Joseph Wilson EPIC Lecture 6/14/2003 Outline/Transcript

EPIC: Education for Peace in Iraq Center ^ | 6/14/2003 | Joseph Wilson as transcribed by Fedora

[Fedora]

As for Ghorbanifar, if he's connected that could make things murky, but he's also an easy scapegoat since the CIA has been trashing him for years (probably with justification). Any cabal of VIPS-type CIA people could easily set Ghorbanifar up as a fall guy if anything went wrong - his reputation is already trash and he cannot possibly defend himself to the CIA or most in US government and media.

Yes. A related point I'd add: attaching the Niger forgeries to Ghorbanifar has the propaganda advantage that Ghorbanifar can easily be plugged into the ongoing conspiracy theory about Bush and the Iran-Contra-linked faction of CIA that Lyndon LaRouche and associated propagandists (like counterintelligence specialist Canninstraro) have been developing (drawing from earlier Nazi and Soviet propaganda sources) since LaRouche's war with the Reagan-Bush administration in the 1980s.

[Enchante]

Very entertaining, but blatantly wrong on many crucial details. Larry Johnson is a mendacious psychotic moron, and the fact that he was ever in the intel services (both CIA and State's counter-terrorism) of the USA is a black mark against them. The fact that he wrote one of the most idiotic assessments of the terrorism threat ever committed to paper (July 2001) for the NY Times, vigorously dismissing concerns about terrorism just two months before 9/11, shows that his judgment is worth less than the contents of Dan Rather's outhouse.

[kabar]

Agree completely with your evaluation of Johnson. There is no doubt that the bureaucracies of both the CIA and State were not happy with the decision to invade Iraq. I found Laurie Mylroie's book, Bush vs. The Beltway to be very instructive in that regard.

Today, I notice that Miller has been called back again to testify before the grand jury. I think Fitzgerald is on the verge of wrapping things up.

[pinz-n-needlez]

Have any of you 'data miners' seen any connection between all of this and Scott Ritter, who was also 'working' the WMD street?

A random thought, but he's a slime bucket of similar ilk.

Pinz

[Dolphy]

The inference of course, is since SP did not call him or contact him in any way, he was as clean as a whistle.

I remember reading early on that the subject of this kind of investigation would not likely be called. I don't know if that's an accurate depiction of these types of proceedings though and I can't recall where I read that.

[Enchante]

Haven't seen Ritter in relation to the Wilson/Plame matter, but just found this interview with Joe Wilson from Sept. 2003 that I've never seen discussed on FR before (and can't find it with an archives search):

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilson.interview.pdf

I'm going to give it a new thread just for our historical record, but it's unbearably long-winded and pompous, even for Joe Wilson, so I doubt any but absolute die-hards would wade through it all. Doesn't say much of interest (with one exception noted below) except to reinforce how incredibly self-important an egomaniac Joe Wilson is.

He thinks he's Henry Kissinger, geostrategic thinker, but in reality he is Elmer Fudd!

I think this all really most comes down to Wilson shrieking at the Bush administration "HOW DARE YOU NOT LISTEN TO ME! ME, ME, ME!!!" Of course, he would say that's because he knew so much better than evil neo-cons how to run foreign policy, but I think it's really petty personal pique. Especially when you consider that before the war he said in public several times he believed Saddam had a variety of WMDs - the debate for Wilson was what to do about it, not whether Saddam had them.

However, there is one very significant point: on p. 24 (of an endless 26 page transcript) he is talking about a presentation he gave early in 2002, and he expresses little doubt that Saddam may well have chem, bio, AND NUCLEAR weaponry:

"...ought to consider the possibility that a year from now [by early 2003], if we went in the direction we were going, the land to the south of Turkey [i.e., Iraq] might well be a chemical, biological, and nuclear wasteland."

As we saw with other appearances and articles from Wilson between Oct. 2002 - Jan. 2003, he expressed no serious doubt before the war that Saddam had WMDs and quite possibly all 3 major categories of WMDs. Before the war, Wilson only debated best MEANS of disarming Saddam, and advocated what he called "muscular disarmament" meaning somehow convince Saddam to disarm without a real threat of force to back us up.....

[Dolphy]

I don't see a reason for thinking people like Wilson would have set out on such a course before the Bush administration came into office.

Remember the US and Britain were at odds with Russia and France at the UN over Iraq long before Bush became President. Saddam wasn't in compliance with the resolutions but France and Russia continued to press to ease sanctions. Regime change became the official policy of the United States, skirmishes in the no fly zone continued and questions about Iraq's WMD at best remained unresolved. A day of some kind of reckoning was coming, Bush or not, September 11 or not.

Think too of Chirac who has publicly professed that there must be a counterweight to the world's lone superpower. And remember, when the day of reckoning finally arrived, Chirac told Blair that under no circumstances would France support military action in Iraq. Years and years of double dealing revealed...who can say what other mischief he and his were up to during that time.

[Fedora]

Ritter also participated in EPIC events--for instance, he was one of the keynote speakers at the annual EPIC Iraq Forum the year before Wilson and McGovern served as keynote speakers.

[Fedora]

Here are some links indicating the chronological development of the forgery operation:

Rocco Martino: ’I am the Source of the False Niger/Iraq Uranium Story’

Italian journalist claims she supplied Iraq-Niger uranium documents to US

Italy blames France for Niger uranium claim

French Probe Led to 'Fake Niger Uranium Papers'

The third link states that the forgeries were originally intended for use against Saddam when they began circulating in 2000, but in 2002 they were redeployed in an operation to discredit Berlusconi, Blair, and Bush's case for war.

[the Real fifi]

Yes, indeed. And the same can be said of McGovern,Wilson and Sheuer. I can't believe that Pincus and Kristof didn't know this within 5 minutes of talking to these nutters (Johnson and or McGovern seem to have been some of the "anonymous" sources these and other MSM reporters relied on besides Wilson; and Plame herself was certainly an "anonymous CIA analyst" in a key Wash Post article.Keeping the fact that this people are not credible shows how mendacious the reporters have been.

Sheuer was given big press play on his nutty book. Five minutes with him would be all it takes to realize he's not playing with a full deck.

[Enchante]

So the forged docs were in existence in "Autumn 2000" for use against Saddam, according to this author....I don't get what the play was against Saddam, to embarrass him with allegations of obtaining uranium or blackmail, what? Article says the forgeries were back in play in Nov. 2002, so whatever Wilson thinks his non-report from Niger in Feb. 2002 showed, it certainly did not tell people in Nov. 2002 what to think about these docs. Article also says real and fake documents were mixed together -- so are there any real documents expressly about uranium transactions between Niger and Iraq, or what does that mean? I find the whole affair more clouded than ever.

[Fedora]

I'll review what I've got on this more thoroughly another day and see if I find anything that sheds more light, but off the top of my head: I can only speculate as to how the forgers intended to use the documents against Saddam, but I'd assume they'd be designed in the hopes of generating UN action, if that was indeed the original purpose. As to Iraq-Niger transactions, there are other possible indicators of actual uranium transactions/transaction attempts independent of the forgeries, but I don't recall offhand if the indicators are of a documentary or oral nature--will need to look that up to refresh my memory on that. I'll tackle that another day, as I'm about to turn in here--have a good one!

[pinz-n-needlez]

>>>>...it's unbearably long-winded and pompous, even for Joe Wilson, so I doubt any but absolute die-hards would wade through it all. Doesn't say much of interest (with one exception noted below) except to reinforce how incredibly self-important an egomaniac Joe Wilson is.

He thinks he's Henry Kissinger, geostrategic thinker, but in reality he is Elmer Fudd!>>>>

You have summed up Joe Wilson perfectly. ;-)

I think he created this tempest in a teapot for self-aggrandizement as much as to have a straw man with which to flog Bush, Rove, Cheney, Libby and anyone else they could think of.

I do trust (and pray) that it will come back to bite him, his wife and their cohorts in their collective a$$e$.

Pinz
Offering $.05 bounty for the person who finds the Ritter link. They're all in this Iraq Kabuki dance together...

[pinz-n-needlez]

Ritter was interviewed on the Diane Rehm show on NPR yesterday. Didn't listen to it, but one of my lib friends (sorry!) thought he did a wonderful job (barf!).

I've got the link she sent me around here somewhere... http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/05/10/11.php. Couldn't find a transcript, but here's the blurb/announcement...

"11:00 Scott Ritter: "Iraq Confidential" (Nation Books)
A former UN weapons inspector talks about looking for WMDs in Iraq. He also explains how much of the intelligence used to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq was discredited by work he and fellow inspectors conducted in the 1990s.

Guests
Scott Ritter, was a top UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998. He is a former Marine."

Why isn't he hanging from a tree somewhere??

Pinz

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

FWIW (my interpretation is based on Law for Dummies, LOL!)

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/11mcrm.htm#9-11.153

---

9-11.150 Subpoenaing Targets of the Investigation

A grand jury may properly subpoena a subject or a target of the investigation and question the target about his or her involvement in the crime under investigation....

....However, in the context of particular cases such a subpoena may carry the appearance of unfairness. Because the potential for misunderstanding is great, before a known "target" (as defined in USAM 9-11.151) is subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury about his or her involvement in the crime under investigation, an effort should be made to secure the target's voluntary appearance.

If a voluntary appearance cannot be obtained, the target should be subpoenaed only after the grand jury and the United States A ttorney or the responsible Assistant Attorney General have approved the subpoena.

In determining whether to approve a subpoena for a "target," careful attention will be paid to the following considerations:

The importance to the successful conduct of the grand jury's investigation of the testimony or other information sought;

Whether the substance of the testimony or other information sought could be provided by other witnesses; and

Whether the questions the prosecutor and the grand jurors intend to ask or the other information sought would be protected by a valid claim of privilege.

---

9-11.152 Requests by Subjects and Targets to Testify Before the Grand Jury

It is not altogether uncommon for subjects or targets of the grand jury's investigation, particularly in white-collar cases, to request or demand the opportunity to tell the grand jury their side of the story.

While the prosecutor has no legal obligation to permit such witnesses to testify, ........a refusal to do so can create the appearance of unfairness.

Accordingly, under normal circumstances, where no burden upon the grand jury or delay of its proceedings is involved, reasonable requests by a "subject" or "target" of an investigation, as defined above, to testify personally before the grand jury ordinarily should be given favorable consideration, provided that such witness explicitly waives his or her privilege against self-incrimination, on the record before the grand jury, and is represented by counsel or voluntarily and knowingly appears without counsel and consents to full examination under oath.

Such witnesses may wish to supplement their testimony with the testimony of others. The decision whether to accommodate such requests or to reject them after listening to the testimony of the target or the subject, or to seek statements from the suggested witnesses, is a matter left to the sound discretion of the grand jury. When passing on such requests, it must be kept in mind that the grand jury was never intended to be and is not properly either an adversary proceeding or the arbiter of guilt or innocence......

---

9-11.153 Notification of Targets

When a target is not called to testify pursuant to USAM 9-11.150, and does not request to testify on his or her own motion (see USAM 9-11.152), the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury, subject to the conditions set forth in USAM 9-11.152.

Notification would not be appropriate in routine clear cases or when such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.

---

I left out case citations and inserted the breaks for ease of reading

[ravingnutter]

attaching the Niger forgeries to Ghorbanifar has the propaganda advantage that Ghorbanifar can easily be plugged into the ongoing conspiracy theory about Bush and the Iran-Contra-linked faction of CIA

Like this:

Iran-Contra II? Fresh scrutiny on a rogue Pentagon operation.

[ravingnutter]

Ghorbanifar's also been alleged (by CIA types) to be behind the series of faxes that Curt Weldon received from another Iranian emigre that led to the book Weldon published this summer. Some CIA officials told Weldon he'd been 'had' by Ghorbanifar..... Don't know about that.

There is some interesting info at the Captains Quarters Blog about that.

[the Real fifi]

Fedora I think they were designed to be pulled out of the hat at the last moment to stop the war, and Bush started it faster than they (and the French planned) so they recycled it to use to claim "Bush lied", get him impeached, a more tractable Dem President elected. That's my view and I'm sticking with it.

[Fedora]

Why isn't he hanging from a tree somewhere??

Maybe someone felt sorry for the tree? :-)

Thanks for the link. I think now that Saddam's funding of Ritter has been exposed, Ritter is repeating his original lie more vehemently in the hope he can dupe enough people to play it off, which is the only hope he has at this point: he's bound himself to his alibi and he either rides the waves with it or it drags him like an anchor all the way to the bottom (which for him isn't a very long trip).

[Fedora]

Yes, like that. Marshall didn't do a complete propaganda job there, though: he only mentioned Ledeen in passing, and he forgot to digress into Oliver North or Ted Shackley or Richard Helms or anyone like that. He needs to brush up on his anti-CIA conspiracy theory technique by rereading the works of Peter Dale Scott and Alfred McCoy and some back issues of Ramparts a few more times. I give him a C-.