<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d8902050\x26blogName\x3dDaily+Dissent\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttp://dissent.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://dissent.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d828381949394443668', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." Theodore Roosevelt

Questions, comments, tips? Send me an Email.

Windows Media Player for Mac Users

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Disassembling the Dissembling

Daily Dissent reader, Nostradamnthem, responds to Ken Mehlman's distortions...

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman:
"It's disappointing that once again, so many Democrat leaders are taking their political cues from the far-left, Moveon wing of the party. The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks."
Michael Isikoff, Newsweek: Matt Cooper's Source, 7/18/05:
Cooper's own email claims Rove warned of potential inaccuracies in Wilson information: "[Time reporter Matt] Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a 'Big warning' not to 'get too far out on Wilson.' Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by 'DCIA' , CIA Director George Tenet, or Vice President Dick Cheney."
Warning him "not to get too far out on Wilson" means nothing. It has no relation to ratting out a CIA agent except as a potential cover.

Joseph C. Wilson, The New York Times, 7/6/03:
Wilson Says He Traveled To Niger At CIA Request To Help Provide Response To Vice President's Office. "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. ... The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."
Wilson obviously believed the request from the CIA came from Cheney's office, because that is what he was told by the CIA.

Joe Wilson on CNN's Late Edition, 8/3/03:
"What they did, what the office of the Vice President did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby's statement, it was probably the Vice President himself..."
Vice President Cheney on NBC's Meet The Press, 9/14/03:
"I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson... and Joe Wilson, I don't [know] who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back."
So Cheney says he didn't ever meet Wilson, and that he got no report from Wilson that Cheney ever saw. That still proves noting. We already know Cheney has been lying about this issue.

CIA Director George Tenet, 7/11/03:
"In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's Counter-Proliferation Experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn."
OK, so the CIA "on their own initiative" told Wilson that Cheney wanted him to go there. Is it just me, or is it strange that the CIA would tell a lie using the name of the Vice President of the United States? And this is Tenet saying it, not Wilson, or Cooper, or Miller.
"Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other Senior Administration Officials."
So proving the "yellow cake" story false didn't resolve anything? Well... even if we buy that one, the report was given a "wide distribution" but it never got to Bush, Cheney or ANY other senior administration official? WHY NOT? It was only contradicting the very evidence we were telling the world was an excuse to invade Iraq when they had done nothing to attack us. Didn't anybody at CIA think they should know their evidence was bogus?

On CNN's Late Edition, 7/18/04, Joe Wilson denied that his wife suggested he travel to Niger, but documentation showed she proposed his name:

WOLF BLITZER:"Among other things, you had always said, always maintained, still maintain your wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA officer, had nothing to do with the decision to send to you Niger to inspect reports that uranium might be sold from Niger to Iraq. Did Valerie Plame, your wife, come up with the idea to send you to Niger?"

JOE WILSON: "No. My wife served as a conduit, as I put in my book. When her supervisors asked her to contact me for the purposes of coming into the CIA to discuss all the issues surrounding this allegation of Niger selling uranium to Iraq."

And what bearing does this have on whether or not Rove ratted out Mrs. Wilson? Maybe if we read more...

Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq, U.S. Senate, 7/7/04:
But Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Received Not Only Testimony But Actual Documentation Indicating Wilson's Wife Proposed Him For Trip. "Some [CIA Counterproliferation Division, or 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.'"
So she sent a note to her boss, and mentioned his contacts. That is a quote up there, but I don't see where it says he should be sent anywhere, only that he had certain contacts who might know something. It does not make Wilson a liar as insinuated on CNN's Late Edition.

Michael Duffy, Time Magazine: Leaking With A Vengeance, 10/13/03:
They told reporters that Wilson's evidence was thin, said his homework was shoddy and suggested that he had been sent to Niger by the CIA only because his wife had nominated him for the job."
Thin evidence? Like the WMDs that have yet to be found? What do you expect from an up front diplomatic kind of guy trying to probe covert operations? Video confessions of forged documents? Oh, please, Mehlman, get real.

Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04:
Senate Select Committee On Intelligence Unanimous Report: "Conclusion 13. The Report On The Former Ambassador's Trip To Niger, Disseminated In March 2002, Did Not Change Any Analysts' Assessments Of The Iraq-Niger Uranium Deal."
Of course no assessments were changed. Don't we already know from Bolton's hearings that nothing was PERMITTED to challenge the Bush "make a war" agenda? Yes, we do.

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessments On Iraq, 7/7/04:
"For Most Analysts, The Information In The Report Lent More Credibility To The Original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Report On The Uranium Deal, But State Department Bureau Of Intelligence And Research (IN) Analysts Believed That The Report Supported Their Assessments That Niger Was Unlikely To Be Willing Or Able To Sell Uranium."
This again says nothing about Rove ratting out Mrs. Wilson. It's all a big attempt to distract. None of this adds up to a justification for his actions or a proof that he didn't rat her out. But let us read on...

Central Intelligence Agency, Statement By George J. Tenet, Director Of Central Intelligence, Press Release 7/11/03:
CIA Said Wilson's Findings Did Not Resolve The Issue. "Because [Wilson's] report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that Nigerian officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said."
What does this have to do with the Rove felony case?

The Rt. Hon. The Lord Butler Of Brockwell, Review Of Intelligence, On Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 7/14/04:
The Butler Report Claimed That The President's State Of the Union Statement On Uranium From Africa, "Was Well-Founded." "We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.' was well-founded."
In other words, in spite of Wilson's evidence to the contrary, the administration decided that their bogus evidence was well grounded and even factual.

Select Committee On Intelligence: Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq, U.S. Senate, 7/7/04, Sens. Roberts, Bond And Hatch all dismissed Wilson's claims:
Sens. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Kit Bond (R-MO) And Orrin Hatch (R-UT) All Stated, "On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all."
Again, a diplomat sent to ask his friends about a fake memo has no "direct knowledge"? How could he have direct knowledge unless he was involved? What kind of BS is this? Pretty desperate in my opinion.
"The Former Ambassador, Either By Design Or Through Ignorance, Gave The American People And, For That Matter, The World A Version Of Events That Was Inaccurate, Unsubstantiated, And Misleading."
Wilson's repudiation of the Bush agenda bogus evidence was already in the news. In order to maintain the WMD lie and have the war Bush wanted back in 1999, they have to discredit Wilson's work.
"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 ... Not Only Did He NOT 'Debunk' The Claim, He Actually Gave Some Intelligence Analysts Even More Reason To Believe That It May Be True."
"...told anyone who would listen.." is certainly an exaggeration and a false and subjective statement made in an attempt to paint Wilson as disloyal. It's just too obvious to even be taken seriously. And the fact is, his evidence has stood the test of time, while the Bush evidence for this "yellow cake" fiasco has failed utterly. But what the hell does this have to do with whether or not Rove ratted out Mrs. Wilson as a CIA agent?

David Tirrell-Wysocki, Former Ambassador Wilson Endorses Kerry In Presidential Race, The Associated Press, 10/23/03:
Wilson Endorsed Kerry In October 2003. "Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who accused the Bush administration of manipulating intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq, endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president ... In a conference call with New Hampshire reporters, Wilson said he and Kerry have shared the experience of challenging their government - Wilson when he questioned the 'rush to war' with Iraq, Kerry when he challenged America's role in Vietnam."
So what? If I did all that work for a president and then he didn't even have the decency to tell me he wouldn't use it because it conflicted with what he wanted to do, but had his minions try to smear my name and endanger my wife's life, I think I'd probably support his opposition too. Who among the readers wouldn't turn against such a president?
"Wilson... said he has long been a Kerry supporter and has contributed $2,000 to the campaign this year. He said he has been advising Kerry on foreign policy for about five months and will campaign for Kerry, including a trip to New Hampshire..."
Patrick Healy and Wayne Washington, In Probe Of CIA Leak, Two Sides See Politics, The Boston Globe, 10/2/03:
"In mid-May, [Wilson] began talking to Kerry's advisers about helping the campaign; he made his first donation May 23. Kerry himself had not met Wilson until Tuesday night at a campaign fund-raiser in Potomac, MD, a Kerry aide said... [Kerry advisor Rand] Beers said Wilson communicates with campaign advisers at least once a week."
So Wilson was as Kerry supporter. What of it? We have a two party system in this country by design, and we have the freedom to vote and support whichever party we wish. And we have the Second Amendment to make sure it stays that way.

Notice, America, that not a word of this even tries to deny that Rove committed a felony by ratting out Mrs. Wilson as a CIA agent. Not a word of it would excuse that behavior. And not a word of it even address that issue, yet it is supposed to constitute a defense of some sort.

Obviously, Mr. Mehlman is depending on the American public to be too lazy to read and think about this supposed defense, and is betting you're all stupid enough to be distracted by this and either forget that Rove has probably committed a felony, or to think he was justified in endangering a woman's life just because he didn't like her husband's politics. The next elections are coming, albeit only for Congress. But you can show Mr. Mehlman if he's right and you're stupid, or if I'm right and you're NOT stupid.

Vote folks. Vote like your lives depend on it. Because they do.

Return to the main page.

Take what you want, leave what you don't.

© 2005 Daily Dissent

Powered by Blogger