling isn't the only thing that sucks, what exactly does, "Let me it clear" mean? Because if it's what I think you mean, that's pretty fucking ironically funny!!

BG2, do you mean Wilson's 2... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, do you mean Wilson's 2/6/03 op-ed in the LATimes?

Wilson's two main lies are that he debunked Iraqi interest in Niger after his trip there, and that his wife had nothing to do with sending him there. His wife initiated the process, and his report included Iraqi interest in 1999. Wilson or Plame herself originally initiated her publicizing in May of '03 by talking to Kristoff. Armitage talked about her big time in June of '03. Cheney and Libby only connected the wife of the critical ambassador with the low-level operative who sent him in July of '03. Fitzgerald still doesn't get this.

Hugh, you got anything besides a hateful ad hominem about me, there?
=====================

Well D-Hoggs:I kno... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well D-Hoggs:

I know your you're slow so I'll try and explain it slow. I made a challenge to a commentor who was criticizing a documentary that i doubted he'd seen it. That was all. Nothing else. Get it? Then you defenders of the true belief start referencing things that weren't even said - the usual thing from you folks

See, it be kinda like me saying I hate this movie I never went to see. Now what would you say to someone who critiqued something he never saw? Even you can probably answer that one.

Come-on Kim, you know what ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Come-on Kim, you know what I mean. Please point out one lie in the JW Wa Po 6/12/03 OpEd.

Please provide quotes, and not just your opinion, and point to references (links would be nice) that debunk Wilson's claims.

It's going to be fun to watch you spin your way out of this.

Well I guess if you spen... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Well I guess if you spend most of the last 6-years defending the lies of this administration, obstruction of justice and perjury is just apart of "doing business" within the Republican party.

If the identity of an agent was admitted by the US gov't before the crime, then there was no crime committed at all (she was revealed in the 90's) --- Section 422 of Title 50 of the U.S Code.

You know who initially pointed this out?

The media in filings to the court back in 2005. So, they KNEW no crime was committed and continued pretending that one was.

If a conviction is handed down, it'll overturned on appeal so fast it'll make your head spin. It is literally impossible to get no reasonable doubt from this case.
-=Mike

So I was right hugh, weasel... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

So I was right hugh, weasel around the question. You know damn well the only reason you said that to Gayle was because you took offense at him/her saying gore's movie was full of lies.

"they KNEW no crime was com... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"they KNEW no crime was committed " Mikesc

Who is "they"?

Barney,Wilson's repo... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Barney,
Wilson's report to the CIA and his Op-ed to the times directly contradict each other. One is false. Wilson wrote both, so it is reasonable to assume one is a lie.
Which is the lie? The op-ed, or the report on his trip?
From the WaPo (hardly a right wing source):

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. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.
and
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Spin that, Barney. See if you crash and burn like you did on the 1992 election cycle chat we had.

Sorry scuzzy, but you did n... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Sorry scuzzy, but you did not provide one direct quote from the op-ed.

So again, show me one lie in Wilson's op-ed.

And by the way, Wilson did not "write" both reports, the notation above was a selective opinion, others had a different opinion, and per presented evidence in the Libby trial, CIA director Tenant on two occasions cautioned the President not to use the Niger story, in one case, the Cincy speech, the copy was pulled and in the other, SOTU, Cheney overruled Tenant.

The Wilson/Plame movie titl... (Below threshold)
914:

The Wilson/Plame movie title should be "Liars in love"

Imao

Good grief DHoggs...now you... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Good grief DHoggs...now you make no sense. Is it that you have to win?

Maybe it is full of lies but I wouldn't know. I didn't see it as I imagine you didn't and as I'm sure Gayle didn't. Give it the fuck up. You're sounding more and more like an idiot.

Prediction: The counter-sui... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Prediction: The counter-suit(s) by Rove, Libby, et al against Lyin' Joe Wilson are coming down the pike. (After this current travesty plays out, of course.)

you're ridiculous hugh, and... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

you're ridiculous hugh, and totally transparent. Gayle said it was full of lies, that pissed you off so you had to make a comment saying, "you didn't even see it did you?!! Nanny nanny boo-boo!" Then it turns out you haven't even seen it yourself but feel the need to defend it because its gore. If you were'nt upset about the accusation that is is full of lies, then why in the world would you have ever even written that comment? Give it up hugh. Pathetic. And for the record, yes I have seen it, and it is pure garbage.

This movie will appeal to t... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

This movie will appeal to those who 1) don't know anything about the "Plame Affair," and 2) give a shit.

Due to the difficulty with #2, I'd say this movie will be a bust.

Kim, it has been 2-hours al... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Kim, it has been 2-hours already. The op-ed takes 5-minutes to read, and you still can't find one lie?

You sure did present yourself as an expert in the Wilson/Plame scandal. Anyone want to help her out?

Let me make a little correc... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Let me make a little correction the WAPO 6/13 article was by Pincus. The Wilson Op-Ed appeared in the Times on 7/6.

Just incase you needed help finding the Joe Wilson Op-ed.

I don't think it's D-Hogg t... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I don't think it's D-Hogg that's slow on the uptake, Hugh/Barney.

You both demonstrate that you two are, in fact, so slow, that you don't even realize how dense you are! These people are running rings around you, and you sit there typing your nonsense oblivious.

I've said this before, but I really mean it, if you are so patently, appallingly incoherent and reckless in your posts, why would you continue posting, proving the fact of your incompetence! Wow.

Mitchell;I see you... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Mitchell;

I see you're back with your upturned nose and hankie. Sorry to see that as you simply add noxious gas to any discussion.

Bunyan: now I have to say you are truly a fool. I defended nothing. I simply called out a commentator expressing an opinion and challenged him to say he had seen it.

I'll bet you saw it.

Jury tampering? Not much o... (Below threshold)
a. moral:

Jury tampering? Not much of an ending to any story if it ends in an acquittal. The story breaks as the jury goes home for the weekend and has plenty of opportunity to learn that that they might be able to sell their stories to Hollywood.
Timing is everything.

So--Is there going to be a ... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

So--Is there going to be a Fitzmas or not? The kids are so anxious.....

For the record: I do not a... (Below threshold)

For the record: I do not attend MOVIES - ever. The prices are asinine, the seats are uncomfortable and the other people there are rude and noisy.

I have, however, read a number of articles written that either espouse the "new religion" of global warming or debunk it. I agree with the debunkers. Further, I have seen no willingness to discuss the matter from the proponents of global warming with those who do not agree with them. Instead, like the previous poster, a snarky challenge is issued that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

I wasn't aware that freedom of speech AND OPINION had been suspended in this country!

I do not believe that global warming is a problem, any more than I believed the propoganda that we were all going to be frozen to death that was being flapped about 30 or more years ago. I simply do not subscribe to apocalypic hysteria. If you do, that's your choice. But don't try to tell me that I must think as you do or be insulted by you. That is totalitarianism and completely unacceptable always.

Barney, you have a reading ... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Barney, you have a reading comprehension problem.
Wilson turned in a report when he returned from Africa. And he wrote an op-ed.
The report that the WaPo is talking about is the Senate report that looked into the intelligence that led up to the war. One of the things they looked at was Wilson's report. And his report to the CIA does not match his op-ed.
And the WaPo article I cite is by Schmidt, and from July 9, 2004. So nobody gets confused :)


Gayle:Freedom of o... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Gayle:

Freedom of opinion is a cherished right as is freedom of speech. Any one can make a horse's ass of themselves giving an opinion about a movie they never saw. You certainly have that right and you clearly exercised it.

Why I never saw George Bush snort cocaine but I've read stories he did. Legitimate?

Hey guys-show that piece wi... (Below threshold)
pretzel_logic:

Hey guys-show that piece with the article from who's who in America and Plames bio. I still think that alone should put this non-sense to rest..

Sorry scuzzy, but you are w... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Sorry scuzzy, but you are wrong. First, you said "wrote both reports" Wilson did not provide a written report to the CIA it was oral (Wilson Op-ed):
"In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. " And, "Though I did not file a written report, .."

And you still have not provided one quote from Wilson's Op-ed that backs up your claim that Wilson lied, and your lifted text from the WAPO article on the SSC report does not in any way indicate that Wilson lied.

Also, it would be nice if you limited your "evidence" to passages (preferable from the conclusions) of the actual SSC report, and not from an article that paraphrases portions of the findings, mixed with opinion.

Good one Pretz. As the rig... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Good one Pretz. As the right points out, Wilson outed his own wife by his citation in the Who's Who. Here is the part on Valerie:

"m. Valerie Elise Plame, Apr. 3, 1998, employ CIA, operative."

I know this off topic, but ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I know this off topic, but you guys on the right will love this.

Little Annie Coulter just called John Edwards a faggot at the CPAC.

In 1972, they were worried ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

In 1972, they were worried that the temperatures had dropped over the last 30 years from 1940 and we were h4eaded to a permanent ice age that we caused. Thirty odd years later, they are worried because it was warmed up since 1972 and we are all going to die from melting ice caps.

If we have another thirty year cycle of cooling, the same people will suddenly take up man - made global cooling again as a cause.

Hugh:I know yo... (Below threshold)
marc:

Hugh:

I know your you're slow so I'll try and explain it slow. I made a challenge to a commentor who was criticizing a documentary that i doubted he'd seen it.

Someone remind me again what the topic of this thread was... oh wait, it was Plame/Wilson.

Hugh did they "star" in the Goracle movie?

Here's my challenge to you Hugh get back on topic, and I'll even give you a "window" to work with. Say sometime with you next 1 of 2 comments in this thread must be on a potential wilson/plame movie and not on what you decide will work best to drag the conversation in another direction.

p.s. same challenge goes out to you also barneyg[rubble]2000.

Wilson's op-ed is filled wi... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Wilson's op-ed is filled with a ton of implied meaning. If you want to play lawyer with his wording, you can wriggle him out of much of what his blatantly implies.

linkie

For example,

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

I guess you could claim something lame to the effect that 3rd sentence, "I was asked..." following the, "vp's office asked..." wasn't meant to imply he was asked by the vp's office. But I have trouble believing that was simply poor composition on Joe's part. If anything it was deliberately crafted to imply he was asked by the vp's office.

At a minimum it claims the mission was prompted at least indirectly by Cheney's office. Something that we have learned is completely false from chronology that's been learned from the Libby trial.

For the record Hugh and Bar... (Below threshold)
marc:

For the record Hugh and BarneyG[rubble]2000 spin it all you care to but be fore warned this is from the Senate report on the subject you have dragged the topic of this thread into.

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data: Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" 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 former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded that the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

Confused certainly is the operative word isn't it? The liar was so confused he made "factual" (under oath I might add) statements about documents that were not even available to the gov let alone Wilson himself.

Frankly I think it's all a "howler" of the first order and still get a laugh out of plame/wilson and those that bow at their altar of deceit and lies.

Barney-I am on the right an... (Below threshold)
Pretzel_Logic:

Barney-I am on the right and It was published. We didnt make it up. How can someone published in a reference book be outed?

No one has to see the coo c... (Below threshold)
Jo:

No one has to see the coo coo (hey - Hugh called it) movie of Gore's to know it was full of lies - because many of the "facts" in the movie have already been debunked. Love it.

I hope they include in the movie, the senate panel's report that says Joe Wilson is a liar. They said it in a nicer way of course - but that was the bottom line. Joe Wilson. Liar extraordinaire.

Bwahahahahahahaha.....(no vomit - just laughter at the pathetic democrats)...

Pretz, are you that stupid?... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Pretz, are you that stupid? I guess in your world CIA agents live in the shadows or society. Their identities removed from all documentation, and to never be seen by family or friends ever again.

CIA agents get married, have kids and have their names listed in all kinds of directories such as the phone book, and the school directory.

That is why CIA agents are provided with covers, so they can function in society.

Actually, the text I provided was from Who's Who. I added the CIA crap.

"Confused certainly is the ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Confused certainly is the operative word isn't it? The liar was so confused he made "factual" (under oath I might add) statements about documents that were not even available to the gov let alone Wilson himself." marc

He never made that statement under oath, marc. He never made that claim in his Op-ed, the SSC never states that Wilson made that statement under oath.

If you can not find back up to your claim, you must retract your statement.

Barney is apparently the la... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Barney is apparently the last of the handful of morons who still think Plame was covert.

Oh lordy. This is just sad.

jpm, I don't know what is m... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

jpm, I don't know what is more laughable, your selective quoting or your habit for outrageous assumptions (you know what happens when you assume?).

First off, you are wrong. The office of the VP asked the CIA to look into the Niger claim. From Op-ed:
"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. "

Second, he never claims that the VP ever saw a debriefing report on his mission, just that such a debriefing would be standard procedure:
"While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."

I am still waiting for one single lie in JW's Op-ed.

There seems to be a pecking... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

There seems to be a pecking order of stupidity on the left posters on this site. Since we have not heard much from the Liberal Lying Lee, the meandering musings of Mantis nor the anemic attacks of Alfalfa (?) we have be left with the limp logic of Hugh and Barney google. These two are too stupid to know when they are fighting a losing cause. Nor are they smart enough to tell when it is important to win a fight. Facts speak for themselves. The lies Plame/Wilson sold and told were polically motivated. Both were a dis-service to their nation and should be hung. Now that last part is just an opinion. Freedom of speech for everyone, but there is a price to pay for lying.

You sure did present you... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You sure did present yourself as an expert in the Wilson/Plame scandal. Anyone want to help her out?

The report he submitted to the CIA that was referenced by the 9/11 Report didn't remotely match what he wrote in his op-ed.

For example, the Prime Minister he spoke to said he firmly believed that Saddam's desire for "improved commercial relations" was undoubtedly dealing with the purchase of yellowcake.

We won't even get into the forged memos that he never once actually had access to.

Who is "they"?

36 news agencies, including the NY Times and Washington Post. They filed a brief with the court to try and spare Cooper and what's-her-face jailtime.

In the end, Victoria Toensing, who helped WRITE the law clearly states that there is not a question that the law was not broken in this instance.
-=Mike

Also, do you know that t... (Below threshold)

Also, do you know that the one spreading Val's name around the earliest anyone can find, besides her husband of course, was Dick Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy?

I love how you guys seem to think that just because Richard Armitage was the one who outed Plame that makes it okay. As I've explained to you guys, Armitage is one of the original neoconservatives. He's a founder member of the fascist Project for the New American Century. That was the organization of neocons who conceived of this ludicrous empire-building fiasco in the Middle East that has completely blown up in our faces.

Think about it, what better person was there in the administration to out Plame and take the fall for it than Armitage? The media, for some bizarre reason, just love Armitage and Colin Powell, so they won't take after them like they should.

Publicizing the name of ANY member of the CIA for political reasons is dead wrong and you guys look ridiculous for arguing that it was okay just because it wasn't illegal. The people working in the CIA put their lives on the line for this country just as our soldiers overseas do and they are critical to victory in the war on terror.


Mikesc where to begin, how ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mikesc where to begin, how about the 9/11 commission report? Do you want to provide a link to the 9/11 report that backs-up your claim?

The news media? So, now it is up to the news media to decide if a crime was committed?

Toenailsing? How would she know? Let's go through the timeline.

The CIA makes a formal request to the DoJ to see if a crime was committed. I would think that the CIA would know the status of their own employee.

Alberto, the number one law enforcement official reviews the requests, and launches an investigation. I would assume the AG would know a little bit about the law.

After reviewing the initial FBI investigation, Alberto believes that there is enough evidence that a crime was committed, that a special prosecutor was appointed.

If it was sooo clear that VP was not covert, how did they get to the stage of a special prosecutor? I guess it was the MSM?

"For example, the Prime Min... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"For example, the Prime Minister he spoke to said he firmly believed that Saddam's desire for "improved commercial relations" was undoubtedly dealing with the purchase of yellowcake."

mikesc, would be so kind to provide the link for this quote? It is very powerful statement, and I know that you would not make up this statement. Right?

Also,
"We won't even get into the forged memos that he never once actually had access to."

Can you show me any evidence that Wilson claims that he had access to the forged document? For you help, I will provide this from his Op-ed:
"..that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake.."

Take your time mickesc, I am sure that I will hear back from you just as have from Kim and marc.

jpm, I don't know ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:
jpm, I don't know what is more laughable, your selective quoting or your habit for outrageous assumptions (you know what happens when you assume?).

First off, you are wrong. The office of the VP asked the CIA to look into the Niger claim. From Op-ed:
"In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. "


So, you're use someone's lie as proof they didn't lie.

Interesting how that works.

Nice try jp, you referenced... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Nice try jp, you referenced the Wilson quote (selectively). I just provided "the rest of the story" to expose your deception.

You can not find one source that denies the fact that the Office of the VP placed an inquiry with the CIA to follow-up on the Niger doc.

You say that Wilson lied in the Op-ed, so now again, can any one point out one lie in the Wilson Op-ed?

Mikesc where to begin, h... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Mikesc where to begin, how about the 9/11 commission report? Do you want to provide a link to the 9/11 report that backs-up your claim?

I misspoke. It was the Senate report that was previously cited.

The news media? So, now it is up to the news media to decide if a crime was committed?

We have the media, one of the people who wrote the law, and the special prosecutor saying she was not covert.

See, if she were covert, there'd be charges about that.

Toenailsing? How would she know? Let's go through the timeline.

She wrote the law.

Wilson said she hadn't been overseas since 1997. Now, true, Wilson is a liar and all --- but nothing indicates she was out of the country since 1997.

The law said they had to be out of the country on assignment in the last 5 years. She was not.

She was also previously exposed.

After reviewing the initial FBI investigation, Alberto believes that there is enough evidence that a crime was committed, that a special prosecutor was appointed.

He doesn't bring charges and people like you claim he is covering it up. He allows charges to be brought that are not remotely proven and "Well, he agrees since he filed the charges".

If it was sooo clear that VP was not covert, how did they get to the stage of a special prosecutor? I guess it was the MSM?

Yeah, it actually was. They raised a stink and Bush figured it'd be easier to give them what they want. He should've realized that no amount of proof would change your mind, admittedly.

mikesc, would be so kind to provide the link for this quote? It is very powerful statement, and I know that you would not make up this statement. Right?

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

"Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting."

Can you show me any evidence that Wilson claims that he had access to the forged document?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm

"Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal."

And from the Nicholas Kristof article from 5/6/03, which we know Wilson was feeding him all of this:

"I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged."

Wilson SAID his reason for going was to check the authenticity of documents that turned out to be forged but it was clearly not the case.
As the Post pointed out:

"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. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle

Also, in closing, Cheney asked for more info after Plame sought to get her husband sent on a trip to Niger. The request for Wilson to go was made on 2/14 and Wilson says Cheney asked for more info on 2/19.

So, wish to continue this Barney?
-=Mike

"if she were covert, there'... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"if she were covert, there'd be charges about that." Not so, only that an illegal outing was not committed, not that her status was covert. Big difference.

"Wilson said she hadn't been overseas since 1997." Prove he said that.

Your wrote: " he firmly believed that Saddam's desire for "improved commercial relations" was undoubtedly dealing with the purchase of yellowcake."

I said prove it, and you responded with:
"believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium,"

There is big difference between "firmly believed" and "undoubtedly" and "believed". An obvious deception on your point.

You said that he had access to the document, again I challenge you and you did not prove your point. All you have is his word against someone else. The Committee never made a judgement on who was correct, and as I quoted in the Wilson Op-ed:

"While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake ". Wilson never claimed to have seen the report.


You provided this:
"In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings,.." Nice unattributed source mikesc, that carries a lot of wait.

On the documents, Wilson has repeatedly said that he did not read the document. His statements were based on media reports of the time that stated the documents were forged.


Again, please find one quote in the Wilson document that is a lie. No one has provided one lifted quoted, and provided evidence that it is not true.

I have been very patient in debunking each of your distractions. I made a very clear proposition, tell me where Joe lied in his Op-ed? The Op-ed started it all, and is the only "on-record" account by Joe Wilson of his mission.

If you wont address my challenge, then move on to something else.

No, BG2, the op-ed did not ... (Below threshold)
kim:

No, BG2, the op-ed did not start it all. Kristoff's article two months before the op-ed started it all. Now go back to the beginning and start over; you have everything wrong.
================================

Basically, I can tell you a... (Below threshold)
kim:

Basically, I can tell you are a fraud, BG2, because of your rigid insistence that we parse his op-ed. Here's the deal. Val and Joe Wilson were sources for Nick Kristoff's early May, '03 article in the New York Times, and Walter Pincus's early June, '03 article in th WaPo. These contained the lies often hung on Joe. Joe very carefully avoided most of those lies in his op-ed, in July, '03, but the WaPo took over a year to retract Pincus's errors, and the New York Times has yet to correct Kristoff's. You could look it up. Now that we have dispensed with your bone fides, I'll go back and patiently list all your errors.
=============================

I'm sure that Fitz is happy... (Below threshold)

I'm sure that Fitz is happy that Barney is not arguing his case by his side. I have never seen such lame arguments in my life.

For BG2:1. What 6... (Below threshold)
kim:

For BG2:

1. What 6/12/03 WaPo article by JW? Do you mean Pincus's. But SCSlwuzzy took care of that at 2:12. Also, I see you corrected the date of Joe Wilson's op-ed. If you can't recite the timeline better than this, in your sleep, then you have little business talking about this, and no business pretending to be authoritative.

2. A written report about Wilson's trip was reconstructed a year later by a State Department attendee at Wilson's oral report after his trip. It is this that is referenced as 'his report' and it was used by the SSCI to help impeach Joe. But you knew that, you sorry sophist.

3. Your quotes about Tenet show me that you are not up to date on the latest explication of the intelligence reaching the WhiteHouse. It is fairly new news that a report reached the WhiteHouse four days before the SOTU that supported that Iraq had sought YellowCake. Of course, you don't know that; it has been thinly reported. You could look it up.

4. Ah, jpm100, at 5:42 has demonstrated for you the clever way in which Joe deceives in his op-ed.

5. You may not know that Val Plame's first memo about sending her husband was on Feb. 12. The first memo from Cheney expressing curiosity was Feb. 13. That too has been thinly reported. You could look it up.

6. Novak testified at this trial that he got Plame's name from Who's Who. Her situation was leaked to him by Armitage, and the CIA confirmed that she worked for them.

7. Wilson has not made any statement under oath and Fitz will soon realize that to his chagrin. With luck, we'll get him on the stand. He may have to do so in order to pursue his civil suit.

8. You make some ill-founded assumptions at 7:12. Let's see the referral letter from the CIA to the DoJ. Fitz has claimed that it is so sensitive that it can't be released, but it sure would answer a lot of questions. And it might prove or disprove your assumptions about it. Don't you want to see it? Please answer this question, specifically. Do you think that referral letter should be in the public realm? You are depending upon it, you know.

9. What other commerce does Niger have? Yellowcake and cowpeas.

10. It is Wilson's disingenuousness about debunking the forgery when he returned that was exposed by the SSCI and was the reference for Joe's admitting to 'literary flair'. Most of us call that lying.

11. I could go on, but I now see that others have effectively refuted your sad points.

Here's what's really sad. It appears to me that from the cleverness of your rhetoric that you know enough about this case to know that Joe Wilson lied. You sound like a paid shill. You friggin' whore.

Sophist. ::spits::
=======================

Hey, sonny, has anyone told... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey, sonny, has anyone told you that George Soros just invested 2% of his fortune in Halliburton?
=========================

Kim, now that you conceded ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Kim, now that you conceded that Wilson told the full truth in his Op-ed (thanks for that), lets get to rest of your points.

Mostly you just repeated right wing talking points without any actual facts to back it up, or any relevance to Wilson's character, so let's move to the meat.

The only item that anyone can point to is whether Wilson claimed to know of the Niger document prior to or at the time of his mission. In the Pincus article indicates that "sources" (plural according to Pincus, Wilson is one person) indicate that "Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said."

Pincus indicates that two sources said/confirm this, and it is not clear when the source(s) knew this?

In testimony and in his letter to the SSC, Wilson states that he found out about the false documents from the media, and that is what he confided to Pincus. Maybe it was the other (unknown source) that placed the time? Neither you or I know what was said or in what time frame to the mission.

I find it very interesting that the right focus in one line in three different articles when the after the matter facts completely 100% back-up Joe Wilson.

So in closing, every point in Joe Wilson's Op-ed was correct and verified by events on the ground. The Op-ed is the only document in Joe's own words, and not reported by a secondary source.

The SSCI, though critical in some aspects (mostly towards the CIA) verify his accounts.

Remember, the CIA was not the only intelligence operation that provided a report on the Niger connection. The state Department and the DIA independently reported the same as Wilson, and the documents were proven a forgery.

To say that British Intelligence trumps US intelligence is just a joke, and you should be ashamed to say such (anti-American?).

What's that crunching sound... (Below threshold)
Jo:

What's that crunching sound I hear? Oh yeah, it's Barney getting torn apart limb by limb by the facts.

Barney, give it up bro. You been had.

Love it.

Can you not read where I co... (Below threshold)
kim:

Can you not read where I congratulated jpm100 on his explication of Joe's methods of deception in the op-ed. I have not conceded that Joe Wilson told the full truth, and for you to try to say I have just proves to me that you are the worst sort of sophist. And still you key on what you believe to be literality in Joe's op-ed.

Val told him in February of 2002 that there were 'crazy reports' out of Africa. The CIA did not get a copy of the forgeries until October of 2002, when someone checking them in noted 'funky seals' on them. They then sat somewhere for about 4 months, then they were forwarded to the IAEA shortly before the war started and they immediately debunked them. Joe did claim through Kristoff and Pincus that he debunked the forgeries upon his return from Africa, a claim that he backed off from after the SSCI pointed out the impossibility of it, and this is part of the WaPo retraction.

You are the one with the tired talking points, repeatedly refuted. You not only fail to assimilate points from the internet, but can't see what we show you here. Blind, biased, ignorant fool. Or else, as I strongly suspect, you know Joe lies but are clever enough to argue in his support. What, is there no such thing as truth to you? I've heaard of such folks.
====================================

And I'm sort of amused to s... (Below threshold)
kim:

And I'm sort of amused to see that you concede that Joe Wilson was Pincus's source. Even Pincus hasn't admitted that yet. And the other source; there were two? Why it's little ol' Val. It's just wonderful how you tell your part of the story BG2. Won't you be glad to hear the ending?
===========================

I'm getting so sick of thes... (Below threshold)
Terf:

I'm getting so sick of these people and their lies.

You are really just getting... (Below threshold)
kim:

You are really just getting a little maudlin with your remarks about British intelligence and patriotism in your 10:47 post. In your cups, or out of your league?
=====================

kim, I do not know what you... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

kim, I do not know what you are talking about?

Back to my original challenge, please provide one lie from Joe Wilson's Op-ed. It is so simple, but not one person, not marc, jp, scuzy or you have even bothered to put forth one of his accusations /findings and provide the evidence of a lie. Why is that?

Wilson never said that he new of the document back in Feb 2002. You can not find any quote attributed to Wilson that states such. I have asked over and over for just such a quote, but none is forth coming?

I on the other had have quoted Wilson, at least six times from his Op-ed, that he did not know of the document.

Are you telling me that nobody knew that the Niger document was forged by March of 2003 (time of Pincus article)?

Why is that Tenant admitted that the 16-words should not have been included in the STOTU speech? Why is it that Armitage claims that Cheney overruled Rice on whether to including the 16-words in the SOTU address? Why don't you admit that there is no evidence that any deal ever existed?

Where is the uranium?

As far as Novak, how many wives does Joe Wilson have? Why did you leave out the fact that Rove told Novak that Valerie Plame was Joe Wilson's wife? How about Libby?

Powdercake powdercake baker... (Below threshold)
914:

Powdercake powdercake bakers men, bake Me a book deal as fast as You can..!

Barney might be able to rea... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Barney might be able to read, be he doesn't comprehend. Even John Kerry dumped Wilson from his campaign's website as an "expert" to the campaign because of his lies.

As I said before, the Barney crowd keep digging themselves deeper, and the rest of us just have to laugh.

If John "Ghengis Khan" Kerry gets it, you'd figure just about anybody could.

But not Barney boy!

Gee Mitchell, thanks for co... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Gee Mitchell, thanks for comments, but I see that you to are too much of a Chicken-Ass to take me up on my challenge.

The offer still stands (now going on 12-hours) and so far no takers. Please provide one quote from JW's op-ed that is a lie.

It is so simple.

Goodnight, and will check back in the morning, but I am sure that I will find a lot of BS and not one single quote from the the Op-ed.

Powdercake powdercake b... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Powdercake powdercake bakers men, bake Me a book deal as fast as You can..!

LOLOL

Barney reminds me of those spiders, that even after you smush them to bits, their legs sometimes keep wiggling. Even so, they're still dead.

Not so, only that an ill... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Not so, only that an illegal outing was not committed, not that her status was covert. Big difference.

In fact, an illegal outing did NOT occur. See, Fitzgerald has had no problem trumping charges with virtually no evidence behind them and didn't include that.

For it to be an illegal outing, she'd have to have been overseas in the last 5 years.

You could READ the law in question if you doubt me.

Prove he said that.

HIS BOOK, POLITICS OF TRUTH, SAID THAT.

Wilson said he and his wife came back from overseas assignment in 1997. He said she had not been overseas since.

There is big difference between "firmly believed" and "undoubtedly" and "believed". An obvious deception on your point.

If they report what the P.M said, rest assured, he is quite certain of what he believed.

You said that he had access to the document, again I challenge you and you did not prove your point.

Did you miss this?

"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. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger. "

Nice unattributed source mikesc, that carries a lot of wait.

I present the Senate Intel Committee report. Take up your dispute with them.

On the documents, Wilson has repeatedly said that he did not read the document. His statements were based on media reports of the time that stated the documents were forged.

He clearly didn't say that as the Committee expressly asked him how he came to the conclusions when he never had access to the documents. He said they were forged because the dates were wrong and the Committee asked him about it.

He said he "misspoke".

Barney, Wilson said his trip to Niger disproves the claims. The Senate Intel Commitee said it was not the case.

Ergo, Wilson lied.
-=Mike

Hey Barney: jpm100 at 5:42 ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Hey Barney: jpm100 at 5:42 PM yesterday. He shows you Joe's lies. I told you them also.

But you want to ignore that and continue to dwell on his op-ed which demonstrates the manner of Joe's lying while appearing to be telling the truth.

Here are Joe's lies: That he debunked a forgery. That he found no evidence of Iraqi interest in Nigerien uranium. And that his wife had nothing to do with sending him. Address these, sucker.
===========================

Good Lord. Pincus's articl... (Below threshold)
kim:

Good Lord. Pincus's article was May of '03 not March of '03. You wrote that yourself, earlier.

And yes, apparently no one at the CIA had figured out that they were forgeries by early March, '03, so they sent them to the IAEA who figured it out in minutes.

You don't know enough about this to speak. Not authoritatively.
============================

Oh, God, it gets worse. Te... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh, God, it gets worse. Tenet did not say the 16 words didn't belong there. Bush retracted them, but he shouldn't have done so. They were true.

Armitage, we know he's a dirty actor in the affair.

What uranium? We are talking about Iraq 'seeking' uranium in Africa. No one said they got it, though I wonder.

Joe is on his third wife.

Rove didn't tell Novak that. He said something like, I heard that too.

What about Libby? Have you read the transcript? Has Fitz proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt? Hah.

You are very confused.
===================

Why don't you send the Wils... (Below threshold)
kim:

Why don't you send the Wilsons some money? The non-profit organization pleading their civil case needs the money. There are only so many true believers left.
=======================

Here is the expository exer... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here is the expository exercise for you, BG2. Read Kristoff's May article in the New York Times. Read Pincus's June article in June. Read Joe's op-ed in July. Joe and Val were the source for all three. What Kristoff and Pincus say, but Joe does not, are the lies. Kristoff has yet to call him on them. The WaPo corrected Pincus's errors.
================================

I'm beginning to regret cal... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'm beginning to regret calling you a paid shill and a whore. You clearly don't know enough about this to be paid to argue it. I suspect your problem is that you read the New York Times. Note that I point out that they have still not retracted Wilson's lies as told through Nick Kristof. The WaPo did row back, and you may note that they have had editorials critical of Fitzgerald. Woodward is on the board of that paper and he began to realize that if he didn't come clean on the fact that Armitage was leaking all over the place, then he'd come in for some opprobrium from all of the now lost reporters' privileges that Fitz's actions have removed. So read the WaPo re: Plame, now and not that tired old Grey Lady. Better yet read JustOneMinute for the skinny on Plame and Libby.
==============================

A lying meme will persist u... (Below threshold)
kim:

A lying meme will persist until its advocates can repeatedly be shown to be wrong. You are defending the indefensible.
===================================

Mike, Scary Larry Johnson i... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mike, Scary Larry Johnson is fond of pointing out that Val went to Jordan in 2002, thereby demonstrating that she was 'covert'. He fails to realize that the pertinent law requires posting overseas within five years, not just visiting, and it is explicit.

However, there is a point discussed over at JustOneMinute, and that is that the legal definition of 'covert' and the jargon use of the term within the CIA may differ. It could explain why Fitzgerald is not pursuing anyone, read Joe Wilson or Richard Armitage, for the outing of a 'covert' agent. Instead, you might note, that Fitz keyed on the mishandling of 'classified' information.

Do you see, BG2

? Joe blew whatever cover Val had left. Armitage gossiped about it to lots of reporters, and only when the reporters started asking about it did the White House snap to the fact that the low level CIA employee who sent the Ambassador to Africa was the wife of the lying critic. Snapped to it as if for the first time.
=====================================

kim - 8 comments in row - w... (Below threshold)
Lee:

kim - 8 comments in row - wow!, and it looks like you only got 3 hours sleep.

I think the pepto-bismol is on aisle 7. I doubt it will cure your diarrhea, but it may slow it down.

Early riser secondary to pa... (Below threshold)
kim:

Early riser secondary to paper route. Got to get the news out.
=====================================

p'p' out early today. Same... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

p'p' out early today. Same old smuck.

Kim and marc, Wilson said t... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Kim and marc, Wilson said that he and his wife were not stationed overseas after 1997. As Kim pointed out the law says "served".

The definition of served is not defined, it could be a week, a month or a year. Neither you nor I know if VP served on a mission within the five year limit. The CIA clearly thought that she was covert, and there is reason to believe that she was preparing to return to an overseas mission.

Wilson had only one wife, the others we ex-wives. That is a big difference. If Wilson was married to three women, why did Novak only print Valerie's name?

Kim you put a lot of words in JW mouth that he did not say. In his Op-ed he says:
"It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. "

The CIA knew before the STOTU that the Niger story was BS:
-- In August, 2002, a CIA NESA report on Iraq's weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities did not include the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium information (pg. 48)

-- In September, 2002, during coordination of a speech with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British "flapping in the wind." (pg. 50)

-- The uranium text was included in the body of the NIE but not in the key judgments. When someone suggested that the uranium information be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst spoke up and said the he did not agree with the uranium reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO said he did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to be part of the key judgments. He told Committee staff he suggested that "We'll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn't connect the dots. But we don't have to put that dot in the key judgments." (pg. 53)

-- On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British White Paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about where Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations." (pg.54)

-- On October 4, 2002 the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs testified that "there is some information on attempts....there's a question about those attempts because of the control of the material in those countries....For us it's more the concern that they (Iraq)[have] uranium in country now." (pg. 54)

-- On October 5, 2002, the ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst -- he could not remember who -- raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq. (pg. 55)

-- Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI faxed a memo to the Deputy National Security Advisor that said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from this source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory." (pg. 56)

-- On October 6, 2002, the DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. The DCI testified to the SSCI on July 16, 2003, that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." (pg. 56)

-- On October 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points 1) the evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. 2) the procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And 3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this in one of the two issues where we differed with the British.

-- On March 8, 2003, the intelligence report on my trip was disseminated within the U.S. Government according the Senate report (pg. 43). Further, the Senate report states that "in early March, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for an update on the Niger uranium issue." That update from the CIA "also noted that the CIA would be debriefing a source who may have information related to the alleged sale on March 5." The report then states the "DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the high priority of the issue." The report notes that the CIA briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report and the Vice President let the matter drop.


You still have not addressed my challenge. You have even noted repeatedly that the facts in Wilson's Op-ed are accurate.

kim: "Early riser second... (Below threshold)
Lee:

kim: "Early riser secondary to paper route. Got to get the news out."

Ahhh, that clears it up nicely - thanks! Judging from that response it appears you will be needing a prescription or two for your particular malady. Good luck -- jhow can probably recommend an anti-psychotic or two that might work for you... he's much better now that he's sticking to his meds.

Barney, you eternally miss ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Barney, you eternally miss the forest for the trees, as is the main problem for liberals: no perspective, no "wisdom," only grievance in search of facts which may or may not be related.

The key issue is the misleading and dishonest witness of Mr. Wilson, and the role his wife played in this, as ostensibly a "neutral" CIA analyst, who instead played politics with her husband.

Barney, do you really believe Saddam was not pursuing uranium purchases? Even after sending a delegation to explore "trade" with Niger, a country that basically offers only one thing in trade--uranium.

And given Saddam's track record buying uranium and building a nuclear reactor?

You really believe that? It's not sad, it's just stupid of you.

Oh, and Barney, you still h... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Oh, and Barney, you still haven't addressed the fact that "Ghengis Khan Kerry" deleted reference to Wilson after it was clear that Wilson had mislead the Press on a number of issues.

Guess you're smarter than ole Ghengis, huh? I thought he was your saviour in 2004.

Mitch, nobody hid Plame's r... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mitch, nobody hid Plame's role. Her role is out in the open if you choose to research it.

She asked to make a recommendation, and setup a meeting. That was it. She was not in a position to assign a mission (unpaid) to Joe or anyone else.

As far as the trade mission:
There was a summit of the Organization of African Unity in Algiers from Jul 12 to Jul 14, 1999. Niger's PM Mayaki was there as Niger was a member, along with 52 other African country-members; the Secretary General of the UN was also attending. This was the 35th Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity.

Iraqi's FM was there as an observer. He did not only meet with the Niger's PM. He also met with the Secretary General in the afternoon of July 13, as well as, for example, with the FM of Egypt on July 10 or 11, as can be seen from this cached page

The meeting did not discuss uranium or trade.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999/19990716.SGT2194.html

Oh-Well, another right-wing talking point put to rest.

Kim and marc, Wilson sai... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Kim and marc, Wilson said that he and his wife were not stationed overseas after 1997. As Kim pointed out the law says "served".

No, it does not. It specifically states one must be sent there to LIVE to be germane.

Again, I have a person who HELPED WRITE THE LAW to back up my claims.

The definition of served is not defined, it could be a week, a month or a year. Neither you nor I know if VP served on a mission within the five year limit. The CIA clearly thought that she was covert, and there is reason to believe that she was preparing to return to an overseas mission.

Again, from Toensing (who, unlike you, helped write the law):

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert.

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.

Also,

Well, if I had evidence that she was covert I certainly would respect that, but she did not have a foreign assignment within five years of publication. Wilson stated that in his book -- he states that they returned to the United States sometime in 1997, so six years. The definition of "covert agent," a person whose identity is to be protected, is someone who has been overseas in the past five years. The five years were added to protect sources the person would have worked with.

If you have expertise above a legal expert and somebody who helped write the law you're making claims about, feel free to present it.

The P.M who had the meeting disputes your claims, Barney. And Fitzgerald refuses to even attempt to argue that she was covert because he knows she was not.

We've proven, REPEATEDLY, that his op-ed was a lie, based on the Senate Intel Committee report. If you wish to continue lying, feel free --- but you are looking like a bigger moron every minute.
-=Mike

Geez reading these posts by... (Below threshold)
914:

Geez reading these posts by BG2000 You'd get the idea He is either related to? Stands to make a lot of cash from? Or is actually Joe the liar Wilson Himself working covertly to clear His sullied name?

"No, it does not. It specif... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"No, it does not. It specifically states one must be sent there to LIVE to be germane."

mike, maybe you should read the actual law:
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or ...

If Vicky meant stationed, then she should have wrote "stationed" and not 'served". It sounds like she did a shitty job of writing the law, and is now trying to cover her ass.

Also, Fitz does think that her status was covert:
"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counter proliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

Another right-wing talking point put to death.

As far as the Niger PM, he assumed the nature of the request, just as you are assuming (ass). remember that the meeting happened back in 1999, so by the time of Wilson's mission, the facts of the discussion were known, and it did not include any talks of buying yellow-cake.

Another right wing talking point put to death.

Lee doesn't understand I'm ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lee doesn't understand I'm being literal.
=========================

mike, maybe you should r... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

mike, maybe you should read the actual law:
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or ...

Talk to the person who WROTE it. They specifically did not cover people who were sent overseas for a week or two.

Barney, you literally have no case here.

If Vicky meant stationed, then she should have wrote "stationed" and not 'served". It sounds like she did a shitty job of writing the law, and is now trying to cover her ass.

Then, AGAIN, explain why no charges involving the law were brought.

Because it was not violated. For the reasons cited.

Also, Fitz does think that her status was covert:
"But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counter proliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion."

None of that was presented at trial.

Nothing. It wasn't even to be discussed as Fitz refused to allow discussion of it.

So, again, you have nothing.

As far as the Niger PM, he assumed the nature of the request, just as you are assuming (ass). remember that the meeting happened back in 1999, so by the time of Wilson's mission, the facts of the discussion were known, and it did not include any talks of buying yellow-cake.

Again, the PM said he knew what it was about.

Barney, you really are looking like a schmuck trying to argue a point that has no basis.

Fitzgerald refused to charge anything under the law because the law was not violated. He refused to prove Plame was covert because he could not prove she was covert.

Fitz was another in a long string of deplorable special prosecutors who abused their power.
-=Mike

BG2, I suggest you just goo... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, I suggest you just google a few of things you are so adamant about and look at it as if it were a blank slate. Start with trying to figure out why there are no documents about the Yellow Cake black market in Africa. Slip a little 'A Q Khan' into the recipe. Shake vigourously with Rock Creek, then shove it in the oven with 'Politics of Truth' frosting.
===================================

Nifong Fitzgerald. The ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Nifong Fitzgerald. The truth burns liberals like a bucket scalding hot water.

Mike, Walton refused to all... (Below threshold)
kim:

Mike, Walton refused to allow discussion of Valerie's covertness into evidence, but Fitz evaded those rules in his last rebuttal. That is why defense objected and Walton told the jury to ignore Fitz about this.

This is really a mistake of Walton's. He tried to keep this trial just about perjury and obstruction, but Fitz slipped in the leaking part, outrageously. This alone will reverse a conviction.
================================

You Plame lovers should rea... (Below threshold)
kim:

You Plame lovers should read Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft. She is leftist and a defense lawyer and she thinks Fitz did not prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. She also thinks Fitz should have indicted Cheney.
===========================

mike, the laws states that:... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

mike, the laws states that: a) the agent must be covert. b) the disclosure was done with malice and intent.

The CIA, AG and Fitz all seem to agree that Plame was covert. Fitz did not think that he had "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence to convict Libby. It is very difficult prove intention without actual statements from the accused that states such.

"Again, the PM said he knew what it was about." mike

This is not true at all. He did not know the nature of the request. He assumed, as you are that the nature was in regards to yellow-cake. The facts are that Iraq wanted to weaken the sanctions against Heads of States traveling to Iraq, and not about yellow-cake. As I pointed out, those facts are not in despite.

The PM was only repeating his feelings at the time, and not the reality of the meetings that actually took place.

Can you prove that iraq offered a trade for yellow-cake with Niger? No you can't because it did not happen, and it did not happen about two years prior to Wilson's mission.

Go back to my long list evidence that supports Joe Wilson. Please be free to refute any of those?

Now you have two challenges. It has been over 24-hours since I made the first, and still no takes.

To the porch or garage door... (Below threshold)
kim:

To the porch or garage door, Lee. 7/52, rain, sleet, snow, wind, always dark of night. Try it you might like it. The irony is that it is yesterday's news and who wants yesterday's newspaper? I love irony so much I live it.
======================================

mike, the laws states th... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

mike, the laws states that: a) the agent must be covert. b) the disclosure was done with malice and intent.

1 was not proven. 2 was also definitely not proven.

The CIA, AG and Fitz all seem to agree that Plame was covert.

No, they clearly do not. See, there'd be CHARGES if she were.

Fitz did not think that he had "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence to convict Libby.

Which means he couldn't prove it. Which means he could not prove she was covert or that Libby intentionally did anything.

So, as usual, I was correct here.

This is not true at all.

We only have the Senate Intel Committee's report to prove you wrong.

He did not know the nature of the request.

Funny, because the Report said otherwise.

He assumed, as you are that the nature was in regards to yellow-cake. The facts are that Iraq wanted to weaken the sanctions against Heads of States traveling to Iraq, and not about yellow-cake. As I pointed out, those facts are not in despite.

I'm VERY much disputing them. Feel free to prove that the meeting was about weakening sanctions (which, mind you, people like you claim were why we didn't need to go to war at all) and not about yellowcake, since the PM and Senate Intel Committee Report disagree with you.

The PM was only repeating his feelings at the time, and not the reality of the meetings that actually took place.

Again, the Report disagrees with you. Take up your dispute with them.

Can you prove that iraq offered a trade for yellow-cake with Niger? No you can't because it did not happen, and it did not happen about two years prior to Wilson's mission.

Again, take up your dispute with Senate Intel Committee.

Go back to my long list evidence that supports Joe Wilson. Please be free to refute any of those?

None of it does. Again, once again, take up your dispute with the Intel Committee that disputed Wilson's points.

Only on the left can a proven liar still be held up as a paragon of virtue.

Now you have two challenges. It has been over 24-hours since I made the first, and still no takes.

Being oblivious is not the same thing as not being disproven.
-=Mike

Once again, what is your pr... (Below threshold)
kim:

Once again, what is your proof that the CIA, the AG, and Fitz all believe Val was covert? She wasn't, and all your protesting sounds more and more like la la la la.

I've made the point about little documentation in the black market, and you should be worldly enough to know that trade delegations talk about commerce and not about weakening sanctions on diplomatic travel. Get real here, or get edumacated, or something.
===================================

Fixating on Joe's July op-e... (Below threshold)
kim:

Fixating on Joe's July op-ed is la la la la, too. This was the work of a sophisticated liar, who expected Kristof and Pincus to cover for him, who backed off the lies he had told them. They still have not called him on those 'mispeakings', but the WaPo has partially retracted Pincus's reporting of Joe's lies. Look at the three relevant articles. You just might see how he has bamboozled you. He still bamboozles Fitz, a very bright man, possibly an Asperger's.
======================================

Mike, you keep pointing the... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mike, you keep pointing the SSCI report that back's up your accusation that the trade mission's goal was to obtain yellow-cake, but still to this date you have not provided a single conclusion for the SSCI that backs this up?

Plames status is not dependent on breaking the law. They are mutually exclusive. Fitz said that he could pursue wether anyone violated the law because Libby kept lying about it.

If Plame's status was not covert, then no law was broken. We all agree to this, so why did CIA ask for an investigation? Why would, Medal of Freedom, Tenet ask for an investigation to a crime he knew did not occur? Why would Alberto review and approve the CIA request? I would think that top law official in the country would now if a law may have been violated, or is the AG completely incompetent?

Why did the AG, after review in the initial investigation by the FBI, commission a special prosecutor it Valerie was not covert?

Why does Fitz believe that her status was covert:
But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counter proliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179719/site/newsweek/

All you have is your opinion and not facts.

Mike, you keep pointing ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Mike, you keep pointing the SSCI report that back's up your accusation that the trade mission's goal was to obtain yellow-cake, but still to this date you have not provided a single conclusion for the SSCI that backs this up?

If you don't read what I specifically post, that is ultimately your problem, not mine.

Plames status is not dependent on breaking the law. They are mutually exclusive. Fitz said that he could pursue wether anyone violated the law because Libby kept lying about it.

Yeah, it VERY much is. Revealing somebody works for a government agency otherwise doesn't usually lead to criminal prosecutions.

If Plame's status was not covert, then no law was broken. We all agree to this, so why did CIA ask for an investigation?

It doesn't matter why. No law was broken. Period.

Why would, Medal of Freedom, Tenet ask for an investigation to a crime he knew did not occur?

He didn't.

Why would Alberto review and approve the CIA request?

If he didn't, people like you would accuse him of covering it up.

And it was Ashcroft who approved it, not Gonzales.

I would think that top law official in the country would now if a law may have been violated, or is the AG completely incompetent?

It was a political issue at that point.

Why does Fitz believe that her status was covert

Because he doesn't seem to know the law nor does he seem to be a terribly honest or consistent prosecutor.

But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counter proliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.

Except he, you know, didn't bring it up in court. See, the trial is over, so what he had is definitively known.

All you have is your opinion and not facts.

The trial is over. We know what Fitz presented.
-=Mike

mike, thanks for proving my... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

mike, thanks for proving my points. I present facts and your defense is:
-it's MSM faults
-It was not presented in the trial
-circular logic

The trial was about perjury and obstruction of justice and not about Plame's status. You claim that the CIA and the AG's motives were driven by politics, and this OK in your opinion?

Since I am sooo stupid, would you be so kind to as to post the SSCI CONCLUSION that indicates that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger?

While you are looking for that, feast on this from Sey Hersh's article in '03:

On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in Vienna, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes

One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told me, "These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency.

It took Baute's team only a few hours to determine that the documents were fake. The agency had been given about a half-dozen letters and other communications between officials in Niger and Iraq, many of them written on letterheads of the Niger government. The problems were glaring.

How about this:
The American and British position arranged for dozens of unverified and unverifiable intelligence reports and tips--data known as inactionable intelligence--to be funnelled to MI6 operatives and quietly passed along to newspapers in London and elsewhere. "It was intelligence that was crap, and that we couldn't move on, but the Brits wanted to plant stories in England and around the world," the former officer said. There was a series of clandestine meetings with MI6, at which documents were provided, as well as quiet meetings, usually at safe houses in the Washington area. The British propaganda scheme eventually became known to some members of the U.N. inspection team. "I knew a bit," one official still on duty at U.N. headquarters acknowledged last week, "but I was never officially told about it."

Sure does sound like cherry-picking the intel? Just add this to other damning evidence I presented earlier.

Now if you can find any conclusion that supports your position, please shut-up beaus you are becoming desperate and pathetic.

The trial was about perj... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The trial was about perjury and obstruction of justice and not about Plame's status.

Without a claim that a law was broken, no investigation would have occurred. There is no proof of perjury, just a difference of recollection.

And that Fitz knew who leaked the name early on makes the investigation inexcusable --- especially since he basically left the leaker alone to target bigger fish.

Since I am sooo stupid, would you be so kind to as to post the SSCI CONCLUSION that indicates that Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger?

Re-read my post from 3/2 at 1:24P.

While you are looking for that, feast on this from Sey Hersh's article in '03:

WHOA. You're not about to change the subject while you are currently ignoring that you've been proven wrong, repeatedly, here. Not happening.

I, again, have the Senate Intel Committee. You have nothing and are now desperately playing "Hey, look over there!" to cover up how completely wrong you are.
-=Mike

"Re-read my post from 3/2 a... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Re-read my post from 3/2 at 1:24P"

mike, I would love to, but it does not exist, just like your intelligence.

"There is no proof of perjury, just a difference of recollection." mikesc

I think that is up to jury to decide, or did I miss your promotion to GOD?

I misspoke.<a href... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I misspoke.

http://wizbangblog.com/2007/03/02/the-wilsonplame-movie.php#493465

You're still wrong, troll.
-=Mike

"I misspoke." mikesc... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"I misspoke." mikesc

You misspoke? Isn't that the same statement that you point to that proves Wilson was a lier?


Now here is what you left out of the SSCI Conclusions:
Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents2 on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.

What you left out of Conclusion 13:
..but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

Conclusion 15. The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations should have taken precautions not to discuss the credibility of reporting with a potential source when it arranged a meeting with the former ambassador and Intelligence Community analysts.

Conclusion 16. The language in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.

Conclusion 27. After reviewing all of the intelligence provided by the Intelligence Community and additional information requested by the Committee, the Committee believes that the judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, was not supported by the intelligence. The Committee agrees with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) alternative view that the available intelligence "does not add up to a compelling case for reconstitution."

Sure does sound like the SSCI is backing Wilson's story. I did not see one conclusion that claims or proves that Joe Wilson lied at any point in his statements or testimony.

It is time to put-up or shut-up Mike-I Misspoke so I am lier-SC

Wonder how the sweet tea ta... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Wonder how the sweet tea tastes to PlameWilson out there in Santa Fe? What pathetic, vain people....

You misspoke? Isn't that... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

You misspoke? Isn't that the same statement that you point to that proves Wilson was a lier?

Seeing as how my post EXISTS and what I said is not directly contradicted by my post, no.

..but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

So, Bush was supposed to cherry pick the intel that DIDN'T say it was true? That's your argument? Sure, most intel said he was doing it --- Bush should've gone with the minority opinion.

Sure does sound like the SSCI is backing Wilson's story. I did not see one conclusion that claims or proves that Joe Wilson lied at any point in his statements or testimony.

Just checking --- did you read what you posted?

NONE of it REMOTELY states that Iraq was not trying to purchase yellowcake from Niger.

You're still wrong, troll.
-=Mike

As if the SSCI is the last ... (Below threshold)
kim:

As if the SSCI is the last word on the intelligence reaching the administration. Earlier I pointed out to you that lyou don't know anything about the report that rreached the White House 4 days before the SOTU supporting the idea that Iraq had sought Urnaium in Africa. That is news that has come out since the SSCI. You don't seem to be able to adapt to news that conflicts with your canned talking points.
======================================

"Earlier I pointed out to y... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Earlier I pointed out to you that lyou don't know anything about the report that rreached the White House 4 days before the SOTU supporting the idea that Iraq had sought Urnaium in Africa."

Kim, since you seem to know, why don't you share it with us?

I am sure that the SSCI saw it (see all my conclusions above).

Naw, this is news from the ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Naw, this is news from the last few months. I don't link, but suggest you google.
=========================

By the way, the Wikipedia e... (Below threshold)
kim:

By the way, the Wikipedia entry for Talk: Niger Uranium Forgeries is a scream.
=======================================

"aw, this is news from the ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"aw, this is news from the last few months. I don't link," Kim

Wow, that adds a lot of credibility to you argument.

-- On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British White Paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about where Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations." (pg.54)

Is it credible to cite 10/0... (Below threshold)
kim:

Is it credible to cite 10/02 when we are talking about a report in January of '03 that has only come to light recently?

The left would have it that outing Val Plame ruined her ability to get good intelligence to the Administration and that the administration depended upon bad intelligence in the run-up to the war. They, and you, can't have it both ways.

The intelligence was ambivalent. In retrospect the Administration made the right decision to depose Saddam. Who, besides Wikipedia editors, cares now who said what in the run-up? But Wilson said that Iraq had inquired about Nigerien YellowCake, and he believed in Feb of '03 that Saddam had bio and chem WMD.
=============================

Check out factcheck.org/art... (Below threshold)
kim:

Check out factcheck.org/article222
========================

"Is it credible to cite 10/... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Is it credible to cite 10/02 when we are talking about a report in January of '03 that has only come to light recently?"

So Kim, how does the President use a report in 2003 that only became known recently? Are you telling me that Bush had the intelligence, but suppressed it from the SSCI? Which is it, was the report not available until recently or covered-up?


Kim,(sniff, sniff) is that the smell of defeat?

You haven't read factcheck.... (Below threshold)
kim:

You haven't read factcheck.org/article222 have you? Note that they have your lovely Senate report as saying that the analysis from the CIA was "sometimes contradictory".

Look it's the Annenberg Center. Ought to be liberal enough for you.
=============================

Check out factcheck.org/art... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Check out factcheck.org/article222
========================

Posted by: kim at March 3, 2007 09:51 PM

OK, I did, and this is what it said:

"None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn't have been part of Bush's speech."

WOW Kim, thanks for the link. That really boosts your case. O-Wait, it doesn't.

Defeat? Boy, are you delud... (Below threshold)
kim:

Defeat? Boy, are you deluded. If I get any closer you'll bite, right?
======================================

You, BG2, have just flagran... (Below threshold)
kim:

You, BG2, have just flagrantly demonstrated your dishonesty for anyone who bothers to look at the Annenberg Center's discussion of this. Thanks for playing.
===================

OK, for those of you for wh... (Below threshold)
kim:

OK, for those of you for whom my link doesn't work the Annenberg Center at the factcheck.org site shows that Bush was justified in saying those 16 words. BG2 knows it, too, because he read enough of it to find the only quote in it which might hurt my argument if taken out of context. Despicable, dishonest rhetoric, and I restore the appellation of whore to you, whether or not you are paid. You prostitute your intelligence to your politics.

Sophist. ::spits::
=============

You are really not worth ar... (Below threshold)
kim:

You are really not worth arguing with any longer. Reread the thread and then try to tell us why you still believe Joe Wilson's untruths or that Bush lied us into war.
======================================

"read enough of it to find ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"read enough of it to find the only quote in it which might hurt my argument if taken out of context."

Really Kim a quote? I took a whole paragraph out of content? That is a new one on me.

Tell me this, can you point to any quote from any member of the Administration that said the 16-words were correct, belonged in the STOTU speech and was mistake to apologize for including the 16-words in speech?

Sniff, Sniff

Correction: context.... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Correction: context.

Keep digging. Everyone els... (Below threshold)
kim:

Keep digging. Everyone else; read factcheck.org.
==============================

Keep digging.Ok Ki... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Keep digging.

Ok Kim, here are a few more paragraphs I lifted out of context.

On what actually happened in the meeting with Iraq:
The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.

On the so called Proof:
Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.

On the SSCI:
The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium. However, the Senate report did note that even within the CIA the comments and assessments were "inconsistent and at times contradictory" on the Niger story.

Now the best part, the conclusion of the article that you claim proves your case:
The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.

Now I know why you deliver papers for a living. Got any more rope?

"These new reports show Bus... (Below threshold)
kim:

"These new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said" from your own quote.

And that's the news folks. Yesterdays.
=========================

IF I needed any more rope, ... (Below threshold)
kim:

IF I needed any more rope, I'd simply have to undo some of the knots you've tied yourself into.
========================

WOW Kim, thanks for the ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

WOW Kim, thanks for the link. That really boosts your case. O-Wait, it doesn't.

Hmm, Barney, you seemed to leave this out:

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

And, now back to your lies:

The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.

The Committee ALSO said the report he gave to the CIA differed GREATLY from what he told them. Wilson lying is hardly vindication of your point.

Now the best part, the conclusion of the article that you claim proves your case:
The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.

And you disproved your own point. Thanks, sparky.
-=Mike

I know that we are only tal... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I know that we are only talking to each other, but just incase, everyone should read kim's linked article. After reading the pro's and cons, ask yourself: If I was the President, would I launch an invasion based on this intelligence? Did the intelligence rise to level of including it in a SOTU speech? Was it worth over 3,500 American lives and a projected $2-Trill?

In 1999 a meeting was proposed between Iraq and Niger. The PM had his suspicion, but when the meeting happened, there were no talks of buying yellow-cake. There were no follow-ups to that meeting.

The case for "some" analysts was the assumption of the PM, and not the actual content of the meeting which was dismissed, and that is solid intelligence?

Now, since it has been two days, and not one of you has produced one lie from the Wilson Op-ed, I will end my challenge, and call it a success.

I know that we are only ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I know that we are only talking to each other, but just incase, everyone should read kim's linked article. After reading the pro's and cons, ask yourself: If I was the President, would I launch an invasion based on this intelligence?

If he didn't, you'd be here saying "Look at all of the intel pointing to Saddam having WMD. Why is he getting away free? At least Clinton was tough on Saddam" or some such nonsense.

The majority of the intel said what Bush believed was correct. Since intel is seldom universal, you have to go with that.

Did the intelligence rise to level of including it in a SOTU speech? Was it worth over 3,500 American lives and a projected $2-Trill?

Yes, the ENTIRE war in Iraq was based on this. Nothing else.

Now, since it has been two days, and not one of you has produced one lie from the Wilson Op-ed, I will end my challenge, and call it a success.

Again, just because you are unable to read hardly means your point was not disproven repeatedly and definitively.
-=Mike

Word on the street is that ... (Below threshold)
Jon:

Word on the street is that Horatio Sanz has been reluctant to sign-on as Joe Wilson. Don't understand why he wouldn't jump at the chance.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy