Joe Wilson: Cocktail party circuit phoney political hack: (1 Viewer)

[Stu Ghatze]

You got it, ..& a phoney for sure! Wilson unwittingly "tipped" his hand yesterday when interviewd by CNN reporters about his comment about no indictments as of this past wednesday 10/26 by Patrick Fitzgerald in the CIA case.

Did he answer the question as any husband would do who is supposed to be a concerned about his wife's CIA identity being exposed, ..& how that possibly could harm her well being?

Why no, ...he went in another direction, on a rant about "how the war in Iraq was based on a lie, & that he wanted those responsible for making their case for war prosecuted for lying to the American people"!!!!!!!!!!!!

My my my, ...what do we have here; somebody wanting justice for his wifes indentity cover being blown, ..or is it more about democratic party ideology, & policy differences?

All along, & with the Jay Rockefeller memo discovered in November of 03' ....THAT strategy was to discredit the Bush administration about the war, & about WMD's, & to use the media in an effort to bring ridicule as well by any means necessary.

Wilson might have been a "former" ambassador, ..he is no ambassador today for anything, YET...the media in an attempt to legitimize his social standing like to STILL refer to him as ''Ambassador Wilson".

Lets talk about this "so called" charge of his about Rove, Cheney or anybody being the first to publicly "out, or expose" his wifes CIA identity.

It cannot even be proven that she WAS EVER a covert operator, anymore than it can be proven that those Bush advisors had any intent to expose his wife for some type of payback, for his phoney Niger trip, & phoney fact finding trip about Sadaam attempting to buy Uranium from Niger supposidly.

Wilson claimed the whole story not true, ..but Wilson was dead wrong as british intel, & even italian officials said that Sadaam INDEED did try to purchase uranium. Even the CIA thought Wilson's trip, & fact finding mission to Niger incomplete & utterly worthless, & filled with many many errors.

Not to mention the fact that Wilson was never qualified to even be employed by the CIA in hardly any area whatsoever, & that fact is known, as is the fact that it was HIS WIFE Valerie Plame who helped get him on the CIA payroll!

Wilson, & wife Valerie BOTH LIED about saying that Dick Cheney sent Wilson to Niger; when in fact NOBODY from the whitehouse sent them!

Wilson conveniently left out the fact that Sadaam DID try to obtain uranium, ...but Wilson's report said only that there was no truth of Sadaam aquiring uranium!

A Valerie Plame co-worker has even stated that Plame's neighbors, & inner circle friends EVEN knew she was employed by the CIA, & that She (Plame) NEVER made an attempt to "HIDE" her identity!

Are you kidding huh huh,:smile: ..she loved her identity being known, & hubby Joe Wilson & her were cocktail party circuit media whores, & known Kerry supporters, & known to be against the war in Iraq.

Both media darlings, & anti-war activists Plame & Wilson, & contributers to the Kerry campaign.

Plame & Wilson were both lovers of self, & media attention for sure, & loved being seen in their hot jaguar, & cutie wife's debutante sunglasses.

Maybe prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald IS following the evidence, & PERHAPS that is just "why" there have been NO indictments of any Bush aids with one day left of his prosecuting powers, & grand jury.

The media, & democratic party's attempt to "victimize" Plame & Wilson is hilarious...they got their public attention in "Vanity Fair" interviews, & photo ops, ..& Wilson's book has netted them both millions, ..& even Valerie Plame is STILL employed by the CIA!

Some "victims"...:smile: IF they are victims, it is because of their own stupidity, & lust to be seen as the Washington D.C. beltway jet setter's ..it is by their OWN hand & OWN arrogance, & by Joe Wilson's incompetence, & political hackery, & mistruths which is WELL known!

Amazing, Judith miller reporter for "The New York Times" is being trashed by fellow journalist; "Maureen Dowd"...for being too close in her support to the Bush administration, & for going out of her way to support the stand for war with Iraq! And even pathetic accusations from Maureen Dowd that Judith Miller probably "slept" her way into the inner circle of Bush advisors??

Absolute trash, ....or has Dowd forgotten that IF anybody was sleeping with anybody, ..maybe she might have been confusing herself during the Clinton whitehouse days, who would have been more than willing to allow her to exercise that option for a good PRO Clinton story!

It must be that Maureen Dowd was sleeping during her years on the job, ..There were PLENTY of journalists & big name democrats that were ALL for war with Iraq, & had the same information that Bush was privy to.

The Kerryites, Kennedyites, & Schumerites can ALL go to hell.....the American majority sees exactly what the strategy is to help detroy the Bush presidency, & it all IS, & HAS been centered around the war in Iraq, EXACTLY WHAT JOE WILSON WAS UNWITTINGLY TALKING ABOUT IN HIS ANSWER about commenting about the lack of indictments!

Was it EVER REALLY about his wife's CIA identity being blown, ...OR more about discrediting the whole Bush administration from the very begining by using his wifes position from within the CIA??

Joe Wilson's OWN comments answers that quite well, ..as all he could do was talk, & rant about the so called "unjust" war in Iraq, ..which has NOT one g-damn thing to do about "who" was responsible for outing his wife's CIA cover!

The more Wilson talks, ..the more he has exposed his own real agenda, & the vehicle that he is attempting to use, that only brings more publicity & identity to his wife, & who her employers are.

Something that neither one of them really never gave a damn about hiding in the first place as they saw themselves as nothing less than a cute jet setting Carey Grant/ Grace Kelly,.. washington, D.C. couple.

 

[oldreliable67]

Whew! That was quite a rant, Stu!

A story in yesterday’s WP points out some of the problems with Joe Wilson’s testimony and actions in the Plame case. The WP notes that more than anything else, Wilson’s 15 minutes of fame has suited his flamboyant style and permitted him to indulge his passion for the camera lens. In some key aspects of the Plame case, Wilson has certainly not helped himself …

“Wilson has also armed his critics by misstating some aspects of the Niger affair. For example, Wilson told The Washington Post anonymously in June 2003 that he had concluded that the intelligence about the Niger uranium was based on forged documents because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." The Senate intelligence committee, which examined pre-Iraq war intelligence, reported that Wilson "had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports." Wilson had to admit he had misspoken.

That inaccuracy was not central to Wilson's claims about Niger, but his critics have used it to cast doubt on his veracity about more important questions, such as whether his wife recommended him for the 2002 trip, as administration officials charged in the conversations with reporters that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald is now probing. Wilson has maintained that Plame was merely "a conduit," telling CNN last year that "her supervisors asked her to contact me."

But the Senate committee found that "interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife . . . suggested his name for the trip." The committee also noted a memorandum from Plame saying Wilson "has good relations" with Niger officials who "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." In addition, notes on a State Department document surmised that Plame "had the idea to dispatch him" to Niger.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102401690.html

 

[jallman]

Well, I see the childish ranting goes on and on like the energizer bunny. Hey mods, how long before you shift this thread down to the basement? :2wave:

 

[Stu Ghatze]

such brilliant insight:roll:
If you'd only read into the issue a little bit more, you'd understand why he'd say that.
The reason Plame was outed in the first place was because Joe Wilson, who was sent by the CIA to Niger to see if Iraq was purchasing yellow cake, came back and said that Iraq wasn't, and right after he announced this, Bush mentioned that Iraq was indeed purchasing Yellow Cake in the state of the union address, so Joe Wilson wrote a piece in the New York Times about how Bush was lying, and this war was not justified, and then Plame was outted.

Brilliant insight though, I think it could only possibly be outdone by my dog if I set her on my keyboard and let her walk around on it for a little while.

You DON'T know that; ..YOU are ASSUMING she was "outed" by the Bush administration. And YOU damn sure cannot possibly EVER prove she was outed as "payback", ..as the media connot either, although they are trying to convince America that the Bush people "must" be guilty!

Of course its my brilliant insight :smile: . Actually anybody with half a brain could figure out that Wilson was being disingenuine about his whole trip to Niger...& HIS finger pointing at Bush aids, & the fact that he was nothing more than a political hack well placed in an attempt to harm the bush administration!

Hey, ...WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS..?? Huh huh:2razz: Maybe Pat Fitzgerald has finally figured it out that HE is being used disinguenuinely by proxy by Wilson, the media, & the democratic party etc in an attempt to destroy the Bush presidency.

Maybe Joe Wilson should "think" before he opens his mouth, ..he would serve the Democratic party a lot better,.. now that he is being exposed as quite a liar!

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Well, I see the childish ranting goes on and on like the energizer bunny. Hey mods, how long before you shift this thread down to the basement? :2wave:

I get it, ..its ALWAYS a rant when a conservative tells it as it REALLY is; but when a liberal, or democrat tells it as it is, its just the facts,.. huh?

Huh huh, he he...you guys should start practicing what you preach yourselves, you would do "much" better!

WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS..."don't cry now"!:2razz:


I've said it before, & will say it again: The democrats & their media friends could not "set up" a drunk to take a fall because they expose themselves, & their true agenda at every turn!

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You DON'T know that; ..YOU are ASSUMING she was "outed" by the Bush administration. And YOU damn sure cannot possibly EVER prove she was outed as "payback", ..as the media connot either, although they are trying to convince America that the Bush people "must" be guilty!

Of course its my brilliant insight :smile: . Actually anybody with half a brain could figure out that Wilson was being disingenuine about his whole trip to Niger...& HIS finger pointing at Bush aids, & the fact that he was nothing more than a political hack well placed in an attempt to harm the bush administration!

Hey, ...WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS..?? Huh huh:2razz: Maybe Pat Fitzgerald has finally figured it out that HE is being used disinguenuinely by proxy by Wilson, the media, & the democratic party etc in an attempt to destroy the Bush presidency.

Maybe Joe Wilson should "think" before he opens his mouth, ..he would serve the Democratic party a lot better,.. now that he is being exposed as quite a liar!

Your defense of Rove and the Bush Administration sounds more like a mafia lawyer defending some kingpin.

Joe Wilson was right, the is no evidence of Iraq attempting to purchase Yellow Cake in Niger. So really it doesn't matter what is motivations were, because he was right. Your not refuting the message, even the Whitehouse didn't. Your just attacking the messenger. Wow, nothing says "Great American" like attacking a whistleblower when they point out our government was dishonest about something.:roll:

 

[Stu Ghatze]

Your defense of Rove and the Bush Administration sounds more like a mafia lawyer defending some kingpin.

Joe Wilson was right, the is no evidence of Iraq attempting to purchase Yellow Cake in Niger. So really it doesn't matter what is motivations were, because he was right. Your not refuting the message, even the Whitehouse didn't. Your just attacking the messenger. Wow, nothing says "Great American" like attacking a whistleblower when they point out our government was dishonest about something.:roll:

Tell that to British intel, italian officials...& even some Niger officials who gave a heads up to the whitehouse.

Sadaam attempted to purchase it alright, ..just as France ALSO built that nuclear reactor for SAdaam, that ISRAEL blew up in 1981, ..or perhaps INTENT means nothing when Sadaam had a track record of LUSTING for WMD's, & chemical weapons..& in fact, did possess them at one time!

PLease use your thinking cap! You are suffering from "selective" memory loss!:smile:

If I was a democrat, ..I would be also!

 

[oldreliable67]

Note in the post above that Wilson said one thing to the press and reported another to the CIA (who informed the Senate committee), to wit, "Wilson had to admit he had misspoken".

Why would Wilson report back to the CIA, and the CIA - based on his report -intially report to the Senate committee that there was an Iraq - Niger connection? From factcheck.org,

"Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

Now, I don't about what kind of work you do, but in my line of work, when I write a report or memorandum that includes attribution of someone else's work or conclusions or opinions, I verify with them that I have represented their conclusions correctly - before submitting the final version. So why did Wilson, who was surely have been asked to sign off on the CIA's conclusions regarding his report on his Niger trip, permit them to believe that there was an Iraqi - Niger connection if he didn't believe it to be true? Wilson, AFAIK, never repudiated the CIA's initial conclusions as written by the CIA after debriefing Wilson. Instead of saying to the CIA, "Hey, guys, thats not right! Thats not the impression that I intended to leave with you at all!", he let it stand. They hired him and paid for the trip. He reported back to them. If the initial CIA report was inconsistent with his conclusion, shouldn't he have corrected their conclusions before the report went to the Senate? He instead chose to make it political. Why?

Now, I recognize that there is a big assumption here -- that Wilson had an opportunity to review and either correct or concur with the CIA's report in its draft form. To assume otherwise is to say that the CIA is not a bureaucracy, which is unthinkable, IMO.

To me, this just adds to the questions surrounding this whole kerfuffle. Hopefully, tomorrow the prosecutor will add some clarity, whichever way it falls. If White House folks - or anyone else for that matter, is/are indicted, then haul'em into court. If not, lets get over it.

 

[FinnMacCool]

I get it, ..its ALWAYS a rant when a conservative tells it as it REALLY is; but when a liberal, or democrat tells it as it is, its just the facts,.. huh?

Jallman is a conservative. oops. . .

 

[jallman]

I get it, ..its ALWAYS a rant when a conservative tells it as it REALLY is; but when a liberal, or democrat tells it as it is, its just the facts,.. huh?

Huh huh, he he...you guys should start practicing what you preach yourselves, you would do "much" better!

WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS..."don't cry now"!:2razz:


I've said it before, & will say it again: The democrats & their media friends could not "set up" a drunk to take a fall because they expose themselves, & their true agenda at every turn!

No, you certainly dont get it. Its not always a rant when it comes from a conservative. It is always a rant when it is full of abusive, over the top, arrogant language with no substance. Force of speech does not equate to having a real and valid point. Those of us who have a less partisan and more rational attitude about politics will be content to sit back and see how this plays out in the end.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Tell that to British intel, italian officials...& even some Niger officials who gave a heads up to the whitehouse.

Sadaam attempted to purchase it alright, ..just as France ALSO built that nuclear reactor for SAdaam, that ISRAEL blew up in 1981, ..or perhaps INTENT means nothing when Sadaam had a track record of LUSTING for WMD's, & chemical weapons..& in fact, did possess them at one time!

PLease use your thinking cap! You are suffering from "selective" memory loss!:smile:

If I was a democrat, ..I would be also!

Italian intel has been proven to be based on very poorly forged documents. The CIA warned the administration of the dubious nature of those documents before the administration used them as part of the justification for war.

The British intel was a partially forged dossier that has since been totally discredited.

Of course, a person would have to actually make an effort to follow the mainstream news a little bit to know that.

Of course, don’t just take my word for it. Its such a fact that its actually in the encyclopedias:

The term yellowcake forgery refers to falsified documents which appeared to depict an attempt by Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime to purchase yellowcake uranium from the country of Niger, in defiance of United Nations sanctions. These documents were cited as evidence by the United States and United Kingdom governments during the Iraq disarmament crisis that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating "weapons of mass destruction." This claim was part of the political basis for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The documents had long been suspected as frauds by U.S. intelligence. By early 2002, investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the allegations to be baseless. Days before the invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic." A FBI investigation into the provenance of these documents is ongoing, though critics suspect that a U.S. government agency—ostensibly the White House Iraq Group —may itself have produced them.
The reference to the Yellowcake documents in U.S. President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech (in which he made a case for war with Iraq) became the focus of the first important public criticism of the plan to invade Iraq. Retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson wrote a critical op-ed in The New York Times in which he explained the nature of the documents, and the governments prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

I guess that pretty much refutes your whole argument huh?

 

[jallman]

Of course, a person would have to actually make an effort to follow the mainstream news a little bit to know that.

Of course, don’t just take my word for it. Its such a fact that its actually in the encyclopedias:



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

I guess that pretty much refutes your whole argument huh?

Ouch...see, now that is making a point rather than making an infantile rant.:2wave:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ouch...see, now that is making a point rather than making an infantile rant.:2wave:

He or she won't believe it though. Those guys on the radical right (not conservatives, but the radical right "Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh Nut Job types") have literally invented their own history and science.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Hey, ...WHERE ARE THE INDICTMENTS..?? Huh huh:2razz: Maybe Pat Fitzgerald has finally figured it out that HE is being used disinguenuinely by proxy by Wilson, the media, & the democratic party etc in an attempt to destroy the Bush presidency.

Ah...ye olde foot soon to be in the mouth syndrome.

I am willing to go on the record as stating that by this time tomorrow one of two things will have occurred:

1. Indictments are announced.

2. The Grand Jury has been extended for further testimony.

I am also willing to go on the record to say:

There is zero chance that the Grand Jury will be dismissed without handing down indictments, and most likely Libby & Rove will be charged.

Fitzie has already met with their lawyers last Tuesday and advised them that they are the subjects of the investigation....

 

[Deegan]

To tell you the God's honest truth, I just can't for the life of me, figure out why you send an ambassador to find out about yellow cake in Niger?

In all of this sick, twisted mess, this is the question that continues to astound me?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

To tell you the God's honest truth, I just can't for the life of me, figure out why you send an ambassador to find out about yellow cake in Niger?

In all of this sick, twisted mess, this is the question that continues to astound me?

Well hell if a former Horse Show man was qualified to run FEMA, then surely a diplomat could investigate claims that had already at the time almost been completely refuted anyway.

 

[Deegan]

Well hell if a former Horse Show man was qualified to run FEMA, then surely a diplomat could investigate claims that had already at the time almost been completely refuted anyway.

The CIA, in all of their conventional wisdom, thought it so, why would we send a former ambassador? Oh, and please don't turn this in to another, "well Bush appointed his sister" B.S, I am serious, in a situation this serious, would you not want someone who is more then a meeter and greeter, a paid hand shaker, what's wrong with this country?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The CIA, in all of their conventional wisdom, thought it so, why would we send a former ambassador? Oh, and please don't turn this in to another, "well Bush appointed his sister" B.S, I am serious, in a situation this serious, would you not want someone who is more then a meeter and greeter, a paid hand shaker, what's wrong with this country?

You know you might have a point if history had proven the Bush Administration right on Iraq’s supposed attempts at purchasing Yellow Cake from Niger. I mean if we were sitting here 3 years later talking about how Iraq did indeed do this and the intelligence was rock solid, you would have an excellent point.

However, that’s the case. As I sourced earlier, even encyclopedias refer to it as “the Yellowcake Forgery”. So even if Joe Wilson was sent by his wife purely to make the Administration look bad, it’s all irrelevant because the fact is, Joe Wilson was right and the Administration was wrong. So while your argument might get Limbaugh’s loyal listeners fired up, in the end its simply irrelevant and serves no purpose other than to muddy the issue for the ill-informed.

 

[Deegan]

You know you might have a point if history had proven the Bush Administration right on Iraq’s supposed attempts at purchasing Yellow Cake from Niger. I mean if we were sitting here 3 years later talking about how Iraq did indeed do this and the intelligence was rock solid, you would have an excellent point.

However, that’s the case. As I sourced earlier, even encyclopedias refer to it as “the Yellowcake Forgery”. So even if Joe Wilson was sent by his wife purely to make the Administration look bad, it’s all irrelevant because the fact is, Joe Wilson was right and the Administration was wrong. So while your argument might get Limbaugh’s loyal listeners fired up, in the end its simply irrelevant and serves no purpose other than to muddy the issue for the ill-informed.

Right or wrong, some still insist it is the case, and it has not been "proven" one way or the other, but the question is still important, and relevant. Why would we send a well dressed hand shaker to investigate such an important issue? Your comment on Limbaugh is just a clever way of trying to discredit me as a simple partisan, this is not the case. I am seriously wondering why we trust such delicate issues to politicians that have no experience in this field of expertise?

 

[cnredd]

Right or wrong, some still insist it is the case, and it has not been "proven" one way or the other, but the question is still important, and relevant. Why would we send a well dressed hand shaker to investigate such an important issue? Your comment on Limbaugh is just a clever way of trying to discredit me as a simple partisan, this is not the case. I am seriously wondering why we trust such delicate issues to politicians that have no experience in this field of expertise?

Be prepared for a redirect with your last statement...

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Right or wrong, some still insist it is the case, and it has not been "proven" one way or the other, but the question is still important, and relevant. Why would we send a well dressed hand shaker to investigate such an important issue? Your comment on Limbaugh is just a clever way of trying to discredit me as a simple partisan, this is not the case. I am seriously wondering why we trust such delicate issues to politicians that have no experience in this field of expertise?

Not proven one way or the other?????

I guess I have to repeat myself here:

The term yellowcake forgery refers to falsified documents which appeared to depict an attempt by Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime to purchase yellowcake uranium from the country of Niger, in defiance of United Nations sanctions. These documents were cited as evidence by the United States and United Kingdom governments during the Iraq disarmament crisis that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating "weapons of mass destruction." This claim was part of the political basis for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The documents had long been suspected as frauds by U.S. intelligence. By early 2002, investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the allegations to be baseless. Days before the invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic." A FBI investigation into the provenance of these documents is ongoing, though critics suspect that a U.S. government agency—ostensibly the White House Iraq Group —may itself have produced them.
The reference to the Yellowcake documents in U.S. President George W. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech (in which he made a case for war with Iraq) became the focus of the first important public criticism of the plan to invade Iraq. Retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson wrote a critical op-ed in The New York Times in which he explained the nature of the documents, and the governments prior knowledge of their unreliability for use in a case for war.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

The article then goes on to depict how particularly poor of a forgery the documents and the Administrations assertions were.

Moreover, if you look at Joe Wilson's career, he was pretty well suited for the task:

"Wilson served as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. He was hailed as "truly inspiring" and "courageous" by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the US embassy in Baghdad, and mocking Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein (Wilson, 2003)."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

 

[Stu Ghatze]

He or she won't believe it though. Those guys on the radical right (not conservatives, but the radical right "Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh Nut Job types") have literally invented their own history and science.

I get THAT too now. Hmm...there's a radical right but no radical left, ..right?:lol:

The whole majority of the modern democratic party IS THE RADICAL LEFT< wake up!!!!!!!:smile:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I get THAT too now. Hmm...there's a radical right but no radical left, ..right?:lol:

The whole majority of the modern democratic party IS THE RADICAL LEFT< wake up!!!!!!!:smile:

As a supporter of free market capitalism, I am no member of the radical left. However, only someone who lacked any objectivity at all would consider the majority of the Democratic Party the radical left.

Anyway, I can see that you offer no refutation of my points.

 

[Deegan]

Not proven one way or the other?????

I guess I have to repeat myself here:



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

The article then goes on to depict how particularly poor of a forgery the documents and the Administrations assertions were.

Moreover, if you look at Joe Wilson's career, he was pretty well suited for the task:

"Wilson served as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. He was hailed as "truly inspiring" and "courageous" by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the US embassy in Baghdad, and mocking Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein (Wilson, 2003)."

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

None of this means anything to me, as it's nothing but a repetitive story line started, and obviously "finished", by the liberal "wikipedia.org"! These people obviously have an agenda, and it only takes a child to see through this. No fact based procurers I know list so many opinions, and half truths as this site so commonly does, and it's a damn shame that so many now rely on this site as gospel, but nothing really surprises me these days. We may never know what Saddam was planning, or who he was dealing with, but I still believe there are connections to Niger that no one will ever realize. There are reasons that Africa has become the stink hole it is, and Arabs are a very real reason for this. As in the Sudan, there are things that are happening on a regular basis, that you will never read on "wikipedia.org" because these things don't fit in to their agenda, and don't help in the destruction of this country. Iran was miles ahead of Saddam, and they had Russia as their ally, Saddam was desperate to keep up, and the oil for food was all about those ends. Only a fool would not conclude that he would go to the most corrupt nation for his supplies, and only a fool would think that a Joe Wilson could uncover such a secretive plot, only a fool!:roll:

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

None of this means anything to me, as it's nothing but a repetitive story line started, and obviously "finished", by the liberal "wikipedia.org"! These people obviously have an agenda, and it only takes a child to see through this. No fact based procurers I know list so many opinions, and half truths as this site so commonly does, and it's a damn shame that so many now rely on this site as gospel, but nothing really surprises me these days. We may never know what Saddam was planning, or who he was dealing with, but I still believe there are connections to Niger that no one will ever realize. There are reasons that Africa has become the stink hole it is, and Arabs are a very real reason for this. As in the Sudan, there are things that are happening on a regular basis, that you will never read on "wikipedia.org" because these things don't fit in to their agenda, and don't help in the destruction of this country. Iran was miles ahead of Saddam, and they had Russia as their ally, Saddam was desperate to keep up, and the oil for food was all about those ends. Only a fool would not conclude that he would go to the most corrupt nation for his supplies, and only a fool would think that a Joe Wilson could uncover such a secretive plot, only a fool!:roll:

WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY
Wikipedia is an online open-content collaborative encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge. The structure of the project allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter its content. Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

.

Your logic escapes me. Facts and known history is not a left wing conspiracy. There is no agenda in known facts other than honesty. If you dont like my source, A simple search of the archived news stories at CNN or any other major news source would completely back up everything I posted. If you disagree with my sources, the least you could do is find a mainstream news source that refutes my claims. Of course, you cant.
The whole case for Iraq attempting to purchase Yellowcake from Niger was based in an obvious forgery. Meaning, there is simply no proof at all.

By your logic, if you have no proof of something, that still does not mean that an individual could not still hold a belief. Its like someone saying that I tried to get a job in say South Korea and putting up a very poor forgery of a job application as their proof. I would of course then say that was a forgery, and that I have never applied for a job outside of the country. Using your logic though, there would be no "proof" either way.

Maybe this would be a better source for you:

http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051024-093415-8168r

A simple google news search only pulls up a few dozen.