Transcendental Bloviation

Politics, Space, Japan

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

It keeps getting funnier

Some people just don't want that $200. That's all. They have the proof that Joe Wilson lied, but they won't condescend to give it to scum like me in the form I demand.

I just got one reply from a guy who says he won't read the instructions for submissions of proof on my blog because he's not interested in visiting it, and he won't take my money because he doesn't like my tone.

My tone.

C'mon, people! Let's say it takes you five minutes to scrape together your case from existing blog entries and URLs. $200 prize money, in 5 minutes. If that were an hourly rate, it would be $2400 per. Maybe some ex-cabinet-officer beltway bandits make that much for sleazy introductions. Maybe some CEOs make that much when you include all the deferred compensation. When was the last time you made so much money so easily?

17 Comments:

At 11:34 AM, Blogger Phoenix_Blogger said...

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2004/07/the_joseph_wils.html

does the above timeline of events fit your criteria?

 
At 1:30 PM, Blogger Rosemary Esmay said...

Wilson claimed that his February 2002 report exposed the Italian documents on Iraqi-Nigerien relations as forgeries. But the CIA didn't have those documents until October 16, 2002.

Here's a link:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/337paflu.asp?pg=2"


Here's a couple quotes: "At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador's comments to reporters . . . could not have been based on the former ambassador's actual experiences because the Intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador's trip."

--

"On at least two occasions [Wilson] admitted that he had [lie]no direct knowledge [lie] to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all.

For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved "a little literary flair."LIAR,LIAR!

 
At 8:54 PM, Blogger patrick said...

This ass-covering statement in Joe Wilson fires back at Senator Roberts his letter to Sen Roberts is a lie:

"I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."

Oh yes you did, Mr Wilson. On Oct 29th you said:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1174083/posts?page=9#9
"I would remind you that had Mr. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries

the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address"

Wilson contradicts his own earlier words.

Earlier, Wilson claimed that Bush lied and that he had evidence that disproved that 'lie'. That is untrue. Mr Wilson lied.

Wilson *claimed* to have evidence that 'disproved' the 16 words in Bush's SOTU. But that is not the case, as *clearly* Joe Wilson had no access to the BRITISH INTELLIGENCE that Bush laid his claim on. British Intel that was *independent* of any forged documents.

 
At 8:56 PM, Blogger patrick said...

Another lie:



"I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents" ...

The reason this is a lie is because the fraudulent document are *NOT* what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address.
It's clear from the Butler report and other independent sources that a 3 year investigation by British intel as the basis of thier information. This is why, when the storm first blew up, the Brits stood by their data. CIA had a different theory, that since Saddam had uranium already why would he need more? (Discounting the pertinent fact that the stuff he had already was subject to inspection so that a secret source could aid unhindered nuke dev.)

 
At 8:59 PM, Blogger patrick said...

Another lie, or at least a partisan-unfounded-untrue-bloviation

Joe Wilson Oct 03 - another statement that now proves untrue:
"The problem is not the intelligence but the manipulation of the intelligence. That will all come out despite Robert's efforts to shift the blame. This was and is a White House issue, not a CIA issue."

Both the Butler report and the Senate intel committee report have put that lie to rest. Wilson was a partisan accuser blowing smoke. What is clear is that unless his wife is telling him CIA secrets, he has no CLUE as to truth of such matters, what CIA NIE was vs what it was not.

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger B. Preston said...

If you were honest, Michael, you'd be writing more than a few checks right now. I don't care about your tone and don't think you're scum, and I found your spam announcing your contest amusing. When I saw that you're in Japan I was even more intrigued, since Tokyo is more or less my second hometown. And I and a few others have posted proof that Wilson lied, complete with URLs. I can't answer for the others, but I made sure to post it in comments rather than send email so that others could evaluate what I'd said and you couldn't weasel out of paying. The proof would be right there on your site where it could be publicly debated. But if you insist on having it emailed, fine. That can be arranged.

You do appear to be weaseling out anyway, or at the very least pretending that I and others haven't posted the proof that Wilson lied. Too bad. Proving Wilson is a liar is easy money.

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger patrick said...

Another Wilson lie is the BS that he supported Bush in 2000 ...

Joe Wilson publicly (on Larry King) posed as a Republican who voted GOP in 2000, Wrong.
to partisan democrats admitted he was against bush from the get-go:

"At what point did you lose faith in the Bush Administration and why exactly do you fell that John Kerry is the best candidate?

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:09:25 AM)
When Bush the candidate went to South Carolina and ran a subrosa campaign against McCain accusing his wife of being a drug addict and his kids of not being white (as if that mattered). That is not the change of tone I was looking for. When the neoconservatives got control of our national security policy, I knew we needed to mobilize to fight."


The lie that Wilson supported Bush is even in some book reviews:
http://20th-century-history-books.com/078671378X.html
"Wilson's animus toward the administration is made stronger by his support of the president in the 2000 election and he held out hope that a centrist conservative approach would help America's position in the world"

Did nobody notice that in fact Wilson gave money to Gore's campaign?

 
At 9:06 PM, Blogger patrick said...

Another Wilson lie was his unfounded allegations against Cheney. ...


*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:15:51 AM)
The important thing in Sy's article is that Cheney clearly shot-circuited the vetting process and allowed bad information to remain in the system. We spend 40 billion dollars a year to avoid just such stupidity.

We know now that this is complete nonsense, a fabrication. Cheney asked for CIA clarification, but the result of Wilson's visit, which the CIA assessed as *lending more credibility* to the view that Saddam wanted uranium, was not communicated back to Cheney. Cheney short-circuited nothing.
The CIA assessment was never tampered with.

And as Safire has said, the Sixteen Words were Sixteen Truthful Words. Leave Cheney out of it, Mr Wilson, you lied about him!

 
At 9:15 PM, Blogger patrick said...

Wilson's Basic Lie ...
is captured in this comment he made to Kerry supporters in Oct 2003, it's the point of his attack-book and the reason for the Nick Krisof column and his 15 mins of fame. That he had some info to "disprove" bush's 16 words in the SOTU. Wilson told Kristof as much at a Democrat function in may 2003, which got the ball rolling ...
In Oct 2003 he said this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1174083/posts?page=9#9

"I would remind you that had Mr. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries
the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address"

The lies are these:
1. Cheney had nothing to do with inclusion of the words.
2. The statement was NOT AT ALL based on the forgeries, which were not relevant to British intels data.
3. Bush said "British intelligence" so how does that get impacted in *any way* by what Wilson did/said? It doesnt. Which part of British Intelligence does Joe Wilson not understand?
4. There NOW we know that IN FACT the British intelligence was according to the Butler report "well founded". Remember, Bush's quote is that Saddam "sought" uranium, and the reason for this conclusion it turns out is that Brit intel was traking Iraqi delegations going to podunk Sub-saharan countries that sell nothing but sand, goats, and uranium and looking for trade deals. Iraq already has goats and sand, thank you.

It's really simple: Wilson meets Kristof at a Democrat function, Wilson hates Bush and has an angle to get at him. So a politically motivated attack on the President gets going. For a year, the ploy works, since it turns out CIA WMD estimates were off anyway ... but now the investigations come out making clear the REAL TIMELINE REFUTES WHAT WILSON WAS SAYING.

Wilson is a liar.

Your money is safe only if your intellectual honesty isnt.

 
At 9:33 PM, Blogger patrick said...

B. Preston -

I am up to five or more lies and not even talking about Wilson's lie about his wife having nothing to do with Niger trip, and then the *memo* coming out where she recommends him.

This is fish-in-a-barrel.

MICHAEL _ SHOW ME THE MONEY !

I suggest the blogger find a more
like saying Wilson's comments were 'inadvertent' or something like that.

 
At 11:50 PM, Blogger jqb said...

"I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."

"I would remind you that had Mr. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address"

The latter is quite obviously not a claim to have debunked anything. Conveniently, dishonestly, and explicitly contrary to Turner's instructions, you omit the full context of the first quote:

----
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.” After it became public that there were then Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick’s report and the report from a four star Marine Corps General, Carleton Fulford in the files of the U. S. government, 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 and did not occur. I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney’s original question that led to my trip. The White House must have agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for the President told the Washington Post that “the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union.”
----

"The reason this is a lie is because the fraudulent document are *NOT* what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address.
It's clear from the Butler report and other independent sources that a 3 year investigation by British intel as the basis of thier information."

Since Wilson wasn't privy to that report at the time he made his statement, it doesn't show he lied; being mistaken is not lying. Sheesh.

As for whether Wilson voted for Bush in 2000, keep in mind the Bush claimed that Ken Lay supported Ann Richards for Governor of Texas, hah hah.

Wilson says
"When the neoconservatives got control of our national security policy, I knew we needed to mobilize to fight."

Which of course happened after Bush was elected in 2000. There are plenty of people who voted for Bush even after he trashed McCain, but later regretted it.

As for Wilson on Sy Hersh's article about Cheney short-circuiting the vetting process, it's not a lie if he believed it when he said it. You write "We know now ..." pretty much acknowledging that you're another mentally defective wingnut.

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger Michael Turner said...

jqb: while your defense is largely the kind of response I'd offer (I haven't scrutinized it) please do not call anyone in my comment section a "mentally defective wingnut."

We all fall prey to confirmation bias. For all I know, I myself might have fallen prey to confirmation bias. That doesn't make you stupid, or crazy, except perhaps situationally.

To all others: I 90% finished preparing a response to the comments on this entry so far. But there may be another 90% I don't know about, and any reply may be moot before I'm finished with it. Your comments here don't qualify under the rules I've posted recently, but some of you can expect some clemency, since you didn't have the rules clearly outlined before, in public. Mea culpa.

I'll probably allow those who have commented in ways that don't comply with the rules to, in effect, retroactively backdate any subsequent e-mail to me and to any judges who turn up, if they want to submit rules-compliant claims with substantially the same substance as a comment here, or private e-mail to me, provided that there's a close enough match in the quotes. This is, of course, only an issue if it looks like there is some question of deciding between a rules-compliant contender and someone who said much the same before the rules were clearly posted.

Apologies for being such an inept bureaucrat. I've never run a contest before ....

 
At 12:24 AM, Blogger jqb said...

> That doesn't make you stupid, or crazy, except perhaps situationally.

Ok, then I'll add "... in this case".

 
At 2:00 AM, Blogger hjkl said...

You said you will love me wow gold the whole life, but WoW Gold you marry her. You said you will wow power leveling,come to marry me, but this will not be carried out forever.WoW Gold I am trying my best to forget you and do not love you anymore. wow leveling But I failed and I still love you. Maybe wow leveling she needs you more compared wow leveling with me. So I tell you that world of warcraft power leveling you should love world of warcraft power leveling her and take good world of warcraft leveling care of her. You said I was so kind.world of warcraft leveling Yes, because I love you,world of warcraft leveling I hope you will be power leveling happy forever.

 
At 2:23 AM, Anonymous Sbobet said...

Thanks for the info, maybe I can use this ended my tufted marketing and I've been use untold anulus media in run a interaction and they someone existing a big amend on me. 338A Casino

 
At 2:32 AM, Anonymous Liga Inggris said...

Thanks for the info, maybe I can use this ended my tufted marketing and I've been use untold anulus media in run a interaction and they someone existing a big amend on me. Jadwal Liga Inggris Klasemen Liga Inggris

 
At 8:18 PM, Blogger michael angelo rosal said...


Hi there! This blog post could not be written any better! Going through this post reminds me of my previous roommate! He always kept talking about this. I am going to send this post to him. Fairly certain he's going to have a great read. Thank you for sharing! Well also I will share my thoughts on
agen ibcbet
agen bola
agen bola
agen sbobet

 

Post a Comment

<< Home