home

Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 12:25:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: I can't believe I took the time to do this, but I did. At the end of the post you will find all of the same day appearances, times included, for 2002 for Joseph Wilson and Paul Vallely. [Source: Lexis.com] With the possible exception of one date, September 12, when they were on different segments of Studio B with Shepard Smith, they would not have been in the green room within hours of each together. And even that date is dubious unless Vallely arrived very early for his segment.

Update: Left Coaster has more.

****
Original Post (11/8)

Crooks and Liars has a roundup of blogger reaction to the right wing's attempt to smear Joseph Wilson by claiming he leaked his wife's identity in 2002 to Paul Vallely in the Green Room of Fox News. The smear tactic won't work.

[Edited: It is unlikely the two were in the green room at the same time long enough to have a meaningful conversation. See below.]

Jane at Fire Dog Lake has more. Digby has a great backgrounder. Former CIA guy Larry Thompson says its bunk.

Update: (Nov. 9)

Here are their same day Fox News appearances for 2002

September 12, 2002, Thursday PM ET

Wilson - Studio B with Shephard Smith

START: 04.01

Studio Interview - Joseph Wilson,former Dep Chief of Mission, says Saddam Hussein has been defying UNresolutions for 12 years and it is time to get rid of this thug. Wilsonsays Hussein still has the capacity to inflict harm on invading armiesand his neighbors. He has chemical weapons.
Visual - Saddam Hussein. Wilson says Saddam Hussein is a survivor and he needs to be taken out.
Studio Interview - Van Hipp, former Dep Asst Sec of Army, says the Saddam Hussein crowd is getting ready to see action.
StudioInterview - Van Hipp says during Operation Desert Storm, we kept theenemy guessing and this is what we will have to do with Saddam Hussein.
Visual - Soldiers. A war won't be for a few months, if at all.
END: 12.00

Vallely - Studio B with Shephard Smith

START: 24.21
Comments. In discussing Scott Ritter's comments, the guest says the Ritter interview was quite a thing.
Studio Interview - Major General Paul Vallely, retired, Fox NewsMilitary Analyst, says Iraq is not disarmed today like it should beaccording to the UN Security Council resolutions. In 1998, Ritter saidthere were weapons. Now, Ritter says there are non.
Studio Interview - Maj Gen Vallely says Ritter is not credible.
END: 27.15

August 20, 2002

Vallely - Your World with Neil Cavuto (4pm ET)

START: 16.34
Iraqi Embassy. The Hostage situation in Berline at the Iraqi embassy is over. The US may attack Iraq.
Studio Interview - Gen. Paul Vallely, Fox NewsMilitary Analyst, says the Iraq situation is as complicated as themarkets. He says its the news of the day. The Iraqi opposition groupwas trying to send a statement to the world. There is a serioussituation with Saddam Hussein. The Europeans are not standing up. BrentScowcroft doesn't want to in to Iraq. Vallely says they all need a goodintelligence briefing. There is a threat to the Middle East, Americansand the world. They are training Al Qaeda to use biochemical weaponsagainst Americans.
END: 19.25

Wilson - On the Record 10 pm ET

START: 00.01
Target: Iraq. The German Embassy was underattack today in Iraq where people, including the Ambassador and hisassistant, were held hostage for 5 hours.
Visual - Sceneof crime. German police stormed the Embassy and freed the Ambassadorand his assistant. Greg Palkot, reporting from Berlin, Germany.
Interview - Joseph Wilson,former Deputy Ambassador to Iraq and Michael Rubin, American EnterpriseInstitute. Wilson says that it would be a good idea to liberate Iraq.The attack on the Embassy may have been a chance to show support forSaddam Husain. Rubin says that it couldn't have been an inside job atthe Embassy. The Embassy has no history of anything of the sort.
Visual - Scenes of Saddam Husain and portions of Iraq. Wilson and Rubin discuss what happened in Germany.
END: 09.05.

September 25, 2002

Wilson - On the Record 10 pm ET

START: 14.50

Teased Segment - Political Battle. Current events involving Iraq.
Sound Bites - Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader, comments on Pres. Bush and the issue of Iraq.
Studio Interview - Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (Ret.), Fox News Military Analyst, comments about Iraq and whether or not it's being politicized.
Visual - Saddam Hussein.
Visual - US troops.
END: 19.47

Vallely - Fox News Live, 2:00 pm ET

START: 14.50

Teased Segment - Political Battle. Current events involving Iraq.
Sound Bites - Tom Daschle, Senate Majority Leader, comments on Pres. Bush and the issue of Iraq.
Studio Interview - Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (Ret.), Fox News Military Analyst, comments about Iraq and whether or not it's being politicized.
Visual - Saddam Hussein.
Visual - US troops.
END: 19.47

October 1, 2002

Vallely - Your World With Neil Cavuto 4pm ET

START: 12.05
More Iraq. Story on current events in Iraq.
Studio Interview - Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, U.S. Army, talks about the situation with Iraq.
END: 16.05

Joseph Wilson - Fox and Friends 7 - 9am

START: 16.26

Teased Segment - Saddam Strategy. Current Event In Iraq.
Studio Interview - Joseph Wilson, Former Acting Ambassador To Iraq.
Visual - Saddam Hussein.
END: 20.01

Nov 18, 2002

Vallely - Fox News Live 1:00 pm - 1:30 pm

START: 15.20

Teased Segment - Iraq,Israel in Danger? Recap from above. US, British planes, Iraq no flyzones, shots fired. Iraq threatens its neighbors and US allies if warhappens.
Sound Bites - Tariq Aziz, Iraqi deputy primeminister, says if US and UK wage war against Iraq consequences will bevery bad to them and to their friends in the region. "Friends" in thatregion means Israel.
Interview - Gen Paul Vallely, (Ret) US Army, says he flew El Al out of Tel Aviv Friday morning.
Graphic - Fox Facts.
Graphic - Target Iraq. He discusses risk to Israel from Iraq.
Visual - Missile launch.
Visual - File, intercept animation.
END: 19.34

Wilson - Studio B with Shepherd Smith 3:00 pm -3:30 pm

START: 02.07
Reaction. Here is some reaction from thelast American diplomat to speak with Saddam Hussein. Smith says heheard on the show "60 Minutes" last night that Iraq has mobilized thechemical and biological weapons programs by putting them on RVs.
Interview - Joseph Wilson, former Acting Ambassador to Iraq, says the important thing is that the weapons inspectors are now back in Iraq.
Visual - Saddam Hussein speaking.
Graphic - Map.
Interview- Van Hipp, former Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary, says thepreparations for war with Iraq have already begun and there will be alarge call-up of National Guard troops.
Interview - LtCol Robert Maginnis, US Army retired, says Iraq will react to any USactions against them by attacking neighbors and will even revert tousing biological weapons.
Visual - Saddam Hussein swimming.
END: 11.48

My conclusion: Only September 12 is a possibility. That date, Wilson's segment was over 15 minutes before Vallely's began. The Fox green room in New York is very small and contains an even smaller makeup room that only has one guest chair. Guests are by themselves in the makeup room. I assume Wilson would have been having his makeup done before his segment, so Vallely wouldn't have been with him then. Even if they did overlap in the green room for a couple of minutes, it strains credulity to think the topic of Wilson's wife's employment with the CIA would have come up. There likely would have only time for mere pleasantries. [Add: If they were in D.C. instead of New York, ignore this last sentence.]

From the transcript of Britt Hume's show November 7, 2005:

Retired Army general and FOX News contributor, Paul Vallely, says he knew that former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was a CIA agent long before she was outed in a newspaper column in 2003 because Wilson told him so.

Vallely says Wilson volunteered the information in at least three separate conversations while both men were awaiting to appear on Fox News programs during the fall of 2002. Wilson's lawyers are demanding a retraction and an apology, and in an email received by World Net Daily, Wilson, himself, called the claims slanderous.

The "three separate occasions" sounds like a fabrication. Perhaps Vallely ran a check and found three separate dates they both appeared and didn't think anyone would run the times of the appearances and learn that all but one were hours apart.

A few more items: Jedd Babin of the American Spectator wrote yesterday (lexis.com):

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely (USA, ret.) is one of Fox's senior military analysts. Gen. Vallely confirmed to me that nearly a year before Robert Novak's July 2003 column revealed Valerie Plame as a CIA employee, former Clinton Ambassador Joe Wilson told Vallely and his wife, Muffin, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. This revelation, published last week on John Batchelor's ABC talk show (and repeated Monday night on John's show), blew more holes into Joe Wilson's tattered credibility and raises important questions about the CIA's actions. (Fox's Judge Andrew Napolitano had said on the air that a FNC colleague had told him of Plame's CIA employment; Vallely didn't recall being Napolitano's source.)

So now, Valley's wife Muffin heard it too. And it couldn't have been "nearly a year" before July, 2003.

World Net Daily reported last weekend that Vallely put the time at the spring of 2002.

Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 – more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Paul Vallely

"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.

World Net Daily November 8:

Vallely's disclosure of Wilson's comments first came during ABC Radio's John Batchelor show last Thursday night, and once WND interviewed the general about his remarks, both Vallely and WND received demands for retraction and legal threats from attorney Christopher Wolf, who represents Wilson.

< Bush Proves Toxic for Republicans | Calif: Resounding Defeat for Arnold's Props >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work | 51 comments (51 topical)
    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    What smear? Valley said what he said. Wilson has denied it and claimed slander. Valley repeated his claim. Sounds like the ball is in Wilson's court.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#2)
    by john horse on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    PPJ, Did you go to the link? There is a schedule of the FOX appearances by Valley and Wilson. To repeat what TL wrote "The two were never in the green room or even on the air the same day." Its impossible for Valley's tall tale to be true if they were never in the same room together on the same day. The evidence contradicts Valley. Good grief! Take off your political blinders and join the reality based world.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    What it sounds like Jim, is that McInerney and Valley and you, are all having "senior moments". There is no ball, there is no court. Valley made a specious charge. It is up to him to prove it. It's not a ball game, Jim. You are playing hockey with a warm puck. Not all your dogs are barking, and none of them are hunting. I know my mixing metaphors is probably confusing for you, but what part of "The two were never in the green room or even on the air the same day" are you unable to comprehend? Can we take up a collection for new glasses for you?

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    "The two were never in the green room or even on the air the same day."
    Never? link deleeted, not in html format]

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    Posted by The Editors is a link to a posted opinion with nothing there to back up Valley's charge. Which is up to Valley to prove, if he can. He has been unable to refer to any witnesses to his imaginary conversation with Wilson. He's got holes in his tin foil hat.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#6)
    by Tom Maguire on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    "The two were never in the green room or even on the air the same day." (1) Same show - Sept 12, 2002. Here is what I get from two separate Lexis searches (evidently, the transcript were segmented as per the show: Here is the Lexis search on Fox News and Paul Vallely for that date: Video Monitoring Services of America - 77 words - 09/12/2002 Video Monitoring Services of America Studio B September 12, 2002, Thursday PM ET FoxNews Channel Cable Programming Cable 13 fnc15000912 ...Interview - Major General PaulVallely, retired, FoxNews Military Analyst, says... My Lexis for Fox and Joseph Wilson gives me, and I am typing from the printed page here, "Studio B Sept 12,2002 Thursday PM ET Now, it turns out that I did that working independently of AJ Strata, a link to whom has been posted above. We both picked out 9/12/2002; I have not even cross-checked our other dates. And there is *NO REASON* to take my word for it - anyone who does not already have access to Lexis can go to their webiste and register for "Lexis a la Carte" - searches are free, but any document you want to view is $3 per page. For these searches, I didn't even spring for the transcripts. Lexis a la Carte. Check it out - c'mon, frankly, this is a weak research effort by the reality based side - what happened to "trust, but verify?"

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Jane at FireDogLake:
    Never mind that Joe Wilson never appeared on Fox News until July 2002. Vallely has now changed his story to accommodate this discrepancy. Apparently this is supposed to make him more plausible, since if his intent was to lie he would've checked his dates first.
    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Okay, as enjoyable as it is to see PPJ all egg-faced for his blind faith in this claptrap, there's one thing that really sticks out in the expansion of this story for me: Valley's wife is named Muffin? Really?

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    et al - Go back and read what I said:
    What smear? Valley said what he said. Wilson has denied it and claimed slander. Valley repeated his claim. Sounds like the ball is in Wilson's court.
    I repeat. The ball is in Wilson's court. If he wants to use the "schedule," fine with me. After they are done discussing that: I would love to have Wilson under oath explaining why he didn't mention that Bush's comment was that Saddam "attempted," and that the Brits still stand by their statement. I would love for him to explain why, if security was an issue, why he and his wife were on the cover of Vanity Fair. I would love for him to explain why he didn't mention former Niger PM Mayaki's statement that Iraqi ATTEMPTED to purchase yellow cake. I would enjoy watching him explain his "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" comments to David Corn regarding his wife for Corn's 7/6/03 article. I would love for him to tell us, with the CIA people coming behind him, under oath, how his wife didn't arrange for him to go to Niger. Egg on my face? I don't think so. Now, go ahead and tell everyone how those questions don't matter. See you in eight hours, or so. Hugs and kisses..

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    No doubt every visitor to Fox has to sign in. It would be interesting to see Wilson's, Valley's and McInerney's sign-in times. (Assuming that such records haven't been "disappeared.")

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Jim, the Vanity Fair article ran in January 2004. Novak’s column ran July 14, 2003. Fitzgerald began his probe in December 2003. Notice the dates she was already “out”, "out", "out". Why do you care what Wilson has to say under oath? Even if every word out of his mouth is a lie – who cares. He did not lead this country to invade Iraq, he did not “out” his wife, and he is not the only person to denounce the Niger claim. This ran in the Washington Post, July 15, 2003: A four-star general, who was asked to go to Niger last year to inquire about the security of Niger's uranium, told The Washington Post yesterday that he came away convinced the country's stocks were secure. The findings of Marine Gen. Carlton W. Fulford Jr. were passed up to Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- though it was unclear whether they reached officials in the White House. The article also stated: Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech. Jim, this is why the Bush minions tried to discredit Wilson by claiming his wife sent him and not discredit his assertion that the Niger claim was not true. Who really cares who sent Wilson? That is not important. Again, the scandal it not that Wilson lied, but that our government was not truthful. Why don’t you see the problems with this administration? Is it because you are a Jacksonian?

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Sounds like the ball is in Wilson's court.
    Jim is just being his usual cantankerous, contrary self. 'The ball is in Wilson's court' - Wilson doesn't have to play. As someone pointed out just above, he's not the one who lied in taking this country into never-ending aggression action against whomever we choose. I would think, as others have pointed out, Mr. Fitzgerald would be quite interested in hearing from these two gentlemen regarding their information. (Why now - all of a sudden?) Oh forget it - it's too stupid to continue on....Joe Wilson outs his own wife.....how laughable - go ahead on, Jim. I can only hope people will keep coming out from their stupor.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#13)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    I would love to have Wilson under oath explaining why he didn't mention that Bush's comment was that Saddam "attempted"
    Wow, that's pretty hard-hitting. Keep it up till next November, please!

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Even if what Valley says is true, he apparently told no one, no one, no one until now, now, now!!!! Valley has not been mentioned as a source of Wilson's wife's identity by anyone involved in the investigation. If he had, Fitzgerald would have interviewed him, so Wilson still is not the one that "outed" his wife and this revelation is clearly a Bush minion ploy. Why can’t you see that, Jim? I am sorry for what I am about to say, but I can’t help myself. Jim, you don’t have egg on your face, but your mind and reasoning are scrambled.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#15)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Jim, As above, it's not Wilson who has the explaining to do, much as you would like us to believe that. Kitt, Oh forget it - it's too stupid to continue on....Joe Wilson outs his own wife.....how laughable - go ahead on, Jim. Thanks for putting that in such a humorous perspective.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    I would love to have Wilson under oath explaining why he didn't mention that Bush's comment was that Saddam "attempted"
    I guess Clinton was right. It really does depend on what the meaning of "is" is. Parsing words will not change the fact that this president took us to war on false pretenses. Memebers of his administration outed an undercover CIA agent (and if you doubt that, go back to Fitzgeral's press conference where he said over and over that, "...her cover was blown by the leak)whose job was to work on WMD all over the world. If this guy wanted to help the administration prove that she wasn't undercover or that her cover was already blown by Wilson himself, he would have come forward from the beginning of the investigation and not waited until after the indictment had come down. Or, are we supposed to believe his memory was faulty at first, but is now miraculously crystal clear?

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    The problem is, as is usual Faux News/Republican tactic, the rednecks in their trailers watching this trash believe whatever comes across the screen--they don't know how to verfiy/validate info, be leery, nor read blogs.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    Apparently Wilson is threatening to sue this guy, and the card remoras' wish may come true, although the final outcome may not be to his liking.
    “It was a casual conversation,” Vallely said. He said that he did not remember the exact date of the alleged exchange with Wilson but that they were both at Fox News on the same day more than once in 2002 when they were guests on various shows.
    Link Apparently, "he said what he said" isn't quite as black and white as some would have us believe...... TTFN, Whizzy.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#19)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    yep, Wilson told a total stranger in a waiting room at faux news who just happens to be an avowed propagandist that his wife was a secret agent., Oh, and the guy just now remembers it. two things should happen: 1) Fitz should make the liars repeat it under oath. 2) Wilson should sue the liars and the outlets they lied on.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#20)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    actually, i think the ball is now in mr. fitzgerald's court. as sailor noted, put him under oath, subject to perjury charges, and question him regarding his claims. my guess, he'll fold. wilson won't sue, for the same reason kerry didn't sue the "swiftboat" liars: he's a public figure, the rules are different for them.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    Darkly - A court case would cut both ways. I would love to see one. But I doubt that it will happen. Sailor - And how do you know Valley was a stranger? scar - Someone should, because it happens to be the truth. Apparently that doesn't matter to you.
    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
    BTW - The British government still maintains that information is correct. We also have this from the Senate Intelligence report.
    U) Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. Based on information provided verbally by the former ambassador, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report.... Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(xxxx) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
    Maggie - You are presenting a belief as a fact. On the other hand I have shown you exact words. To say you purchased something when you actually attempted to is not parsing or dishonest. It is called "correct." BTW - Mrs. Wilson was not covert. So her "cover" was no blown. If the SP thought so, I am sure Libby would have been charged. Kitt - See my comment to Maggie and scar. And if he was concerned about security, why the articles? Why the NYT op-ed? Did he think he could write that without his wife's involvment not coming to light? And why the interview with Corn? And why the cover of Vanity Fair? To reverse a thought from Forest Gump.. Concern is as concern does. Obviously he was not concerned. Che - Valley has made a statement. Wilson has denied it. Either one or both can comment further. By not doing so Wilson strengthens Valley's comments. i.e. The ball is in Wilson's court. debbiehamil - One more time. The charge was that Bush said Saddam purchased.... Bush never said that. He quoted the Brits who said he ATTEMPTED to purchase, and they stand by their comment. BTW - It is rare that someone of the Leftward slant is so open as you when you write:
    Why do you care what Wilson has to say under oath? Even if every word out of his mouth is a lie – who cares.
    Guess we know where you stand on honesty. Guess we know that you embrace "the end justifies the means." Careful, Deb, that slope is very slipperly and has many bad endings.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    haha - When dealing with negatives one should be careful. In my response to Maggie I wrote:
    To say you purchased something when you actually attempted to is not parsing or dishonest. It is called "correct."
    Obviously I meant "incorrect."

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    Jim, What are you talking about? Attempted to purchase or purchased - what difference does it make? The outcome is the same - we invaded Iraq. Bush and his minions were using the Niger incident - whatever it was purchase or attempt to purchase to scare us into going to war. It worked!!!

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:54 PM EST
    debbie writes:
    Jim, What are you talking about? Attempted to purchase or purchased - what difference does it make?
    What difference does it make? The Left attacked Bush based on the claimed inaccuracy, and have shifted the word to "PURCHASED." Bush didn't say that. It is dishonest to the max to claim that he did. He said ATTEMPTED. That has been proven, my former Niger PM Maykai's comments, and the Butler report from the Brits. Debbie. You claim Bush lied to bring us into the war. How are you any better if you lie about this? And I am amazed that I even have to point the above out.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    Excuse me Jim, but the Butler report did not prove anything. They merely said they had other evidence, apart from the clearly forged Niger document, that proved Saddam sought uranium from Africa. Britain has never produced this so-called evidence, so I am skeptical it exists. Your comments about Plame not being covert are ridiculous, and just show that you are peddling dishonest GOP spin. Fitzgerald said Plame's position at the CIA was "classified" until it was revealed in Bob Novak's column. He can't charge anyone on that crime (yet) because of Libby's obstruction and perjury. What the hell do you think he has been investigating for the past 2 years? Did you even read his report?

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    People like Jim simply don't care about the truth. They don't care about finding out who forged the Niger document, or about why we placed so much faith in the crap intelligence peddled by Chalabi and the INC. Probably because he can't handle the truth.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    Jim, I said it did not matter - we still went to war. Why don't you see that the Bush group used the Niger incident (attempted or purchased it doesn't matter) as a reason to take us to war? You are so blinded in thinking, Bush is wonderful and the left is bad, that you have failed to see that Bush’s state of the union speech was discredited. Bush said the 16 words
    The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
    Yes, he said “sought”. This is what Wilson went to check out and found that it was indeed the “sought” that was not true. In my comment I stated that:
    The article also stated: Bush's position was at odds with those of his own aides, who acknowledged over the weekend that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger more than four months before Bush's speech.
    Do you see the words - sought to buy? That is what I was saying – attempt or purchase – outcome the same. We went to war. Does it really make you feel better that we went to war because Saddam might have “sought” to buy uranium? I would feel better if we went to war because Saddam had actually bought some.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#28)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    Valley said what he said. Wilson has denied it and claimed slander. Valley repeated his claim. Sounds like the ball is in Wilson's court. Help me here. If the ball is indeed in Wilson's court, what sort of evidence could he proffer that you would find convincing that he didn't have this conversation? Wait. You can't "prove" that you didn't do something. That means that the one making the positive assertion bears the burden of proof. The ball is in Valley's court, since he had two years to make this claim to those investigating the case, and didn't take the stand under oath to tell his version of the "truth" about this event. At the very least he has to explain his reticence. What do you call a guy who makes a lot of powerful claims, but won't make them under oath? George W. Bush?

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    Repack - I can think of several things that Wilson might do, as I am sure you can. That he does not is his business, not mine. My position is simply that there are well known items that cause me concern about his various articles, comments, interviews and magazine covers. Mark - The Bits say the report is accurate, and they stand by it. They did not provide any additional proof. Perhaps they didn't consider that they had to convince Mark. What else do you want? Perhaps Prince Charles can lectue us on being nice to Moslems while flitting around the colonies. Said another way. If you choose to disbelieve them, you choose to disbelieve them. And Mark, "classified" and "covert" are two entirely different things. If you want the truth then you must also be sure that your words are accurate. debbie - My point is simple. If you believe that Bush manufactured evidence, etc., that is fine with me. Wrong headeed, but your right to believe. But when you advance an argument that is wrong, and when it is clear that it is wrong, then there is no difference between you and your claims about Bush. The problem that you have is that your position is based on anti-war bias, and mostly likely, anti-Bush bias. To support that you exhibit a willingness to accept false arguments. Again. That slope is very slick and has a nasty mud puddle at the bottom.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    Jim, you didn't read my post. I said the same thing you did Saddam "sought" - did not purchase. No where did I say Bush manufactured evidence. Read Jim - I said Bush's statement was discredited by his own aides. His statement was Saddam "sought" did not purchase. This is what you said - Bush did not say "purchase". I agree. The "sought" was discredited. You didn't answer my question:
    Does it really make you feel better that we went to war because Saddam might have “sought” to buy uranium?
    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#31)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    In his keynote speech to Congress in January, the President said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

    But the documents alleging a transaction were found to have been forged.

    White House spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to concede on Tuesday that the uranium claim in the State of the Union address was based on inaccurate information.

    "The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger," Mr Fleischer said.

    "So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."
    who cares what the brits say when the wh admits it lied. Plame was a covert agent and her status was classified. covert and classified are not mutually exclusive, nor even orthogonal.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#32)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    Repack - I can think of several things that Wilson might do, as I am sure you can. That he does not is his business, not mine. Actually I can't think of any way to "prove" one did not have a conversation, so please tell me what you had in mind. My position is simply that there are well known items that cause me concern about his various articles, comments, interviews and magazine covers. My position is that your failure to identify any of these things that you claim exist is typical. Please provide your evidence that Wilson discussed thing with strangers that his own family and neighbors did not know.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    This discussion can be resolved by answering these questions: 1 How do we explain the CIA discrediting the Niger claim and the British supporting it? 2 How do we explain the Bush administration accepting the British version, whereas the CIA report on Niger was not acceptable? 3 Did SH seek or did he NOT seek uranium? If he did seek uranium, what evidence do we have to support that statement? Evidence meaning: anything but a "claim" by the Butler report for which no proof is advanced. 4 How does Wilson being trustworthy or not influence his (as we now know correct) conclusion that there was no evidence SH sought uranium? Or, does anybody know what ad hominem means?

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Cogito:
    How does Wilson being trustworthy or not influence his (as we now know correct) conclusion that there was no evidence SH sought uranium?
    Wilson's many lies are well documented. That is no longer an open question. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Wilson did not conclude, in his oral report to the CIA, that there was no evidence Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. Stephen Hayes at The Weekly Standard has a good series of articles on this, for anyone still interested in the truth.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    EAFJ-What a load of wingnut crap. You quote Pat Roberts bogus partisan committee and the wingnut weakly standard as fact HAHAHA. What a laugh.
    Wilson's many lies are well documented. That is no longer an open question.
    Your credibility is shot. Try Fox they will believe you. You are just a propaganda rag.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    CES - The CIA did not discredit the claim that Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake. I again provide < a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm">this. Read it, and the link, and quit making false claims.
    Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador's home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief. Based on information provided verbally by the former ambassador, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report and sent it to the DO reports officer who added additional relevant information from his notes…. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(xxxx) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."... He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Sorry. The Link

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Cogito ergo sum asks:
    Or, does anybody know what ad hominem means?
    ...and Squeaky delivers:
    EAFJ-What a load of wingnut crap. You quote Pat Roberts bogus partisan committee and the wingnut weakly standard as fact HAHAHA. What a laugh...Your credibility is shot. Try Fox they will believe you. You are just a propaganda rag.
    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    ppj-you can recirculate pat roberts garbage all you want. It does not make it true.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Cogito ergo sum asks: ...does anybody know what ad hominem means? And the The Editors, American Federalist Journal delivers:
    Posted by The Editors, American Federalist Journal at November 10, 2005 03:21 PM Cogito ergo sum asks: Or, does anybody know what ad hominem means? ...and Squeaky delivers: EAFJ-What a load of wingnut crap. You quote Pat Roberts bogus partisan committee and the wingnut weakly standard as fact HAHAHA. What a laugh...Your credibility is shot. Try Fox they will believe you. You are just a propaganda rag.
    The right wing is obviously very justifiably nervous about the flow of events lately, as evidenced by the fact that they are wearing their insecurities on their sleeve and swarming here now, as well as attempting their swift boating. Sad... but I suppose I would be nervous too, if my world were crumbling.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Edger, Thank you, imitation is flattery. We're not nervous. The leadership of the Democratic party and their allies in the MSM (the DeMSM) are clearly and demonstrably lying about matters of US national security in the middle of a war, for political gain. This is simply despicable conduct. Their actions abet the other side. We're refuting those lies. Who Is Lying About Iraq?

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    EAFJ-Take your self promotional wingnut adverts eslwhere as your lies are no longer popular and certainly have no place here. We can tune into Malkin, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, et.al. on our own thank you. You can make believe that you are being flattered all you want, self delusion is your forte after all.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#43)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Ahh, the many lies of Joe Wilson ... ha, ha [/muntz] It's amazing how many rnc trolls come out of the woodwork when they know they are in the wrong and their fearful leader is under attack. I'd call up all the FACTUAL links again, but since even the hemisemidemi god bush has admitted he lied, screw 'em.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    The Editors, American Federalist Journal says:
    We're not nervous.
    Then why would you feel such a need to deny that you are? And why do you feel such a need to make ad hominem attacks here? And why do you feel such a need to attempt to swift boat anyone? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands. Is no one listening to you, or commenting, on your own blog?

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:57 PM EST
    Squeaky writes:
    ppj-you can recirculate pat roberts garbage all you want. It does not make it true.
    That quote is from SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE report." What did Forest Gump say, Squeak? "Stupid is as stupid does." debbie - The base line is that Bush said that Saddam attempted to purchase yellowcake. That is a true statement. His aids said that he shouldn't have used it. Correct. The Left has taken it and twisted into Saddam never "purchased" yellowcake. My point remains. If you continue to use yellowcake "purchase" as a claim, then your claim is dishonest. For reference, I give you ces' last statement:
    How does Wilson being trustworthy or not influence his (as we now know correct) conclusion that there was no evidence SH sought uranium?
    Hopefully, since he asked for evidence, he has returned and read same. Somehow I doubt that he will accept it.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    ppj-Gosh I wonder who chairs the SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE. I wonder if there is a problem with that committee since they have been obstructing any hope of a real investigation of the call to war. That committee is a joke, a sad joke, while you are just a joke. I would give you some links to show how they are stonewalling but I would hate to ruin your fantasy that the SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE is not doing its job and is wasting taxpayer money.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#47)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    That's funny, the link you mention refutes any claim to legitimacy of those docs. And the 'select committee' didn't agree on anything, which is why out of all of these members: PAt Roberts JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Vice Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah MIKE DEWINE, Ohio CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TRENT LOTT, Mississippi OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia CARL LEVIN, Michigan DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois EVAN BAYH, Indiana JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina BARBARA MIKULSKI, Maryland These folks wrote dissenting opinions: Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, Senator Carl Levin and Senator Richard Durbin Senator Saxby Chambliss with Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Senator Trent Lott, Senator Chuck Hagel and Senator Christopher S. Bond Senator Olympia Snowe Senator John Warner Senator Dianne Feinstein Senator Ron Wyden Senator Richard Durbin Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    ppj-Laura Rozen has done some research on your republican wingnut majority SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE Chaired by Pat Roberts. Laura Rozen and the update

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    sailor - squeak.... That is funny. The first link, if you bother to follow it back, goes to the second link, which is the US Senate report. Now. Let me understand. The US Senate is lying. Okay. Now show me where they say that the points I quoted are wrong. And remember. The points I quoted are specifically about Niger and yellowcake.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    ppj-right, I guess you haven't been following the news lately. Oh right, all the repugs lies for the last five years are gospel to you. They never lie, do they.
    Now. Let me understand. The US Senate is lying.
    Hahahaha you are a riot when you skip your medication. Pat Roberts is a partisan hack who makes up sh*t for a living. That report is garbage.

    Re: Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:58 PM EST
    I was noticing the General Paul Vallely bio on the Fox link and while I might be wrong -correct me if you can prove it - I can take being CORRECTED-. When I was stationed at Fort Hood, TX during the early to mid 80's was not General Vallely (ret) the Operational Commander of the Fort Hood Military post and Reservation? Not the 3 Corps Commander, not the 3 Corps Manuver Commander, and certainly not the 321st (?) Civil Affairs Group Commander with some kind of Spec Opns. connections as purported by the FOX bio. I believe I saluted, greeted, small talked, and gave him an aircraft structures repair demonstration at West Fort Hood's Gray Army Airfield. At the time I could not help but wonder why a guy with so much on his plate would be doing hanging out with a tiny aviation repair platoon attached to the 57TH Signal Battalion as the assets the man was responsible for amounted to many Billions $$$ and at that time Ft Hood was the most powerful military organization on the planet, bar none, as a stand alone organization. I met him again at an enlisted promotion ceremony which he had noticed while sampling the breakfast fare at West Fort Hood's mess hall, he asked/and was granted the privelege to pin on the 'new' rank. Anyhow, there is something wrong with those Bio dates/units Foxes fault or his I don't know. To be fair at the time he seemed like a genuinely non-typical -warm, and interested- General Officer.

    Swift Boating Joseph Wilson Won't Work | 51 comments (51 topical)