Transcendental Bloviation

Politics, Space, Japan

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

My hopes were so high

It's only the day after I posted my $200 reward offer for conclusive evidence that Joe Wilson is a Big Fat Liar. So far, I just keep getting e-mail from people with links to the same scurrilous crap.

I don't understand this. It's so simple, people:

(1) identify the sources with the full, in-context, direct quotes from both Wilson and from the person who demonstrates that he knew he was not telling the truth,

(2) copy, paste, supply URLs,

(3) send it off to leap@gol.com. (If that bounces, try turner@idiom.com)

My promise to you: the $200 check - maybe the easiest money you ever made in your life - goes out the first working day after I've been able to verify your claim.

In fact, the best I've come up with myself is my hazy memory that Joe Wilson recently described the Senate intelligence committee's report as "Republican-written" That's a half-truth at best. On the other hand, it is, at worst, an intemperate, partisan remark by a man who's been goaded into it by accusations of being a liar.

Remember: I'm not asking if Joe Wilson ever lied about anything in his life. After all, he's a career diplomat. I'm asking you to tell me one thing he said about the Niger yellowcake affair, and the Bush administration, that's a provable lie, and I'm asking for the proof. It's really very simple.

10 Comments:

At 6:09 AM, Blogger B. Preston said...

You've already moved the goalposts, Michael. Wilson said explicitly that the Vice President had been briefed on Wilson's Niger findings, when he hadn't. His excuse now is that he just assumed that to be the case, but he offered no such caveats to that effect last year. He made definitive declarative statements concerning whether or not the VP had been briefed. We now know definitely that the VP had not seen Wilson's report. But by your rules, that's not a lie since Wilson has given himself a weasel's way out of it.

Lie #2 (which you also won't accept) is the bit about his wife. He told Josh Marshall she had no role in his trip, when the fact is that she recommended him for that trip. Since being called out on that, he has moved the goalposts to say that she didn't "send" him on it. Of course she didn't "send him" to Niger. She just made sure the right people did send him, by writing up a recommendation for him.

Lie #3, which you also won't accept, is that his findings could in no way have debunked the SOTU 16 words. He went to Niger--one country in Africa. The 16 words concerned UK intel suggesting that Iraq had sought uranium "in Africa." Wilson's trip didn't concern yellow cake trade in all of Africa, just one country in Africa, which was Niger. His claim to have debunked the 16 words was a lie, since he only worked the angle from one country as opposed to looking at the UK finding from a continental perspective.

So did I give you enough to prove three lies, or only one? Do you feel lucky, punk?

 
At 8:14 AM, Blogger Spoons said...

Why bother, B.Preston. This guy's neither serious, nor honest. He doesn't care how many lies you show him, he'll deny everything. It takes a liar to defend a liar, and this guy's well suited for the job.

 
At 8:16 AM, Blogger Spoons said...

I'd love to know what this liar has to say about the Washington Post's lead editorial today on Wilson's lies. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A482-2004Jul20.html)

On second thought, I don't care.

 
At 8:28 AM, Blogger B. Preston said...

Why bother, Spoons? Cashola, pure and simple. I'm a greedy conservative Repugnican out to make a quick buck. And by all rights I'm entitled to 600 of them now.

I accept PayPal. And no yen, Michael. Conversion fees would eat into my earnings.

 
At 9:00 AM, Blogger Spoons said...

Good luck collecting, B.Prestion. This guy's a blowhard.

 
At 1:25 PM, Blogger B. Preston said...

Just in case you want URL proof, here's a set:

First go here, and read the fourth paragraph on page 19. Note the phrase "there was no personal involvement." Wilson is talking about his wife, Valerie Plame, and whether she was involved in his Niger mission or not. Elsewhere in the interview he says she didn't "send" him, but in that paragraph and one or two other places he says she had "no personal involvement" in the mission. On its face, therefore, he says she had no role whatsoever.

That's not what the facts say, though. Witness:

"Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly."

If you'd like to see the actual report, go here, and flip to page 443.

I still accept PayPal.

 
At 9:37 PM, Blogger patrick said...

"Good luck collecting, B.Prestion. This guy's a blowhard."

NO WONDER HE'S A FAN OF JOE WILSON!!

Btw, if Wilson contradicting *himself* isnt a lie (see my response in other thread) then yes, the man has ZERO INTELLECTUAL HONESTY/CREDIBILITY.

Kind of like Joe Wilson.

You want to make comments in a better forum:
GO HERE - Liberating Iraq blog

 
At 9:38 PM, Blogger patrick said...

Joe Wilson, 16 words, and Iraq's pursuit of uranium

 
At 11:04 PM, Blogger jqb said...

> my hazy memory that Joe Wilson recently described the Senate intelligence committee's report as "Republican-written. That's a half-truth at best.

It wasn't a description, it was a reference:

"But your paper's recent article acted as a funnel for this scurrilous and extraneous charge, uncritically citing the Republican-written Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report."

The charge appeared in an *addendum* to the report, and that addendum was in fact written by three Republicans. So it wasn't a half-truth, and it wasn't partisan intemperance; it's a semantic quibble to deny that an addendum to a "Report" is itself a "report". The quibble is not yours, rather your hazy memory probably comes from the disingenuous response from the WaPo ombudsman that the report was bipartisan -- perhaps so, but the *charge* Wilson responded to was most certainly "Republican-written". And that's the kind of crap we're dealing with -- partisan parsing, when there are real issues of state to consider, such as felonious outing of covert CIA operatives.

 
At 11:08 PM, Blogger jqb said...

> So did I give you enough to prove three lies, or only one? Do you feel lucky, punk?

Are people just too stupid to know what a direct quote is, or what? The game, if you wish to play it, is to provide a direct quote from Wilson, and then show that he must have known it was false at the time he made it.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home