« How sharper than a serpent's tooth is an ungrateful llama | Main | The Pelosi Precedent »

The Wilson Fantasy Continues In Spite Of Credibility Problems

In my column in the Examiner today, Now the Wilson fairy tale is set in official stone, I ask why so many on the left continue to embrace Joe Wilson, even after so many of his claims have been proven false.

Why? Are these journalists too invested in the Wilson tale to give up on it, even in the face of compelling evidence that much of it was at best unfounded, and at worst a fantasy in Wilson's mind? Many liberals still support Wilson because his story reinforces their opposition to the war and portrays the Bush administration as the evil conspiracy so many on the left insist they see.

Because Wilson's version of events became conventional wisdom years ago, liberals have been able to ignore inconsistent and contrary revelations with no repercussions.

Even though Libby was not charged with outing Plame and Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald says he likely won't file additional charges, Wilson's scenario was injected into the trial. One juror even said they wondered "where Karl Rove was. " (Wilson once said he hoped to see Rove "frog marched" out of the White House for exposing his wife's identity.)

Wilson and Plame reportedly have agreed with Warner Brothers to do a movie based on their story. Once their self-serving fairy tale version of events is memorialized on film, will anyone on the left point out Wilson's falsehoods? Unfortunately, in Washington as in tinsel town, once the storyline is set, it's hard to change it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence it is fictional.


Comments (118)

A high-level intelligence a... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was declassified by the State Department.


Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send "25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers" filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

Among the many glaring errors evident in the documents, which were allegedly produced by an underpaid Nigerien diplomat and published in La Repubblica, was the use of obsolete letterheads, incompatible dates and poorly forged signatures.
In one document that supposedly formalized the sale of uranium to Iraq, dated October 2000, bears the signature of a man who had not been Niger's foreign minister since 1989.

Another letter was both addressed to the president of Niger and signed by the president of Niger -- although it uses the wrong symbol for the president's office.


What part of what Joe Wilson's findings that corroborate the above do you not understand Lorie?

This is not a game you are playing with people's lives spouting such trash talk. Our kids and many innocent Iraqi's are dying daily because of the lies the present administration spoon fed to you. When are you going to be courageous enough to tell the truth?

Since when does any liberal... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

Since when does any liberal really care about soldiers or kids?

cb,It's not the sh... (Below threshold)
a4g:

cb,

It's not the shiny coin you're holding in your hand we're looking at. It's the one you've palmed in the other.

The forged document had nothing to do with the 16 words.

Let me repeat that: The forged document had nothing to do with the 16 words.

Once more, for the logically challenged: The forged document had nothing to do with the 16 words.

"Unfortunately, in Washingt... (Below threshold)
yo:

"Unfortunately, in Washington as in tinsel town, once the storyline is set, it's hard to change it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence it is fictional."


Unless, of course, the movie is a turkey at the box office. Then it'll have to shake off the stink of failure, which is tough to do. Stone's "World Trade Center" arrived with much aplomb and evaporated before the tally of the opening weekend's receipts were even tallied.

If this movie does come out (which is seems likely since if it costs $50m to make and garners $75m - which also seems likely - in the first couple of weekends, it'll still pull profit) and it either tanks ($75m is considered a tank), receipt-wise, or ends up gathering up razzies instead of oscars, it may very well be socially discredited and tossed into the DVD bargain bin next to "Ishtar" or categorized under the "it's a good movie but I don't buy a word of it" ala "JFK."

Whereas lefties will applaud the "guts" and "character" of this weasel as they walk into the theater, they certainly can't and won't tolerate an afront to the art of film making. Especially if a big name director is attached.

As much as it sickens me that this snake-charmer has garnered this attention (which he says is causing him physical and emotional pain - apparent as he has to bite his lip while primping for the cover of Vanity Fair), and will continue to do so, I have faith in the ability of Hollywood to defy the odds and screw up a sure thing and turn an erstwhile good idea into a laughable, cultural flame-out (Phantom Menace).

Joe Wilson did not lie. He... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Joe Wilson did not lie. He never said that Cheney sent him. Not in his Op-ed, the Kristof article nor the Pincus article. His wife did not send him. The CIA used Wilson in the past, and asked Valerie to facilitate a meeting.

Did he lie or misspoke? According to the SSCI, there are questions on what and when did Wilson know of the forged document. In the Kristof and Pincus articles it appears that Wilson claims to have seen the forged document. This I believe is the "Misspoken" statement Wilson made in front of the SSCI, but according to Tenet, Wilson must have been briefed on the contents of the document, or why would Tenet make this statement?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030711-cia01.htm

"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

Wilson's findings were validated by two other independent reports (State and Defense). The so called trade meeting never resulted in any discussions of buying yellowcake, and no other meetings or follow-ups ever occurred. These accounts were verified by the Nigerian Prime Minister and the Iraqi Ambassador who was on the mission, so between 1999 and 2002, there were no contacts between Iraq and Niger.

The bottom-line is that the only person that has been convicted of a lie is Scooter.

Civil, what you fail to rec... (Below threshold)

Civil, what you fail to recognize is that this all stemmed from Wilson's contention that "Bush lied!". Remember the "16 words" that everyone was in such a tizzy over? We know Iraq didn't buy uranium or yellowcake or even purplecake from Niger. No one said they DID buy it. And neither did the President in any of those 16 words.

The President said Saddam was "seeking" to buy it. Niger's officials testified that Iraqi officials did indeed show up there to discuss business with Niger and that's as far as it got. You can continue to ignore that the Iraqis were certainly not there to seal a lucrative deal on cow peas if you want to.

Then Joey gets up on his soapbox screeching, "Bush lied! They didn't buy yellowcake!"

Well, duh.

Why is this so hard to understand?

"These accounts were verifi... (Below threshold)
yo:

"These accounts were verified by the Nigerian Prime Minister and the Iraqi Ambassador who was on the mission"

Well, now that you've pulled two impeccable sources such as those, how could I possibly disagree?

I mean, if you're investigating Iraq, and the Iraqi Ambassador says they're not up to devious activities ... well, that just sums it up for me. Toss on the Nigerian PM and ... open and shut case.

*whew* I'm glad we can put this to rest.

Here's yet another face of ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here's yet another face of cb's shiny coin. The 'at least one international border' is with Libya and it is in untracked desert wastes, unpatrolled. That may even be where Yellow Cake went, if in fact, Hitchens idea that the forgeries aped a real agreement, is true. There certainly was a black market in yellowcake in Africa, as the French found out in !999. eRiposte's lovely, but deluded, scholarship pointed out that gem on theNextHurrah.
===========================

Oyster, they understand. T... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oyster, they understand. They are propagandists. The cleverness of their sophistry guarantees that they are not so stupid as to believe this stuff they propagate.
============================

Yes, why can't we right win... (Below threshold)

Yes, why can't we right wing idealogues get it through our heads that the difference between "lying" and "misspeaking" is simply the party registration of the speaker. It's that simple!

yo, Al Zahawie retired in 2... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

yo, Al Zahawie retired in 2001 and moved to Amman. He was interviewed post invasion. He had no reason to lie. His accounts are verified by the PM.

The key finding of the Wilson mission was this:
"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

Therefore, as early as 2002, the CIA knew of serious problems with the forged document, but did not investigate the authenticity of the document until after the invasion.

That sounds like a load of crap to me.

yo, I believe that Val was ... (Below threshold)
kim:

yo, I believe that Val was having trouble selling her book, maybe no longer. I believe the story that the CIA wouldn't allow much of it out was cover for the fact that real publishers now realize Joe and Val are phonies. This conviction has changed the dynamic, however, and there will now always be a reservoir of believers in their probity. This is the Rosenberg, the Sacco and Vanzetti, the Dreyfus Affair of our era. Simpson and Anna Nicole, fluff.
==========================

Why Barney, you've stumbled... (Below threshold)
kim:

Why Barney, you've stumbled over something huge in your path. Why didn't the CIA figure out that the forgeries were fake until the IAEA. Who'd a been in charge of that. Maybe Val? Or some one familiar?

Find out about the CIA inventory person checking in the papers in October of 2002, who noted 'funky seals' on the papers. Find out what happened to his curiosity.
=============================

"He had no reason to lie."<... (Below threshold)
yo:

"He had no reason to lie."

... really? Everyone's got a reason to lie. Apparently Bush and Cheney have reasons to lie.

Also, you're putting a lot of faith in the Nigerians. You think they wanna' tell the US "Oh, yeah .. we were talking to the Iraqis about selling them yellowcake"? In their minds, that could be akin to saying "Hey! Cripple our economy with sanctions!"

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying I'm not buyin' your argument. Again, if Bush can (and according to many, does), why can't these guys fiddle with the truth, a shade?

Kicking along that line, why can't Joe lie, as well?

The bottom line reason that... (Below threshold)
kim:

The bottom line reason that this effort is being made to sustain and to rehabilitate Joe and Val is that the meme they set in motion is desperately important for the Democrats to maintain in order to retain credibility in foreign affairs.

It is a losing battle, though. The truth will out, and the longer and harder it is suppressed, the more vigor with which it responds.
===================================

"What is not so easy to ... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

"What is not so easy to understand, however, is why they continued to do so after so many of Wilson's claims were shown to be demonstrably false"


Which ones? Or should the casual reader just take your word for it?

No wonder The Examiner is a free paper. Keep at it, "Practicing" Journalist.

Maybe we got deceived into ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Maybe we got deceived into war by the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA. My only question, really, is: was it by incompetence, or design?

Riddle me that.

And still, aren't I glad? Saddam needed gone. Period.
===========================

Kim, whereas I think the co... (Below threshold)
yo:

Kim, whereas I think the conviction changes the dynamic, I think it does so only minimally. Granted, the folks that are pro-Val/Joe are tinkling their diapers with glee, the general public, honestly, could probably care less. Most don't really understand the situation and probably don't want to waste a few hours and $30 on a book. Additionally, they probably won't want to spend 2 hours and $10/head on seeing the movie (unless Val does a nude cameo).

The market simply isn't that energized, now, and certainly won't be at the end of the year or so it will take to produce this movie (unless Val does a nude cameo).

I think I can safely say that most Americans would rather see a bio-pic about Anna Nicole than pony up their scratch to sit in a theater to sit through the movie-version of this episode (Unless Val does a nude cameo).

The far-left kooks will be there in droves (those that can afford it), of course; but, in the end, it won't matter.

... unless of course, Val does a nude cameo. And, even then, there may have to be a couple of midgets involved, as well.

In the Dreyfus Affair analo... (Below threshold)
kim:

In the Dreyfus Affair analogy, NBC has a place similar to that of the French Army, and the Democratic Party has an analogous place to all those who opposed Drefus because he was a Jew. Note I'm not explicitly calling the Democratic Party antisemitic, here, only that it fills the analogy.

However, if you want to mention the 'N' word, we might get less implicit.
==================================

Disclaim expertise at Dreyf... (Below threshold)
kim:

Disclaim expertise at Dreyfus.
===================

"Which ones? Or should the ... (Below threshold)
yo:

"Which ones? Or should the casual reader just take your word for it?"

Helps to read the link provided.

yo, I believe the ongoing e... (Below threshold)
kim:

yo, I believe the ongoing events in the 'war' against islamofascism will determine the future course of the Joe and Val Show. If we get lucky, and moderate elements of Islam prevail into the future, then I think Bush's confrontation of the radicals will be seen as watershed.

Joe, Val, all theirs, the disloyal opposition.
===================

"..you're putting a lot of ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"..you're putting a lot of faith in the Nigerians. You think they wanna' tell the US "Oh, yeah .. we were talking to the Iraqis about selling them yellowcake"? YO

The biggest talking point from the right is that the PM said Iraq requested a meeting, and he assumed the discussion involved trade of uranium.

Are you saying that the PM was a lier before he told the truth or the other way around?

Who are you crapping?

Ever Again======... (Below threshold)
kim:

Ever Again
======

Well I see the old goathump... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Well I see the old goathumper is back. (couldn't be p'p'-naaw).

"Additionally, they probabl... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"Additionally, they probably won't want to spend 2 hours and $10/head on seeing the movie "

Good point. Look at the movie Breach, it is a far more intriguing story and it is doing squat in the theater.

Yo and Kim: The Washington ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Yo and Kim: The Washington Post, the left wing mouthpiece has an editorial stating Joe Wilson's assertions were false. Only the oblivious lefties here refuse to speak ill of Joey boy. As far as the movie, it will do as well as the recent take off of GW with Dennis Quad. Can't remember the name of the film, but that is my point. ww

Kim, I agree with you, ther... (Below threshold)
yo:

Kim, I agree with you, there. I'll even go you one better by saying that should history even bother with the Wilsons, which it probably won't, it'll footnote them as cry babies who tried to aggrevate Pappa Bush by continually knocking their sippy cups from tehir high-chair trays.

"He (Wilson) repor... (Below threshold)
"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

That's the point! Wilson kept focusing on disproving something that was never said right from the beginning. Joe set out to verify whether uranium was sold. No one said it was.

Obfuscation of the facts ain't workin' here. The Iraqis went there to "expand commercial relations". That is a fact. What commodities does Niger have to offer? Uranium, cow peas and cattle. With the OFF programme in full swing, for the life of me, I can't imagine they were there for anything other than to scope out the territory on future deals in uranium while their friends, the Russians and the French, lobbied for lifting sanctions. One has to completely ignore every other underhanded deal perpetrated by the Iraqis to think this is not the case. Saddam certainly wasn't concerned about feeding the citizenry, as was demonstrated when the OFF scam was uncovered, so that pretty much rules out peas and cattle, eh?

Is critical thinking a lost art?

"Are you saying that the PM... (Below threshold)
yo:

"Are you saying that the PM was a lier before he told the truth or the other way around?"

What I'm saying is that these characters may have gotten too much credibility, from both sides.

Oyster, note that Soros, be... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oyster, note that Soros, besides just putting 2% of his fortune into Halliburton, also spends nearly half a billion a year on 'public service' projects, basically, manipulating elections, actually to much apparent benefit in Eastern Europe. That money can buy a lot of clever sophists to convince a lot of useful idiots. I agree that he seems to fight authoritarianism, but why doesn't he understand the perversions he introduces. I mean, it's fundamentally anti-democratic.
===========================

The non-reaction of the con... (Below threshold)
john mckechnie:

The non-reaction of the conservative community, and the Republicans on Capitol Hill, is particularly depressing. Joe Wilson's mendacity regarding the origins of his trip to Niger, his findings once he got there, and his conduct in trying to recast the findings once he got back, are all fair game.

Yet I don't hear any voices calling for him to be tried for "Lying to Congress." Ask Oliver North about how much tolerance there is in the "mainstream media" for that. Or maybe the content of the lie is more important than the actual act.

As you pointed out in your excellent column this morning, a bi-partisan Senate panel already refuted Wilson. Can't we at least remind the public that this guy is a liar and, but all appearances, a partisan hack who can't possibly be seriously considered as a martyr. And the "mainstream media" can't be given a pass on their non-coverage of this angle either.

Don't conservatives want to get on our feet again. The canvas isn't that comfortable.

And of course, his efforts ... (Below threshold)
kim:

And of course, his efforts when propaganda, are destructive of critical thinking skills, which is another one of a free peoples' life support necessities.

Soros' Apprentices; forgive them, for they know not what they do.
========================================

oyster, the accounts of the... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

oyster, the accounts of the trade meeting are well known. Why don't you answer your own question? Are you too stupid to do a goggle search? Do you even care to know what the PM said was actually discussed in the meeting?

Of course not, that would blow your little bubble.

In related news, Newsweek is reporting that Libby does not qualify for a pardon based on Justice guidelines. If Bush does pardon Libby, Bush would violate his own pledge to follow the guidelines when a pardon is considered.

Don't drop the soap Libby.

"Don't drop the soap Libby.... (Below threshold)
yo:

"Don't drop the soap Libby."

If Bush is such a liar, what's to stop him from cutting Libby a break?

The non-reaction of the con... (Below threshold)
john mckechnie:

The non-reaction of the conservative community, and the Republicans on Capitol Hill, is particularly depressing. Joe Wilson's mendacity regarding the origins of his trip to Niger, his findings once he got there, and his conduct in trying to recast the findings once he got back, are all fair game.

Yet I don't hear any voices calling for him to be tried for "Lying to Congress." Ask Oliver North about how much tolerance there is in the "mainstream media" for that. Or maybe the content of the lie is more important than the actual act.

As you pointed out in your excellent column this morning, a bi-partisan Senate panel already refuted Wilson. Can't we at least remind the public that this guy is a liar and, but all appearances, a partisan hack who can't possibly be seriously considered as a martyr. And the "mainstream media" can't be given a pass on their non-coverage of this angle either.

Don't conservatives want to get on our feet again. The canvas isn't that comfortable.

BarneyG2000 said:... (Below threshold)
Eric:

BarneyG2000 said:
The key finding of the Wilson mission was this:
"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

Barney what you quoted was incomplete, you might want to read the entire thing. Here is what Tenet said emphasis mine:

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the President's State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the President's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my Agency. And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

For perspective, a little history is in order.

There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien (sic) officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerien officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.
In the fall of 2002, my Deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.

Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.
In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.

In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE's Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began "vigorously trying to procure" more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: "A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure "uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake." The Estimate also states: "We do not know the status of this arrangement." With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: "We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." An unclassified CIA White Paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, Congressional testimony and the Secretary of State's United Nations presentation in early 2003.

The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct - i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

Eric, the Tenet report, as ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Eric, the Tenet report, as you reprinted above, is consistent with what Wilson wrote in his Op-ed.

I hope the righties will take note of this.

No Barney, I'm not stupid. ... (Below threshold)

No Barney, I'm not stupid. Nice of you to ask though. At least you acknowledge that the meeting did indeed take place. Now will you also acknowledge that the PM also said he interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales? And that he also deliberately steered the discussion away from talk of uranium?

But I'm the stupid one, so let me get my crayons out:

I go to a pharmicist on the other side of town who sells prescription drugs as well as foot-care products. It's said that he will do under-the-counter deals. So I say I'm there to "expand commercial relations", but what I really want is drugs, because I have an addiction and I already have a drug store on my side of town anyway. This pharmicist is pretty sharp. He knows I don't need foot-care products, but he doesn't want to get cought selling me drugs because he knows I'm being watched. So while I'm at the counter he steers the discussion towards the weather.

Now, did I seal a drug deal? No. But that was my intention, wasn't it?

What you're saying is that the Iraqis, the same one's scamming OFF, shooting at us in no-fly zones, paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, dodging IAEA inspectors, torturing political opponents and gassing it's citizens, flew to Niger, a huge uranium producer, to talk about what?

BarneyG2000 said:The... (Below threshold)
Eric:

BarneyG2000 said:
The key finding of the Wilson mission was this:
"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

Barney, several problems you might want to consider about the quote you cited.

1) The FORMER PM talked about no contracts "during his tenure in office." His tenure as PM ended on Jan 3, 2000. According to Tenet "There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa" That is after Mayaki's tenure as PM. That statement does not exclude possible dealings that may have occurred after his tenure in office.

2) The former PM denied selling uranium to Iraq. No kidding? Wilson is obviously an American diplomat in Niger asking questions about illegal uranium sales to Iraq. Do you honestly believe that a former PM is going to outright admit to breaking international law?

3) Mayaki denied any contracts were signed during his tenure. Maybe I am overly parsing his words, but any sales of uranium by Niger to Iraq would be illegal sales. Does it make sense that they would have a signed contract stating that fact? Do you think the Cali cartel has signed contracts with the Mafia concerning sales of cocaine to the U.S.?

Finally, some people act as if it was impossible for Niger to smuggle out uranium to Iraq. 250 tons was quoted above. Well it is estimated that 260 tons of cocaine is successfully smuggled into the U.S. every year. Why is that possible, but it's impossible to smuggle out 250 tons of uranium? Particularly, since unprocessed yellowcake looks like dirt.

Oyster, your analogy proves... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Oyster, your analogy proves your stupidity.

I never denied that a meeting took place, the PM's assumptions, nor his account of the meeting.

Your analogy assumes that Niger was capable of selling uranium to Iraq (covertly). According to three independent intelligence reports, and Tenet's own statement, it would be highly unlikely if not impossible for Niger to provide Iraq with uranium.

Do I think that Iraq "wanted" to end or cheat on the sanctions? Yes, but could they? No!

Did the assumption of the PM which turned out to be un-true rise to the level of a reason to invade Iraq, of course not.

Should we go invade every country because someone has an assumption of something that did not occur?

Eric, please!Durin... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Eric, please!

During his tenure? How did the PM sign a document when he was not in office?

If you are illegally selling uranium to Iraq, why would sign a document stating such?

Tenet said the intelligence was fragmented, and was not presented to the Congress, Powell, did not present the intelligence to the UN yet the President used it in the SOTU speech?

If the 16-words should not have been included, why did it take Tenet 6-months to correct this mistake, and only after Wilson's Op-ed?

How was Saddam going to refine the yellowcake into plutonium when he did not have any refining capacity (confirmed by UN weapon inspectors in their final report prior to the invasion)?

One question I have is why ... (Below threshold)
Allen:

One question I have is why did the VP and his staff bring Plame into this. She never made any public statements. Must be those good Republican Family Values we keep hearing about, right. Or as someone said, "the devil made me do it." Gotta just love the wingnuts on both sides.

Your propaganda is boring B... (Below threshold)
kim:

Your propaganda is boring Barney; go listen to echoes in the corner.

There is an excellent post by CathyF at 8:55 on JustOneMinute's Fitzi's Dishonor thread about why Fitz, Eckenrode, and Bond should be indicted for conspiracy to suborn perjury in the Russert dealings.

Read it, lefties, and weep. The Attorney General should seek these charges from a Grand Jury. 'Struth.
=================

Allen, Joe 'outed' his wife... (Below threshold)
kim:

Allen, Joe 'outed' his wife. Armitage told Woodward so. Read the transcript.
=========================

One question that I ha... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

One question that I have is why did the VP and his staff bring Plame into this To paraphrase Lorie's thread on credibility problems, in the wake of the Libby verdict I ask why so many on the 'right" continue to embrace Dick Cheney, even after so many of his claims have been proven false. Read Why Cheney Lost It When Joe Wilson Spoke Out
From the beginning, Cheney " tried to get the CIA to support the cockamamie story about Iraq getting uranium from Niger" and later when it blew up that the documents upon which the story was based were "obvious" fakes-forgeries.
Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), then-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, rebuffed an urgent appeal from ranking member Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) to have the FBI investigate the forgery. Cheney told him not to, and so Roberts said that would be "inappropriate." Which raises the question, whom are they trying to protect? I don't think either Dick or Lynne Cheney has a cottage industry of forgery preparation, but they are in close touch with those who do'."Were Cheney and Libby the intellectual authors of this operation? We know Cheney and his group, were the driving force force to organize the manipulation about the Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction for as Eliot Abrams said recently, the CiA after 'Iran Contragate' could no longer be trusted to mount such 'dark out of congressional oversight' operations.

How was Saddam going to ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

How was Saddam going to refine the yellowcake into plutonium when he did not have any refining capacity (confirmed by UN weapon inspectors in their final report prior to the invasion)?

So you're arguing that it was impossible for him to acquire it ? And you of course realize that the weapons inspectors weren't being given free and open access to do their job so that the certainty of any findings was low. And you're going to entrust the organization that ran the Oil-for-Food (aka Bribes-for-Bureaucrats) program to keep tabs on it ?

Uh-huh.

Steve C., you really ought ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Steve C., you really ought to read Duelfer for Saddam's intentions, and Rossett for his mechanisms of financing his terror.
===========================

"And you of course realize ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"And you of course realize that the weapons inspectors weren't being given free and open access to do their job so that the certainty of any findings was low." mike

That is completely not true. If you are going to make such an outrageous statement, you better back it up with facts. Go search for the final report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions (about 2/03 or early 3/03).

Go find the passage that states Saddam prevented access to any facility.


You people are pathetic, you spout shit without any back-up. You say that Wilson can't be trusted because all he did was sit around the pool and drink tea, then you say Joe's report confirmed Saddam was seeking uranium? Which is it?

You say the Wilson's memory should be perfect even-though 14 to 16 months passed between his oral report to the CIA and his Op-ed, yet how could Libby possible remember the context of a half-dozen conversations he had 3 to 4 months earlier?

Your excuses are laughable.

Well, maybe the Yellow Cake... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well, maybe the Yellow Cake went to Libya. Saddam sent three billion dollars to Libya, and Khaddafy sure folded his nuclear operation after Saddam went down. He was caught with extra Yellow Cake, too. Whattya bet someone knows the origin of the extra. You could look it up. Also, aluminum tubes seem to be warming up, again, or shall we say, spinning up.

You dopes need some rope?
====================

The whole Wilson charade is... (Below threshold)
914:

The whole Wilson charade is a DNC concocted scam to get back at Bush for beating them at the ballot box!

Plain and simple to see the Clinton politics of personal destruction at work here!

Have you read Duelfer's rep... (Below threshold)
kim:

Have you read Duelfer's report about Saddam's intentions re: WMD?

We claim that Joe didn't invvestigate thoroughly enough to find a black market in yellow cake there. He did demonstrate Iraqi interest in SEEKING yellow cake, that's the present participle of SOUGHT, one of the 16 true words. There is no contradiction, there, and for you to try to create one is dishonest rhetoric.

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

Here is a simple challenge,... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Here is a simple challenge, according to the right wing, Joe claims that the Vice President, or the VP office sent him on the mission (still repeated on right wing radio today).

Please present one quote attributed to Joe Wilson where he made this claim.

Pretty, simple.

More specifically, 914, thi... (Below threshold)
kim:

More specifically, 914, this was probably cooked up between Kerry and Joe Wilson and the May 2003 Senate Democratic Policy Committee meeting. After the SSCI revealed Joe's lies, Kerry dumped him. Given the strength of the meme, had Kerry stuck with him, then Lyin' Joe would be Ambassador to France, today. But Kerry was for him before he was against him.
========================

Barney, find the source for... (Below threshold)
kim:

Barney, find the source for Kristoff's May NYT article, and Pincus's June WaPo article and you'll have your answer. It is Joe Wilson. But I've told you that before. Sucker.
=====================

Kim, why should I waste my ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Kim, why should I waste my time looking for something that doesn't exist? If you know something, then present it, or will just resort to making fun of people with autism (like my son) as you have done in the past?

Kim, it seems that <a href... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Kim, it seems that everyone (Haliburton and the Carlyle group included) were involved in bribery with Saddam, during the oil- for- food period which is a big reason why I think when push came to shove, we could have bought him off before going to war, if Cheney/Bush had really wanted, particularly as Saddam had no weapons of Mass Destruction- his principal aim, being to bluff the Iranians.

"we could have bought him o... (Below threshold)
yo:

"we could have bought him off before going to war"

... to what end, though? Isn't that we did during the 80's?

"... his principal aim, being to bluff the Iranians"

The Iranians, the French, the UN ... Kim mad a good point referring to the Duefler Report.

Also, keep in mind, the authorization for the use of force against Iraq said nothing about Saddam HAVING any WMD, it was about the threat of him using them should he be able to ACQUIRE them.

Big difference. Hence, the whole Bush lied about WMD crede is bulls**T.

"I ask why so many on the l... (Below threshold)
jp2:

"I ask why so many on the left continue to embrace Joe Wilson, even after so many of his claims have been proven false."


Says the woman who engulfs and channels anything Malkin says...

"... or will just resort to... (Below threshold)
yo:

"... or will just resort to making fun of people with autism (like my son) as you have done in the past?"

Getting a bit off-topic, aren't ya' Barn?

"Also, keep in mind, the au... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Also, keep in mind, the authorization for the use of force against Iraq said nothing about Saddam HAVING any WMD, it was about the threat of him using them should he be able to ACQUIRE them." YO

Wrong again! Here is the language:
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;...is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq;

"Continuing treat" not "acquire"

The UN resolutions states that Saddam must turn over all stock piles of WMD.

So there you have it, protect against the continuing threat and to force Saddam to turn over any WMD.

Yo, to just further hammer ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Yo, to just further hammer home your stupidity:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. >

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Barney, follow the bouncing... (Below threshold)
yo:

Barney, follow the bouncing ball of logic:

"is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council"

"The UN resolutions states that Saddam must turn over all stock piles of WMD"

"is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council"

"is not likely to lead to enforcement ..."


And, this is just irrelevant since you won't/don't define the former but admonish the latter:

"Continuing treat" not "acquire"


You need to be careful that you don't shoot yourself with your own ammunition.

That's why Sheriff Taylor insists that you keep your one bullet in your shirt pocket.

Barney, I know what your pr... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Barney, I know what your problem is. You don't know how to read.

During his tenure? How did the PM sign a document when he was not in office?

I never said he signed a document during his tenure or after. He denied any contracts were signed during his tenure, but would he know of any contracts after his tenure? After his tenure is when they were getting the reports.

If you are illegally selling uranium to Iraq, why would sign a document stating such?

That is exactly what I said. Yet you are the one who keeps quoting,
He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

Baaaarney ... enough. Why ... (Below threshold)
yo:

Baaaarney ... enough. Why don't you drive down to Emmett's and grab yourself a soda.

"Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire"

DONE and DONE.

Everything else, from a legal stand point ... irrelevant.

Iraq War = legal.

BarneyG2000:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

BarneyG2000:


"And you of course realize that the weapons inspectors weren't being given free and open access to do their job so that the certainty of any findings was low." mike
That is completely not true. If you are going to make such an outrageous statement, you better back it up with facts. Go search for the final report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions (about 2/03 or early 3/03).
Go find the passage that states Saddam prevented access to any facility.
You people are pathetic, you spout shit without any back-up. You say that Wilson can't be trusted because all he did was sit around the pool and drink tea, then you say Joe's report confirmed Saddam was seeking uranium? Which is it?
You say the Wilson's memory should be perfect even-though 14 to 16 months passed between his oral report to the CIA and his Op-ed, yet how could Libby possible remember the context of a half-dozen conversations he had 3 to 4 months earlier?

Your excuses are laughable.


By 'completely not true' do you mean entirely accurate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis_timeline_1997-2000 December 16-19, 1998 Saddam Hussein's failure to provide unfettered access to UN arms inspectors led Washington and London to hit 100 Iraqi targets in four days of bombing as part of Operation Desert Fox.

Were you completely unaware of what was going on ? Or are you attempting to re-write history ?

Barney, you're really pathetic. You'll swallow any lie fed to you by your keepers, won't you ?

Mike, nice comprehension. ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mike, nice comprehension. I said:
"That is completely not true. If you are going to make such an outrageous statement, you better back it up with facts. Go search for the final report on Iraq's nuclear ambitions (about 2/03 or early 3/03).

Go find the passage that states Saddam prevented access to any facility."

Mike,
You replied quoting a 97-00 dated report.

Go find the 2003 report. The most up to date and FINAL report prior to the war.

Stop making an ass out of yourself. If you can't keep-up then take off.

barneygRubble:Do I... (Below threshold)
marc:

barneygRubble:

Do I think tha/t Iraq "wanted" to end or cheat on the sanctions? Yes, but could they? No!

Why couldn't Saddam end the sanctions rubble? We DO know that was of primary interest as reported by the Iraq Survey Group Report:

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

Oops, there's another left meme also. Saddam was "in his box" yet the ISG said he preserved his "capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD)"

They also said this:

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program in late 1996 rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

And while not directly related to the issue I find this of interest: Members of Congress ask President Clinton to End the Economic Sanctions against Iraq - February 1, 2000

Note of the 69 names associated with it only one is a Republican.

BarneyG2000,You mo... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

BarneyG2000,

You moronic putz.

I stated that Saddam wasn't providing free and unrestricted access. You stated that it was, and I quote, "completely not true". And then went on with some nonsense about 'spouting shit' without any basis. I then cited a report that supported my claim.

You're showing yourself to be an utter and completely fool, Barney, you stupid purple putz. :)

BarneyG2000: "Here is a sim... (Below threshold)
Eric:

BarneyG2000: "Here is a simple challenge, according to the right wing, Joe claims that the Vice President, or the VP office sent him on the mission (still repeated on right wing radio today)."

Okay Barney here you go. So we are clear the claim is NOT that Cheney asked for him personally to go to Niger. But that Wilson claims repeatedly that his trip to Niger originiated with Cheney.

Here is the problem.

According to the Senate Intelligence report in July 2004, on Feb 12, 2002 Valerie Wilson suggested to the CIA that her husband go to Niger.

Cheney was FIRST briefed about the Iraq/Africa uranium connection on Feb 13, 2002. The next day.

So the ball was rolling for Joe Wilson to go to Niger, before Cheney even knew anything about Iraq and Niger. And that ball was started by Valerie Wilson.

Here are select quotes from or attibuted to Joe Wilson.

Joe Wilson on Meet the Press. "If you are in the vice president's office, or you're a senior director at the National Security Council, you are senior enough to ask the question, you will get a specific response." He said, "The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there."

From Wilson's 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. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake -- a form of lightly processed ore -- by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

Joe Wilson is the source for this from the New Republic June 30, 2003.
"Cheney's office [in early 2002] had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September [2002] detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the [2003] State of the Union. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," the former ambassador tells TNR."


Joe Wilson interview with Josh Marshall Sept 2003.
"For those who would assert that somehow [my wife] was involved in this, it just defies logic. At the time, she was the mother of 2-year-old twins. Therefore, sort of sending her husband off on an eight-day trip leaves her with full responsibility for taking care of two screaming 2-year-olds without help, and anybody who is a parent would understand what that means. Anybody who is a mother would understand it even far better"

The Senate Intelligence 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.

For some here, imagining th... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

For some here, imagining these folks are Mr. and Mrs. Bond on a Top Secret Mission beats the hell out of the reality--

A CIA desk jockey in the lackluster WMD department and her spouse, the Poseur.

In response to inquiries ab... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

In response to inquiries about Barney, no, they aren't teaching critical reading anymore. Too racist, I guess.

Barney Boy, how do you think Saddam got his yellow cake for the Osirak nuke plant the Israelis bombed? Did it come from outer space, frickin moron?

You assume an impenetrable cordon around Saddam's facilities. You obviously trust him more than you do Mr. Bush. Or are just plain stupid.

In any case, please leave me your address; I'd like to come to your house and find a way in, as there have not been any "recent" reports of crime on your street, and therefore, you would obviously rely on that for your decision matrix.

God please, we are giving a childish thinker time on this board he should not have, and does not deserve.

"Did the assumption of the ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Did the assumption of the PM which turned out to be un-true rise to the level of a reason to invade Iraq, of course not."


Did the assumption of BarneyG2000 which turned out to be un-true rise to the level of a reason to invade his tiny scull Iraq and scramble his temporal lobe, of course not.


Fact is that there was already a plethora of reasons and evidence for "REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN".

The "TRUE REASON" for the despicable behavior of the Democrat Party and their mindless drones is a direct result of their failure to steal the 2000 election. The Democrats being so Corrupt for so long just didn't want accept reality and be told what to do. Eight years of "Free Whilly" Democrat Corruption left no time to ponder on an exit stragedy if it was even allowed. I wonder if the pompus assholes minds were even capable of such thought.

For all those Kooks who believe 9/11 was an inside job , I would say a democrat inside job. What better way for Hilary Rotten Clinton and her Commiecrats to jumpstart their sick agenda they are too cowardly to admit or run on.

DEMOCRATS ARE THE PARTY OF PERPETUAL FRAUD AND THEY ARE THE GREATEST THREAT TO OUR COUNTRY AND HAVE BEEN.

Have yourself a Merry Littl... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Have yourself a Merry Little Fitzmas,
Make the yuletide bright!
Before long The Libby will be out of sight!!!:)
So have yourself
A Merry Little Fitzmas
tonight

Lori writes: "Even though L... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Lori writes: "Even though Libby was not charged with outing Plame..."

Poor Fitzy didn't believe he could prove that Libby knew she was undercover at the time he outed her, proof of such knowledge being necessary for a conviction.

BUT:

Actually, I myself prefer Libby getting nailed for perjury for

FROM THE START, LYING HAS EPITOMIZED THE WHOLE ROTTEN BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!! Libby's conviction only reinforcing in people minds just how deceitful the Bushies have been over the past several years.

Merry Fitzmas, Everybody!!

Sorry Eric, you did not win... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Sorry Eric, you did not win the challenge. You did not provide one quote where Wilson claims the office of the Vice Prez sent him.

Here your reply:
"But that Wilson claims repeatedly that his trip to Niger originated with Cheney."

So first you try to change the rules. We all know that right wing radio and shows like Hannity say that Wilson is lying when he says that Cheney SENT him, but let's see your proof anyways:

From Wilson's 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.

Did you notice that Wilson wrote "I was informed". Maybe the CIA was providing cover? I don't know, but Wilson never said "I know that Cheney made the request"

Nice try, but no cigar.

Any other takers?

Herman I believe you are ch... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Herman I believe you are choking on dog feces. At least that is what your breath smells like. Crickmore, what do you think killed those Iranians during their war with Iraq if it was not gas. What are those 700 plus left over shells doing if they were all destroyed? Why did Saddam purchase a million hits of atropine? You are a fucking idiot. STFU!

Get a life libtards, you vi... (Below threshold)
BarneyRubble2525:

Get a life libtards, you village idiots.

"Russert: Was there a sugge... (Below threshold)
BarneyRubble2525:

"Russert: Was there a suggestion that this was cronyism, that it was your wife who had arranged the mission?

Wilson: I have no idea what they were trying to suggest in this. I can only assume that it was nepotism. And I can tell you that when the decision was made, which was made after a briefing and after a gaming out at the agency with the intelligence community, there was nobody in the room when we went through this that I knew."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131258/

F'n liar, your boy there.

Guys, I ask again, why did Kerry pull him off the Pres. campaign website, huh?


Cheney cut Wilson's op-ed o... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Cheney cut Wilson's op-ed out of the newspaper and wrote in the margins: "Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question. Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

Excellent fucking question. Why have our outstanding Pulitzer prize winning journos figured this one out for us yet?

haven't... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

haven't

Mitch, they have, and she d... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Mitch, they have, and she didn't.

New challenge, show me one shred of evidence that proves that Valerie Plame approved, or authorized the Wilson mission.

Barney when Wilsom says... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Barney when Wilsom says

"The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. "

What do YOU think that means?

Eric, it sounds like? What... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Eric, it sounds like? What part of "they" don't you understand?

The "agency" and "they" are not "me" or "I". Wilson is repeating what he was told by the CIA. If the CIA lied to Wilson (there is plenty of evidence that Cheney did ask about the Niger document (see WHIG)) that is not Wilson's problem.

Barney boy, the CIA hasn't ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Barney boy, the CIA hasn't given an accounting of how this was handled, although we do know that she "suggested" him, although who knows who "approved" him.

Curious, or no? Are you an incurious sort?

You never answered my question regarding Kerry's taking him off the website.

Oh well, Barney ignores some truth, makes up other "truth."

And you didn't answer wheth... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

And you didn't answer whether this was an unusual choice for the CIA, as Cheney rightly pointed out.

You never answered my quest... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

You never answered my question mitch

Why should I waste my time on you? At least Eric and Kim ask serious questions, and provide links and quotes to support their argument. You are ill-informed and a blowhard.

I answered you; did you rea... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I answered you; did you read what I wrote?

If so, how can you complain???

And you claim I'm wasting your time?

Barney, do you know what ro... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Barney, do you know what role Plame had in this?

Because the CIA hasn't released its review.

did you read what I wrote? ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

did you read what I wrote? mitch

Yes, you said that you want to come over to my house to commit a crime. Now fuck off.

BarneyG2000, LO... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

BarneyG2000,

LOUDER LIAR , I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

Why, Barney G, you are bles... (Below threshold)
kim:

Why, Barney G, you are blessed. I'm serious. Autism is special. Please reread what I wrote; I don't sneer at autism, it is wondrous.
=========================================

"The "agency" and "they"... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"The "agency" and "they" are not "me" or "I". Wilson is repeating what he was told by the CIA. If the CIA lied to Wilson (there is plenty of evidence that Cheney did ask about the Niger document (see WHIG)) that is not Wilson's problem."

So now the CIA is lying. Barney isn't it interesting that you are willing to believe everyone else is lying except Wilson?

I repeat, here is the problem. Valerie Wilson suggested her husband for the trip on February 12, 2002. That is in the Senate Intelligence report based on her e-mail dated February 12, 2002.

However, according to defense exhibit DX 66.2 from the Libby trial Cheney was first briefed on the Iraq/Niger connection on February 13, 2002. That is documented.
"The VP was shown an assessment (he thought from [the Defense Intelligence Agency]) that Iraq is purchasing uranium from Africa. He would like our assessment of that transaction and its implications for Iraq's nuclear program. A memo for tomorrow's brief would be great." February 13, 2002

Furthermore, according to defense exhibit DX 66.3 Cheney's February 14 daily brief included the following:
"We have tasked our clandestine source[s] with ties to the Nigerien Government and consortium officials to seek additional information on the contract. We also are working with the Embassy and the defense attaché's office in Niamey [Niger] to verify their reports."

How do you explain all of that Barney?

Civil Behavior: "Among othe... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Civil Behavior: "Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send "25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers" filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border."

Oops!
"Authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo say they have dismantled an international network set up to illegally use uranium mined there. "

Oh and by the way before you say "well that is the Congo, I was talking about Niger!" Here is the infamous 16 words, where does IT say Niger?

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"Do I think that Iraq "w... (Below threshold)

"Do I think that Iraq "wanted" to end or cheat on the sanctions? Yes, but could they? No!"

Are you kidding? The UN has already proven their ineffectiveness and that right and wrong doesn't matter. Just look at the debacle in Iran. It's simply a matter of who wants what. And there were two countries with enough power lobbying to end the sanctions to make that a reality in the future; the near future. The sanctions would not have gone on forever. Your faith in the UN flies in the face of their history. I mean, cripes ... even UN people were involved in the OFF scam and speaking out against sanctions. Your trust in the innocence of the Iraqis' trip to Niger, even when presented with evidence that there was nothing innocent about it, is nothing short of mind-boggling. You actually take them at their word regardless of their long and rich history of depravity, deceit and corruption.

You're so adamant that the Iraqi's were not interested in uranium, pray tell, exactly what do you think they were there for? Oh yeah, just business.

And knock it off with the "stupid" remarks, Barney. Or is this just your way of hoping someone will get disgusted and quit arguing with you because you think once someone stops responding, you've won? You've make some pretty ridiculous remarks here over time. And if you think you've cowed me into some sort of capitulance with your silly name calling, you need to get a grip.

You have not won this argument and you WILL not except in your own mind.

Oyster and Eric,Fi... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Oyster and Eric,

First oyster, you are not worthy of my time as long as your only contribution is talking points.

Eric, the Cheney/Plame timeline is very interesting, and I hope the up-comming Congressional hearings will add more clarity, but let's breakdown the 2/13 email. It is not clear when Cheney saw the DIA report. The email says "the VP was shown" that is past tense, so before the 2/13 email was dated. Also, you do not provide the recipient or the full text of the email, so it could be an FYI or follow-up.

Now let us refer to what was reported based on the SSCI, and in the SSCI:

Vice President Cheney read the DIA product on the day it was produced, according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which investigated prewar intelligence and reported on it in July 2004. That day he asked his intelligence community briefer what the CIA thought about the Niger issue.
The result was a very unbureaucratic scurry of activity.
First, the CIA fired back an assessment that in so many words said, "We're working on it." It promised to see if the information could be corroborated.

Second, CIA experts began to confer as to how this corroboration could be done. Who could make discreet inquiries in the region? One Counterproliferation Division expert offered up a name: ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who happened to be her husband.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1115/p01s04-uspo.html

So according to the above passage, Cheney did make an inquiry on the 12th.

This is supported by the SSCI:

Officials from the CIA's DO Counter proliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.

and here:

Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.

And this conclusion:

Conclusion 14. The Central Intelligence Agency should have told the Vice President and other senior policymakers that it had sent someone to Niger to look into the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal and should have briefed the Vice President on the former ambassador's findings.

I am sorry Eric, but your partial passage from an email that that you can not present, is not as powerful as the documentation presented in the SSCI.

"I am sorry Eric, but your ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

"I am sorry Eric, but your partial passage from an email that that you can not present, is not as powerful as the documentation presented in the SSCI."

Barney THAT in deed is the problem. The CIA did not provide to the SSCI the February 13 briefer's notes which showed that Cheney made his request to the CIA on February 13.

If you go back to the SSCI it doesn't specifically say what day Cheney made the request. But, what it does say is:

1) The DIA produced a report on February 12
2) After reading the report Cheney asked his "MORNING briefer" for the CIA's analysis of the report.

So what do you think is more likely?

A) DIA published the report early on the morning of Feb 12, Cheney received and read the report BEFORE his morning briefing on the 12th at which point he asked for the CIA's analysis.

B) DIA Published the report on the 12th, Cheney receives the report on the 12th, reads it and asks for more information at his morning briefing the next day the 13th.

DX66.2 is a legitimate document. It is the notes from Cheney's CIA briefer, it is also dated February 13. The day after Valerie Wilson suggested Joe Wilson. According to the document I linked, those notes were NOT provided to the SSCI so they would not know the specific date of Cheney's request.

Frankly, it is irrelevent whether Cheney initiated the mission or Valerie Wilson initiated the mission.

Why?
1) Because the point of the mission was to determine if Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Niger. The PM of Niger thought they were and told that to Wilson. When Wilson said there was no evidence of that, he lied.
2) When Wilson claimed he saw and debunked the forged Nigeren documents, he lied.
3) As shown by the recent announcement of a uranium smuggling ring uncovered in the Congo, uranium smuggling is possible. Wilson's 8 days of sipping mint tea by the poolside is a shoddy investigative job which couldn't possibly determine if Niger was smuggling uranium. So his pronouncement that it is impossible is also a lie.

What it boils down to is that Joe Wilson is a lying bag of beans!

Eric, nice try but the chal... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Eric, nice try but the challenge you choose to take was:

Here is a simple challenge, according to the right wing, Joe claims that the Vice President, or the VP office sent him on the mission (still repeated on right wing radio today).

Please present one quote attributed to Joe Wilson where he made this claim.

Pretty, simple.

Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 8, 2007 01:09 PM


It sounds like you are conceding.

The rest of your spin is talking points and the Congo story is far from evidence. The reporter can't even confirm there is an investigation let alone a theft of uranium of 500 or 300 metric tons (i.e Niger).

Finally, there is no evidence that Saddam had the refining capacity to turn yellowcake into plutonium in quantities to create a nuclear device, nor do we have evidence that Saddam's scientists were capable of building a nuclear device.

Oh yeah the right wing radi... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Oh yeah the right wing radio, just like Chris Mathews and Senator Jay Rockefeller

July 9, 2003
MATTHEWS: Let me go back to David Gergen on the question of who may be culpable here, because we do have a paper trail, thanks to Joe Wilson, the ambassador. He said he was sent to Niger, the government in Africa that is in question here. There we have a picture of him. He was on "MEET THE PRESS". He also wrote a letter, an op-ed piece for the "New York Times" this weekend.

He made it very clear he was sent down there at the behest of the vice president's office last year....

GERGEN: Chris, it was my understanding that he went to the -- to Africa at the request of the CIA, not the vice president's office. Vice president's office was...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: At the behest of the vice president's office, the CIA was tasked by the vice president's office to do it. Senator, isn't that right?

ROCKEFELLER: That is correct.

GERGEN: Well, I thought what he said in "The New York Times" was -- in his piece, was that he was asked by the intelligence agencies for whom he had worked, they paid his way. He went pro bono in terms of his...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: At the request of the vice president's office. Right, Senator?

ROCKEFELLER: Absolutely correct.
------------------------------------------------
I'm not conceding anything Barney. The fact of the matter is really that whether or not Cheney initiated Wilson's mission is a distraction.

Wilson claimed that the 16 words in the State of the Union were false and that there was NO EVIDENCE of Iraq trying to obtain uranium from Niger.

That is simply false. The 16 words did not mention Niger, the president said Africa. The British dossier that he was quoting from specifically cites the Congo not Niger.

Wilson went to Niger, along the way the former PM told him that Iraq wanted to open trade relations, but the PM interpreted that to mean they wanted to buy uranium. How is that NOT evidence?

"The rest of your spin is talking points and the Congo story is far from evidence. The reporter can't even confirm there is an investigation let alone a theft of uranium of 500 or 300 metric tons (i.e Niger)."

Again you don't read too well. The State Prosecutor confirmed that a quantity of uranium is missing and the Scientific Research Minister confirmed that two scientists were arrested. If you read it again, the reporter said that no evidence had been public, that is a damn sight different from not being able to confirm if there is an investigation. Obviously, there is an investigation.

Since you can't even read a simple 18 paragraph article without screwing it up, you are obviously too stupid to understand why Joe Wilson is a lying bag of beans. When you grow a few more brain cells talk to me again.

I'm not wasting my time with you any further.

eric:"But the BBC'... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

eric:

"But the BBC's Kinshasa correspondent, Arnaud Zajtman, says that as of yet, no evidence has been made public to support the allegations made by the newspaper."

Sorry dude, you lost, the challenge is over.

Here, let me give you a lit... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here, let me give you a little oxygen, here, Barney. I'm willing to concede that both the CIA and Cheney got interested about the same time in reports of funny business in Africa. I believe that Val was possibly responding legitimately to DIA requests for more info and analysis. I don't really even fault that she, or whoever, fastened upon Joe, for whatever reason, as appropriate to the mission. It's all the lies around what he did, and reported, that I object to, and most of them start with Joe and Val.

By the way, any news on the 'funky seals' noted by the first CIA handler of the forgeries, way back in Oct. 2002? Inquiring minds want to know about 'funky seals'. The phrase is so rich in imaginative potential.
===================================

I mean, frankly, who should... (Below threshold)
kim:

I mean, frankly, who should she trust more than her husband? Now that's a good question, indeed.
===================

If we don't, why should she... (Below threshold)
kim:

If we don't, why should she?
=================

I hope they took towels wit... (Below threshold)
kim:

I hope they took towels with them.

Always remember your towel.
=======================

But the BBC's Kinshasa c... (Below threshold)
Eric:

But the BBC's Kinshasa correspondent, Arnaud Zajtman, says that as of yet, no evidence has been made public to support the allegations made by the newspaper."

Sorry dude, you lost, the challenge is over.

That's all you've got?
Associated Press March 7, 2007
"The head of Congo's atomic energy commission has been arrested on suspicion of illegally selling uranium found in the Central African mineral giant, officials said Wednesday.

Fortunat Lumu, the director of the country's only nuclear center, and one of his aides were arrested Tuesday "because they were accused of having illicitly sold a quantity of uranium," Attorney General Tshimanga Mukendi said.

Mukendi refused to give information on the amount of uranium or the alleged buyer, saying those details were part of an investigation.

He added only that they were accused of orchestrating illicit contracts to produce and sell uranium.

National police representative Michel Kanka confirmed the arrest, but also refused to give details. "

Do you still want to claim that there is no proof of an investigation? The Attorney General of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has confirmed there is an investigation.

Also, I repeat you don't know how to read. The newspaper in the quote you keep referring to is the Le Phare. The Le Phare reported specific amounts of uranium that were missing. The point of the quote you keep citing is that the Congolese government is not confirming the report by the Le Phare while there is an ongoing investigation.

Barney you might want to invest in a copy of Hooked on Phonics. It might help you with your reading comprehension, which you appear to be sorely lacking.

You see, when the commodity... (Below threshold)
kim:

You see, when the commodity price of uranium for fuel dropped through the 90's several mines were shuttered. They still contained rich ore. Artisanal miners took over. Converting ore to yellow cake is technologically simple, maybe just leaching, and the resultant concentrate is transportable without major difficulty. Add that there were consumers who preferred not be known as consumers(Khan) and that there was a black, read non documented, market is no surprise. What is a surprise is that the CIA wasn't involved in that market. Wait, what am I saying?
================================

Gawd.....I know th... (Below threshold)
BC:

Gawd.....

I know this is a waste of time, but you right wingers still believing "Wilson lied," that there was no real crime involving Plame, and that Libby was somehow just the victim of a political presecution are all nuts. Seriously. Wilson simply was the target of one of the worst, most widespread, and uttely petty and malicious smear campaigns in a time of petty and malicious smear campaigns. In the White House and GOP efforts at finding anything and everything to smear and discredit Wilson with, his CIA spy wife ended up being caught up in it all.

The laughably labeled "Liberal MSM" gave free reign to lying-ass toadies like Orrin Hatch and Stephen Hayes to make BS claims like how the "bipartisan" Senate Committee report showed how Wilson lied. No. Republican dipsh*ts Pat Roberts, Christopher Bond and Hatch (aka "The 3 Evil Stooges") tried their darndest to insert utterly BS GOP talking points regarding Wilson into the fully senate report, but couldn't. They had to settle with sticking them in an "Additional Views" supplement in the back area that wasn't part of the main report.

That didn't stop people from claiming the how Wilson was repudiated and shown up to be a liar by that "bipartisan" report.

The whole Wilson business was a disgrace to journalism and showed how utterly worthless a substitute the "new media" aka the blogosphere is as a news source. As a source for BS, rumor and propaganda, it's peachy keen and nifty, but that's not quite the same as responsible journalism.

Much of this stuff is in a lengthy Usenet piece I wrote a while ago, replete with links and excerpts. (The link to the full Senate PDF report doesn't work anymore, but you can use this instead)

Hope this clarifies, but I'm doubtful for some strange reason.

So who were Kristoff's and ... (Below threshold)
kim:

So who were Kristoff's and Pincus's sources? And Fitz is after the real crime involving Plame, like maybe Armitage? How was Libby not the victim of a Star Chamber run amuck?
==========================

Kim wrote:So wh... (Below threshold)
BC:

Kim wrote:

So who were Kristoff's and Pincus's sources? And Fitz is after the real crime involving Plame, like maybe Armitage? How was Libby not the victim of a Star Chamber run amuck?

The only things unclear about the Plame case are who was it in the White House who started all the gossiping about Plame and her job (although we can all guess the likely candidate) and if there was genuine confusion about whether Plame worked in a covet or non-covert CIA department. There was a lot of leaking and talking to reporters by White House people as part of the effort to discredit Wilson and Plame was apparently then just a footnote of sorts. Armitage apparently was just following the White House game plan regarding Wilson and seemed genuinely unaware of Plame's true CIA status when he chatted up Novak. In the column that instigated the ruckus, Novak had written "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. 'I will not answer any question about my wife,' Wilson told me."

The phrase "Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction" could descriptively apply to either the "DCI Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control" ("WINPAC") or the Counterproliferation Division ("CPD"). While the two departments have seemingly similar purposes, the big difference is that CPD is covert while WINPAC isn't, and Plame worked for CPD. But then note how Novak also says "counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him," which strongly implies that Plame actually worked for the covert Counterproliferation Division, and Novak had no business at all knowing this bit of info. It's one thing to know that so-and-so works at the CIA; it's another thing altogether to know that so-and-so works at the CIA in a particular, covert division. The best evidence is that Plame was indeed a very active agent at the time, especially in regards to, ironically enough, Iran.

The evidently gossipy nature of the Plame leak, with so many people in the White House and the press involved, along with how the first leaker in the timeline, Armitage, being unaware he was outing a CIA spy, probably saved Karl Rove's and possibly Cheney's sorry asses. Fitzgerald was put in the tough position of going after high ranking government officials in a fog of gossipy he said/she said, with the earliest proven leaker, Armitage, genuinely ignorant of what he was really doing; hence the end result of him only being able to bag Libby and then only because of Libby's lying.

As far as I'm personally concerned, the whole affair underscores what terrible shape our much ballyhooed "Free Press" is in these days, and how utterly useless the alleged "new media" like blogs is as any sort of substitute: on one side you have mainstream news reporters getting more and more lazy, timid, and adverse to research and investigation, and on the other, you have basically a bunch of people in online bars shooting their opinions off with hazy, confused and/or utterly BS info. Not good, not good at all....

You say "Armitage was appar... (Below threshold)
kim:

You say "Armitage was apparently just following up the White House game plan" and you reveal the depths of your delusion. Cheney and Libby knew about Val Plame on June 12 as the low-level CIA person who sent the Ambassador. By the time they heard about her in July she was the wife of the lying critic. In the meantime, Armitage, Grossman, Pincus, Kristoff, and 'apparently' all of NBC had heard about this Jokin' Joe who had outed his wife because he was pissed that he'd been called 'low-level'. All your spin isn't going to change these facts, and a new trial, with Russert on the stand, may change a few minds.

And if Val Plame was such a hotshot WMD expert, how come the intelligence re: Iraqi WMD was so mucked up. Was that incompetence, or design?
=================

By the way, if you want a b... (Below threshold)
kim:

By the way, if you want a blog that understands this case, try JustOneMinute. I agree the MSM is misinformed and the only leftist blogs following this with much care, FireDogLake, TalkLeft, and TheNextHurrah, are all seriously deluded about the conspiracy in the White House. At least Jeralyn Merritt, at TalkLeft, doesn't think that Fitz proved his case, but she drinks the KoolAid enough to think he should have indicted Cheney instead.

Look, the facts are out there. I note that black market Yellow Cake in Africa has hit with shocking news from the Congo. Shocking? Not to me.
==========================

Trust me. Someone in MSM i... (Below threshold)
kim:

Trust me. Someone in MSM is going to want to pluck a few Peacock feathers. NBC has jumped the shark, and Russert's blood is in the water.

Money is going to get the truth of this one out. Just watch.
====================================

Better yet;HIDE AN... (Below threshold)
kim:

Better yet;

HIDE AND WATCH///////////////////////

::grin::
=====

TANG memoes, Swifties, Plam... (Below threshold)
kim:

TANG memoes, Swifties, Plamania. There is a common thread here. Journalism will recover, surely people will always be talking to each other, but aggregated news will soon be synonymous with perverted news. Each person will seek their own news, just as in days gone by. Interesting, really, how total news availability so closely resembles, in that way, total absence of news.
===================================

Eric, I finally got around ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Eric, I finally got around to reading your link. 'A vast trafficking, going back for years.' C'mon, guys, seriously, why don't you think Joe Wilson had his finger in the pie? The facts are out there. Anybody want it?
==========================

And Allah needs 'Da Bum'. ... (Below threshold)
kim:

And Allah needs 'Da Bum'. Maybe to settle schism rather than scores with infidels, and maybe we have people like Joe Wilson to thank for helping to slake that appetite. Slake and comfort, the slitherin' serpent.
======================

Well it looks like AJ Strat... (Below threshold)
kim:

Well it looks like AJ Strata's speculative current and mine have forked. He now suspects Joe of being deep cover CIA. The problem he has is that Joe has had too much monkey business associated with his works for him to argue that he was working for the US. Knowing him, if in fact he was CIA, it should not be hard to nail him as a double agent. His sympathies are clearly with the Arabs, but my main impression of him is that his sympathies are mostly with himself.

I think AJ is just overwhelmed with the strength of the effort at rehabbing Joe. He doesn't understand that Joe's meme must survive for the Democrats to do so. They've backed a traitor, and must throw him under the bus eventually. Maybe rehabbed first as CIA, then destroyed as traitor will work for them. Hang on to the towels.
========================

Threadherd on up to the lat... (Below threshold)
kim:

Threadherd on up to the latest Joe post by Big K. AJ Strata has two posts this AM, and our speculative streams have rejoined. Joe is a traitor, and the Dems will throw him under the bus to rehabilitate their own foreign policy credibility.
==============================




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