Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Wilson Is Lying Again 9

Journal by pudge

On CNN last weekend, Joe Wilson claimed Fitzgerald confirmed that his wife was covert.*

But nonetheless, there's now clear evidence that Mr. Rove was leaking classified information. Mr. Fitzgerald made it very clear: my wife was a covert officer at the time that these people were leaking her name.

Once again, Wilson is lying. What Fitzgerald actually said is:

I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.

I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.

Wilson's wife may, indeed, have been a covert agent. But Fitzgerald did not confirm that (probably because whether she is covert is classified, and if he could not bring a charge that anyone intentionally outed a covert agent, there's no reason to confirm whether she is covert).

This makes me think Wilson leaked classified information this weekend. Since Fitzgerald did not confirm his wife was covert, if she was covert, and if Wilson knew she was, then Wilson was revealing classified information himself. And doing it only to make an attack against his political enemies. That is, it seems that Wilson this weekend, "[talked to] journalists and leak[ed] national security information," the very thing he is accusing Rove of doing. Oops. (Not that this in any way helps Libby [or Rove, if he is indicted]. I am not defending Libby or Rove or anyone else, who should be fired if they leaked classified information, and go to jail if it was a crime to do so; rather, I am attacking Wilson, because he is being made into a saint, quite undeservingly.)

Not that this is the only incorrect interpretation of Fitzgerald's words. There are many. For example, many pundits have said Fitzgerald has shown there was no conspiracy to release classified information, which is false. Instead, has refused to comment on such things. There very well could be additional indictments coming, against Rove or even Cheney, for outing a covert agent.

And while those on the left are correct to point this out, it is also true that such an event is unlikely, despite their deepest hopes. Fitzgerald said:

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded. This grand jury's term has expired by statute; it could not be extended. But it's in ordinary course to keep a grand jury open to consider other matters, and that's what we will be doing.

Basically: he does not expect more indictments, but they are possible. This is far different from those who say they expect more indictments, when Fitzgerald himself doesn't. But it is also not an affirmation that there was no conspiracy, let alone that charges won't be brought.

[* Important note: in the CNN.com transcript, after the word "clear" they put a period, and a new paragraph, making those two separate thoughts. The transcript makes it seem like Wilson is not saying that Fitzgerald said his wife was covert, but that Wilson himself is adding that information.

But the CNN rendering is wrong. If you watch the video (linked to on that page, about 2 minutes in), there is no additional pause between the words "clear" and "my wife" which would imply such a rendering in the transcript. It seemed absolutely clear to me the first and several subsequent times that I watched it that Wilson was saying that Fitzgerald said "my wife was a covert officer."

If the CNN.com transcript is the accurate rendering of Wilson's meaning (which I have no reason to suspect is true), then Wilson's words "Fitzgerald made it very clear" have to refer to "there's now clear evidence that Mr. Rove was leaking classified information" if not "my wife was a covert officer at the time that these people were leaking her name." But Fitzgerald explicitly disavowed that he was saying either of these things. So Wilson is lying either way. ]

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

Wilson Is Lying Again More

Wilson Is Lying Again

Comments Filter:
  • Wilson's tangled web of lies is finally unravelling.

    Funny, if Bush was lying nearly as much as the democrats claim he is, ESPECIALLY if he was as stupid as they claim he is, he would have tripped up a LONG time ago. It's hard to maintain consistency when weaving a massive web of lies. That alone should be proof enough Bush isn't lying (i.e. INTENTIONALLY deceiving - he may honestly believe some of the stuff that others perceive as lies, but that's a perception issue and it's easy to maintain consistency w
    • "The great mass of people
      will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolph Hitler

      Why bother working at being believable when you have this great mass of scared white men(most of whom aren't stupid) afraid of change to fill in any gaps that happen to appear?
      • Why bother working at being believable when you have this great mass of scared white men(most of whom aren't stupid) afraid of change to fill in any gaps that happen to appear?

        Yep, that's the entire basis for the falsified left-wing narrative that Wilson was right and Bush was wrong.
        • Wilson was right though, Saddam wasn't attempting to buy uranium in Niger.
          And he was sent by Cheney, and not sent by Cheney.
          • Wilson was right though, Saddam wasn't attempting to buy uranium in Niger.

            Where'd you hear this? Wilson didn't have any evidence at all to show this, and no one else has shown it, either. You are confused.

            And he was sent by Cheney

            No, he wasn't.
            • Umm, you're joking, right? The only intelligence that indicated that claim has been proven to be forged, with the likely culprit being Chalabi and the INC(because it wasn't forged WELL enough to be a decent clandestine organization). Wilson's assertion was that it was false. It's turned out to be false. Even the president later admitted it was false when he retracted his State of the Union statement.

              As to the Cheney sent me, no I didn't hubub. The situation played out as follows: Cheney goes to the CIA
              • Umm, you're joking, right?

                No.

                The only intelligence that indicated that claim has been proven to be forged

                That's false. In fact, it's worse than merely false, because it implies that the "16 words" were based in some way on those forged documents, when they were not. That is the Big Lie of Joe Wilson. The "16 words" were based on British intelligence, which was separate from the forged documents the initial CIA intelligence was based on.

                Wilson's assertion was that it was false. It's turned out to be false
                • The "british" intelligence was based upon either(I don't quite recall precisely atm) "spanish" or "italian"(leaning this way) intelligence which in fact was a forgery(and a poor one at that) by Chalabi and the INC(who btw have ties to Iran). And bliar(to use the british perjurative) got into quite a bit of trouble for it.

                  Repeat after me, slowly, Saddam was not trying to buy uranium from niger. Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction.

                  You people are really quite cute. Even when I'm drunk you still
                  • The "british" intelligence was based upon either(I don't quite recall precisely atm) "spanish" or "italian"(leaning this way) intelligence which in fact was a forgery(and a poor one at that) by Chalabi and the INC(who btw have ties to Iran).

                    No, it wasn't. It was based on separate intelligence. You keep saying this, but the Brits to this day claim it's not true.

                    The Butler Report from summer 2004 says:

                    There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about th

Slashdot Top Deals

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.

Close