Joe WIlson And Perjury

by Big Dog on Nov 3, 2005 at 20:51 Political

Scooter Libby plead not guilty today on all counts against him. These counts are all related to lying under oath and not to outing a “covert” CIA agent. Lying under oath is a bad thing and I am not minimizing it in any way. I question whether something you failed to remember a long time ago is perjury or obstruction but that is for the jury to decide. I think the Grand Jury should have interviewed Joe Wilson. They might have but I have not heard. I would like him to be asked, under oath, exactly who sent him and to whom he reported. I would like him to answer why his oral report differed greatly from his NYT article. We would either get the whole truth or he would be next to Libby and maybe we could see him frog marched.

The thing is, lying to the public is not against the law. If it were, almost all politicians and members of the MSM would be in jail. Wilson chose to lie to the public and he was not under oath. He did not find what he wanted so he fabricated a story and then played the “my poor wife” BS for all it was worth. He is anti-American and liberal to the nth degree. He should be spending time in jail for wasting taxpayer money on BS lies and distortions.

His wife should be brought up on ethics violations. She recommended her husband for a job that caused a conflict between her personal life and her professional one. She jeopardized her own status, if she truly had one, by having him be selected. They can play the victims in this saga but we really know what kind of traitorous cretins they are.

Some tidbits about Wilson’s lies.

The least consequential of these fibs was his denial that it was his wife who got him sent to Niger in February 2002 to check out claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later stated, in a bipartisan report, that evidence indicated it was Mrs. Wilson who “had suggested his name for the trip.” By leaking this fact to the news media, Libby and other White House officials were merely setting the record straight — not, as Wilson would have it, punishing his Mata Hari wife.

Much more egregious were the ways in which Wilson misrepresented his findings. In his famous New York Times Op-Ed article (July 6, 2003), Wilson gave the impression that his eight-day jaunt proved that Iraq was not trying to acquire uranium in Africa. Therefore, when administration officials nevertheless cited concerns about Hussein’s nuclear ambitions, Wilson claimed that they had “twisted” evidence “to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” The Senate Intelligence Committee was not kind to this claim either.

The panel’s report found that, far from discrediting the Iraq-Niger uranium link, Wilson actually provided fresh details about a 1999 meeting between Niger’s prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Beyond that, he had not supplied new information. According to the panel, intelligence analysts “did not think” that his findings “clarified the story on the reported Iraq-Niger uranium deal.” In other words, Wilson had hardly exposed as fraudulent the “16 words” included in the 2003 State of the Union address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” In fact, the British government, in its own post-invasion review of intelligence, found that this claim was “well founded.” Los Angeles Times

Why doesn’t the MSM hold him accountable?

Tags:

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

This entry was posted on Thursday, November 3rd, 2005 at 20:51 and is filed under Political. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.