Thursday, July 12, 2007

WIlson/Plame open thread

For JP5 to discuss Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame.

Some links for reference:

The column Nicholas Kristof wrote after meeting with Wilson and Plame in May 2003.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report from July 2004.

The letter Wilson wrote in response to the Senate report.

A transcript of the first half of Valerie Plame's testimony before the House Oversight Committee in March 2007. It's in two parts. (Part I, Part II), as well as overall highlights and her opening statement.

A Washington Post story that clarifies what the CIA spokesman told Robert Novak about Plame.




Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh goody. Thanks.

Here's some more relevant articles:

"Husband Is Conspicuous in Leak Case"
Wilson's Credibility Debated as Charges In Probe Considered Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus---no friends of the administration.

July 10, 2004
Joseph Wilson, Liar

"But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies."

"Woodward Apologizes to Post For Silence on Role in Leak Case"

"Woodward adds twist to CIA leak case
Reporter learned Plame's name a month before it was publicized"

"Patrick Fitzgerald has to be embarrassed. His statement at his press conference that Libby was the first administration official who identified Plame has been effectively refuted by Woodward's (reluctant) testimony."

..."Woodward's disclosure refutes the timeline that Fitzgerald presented at his press conference."


7/12/2007 8:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick Fitzgerald lied when he stated in a press conference...

"In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson."

Fitzgerald KNEW when he made this statement it was a he knew that Richard Armitage leaked to Bob Woodward BEFORE Libby discussed it with Judith Miller.....(who didn't write a story, BTW) Armitage also told Pincus and no telling how many others as he was a real gossip. Once Armitage made it know, her cover---if she had any----was already blown. There was NO WH conspiracy to "out" Valerie Plame.


7/12/2007 8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of the Senate Intelligence Report from 2004:

"The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

"According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998."


So far, we have the jury totally ignoring Woodward's testimony and anything from the unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee findings. Unanimous means that ALL the Democrats on the Committee also signed-off on it's findings. Those Democrats included Diane Feinstein, Jay Rockefeller, Jon Edwards and others.

7/13/2007 10:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Senate Intelligence Report on it's hearing:

"An INR analyst’s notes indicate that the meeting was “apparently convened by [the former ambassador’s] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.” The former ambassador’s wife told Committee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes."

A LIE from the Wilson's----that his wife had 'nothing to do' with sending him. She not only "offered him up" she wrote a recommendation of him to her boss.


7/14/2007 10:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Senate Intelligence Report:

"The TNR analyst’s notes also indicate that specific details of the classified report on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal were discussed at the meeting, as well as whether analysts believed it was plausible that Niger would be capable of delivering such a large quantity of uranium to Iraq. The CIA has told Committee staff that the former ambassador did not have a “formal” security clearance but had been given an “operational clearance” up to the Secret level for the purposes of his potential visit to Niger."

So---classified information was discussed at this meeting where Wilson was present. Many of the INR expressed how worthwhile the trip would be as the Niger officials would never admit to it anyway. But they decided it was worth a try.

7/14/2007 10:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the Senate Intelligence Report:

"U)On February 26,2002, the former ambassador arrived in Niger. He told Committee staff that he first met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick to discuss his upcoming meetings. Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick asked him not to meet with current Nigerien officials because she believed it might complicate her continuing diplomatic efforts with them on the uranium issue. The former ambassador agreed to restrict his meetings to former officials and the private sector."

Joseph Wilson NEVER even met with the CURRENT Niger officials----just the "former" officials and the private sector. He asked a few questions, they said "No" and that was that. He did no investigation----just came back with an opinion that he already had formed BEFORE he went over there....that it was "this crazy report." He also saw no documents.


7/14/2007 10:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wilson's knowledge of the documents from the Senate Intelligence Report:

"Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentationof a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no “documents” circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador’s trip, only intelligence reports from =intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19,2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report -
(U) The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article (“CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid,” June 12,2003) which said, “among the Envoy’s conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”’ Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have “misspoken”to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were “forged.” He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents."

From whom? Who, then, provided him with this Classified information BEFORE it was public? And besides, Wilson didnt just say this in the newspaper article---he said it was something he determined on his trip. That was an OUTRIGHT lie.


7/14/2007 10:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great news: a federal judge has ruled against the civil case that Plame and hubby filed against VP Cheney, Rove, and others. He basically said what I've said many times before: that the administration had every right to repond to the criticism being made of them by the Wilson's. It's not only their right, but in their job duties to respond to the press.

And since the Wilson's were LYING about them, it was incumbent upon them to set the record straight and correct those lies publically.
Evidently, the Wilson's believed they should have the right to lie about the administration and were somehow insulated from any kind of defense against those lies. I'm glad this judge agrees. I can't imagine any higher judge ruling any differently.


7/20/2007 6:41 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home