This bleating about accountability is interesting. The CIA screwed up and the guy at the top paid with his job. An intriguing precedent, but I'm not sure why the hackosphere is so keen to see it applied across the board.

DirkStorm Nam de Plume? This one more A-Peelin'? :o)

Question: Who died in your neck of the woods because of this fiasco?

Just curious.

Methinks you're confusing the issues here... The Left Bleated "Bush Lied" until they almost had everyone convinced. To add a little icing, they also claimed the White House 'outted' Plame, which was not only a Lie, it was a DamnedLie, because 'WashingtonElites' were treated to her 'outting' (AWA anybody with 6th Grade reading skills) by none other that GoodOl'Joe hisownself.

Granted, our Friend and Poster Nikita tends to the Sensational on occasion, but if this PileOCrap would have been hung like the Stinkin'Cane it is back about the time of those Magical16Words, JoeWilson would have been revealed for the HACK he had made of himself. MuckRaker. Get my drift?

I love the photo. He looks real concerned about his wife's safety.

Dirk & Cap:

I think you guys aren't giving enough weight to my main issue in my post. Again - how many millions or tens of millions of dollars does the U.S. spend on intelligence services? And yet, the best person we could send to see if Saddam was getting uranium to build the Arab bomb was Joe Wilson?That's our expert sent to Niger?

And now, of course, the horrid nature of this decision has been borne out. Joe went to Niger, sipped tea, and pretty much got the whole thing wrong.

I think this is clearly - stunningly - a horrible decision which should be examined. Seriously, what other such decisions are being made at Langley that we never hear about?

I made the tongue-in-cheek comment about maybe next Valerie Plame will send her golden retriever to check on Kim Jong-il's nukes. It was tongue-in-cheek, of course - but the Wilson trip was almost that bad.

Just ask yourself - suppose George W. Bush had sent a family member or close ally to check on Saddam's uranium purchases. All the mainstream news outlets would be apoplectic - screaming about nepotism, "the Bushies," and Bush's incompetence, for a week. It would be the NEW equivalent of the "16 words." If you needed any more evidence about media bias - here it is.

This is a huge story (who approved the Joe Wilson debacle) that is being absolutely ignored.

If Plame had administrative duties like recommending someone for a Niger investigation, doesn't that indicate she worked at Langlely and was not an NOC agent in the past few years?

So let me get this straight. Apparently Joseph Wilson IV still doesn't buy the British intelligence which a UK commission has just reaffirmed, but he did in fact write that in 1998 Iraq sought uranium from Africa. On that much, he at least agrees. I guess he thinks 1998 is not "recent?"

To answer the original post, you could try reading Wilson's response letter at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/

Specifically, the credentials that made him worth sending "were the trip [Wilson] had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium-related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government." Those personal contacts in the Niger govt. seem to include " good relations with the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines ".

Seems to me like someone I might send to find out if someone was trying to buy uranium from Niger.

And please note that it has not been proven that his wife recommended him for the trip. If you think otherwise, please provide the cites other than the additional republican comments from the Senate report, which comments were not adopted by the democrats on the committee.

If I'm wrong about any of this, please explain (nicely) why.

So, James...

Is he still standing by his allegation that the White House 'outted' his Spouse? Curious. He's already been caught in the LIE, so adding one more Lie to it doesn't seem like a huge leap to me.

James:

I'm not disputing that Joe Wilson had some familiarity with Niger and Africa. But so do lots of people who aren't qualified to check on uranium sales.

After all the press coverage, I've yet to see anyone explain what exactly Joe Wilson was doing for a living at the time of the Niger trip. As best as I can tell, he was just a house-husband who'd been to Africa ... hey guys, lets send Joe!

I am certain we must have at least several people who actually work for the CIA who have expertise in Niger, Africa, Saddam Hussein, and/or uranium sales. Why didn't we send one of them?

It just seems very odd that all of a sudden the CIA (not exactly a mom and pop operation) is farming-out investigations on uranium purchases to dictators to spouses of agents. I mean, why are we spending so much money on intelligence if we have to farm out sensitive jobs like this to family members?

I think there WERE better people at CIA to go to Niger than Joe Wilson. The real story being missed here by the mainstream press is WHY did a house-husband gadfly like Wilson get sent to Niger rather than a actual CIA agent with responsibility in this area?

Abso-bleeping-lutely! There has been rank in subordination in the CIA since the buildup to Gulf War II began. Not only Plame & the entire approval chain that signed on to her conflicted-interest recommendation of her hubby for the job, but also the State Department & National Security Council need to have done to them what Hercules did to the Augean stables. With any luck, Bush will do that after his re-election.

Both of these PsOS should drive themselves off of a cliff (and take the retriever with them).

Nikita,

Are you serious? How many people in the CIA do you think have "good relations" with the Prime Minister of Niger and other members of the government? It's not a matter of expertise. It's a matter of who you know, who you can talk to and expect honest answers.

And Doc,
Exactly what is the LIE? As far as who outted his wife, I believe the investigation is still in progress. I'll wait to hear what they say.

James "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" (His Trip). A direct quote from his book, James... It was a lie. Valerie admits she proposed that he go. He used that as an excuse to accuse the White House of 'outting' her for his failure to toe the Yellowcake Line.

And the FACT that the Iraqis WERE seeking Yellowcake now appears to hold water like a TexasSizedTenGallonHat.

Would you call that a LIE?

The Senate report gives her rationale for sending him, but I'm not going to bother quoting that.

Smacks of Nepotism, but she admits it.

He had an agenda, James. Just another Bush-Hater.

I think I could use a little more context from his book. According to his response to the report, he contends that she did not instigate the trip. Could you please point me to where Valerie admits to proposing that he go.

In any case, I'm confused when you say he had an agenda. Are you suggesting that in 2002 he conspired with his wife to get the CIA to fund a trip to Niger just in case George Bush would later make a statement in the State of the Union based on forged documents and then use it as a reason to invade Iraq?

James:

Give it up dude. You need to go actually read the Washington Post and New York Times articles in the below links:

http://nikita_demosthenes.blogspot.com/2004_07_04_nikita_demosthenes_archive.html#108944200671620771

http://instapundit.com/archives/016542.php

Lie #1: Joe Wilson said his wife had "nothing to do with" his trip to Niger. But the Senate Intelligence Report and the Washington Post and the New York Times all said that Valerie Plame DID recommend Joe Wilson in writing for the trip. The Senate Intelligence Report and the Washington Post both actually quoted from Valerie Plame's letter. Busted.

Lie #2. Joe Wilson said that George W. Bush lied in the "16 words" when Bush said that Saddam had sought yellowcake uranium from Africa. (Joe Wilson also said, being the shy gadfly that he is, that Karl Rove should be "frog-marched" out of Washington). But the Senate Intelligence Report, the Washington Post and the New York Times all indicated that Joe Wilson's trip itself, as well as British intelligence from several sources, actually did show that Saddam WAS trying to buy uranium from Niger, Africa. Busted again.

And your implied assertion, the the CIA has NO ONE with expertise in Saddam, Niger and/or uranium sales that they could send other than non-employee Joe Wilson - Valerie's house-husband - is not serious.

To this day, I have seen no reporting on what if any job Joe Wilson actually has. This is the guy we're sending to investigate sensitive intelligene related to our national security? This is worse than nepotism. This is a horrible decision endangering our national security. That's why I say Valerie Plame and the whole approval chain at CIA the sent tea-sippin'-Joe to Niger for a nice trip should be fired.

James, these lies of Joe Wilson have been discussed a lot in the blogosphere over the last week. Get with the program, dude.

Are you suggesting that in 2002 he conspired with his wife to get the CIA to fund a trip to Niger just in case George Bush would later make a statement in the State of the Union based on forged documents and then use it as a reason to invade Iraq?

And BTW James, Bush's statement in the SOTU was based on British Intelligence which has been scrutinized in their own intel review and has been stood up.. AGAIN.

Wilson lied.

And I expect that since he knew he had lied, he tried to divert the attention from his lie by pointing his finger at Bush and accusing the White House for outing his wife, when he is the one who “outed” his wife.

This entire circus created by Wilson and Plame should be headline news, but it won’t be of course.

Thanks Nikita for putting here!

You guys should really take the time to read Joseph Wilson's rebuttal before jumping to further conclusions; especially regarding his wife's connection/influence over the decision to send him to Niger.

How can he be lying or 'debunking' anything when at the time, even the White House agreed that the 16 words should not have appeared in the State of the Union ?

As for the argument that the CIA had somehow lowered itself or what not by hiring Wilson, well if I recall, the CIA has managed to hire interogators in Iraq and Afganistan with criminal records here at home. That's really adhering to quite a high employment hiring standard, isn't it ?

As for the media exposure, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Washington Times, Ann Coulter, and Robert Novak (and more) all have released editorials about this, and they've all be anti-Wilson of course. Yet none of them, to my knowledge, have bothered to publish Wilson's lengthy reply.

Look, beyond partisan politics, smearing, counter-smearing and more counter-smearing, this is the question you should all be asking yourselves: is a supposidly "bi-partisan" Senate Intelligence Report, that was created to offer answers as to why 1,000 US/Coalition soldiers and 10,000 Iraqis died, an appropriate vehicle to make these alligations and further politicize the already politicized intelligence? I could understand if Sen. Pat Roberts came out with a separate statement or op-ed piece to make these charges, but using the Senate Intelligence Committee report is a disgrace and disrespectful to the memory of those that have fallen.

lasty, lasty, lasty:

You are fighting a losing battle, dude.

1. The reason the Bush Administration said that the 16 words would not have normally have been in a State of the Union Address was becasue they were primarily based on foreign (i.e., British) intelligence, not U.S. intelligence. They weren't saying (and they never ever said) that the 16 words were untrue. Duh, dude.

2. Your position that the CIA cannot hire people with criminal records is exactly the kind of wrong-headed thinking, practiced by liberals like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, that DIRECTLY led to the horror of 9-11. The VERY BEST PEOPLE TO HIRE for foreign intelligence purposes are the people who hang with the terrorists - and the people who hang with the terrorists were often bad guys themselves until recently. Trying to gain real intelligence from real human beings with only military satellites miles in the sky just won't work, dude. Duh #2.

3. Where is Wilson's reply of which you speak? What's the URL? I'll be happy to post it. Don't be surprised if I don't fisk it too, though.

4. I don't understand what you're saying about the Senate Intelligence Report. One of the prime issues that the lefties like you were screaming about before the report was that "BUSH LIED in the 16 words in the State of the Union Address." How lamely hypocritical it is for people like you who, once the 16 words are proven true, you don't say "we lefties were wrong." Rather you say "why do we have to talk about this subject?" Lame, dude. Very lame. Your side was wrong. Be a man for a change and admit it - and stop whining becasue people like me - and the Senate Intelligence Committee - have the temerity to point out that you were wrong.

Nikita :

It’s rather ashame that I have to do your research for you. But I will... just this once.

However, as for your other generally ill advised robotically stereotypical comments, manichean assumptions regarding my political philiosophy and various other testosteronic posturings—those I will ignore.

“…the White House admitted President Bush had erred in his State of the Union speech when he said Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

Michael Anton, a spokesman for the White House’s National Security Council, said in a statement, “We now know that documents alleging a transaction between Iraq and Niger had been forged.”

Anton also said the documents were not the sole basis for Bush’s contention is his speech that “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

The spokesman said that when Bush made the speech in January, there was other intelligence indicating that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from several countries in Africa. This other information, however, was not detailed or specific enough to prove such a contention, he said.

“Because of this lack of specificity, this reporting alone did not rise to the level of inclusion in a presidential speech,” Anton said. “That said, the issue of Iraq’s attempts to acquire uranium from abroad was not an element underpinning the judgment reached by most intelligence agencies that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.”

On June 8, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, too, had said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Bush was wrong when he said the British government had learned that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa to build weapons.

“No one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery,” she said. “Of course, it was information that was mistaken.”

http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/article_07_08_03iraq_uranium.html

lasty I like your spin! Pull up real soon since you're headed into a DeathSpiral.

The forged documents did not come to light until AFTER Wilson had made his trip, and had nothing to do with the reason for his Junket.

Both the British Inquiry and the US Inquiry have now concluded that there was no exageration or LIES in the President's speech, and those 16 damnable words.

Don't dis on Nikita, my man - dis on yourself for continuing to assert the same old tired story.

James:
I have a few questions to ask:

1) Why, in all of Wilson's speeches and other opportunities to do so, has he never once mentioned that the International Atomic Energy Agency can't require Niger to tighten already lax yelllowcake uranium security? And why has he never once mentioned that the UN currently has no authority to inspect yellowcake uranium shipments from Niger? Were you aware of this James?

2) In his "investigation" of the security of Niger's yellowcake uranium, how many on-site inspections did he conduct and at what locations? Please list hisr qualifications for inspecting such facilities.

3) Did Wilson travel with any yellowcake uranium shipments to monitor security processes and procedures Niger is employing?

4) Who assigned the mission to Mr. Wilson? Wilson is so talented at name dropping, like calling for Rove to be "frog marched in handcuffs", he should try it here. We would like to know who's idea this was, what was the formal mission goals, and where is Wilson's REPORT! We know where to find Wilson's book, but not his report.

5) What is Wilson's expertise in weapons-grade uranium which qualify him to undertake such a mission?

Mr. Wilson, if the President's NSA can be forced to go before the 9/11 Commission, you can answer these questions!

Joseph Wilson:

Quote:
"Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

However, according to an AP report on 09/22/03:

Quote:
"A U.N. nuclear agency team plans to visit Niger in the coming months, hoping to speed government approval of an agreement that would permit in-depth monitoring of uranium exports, the Associated Press learned.

Without this safeguards agreement, the International Atomic Energy Agency can't require Niger to tighten security and has no authority to inspect shipments."

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1P1:80468853&dtype=0~0&dinst=&author=BRUCE%20STANLEY%2C%20AP%20Business%20Writer&title=Niger%20Scrutinized%20for%20Low%20Atomic%20Security&date=09/22/2003&refid=ency_botnm


In light of the facts regarding the security situation of uranium in Niger, I find Wilson's report fradulently inaccurate.

the next question is why? And the answer: His book was released in January. Wilson is laughing all the way to the bank.

neverquit Is that a Photoshop Vette he's sittin' in?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: