« Senate To Probe Sheik Mohammed’s Treatment | Main | Terrorists Launch Another Chlorine Gas Attack »     


When And Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame

Despite having ample opportunities to do so, Joe Wilson never complained about the "sixteen words" in President Bush’s State Of The Union address until almost five months after it was delivered.

And then only after he had met with top Democrat Senators and had signed on with John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

From then on Mr. Wilson promoted a two-fold story to reporters in which he claimed:

1) That he had personally debunked the claims of Iraq’s nuclear deals with Niger with an "unequivocal" report that circulated at the highest levels of the government.

2) That he had personally debunked the so-called Niger forgeries by pointing out to the CIA and State Department that the documents contained errors in names and dates.

We now know thanks to the report on this matter from the bi-partisan US Senate Select Committee On Intelligence that both of these claims were utterly false. (And indeed, the "sixteen words" themselves have turned out to be quite grounded in fact.)

So how is it that some of the most prominent reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post and elsewhere reported Mr. Wilson’s outlandish charges on faith? He does not generally give the impression of being any too trustworthy.

Was it because he had someone who could corroborate his incendiary story? A "second source"? An expert in this very field?

A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.

When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.

With that in mind it is an easy step to suppose that it was Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV himself who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer.

And, as Mr. Armitage also suggested, Wilson did so because he didn’t want to be dismissed as some "low-level guy." He wanted to buttress his wildly outrageous (and we now know fallacious) claims against a then popular President at the height of a then popular war.

And what better way to do so than to produce the person who sent him on his mission, and who witnessed the events unfold — his own wife, who just happened to be an expert on weapons of mass destruction.

To see how this may very well have happened, let’s go through the chronology in greater detail.

January 28, 2003: President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union address.

February 6, 2003: Joe Wilson wrote an editorial for the Los Angeles Times, A ‘Big Cat’ With Nothing to Lose, in which he claimed we should not attack Saddam Hussein because he will use his weapons of mass destruction on our troops and give them to terrorists.

There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him.

And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that.

February 28, 2003: Joe Wilson was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Wilson agreed with Bush’s SOTU remarks, and reiterated his belief that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on US troops.

MOYERS: President Bush’s recent speech to the American Enterprise Institute, he said, let me quote it to you. "The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure.

MOYERS: "The danger must be confronted." You agree with that? "We would hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat." You agree with that?

WILSON: I agree with that. Sure. The President goes on to say in that speech as he did in the State of the Union Address is we will liberate Iraq from a brutal dictator. All of which is true. But the only thing Saddam Hussein hears in this speech or the State of the Union Address is, "He’s coming to kill me. He doesn’t care if I have weapons of mass destruction or not. His objective is to come and overthrow my regime and to kill me." And that then does not provide any incentive whatsoever to disarm.

March 3, 2003: At the invitation of David Corn, Joe Wilson wrote a piece for the Nation, Republic Or Empire?

In it Wilson blasted the "neo-conservatives" in the Bush administration for their imperial over-reach. But he once again made no mention of uranium or any other suggestion that Bush misled the country or lied about Iraq’s WMD.

Then what’s the point of this new American imperialism? The neoconservatives with a stranglehold on the foreign policy of the Republican Party, a party that traditionally eschewed foreign military adventures, want to go beyond expanding US global influence to force revolutionary change on the region.

American pre-eminence in the Gulf is necessary but not sufficient for the hawks. Nothing short of conquest, occupation and imposition of handpicked leaders on a vanquished population will suffice. Iraq is the linchpin for this broader assault on the region. The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region, a breathtakingly ambitious undertaking, smacking of hubris in the extreme.

March 8, 2003: CNN’s Renay San Miguel interviewed Joe Wilson about the so-called Niger forgeries, which had just become a hot topic in the news.

SAN MIGUEL: Just fine. How could this happen? It is the perception that documents like these are vetted to within an inch of their life by intelligence agencies. How do you think this managed to slip by?

WILSON: Well, this particular case is outrageous. I actually started my foreign service career in Niger and ended my foreign service career doing  –  in charge of Africa in the Clinton White House. We know a lot about the uranium business in Niger, and for something like this to go unchallenged by U.S.  –  the U.S. government is just simply stupid. It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early ’60s. All this stuff is open. It’s a restricted market of buyers and sellers. The Nigerians (sic) have always been very open with us.

For this to have gotten to the IAEA is on the face of it dumb, but more to the point, it taints the whole rest of the case that the government is trying to build against Iraq…

SAN MIGUEL: So how do you play this, then? I mean, what, do you admit it, do you just move on? Do you try to get these things verified if you do believe, indeed, that Iraq was trying to buy this material from Niger? I mean, how do you handle this? What’s the damage control on this?

WILSON: I have no idea. I’m not in the government. I would not want to be doing damage control on this. I think you probably just fess up and try to move on and say there’s sufficient other evidence to convict Saddam of being involved in the nuclear arms trade.

Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade.

So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about Iraq’s WMD and revise his "findings" from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the US Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence report?

And what set Mr. Wilson off on his jihad against Mr. Bush about those "16 words"?

The answer is obvious. The US invaded Iraq in mid-March and after searching for six weeks, admitted they had not found any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. So Mr. Bush was suddenly very vulnerable to criticism on the subject. Even though Mr. Wilson had continually contended that Saddam had WMD.

And, coincidentally…

May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.

Wilson… said he has long been a Kerry supporter and has contributed $2,000 to the campaign this year. He said he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months and will campaign for Kerry, including a trip to New Hampshire… — David Tirrell-Wysocki, "Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race,” The Associated Press, 10/23/03

Five months prior to October 2, 2003 would be May 2, 2003. What happened on that date?

May 2, 2003: Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame attended a conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was the New York Times journalist Nicholas Kristof.

(Coincidentally, all records of this particular conference at the Senate Democratic Policy Committee have been expunged from their website.)

May 3, 2003: Over breakfast, Wilson and Valerie told Kristof about his trip to Niger.

May 6, 2003: Kristof published the first public mention of Wilson’s mission to Niger, without identifying him by name, in a column for the New York Times, Missing in Action: Truth.

I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy’s debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted  –  except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.

Note that unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson was now claiming to have personally taken an active role in debunking the so-called forgeries. Which is of course untrue, since we now know Wilson never saw the documents.

The Senate’s Select Committee On Intelligence, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports."

(The Senate Committee’s report goes on to say: the former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged.")

And of course Mr. Wilson’s report was anything but "unequivocal." Indeed, the same Senate report said that the CIA believed Wilson’s trip had provided evidence that Iraq was trying to buy Yellowcake from Niger.

May 23, 2003: The John Kerry For President campaign recorded a $1,000 contribution from Joe Wilson.

June 12, 2003: Walter Pincus published an article in the Washington Post, CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data.

During his trip, the CIA’s envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. 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.

Again, we now know that what Wilson told Pincus, like what he had told Kristof, was completely untrue, since the relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

June 2003: According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, the following interview with Richard Armitage at the State Department transpired "about a month before" Robert Novak’s column appeared on July 14, 2003.

Woodward: Well it was Joe Wilson who was sent by the agency, isn’t it?
Armitage: His wife works for the agency.
Woodward: Why doesn’t that come out? Why does that have to be a big secret?
Armitage: (over) Everybody knows it.
Woodward: Everyone knows?
Armitage: Yeah. And they know ’cause Joe Wilson’s been calling everybody. He’s pissed off ’cause he was designated as a low level guy went out to look at it. So he’s all pissed off.
Woodward: But why would they send him?
Armitage: Because his wife’s an analyst at the agency.
Woodward: It’s still weird.
Armitage: He  –  he’s perfect. She  –  she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.  
Woodward: Oh, she is.
Armitage: (over) Yeah.
Woodward: Oh, I see. I didn’t think…
Armitage: (over) "I know who’ll look at it." Yeah, see?
Woodward: Oh. She’s the chief WMD…?
Armitage: No. She’s not the…
Woodward: But high enough up that she could say, "oh, yeah, hubby will go."
Armitage: Yeah. She knows [garbled].
Woodward: Was she out there with him, when he was…?
Armitage: (over) No, not to my knowledge. I don’t know if she was out there. But his wife’s in the agency as a WMD analyst. How about that?

Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame.

Armitage brought this up because he is a gossip and it was already common knowledge because Joe Wilson had been calling all of the newspapers trying to get them to run his story about his mission to Niger.

Given the chronology and Mr. Armitage’s remarks, it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere, when he was hawking his story about his trip to Niger.

And these are the people Dick Armitage said Wilson was calling. Who else would he be calling?

And it’s highly probably that Wilson’s motivation for bringing up his wife is likely to have been exactly as Armitage suggested to Woodward. Wilson wanted to give his radically new and dangerous story more credibility.

He wanted to show that he was not just some untrustworthy "low-level guy" who had peaked in his career as an Ambassador to some godforsaken country nobody had ever heard of.

June 14, 2003: Joe Wilson shared a podium with Ray McGovern as the keynote speaker at the very leftwing Education For Peace In Iraq Center. (Valerie was also in attendance.)

Let me just start out by saying, as a preface to what I really want to talk about, to those of you who are going out and lobbying tomorrow, I just want to assure you that that American ambassador who has been cited in reports in the New York Times and in the Washington Post, and now in the Guardian over in London, who actually went over to Niger on behalf of the government — not of the CIA but of the government — and came back in February of 2002 and told the government that there was nothing to this story, later called the government after the British white paper was published and said you all need to do some fact — checking and make sure the Brits aren’t using bad information in the publication of the white paper, and who called both the CIA and the State Department after the President’s State of the Union and said to them you need to worry about the political manipulation of intelligence if, in fact, the President is talking about Niger when he mentions Africa.

That person was told by the State Department that, well, you know, there’s four countries that export uranium. That person had served in three of those countries, so he knew a little bit about what he was talking about when he said you really need to worry about this.

But I can assure you that that retired American ambassador to Africa, as Nick Kristof called him in his article, is also pissed off, and has every intention of ensuring that this story has legs. And I think it does have legs. It may not have legs over the next two or three months, but when you see American casualties moving from one to five or to ten per day, and you see Tony Blair’s government fall because in the U.K. it is a big story, there will be some ramifications, I think, here in the United States, so I hope that you will do everything you can to keep the pressure on. Because it is absolutely bogus for us to have gone to war the way we did

(Note that Ray McGovern is the head of the group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, whose mission is to cajole current and former intel workers to leak information to the press that would hurt national security and our military efforts abroad. A prominent member of VIPS, Larry Johnson, was a classmate of Valerie’s at the CIA, and claims to have been a friend with her ever since. Mr. Wilson has worked very closely with Ray McGovern and VIPS since at least this meeting.)

Of course Wilson was speaking of himself as a thinly disguised third person. He promised the audience that he would see to it that his mission to Niger story "would have legs."

And sure enough other newspaper articles began to appear, for which Mr. Wilson had been the obvious source.

June 29, 2003: The UK’s Independent published, Ministers Knew War Papers Were Forged, Says Diplomat.

A high-ranking American official who investigated claims for the CIA that Iraq was seeking uranium to restart its nuclear programme accused Britain and the US yesterday of deliberately ignoring his findings to make the case for war against Saddam Hussein.

The retired US ambassador said it was all but impossible that British intelligence had not received his report - drawn up by the CIA - which revealed that documents, purporting to show a deal between Iraq and the West African state of Niger, were forgeries.

When he saw similar claims in Britain’s dossier on Iraq last September, he even went as far as telling CIA officials that they needed to alert their British counterparts to his investigation…

The former diplomat - who had served as an ambassador in Africa - had been approached by the CIA in February 2002 to carry out a "discreet" task: to investigate if it was possible that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger. He said the CIA had been asked to find out in a direct request from the office of the Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

During eight days in Niger, he discovered it was impossible for Iraq to have been buying the quantities of uranium alleged. "My report was very unequivocal," he said. He also learnt that the signatures of officials vital to any transaction were missing from the documents. On his return, he was debriefed by the CIA.

Note that once again almost everything in this article, like the others, has been subsequently proven to be untrue. Including Wilson’s claim that he had seen the supposedly forged documents, that he had reported them to be forgeries, and that his Niger report was "unequivocal."

July 6, 2003: Richard Leiby and Walter Pincus published another Wilson sourced article, Ex-Envoy: Nuclear Report Ignored, in the Washington Post.

While [Wilson's] family prepared for a Fourth of July dinner, he proudly showed a reporter photos of himself with Bush’s parents.

That is to say, either Richard Leiby or Walter Pincus (or both) spent a seemingly very cordial Fourth of July at the home of Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame.

July 6, 2003: Still frustrated that his trip to Niger story was still not getting the attention he thought it deserved, Mr. Wilson finally stepped out from behind the curtain and wrote his now notorious op-ed piece for the New York Times, What I Didn’t Find in Africa.

July 6, 2003: Joe Wilson appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press with Tim Russert.

So, in all, Wilson managed to publish a New York Times editorial, be the subject of a front-page Washington Post story, and put in an appearance on a Sunday Morning talk show all on the same day.

Note too that it has been regularly suggested that all of the reporters involved, Kristof, Leiby, Pincus and even Tim Russert knew about Valerie Plame’s employment at the CIA before its disclosure in Robert Novak’s column.

July 8, 2003: Richard Armitage told Robert Novak about Wilson’s wife working at the CIA.

July 14, 2003: Mr. Novak published his column, Mission To Niger.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

But according to Mr. Armitage and every other indication, Valerie Plame’s work at the CIA had already been revealed to reporters by her husband Joe Wilson to give credence to his new and mendacious claims about what he uncovered in his trip to Niger.

And there was another motivation possibly at work here as well. Something that could possibly have induced an ambitious man to completely change his story and even make up things that he could not have actually experienced.

For lest we forget, there was suddenly much talk at this time within the Kerry camp that Joe Wilson might be the new administration’s Secretary Of State. The vainglorious Mr. Wilson most certainly had his eyes on that prize.

Discrediting President Bush on his (then) strongest point, the war in Iraq, would certainly be a feather in Wilson’s cap in the eyes of the Kerry campaign.

And any concern about the secrecy of his wife’s job at the CIA was surely a minor consideration compared to that lofty goal of becoming John Kerry’s Secretary Of State.

Related Articles:

  Print Email

78 Responses to “When And Why Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame”

  1. BillK

    You foolishly assume anyone anywhere actually gives a damn about the truth. :-(

    Great research though… I hope you get wider distribution on this.

  2. NightFire

    More and more this smells like a CIA put-up job. All this started when Rumsfeld was beefing up military intelligence, which represented a threat to the CIA. Military intelligence (which is basically the Army) is directly accountable to the Commander-in Chief; CIA is not.

  3. jhstuart

    Valerie Plame outed herself. In connection with a campaign contribution to Al Gore in 1999 she was required to list her place of employment and provided Brewster-Jenkins which was a front company for the CIA (source: WaPo 2003) and listed her name as Valerie E. Wilson. Anyone familiar with the firm would have learned she was an CIA agent.

  4. mathews

    Rumour from Novak has Wilson updating Washington’s Who’s Who with CIA employment. Anyone know the timeline. These idiots were socialites and too stupid to be covert.

  5. wytammic

    You foolishly assume anyone anywhere actually gives a damn about the truth. :-(

    Great research though… I hope you get wider distribution on this.

    Well said and SG you can definitely say you told them so.

  6. GM Roper

    Absolutely great post. You’ve nailed Joe to the floor, he can’t escape. However, the MSM will never report the same information as it doesn’t meet their criteria for news.

    You also might want to correct this before a leftish person accuses you of dishonesty: Mr. Novak then published that information in his column on July 14, 2007.

    July 2007 just can’t be right!

  7. SG

    Thanks for catching that typo, GMR. And for all your kind words.

  8. Albertafriend

    Great summary of the relevant details of the timeline SG! Someone with some credible “weight” needs to write an book and get it published with the truth behind this assault on the administration that includes all of the information that we have been talking about for the past almost 4 years.

  9. SCMike

    SG - Great work!

    Jhstuart -
    I think that the Gore campaign contribution was her hubby’s doings. According to FEC records, on 3/26/1999 he’d made a $2,000 contribution to the Gore campaign; the limit at the time was $1,000 per person. GORE 2000 INC caught the error and on 4/22/1999 refunded $1,000 back to Joe; on that same date FEC records show that Ms. Valerie E. Wilson, employed by Brewster-Jennings & Assoc., made her $1,000 contribution. She may not have known about it at the time, and there’s no record of other contributions from her to any candidate. Her husband, however, was a fairly active contributor, likely motivated to help his business. Using “Brewster-Jennings & Assoc” instead of “homemaker” was stupid, another fact pointing in Joe’s direction.

  10. MD in Philly

    Just found your site from a link in a post at hughhewitt. Great work on the PlameGate democrat disinformation propaganda machine.
    I was not aware that Wilson appeared to have at least some sanity for awhile before he became involoved with the Kerry campaign.
    I agree with those who see this as a partisan job within the CIA by a few who wanted to undermine the President, and when it was about to be exposed they did a (successful) pre-emptive PR strike to put the focus on the administration.

    My hope and prayer is that testimony willl (continue) to come out in the hearings that embarrasses the true guilty players, and indictments and conviction will come to those who participated in it and in the cover up of it. I hope that career people in these agencies learn to tremble at the idea of acting partisan, for any party. (It should have been easy to determine and confirm that Plame was not covert long ago before there ever was a special prosecutor appointed).

  11. Terry Gain

    I’ve been following thie Plame story as closely as I can but this post contains information about the duplicitous Mr. Wilson that I haven’t seen before. I think your summary excellent and your theory very plausible. Perhaps it will be put to the test if the Wilson/Plame lawsuit ever gets to court.

  12. FishyFred

    I seem to have failed Reading Comprehension 101. Would someone please pick out the part of this post that supports the theory?

  13. jtreacher

    “I seem to have failed Reading Comprehension 101. Would someone please pick out the part of this post that supports the theory?”

    There are only three: Beginning, middle, end.

  14. 1sttofight

    FishyFred ,

    I seriously doubt anyone has ever accused you of being intelligent.

  15. SG

    Another interesting angle in the chronology is Mr. Wilson’s participation in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), Ray McGovern’s organization of current and former intelligence agents:

    Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V.....for_Sanity

    This is a group dedicated to releasing intelligence secrets to our military and national security.

    When did Wilson first involve himself with them? And who contacted whom?

    As we now know, one of its more prominent (and less balanced) members, Larry C. Johnson, was a classmate of Valerie Plame’s at the CIA training program. Johnson claims to have maintained his friendship with her since.

    Wilson, and the rest of the VIPS group were participants in this agit-prop documentary — which was begun in June of 2003:

    UNCOVERED: The War on Iraq - interviews
    http://www.truthuncovered.com/interviews.php

    It was finished a few weeks later.

    Some timing, huh?

  16. clancy everafter

    I am not seeing the actual outing on Wilson’s part, however. As much as we like to bandy about the talk that Valerie Plame’s occupation was well-known on the Washington cocktail circuit, none of us had heard a peep, not even the slightest intimation of her occupation, prior to Wilson’s editorial. That’s the fatal flaw in this exquisitely detailed post: we want it to be true, so we go looking for what we think supports that truth. There is no GOTCHA moment in this finely-researched post. It LOOKS authoritative, but where’s the meat? I don’t see Plame listing Brewster-Jennings as her employer as outing herself. That makes no sense-if it was a fake firm set up to provide cover for CIA agents, then it would be counter-intuitive for her to hide that she “worked” there, wouldn’t it? What good is it setting up a fake place of employment for your agents and analysts if none of them actually use the cover you provide?

    edit: If you’re going to make claims like “Note that almost everything in this article, like the others, has been subsequently proven to be untrue. Including Wilson’s claim that he had seen the supposedly forged documents, and that his Niger report was “unequivocal.”" Then some citation is neccessary. That’s another weak link here–you are making the assumption, conscious or not, that only people who fall in line with you, ideologically speaking, are going to read this. If you can show where Wilson is proven to be lying in that article, it would make your case a lot stronger. As it is, I’m seeing a lot of research and no conclusion that fits that research. I’m seeing a lot of research that backs up a presupposition, which is not conducive to advancing the debate or convincing people of what’s really going on.

  17. SG

    “As much as we like to bandy about the talk that Valerie Plame’s occupation was well-known on the Washington cocktail circuit, none of us had heard a peep, not even the slightest intimation of her occupation, prior to Wilson’s editorial.”

    None of “you” is the point. The point is the press said they knew. Andrea Mitchell, for instance, said it was common knowledge.

    And so did Armitage. And Armitage said that others knew. In fact that “everybody knew.” (Granted, he probably wasn’t meaning to include you.)

    And of course Bob Woodward knew a month before Wilson’s editorial.

    How or why would they have known? What motive would anyone in the Bush administration have had to leak her name before Wilson’s editorial even came out?

    Whereas Mr. Wilson did have an obvious motive to tell people about what his wife did.

    Maybe you should re-read the piece.

  18. clancy everafter

    SG-
    “What motive would anyone in the Bush administration have had to leak her name before Wilson’s editorial even came out?”

    -The motive would be simple–you’ve got this guy who was sent to Niger to check up on a story, and now he’s contributing to news stories (mind you, prior to his NYT editorial) that undercut the narrative the administration is building with regards to Saddam’s WMD capabilities and the strategic tact the US is taking. Whether or not Wilson was accurate in his claims, it would be (and has since been proven by the testimony in the Libby trial) the administration’s response to get out ahead of the story and attempt to undercut Wilson’s credibility (the Liberal version) or correct his misstatements (the Conservative version). Either way, we now know that AT LEAST Armitage, Libby and Rove all either informed or confirmed Plame’s identity, at least, via the sworn testimony given at Libby’s trial.

    And Mitchell has since walked back on her claims, on Imus, saying she didn’t know Plame’s job until after the Novak story came out:
    http://www.newsmax.com/archive.....1245.shtml

  19. 1sttofight

    When caught in a lie, a liberal like Mitchell will always deny they said what they in fact said.
    Nothing new here .

  20. sheehanjihad

    Nobody told me….sniff

  21. clancy everafter

    Wait, if someone says what you want to hear, it’s the truth, and if they don’t say what you want to hear, it’s a liberal lie?

    And besides that, you sound a little silly calling the woman who’s been married to Reagan-appointee Alan Greenspan since 1997 a liberal.

    Can’t we debate this thing rationally, rather than falling back on our ideological underpinnings?

  22. 1sttofight

    You dont want to debate. You just want to accuse.
    And yes , Mitchell is a liberal.

  23. 1sttofight

    Suck it up SJ, We got a war to fight and a whole new crop of trolls to fight.

  24. SG

    “The motive would be simple–you’ve got this guy who was sent to Niger to check up on a story, and now he’s contributing to news stories (mind you, prior to his NYT editorial) that undercut the narrative the administration is building with regards to Saddam’s WMD capabilities and the strategic tact the US is taking.”

    Who knew about this in the administration — especially the White House — before Wilson’s editorial?

    If you have some names you should get in touch with Patrick Fitzgerald PDQ. (Though, sadly, it is too late.)

    No, it’s abundantly clear that nobody of any significance in the administration knew or cared about Joe Wilson until his editorial and media blitzkrieg. Armitage knew because he was a gossip.

  25. 1sttofight

    The big question to me SG, is why the hell didnt Powell come forward when this first broke?

    IMO he is just another cowardly liberal, willing to let his CIC suffer for something he could have prevented.

  26. SG

    “The big question to me SG, is why the hell didnt Powell come forward when this first broke?”

    Do you think Powell knew that Armitage knew? I suspect he didn’t.

    But even if he did, perhaps he was “sworn to secrecy” by Fitzgerald,l too. Either directly or indirectly via Armitage.

  27. SG

    “When caught in a lie, a liberal like Mitchell will always deny they said what they in fact said.”

    Andrea Mitchell’s specialty was “intelligence.” She would have never misspoken this way if it hadn’t been true.

    In fact, her “retraction” amounted to her saying she couldn’t explain why she had said it. Well, she said it because it was true.

    And she couldn’t think of any other way to get out of having said, except to pretend to be a ditz. I doubt that any serious people believed her “retraction.”

  28. 1sttofight

    From what I have read, Yes he did with a couple of days.

    As The True Patriot Nathan Hale said, ‘I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”,

    By God I would give my life today to save the USA.

    Why the hell is everyone so chicken shit to defend our nation?
    Do they not see where the true danger is?

    It is not outside , It is inside.

  29. SG

    By the way, it’s highly likely that Mitchell learned about Plame from her immediate boss, Tim Russert.

    Which would also help explain her sudden inability to explain why she ever said such a thing.

    And, as I have suggested, Russert may have very well heard about Plame from Wilson himself.

  30. clancy everafter

    SG-
    “Who knew about this in the administration — especially the White House — before Wilson’s editorial?”

    Unless they had their heads buried in the sand, the Administration knew who Joe Wilson was. Appearances on Bill Moyers and CNN, along with editorials in the Nation? And this guy, mind you, was a George H.W. Bush appointee. In reality, Wilson was just like many of the other guys from the first Bush administration who were pulled in to do work for this one (see: James Baker, John Negroponte). It’s ludicrous to claim that the White House wasn’t aware of Wilson prior to his editorial, as he was a credible (at least to the general public) voice of opposition. I mean, does it really seem rational to claim that nobody in the White House was paying any attention to this guy prior to his infamous editorial? I think at the very least somebody in the Office of the Vice President would remember his name from the report he’d done on his trip to Niger. “Hey, isn’t that the guy who did that thing for the CIA for us?”

  31. 1sttofight

    Well as we now know, The Libby jury was even more brain deprived than the OJ jury was.

  32. clancy everafter

    1sttofight-
    “Why the hell is everyone so chicken shit to defend our nation?
    Do they not see where the true danger is?

    It is not outside , It is inside.”

    Only when we lose our commitment to the democratic process and representative government will the danger be inside. The terrorists will win when Americans pick up arms against each other en masse, again. Lord I pray that day never comes.

    “Well as we now know, The Libby jury was even more brain deprived than the OJ jury was.”

    What evidence do you have for this besides your own disagreement with the verdict? Respect for the rule of law is one of the most important underpinnings of our civic duties as Americans, don’t you think?

    SG-
    “By the way, it’s highly likely that Mitchell learned about Plame from her immediate boss, Tim Russert.

    Which would also help explain her sudden inability to explain why she ever said such a thing.

    And, as I have suggested, Russert may have very well heard about Plame from Wilson himself.”

    This is all speculation, but why is this speculation any more credible than the notion that the White House had taken notice of Wilson prior to his infamous editorial?

  33. 1sttofight

    Hey clancy,
    Prove me wrong.

    As expected, You can’t.

  34. SG

    “This is all speculation, but why is this speculation any more credible than the notion that the White House had taken notice of Wilson prior to his infamous editorial?”

    Because it is based upon facts, unlike your conjecture.

    The DoJ (including of course the FBI) spent three years and several million dollars trying to prove what you are claiming, and they came up empty.

    Whereas what I am saying is based upon Mitchell and Armitage’s own words.

  35. SG

    “It’s ludicrous to claim that the White House wasn’t aware of Wilson prior to his editorial, as he was a credible (at least to the general public) voice of opposition.”

    You are either trolling or completely unaware of the facts of the case.

    Don’t you even remember Cheney’s “annotation” which was written in the margin of Wilson’s NY Times op-ed?

    “Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Of did his wife send him on a junket?”

    Dick Cheney’s Marginal Annotations About Joe Wilson | Sweetness & Light
    http://www.sweetness-light.com.....nnotations

    I have very limited patience for trolls.

  36. clancy everafter

    1sttofight:
    Generally the way it works in a debate is that if you make a claim, the onus is on you to support that claim with factual information. If this is not how you’d prefer to debate, I would like to speak to you about a rare Real Live Unicorn that I have for sale.

    SG-
    The investigation, you will recall, just recently ended with a verdict of guilty on perjury and obstruction of justice towards one of the key players and witnesses. If justice has been proven to be obstructed, and crucial information withheld or lied about to the investigators and jury, how could the investigation prove what it intended to?

  37. SG

    “Wilson prior to his editorial, as he was a credible (at least to the general public) voice of opposition.”

    Before Wilson’s NYT editorial nobody in the general public knew his name or who he was.

    And the articles that had previously appeared, which had used him as their source, got very little if any attention.

    You don’t have your facts in order. You are wasting everyone’s time.

  38. 1sttofight

    You are a leftist troll.
    I will waste no more time on you.

  39. doingwhatican

    Excellent, SG.

    I find it depressing to think that most of the public will never hear about Victoria Toensing’s testimony that day. She is the brightest of lawyers around, having written a number of important pieces of legislation.

    Toensing said Plame was not legally covert. Good enough for me.

    And the only thing at the congressional testimony more useless than a Republican who didn’t show up was the dem who did.

    The blonde leading the blind and unchallenged by the bland.

  40. SG

    “The blonde leading the blind and unchallenged by the bland.”

    Too true.

    Except of course Val’s a “bottle blonde.”

  41. bocmatt

    “If you’re going to make claims like “Note that almost everything in this article, like the others, has been subsequently proven to be untrue. Including Wilson’s claim that he had seen the supposedly forged documents, and that his Niger report was “unequivocal.”” Then some citation is neccessary.”

    I believe Wilson himself admitted under oath (senate intelligence hearings or the Hamilton commission - they’re all blurring together at this point) that he did not see the documents he later claimed were false and that he “mispoke” about that portion of the controversy. Wilson’s report to CIA was reportedly verbal so I’m not sure how he can claim it was “unequivocal” and that it was “all but impossible” that the British didn’t receive his report.

    Lest we forget, Wilson’s own “report” stated that the prime minsister told him that an Iraqi trade delegation had indeed been in Niger in 1999 with the intent of “expandinding commercial relations.” Based on Wilson’s information, the CIA wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki “interpreted ‘expanding commercial relations’ to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.” This interpetation was noted in the senate intelligence committee report.

    Wilson may later have disagreed with this interpetation of his “report”, but analysis was not his job.

    As to the of obstruction of justice, it was a “he said, he said” issue about remembering when someone heard something from someone else that had nothing to do with the “crime” of exposing an operative. If this was about justice, everyone would not have to pretend that no one knows Valerie’s status was or was not (she was not covert by definition of the act, which should have stopped the circus before it ever started) and/or Armitage would have been on trial.

  42. doingwhatican

    “The blonde leading the blind and unchallenged by the bland.”

    Too true.

    Except of course Val’s a “bottle blonde.”

    And even truer.

  43. bocmatt

    I would also reccommend a recent posting by Andy McCarthy in The Corner of National Review concerning Plame’s status and how several news organizations, when fighting subpoens to testify in the Libby investigation, claimed she was not covert, therefore, no crime and no reason to testify. I’ve missed Andrea Mitchell informing us of this. The post goes on to discuss how pathetic the CIA has become at spying and how many of the shell organizations are easily pierced.

    Michael Tanji (intelligence expert of some sort) states:

    When a public records search — something anyone with a credit card can do — reveals affiliation with one of those laughable “cover” organizations, all the linguistic dancing in the world isn’t going to help you if confronted about your non-governmental status. Any half-curious foreign intelligence service could have figured this out and probably did, which means Ms. Plame really needs to answer only one question of merit [from Rep. Waxman's Committee], though I doubt it will be asked [Tanji's right — it wasn't]: “Given the ease with which any of your targets could have determined or at least suspected your affiliation with the US government, is it not reasonable to assume that some or all of the intelligence information you obtained while working under the Brewster-Jennings cover was false or misleading?”

  44. mjs

    clancy everafter said:

    “you sound a little silly calling the woman who’s been married to Reagan-appointee Alan Greenspan since 1997 a liberal.
    Can’t we debate this thing rationally, rather than falling back on our ideological underpinnings?”

    Asserting that the wife of a political appointee of a Republican President will ipso facto be of same political ideology as her husband, who will also ipso facto be of the same political ideology of the man who appointed him…this is “rational???”

    The pure idiocy of such a statement and the typical high-minded arrogance of it so typifies the left…do you not even realize how ludicrous that is. Just a quick example: my parents have been married for 33 years; my mother is a dyed in the wool liberal, worked for McGovern’s campaign when younger; my dad is slightly to the right of G-d; they are extremely happy, enjoy discussing politics with one another, and get along very well.

    Regarding Mitchell/Greenspan again…Not to mention that people’s ideologies can change. Not to mention that they married well after Greenspan was appointed by Reagan, but instead married when he was, in fact, serving quite ably under the Dem president who had RE-appointed him.

    Not only do YOU sound a bit silly, you sound like a typical liberal douche who cloaks himself in high-minded, preachy aphorisms based on logic and assumptions which are patently INCORRECT, WRONG, and FALSE. And they are clearly so to anyone who doesn’t have his head stuck up his @ss. Or am I just “falling back on my political underpinnings?”

  45. sheehanjihad

    Suck it up SJ, We got a war to fight and a whole new crop of trolls to fight.
    yeah 1st….sounds like you got your hands full….I just took a clancy a while ago, and wiped my pelosi….but for some reason, trolls are like salmon running in the fall….damn there seems to be a tonne of them on lately. I still have yet to get a day off….but when I do, a lot of past threads will be visited. The snag opened her gob again, so she gets a new “interview” coming up next week.

  46. SG

    Yes, Bocmatt, the irony of how our betters in the media swore up and down that Plame wasn’t covert when it suited their purposes is quite ironic. That’s all forgotten now.

    They are literally shameless. You cannot shame them, no matter how many of their hypocrisies you point out.

    They just don’t care. They think of language as a tool of power. They simply don’t believe in petite bourgeois concepts like truth.

    So nothing fazes them.

  47. al

    In this piece, Bill Gertz mentions how the Soviets and the Cubans knew about Plame.
    http://www.washtimes.com/natio.....-4033r.htm

    I had read another article that said she went to Langley (or another obvious CIA office) every day. Apparently, covered people stay away from known locations because the are always being watched.

    The other thing is that Fitzgerald never said any laws were broken.

    This whole Plame affair is just another Democractic snowjob that distracts us all from doing real work. The only people this effort helps is the Democrats; the rest of us and the country lose.

  48. texassideoats

    Very interesting — and impressive! But all the way through I wondered whether the writer had also been really really good at creating fantastic Lego constructions as a kid?

  49. retire05

    I can’t believe that none of you are catching something VERY important in the conversation between Woodward and Armitage:

    Armitage: He - he’s perfect. She - she, this is what she does. She’s a WMD analyst out there.

    Woodward: Oh, she is.

    Armitage: (over) Yeah

    It is obvious that Armitage showed Woodward something to explain to Woodward just exactly what Plame’s position was. Her status from CIA, perhaps? Armitage, after all, would have access to that classified information as Powell’s deputy secretary.

    One other thing I would like to clear up that has been questioned; the morning Novak’s column came out, Armitage claimed that he called Powell, waking Powell up, to tell Powell that he thought he might be the “leaker” that Novak was talking about. So from the very day of Novak’s article, Powell knew who the leaker was and he remained quiet and let the administration take the heat. This was probably because Powell was not a “team” player. He was against the invasion into Iraq and made his feelings known. So Powell, having the respect of the whole nation for his service, was given a specific time to “resign”. A resignation that I am sure was demanded when the Wilson/Plame Game really got rolling.

    Let me also clear up one other thing: when anyone donates to a presidential campaign, there are those who track those donations to see which candidate the Beltway insider players are donating to. Journalists like Woodward and Novak would do this and to think that Joe Wilson would list his wife on Kerry’s campaign funds, along with her employer Brewster-Jennings, and it not raise some questions is wrong headed. The journalist would immediately start tracking the company. And it would not take them long to learn that Brewster-Jennings was nothing more than a telephone in a empty office. One check of D & B ratings would provide the fact that here is a high powered player’s wife who works for a company that seems to only have $60,000.00 in assets, not exactly a major company by D.C. standards.

    Here is a question for all you doubting Thomases. If Plame was covert, if Plame wanted to keep her status a secret, why did she allow her husband to write his op-ed? Is she stupid? I don’t think so. No one reaches a G14 grade without at least having some smarts. She knew his article would set the ball rolling. She knew that since he had been sent to Niger by the CIA and she worked for the CIA, people were going to start asking questions. She was not just some chippy who made her way on her back. She was a player. And she knew the stakes.
    And if you think she was so stupid as to not know what his article would do, then perhaps you should ask yourself, why was this woman in a position of power in the very department that provided us with the WMD intelligence that the president used to go to war in Iraq? Is the CIA that damned incompetent?
    Oh, and Larry Johnson? He wasn’t just a class mate of Plame’s. He is her ex-boyfriend and big in the VIPs that sent a memo to CIA agents to leak classified information to hurt Bush’s war efforts.

  50. DEZ

    Man, Am I over Plame, She was about as covert as Sharon Stones biscuit in Basic Instinct.
    She was a simple minded desk jockey playing solitaire on a 3500 dollar computer on her job.
    Hell that was her most important task in life other than sipping cocktails and shoving rotting cucumbers in her woohoo,
    She couldn’t spy on a group of three year olds without being outed as an incompetent fake.
    And oh her wonderful dimwit husband wouldn’t know yellow cake if he ate three helpings and glowed in the dark.

  51. stemkowskip

    “Here is a question for all you doubting Thomases. If Plame was covert, if Plame wanted to keep her status a secret, why did she allow her husband to write his op-ed? Is she stupid? I don’t think so. No one reaches a G14 grade without at least having some smarts. She knew his article would set the ball rolling. She knew that since he had been sent to Niger by the CIA and she worked for the CIA, people were going to start asking questions. She was not just some chippy who made her way on her back. She was a player. And she knew the stakes.”

    I must concur. And her nominal complaint is that her career is now in ruins. Let’s see: book deal; movie prospect; Vanity Fair cover … we should all be so lucky as to have our respective careers similarly ruined.

  52. BillK

    I can’t believe anyone in this day and age would use marriage to someone of a certain political affiliation to deny membership of a spouse in a polar opposite (Mitchell and Greenspan).

    Two words: Carville / Matalin.

    Can’t get further apart politically than that.

  53. Chief

    Excellent post. Now I just can’t wait until Joe Wilson testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform committee. I mean the Democrats want to get to the whole truth right. Liberals don’t intend to stifle the whole truth do they. Liberals don’t want to leave any mis-perceptions that there was some type of conspiracy in the White House regarding this issue, right? Liberals also want to get to the bottom of exactly what Sandy Berger, who was risking his very freedom, no life, by stealing classified documents, which of course if found to be a treasonous act would demand capital punishment, exactly what he took in the midst of the most important investigation in this Century, right? We want the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

  54. ptat

    That did it for me! Your spectacular effort to shine light on the Plame fiasco sent me right to the “register and log in”! After years of enjoying your dead on commentary and replies, I needed to jump in and sign up. Thank-you so much! The whole world should see this piece—here’s hoping and praying that Congress decides to put Joe Wilson under oath!

  55. LastconservativeinMA

    “The snag opened her gob again, so she gets a new “interview” coming up next week.”
    SJ, I can’t wait. The last one was truly a classic!

  56. SG

    Thanks, Ptat. And welcome to the fold!

  57. retire05

    OK, boys and girls, I have had time to sleep on this so here goes:

    The Wilson/Plame Game is real Tom Clancy stuff. Only its real.

    Let’s look at some of the chapters:
    first; Wilson meets Plame, she tells him she’s a spook during a little love nesting. Never mind he’s a married man. She is so confident of him she can tell him her upmost secret. Why would she do that? What would be the reason? Could it be her connection to the VIPs, an organization that hate Bush and Rumsfeld and is out to destroy the entire administration if it can?

    second chapter: Wilson himself. A has been at State who had been the last America ambassador to Iraq. And one would have to think he had pretty good knowledge of what was going on it Iraq. He comes home to build a business, a business that deals in what? No one seems to know, except that all his clients are Arabs and he has lots of “French connections” and knows lots of Nigerians since he was sent to Niger during a coup that would benefit the United States politically. Now the French are dealing in Oil For Food Iraqi money despite UN sanctions. And what was Saddam looking for? Ways to make WMDs. And Niger has two main exports, chick peas and Yep, yellow cake from it’s mines. Who owns the uranium mines in Niger? Why the French, of course.

    third chapter: Wilson/Plame hook up in 1997, marry and have twins. Wilson continues to build his (unknown) business with the Arabs and the French. They are living high, driving Juguars and living in fancy houses. The Beltway party circuit is a blast. Lot’s of face time with the big players inside the Beltway.
    Bang, 9-11 happens. Bush is determined to take out the terrorists and that includes the ones hiding in Iraq. He gives an ultimatium to little ole Saddam. But that is making a lot of people nervous, especially the French who have been doing no bid contracting with Saddam with the Oil for Food Program. But what exactly has the French been giving Saddam? And war against Iraq seems ineviditable. Certain other factions are beginning to sweat.

    forth chapter; the CIA is one of those nervous factions. They are not in step with the administration and there are those (VIPs) who don’t like the changes being made at CIA by Bush. Who is their go to guy? None other than good old Joey Wilson. Remember, he has already been to Niger TWICE at the behest of the CIA. His wife recommends him because he has those French connections and knows EX head honchos in Niger (they had been replaced after the coup). So they send Joey to Niger to (make no mistake about it) discredit the Bush administration. After all, Kerry is their guy. He is a dove who will not upset any apple carts that the rogue elements have got going for them.

    fifth chapter: Wilson comes back from Niger and says “nothing to see there”. This is in total disagreement with the intelligence that is coming out of Langley. Then Wilson says that he knows documents from Niger are fakes because of the names on the letterhead. Ooops. Later recants when it is learned that those documents were not discovered until three months after he opened his big mouth. Only problem with that? The documents were held in the vault at the very department where his little chippy wife worked and the names on the letterhead were the very people who were in control of Niger at the time of the coup, WHEN WILSON WAS THERE.

    sixth chapter: Wilson writes his op-ed. Now people are beginning to look at him. Who is this guy and what did CIA sent HIM to Niger? What is his connection to CIA? It becomes pretty apparent that Wilson has let his mouth overload his ass and is now under the microscope. Enter the VIPs. They have a bar-b-que at the Wilson/Plames on July 4,2003. A letter is sent for all ex spooks, current spooks and wanna-be spooks to start leaking classified information that will harm the administration. Larry Johnson is behind the letter.

    seventh chapter: a diversion has to be created. What better way to do that in the hostile enviornment that is D.C. that to create a scandal. Plame. An outed CIA agent. Now the ever loyal MSM is looking at the administration and not at Joe Wilson and his French/Niger connections. The rest is history.

    The story line? A rogue CIA group, who has ties to an ex-ambassador married to one of their own, needs to discredit a sitting president. The ex-ambassador is involved in a business with the Arabs and has French connections. The French owns the uranium mines in Niger and Saddam wanted that product. So we have key players; an ex-ambassador who is probably dealing in illegal yellow cake; a wife that works for the very department that provided the administration with Iraqi WMD information, a rogue CIA group that is looking out for their own financial interests, the French, who have been on the Saddam dole against UN sanctions and a President that is implimenting a “take no prisoners” attitute when it comes to uranium being shipped to Iraq. The plot? The CIA chippy has her husband out her with an op-ed piece. Do it in a way that the blame falls squarely on the administration with the help of the MSM and Democrats. Let the MSM sell Americans a bill of goods, without revealing too much, like how Wilson managed to get pretty weathy since his days of being an ambassador.

  58. rocketman

    Wow, I missed all of the fun with Clancy. I was too busy enjoying the round ball games and eating corned beef….

  59. retire05

    Sweetness, don’t stop with this story. We are about to see one of the biggest scams ever prepetrated on the American people. We better wake up and realize just exactly what the hell is going on. Not to mention that other fraud we are being handed; global warming. Why does no one ever talk about Al Gore’s connection to Maurice Strong, a devout Socialist?

    I’m telling you, boys and girls, Joe McCarthy was on the mark.

  60. choosesomething

    Last but (maybe) not least, Val is a pretty good looking woman. Is she really going to be a covert, undercover agent? I imagine when she walks into a room, every man takes a gander at her and a fair amount try to get with her. I don’t think she gets to fly under the radar very often. Unless her cover is to service men in high positions around the world and then steal secret documents when they get up to take a leak………wait a minute, I think I just wrote the next James Bond script……….

  61. rocketman

    Choose - You are spot on… I think Val and Ann Coulter are sisters.Maybe we can urge SG to post side by sides of them.

  62. DANEgerus

    Congrats on the links from Jonah Goldberg at NRO and Instapundit…

    The best work out there not done by VICTORIA TOENSING!

  63. 1sttofight

    Mrs. Toensing is my new best hero.

  64. lobary

    Can you clarify your criticism of Wilson’s CNN interview you linked in your post? If I understand you correctly, you’re arguing that Wilson should be ignored because what he told the CNN interviewer substantially contrasted with what he told the Democrats at the May 2003 lucheon he attended. Am I reading that correctly?

    You write: “Here, unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson suddenly now claimed State Department officials should have known better than to have been duped by the forged documents that purported to prove a deal for uranium had been in the works between Iraq and Niger.”

    By your reckoning, “suddenly now” Wilson was making a claim he’d never made before. You quoted Wilson from the CNN interview, but you also neglected to quote something he said in that same interview that obliterates the point you’re trying to make. From the same damn CNN transcript:

    JOSEPH WILSON, FORMER AMB. TO IRAQ: Hi, Renay. How are you.

    SAN MIGUEL: Just fine. How could this happen? It is the perception that documents like these are vetted to within an inch of their life by intelligence agencies. How do you think this managed to slip by? WILSON: Well, this particular case is outrageous. I actually started my foreign service career in Niger and ended my foreign service career doing — in charge of Africa in the Clinton White House. We know a lot about the uranium business in Niger, and for something like this to go unchallenged by U.S. — the U.S. government is JUST SIMPLY STUPID. It would have taken a couple of phone calls. We have had an embassy there since the early ’60s. All this stuff is open. It’s a restricted market of buyers and sellers. The Nigerians (sic) have always been very open with us.

    For this to have gotten to the IAEA is on the face of it dumb, but more to the point, it taints the whole rest of the case that the government is trying to build against Iraq.

    If you have to resort to outright lies of omission about the most incontrovertible facts to make your case, you’ve lost the argument.

  65. 1sttofight

    lobary ,

    Can you site one instance where Wilson told the truth?

  66. SG

    You have a point, Lobary.

    Since Wilson’s remarks at the SDPL meeting are unavailable, I was repeating characterizations of his remarks from other reports.

    Here is what I should have posted to better convey my meaning:

    “Here, unlike in his interview with CNN on March 8, 2003, Wilson suddenly now claimed State Department officials should have known better than to have been duped [into the war] by the forged documents that purported to prove a deal for uranium had been in the works between Iraq and Niger.”

    In the CNN interview, Wilson says that the government had other evidence to make its case about Saddam’s WMD, apart from the so-called forged documents.

    And, as we know from Kristof’s article a few days after Wilson’s speech, it is clear that Wilson was no longer thinking this way.

    But it is hardly an essential element to my piece, and I will remove the paragraph to avoid any possible confusion.

  67. GnuCarSmell

    SG - Excellent timeline. If I could add a couple of dates:

    July 10, 2003 - Tim Russert and Scooter Libby have a conversation in which their differing memories eventually result in Libby being convicted of lying to FBI investigators and a grand jury. Libby claims that Russert mentioned Joe Wilson’s wife. Russert claims it would have been “impossible” for him to have mentioned Wilson’s wife. (This was four days after Tim Russert interviewed Joe Wilson on “Meet The Press”). Russert claims he first learned of Wilson’s wife from Bob Novak’s July 14, 2003 column.

    July 11, 2003 - Bob Novak’s column naming Valerie Plame “hit the wires” in the morning, making it available to news bureaus (like Russert’s NBC) three days before it was printed.

    Another overlooked fact is that during Russert’s first interviews with the FBI, he said he didn’t specifically remember mentioning Wilson’s wife to Libby on July 10, but he couldn’t rule it out. Fitzgerald made sure that Russert’s earlier contradictory statements were not admitted as evidence during trial.

  68. SG

    Thanks, GCS. As you can imagine, I had to leave out a lot of interesting facts to try to keep it somewhat concise.

    Mostly I wanted to keep the focus directly upon Mr. Wilson. But I certainly appreciate your additions.

  69. Odie44

    If a man’s freedom wasn’t at stake - I could laugh at this case every single day.

    The obvious partisian ties, low level players with huge egos and outright lies should normally be a green light to throw this case out - but as we know in the world today - perception is everything and truth and reality play second and third fiddle.

    Cheney and Bush had every right, from the moment the first article came out about “who sent” Wilson - supposidely the VP’s office - to get every single detail concerning the fraud and the danger he presented in even speaking in the first place. The next logical step is to figure out who actually sent him and if any nepotism played out here.

    Its odd that every single reporter, Wilson, PLame , etc all are given passes on these key pieces of “memory loss” - which are actually the crimes being committed. His memo was nothing more than a Cliff Notes for a retired Ambassador. Wilson doesnt seem to remember “if” he told Kristof about the VP sending him.

    Stop.

    At that moment - he should have been arrested and charged with impersonating a federal employee. You cannot state you were hired by the VP’s office of the Executive branch to fraudulantly give credence to your Cliff Notes version. “Sipping mint julip tea…” regardless of if it agreed or disagreed with anything.

    To this day - our “ace” investigator refuses to release or even press Wilson and his bimbo over these key facts. I won’t even go into the other 99% falses being reported as “facts” in this case, as the OP did a great job of the timeline and contradicting, ACTUAL, government agencies and employees who disagree with the basis of Wilsons OP Ed’s and “man of mystery source” for the left rags, like the NY Times - that Iraq was pursuing yellow cake Uranium.

    As the rolling stone continues to gather no moss, the result has been a huge waste of time and money, millions in PR and business for the “hurt” Wilson and Plame a conviction ( I got 1:1 odds appeals throws out the conviction - there was more info witheld in this case, than actually presented, like who hired the moron) of , according to the head jurors words “The scape goat” - Libby ( note to Libby attorneys - just present that photo op and trans of the head juror - case dismissed)

    The DNC won a local tee ball game and somehow are acting like they are MLB’s World Series champions.

    Because the mechanics of the case were Clinton retribution, with partisian influnced myth, lies and just plain bs, in a sad and desperate attempt to get back at Bush.

  70. hubel458

    A new visitor here- The Wilson deal is like a Daisy Chain.
    They couldn’t find real active nuke program in Irag in the 90s.
    The uranium Saddam had that IAEA sealed up, he got in the 80s,
    and we removed that after invasion. After Saddam captured, Libya
    came to us and UN and gave up a secret nuke program. We moved it
    here.WE determined that uranium came from Niger mines just over the
    border from Libya. Mines in Niger owned by huge French company
    Cogema, who had gotten over a billion dollars from Saddam in the oil/food bribe scam. Most of that money was never found where it went.
    Saddam gave over 2 billion dollars to Libya. Saddam had his scientists
    in Libya under the cover of teachers and lecturers. News reports in 95 told about his nuke guys and Libya.Saddam’s point man, the leader
    on nuke programs was Zahawie, who Joe Wilson knew when he was in Irag.
    Before that Wilson was in foreign service to Uranium countries in
    Africa, Also after Iraq in 90s.In 99-2000 Zahawie under the cover as
    Saddam’s rep to the Vatican was mucking around Africa getting
    Uranium deals goung. Wilson was there also with his ‘consulting’
    business. He was a ‘consultant’ to Niger and Cogema, using his former service connections to help grease the deals. So when British
    intell started catching on to part of this, reporting Iraqis trying
    to buy Uranium in Africa, and it was mentioned here in Prez speech,
    things started to get exciting!!!! So why do you think he went??
    I know what I think. He wasn’t in foreign service and his
    “”consulting”" was piling in the bucks, the way thay lived, much more
    than a lower mid-level desk jockey made, and he traveling over there on his money. Keywords-traitors,coverup??…Ed

  71. SG

    Welcome Hubel! And you make a lot of good points.

    Many of us have wondered how Wilson and Plame lived so well on a GG-14 salary. (And with Wilson’s ex-wives and child support to boot.)

  72. theobromophile

    Beyond sick. I live for the day that Armitage, Wilson, Plame, and the rest of their corrupt crew will stand trial. The fact that Wilson wrote an op-ed about his “covert” mission would be grounds for arrest. Having had a security clearance myself, I’m well aware of how little a person can say about his projects.

    Many thanks for some wonderful research and reporting.

  73. hubel458

    SG- Thanks for welcome. this whole deal with,Niger,
    Cogema, CIA,Joe, Libya, AQ Khan who peddled nuke hardware,
    Saddam’s connections, Iran attempts, and just recent
    reports that Uranium has been stolen from the Congo, needs
    to be priorty one in finding the crooks, and
    getting this stuff recovered.. Even if these entities
    can’t get an actual atomic bomb made( after all the screwing around
    NKs atomic bomb was so anemic it couldn’t hardly be
    detected), the processed uranium floating
    around is the stuff used to build dirty bombs. To be used
    to scare those who want to stop terrorism…Ed.

  74. 1sttofight

    I still think we should give these animals a good close up nano second look at how an actual nuke looks as it detonates.

  75. Noyzmakr

    Steve Gilbert deserves a pulitzer prize for this!
    I’ve never seen it laid out in such a concise way. I am in awe.

  76. SG

    Thanks so much, Noyz. I like the way you think.

  77. Lipstick on a PIAPS

    All I know is that for “Covert” CIA agents Valerie and Joe sure love the limelight! Has anyone in their life ever seen more “PUBLIC” secret agents? LMAO

  78. U NO HOO

    “Joe McCarthy was on the mark.”

    Yes, yes, he was. No, he IS!


Leave a Reply

You must be registered and logged in to post a comment.


« Front Page | To Top
« Senate To Probe Sheik Mohammed’s Treatment | Terrorists Launch Another Chlorine Gas Attack »