Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Joseph Wilson: One more liar added to

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [SIZE=3]Wife suggested Wilson for inquiry, report says[/SIZE]

    The Washington Post

    WASHINGTON Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who conducted a CIA uranium investigation in 2002, [b]was recommended by his wife, a CIA employee, according to a [u]Senate Intelligence report[/u][/b].

    Wilson was sent by the CIA in February of 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking to restart its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa. [b]Wilson had previously said his wife was not involved with his selection[/b].

    Wilson launched a public firestorm last year with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

    [b]Wilson's claims [u]both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information[/u] were undermined in a recent bipartisan Senate Intelligence report[/b].

    The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, [b]bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts[/b]. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence.President Bush made reference to the African information in his January 2003 State of the Union address.

    [b]The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him[/b].

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    C'mon Bush is the bad guy not Saddam, Saddam would never try and obtain uranium for nuclear weapons. :rolleyes:

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    It never fails to amaze me how all the "patriotic" Americans on the left are putting all their eggs in saddams basket.

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jul 14 2004, 04:15 PM
    [b] It never fails to amaze me how all the "patriotic" Americans on the left are putting all their eggs in saddams basket. [/b][/quote]
    Can you elaborate on that thought? I haven't heard ANY support for Saddam from anyone in the USA, Left or Right. You seem to imply that some leftists are looking to what? Support Saddam against the USA?

    Sorry, maybe I missed something (I sure didn't see F9/11) but I was unaware of any such support (well, beyond the ACLU and Lawyers trying to make sure his Trail is fair. Not that he deserves a trial or should have been allowed one. He should have been summarily executed IMO. Why DID Bush allow this to go to trial?).

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,566
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+Jul 14 2004, 05:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ Jul 14 2004, 05:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Jul 14 2004, 04:15 PM
    [b] It never fails to amaze me how all the "patriotic" Americans on the left are putting all their eggs in saddams basket. [/b][/quote]
    Can you elaborate on that thought? I haven&#39;t heard ANY support for Saddam from anyone in the USA, Left or Right. You seem to imply that some leftists are looking to what? Support Saddam against the USA?

    Sorry, maybe I missed something (I sure didn&#39;t see F9/11) but I was unaware of any such support (well, beyond the ACLU and Lawyers trying to make sure his Trail is fair. Not that he deserves a trial or should have been allowed one. He should have been summarily executed IMO. Why DID Bush allow this to go to trial?). [/b][/quote]
    See quote below..

    "" The Iraqis were much better off under Saddam" -Randi Rhodes of Err America as well as Bman/tupelo/pilgrim/numnutz on Iraq under Saddam

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b] Can you elaborate on that thought? I haven&#39;t heard ANY support for Saddam from anyone in the USA, Left or Right. You seem to imply that some leftists are looking to what? Support Saddam against the USA? [/b][/quote]

    I didn&#39;t say support. You all claim saddam is an innocent choirboy minding his own business which we had no business stopping. Libs go one step further and claim it&#39;s George Bush that waged a war on false pretenses.

    Now, it turns out that one of the first "whistleblowers" of this administration, like most lib claims about justification for war, is nothing but a crock of sh*t.


    [quote][b] Sorry, maybe I missed something (I sure didn&#39;t see F9/11) but I was unaware of any such support (well, beyond the ACLU and Lawyers trying to make sure his Trail is fair. Not that he deserves a trial or should have been allowed one. He should have been summarily executed IMO. Why DID Bush allow this to go to trial?). [/b][/quote]

    So you want GW to give the order and put saddam in front of an [b]American[/b] firing squad. Wasn&#39;t it you that was *****ing and moaning about American soldiers placing womans undies on insurgents heads? Weren&#39;t you crying about how we should be above all that?

    Turning saddam over to his own people is a fate worse than anything us "evil" Americans could do to him.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    What&#39;s funny is how the TV media, ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN have failed to mention this (or at least I have not seen it) after trotting out Wilson as the poster boy for payback by the President.

    Fact is he was full of sh&#33;t as the British inquiry today stated the evidence that Iraq was trying to buy yellow cake from Niger.

    I watched this idiot Wilson on Meet the Press a few weeks ago when he was pimping his book; it was obvious he was a liar and doing the same thing they/he accused the President of, cherry picking evidence.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    As a matter of fact:

    [b]APB for Joe Wilson[/b]

    If the national media were teaching college journalism students their theory of political coverage this year, the theory&#39;s name would be Another Problem for Bush. It puts news in a very partisan box. If a fact, a quote, or an allegation casts the president in a negative light, then it is news, pure and simple. If incoming news developments contradict that theory even if previous massively hyped anti-Bush firestorms start to fizzle they shall be ignored. Reporters must never disassemble a previously assembled Problem for Bush.

    On Friday evening and into the new week, President Bush was (as always) "clearly on the defensive" against the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence&#39;s report on prewar intelligence assessments. But on Saturday morning, Washington Post reporter Susan Schmidt actually showed signs of having read the committee report (do TV news people read reports, or just reports on reports?). She found that Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador to Gabon who declared there was no Iraqi attempt to acquire uranium in Niger, "was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly."

    Journalists who cared about reporting the truth and the truth-telling problems of the author of The Politics of Truth would recognize the error of their previous reporting and interviewing and celebrating of Wilson, which broke out in sweaty ardor a year ago. But the record of press coverage in the last few days shows that truth is not the highest national media value. Bashing Bush is.

    Let&#39;s review how fervently certain national media outlets have promoted Joe Wilson&#39;s conspiratorial storyline about Plamegate, and how they have failed to follow up in the last few days.

    NBC was the most aggressive Wilson promoter on TV, beginning with a Meet the Press appearance on July 6, 2003 hyping Wilson&#39;s original breakout in a New York Times op-ed. On July 22, Katie Couric promoted a Today interview: "Still to come this morning on Today, a man who says he&#39;s become the target of a White House smear campaign for blowing the whistle on the president&#39;s State of the Union address." Wilson appeared on Meet the Press again on October 5.

    NBC also gave the warmest reception for Wilson&#39;s book, with three days of bookings on Saturday Today, Meet the Press, and Monday&#39;s Today on May 1, 2, and 3. Couric promoted Wilson again on May 3: "Another book critical of the Bush administration hits stores today, this one by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. He says he told the truth about the evidence against Iraq, and his wife paid the price."

    So now that Wilson has been caught in a lie, how much Wilson coverage is there on NBC? None, as of this writing. That&#39;s too bad, since Wilson misled Tim Russert on October 5:

    RUSSERT: Was there a suggestion that this was cronyism, that it was your wife who had arranged the mission? WILSON: I have no idea what they were trying to suggest in this. I can only assume that it was nepotism. And I can tell you that when the decision was made, which was made after a briefing and after a gaming out at the agency with the intelligence community, there was nobody in that room when we went through this that I knew.

    ABC promoted Wilson and his conspiracy theories on the September 29 Good Morning America and the September 30 Nightline. Ted Koppel honed right in on Mrs. Wilson&#39;s role in the affair. His fourth question was the important one: "Did your wife propose to her colleagues at the CIA that they call her husband, you?" Wilson replied: "No." That&#39;s not what the committee report says. Schmidt wrote: "The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame &#39;offered up&#39; Wilson&#39;s name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA&#39;s Directorate of Operations." But ABC has offered no coverage of Joe Wilson&#39;s crumbling story in the last few days.

    CBS promoted Wilson&#39;s theories in an October 5 Face the Nation interview, in which Bob Schieffer began by underlining how much danger Plame must face thanks to the Robert Novak column reporting her CIA employment. He never found the opportunity to ask if Plame presented Wilson to her CIA colleagues, perhaps because he was too busy underlining the Wilson thesis that the White House was in a war against courageous CIA elements to prevent the facts from coming out. CBS has also ignored any story on Wilson in the last few days.

    Perhaps the most vigorous print promoter of Wilson was Time magazine, who put Wilson&#39;s mug on the cover in their October 13, 2003, edition, confident enough to assert in its headline that someone in the administration was "Leaking with a vengeance....a classic tale of whispers, retribution, and rivalries." The Time article suggested: "The double-barreled leak had two targets. One was to tag Wilson as a tired, second-rate diplomat who couldn&#39;t get a job without his wife&#39;s help. The leakers also wanted to drop the hint that the CIA had purposefully chosen someone it believed would come back with a skeptical finding." Now that the Senate committee report said Wilson got the job with his wife&#39;s help, where was Time? They haven&#39;t mentioned Joe Wilson since the July 5 issue, when Clinton-loving columnist Joe Klein attacked Cheney and Rumsfeld for "blustery testosteronics" against war critics like Wilson.

    Time did squeeze in a Massimo Calabresi article this week summarizing the Senate report, "a blistering critique of the CIA for exaggerating the threat of Saddam Hussein&#39;s illegal weapons." But it had no space for Wilson. It concluded that in Washington, "talk is easy. Reform is hard." There&#39;s a major-media corollary to that. Attacking is easy. Self-correction is hard, especially when it&#39;s not Another Problem for Bush.

  9. #9
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    Looking for Joseph Wilson?

    Here is his response to all of the misinformation in the Republican dominated senate report...

    [url=http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=25196]My Webpage[/url]

    Republicans have never let facts get in the way of a good smear campaign....

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94[/i]@Jul 16 2004, 09:03 PM
    [b] Looking for Joseph Wilson?

    Here is his response to all of the misinformation in the Republican dominated senate report...

    [url=http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=25196]My Webpage[/url]

    Republicans have never let facts get in the way of a good smear campaign.... [/b][/quote]
    Wilson is a liar who tried to cover-up for his pathetic investigation. The whole entire situation with his wife will end up as a big scam then come around and bite him in the ass.

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    How is he a liar? I doubt you will read the link I posted but if he is a liar he is certainly not alone... There was no scam, unless you are claiming a good part of the intelligence community was in on it because he provides actual details and facts from a number of documents and sources that essentially made the same representations that he made. Take the time and read it for yourself and then see if he is lying.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us