Help me out. Did a Senate committee report find Wilson misled Congress?

[Quixote1818]

From the Times UK

Mr Wilson’s own version of events about his trip to Niger was thoroughly undermined by a bipartisan Senate committee report a year ago, which found he had misled Congress and the public about his task, and which also found that the uranium from Niger story was one of the few Iraq WMD claims that had not been proved false.

Is this true? Is this just written in a vague way that fails to mention that the claims ended up being proved false later?

[democracyindanger]

1. Whaaaa?

That, I believe, is utter bullshit. If anything, Wilson's doubts of the legitimacy of the Niger documents were proven true.

[napi21]

2. Not that I'm aware of! I don't know how the UK Times got this,

but as far as I know, even the State Dept and the CIA agreed with the findings of Wilson.

[Patchuli]

3. Where's the link? nt

[Quixote1818]

16. Here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-10889-1695599,00.html

[Patchuli]

32. Thanks but I agree with the other poster

that that is merely republican talking points. They are trying to talk Rove out of this and it's not going to work! Besides, it's not like the guy hasn't been fire before for basically doing the same rotten smear tricks.

[progressivebydesign]

4. Nope. That was a RNC talking point. n/t

[Vincardog]

5. No he did not. The Claims were BS the documents were bad

Forgeries. The * administration LIED us into war, No one but the Kool Aid drinkers and true believers doubt it. All the WMD claims were proved false.
Are you joking?

[IndianaGreen]

6. I believe you typed the wrong URL

or that you spent some time watching the Beltway Boys on Faux.

Plame leak timeline:

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline

[Carolab]

7. Then why did the administration admit its mistakes?

The very next day after Wilson's op-ed appeared. Also, read the last paragraph in this piece from kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/13/92358/0186

{snip}

"One other point -- references to a statement from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence are nonsense - the only names on that statement are Republican Senators, including Pat Roberts, who has REFUSED to follow up on his commitment to examine the intelligence failures before 9-11. There is never any mention of the Democratic response to that statement -- perhaps the press, or the blogosphere, should get the corresponding statements from people like Jay Rockefellar, and then we can talk about who approached this issue from a political perspective."


Then there is this:

http://journals.aol.com/bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/1498

The Committee’s report takes a gratuitous shot at Joseph Wilson and his debunking of the fake yellowcake-from-Niger claim: “The Committee does not fault the CIA for exploiting the access of the spouse of a CIA employee traveling to Niger. The Committee believes, however, that it is unfortunate, considering the significant resources available to the CIA, that this was the only option available.”

Most people that have followed that aspect of the story believe that it was even more unfortunate that the US and British governments decided to use that forged document about Niger yellowcake to promote the case for going to war and killing people ever after it had been effectively debunked.

[Alien8ed]

8. No. No such report ever existed.

[librechik]

34. Russert quoted from it this morning in a very damaging way

the bitch.

[jmcon007]

9. I assume you can tell us what he "misled" Congress about?

In the first place, his report didn't say the Niger yellow-cake claim was false, but highly unlikely. And many in Congress are now trying to get people to believe the falsehood that Wilson said he was sent there by Cheney. Wilson never said that.
The other lie they are trying to get people to believe is that he was sent there by his wife as a "boondoggle" according to Rove. Ah, yes. Those romantic Niger evenings.
If there is anything else he's accused of concerning the report itself, I'm not aware of it.

[Carolab]

10. Why not read Joe Wilson's OWN REBUTTAL from 2004?

http://www.yuricareport.com/Impeachment/WilsonDefendsHimselfInLtrToSenate.html

[rumpel]

11. I checked and did a search on their site. It is a commentary dated 7/16/05

A summer storm at Scandal Central
By Gerard Baker, US Editor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-10889-1695599,00.html

on edit fixed typo

[TahitiNut]

12. That's Times "Commentary" from its US Editor -- total propaganda

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1695599,00.html

[LiberalAndProud]

13. Washington post-July 10, 2004

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

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

[punpirate]

21. Wilson sent a letter to the Senate Select Committee...

... correcting their errors, as you're probably aware.

The other thing buried way down in the SSCI report was that the CIA, in its October, 2002, NIE said the claims that Iraq was seeking African uranium were, quote, "highly dubious." I would bet that that phrase was Wilson's.

Pat Roberts was doing the administration's bidding with regard to that report, and as I recall, there were several Democrats on the committee who did not want it released in that form and so objected.

What's bothersome these days is that there's so much misinformation out there now which has not been discarded and is still circulating, that one has a variety of optional scenarios which can be backed up with a news report or a Congressional statement which, in context and over time, has been proven to be untrue.

I think this is part of the strategy of the White House--to simply fill the airwaves with contradictory statements, or repetitions of previous information which was later debunked. That creates a virtual fog of information, some of which is patently false, some partly true and some approaching real truth. The intention is to make plausible denial possible.

Cheers.

[Carolab]

23. See my post #10 above for Wilson's letter/rebuttal. n/t

[Trillo]

31. Bingo, keep 'em (us) deliberately confused.

"to simply fill the airwaves with contradictory statements, or repetitions of previous information which was later debunked"

[TripleD]

36. That's Steno Sue Schmidt's retracted story

Notice the "correction to the right of the story:


_____Correction_____
In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.



The story claims:

...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.... Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger....According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998....

[Quixote1818]

14. OK, here is what I found on this. The Senate committee was three

Republicans and NOT a bipartisan committee.

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/13/oreilly_factor_newt_gingrich_lies_about_ambassador_joseph_wilson.php

From Newshounds,

Keep in mind while you read that whenever Gingrich mentions the Senate Committee report he really means the ADDENDUM to that report supplied by the three Republican members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence over the objections of the Democratic members and without their approval. Senators Pat Roberts, Kit Bond and Orrin Hatch wrote an appendix to the original report specifically targeting Ambassador Wilson's accusations.

[IndianaGreen]

17. And the proof is that no WMD were ever found in Iraq

no matter what a bunch of Republicans say on an Addendum to a report. This is what used to be referred to as a minority report, isn't it?

[LiviaOlivia]

19. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence-Roberts obstructed justice

Upping the Ante, Part I
By Josh Marshall
Jul 14, 2005 -- 05:27:32 PM EST
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/14/172732/082


~snip~

A question for Sen. Roberts (R): The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence used the on-going FBI investigation into the origins of the Niger forgeries as the pretext for not allowing the committee to investigate the matter.

Yet the FBI never mounted a serious investigation. Key principals in the case drew only cursory interviews. No follow-up interview was ever done with Elizabetta Burba, the Italian journalist who brought the forgeries to the American Embassy in Rome. No attempt was ever made to interview the documents peddler at the center of the story -- Rocco Martino -- even though he was twice brought to the United States in the summer of 2004 after his identity as the purveyor of the documents had already been publicly revealed.

Other reporting suggests that the FBI work on the case remained embarrassingly thin as late as the end of last year. The list goes on and on. It was a notional investigation. Sen. Roberts must know this. He must have known that while his committee was using the purported investigation as a pretext for not investigating the matter on their own. Who will call him on it? The ranking member of the SSCI doesn't seem up to the task. But what about Sen. Schumer? The Judiciary Committee has some claim on this issue too. Why doesn't he ask some questions?

[Bossy Monkey]

29. Remember who owns the Times of London. Rhymes with poison hemlock

Ok it doesn't really, but it should. (Rupert Murdoch)

[LiberalAndProud]

15. National Review - July 12, 2004

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV — he of the Hermes ties and Jaguar convertibles — has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies

[LiberalAndProud]

18. Report on prewar intelligence asessments on Iraq

http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

I can't cut and paste here, but both the Washington Post and National Review had to do some very HEFTY interpreting to find that the committee debunked Wilson's claims.

[rumpel]

25. thanks. I was looking for that. The corrupt * gang!

[Stephanie]

20. Are we allowed to post RNC Talking Points at DU?

Even knowing that they are false? What are the guidelines here? I don't like seeing RNC LIES as headlines in DU's GD.

[asianmale]

22. Lies

"Even knowing that they are false? What are the guidelines here? I don't like seeing RNC LIES as headlines in DU's GD"

Why not. Lies need exposure----right?

[Stephanie]

24. Darling

You are so toast.

[Quixote1818]

26. We are not afraid of the truth here on DU. And besides, this was in a UK

Times article and not from the RNC.

I had done a search and found only right wing articles backing up this claim so I came here to ask. I originally asked the question in a different post but no one answered my question so I posted it in a more direct way this time. It appears not too many of us even knew the facts and I had to do another search which took me to Newshounds to figure it out which I posted just above.

Personally I don't think we should be afraid to ask any kind of question here, even if it's from right wing talking points. If it's not true then it will most certainly be disproved. If it is true then as Thomas Jefferson said "We should never be afraid of the truth."

It turns out it's not technically true and was written in a misleading way but at least all the posts above that didn't know how to answer this are more educated than before. Don't you agree?;)

[Stephanie]

30. No, I don't agree

If you post a headline in GD, I expect it to be accurate, and if not, I expect you to correct it. What do you mean it's not technically true? What do you mean "misleading"?

I am not at all satisfied with this answer. Please explain, and please don't post RNC Talking Points as fact at DU without verification.

[TryingToWarnYou]

33. Who died and left you in charge?

The truth needs to be determined. If we all sit around discussing DNC talking points, what does that accomplish? Take the RNC shit, tear it apart and get to the truth.

[Lecky]

35. Huh?

He was just bringing up an RNC talking point to see if we had answers. I don't think he was posting it as fact.

[johnaries]

28. What better place to debunk RNC lies than here at DU?

Whenever I see or hear one of the RNC Lying Points the first place I come to is DU to learn the truth.

[LiberalAndProud]

27. Straight Talk from Media Matters

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502120003

In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee's report (pdf) did not reach a conclusion about how the CIA made its decision, much less "chastise" Wilson, who had denied that his wife had "anything to do" with the CIA's decision. Here's what the report stated:

Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided to the committee indicate that his wife, a former CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador's wife "offered up his name" and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, "my husband has good relations with both 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." This was just one day before CPD sent a cable requesting concurrence with CPD's idea to send the former ambassador to Niger and requesting any additional information from the foreign government service on their uranium reports.

The Senate report did not mention that an unnamed CIA official told the Los Angeles Times that Wilson's denial was accurate. The Times reported on July 15, 2004: "A senior intelligence official said the CIA supports Wilson's version: 'Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going. ... They asked her if he'd be willing to go, and she said yes,' the official said."

Contrary to Gannon's assertions that the Senate Intelligence Committee "chastised" Wilson, it was only Republicans on the committee who "chastised" Wilson. In an additional statement, which was not part of the unanimous bipartisan report, Senators Pat Roberts (R-KS), Christopher S. Bond (R-MO), and Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) attacked Wilson's credibility