Bumping the lastest thread showing the lies of Wilson and those who supported him a year ago!
Another good thread re the Wilson/Plame/Foley/DNC/Mediot lies about Niger.
Even the Washington Compost has admitted that it and others lied about the treason spouted last summer by Wilson/Plame/Olson/DNC/?.
Below is a great thread posted yesterday on this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1168703/posts
Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission (Joe Wilson lied about EVERYTHING)
Washington Compost ^ | 7/10/04 | Susan Schmidt
Posted on 07/10/2004 1:49:22 AM PDT by thoughtomator
Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.
Total #orseS#it!
Now,how many people will read or hear about this. We could scream this from the rooftops, and nobody will care.
Don't you know that "Bush Lied" is the new catch phrase of the 2000's.
bump
So how is this news to get out to the masses?
Wilson lied - more men died.
I truly believe that this dissention here at home has emboldened terrorists and cost the lives of brave men in Iraq. Wilson has blood on his hands.
Let Them Eat Yellowcake - Reflections On A Failed Political Smear.
Within this thread, there's another reference by Spiff to an International Atomic Energy Agency (UN) site with specific itemization of Iraqi uranium procurement, including highly-enriched uranium from Russia and France and a boatload or two of yellowcake from Niger.
This isn't an anti-war movement. This is a movement in denial. It's a mass bowel movement.
The media is already re-spinning this report in their favor. One story stated that this didn't vindicate Bush because Bush's "only" source for Yellow Cake was the fake Italian document...which the UN descredited. Unfortunately, the author of that piece...just as our media did, ignored that Bush's SOTU Address specifically mentions "British Intelligence" as the source.
Another story published just yesterday said Bush backtracked from his original statement because he knew the source was not credible. This again was another lie, as some in the administration simply said that the "16 words" shouldn't have been in SOTU since the source was British Intel and our own intel agencies weren't privy to the original source because of specific non-sharing agreements. That still didn't make the 16 words any less valid...as the media beat Bush over the head for weeks on end.
What's missing in these stories is the huge irony...especially with the release of our Senate's own Intel report. The media and the Democrats all called Bush a liar for ignoring this sole source that Saddam may not have had WMDs. They all relied heavily on Joe Wilson's report to discredit Bush.
It was July 2003 when Wilson claimed he had proof that the administration ignored his anti-WMD information... because he had gone to Niger for the CIA and reported back that there was no evidence Iraq had obtained uranium there. Even worse, according to Wilson...the White House knew of his mission.
For those who haven't read the Senate report, they have determined unquestioningly that Dick Cheney never heard about Wilson's trip, therefore, it was actually Wilson who was the liar. There's somthing disturbing about the idea that Bush was to believe this one man and his investigation...above all other evidence, when it has now been shown through British Intelligence and their investigation, that Wilson was the one who was wrong. And these people are sill spinning it as if they were right all along. Please.
A more intriguing discussion of this matter, which covers a lot more ground:
GLOBAL VIEW
By GEORGE MELLOAN
Spooks Know at Least One Thing,
How to Shift Blame
July 6, 2004; Page A23
Presidents have always handled intelligence agencies with care, knowing full well their skills at the black art of clandestine politics. Maybe the Bush administration hasn't been careful enough. Judging from the headlines, the spooks are no longer bothering to conceal their political views from broad public view. And their new boldness is mainly directed at discrediting the commander in chief.
But all these factious revelations about administration "errors" reveal something more disturbing than the possibility that the Central Intelligence Agency et al have gone out of control. They suggest that these new public figures aren't any better at getting their facts right now than they were when the president was depending on them for intelligence critical to national security.
First came the estimable Richard Clarke, who emerged some months ago from 10 years of anonymity in the bowels of the White House to claim his 15 minutes of fame. His theme, that the president didn't heed the Clarke warnings before 9/11 and should not have invaded Iraq, made a big hit with the antiwar crowd, immediately elevating Mr. Clarke to celebrity status.
But his complaints raised some questions. Mr. Clarke's was chief of counterterrorism in the National Security Council long before 9/11, so his job record includes whatever advice he was offering when President Clinton was brushing off attacks on American embassies and an American warship in the 1990s. More to the point, Mr. Clarke admitted to the 9/11 Commission that even if Mr. Bush had taken his advice, it wouldn't have prevented the 9/11 attacks.
Then came the case of the estimable Valerie Plame, wife of an ardent Bush-basher, former ambassador Joseph Wilson. The White House is taking a lot of heat because someone, somewhere, leaked to columnist Robert Novak last July that Ms. Plame is some kind of secret agent at the CIA. Outing a secret agent is a criminal offense.
Mr. Wilson claims some "punk" leaked this tidbit to pay him back for his report throwing cold water on the president's claim, based mainly on British intelligence, that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium from Niger. Aside from the merits of leaking the occupation of the top-secret Ms. Plame, the White House might have had good reason to be miffed at the CIA's decision to send the hostile Mr. Wilson to check out the Niger story.
And it still has reason to be miffed, because Mr. Wilson quite possibly got it wrong. Although intelligence agencies were apparently victims of a forged document related to the alleged uranium sale, an article in the Financial Times last week revealed that European agencies are sticking by their story of an Iraqi interest in illegally purchasing uranium from Niger. According to the FT, three European intelligence agencies had information going as far back as 1999 that Niger officials had discussed sales of uranium "yellow cake" with five countries, including Iraq.
So were Mr. Wilson and the CIA doing an amateur-hour exercise on the Niger question? It might be nice to know, considering the grief the president has suffered from the flawed intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Finally, in the most bizarre case so far of intelligence effrontery, we have the estimable "Mr. Anonymous." His book, "Imperial Hubris," coming soon to bookstores everywhere, is yet another attack on the president's Iraq policy. It is a surefire media sensation not only for that reason but because "Mr. Anonymous" is an active spook, a 22-year veteran of the CIA. He says the CIA allowed him to publish his assault on the commander in chief, but wouldn't allow him to use his name.
Unlike the sequestered and secluded Ms. Plame, however, Mr. Anonymous and his colleagues at Langley don't appear terribly concerned about keeping his identity secret. For one thing, Mr. Anonymous presumably will want his real name on the royalty checks from his publisher. Jason Vest wrote in the Boston Phoenix last Thursday that he had confirmed with "nearly a dozen intelligence community sources" that Mr. Anonymous is in fact CIA analyst Michael Scheuer. According to Mr. Vest, the author doesn't want to be anonymous at all, but is "being compelled by an arcane set of classified regulations that are arguably being abused in an attempt to spare the CIA possible political inconvenience."
How's that again? The CIA might feel "inconvenienced" by one of its civil servants attacking the boss man in that big white house across the river? Most of us don't see evidence of iron discipline in this organization that is regarded as America's first line of defense in the war against terrorism. Military officers are loath to publicly criticize the president in wartime, for fear it might be construed as gross insubordination. But CIA guys apparently aren't guided by the same constraints.
CIA analysts are of course expected to give their bosses honest opinions, and if an analyst thinks the administration policy is all wrong he has an obligation to say so. But even civil servants in less sensitive positions are under legal constraints, in return for their low risk of being fired, to stay clear of politics -- or at least that's the theory. Mr. Scheuer, if that's the right name, surely must be a bright enough analyst to know that his book will be prime fodder for Mr. Bush's opponents come election time.
A House Intelligence Committee report on the CIA said the agency has been ignoring its "core mission." Could that be because its employees are too busy hatching plots against the president? The report also said that the CIA was on its way to being "a stilted bureaucracy incapable of even the slightest bit of success."
The committee's chairman, whose name headed this damning report, is Porter Goss (R., Fla.) a former CIA man himself. He is one of the candidates for appointment to CIA director when George Tenet steps down in a few days.
It is said that Mr. Tenet was very unhappy with the criticism directed at his agency and indirectly at him. But then President Bush has good reason to be unhappy as well, and maybe the loose cannons banging around the intelligence agencies will soon learn that he is still the boss.
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108906743781955534,00.html
"Well, on Wednesday in London, Lord Butler will publish his report into the quality of the intelligence on which rested Britain's case for going to war with Iraq. The report is said to be critical of some of Tony Blair's claims, supportive of others. And, among the latter, he says that the statements about Iraq and Niger are justified and supported by the intelligence. In other words, the British Government did learn that Saddam Hussein did seek significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Bush is being proven right all along.
How many news items and articles will be written about this, vs. the number of those screaming "Bush lied about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger".
Watch for that news. It may well be very much ignored by the US media.
Where in the world is Joseph C. Wilson?
Bump! Great Steyn.
They still insist, based on no evidence save phone calls made on a cell phone, that Atta could not have been in Prague to meet with an Iraqi spook.
The Czechs have never changed their story. They maintain that Atta was there. Sad to say, I believe the Czechs.