Sunday, July 11, 2004

Joe Wilson Lied

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in
February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Let's see what Mr. Wilson told the Washington Post Earlier this year and what he said in his "memoirs".
Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm 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.

And what a firestorm it was. Claims of lies made by the president, THOSE 16 WORDS, Saying the CIA had problems ith the intel, and saying that the intel we used was based on false questionable intel. Let's see what the commission found.
The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. 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 that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them.

Not only did the panel basically back up the administration it's showed how decietdul people can be to get what they want. We'll discuss that in a minute.
The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

Documents where the names and dates are wrong would be a bad thing. But,
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

OOPS!! It sometimes helps to read a document your discussing.

There are a few more things the committee said but, I gave you the most telling so, why would a respected Ambassador lie? I can thik of a couple of reasons.

1.) He disagrees with the way the administration is handling the war on terror.

That's okay. A lot of people have problems with the way the war is being handles. The difference? We aren't in a position to lie to the populace.

2.) Like a few others that have been proven wrong over the last year or so, he wanted to give press to the book he was writing.

What do you know, it was publishd this past spring.