In other words, Wilson's little junket to Niger was worthless to the CIA. He learned nothing of value, the White House, despite his accusations to the contrary, never requested that he go there, and never saw his report.
And it is becoming very clear that this whole thing was a setup from day one.
Wilson lied about who arranged for him to go, about what he found when he got there, about who saw his report (and really, how would he ever have access to CIA distribution lists anyway? This is WAY above his wife's pay grade, and even if it weren't she would be violating the terms of her employment by sharing that information with him and he would be violating the law by publishing that information in the New York Times, now wouldn't he?). Wilson also lied about what those 16 words in the SOTU address were based on. And he lied about the forgery thing - the "dates and the names were forged" - as he admitted under oath, he never saw those dates and names.
So why have the New York Times and the Washington Post carried his water all these years?
Why is the Post - my hometown paper - still running a grossly inaccurate "Wilson Report" that lies by omission, when not one, but TWO bipartisan Senate Select Intelligence Committees have now concluded that Joseph Wilson IV lied to the American people?
UPDATE:
BizzyBlog says:
AP Reporter Obscures Truth about “The Sixteen Words”
AP reporter Matt Apuzzo was way too clever in his article about Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson adding Richard Armitage to their lawsuit. The second-last paragraph reads:
Wilson discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon. Such a claim wound up in President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address.
Very cutely done. One might think that the “discounted” “claim” didn’t belong in Bush’s 2003 SOTU. It’s pretty clear to me that Matt Apuzzo WANTS us to think not only that it didn’t belong, but that it wasn’t, and isn’t true.
Read the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment