Joe Wilson: A man of class and integrity

Nadagate Find out just how much class and integrity Joe “Restore Honesty” Wilson actually has – Tom Elia has the details on a speech Wilson made back in March at Florida State University.Â

WilsonÂ has a visceral hatred of Bush, Rove, conservatives, and neocons and there’s no way this just all of a sudden happened after his wife was “outed.”Â

He’s had an agenda from the start – attempt to discredit Bush and the “neo-cons,” write a book about it, make a mint, and go around the lecture circuit bragging about it (that is, when he’s not discussing his wife’s CIAÂ status in the Fox News green room).

Jerk.

(Cross-posted at Blogs For Bush)

50 Responses to "Joe Wilson: A man of class and integrity"

stackja1945 says:

April 7, 2006 at 9:36 pm

Joe Wilson is a fool who does not seem to care about anybody.
Pam says:

April 7, 2006 at 10:07 pm

Between the 2 Wilson’s, could they have been able to afford the life style they lead if it weren’t for the money Joe made off Valerie?
Left of Center says:

April 8, 2006 at 12:08 am

So Wilson found no evidence of yellow cake on his trip. His findings didn’t make bush happy so they declassify his wifes status. (she was actively engaged in an operation ascertaining the Iranian nuke program)Not only was she “outed” and her career ruined, but the hundreds of people who were part of the front company that was involved in the research were put in danger. It just wasn’t about her. how many former officials, memos, accounts, testimonies do you wingnuts need to hear to convince you the thing was cooked up by BushCo? Are you all bush cultists? You sure aren’t Republicans in the true sense of the word.
Severian says:

April 8, 2006 at 8:36 am

So Wilson found evidence of yellow cake on his trip. His findings didn’t make Kerry and Wilson happy, so they decided to lie about it in an attempt to discredit Bush’s status. (he was actively engaged in an operation to fight our enemies and ensure our safety)Not only was Bush lied about and serious damage done to the US and it’s mission in Iraq, but tens of thousands of honorable soldiers who are part of the front lines of the war on terror were put in danger. It wasn’t about truth, how many reports, memos, intel information, testimonies, acounts do you liberal moonbats need to hear to convince you that the whole Wison/Plame affair was cooked up by Kerry and the DNC? Are you all Howeird Dean and Saddam Hussein cultists? You sure aren’t Americans in the true sense of the word!
Sister Toldjah says:

April 8, 2006 at 8:38 am

Right on, Severian!
steve says:

April 8, 2006 at 10:31 am

Nero was going to war and the world be damned. Wilson got sent to look for yellow cake and found forged documents instead. He filed a report to that effect. Nero said Saddam wanted to buy yellow cake, in the State of the Union, which was a lie. Wilson said “they ain’t hanging that on me” and wrote a column. Cheney gets Libby to give Miller a story dis-crediting Wilson. Cheney then gets Nero to declassify the NIE used by Libby, 10 days earlier. A violation of law. Nero loses. Time to impeach Nero. Peace
sanity says:

April 8, 2006 at 11:36 am

See other post, since I will not repeat what I said here, which unfortunately is just about what you said twice in two different posts.
Severian says:

April 8, 2006 at 1:49 pm

Steve, you really are a dolt. Wilson did not see any forged documents, and what he did see and hear actually increased the validity of the Niger uranium claim, contrary to Wilson’s lies. The forged documents you are so up on didn’t even exist when Wilson was sent to Niger, they didn’t show up until 8 months later, and Wilson was deliberately lying when he said he had seen them.

Still got the wrong Emperor, Vespasian would be a better analogy. You remember reading about him, came in after the disasterous Year of 4 Emperors, took charge of Rome when it was a basket case, restored the economy and treasury (hey, just like Bush), secured Rome from it’s enemies (hey, again, just like Bush, fighting enemies rather than attempting to appease them). You keep calling Bush Nero, and he doesn’t even sing!
steve says:

April 8, 2006 at 3:47 pm

The Mossad, created the forgeries which found their way to Italy. Not only was there no yellow cake, the aluminum tubes were not for nuclear use and the cartoons of mobile labs, were just that cartoons. neo-Nero is a liar and Nero is known as the worst emperor that Rome ever had. This neo-Nero will suffer the same fate. Peace
Big Bang Hunter says:

April 9, 2006 at 3:00 am

– Now to get back to reality, since “Fantasy Land” has been covered by Steve(FN) and the rest of the asshat trolls….

– As far as Plamegate, there is no “there” there. The left has gotten some of what they wanted by having it dragged out incessantly giving the NYTrash the opportunity to continue day after day with the “Leak” partisan BS non-news Ops-eds on the front page. When it turns out Fitz has no real proof of anything, other than Wilson is a pompus small peanuts partisan jackass that bragged up his wifes CIA affiliation, along with some press rats, then the LLWM can write about the sinister “cover-up” that must be lurking behind the failure to find any “governmental/White house official” wrong doing. Its a game. Dirty politics in the absense of a party plan like I said in an earlier post.
steve says:

April 9, 2006 at 12:01 pm

“Dirty politics” is one thing and lying about, then leaking selective intelligence to bolster the lie concerning an illegal and pre-emptive war that has killed or seriously wounded 20,000 men and women, is quite another. The neo-con/armageddonist/Zionist un-holy alliance must be exposed and dis-credited. Peace
Big Bang Hunter says:

April 9, 2006 at 12:10 pm

– Wilson lied for political reasons. The war didn’t kill those 20,000 men and women, the Jihadists did. Other than that, what needs exposing is the traitorous leaks from the Democratic party, and the traitors to America that leaked them. But its coming.

– They’re all lined up in a queue for their day in court. The sooner the better. Liberty

– Bang
HadaAbeche says:

April 9, 2006 at 6:17 pm

The WashPost has an interesting editorial today…..
HadaAbeche says:

April 9, 2006 at 6:18 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html
steve says:

April 9, 2006 at 7:03 pm

And the WP goes further down the Rightwing road to destruction. Peace
sanity says:

April 9, 2006 at 7:43 pm

Ah the best News story quote I have seen in some time:

PRESIDENT BUSH was right to approve the declassification of parts of a National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq three years ago in order to make clear why he had believed that Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear weapons. Presidents are authorized to declassify sensitive material, and the public benefits when they do. But the administration handled the release clumsily, exposing Mr. Bush to the hyperbolic charges of misconduct and hypocrisy that Democrats are leveling.

Link

Next hyper-ventilating story the Democrats want to invent please?

File this one under…Failed Gotcha or DOH!
jac says:

April 9, 2006 at 9:26 pm

Wilson has a visceral hatred of Bush, Rove, conservatives, and neocons and there’s no way this just all of a sudden happened after his wife was “outted.”

Prove that entire statement, Sistah.

And you already know that “that is, when he’s not discussing his wife’s CIA status in the Fox News green room” is a completely debunked statement.
Sister Toldjah says:

April 9, 2006 at 9:34 pm

“Prove that entire statement, Sistah.”

Do you know how to read? Read this again (or for the first time, which is probably the case).

“And you already know that “that is, when he’s not discussing his wife’s CIA status in the Fox News green room” is a completely debunked statement. ”

No, it hasn’t been. I won’t challenge you to prove your assertion, because I know you can’t.
sanity says:

April 9, 2006 at 10:22 pm

Hmm lets look at some quotes from Joe Wilson:

It still amazes me when I still see that drunk Bill Kristol on tv every week still spewing the same nonsense he was spewing 3 years ago

….

Drive a stake through the heart of every single neoconservative, if that’s what it takes

….

Zalmay Khalilzad? I’d like to punch him right in the face

….

Scooter Libby is a despicable coward of a human being
[From the Daily Kos website – -ST]

On Condoleeza Rice:

Condoleeza Rice needs to stop globe-trotting in her knee high boots and start doing her job and building a coalition.

Seeing as she was the National Security Advisor, the person whose job it is to keep track of the nuclear threats against the United States, for her not to know about these reports that were sitting in her very own office files says to me that she is either A) incompetent, B) disingenous, or C) and this is the most likely in my opinion….simply a bald faced liar.

On Conservatives:

When the Democrats take control of congress, their first order of business needs to be crushing the neoconservativers out of power in every foreign policy arena. Drive a damn stake through the heart of every single one of them, whatever it takes. They have been wrong, fundamentally wrong, on every…single….position they have ever taken. They have not been right about one single thing.

….

The neocons need to be forced back into the dark holes from which they crawled. They are nothing but parasites who serve nobody and nothing but themselves who are using the Republican Party as a serving host

On Bill Kristol:

>It still amazes me when I still see that drunk Bill Kristol on tv every week still spewing the same nonsense he was spewing 3 years ago

On Zalmay Khalilzad, appointed to be U.S. Ambassador to Iraq:

Zalmay Khalilzad? I’d like to punch him right in the face. I’ve never seen met him and I’d prefer never to see his face but yeah. He has never been right about one thing in 20 years. He is simply another neoconservative that has gotten every single thing wrong.

On Paul Wolfowitz , John Bolton, and destroying the U.N.

Wolfowitz did his best to destroy the Department of Defense so I guess it’s time for him to go destroy the World Bank and he’s got a willing partner in John Bolton who has taken it upon himself to destroy the United Nations, an organization that, since its’ inception , the U.S. has benefitted from as much or more so than it has given.

On the 2nd Amendment in a police state:

I was flying to Florida the other day and seated next to me was Wayne LaPierre, the head of the NRA, and I thought “ya know Wayne, I’ve finally come around to your way of thinking. I agree, I think every single person in this nation should be armed with a gun…………….to protect us from these assholes you keep in power.” I didn’t actually say that….because that would have been rude.

On Ken Mehlman, David Dreier, and being a “womanizer”:

You know when they first started trying to come up with a way to discredit me, which we now know started in March of 2003, they went through the old standbys. ‘He’s had 3 wives, he’s a womanizer, he’s done drugs.’ But then they realized they couldnt’ use those because I’ve never actually denied them. I mean I’m the first to admit that, unlike Ken Mehlman and David Dreier, I really like women. Beyond that, going to UC-Santa Barbara in the late 60’s, if you weren’t smoking pot it was you who was the weird one.

On Ann Coulter:

So since they couldn’t discredit me as being a womanizer, a druggie, or partisan (since I had handwritten notes from George’s dad thanking me for my brave service in saving American lives in Baghdad), they decided to go after the last thing they had, my wife Valerie. Ann Coulter and others came up with the crap that Joe coudlnt’ get a job on his own, he needed his wife to find one for him because “he’s a wussy man”. Well, when I thought about it, I wasn’t really all that surprised hearing it from Ann. Afterall, she is a rather manly woman.

….

I hear Ann going around exalting Joseph McCarthy. I recently read a book by Owen Lattimore called Ordeal by Slander in which he details the way in which McCarthy smeared him and attempted to destroy his life and the battle for his freedom that ensued. I wish Ann would read that book and see who she is using as a hero. Joseph McCarthy was a Nazi sympathizer who tried to destroy the lives of innocent people through a political witchhunt. That is who these people like Ann Coulter support. Remember that. Ann Coulter and her ilk are not only someone you would not want at your dining room table, they’re people I wouldn’t even allow in my home

On Congress:

Rep. Ed Markey said the other night that in the last 6 years of the Clinton Administration, the Republican controlled congress issued over 5,000 subpoenas during investigations of the Clinton Administration. In the first 6 years of the Bush administration? Five. Five subpoenas. I think we’ve got a lot of catching up to do when we take control next year

On Libby:

I’m glad I’m not a 1st amendment lawyer so I can’t really go into what Judith Miller did or did not do right or wrong but I do know this much. Scooter Libby is such a coward that he let this woman sit in jail for months because he was too scared to tell her she could testify. Scooter Libby is a despicable coward of a human being…..just absolutely despicable and vile.

….

You know, I’ve lived in somewhere around 15 dictatorships in my life, negotiated and threatened dictators in Africa and the middle east right to their faces. Given that, it’s really kind of hard for me to take seriously a trio of clowns named Dick, Karl, and Scooter. I mean, c’mon.

On National Security:

Wilson said if anyone believes Bush and his allies won’t improperly use national security data, culled now through eavesdropping on phone calls originating overseas: “I stand before you tonight as somebody who knows from from personal experience that this administration will take national security information and use it for political purposes . . . because they did it to Valerie and to me.”

On Bob Novak and Jon Stewart:

Jon Stewart definitely has the best fake news show in the country. In fact I’d say it’s even better than the fake news at Fox News Channel. Valerie doesnt like me using this word that Jon uses because she says that it’s a bit vulgar so I’m not going to tell you that Jon Stewart calls Bob Novak a “douchebag”

Wilson on Time Magazine, Scott McClellan, & Karl Rove:

When I gave a speech some time back saying that it would be nice to see Karl Rove frogmarched across the White House lawn, Scott McClellan, when asked about it, stated in no uncertain terms that he had spoken to Karl about it and that Karl was in no way involved in the outing of Valerie. We now know that, at the time of that statement, Matt Cooper and [two editors at Time] were fully aware that Coopers source was Karl Rove. Knowing this, Time Magazine printed McClellans’ statement without question as fact. Time Magazine knowingly lied to the nation and to its readers

There you have it my friends, this is Joe Wilson.

Many thanks to KOS for putting together such a wonderful mix of Joe Wilson quotes that show his true character.

Hmm a little extra…

WILSON (letter to the Intelligence Committee): My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself “a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa’s suspected link to Iraq’s nonconventional weapons programs.”…I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur.

WILSON (page 337): Had I been the chief executive of this operation, as President Bush likes to say that he is, I would have been furious that a member of my staff had inserted such an obviously false claim in the most important speech I might ever make.

WILSON (page 334): The path to writing the op-ed piece had always been clear in my mind. My government had refused to address the fundamental question of how the lie regarding Saddam’s supposed attempt to purchase African uranium had found its way into the State of the Union address… I had to raise it, publicly and in my own words. I realized that my credibility would be called into question, and I was steeled for that. But whatever one might say about me—and there is a lot—the truth remained: There was never any evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases from Niger. [Wilson’s emphasis]

Link

Hope this helps put Joe Wilson in perspective.
Sister Toldjah says:

April 9, 2006 at 10:30 pm

sanity, as a general note, I don’t link up to Kos on this site, so I disabled the link but still gave the site credit for those quotes (some of which are mentioned in the Tom Elia link) to the Kos site.

On the issue itself, it’s amazing, isn’t it, the heroes some people on the left choose to have, you know?
sanity says:

April 9, 2006 at 10:43 pm

No prob ST.

I just like to be thorough with my quotes, and give credit where I find them. It was nice that they had all his left applauded statements for them to drool over all together, made my task easier looking for his quotes. I didn’t have to sift through multiple pages for the next hour.

I did give fair warning though..lol

Yeah, Joe Wilson is a real piece of work all right.

I hear he is trying to sell a book now too.

Suprise….
Big Bang Hunter says:

April 10, 2006 at 11:52 am

– So Wilson turns out to be a post-Vietnam leftover hippy from the 60’s, 70’s. Surprise, surprise. You can see how he’s earned the reputation of a self-important opportunist, and lefturd “mouth”, (or mis-guided missle as we use to call them in the service), from his own words.

– The more you find out about this small time liar and crook, the more you wonder why hes not in jail. Of course hes just the sort of low life the left would find heroic. No surprise there.

– In general I’m finding more and more, whenever you see a person rile to the extreme against some murky “Nazi” monster, beneath beats a heart of a true Marxist, since they were always bitter sworn enemies, and the Nazi’x scare the hell out of them.

– The left always tries mightily to deny and hide their Communist roots, but when you peel away the onion, Marx and his instruments of politics are always there, and of course the best of the Nazi’s political tools as well, one of which “The Big Lie”, we’re getting to see first hand in the phoney rumors/smears of the lefts current “get Bush” “AnythingGates”, aided and abetted by the rabid anti-American left-wing press.

– Bang
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 6:55 pm

Do you know how to read? Read this again (or for the first time, which is probably the case).

There’s nothing in there that proves that entire statement. Your statement is based on opinion and presented as fact.
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:01 pm

Here are some facts, Sistah.

And please, I have respect for you, let’s be civil and not get into the “if you can read” 3rd grade level.

Wilson was criticized recently for allegedly talking about his wife’s CIA job prior to the column by Novak. Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely claimed on the John Batchelor radio show that Wilson had spoken to him about his wife’s role with the CIA while they were waiting together in the green room before appearing together on FOX News. He said this occurred on three to five occasions, first in February or March of 2002. Vallely also said Wilson was proud to routinely introduce his wife as a CIA employee at cocktail parties per a tabloid source.[22]

Wilson has since demanded that Vallely retract these allegations, calling them “patently false.” Wilson wrote to his attorney in an email included in his demand for a retraction: “This is slanderous. I never appeared on TV before at least July 2002 and only saw him maybe twice in the green room at FOX. Vallely is a retired general and this is a bald faced lie…. I never laid eyes on [Vallely] till several months after he alleges I spoke to him about my wife.”[23]

On November 7, 2005, Lt. General Tom McInerney (USAF Retired) contended that Joe Wilson bragged to him about his wife’s job with the CIA while waiting in the green room at FOX News. [24]

A compendium of the times that Wilson and Vallely appeared on FOX has revealed that there is only one possible date, September 12, 2002, during which the two would have been in the green room within hours of each other. According to Jeralyn Merritt, who went through the FOX transcripts to compile this information, “That date, Wilson’s segment was over 15 minutes before Vallely’s began. The Fox green room in New York is very small and contains an even smaller makeup room that only has one guest chair. Guests are by themselves in the makeup room. I assume Wilson would have been having his makeup done before his segment, so Vallely wouldn’t have been with him then. Even if they did overlap in the green room for a couple of minutes, it strains credulity to think the topic of Wilson’s wife’s employment with the CIA would have come up. There likely would have only time for mere pleasantries.”[25]

Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson questions the credibility of both Generals, noting “I too was a Fox News Contributor in 2002 and spent a lot of time in the Green Room with both Vallely and McInerney. I saw them but never saw Joe Wilson. What is really curious is that I know I spent more time with Vallely and McInerney than Joe Wilson ever did and the subject of my wife (or their wives) never came up.”[26] Former Naval intelligence officer and NSA analyst Wayne Madsen similarly pointed out: “As someone who spent a fair amount of time at Fox News’ Washington green room, I can say that Vallely is full of crap. When you are booked by Fox to appear, a car is sent around to pick you up. The car arrives with enough time to transport you to the studios at 400 North Capitol Street, usually 15 minutes before air time. However, most of that time is spent checking in and sitting for makeup. If you happen upon another guest in the green room before sitting for makeup, they are likely only minutes from air time — certainly not enough time to engage in a biographical rendition about your family with a total stranger. If two guests appeared at the same time at Fox in Washington, they were taken to different studios.”[27]
Sister Toldjah says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:10 pm

No, my opinion was not presented as a fact. People who come to this blog can read what I write and form their own opinions based on what I post and the sources I use, and by researching issues I write about. This is a blog, not a newspaper, and unlike the MSM, I don’t pretend to be objective.

And don’t insult my intelligence by using Wikipedia and quoting Larry Johnson. Just because Joe Wilson supposedly didn’t say anything to him about his wife doesn’t mean he didn’t say it to Vallely. I suggest you read around some other blogs, mainly Just One Minute, to get a true picture of just how well known her status was within Joe Wilson’s social circles.
Pam says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:12 pm

I love it You cited wikipedia as a source to dispute Sister T You do know that you and I can go in there and change the info at will, don’t you?
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:14 pm

Seriously, check the dates. They weren’t on during the same days except once. Your biy Vallely lied through his teeth.

Ok, I won’t insult your intelligence using Wiki. First, show me your proof that they were together at Fox. That’s the basis of your argument.
Sister Toldjah says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:16 pm

“Seriously, check the dates. They weren’t on during the same days except once. Your biy Vallely lied through his teeth.

Ok, I won’t insult your intelligence using Wiki. First, show me your proof that they were together at Fox. That’s the basis of your argument. ”

That makes no sense. You tell me that “my boy Vellely lied through his teeth” about them meeting up in the green room and yet in the very next sentence you admit it happened once (to your recollection). I guess you just answered your own question.
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:17 pm

Uh, sure Pam, whatever you say. Why don’t you go change that info then and see how easy it is? Tell you what – I’ll give you $50 to change that entire section I just quoted.

Put your money where your mouth is Pam.
Sister Toldjah says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:21 pm

Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:22 pm

C’mon Sistah, geez! Is World Net Daily right wing enough for you?

17th pp:

Again, tonight, Vallely repeated his assertions that he met at least three times with Wilson in the Fox “green room.” He said he is certain it was in 2002.
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:23 pm

Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.

Good, then if she pulls it off, I owe her $50 – let’s see her do it.
Sister Toldjah says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:26 pm

My sources don’t have to be “right wing enough” for me to prove anything. Read what you wrote. You answered your own question. All it took was for Joe Wilson to say something to Vallely once for him to be correct. He recalls a few times meeting Wilson in the green room. Here are when those meetings could have taken place:

January 10th, 2003 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on John Gibson’s show this day. Which is why Gibson has similar recollections to General Vallely. Vallely was on Cavuto which airs right before Gibson’s show.

November 18, 2002 (Vallely, Wilson). Vallely was scheduled for 1:10, Wilson was to be on after 3:00 PM.

October 1, 2003 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on Fox and Friends in the morning, Vallely on Cavuto. Depending on when Vallely came in to tape his section they could have met up.

September 12, 2002 – they were on the same show at 3:00 PM.

August 20, 2002 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on Greta and Vallely on Cavuto. Depending on when/if things were taped the could have run into each other.

(the links to their appearances are contained at AJ’s – they didn’t copy over because I don’t have WYSIWYG in the comments)
Sister Toldjah says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:27 pm

I hope she doesn’t do it, because IP numbers of people who do it are recorded. Do you see the little “Edit” tab at the top of the page you quoted?

Are you attempting to assert that Wiki can’t be edited? Or do you know and are just trying to get Pam in trouble?
Pam says:

April 10, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Baklava says:

April 10, 2006 at 8:22 pm

Smack!
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 8:30 pm

Hey, Pam said anybody could edit it, and you backed her up. I called you on it. Let’s see it.

Here’s the gold standard of Wiki: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia’s three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors’ consensus.

Whether or not there’s trouble is not my problem. I didn’t make a statement I couldn’t back up.

Again, money where the mouth is, ladies.
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 9:01 pm

Wow, Sistah.

January 10th, 2003 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on John Gibson’s show this day. Which is why Gibson has similar recollections to General Vallely. Vallely was on Cavuto which airs right before Gibson’s show.

November 18, 2002 (Vallely, Wilson). Vallely was scheduled for 1:10, Wilson was to be on after 3:00 PM.
October 1, 2003 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on Fox and Friends in the morning, Vallely on Cavuto. Depending on when Vallely came in to tape his section they could have met up.

September 12, 2002 – they were on the same show at 3:00 PM.

August 20, 2002 (Vallely, Wilson). Wilson was on Greta and Vallely on Cavuto. Depending on when/if things were taped the could have run into each other.

All but one were hours apart. And based on tapings, etc., was one or the other in D.C. or NYC and the other not? And why does Vallely on 3 separate occasions have nothing to do but hang around for hours until Joe Wilson walks in (provided they were even at the same Fox studios)? Considering that the green rooms and makeup rooms at Fox Studios are reported to be notoriously small, does Fox encourage people to come in and hang out all day?

The only date that they were possibly in the studios at the same time (notice, I’m not saying same studio, just possibly a studio at roughly the same time) was 9.12.02. I can’t find any archive of studio locations.

Add to that – Joe Wilson’s neighbors and friends didn’t even know what his wife did. So, yeah, I’m sure he’s telling someone with a military background national security secrets that can get his ass in a load of trouble.
Pam says:

April 10, 2006 at 9:23 pm

Hey jac how old are you? 12? And yes jac, neighbors did know what she did…I do love how he introduced his wife to us though! That awful disguise on the cover of Vanity Fair probably had people guessing for …moments
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 9:24 pm

And as I’m reading back through these comments wondering where the confusion could possibly be coming from, I realize when I said “days” I meant “times of day”.

My bad. I’m able to admit when I’m wrong.
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 9:26 pm

Pam – you want your $50 or do you want to insult each other and throw cute little smilies in every post? Which is it?
Sister Toldjah says:

April 10, 2006 at 9:28 pm

I’ve already “put my money where my mouth is” jac – stop being deliberately obtuse. I provided you with a link to a post I did that included a link to a New York Times piece that discussed the fact that Wikipedia is easily editable.

I ask again and please ANSWER the question I ask yo this time: do you or do you not see the “Edit” tab at the top of the page? A yes or no will suffice.

I have a feeling you know it, and you’re trying to get either me or Pam in trouble for editing it. The fact is, I don’t care whether you believe me or not. The facts are already out there – whether or not you chose to bury your head in the sand is not my problem.

Oh, and about your “not making a statement” you couldn’t back up, you haven’t backed up a single thing you’ve said here.

I’m going to give you the NYT link to the story which will hopefully ease your concerns about whether or not Pam and I are telling the truth. If it doesn’t, I think I’ll still be able to sleep ok tonight. But first, I want to recap how this dispute with Wiki started, and your implications assertions about it later in which you acted as though you didn’t believe me or Pam:

You: “Here are some facts, Sistah.”

Me: “And don’t insult my intelligence by using Wikipedia […]”

Pam: “I love it You cited wikipedia as a source to dispute Sister T You do know that you and I can go in there and change the info at will, don’t you?”

You to me: “Ok, I won’t insult your intelligence using Wiki.”

You to Pam: “Uh, sure Pam, whatever you say. Why don’t you go change that info then and see how easy it is? Tell you what – I’ll give you $50 to change that entire section I just quoted.

Put your money where your mouth is Pam.”

Me to you: Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.

You: “Good, then if she pulls it off, I owe her $50 – let’s see her do it”. [note: you didn’t respond to the link I provided which contained a link to the NYTimes piece that proves it.]

Me: “I hope she doesn’t do it, because IP numbers of people who do it are recorded. Do you see the little “Edit” tab at the top of the page you quoted?

Are you attempting to assert that Wiki can’t be edited? Or do you know and are just trying to get Pam in trouble? ”

You: Hey, Pam said anybody could edit it, and you backed her up. I called you on it. Let’s see it.

Here’s the gold standard of Wiki: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia’s three content-guiding policy pages. The other two are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. They should therefore not be interpreted in isolation from one other, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors’ consensus.

Whether or not there’s trouble is not my problem. I didn’t make a statement I couldn’t back up.

Again, money where the mouth is, ladies.” [Sidenote: still no acknowledgement of the link I provided, nor an answer to my questions about what you were asserting, and if you saw the “edit” tab at the top of the Wiki page.]

————-

The discerning reader will note your inability and/or unwillingness to 1) answer my questions and 2) imply that both Pam and I were lying about the ability for anyone to edit Wikipedia.

Now, the NYTimes link (with emphasis added)

Snared in the Web of a Wikipedia Liar

ACCORDING to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, John Seigenthaler Sr. is 78 years old and the former editor of The Tennessean in Nashville. But is that information, or anything else in Mr. Seigenthaler’s biography, true?

The question arises because Mr. Seigenthaler recently read about himself on Wikipedia and was shocked to learn that he “was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby.”

“Nothing was ever proven,” the biography added.

Mr. Seigenthaler discovered that the false information had been on the site for several months and that an unknown number of people had read it, and possibly posted it on or linked it to other sites.

If any assassination was going on, Mr. Seigenthaler (who is 78 and did edit The Tennessean) wrote last week in an op-ed article in USA Today, it was of his character.

The case triggered extensive debate on the Internet over the value and reliability of Wikipedia, and more broadly, over the nature of online information.

Wikipedia is a kind of collective brain, a repository of knowledge, maintained on servers in various countries and built by anyone in the world with a computer and an Internet connection who wants to share knowledge about a subject. Literally hundreds of thousands of people have written Wikipedia entries.

Mistakes are expected to be caught and corrected by later contributors and users.

[…]

In the end, Mr. Seigenthaler decided against going to court, instead alerting the public, through his article, “that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool.”

Mr. Wales said in an interview that he was troubled by the Seigenthaler episode, and noted that Wikipedia was essentially in the same boat. “We have constant problems where we have people who are trying to repeatedly abuse our sites,” he said.

Still, he said, he was trying to make Wikipedia less vulnerable to tampering. He said he was starting a review mechanism by which readers and experts could rate the value of various articles. The reviews, which he said he expected to start in January, would show the site’s strengths and weaknesses and perhaps reveal patterns to help them address the problems.

In addition, he said, Wikipedia may start blocking unregistered users from creating new pages, though they would still be able to edit them.
The real problem, he said, was the volume of new material coming in; it is so overwhelming that screeners cannot keep up with it.

All of this struck close to home for librarians and researchers. On an electronic mailing list for them, J. Stephen Bolhafner, a news researcher at The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, wrote, “The best defense of the Wikipedia, frankly, is to point out how much bad information is available from supposedly reliable sources.”

You were wrong. Pam and I were right. You can either acknowledge that, or you can waste someone else’s time somewhere else. At this point, asking me or Pam to edit it after my taking the time to point out to you the error-prone nature of Wikipedia, I would conclude you’re trying to get one of us in trouble. I have proved conclusively that the Wiki is easily editable (not that I needed a link – because the “edit” tab is at the top of the page for anyone willing to actually LOOK at it).
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 9:32 pm

Yes sister, I see a tab that says edit. Now let’s see you use it for that purpose. Let’s see if it really will edit that post or not. There are lots of things (and people) in this world that say they will do something and don’t or can’t really do it.

Obtuse: “Lacking quickness of perception.” That really about sums up your & Pam’s perception of how Wiki works today.

…on to read the rest of your post.
Sister Toldjah says:

April 10, 2006 at 9:35 pm

Neither Pam nor I said we WOULD edit. Pam said she could if she wanted to. And the fact is you can. I’ve just proved it.

Get your facts straight, jac. You’ve been proven wrong. The classy thing to do would be to admit you’re wrong. I’m waiting.
sanity says:

April 10, 2006 at 9:42 pm

Did you try FactCheck?

1999 â€“ Joseph Wilson takes a trip to Niger at the behest of the CIA to investigate “uranium-related matters” separate from Iraq . (Wilson, Politics lv-lvi). According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on pre-war intelligence, Wilson “was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.” (Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on Prewar Assessment of Iraq Intelligence, 39, July 2004).

April 22, 1999 â€“ Valerie Wilson lists “Brewster-Jennings & Assoc.”—later revealed to be a CIA front company—as her employer when making a donation to the Gore campaign. ( Gore FEC filing).

June 1999 â€“ Niger ‘s former prime minister Ibrahim Mayaki meets with an Iraqi delegation wanting to discuss “expanding commercial relations.” Mayaki interprets this as an interest in uranium, Niger ‘s main export, and later tells Wilson that he did not discuss it because Iraq remained under UN trade sanctions. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004).

October 15, 2001 â€“ US intelligence agencies become aware of reports from the Italian intelligence service of a supposed agreement between Iraq and Niger for the sale of uranium yellowcake. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research considers the report “highly suspect” because the French control Niger ‘s uranium industry. The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Energy consider a uranium deal “possible.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 36, July 2004).

October 18, 2001 â€“ The CIA writes a report titled, Iraq: Nuclear-Related Procurement Efforts. It quotes many of the Italian report’s claims, but adds that the report of a completed deal is not corroborated by any other sources. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 36-37, July 2004).

February 5, 2002 â€“ The CIA’s Directorate of Operations â€“ the clandestine branch that employed Valerie Wilson â€“ issues a second report including “verbatim text” of an agreement, supposedly signed July 5-6, 2000 for the sale of 500 tons of uranium yellowcake per year. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 37, July 2004).

February 12, 2002 â€“ The Defense Intelligence Agency writes a report concluding “Iraq is probably searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program.” Vice President Cheney reads this report and asks for the CIA’s analysis. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 38-39, July 2004).

Responding to inquiries from Cheney’s office, the State Department, and the Defense Department, the CIA’s Directorate of Operations’ Counterproliferation Division (CPD) look for more information. They consider having Wilson return to Niger to investigate. In the process, Valerie Wilson writes a memo to a superior saying, “My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” One of Valerie Wilson’s colleagues later tells Senate investigators she “offered up his name” for the trip. Wilson says that her agency made the decision and she only later approached her husband on the CIA’s behalf. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 39, July 2004).

February 19, 2002 â€“ Joseph Wilson meets with officials from CIA and the State Department. According to a State Department intelligence analyst’s notes, the meeting was convened by Valerie Wilson. She later testifies that she left the meeting after introducing her husband. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 40, July 2004).

February 26, 2002 â€“ Wilson arrives in Niger . He concludes, after a few days of interviews, that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 42, July 2004).

March 5, 2002 â€“ Wilson reports back to two CIA officers at his home. Valerie Wilson is present but does not participate. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43, July 2004).

March 8-9, 2002 â€“ An intelligence report of Wilson ‘s trip is sent through routine channels, identifying Wilson only as “a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004). The CIA grades Wilson ‘s information as “good” the middle of five possible grades. Cheney is not directly briefed about the report. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 46, July 2004).

September 24, 2002 â€“ The British government issues a public dossier saying, “[T]here is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” ( British Govt. Report 25, Sept. 2002). The Washington Post reports later that the CIA tried unsuccessfully to get the British to omit these claims. (” Bush, Rice blame CIA ” July 2003).

October 1, 2002 â€“ The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) â€“ a summary of intelligence assessments for policymakers â€“ says “a foreign government service” reported that Niger planned to send several tons of “pure uranium” to Iraq , possibly up to 500 tons a year. “We do not know the status of this arrangement” the NIE says, according to a later declassified version released by the White House. In the NIE, State Department intelligence officials caution that African uranium claims are “highly dubious.” ( Background WMD Briefing by Senior Administration Official ).

January 28, 2003 â€“ Bush’s State of the Union Address includes this 16-word sentence: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ” (Transcript of ” State of the Union” ).

March 7, 2003 â€“ The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) â€“ the international body that monitors nuclear proliferation â€“ tells the UN Security Council that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts” that the Italian documents— “which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic.” ( Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq… , March 2003).

March 19, 2003 â€“ President Bush announces the start of the Iraq war in a televised address, saying it is “to disarm Iraq , to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” (Bush, ” Addresses the Nation” ).

Spring 2003 â€“ Valerie Wilson is in the process of moving from non-official to official, State Department cover, according to a later Vanity Fair article based on interviews with the Wilsons . ( Vanity Fair , January 2004).

May 2003 â€“ Joseph Wilson begins advising the Kerry campaign on foreign policy issues. ( White House expects callsâ€¦ ” USA Today, October 2003).

May 6, 2003 â€“ A New York Times columnist writes the first account of Wilson’ s trip, but not naming him: “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger . In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong.” (” Missing In Action: Truth, ” New York Times, Op-ed, May 2003).

May 29, 2003 â€“ Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby allegedly requests information from Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman regarding the ambassador’s trip to Niger . The State Department provides Libby with a report on the trip and Libby is told for the first time that the ambassador is Wilson , according to a federal indictment of Libby later released by the Office of the Special Counsel, in October 2005. (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005.)

June 2003 â€“ State Department intelligence officials reportedly prepare a memo on the Niger affair mentioning Wilson ‘s trip to Niger and Valerie Wilson’s role in selecting her husband for the mission. The exact date is uncertain. The memo identifies Valerie Wilson but not her status as a covert agent, and it does not use her maiden name Valerie Plame. According to one account, the memo was classified and the paragraph containing information about Valerie Wilson was marked with “(S)” to indicate that the information was classified at the “secret” level. The CIA applies this level of classification to the identities of covert officers, according to the Washington Post. (” State Dept. memo gets scrutinyâ€¦ ” New York Times, July 16, 2005; ” Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls, ” Bloomberg.com, July 18, 2005; ” Plame’s Identity Marked as Secret, ” Washington Post, July 21, 2005).

June 9, 2003 â€“ Documents from the CIA allegedly are faxed to the office of the Vice President, and are addressed to Libby. They document Wilson ‘s trip to Niger , without mentioning Wilson by name. The documents are marked as classified, and on them Libby and somebody else in his office writes the names “Wilson” and “Joe Wilson” on the documents. (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005.)

June 11, 2003 – Libby allegedly speaks with a “senior CIA officer” about Wilson ‘s trip and his wife. The officer confirms that Wilson ‘s wife was employed by the CIA and was believed to have been involved in planning the trip. Grossman also speaks with Libby, allegedly advising him that Wilson ‘s wife did work at the CIA and that State Department personnel were saying that she played a part in organizing Wilson ‘s trip to Niger . (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005.)

June 12, 2003 â€“ A Washington Post article quotes an “envoy” (Wilson ) as saying that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” on the Italian document determined to be forged by the IAEA. (” CIA Did Not Share Doubtâ€¦, ” Washington Post, June 2003). Wilson later tells the Senate Intelligence Committee that he may have “misspoken” to reporters, thinking he had seen the documents himself, rather than reading about them secondhand. (Senate Intelligence Cmte ., Iraq 44).

June 19, 2003 â€“ The New Republic publishes “The Selling of the Iraq War: the First Casualty”. The article mentions an unnamed ambassador (Wilson) was sent to Niger per the request of the Vice President’s office delivered via the CIA. The article quotes the unnamed ambassador as saying the administration “knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie.” The article also accuses the administration of suppressing dissent from the intelligence community regarding pre-war intelligence. (Judis, John B. and Spencer Ackerman, ” The Selling of the Iraq War: the First Casualty .” The New Republic. 30 June 2003.)

After the story is published, Libby allegedly speaks with his principal deputy on the phone and says that public disclosure of information rebutting the article’s claim that the Vice President sent Wilson could cause problems at the CIA. (Fitzgerald, Patrick J., Department of Justice , United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby. 28 October 2005.)

June 23, 2003 â€“ Times reporter Miller interviews Libby regarding Wilson ‘s “activities”. She says later that during the interview Libby “placed blame for intelligence failures on the CIA.” accusing them of “selective leaking.” Libby also mentions Wilson ‘s wife to Miller for the first time. (Miller, Judith. ” My Four Hours Testifying in the Federal Grand Jury Room ” The New York Times. 16 October 2005.)

July 6, 2003 â€“ Wilson publishes ” What I didn’t find in Africa” in The New York Times, identifying himself for the first time as the unnamed “envoy.” He writes, “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq ‘s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” Wilson does not mention that he learned there was a possibility Iraq had sought uranium during a 1999 trade meeting with Niger ‘s former Prime Minister.

Contrary to later statements by White House officials, Wilson does not claim that Cheney sent him on the Niger trip, only that he was sent to answer questions from Cheney’s “office.” He also doesn’t claim that Cheney was told of his findings, only that it would be “standard operating procedure” for the CIA to brief Cheney’s office on the results of his mission. (Wilson, ” What I didn’t find, New York Times July 6, 2003).

Link

There is a complete timeline that goes from 1988-1991 to November 16, 2005.

Interesting read, and all are backed by facts and proof provided of each statement.

Check it out, have a good read.
jac says:

April 10, 2006 at 9:51 pm

OK, Thanks for summing everything up for me. That certainly saved me the trouble of using my up arrow. I have always assumed that you’ve read the links I’ve provided when you respond to me. Additionally, you should know that I always read the links you provide. I, in perpetuity, unless otherwise stated, acknowledge that I read all links you send to me. Cool?

Now on to business. Wiki doesn’t work that way anymore. Especially for an entry like Joe Wilson’s. I’ve been told by someone who works on it, that it will be screened before it is posted. Your article is over 4 months old. In other words (and it’s even included in your article) there are people called “screeners” that verify things. Also in your article is that they’re changing policy to make Wiki more reliable and less prone to hacking and false information.

Fast forward to today – that’s what they’ve done. You both used the present tense. You’re both wrong.

Pam: “You do know that you and I can go in there and change the info at will” Nope, not anymore. Sorry.

Sistah: “Pam’s right. Wiki can be easily edited by anyone.” Nope, not anymore. Sorry.

Sistah: “The classy thing to do would be to admit you’re wrong. I’m waiting.” Sage advice. I readily do it when necessary. Try it.

And I saw that article the day it came out. I’m sure you would have guessed that.

I’m out for now. Regardless of what it may seem like, I do enjoy bantering with you (a little less so with most of your readers). I hope you have a good night.
Bachbone says:

April 10, 2006 at 10:01 pm

See HERE for a rather complete review of Wikipedia’s difficulties. It admits there are many sources of erroneous info, but alleges such matters are quickly caught. However, further down the page, it also admits that catching and correcting errors that are written in a “scholarly” manner, or to fit the style of the article, are harder to catch and correct. That political operatives have edited their opponents’ materials, to reflect negatively on them, and their bosses’ materials, to delete negative things, show how easily edited Wikipedia is. What I found most interesting was the founder’s comment on such chicanery. He said it was, “Not cool.” That inspires confidence, huh?
Sister Toldjah says:

April 10, 2006 at 10:20 pm

Sorry, jac, but your anecdotal evidence about “someone you know” just won’t do. And the “especially with an entry like Joe Wilson’s” bit was just laughable.

You: “Wiki doesn’t work that way anymore. Especially for an entry like Joe Wilson’s. I’ve been told by someone who works on it, that it will be screened before it is posted. Your article is over 4 months old. In other words (and it’s even included in your article) there are people called “screeners” that verify things. Also in your article is that they’re changing policy to make Wiki more reliable and less prone to hacking and false information.”

Me: the article is still valid today. Just to prove it, here’s one from March 29th:

One co-founder of Wikipedia, “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,” presented the future of free information to an audience at Purdue University Tuesday.

Larry Sanger posed the question of what would the ideal free information resource look like?

Sanger believes there are five necessary components to creating the ideal resource.

“The more an information resource is complete, accurate, available, easy to use and interactive, the better it is,” he said.

Sanger went on to explain how each of these components applies to Wikipedia, and many other current information sources.

The biggest problem with Wikipedia is expert opinion, he said.

“Whether expert opinion is accurate truth is a question that comes up a lot when discussing Wikipedia.”

Jeremy Tirrell, a rhetoric Ph.D. student, uses Wikipedia for his classes.

“I teach English 106 and I actually have my students participate in Wikipedia,” Tirrell said.

Tirrell uses certain features of the encyclopedia, but because an abundance of information is involved, it can be complicated to use.

Sanger said one of Wikipedia’s major problems is its credibility.

“Its reliability, or closeness to the truth, is still dubious,” he said. “But its credibility, or reputation, is low.”

From Wiki’s site (emphasis mine):

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 required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.

That is not to say that you will not find valuable and accurate information in Wikipedia; much of the time you will. However, Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. The content of any given article may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.

Face it: you were wrong, and Pam and I were both right. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing, outside of the fact that you went an entire thread trying to act like you didn’t know that Wiki could be edited and when it was all said and done you essentially said “it used to be like that, but not anymore” – and even that assertion on your part is false.

I don’t mind banter, but I like it alot more when the person I’m “bantering” with is a little more upfront and honest with what he or she knows about a particular topic. Let’s not repeat this again.
Baklava says:

April 11, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Big Bang Hunter says:

April 11, 2006 at 4:48 pm

– Rebuking Lefturds, and their usual tissues of lies and convienient amnesia is a waste of bandwidth.

– When some asshat went in and redacted all of the FRELIMO history of Ter-ray-za’s Communist father, and the gal that runs Wiki said not a word, that was all I had to see. Wiki is useless for any sort of historical/political source now because the left has trashed anything that looked bad for its side. File and forget. Anyone like jac trying to use Wiki as a source is playing stack the deck. Losers…..

– Bang

Comments are closed.