Scooter Libby found guilty.

[SecDef]

The equation is easy

I'm pretty sure we should call that an oversimplification. See:

Libya 1969
Czechoslovakia 1948
Pakistan 1999

None of which can accurately be described as "civil war".

Heck, even at the start of the war, it was obvious that the best way to handle things was to cut the head off the snake. Civil war is people against people, not people against a very small power center that controls the military.

Maybe the word you were thinking of was "revolution"?

 

[jimpeel]

Care to address the yellowcake statements?

Okay, let's.

How about we start with the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

(U) The intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002. The report did not identify the former ambassador by name or as a former ambassador, but described him as "a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record." The report also indicted that the "subsources of the following information knew their remarks could reach the U.S. government and may have intended to influence as well as inform." DO officials told Committee staff that this type of description was routine and was done in order to protect the former ambassador as the source of the information, which they had told him they would do. DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the "high priority of the issue." The report was widely distributed in routine channels.

(U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations."The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.

(redacted) The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, (redacted). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective. (SENTENCE DELETED) The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. 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.

(redacted) The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(redacted) 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."

(redacted) When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the (redacted) intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of the original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from (redacted) intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. Meeting notes and other correspondence show that details of the reporting were discussed at the February 19, 2002 meeting, but none of the meeting participants recall telling the former ambassador the source of the report (redacted)

So if Scooter Libby's memory was flawed so was Wilson's. Wilson, of course, won't be going to prison for his "faulty memory".

(U) The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

Again, Wilson won't be paying any price for his "faulty memory".

 

[jimpeel]

To get back to the Valerie Plame story. The only ones happy with her are the liberals.

They were absolutely atwitter over her appearance.

http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070319.asp#1

Newscasts on Plame's Testimony: 'Impeach
Bush,' Zilch on Armitage

The three broadcast network evening newscasts were similar Friday night in featuring full stories on Valerie Plame's testimony before the House Government Reform Committee, including video of Plame with a woman behind her wearing a pink "Impeach Bush" T-shirt -- ABC even caught a moment when the woman was making the "shame" sign with her fingers (see screen shot in posted version of thie CyberAlert) -- and not mentioning Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of State who was the source for columnist Robert Novak's reporting of her name. CBS's Gloria Borger, remarkably, concluded her report by listing every big name involved but Armitage's: "When asked whether she'd gotten an apology from the President, the Vice President, Karl Rove or Scooter Libby, she said no."

But there were differences. Only NBC Nightly News led with Plame as fill-in anchor Campbell Brown announced: "The CIA operative at the heart of a scandal tells Congress the Bush administration blew her cover and wrecked her career." NBC's Chip Reid uniquely highlighted how Plame contributed to Al Gore's 2000 campaign and that she conceded "I am a Democrat." While CBS's Borger concluded with a missing apology to her, ABC's David Kerley ended his piece by noting how Plame is taking advantage of her situation: "While Plame may have lost the undercover job she loved, the blown cover is allowing her to find a new career. She signed a book deal for more than $1 million. And oh, about all those ingredients for a Hollywood movie, there will be one of those, as well."

(Note: So it looks like the "tragedy" of Plame's "outing" will have about as much effect as the nude pictures of Vanessa Williams and Vanna White had on their carreers. -- jp)

ABC's World News opened with the impact of the storm in the Northeast followed by how more troops are being added to the "surge" in Iraq, then arrived at Plame.

Katie Couric led the March 16 CBS Evening News with how Alberto Gonzales is "on his way out. Sources tell CBS News it's just a matter of time now before the Attorney General gets fired." She then ran an interview with ousted U.S. attorney of New Mexico, David Iglesias, before going to Borger's report on Plame. Couric teased the Plame story:

"Also tonight, former CIA operative Valerie Plame goes public. She says the Bush administration blew her cover and ruined her career."

Couric set up Borger's subsequent report: "Meanwhile, we've been hearing about her for years, today we heard from her. Valerie Plame, the former CIA operative, testified on Capitol Hill. She accused the Bush administration of ruining her CIA career by leaking her name for political reasons."

Campbell Brown led the NBC Nightly News: "Good evening. She has been the object of fascination, the woman in the middle of a Washington scandal and Valerie Plame Wilson, the outed CIA officer, has never before spoken so extensively about what has happened to her until today. She arrived on Capitol Hill surrounded by photographers to tell Members of Congress that her career as a CIA undercover officer was brought to an end when Bush administration officials revealed her true identity."

Reporter Chip Reid uniquely highlighted this exchange:

Valerie Plame: "My exposure arose from purely political motives."
Chip Reid: "But some Republicans today questioned her motives. Some have noted her husband campaigned for John Kerry and that she contributed to Al Gore."
Congressman Lynn Westmoreland, R-Georgia: "Would you say you're a Democrat or a Republican?"
Plame: "Yes, Congressman, I am a Democrat."

 

[jimpeel]

National Review's Byron York had some questions about her testimony.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2NhZWZlODljMjQxZjE4ZGIyNjVkYWQ5MzhiY2FjNDA=

Senate Intel Committee: What Valerie Plame Didn’t Tell UsThe differences between her House testimony and the Senate’s findings.

By Byron York

During her testimony Friday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, former CIA employee Valerie Plame told how her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, came to travel to Niger to investigate claims Iraq had tried to buy uranium there.

It started in February 2002, Mrs. Wilson testified. “A young junior officer who worked for me came to me very concerned, very upset. She had just received a telephone call on her desk from someone, I don’t know who, in the Office of the Vice President, asking about this report of this alleged sale of yellowcake uranium from Niger to Iraq.”

It was not clear from Mrs. Wilson’s testimony why the junior officer was upset. But as the young officer told her story, Mrs. Wilson continued, an element of chance intruded. “As she was telling me what had just happened, someone passed by, another officer heard this. He knew that Joe had already — my husband — had already gone on some CIA missions previously to deal with other nuclear matters. And he suggested, ‘Well, why don’t we send Joe?’” That, Mrs. Wilson testified, was the beginning of her husband’s mission to Africa.

(Note: Waidadamnminit!!!! Does ANYONE believe that she was just sitting there dumb and happy when the phone rang and this junior officer started ranting and magically a mystery man walks by and say "Woweee kiddies! Let's send your old man!"????? -- jp)

As Mrs. Wilson told her story, some members and staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee watched with great interest. As part of its probe into pre-war intelligence, the committee interviewed Valerie Plame Wilson for the portions of the committee’s report dealing with the Niger uranium matter. At that time, as now, the question of how the CIA chose Joseph Wilson for the Niger trip was a subject of great interest. But Missouri Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, vice chairman of the committee, says Mrs. Wilson did not tell the committee about the young junior officer, the call from the vice president’s office, or the passing CIA official who suggested Joseph Wilson’s name.

“Friday was the first time we have ever heard that story,” Sen. Bond said in a statement to National Review Sunday evening. “Obviously if we had, we would have included it in the report. If Ms. Wilson’s memory of events has improved and she would now like to change her testimony, I’m sure the committee staff would be happy to re-interview her.”

For those who followed the Senate investigation, the young-junior-officer story was not the only surprise in Mrs. Wilson’s House testimony. In addition to saying that her office received a call from the vice president’s office, Mrs. Wilson flatly denied playing a role in choosing her husband for the trip to Niger. “I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him,” she testified. The Senate Intelligence Committee report, which concluded that she had indeed suggested her husband for the trip, was simply wrong, Mrs. Wilson testified. In particular, what she called a “quick e-mail” describing her husband’s qualifications for the trip was “taken out of context” by the committee to “make it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.”

In response to an inquiry from National Review Online Friday, Sen. Bond disputed Mrs. Wilson’s memory. Note: It seems that her memory is as bad as her husband's and Libby's -- jp)“We have…checked the memorandum written by Ms. Wilson suggesting her husband to look into the Niger reporting,” Bond said in a statement. “I…stand by the Committee’s finding that this memorandum indicates Ms. Wilson did suggest her husband for a Niger inquiry. Because the quote [the portion of the memo quoted in the Senate report] obviously does not represent the entirety of the memorandum, I suggest that the House Government Reform Committee request and examine this memorandum themselves. I am confident that they will come to the same conclusion as our bipartisan membership did.”

In addition, Mrs. Wilson testified that a CIA reports officer, who the Senate committee says told investigators that Mrs. Wilson had “offered up” her husband’s name for the trip, later told her, Mrs. Wilson, that the committee had got it all wrong. “He came to me almost with tears in his eyes,” she testified. “He said his words have been twisted and distorted.” She testified that the reports officer wrote a memo to correct the record — it is not clear to whom the memo was given — but that the CIA would not let him speak to committee investigators a second time.

Bond responded to that description of events, too. “We have checked the transcript of the comments made to the committee by the former reports officer and I stand by the committee’s description of his comments,” the senator said. “If the reports officer would like to clarify or change his remarks, I’m certain that the committee would welcome his testimony.”

Finally, Bond said flatly, “I stand by the findings of the committee’s report on the Niger-Iraq uranium information, including the information regarding Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.”

On other issues relating to the CIA-leak affair, in her House testimony Mrs. Wilson provided sketchy information, but the fault lay not so much with her as with listless questioning by the two Republicans who showed up for the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing. For example, she was asked briefly about her presence, before her CIA identity was revealed publicly, at a May 2003 conference sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. “I attended that conference simply as a spouse of my husband who was invited to speak,” Mrs. Wilson testified. “I had no discussions other than purely social in nature.”

Mrs. Wilson was not asked anything else about the conference. Who did she meet? What did she say? What did they say? What did her husband say? No Republican — and needless to say, no Democrat — asked.

She was questioned a bit more extensively about a breakfast she and her husband shared with New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. She had been at the breakfast “briefly,” Wilson testified. “I had nothing — I was not speaking to Mr. Kristof.” She said she “can’t imagine” that she could have been a source for Kristof on the Niger uranium matter because “I did not speak to him about it.” No one on the House committee asked what, if anything, she did say to Kristof, or what her husband said during the breakfast.

Finally on Friday, Mrs. Wilson, as well as California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, the committee chairman, addressed the issue of her status within the CIA. “I’ve served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency,” Mrs. Wilson testified. “In the run-up to the war with Iraq, I worked in the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA, still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified.”

At the hearing, Waxman said that he had spoken with CIA Director Gen. Michael Hayden, who approved a statement Waxman read to the committee. “During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover,” Waxman said. “Her employment status with the CIA was classified information…At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information.” A CIA spokesman later told National Review Online that Waxman’s characterization of the matter was “entirely correct.”

(Note: Yes, I read that and I even highlighted it for you. -- jp)

(Continued in next post)

 

[jimpeel]

(continued)

On a personal note, there have been accusations from supporters of the Wilsons that I have, at various times during the CIA-leak affair, declared that Mrs. Wilson was not a covert agent. I did report extensively on CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s avoidance of the word “covert,” his refusal to say what Mrs. Wilson’s status was (beyond “classified”), the Libby trial judge’s declaration that he did not know if Mrs. Wilson was covert, classified, or other, and the testimony at the Libby trial from top officials in the CIA and State Department that they did not tell anyone in the vice president’s office that Mrs. Wilson was covert, classified, or anything else. I also reported, as the pre-trial phase of the Libby case got underway, that Libby defense lawyer Ted Wells asked, “Was she just classified because some bureaucracy didn’t declassify her five years ago when they should have?” On February 27 2006, I wrote:

Wells’s speculation about Wilson’s status matches up with descriptions of Wilson’s employment offered by some knowledgeable sources. There appears to be no doubt that Wilson was a covert CIA agent at the beginning and during much of her career; people who trained with her and who served with her attest to that. But there are questions about whether Wilson was in any practical way operating undercover in the years leading up to her exposure in the Novak column. The Libby team seemed to be suggesting that Wilson’s classified status, if that is what she had, was vestigial — that her undercover days were over and she only retained that status on paper.

One knowledgeable source suggests that might be the case, but maintains that being technically undercover was still being undercover. “She was definitely undercover by agency standards at the time in question,” the source says. “That was a classified bit of information, and is sufficient as far as the agency is concerned to bring it to the attention of the Justice Department. You can argue whether she should have been, but as far as the agency was concerned it was classified.”

There have been reports that Valerie Plame Wilson was changing jobs — and job status — at the CIA when the leak of her identity occurred. In their book Hubris, David Corn — a reporter for The Nation who has worked closely with Joseph Wilson — and Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff wrote that

Prior to the leak, [Valerie Plame Wilson] had started to change her status from nonofficial cover to official cover. She was in the process of leaving the Joint Task Force on Iraq to assume a personnel management position within the CIA. After sixteen years in operations, she wasn’t relishing the new job. But others at the agency had advised her to put in some time as an administrator to rise through the ranks. She wanted to maintain official cover so she could return to operations. But her need for deep-cover NOC [nonofficial cover] status had passed. The paperwork for this transition was in motion when Novak’s column hit.

That passage, if correct, suggests that Mrs. Wilson was not performing in any deep-cover capacity, and perhaps not in any classified capacity at all, when the Novak column was published. But she nevertheless maintained a classified status, with the possibility — perhaps made somewhat remote by her husband’s increasingly high-profile actions — of returning to covert work in the future. That, together with her own actions like attending the Senate Democratic Policy Committee or meeting with Nicholas Kristof, fueled confusion and enormous controversy about her status. I think that, given all of what we know today, my description of her status was accurate.

— Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

 

[Playboypenguin]

JimPeel,

Are you actually reading what you are posting? All those statements say that there was no evidence of any uranium purchase. No contracts were signed, no meetings were had, and no official communiques were had. That the documents were faked. The closet they come to giving any evidence of any uranium sales is one persons belief that the Iraqi's may have wanted to buy uranium even though they did not say they wanted to buy it. He was making an assumption as to a possible motivation. That is not anywhere close to evidence.

Also, what exactely did Joe Wilson forget to mention that came anywhere near the level of lying to the FBI about committing a criminal act? All I read above is accounts where hearsay information of how some people are saying that something he said did not correspond to the offical report.

Also, some of the text you highlighted (making it seem like a relevant statement) was in fact just recounts of statements that were being debunct and denied, such as the one about plames choosing her husband to go.

 

[STAGE 2]

Are you actually reading what you are posting? All those statements say that there was no evidence of any uranium purchase. No contracts were signed, no meetings were had, and no official communiques were had.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush say that Saddam was seeking uranium? If someone is seeking uranium, this may very well mean that there will be no purchase or contracts since seeking does not mean purchase or obtained. I can seek plenty of things and not find or acquire them.

While he may be wrong, this is hardly any evidence of a lie.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush say that Saddam was seeking uranium? If someone is seeking uranium, this may very well mean that there will be no purchase or contracts since seeking does not mean purchase or obtained. I can seek plenty of things and not find or acquire them.

While he may be wrong, this is hardly any evidence of a lie.

Bush stated it as a fact. He made it sound as though it was something that Saddam had approached the African nation's govt and asked to buy uranium. His exact words were...
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .”
This is not true. The British govt had not learned that he had sought to buy uranium and definetly not that the quantities were "significant". They only knew that an Iraqi diplomatic party had been to Africa (which was not uncommon) and had speculated that they could have sought uranium while they was there. They did not put much weight in the documents that some people love to taught as evidence of the purchase since they were regarded much earlier on as forgeries. Also, by the time the president made this statement the conclusion that it did not happen had already been made and he was notified that it was not the case and that it should not be mentioned in his address (memos support this) and he choose to repeat something he knew was not true. Not only that, he chose to word something that had been presented by the intel as a "possibility" as a "fact". I would definately call that a lie.

 

[STAGE 2]

I would definately call that a lie.

Well, this site seems to disagree with you.

http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

Wrong is one thing, and what Bush said may have been wrong. We really still dont know what Saddams intent was. He may in fact have been seeking uranium. You guys are making it sound like Bush said that Saddam had bought, purchased, acquired, contracted for, obtained, made a down payment on some uranium. Thats not what he said.

For all we know, what he said might have been true.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Bush did not say he "may have been" seeking uranium. He said he "had been" seeking it. He had been advised via memo many times that the terming of his 16 wrods was misleading but chose to use them anyway. The factcheck.org site uses the Butler report as it's source of information. The Butler report is dated much later but draws it's conclusions from facts that were already known before the president's remarks. There is a great deal of evidence (outside the butler report) that clearly show that the president had been made aware that the information concerning uranium was purely speculative and that it would be months before it could be confirmed or denied yet he chose to present it as "past tense fact". That is what I have a problem with and what I consider to be the lie.

 

[jimpeel]

And then there's this ...

Again, it seems that the "faulty memory" of Mrs. Plame Wilson may not be so "faulty" after all. It is just a plain ol' lie.

The full text of the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence can be found HERE

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11171

Special Report

Did Valerie Plame Lie?
By John Tabin
Published 3/19/2007 12:08:59 AM

If Joseph Wilson's wife hadn't worked for the CIA, he would not have been sent on the fact-finding mission to Niger that has caused so much controversy over the past few years. This fact is indisputable. Yet last week, Valerie Plame Wilson, under oath before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, did her best to dispute it, or at least to muddy the waters. The question now is whether she committed a crime in doing so.

Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, a Democrat who is clearly sympathetic to the Wilsons' beef with the White House, teed her up to downplay the connection between her job and her husband's trip:

REP. LYNCH: Now, I want to ask you, the suggestion that you were involved in sending your husband seemed to drive the leaks in an effort to discount his credibility. I want to ask you now under oath: Did you make the decision to send Ambassador Wilson to Niger?

MS. PLAME WILSON: No. I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved -- I didn't have the authority.

The suggestion that Plame Wilson "didn't have the authority" to make a recommendation to her boss is laughable. Perhaps she could be read as merely saying that she didn't have the authority to, as Lynch put it, "make the decision," but no one has claimed that she did, and she plainly means to dispute the charges made by White House sources in Bob Novak's July 14, 2003 column, where the name "Valerie Plame" first appeared, that she "suggested sending [her husband] to Niger." But the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, released in July 2004, supports that claim; it says Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip."

Here is what Plame Wilson said when Rep. Lynch asked her to "walk us through everything you did that may have been related around the time of the decision to send Ambassador Wilson to Niger":

In February of 2002, a young junior officer who worked for me -- came to me very upset. She had just received a telephone call on her desk from someone -- I don't know who -- in the office of the vice president asking about this report of this alleged sale of yellow cake uranium from Niger to Iraq. She came to me, and as she was telling me this -- what had just happened, someone passed by -- another officer heard this. He knew that Joe had already -- my husband -- had already gone on some CIA mission previously to deal with other nuclear matters. And he suggested, "Well why don't we send Joe?"

Here, Plame Wilson is eliding the fact that, as documented in the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Wilson had gone on a previous mission at his wife's recommendation, which would seem to be a salient fact. There is simply no way that, if not for his wife, Joe Wilson would ever have been selected for a CIA mission.

THROUGHOUT HER TESTIMONY, Plame Wilson attempted to cast doubt on the conclusions of the Senate Intelligence Committee report. At Lynch's prompting, Plame Wilson even implied that the only ones who think she had anything to do with her husband going to Niger are Republicans:

REP. LYNCH: Thank you. And I want to go back to that Senate Intelligence Committee hearing. There were three Republican senators who included a more definitive statement which -- now this is a quote. It said, "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee." What is your reaction to that statement in the Senate report about the genesis of your husband's trip to Niger in 2002?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Congressman, it's incorrect. It's been borne out in the testimony during the Libby trial, and I can tell you that it just doesn't square with the facts.

REP. LYNCH: Okay.

MS. PLAME WILSON: Those additional views were written exclusively by three Republican senators.

The reference here is to an addendum to the report (.pdf) titled "Additional Views," in which Senators Pat Roberts, Christopher Bond, and Orrin Hatch grumble about a number of conclusions that Senate Democrats moved to exclude from the bipartisan report. The trouble with this effort at partisan point-scoring is that Roberts, Bond, and Hatch didn't simply pull that conclusion out of the air; though the Republican senators were frustrated that this finding wasn't emphasized in the "Conclusions" section, it was certainly included in the bipartisan report. (The relevant paragraphs of the bipartisan report can be found on page 39 -- page 4 of this .pdf under "B. Former Ambassador."):

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity."

Plame Wilson knows this; elsewhere in her testimony she disputed this part of the report. Here's more of her response to Lynch, in which she disputes the email evidence:

MS. PLAME WILSON: We went to my branch chief, or supervisor. My colleague suggested this idea, and my supervisor turned to me and said, "Well, when you go home this evening, would you be willing to speak to your husband, ask him to come into headquarters next week and we'll discuss the options? See if this -- what we could do." Of course. And as I was leaving, he asked me to draft a quick email to the chief of our Counterproliferation Division [CPD], letting him know that this was -- might happen. I said, "Of course," and it was that email, Congressman, that was taken out of context and -- a portion of which you see in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report of July 2004 that makes it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.

And here's how Plame answered when Maryland Democrat Chris Van Hollen asked if she'd spoken to the reports officer:

MS. PLAME WILSON: Yes, Congressman, and I can tell you that he came to me almost with tears in his eyes. He said his words had been twisted and distorted. He wrote a memo, and he asked his supervisor to allow him to be re-interviewed by the committee. And the memo went nowhere, and his request to be re-interviewed so that the record could be set straight was denied.

Van Hollen suggested that the House Committee ought to see that memo, and Committee Chairman Henry Waxman agreed.

Sen. Bond has issued a statement standing by the parts of the report that Plame Wilson disputes:
We have checked the transcript of the comments made to the Committee by the former reports officer and I stand by the Committee's description of his comments. If the reports officer would like to clarify or change his remarks, I'm certain that the Committee would welcome his testimony.

We have also checked the memorandum written by Ms. Wilson suggesting her husband to look into the Niger reporting. I also stand by the Committee's finding that this memorandum indicates Ms. Wilson did suggest her husband for a Niger inquiry....I suggest that the House Government Reform Committee request and examine this memorandum themselves. I am confident that they will come to the same conclusion as our bipartisan membership did.

There's no question that in her testimony, Plame Wilson omitted inconvenient facts and put an inapt emphasis on others. If Bond's characterization of the evidence is correct, she may actually have lied. Lying under oath before Congress constitutes perjury and a violation of the False Statements Act -- the same crimes that accounted for three of the four charges that Scooter Libby was recently convicted of. Wouldn't it be ironic if Valerie Plame Wilson were to share Libby's fate?

John Tabin is a frequent online contributor to The American Spectator and AmSpecBlog.

 

[jimpeel]

Okay, I was scolded for taking the thread off topic -- "trolling" as it were. Are we back on topic now?

 

[jimpeel]

Also, some of the text you highlighted (making it seem like a relevant statement) was in fact just recounts of statements that were being debunct and denied, such as the one about plames choosing her husband to go.

I highlighted them exactly because they supported your side of the argument so you couldn't accuse me of selective highlighting. Thought that would be appreciated but I guess I was wrong.

I even put the note, in pink, that said (Note: Yes, I read that and I even highlighted it for you. -- jp)

Guess you missed that.

 

[jimpeel]

Also, what exactely did Joe Wilson forget to mention that came anywhere near the level of lying to the FBI about committing a criminal act? All I read above is accounts where hearsay information of how some people are saying that something he said did not correspond to the offical report.

So now his wife is doing the same thing (see post #151) under oath before the Congress.

"The Devil made me do it" was her response to the memo that she wrote when she testified:

And as I was leaving, he asked me to draft a quick email to the chief of our Counterproliferation Division [CPD], letting him know that this was -- might happen. I said, "Of course," and it was that email, Congressman, that was taken out of context and -- a portion of which you see in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report of July 2004 that makes it seem as though I had suggested or recommended him.

As the author of the article reprinted in post #151 queries:

Wouldn't it be ironic if Valerie Plame Wilson were to share Libby's fate?

 

[jimpeel]

The factcheck.org site uses the Butler report as it's source of information. The Butler report is dated much later but draws it's conclusions from facts that were already known before the president's remarks.

So if something does not support your contentions it is crap; but everything that does support your contentions is pure gold.

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.

There is a great deal of evidence (outside the butler report) that clearly show that the president had been made aware that the information concerning uranium was purely speculative and that it would be months before it could be confirmed or denied yet he chose to present it as "past tense fact". That is what I have a problem with and what I consider to be the lie.

Can you present, as we have presented, coroborative links from government websites and commission reports, as we have done, which support your contentions? i.e. the "great deal of evidence".

Please don't bore us with "We Hate Bush", "Impeach Bush", or "Bush Lied, People Died" sites.

 

[Playboypenguin]

So if something does not support your contentions it is crap

Not at all...read what I actually wrote. I am saying the Butler report itself has a later publishing date but the information it takes into account all existed prior to the speech.

It does not take alot of searching to find info that supports what I said. the intel reports themselves are pretty clear that any purchases were speculative. How did the the information go from speculative to past tense fact?

 

[STAGE 2]

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

-A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
-A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
-Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
-Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
-None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying



You may very well consider what Bush said to be a lie. I define a lie as a statement made which the declarant knows to be false. There is NO evidence that suggest Bush knew that what he said was false.
Conflicting reports is not evidence of a lie. By your definition, had Bush said Iraq was not seeking uranium he would have lied as well since at the time there was intelligence suggesting otherwise.

Essentially what you are doing is explaining Bush's thought process and then using this explanation as a reason for his "lie". Because you give greater weight to certian pieces of evidence doesn't mean that someone is lying. Keeping in mind we have the luxury of hindsight, your assessment of the information may very well be different than Bush's. This does not mean he lied. The only thing this means is that he analyzed things differently than you. A liar this does not someone make.

Most importantly at the end of the day, being the legal nazi that I am, you don't have any evidence that would stand up in court to support what is essentially a defamatory statement. You're free to your opinion for sure, but without anything concrete your conclusion must be placed in the same category of "we went to war for haliburton contracts" or "this war was for oil". The conclusion is there, but nothing to support it.

 

[Eghad]

So what exactly will all this accomplish to make the free world and America a better place?

 

[jimpeel]

Not at all...read what I actually wrote. I am saying the Butler report itself has a later publishing date but the information it takes into account all existed prior to the speech.

No argument there; and the prior existing information you extol is what they used to come to their conclusions and soundly refutes your position.

It does not take alot of searching to find info that supports what I said. the intel reports themselves are pretty clear that any purchases were speculative.

I asked you to present your proof and the best you can come up with is to say that it doesn't take a lot of searching to find that information. If it doesn't take much searching, why then are you so reticent about doing that easy search and posting the links I asked for?

How did the the information go from speculative to past tense fact?

Read the Butler Report but first re-read the "sixteen words":

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

Now I want you to note that he said "recently sought" and this was after Wilson presented his facts to the CIA. The Butler Report states unequivocally that it was Wilson who put the bug in their ear in the first place when he reported back to them that meetings were, indeed, going on in Niger.

Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

Also note that Bush said "Africa" and not Niger. Niger was not the only African country which was approached.

And then there's this from the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence .

On September 24, 2002 the British Government published a White Paper on Iraq's WMD stating, "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

(U) In a response to questions from Committee staff, the White House said that on September 24, 2002, NSC staff contacted the CIA to clear another statement for use by the President. The statement said, "we also have intelligence that Iraq has sought large amounts of uranium and uranium oxide, known as yellowcake, from Africa. Yellowcake is an essential ingredient of the process to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." The CIA cleared the language, but suggested that "of the process" be changed to "in the process." The President did not use the cleared language publicly.

(U) Some time in September a member of the NSC staff discussed the Niger uranium issue with a CIA analyst. The CIA analyst told Committee staff that during coordination of a speech (he was not sure which one) with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested that the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British "flapping in the wind." In a written response to a question about this matter from the Committee, the NSC staff member said that the CIA did not suggest that he remove text regarding Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa. The NSC staff member said the analyst suggested that Saddam's meeting with his "nuclear mujahedin" was more compelling evidence of Iraq's effort to resurrect the Iraqi nuclear program than attempts to acquire yellowcake, but said the analyst never suggested that the yellowcake text be removed. He said he had no recollection of telling a CIA analyst that replacing the uranium reference would leave the British "flapping in the wind" and said such a statement would have been illogical since the President never presented in any one speech every detail of intelligence gathered on Iraq either by the U.S. or by the U.K.

 

[jimpeel]

So what exactly will all this accomplish to make the free world and America a better place?

Absolutely nothing. It is merely a debating excercise for fun and entertainment. Feel free to join in.