Yeah, I’m never naming my child Joe Wilson. Not that I would have before, considering that the family name is Minich . . . 😉
But yeah, this seems to be a disturbing trend. If you are named Joe Wilson, change your name before you end up accusing the President of lying without knowing what you are doing!
Sandy Underpants
Well the last Joe Wilson said Dick Cheney was lying and was vindicated when the president was forced to remove the lies from all of his speeches (except the SotU).
The felony conviction of Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, for obstruction of justice sort of further vindicated that other Joe Wilson, and proved that maybe he was a little more honest than at least a couple of people in the white house.
Joe Mama
LOL…only if you ignore both the Butler Report and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which said the purported “lie” that Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa was actually well founded.
And Libby’s conviction for obstruction of justice — a crime which hadn’t even occurred before Fitzgerald’s investigation started — has nothing, nothing at all, to do with whether Joseph Wilson’s claims were truthful.
Sandy Underpants
Hussein never attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. The letter that “intelligence” was based on was determined by the CIA to be a forgery. It really couldn’t be any clearer to a fair minded person.
That and the fact that ever intelligence report AFTER the war with Iraq determined that Hussein had no WMD. But I guess those 2 facts are easy to over-look when you really really want to believe a lie.
Joe Mama
If Sandy (and Joseph Wilson) was claiming that the Bush administration was mistaken in believing that Hussein sought to obtain yellowcake from Niger, then he’d be correct and there wouldn’t be much dispute. But Sandy is claiming that the Bush administration purposely lied about it (i.e., the WH was saying something they knew at the time to be false), which is a very different thing. It’s also wrong:
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie,” supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
dcl
Joe, I wouldn’t say it is “wrong” to call it a lie I would say it is very difficult to prove. That is the disputable point on the issue, is it a lie or a misstatement. There is sufficient evidence for me to believe it likely that it was a lie. But that’s not really the same thing as saying “It Is A LIE”.
Joe Mama
There are just too many facts I would have to ignore to conclude that there is sufficient evidence that it was a lie.
dcl
It would seem I’m in a good mood today, because I’ll just say I think that that is a reasonable position and a reasonable point of disagreement. I think weather or not it was a lie or a misstatement that serious mistakes were made by the Bush administration. On the other hand it does seem likely that the same could be said of many, most, all administrations. It is a question of number and degree. In the case of Bush II. The number and degree of mistakes are, in my opinion, very serious. But that is a separate debate.
Sandy Underpants
The CIA/George Tenet, told Bush to remove the “16 words” from his speeches because Tenet said that the CIA investigated it and found that it was a baseless claim. The White House decided to use those “16 words” in the SotU and attribute the intelligence to a British report that was nearly 10 years old and totally discredited.
Seems dishonest to me. Especially, when you consider that Bush is trying to pursuade the country to support an invasion of a country that never attacked us and (even by Bush’s own words) did not pose an imminent threat.
Joe Wilson wrote his article contradicting the “16 words” since he had gone to Niger and investigated the claim and reported back to the CIA that it was baseless.
In conclusion, if there was ever a shred of evidence in the 7 years SINCE the attack on Iraq by the United States that Hussein had in fact tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa, I think it would be safe for people to start talking now. The CIA said it was bogus in 2003, Joe Wilson said he investigated and found it was bogus, and then you’ve got Joe Mama and convicted felon Scooter Libby saying “We just didn’t know”. Please.
What is it with douchebags named Joseph Wilson calling Presidents liars?
Heh.
Yeah, I’m never naming my child Joe Wilson. Not that I would have before, considering that the family name is Minich . . . 😉
But yeah, this seems to be a disturbing trend. If you are named Joe Wilson, change your name before you end up accusing the President of lying without knowing what you are doing!
Well the last Joe Wilson said Dick Cheney was lying and was vindicated when the president was forced to remove the lies from all of his speeches (except the SotU).
The felony conviction of Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Scooter Libby, for obstruction of justice sort of further vindicated that other Joe Wilson, and proved that maybe he was a little more honest than at least a couple of people in the white house.
LOL…only if you ignore both the Butler Report and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which said the purported “lie” that Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa was actually well founded.
And Libby’s conviction for obstruction of justice — a crime which hadn’t even occurred before Fitzgerald’s investigation started — has nothing, nothing at all, to do with whether Joseph Wilson’s claims were truthful.
Hussein never attempted to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. The letter that “intelligence” was based on was determined by the CIA to be a forgery. It really couldn’t be any clearer to a fair minded person.
That and the fact that ever intelligence report AFTER the war with Iraq determined that Hussein had no WMD. But I guess those 2 facts are easy to over-look when you really really want to believe a lie.
If Sandy (and Joseph Wilson) was claiming that the Bush administration was mistaken in believing that Hussein sought to obtain yellowcake from Niger, then he’d be correct and there wouldn’t be much dispute. But Sandy is claiming that the Bush administration purposely lied about it (i.e., the WH was saying something they knew at the time to be false), which is a very different thing. It’s also wrong:
Joe, I wouldn’t say it is “wrong” to call it a lie I would say it is very difficult to prove. That is the disputable point on the issue, is it a lie or a misstatement. There is sufficient evidence for me to believe it likely that it was a lie. But that’s not really the same thing as saying “It Is A LIE”.
There are just too many facts I would have to ignore to conclude that there is sufficient evidence that it was a lie.
It would seem I’m in a good mood today, because I’ll just say I think that that is a reasonable position and a reasonable point of disagreement. I think weather or not it was a lie or a misstatement that serious mistakes were made by the Bush administration. On the other hand it does seem likely that the same could be said of many, most, all administrations. It is a question of number and degree. In the case of Bush II. The number and degree of mistakes are, in my opinion, very serious. But that is a separate debate.
The CIA/George Tenet, told Bush to remove the “16 words” from his speeches because Tenet said that the CIA investigated it and found that it was a baseless claim. The White House decided to use those “16 words” in the SotU and attribute the intelligence to a British report that was nearly 10 years old and totally discredited.
Seems dishonest to me. Especially, when you consider that Bush is trying to pursuade the country to support an invasion of a country that never attacked us and (even by Bush’s own words) did not pose an imminent threat.
Joe Wilson wrote his article contradicting the “16 words” since he had gone to Niger and investigated the claim and reported back to the CIA that it was baseless.
In conclusion, if there was ever a shred of evidence in the 7 years SINCE the attack on Iraq by the United States that Hussein had in fact tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa, I think it would be safe for people to start talking now. The CIA said it was bogus in 2003, Joe Wilson said he investigated and found it was bogus, and then you’ve got Joe Mama and convicted felon Scooter Libby saying “We just didn’t know”. Please.