I've read through ALL of the 80 or so comments to this post, which I rarely do. Robert M. and Phil Smith get pretty close to answering Marc's question, if they haven't actually answered it. Just about everyone else is off the mark. The salient issue to close or explain the gap was whether evidence uncovered or discovered by Wilson in Niger lent credence to the notion (expressed in Bush's "16 words") that Iraq was interested in purchasing uranium in Africa. The only reservations I had about the facts concerned the confusing
typo, which apparently originally read "Iraq" when it ought to have read "Iran." When that was corrected my assumption was that Wilson didn't find out anything about Iraq, which seemed strange since
! So thanks to Phil and Robert for clearing that up. Apparently there was evidence pointing to the possibility that both Iran
Iraq were interested in purchasing uranium from Niger, and we have some former African potentate's assurance that the overtures from Iraq were rebuffed. Boy that must have been reassuring in the uncertain conditions preceding the invasion, huh? (Wipes flopsweat from brow.)
So naturally the "real issue" has to be Valerie Plame and Karl Rove, because Wilson's behavior just doesn't match up well against George W.'s does it?
The issue that got under my skin was similar to the one Marc raised, which also hasn't been discussed much. Essentially I wanted to know why the Bush folks didn't just point out that Wilson was talking out of both sides of his mouth, and that his "report" said something that contradicted what he said in the NYT and elsewhere? In case anyone is interested, I posted something here about that. Suffice to say that the Bush Administration had no idea what Wilson had found in Africa, because he hadn't submitted a written report and the CIA notes weren't passed uphill. The Bush administration simply, and mistakenly, took Wilson at his word (as has everyone else in the media, ever since). Now, I'm not going to say Wilson lied, because he may very well have thought that what he uncovered in Niger revealed that Iraq wasn't a danger. But that just means he's either a lousy analyst or a lousy fact finder, because he failed to communicate that conclusion to the CIA during his debrief. In fact, it doesn't even appear that he tried to do so. The "gap" is real, regardless of how many smart people feel compelled to ignore or downplay it.
Not good, folks. Not good at all.
1
What's there to know? Just some Libtard's revisionist history. That's all there is to it.
Posted by: Ariya at July 20, 2005 01:43 PM (noCGr)
2
Wilson either lied or he disregarded facts. An inquiry by the British into the intelligence indicating Saddam did try to purchase uranium yellowcake in Niger and Congo found the intelligence accurate. What you had with Wilson was an anti-war CIA agent recommending her anti-war husband to go to Niger to prove this intelligence was not accurate.
Also in Wilson's editorial, he did not say Saddam was not seeking yellocake, he only said he could not find the link. The press though ran this as a Bush lie despite the fact Bush said British intelligence learned of Saddam's attempted purchase.
It is all symantics really, but it is nonetheless crucial to understand.
Posted by: Chad at July 20, 2005 01:58 PM (Ievlo)
3
As I've posted before, the leftards continue to behave as if they still have a monopoly on the flow of information, and so continue to use the same tactics that have brought them nothing but shame and defeat at every turn. Their greatest "victory" of the past five years has been the outing of Jeff Gannon/Guckert, a gay porn star/escort, or whatever, who, turned journalist, (how appropriate, I thought, but nonethelsess a downgrade), decided to throw out an easy question at a White House press conference, for which he was excoriated in the leftard bogosphere and hounded in the press. They fish for whales, and claim victory whenever they catch a minnow. Plame and Wilson are already being revealed for the frauds, liars, and political hacks they are, so I say bring it on. The more the leftards do to destroy Bush, the more they destroy themselves.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 20, 2005 02:17 PM (0yYS2)
4
It was pointed out on a news show the other night (sorry, I don't remember the show or commentator) that these prosecutions usually end up charging someone with obstructing justice due to misstatements during the investigation itself. Rarely is someone actually charged with the original crime.
What if Fitzgerald charges Wilson? Just imagine the glorious Dem/MSM hissyfit.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 20, 2005 02:26 PM (RHG+K)
5
Hard to find out anything when everyone knows you and your old lady are spooks. She was an overt spook at that except the five year rule on outing a covert spook was not quite expired yet.
Posted by: Howie at July 20, 2005 02:37 PM (D3+20)
6
Oh, there's a gap alright; between the facts and the MSM's pathological desire to prove that Rove did something, anything, wrong.
Posted by: DWC at July 20, 2005 02:57 PM (Suv/B)
7
Plame parked in the main CIA parking lot since 1997. Obviously, the CIA did not consider her covert. Anyone could have written down the license number and traced it back to her and her husband. Not mentioned by the media, Mr. Novak check on Plame. He got permission to print.
Posted by: Burt at July 20, 2005 03:12 PM (bfGtb)
8
What's there to know?
The Wilson affair itself is of little consequence. But, if you took a poll in the US my guess is that well over half the population believes some aspect of Wilson's account. Under normal non-war conditions the fact that most of the public can be completely mislead by the presentation of facts that, in themselves, are well-known and clear, implies a level of ignorance and deliberate deception that's not good. If the nation is at war the situation suggests the possibility of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, or something equally ignoble.
Chad:
It is all symantics really, but it is nonetheless crucial to understand.
There's no semantic fudging between "no evidence" and "some evidence" that would leave any meaning intact. Now you say that Wilson claimed he found no evidence to suggest that Iraq was interested in yellow-cake, when from his debrief it appears that he did find such evidence. This isn't a semantic issue. It's an issue of fact.
Improb:
The more the leftards do to destroy Bush, the more they destroy themselves.
Frankly I haven't see much of that. One would think you're right, but I can't verify it with something like facts.
Bluto:
What if Fitzgerald charges Wilson? Just imagine the glorious Dem/MSM hissyfit.
What would he be charged with? Lying to a grand jury, or an investigating officer? Unless the underlying situation is corrected (involves a radical transformation of the "public intelligence system:" the press) then charging him will just turn him into an icon. If it comes to a choice I'd much rather correct the underlying problem, of which this stuff is merely another symptom. But, you know... that would sure get something rolling!
Posted by: Demosophist at July 20, 2005 03:29 PM (IbWE6)
9
George Bush is the President. What part does reality and facts play in the way the Lefties act?
Posted by: William Teach at July 20, 2005 03:52 PM (cuTsc)
10
Demosphist said in response to my post about the leftself-destructing,(see above): "Frankly I haven't see much of that. One would think you're right, but I can't verify it with something like facts."
Let's review: Easongate. Rathergate. This scandal. That scandal. Another scandal. Dems lose Presidential election. Dems lose seats in House and Senate. Continued loss of credibility by media, Democrat machine, and Democrat politicians. Exposure of many organizations as being leftist/social-ist/communist/fascist in nature, i.e. UN, ACLU, AI, et al. Frankly, if I had the time and felt it worthwhile in this forum, I could drudge up tons of info pertaining to the decadent and self-destructive behavior of the left, but I do not, so I'll leave it there. I'm not trying to convince anyone, because I think everyone is pretty much locked into their political positions already, rather, I'm just stating facts. The left is in trouble, and rightly so.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 20, 2005 04:03 PM (0yYS2)
11
The truth has nothing to do with what happened. The liberal morons will continue to rant about our President who was elected by a majority of Americans.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 20, 2005 06:26 PM (CBNGy)
12
What's scary about the whole Plame affair is the almost universal willingness in the MSM to completely ignore the truth. I mean to act as if the truth doesn't exist. To tell outright lies!
Were it not for the blogosphere we would be in trouble. And you know what the liberals are trying to do to the blogs. We must be prudent and wary, and fight for our right to free speech.
Posted by: Knights Templar at July 20, 2005 07:44 PM (DDXXI)
13
The more they rant, the more they sound like the treasonous morons they are. They are kind of like car alarms. Ever hear a car alarm go off? Sure you have. Ever give a damn if the car was being stolen? Probably not. The leftards have had their scandal-O-matic™ machine going at 110% since 2004, and it's about to fly apart on them. At this rate, by 2008 Bush could strangle the Pope in the Oval Office, bury the body in the Rose Garden, release a DVD with a copy of a signed confession, and nobody would believe it. I think some people never heard of the fairy tales "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" and "Chicken Little" when they were kids, but instead read something like "Jane Has Two Mommies".
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 20, 2005 07:49 PM (0yYS2)
14
Improb:
Frankly, if I had the time and felt it worthwhile in this forum, I could drudge up tons of info pertaining to the decadent and self-destructive behavior of the left, but I do not, so I'll leave it there.
During the Civil War the Copperheads were on the verge of winning when Sherman took Atlanta. It's simply far too easy for me to imagine a scenario where our innate selfishness gives the modern Copperheads enough leverage to win a vital election. The irony is that they nearly did just that in 2004 were it not for a few historically Copperhead counties in Ohio that voted the right way.
No, I'm not at all confident that they're paying the price they ought to pay. There's a lot of wishful thinking out there. It'd be a bad idea to assume we're on a roll yet, although I cautiously think there's some truth in what you say.
By the way, there's a pro-war Left too, you know. It includes stalwarts like Chris Hitchens and Paul Berman.
Posted by: Demosophist at July 20, 2005 11:58 PM (IbWE6)
15
KT:
Were it not for the blogosphere we would be in trouble. And you know what the liberals are trying to do to the blogs. We must be prudent and wary, and fight for our right to free speech.
The point I'm making is that we
are in trouble (which you tend to acknowledge by pointing out that it's scarey the way MSM ignores the truth). We're not in as much trouble as we could be, though.
Posted by: Demosophist at July 21, 2005 12:01 AM (IbWE6)
16
Oh I know there's a pro-war left, and I think I've read the works of all six or seven of them. Of course, it's really hard to call them leftists if they're pro-America in any way, because leftism is against everything that America stands for. Better to say that they're real liberals, in the classic sense, with only a few leftist tendencies. I guess I can live with that, but I still hate social-ism and everything to do with it, because Marx was an idiot, he was wrong, and bad ideas don't get better over time.
And one correction: I wrote "The leftards have had their scandal-O-matic™ machine going at 110% since 2004..." That should have been 2000.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 21, 2005 12:51 AM (0yYS2)
17
I hate coming in late on these threads, there are just too many choices... it's like your third trip up to the all you can eat buffet. What bothers me most about this whole special prosecutor investigation is that, two years later, he hasn't yet bothered to answer what should have been the very first question asked: was there any crime committed? Increasingly, it appears that there was not.
I think Wilson, like Clarke, was working under the assumption that he could get away with saying whatever he wanted because the documents which showed the facts were classified. So both of them concocted stories calculated to make them important figures and put them in line for jobs in the coming Kerry administration. Then along came those 9/11 Commission hearings, and some of those documents got de-classified, and what they were saying publicly was at odds with what the real records showed. Wilson told the CIA the former prime minister told him Saddam was trying to buy Uranium. He then publicly announced the opposite in his op-ed. There's the only gap.
Posted by: GeoBandy at July 21, 2005 12:58 AM (Z0yfB)
18
"It would appear that this scandal goes way beyond Karl Rove and who said what to whom when about Ms. Plame. It certainly is true, though, that turning over that slimy Rove-Plame rock was the way into the larger issues upon which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury apparently are focusing.
(Ain't it almost always so in Washington? The cover-up is always a greater problem for the perpetrators than the original crime, for inevitably even seamier scandals are unearthed one by one; see the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-Contra, et al. The moral lesson -- admit your mistake early, bear the immediate hit, and move on unencumbered -- rarely seems to "take" among politicians, of whatever party.)
THE EIGHT BLACKED-OUT PAGES
One of the ruling judges on the case of the two reporters who refused to divulge their Plame-outing source was about to go easy on them when he read Fitzgerald's new information -- eight pages of which were redacted from the public -- and said that the national-security seriousness of what he read changed his mind. The court then ordered Time's Matthew Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller to testify or else; Cooper finally did, and Miller is in jail for contempt of court.
We don't know what is in those eight blacked-out pages -- and, if they really do involve national-security matters, we may never be permitted to know precisely. But apparently they provide the locus around which Fitzgerald is building a case that could result in perjury indictments, at the least, for a number of Administration officials and perhaps journalists as well.
(Another judge said that the prosecutor's classified filing -- those missing eight pages -- "decides the case." In other words, to quote Lawrence O'Donnell: "All the judges who have seen the prosecutors secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.")
Further, depending on what Bush and Cheney knew and when they knew it -- and what they did or covered-up in the possible light of such knowledge -- there may be plenty of ammunition for likely impeachment hearings. (Note: Bush hired a private attorney last summer for this CIA-leak case. )"
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays-w/horrors.htm
This goes straight to the top. The 8 pages likely confirm that Bush knowingly lied us in to war.
'National security issues' is the technique Bush is using to save he and Cheney's skin. Will they get away with it?
Posted by: greg at July 21, 2005 07:11 AM (3D/yw)
19
Greg, you do realize that almost nobody reads your tinfoil-hat, Black Helicopter™ crap, and that nobody but that mouth-breather DSM buys it, don't you? You waste your time here, because we're all adults who know how to think for ourselves, so go peddle your conspiracies at DU or something.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 21, 2005 09:11 AM (0yYS2)
20
IM,
apparently you do.
Posted by: greg at July 21, 2005 11:06 AM (3D/yw)
21
We don't know what is in those eight blacked-out pages -- and, if they really do involve national-security matters, we may never be permitted to know precisely. But apparently they provide the locus around which Fitzgerald is building a case that could result in perjury indictments, at the least, for a number of Administration officials and perhaps journalists as well.
Some people just can't resist betting on an inside straight, having been dealt only one card. Don't let the fact that you know absolutely nothing about this get in the way of speculation. Personally I think there's a witch coven in the White House and they were fixin' to pit barbecue Ted Kennedy's oversized noggin.
In other words, to quote Lawrence O'Donnell: "All the judges who have seen the prosecutors secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment."
Well, whatever scary Larry says. This is the same guy who, finding he couldn't actually debate the merits of the switfvets' accusations just decided to shout "Liar!" for twenty minutes at the top of his lungs? That Lawrence O'Donnell, right?
Feh!
And people wonder why the Democrats are losing credibility.
Posted by: Demosophist at July 21, 2005 06:29 PM (IbWE6)
Posted by: Frank Johnson at August 12, 2005 05:22 AM (VQju7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
