Have we all read “The Politics of Truth” (yet)?

Need to get TRex or another expert witness on pens and ink to look at that “18″ under a microscope, to see whether the 1 and the 8 appear contemporaneous…

katie jensen @ 69

Interested observer needs to check into “the best coverage he has seen” and do more reading, doesn’t he??? I don’t understand why people like to stand in dark closets…do they fear that the truth, like sunlight will kill them?? Read more, my friend, about the niger forgeries and the the truth about the wilson report and how the wh spun it and re-wired it to fit their treasonous call to kill people. I just hope that the facts get set straight in the mainstream media soon, it about gives me a heart attack hearing the misinformation. It’s like someone trying to tell me that 2 plus 2 equals 5. sniffing salts please.

Actually, I was responding to Interested Observer re a broader investigation. Really, I don’t mean to be a troll, but I haven’t read much about the case for a while.

My understanding of it was that Bush’s statement in the State of the Union was based on British findings – not the forgeries that Wilson claimed, and that both the Senate and British investigations supported this. Am I wrong?

Yes! Since Tenet shot down the use of the British “findings” back in October 2002. And, in fact, the British “findings” were based on the same forgeries that the Italians leaked to the CIA. So the reality is that Bush’s SOTU statements were simply a “backdoor” way of getting the same information that the CIA (and State Dept.) had already rejected as questionable into the SOTU. And they did it knowing that TENET had already said that the British reports were dubious.

EW — that date sure looked like a scratched out 18 to me.

Or an “8″ with the “1″ added!

Hint…June 8, 2003 ~ the day that Condy had to deal with the Kristof article on “Meet The Press”.

Interested Observer @ 4

The government says the affidavits in question deal with the broader investigation.

The broader investigation is nowhere near over, friends.

Hi, just stopped by to read the trial updates. Thank you to the reporters – this is the best coverage I’ve seen.

It may be proved that Libby is lying re Russert – it sure isn’t going well for him. But Wilson was surely lying to reporters and in his op-ed.

Wilson reported that he had found no evidence of a uranium purchase, but not being a spook himself, he either didn’t appreciate the significance of his findings, or was deliberately obtuse. His verbal report re trade talks led the real spooks (CI A’s) to believe that Saddam was indeed trying to get uranium. It was Wilson’s CIA debriefers who found that his report bolstered other reports that Iraq was seeking uranium.

Please note seeking vs purchase.

I hate to deflate your bubble. But Wilson REPORTED and was correct there was no evidence of a Uranium PURCHASE. And regards to evidence of Iraq SEEKING Uranium…he did report the SPECULATION of the Nigerien PM that a businessman who approached Mayaki about an Iraqi trade delegation wanting to speak may have meant that they wanted to discuss Uranium. But is THAT speculation EVIDENCE? Note that Wilson’s report states that there was NO ACTUAL MEETING (and it turns out that the “trade delegation” wasn’t even in Niger…it was at a big African trade conference in Algiers).

Wilson had no way to think that such speculation by the PM of Niger would ever be taken seriously by the CIA analysts (WINPAC) as evidence of a transaction. In fact, it seems that they didn’t take it seriously either…as they never reported their analysis onward, either to Tenet, the Vice President or other intelligence channels. The assertion only emerged AFTER Wilson’s article came out!

Wilson also lied to Pincus, telling him he had debunked the forgeries that were not even in CIA’s possession until month’s after Wilson’s junket. Wilson says he “misspoke.”

This is simply playing a rightwing semantics game here. Wilson was detailed several things about the REPORTS regarding the Niger-Iraq transactions that had been relayed to the CIA from Italian Intelligence (i.e. a foreign governments intelligence service”). These details on documents that Italian Intelligence claimed they HELD were clearly discussed at his briefing meeting BEFORE he departed. These details included information about the quantities (500 tons), number of shipments, routes that WINPAC believed would be taken, dates, who he should talk to, and shouldn’t talk to, etc. Did Wilson see the actual documents? NO! He never said that he did.

But in order to show that the reports were forgeries all he needed to do was establish that the principals or facts related to him were erroneous. Mayaki and Mai Manga both provided enough information to assure Wilson that they were not involved and that such a transaction, as related to by the claims presented to him as derived from the documents. The fact that the IAEA actually had been presented the documents by the CIA, and demonstrated quite quickly, that these were forgeries…may have suggested to Wilson that by the time of his trip the CIA DID have in their hands the actual documents…since these conform almost precisely to the quantities and other information he was briefed upon. But that doesn’t mean that he LIED! He was mistaken, and his inference was not all that far out.

BTW If one provides INFORMATION that would establish a document is a forgery before that document comes into the hands of another…and that information, if it was examined, would show that the document is a forgery…has that first individual given evidence that the doc was a forgery?

I would say so!

I believe the Adm. was trying to get the correct info out. They screwed it all up by not just addressing it directly after the info was declassified. By that time, Wilson and friends had already spread the false story about punishing him by outing his wife.

You’re still drinking the Kool-Aid, it seems. They WERE punishing Wilson by outing his wife. They WERE trying to discredit him by suggesting his mission was a junket set up by his wife…and not by a request by the OVP for the CIA to seek out more information.

Of course they were trying to discredit Wilson – his was wrong and he was lying.

Have you followed ANY of the testimony and evidence in this case? Or do you simply filter-feed off the rightwing pundits that are fed the WH line?

Could Wilson’s be the target of a broader investigation?

Nope.

In fact, Fitzgerald’s broader investigation comment is by no means an indication that it is still ongoing, since we know it had to do with Matt Cooper, and as far as we know the other part of the investigation Cooper was involved in had to do with Rove, who appears to be one of those innocent accused.

As for Hadley, the information that he was worried about being indicted never got any kind of reliable confirmation, it was just a rumor.

There’s also the point that this entire trial is taking place because Fitz said that Libby’s lying under oath is what prevented him from getting at the truth.

JGabriel @ 75: Is it possible, or likely, that Scooter didn’t find out Valerie Wilson had a classified NOC standing with the CIA until *after* he leaked to Judy on June 23 but before he met with Sanger on July 2?

Seems plausible enough.

I have often wondered if Armitage realized her identity was classified when he spoke to Novak. It’s possible Armitage was told about Plame but (conveniently) not told her status. Meaning that he got used too.

I’m willing to give Armitage the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was just a complete moron, but I agree that we need to know how he found out about Plame to begin with. Could he have been set up before the fact? I doubt it. I think he blabbed to Woodward and Novak out of sheer stupidity. Novak went to Rove, who then realized that he could spread the story around and then pin it all on Armitage if all hell broke loose.

Armitage doesn’t seem too happy about being played the fool, though, and I’m quite sure he remembers who told him about Plame to begin with. If he thinks the whole thing was a setup, he would have told Fitz (and the FBI) up front. Possible, but not probable. It would, however, explain why the FBI (and then Fitz) were so persistent about their investigation even after Armitage owned up to the leak to Novak.

As for Hadley, the information that he was worried about being indicted never got any kind of reliable confirmation, it was just a rumor.