Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Revisionism of the Week: Wilson 18

Journal by pudge

If someone broke the law in leaking Joe Wilson's wife's identity, they should be held accountable for it, absolutely. And even if the law was not broken, they should probably be fired.

However, I heard one guy this weekend say Wilson was "more accurate" than Bush in his criticism of Bush, and someone else said Wilson was the "first real critic" of Bush's stance on WMD in Iraq. Neither of these statements is true. Wilson came along late to the party, many months after people like Scott Ritter, and Wilson was almost entirely wrong in his criticisms.

Wilson's main claim was that Bush lied in those "16 words" ("The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa") in his State of the Union address in 2003. However, Wilson's report actually supported Bush's "16 words," rather than refute them, as his report showed some evidence that Hussein did want to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger, and was trying to make it happen. And he offered no valid refutation of any kind against those "16 words;" he focused significantly on the forged memo, which was not referenced or used by Bush in the "16 words." (Read more on FactCheck.org.)

On Meet the Press, Wilson noted when he first heard the "16 words," he thought they were not about Niger, "because he would know better if he was." But how could Wilson even know that? Bush was talking about British intelligence, which Wilson was not privy to. That basically sums up Wilson's entire problem: his entire argument against Bush was a straw man, arguing against things Bush didn't say.

Wilson was wrong, partisan, and deceptive.

None of this in any way justifies a breach of national security, as has been alleged, nor any coverup, but let's not lionize Ambassador Wilson for his dubious contributions in a quest to make the alleged crimes seem more egregious.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Revisionism of the Week: Wilson More

Revisionism of the Week: Wilson

Comments Filter:
  • make the alleged crimes seem more egregious.

    I agree, BushCo's alleged acts of treason are egregious enough without piling on anything else.

    • I agree, BushCo's alleged acts of treason are egregious enough without piling on anything else.

      No one of any influence has made any allegation of treason. You're mistaken.
  • Just so we're all on the same page: the Duelfer report [cia.gov] points out that

    Iraq Survey Group (ISG) discovered further evidence of the maturity and significance of the pre-1991 Iraqi Nuclear Program but found that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after that date. ... ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991...

    And, of course, if the Brits actually had any evidence, wouldn't you think they'd have shared it by now? Or that t

    • And, of course, if the Brits actually had any evidence, wouldn't you think they'd have shared it by now? Or that the leaky White House would have let it out?

      This question is not new: if we could verify the British intel, then Bush would not have said "the British Government has learned" and Rice et al would not have later said those words shouldn't have appeared in the SOTU. Obviously, we can say at the very least, the U.S. was never able to confirm that intelligence, and I never contended otherwise, or th
  • Also, you are incorrect where you write:

    Wilson's report actually supported Bush's "16 words," rather than refute them, as his report showed some evidence that Hussein did want to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger, and was trying to make it happen.

    I am aware of no record of a report by Wilson. The main source available on Wilson's trip, besides Wilson's public writings of course, is The Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's PreWar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (Jul [senate.gov]

    • Also, you are incorrect where you write:

      Nope.

      I am aware of no record of a report by Wilson.

      Yes, you are.

      So I'm not sure what you are referring to by "Wilson's report."

      You incorrectly assumed I meant a written report. I didn't, and the context doesn't imply it.

      This is explained with more precision on p. 44: "the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as... refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium."

      I never
      • What you wrote was

        However, Wilson's report actually supported Bush's "16 words," rather than refute them

        Wilson issued no written report, and the Committee report on his findings directly contradicts you here. If you can find Wilson making a statement to the contrary, please point me to it. Otherwise, the best description of his "report" that I know of is what the Committee says: "as [refuting] that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium."

        as his report showed some evidence that Hussein did want to

        • Wilson issued no written report

          And for the second time, I neither stated nor implied that he did.

          and the Committee report on his findings directly contradicts you here.

          You're wrong, it does not, and you have not shown that it does. You are quoting things that have no bearing on what I actually wrote.

          If you can find Wilson making a statement to the contrary, please point me to it.

          Yes, I just did, in the previous post. Wilson said that Mayaki would not discuss "expanding commercial relations" because he fea
          • You say:

            Wilson said that Mayaki would not discuss 'expanding commercial relations' because he feared it would mean violating UN sanctions. This fact is not in dispute, and this is the evidence that I claim supports the 16 words...

            Let's quote at length here from the Committee's report, because it's important. Pages 43-44:

            The intelligence report [written by the CIA officers, based on Joe Wilson's debriefing to them] indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contrac

            • Joe Wilson learned that in 1999 an anonymous businessman contacted the Prime Minister of Niger to say "you should meet with the Iraqis," and one phrase that this anonymous businessman used

              "Expanding commercial relations"

              led the Prime Minister to suspect that the topic was yellowcake sales.

              Well, Wilson didn't say that, that I can tell, and I didn't imply it. I have no confidence in the intelligence report claim that this is what Mayaki suspected. Wilson and the report both claim Mayaki was wary of potentia
              • You didn't answer the question. Which part are you claiming is your "evidence" to "support" the notion that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"? A, the anonymous businessman who mentioned trade, which according to double-hearsay might have been a hint about yellowcake? Or B, the meeting where Iraqi officials never brought the subject up?

                Yes, I understand you are not saying it's strong evidence. Nor are you saying the case is proved. I just want to know which part

                • You didn't answer the question.

                  Yes, I did. Several times, in fact. To quote myself:

                  Wilson said that Mayaki would not discuss "expanding commercial relations" because he feared it would mean violating UN sanctions. This fact is not in dispute, and this is the evidence that I claim supports the 16 words, that "most analysts" believed "lent more credibility" to the notion that Iraq sought uranium from Africa.

                  • Any commerce with Iraq except medicine and food would have violated UN sanctions.

                    U.N. Resolutions 687 [wikisource.org], 661 [wikisource.org]: trade banned for "all commodities and products... any funds or any other financial or economic resources."

                    So the Prime Minister of Niger would have refused to discuss any expansion of trade with Iraq (if the Iraqis had brought it up, which they didn't). Forgive me, I just want to be crystal clear here. Are you saying this is evidence to support the claim that "Saddam Hussein recently sought signific

                    • You're arguing it is not good evidence, which -- again! -- I've already stated myself.

                      Are you saying this is evidence to support the claim that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"?

                      You mean, have I said that many times already? Yes, I have. And so have "most analysts."
                    • I'm not saying it's not good evidence. I'm saying it is not evidence at all. Which is obvious.

                      so have "most analysts."

                      Incorrect. According to what we can read on the heavily-redacted p. 73, "most analysts" were going by the CIA's mistaken report based on two officers' debriefing of Wilson, not anything Wilson said or wrote himself. As I wrote early in this exchange:

                      I think what you meant to say was "some people say his verbal report could be interpreted to show some evidence." ...you haven't presented

                    • I'm not saying it's not good evidence. I'm saying it is not evidence at all. Which is obvious.

                      Obiously wrong. We know that Mayaki said that a businessman said that Iraqi officials wanted to talk to Mayaki about expanding trade opportunities. That is -- obviously -- evidence supporting the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

                      "most analysts" were going by the CIA's mistaken report based on two officers' debriefing of Wilson, not anything Wilson said or wrote himself.

                      That's mere speculation, as best

                    • We know that Mayaki said that a businessman said that Iraqi officials wanted to talk to Mayaki about expanding trade opportunities. That is -- obviously -- evidence supporting the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa.

                      It is not even evidence that Iraq was interested in uranium from Africa. It is evidence that Iraq was interested in uranium precisely to the degree that it is evidence that Iraq was interested in lemon-frosted cupcakes. Which is to say, not at all. Iraq may indeed have been interested

                    • It is not even evidence that Iraq was interested in uranium from Africa.

                      Yes, it is. This is really tiresome. You think it is not evidence. I think it is. Bully for you, and for me. It's certainly not a fact that it is not evidence. It's subjective. *shrug*

                      Seeking, or as you said, "trying to make [a uranium purchase] happen," involves taking action.

                      And contracting a businessman to set up a discussion would constitute such action, even if it was not, in the end, discussed, because the Prime Minister st

Slashdot Top Deals

"my terminal is a lethal teaspoon." -- Patricia O Tuama

Close