Spies Vs. Lies

Valerie Plame is giving a major interview in the U.S. later today to discuss her new book, Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House.

[color=brown]
The lies:
[/color]

[quote=“President Bush, March 17, 2003”]Denial and Deception

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . .

The regime has . . . aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. . . .

The danger is clear: using . . . nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other. . . .

Recognizing the threat to our country, the United States Congress voted overwhelmingly last year to support the use of force against Iraq. America tried to work with the United Nations to address this threat because we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. . . .

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council’s long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. . . .

We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities. . . . [/quote]

[color=brown]
The Spies:
[/color]

[quote=“Valerie Plame”]In a new memoir, former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson recounts her shock as she watched then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing before the United Nations on the eve of war, deliver what she knew to be a flawed portrait of the intelligence on Iraq.

“It was a powerful presentation,” she wrote, “but I knew key parts of it were wrong.” . . .

She and her colleagues, she wrote, believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding chemical and biological weapons, which she feared would be used against U.S. troops. But there was scant evidence to support those concerns, and she was certain that the president and his aides were publicly exaggerating the nuclear threat posed by Iraq at the time.

“What we struggled so hard to obtain was much too thin and not nearly robust enough to start a war over,”[/quote]

Denial? Did the US government ever deny that it did not find wmds?

Deception? When did it “lie?”

We were wrong but no one else not even Hans Blix believed otherwise at the time. Remember that until Feb. 20, he was convinced (his own words) that Iraq had wmds. Then, after Feb. 20, he “wasn’t sure.”

[quote]
The regime has . . . aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. . . . [/quote]

But that was true.

emphasis on “could.”

and 12 years and 17 binding resolutions was not proof of that? What a rush to war that was over 4 administrations.

Neither did “no” nation, nor did the UN claim that it had disarmed so where’s the lie?

Despite finding no wmds, this was the conclusion of both the Butler and Duelfer reports.

Is this not true?

Butler and Duelfer reports both concluded that while no wmds were found, Saddam was a credible threat.

Whoops! There goes the “imminent threat” argument, which you yourself have claimed that Bush was making… Wanna change your tune now? Were you lying earlier when you said otherwise? or are you lying now?

emphasis on could…

so acting now rather than later… so much for the “imminent” threat or 45 minute thread song and dance… eh?

Finally, Plame can believe whatever she likes but the HEADS of these agencies IN CONJUNCTION with the president were to come up with conclusions and credible action plans. This merely underscores Cheney’s point about the CIA all along. Certain members had their own PERSONAL views and positions, and they were acting willfully to sabotage any agency that disagreed with them including the White House, itself. Are you sure that this exchange actually buttresses the points that you are “trying” to make Spook. Seems as if you have a very weak case and one that is counterfactual to the positions that you are espousing. Nothing new…

Those of us who have actually read Duelfer know that it concluded that Saddam didn’t want weapons of mass destruction to attack the U.S. with but to protect Iraq from any future attack by Iran.

That is one statement among many in this report. There were many others regarding Saddam and his intentions. Funny that you did not bother to focus on those. They were listed far more prominently than this particular sentence. Oh… But that would not prove that Bush lied and troops died? Gotcha! Big Time!

HUH!

I thought this thread was going to be a confess-all by Spook…turning over a new leaf and all that.

Not another kicking the dead horse of the Plame Affair…Judge Backs C.I.A. in Suit on Memoir:smiley:

That is one statement among many in this report. There were many others regarding Saddam and his intentions. Funny that you did not bother to focus on those. They were listed far more prominently than this particular sentence. Oh… But that would not prove that Bush lied and troops died? Gotcha! Big Time![/quote]
[color=blue]
Duelfer Report, Regime Strategic Intent, p. 31[/color]

“Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the Unites States, according to Tariq 'Aziz and the presidential secretary.”

“Saddam said he wanted to develop better relations with the US over the latter part of the 1990s. He said, however, that he was not given a chance because the US refused to listen to anything Iraq had to say.”
[color=blue]
Duelfer Report, Regime Strategic Intent, p. 29[/color]

“Saddam believed that WMD was necesarry to counter Iran.”

Your turn.

I feel as if I keep reposting this information over and over again. I truly have become Sisyphus in my efforts to deal with the liberal and/or paranoid Jew-hating conservative mind… Note that these are the KEY findings… not those that have to be gleaned from pages 31 and 32…

[quote]What follows are the unedited “Key Findings” from the report issued by Charles Duelfer, Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction:

Regime Strategic Intent

Key Findings

Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

� Saddam totally dominated the Regime�s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq�s strategic policy.

� Saddam�s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections�to gain support for lifting sanctions�with his intention to preserve Iraq�s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.

� The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad�s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

� By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq�s WMD capability�which was essentially destroyed in 1991�after sanctions were removed and Iraq�s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability�in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks�but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

� Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq�s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.

� Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam�s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam�s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi�a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.

� The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.[/quote]

So while Iran was the CHIEF threat to Saddam, we must also note that this was NOT the concern of either the US or the UN. He was not to develop ANY wmds for ANY reason. Back to you…

Nothing whatsoever, of course, in Duelfer stating that Saddam was a strategic threat to the US – which is the point.

Notice lines 7 and 8 from the bottom in Fred’s offerings: “Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi offi cials considered Iran to be Iraq�s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.”

Fred, did you edit your post after I replied to it? :no-no:

I’m glad to see though that you’re finally clear that Duelfer concluded that Iran was Iraq’s enemy and not the US. I consider that a good day’s work.

Katie Couric: “Did you ever hear about anything that happened to anyone with whom you had contact as a result of the leak?”

Valerie Plame: “Yes I have. That’s all I can say.”

Nope. What do you think was changed? I changed nothing whatsoever to my post.

Spook, Saddam could consider Iran his primary enemy but that did not make him a nonthreat to the Persian Gulf and its oil supply. That was a strategic threat to the US and its allies. Sorry, but I really do not see that you are capable of moving past your obsessions on this subject. Busy this week and the next and so… play with yourself. Bye bye now.

I know how much spookster loves conspiracies and cloak and dagger stuff so I thought I would see if he is equally interested in the ramblings of the “other side.” haha

[quote]November 07, 2005
Joseph Wilson IV: The French Connection
By James Lewis
There are an amazing number of French fingerprints all over the Plame—Wilson affair. While it is not easy to penetrate the dark fog of lies, there is a highly consistent pattern pointing to French government involvement with a Watergate—style assault on the American Presidency, fronted by Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

In 2002 French intelligence forged the notorious document claiming that Saddam tried to obtain Niger uranium. The Italian middle man, Rocco Martino, later confessed to French involvement in open court. Rocco Martino might sound like a small—time mafia hood from the Sopranos. Actually, he works at times for Italian military intelligence. The truth about the French connection came out when Martino confessed in court that the French had given him the forged document to peddle to various intelligence agencies. The Italians and French have had a furious war of words ever since then about who was responsible for the forgery.

The FBI just leaked a claim that Rocco did it just for the money. That is very doubtful. The French naturally deny any responsibility, but the forged document was dropped on the public at exactly the time that Dominique de Villepin, then Foreign Minister, was in New York trying to make Colin Powell believe that France was prepared to help overthrow Saddam. The French forgery was a stink bomb, designed to be exposed in public as soon as Colin Powell publicly accepted it.

At the very same time the Niger forgery showed up, France’s Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, was sand bagging Secretary Powell at the UN by pretending to support American efforts against Saddam — even as he got ready to pull out the rug in a surprise press conference. Reporter Kenneth Timmerman told Brit Hume for FoxNews that:

“Our administration thought that the French were with us, that French had dispatched their top general to Centcom, Chirac had promised the president (to support the United States against Saddam). Villepin the foreign minister had promised Powell. They said they were with us, and they weren’t. …”

“So then de Villepin goes outside at noontime. … Powell is actually watching Fox News… as de Villepin goes on TV … And that’s when he announces to the world that France will never ever support the use of force against Saddam Hussein. … Powell’s jaw dropped to the floor…”

It was a carefully planned ambush. Timmerman summed it up by saying that

“Chirac lied to the president of the United States, and then he ordered his Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to do the same thing with Colin Powell.”

And then, they pulled the plug.

De Villepin’s ambush triggered a giant anti—American firestorm in Europe and around the world. Germans, French, Brits and Swedes were foaming at the mouth for months and months. France was therefore extremely successful in discrediting American policy against Saddam.

But that was not enough, because Saddam was quickly knocked over by the US—led coalition forces. Somehow the media fires had to be kept alive. The “Bush lied us into war” slogan had to be kept going in the minds of the public.

Enter our hero, Joseph C. Wilson, from stage left. The French forgery about Niger led straight to Wilson’s bogus trip to Africa. Wilson supposedly went there to find out the truth for the CIA. But every government involved already knew the truth about the bogus document, because it showed incorrect names of Niger officials. A single telephone call to Niger would have established that fact.

The reason why Wilson had to travel to Niger in person to “investigate,” while drinking mint tea with his uranium mining friends, was to establish his bona fides — to make him an instant “expert witness” on Saddam’s dealings with Niger. Did French intelligence urge Wilson to make his trip and enlist his wife Valerie to propose him? Without that trip, Joseph C. Wilson had no special claim to any expertise about Saddam’s weapons. It was Valerie Plame who was the CIA WMD expert, but it was Wilson who became the front man.

Notice that the modus operandi for the Wilson trip was much the same as for the Niger forgery: a classic con game. Find a sucker, tell him what he wants to hear, and use that credulous embrance by the mark to destroy your enemy. In the first case the sucker was Colin Powell. In the second case it was the New York Times Op—Ed page. In both cases the enemy to be shafted was George W. Bush and the administration. This is how disinformation is supposed to work.

Joseph Wilson had intimate French connections for many years before his mint tea—sipping journey to Niger. In fact, he met his first wife at the French Embassy in Washington. His second wife, Jacqueline, to whom he was still married when he took up with Valerie Plame, was a former French diplomat. There is even a report that she was a ‘cultural attach�’ in Francophone Africa, a post often used as cover for intelligence operatives, though this remains quite a murky point, as tradecraft suggests it should.

Today Wilson claims to be a business agent for “African mining companies.” But Niger’s mines are owned by a French consortium, which operates cheek—by—jowl with the Quai d’Orsay. Niger itself is a semi—colony of France. No uranium sales go on there without the full knowledge and consent of the French government. Valerie Plame was quoted in a CIA memo as saying that “my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts)…” Lots of French contacts, indeed.

Wilson exploded into public view, and spent two years barnstorming around the country, giving outraged speeches to publicize the idea that he had found the smoking gun to prove Bush had lied. Moveon.org and their friends were happy to believe him.

Wilson was interviewed on PBS and NPR, and wrote a book, now thoroughly discredited, to push his anti—Bush agenda. In the process he told so many lies that he lost track of them himself. But that made no difference. The media and the Left leaped on the story like manna from heaven; or, possibly, like fine champagne from France.

Well, hypothetically just suppose for a moment that Wilson’s strings are being pulled by the French. What motivates the French government? They have been very clear about that.

Jacques Chirac and his close ally Dominique de Villepin have long proclaimed France to be the strategic enemy of American power. Paris openly yearns to lead the European Union to superpower status, in order to undermine American “hegemony,” and above all for the eternal grandeur of la belle France. De Villepin has written books vilifying the United States; he is an open French imperialist, who conceives of himself as a world—historic figure in the mold of his personal heroes Napoleon and Niccolo Machiavelli.

France’s short—term aim for the Niger forgery was to block US actions against Saddam Hussein, or at least to discredit America in the run—up to the Iraq war. The long—term strategic purpose was to drive a wedge between the US and Europe, so that the European Union — guided by France — could be persuaded to revolt against fifty years of US leadership of the West.

This strategy succeeded, but not completely. The American action in Iraq provoked massive public fury in Europe, whipped up by the government—owned media and the Left. It caused a rift in public opinion that continues today. Had Tony Blair not gone along with President Bush against Saddam, the EU might now be going on its separate way, aiming for world domination, just as de Villepin has fervently advocated. If the EU Constitution had been approved, as the media confidently predicted it would be, Jacques Chirac might now be running to be the first president of Europe.

For decades France has conducted major industrial espionage in the United States. Having Wilson as a source on Clinton’s National Security Council would be an obvious boon for that purpose. Had John Kerry won the 2004 election, Wilson might now be back in the White House, perhaps helping his good friends abroad. He was therefore a very good prospect for French intelligence to cultivate, especially given the lax security standards of the Clinton years. And if Wilson and Plame do succeed in bringing down George W. Bush, Chirac and de Villepin would be overjoyed.

French hatred of American power is the reason why France pressured Turkey (anxious to enter the EU) to block the US IV Infantry Division from crossing Iraq’s northern border to help knock over Saddam Hussein. Had the IV ID hit Saddam from the North while Tommy Franks attacked from the South, the current Iraqi insurrection might have been crushed even before it got started, the Baathist hardcore unable to flee north to the Sunni Triangle and entrench itself among the small percentage of Iraqis who benefited from Saddam’s rule. The original plan envisioned just such a pincer movement. We therefore owe many of our 2,000 soldiers’ deaths to deliberate and malicious French sabotage, with thanks to Dominique de Villepin and Jacques Chirac.

There is every reason to believe that France desperately wants this White House to be weakened or overthrown. They would be happy with Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat as president, because the Euro—socialist, non—interventionist base of that party is compatible with French policies and strategies. European emphasis on the United Nations as the forum for handling international conflicts plays to France’s strongest asset in world affairs, its veto—wielding Security Council seat, and its large number of Francophone former colonies, each with a vote in the General Assembly. A strong America wielding its mighty military force is de Villepin’s worst nightmare.

What about France and Wilson? While we do not know all the facts, there is no question that Joseph Wilson has acted precisely as we might expect from an agent provocateur. He worked fervently to undermine the Bush White House with plainly false accusations, putting the Niger forgery to very good use. Joe Wilson calls himself a business agent for unnamed “African mining companies.” We can reasonably guess that he made those contacts during his several postings in Francophone West Africa, possibly when he was Ambassador to Gabon, another former French colony, at the culmination of his State Department career.

Wilson claims credit for persuading Bill Clinton to make a heavily hyped trip to French Africa, tossing millions of US aid dollars to the local dictatorships, including, possibly, some of Wilson’s friends. So Wilson apparently works as a consultant for French—owned mining companies in Africa, which would allow him to be openly paid by those companies. None of this makes for a smoking gun, but it is certainly, at minimum, an interesting coincidence that a man with such extensive and intimate French connections should be conducting a ferocious nationwide crusade against the President of the United States, who also happens to be hated by the French government.

Was Wilson acting on his own in planting the Times Op—Ed? Were Valerie Plame and her friends at CIA pulling strings? Or was it other Democrats? There is plenty of evidence for CIA backing of Wilson and Plame, as many have previously noted. There may be nothing more to it than a failed CIA WMD intelligence group covering itself with a manufactured diversionary scandal.

But for someone with Wilson’s ego, simple flattery by the “sophisticated” French might be a powerful tool of manipulation. He has all the appearance of a wounded narcissist, someone who needs the attention of the world to make up for his inner deficiencies. When the Soviet KGB ran agents all over the Western world they rarely bothered to pay them. They were “idealists” whose vanity could be easily manipulated.

Is all that tangled enough for you? Keep in mind that the whole affair may be a classic disinformation campaign, run by the pros who make their living doing just that. Just as Watergate showed how Mark Felt learned how to make damaging leaks from J. Edgar Hoover, the modus operandi of the Plame—Wilson affair reflects professional intelligence methods.

For now, there are only questions, not answers. Maybe someone with the power to subpoena and compel testimony under oath ought to be investigating. Whoever is guiding Joseph C. Wilson IV seems to specialize in dangerous intrigue. We have not seen the end of them yet.[/quote]

americanthinker.com/2005/11/ … ch_co.html

Oh my…oh my my my… :bravo:

The “American Thinker” has an interesting “in the service of two masters” mission statement which explains its journalistic schizophrenia:

[quote]
About Us

American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.

There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions, strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture.[/quote]

[quote]The “American Thinker” has an interesting “in the service of two masters” mission statement which explains its journalistic schizophrenia:
Quote:

About Us

American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.

There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions, strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture. [/quote]

You are too predictable Spookster… I guess you kind of fell into that trap… So, all of those statements regarding Wilson are to be disregarded because… of the JEWS!!! haha. This is getting too easy. Did it ever dawn on you that I chose this site in particular because I knew that you would dig into the background of the founders … as you are wont to do… and when you found this mission statement and its support for Israel… well, you would react in predictable ways… and you have…

[quote=“fred smith”][quote]The “American Thinker” has an interesting “in the service of two masters” mission statement which explains its journalistic schizophrenia:
Quote:

About Us

American Thinker is a daily internet publication devoted to the thoughtful exploration of issues of importance to Americans. Contributors are accomplished in fields beyond journalism, and animated to write for the general public out of concern for the complex and morally significant questions on the national agenda.

There is no limit to the topics appearing on American Thinker. National security in all its dimensions, strategic, economic, diplomatic, and military is emphasized. The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us. Business, science, technology, medicine, management, and economics in their practical and ethical dimensions are also emphasized, as is the state of American culture. [/quote]

You are too predictable Spookster… I guess you kind of fell into that trap… So, all of those statements regarding Wilson are to be disregarded because… of the JEWS!!! haha. This is getting too easy. Did it ever dawn on you that I chose this site in particular because I knew that you would dig into the background of the founders … as you are wont to do… and when you found this mission statement and its support for Israel… well, you would react in predictable ways… and you have…[/quote]

I thought it odd that something that labeled itself the “American Thinker” read like the “Likud Talking Points” so it wasn’t hard to figure out. If you’re going to pass off sloppy propaganda as objective, factual analysis you pseudoconservatives really need to up your game.

It’s also a legitimate question. Can you serve two national agendas fairly and honestly?

No. I sold out to the Jews and their nefarious interests long ago, but in the meantime…

Why don’t you tell me which of these Likud comments on Joe Wilson are not true and why? For someone who enjoys conspiracy theories as much as you… why not knock yourself out (please) on all these relationships between Wilson and the nefarious French (some of whom may be Jews as well).