Since it was a dual by-line, there is a good chance Pincus was not the source of the falsehood, especially since he has agreed that the statement is incorrect. I am very suspicious of Milbank--Milbank has got this sort of information misrepresented before and generally is more equivocal about the sources.
One cannot equivocate the White House sources and those that contradict them. In virtually every case, what's coming out of the White House is a pack of lies. It is then picked up by the echo chamber, so that even when something is demonstrably false, they continue citing each other, as if the corrections have never been issued.
This is particularly apparent when the goal is to smear a particular individual or group. It is a well rehearsed practice.
Posted by buck turgidson at October 27, 2005 08:31 AMGreat job as always, eriposte.
This seems to be the only actual criticism that I've seen from the Bush apologists that continually crops up. It's nice to see this clarification. I just wish it would be pushed just as much as the RNC talking points that obfuscates Wilson's testimony and articles. Pincus did himself an extreme disservice with this one. Didn't he also do this with the Smear Boaters as well?
Anyways, I wrote a diary myself on Pincus the minute I read his bullshit article a few days back:
It's just more evidence to me that investigative journalism, as we know it, is dead. Sadly, it seems the only true investigation we have left in political matters is through the courts - Rove, Libby, Cheney, Delay, Frist (SEC, but will soon be in the courts), Abramoff, and so on.
2 comments? This seems like a pretty big deal, for Joe Wilson to signal he's about ready to come out of hiding. If the administration thought he was a headache before, wait until they get a load of him on all the morning chat shows next week.
Posted by mrblifil at October 27, 2005 03:24 PM"Two comments?" - the trolls are hiding.
Posted by jlb at October 28, 2005 03:11 AMMisterOpus1...thanks for the link..
Posted by eriposte at October 28, 2005 07:11 AMWhat is this about Kristof in the SSCI report? I do not see any Kristof article in the section in question. I see *ONLY* the Pincus article.
Relevant portion excerpted below.
Now we have Kristoff supposedly putting a half assed explanation on Timesselect, and Pincus supposedly confirming for Wilson in an email that he does not claim Wilson made the 'forged' remark.
Well, Buck, in his comment above, hit the nail on the head. You cannot equivocate. Both Kristof and Pincus have to say, straight out, publshed in their newspapers, in plain English, "Wilson did not make that claim".
Anything less and the right will continue their spin.
So, why don't we see that? Forget Woodward, get on Pincus and Kristof. Demand clear and unequivocal statements.
Oh, and what's this bull about Wilson being 55 and getting confused? I'm 58 and I keep it straight enough. Time to get it all straight, and out in the open. I, for one, am tired of the bull.
SSCI report excerpt.
... The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was
the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share
Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June
12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the
documents may have been forged because the dates were wrong
and the names were wrong." Committee staff asked how the former
ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates
were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the
CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in
the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have
"misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the
documents were "forged. " He also said he may have become ...
>>>"Oh, and what's this bull about Wilson being 55 and getting confused? I'm 58 and I keep it straight enough."
Wilson was interviewed a long time after the conversations with Pincus and Kristof and it is perfectly reasonable that he may not have remembered every detail of the conversation, especially because he had given a large number of interviews and speeches on this very topic before his SSCI testimony. Now if he had been given the questions beforehand and asked to clarify specific details then confusion would be less of an excuse, but I doubt that Wilson knew he was going to be hit by the GOP partisans in the committee with all they had.
Also, Wilson has admitted that he discussed the forgeries but in the context of what the IAEA had reported - not that he himself had seen the forgeries. It is quite possible that both Pincus and Kristof misconstrued what Wilson said.
Finally, it is quite possible that Wilson was shown some names and dates - although not the forgeries themselves. The SSCI clearly says that the INR analyst's notes indicate specific details of the classified report were discussed with Wilson.
Posted by eriposte at December 2, 2005 06:54 PMYou know, I actually tracked down the articles, and it's kind of interesting. It's easy to see where people messed it up.
The articles claim that an anonymous source claimed a former ambassador debunked the intel by referencing the names and dates.
The articles do not cite the former ambassador directly; in both articles, the reference is an anonymous source making a claim about the former ambassador.
We have no idea who this anonymous source is (well... *I* don't), nor what was said. Maybe the anonymous source misspoke or misremembered. The key is, the source of the statements were not Joseph Wilson, and never were.
Posted by John Palmer at June 16, 2006 08:37 PM