Because it has been proven to not be a lie. The information listed here is totally incomplete and has been gone over many times before. Wilson himself commented on the comments from the official from Niger. In fact the official from Niger did make those claims. They were investigated by Wilson and he concluded they were without merit or not rising to a measure of serious concern. Findings in Iraq show that Wilson was correct. Again who sent Wilson doesn't even matter. But there are CIA officials who have spoken and said that Plame was not responsible for sending Wilson. It was posted in the other thread. This is merely a repeat of already refuted claims.
except that it isn't, and as the senate intelligence committee reported, Wilson did make the uranium claim in his report to the CIA. he may have subsequently retracted it, after the plame affair blew up, but that was over a year later. Wilson lied. period. you don't have to rely on the press or blogs, it's in the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee 2004 report.
You are only recognizing half of the truth. Wislon did find that an official from Niger said that. That was in Wilson's report. If we left it there it would appear that Wilson lied. However, the part being left out was the that Wilson investigated those claims, and found that they were without merit, or insignificant. The state of Iraq's nuclear program or non-program show that Wilson hit the nail on the head with his assessment. Here is what the whitehouse press secretary said about the deal. Fleischer:*Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect. Here is what the CIA's George Tenet said about the British reports which some folks have tried to say shows Wilson lied. To say that Wilson lied ignores half of the information. Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British. I will fully admit that there were reports of Iraq wanting to buy Uranium. However, Wilson admits that the official from Niger believed that a visit by the Iraqis in 1999 indicated that they wanted to buy Uranium. That is precisely what Wilson investigated and came to some conclusions that were shown to be correct after our invasion. So there was cause for concern initially. The causes were investigated and should have been dismissed. But because the invesitgation of the causes for concern didn't show what the administration wanted it ended up with this whole Plame mess.
The CIA said they had doubts about the British report. Wilson did make the claim, and it wasn't that he later refuted it, it is that he made the report along with his assessment that it wasn't a matter of concern. Again he has been proven correct. .
You might be interested in this correction to the Washington Post article you linked to above- _____Correction_____ In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.
what wilson lied about in his times oped in 2003 is what he told the cia in 2002, and the circumstances of how he came to get the assignment. "Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html "Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her 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." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said. Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." 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. "
accusation of him lying 1: Please see the Washington Post's correction as posted by Gifford. Accusation of him lying 2: CIA officials have claimed that Plame didn't make the decision that he go. You can believe the CIA or not. This point doesn't matter in the slightest. It doesn't change any of the facts about Wilson found, and what Rove told people. Who said go doesn't matter.
Oh you see? But it does! If Wilson lied about this, what makes you think we can believe anything he says? But I will admit that once again the Rovian tactics have worked to a tee. We're now discussing Wilson instead of Rove.
Be of good cheer, mc mark. On CNN, it's all about Rove, which is remarkable considering how recent the London bombing was, and at the White House briefings, it's all about Rove, and the reporters are finally, finally, smelling blood. Keep D&D Civil!!
and more Wilson, in a USA Today column, which i can't find online but is excerpted here "In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer --Valerie Plame-- was revealed by columnist Robert Novak."
That's what you've lost the scent of, basso. The truth that Rove lied, and Bush has done nothing. Does that please you? Keep D&D Civil!!
I think it is reasonable to presume that Deckard meant done nothing about Rove(which would make Bush a liar as well.)
