mike49 said:aps,
According to the CIA, upon Wilson's return he was interviewed by Agents and his trip proved nothing one way or the other. It was not forwarded to the VP or anyone at the Whitehouse because it was a wasted trip in that it did not answer the question. The Whitehouse did not know he was going, did not know he went, did not know he came back, did not know of his report. They found out about Joe Wilson's trip when Joe Wilson began leaking to the Washington Post and then wrote his NY Times Opinion piece. They were blindsided by Joe Wilson.
It is not possible in Washington to do what Joe Wilson did and expect a good outcome. The Wilson's should have known that an attack would begin. Did he think "I will write this, join the Kerry campaign and no one will question the circumstances surrounding my trip"???? No, when you attack the administration...any administration, in the manner he did...expect a full assault on all fronts.
The administration should have handled this differently. They should have found out the facts of the situation and when they found out Joe Wilson had misrepresented himself...on all counts...called for an investigation of Wilson in the Congress. This in a way did occur later in the Bi-Partisan Senate Investigation in regard to WMD in Iraq, where Wilson's story was refuted.
This indictment does not rehabilitate Joe Wilson in any way.
aps said:What the adminstration could have done is DISPROVE what Wilson said.
Don't you think it's better to attack the message and disprove it than attack the messenger?
Attacking Joe Wilson without refuting what Joe Wilson alleged is indicative that the Bush Admin knew that the intelligence was false. They were caught and threw a tantrum.
Trust me, if Joe Wilson had done something wrong, don't you think there would have already been an investigation on him?
I forget what the Senate Intelligence Committee said about Wilson.
Regardless, the Bush Admin looks both vindictive and unethical, which are the opposite of "honesty" and "integrity." (Bush and Cheney claimed that would restore honesty and integrity to the White House.)
First: The CIA sent [Plame's] husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, to Niger on a sensitive mission regarding WMD. He was to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake, an essential ingredient for nonconventional weapons. However, it was Ms. Plame, not Mr. Wilson, who was the WMD expert. Moreover, Mr. Wilson had no intelligence background, was never a senior person in Niger when he was in the State Department, and was opposed to the administration's Iraq policy. The assignment was given, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, at Ms. Plame's suggestion.
• Second: Mr. Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement, a mandatory act for the rest of us who either carry out any similar CIA assignment or who represent CIA clients.
• Third: When he returned from Niger, Mr. Wilson was not required to write a report, but rather merely to provide an oral briefing. That information was not sent to the White House. If this mission to Niger were so important, wouldn't a competent intelligence agency want a thoughtful written assessment from the "missionary," if for no other reason than to establish a record to refute any subsequent misrepresentation of that assessment? Because it was the vice president who initially inquired about Niger and the yellowcake (although he had nothing to do with Mr. Wilson being sent), it is curious that neither his office nor the president's were privy to the fruits of Mr. Wilson's oral report.
• Fourth: Although Mr. Wilson did not have to write even one word for the agency that sent him on the mission at taxpayer's expense, over a year later he was permitted to tell all about this sensitive assignment in the New York Times. For the rest of us, writing about such an assignment would mean we'd have to bring our proposed op-ed before the CIA's Prepublication Review Board and spend countless hours arguing over every word to be published. Congressional oversight committees should want to know who at the CIA permitted the publication of the article, which, it has been reported, did not jibe with the thrust of Mr. Wilson's oral briefing. For starters, if the piece had been properly vetted at the CIA, someone should have known that the agency never briefed the vice president on the trip, as claimed by Mr. Wilson in his op-ed.
• Fifth: More important than the inaccuracies is the fact that, if the CIA truly, truly, truly had wanted Ms. Plame's identity to be secret, it never would have permitted her spouse to write the op-ed. Did no one at Langley think that her identity could be compromised if her spouse wrote a piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her expertise? The obvious question a sophisticated journalist such as Mr. Novak asked after "Why did the CIA send Wilson?" was "Who is Wilson?" After being told by a still-unnamed administration source that Mr. Wilson's "wife" suggested him for the assignment, Mr. Novak went to Who's Who, which reveals "Valerie Plame" as Mr. Wilson's spouse.
• Sixth: CIA incompetence did not end there. When Mr. Novak called the agency to verify Ms. Plame's employment, it not only did so, but failed to go beyond the perfunctory request not to publish. Every experienced Washington journalist knows that when the CIA really does not want something public, there are serious requests from the top, usually the director. Only the press office talked to Mr. Novak.
• Seventh: Although high-ranking Justice Department officials are prohibited from political activity, the CIA had no problem permitting its deep cover or classified employee from making political contributions under the name "Wilson, Valerie E.," information publicly available at the FEC.
The CIA conduct in this matter is either a brilliant covert action against the White House or inept intelligence tradecraft. It is up to Congress to decide which.
aps said:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9910582/
Here is the link for the transcript of the the interview with Wilson. You need to scroll down a bit, but he is the first guest.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?