(function() { (function(){function b(g){this.t={};this.tick=function(h,m,f){var n=void 0!=f?f:(new Date).getTime();this.t[h]=[n,m];if(void 0==f)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+h)}catch(q){}};this.getStartTickTime=function(){return this.t.start[0]};this.tick("start",null,g)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var p=0Wash Post Says Joe Wilson A FRAUD
The FabricatorsSome excerpts:
"It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.
Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously."
Wash Post
Another slanderous smear-job attempted by the Democrats goes down in flames. They had publicly tried and convicted Karl Rove and the Bush Administration. A month ago Valerie was announcing plans to sue Cheney and Rove, and was in the process of securing a lucrative book deal.
Down in flames.
And I'll bet Keith Olbermann is too dense to realize how he got played on this one.
posted by Senor PeerPressure at 5:09 PM
7 Comments:
Man, at it again, are you?
That is an editorial you are quoting.
And I could find NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE for the statement that Joe lied about his trip or report. That just kinda slipped in there. The only 'facts' that have come to light is that there is a rumour (albiet a loud one) that Armitage was the original source of the leak.
Besides ederyone knows that the WAPO editorial board is in the pocket of the administration. Hell, they have written editorials that have been directly contradicted in thier own paper.
Check your sources.
tp
They are FRAUDS.
Why would Joe Wilson, an ambassador be sent on a mission of such importance?
Because of his wifes connections. His whole mission was to come back to the US and say "they arent trying to get uranium" and humiliate Bush.
Failed miserably, I might add.
British Intel still stands by their report and say Wilson was wrong. Who do you think has more credibility?
The question is not whether he was right or wrong (although, seeing as how everyone says the tubes were not the correct type for nclear weapons tends to support his report), but rather whether he lied.
He did go on the missions, he was sent because he knew the people and places involved. Sometimes it is useful to have connections, you know!
So down to the root of it all. Here is the original British Intelligence Report on the matter. It is true that they had intelligence indicating that Saddam was attempting to acquire materials for a nuclear weapons program. (It is also true that the report implied he was years away from success) And Here is a good article on the entire prewar intelligence debacle from the non-partison Arms Control Association. All in all, I would consider Joe Wilson and his report a footnote to the whole affair.
Mind, I don't know who Joe is, whether he is a good guy or a bad guy -- and I don't care. The fact is that he wrote a report at the behest of the government, he was ignored, he felt compelled to tell the american people about it. However you may feel about his decision, that is his right as a free american citizen.
In the aftermath, an undercover CIA operative was 'outed' by someone in the administration. Even if SHE was not at risk, it had the potential to put other operatives around the world at risk. That is a travesty, and a slap in the face to everyone that serves this country. And that is unacceptable.
IF it was a dumb mistake, made by an underling (Armitage), then WHY did it take 2 years for that information to come out. Supposedly, his mistake was recognized and dealt with shortly after it occured. So why wasn't that information released? If it had been, there never would have been a Special Prosecutor, a multi year investigation nor a book deal for either Valerie or Joe.
So who withheld that information? If you want to cast blame, that's where it should go.
tp
"IF it was a dumb mistake, made by an underling (Armitage), then WHY did it take 2 years for that information to come out. "
Spec Prosecutor Fitzgerald was told in 2003 that Armitage was the leak, yet continued this charade anyway. He was told by Armitage himself. Armitage and Powell had an axe to grind with Bush.
Wilson wasnt sent by the 'govt'. He was sent by the CIA who also had an axe to grind with Bush. Why was HE sent? Cuz his WIFE pulled some strings.
Remember that he first claimed he was sent by Cheney. This is the thing that started the whole "Bush Lied" campaign and it turns out, like most Dem attempts, to be another dead end.
And it didnt take them long to try and secure and book and film deal, did it?
Too bad it was all a big lie.
If you are correct, senor, and Fitzgerald knew that Armitage was the source AND that there is nothing else to the story... then Fitzgerald has some major explaining to do. However I would prefer to withhold judgement until everything is out in the open. At this point, Armitage has not publicly acknowledged any of this, and Fitzgerald has not released a report. I'm patient and I prefer to have the whole story (or as much of it as they will ever allow to come out).
t.l.: I have NO idea where you got the impression that I was making a case FOR war with Iraq. In fact, I was one of the (apparently) few people that actually read the reports filed by Blix back in November 02-Jan 03. At that time, I felt there was a strong case against WMD's in Iraq, and an even stronger case against invasion. They spent months trying to get the inspectors back in -- and then when they got them, they immediately decided it wasn't enough. They apparently had no interest in addressing the potential threat Saddam represented, and had every interest in war -- for oil, for pride, for The New American Century and imperialism... all can be easily supported based upon thier own words. WMD's cannot be supported by anything.
tp
Wilson was not wrong. If he was wrong then why White House did admit that it was wrong to put the 16 words about nuclear capablity into the State of the Union Address? For those of you still clinging to your beliefs about why and how we got into Iraq - see http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/ they have the best timeline and documentation to be found on the subject in one place.
t.l.:
Well, umm, yeah. Seeing as how they invaded Iraq and found out that the intelligence was flawed.
tp
Post a Comment
<< Home