Partisan Clash, Senate Closed Session, Right Now!

[wskin44]

Navy, this is no temper tantrum regarding Rove. This is about a forged document (actually a purchase receipt) that "proved" that Sadaam Hussien purchased tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. This document was the basis of the concrete evidence that the Administration used to convince the Senate to authorize the war. The Republicans have been blocking an investigation into the origination and use of this document that was later exposed as a forgery.

[@DCGoldPants]

Navy, this is no temper tantrum regarding Rove. This is about a forged document (actually a purchase receipt) that "proved" that Sadaam Hussien purchased tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. This document was the basis of the concrete evidence that the Administration used to convince the Senate to authorize the war. The Republicans have been blocking an investigation into the origination and use of this document that was later exposed as a forgery.

that's why god invented the "Ignore" option.

ND can ignore reality (like his Plame covert status that Fitzgerald proved was incorrect), and you can ignore ND.

[ccsl2]

Navy, this is no temper tantrum regarding Rove. This is about a forged document (actually a purchase receipt) that "proved" that Sadaam Hussien purchased tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. This document was the basis of the concrete evidence that the Administration used to convince the Senate to authorize the war. The Republicans have been blocking an investigation into the origination and use of this document that was later exposed as a forgery.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

Exactly...The Administration know they lied, just don't want to face the music.

[ccsl2]

that's why god invented the "Ignore" option.

ND can ignore reality (like his Plame covert status that Fitzgerald proved was incorrect), and you can ignore ND.

[wskin44]

that's why god invented the "Ignore" option.

ND can ignore reality (like his Plame covert status that Fitzgerald proved was incorrect), and you can ignore ND.

I'm an optomist. I believe that there is hope for everybody. :laugh:

[visionary]

It looks like they have come to some agreement, according to Schumer...though he hasn't ereally explained why they needed to slap Frist in the face...lol.

[NavyDave]

I think the personal shots there were uncalled for, and you should apologize and stay on topic.

Apologize for what stating a fact?

18 year old can have an opinion but comeon they are kids and don't know as much as they think they do.

You need to abandon the thin skin epidemic permeating among liberals

[@DCGoldPants]

Vis- any updates would be appreciated for those of us still at work.

[jbooma]

Don't do this anymore youngster. We do not pull the age card on this board. Deal with what he says in his posts.

I do think the age card is ok for certain debates such as ones that are related to experience or life situations. I know on some issues I would have said something completely different 10 years ago then I would now.

Now with some of the posters like LuckyDevil, he brings a lot to everything and is very intelligent. It all depends on what you are discussing if it is about facts, then everything is free game since facts won't ever change.

What I don't like is when younger posters who only know they are always right, yet may not have experienced what others have to prove them wrong.

[Stophovr6]

look at the picture....in all this mess..... Good Ole' RFK is in the back ground.

I think my House is right behind the T in SENATE

[stevenaa]

Sorry steve. You probably aren't an ******* or a schmuck. You just sounded like one when you played the age card.

And I am out of here this time.

And visionary, as evidenced by the trifecta control of the government, the Republicans are clearly better right now at getting the public on their side.

Accepted. Sorry I popped off as well. Sometimes it's best to let emotion settle and then post.

[NavyDave]

I don't ignore I just don't trust liberals with an anti war anti america agenda

The only debate about Joseph Wilson's credibility is the one taking place at the Washington Post and the New York Times.

by Stephen F. Hayes

10/25/2005 2:30:00 PM

ON JUNE12, 2003, when he first published a story about the matter, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus became the second journalist to have been used by Ambassador Joseph Wilson to peddle bogus information about his February 2002 trip to Niger.

Wilson told Pincus that he had debunked Bush administration claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. He was specific and apparently seemed credible. And Pincus bought it all.

He wrote:

Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger one or two years earlier, the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.

During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

There is one problem with this: It's wrong. Wilson lied and lied repeatedly. His central contention--that he had seen documents about the alleged sale and determined that

they were forgeries--was a fabrication. We know this because Wilson took his trip in February 2002 and the U.S. government did not receive those documents until October 2002. It could not have happened the way Wilson described it to Pincus.

Wilson was later confronted about his misrepresentations. He told investigators from the Senate Intelligence Committee that he may have "misspoken." CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Wilson specifically about these obvious discrepancies, citing Pincus's June 12, 2003, Washington Post story. Wilson decided to share the blame. He pointed the finger squarely at Walter Pincus:

Yes, I am male, I'm over 50. By definition, I can misspeak. I have gone back and taken a look at this particular article. It refers to an unidentified former government official. If it is referring to me, it is a misattribution, of facts that were already in the public domain and had been so since March. My first public statement on this, in my own words, was on July 6." [emphasis added]

The following day, Wilson was confronted again, this time by CNN's Paula Zahn. This time he played dumb before once again blamed the reporters who retold his phony story.

Zahn: I want you to respond to that very specific allegation in the addendum to the Senate report, which basically says that your public comments not only are incorrect, but have no basis in fact.

Wilson: Well, I'm not exactly sure what public comments they're referring to. If they're referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in the New York Times [July 6, 2003] appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me.

The Incredibles

The only debate about Joseph Wilson's credibility is the one taking place at the Washington Post and the New York Times.

by Stephen F. Hayes

10/25/2005 2:30:00 PM

Increase Font Size

| Printer-Friendly

| Email a Friend

| Respond to this article

Page 2 of 2 < Back

It was a stunning reversal. Wilson had turned on the very people who had given him prominence and had trusted that his story was accurate.

All of which brings us to the very bizarre story in today's Washington Post. The article is a rather transparent attempt to rehabilitate Joseph Wilson, casting the current debate about his credibilityas a battle between Wilson's antiwar supporters and his pro-war critics. It fails.

IT FAILS BECAUSE outside of the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times, there is no real debate over Joseph Wilson's credibility. He doesn't have any. It is something that Walter Pincus should understand well, having been one of the earliest peddlers of Wilson's fabrications. And one might think that Pincus would be angry at Wilson after the former ambassador accused him of sloppy reporting to cover up Wilson's own misrepresentations.

But one would be wrong. Pincus is the co-author--along with Dana Milbank--of this morning's amusing attempt to reframe the Wilson story.

"To his backers, Joseph C. Wilson IV is a brave whistle-blower wronged by the Bush administration," claim Pincus and Milbank. "To his critics, he is a partisan who spouts unreliable information."

And why has Wilson's credibility become an issue? A reasonable outside observer might think that Wilson's credibility is an issue because, well, he lied about his findings. That doesn't work for the Post reporters. Wilson's claims are once again at issue because "Republicans [are] preparing a defense of the administration."

The Post report continues: "Wilson's central assertion--disputing

President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger--has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent."

It is the 60 Minutes defense all over again: Fake, but accurate. Yet there are two problems with these claims.

First, it is far from clear that Bush's claim has been invalidated by postwar inspections. Weapons inspections in 2003 and 2004 have little bearing on whether Iraq sought uranium in 1999. And the British review of prewar intelligence (known as the Butler report) concluded that the claim was--and remains--solid. Even Wilson's own reporting about a 1999 meeting between Nigerien government officials and an Iraqi delegation seemed to corroborate earlier reports, dating back to October 2001, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

More problematic: Wilson's "central assertion" was not a soft, subjective claim that Bush's statement was incorrect. His central assertion was that he had seen the documents that proved the Bush administration had lied. Wilson's story was compelling not because he had simply come to a different conclusion than the Bush administration, but because he alone could demonstrate that the administration's claim was built on a lie.

So how does the Post deal with Wilson's fabrications? Very politely. Wilson "armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair" and when later confronted with his misrepresentations "had to admit he had misspoken." But none of this was important, according to the Post. "That inaccuracy wasnot central to Wilson's claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip . . . "

Come again? The fact that he misrepresented his findings and invented a story about evidence he had never seen is "not central to his claims about Niger?"

IN ANY CASE, Pincus hasn't always believed that the involvement of Wilson's wife was a "more important question." On August 8, 2005, he wrote an article with this headline: "Side Issue in the Plame Case: Who Sent Her Spouse to Africa?"

And what about Wilson's claims that his wife had nothing to do with sending him? When Time magazine interviewed Wilson for an article published July 17, 2003, the Time reporters confronted him with those allegations. Wilson, according to Time, "angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa." Said Wilson: "That is bull----. That is absolutely not the case."

Today's Post article once again plays this as an ambiguity: The reporters note a Senate report that suggests she was involved, but also cite anonymous CIA officials who "have always said" that "Plame's superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision."

Two points: By the CIA's own account, Mrs. Wilson was "involved" in sending her husband to Niger. So his denial is, again, false. Furthermore, the Senate Intelligence Committee report makes clear that Mrs. Wilson was instrumental in facilitating her husband's trip to Niger. She suggested him for the job, even writing a memo to her superiors detailing his qualifications for the mission. She introduced him at the subsequent meeting about the trip. And, upon his return, she was present for his debriefing, which was conducted by two CIA officials in their home.

The Post piece closes by citing "another item of dispute": The claim that Wilson was dispatched to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney. In a recent interview with the Post, Wilson claims: "I never said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent."

But in his May 6, 2003, column in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote: "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged." Was that Wilson? We cannot be certain. But both Kristof and Wilson have acknowledged that he was a primary source for the piece.

Wilson further claimed that Cheney had received Wilson's report--allegedly debunking the claim--and had chosen to ignore it. From the New Republic, June 30, 2003: "The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR." Wilson added: "They knew the Niger story was a flatout lie."

TODAY'S Post story is one in a long stream of news reports in both the Post and the New York Times which have given credence to Wilson's bogus claims. For more than a year--from May 2003 until the release ofthe Senate Intelligence Committee report on July 7, 2004--the mainstream press regurgitated Wilson's fraudulent narrative as if it was true.

Here was Pincus on July 6, 2003, the first on-the-record interview with Wilson about his Niger trip. "Joseph C. Wilson, the retired United States ambassador whose CIA-directed mission to Niger in early 2002 helped debunk claims that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium there for nuclear weapons, has said for the first time publicly that U.S. and British officials ignored his findings and exaggerated the public case for invading Iraq.

Wilson, whose 23-year career included senior positions in Africa and Iraq, where he was acting ambassador in 1991, said the false allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium oxide from Niger about three years ago were used by President Bush and senior administration officials as a central piece of evidence to support their assertions that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program."

The New York Times, too, assumed that Wilson's version of events was true: "The agent is the wife of Joseph C. Wilson 4th, a former ambassador to Gabon. It was Mr. Wilson who, more than a year and a half ago, concluded in a report to the CIA that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium ore in Niger in an effort to build nuclear arms. But his report was ignored, and Ambassador Wilson has been highly critical of how the administration handled intelligence claims regarding Iraq's nuclear weapons programs, suggesting that Mr. Bush's aides and Vice President Dick Cheney's office tried to inflate the threat."

More troubling, though, is the credulous reporting that came after the Senate Intelligence Committee report had discredited Wilson. The New York Times, in an editorial on July 19, 2005, argues as if the Senate report had never been issued:

"In July 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times that described how he had been sent by the C.I.A. to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. He said he had found no evidence to support the claim of a uranium purchase, or even a serious attempt to negotiate one, and that he had reported this to Washington. That is entirely accurate."

Or, more recently, the July 27, 2005, Washington Post: "In a 2002 trip to Niger at the request of the CIA, Wilson found no evidence to support allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from that African country and reported back to the agency in February 2002. But nearly a year later, Bush asserted in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, attributing it to British, not U.S., intelligence."

But those were not Wilson' findings. And he wasn't sent by Vice President Cheney. And he was recommended by his wife. And he never did see the forgeries. And his report never was circulated to senior Bush administration policymakers. And on and on it goes.

The only debate about Joseph Wilson's credibility is the one apparently taking place at the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

[Hooper]

Apologize for what stating a fact?

18 year old can have an opinion but comeon they are kids and don't know as much as they think they do.

Yes, but they are old enough to go war and die for... well, for what again? The reasons keep changing.

Just a sad state affairs right now on both sides of the aisle.

[jbooma]

Here is more on today:

Heated day in D.C. leads to more prewar probes

Following unusual closed Senate session, Democrats claim victory

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 5:42 p.m. ET Nov. 1, 2005

WASHINGTON - Democrats claimed “victory for the American people” Tuesday after the Senate Intelligence Committee agreed to continue an investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the Republicans, the Senate minority leader said.

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session for more than two hours Tuesday, accusing Republicans of ignoring intelligence that Bush used before invading Iraq.

A phase-by-phase investigation will resume on Nov. 14, Reid announced following the secret session. It will be the second stage of a probe that Democrats have been pressing for for a year.

Despite prewar claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the administration of manipulating the information that was in their possession.

“They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why,” Reid said.

Taken by surprise, furious Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

“The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership,” said Majority Leader Bill Frist during the tense hours on Capitol Hill. “They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas,” the Republican leader said.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Reid said the American people and U.S. troops deserved to know the details of how the United States became engaged in the war, particularly in light of the indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff.

Shortly before the closed session ended, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., told the press the need to investigate became increasingly urgent following the recent CIA probe.

“Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has been trying for a year to get the intelligence committee to keep its promise and investigate the misuse of intelligence information,” Schumer said. “We just thought we couldn't wait any longer for them to keep giving excuses. This is very serious.”

When the closed session started, the public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, senators filed to their seats on the floor and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.

Provoked by Libby indictment

Libby was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration’s Iraq policy.

“The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions,” Reid said before the doors were closed.

Libby resigned Friday after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury in an investigation by a special prosecutor into the unauthorized leak of a CIA agent’s identity.

Reid accused Republicans of playing upon post-9/11 fears as grounds for going to war.

“Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate,” Reid said. “But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.”

Reid’s spokesperson, Jim Manley, said the purpose of this closed session is to persuade Republicans to reopen the intelligence committee investigation into prewar intelligence

Democrats challenging war justification

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration’s contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House’s justification for going to war.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said Reid was making “some sort of stink about Scooter Libby and the CIA leak.”

A former majority leader, Lott said a closed session is appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons — the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid’s move violated the Senate’s tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid’s effort.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid’s criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war.

[chomerics]

I don't ignore I just don't trust liberals with an anti war anti america agenda

The only debate about Joseph Wilson's credibility is the one taking place at the Washington Post and the New York Times.

by Stephen F. Hayes

10/25/2005 2:30:00 PM

ON JUNE12, 2003, when he first published a story about the matter, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus became the second journalist to have been used by Ambassador Joseph Wilson to peddle bogus information about his February 2002 trip to Niger.

Wilson told Pincus that he had debunked Bush administration claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. He was specific and apparently seemed credible. And Pincus bought it all.

He wrote:

Armed with information purportedly showing that Iraqi officials had been seeking to buy uranium in Niger one or two years earlier, the CIA in early February 2002 dispatched a retired U.S. ambassador to the country to investigate the claims, according to the senior U.S. officials and the former government official, who is familiar with the event. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity and on condition that the name of the former ambassador not be disclosed.

During his trip, the CIA's envoy spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents.

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

There is one problem with this: It's wrong. Wilson lied and lied repeatedly. His central contention--that he had seen documents about the alleged sale and determined that

they were forgeries--was a fabrication. We know this because Wilson took his trip in February 2002 and the U.S. government did not receive those documents until October 2002. It could not have happened the way Wilson described it to Pincus.

Wilson was later confronted about his misrepresentations. He told investigators from the Senate Intelligence Committee that he may have "misspoken." CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Wilson specifically about these obvious discrepancies, citing Pincus's June 12, 2003, Washington Post story. Wilson decided to share the blame. He pointed the finger squarely at Walter Pincus:

Yes, I am male, I'm over 50. By definition, I can misspeak. I have gone back and taken a look at this particular article. It refers to an unidentified former government official. If it is referring to me, it is a misattribution, of facts that were already in the public domain and had been so since March. My first public statement on this, in my own words, was on July 6." [emphasis added]

The following day, Wilson was confronted again, this time by CNN's Paula Zahn. This time he played dumb before once again blamed the reporters who retold his phony story.

Zahn: I want you to respond to that very specific allegation in the addendum to the Senate report, which basically says that your public comments not only are incorrect, but have no basis in fact.

Wilson: Well, I'm not exactly sure what public comments they're referring to. If they're referring to leaks or sources, unidentified government sources in articles that appeared before my article in the New York Times [July 6, 2003] appeared, those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me.

The Incredibles

The only debate about Joseph Wilson's credibility is the one taking place at the Washington Post and the New York Times.

by Stephen F. Hayes

10/25/2005 2:30:00 PM

Increase Font Size

| Printer-Friendly

| Email a Friend

| Respond to this article

Page 2 of 2 < Back

It was a stunning reversal. Wilson had turned on the very people who had given him prominence and had trusted that his story was accurate.

All of which brings us to the very bizarre story in today's Washington Post. The article is a rather transparent attempt to rehabilitate Joseph Wilson, casting the current debate about his credibilityas a battle between Wilson's antiwar supporters and his pro-war critics. It fails.

IT FAILS BECAUSE outside of the pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times, there is no real debate over Joseph Wilson's credibility. He doesn't have any. It is something that Walter Pincus should understand well, having been one of the earliest peddlers of Wilson's fabrications. And one might think that Pincus would be angry at Wilson after the former ambassador accused him of sloppy reporting to cover up Wilson's own misrepresentations.

But one would be wrong. Pincus is the co-author--along with Dana Milbank--of this morning's amusing attempt to reframe the Wilson story.

"To his backers, Joseph C. Wilson IV is a brave whistle-blower wronged by the Bush administration," claim Pincus and Milbank. "To his critics, he is a partisan who spouts unreliable information."

And why has Wilson's credibility become an issue? A reasonable outside observer might think that Wilson's credibility is an issue because, well, he lied about his findings. That doesn't work for the Post reporters. Wilson's claims are once again at issue because "Republicans [are] preparing a defense of the administration."

The Post report continues: "Wilson's central assertion--disputing

President Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that Iraq was seeking nuclear material in Niger--has been validated by postwar weapons inspections. And his charge that the administration exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq has proved potent."

It is the 60 Minutes defense all over again: Fake, but accurate. Yet there are two problems with these claims.

First, it is far from clear that Bush's claim has been invalidated by postwar inspections. Weapons inspections in 2003 and 2004 have little bearing on whether Iraq sought uranium in 1999. And the British review of prewar intelligence (known as the Butler report) concluded that the claim was--and remains--solid. Even Wilson's own reporting about a 1999 meeting between Nigerien government officials and an Iraqi delegation seemed to corroborate earlier reports, dating back to October 2001, that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

More problematic: Wilson's "central assertion" was not a soft, subjective claim that Bush's statement was incorrect. His central assertion was that he had seen the documents that proved the Bush administration had lied. Wilson's story was compelling not because he had simply come to a different conclusion than the Bush administration, but because he alone could demonstrate that the administration's claim was built on a lie.

So how does the Post deal with Wilson's fabrications? Very politely. Wilson "armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair" and when later confronted with his misrepresentations "had to admit he had misspoken." But none of this was important, according to the Post. "That inaccuracy wasnot central to Wilson's claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip . . . "

Come again? The fact that he misrepresented his findings and invented a story about evidence he had never seen is "not central to his claims about Niger?"

IN ANY CASE, Pincus hasn't always believed that the involvement of Wilson's wife was a "more important question." On August 8, 2005, he wrote an article with this headline: "Side Issue in the Plame Case: Who Sent Her Spouse to Africa?"

And what about Wilson's claims that his wife had nothing to do with sending him? When Time magazine interviewed Wilson for an article published July 17, 2003, the Time reporters confronted him with those allegations. Wilson, according to Time, "angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa." Said Wilson: "That is bull----. That is absolutely not the case."

Today's Post article once again plays this as an ambiguity: The reporters note a Senate report that suggests she was involved, but also cite anonymous CIA officials who "have always said" that "Plame's superiors chose Wilson for the Niger trip and she only relayed their decision."

Two points: By the CIA's own account, Mrs. Wilson was "involved" in sending her husband to Niger. So his denial is, again, false. Furthermore, the Senate Intelligence Committee report makes clear that Mrs. Wilson was instrumental in facilitating her husband's trip to Niger. She suggested him for the job, even writing a memo to her superiors detailing his qualifications for the mission. She introduced him at the subsequent meeting about the trip. And, upon his return, she was present for his debriefing, which was conducted by two CIA officials in their home.

The Post piece closes by citing "another item of dispute": The claim that Wilson was dispatched to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney. In a recent interview with the Post, Wilson claims: "I never said the vice president sent me or ordered me sent."

But in his May 6, 2003, column in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof wrote: "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged." Was that Wilson? We cannot be certain. But both Kristof and Wilson have acknowledged that he was a primary source for the piece.

Wilson further claimed that Cheney had received Wilson's report--allegedly debunking the claim--and had chosen to ignore it. From the New Republic, June 30, 2003: "The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR." Wilson added: "They knew the Niger story was a flatout lie."

TODAY'S Post story is one in a long stream of news reports in both the Post and the New York Times which have given credence to Wilson's bogus claims. For more than a year--from May 2003 until the release ofthe Senate Intelligence Committee report on July 7, 2004--the mainstream press regurgitated Wilson's fraudulent narrative as if it was true.

Here was Pincus on July 6, 2003, the first on-the-record interview with Wilson about his Niger trip. "Joseph C. Wilson, the retired United States ambassador whose CIA-directed mission to Niger in early 2002 helped debunk claims that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium there for nuclear weapons, has said for the first time publicly that U.S. and British officials ignored his findings and exaggerated the public case for invading Iraq.

Wilson, whose 23-year career included senior positions in Africa and Iraq, where he was acting ambassador in 1991, said the false allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium oxide from Niger about three years ago were used by President Bush and senior administration officials as a central piece of evidence to support their assertions that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program."

The New York Times, too, assumed that Wilson's version of events was true: "The agent is the wife of Joseph C. Wilson 4th, a former ambassador to Gabon. It was Mr. Wilson who, more than a year and a half ago, concluded in a report to the CIA that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium ore in Niger in an effort to build nuclear arms. But his report was ignored, and Ambassador Wilson has been highly critical of how the administration handled intelligence claims regarding Iraq's nuclear weapons programs, suggesting that Mr. Bush's aides and Vice President Dick Cheney's office tried to inflate the threat."

More troubling, though, is the credulous reporting that came after the Senate Intelligence Committee report had discredited Wilson. The New York Times, in an editorial on July 19, 2005, argues as if the Senate report had never been issued:

"In July 2003, Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article in The Times that described how he had been sent by the C.I.A. to investigate a report that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger. He said he had found no evidence to support the claim of a uranium purchase, or even a serious attempt to negotiate one, and that he had reported this to Washington. That is entirely accurate."

Or, more recently, the July 27, 2005, Washington Post: "In a 2002 trip to Niger at the request of the CIA, Wilson found no evidence to support allegations that Iraq was seeking uranium from that African country and reported back to the agency in February 2002. But nearly a year later, Bush asserted in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, attributing it to British, not U.S., intelligence."

But those were not Wilson' findings. And he wasn't sent by Vice President Cheney. And he was recommended by his wife. And he never did see the forgeries. And his report never was circulated to senior Bush administration policymakers. And on and on it goes.

The only debate about Joseph Wilson's credibility is the one apparently taking place at the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.

ND, you are doing the first thing in the neocon handbook, attacking the person, not the claim. It was a LIE that was put int the SOTU address. Second, the weekley standard, a republican rag along the lines of moveon.org has purposely lied to its readers and falsly claimed that Wilson saw the documents. He never stated that he saw the documents, in fact his first public statement was on July 6th. The entire article is a slander basing an entire case on the an anoynomous source that was misquoted.

Show me a quote from Wilson where he states exactly what you say. You may have a real hard time finding one, because he never stated that.

For anyone who thought this was just about Plame, I think the Senate today confirmed that it is about the war in general, and the purposeful misleading of the American public by the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq.

[Duncan]

ND, you are doing the first thing in the neocon handbook, attacking the person, not the claim. It was a LIE that was put int the SOTU address. Second, the weekley standard, a republican rag along the lines of moveon.org has purposely lied to its readers and falsly claimed that Wilson saw the documents. He never stated that he saw the documents, in fact his first public statement was on July 6th. The entire article is a slander basing an entire case on the an anoynomous source that was misquoted.

Show me a quote from Wilson where he states exactly what you say. You may have a real hard time finding one, because he never stated that.

For anyone who thought this was just about Plame, I think the Senate today confirmed that it is about the war in general, and the purposeful misleading of the American public by the Bush administration to go to war in Iraq.

The problem with your assessment Mike is that the man's credibility is at stake.

He lied about his wife recommending him for the trip and he lied about his findings.

Saying he "misspoke" is a joke. The man is a proven liar.

BTW, any way you could send me a copy of the neocon handbook because you reference it a lot and it sounds like a wonderful read.

[Zen-like Todd]

Random thoughts

1) I just remembered why I rarely come to the tailgate anymore... lots of brainless banter.

2) Pulling the age card is ridiculous. I may be smarter now than when I was 18, but I was still smarter back then than any of you are now. :laugh: Honestly, its a total copout when you can't use other means to prove your point/win a debate.

3) Tactically, I think its fairly brilliant on the part of the Democrats. Rather than allowing the administration to move forward on things like Alito, distractions such as his avian bird flu plan, tax recommendations, etc, they successfully flustered Frist, forced an agenda shift in the short term, and showed some cajones that will make the filibuster threat seem more real. It does nothing to help them with the fact that the Party currently has no ideas of its own, but tactically, it was the best thing they've done in a long time.

[Zen-like Todd]

BTW, any way you could send me a copy of the neocon handbook because you reference it a lot and it sounds like a wonderful read.

Don't mind chom, he uses "neocon" in the same way that people use "left", or "liberal", either failing to realize, or completely ignoring the fact that it has a particular meaning. ND isn't exactly a neocon.

[China]

Senate Emerges From Closed Session on Iraq

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

2 hours, 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that President Bush used in the run-up to the war in Iraq and accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

"They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why," Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

Taken by surprise, Republicans derided the move as a political stunt.

"The United States Senate has been hijacked by the Democratic leadership," said Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee. "They have no convictions, they have no principles, they have no ideas," the Republican leader said.

Democrats sought assurances that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas would complete the second phase of an investigation of the administration's prewar intelligence.

After about two hours, senators returned to open session having appointed a six-member task force — three members from each party — to review the committee's progress and report back to their respective caucuses by Nov. 14.

Roberts' committee produced a 511-page report last summer on flaws of an Iraq intelligence estimate assembled by the country's top analysts in October 2002, and he promised a second phase would look at issues that couldn't be finalized in the first year of work.

The committee had started the second phase of the review, Roberts said, but it has not been completed. He said he had intended all along to work on the second phase beginning next week.

In mid-afternoon Tuesday, Reid demanded the Senate go into closed session. The public was ordered out of the chamber, the lights were dimmed, and the doors were closed. No vote is required in such circumstances.

Reid's move shone a spotlight on the continuing controversy over prewar intelligence. Despite administration claims, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and some Democrats have accused the White House of manipulating the information.

Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted last Friday in an investigation that touched on the war, the leak of the identity of a CIA official married to a critic of the administration's Iraq policy.

"The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions," Reid said before invoking Senate rules that led to the closed session.

Libby resigned from his White House post after being indicted on charges of obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury.

Democrats contend that the unmasking of Valerie Plame was retribution for her husband, Joseph Wilson, publicly challenging the Bush administration's contention that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Africa. That claim was part of the White House's justification for going to war.

As Reid spoke, Frist met in the back of the chamber with a half-dozen senior GOP senators, including Roberts, who bore the brunt of Reid's criticism. Reid said Roberts reneged on a promise to fully investigate whether the administration exaggerated and manipulated intelligence leading up to the war. Reid claimed that Republicans have repeatedly rebuffed Democratic pleas for a thorough investigation.

Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., a former majority leader, said a closed session was appropriate for such overarching matters as impeachment and chemical weapons — the two topics that last sent the senators into such sessions.

In addition, Lott said, Reid's move violated the Senate's tradition of courtesy and consent. But there was nothing in Senate rules enabling Republicans to thwart Reid's effort.

The Senate had been considering a budget bill when it went into closed session.

[chomerics]

The problem with your assessment Mike is that the man's credibility is at stake.

He lied about his wife recommending him for the trip and he lied about his findings.

Show me where he LIED about his wife recommending the trip. I am caling you out on it because it is not true.

Saying he "misspoke" is a joke. The man is a proven liar.

Prove it Duncan. Show me EXACTLY where he LIED.

BTW, any way you could send me a copy of the neocon handbook because you reference it a lot and it sounds like a wonderful read.

:laugh: Yep, no problem

[chomerics]

Don't mind chom, he uses "neocon" in the same way that people use "left", or "liberal", either failing to realize, or completely ignoring the fact that it has a particular meaning. ND isn't exactly a neocon.

Really, you think Navy Dave is far from a neoconservative? Please refer me to a post where he disagrees with the neoconservative platform. If he isn't one, then please refer me to some of his posts which differ from the party line.

[twa]

Show me where he LIED about his wife recommending the trip. I am caling you out on it because it is not true.

Prove it Duncan. Show me EXACTLY where he LIED.

:laugh: Yep, no problem

Here :laugh:

( ) 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 both 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." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable DELETED requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports. The former ambassador's wife told Committee staff that when CPD decided it would like to send the former ambassador to Niger, she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him "there's this crazy report" on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

(

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter2-b.htm

Now will you drop it

[Thiebear]

I'm assuming this is a political stunt. (My reasoning: Everything the Senate does is a political stunt.)

But I have trouble figuring out what the D's hope to gain from it. With closed doors, all they've accomplished is a lot of media speculation, and an even better job of diverting the media away from the indictments than Bush's nomination was.

Why throw the red flag when you're winning (for the moment)?

Wow... hadn't thought of that, but thats why I read these threads. I wasn't stunned to hear about this, but was that this hasnt happened in 10+ years without both sides knowing ahead of time.

I "feel" that the intelligence wasnt manipulated because everyone has heard it from every country the UN and the former President. So call it out, loud as can be. If it is, someones going down. If its not its just another 200 bucks outta my pocket- again.

[Thiebear]

Navy, this is no temper tantrum regarding Rove. This is about a forged document (actually a purchase receipt) that "proved" that Sadaam Hussien purchased tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. This document was the basis of the concrete evidence that the Administration used to convince the Senate to authorize the war. The Republicans have been blocking an investigation into the origination and use of this document that was later exposed as a forgery.

Actually that wasnt it.. AND Wilson admitted that IRAQ was trying to negotiate trade with Niger... NOW, tell us the top 2 things that Niger exports.

Period. The top 2....

Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world, a landlocked Sub-Saharan nation, whose economy centers on subsistence crops, livestock, and some of the world's largest uranium deposits. Drought cycles, desertification, a 3.3% population growth rate, and the drop in world demand for uranium have undercut the economy

The British have consistently stood by that conclusion. In September 2003, an independent British parliamentary committee looked into the matter and determined that the claim made by British intelligence was "reasonable" (the media forgot to cover that one too). Indeed, Britain's spies stand by their claim to this day. Interestingly, French intelligence also reported an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium from Niger.

Yes, there were fake documents relating to Niger-Iraq sales. But no, those forgeries were not the evidence that convinced British intelligence that Saddam may have been shopping for "yellowcake" uranium. On the contrary, according to some intelligence sources, the forgery was planted in order to be discovered — as a ruse to discredit the story of a Niger-Iraq link, to persuade people there were no grounds for the charge. If that was the plan, it worked like a charm.

But that's not all. The Butler report, yet another British government inquiry, also is expected to conclude this week that British intelligence was correct to say that Saddam sought uranium from Niger.

And in recent days, the Financial Times has reported that illicit sales of uranium from Niger were indeed being negotiated with Iraq, as well as with four other states.

[Burgold]

Taking off the cynical hat for a moment... what if these guys just wanted honest answers and they knew that in order to do that they had to get away from the rhetoric. What if they had been trying for months or nearly a year to get examine the situation and they recognized that because of gamesmanship from both parties nothing was getting done or could get done. So, they said lets close the doors, roll up our sleeves, and deal with the issues. Let's take the campaigning/politcing out of it and actually deal with serious issues.

Too much of modern politics is 24-7 campaigning and grandstanding. Maybe they thought this was so important that they needed to stop grandstanding and go behind closed doors and work.