The Lies Of Joe Wilson


Good op-ed piece in today’s Hawaii Reporter discussing the lies of one Joe Wilson:

MSNBC?s Chris Matthews Oct 24., 2005, said it best: ?Bush is now fighting a war on two fronts.?

Iraqi voters are once more dealing a sharp blow to al-Qaeda?s war on America and the parallel war on Bush being waged by the Democrat Party and the Democrat media. Al-Qaeda is waging war by continuing to bomb Iraqi civilians. Democrats are trying to fight with a battle plan based on the delusion that Iraq is Vietnam, Bush is Nixon and Watergate must be there somewhere.

Feeling if they turn over enough rocks they will find the one labeled ?impeachment,? on Oct. 28 Democrats hailed the indictment of White House aide Scooter Libby on charges of lying to a grand jury. The grand jury did not charge anyone for ?outing? Valerie Plame the CIA analyst who connived to get her Kerry-supporter husband assigned to investigate Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium in Niger, Africa. This may be due to the fact that she was not a secret agent and therefore revealing her name to the media is not a crime. Her identity has been known to the Cubans and even was discovered by the Soviets. That is why she was at a desk job instead of being in the field. Libby apparently faces charges for not testifying: ?I did it. It is not a crime. I am proud of it.?

The real Iraq scandal is the lies being told by Democrats, with Plame’s husband Joe Wilson leading the way, in an effort to ?get Bush? without regard for their effect on our troops in combat and al-Qaeda?s perception that Americans are ?weak and decadent infidels.? According to a July 10, 2004, Washington Post article on the Senate Intelligence Committee findings about Wilson’s investigatory trip to Niger, Africa, unanimously agreed by all committee senators, including Democrats, ?The panel 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 Wilson?s assertions and even the government?s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush?s January 2003 State of the Union address.?

Anti-American war protesters chant ?Bush lied?thousands died.? But the real liar is self-described ?child of the ?60s,? Joe Wilson, who falsely claims his trip to Niger proves wrong Bush?s ?16 words? in the January, 2003 State of the Union address: ?The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.?

Missing from the media frenzy is a simple fact. Bush?s words are true today and they were true then. The British government still stands by its assessment that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium oxide in Niger. That assessment was first made public in a September, 2002 dossier about which the BBC reported, ?Britain? s dossier on Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction says that Saddam Hussein tried to get ?significant quantities of uranium from Africa.?

As British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on July 14, 2004 in response to the Butler Inquiry into pre-war Iraq intelligence, ?This is now the fourth exhaustive inquiry that has dealt with this issue. This report, like the Hutton inquiry, like the report of the ISC before it and of the FAC before that, has found the same thing. No-one lied. No-one made up the intelligence. No-one inserted things into the dossier against the advice of the intelligence services.?

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, in the eyes of CIA analysts, Joe Wilson?s own debriefing report upon returning from Niger backs this up as well.

In March, 2003, when U.S. tanks rolled into Iraq, 500 tons of yellow cake uranium was found at the Iraqi nuclear research center of al-Tuwaitha. This included 1.8 tons of partly enriched uranium. On June 23, 2004, the U.S. military, working with the U.S. Department of Energy removed this material to the US where is held at an unnamed Department of Energy facility.

As U.S. Marine Lt General James Conway says in the October Proceedings magazine: ?The insurgents realize full well the only chance they have of defeating the U.S. military is to weaken the will of the American population … .?

This al-Qaeda goal corresponds completely with techniques being used by Democrats who still want to avenge Al Gore?s 2000 loss.

That is why the simple facts contained in this article are so difficult to find anywhere in the media.

Plame outed in 90s to Soviets, Cubans

Washington Post:

Uranium removed from Iraq:

BBC on Iraq Uranium Dossier:

Tony Blair 7-14-04

Proccedings Lt Gen Conway

Once again the Dem’s are using their old tactic, tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

As a sidenote, Frank Rich was made to look quite foolish when interviews by WABC radio’s Mark Simone:

Ever since the indictment of Lewis “Scooter” Libby, New York Times scribe Frank Rich has gone into overdrive with complaints that the Bush administration lied about Saddam Hussein’s nuclear capability.

But on Saturday Rich sounded clueless when confronted with reports that Saddam had stockpiled some 500-tons of uranium – news reported just last year on the front page of his own paper.

The usually informed-sounding Timesman fumbled for answers during the following exchange with WABC Radio’s Mark Simone:

SIMONE: Speaking of uranium, your own paper, on May 22, 2004, reported on 500-tons of uranium we found in Iraq.

RICH: I don’t remember that. I don’t know if that was uranium that could be made into nuclear weapons. That’s something that I don’t know.

SIMONE: Well, it hadn’t been enriched yet, but as your own paper pointed out, it sure could make good dirty bombs.

RICH: Well [sighing], ah . . .

SIMONE: I never heard you pause.

RICH: [laughs nervously] I have no – I don’t – I didn’t see this – no – even the administration hasn’t made hay of it so I wonder if it was written by Jayson Blair. I don’t know.

SIMONE: You know what your paper did back then. The reason they were going after it – apparently the Bush administration had decided to take it out of Iraq and environmentalists were screaming that it was too dangerous to move. So that’s why the Times and the Washington Post were covering it.
RICH: I see.

SIMONE: But isn’t that fascinating that the administration never brings that out.

RICH: Yeah – because maybe they don’t trust it. Or maybe they don’t read the New York Times. [END EXCERPT]

Apparently, neither does Mr. Rich – since the Times also reported in the same story that part of Saddam’s uranium stockpile had been partially enriched, and then explained – “the low-enriched version could be useful to a nation with nuclear ambitions.”

Moments before Rich’s “homina-homina” moment, he had been railing how the Libby indictment showed that the Bush administration had lied about Iraq’s WMDs.

“The administration, particularly Dick Cheney but not exclusive Dick Cheney, made claims for which they didn’t have a basis to sell the war,” he insisted to Simone, “No one but this administration, particularly, heightened the nuclear part of [the WMD threat] as much as they did.”

As Napolean would say “freakin idiot!”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Since Iraq already had 550 tons of U ore, under annual international inspection, why all the fuss about obtaining more from Africa? The cia doc referenced in the comments plainly states that Iraq would need a minimum of 5 years to process it and that would be 4 annual inspections before anything was imminent.

Dirty bombs are way over-hyped and U ore is not serious in that regard. DU vaporized by high speed impact is much worse.

The referenced cia report is the centerpiece of the biased assessments that ignored DOE expert opinion that the particular aluminum tubes were not suitable for processing.

No problem, I have more goodies, too, if you’re ever looking for more ammo! :cheese1_ee: