Lando 
Posted on 07/17/2004 6:35:46 AM PDT by Pokey78
Well, the week went pretty much as I predicted seven days ago:
BUSH LIED!! Not.
BLAIR LIED!!! Not.
But it turns out JOE WILSON LIED! PEOPLE DIED. Of embarrassment mostly. At least I'm assuming that's why the New York Times, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, PBS drone Bill Moyers and all the other media bigwigs Joseph C. Wilson IV suckered have fallen silent on the subject of the white knight of integrity they've previously given the hold-the-front-page treatment, too.
And what about John F. Kerry? Joe Wilson campaigned with Kerry in at least six states, and claims to have helped with the candidate's speeches. He was said to be a senior foreign policy adviser to the senator. As of Friday, Wilson's Web site, restorehonesty.com, was still wholly paid for by Kerry's presidential campaign.
Heigh-ho. It would be nice to hear his media boosters howling en masse, "Say it ain't so, Joe!" But Joe Wilson's already slipping down the old media memory hole. He served his purpose -- he damaged Bush, he tainted the liberation of Iraq -- and yes, by the time you read this the Kerry campaign may well have pulled the plug on his Web site, and Salon magazine's luxury cruise will probably have to find another headline speaker, and he won't be doing Tim Russert again any time soon. But what matters to the media and to Senator Kerry is that he helped the cause of (to quote his book title) The Politics Of Truth, and if it takes a serial liar to do that, so be it.
But before he gets lowered in his yellowcake overcoat into the Niger River, let's pause to consider: What do Joe Wilson's lies mean? And what does it say about the Democrats and the media that so many high-ranking figures took him at his word?
First, contrary to what Wilson wrote in the New York Times, Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In support of that proposition are a Senate report in Washington, Lord Butler's report in London, MI6, French intelligence, other European agencies -- and, as we now know, the CIA report, based on Joe Wilson's original briefing to them. Against that proposition is Joe Wilson's revised version of events for the Times.
This isn't difficult. In 1999, a senior Iraqi "trade" delegation went to Niger. Uranium accounts for 75 percent of Niger's exports. The rest is goats, cowpeas and onions. So who sends senior trade missions to Niger? Maybe Saddam dispatched his Baathist big shots all the way to the dusty capital of Niamy because he had a sudden yen for goat and onion stew with a side order of black-eyed peas, and Major Wanke, the then-president, had offered him a great three-for-one deal.
But that's not what Joe Wilson found. Major Wanke's prime minister, among others, told Ambassador Wilson that he believed Iraq wanted yellowcake. And Ambassador Wilson told the CIA. And the CIA's report agreed with the British and the Europeans that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa."
In his ludicrously vain memoir The Politics Of Truth, Wilson plays up his knowledge of the country. He makes much of his intimacy with Wanke and gives himself the credit for ridding Niger of the Wanke regime. The question then is why a man who knew so much about what was going on chose deliberately to misrepresent it to all his media/ Democrat buddies, not to mention to the American people. For a book called The Politics Of Truth, it's remarkably short of it. On page 2, Wilson says of his trip to Niger: "I had found nothing to substantiate the rumors." But he had.
That's what lying is, by the way: intentional deceit, not unreliable intelligence. And I'm not usually the sort to bandy the liar-liar-pants-on-fire charge beloved by so many in our politics today, but I'll make an exception in the case of Wilson, who's never been shy about the term. He called Bush a "liar" and he called Cheney a "lying sonofabitch," on stage at a John Kerry rally in Iowa.
Saddam wanted yellowcake for one reason: to strike at his neighbors in the region, and beyond that at Britain, America and his other enemies. In other words, he wanted the uranium in order to kill you.
The obvious explanation for Wilson's deceit about what he found in Africa is that his hatred of Bush outweighed everything else. Or as the novelist and Internet maestro Roger L. Simon put it, "He is a deeply evil human being willing to lie and obfuscate for temporary political gain about a homicidal dictator's search for weapons-grade uranium."
Technically, it's weaponizable uranium, not "weapons grade." But that's the point. Simon isn't the expert, and, as Ambassador Wilson trumpets loudly and often, he is. This isn't a case of another Michael Moore, court buffoon to the Senate Democrats, or Whoopi Goldberg, has-been potty-mouth to John Kerry. They're in show biz; what do they know?
But Wilson does know; he went there, he talked to officials, and he lied about America's national security in order to be the anti-Bush crowd's Playmate of the Month. Either he's profoundly wicked or he's as deranged as that woman on the Paris Metro last week who falsely claimed to have been the victim of an anti-Semitic attack. The Paris crazy was unmasked within a few days, but the Niger crazy was lionized for a full year.
Some of us are on record as dismissing Wilson in the first bloom of his unmerited celebrity. But John Kerry was taken in -- to the point where he signed him up as an adviser and underwrote his Web site. What does that reveal about Mister Nuance and his superb judgment? He claims to be able to rebuild America's relationships with France, and to have excellent buddy-to-buddy relations with French political leaders. Yet anyone who's spent 10 minutes in Europe this last year knows that virtually every government there believes Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa. Is Kerry so uncurious about America's national security he can't pick up the phone to his Paris pals and get the scoop firsthand? For all his claims to be Monsieur Sophisticate, there's something hicky and parochial in his embrace of an obvious nutcake for passing partisan advantage.
Any Democrats and media types who are in the early stages of yellowcake fever and can still think clearly enough not to want dirty nukes going off in Seattle or Houston -- or even Vancouver or Rotterdam or Amman -- need to consider seriously the wild ride Yellowcake Joe took them on. An ambassador, in Sir Henry Wootton's famous dictum, is a good man sent abroad to lie for his country. This ambassador came home to lie to his. And the Dems and the media helped him do it.
re: Wilson outed his wife to Novak?? Has that been confirmed? In understood her name was mentioned not to out her, but to legitimately question the source of the report.
It just DUMBfounds me too see the Rat side of life support known liars such as Clinton, Moore, Clarke, Wilson yet jump up and down that BUSH lied yet can't pin a thing on him?
Call me CrAzY.....
Correction. The shows are sent down the net live. Local stations may opt to show them later. It is rare when segments are pre-taped....as was Colin Powell's palm tree segment a few weeks ago.
Another Steyn out of the ball park hit. Go Mark!
Oh, that we could get this into the hands--no, make that the minds--of every voter in the US.
vaudine
**Major Wanke's prime minister, among others, told Ambassador Wilson that he believed Iraq wanted yellowcake. And Ambassador Wilson told the CIA. And the CIA's report agreed with the British and the Europeans that "Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa."
**In his ludicrously vain memoir The Politics Of Truth, Wilson plays up his knowledge of the country. He makes much of his intimacy with Wanke and gives himself the credit for ridding Niger of the Wanke regime. The question then is why a man who knew so much about what was going on chose deliberately to misrepresent it to all his media/ Democrat buddies, not to mention to the American people. For a book called The Politics Of Truth, it's remarkably short of it. On page 2, Wilson says of his trip to Niger: "I had found nothing to substantiate the rumors." But he had. **
^^^^
Ambassador Wilson went to Niger in 2002, came back and told the CIA in 2002 that Iraq HAD attempted to buy yellow cake. Then he wrote an Op-ed published in the New York Times in June 2003 stating that President Bush lied when he said the famous 16 words in the January 2003 State of the Union speech, because he found NO evidence that Iraq had attempted to buy yellowcake in Niger.
It really does not take a conspiracy theorist to see that between January and June of 2003 someone approached ol' Amb Wilson and made him an offer he wouldn't refuse. I will never believe that he decided to go public with testimony that was 180° opposite to his OWN report to the CIA without external persuasion.
It had to be bribe or threat. He is such a slime ball that a hint of an invitation to the Hillary circle might have been enough.
Have you contacted any media to get the REST OF THE STORY out?? I am contacting Seattle Times today about this article.
Since we now all know that a memo exists from Valerie Plame recommending her husband for the assignment, and Novak's column referred to a Bush Administration official as the source of her name, I'm wondering if it isn't possible that someone at the CIA outted her to Novak. The CIA was being fingered for alot of intelligence failures. This was just another one. But perhaps someone at the CIA was a little tired of the organization being the scapegoat, and decided to advance the tidbit that eventually brought Wilson down.
They are very sensitive to that word, and have tried everything they know how to do, to pin that label on President Bush. Unfortunately for them, he is one of the most principled men to have held the office of the president.
Lying is a normal tactic for them so they simply cannot believe that W doesn't lie.
Kind of makes you want to laugh when these papers/news networks claim they have to have more than one verifiable source in order to print a story.
I am assuming that's why all (of them) suckered have fallen silent, too
makes sense.
Lando
Steyn nailed this one !
I guess you're right. I also thought the tense of "they've previously" was strained; I thought the past perfect would be better. I retract my criticism. Thanks.
From your link of the editorial on 23 October 2003:
Wilson also acknowledged that he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months. Yes, that would put it before Wilson started criticizing President Bush for the line in his State of the Union message about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger for use in Saddam Hussein's nuclear program. (Wilson was the one sent to Niger by the CIA to investigate the charge, but insists he found no evidence of same.)
So this slimeball has been used by the Kerry/Kennedy Mass Dem machine.
I believe that the Kerry campaign was behind the whole smear, not from the beginning, but starting with Joe Wilson. The Bush lied campaign was started in March, with the hullabaloo over the forged Italian documents, but it got very little traction, until Chris Lehane got a hold of Joe Wilson. And then the whole thing just escalated from there, including the accusation about outing Wilson's CIA wife.
Where did you getthat conclusion from? I have not heard this, I thought it was still under unvestigation. Please share your source.
At least I'm assuming that's why the New York Times, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, and PBS drone Bill Moyers (along with all the other media bigwigs Joseph C. Wilson IV suckered) have fallen silent on the subject of the white knight of integrity to whom they've previously given the hold-the-front-page treatment, too.
Given Steyn's prolific, high-quality prose sprinkled with facts that make his point obvious (like that bit about cowpeas), I'm more than willing to forgive the occasional glarp. The man's a genius. It's humbling to read his work.
Still, an ennumerated list of Joe's lies with sources would have been more powerful, thus making both the charges and Wilson's mendacity unmistakable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.