The current RNC defense of Rove goes like this:

"Rove 'was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise,' said [RNC Chair] Mehlman. Cooper's e-mail says that Rove warned him away from the idea that Wilson's trip had been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney." Link to AP story.

Predictably, Mehlman's theory is false. Cheney himself admitted that the Niger trip was at his instigation, although he apparently didn't say, "Send Joe Wilson."

But aside from that side issue, was there anything inaccurate about Wilson's report back from Niger?

By "report" do you mean what Wilson wrote in the New York Times when he returned from Niger or the report that he failed to turn into the CIA at the end of his CIA assignment?

As to inaccuracies in the "report": Mr. Wilson claimed that the Bush Admin. was "twisting evidence" to bolster a WMD argument.

9/11 commision 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 Mr. Wilson's assertions, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence."

I read the phrase "contrary to" so and so's assertions as - he lied.

In addition, most of the worlds intelligence agencies found the theory that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger very credible. Including Britain, Israel and most of the European nations. Incidentally, British intelligence has never backed off the assertion that uranium was sought by Iraq in Niger.

Why would a person be sent on an important, sensitive, secret mission to acquire valuable information and then come back and publish his "findings" in the NYT?

-Matt.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

I think the endless hair splitting is stupid. The need for war was trumped up from day one. The Niger thing was part of it. The whole world knows it, get out of denial, get on with life.

He didn't make a report back to the CIA?Nothing inaccurate about that.I don't think that was in the 9/11 Commission report. I think it was the "bi-partisan" Senate committee report. Also, what do they mean by "Wilson's report"? I thought you said he never made one.

Either way, 9/11 commision or bi-partisan commitee, the quote shows that; yea, there was an inaccuracy in the the statement "twisted evidence". The evidence showed that any rational person would take the information given and agree that WMDs were present in Iraq. So, Wilson's "report" via the NYT was inaccurate.

Yes, once again "report" in quotes because when you are sent to do a job by an organization, the CIA in this case, the reasonable expectation is that you'll give the information you find to them, since they, you know, sent you. I don't think writing an op-ed piece in a worldwide newspaper counts for an official "report". Hence the quotes.

BTW, I wasn't the only one to say he never wrote a report...:

Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

"Though I did not file a written report..."

As any government employee knows, especially one with Mr. Wilson's vast experience, you don't do nuthin without putting it in writing. Mostly as a CYA type action.

Also, as to the "best man for the job" argument; Mr. Wilson had never been assigned to Niger prior to his being sent by the CIA. He served in Gabon (a couple of countries over) and Sao Tome and Principe in the Gulf of New Guinea.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

That issue was beat to death the other day, and I don't have the energy to say anything about it other than, you're wrong, IMHO.I've never worked in government, but I've been told that the higher you go up in government, the less you want to put down in writing.

The question I asked concerned the report that Wilson gave when he came back from Niger. I didn't mean to get into whether his subsequent political comments were accurate, but now that you raised it, I'm more than happy to have the opportunity to say it again: Bush said he had a report that had Saddam 6 months from having nukes, the report didn't exist; Cheney claimed to have intelligence that Saddam had reconstituted nuclear weapons, he later admitted that there was no such intelligence; and Powell gave falsified translations of Iraqi officers' cell phone conversations, and there is no evidence that the incriminating statements were added by accident. Until someone comes up with a plausible explanation for those lies, I will have to agree with Wilson's comment that the administration twisted evidence to justify the war. Thank you for the opportunity to bring it up again. I look forward to the next time, the time after that, etc., etc.

Bot,
I spent lots of time talking with Mr. Google today. I referenced Mr. Wilson's op-ed in NYT and tried to reference mostly liberal news sites; i.e. NYT, Wash Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, etc...
Even the liberal media, which is why I used them, have several problems with Wilson's "report" (again in quotes, as it's not a real report). Evidently, National Review has a couple of good stories on the subject. I realize that many people on this thread and others wouldn't read them though as they don't come from the gospel mouth of the NYT. Who, along with Time magazine, I'm sure would do it's utmost to protect the Bush Administration. Why isn't Dan Rather on this story? I'm sure he could shed some light - or at least a few documents...

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Absolutely not. It was September 2002. Bush and Blair were outside with a bunch of reporters yelling questions. Bush yelled back that some international nuclear agency, I forget which one, had a report that said that Saddam was six months from getting nukes. Then W smirked and said, "I don't know what more evidence you need." Reporters, doing their job for once, went to the head of that agency for comment. He said that he had no idea what the President was talking about. So, a while later Ari Fliescher wrote a letter to the editor "correcting" the record. The letter said that the President had named the wrong agency, it was this other report that had the six-month estimate. The problems with Fleischer's letter were that the report that he said provided the basis for the President's comment did not support the President's claim and didn't even come out until after the President made his comment. Think about the level of premeditated deception it took for him to sit down and write an entirely fictitious letter to the editor. For one thing, many of Joe Wilson's "lies" are similar to Al Gore's "lies." By that, I mean he never said them. They were made up by his critics. For example, Joe Wilson never said that he was sent by Dick Cheney. He said that Dick Cheney asked the CIA to send someone and they sent him, which is entirely true, AFAIK. Wilson was also accurate when he said that he wasn't sent by his wife. She told the people in charge of the mission that he would be a good choice, but she did not send him.

I don't know whether Joe Wilson has a difficult time with the truth. The administration has thrown up too much smoke for me to see clearly. That was the point of this thread - to see whether Wilson said anything about Niger that wasn't true. So far, we haven't come up with much in the way of evidence either way.

If you want cites to the news reports about Bush's lie about Saddam being six months from having nukes, I will try to dig them up for you. Right now, I'm going to bed.

http://nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

VERY interesting article...

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

Regardless how accurate his report was, what was the motives of Karl Rove's disclosing the CIA' agent identity? The issue is not Wilson's report. That came out a long time ago and it did not affect any of the outcome of going to war in Iraq, so it is really a moot point. The issue is WHY Karl Rove and others disclosed his wife's identity to the reporters.

__________________
Flash Gordon

2003 E500 BlackOpal/Charcoal

2004 Infiniti G35X

Please read the afore mentioned article...

__________________
1992 300D 2.5T
1980 Euro 300D (sadly, sold)
1998 Jetta TDI, 132K "Rudy"
1974 Triumph TR6
1999 Saab 9-5 wagon (wife's)

You can repeat these claims ad infinitum. You really don’t have any proof. And how could you since they are essentially untrue. They are grievous charges and most certainly if true, grounds for impeachment. In case you missed it, George Bush and his administration were elected to a second term. So bottom line is, you’ve got nothing.


glenmore
1991 300CE
1990 LS400
2000 C280

What do you mean "in case you missed it"? Are you calling me a moron?

I have specific evidence of each charge, and I have provided that evidence over and over on this board. I find the evidence to be compelling, but I admit that others may differ. If you consider the evidence and find it lacking, that's fine, but it is wrong on multiple levels for you to say that I "really don't have any proof."

Each of the events mentioned in my previous post was reported in the media, but in case you missed them, I will go through it again:

Charge number 1 - Bush relying on a non-existent report: In September 2002 I saw and heard, with my own eyes and ears, George W. Bush and Tony Blair at an outdoor event. They were answering reporters' questions. Bush said, "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied—finally denied—access, a report came out...that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don’t know what more evidence we need." Based on subsequent lies by Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, the report in question was supposedly published in 1998 by the International Atomic Energy Commission. The head of that agency said that no such report exists. Fleischer said that the President really intended to refer to a 1991 IAEC report. Wrong again. No such report exists, according to the head of the agency. For their third try, Ari wrote a letter to the editor claiming that the President was relying on a report done by a different agency. Unfortunately for Ari, that report didn't support the President's claim and didn't even come out until after the President's original lie. Maybe the President's initial statement, made of course with a smirk, was an innocent mistake. I doubt that it was a mistake, but it's possible. Fleischer's attempts to explain are lies, pure and simple.

Charge number 2 - Cheney claiming to have intelligence that Saddam had "reconstituted nuclear weapons": Again, with my own eyes and ears, I saw and heard Dick Cheney on Meet the Press in March 2003. He said, "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." That statement was and is contrary to every other report and statement made on the subject. In September 2003, he was back on Russert's show. Russert asked about the earlier statement. "Yeah, I did misspeak," Cheney admitted. "We never had any evidence that [Saddam] had acquired a nuclear weapon." Again, maybe the Vice President, a former Secretary of Defense, missed the distinction between nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons programs, but somehow I find that explanation implausible.

Charge number 3 - Powell's falsified translations: In his February 2003 sales pitch to the UN, Powell quoted from transcripts of intercepted cell phone calls between Iraqi officers. Powell, representing you and me and the rest of America, told the UN that one of the conversations had one officer saying the following: "And we sent you a message yesterday to clean out all of the areas, the scrap areas, the abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there." The Iraqi officer never said those words. Somebody, with or without Powell's knowledge added them to give the UN presentation some pizzazz. Do you suppose that the incriminating words were added by accident?

There are many other well documented lies from the Administration. I stick with the three above because they are so clear.

Maybe this evidence doesn't convince you that W and his people lied. That's fine, but I don't appreciate your accusing me of making claims that are not based on a good faith understanding of the facts.

Well put!!!

__________________
Flash Gordon

2003 E500 BlackOpal/Charcoal

2004 Infiniti G35X