Is Joe Wilson a credible source?

[daveymark]

I'm hearing more and more of the media attention being placed on Joe Wilson. Is he a credible source?

WaPo article (some snippets below)

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

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.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.

Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger

 

[kogase]

It all depends on what he's saying. If I want to believe it, he's credible. If I don't want to believe it, he's the destroyer of my faux reality--and therefore not credible.

 

[miketheidiot]

no more or less credible than the average person.

 

[johnnobts]

Is he a credible source? Well, he had his picture in Vanity Fair so he must be credible!

all kidding aside, Wilson was proven to be a liar, most people in the intelligence business (both Democrat and Republican) are furious with his conduct. This is why the Kerry campaign distanced themselves from Wilson as soon as the facts concerning his statements were being flushed out.

 

[CQuinn]

Yes he is a credible source. The CIA thought he was credible enough to send on the
fact finding mission to Niger in the first place.

Whether or not he is an totally accurate source is another question, but that is why
the CIA employs Intelligence analysts in the first place; because no source, no
matter how credible, can be completely trusted with the accuracy of the information
they provide without further backing up that information from other sources.

Ultimately Wilson was just a piece of the puzzle, there was far more false "evidence"
coming from some of the Iraqi- dissidents close to the administration as a case for war
than what Wilson brought to the table.

 

[shira]

The central issue in the Plame incident is not whether Wilson was or was not accurate in his assessment of the claimed Iraq-Niger "link".

What is relevant is that this administration was claiming to the American people that the "link" was airtight, and this "proved" that Saddam was aggressively pursuing development of nuclear weapons. This claim continued to be made even well after the CIA basically told the Adminstration that the intelligence supporting the link was highly questionable. Thus, when Joe Wilson, whether completely accurate or not, wrote his July 2003 Op-ed piece questioning the Administration's assertions, the Bush team went into search and destroy mode to make clear that NO ONE embarasses this admininstration and gets away with it. THAT'S the issue: The Bushies tried to punish someone for making explicit just how corrupt and deceitful the "case for war" was.

 

[Bowfinger]

The OP is old news, already discussed in the other thread. I think this piece from the Christian Science Monitor answers it nicely, however:

Rove leak is just part of larger scandal
By Daniel Schorr

WASHINGTON - Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.

In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."

Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.

No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.

One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a supersecret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.

The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.

In short, Wilson's credibility is immaterial. The facts are well-established now, Wilson was right and BushCo was wrong. Nonetheless, BushCo forged ahead using bogus claims to justify invading a country posing no significant threat to the United States.


(I'll post this article in the other Rove thread as well. I assume this redundant thread will be locked sooner or later.)

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Is he a credible source? Well, he had his picture in Vanity Fair so he must be credible!

all kidding aside, Wilson was proven to be a liar, most people in the intelligence business (both Democrat and Republican) are furious with his conduct. This is why the Kerry campaign distanced themselves from Wilson as soon as the facts concerning his statements were being flushed out.

Yeah too bad wilson was pretty much 100% right about the Iraq war and WMD's while your Boy Bush was completely wrong. Maybe you got "Bush" and "Wilson" mixed up while typing out your tripe.

 

[db]

What does it matter? The point is, someone outed his wife and that is criminal.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

When the Swift Boat Vets started slamming Kerry, the left mobilized and did their absolute best to slime them.

Now when Wilson comes out with a claim that was subsequently shown to be wrong in the SCI report, and he released classified material in doing so, and his credibility is being brought into question, what are those same Swifty slimers saying? Wilson's credibility is not 'important.'

LOL. Their hypocrisy is just stunning.

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Is he a credible source? Well, he had his picture in Vanity Fair so he must be credible!

all kidding aside, Wilson was proven to be a liar, most people in the intelligence business (both Democrat and Republican) are furious with his conduct. This is why the Kerry campaign distanced themselves from Wilson as soon as the facts concerning his statements were being flushed out.

Umm, he was proved right with his assertions that Bush was rushing to war based on sh!t. WIlson proved Bush to be a liar (or a totally inept "leader", take your pick). Who is trustworthy? I would take Wilson's word long before Bush's. No contest.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: johnnobts
Is he a credible source? Well, he had his picture in Vanity Fair so he must be credible!

all kidding aside, Wilson was proven to be a liar, most people in the intelligence business (both Democrat and Republican) are furious with his conduct. This is why the Kerry campaign distanced themselves from Wilson as soon as the facts concerning his statements were being flushed out.

Umm, he was proved right with his assertions that Bush was rushing to war based on sh!t. WIlson proved Bush to be a liar (or a totally inept "leader", take your pick). Who is trustworthy? I would take Wilson's word long before Bush's. No contest.

His op-ed was proven wrong in the SCI report.

As far as Wilson himself:

Text

But on Thursday, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson admitted that "we all believed" Saddam had WMD.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: db
What does it matter? The point is, someone outed his wife and that is criminal.

Actually no it is not. She was desk jockey at the CIA and had not been an undercover agent for more than 5 years. She was not outed, because she could not be outed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hhhhmmm, considering that what he reported about the extreme unlikelihood of any Iraqi/Nigerien uranium deal turned out to be right on the money, I'd say he was pretty credible... damned near clairvoyant, too, if you believe any of the after the fact spin put on it all by Bushfans... According to them, he was the only one who had it figured out, a voice in the wilderness, lost in the bureaucratic paperwork... Funny how they can still attack a guy who was demonstrably right all along...

But, don't let that get in the way of the character assassination, don't let the central facts of the matter interfere with the spin... Return to that blissful state of Denial. Reminds me of the furry little locker dwellers from "Men in Black II"... All Hail Bush!

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: db
What does it matter? The point is, someone outed his wife and that is criminal.

Actually no it is not. She was desk jockey at the CIA and had not been an undercover agent for more than 5 years. She was not outed, because she could not be outed.

This is speculation, NOT fact. There is plenty of evidence contradicting this oft-parroted propaganda point. Perhaps we'll know for sure when the investigation is complete.

By the way, this is still redundant with the other thread.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
His op-ed was proven wrong in the SCI report.

This is just as false in this thread as it is in the other. Wilson was right about Iraq and Niger.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

When the Swift Boat Vets started slamming Kerry, the left mobilized and did their absolute best to slime them.

Now when Wilson comes out with a claim that was subsequently shown to be wrong in the SCI report, and he released classified material in doing so, and his credibility is being brought into question, what are those same Swifty slimers saying? Wilson's credibility is not 'important.'

LOL. Their hypocrisy is just stunning.

What do you possibly have to gain by continuing to defend the defenseless? The house of cards is tumbling down all around you and you still see an intact structure.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: db
What does it matter? The point is, someone outed his wife and that is criminal.

Actually no it is not. She was desk jockey at the CIA and had not been an undercover agent for more than 5 years. She was not outed, because she could not be outed.

This is speculation, NOT fact. There is plenty of evidence contradicting this oft-parroted propaganda point. Perhaps we'll know for sure when the investigation is complete.

By the way, this is still redundant with the other thread.

Maybe joe should not have mentioned that his wife works at the cia in his book then...

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

When the Swift Boat Vets started slamming Kerry, the left mobilized and did their absolute best to slime them.

Now when Wilson comes out with a claim that was subsequently shown to be wrong in the SCI report, and he released classified material in doing so, and his credibility is being brought into question, what are those same Swifty slimers saying? Wilson's credibility is not 'important.'

LOL. Their hypocrisy is just stunning.

Except a well respected prosecutor is going after rove for a crime, whereas the SVFT guys were a bunch of political smear artists used for an election.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

When the Swift Boat Vets started slamming Kerry, the left mobilized and did their absolute best to slime them.

Now when Wilson comes out with a claim that was subsequently shown to be wrong in the SCI report, and he released classified material in doing so, and his credibility is being brought into question, what are those same Swifty slimers saying? Wilson's credibility is not 'important.'

LOL. Their hypocrisy is just stunning.

What do you possibly have to gain by continuing to defend the defenseless? The house of cards is tumbling down all around you and you still see an intact structure.

The only thing falling apart is the attempt to get rove.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
His op-ed was proven wrong in the SCI report.

This is just as false in this thread as it is in the other. Wilson was right about Iraq and Niger.

You just miss one fact after another, don't you? I alrady posted this previously. Not surprised you missed it. You'd probably be ignorant once again and claim I was running:

As far as Wilson himself:

Text

But on Thursday, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson admitted that "we all believed" Saddam had WMD.

Wilson thought, like so many, that Saddam had WMDs.

His ope-ed was BS.

Once again you're wrong. You might want go back to the other thread. Unfortunately, you're not doing any better in that thread either.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: db
What does it matter? The point is, someone outed his wife and that is criminal.

Actually no it is not. She was desk jockey at the CIA and had not been an undercover agent for more than 5 years. She was not outed, because she could not be outed.

This is speculation, NOT fact. There is plenty of evidence contradicting this oft-parroted propaganda point. Perhaps we'll know for sure when the investigation is complete.

By the way, this is still redundant with the other thread.

Maybe joe should not have mentioned that his wife works at the cia in his book then...

Why not? The horse was already out of the barn. You're changing the subject ... again.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: db
What does it matter? The point is, someone outed his wife and that is criminal.

Actually no it is not. She was desk jockey at the CIA and had not been an undercover agent for more than 5 years. She was not outed, because she could not be outed.

This is speculation, NOT fact. There is plenty of evidence contradicting this oft-parroted propaganda point. Perhaps we'll know for sure when the investigation is complete.

By the way, this is still redundant with the other thread.

Ayup, Joe ( the liar ) Wilsons credibility is not the issue here. Like Bow said, the issue is whether or not Karl Rove broke the law. We will probably know when the investigation is complete.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

When the Swift Boat Vets started slamming Kerry, the left mobilized and did their absolute best to slime them.

Now when Wilson comes out with a claim that was subsequently shown to be wrong in the SCI report, and he released classified material in doing so, and his credibility is being brought into question, what are those same Swifty slimers saying? Wilson's credibility is not 'important.'

LOL. Their hypocrisy is just stunning.

What do you possibly have to gain by continuing to defend the defenseless? The house of cards is tumbling down all around you and you still see an intact structure.

The only thing falling apart is the attempt to get rove.

TLC I honestly think that if Rove had committed murder (literally) he is close enough to the president to get away with it. All the evidence would be swept under the rug. Just my opinion. I think that is what bothers most of us. He is bullet proof. I have to give him credit where credit is due. He has shield that the truth will simply not penetrate.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
His op-ed was proven wrong in the SCI report.

This is just as false in this thread as it is in the other. Wilson was right about Iraq and Niger.

You just miss one fact after another, don't you? I alrady posted this previously. Not surprised you missed it. You'd probably be ignorant once again and claim I was running:

As far as Wilson himself:

Text

But on Thursday, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson admitted that "we all believed" Saddam had WMD.

Wilson thought, like so many, that Saddam had WMDs.

And?

His ope-ed was BS.

Other than being right on everything -- or at least everything of material importance, I didn't dissect it word by word.

Once again you're wrong. You might want go back to the other thread. Unfortunately, you're not doing any better in that thread either.