WASHINGTON, D.C. “ U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell today delivered
the following statement on the Senate floor:

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of considerable
relevance to the debate about the war in Iraq and the recent Senate
Report on the Intelligence Community. This report has illuminated a
subject of considerable controversy and partisan criticism of the
President.

I also rise to speak about the importance of maintaining a basic
standard of fairness in American politics.

I’m talking about the controversy that erupted over the infamous
16 words in the State of the Union Address that Senator Kerry,
numerous Senate Democrats, and the media cited in accusations that the
President misled the country into war.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush told the American people that,
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

When doubt surfaced about some “ but not all “ of the
evidence supporting this claim, Joe Wilson “ who had traveled to
Niger to investigate an aspect of the intelligence “ penned an
op-ed in the New York Times accusing the Administration of
manipulating intelligence.

Not pausing for a full investigation, a partisan parade of Democratic
Senators and Presidential candidates took to the streets to criticize
the President and accuse him of misleading the nation into war.
Sensing a scandal, the media pounced.

NBC aired 40 reports on Wilson’s claims. CBS aired 30 reports,
while ABC aired 18. Newspapers didn’t hold back either. The New
York Times printed 70 articles reinforcing these allegations, while
the Washington Post printed 98.

Pundits and politicians gorged themselves on the story.

Joe Wilson rose to great fame on the back of this inflammatory charge:
He wrote a book for which he received a five-figure advance, he was
lionized by the Liberal Left, and he became an advisor to Senator
Kerry’s presidential campaign, a campaign to which he is also a
financial contributor.

Of course, we now know Wilson’s allegation was false. And we
know the chief proponent of this charge, Joe Wilson, has been proven
to be a liar.

After more than a year of misrepresentation and obfuscation, two
bipartisan reports from two different countries have thoroughly
repudiated Wilson’s assertions and determined that President
Bush’s 16-word statement about Iraq’s efforts to procure
uranium from Niger was well founded.

In fact, the real 16-word statement we should focus on is the one from
Lord Butler’s comprehensive report about British intelligence:
We conclude that the statement in President Bush’s State of the
Union address¦ is well founded.

Let me repeat:
We conclude that the statement in President Bush’s State of the
Union address¦ is well founded. Those are 16 words to remember, Mr.
President.

It is now worth the Senate’s time to consider Mr. Wilson’s
claims.

Claim #1 is Wilson’s assertion his Niger trip report should have
debunked the State of the Union claim.

On this bold allegation, the Senate’s bipartisan report included
this important conclusion: The report on the former ambassador’s
trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any
analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most
analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the
original CIA reports on the uranium deal¦

Let me repeat:
For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility
to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal¦
Claim #2 is similarly egregious.

According to the Washington Post,
Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last
June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based
on a document that had clearly been forged¦ But
the documents were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson
made his trip to Niger. (Susan Schmidt, Washington Post, A9, 7/10/04)

Predictably, this bombshell appeared on page A9. Page A9, Mr.
President! After this story had previously enjoyed extensive coverage
on Page A1.

There were indeed document forgeries, but these documents were not the
only evidence that convinced foreign intelligence services about
Iraq’s efforts to purchase uranium.

Damningly, the former Prime Minister of Niger himself believed the
Iraqis wanted to purchase uranium and according to the Financial
Times:
European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years
before the fake documents became public, human and electronic
intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated
discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the
customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

And the Wall Street Journal has reported that:
French and British intelligence (services) separately told the U.S.
about possible Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger. (WSJ, 7/19/04)

Mr. President, when the French corroborate a story that Iraq is
seeking WMD, you’re probably in the right ballpark.

Indeed, the Senate’s bipartisan report concluded that at the
time:
it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been
seeking uranium from Africa based on CIA reporting and other available
intelligence.

Claim #3 is Wilson’s repeated denial that his wife, Valerie
Plame, a CIA analyst, never recommended him for the Niger trip.

In his ironically titled book, The Politics of Truth, Wilson claimed:
Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not
proposed that I make the trip.

The facts are, Mr. President, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence
Report includes testimony that Plame
offered up his name and quotes a memo that Plame wrote that asserts
my husband has good relations with Niger officials.

The New York Times recently reported that:
Instead of assigning a trained intelligence officer to the Niger case,
though, the C.I.A. sent a former American Ambassador, Joseph Wilson,
to talk to former Niger officials. His wife, Valerie Plame, was an
officer in the counterproliferation division, and she had suggested
that he be sent to Niger, according to the Senate report. (NYT,
7/14/04)

That story, Mr. President, can be read on Page A14.

Claim #4 is Wilson’s allegation that the CIA warned the White
House about the Niger claim and that the White House manipulated
intelligence to bolster its argument for war. Wilson charged:
The problem is not the intelligence but the manipulation of
intelligence. That will all come out despite (Sen.) Roberts’
effort to shift the blame. This was and is a White House issue, not a
CIA issue. This reckless charge by Wilson was, we know, repeated by
many of the President’s critics.
Of course, it’s not true.

The Senate Intelligence Report determined the White House did not
manipulate intelligence, but rather that the CIA had provided faulty
information to policymakers. And the Washington Post recently reported
that
Contrary to Wilson’s assertions¦ the CIA did not tell the White
House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence.
(Susan Schmidt, Washington Post, A9, 7/10/04)

Again: Front page news on Page A9.

According to the New York Times and the Senate Intelligence Report,
Joe Wilson admitted to Committee staff that some of his assertions in
his book may have, quote,
involved a little literary flair.

Mr. President,
Literary flair is a fancy way of saying what ordinary people shooting
the breeze on their front porches all across America call by its real
name: a lie.

So, Mr. President, the truth is Joe Wilson did not expose the
Administration; in fact, he has been exposed as a liar.

He misrepresented the findings of his trip to Niger, he fabricated
stories about recognizing forgeries he never saw, he falsely accused
the White House of manipulating intelligence, and he misrepresented
his wife’s role in promoting him for the mission.

Joe Wilson’s false claims have been exposed, but the networks
aren’t rushing to correct the story. Will NBC correct the 40
times it ran Wilson’s claims, will CBS correct the 30 times it
ran Wilson’s claims, will ABC correct the 18 times it ran
Wilson’s claims?

To be sure, a few networks and newspapers have noted the Senate
Intelligence Report’s conclusions, but where is the balance?
Where are the lead stories? Where are the banner headlines? In short,
where is the fairness?

Sadly, that’s the state of political coverage in this election
year. Screaming charges about the President made on A1, repudiation of
the charges on A9, if they are made at all. Is that fair?

And what of the political campaigns? It’s a small wonder the
Democrat candidates for President and their supporters aggressively
picked up the Wilson claim. After all, the media was driving the
train, so why not hitch a ride?

However, now that Wilson’s false claims have been exposed,
shouldn’t a basic sense of fairness prevail? Shouldn’t the
partisans admit they were wrong, too?

For example, some of my colleagues in the Senate should ask themselves
if it’s now appropriate to distance themselves from Joe
Wilson’s distortions. Speaking on this floor on March 23, the
Minority Leader praised Wilson and accused the Administration of
retaliating against him: "When Ambassador Joe Wilson told the truth
about the administration’s misleading claims about Iraq, Niger,
and uranium, the people around the President didn’t respond with
facts. Instead they publicly disclosed that Ambassador Wilson’s
wife was a deep-cover CIA agent."

Just last month, Senator Daschle noted: "Sunlight, it's been said, is
the best disinfectant. But for too long, the administration has been
able to keep Congress and the American people in the dark¦ other
serious matters, such as the manipulation of intelligence about Iraq,
have received only fitful attention."

I hope my friend from South Dakota will acknowledge the inaccuracy of
his statement, and allow the sunlight to ...

read more »

--
"I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the
grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He
ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to
stop 9/11," Clarke told CBS.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=OOFRZ1W2YPAUCCRBA...

read more »

Ask your 3 rd grade teacher during recess today.

read more »

And I do hope they catch whomever (Karl Rove) leaked the CIA agent's
name to Robert Novak (a nasty racist and interesting piece of work)
and send them to jail.

BTW, Mr. Wilson's major points, that the Cheney-Lay administration was
so totally determined to go to war with Iraq under any and all
circumstances, from the very beginning in Jan 2001 that they totally
ignored issues of Al Qaida and terrorist attacks, is well documented
by others inside the administration, or with priviledge access to the
administration.  Sorry to have to be the one to tell you that, but you
know, Rush didn't.  In fact, that's one of the points on which there
is no doubt.

So in conclusion, since you tend to forget these things:

1.  The Cheney-Lay administration said Iraq possessed nuclear weapons
and the programs to produce them.  Even showed us pictures.  They
didn't possess such weapons, haven't ever, and there were no such
programs.  And that's what the UN inspectors told us shortly before we
attacked Iraq.

2.  The Cheney-Lay administration said Iraq possessed chemical weapons
and the programs to produce them.  Even showed us pictures.  They
didn't possess such weapons, haven't for a long time, and that's what
the inspectors told Cheney before he ordered the attack.

3.  The Cheney-Lay administration said Iraq possessed biological
weapons and the programs to produce them.  Now, we know that Donald
Rumsfeld sold biologic seed stock to Saddam Hussein (I've seen the
video), but apparantly these were destroyed and no such weapons
existed and no such programs, and that's what the inspectors said
before we invaded Iraq.

4.  The Cheney-Lay administration said Iraq had connections to the
events of 9/11 ("Saddam Hussein and Iraq...Osama Bin Laden...all the
same!"  Georgie-Boy Bush Junior, and the dots aren't elipsies, just
pauses) and of course they had no such connection.

5.  The Cheney-Lay administration said Iraq had connections to Al
Qaida, and it turns out to be quite the contrary, that no such
connections existed, and the relationship was extremely distant and
chilly in fact.

6.  The Cheney=Lay administration keeps saying that the war in Iraq
has something to do with "terrorism", which is something that strictly
speaking doesn't exist.  That is, terrorism is the war of the poor on
the rich.  War is the terrorism of the rich on the poor.  More to the
point, there is no connection at all between the war in Iraq and
"terrorism" except insofar as the Cheney-Lay administration
destabilized Iraq and allowed such folk to move in.

7.  The Cheney-Lay administration is fully committed to petroleum, and
since we only have 3% of the world's reserves and use 25% of the
output, the Cheney-Lay administration has pledged you, your children,
your pension, and your medical insurance to a twenty year war which
you will inevitably lose (the oil runs out eventually and you
militarily occupy at great expense a lot of sand).

But perhaps I'm all wrong on this.  Please explain to me, a working
person living off their wages, how these policies (sic) help me and my
children?  Also please explain to me why university educations and all
medical care is free in France, Romania, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Italy, but we in
the US can't afford it?  Oh, did I mention it?  All the above have
unemployment insurance and living pensions for retired workers.  Which
we don't (or not at any acceptable industrial-nation standard).  Just
asking.

http://mcconnell.senate.gov/about.cfm

This is what he had to say about Joe Wilson's lies and the media that
foamed at the mouth over them.

-------------------------------------

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. " U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell today delivered the
following statement on the Senate floor:

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss a matter of considerable
relevance to the debate about the war in Iraq and the recent Senate
Report on the Intelligence Community. This report has illuminated a
subject of considerable controversy and partisan criticism of the
President.

I also rise to speak about the importance of maintaining a basic
standard of fairness in American politics.

I'm talking about the controversy that erupted over the infamous
16 words in the State of the Union Address that Senator Kerry,
numerous Senate Democrats, and the media cited in accusations that the
President misled the country into war.

On January 28, 2003, President Bush told the American people that,
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

When doubt surfaced about some " but not all " of the evidence
supporting this claim, Joe Wilson " who had traveled to Niger to
investigate an aspect of the intelligence " penned an op-ed in the New
York Times accusing the Administration of manipulating intelligence.

Not pausing for a full investigation, a partisan parade of Democratic
Senators and Presidential candidates took to the streets to criticize
the President and accuse him of misleading the nation into war.
Sensing a scandal, the media pounced.

NBC aired 40 reports on Wilson's claims. CBS aired 30 reports, while
ABC aired 18. Newspapers didn't hold back either. The New York Times
printed 70 articles reinforcing these allegations, while the
Washington Post printed 98.

Pundits and politicians gorged themselves on the story.

Joe Wilson rose to great fame on the back of this inflammatory charge:
He wrote a book for which he received a five-figure advance, he was
lionized by the Liberal Left, and he became an advisor to Senator
Kerry's presidential campaign, a campaign to which he is also a
financial contributor.

Of course, we now know Wilson's allegation was false. And we know the
chief proponent of this charge, Joe Wilson, has been proven to be a
liar.

After more than a year of misrepresentation and obfuscation, two
bipartisan reports from two different countries have thoroughly
repudiated Wilson's assertions and determined that President Bush's
16-word statement about Iraq's efforts to procure uranium from Niger
was well founded.

In fact, the real 16-word statement we should focus on is the one from
Lord Butler's comprehensive report about British intelligence:
We conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union
address¦ is well founded.

Let me repeat:
We conclude that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union
address¦ is well founded. Those are 16 words to remember, Mr.
President.

It is now worth the Senate's time to consider Mr. Wilson's claims.

Claim #1 is Wilson's assertion his Niger trip report should have
debunked the State of the Union claim.

On this bold allegation, the Senate's bipartisan report included this
important conclusion: The report on the former ambassador's trip to
Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts'
assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the
information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA
reports on the uranium deal¦

Let me repeat:
For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility
to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal¦
Claim #2 is similarly egregious.

According to the Washington Post,
Wilson provided misleading information to the Washington Post last
June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based
on a document that had clearly been forged¦ But
the documents were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson
made his trip to Niger. (Susan Schmidt, Washington Post, A9, 7/10/04)

Predictably, this bombshell appeared on page A9. Page A9, Mr.
President! After this story had previously enjoyed extensive coverage
on Page A1.

There were indeed document forgeries, but these documents were not the
only evidence that convinced foreign intelligence services about
Iraq's efforts to purchase uranium.

Damningly, the former Prime Minister of Niger himself believed the
Iraqis wanted to purchase uranium and according to the Financial
Times:
European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years
before the fake documents became public, human and electronic
intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated
discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the
customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

And the Wall Street Journal has reported that:
French and British intelligence (services) separately told the U.S.
about possible Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Niger. (WSJ, 7/19/04)

Mr. President, when the French corroborate a story that Iraq is
seeking WMD, you're probably in the right ballpark.

Indeed, the Senate's bipartisan report concluded that at the time:
it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been
seeking uranium from Africa based on CIA reporting and other available
intelligence.

Claim #3 is Wilson's repeated denial that his wife, Valerie Plame, a
CIA analyst, never recommended him for the Niger trip.

In his ironically titled book, The Politics of Truth, Wilson claimed:
Valerie had nothing to do with the matter. She definitely had not
proposed that I make the trip.

The facts are, Mr. President, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence
Report includes testimony that Plame
offered up his name and quotes a memo that Plame wrote that asserts
my husband has good relations with Niger officials.

The New York Times recently reported that:
Instead of assigning a trained intelligence officer to the Niger case,
though, the C.I.A. sent a former American Ambassador, Joseph Wilson,
to talk to former Niger officials. His wife, Valerie Plame, was an
officer in the counterproliferation division, and she had suggested
that he be sent to Niger, according to the Senate report. (NYT,
7/14/04)

That story, Mr. President, can be read on Page A14.

Claim #4 is Wilson's allegation that the CIA warned the White House
about the Niger claim and that the White House manipulated
intelligence to bolster its argument for war. Wilson charged:
The problem is not the intelligence but the manipulation of
intelligence. That will all come out despite (Sen.) Roberts' effort to
shift the blame. This was and is a White House issue, not a CIA issue.
This reckless charge by Wilson was, we know, repeated by many of the
President's critics.
Of course, it's not true.

The Senate Intelligence Report determined the White House did not
manipulate intelligence, but rather that the CIA had provided faulty
information to policymakers. And the Washington Post recently reported
that
Contrary to Wilson's assertions¦ the CIA did not tell the White House
it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence. (Susan
Schmidt, Washington Post, A9, 7/10/04)

Again: Front page news on Page A9.

According to the New York Times and the Senate Intelligence Report,
Joe Wilson admitted to Committee staff that some of his assertions in
his book may have, quote,
involved a little literary flair.

Mr. President,
Literary flair is a fancy way of saying what ordinary people shooting
the breeze on their front porches all across America call by its real
name: a lie.

So, Mr. President, the truth is Joe Wilson did not expose the
Administration; in fact, he has been exposed as a liar.

He misrepresented the findings of his trip to Niger, he fabricated
stories about recognizing forgeries he never saw, he falsely accused
the White House of manipulating intelligence, and he misrepresented
his wife's role in promoting him for the mission.

Joe Wilson's false claims have been exposed, but the networks aren't
rushing to correct the story. Will NBC correct the 40 times it ran
Wilson's claims, will CBS correct the 30 times it ran Wilson's claims,
will ABC correct the 18 times it ran Wilson's claims?

To be sure, a few networks and newspapers have noted the Senate
Intelligence Report's conclusions, but where is the balance? Where are
the lead stories? Where are the banner headlines? In short, where is
the fairness?

Sadly, that's the state of political coverage in this election year.
Screaming charges about the President made on A1, repudiation of the
charges on A9, if they are made at all. Is that fair?

And what of the political campaigns? It's a small wonder the Democrat
candidates for President and their supporters aggressively picked up
the Wilson claim. After all, the media was driving the train, so why
not hitch a ride?

However, now that Wilson's false claims have been exposed, shouldn't a
basic sense of fairness prevail? Shouldn't the partisans admit they
were wrong, too?

For example, some of my colleagues in the Senate should ask themselves
if it's now appropriate to distance themselves from Joe Wilson's
distortions. Speaking on this floor on March 23, the Minority Leader
praised Wilson and accused the Administration of retaliating against
him: "When Ambassador Joe Wilson told the truth about the
administration's misleading claims about Iraq, Niger, and uranium, the
people around the President didn't respond with facts. Instead they
publicly disclosed that Ambassador Wilson's wife was a deep-cover CIA
agent."

Just last month, Senator Daschle noted: "Sunlight, it's been said, is
the best disinfectant. But for ...

read more »

I doubt that he'll bother to run again, considering the tough race he'll face
then.

--
"I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they
 charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these
 men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them
 to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S.