Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: All
It's the 1950s and Wilson is Alger Hiss and Libby is Whittaker Chambers. Well what the hell. Close enough.

Good conservatives protest, it's just not fa-a-a-a-air. No way did the White House or anyone do anything meant to get CIA legendary and preeminent hero agent Plame killed to get back at a hero in his own right, Amb. Wilson.

Meanwhile the left's lies have circled the globe umpteen times and their vitriol eats away while good conservatives daintily debate using polite oft-heard arguments (I am listening to Rush).

The left done it in the 1950s, they done it ever since, they done done it again, "good" conservatives. You never learn. It's what they do.

Keep on truckling, man!

282 posted on 03/07/2007 10:37:31 AM PST by WilliamofCarmichael (If modern America's Man on Horseback is out there, Get on the damn horse already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies ]


To: WilliamofCarmichael

COULTER is the only one fighting the dragon.
COULTER knows that words mean something!
COULTER - Joan of Arc!

Jo Nuvark


286 posted on 03/07/2007 10:39:24 AM PST by Jo Nuvark (Those who bless Israel will be blessed, those who curse Israel will be cursed. Gen 12:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies ]

To: WilliamofCarmichael
The left done it in the 1950s, they done it ever since, they done done it again, "good" conservatives. You never learn. It's what they do.

Far more Americans are aware now than they were then. It still isn't easy fighting against the liberal machine, even knowing what they do.

This man on the radio right now has done more to slow the liberal advance than any ten elected conservatives have done, but it still isn't enough. We are in a long running war with the DEM/MSM.

Unfortunately, being a conservative usually means having some personal morals, which naturally prevents us from being POSs like most libs. We have a built in handicap.

298 posted on 03/07/2007 10:42:25 AM PST by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies ]

To: WilliamofCarmichael

More like Ames and Philby.

I especially liked how he told Kristoff about the forged documents (Italy/Rocco, his ex-wife Jacqueline at the French Embassy involved), and said the signature was wrong because that person wasn't there at that time and the dates were wrong... even though they wouldn't surface till months later (6 or 8 months, I forget), through El Baradei.



Realizing he was caught... he backpedaled:

Wilson writes:

I did not misstate the facts as Nick Kristof acknowledged in an email to me that is in the first chapter of the new edition (paperback) of the book. Pincus also acknowledged that to me in a telephone call in July 2004, and again just two days ago in an email. This is part of the misreporting that I tried to correct in my original article on July 6, 2003 in which I said clearly that I had never seen the documents. What motive would I have in saying something so demonstrably false since the USG did not even have the documents in question at the time I was asked to go to Niger. All discussion with both Kristof and Pincus was about information that al Baradai brought to the public in his March, 2003 testimony before the UN.

This is how Kristof handled it:

Along the Pincus lines, Kristof's only mention of this in print is in his correction:

"Wilson has said that he misspoke when he made references to the documents to me and to two other journalists. By the time we spoke in 2003, these problems in the documents had been pointed out and were in the public domain, but apparently not in early 2002. So while it?s possible that he reported that the signatures were wrong, that seems to me unlikely."

Now that is odd. There is no denial there, nothing like "I was the reporter he talked to and he did not say he had seen the forged documents. I'm sorry for the confusion." Nothing like that at all.


Yep... not, I lied about forgeries Wilson never told me about, it was a psychic incident.

Hey, not as good as Joe on these:

Why Wilson is a Liar and Wrong - The Dummies Guide

Posted by Dorkafork
A brief overview:

Sent at the behest of the Vice President: This was language used by Nicholas Kristof (among others). This is disingenuous. He was not specifically asked by the office of the Vice President to go to Niger, nor was anyone specifically asked by the VP's office to go to Niger. The CIA at a lower level decided on its own to send someone to get more information to help answer a question that a senior administration official had asked. But this is a little thing. I am willing to give Wilson a pass on this and assume it was just a case of reporters lying, and not Wilson himself. I am magnanimous on this, because he has been caught red-handed in other lies. Even though it is possible that Wilson lied about this to reporters, the same way he lied about...

The forged Niger documents: Wilson told his story to several reporters, saying that he had seen documents that were impossible for him to have seen. A deliberate effort to ensure "that this story has legs", one that got him "cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian." Specifically cited by Kristof, who said "this senior envoy briefed the C.I.A. and State Department and reported that the documents were bogus." Also cited by Pincus, who reported "Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said." According to the SSCI report(pdf), Wilson admitted he was the source for the WaPo article, but claimed he "misspoke." As Tom Maguire put it recently, "Kristof, Pincus of the WaPo, and Judis and Ackerman of The New Republic all misheard him?"

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."*: Flat out lie. The SSCI report(pdf) is a must-read, from pg. 36 onwards. Plame recommended him for the trip and convened the meeting where his trip was initially discussed.

(The Art of Weaselly Semi-Corrections by Kaus today on Kristof is a must read.)

Even if he had not lied, he would simply be wrong. He asked former officials (none of whom were currently serving in the Nigerien government) about a deal that they would be unlikely to admit to. He then comes back with a piece of information that the analysts thought bolstered the case that Iraq was seeking a uranium deal with Niger. And yet, somehow he believes he disproved that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." He's either lying or he is a fool who, like many on the left, do not understand the difference between "sought" and "obtained". (Not the first words they've had trouble understanding.)



338 posted on 03/07/2007 10:59:11 AM PST by AliVeritas (Stop Global Dhimming. Demand testicular fortitude from the hill. Call the crusade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies ]

To: All

Yep, remember when we broke this and no one in the MSM gave a durn:

Before Novak, The Joe Wilson Speech that Made Clear His Agenda
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/10/before-novak-joe-wilson-speech-that.html

September 30, 2003
The 'Apolitical' Ambassador at the Heart of the Plame Affair
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/000503.html

September 30, 2003
"I really am apolitical in all of this."
(full of linky goodness and has the disappearing Wilson audio file... it pays to get a copy)
http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/000507.html


347 posted on 03/07/2007 11:03:58 AM PST by AliVeritas (Stop Global Dhimming. Demand testicular fortitude from the hill. Call the crusade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson