If only Joe Wilson were on the stand with his statements

Nadagate Then we could get a perjury and false statements indictment on him, too. Oh the joy that would bring. Patterico has the lowdown on the latest lie the media (in particular, the LA Times) has let serial liar Joe Wilson get away with.

28 Responses to "If only Joe Wilson were on the stand with his statements"

Archie's Grandson says:

October 29, 2005 at 8:56 pm

Wow, what an intelligent subject.

“If only _(fill in assorted administration members’ names [e.g., Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.] here)_ were on the stand with his statements then we could get a perjury and false statements indictment on them, too.”

Yes, that’s much better.

If you don’t find this blog enlightening enough to meet your obviously high intellectual standards, there are plenty of others out there that I’m sure you’ll find much more to your liking. I encourage you to visit them. The door is wide open. — ST
Pug says:

October 29, 2005 at 10:57 pm

Scooter Libby is in the dock. For lying.
Archie's Grandson says:

October 29, 2005 at 11:12 pm

Whatever you may think of Joe Wilson, he did not expose the most vulnerable secrets of our government out of spite and pettiness, as high officials in the Bush Administration apparently have done.

I give you credit for recognizing the seriousness of these allegations against Libby. However, this posting was a little too petulant for me to remain silent.

You would have me leave just because you can’t face your position’s hypocrisy? This post oozes of hypocrisy, and I think I effectively pointed that out with my response.

Can’t you tolerate an opposing view?
Brian says:

October 30, 2005 at 1:31 am

Sister Toldjah,

How are you qualified to know how accurate Joe Wilson’s statements are? According to the following report, the State Dept. Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely or to be willing to sell uranium to Iraq. (See page 83 of the file, page 73 of the document)
LINK

Also if you go to Conclusion 27 on page 139 of the file (page 129 of the document) you will see that the committee agrees that the available intelligence does not add up to a compelling case for reconstitution.

It’s disputable that Joe Wilson was lying in the L.A. times article, especially considering that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program. There is no doubt that Dick Cheney was lying was he publicly stated “he does not know who Joe Wilson is”. He knew who Joe Wilson was when he told Scooter Libby that his wife was a CIA agent.

Even if what Joe Wilson said is not true, at least he did not harm our national security. Karl Rove and Scooter Libby both caused serious harm to our national security and possible endangered people’s lives by informing the press that Valerie Plame is a CIA agent. Security agencies all over the world ran Plame’s name through their data banks, immigration records and computer hard drives. Officials with two foreign governments told TIME that their spy catchers are quietly checking on whether Plame had worked on their soil and, if so, what she had done there.
LINK
stackja says:

October 30, 2005 at 3:37 am

Bush presidency on shaky ground as top aide charged
By Alec Russell
October 30, 2005
stackja says:

October 30, 2005 at 4:38 am

No smoking gun, but leak inquiry is already revealing too much
By Michael Gawenda
October 30, 2005
The Sun-Herald
Sister Toldjah says:

October 30, 2005 at 11:24 am

AG: It’s not opposing viewpoints I can’t tolerate – although I know my detractors like to make that (false) claim. It’s patronization I have a hard time tolerating, and you’re being very patronizing.

Brian: It’s not disputable that Joe Wilson is a liar. I have several posts up (noted in this post) and Patterico has made a strong case for it as well. Take off your rose colored glasses Brian – you claimed in another thread without hesitation that Rush Limbaugh is a liar yet at the same time try to claim it’s “questionable” that Joe Wilson is one too after the evidence presented to prove that he is? Give me a break!

And on the National Security tip, spare me – this has never been about national security to most people pushing this investigation. This has been about getting something – anything – on Karl Rove. Don’t try to deny it, either.
Archie's Grandson says:

October 30, 2005 at 5:21 pm

Patronizing is as patronizing does, dear.
Brian says:

October 30, 2005 at 5:22 pm

Sister Toldjah,

The links I provided clearly documented Rush Limbaugh’s many lies and provided references. In the Patterico article you linked to, all he does is repeatedly call Joe Wilson a liar and make the claim the CIA concluded from the report Joe Wilson brought them that Iraq had indeed sought uranium from Niger. Just because Patterico calls Joe Wilson a liar does not make it true no matter how many times he does it. According to the Senate Report that I linked to, the State Dept. concluded that Niger was unlikely or unwilling to sell uranium to Iraq. This contradicts Patterico’s claims. Did you even bother looking at the references I provided? I’m not an expert on nuclear weapons proliferation and I don’t all of the facts and details about the accusations of Iraq attempting to buy uranium from Niger so I don’t go throwing around accusations like you do about Joe Wilson. I would not accuse President Bush of lying in his State of the Union address because I don’t know all of the facts relating to the matter, even though it turned out to be false. Conservatives have lied to smear Joe Wilson before, so there is no reason to believe they’re not lying when they call him a liar.

Regarding Karl Rove, this is what George H. W. Bush, who at one time headed the CIA, had to say about anyone, such as Karl Rove, who expose the names of CIA agents:

“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”

This has nothing to do with “getting something on Karl Rove”. The acting Attorney General did not hire a special prosecutor to spend two years and millions of dollars on an investigation just to “get something on Karl Rove”.
Sister Toldjah says:

October 30, 2005 at 5:32 pm

I’m not your ‘dear’ – and I wasn’t patronizing you, either.
Archie's Grandson says:

October 30, 2005 at 5:36 pm

No, you certainly aren’t. You don’t even have the right parts to qualify for that position.

However, you certainly seem pretty patronizing to me.

Edited my snarky response. I am better than that. –ST
stackja says:

October 30, 2005 at 7:25 pm

More Aussie MSM view Libby, the Left is right, and Bush is wrong, just like the US MSM keeps saying.
Punch-drunk and facing further hits
theaustralian.news.com.au

Boxed in on all sides, and his deputy in trouble, George Bush has even let down the conservatives who backed his presidency, writes Andrew Sullivan
October 31, 2005

Bush deputy feels the heat
theaustralian.news.com.au

Geoff Elliott, Washington correspondent
October 31, 2005
Ben says:

October 31, 2005 at 9:49 am

If Lewis Libby and Judith Miller had actually not met in the Ritz Carlton dining room but in an upstairs bedroom and Libby lied about that fact before the Grand Jury, that would not be prosecuted as perjury by any responsible prosecutor because it would not be a material lie. Libby is being prosecuted for perjuty and obstruction of justice because he created a fairy tale about his contacts with the press which it is difficult to view anything other than an attempt to obstruct the investigation (“throwing sand in the umpire’s face” as Fitzgerald expressed it). I’m not sure how you can equate anything Wilson has said to what Libby apparently tried to do.
PCD says:

October 31, 2005 at 10:01 am

Ben,

Wilson is far worse. That liar puts himself before the country. We’ll see how and what Libby lied about in open court. Too bad your Idols, the Clintons, were never tried for ALL their lies to Grand Juries.
Zorro says:

October 31, 2005 at 1:38 pm

Larry Johnson sets the record straight about Joe Wilson, the senate intel report and the Fitzgerald indictments:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/30/18754/437

bottom line:
“One thing is clear–it ain’t Joe Wilson that’s doing the lying. “
Baklava says:

October 31, 2005 at 2:35 pm

That cracks me up Zorro.

Let’s go down LOGIC LANE for a moment.

Let’s look at this ONE line of Larry Johnson’s and please tell us all how it can possibly add up. Larry’s line, “Despite the flaws in the report [Senate Intelligence Committee Report] there are key tidbits that help blow the cover off of the White House scheme to cook the intel books.

Zorro, your question is, if the White House had a scheme to “cook” the intel books, then why is is that intel didn’t:
1) predict 9/11
2) have a different story on Iraq before Bush was President and then after – fed same intel to Clinton who said the same things Bush said
3) know where Osama is
4) know where the weapons of mass destruction were that they’ve said were there as well as British, French, German and Russian intelligence.

While, yes, the Bush administration has only found some weapons of mass destruction, they weren’t stockpiles and that isn’t proof that Bush is lying. It is only proof that Bush was repeating the same thing that was fed to him that was fed to Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Albright and they were ALL WRONG.

So. If you and Larry want to talk about Bush cooking the books.. how is it that Bush did so? What is your evidence that Bush cooked the books that allows you to make such allegations? Please point us to something besides an opinion piece that is evidence that Bush cooked the books.

Also, will you be willing to serve jail time for making such slanderous charges? Or can we just chalk it up as the usual leftist attack/accuse pattern?
Zorro says:

October 31, 2005 at 4:08 pm

Johnson is referring only to the Niger documents, and that’s obvious. Tkae some more pills, edited–ST…you’re getting a little verklempt.
Baklava says:

October 31, 2005 at 4:36 pm

Zorro,
Yes. British Intelligence has confirmed that the 16 words were correct.

That’s what the 16 words talked about (what British intelligence learned) So how does Bush cook British intelligence Zorro?

And my questions stand. How does Bush cook U.S. intelligence before Bush got into office? (Because the intelligence has been the same and it is the reason why Albright, Gore, Kerry, Clinton said the same things about Iraq that Bush did.)
Baklava says:

October 31, 2005 at 4:43 pm

To clarify… if you are narrowing it down to what was said about Niger, the 16 words were reported as what British intelligence said in the State of the Union address. And those words were “true”.

Nothing cooked. And can’t cook British intelligence can Bush?
Zorro says:

October 31, 2005 at 4:45 pm

Could this be true?? My above jibe called Baklava a certain radio talk-show host who name sounds like a certain type of cheese…

…and Sista Toldja found it so offensive that she edited it?

wow. That’s deep.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to address people by names other than the name they are using on this blog. It had nothing to do with being offensive. —ST
Zorro says:

October 31, 2005 at 4:48 pm

IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT BRITISH INTELLIGENCE WAS WORKING FROM, AND REFERENCING THE SAME ITALIAN FORGERIES, AND THEY KNEW IT AT THE TIME TOO.

sorry to shout, but c’mon…this is comon knowledge now.

Here’s a primer:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006896.php
Baklava says:

October 31, 2005 at 7:08 pm

Timeline is key Zorro.

2 q’s
1) When were they determined to be italian forgeries?
2) When did Bush give his state of the union address?

Another key
1) Was there other evidence that Iraq “sought” uranium from Niger?

I’ll give you the answers if you don’t know….
Zorro says:

October 31, 2005 at 7:30 pm

answer to all three questions:

the information in the documents was known to be bogus before the SOTU, and that was the ONLY evidence, ever. And again, it was discounted by the CIA before the SOTU, and Wilson put the matter to bed BEFORE the SOTU.

THAT is the answer, and you didn’t know it. Now that you do…adjust accordingly.
Big Bang Hunter says:

October 31, 2005 at 9:43 pm

– How many liberals does it take to screw in a facttoid…..

– Wilson had his wife’s name and a reference to her gov. affiliations up on his website for years before this whole leftwing cannard was hatched. As soon as the GJ started asking questions it mysteriously disappeared. As if that wasn’t enough, he dropped tidbits about her CIA employment at numerous Washington cocktail parties as a part of a self-promotion plan to regain his self asserted importance, a tactic hes since revived in several ways, including outright lying concerning details of VP Chaney having any sort of connection with his “assignment” to Niger in the slightest way. The joke around D.C. when this faux outrage started was that the only person that didn’t know about her was her boss. This guy is almost as bad an opportunist and pravaracator as the flipflop king hinself, J.sKerry.

Note to Sistah: When they start the adhomenim name calling you know they’ve run out of viable comments, and feel like contrite, desperate losers. I don’t blame them. The state of the Dem party right now is in abject confusion and dis-array. – 😉
Brian says:

November 1, 2005 at 1:40 am

PCD,

Bill Clinton was tried and acquitted of perjury by the United States Senate.
PCD says:

November 1, 2005 at 8:17 am

Brian,

Thank you for showing us all how uninformed you are. Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED. The Senate did not remove him from office. The Senate does not aquit anyone.

For your information, Clinton paid a huge fine and was Disbarred and PERMANTENTLY barred from arguing cases before the US Supreme Court.
Baklava says:

November 1, 2005 at 12:48 pm

Brian (and PCD), Yes, a Democrat appointed judge (Susan Webber Wright) held Clinton accountable and disbarred Clinton for obstruction of justice and perjury.

BTW, Instead of not obstructing justice and committing perjury Bill Clinton’s memory failed him 267 times in one deposition on the Paula Jones case on 1/17/98. Maybe this is what Libby should’ve done huh?
Brian says:

November 1, 2005 at 10:19 pm

PCD,

You’re the one who is uninformed. Impeachment of the president means that the House of Representatives brought charges against him. If the president gets impeached, he is tried by the Senate and the Senate can either vote to acquit him or remove him from office. In Bill Clinton’s case he was acquitted.

Baklava,

Judge Wright found Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court, not obstruction of justice and perjury.

Comments are closed.