Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

letter by Joe Wilson to Senate SC on Intelligence, FWIW

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 07:21 PM
Original message
letter by Joe Wilson to Senate SC on Intelligence, FWIW
Edited on Wed Jul-13-05 07:24 PM by steve2470
<snip>
July 15, 2004


The Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Hon. Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Dear Sen. Roberts and Sen. Rockefeller,

I read with great surprise and consternation the Niger portion of Sens. Roberts, Bond and Hatch's additional comments to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessment on Iraq. I am taking this opportunity to clarify some of the issues raised in these comments.

First conclusion: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife, sent to her superiors that says, "My husband has good relations with the PM 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." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated that "the former ambassador's wife 'offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State Department intelligence and research officer stated that the "meeting was 'apparently convened by wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium-related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the reports officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in the "additional comments." I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/

edited to add the date of the letter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, one would think that would settle that
But Mehlman and his wrecking crew are so busy making noise they'll act like they don't hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KT2000 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Look how difficult it is
to get the truth into the Report from someone who was a participant. At least Wilson is still out there trying to get the truth out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 07:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. So that was in Salon one year ago? And the Toensings and the
Gingrichs didn't read it?

Slime thngs. Pure slime. I feel sorry for them.

It is interesting to watch how low they go as humans and still pretend that they are the epitomy of people who will help bring honor and dignity back to the WH after the Clintons and Gores.

Slime - they've had a year and they knew this was coming - Fitzgerald was appointed two years ago (wasn't it?).

That Salon article is July 15, 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
housewolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Always remember the Suskind quote...
Edited on Wed Jul-13-05 08:15 PM by housewolf
to paraphrase, "we are history's actors and we create reality, those of you in the reality-based community merely report of what we do. While you are busy reporting on what we just did we'll be off creating something else."


It doesn't matter whether they read it or not. It doesn't serve their purposes today so they'll distort it however they want. This is what makes them so infuriating.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-13-05 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
4. Stay on their asses Joe until the Rove/Cheney duo is brought to justice.
Edited on Wed Jul-13-05 07:52 PM by oasis
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC