Reporting that Rove avoided indictment, broadcast networks left out his, White House's false statements during CIA leak investigation
SUMMARY: Broadcast networks covering the news that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald reportedly told White House senior adviser Karl Rove that he does not anticipate charging Rove in connection with the CIA leak investigation left out key information concerning Rove's conduct and the false and misleading information put out by the White House concerning the matter. Rove's history of falsely claiming that he was not involved in disclosing CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity was ignored or downplayed, as was the White House's false denials of Rove's role.
Broadcast networks covering the news that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald reportedly told White House senior adviser Karl Rove that he does not anticipate charging Rove in connection with the CIA leak investigation left out key information concerning Rove's conduct and the false and misleading information put out by the White House concerning the matter. June 13 reports on NBC's Nightly News and the CBS Evening News failed to note that Rove falsely told reporters during the course of the investigation that he was not involved in disclosing CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters or that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan also relayed Rove's false claim to reporters. While ABC's World News Tonight aired footage of Rove denying he leaked Plame's name, it was portrayed as being offset by Rove returning to the grand jury and "saying he had forgotten the conversation" with a reporter; ABC also did not note the repeated denials by Rove and the White House. By contrast, reports in The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Associated Press all included Rove's falsehoods in their June 14 reports.
AP staff writer Pete Yost noted that "[t]he decision not to charge Karl Rove shows there often are no consequences for misleading the public." Yost further noted that, "by misleading reporters, the White House saved itself from a political liability during the 2004 presidential campaign":
In 2003, while Rove allowed the White House to tell the news media that he had no role in leaking Valerie Plame's CIA identity, the presidential aide was secretly telling the FBI the truth.
It's now known that Rove had discussed Plame's CIA employment with conservative columnist Robert Novak, who exposed her identity less than a week later, citing two unidentified senior administration officials.
[...]
And by misleading reporters, the White House saved itself from a political liability during the 2004 presidential campaign.
While the president and the vice president underwent questioning by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in 2004, Rove's role never surfaced. The lone blip on the radar screen was a one-day flurry of news stories the month before Election Day when Rove was brought before a federal grand jury -- one of his five grand jury appearances in the probe.
Rove denied having any involvement in the leak of Plame's identity at least twice in public statements, first in footage aired during a September 29, 2003, ABC News broadcast of a statement Rove gave as he walked to his car, then during an August 31, 2004, interview with CNN national correspondent John King. During a September 16, 2003, White House press briefing, McClellan dismissed as "totally ridiculous" the idea that Rove was involved in leaking Plame's identity.
In his June 13 report on ABC's World News Tonight, ABC senior national correspondent Jake Tapper aired footage of the 2003 ABC News clip of Rove, while walking to his car, denying he had leaked Plame's name, but Tapper did not mention the subsequent denial by Rove and the White House. Tapper followed the footage of Rove's denial by saying that after Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper "testified Rove had been one of his sources, Rove returned to the grand jury saying he had forgotten the conversation. The grand jury apparently believed him."
From the June 13 broadcast of NBC's Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): There's another major news story today. The prosecutor in the CIA leak case told Karl Rove's lawyer that Karl Rove won't be -- that he, the lawyer, won't be charging the president's top adviser with a crime. President Bush on his way back from Iraq called prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, quote, "a very thorough person who conducted his investigation in a dignified way." The story tonight from NBC News senior investigative correspondent Lisa Myers.
MYERS: Today the president's closest aide was described as elated and relieved. Rove's team said he got the good news last night just before a fiery political speech in New Hampshire, hammering Democrats on the Iraq war.
ROVE: They are wrong and profoundly wrong in their approach.
MYERS: In Chicago today, special prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald provided no explanation about why he opted not to prosecute after hauling Rove before a grand jury five times. At issue legally, did Rove deliberately lie when he initially failed to tell prosecutors about a conversation with a Time magazine reporter about CIA operative Valerie Plame? Rove claimed he simply forgot the conversation. Fitzgerald either accepted that explanation or did not have enough evidence to prove otherwise. The chairman of the Republican Party says Democrats owe Rove an apology.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE [video clip]: Mr. Rove, are you going to resign?
KEN MEHLMAN (Republican National Committee chairman): People that prejudged his guilt were wrong to, were wrong to say that he ought to have his security clearance taken away, that he ought to lose his job.
MYERS: But Democrats insist this does not mean Rove did nothing wrong.
HOWARD DEAN (Democratic National Committee chairman): That does not excuse his real sin, which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during a time of war.
MYERS: Prosecutors maintain that the White House tried to retaliate against Iraq war critic Joe Wilson by leaking the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA. Documents and various witnesses indicate that Rove discussed Wilson's wife with two reporters but do not suggest Rove knew she was a covert operative. Rove's team insists the Fitzgerald decision was not the result of any deal with prosecutors. And this is not the end of the CIA leak case. The vice president's former chief of staff [I. Lewis] "Scooter" Libby is scheduled to go on trial next year on perjury charges. Rove still could be called as a witness. Lisa Myers, NBC News, Washington.
From the June 13 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight:
CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): And back in the United States, there was a huge sigh of relief at the White House and across the Republican Party today. The president's closest political adviser, Karl Rove, learned that he will not be indicted in the leak of a CIA officer's name. This lifts a major cloud shadowing the President and Republicans in a crucial election year. Here is ABC's senior national correspondent, Jake Tapper.
TAPPER: Karl Rove was on his way to this New Hampshire Republican Party fundraiser when his lawyer e-mailed him the news. Special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald would not indict him in the investigation into who leaked the name of CIA operative, Valerie Plame, wife of ambassador Joe Wilson, a forceful critic of the war in Iraq. Rove and his supporters are elated.
MEHLMAN: Not only has Karl Rove done nothing wrong, but he in fact did everything right in cooperating with the investigation.
TAPPER: After the name of covert agent, Valerie Plame was leaked to reporters, a grand jury began investigating who was responsible for the leak. Twice before the grand jury in February 2004, Rove did not disclose that he told Time magazine's Matthew Cooper about Plame.
REPORTER: Do you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?
ROVE: No.
TAPPER: After Cooper testified Rove had been one of his sources, Rove returned to the grand jury saying he had forgotten the conversation. The grand jury apparently believed him, as well as believing Rove's claim that he had not known Plame was covert agent at that time, a crucial part of the relevant law. The investigation has already resulted in one indictment, former White House adviser Scooter Libby. And some Democrats and some in the media wrongly predicted Rove would be next.
DAVID SHUSTER (NBC News correspondent): I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted.
TAPPER: Today, Democrats said that while Rove may not have violated the letter of the law, he may have violated a sacred trust.
DEAN: Karl Rove does not belong in the White House. He has done something that is counter to the interest of the American national security, and I can't believe the president of the United States can't recognize that.
TAPPER: Tonight, a senior adviser to the White House tells ABC News, with the death of Zarqawi and Rove exonerated, it's a welcome week of solid good news for the administration. Jake Tapper, ABC News, Washington.
From the June 13 broadcast of the CBS Evening News:
BOB SCHIEFFER (anchor): The president's top political aide, Karl Rove, just got some good news. Rove has been under investigation in the case involving who leaked the name and blew the cover of the CIA agent who just happened to be married to an administration critic. Well, the special prosecutor has sent word that Rove will not be charged in the case. Our national political correspondent Gloria Borger has been following all this from the start. Gloria, this really is more than the usual inside Washington baseball. It is significant news, not just for Karl Rove, but, I guess, for the White House as well.
BORGER: Yes, it's very good news, and it's very important news for the White House, Bob. Not only is Karl Rove a top presidential adviser, somebody who's known the president since the old Texas days, but he's also the White House point man on the upcoming 2006 midterm elections. If he had been indicted, Bob, this had--would have been beyond an embarrassment. It really would have played into the Democrats' hand, who are talking about what they call `the culture of corruption' in a Republican Washington. So this is good news.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you very much, Gloria.
From the June 14 edition of The Washington Post:
Rove does not emerge from the investigation unscathed, however. His credibility took a hit inside and outside the White House when he allowed then-Bush spokesman Scott McClellan to tell reporters that he had no role in the unmasking of Plame, the CIA officer at the center of the leak scandal. The investigation has shown that, in a one-week period in 2003, Rove spoke to two reporters about Plame and her CIA role, then reported back to other senior White House officials, according information publicly released by Fitzgerald and by sources familiar with the case.
The episode left McClellan and a few other White House aides upset that they were initially misled by Rove, according to several administration sources. Other White House officials said the case seemed to distract Rove at times and compounded Bush's political problems since his 2004 reelection victory.
Why this is not just as bad or worse than Clinton saying to the American people, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."
After you recite your talking points about this being a time of war, yada yada yada, maybe you can explain again how we have a liberal media.
I can't wait.
The "Liberal Media" does not exist. The way former President Clinton was treated because of a private sexual affair is so small in comparison to outing a CIA agent. Yet it does not get the ounce of coverage it deserved. The media wants stories based on Sex and Scandal.
Clinton pleaded guilty to lying under oath, Rove was vindicated. How are those two things similar??
What other similarites are you looking for?
What Bill did did not endanger our security or ruin our credability to the whole world.
Clinton pleaded guilty to lying under oath
Um, no, Ken Starr, contended that Clinton lied under oath. Clinton did *not* "plead guilty to it". Nor was he determined to be guilty of that (except in the minds of certain "talk radio" spinners).
He was acquited of the charge by the Senate. [link to www.eagleton.rutgers.edu]
He did lie to the American People, and that's not good in the slightest, but that is not quite the same thing as lying under oath.
From time to time, doing your homework is not such a bad idea...
To be fair, Clinton did not contest a finding of Contempt of Civil Court. Contempt of civil court is punishable by a fine, which Clinton paid. It is not a felony, it is a civil 'tort'.
The underlying reason for the contempt finding, according to the judge, was that Clinton "misled" and gave "false responses" to questioning under oath in deposition. The judge pointedly did not use the word "LIE", because that is a word that has color of law (in particular, perjury), and the judge specifically did not make that claim.
As you point out, the Republican House Managers DID make the charge of perjury, but they failed to make the case, and Clinton was found NOT GUILTY.
You're exactly right. But I think that Starr's entire investigation should have come under investigation; wasn't he supposed to be looking into real estate fraud? And we (meaning the public) knew far too much about what was going on inside his office.
Who watches the watchmen?
Not necessarily. They just decided not to prosecute, for whatever reason. This doesn't change the fact that Rove, Bush, Cheney, etc. lied to the public about this. That is what Clinton did at that press conference, when he wagged his finger at us and denied the affair. His perjury was a separate incident. Lying to the public is not a criminal offense, but Clinton was vilifiied for it nontheless. Where is the equal outrage over Bush's and Rove's obvious lies and backpedaling on this issue?
Not necessarily. They just decided not to prosecute, for whatever reason.
Perhaps because there was NOTHING to prosecute or no wrongdoing?? Is that possible??
It's also possible that they just didn't accumulate enough evidence to prosecute. It's also possible that Karl Rove is a more accomplished liar than Scooter Libby. It's also possible that Karl Rove threatened the prosecutor...he is, after all, the second most powerful man in the government, second only to Dick Cheney.
Care to address my original question? Bill Clinton was not prosecuted for lying to the public about his affair, but he was cricified by the press for it. Bush has lied several times about the leaking of Plame's name to the public. It's not perjury, but it's still a blatant lie. Where is the outrage? Why isn't the "Liberal Media" crucifying HIM?
Bill Clinton was not prosecuted for lying to the public about his affair, but he was cricified by the press for it.
To lie to the public, as Bill Clinton surely did, is not a prosecutable crime, but he was crucified by the press as you state. Surely you're not suggesting that the press has been "kind" to Bush are you? What Clinton did as far as lying to the American people is NOT arguable by anyone. Bush's "supposed" lies are merely unproveable accusations by political opponents and are not as clearly certain on their face.
Surely you're not suggesting that the press has been "kind" to Bush are you?
If bush has not been jailed for treason, then the press has been kind to him.
If bush has not been jailed for treason, then the press has been kind to him.
You DO know that the press isn't charged with jailing anyone or prosecuting anyone, so I'm not really sure what your comment is intended to convey. Even Howard Dean isn't suggesting that Bush be "jailed for treason," therefore I must assume your comment is just your anger gone awry.
We know he made false statements and the White House did as well. We also know Bush said he would fire anyone INVOLVED in the leak.
I am not a prosecutor, nor I'll bet are you, but there are times when a prosecutor just doesn't have enough evidence to prosecute. It doesn't mean they're innocent.
Far from it.
This just goes to show that when you have the power on your side nothing is illegal. but maybe if the Democrates takes concorl of the House then we will have a real investagation, not just a feel good investagation. Hopefully then they will all go to jail.
I think that much of the public outrage over Bush & Co.'s lies is simply not getting airtime; W's polls have been around 30% for a while now, he doesn't allow anybody near any of his appearances that doesn't support him, and it looks to me like he simply ignores any dissent.
I have to admit that I have no data to support my theory, I'm not a pollster, and this is just my opinion, but I think it's at least as accurate as what the Neocons keep spinning.
He son ought to have that printed on a tee-shirt and give it to him for Dad's Day. Well he may not have been indicted because his UNSCRUPULOUS behavior hasn't yet risen to the level of illegality. It says a lot about these people that the measure for acceptable behavior is anything that’s just short of being indictable; this from the party they herald themselves as the arbiters of morality. HYPOCRITES.
that heralds temselves
every time I see Karl Rove's picture, I can't help but think of Wormtongue, advisor to King Theoden.
PERFECT!!!
You guys don't realize that this is all politics. It's the Democrat Party Leadership that relies on lies and distortions to try to bring down their opponents and you guys lap it up like kool-aid.
First of all, Wilson is a proven liar. He lied about his wife's role in getting him to Niger. He lied about the Vice President's Office sending him. He lied about his report. He lied about seeing the forged documents.
His wife hadn't been undercover for more than 5 years prior. Besides that she was not deep undercover, an important point.
If Wilson were concerned about his wife's secret identity he wouldn't have provided the NYT with distortions and lies. Only later when caught, did he add the caveat that he never saw the documents.
He said he had proof that Bush lied, but he in fact was the liar.
The amazing part about all this is the leadership of the Democrats and a substantial body of the mainstream media know this timeline and know Wilson's lies completely.
But for the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media, all his prior lies fit their political purpose. Who cares if it is not the truth. Lets see if we can bring down the Presidency!
Take a look at the timeline.
[link to www.freerepublic.com]
Whata MORAN!
..And even if it's entirely true, doesn't change my opinion on the Iraq war or our reasons for going there..
But I did notice it's filled with lots of spelling mistakes. And it's posted on Free Republic.
I just looked at the link you posted. Do you really believe this stuff? Did you pay attention when it was happening?
useful idiots
You guys don't realize that this is all politics. It's the Democrat Party Leadership that relies on lies and distortions to try to bring down their opponents and you guys lap it up like kool-aid. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You know this exact statement could made by a left wing idealogue about your Republican leadership. One day you're going to come here and comment on an issue that doesn't have to first be filtered through the current bias you hold and I for one will applaud you Another American. Carry On.
In fact you are just parroting the rightwing propagand about them.
He did NOT lie about his wifes role in sending him. She DIDNT send him. She was asked if he was a good choice said he would be was asked to write up a recommendation which she did. She did NOT send him. He did NOT lie about Cheneys office sending him. He said Cheneys office asked the CIA to look into it which is EXACTLY what happened. Look at his quote on this and what he said is exactly what happened period. He did NOT lie about the report he said he gave the report and has been in government long enough to know there would be four written reports on what he said. He most likely mispoke about seeing the documents but they were already known in the intelligence community. IF that was a lie its the only one.
She was STILL undercover. The CIA said so. I am just saying the CIA is a better judge of which of their agents are undercover than YOU are. We dont know what she was doing because her operations are STILL classified.
The gist of the NYTimes article was absolutly true. Bush KNEW when he touted the uranium from Niger nonsense it wasnt true. Wilson nailed him you wingnuts WISH it were otherwise, it isnt.
We are right about this YOU are a useful propaganda parrot. Here is a clue repeating these LIES will not make them true
plame hadn't been undercover for 5 years. the cia says you're the one that's lying. her identity and status was always classified because of the network she had built up. you wonder what anyone has to do to get indicted in this case because novak identified her as an operative and from his past writings it was clear he knew the difference between an operative and an agent, and he understood it was a crime to reveal her identity. where's poppy bush on this? he was the one who called this kind of thing treason. instead you have the republicans acting like they won the g. d. super bowl. the fact is that her identity and status were given to novak by "two senior administration officials". they destroyed not only her usefulness as an operative, but destroyed her spy network which focused on wmd, and made people all over the world afraid to cooperate with us because some vindictive bigmouths in the white house might end up getting them killed. bush has been all over every other leak, but this one he just sat back and said we might never know. why? because he doesn't want to know. and these childish little wingnuts act like, hooray we got away with it. screw the country. we won.... and then they point the finger at others?
What news show have you been watching. Oh I know , fox News. That fair and balanced bunch of liers. Everything you spoke of has been repeted by those paid liers so many times, they have themselves beleiving it. The facts speaks for itself. Wilson did not lie Bush and dead-eye Dick and all their henchmen were the liers. You should know the true facts before you start calling other [people idiots.
>>He lied about his wife's role in getting him to Niger. He lied about the Vice President's Office sending him. He lied about his report.
This has been disproven a million times.
[link to mediamatters.org]
[link to mediamatters.org]
>>His wife hadn't been undercover for more than 5 years prior.
Yes she was, which is why Fitzgerald launched an investigation.
>> If Wilson were concerned about his wife's secret identity he wouldn't have provided the NYT with distortions and lies.
That's illogical on many grounds.
>>The amazing part about all this is the leadership of the Democrats and a substantial body of the mainstream media know this timeline and know Wilson's lies completely.
No. An amazing part of the freeper community that has a low standard of proof and only reads selective news accounts has become convinced of this version. The facts point to something different.
The White House, and attacks Wilson, and calls Wilson a LIAR, but the record is quite different. The White House ACKNOWLEDGED that Wilson was RIGHT about the yellowcake story, and the President got it WRONG. AND, the WH retracted the president's words.
Q: Can you give us the White House account of Ambassador Wilson's account of what happened when he went to Niger and investigated the suggestions that Niger was passing yellow cake to Iraq?
MR. FLEISCHER: we've long acknowledged -- ... that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect. ...
Q The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger.
[link to www.whitehouse.gov]
------
How can Another American be in such denial that he would call the White House LIARS for having retracted what AA knows to be true? Wierd.
What propganda parrots gotta do. In this case it is regurgitating the lies screech monkeys are STILL try sell about Wilson. Mores the pity. I thought AA was better than this cheap, weak, attempt
Hi guys,
I read the repliese this morning. It is apparent to me that you guys see the world through rose colored glasses.
If I get a chance I'll try to reply later.
Thanks for all the kind words. :-)
Mainly because you have no evidence to back up your claim. You simply modify your claims from above and pretend that you didn't make inaccurate statements.
Through REALITY colored glasses. I suggest you give it a try
Rove's attorney said (as copied from your website) "special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald reportedly told White House senior adviser Karl Rove that he does not anticipate charging Rove in connection with the CIA leak investigation" The verbage used was "does not anticipate" not "will not". Even your story makes it sound like Rove can't or won't be indicted but the wording doesn't read that way. Rove can still be indicted as long as Firzgerald is working
I don't think that this is the case folks, so cons, don't jump all over this. I'm just being creative here.
What if rove TALKED, in exchange for not being indicted. In that case, he might get a letter that said the prosecutor "does not anticipate" indicting him, but it would still send the "if what you told us isn't true, the deal is off" message?
Fun.
Tex and Solon and the rest,
I go by what I read and see on the web and in the media. Here is one reason why I say Wilson lied. I'd like to see where you find the flaw in all of this?
(this is cut from the link from freerepublic I mentioned earlier.)
May 6, 2003 - Columnist Nicholas Kristof examines prewar U.S. claims of WMD in Iraq in a New York Times article. His article includes this curious passage:
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.
The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted--except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway.
Here is where Joe Wilson's tale gets very puzzling, from an intelligence point of view and it is here also that Wilson begins to conflate documents that are reportedly not known to the US until eight months after his trip with matters he claims, through his trip, to have "debunked". This tale by Kristof comes just about 90 days after the IAEA claims the October 9, 2002 documents were forgeries, but there is no record of who, if anyone, shared those documents with Wilson. Yet, he claims to have specific knowledge of what makes them "forgeries". How did he know that and/or who shared them with Wilson and why?
As to Wilson's claim that his "debunking" of the documents (that did not come to light until eight months after his Niger trip) was passed around the administration, it is simply an outright lie because the documents were never part of the intelligence stream prior to his trip and not part of any intelligence product of his trip. At least neither the CIA Director nor the White House had knowledge of those documents being an intelligence "product" of Wilson's trip. But who knows what Wilson really knew, outside of what he told the CIA that he knew? Is there cause for an investigation here?
Your thoughts?
You called us "useful idiots" before and made a bunch of false statment about Joe Wilson's lies. What happened to those claims?
Regarding Wilson's lie about having seen the forged documents, my understanding here is that Wilson did lie. I believe later he said that he misspoke. However, his lies hardly support your statement:
>>But for the Democrats and their willing accomplices in the mainstream media, all his prior lies fit their political purpose. Who cares if it is not the truth. Lets see if we can bring down the Presidency!
Bush and his administration lied many times about the WMD claims. (Specifically they lied about the Uranium and the aluminum tubes, to name just two examples.) Wilson has nothing to do with these lies. The Democrats and certainly are not involved in some type of plot to bring down the presidency by pointing out these lies.
Is that while we may or may not have HAD the documents themselves those documents were already well known IN the intelligence community. Its not like the document in question was not uncovered until your timeline suggests its only that they were not necessarily in OUR possession. They WERE the impetus for the claim. The CLAIM which was not credible. And Wilsons claim that the VPs office asking for more information was the motivation for his trip is absolutly spot on accurate not the lie you claimed it was and the right keeps claiming it was.
We should investigate this whole affair. If wilson lied, I want to know. If Bush, cheney, wolfie, rummy or condi lied, I want to know. And we should dole out penalties for all. If wilson lied, his lies were to help this country and he should get community service. If the others lied, they should be hanged.
I forgot about how meanings can be funky in email and forums. I DO NOT think anyone should be hanged.
But a life of shame would be nice.
My apologies. I thought it was clear that one could see the documentation of the Wilson account from the link to free republic.
However, (like sasami above, who doesn't want any facts to get in the way of his opinion,) I did a quick search and came up with this from Wikopedia documenting, (how shall I say it without using the L word,) Wilson's lack of credibility.
This is from Wikopedia:
Wilson's report has also come under fire for inconsistency. As reported in the same Washington Post article:
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."
"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 Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
Here are the facts as determined by the Senate Select Committee's investigation (pages 39-44):
* The U.S. embassy in Niger issued a cable reporting that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal warranted a hard look. * Valerie Plame suggested her husband travel to Niger to look into it. * A WINPAC analyst sent an email saying the results "from this source" will be suspect and not believable but CIA decided to send Wilson anyway. * In February 2002, Wilson arrived in Niger and met with former officials of Niger, no current officials. * On March 1, 2002 the CIA published an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq is Unlikely, unrelated to Wilson's trip. This assessment was not provided to Vice President Cheney. * On March 8, 2002 an intelligence report based on Wilson's trip was disseminated. The report indicated the former Prime Minister of Niger had said no contracts to sell uranium to Iraq were signed during his tenure. However, an Iraqi delegation had approached him in June 1999 to discuss "expanding commercial relations." The Prime Minister took this to mean uranium yellowcake sales. The PM let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.
The Senate Report was critical of Wilson because his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his description of the information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA's account. Wilson told the Senate his findings refuted the notion Iraq had sought uranium from Niger. The intelligence report actually confirmed that Iraq had approached Niger for increased trade, which was interpreted by the PM as seeking uranium. Wilson claimed the CIA told him about documents pertaining to an alleged uranium sale to Iraq. The CIA reports officer denied giving Wilson any such information and noted there were no "documents" circulating at the time. (Pages 44-45)
----
I guess I could find more... but like Fitzgerald, after three years of investigating and having nothing to show for it, it is time to move on.
TGIF everyone!
I've got to stop hitting send so quickly.
When I wrote, "...like sasami above, who doesn't want any facts to get in the way of his opinion", I erred.
I should have written. "unlike sasami...."
Sorry for the confusion.
You claimed Wislon made four lies:
>>First of all, Wilson is a proven liar. He lied about his wife's role in getting him to Niger. He lied about the Vice President's Office sending him. He lied about his report. He lied about seeing the forged documents.
You claimed that Wilson said Cheney sent him to Niger. He never did. You are absolutely incorrect.
And while the Senate report claims that Valerie Plame suggested Wilson for the trip, people inside the CIA hotly dispute that.
I have no idea what you mean when you stated he lied about his own report. You are very vague here. You quote at length the Senate intelligence report, but this testimony does not say Wilson lied about his report.
The last lie about Wilson's seeing the forged documents is correct as I conceded above.
So basically 4 lies are really one. (Meaning, by the way, that you are doing some truth stretching yourself.) Moreover, your original post claimed that the Democrats and the media are trying to bring down a president based on lies. But as I pointed above (and you never refuted) Bush and his administration lied, and these lies had nothing to do with Wilson.
Last, you are blowing smoke when you say you could come up with more lies on Wilson. No you can't. And further, it is pretty ludicrous to say Fitzgerald found nothing. He found that Rove lied to the public, and Libby is indicted.
THIS is a valid criticism and the ONLY one. As for the idea that the Niger MP INFERRED that the trade deal was about Uranium what they failed to include is that the same MP HAD those trade talks and says Iraq NEVER MENTIONED URANIUM. While it was a reasonable assumption thats all it was. In fact at this time Iraq was making many trade deals with third world countries. The idea was to tie themselves to such countries economically since they didnt know who would come up in rotation on the Security counsel and they wanted to isolate us on the sanctions issue. Overall Wilson has NOT been shown to be a liar at most inaccurate on the one timeline you pointed out. The basis of his claim was absolutly correct. The Niger/Uranium claim is specious. The CIA was telling Bush this. They instructed him to delete it from his Cincinatti speech BEFORE the SOTU speech an the administration just kept trying to get it in KNOWING it was weak and the CIA did not believe it. They only relented IF Bush tied it to British intelligence. Bottom line its bunk. The white house aknowledged this themselves when they admitted it shouldnt have been included in the speech. Wilson was RIGHT, Bush was WRONG.
funnymanpants wrote: "I have no idea what you mean when you stated he lied about his own report. You are very vague here. You quote at length the Senate intelligence report, but this testimony does not say Wilson lied about his report."
*sigh* You are clinging to a thread my friend. You need to accept what is already known by everyone but a few of you here. I've cut out a few snippets from [link to weeklystandard.com] to prove my point.
"A Little Literary Flair" From the July 26, 2004 issue: Joe Wilson wasn't a truth-teller. by Matthew Continetti
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, released on July 9, fatally undermines Wilson's accusation that the Bush administration "manipulated" intelligence by ignoring his report on Niger--which, in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed, he mistakenly claimed "was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government," including the office of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Here is what Sen. Pat Roberts, co-chair of the Committee wrote about Joe Wilson:
During Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact. . . . .
....However, committee Democrats, Roberts writes, "would not agree" to conclude publicly that much of Wilson's story was fabricated. Perhaps they were embarrassed. Many of them had grown to know Wilson socially over the last year, and many had adopted his cause as their own. Perhaps they did not want to embarrass the Kerry campaign, for which Wilson remains an unpaid adviser. Perhaps they did not want to embarrass media outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the New Republic, which published Wilson's falsehoods and have not yet retracted them.
-------------
It is time to realize that you are clinging to the testimony of a discredited liar in order to build your whole rationalization against Bush. (Why do you think Wilson stopped talking and was dropped from Kerry's campaign?)
As for your contention that I can't find more lies, it is simply a matter of looking them up on the web. But to me that is like beating a dead horse. I've disproven your major contention. I can go on, like I've just proven here, but as happens so many times before, we'd be here all day.
ps. On a related note, I find it funny you continually ask me to provide proof while you feel free to toss out your own unsupported opinions.
pps. You need to re-read my note before embarrassing yourself. I didn't say, "Fitzgerald found nothing".
But that is okay. No need to apologize. I've enjoyed the discussion!
You use an editorial from a right-wing columnist to back up your claim. But an editorial is not proof. I am asking you specifically where Wilson lied. I am asking you to cite the report itself (which I have read)--not some right-winger's interpretation of it.
And I would like you to back up your claim that Wilson claimed Cheney sent Wilson on the Niger trip. You cannot do so.
You cannot show how he lied about his report.
>>As for your contention that I can't find more lies,
I am calling your bluff. You can't find more lies.
>>pps. You need to re-read my note before embarrassing yourself. I didn't say, "Fitzgerald found nothing".
You need to understand that trash talking is not the same as a logical argument. Here is what you said:
>>but like Fitzgerald, after three years of investigating and having nothing to show for it,
I quoted you correctly.
Senator Pat Roberts says to protect a Republican president is NOT evidence of any fault by Wilson. Not even a good try YOU are the one that needs to start looking at reality here besides the timeline goof you have provided NOTHING to show Wilson lied. Nor that he was wrong. The WH admitted he was right when they said they should NOT have included that part in the speech.
To say Wilson didn't lie is to deny reality. His repeated claim that he told the Administration about the forged documents after his return from Niger is patently false. The report didn't show up until 8 months later.
All your rationalizations cannot shake that fact. He lied about it, plain and simple.
I wrote: "but like Fitzgerald, after three years of investigating and having nothing to show for it."
funnymanpants wrote back, "And further, it is pretty ludicrous to say Fitzgerald found nothing."
I responded: "pps. You need to re-read my note before embarrassing yourself. I didn't say, "Fitzgerald found nothing".
funnymanpants wrote back: "I quoted you correctly."
How can you say you quoted me correctly? Don't you see that "Fitzgerald found nothing" and "...having nothing to show for it" are two different statements?
No. I guess you don't.
In case you missed it, that is why I have concluded it is senseless to continue discussing things with you.
Throughout your rather wordy blog, you keep implying there is evidence (or more) that Rove leaked Plame's name. This is absolutely false. Cooper said otherwise and Novak said otherwise. Rove himself testified under oath that he never leaked Plame's name. It's hard to credit the other things you say when you are clearly trying to make us believe something that's simply not true. If you think I'm wrong, produce some specific evidence that Rove ever leaked Plame's name. It can't be done! Colin Richardson