Spouse of outed CIA officer signs on with Kerry

Washington Times ^ | 2/14/04 | Joseph Curl

[kattracks]

Joseph C. Wilson, a former Clinton appointee whose unsubstantiated charge that senior White House officials leaked the identity of his CIA officer wife and prompted a grand jury probe, has taken a prominent role in the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry.

[lainde]

This is going to get VERY UGLY!!!!

[icwhatudo]

The Africa dude....hmmmm maybe he told Kerrys girl where to sip tea.

[cherry]

" Don't leave it to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians," Mr. Wilson said. "

if any Gop'er ever said that about Jews or Unitarians, we would never hear the end of it...

does everybody see now what we are up against?

all that will make my day is one more "don't vote for Bush" thread....

[Shermy]

Addressing Kerry supporters in an Iowa rally in December, Mr. Wilson called Vice President Dick Cheney a "lying son of a bitch"

This is getting good...

for what he said was indifference to his report that intelligence on a Niger-Iraq uranium connection referenced by Mr. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address was erroneous.

Bush cited "British Intelligence" and did not say "Niger" but Africa.

[Just mythoughts]

Here we go again. I heard Mr. Wilson say I do not know who sent me, I would not know them if I met them on the street.

This article says that VPCheney sent him.

Wilson gave the Kerry Kampaign money before he ever came out in public to support him.

Mr. Wilson did not submit a written report to CIA but to the NYTimes.

Mr. Wilson is a liar and this was a well planned operation by somebody.

[Democratshavenobrains]

This is why ALL CLINTON APPOINTEES should be fired, no matter what their post. What is the use of winning an election if you can't even appoint people who agree with you during your term?

[Shermy]

A week after the Times piece ran, a conservative columnist wrote on July 14 that White House officials had leaked the name of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as retribution.

This journalist is saying that Novak said that? Quite a bit of disinformation here. Probably will become a Kerry mantra.

[Unam Sanctam]

Don't leave it to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians," Mr. Wilson said.

Hate speech from the Left again.

[Just mythoughts]

The NYTimes is looking more and more like a branch of the BBC.

I do wonder if anyone if following the "JOE Wilson" trail, who actually sent him. The day I heard him say he did not know who sent him sealed his status for me.

One can only imagine what is really going on in the covert world of these liberals.

There leake memo was a road map of what they were after "INTEL" and Edwards recently said that while he saw the "INTEL" he did not know everything President Bush knew.

That is why he could claim that President Bush mislead the nation about WMD.

Now we have Dr. Kay, who cut and ran as lead investigator, come back, declare no WMD's, but President was right to remove Saddam. Then today I read he says the President should apologize.

Back a few year Scott Ritter an INSPECTOR testify before congress, gets ripped a new one by a liberal senator, about just who he was, then Ritter flips out and says no WMD's.

What the .ell is really going on I have not clue but these liberals are playing to win and they don't care who gets destroyed along their "FIGHT" to regain power.

[mass55th]

"   Mr. Wilson originally said reporters told him that White House political adviser Karl Rove told them his wife was "fair game," a statement he later retracted."

Ah, but this doesn't make Mr. Wilson a liar does it?

[jwalburg]

Very ugly indeed!

[Fedora]

Here's a clip from an old thread on that I remember from a while back:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1007156/posts

'CIA LEAK' ENVOY BACKS DEM KERRY (Advising Kerry For Months)
New York Post ^ | 10/24/03 | Deborah Orin


Posted on 10/24/2003 12:37 AM PDT by kattracks



October 24, 2003 -- WASHINGTON - Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who
charged that President Bush "twisted" intelligence on Iraq to exaggerate the
threat, yesterday endorsed Democrat John Kerry in the 2004 race.
Wilson said he has been advising Kerry for five months, which means he was
advising Kerry at the time he wrote a New York Times op-ed piece blasting
Bush last July and revealed his CIA mission to Niger to determine if Iraq
was trying to buy uranium.

Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said, "As
we've been saying all along, Joseph Wilson has a partisan political
perspective and he's demonstrated that once again today."

Wilson claims the White House retaliated for his attack on Bush by
deliberately leaking the name of his wife, a CIA operative.

Wilson sought to portray himself as a profile in courage for standing up
to Bush, and suggested Kerry did the same by coming out against the Vietnam
War after serving there.

[mass55th]

"Mr. Wilson is a liar and this was a well planned operation by somebody."

I was thinking that perhaps Chris LeHane got the ball rolling. He resigned from Kerry's campaign around September 15th of last year. The Wilson story broke around the 27th or 28th of September 2003. No proof, but it sounds like something LeHane would do.

[Just mythoughts]

Wasn't Wilson sent to snoop out "yellowcake" much earlier?

[mass55th]

"Wasn't Wilson sent to snoop out "yellowcake" much earlier?"

Yeah, he did go earlier, in 2002.

The Wilson story about the leak of his wife's name to the Press was made around the 27th or 28th of September of 2003. I was contemplating the possibility of LeHane, who left the Kerry campaign on Sept. 15th, of possibly being behind, or at least setting the whole leak thing in motion sometime before he resigned. He left the campaign in a huff. It wasn't something that was planned.

[Fedora]

> >"Mr. Wilson is a liar and this was a well planned operation by somebody."
>
> I was thinking that perhaps Chris LeHane got the ball rolling. He resigned from Kerry's campaign around September 15th of last year. The Wilson story broke around the 27th or 28th of September 2003. No proof, but it sounds like something LeHane would do.

I'm trying to reconstruct how the Democrats must've concocted this operation. At what point did they conceive the idea to undermine the credibility of Bush's intelligence on Iraq? The plot must've been in place by the time that leaked memo describing the Democrats' plans was published in November 2003 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1014682/posts
), so we can take the date of that memo as a terminus ad quem starting point. I'd infer the plot must've emerged out of the UN debate over the WMD back around September 2002 at which time the US and UK's case for war was being undermined by Tariq Aziz, Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, etc. Here's one old article I just dug out of my archives which tends to support that:

---
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944219/posts



The TRUE Capitol Hill Blue story the PRESS IGNORED:'Dems plan to undermine
America to beat Bush'
FR - thru Capitol Hill Blue ^ | January 6, 2003 | DOUG THOMPSON


Posted on 07/11/2003 6:02 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl



Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush
CapitolHillBlue ^ | January 6, 2003 | By DOUG THOMPSON


Posted on 01/28/2003 2:07 AM EST by JohnHuang2


Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by
challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within
the party tell Capitol Hill Blue.

A multi-pronged attack against Republicans and the President will focus not
only on economic issues, but question American values, raise doubts about
how this country is viewed by other nations and question the patriotism of
Bush and his party.

The extensive campaign, developed by senior Democratic consultants and party
leaders, was launched last week with attacks on the Bush economic plan by
Democratic presidential hopeful Rep. Richard Gephardt.

In coming weeks, Democratic elected officials will question the President's
intentions on the pending war with Iraq. Writers and broadcasters friendly
to the Democratic cause have already been provided talking points suggesting
the war is about oil, not terrorism. "The talking points were developed
before the end of last year and sent out to operatives and friendly media,"
one Democratic consultant confided. "No Democratic member of Congress will
question the President's patriotism openly but we will use the media and
other surrogates to raise doubts."

Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic
National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHB's
parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts
of the President's real intentions, including: --Saying the war is about oil
and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush
and the Republican party;

--Claiming the Bush administration has "manufactured" evidence against
Saddam Hussein and used that evidence to encourage Britain and other allies
to join the American fight against Iraq;

--Suggesting a wartime economy is the only way the administration can revive
the country's lagging economic situation.

"It is clear that the current approval ratings of the administration are
tied directly to strong American feelings toward traditional values," the
talking points say. "To counter this, doubt must be raised as to America's
true position within the world community and the true intent of the Bush
administration in waging war."

Some Democrats admit privately they are uneasy with the party strategy to
undermine American values in an attempt to get Bush.

"My boss doesn't want anything to do with it," one senior Senate aide told
Capitol Hill Blue on Monday. "You don't undermine this country to win
elections." Others, however, are willing to try anything to put the White
House and Congress back under Democratic control. "The real war isn't in
Iraq," one Democratic consultant said. "It's right here at home, at the
ballot box in 2004."

Among the other points Democrats hope to make in the coming weeks:

--Both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are controlled by oil
and defense industry special interest groups.

--The war on terrorism is a failure because Osama bin Laden is still at
large.

--America is unprepared for another terrorist attack because of White House
preoccupation with Iraq. --War will increase the country's economic
woes. --Bush will be forced to raise taxes to finance the war.

"It's time to take the battle to the people and make them understand just
how dangerous George W. Bush's policies are to the future of America," the
talking points conclude.

Democratic sources say the talking points were developed by Democratic
Chairman Terry McAuliffe, former Clinton campaign strategist James Carville,
Senate Majority Leader Daschle and former House Democratic Leader Gephardt.

"This is a classic, Jim Carville, scorched earth campaign," crows one DNC
staffer. "Take no prisoners. That's how you win elections." Democratic party
spokesmen would not return phone calls seeking comment on this report.

© Copyright 2003 Capitol Hill Blue
---

Given that time frame of late 2002/early 2003 as the origin of the plot, does this imply that the Democrats originally got the idea to attack Bush's intelligence claims from one of the foreign intelligence agencies seeking to undermine Bush and Blair's case for war at that time? If so, it seems to me like the source of the idea must've been closely linked to whoever Scott Ritter and Hans Blix were/are working for. That's my current line of thought. Anyone else have any theories?

[Just mythoughts]

Until it is revealed exactly who sent "Wilson" to search for Intel on "yellowcake" "key" players are AWOL.

Now if the CIA did in fact send this guy then the liberals have a justifiable complaint about "bad" intel. Somebody sure knows who sent him whether "WILSON" would recognize them on the street or not. That is unless he was sent as a diversion, and he didn't know it, or maybe he was a mole.

That is the big question for me "origins" of Wilson/Africa/intel gathering, answering that question will help explain what followed.

Based upon the "fingerprints" left by LeHane he really doesn't fit the type on gathering intel. However, he would be useful in a smear campaign if the original plan went sour.

Now it is evident that the liberals were opposed in removing Saddam from the get go. They tried to boost "Respect" for North Korea as a worse threat, sucked up the the UN etc. "Wilson" looks more like an attempt by somebody to derail President Bush in taking military action against Saddam long ago.

The alliance of the liberals with the UN - France/Germany/Russia/ etc.... surely had to be trading secrets. How could so many of them been so quick to know immediately a document to be a fraud?

There is no way to connect the dots with liberals and they know that. However there are some "KEY" questions if answered would expose much.

[mass55th]

Your posting shows that they were planning on starting their crap in early 2003, before the war even started, and right around the time of the President's SOTU speech. And when their plans went awry and they discovered the people here supported the President overwhelmingly on going into Iraq, they must have decided then, that they would start a campaign to try to turn the people against the way Bush handled the war's aftermath. It will be interesting to see if there is anything about any of this in those computer memos that Frist's aide (Miranda) discovered.

[mass55th]

"Until it is revealed exactly who sent "Wilson" to search for Intel on "yellowcake" "key" players are AWOL. "

Nobody seems to want to accept responsibility for sending him, and apparently his trip wasn't all that important since he wasn't required to submit an official report on it, or any of his findings. If I recollect correctly, Wilson said that he didn't write a report because there really wasn't anything of importance to report. He spent a week sipping green tea with his poolside buddies and came home. The next thing we know, he's writing an angry op-ed page about a supposedly CIA/V.P. generated trip, spilling information to the press and public that he probably shouldn't have, and then complaining because someone outed his wife's name. The whole thing smelled then and the aroma hasn't improved over time.